by Jonathan Frerichs, World Council of Churches
A nightmare in
Norway last July, a ‘live’ horror show in Colorado last week—these domestic tragedies
are not the business of the ATT. Yet, no camera pointed at the crime scenes could
tell the difference between such tragedies and the abuses that an ATT is
mandated to address. Neither can the human heart.
Respecting jurisdictional
differences, however, what similarities come to mind as we remember the events of
Utoya Island, the Aurora cinema, and other places, over against incidents that an
ATT would address?
First, it is
striking how simply such scenes are set:
An individual gunman takes advantage of national regulations. The
details are more elaborate: Shortly before his crime in Aurora, the suspect, James
Holmes, went shopping at local stores for a military-style assault rifle and
three other guns. He also went shopping on-line for 6,000 rounds of ammunition and
some large magazines.
Armed groups,
brokers, arms suppliers, and unaccountable authorities simply take advantage of
international arms trade regulations.
The details—and the consequences—of their behaviour are also striking. After
16 years of mounting protest, their deeds have helped bring 190 states to this UN
conference.
Second, in both
categories, the factors in play include lax laws, absent enforcement,
unscrupulous purveyors, and various human motives conducive to the use of force.
These factors contribute to the commission of acts of armed violence. Citizens everywhere
also look to governments to provide protection and the redress of grievances. Thankfully,
societies also have remedies for the downward spiral of revenge and violence
since at least the era of Hammurabi’s Code.
Third,
phenomena like internet arms shopping are not all that confront the ancient
legal precedent of providing equal protection and equal justice for all. Incentives
to skirt the law, or to take it into one’s own hands, are many. Chief among them
is the lure of profits. Beside it at the international level stands the
temptation to hide the private logic of excessive nationalism under shared
principles of sovereignty among nations. Whatever the reasoning, the result is lawlessness
that makes arms available for abuses, for atrocities, and for other, slower
forms of destruction.
Finally, what
stands between potential victims and the perpetrators of armed violence? In the
socio-political arena, protections include a web of mores, laws, and
institutions that enable individuals, communitiesm, and nations to live
together in some semblance of safety and harmony. In the spiritual realm many
believe that there is something in each human being that is good, and of God. Treating
others as we would have them treat us is an inspired invention, like
Hammurabi’s Code, from the cradle of civilization in the Middle East. It is as valid as ever, there, and
everywhere.
Like national
laws, the ATT needs to make generous use of such timeless precepts if it is to
deal with challenges whether they are as old as greed or as new as a high-tech drone.
In
international affairs, where the fabric of society is thin, protection from
unlawful armed violence requires improvements in the cooperative forms of security
that law enables. Many of the right words
for this are on delegates’ desks at the ATT Diplomatic Conference. States will need to graft them into the ATT if
it is to help stop violence that continues to put people at risk.
The text
emerging here has to be assessed in terms of whether or not it builds the rule
of law, curbs every-man-for-himself practices, and provides humanitarian
benefits that transcend national boundaries. In that sense, we may ask:
- Do the criteria require states to protect people who are now at risk by regulating the arms trade according to a high, common standard?
- Is the scope a transparent catalogue of the tools and transactions that are open to misuse?
- Do the goals and objectives apply widely shared principles to the finite positive tasks of an ATT?
- Do implementation provisions incorporate solid cooperation and clear acceptance of obligations?
The quality of any
Arms Trade Treaty will serve as a collective diagnosis of international
priorities. It will show whose
prerogatives have been given what kinds of precedence. It will strengthen the fabric of the
international community, or allow it to fray and tear.
After the massacre on Utoya Island, and in
Colorado last week, citizens came together around the values that matter most in
protecting life. The ATT’s challenge, in one sense, is to affirm and translate
the same basic values—reverence for life, protection of human rights,
inviolability of persons—into an instrument that curbs the illicit arms trade
and makes legitimate transfers more accountable. That can only be done together.
It will surely be done, some day. As events in many places continue to remind
us, the time is already ripe right now.
