The chair of the Africa Progress Panel, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, has pushed back on an oil industry attack against the landmark US Dodd-Frank Act oil and mining payment disclosure provision. In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, Annan said the lawsuit launched by the American Petroleum Institute against the US Securities and Exchange Commission was a “strategic folly” and those companies supporting the suit, such as Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell were “swimming against the tide of reform”.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Chair of the Africa Progress Panel. UN Photo/Evan Schneider

The Africa Progress Panel’s 2013 report “Equity in Extractives” was released today in Cape Town and focuses on steps to take to ensure that Africa’s oil, gas and mining boom actually benefits the majority of African’s rather than a select few. The panel includes the former head of the IMF, Michel Camdessus; former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo; former first lady of Mozambique Graca Machel; and Peter Eigen, founder of Transparency International and former chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, among others.

These heavy hitters stand behind a report that says there “is no credible evidence to indicate that the Dodd-Frank requirements will impose significant additional costs, let alone threaten the competitive position of some of the world’s largest companies.” The report says that the “Cardin-Lugar” or Section 1504 provision of Dodd-Frank and forthcoming European Union disclosure requirements provisions represents an important opportunity for African civil society groups to work with multinational companies to “achieve higher standards of disclosure” but notes that some companies appear “to be squandering that opportunity” with the US lawsuit.

In advance of June’s G8 summit, the report says “all countries must adopt and enforce” project-by-project disclosure standards such as in the US and EU—“as major players in Africa’s extractives sector, Australia, Canada and China should be the next countries to actively support this emerging global consensus.”

Oxfam’s new Executive Director, Winnie Byanyima, is from Uganda, a country undergoing its own oil boom, and is in Cape Town for the World Economic Forum Africa. She said “African governments must use oil, gas and mining to raise revenue, but this boom must not steamroll the rights of communities living on top of Africa’s mineral wealth. It is important that local communities are informed and consulted about extractive industry projects that affect them.”

With the political boost from today’s African Progress Report we are one step closing to realizing the so far unrealized potential of Africa’s resource endowment.

History was made on April 2^nd as the Arms Trade Treaty—the first agreement to control global arms sales—received an resounding majority ‘yes’ vote at the United Nations in New York (154 votes YES, 3 votes NO, 23 Abstentions).

Photo: Rankin

This momentous Treaty is the culmination of more than ten years of diplomatic negotiations and campaigning to rein in the irresponsible trade in arms that causes so much human suffering. It could not have happened without the work of Oxfam supporters, and immense efforts from Control Arms partners and governments around the world.

The United States, which was a late supporter of the Arms Trade Treaty effort and blocked consensus in the July 2012 negotiations, voted yes on the agreement and supported strong treaty provisions. The Agreement requires countries to put human rights and humanitarian law at the center of arms trade decisions. Among other things, the treaty:

• Requires states to assess the risk of arms being used to “commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law,” and, if significant, not to authorize the transfer;
• Bans exports of both arms and ammunition when the export knows the arms would be used for “genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, or other war crimes”;
• Requires that countries adopt a comprehensive regime of controlling the import, export, transit, and brokering of arms; and
• Includes transparency measures requiring countries to report on their arms transfers.

Though we took a moment to revel at the Oxfam America offices, there’s still more work to be done. The resounding applause and loud cheers that rang out from the UN General Assembly Hall last week is only the beginning. Work is needed to ensure that the Treaty enters into force as soon as possible. President Obama should be one of the first signatures on the treaty when it opens for signature on June 3.

Over the past decade, tens of thousands of Oxfam supporters have met with their government officials, campaigned relentlessly in all weathers to build public support, and refused to give in to doubters.

We simply wouldn’t be here if we listened to those skeptics who scoffed that “getting such a Treaty is absurd. It’s never going to happen.” But Oxfam staff and supporters all persevered and we celebrate the first global Arms Trade Treaty that will mean so much to families and communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Mali, and other countries wracked with armed conflict.

A version of this post originally appeared on the Oxfam International website.

***

More on the Arms Trade Treaty from Oxfam America:

Hear Oxfam America’s president, Ray Offenheiser, talk about the the meaning and impact of the first global Arms Trade Treaty on PRI’s The World.

Send a message thanking the President and his administration for the US’ leadership role.

The world will reconvene a UN conference on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) from March 18 to 28, 2013. While nations, including US finalize the treaty language negotiated last summer, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its allies have mounted a campaign of lies and deliberate distortions aimed at building opposition to the treaty.

As part of our efforts to highlight the truth, Oxfam has placed ads in Roll Call this week to encourage Members of Congress to acknowledge the fact that the ATT will not impact the Second Amendment rights of their constituents.

We know that our ads will not stop the NRA from repeating and further spreading their lies and distortions. Just last week, David Keene, the President of the NRA, said in an interview that the ATT was an attempt by the Obama administration to “end-run the Constitution.”

Mr. Keene is not ignorant. He does not lack a basic understanding of how treaties fit within the US Constitutional system. No treaty can override the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Geofroy v. Riggs (1890) held that the treaty power does not extend “so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.” The Supreme Court rarely gets more clear than it did in Reid v. Covert (1957) when it reasoned that “it would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights…[to permit] the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.”

If these two Supreme Court decisions aren’t clear enough to convince the NRA and its Congressional allies that the President cannot “end-run” the constitution through a treaty, the draft ATT text should be enough. The draft ATT states that it is the “sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems.” In short, the Arms Trade Treaty excludes issues related to the second amendment from its scope. And even if it didn’t exclude these issues, the Constitution would not permit a treaty to override the bill of rights.

Mr. Keene’s recent statement is only one of the many lies and distortions being repeated by the NRA and Members of Congress. Oxfam has published a briefing paper on our website to help Members of Congress and the public separate the truth from the fiction.

The global arms trade is out of control and a treaty is desperately needed. An effective ATT would be based on a simple principle: no transfers of weapons when there is a substantial risk that the weapons will be used for serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law or will impair poverty reduction. To achieve this end, the treaty will do two basic things: first, the treaty will provide clear standards by which all States judge the appropriateness of a particular arms transfer. Second, the treaty will require all States to adopt a comprehensive import and export control regime to ensure weapons entering and leaving their country are under the control of competent authorities.

No treaty will solve all the world’s problems, but the ATT will be a critical tool that for the first time will require all countries to take responsibility for their arms trade decisions. It is time for members of Congress to stop playing the NRA’s games and enter a real dialogue.

To read Oxfam America’s briefing paper, The Truth about the Arms Trade Treaty, see: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty

Are there more international laws on the trade of bananas than conventional weapons, like AK-47s?

The short answer is astonishingly, yes. The global trade in bananas or banana plants is governed by at least three binding global agreements and the non-binding, though strictly adhered to, Codex food code. The arms trade is not governed by any binding global agreements.

The long answer for those who need to know the details is:

1) Bananas: As agricultural products, the trade of bananas is governed by the World Trade Organization/Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. The goal of this agreement is to reform trade in the sector and to make policies more market-oriented and improve the predictability of global pricing.

AK-47s: No WTO agreement includes arms within its scope. In fact, Article XXI of the GATT exempts “the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment.”

2) Bananas also fall under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the “SPS Agreement”). This Agreement sets out the basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards.

AK-47s: The arms trade is not governed by any legally-binding agreement covering all countries. While there are some international arms trade agreements, no global agreement is binding and most agreements are regional in scope and limited by significant gaps in coverage. For example, over 40 states are not part of any regional organization that maintains an arms trade control instrument.

3) Banana safety standards are set and governed on a voluntary basis by the international food code. The Codex Alimentarius contains recommendations for voluntary application but serves in many cases as a basis for national legislation and sets the standards for the SPS Agreement. While not technically binding, international commerce on food strictly adheres to the standards set out in the Codex.

AK-47s: There are no global standards on the arms trade in regard to when a particular arms transfer is or is not appropriate. Out of a total 154 countries that have reported, only 73 countries said they have basic controls on the export of AK-47s and other small arms.

4) Banana plants, as opposed to bananas, are also regulated by an international convention: the International Plant Protection Convention which aims to protect cultivated and wild plants by preventing the introduction and spread of pests.

AK-47s: Only 56 governments have indicated they have specific crimes related to the illegal international transfer or illegal manufacturing of small arms. And astonishingly some countries do not even have criminal penalties associated with violating UN arms embargoes. (See Beyond Viktor Bout by Oxfam for details.)

Does it matter?

The fact that the world’s governments have come together to ensure the banana trade is governed by some basic rules and have not done so on the arms trade is a great concern. It is beyond ridiculous that governments and corporations are far more constrained by international law when trading bananas than when trading arms.

I have to admit that while the comparison between the amount of international law governing bananas as opposed to arms shows how absurd it is that there are no controls on the arms trade, there are significant differences between global commerce on each that need to be raised.

The goals of international agreements covering bananas are to reduce trade barriers, establish uniform enforcement of contracts, and prevent contamination of the global food supply. The primary goal of the a potential Arms Trade Treaty is to prevent conventional weapons from making their way into the hands of human rights abusers and from being used to perpetuate conflicts and undermine development. It is thus not surprising that because the goals are different the means for addressing the issue are different. Up to now, the major arms exporting states have preferred to forgo international agreements and instead address the process of making arms deals and limiting arms transfers to dangerous end-users through domestic law and regional agreements.

Notwithstanding these differences, the reluctance by countries to add global regulations on the arms trade has resulted in a patchwork international regulatory system where some states have strong controls and others have next to nothing.

The patchwork of laws allows irresponsible dealers and governments to operate in the black holes of the international regulatory system and supply weapons to entities that would use them to commit war crimes and human rights abuse with impunity.

If governments can get together to ensure food is safe and the price of bananas is free from protectionist policies, they should be able to come together and forge an Arms Trade Treaty that would save lives and protect livelihoods.

On Monday April 16, I attended an event in Washington, DC where senior State Department officials gathered with representatives of the US arms industry, NGOs like Oxfam, and members of the public to discuss the US position on the Arms Trade Treaty. The event provided the US government with an opportunity to lay out its positions on the Treaty in anticipation to the negotiations at the United Nations in July. You can watch the event here.

For years Oxfam has been calling for a robust Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that will help to stem the flow of weapons to irresponsible end users. A robust and comprehensive ATT can help save innocent lives, contribute to economic development, promote regional stability, and protect human rights.

Private sector, NGO, and State Department representatives at a panel discussion following Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman’s speech as part of Monday’s event on the Arms Trade Treaty.

At the event, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, made a speech outlining the US position on the treaty negotiations. The speech contained very positive elements but also some positions that I have a hard time understanding. On the positive side, Assistant Secretary Countryman stated that the US is open to suggestions from other countries on ways to include ammunition within the treaty’s scope. This is a major shift in the right direction; prior to this speech, the US position was that ammunition must not be included in the treaty in any circumstance.

However, I am left confused and dismayed over one thing that the Assistant Secretary said. The most important part of the treaty from my perspective is the part detailing what countries should do when it is determined that an arms sale will likely contribute to war crimes or human rights abuses. The US position is that the treaty should require states to consider before transferring a weapon to another country whether the particular transfer would facilitate serious human rights violations or war crimes (among other things). Mr. Countryman said:

“We want the Treaty to tell each State Party what factors it must consider before authorizing a transfer—that is, criteria to keep in mind to review seriously and decide whether the transfer in question is responsible or not.”

Factors to consider? Keep in mind? This position is unacceptable.

The US seems to hold the position that as long as a government “considers” the impact of the arms transfer and “keeps it in mind,” the treaty should allow states to transfer weapons to war criminals or human rights abusers. Such an Arms Trade Treaty would significantly lower the current international standards on respecting human rights and the laws of war, and it runs contrary to the US position on human rights and international humanitarian law at the United Nations.

International humanitarian law, as established by the Geneva Conventions, requires that all state parties “undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances.” Ensuring respect for the laws of war is a far cry from “considering” or “keeping in mind” the laws of war when providing war criminals with the tools to commit their heinous crimes.

The UN Charter (which is international law) contains an obligation on all members to promote and respect human rights. How would a treaty that gives states the right to transfer weapons to human rights abusers as long as the exporting state “keeps in mind” their obligations under international law be reconciled with the obligation to promote respect for human rights?

One week after being confirmed by the Senate as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan Rice went to the UN Security Council to give her first address as Ambassador. In her speech she pledged US support for a “new era in support for international humanitarian law.” She said:

“The United States is steadfast in its commitment to safeguard human rights and end violations of international humanitarian law, both in conjunction with the United Nations, and through our other efforts throughout the world. Beyond this commitment, however, is a pledge by the United States to work together with the United Nations…in a new era in support for international humanitarian law.”

After hearing Assistant Secretary Countryman’s speech, I am left asking how the US position on the ATT can be reconciled with Ambassador Rice’s vision for using the US voice and vote at the United Nations.

I think the answer must be one of the following:

First, I misunderstood the US position. If this is the case, I hope to hear from the negotiators where I am wrong.

Second, maybe Ambassador Rice’s strong call for a new era of support for international humanitarian law was just empty rhetoric. Yet, given Ambassador Rice’s strong efforts in support of civilian protection at the UN since she arrived, I do not think her words were empty rhetoric.

Third, maybe the new era of support for international humanitarian law is over, and we are in the era of “keeping in mind” international humanitarian law.

Or fourth, those leading the development of the US position on the Arms Trade Treaty didn’t receive the memo and are still operating in the old era.

I can understand if Assistant Secretary Countryman and the others designing the US position on the ATT didn’t get the message that the Obama administration is operating under a new era and that the US will work to safeguard human rights and humanitarian law at the United Nations.

Yet, with less than three months until the negotiations of the ATT commence, someone better resend the message…Quick!

On April 5, the Federal New York District Court is expected to announce the sentence for Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer believed to be the inspiration for Nicolas Cage’s character in Hollywood’s “Lord of War,” who was found guilty of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

Viktor Bout (furthest on the left). Photo by Control Arms.

Though the sentencing marks a major victory for those who spent decades tracking Mr. Bout, it’s unlikely that he will ever serve justice for other alleged acts, such as supplying weapons to countries in violation of UN arms embargoes, selling weapons to abusive regimes unable to purchase weapons through the legal market, or fueling civil wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan. That’s because Mr. Bout, like many arms dealers, is skilled at operating in the black holes of the international regulatory system and circumventing the jurisdiction of countries. Indeed, more can be done to prevent unnecessary death caused by the irresponsible and under-regulated arms trade.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Mr. Bout, it’s that the world needs an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). While the United States and a few other countries have strict laws regulating the arms trade, many countries still have weak, ineffective, or no regulations. For example, only 52 governments have laws regulating arms brokers and less than half of these have criminal or monetary penalties associated with illegal brokering. If more countries had stronger laws on the arms trade, Mr. Bout may have been held accountable for the crimes he allegedly committed.

An ATT would require countries to adopt strong laws that would govern the flow of weapons in and out of their borders and prevent weapons from reaching the hands of warlords and human rights abusers. When the world gathers at the United Nations this summer to negotiate the treaty, governments must make the most of the opportunity and close the loopholes that allow arms dealers like Mr. Bout to flourish on the suffering of others.

Unfortunately, opponents to the treaty, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), claim the United Nations will chip away at Americans’ right to own guns. This nonsense couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, an ATT would bring the rest of the world closer to the standards on international arms transfers followed by the United States; these standards do not affect US citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Unless more countries adopt rigorous standards and regulations, the United States and other countries will continue facing challenges apprehending irresponsible arms brokers.

For too long, innocent people have become victims of atrocious acts of violence and investigation because there are no international laws governing the cross-border sale of weapons. It’s time to close the loopholes and tackle the problem of the irresponsible arms trade.

Send a message to Secretary Clinton now asking her to support a strong Arms Trade Treaty on April 16.

My colleague Tim Gore, climate change policy advisor at Oxfam International, wrote this blog laying out what governments can achieve at UN Climate talks which are starting this week in Durban, South Africa. We’ve adapted the blog to the US context and are reposting it here.

It’s now two years since the frantic campaigning and manic diplomacy that led to the Copenhagen climate change conference, and the blame games that followed its inadequate result. As the next UN climate talks get under way this week in Durban, South Africa, we need a new script to explain what has been achieved since 2009 and what must come next in the fight to tackle climate change.

The good news is that the UN talks on climate change are not a re-run of the zombie negotiating process in the World Trade Organization. But the ten year anniversary of the launch of the ‘Doha development round’ should give us pause for thought about where we want the multilateral climate change regime to be ten years after Copenhagen, and whether we are on track to get there.

The agreements struck last year in Cancún did not deliver everything needed to address the perils of our warming world, but they are leading to action.

New targets for emissions cuts have been set by an unprecedented range of countries, and for the first time developing countries have pledged greater reductions than developed countries against projected emissions levels. New institutions—most notably the Green Climate Fund—are being created to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.

In no small part as a result, China is leading the race to invest in renewable energy, Brazil and Indonesia are serious about tackling deforestation, Australia has finally put a price on carbon, and the EU is planning for near complete decarbonization of its economy by 2050. Poor countries in all continents are starting to build the need for adaptation to climate change into their development plans, and facing up to the grave implications of doing so.

The problem is that none of this is going far enough nor happening fast enough. Global emissions are growing faster than ever, despite the economic crisis. The International Energy Agency recently warned we have five years left to change course before the lock-in effect of carbon-intensive infrastructure pushes out of reach the 2°C limit to global warming set by governments in Cancún. The gap between projected emissions in 2020 and the levels scientists say are needed to have a chance at staying within the 2°C target—let alone the 1.5°C needed—is actually widening.

Read the rest of this entry »

This blog post was authored jointly by Heather Coleman and David Waskow, climate change program manager.

With the United States in full support, the UN Security Council voted last week to tackle the impacts of a changing climate on global security (think Somalia, for example, if you haven’t already).  But just a day later, Republicans ignored security and voted to bar any funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative, which helps build the resilience of communities in unstable countries facing climate change impacts.

Fortunately, that vote has no real effect — but today’s vote by the Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee in the House will. That vote would eliminate funds in the FY 2012 budget for the Climate Investment Funds, a multilateral fund that includes a program to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Families arrive in Dadaab camp everyday in Somalia. Photo by Oxfam East Africa.

Apparently, House Republicans don’t see what security experts do — our national security demands are going to shift just as surely as the climate. It’s not just the UN Security Council that sees it that way. Last month, Oxfam joined with the security think tank CNA to release a report showing that investing in climate resilience and reducing vulnerability abroad – “an ounce of prevention” – will pay off in the long-run in terms of economic and political security. And not taking action will result in ever greater stress on our humanitarian and military capacity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Could it be easier to buy weapons? (c) Fortune; Designers; Katerina Arvanitidou, Harris Theodoratos, Gabriela Vati, Photo: Corbis/Apeiron Photos.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned with protecting the US Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. Why would this organization care about the international arms trade and global efforts to prevent weapons from being transferred to places where that will be used for war crimes and human rights violations? There are rules that bind countries to agreed-upon conduct for many areas of international trade. But while the US and other countries chose to control arms flows in its national law, there are still no global rules for the cross-border trade in weapons. The resulting unrestrained arms trade has fueled war crimes, human rights abuse, organized crime, terrorism, and undermined development endeavors.

I have been working on this issue since 2004, and I still don’t really understand their objections. Excerpts from Mr. LaPierre’s speech are below, accompanied by the facts.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Wednesday June 29, France confirmed that it parachuted arms, including guns and rocket-propelled grenades, to the Libyan rebels in the Nafusa Mountains. This arms transfer is a blatant violation of the arms embargo which was agreed to by the UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011. The embargo placed on Libya is comprehensive and applies both to rebels and forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. The subsequent authorization of the use of force in UNSC resolution 1973 amends the February 26 resolution by calling on Members States to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo through inspection of all sea vessels and planes bound for Libya believed to be carrying arms.

France’s action is spurring a legal debate. While the UNSC resolution 1973 appears to strengthen the embargo by calling for strict implementation, France is arguing that the authorization of the use of force to protect civilians overrides the embargo since the weapons were used to protect civilians. Russia has formally disagreed and officially complained about the arms transfer, saying that “if it is confirmed, it’s a flagrant violation” of the arms embargo.

Read the rest of this entry »