Arms Trade Treaty's fine intentions may founder on the realities of global conflict

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/24/arms-trade-treaty-un-australia

Version 0 of 1.

The last act of Australia’s eventful term on the United Nations security council will be one of its longest-running endeavours, and, in the long term, perhaps one of its most profound.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which comes into force on Wednesday, will not disarm the world.

There are too many weapons already across the globe, and too many legitimate uses that governments – and others – can claim for them.

No weapons will be collected and destroyed by this treaty, nor will the use of any specific weapon be outlawed. There will be no tariffs or limits placed on arms transfers.

But the treaty will, its proponents hope, stem the flow of weapons into conflicts where they could be used to commit atrocities or attack civilians.

Associate Professor Philip Alpers from the University of Sydney explains the ATT will “oblige sellers, oblige governments, to think before they sell or ship weapons, to consider ‘what will these weapons be used for?’”.

The treaty says that a state shall not transfer arms if it knows those weapons will be used to commit “genocide, crimes against humanity ... attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians ... or other war crimes”.

Essentially, Alpers says, the treaty puts responsibility on the sellers of arms for their end use.

“Legislation is rarely a panacea, this treaty will not immediately bring world peace. But as long as it is enforced, the ATT has a good chance of affecting the worst trouble spots in the world – Africa, Latin America, South Asia – quite quickly.”

But, as with all international treaties, the proof of the ATT will be in its enforcement, in countries willing to abide by it, and hold other countries to account for breaches.

Australia was one of seven co-authors of the treaty, and the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, made arms control the centrepiece of her presidency of the UN security council, saying it had taken too long to staunch the unrestricted flow of weapons across the world.

“The Arms Trade Treaty,” Bishop told the UN, “will help stop destabilising arms flows to conflict regions and to illicit users. It will prevent human rights abusers and those who violate the laws of war from being supplied with arms.”

Australia’s two-year term on the security council ends on 31 December.

Following on from the success of the Ottawa landmine convention signed in 1997, the ATT has been more than a decade in creation.

The treaty covers heavy weapons – such as battle tanks, combat aircraft, warships, attack helicopters and missiles – but also the trade in small arms and light weapons.

There are an estimated 875m light weapons across the world. They cause half a million deaths a year and, by some estimates, 90% of civilian casualties in war.

The treaty has widespread support. Only three countries – North Korea, Syria and Iran – voted against it at the UN. At the latest count 128 countries had signed it, and 60 had ratified.

But there are limits. Critics argue the treaty’s language and obligations have been watered down to attract broad support (especially around reporting requirements), and ammunition is excluded.

And the three largest arms dealers in the world – Russia, China and the US – are not parties to the treaty.

While the US has signed the ATT, the Senate has vowed to reject the treaty’s ratification.

Simply signing the treaty does not bind the US to the ATT. But, as Oxfam Australia’s humanitarian advocacy coordinator Ben Murphy explains, it does oblige the world’s largest exporter, representing 29% of global sales, not to act counter to the treaty’s object and purpose.

“Even if the United States does not ratify the ATT in the immediate future, the treaty creates a new international norm for arms exports that will shape the way all states view arms exports.

“Growing support for an ATT as a global standard would make it increasingly difficult for states who have not ratified the treaty to operate outside the ATT framework.”

In Syria, a civil war is being fuelled by the transfer – from outside the country – of Kalashnikovs, bombs and missiles to belligerents, despite known and systemic violations of humanitarian law on both sides.

Murphy argues future conflicts like Syria’s could be starved of weapons by the ATT.

A senior lecturer in strategic studies at Deakin University, Stephanie Koorey, tells Guardian Australia the ATT builds on the humanitarian mine ban and cluster munitions treaties, though it is concerned with managing weapons transfers, rather than banning specific weapons or disarmament.

“I’d be very cautious of saying a future conflict could be abated by the ATT. But it is a strong message from the international community to the international community, saying to countries transferring weaponry, ‘pause, reflect, and consider: is this appropriate?’.”

Weapons are inherently strategic goods, Koorey says, and many countries already carefully assess the ramifications of any arms transfer.

But the ATT will require sellers to consider not only the economic and political implications of the weaponry they transfer, but the human rights ramifications.

“It’s a wholesome treaty ... a feelgood treaty, but whether it will make an immediate difference, I seriously doubt it. But it does establish an ethical decision-making framework to the arms trade.”