This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
U.N. Treaty Aims to Limit Arms Exports for Rights Abusers
U.N. Treaty Aims to Curb Weapons Sales to Rights Violators
(about 4 hours later)
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a landmark treaty that tries to regulate the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking sales to the human-rights records of the buyers.
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a pioneering treaty aimed at regulating the enormous global trade in conventional weapons, for the first time linking sales to the human rights records of the buyers.
The 154-to-3 vote for approval of the Arms Trade Treaty, the culmination of years of negotiations, was regarded as a victory by rights groups that called it at least a first step toward limiting commerce in illegal weapons that kill thousands of people every day. But many questions remain about the treaty’s effectiveness, which would essentially rely on a transparent system of compliance that embarrasses violators.
Although implementation is years away and there is no specific enforcement mechanism, proponents say the treaty would for the first time force sellers to consider how their customers will use the weapons and to make that information public. The goal is to curb the sale of weapons that kill tens of thousands of people every year — by, for example, making it harder for Russia to argue that its arms deals with Syria are legal under international law.
“It will help reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement after the United States, the world’s biggest arms exporter, voted with the majority for approval.
The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, reflects growing international sentiment that the multibillion-dollar weapons trade needed to be held to a moral standard. The hope is that even nations reluctant to ratify the treaty would feel public pressure to abide by its provisions. The treaty calls for sales to be evaluated on whether the weapons will be used to break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, abet terrorism or organized crime or slaughter women and children.
But 23 countries abstained, including China and Russia, which also are leading sellers of weapons, raising concerns about how many countries would ultimately ratify the treaty.
“Finally we have seen the governments of the world come together and say ‘Enough!’ ” said Anna McDonald, the head of Arms Control for Oxfam International, one of the many rights groups that pushed for the treaty. “It is time to stop the poorly regulated arms trade. It is time to bring the arms trade under control.”
Even with American support at the United Nations, prospects for ratification of the treaty by the Senate are considered dim at best, partly because of opposition by gun-rights advocates.
She pointed to the Syrian civil war, where 70,000 people have been killed, as a hypothetical example, noting that Russia argues that sales are permitted because there is no arms embargo.
The General Assembly vote was held after efforts to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran, North Korea and Syria blocking it. Those three countries, often ostracized as pariahs, contended that the treaty was full of deficiencies and had been structured to be unfair to them.
“This treaty won’t solve the problems of Syria overnight, no treaty could do that, but it will help to prevent future Syrias,” Ms. McDonald said. “It will help to reduce armed violence. It will help to reduce conflict.”
The treaty requires states exporting conventional weapons to develop criteria that would link exports to avoiding human-rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. It would also ban shipments if they were deemed harmful to women and children. Countries that join the treaty would have to report publicly on sales every year.
Members of the General Assembly voted 154 to 3 to approve the Arms Trade Treaty, with 23 abstentions — many from nations with dubious recent human rights records like Bahrain, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
Although the treaty has no enforcement mechanism, it exposes the arms-trade process to new levels of transparency that proponents of the treaty say could help severely limit illicit weapons deals by shaming violators.
The vote came after more than two decades of organizing. Humanitarian groups started lobbying after the 1991 Persian Gulf war to curb the trade in conventional weapons, having realized that Iraq had more weapons than France, diplomats said.
Treaty proponents pinned their hopes on a quick ratification by a large number of countries, anticipating that would put pressure on the large countries that abstained to ascribe to it as well. The proponents noted that all those abstaining countries had been willing to extend their consensus to the original treaty. But such significant abstentions could also signal that transforming the treaty into international law will be a more arduous process than if consensus had been achieved.
The treaty establishes an international forum of states that will review published reports of arms sales and publicly name violators. Even if the treaty will take time to become international law, its standards will be used immediately as political and moral guidelines, proponents said.
Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian envoy to the United Nations, said Russian misgivings about what he called ambiguities in the treaty, including how terms like genocide would be defined, had pushed his government to abstain.
“It will help reduce the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement after the United States, the biggest arms exporter, voted with the majority for approval.
Support was particularly strong among many African countries — even if the compromise text was weaker than some had anticipated — with most governments asserting that over the long run the treaty would curb the arms sales that have fueled so many conflicts.
But the abstaining countries included China and Russia, which also are leading sellers, raising concerns about how many countries would ultimately ratify the treaty. It is scheduled to go into effect after 50 nations have ratified it. Given the overwhelming vote, diplomats anticipated that it could go into effect in two to three years, relative quickly for an international treaty.
Nations can begin joining the treaty in early June, and it goes into effect as international law once 50 have ratified it. Given that the vote in the General Assembly was so overwhelmingly in support, it is expected to go into effect within the next few years.
Proponents said that if enough countries ratify the treaty, it will effectively become the international norm. If major sellers like the United States and Russia choose to sit on the sidelines while the rest of the world negotiates what weapons can be traded globally, they will still be affected by the outcome, activists said.
In the run-up to the vote on Tuesday, numerous states objected to the treaty because they said it was heavily weighted in favor of the exporters — allowing them to make subjective judgments about which states met the humanitarian guidelines. The treaty could be abused in the future as a means to foment unjust political pressure, said several countries, including Cuba, Nicaragua and Syria.
The treaty’s ratification prospects in the Senate appear bleak, at least in the short term, in part because of opposition by the gun lobby. More than 50 senators signaled months ago that they would oppose the treaty — more than enough to defeat it, since 67 senators must ratify it.
What impact it will have on the global conventional weapons trade — and over what period of time — is a question. Experts are certain it will change things eventually. In the shorter term it is more difficult to assess.
Among the opponents is Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican. In a statement last month, Mr. Cornyn said that the treaty contained “unnecessarily harsh treatment of civilian-owned small arms” and violated the right to self-defense and United States sovereignty.
The United States and many European countries say they already have arms sales guidelines in effect that tie sales to the human-rights records of the buyers and other issues included in the treaty.
In a bow to American concerns, the preamble states that it is focused on international sales, not traditional domestic use, but the National Rifle Association has vowed to fight ratification anyway. The General Assembly vote came after efforts to achieve a consensus on the treaty among all 193 member states of the United Nations failed last week, with Iran, North Korea and Syria blocking it. The three, often ostracized, voted against the treaty again on Tuesday.
It is considered unlikely that the treaty will have any effect on the supply of outside weapons to the Syrian government, for example, because Iran is opposed to it and Russia is hesitant. Both are the main conduits for conventional weapons to Damascus.
Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian envoy to the United Nations, said Russian misgivings about what he called ambiguities in the treaty, including how terms like genocide would be defined, had pushed his government to abstain. But neither Russia nor China rejected it outright.
Those who pushed hard for the treaty, especially among rights groups, thought it would have an important long-term impact, however.
“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo. “By abstaining they have left their options open.”
“The Arms Trade Treaty provides a powerful alternative to the body-bag approach currently used to respond to humanitarian crises,” said Raymond Offenheiser, the president of Oxfam America. “Today nations enact arms embargoes in response to humanitarian crises only after a mass loss of life. The treaty prohibits the weapon sales in the first place.”
Numerous states including Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua said they had abstained because the human rights criteria were ill defined and could be abused to create political pressure. Many who abstained said the treaty should have banned sales to all armed groups, but supporters said the guidelines did that effectively while leaving open sales to liberation movements facing abusive governments.
It should help shut down safe havens where rogue arms dealers can sell weapons to war criminals with impunity, he said.
Supporters also said that over the long run the guidelines should work to make the criteria more standardized, rather than arbitrary, as countries agree on norms of sale in a trade estimated at $70 billion annually.
Frank Jannuzi, head of Amnesty International’s Washington office, said the final draft of the treaty was not perfect but represented what many rights groups considered an enormous advance.
The treaty covers tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons. Ammunition exports are subject to the same criteria as the other war matériel. Imports are not covered.
“To the extent that there’s any enforcement mechanism in this treaty, it’s an actual benchmark in which we can judge states’ behavior, whereas before it was extremely subjective,” he said. “Now there’s a process. So that’s a step forward. For all those unlicensed exports that end up fueling violence, this treaty begins to get a handle on that through much more rigorous licensing and reporting.”
India, a major importer, abstained because of its concerns that its existing contracts might be blocked, despite compromise language to address that.
The treaty covers trade in tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber weapons, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and launchers, small arms and light weapons. Ammunition exports are subject to the same criteria as the other war matériel. Imports are not covered.
Support was particularly strong among African countries — even if the compromise text was weaker than some had anticipated — with most governments asserting that in the long run, the treaty would curb the arms sales that have fueled many conflicts.
Asked about the potential impact of the treaty, Thomas M. Countryman, the assistant secretary of state who led the American delegation to the talks, said he did not expect an instant impact on the level of trade nor the level of violence around the world.
Even some supporters conceded that the highly complicated negotiations forced compromises that left significant loopholes. The treaty focuses on sales, for example, and not on all the ways in which conventional arms are transferred, including as gifts, loans, leases and aid.
But over a longer period of time, he said before the vote, “I think it will contribute to a reduction in violence.” More states will impose controls on their own legal exports and the treaty demands more effective action against black-market arms brokers and the diversion of weapons, he said.
“This is a very good framework to build on,” said Peter Woolcott, the Australian diplomat who presided over the negotiations. “But it is only a framework.”
Despite repeated assurances by Obama administration officials that the treaty would not affect American domestic use of firearms or the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association has criticized the treaty and vowed to fight ratification in the Senate.
Rick
Gladstone contributed from New York, and Jonathan Weisman from Washington.
Mr. Countryman played down any negative effect on the American arms industry, which accounts for about 30 percent of the $60 billion to $70 billion annual trade in conventional arms.
“This treaty will bring much of the rest of the world not up to the American standards but much closer to the American standards,” he said. “In that sense, I believe it levels the playing field and gives American manufacturers a better competitive position in the world. ”
There were also doubters. The seven years of negotiations and repeated efforts to water down the treaty raised doubts about just how sincere the implementation might be.
“It is clear that while many countries want a strong and robust treaty,” said Lyndira Oudit, a senator from Trinidad and Tobago and a member of a group of international legislators who pushed for passage, “some actually seem to want a weak one, with vague language and narrow definitions, which allow for wide interpretation and maintenance of the status quo, both of players and of process.”
Indonesia, Russia, Syria and others objected to the fact that the treaty did not ban outright arms transfers to rebel groups and other nonstate actors.
Western nations, including the largest arms exporters, opposed any specific reference to nonstate actors because they argued that there were times when national liberation movements needed protection from abusive governments. Supporters said the treaty covers nonstate actors because all conventional weapons sales will be judged under the same criteria, and refers to “unauthorized end user or end users.”
Civilian gun-rights advocates in the United States, who have consistently opposed the treaty, said the final draft had done little or nothing to assuage their concern that the Second Amendment right to bear arms had been compromised. Supporters of the treaty contended the Second Amendment concerns had been addressed because the treaty acknowledges the legality of weapons ownership for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting use.
“There is some weak language in the preamble, but that’s about it,” said Thomas L. Mason, executive secretary of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, an umbrella group of gun-rights advocates including the National Rifle Association. Mr. Mason said he believed the treaty could “further institutionalize international gun control.”
The treaty’s ratification prospects in the Senate appear bleak, at least in the short term. Senator Jerry Moran, Republican of Kansas, and 50 other senators suggested in a letter last July that they would oppose ratification, more than enough to ensure its defeat because 67 votes are necessary for approval. The opponents include two Democrats, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Max Baucus of Montana.
In a statement, Senator Moran said that Iran, Syria and North Korea had “made clear they have no intention of abiding by any such treaty.” So any international arms trade treaty “would only serve to constrain law-abiding democracies like the U.S.,” he said.
Also among the opponents is Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican. In a statement last month, Mr. Cornyn said the treaty “contains unnecessarily harsh treatment of civilian-owned small arms” and would violate the right to self-defense and United States sovereignty.
“Law-abiding Texans who are in the market for an imported shotgun, pistol, or rifle ought to be very concerned by any future development of this treaty,” he said.
Rick Gladstone contributed reporting from New York, and Jonathan Weisman from Washington.
