by Dr. Robert Zuber, Global Action to Prevent War
The Wednesday morning open meeting of the arms trade treaty
(ATT) negotiations focused on goals and objectives and was a fair, balanced,
and respectful discussion. Among the many points of contention was the reference to 'human
suffering' in bullet point 4 of the Chairman’s text. GAPW does believe that
some reference to humanitarian and international human rights law is
imperative, and such reference was reinforced in many delegate statements. We
are not, however, as convinced about the need for a 'suffering' reference.
To the degree that we can successfully define and recognize it,
we acknowledge with most diplomats and UN agencies that 'suffering' has
specific implications for women. Fortunately, several existing UN treaty
bodies, agencies, and NGOs take great care to address the gender implications
of all UN obligations. For example there will be an event hosted by UN Women on
Friday examining the linkages between the ATT and the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Moreover, numerous NGOs
including WILPF, IANSA, and ourselves have highlighted for many policymakers in
New York and in capitals the gender dimensions of illicit arms and the violence
associated with them. Further articulation of these linkages is needed, and
more will come.
The question for delegations is whether inclusion of unspecific
language in this treaty makes the reduction of 'suffering' more or less likely
in the long term. Since the UN and its member states have already worked
through complex human rights/humanitarian law formulations and since the
upholding of such obligations will fall much more directly on other treaty
bodies, agencies, and offices of the UN system than on any ATT structure, the
strong reference to existing human rights/humanitarian standards seems more
reliable than introducing new and ill-defined language into a legally-binding
treaty. This would most especially be the case if the language of 'suffering'
becomes a potential deal breaker for states otherwise committed to a successful
treaty process.