by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
Disarmament and
arms control has been on the UN’s agenda since its inception. Its first
resolution in 1946 set up a commission to, among other things, make specific
proposals for the elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction. The UN
Charter itself calls for the lowest level of military expenditure and
redirection of human and economic resources. The first of the
General Assembly’s specialized committees deals with disarmament and
international security. And as UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his opening remarks to the arms
trade treaty (ATT) conference on Tuesday, 3 July, disarmament and arms
control have implications for every other issue the UN covers. “Poorly
regulated trade in weaponry,” he argued, “is a major obstacle to everything we
do.”
Yet over the
last decade or more, UN member states have not been able to deal effectively
with disarmament or arms control issues inside this august body. There has been
a trend, across all UN fora addressing weapons, of not being able to agree on
substance or procedure. This downward spiral seemed to continue this week, with
some governments preventing the very opening of the ATT negotiating conference
for two days. And while the issues cited for holding up progress in UN fora are
often legitimate concerns that need to be addressed, the underlying impetus for
the blockages can often be the simple fact that some governments and other
actors benefit from the stalemates.
In the
context of the ATT, some governments are concerned that the treaty will be used
politically against them, preventing them from importing arms. But an even bigger
obstacle to progress is that some governments and other powerful domestic
constituencies and interests benefit politically or economically from the
manufacture, sale, and/or use of weapons. They fear that a robust ATT will have
an impact on their profit margins and their political power. Indeed, a strong
treaty with the protection of human rights at its core should affect the arms
industry—as even arms manufactured in liberal democracies find themselves used
as instruments of repression—and the nature of international security as a
whole.
In his
opening remarks, the Chair of the conference, Ambassador Moritán of Argentina,
argued that international security is built on a succession of multilateral
actions. The historic lack of action on regulating the international trade in
arms is, as the UN
Secretary-General said, a disgrace. Ban noted rising military expenditure,
armed conflict, and human rights violations as requiring concerted, collective
action on this issue. The Norwegian
Minister of International Development described the unregulated arms trade
as contributing to “conflict, displacement, crime and terrorism, thereby also
undermining peace, reconciliation, safety and stability.” The Norwegian
and Australian
delegations also highlighted the specific effects of the arms trade on women,
with Minister Holmås of Norway recalling the systematic rape of women during
conflict.
With
such overwhelmingly negative effects of the unregulated arms trade in mind, the
diplomats at the ATT negotiating conference must buck the trend of failing to
agree to strong, legally-binding provisions that, as Norway’s delegation said,
make a difference and give added value. To do this, those working for an
effective treaty will need to expose and resist the economic and political
interests of those that benefit from the maintenance of the status quo and the
perpetuation of the excessive manufacture and sale of weapons. They must refuse
to compromise the achievement of a strong treaty as this would only satisfy the
industrial and political interests of those that seek a weak treaty or none at
all.
