by Owen Greene, Saferworld
In the final days of the arms trade treaty
(ATT) negotiations, difficult compromises are being discussed to accommodate
the concerns of states in the hopes of still achieving a worthwhile treaty
text. Several highly sceptical states have been very vocal in the negotiating sessions.
Behind the scenes, there have been concerted efforts to address the key concerns
of some major arms exporters and importers, including China, Russia, India, and
the USA. Even if it is not widely expected that such ‘reluctant’ states will
quickly ratify an ATT, it is important to try to gain their acceptance of a
treaty text, especially if it is forwarded to the General Assembly First
Committee.
The substance of each of these major
states’ declared ‘red lines’ varied substantially during the sessions of the
Preparatory Committee. The USA called for exclusion of ammunition from the treaty’s
scope and reiterated its opposition to strong norms against licensing exports
where risk assessments find “a substantial risk” of negative consequences.
China argued for a modest treaty limited to ‘trade’ (i.e. not ‘transfer’) of
the seven categories of the UN Register of Conventional Arms, objected to ‘subjective’
criteria, emphasised norms including “non-interference in states’ internal
affairs”, objected small arms and light weapons (SALW) and ammunition, and objected
to specific references to international humanitarian law (IHL) and international
human rights law (IHRL).
India had several reservations similar to
those of China, and was especially committed to avoiding a treaty that could
help to legitimise arms export denials to arms importing states based on ‘subjective’
or ‘discriminatory’ assessment criteria. Russia expressed great scepticism regarding
the value of an ATT, made various unilateral proposals relating to its specific
national concerns as an arms exporter (such as on bilateral licensed production
agreements), and emphasised that goals and objectives—which Russia asserted
needed to be agreed upon before negotiations could proceed—should focus on
preventing the illicit trade in conventional arms.
Efforts to adequately address such concerns
of these states have taken many twists and turns. The text preferred by the
majority of ‘like-minded,’ progressive states has been ‘re-balanced’, diluted,
and undermined by significant loopholes in an effort to accommodate the
“requirements” of these major arms exporters and importers; and the final
negotiations are ongoing.
However, their contrasting negotiating
approaches have had real consequences for the end-game discussions. Although
the major elements of the USA’s position have long been understood, only in the
last days has the US negotiating team explicitly outlined the concerns that
would need to be addressed in relation to ammunition and criteria. Furthermore, India is insistent on including a
clause on defence co-operation agreements, which a number of states regard as a
highly problematic loophole. There is, even at this last moment, great uncertainty
regarding what the Russian position is on much of the text.
This is in contrast with China’s
negotiating approach in the ATT negotiations. China has negotiated toughly
throughout, and has been able to ensure that most of its key concerns are addressed
in the draft treaty text. Nonetheless, China
has proved willing to make compromises, and, furthermore, in an orderly and
timely way that has facilitated the complex, final stages of the multilateral
negotiating process. For example, the deals through which China conceded
inclusion of SALW and ammunition as well as specific references to IHL and IHRL—in
recognition of African countries stated concerns and in exchange for
concessions by others—were made with adequate negotiating time and not left
until the last minute.
End-game brinkmanship is a well-established
negotiating tactic, but, in UN negotiations, this often leads to unnecessary
loopholes and weaknesses. This has become a major risk factor for the ATT and is
particularly irritating where it appears to be the result more of domestic
politics and indecision than in defence of clear national interests.
There are several ironies. These states continue
to resist a comprehensive scope for the ATT, even though they themselves have
relatively comprehensive national controls. Further, many concessions to weaken
the ATT text are being made to these and other states that are ultimately unlikely
to ratify the Treaty any time soon.