Arms Trade Treaty

If one is to believe the media the weapons that need the most attention are nuclear weapons and also biological and chemical weapons. The media focuses on the above mentioned weapons as if nuclear explosions and attacks with biological weapons were daily occurrences. Long, hard and majestically upwards pointing missiles are, for obvious reasons, appealing to the media. However, the true weapon of mass destruction is the AK-47 assault rifle rather than a nuclear missile.

As has been pointed out, the number of conventional weapons is increasing. But this fact does not get as much attention as the weapons of mass destruction mentioned above even though many of these conventional weapons are ending up in the wrong hands.

Several NGOs have done valuable work to highlight the problems prevalent in the arms trade. Many of these organisations have formed into the ATT Steering Committee which is overseeing the strategic planning of the Arms Trade Treaty initiative. A number of Nobel Peace Laureates are also supportive of the ATT initiative.

NGOs are concerned of the current state of arms trade because when weapons fall into the hands of those who should not have them in the first place – such as “terrorists, insurgents and human rights abusers” – bad things are bound to follow. Weapons in wrong hands a) undermine stability, b) harm development, and c) facilitate violations of human rights. These are the main reasons why NGOs have been trying to get states to agree on an Arms Trade Treaty.

Eye opening events were the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the revelations of Western states and companies selling weapons to Iraq. These prompted the permanent members of the UN Security Council “to exercise restraint in exports of conventional arms transfers. Suppliers were required to ensure that exports met only the ‘legitimate self-defence’ needs of the recipient and did not contribute to conflict or regional instability or introduce ‘destabilizing military capabilities’ in a region. However, there is no international agreement on what constitutes “legitimate self-defence” or “destabilizing military capabilities”. So this leaves a lot of room for creative minds to export arms where ever they want regardless of the consequences.

Still, while putting stronger controls on the arms trade, the treaty “will make it more straightforward, transparent and objective to trade arms.” The Treaty would not be a disarmament treaty nor would it “affect any state’s sovereign right to self-defence.”

Regional organisations such as the European Union and OSCE, and export control regimes such as the Wassenaar Arrangement, attempt to control arms exports so that weapons would not be used in any illegal activities.

These efforts by various organisations sound very promising but there are problems: “members of the Wassenaar Arrangement have demonstrated contrasting attitudes toward exports of arms and military equipment to a range of destinations.” Also in the European Union there are different views: “…[even though] states have agreed that their export license decision making should be guided by eight criteria relating to issues such as conflict prevention, human rights, and economic development, there appear to have been differences of opinion among members regarding exports to Georgia.” These examples demonstrate how difficult it is to find common criteria that every state would adhere to regarding the arms trade.

To be effective the treaty “must include all types of conventional military equipment, components, small arms and light weapons, explosives, and ammunition that are currently used for serious violations and abuses.” Reaching an agreement that would actually fulfil this goal will be challenging. As with most treaties the ATT also generates differing opinions between governments. In this case there are two groups. According to the first group the July 2010 PrepCom should not deal with difficult issues as these might alienate major arms exporters. The second group of governments argues that the goal should be a treaty that makes a difference, “a treaty that actually saves lives.” However, as we can see from the example of the regional arms trade treaties, it will be a difficult road to reach a strong treaty that will actually make a difference.

Humans have a knack for devising different ways to mutilate and kill one another. Every day people are killed with different weapons. Partly this is made possible by easy access to weapons and ammunition. Many NGOs and some governments are working hard to make it difficult for weapons to end up in the hands of people who will use them to cause harm to fellow humans. However, the goal of the ATT is not to make it harder for states to defend themselves or make it difficult for weapons manufacturers to make their products. If, in the end, governments manage to come up with a strong treaty it would at least make it harder for terrorists and human rights abusers to get their hands on weapons.


Sources

Arms Trade Treaty

L'Atlas du Monde diplomatique (Finnish translation)

Control Arms Campaign

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Arms Trade Treaty

Holtom, Paul, 'The International Arms Trade: Difficult to Define, Measure and Control' in Arms Control Today, Vol. 40, No. 6, July/August 2010.

Mack, Daniel, 'The Arms Trade Treaty PrepCom: Prepared and Committed?' in Arms Control Today, Vol. 40, No. 6, July/August 2010.

Cyberwarfare

There has been writing on cyberwarfare in different publication recently. Article in Arms Control Today (Vol. 40, No. 5, June 2010, Multilateral Agreements To Constrain Cyberconflict by James A. Lewis) discusses the possibilities and problems of multilateral agreements to constrain cyberconflict. The writer distinguishes three problems for multilateral agreement

- Because information is vital in warfare it would be difficult to declare digital infrastructures off-limits.
- As is usual for arms control agreements, verification will be a difficult issue.
- Countries do not want to discuss their possible cyberwarfare capabilities.
It is difficult to prove the source of the attack.

As Lewis argues “the precedent is not perfect” but nevertheless “non-proliferation offers a useful framework for developing the elements of a cooperative approach to cyberwarfare”. Further cooperation would be useful since “the goal in developing international norms for cyberconflict would be to stigmatize certain actions in cyberspace and to reduce uncertainty by creating a normative framework for cyberconflict”.

Article in the Economist (July 3rd, 2010, Leaders) has the same approach: nuclear and conventional weapons are controlled so why not cyberwar. However, the U.S. has resisted weapons treaties for cyberspace:

1. There is a risk of rigid global regulation of the internet.
2. American internet companies might suffer.
3. Treaties might stifle innovation.
4. The openness of the internet might be restricted

Interestingly, Russia has called for a treaty as a “starting point for international debate”.

In July (Washington Post, July 17, 2010, 15 nations agree to start working together to reduce cyberwarfare threat by Ellen Nakashima) a step was taken that is close to the Russian suggestion when an accord was reached in the UN. As Robert K. Knake argues the agreement is a “significant change in U.S posture”. But, as the article states, the agreement is only recommendations and omitted controversial issues.

Hopefully there is now enough momentum for a treaty one day. Well, better an optimist than a pessimist.