Canadian members of Control Arms and the Arms Trade Treaty

Kenneth Epps Conventional Weapons

Authors
Mark Fried, Hilary Homes, Lina Holguin and Kenneth Epps

Speaking notes for presentation to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, June 11, 2012 by Mark Fried, OXFAM Canada, Hilary Homes, Amnesty International Canada, Lina Holguin, OXFAM Quebec and Kenneth Epps, Project Ploughshares.

[MARK FRIED, OXFAM CANADA] On behalf of the Canadian members of the Control Arms coalition, first let me thank you for taking up this important issue and for inviting us to appear as witnesses here today. My name is Mark Fried and I represent  Oxfam Canada. The other coalition members here with me are Hilary Homes of Amnesty International, Lina Holguin of Oxfam Quebec and Ken Epps of Project Ploughshares.

Oxfam works in 95 countries around the world. Over the decades we have seen a marked increase in the number and severity of conflicts and incidents of criminal violence, including terrorism. Disputes that once may have been resolved with fists or sticks are now fought with automatic rifles, grenades and bazookas, feeding a death toll that now stands at over 2,000 people every day.

I find it outrageous that countries continue selling weapons and ammunition to known human rights abusers, sometimes in violation of U.N. arms embargoes, or to countries where corruption and incompetence allow weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

Part of the problem is the utter lack of global rules on the arms trade. Sadly, many countries do not maintain rigorous controls on their arms exports to ensure they do not get diverted into the wrong hands. Now we have the opportunity to bring the world up to high standards. And we can do so in a way that protects the rights of lawful gun-owners.

The Arms Trade Treaty is a unique opportunity to curb this tragedy. It took over a decade of lobbying by Nobel Peace Laureates and by our organizations, before the United Nations began a negotiation process in 2009. It will culminate in a marathon four-week session this July.

Canada has been a quiet but steady supporter of a robust Arms Trade Treaty. But some countries will try to water it down or tie it up in endless debate. We need Canada to be a vocal champion. My colleagues will explain the details.

[HILARY HOMES, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA] Why do we need an Arms Trade Treaty?

What exists now in terms of regulating conventional arms is a patchwork of national, regional and international rules and principles involving few common standards or obligations. There are significant gaps through which too many weapons end up in the wrong hands.

States are playing by different rules. Some states like Canada have comparatively tight export controls, others practically none.  Some states abide by arms embargoes while others seek to get around them for political reasons or simply greed. Some states blatantly back one side in a conflict and sell arms accordingly regardless of how they will be used.

An Arms Trade Treaty should embrace one simple idea: if there is a substantial risk that arms exported to another country will contribute to serious human rights abuses, those arms transfers must be stopped. We need only look to Syria for evidence of how badly the current system can fail.

Despite an ongoing and serious human rights crisis in Syria over the past year – thousands killed, arrested, tortured and many more fleeing for safety over the borders – the UN Security Council has been unable to agree to impose an arms embargo.  Some governments, including Canada, took independent measures to impose sanctions and prohibit arms transfers. Canada’s response was in fact very robust including seven different rounds of sanctions.

For others – notably Russia (one of the Permanent 5 Security Council members) – it remained business as usual. The prevailing attitude can be found in the words of the General Director of the Russian state-owned arms manufacturer Rosoboronexport:  “As long as no sanctions have been declared yet and as long as there have been no instructions and directives from the government, we are obliged to comply with our contractual obligations, which we are doing now”.

However, Russia has played a central role in preventing a wide range of sanctions and exercised two vetoes to block UN Security Council resolutions. Russia also voted against a recent Human Rights Council resolution condemning the killing of some 108 people, including 50 children, in Houla. Despite being Syria’s main weapons supplier, Russian President Putin said on June 1, 2012, that “Russia does not provide weapons that could be used in a civil conflict.” No information was offered to substantiate that claim.

There are other clear cases where populations suffer from irresponsible arms transfers – including notably Sudan — and I would welcome further discussion of these following this presentation.
[LINA HOLGUIN, OXFAM QUEBEC] La Conférence diplomatique de négociation du Traité sur le commerce des armes (TCA) de juillet 2012 représente une occasion historique de  réduire considérablement les coûts humains associés aux transferts d’armes irresponsables.

Pour  être efficace, un traité sur le commerce des armes doit couvrir l’importation, l’exportation et le transit de tous les types d’armes armes conventionnelles, de leurs munitions et des équipements associés. Ce traité doit être juridiquement contraignant et il doit mettre fin aux transferts d’armes qui pourraient servir à violer les droits humains et le droit international humanitaire.  Nous nous réjouissons du fait que le Canada est en faveur de ces critères.

Par contre, le TCA doit aussi interdire  aux État de transférer des armes lors qu’il existe un risque substantiel de nuire  au développement socioéconomique.  Malheureusement, le Canada n’est plus un supporteur de l’inclusion du critère socioéconomique dans les paramètres du traité.

De nombreuses organisations de la société civile (y compris Oxfam) et des Etats (y compris le Royaume-Uni) croient que ce critère doit absolument faire  partie du traité, car la violence armée constitue un obstacle direct au développement. Par exemple, chaque année, les conflits coûtent aux pays africains 18 milliards de dollars.  

Nous croyons qu’un traité sur le commerce des armes contribuera à créer les conditions nécessaires pour que le développement économique et social devienne une réalité, tout en contrôlant le flux des armes qui a précisément empêché ce développement dans le passé.

Notre position est claire : un traité faible serait pire qu’aucun traité du tout. En effet, il légitimerait simplement le système existant, qui est déficient.
[KENNETH EPPS, PROJECT PLOUGHSHARES] We know that treaty negotiations next month will be challenging. All key elements of the treaty are contested, even its scope. For example, from their recent experience, many states in Latin America and Africa insist that small arms and light weapons must be in the treaty.  Yet some states, including China, want small arms omitted from the scope.

Similarly, the majority of states recognize that transfer authorization criteria should be based on international commitments. Some, particularly the US, argue that these criteria should be taken into account during transfer authorizations but states should not be held to “states shall not” wording. The problem, of course, is that some states will interpret “take into account” as “choose to ignore.”

Two challenges stand out for treaty negotiations. First, the closest document to a draft text is a paper prepared by the chair of the ATT process at the UN, Ambassador Moritan of Argentina.  It has wide support and includes all the fundamentals of a strong treaty but the paper has formal approval only as a background document. The second and perhaps greatest challenge is that the final treaty text must be approved by consensus. This was a condition required for the US to join the ATT process and it may well become the greatest impediment to effective negotiations.

Nevertheless, Canada can play a significant and supportive role to assist negotiations towards a robust and comprehensive ATT. Canada was an early treaty advocate, co-sponsoring resolutions on the ATT at the UN General Assembly. Canada’s national record on export authorization, including its “case by case” assessment of arms export requests, and its use of human rights and conflict criteria, suggests that Canada can bring substance and comparatively high standards to the negotiating table. A Canadian proposal for preamble language to acknowledge the legitimate use and transfer of firearms for recreational purposes helps to clarify that the ATT is not intended to affect domestic firearms regulation.

In our view Canada should also:
• Demonstrate high-level support for an effective treaty via a public statement by the Prime Minister and participation by Foreign Minister Baird in the opening Ministerial segment of the diplomatic conference;
• Return to its earlier support for a strong treaty criterion on sustainable development; and
• Consider including other stakeholders in the conference national delegation, such as parliamentarians and representatives of the broad range of civil society groups that have worked for a robust treaty.

In addition, we call on all Canadian parliamentarians to sign the global parliamentarian declaration advocating a strong and effective ATT.  To date, the document has been signed by over 80 Canadian MPs and Senators from all official parties.

To conclude, civil society groups like ours across the globe are convinced the Arms Trade Treaty is an unprecedented opportunity to reduce the human cost associated with inadequate controls on arms transfers.  It can make important contributions to improved safety and security for the countless communities affected by conflict and armed violence. It is an opportunity that Canada and other UN member states must seize.

Thank you for your attention.

Spread the Word