Gearing up for the arms trade treaty negotiations
At a downtown briefing this morning, representatives of Amnesty International USA, Oxfam America, and the Arms Control Association were modestly optimistic about the prospects of a useful arms trade treaty (ATT) emerging from UN negotiations that begin next week. Preliminary talks about such a treaty began in 2006, and that process will finally culminate in ...
At a downtown briefing this morning, representatives of Amnesty International USA, Oxfam America, and the Arms Control Association were modestly optimistic about the prospects of a useful arms trade treaty (ATT) emerging from UN negotiations that begin next week. Preliminary talks about such a treaty began in 2006, and that process will finally culminate in a month-long negotiating session in New York.
At a downtown briefing this morning, representatives of Amnesty International USA, Oxfam America, and the Arms Control Association were modestly optimistic about the prospects of a useful arms trade treaty (ATT) emerging from UN negotiations that begin next week. Preliminary talks about such a treaty began in 2006, and that process will finally culminate in a month-long negotiating session in New York.
There was a lot of talk at the session about the absurdity that sales of bananas are more regulated internationally than sales of assault rifles and about the need for more states to enact domestic legislation regulating arms transfers. The assembled activists did leaven their optimism with a dose of reality. They acknowledged that the treaty almost certainly would not contain any binding language or enforcement mechanisms. Instead, every country will determine for itself whether an arms sale or transfer is likely to contribute to human rights violations. (Under the ATT likely to emerge, Russia could report that it has duly considered whether arming Syrian forces would lead to violations and decided that it would not. Nobody would be able to gainsay the Kremlin, at least not through the treaty mechanism.) What’s more, the treaty negotiations will be conducted on a consensus basis (Washington insisted on that), which means that any state can block adoption of a text it doesn’t like.
So given all this, why the optimism? Even in the absence of enforcement mechanisms or independent assessments of state claims, they believe an ATT will cement into international law the principle that states must consider the consequences before transfering weapons. They’re hopeful that a treaty will provide new talking points to those condemning arms sales to bloody-minded regimes. And they contend that because the treaty may require states to adopt export legislation, it could open avenues for domestic activists and opposition groups to challenge sales by their governments.
Negotiations in New York are scheduled to run from July 2 through July 27.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
