by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will
In a video
message on Thursday afternoon, President
Sirleaf of Liberia highlighted her country’s suffering from “the terrible effects of more than 14
years of a devastating war with itself.” The experience of Liberia and
countless other countries and their citizens demonstrates the absolute
necessity for the arms
trade treaty (ATT) to prohibit exporters from authorizing arms transfers
where they are likely to be diverted or to be used to facilitate armed
conflict, violate human rights, international humanitarian law, or commit
gender-based violence. If the treaty merely requires states to “consider” such
criteria in a risk assessment process that is not backed up by a rigorous
accountability mechanism, the ATT will not be a treaty but a mere list of
suggestions.
Many
delegations have stressed the importance of ensuring strong language throughout
the treaty that obligates rather than recommends. On Wednesday, for example,
Colombia’s delegation argued that because the ATT is a treaty, it must be
action-oriented. Instead of “seeking to regulate,” the treaty must “regulate”.
The treaty should not “inhibit illicit diversion,” but “prevent, combat, and
eradicate” it. Several delegations have proposed—and many others have
supported—that the treaty stipulate that a state party shall not authorize a proposed export if the criteria included in
the treaty is not met. This is substantially more effective than the language
in the Chair’s
2012 paper, which merely says that states parties shall undertake
assessments based on the treaty’s criteria and, “where substantial risks exist,
there shall be an overriding presumption against authorization.”
Of course,
even with strong language prohibiting an arms transfer when the criteria for
that transfer has not been met, an equally strong monitoring and accountability
mechanism will be necessary to ensure compliance. There has been a great deal
of discussion at this conference regarding dispute mechanisms in response to
transfer denials. But what happens if a transfer is granted that violates the provisions of the treaty?
In a side
event on Thursday co-organized by the Permanent Mission of Finland to the UN, the
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), IANSA Women’s
Network, and Amnesty International (see page
6 of the PDF for details), WILPF Secretary General Madeleine Rees used case
studies to highlight situations in which arms have been transferred to a
country despite there being widespread knowledge of the violation of human
rights, specifically gender-based violence. In the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC), for example, the atrocities of mass rape and other forms of sexual
violence are well known. The easy access to small arms and light weapons has
directly contributed to the extreme volume of rape in the country. Ms. Rees
quoted Annie Mbami Matundu, president of WILPF’s Section in the DRC, who has repeatedly
said that while one man with a machete can rape one woman in a village, two men
with a machine gun can rape the whole village. Yet arms exporting states still
authorize arms transfers to the country, usually due to competing political or
economic interests.
Under a robust
ATT, that should not be possible. But the treaty would need effective
monitoring, accountability, and liability mechanisms in order to address such a
violation of its provisions. Unfortunately, little to no discussion has taken
place on the treaty’s potential enforcement mechanisms, nor in the areas of
international monitoring or liability in cases of non-compliance.
