by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
“It takes two
to tango,” noted Peru’s
delegation during Tuesday morning’s plenary meeting. The Peruvian delegate
was arguing that the arms
trade treaty (ATT) needs balance between the rights and obligations of
importing and exporting states. But these are not the only two elements
tangoing in these treaty negotiations. The relationship between weapons and
ammunition must also be taken into account in order to ensure that for any
weapon included in the treaty, its ammunition is included as well.
The vast
majority of delegations seem to support the inclusion of ammunition in the ATT.
Only a few have argued that ammunition should be excluded. The US delegation,
the most vocal member of this small group, has argued that it is too
complicated. Speaking in an open committee meeting on scope, the US delegate
argued that ammunition is a “fundamentally different commodity” than anything
else being considered; that because it is “fungible, consumable, reloadable”
and “cannot be marked in any practical way,” including it in the ATT would
create too great a burden for licencing, authorization, and record-keeping.
However, ammunition is covered in many existing arms trade
policies. The EU Common Position on exports of military technology and
equipment and the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List both include ammunition.
Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) noted in its 2011 report, Small,
but lethal: small arms ammunition and the arms trade treaty, that the
United States and other major arms exporters, including France, Germany,
Russia, and the United Kingdom, adhere to one or both of these instruments,
which “represents a pre-existing willingness and ability to control the
export of ammunition.”
In terms of the “burden” of including ammunition, PRIO also points
out that the current deficiencies in marking and tracing ammunition are irrelevant
for an export control instrument such as the ATT. “In fact,” PRIO argues, “the
lack of adequate tracing procedures for ammunitions makes it even more
pertinent that the transfer of ammunition is controlled under a global
instrument that harmonises export and transfer controls.”
The US
delegation also argued that including ammunition in the ATT will do little or
nothing to achieve the goals of the treaty. However, as has been expressed by
countless other governments and civil society groups, the exclusion of
ammunition would undermine the very goals and objectives of the ATT. As Benin’s
delegation said on Tuesday, a gun without bullets is like an anchor without
water. Many others have used a variety of such metaphors to emphasize the
importance of including ammunition in the ATT. They argue that precisely because ammunition is consumable and
reloadable, it must be covered by the ATT in order for the treaty to have any
real effect on armed conflict, armed violence, gender-based or sexual violence,
poverty, insecurity, or violations of human rights or IHL. If ammunition is not
regulated, it will continue to flow to the countries and regions that are
already awash with weapons, weapons which would otherwise be rendered useless
without the constant resupply of ammunition.
