UN debates global Arms Trade Treaty

Abstract

On July 2, the member states of the UN convened in New York to negotiate a global treaty to regulate the trade in conventional weapons. “Our common goal is clear”, affi rmed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his opening statement, “a robust and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty”. That such a treaty does not already exist, he added, was a disgrace. “Poorly regulated international arms transfers are fuelling civil confl icts, destabilising regions, and empowering terrorists and criminal networks.” Proceedings were delayed by wrangling over the status of the Palestinian delegation, and interrupted by a US public holiday, but as The Lancet went to press, negotiations were well underway. The discussions are set to continue until July 27. As things stand, the US$60 billion a year arms industry is governed by a patchwork of national and regional rulings. The USA is by far the world’s biggest arms exporter, responsible for around 40% of global trade; other countries with sizeable industries include China, France, Germany, Russia, and the UK. According to Oxfam USA, there are only 52 countries that regulate their arms brokers, and most of these do not maintain criminal sanctions for illegal sales. The idea of an Arms Trade Treaty was fi rst mooted by a group of Nobel Peace Prize winners in the 1990s. The UK lent vocal support, and in 2006 the UN passed a resolution paving the way for a treaty. In 2009, Barack Obama’s administration off ered its backing, leaving Zimbabwe the only country to vote against the General Assembly Resolution that scheduled this year’s conference. The draft treaty requires govern ments to scrutinise sales of conventional weapons—tanks, for example, military vehicles, missiles, or fi rearms—on a case-by-case basis. If there is a “substantial risk” that the weapons might be used to violate human rights or humanitarian law, end up in the hands of terrorists or organised criminals, impair poverty-reduction and sustainable development, or foment local or regional instability, then the sale cannot go ahead. The treaty also covers ammunition, a likely sticking point in the negotiations—the USA would prefer for ammunition to be excluded. The treaty explicitly supports the right of countries to acquire weapons for self-defence.