by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War
As the mandate for the arms
trade treaty (ATT) Diplomatic Conference expired on Friday afternoon,
delegates and civil society alike were disappointed at the failure to adopt a
treaty after four weeks of negotiations and, perhaps more importantly, the
inability to address the lack of internationally-adopted common standards for
the unregulated trade in conventional arms.
While this large majority
of delegations is correct and commendable in their desire to continue to
identify a way forward to achieve the still elusive goal of an ATT, it is
difficult to imagine how, even with more consultations, the present text would
become more robust or that member states would be able to reach “unanimity” on
the major issues still left unresolved. After four weeks of hard work and difficult,
political wrangling, there is much to be disappointed over.
The President’s most recent
draft text still has significant loopholes and is far from the robust ATT that
was aspired to by many delegates and civil society advocates—ammunition and munitions
are lacking in the core items listed in the scope; the implementation measures
provide for a superseding of the criteria by the vague references to “other
instruments” and “contractual obligations under defence cooperation agreements;”
records of authorizations do not need to be made public; and amendments can
only be adopted through consensus, leaving very little flexibility for
substantive future changes in the treaty. The language pertaining to criteria
is particularly weak given the structure of the ATT, as it will be driven
primarily by national implementation responsibilities (and thus biases related
to national interest). Diversion remains a “secondary” consideration in
paragraph 6.4 (national assessment) requiring that states only “consider taking
feasible measures” to avoid it. These are not insignificant weaknesses. They compromise
the treaty and its ability to combat and eradicate the illicit and
irresponsible trade in arms in a consistent, universal, and legally-binding
manner.
Although the particulars of
the text could certainly continue to be debated, the question now becomes how
to proceed with the process writ large. Although the overwhelming majority of
member states have made apparent their intention to continue the ATT process,
the specific path forward (and on what basis) does not enjoy the same clarity. The
most obvious option would be to bring the draft treaty to the First Committee
in October and request another mandate to continue work through a new
Diplomatic Conference. This is a position that, although not detailed explicitly
on Friday afternoon, would seem to garner significant support among delegations
given the commentary in the room. The French delegation noted that states “should
not start from zero,” which would indicate support for using the draft text as
the base forward. Likewise the Chinese,
Moroccan, and UK delegations called the President’s text “a good basis for
future negotiations”.
As member
states prepare to bring the ATT to the UNGA this fall, it is important to remember
that the rule of consensus, and ultimately the de facto veto power of each member state, will not necessarily
apply to future negotiations. As such, the majority of member states that have
called for an ATT with stronger provisions than the ones found in the
President’s text (presumably more than the 2/3 majority required for adoption
of resolutions in the UNGA), should propose a text that encompasses more of the
provisions that these member states have fought for throughout the
negotiations, most notably inclusion of ammunition and munitions in the scope
and clear, legally-binding criteria for national risk assessment. The group of
90 states on Friday noted, “Compromises have had to
be made, but overall the text … has the overwhelming support of the
international community as a base for carrying forward our work.” Ultimately,
if the rules of procedure change, then so should the treaty. The compromises made
during July should be revaluated if they only apply to a few select states and a
new, stronger text should be presented.
