by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
States?
Corporations? Or human beings? Which should the arms
trade treaty (ATT) prioritize? For most of civil society—and many
governments—there is one correct answer to this question. But some of the
delegations participating in the negotiation process appear to have different
opinions. By the end of the month, however, we will either have a treaty that has
as its primary objective the prevention of human suffering, or we will not have
a treaty worth the paper it’s printed on.
Monday’s
plenary and open committee meeting on the preamble and principles of the treaty
provided venues for the ongoing debate about the key objective of the future
ATT. While the majority of delegations continued to call for a robust treaty
that will make a real difference in the lives of people around the world, some
delegations expressed other priorities. Some argued that the sovereignty of
states is the most important principle for the treaty to uphold (e.g.
Venezuela), while a few others argued that the treaty should work to increase
the legitimacy of the arms trade (e.g. Germany).
These mark
two positions that are incompatible with the pursuit of a treaty that seeks to
prevent violations of human rights law, international humanitarian law, armed
conflict, armed violence, gender-based violence, sexual violence, terrorism,
organized crime, the use or threat of force, foreign occupation, repression of
self-determination, overproduction of arms, and/or diversion to unauthorized
end-users or the illicit market; or that seeks to facilitate international and
regional peace, security, and stability, peaceful settlement of disputes, and/or
socioeconomic development.
All
governments participating in this conference hold at least some of the above
objectives as vital to their interests in the negotiation of an ATT. Yet by
prioritizing “state security” over human security or the profits of the arms
industry over the lives and livelihoods of human beings, these governments in
effect undermine all of these objectives. The only way to prevent arms from being
employed as instruments of foreign occupation or as illicit goods, for example,
is to ensure that humanitarian interests are at the forefront of the treaty’s
principles, objectives, and criteria, and to match them with a robust scope and
rigorous implementation mechanisms.
Similarly, one
way to help stem the overproduction of arms is to ensure that there are strict criteria
for their export, so that arms are not produced and sold without any compelling
and legitimate purpose, and to prioritize socioeconomic development over the
excessive use of resources for the production of weapons.
In
relation to this last point, the UK delegation suggested that the preamble of
the ATT include a reference to article 26 of the UN Charter. Citing agreement
with the Egyptian delegation’s concerns with excessive military spending, the
UK ambassador urged the preamble to call for the “the least diversion for
armaments of the world’s human and economic resources.” This is an interesting
suggestion coming from one of the five permanent members of the UN Security
Council, which has yet to fulfill the mandate of article 26. But it does
highlight one of the other key challenges for the ATT: to ensure that the treaty
is applied equally in exporting and importing states.
The
tension between importers and exporters has been high throughout the ATT
negotiation process, but there is no inherent reason for double standards.
Every state party must have an equal responsibility in fulfilling the
objectives of the treaty. Iceland’s delegation highlighted this joint
responsibility in relation specifically to gender-based violence, but it
applies to all of the future treaty’s criteria. While different entities play
different roles in the arms trade, all must be bound by a collective
responsibility to uphold what must be the key objective of the treaty: the
preservation of human security and the prevention of human suffering.
