Looking to the future of the ATT: shifting attention to implementation

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

After more than a decade of advocating for and working towards a robust and comprehensive arms trade treaty (ATT), relevant stakeholders can now mark a conclusion to the first step in this process. This was an imperfect process that yielded an imperfect treaty. Nevertheless, the task now is to take what has been adopted and ensure that it has the most effective impact possible on the ground so that the human suffering caused by the illicit and unregulated arms trade—the original purpose of and impetus for this process—is prevented to the greatest extent possible.
 

The failure of consensus

by Ray Acheson and Beatrice Fihn, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The events of Thursday evening mark the second time that governments have failed to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by consensus.
 

A tale of two treaties

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
 
Since Friday, when the President released his second draft of the arms trade treaty (ATT), people have asked, “Whose treaty is this?” Is this a treaty that will protect human beings from armed conflict and armed violence, or is this a treaty that will protect the profits of arms manufacturers and exporters? Will it promote the interests of cooperative human security or militaristic state security? The release of the third draft text on Wednesday does not settle these questions.
 

New baby on the way: is it to be an orphan or everyone’s child?

by Jonathan Frerichs, World Council of Churches

After decades of gestation and years in labor, a new treaty seems well on its way to being born. What lies ahead for this new member of the global village? Will it be an orphan with few prospects in life? Or will there be many to take it in their charge and to give it a future? The almost impossible parentage involved looks certain to keep such questions alive.
 

Problems and proposals: how to close loopholes in the draft ATT

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

With only one day left until the final draft text of the arms trade treaty (ATT) is released, all participants have expended tremendous efforts to either improve or further undermine the current draft text. As it stands, the draft is not reflective of the positions of the vast majority of states. It is certainly not reflective of the urgency of regulating the irresponsible arms trade and preventing its most horrifying effects. As the Liberian delegation said, the current draft elevates the views of arms exporters above those of the victims of those exports. Thus states that want a robust treaty have been actively proposing language to close some of the treaty’s biggest loopholes and ensure the treaty is comprehensive and effective.

Honing in on the indispensables in the second draft text

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War
 
With the release of the new President’s Non-Paper last Friday, delegations have been carefully examining the text in order to identify what has been improved, what has remained the same, and what new ambiguities have been introduced. Levels of satisfaction with the new draft text were varied, from the Arab Group’s statement that “none” of its views were represented to other delegations that were more positive on the draft.
 

The second draft: a treaty behind its time

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
 
The President’s second draft of the arms trade treaty (ATT) released Friday evening fails to resolve almost all of the major problems in the draft text. While some language has been tweaked to improve clarity and a new section has been added on diversion, the most fundamental loopholes remain. The draft as it stands is ultimately inadequate to truly prevent human suffering or enhance peace and security.
 

Control Arms reaction to President’s Non-Paper of March 22nd (Second Draft ATT)

Control Arms is highly disappointed with the first ‘substantive’ draft from ATT Final Conference President, Amb. Peter Woolcott of Australia. After extensive and broad consultations—following seven years of deliberations inside the UN—the draft should have clearly reflected the voice of the overwhelming majority of Member States.

Scope and criteria: Getting to the “operational” heart of the ATT

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War
 
After a lengthy discussion on Preamble, Principles, and Goals and Objectives, delegations began debate on Scope, Prohibitions and Criteria. These sections of the Treaty are surely at the heart of any ATT’s effectiveness and will guide how, and under what circumstances, national assessments will be carried out in practice. Given the framework that has been set for the ATT—national risk assessments conducted for transfers of weapons covered under the Treaty’s scope according to an agreed set of criteria—construction of these sections is most vital to determining if the Treaty will actually impact international peace and security and address the many consequences of the illicit and unregulated trade in conventional arms. As has been noted previously in this ATT Monitor, there are certain elements of these sections that simply cannot be compromised if the ATT is to be considered a “success” by those that are working for a text that will positively impact arms transfer policy making it not just better regulated, but also more responsible. 
 

Consensus, compromise, and strength

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

The opening of the “Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty” and the general exchange of views saw a myriad of statements from Foreign Ministers and other delegates from diverse global regions. There was a general commitment by most delegates that the time for serious discussion on the concrete details of the text has come and that overly general statements or continued reiteration of well-known state positions has passed. Despite this positive sense of commitment and urgency, there remains a yawning gap between the necessity of reaching consensus through unfettered compromise and the commitment to retain a strong treaty and fight for certain indispensable components and provisions without which an ATT would be meaningless in practice.
 

Preventing a stillborn ATT

by Daniel Mack, Instituto Sou da Paz, Brazil

For over a decade, civil society has had high hopes for the Arms Trade Treaty. Not because of unreal expectations, but because of real needs—only a strong ATT will make any difference to actually “prevent the international trade in conventional arms from contributing to human suffering”.
 

Recommendations for success

by Katherine Prizeman, Global Action to Prevent War

As the “Final Conference for an Arms Trade Treaty” begins this week in New York, it is important to approach the next nine days of negotiations energetically and strategically in order to achieve a robust instrument that will have tangible impacts on the ground. It is not enough to simply adopt a treaty—it must be a treaty worthy of implementation that will actually impact arms transfer policies and, in turn, promote international peace and security. The draft treaty currently on the table is insufficient in many respects, but a stronger, fully implemented treaty would go a long way towards diminishing the devastating consequences of the illicit and irresponsible arms trade.
 

Moving on and forward

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. 

Demanding more from an arms trade treaty

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

  

On Thursday afternoon, the president of the arms trade treaty (ATT) conference released a new draft text. After two days of nearly round-the-clock negotiations, however, the new text is still full of potential loopholes. Several areas of the text need to be amended before this treaty could be considered as a step toward plugging holes in the poorly regulated arms trade.

  

Accommodating the major 'sceptical' states in the ATT

by Owen Greene, Saferworld

In the final days of the arms trade treaty (ATT) negotiations, difficult compromises are being discussed to accommodate the concerns of states in the hopes of still achieving a worthwhile treaty text. Several highly sceptical states have been very vocal in the negotiating sessions. Behind the scenes, there have been concerted efforts to address the key concerns of some major arms exporters and importers, including China, Russia, India, and the USA. Even if it is not widely expected that such ‘reluctant’ states will quickly ratify an ATT, it is important to try to gain their acceptance of a treaty text, especially if it is forwarded to the General Assembly First Committee. 

  

Options versus obligations

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

  

On Tuesday morning, the president of the arms trade treaty (ATT) negotiating conference released the first draft consolidated text. Debate on the text ensued in the afternoon. As most delegations argued, the text is much too weak to achieve the goal that motivated this process in the first place: preventing and reducing human suffering caused by armed violence and conflict.

  

Why would states leave ammunition out of the ATT?

by Hector Guerra, IANSA’s Survivors Network coordinator
 
It is hard to believe that anyone, with the knowledge that of the 12 billion pieces of ammunition that are produced every year, large amounts of them feed all forms of armed violence, would not want to regulate the international movement of such items. Regulation of ammunition would undoubtedly have a direct impact on the ways in which the international community works to prevent diversion into the illicit market and the commission of atrocities.

 

Simple logic in short supply at ATT negotiations

by Dr. Natalie Goldring

 

Simple logic suggests that ammunition should be treated in the same manner as all other items covered by the prospective Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Ammunition is not a separate case; it’s what makes these weapons deadly in the first place.  Without ammunition, a weapon can be a club, but its killing capacity is markedly diminished.
  

Keeping focus: a personal perspective

by Natalie Goldring

 

Early in my career, I had the good fortune to work with Frank Blackaby, a former director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. He rarely spoke much at the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) board meetings at which we interactede Hhh, but his interventions were always insightful. At one meeting, we had become mired in administrative details and disputes. Frank sat quietly in the back of the room as we argued our positions; it seemed as though he might even be sleeping. After allowing the conversation to continue for a while, Frank raised his head and asked, “But what will this do to reduce the killing?”

12 billion reasons to include ammunition in the ATT

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

 

“It takes two to tango,” noted Peru’s delegation during Tuesday morning’s plenary meeting. The Peruvian delegate was arguing that the arms trade treaty (ATT) needs balance between the rights and obligations of importing and exporting states. But these are not the only two elements tangoing in these treaty negotiations. The relationship between weapons and ammunition must also be taken into account in order to ensure that for any weapon included in the treaty, its ammunition is included as well.