In the wake of the Newtown shooting, UN negotiators are gathering for one last push for a strong treaty to regulate international arms sales.
Thalif Deen, last updated: December 27, 2012
Inter Press Service
Amidst a politically divisive debate on gun control in the United States following a rash of mass shootings, the United Nations will meet in March to finalise an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) after nearly two decades of negotiations.
Dr. Natalie Goldring, a senior research fellow at the Center for Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS the upcoming conference probably represents the last opportunity to reach an Arms Trade Treaty within the U.N. structure.
“If this conference fails, supporters of an ATT are likely to look outside the U.N. for the next stage of negotiations, as was the case with the Landmine Treaty,” said Goldring, who has been monitoring negotiations since the early 1990s.
She said the real test of the ATT will be whether it helps set strong international standards for the arms trade.
If it helps bolster international human rights and humanitarian law, she argued, it will be a success, and it will save lives.
“If a weak ATT is negotiated, it may undermine existing practice and international law. Simply put, a weak ATT could be worse than not having an ATT,” warned Goldring.
The 193-member General Assembly last week voted overwhelmingly – 133 to nil, with 17 abstentions – to hold the conference Mar. 18-28, 2013.
All six major arms-exporting countries – China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the United States – voted for the resolution.
The abstentions, mostly from the Middle East, included Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Yemen.
The conference is expected to approve a treaty to regulate the estimated 73-billion-dollar global arms trade. In 2011, the United States alone concluded arms agreements worth 66.3 billion dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The current draft text, which will be the negotiating document next March, has been kicked around since July 2012.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), the most powerful gun lobby in the United States, has opposed the treaty on the mistaken belief it will hinder or deprive gun ownership in the country.
Brian Wood, arms control manager at Amnesty International, said the upcoming meeting will be the final leg of a 17-year campaign by his London-based human rights organisation and its partners.
The primary objective, he said, was to achieve an arms trade treaty to help protect people on the ground who, time and again, have borne the brunt of human rights violations during armed repression, violence and conflicts around the globe.
“We know sceptics will keep trying to undermine the human rights rules in the final treaty, but Amnesty International and its partners will keep up the pressure to secure the strongest possible text that protects human rights,” Wood said.
Last July, after nearly a month of negotiations, U.N. member states were close to an agreement on the proposed treaty.
But the U.S. delegation announced on the last day of the conference that it would not be able to support the draft treaty text that had been negotiated, and that insufficient time remained to reach agreement on a revised text.
With that statement, and the concurrence of other key arms suppliers, the talks collapsed.
Since the mid-1990s, the NRA has opposed U.N. efforts to reduce gun violence. It was unsuccessful in blocking the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in 2001.
“And I believe they will also fail in their efforts to prevent the signing of an Arms Trade Treaty,” Goldring predicted.
The proposed ATT does not affect civilian possession of weapons, and NRA efforts to claim otherwise are at best misleading, she said.
“The NRA’s outrageous statements about the ATT seem designed to mobilise their supporters. Their tactics may also be effective as a fundraising tool. But there’s no factual basis for the NRA’s claims,” Goldring added.
Ironically, the NRA’s trumped-up objections to an ATT free the U.S. government to negotiate a strong treaty, she said.
“If an ATT is unlikely to be ratified in the United States in the near term, there’s little incentive to compromise with U.S. senators who oppose a strong treaty,” she said.
“The political environment is quite different (since the November presidential polls). My hope is that President (Barack) Obama’s convincing re-election victory last month will help ensure that the U.S. delegation advocates a strong ATT now and in the negotiating conference next spring,” Goldring said.
Meanwhile, the biggest stumbling block to a strong ATT is the continued emphasis on consensus. If even a single delegation announces that it is unable to support consensus on the treaty, it will not be agreed.
“By insisting on consensus adoption of a treaty, the U.S. government has a veto over a prospective treaty,” said Dr Goldring.
“But it also gives every other country a veto, including sceptical delegations such as Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, and Egypt. This reduces the likelihood of success in March,” she added.
The U.S. government has made clear its refusal to accept a treaty with any provisions that would restrict civilian possession of firearms in the United States. It has even published its “diplomatic redlines” on the Department of State website, an action that may be without precedent in this context.
Thus far the U.S. government has also opposed any inclusion of ammunition or explosives in the treaty, which Goldring considers “short sighted”.
“At a minimum, all countries should be required to track ammunition when it is exported, as the United States already does. To be effective, an ATT must include all types of transfers and all types of conventional weapons, including their parts, components, and munitions,” she said.
Thalif Deen is a contributor to Inter Press Service.
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, has endeavored to undermine the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran. FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz recently voiced support for measures by hawkish members of Congress that seek to give Congress a greater role in the negotiations, such as getting an “up or down vote on” any deal. Dubowitz has also suggested that Congress “defend the sanctions architecture” on Iran even if an agreement is reached.
The Center for Security Policy (CSP), run by notorious Islamophobe Frank Gaffney, has rabidly opposed negotiating with Iran over its country’s nuclear program. With the deadline to reach an agreement fast approaching, CSP fellows have argued that it would pose “an existential threat to Israel” and a “deadly threat to U.S. national security.” They have also urged Congress to “repudiate the nuclear talks and any agreement resulting from them.”
AIPAC, “America’s pro-Israel lobby,” has attempted to influence the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 by supporting hawkish congressional measures that many analysts say could derail the diplomatic process. The lobby has strongly endorsed a letter from Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY) pressuring Secretary of State John Kerry to broaden the scope of demands in a potential agreement, which many observers have criticized as containing “distortions of the truth.”
Although largely dormant in recent years, the Committee on the Present Danger—the Cold War-era pressure group that was re-launched after 9/11 with support from leading neoconservatives—continues to use it website to plug fear-mongering media stories and op-eds, focusing mainly on Iran. One recent article, written by a CPD member, rails against efforts to reach a diplomatic compromise over Iran’s nuclear program, claiming: “It is hard to rationalize the past history of this fanatical Muslim regime’s secret nuclear efforts and any hope that it would abide by such an agreement, or, indeed, that UN or other surveillance would be more effective than in the past.”
The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a leading neoconservative think tank, sought to frame the 2014 midterm elections as a “foreign policy election,” even though only 13 percent of voters listed foreign policy as a top issue in exit polls. FPI nevertheless hopes that the Republican-controlled Senate will “actively lead on foreign policy issues” and has prioritized passing Sen. Robert Menendez’s controversial Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act. The bill would impose additional sanctions on Iran and would likely scuttle on-going negotiations with Iran.
For media inquiries,
or call 202-234-9382.
November 24, 2014
Negotiators in Vienna failed to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program and extended the deadline to July 1, 2015.
November 19, 2014
The Bipartisan Policy Center, which claims to support “reasoned negotiation and respectful dialogue,” has firmly aligned itself with neoconservatives on Iran.
November 18, 2014
Israel’s chief fear in a possible nuclear deal with Iran is that it will lose an enemy that it shares in common with the United States, and thus Washington’s commitment to its security.
November 17, 2014
A Republican-controlled Senate could leave a huge imprint on President Obama’s foreign policy agenda during his last two years in office.
November 11, 2014
George W. Bush and Barack Obama both sought to convince former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s to keep U.S. troops being in Iraq. Both failed.
November 08, 2014
As the November 24 deadline for reaching a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran approaches, the different sides are scrambling to ensure all bases are covered before the official resumption of talks in Vienna on November 18.
November 06, 2014
Once a taboo topic in Washington, leading members of the foreign policy establishment now increasingly scrutinize Israel’s actions.