2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

Arms treaty conference fails to set reporting rules in Mexico BY ISELA SERRANO

Fri Aug 28, 2015

Countries backing a major accord to regulate the international arms industry on Thursday failed to agree on a definitive format for reporting arms sales, kicking the issue down the road and disappointing advocates of arms control. Officials from 121 governments have been meeting in the Mexican resort of Cancun to agree details of how the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will oversee the multi-billion dollar industry. But on the final day of the first conference, officials resolved only to work together over coming months on crafting a lasting template for reporting sales. For the ATT to be effective, say arms control groups, there must be full disclosure of weapons sales, but the issue is contentious and officials had already suggested that reaching agreement might prove impossible at the inaugural conference. "The aim is to achieve a reporting system which is the same for everyone," said Jorge Lomonaco, Mexico's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, who oversaw the conference. "It still needs to be refined and work will continue on it." Time would tell whether an effective format for reporting arms sales would emerge, but for now it was a setback, said Anna Macdonald, director of lobby group Control Arms. "Some governments may now choose to not make these reports public, which makes it a bit pointless," she said. The template process will be subject to review but there is no guarantee it will ultimately prove binding, she added. Macdonald said resistance to full disclosure appeared to have been led by some European arms exporters, which was ironic as European Union rules already imposed significant transparency requirements on them. Still, other agreements were reached during the four-day meeting, and on Wednesday the countries resolved that future decisions within the ATT would be made by majority vote, avoiding the risk of potential vetoes by individual nations. About 130 countries have signed the ATT, including the United States, but it is not among the 72 to have ratified the treaty.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

Conferencia del Tratado de Armas en México no logra establecer normas de transparencia sobre ventas Por Isela Serrano

viernes 28 de agosto

CANCÚN (Reuters) - Los países que respaldan un importante acuerdo para regular a la industria internacional de armas no lograron el jueves un acuerdo sobre el formato definitivo para la presentación de informes de ventas de armamento, postergando el tema y decepcionando a los partidarios del control de su comercio. Funcionarios de 121 Gobiernos se reunieron en el balneario mexicano de Cancún para acordar los detalles de cómo el Tratado de Comercio de Armas (TCA) supervisará a la industria de miles de millones de dólares. Pero en la última jornada de la primera conferencia, las autoridades sólo resolvieron trabajar juntos en los próximos meses para elaborar una plantilla de los informes. Los grupos a favor del control de armas dicen que para que el TCA sea eficaz debe haber un detalle completo de la venta de armamento, pero el tema es polémico y funcionarios ya habían sugerido que llegar a un acuerdo podría resultar imposible en la conferencia inaugural. "El objetivo es lograr un sistema de reporte que sea el mismo para todos", dijo Jorge Lomónaco, embajador de México ante Naciones Unidas en Ginebra, que supervisó la conferencia. "Falta refinarlo y se continuará trabajando en él", agregó. El tiempo dirá si surge un formato eficaz para el reporte de ventas de armas, pero por ahora fue un paso atrás, dijo Anna Macdonald, directora del grupo Armas Bajo Control. "Algunos Gobiernos ahora pueden optar por no hacer públicos estos informes, lo que hace que sea un poco sin sentido", dijo. Macdonald afirmó que las reticencias parecían haber sido impulsadas por algunos exportadores de armas europeos, lo que es irónico, ya que en la Unión Europea actualmente se imponen requisitos de transparencia sobre las ventas. Sin embargo, se alcanzaron otros acuerdos durante la reunión de cuatro días, y el miércoles los países resolvieron que las decisiones futuras en el TCA se harán por mayoría de votos, evitando el riesgo de posibles vetos de naciones individuales. Alrededor de 130 países han firmado el TCA, incluido Estados Unidos, pero es una de las 58 naciones que no han ratificado el tratado.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

Governments Punt on Transparency at Arms Trade Conference Rachel Stohl At its core, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – the first international legally-binding treaty to regulate the international transfer of conventional arms – is about transparency of what has traditionally been an opaque and secretive trade. The first ATT Conference of States Parties (CSP) held in Cancun, Mexico from August 24-27, however, neglected to adopt any rules governing the reporting requirements of the ATT. Transparency is essential for the long-term success of the ATT and improving oversight and accountability over the global arms trade. Transparency over State’s implementation of the ATT allows good practices to be easily identified, needs and resources to be efficiently matched and long-term monitoring of the ATT’s effectiveness to be easily undertaken. Transparency also creates an environment of accountability for arms transfer decisions, is a disincentive for irresponsible and illicit arms deals and creates a more comprehensive global understanding of the international arms trade. The treaty requires States to prepare and make available two reports. The first is an initial, one-off report on measures undertaken to implement the treaty, including national laws, regulations and administrative measures. The second is an annual report on authorized or actual exports and imports of conventional arms. States parties are also encouraged to share information on good practices in combating on a voluntary basis. The structure and content of these reports has not been determined. Although the preparatory process for the CSP established a working group on reporting, reporting template drafts for the initial and annual reports were presented on the basis of, ironically, mostly anonymous and confidential inputs to the facilitator from predominantly OECD States. Final versions of the templates were fraught with problems and could not be agreed. And, a proposed draft template on measures to prevent the diversion of weapons, as introduced by Argentina during the preparatory meeting in Geneva, was welcomed but not discussed and also failed to be adopted. The CSP failed not only to adopt reporting templates to complete the two required treaty reports, but also failed to take a position on whether those reports will be made public. Differing interpretations of the treaty text have left the question of public reporting ambiguous, which could actually lead to a step backwards from the levels of transparency that already exist in non-governmental and UN-based reporting on arms transfers.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

For example, the ATT-Baseline Assessment Project (ATT-BAP) allows States to assess their progress in fulfilling treaty obligations and support States working towards effective implementation. Fifty States Parties have already completed the ATT-BAP survey, which provides an article-by-article list of State obligations under the ATT, and individual country profiles and an implementation database are available publicly online. Similarly, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms has for more than twenty years provided an open and transparent listing of arms exports and imports for seven categories of conventional weapons. State submissions are available on an open website. Whatever templates are eventually adopted must not restrict or roll-back existing transparency of the ATT or over the global arms trade. The CSP also deferred any decisions on reporting, deciding only to “take note” of the reporting templates and to establish an informal working group on reporting. Yet, time is running short to adopt templates to facilitate standardized and comprehensive reporting. States Parties to the treaty are required to complete their initial report on implementation within one year of the treaty’s entry into force for them, which for 61 of the current 72 States Parties will be December 2015. All States Parties must submit their first annual reports on arms transfers/authorizations by May 31, 2016. Transparency remains a cornerstone of the CSP and is essential to guaranteeing the credibility of the ATT. The lack or future absence of appropriate reporting templates puts the very spirit of transparency at risk. Future CSPs must take significant steps to ensure public and comprehensive reporting in order to ensure that the ATT lives up to its intended potential.

Opinion: A Farewell to Arms that Fuel Atrocities is Within Our Grasp By Marek Marczynski The recent explosions that apparently destroyed a 2,000-year-old temple in the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria were yet another grim example of how the armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS) uses conventional weapons to further its agenda. But what has fuelled the growing IS firepower? The answer lies in recent history – arms flows to the Middle East dating back as far as the 1970s have played a role. After taking control of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in June 2014, IS fighters paraded a windfall of mainly U.S.-manufactured weapons and military vehicles which had been sold or given to the Iraqi armed forces.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

At the end of last year, Conflict Armament Research published an analysis of ammunition used by IS in northern Iraq and Syria. The 1,730 cartridges surveyed had been manufactured in 21 different countries, with more than 80 percent from China, the former Soviet Union, the United States, Russia and Serbia. More recent research commissioned by Amnesty International also found that while IS has some ammunition produced as recently as 2014, a large percentage of the arms they are using are Soviet/Warsaw Pact-era small arms and light weapons, armoured vehicles and artillery dating back to the 1970s and 80s. Scenarios like these give military strategists and foreign policy buffs sleepless nights. But for many civilians in war-ravaged Iraq and Syria, they are part of a real-life nightmare. These arms, now captured by or illicitly traded to IS and other armed groups, have facilitated summary killings, enforced disappearances, rape and torture, and other serious human rights abuses amid a conflict that has forced millions to become internally displaced or to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. It is a damning indictment of the poorly regulated global arms trade that weapons and munitions licensed by governments for export can so easily fall into the hands of human rights abusers. What is even worse is that this is a case of history repeating itself. But world leaders have yet to learn their lesson. For many, the 1991 Gulf War in Iraq drove home the dangers of an international arms trade lacking in adequate checks and balances. When the dust settled after the conflict that ensued when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s powerful armed forces invaded neighbouring Kuwait, it was revealed that his country was awash with arms supplied by all five Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council. Perversely, several of them had also armed Iran in the previous decade, fuelling an eightyear war with Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Now, the same states are once more pouring weapons into the region, often with wholly inadequate protections against diversion and illicit traffic. This week, those states are among more than 100 countries represented in Cancún, Mexico, for the first Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which entered into force last December. This Aug. 24-27 meeting is crucial because it is due to lay down firm rules and procedures for the treaty’s implementation. The participation of civil society in this and future ATT conferences is important to prevent potentially life-threatening decisions to take place out of the public sight. Transparency of the

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

ATT reporting process, among other measures, will need to be front and centre, as it will certainly mean the difference between having meaningful checks and balances that can end up saving lives or a weakened treaty that gathers dust as states carry on business as usual in the massive conventional arms trade. A trade shrouded in secrecy and worth tens of billions of dollars, it claims upwards of half a million lives and countless injuries every year, while putting millions more at risk of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious human rights violations. The ATT includes a number of robust rules to stop the flow of arms to countries when it is known they would be used for further atrocities. The treaty has swiftly won widespread support from the international community, including five of the top 10 arms exporters – France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The United States, by far the largest arms producer and exporter, is among 58 additional countries that have signed but not yet ratified the treaty. However, other major arms producers like China, Canada and Russia have so far resisted signing or ratifying. One of the ATT’s objectives is “to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion”, so governments have a responsibility to take measures to prevent situations where their arms deals lead to human rights abuses. Having rigorous controls in place will help ensure that states can no longer simply open the floodgates of arms into a country in conflict or whose government routinely uses arms to repress peoples’ human rights. The more states get on board the treaty, and the more robust and transparent the checks and balances are, the more it will bring about change in the murky waters of the international arms trade. It will force governments to be more discerning about who they do business with. The international community has so far failed the people of Syria and Iraq, but the ATT provides governments with a historic opportunity to take a critical step towards protecting civilians from such horrors in the future. They should grab this opportunity with both hands.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

Estos países latinoamericanos no apoyan el control de armas Entre el 2006 y el 2014, la policía de México reportó como robadas o perdidas unas 17 mil armas de fuego, según datos oficiales. Expertos aseguran que esas piezas sirven para alimentar el mercado negro de armamento. La cifra ilustra la magnitud del desafío que implica el control de armas en América Latina, señalada por informes de Naciones Unidas como una de las regiones más violentas del mundo. Es uno de los problemas que aspiran a resolver los países y las organizaciones no gubernamentales que impulsaron el Tratado de Comercio de Armas (TCA), aprobado por la ONU en abril del 2013. Esta semana se realizó en Cancún, México, la primera conferencia de los estados parte de este acuerdo, en la que participaron delegaciones de un centenar de países, incluyendo los 15 estados latinoamericanos firmantes. Solo cinco países de América Latina no forman parte del TCA: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador y Bolivia optaron por quedar fuera del mismo y se abstuvieron de aprobarlo en la Asamblea General de la ONU, al igual que otros 18 estados, entre los cuales estaban China y Rusia. BBC Mundo indaga en las razones de la reticencia de estos cinco países latinoamericanos a sumarse a este acuerdo. Hito histórico La aprobación del TCA en abril del 2013 fue celebrada por la comunidad internacional como un logro importante de la diplomacia. El acuerdo regula la importación y exportación de armamento convencional, lo que incluye desde aviones y helicópteros de combate, hasta lanzamisiles y armas pequeñas y ligeras. "Es el primer tratado que establece una relación entre las reglas de comercio y la normativa internacional de derechos humanos, por lo que supone un hito histórico", afirma Alberto Estévez, quien lideró el equipo de Amnistía Internacional encargado de hacer cabildeo ante los gobiernos durante la negociación del acuerdo.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

"Su premisa básica es que no se deben autorizar armas para cometer atrocidades, que los gobiernos no deben permitir la venta dearmas cuando existe un riesgo sustancial de que puedan ser usadas para torturar, ejecutar o contribuir a la violencia armada", explica. María Fernanda Arocha, investigadora del Centro de recursos para el análisis de los conflictos (Cerac), de Colombia, destaca la importancia de la regulación del comercio legal de armamento. "La mayor parte de las armas tiene un origen legal, pero luego se desvían al mercado ilegal", apunta. La especialista subraya la relevancia del TCA para América Latina. "Es una región propensa a la violencia armada y el TCA busca evitar el uso de armas por parte de grupos ilegales o bandas delincuenciales. Es decir, que las armas no se desvíen de su uso legítimo". Argumentos para la abstención Durante el debate final para la aprobación del TCA en la ONU, los cinco países latinoamericanos que se abstuvieron expresaron su inconformidad con el texto en términos coincidentes. Cuba señaló que el acuerdo contenía múltiples ambigüedades y vacíos legales al no mencionar a los actores no estatales, como los grupos subversivos, y que contravenía el principio de no intervención en los asuntos de otros estados. Esa omisión fue calificada como "peligrosa" por Nicaragua, que afirmó que en la década de 1980 su país fue víctima de la acción de actores no armados estatales (los llamados Contra), que costó decenas de miles de vidas. Venezuela argumentó que el texto era susceptible a manipulaciones políticas. Además, cuestionó que no abordaba el tema de la sobreproducción de armas por parte de los principales exportadores y no mencionara el delito de agresión. Bolivia criticó que el texto no reflejara la necesidad de impedir las ventas de armas a los países implicados en la invasión o en la ocupación de otros estados. Apuntó que carecía de un equilibrio entre los países exportadores e importadores, lo que afectaría las necesidades de defensa de estos últimos. Ambas preocupaciones fueron expresadas también por Ecuador, que destacó que el texto favorecía los intereses de los exportadores y podía poner en peligro la seguridad de los países importadores dearmas. Razones ideológicas

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

Alberto Estévez, de Amnistía Internacional, señala que esos argumentos también los expresaban países como Pakistán, Egipto o Argelia, pero no se correspondían con lo que estaba en discusión. "La seguridad nacional, el derecho a importar armas o la diferencia entre exportadores e importadores no se abordaban directamente en el tratado. Nadie cuestionaba el derecho a importar armas ni el negocio de la compra y venta de armas, que es una actividad lícita", apunta. Irma Pérez Gil, una de las responsables de AI para el diálogo con los países latinoamericanos durante la negociación, afirma que esos países decían que no querían estar sometidos a las decisiones subjetivas y arbitrarias de los exportadores. "Estaban temerosos de no poder importar armas para sus policías y ejércitos, pero eso no va a suceder porque el TCA establece que el comercio legítimo de armas para la seguridad de los estados es viable y necesario", apunta. Destaca que lo que se regula es la venta de armas a Estados que cometen graves violaciones a los derechos humanos y que además se busca evitar que haya desvíos y las armas queden en manos del crimen organizado. "Por esa razón, el resto de países de América Latina y el Caribe están totalmente a favor del tratado", señala. Estévez lamenta la falta de flexibilidad de esos cinco países. "Parecía una posición más ideológica que una postura basada en razonamientos con datos y abierta a modificarse, como ocurrió con otros países con los cuales se acercaron posturas a través de un diálogo franco", afirma. Iniciativa latinoamericana El Tratado de Comercio de Armas tiene su origen en una iniciativa del ex presidente de Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, quien luego obtuvo el apoyo de otros ganadores del premio Nobel de la Paz, incluyendo a los latinoamericanos Rigoberta Menchú y Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. Durante las negociaciones, el TCA contó con un fuerte respaldo de varios países latinoamericanos como México, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia y El Salvador. Un texto que gana apoyos El Tratado de Comercio de Armas fue aprobado el 3 de abril del 2013 con 154 votos a favor, 23 abstenciones y los votos en contra de Corea del Norte, Siria e Irán. Desde entonces ha sido ratificado por 72 países, incluyendo 8 procedentes de América Latina, región dónde se espera que en un plazo breve logre otras tres confirmaciones: de Colombia, Chile y Guatemala.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

De acuerdo con datos de la Secretaría Temporal del TCA, hay otros 59 países que han firmado el texto pero aún no lo han ratificado, incluyendo a países como Estados Unidos e Israel. De las cinco potencias permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, que además forman parte del grupo de principales exportadores de armamento del mundo, solo Rusia y China no han firmado el acuerdo. Beijing anunció en la ONU su intención de evaluar seriamente la posibilidad de incorporarse al tratado, según reveló la ONG Oxfam el año pasado, y esta semana ha participado activamente en la cumbre de Cancún. En ese encuentro se definía la letra pequeña del TCA, pues los estados parte acordaban las reglas de funcionamiento del mismo. De esas definiciones puede depender el que más estados decidan sumarse al Tratado pues, según Alberto Estévez de AI, muchos países están esperando a ver cómo funciona para dar un paso al frente. Queda por ver si alguna de esas nuevas incorporaciones provendrá de América Latina.

Despite Treaty, Conventional Arms Fuel Ongoing Conflicts By Thalif Deen

1/9/2015

Despite last year’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the proliferation of conventional weapons, both legally and illegally, continues to help fuel military conflicts in several countries in the Middle East and Africa, including Syria, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. Described as the first international, legally binding agreement to regulate the trade in conventional arms, the ATT was also aimed at preventing the illicit trade in weapons. But the first Conference of States Parties (CSP1) to the ATT, held in Cancun, Mexico last week, was the first meeting to assess the political credibility of the treaty, which came into force in December 2014. Ray Acheson, Director, Reaching Critical Will, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), told IPS the failure of CSP1 to adopt robust, comprehensive reporting templates that meet the needs of effective Treaty implementation is disappointing and must be corrected at CSP2, which is to be held in Geneva in 2016.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

She said the working group process leading up to CSP2 must be more transparent and inclusive with regards to civil society participation than the process that lead to the provisional reporting templates. “CSP1 is over, but implementation of the Treaty is just beginning,” she said. “Arms transfers are still continuing – transfers that states know will contribute to death, injury, rape, displacement, and other forms of violence against human beings and our shared environment,” said Acheson who participated in the Cancun meeting. Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, who also attended the Cancun conference, told IPS that CSP1 was intended to provide the administrative backbone for the implementation of the ATT. States Parties (the countries that have completed the ratification or accession process) largely succeeded in this effort, she said. Goldring said CSP1 accomplished a great deal, but the real tests still lie ahead. The Conference agreed on the basic structures for the new Secretariat to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, but that’s simply a first step. She said full implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty requires action at the national, regional, and global levels. One indication of countries’ commitment to the ATT will be the extent to which the countries with substantive and budgetary resources help the countries that lack those capacities, said Goldring, who also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues. Some of the world’s key arms suppliers are either non-signatories, or have signed but not ratified the treaty. The ATT has been signed by 130 states and ratified by 72. The United States, Ukraine and Israel have signed but not ratified while China and Russia abstained on the General Assembly vote on the treaty – and neither has signed it. The major arms suppliers to sign and ratify the treaty include France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain. The ATT Monitor, published by WILPF, quotes a U.N. report, which says South Sudan spent almost 30 million dollars last year on machine guns, grenade launchers, and other weapons from China, along with Russian armoured vehicles and Israeli rifles and attack helicopters.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

The conflict in South Sudan has been triggered by a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar: a conflict “which has been fueled with arms from many exporters,” according to the Monitor. China told the Cancun meeting it would never export weapons that do not relate to its three self-declared principles: that arms transfers must relate to self-defence; must not undermine security; and must not interfere with internal affairs of recipients. Acheson said the ATT can and must be used as a tool to illuminate, stigmatise, and hopefully prevent arms transfers that are responsible for death and destruction. By the end of the Conference, she said, States Parties had taken decisions on all of the issues before it, including the location and head of the secretariat; management committee and budget issues; reporting templates; a programme of work for the inter-sessional period; and the bureau for CSP2. The CSP1 voted for Geneva as home of the treaty’s permanent Secretariat – against two competing cities, namely Vienna, Austria; and Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago – while Dumisani Dladla was selected to head the Secretariat. Acheson said while most of these items are infrastructural and procedural, they do have implications for how effectively the Treaty might be implemented moving forward. On the question of transparency, unfortunately, states parties failed to meet real life needs, she added. States parties also did not adopt the reporting templates that have been under development for the past year. But this is a relief, she added. States that want to improve transparency around the international arms trade, and most civil society groups, are very concerned that the provisional templates are woefully inadequate and too closely tied to the voluntary and incomprehensive reporting practices of the U.N. Register on Conventional Arms. “As we conduct inter-sessional work and turn our focus to implementation, we must all act upon the ATT not as a stand-alone instrument but as a piece of a much bigger whole,” she noted. ATT implementation must be firmly situated in wider considerations of conflict prevention, resolution, and peacebuilding. Acheson also said the ATT could be useful for confronting and minimising the challenges associated with transparency and accountability.

 

2015  CSP  Press  Clippings  

“It could help prevent atrocities, protect human rights and dignity, reduce suffering, and save lives. But to do so effectively, states parties need to implement it with these goals in mind.” Commenting on the prepared statements at the high level segment of the conference, Goldring told IPS the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies could save a great deal of time if countries submitted their opening statements electronically in advance of the relevant meetings instead of presenting them orally in plenary sessions. States Parties were not successful in developing agreed procedures for countries to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of the ATT. The group was only able to agree on provisional reporting templates, deferring formal adoption to the second Conference of States parties. This is an extremely important omission. Goldring said countries reporting on the weapons that were imported or exported or transited their territory is a critical transparency task. She said reporting needs to be comprehensive and public, and the data need to be comparable from country to country and over time. “The current templates do not meet these tests,” she said pointing out that another important task will be trying to convince leading suppliers and recipients to join the treaty. In a pleasant contrast to many U.N. meetings, NGOs were included in both the formal plenary and informal working group sessions. The Rules of Procedure focus on consensus, but provide sensible options if it’s impossible to achieve consensus. This is a welcome development, as it will make it much more difficult for a small number of countries to block progress, she said. “But in the end, the most important measure of success will be whether the ATT helps reduce the human cost of armed violence. It’s simply too early to tell whether this will be the case,” Goldring declared.