by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
Thursday
marked the first full day of work at the conference to negotiate an arms
trade treaty (ATT). Among dozens of statements by delegations, the
conference also attempted to reach agreement on its programme
of work for the next week. Both the substantive and procedural debates revealed
that some governments have interests other than humanitarian imperatives
guiding their positions and behaviour at this conference.
In terms of
procedure, while most delegates were eager to start negotiations, a few expressed
concern with the structure of meetings proposed by the Chair. By the end of the
day, the Chair was able to gavel a decision on Friday’s schedule, despite some
remaining skepticism by a few delegations. These countries, most vocally Cuba,
India, and Syria, expressed concerned with the scheduling of parallel meetings
and with what kind of access civil society might have to each of component.
Other delegations expressed frustration with this further delay in commencing
work, arguing that it does not matter how
the treaty is negotiated but rather what
is negotiated. However, the hold-ups over procedure suggest that the states
questioning the methods of work remain skeptical about the negotiation of any ATT; indeed, throughout the entire
ATT process they have expressed concern that the treaty might limit their
ability to import arms.
Thus, regardless
of how the conference operates, the key question remains: what exactly will the
ATT look like? Will it have the necessary content and mechanisms to address the
devastating humanitarian consequences of the unregulated arms trade, as the
majority of countries want? Or will it be so “simple, short, and easy to
implement” as demanded by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—which
are also among the world’s biggest arms exporters—that it will not make a dent
in the inconceivable volume of deaths, rapes, injuries, displacements, poverty,
and crime seen around the world every day? Will it prevent weapons from being
used to violate international humanitarian or human rights law, or will it
provide cover for dubious arms transfers due to loopholes and interpretations?
While the
majority of countries have reiterated their commitment to negotiating a robust treaty
that has humanitarian imperatives at its core, there are still those that, like
France,
seek a treaty that will further legitimize the arms trade, or, like the Arab
Group, seek a treaty that will facilitate the sale of weapons to developing
nations.
But the ATT
cannot be, must not be, about legitimizing or facilitating the arms trade. It
can, and must, be about reducing human suffering. It can, and must, put human
security above profit margins.
As the Mexican
delegation noted, “It is difficult to understand that in a world where regulations
exist for commerce in every type of goods, including basic goods, we still do not
have a regulatory framework for those products that have been designed and manufactured
with the specific purpose of inflicting harm.” Dr. Glowinski argued, “We
control cereals and dairy products, but we do not accept responsibility for the
sale of conventional weapons, their parts and ammunition. This situation is
unsustainable. This reality is ethically flawed.”
Deaths.
Rape. Injury. Displacement. Poverty. Crime. These are the realities that
negotiators here in New York must keep at the forefront of their minds as
they work to overcome the political and economic interests suggesting other
priorities.
