People from around the World call for comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty by UN News, Control Arms Coalition, Oxfam & agencies 5:55am 15th Mar, 2013   2 April 2013    UN General Assembly approves global arms trade treaty.    The United Nations General Assembly has approved a global arms trade treaty that failed to achieve unanimous support last week but which garnered the support of a majority of Member States when put to a vote today.    The resolution containing the text of the treaty, which regulates the international trade in conventional arms, received 154 votes in favour. Three Member States – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran and Syria – voted against the decision, while 23 countries abstained.    Today’s action follows the failure of the Final UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) last Thursday to reach an agreement among all 193 Member States on a treaty text at the conclusion of its two-week session.    Speaking ahead of the vote, the President of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, recalled that in 2006, Member States had pledged in the same General Assembly Hall to engage in a multilateral effort to produce a legally binding instrument, establishing common standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms – including warships and battle tanks, combat aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as small arms and light weapons.    “I personally believe that the final text of this conference meets those commitments to a great extent,” Mr. Jeremic said, adding that the lack of a regulatory framework for such activities had made a “daunting” contribution to ongoing conflicts, regional instabilities, displacement of peoples, terrorism and transnational organized crime.    The text draws a link with the presence of weapons across the developing world, especially in conflict-affected areas, with the challenge of sustainable development and safeguarding human rights, added Mr. Jeremic.    Unlike in the Conference, where all 193 Member States had to agree on the final text, the Assembly needed only a simple majority, or 97 votes, to pass the text. The treaty will enter into force 90 days after ratified by the 50th signatory.    The treaty regulates all conventional arms within the following categories: battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.    According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, the treaty will not: interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in Member States; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm States legitimate right to self-defence; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.    “When you think of the huge economic interest and the political power in play for the big arms producers and exporters, this treaty is a tribute to both civil society who championed the idea to save lives and reduce human suffering as well as the governments who heeded that call,” said Widney Brown, senior director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.    The treaty seeks to regulate the international trade in conventional arms, revenues from which reports estimate will exceed $100 billion in the next four years.    Though the international treaty does nothing to regulate the domestic use of weapons in any country, it does require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers. These include battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.    The treaty puts the onus on states to determine "whether a weapon could be used for genocide, war crimes or organized crime before it is sold".    "We owe it to those millions – often the most vulnerable in society – whose lives have been overshadowed by the irresponsible and illicit international trade in arms," Australian Ambassador Peter Woolcott, who chaired the negotiations, told the assembly before the vote.    Support was particularly strong among many African countries, reportsed the New York Times, "with most governments asserting that over the long run the treaty would curb the arms sales that have fueled so many conflicts."    “The Arms Trade Treaty provides a powerful alternative to the body-bag approach currently used to respond to humanitarian crises,” said Oxfam America president, Raymond Offenheiser. “Today nations enact arms embargoes in response to humanitarian crises only after a mass loss of life. The treaty prohibits the weapon sales in the first place.”    Mar 2013    Regulating conventional arms transfers: A humanitarian imperative. (ICRC Film)    An effective Arms Trade Treaty that protects civilians from the devastating consequences of inadequately regulated arms transfers is urgently needed. One of the most important objectives of such a treaty must be to reduce the human cost of the availability of weapons. This can be achieved by setting clear norms so that transfers of conventional arms and ammunition are not authorized when there is a clear risk that the arms will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law.    http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/film/2013/arms-trade-treaty.htm    29 Mar, 2013    Iran, Syrian and DPRK stall adoption of Arms Trade Treaty. (Control Arms)    Campaigners expressed their ‘immense frustration’ with the consensus process after Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People''''s Republic of North Korea blocked agreement of the Arms Trade Treaty. Despite a last minute attempt by Mexico, Japan and several countries to save the process, the President of the Conference reached a conclusion that consensus could not be achieved.    The Control Arms Coalition says the historic treaty is still within reach but that the consensus process had delayed proceedings again today when a handful of skeptical states used their veto power against the huge majority of states, who want to see the treaty pass.    Kenya read a statement on behalf of 12 states, calling for the UN General Assembly to adopt the Treaty by vote as soon as possible. The earliest this can happen is 2 April, when the President of the Conference, Ambassador Peter Woolcott, will be presenting his report.    It is widely anticipated the treaty would then pass by majority enshrining in international law for the first time ever a set of rules to regulate the global arms trade.    Anna Macdonald, Oxfam’s Head of Arms Control, said: “The world has been held hostage by three states. We have known all along that the consensus process was deeply flawed and today we see it is actually dysfunctional. Countries such as Iran, Syria and DPRK should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of the world how the sale of weapons should be regulated.    “We are not downhearted. This treaty will become a reality – it’s just a matter of time. We believe the fight to for an Arms Trade Treaty is almost over and we hope we are close to the start of a new era. We have a clear message for human rights abusers and gunrunners – your time is nearly up.”    The Control Arms Coalition has broadly welcomed the new draft text though they have criticised areas where there are still gaps in crucial areas. The campaigners are concerned the list of weapons to be covered under the draft text is still too narrow and the criteria by which governments will assess whether to authorize an arms transfer is ambiguous.    Campaigners say the treaty is still weak in some crucial areas. Oxfam’s Head of Arms Control Anna Macdonald said “We see some improvements have been made since the last draft was issued but there are still some important problems with the new text.    “The scope of what would be covered in the treaty is still too narrow. We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them. The criteria by which governments assess whether to authorize an arms transfer also needs to be unambiguous. “We need a treaty that sends a clear message to human rights abusers and dictators that their time is up. We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence.”    The coalition is calling on states to see the treaty as a starting point, which sets new international standards. Once passed, they want to see states aim high in their implementation plans and to sign and ratify the treaty as soon as possible.    Control Arms Campaign Manager Allison Pytlak said: “Of course we are disappointed. Lives are lost each day because there is currently such poor regulation of the arms trade. “It’s been a long hard road to get to this point but almost all states believe now is the time for a treaty. Agreeing a treaty such as this is a challenge but states are nearly there now. Once the treaty has been passed, the real work of implementing it will start and only then will it actually change people’s lives on the ground.”    Baffour Amoa, President of the West African Action Network on Small Arms, said: “This is a strong disappointment for Africa. An Arms Trade Treaty is long overdue. Too much blood has been spilt in Africa through armed violence that could have been avoided. “We can no longer afford a world where the sale in conventional arms remains unregulated. The fight goes on.”    25 March 2013    A majority of UN member states have issued a statement saying that the latest draft of an international treaty to end unregulated arms sales is a "step backwards" from earlier language.    The statement, which is currently circulating at the negotiations in New York and has been signed by 103 countries, calls for the text to be strengthened to "produce a strong and effective treaty, which lives up to the expectations expressed by the overwhelming majority of states".    They have called for ammunition to be brought more fully into the treaty and for it to include gifts, loans and leases, as well as monetary transfers, of weapons between countries. States have also called for the treaty to prevent weapon transfers where there is a "substantial risk" – rather than an "overriding risk", as the draft currently states – of violations of human rights law.    The UN general assembly voted in December to relaunch negotiations last week on what could become the first global treaty to regulate the world"s $70bn trade for all conventional weapons – from naval ships, tanks and attack helicopters to handguns and assault rifles – after a drafting conference in July 2012 collapsed because the United States, then Russia and China, wanted more time.    The treaty only covers exports between countries and does not affect domestic gun rights.    The statement, signed by 102 countries on Monday, called for the inclusion of "munitions, ammunitions, parts and components".    It said: "We need the provisions on exports" assessments to prevent the authorization of transfers of conventional arms where there is a substantial risk of serious violations of international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, or if those transfers could be diverted to the illicit market and to unauthorized end-users." It also called for transparent reporting.    Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty.    Control Arms coalition calls on Chair not to cave in to pressure from India and P5 as new text falls short. (Control Arms Coalition)    Campaigners today say radical changes must be made to the latest draft of the Arms Trade Treaty by the Presidency of the Conference, if the treaty is to save lives. The Control Arms coalition said the latest text, issued on Friday, falls short of what the majority of member states demanded, and looks like a deal cooked up largely by the major exporters. Control Arms says the President of the Conference, Ambassador Peter Woolcott, has failed to listen to calls for a strong treaty made by scores of states in a bid to get consensus at whatever price.    While campaigners want to see every member state support a future Treaty, they say this would come at too high a price if the final text still has several glaring loopholes. Under the current draft, ammunition is still poorly regulated and there is still too far high a threshold for exporters to use when assessing whether to go ahead with an arms transfer or not.    Oxfam’s Head of Arms Control Anna Macdonald said: “The Chair of the Conference has a stark choice to make. He can side with a handful of countries watering down the text or with the majority representing countless people suffering each day from the unregulated arms trade.    “The new text is not good enough and fails to reflect the demands of the majority of the member states. Nearly 120 states called on Mr. Woolcott to deliver a robust Treaty at the start of the conference, declaring that a weak treaty was worse than no treaty.”    The Control Arms coalition believes the limited and narrow scope of what would be included in the future Treaty remains a major problem for the majority of countries. The coalition says ammunition is still poorly covered and a long list of weapons and munitions has been left out altogether.    Jonathan Frerichs, Program Executive from the World Council of Churches, says: “Without bullets, the guns fall silent yet still the transfer of ammunition is not fully-covered in the text.    “When you have drones, hand grenades, armored vehicles and even military transport aircraft not covered in a Treaty meant to regulate the arms trade, you know something is not right. It defies belief and means this Treaty would not change the situation on the ground but instead maintain the status quo.    The new draft has also failed to fix the concern that too high a threshold has been set for states to use when assessing the risk that weapons will be used for human rights abuses. Control Arms Campaign Manager Allison Pytlak says: “At the heart of this treaty is a fundamental flaw. This text could actually fail to prevent arms being provided to human rights abusers who commit torture and extra-judicial killings.    “We have four days of negotiations left now. Fixing this problem must be an absolute priority. Those who use irresponsibly-traded weapons to violate human rights have had it too good for too long. They should be stopped in their tracks by this treaty – not given the green light to carry on with business as usual.”    The coalition also says reporting is a major area of concern and in the current draft, states will be expected to report directly to the UN without making any of their deals public.    Ms. Macdonald concluded: “We need public reporting, not secret reporting. Transparency is vital if gunrunners are to be brought to book.”    “States must make changes based not on what is easy, but what is right. Real people don’t need political compromises and easy fixes this week – they need a treaty that will stop arms flooding the world and destroying lives.”    http://controlarms.org/en/    March 2013    Statement on behalf of United Nations agencies involved in humanitarian action, by UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos.    I am delivering this statement on behalf of six United Nations agencies involved in humanitarian action. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)    We welcome the convening of this conference to address the consequences of the poorly regulated trade in arms and the opportunity for the adoption of an arms trade treaty.    This conference is important for many reasons. It is an opportunity for States to agree to global, binding rules to regulate the trade in arms. It is an opportunity for States to take decisive action to address the adverse humanitarian, human rights and development consequences of the poorly regulated trade in arms and the corresponding widespread availability and misuse of weapons.    It is an opportunity to reduce the pervasive killing, wounding of civilians, including women and children, and the commission of other serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.    It is an opportunity to reduce and even prevent human displacement, both within and across borders.    At the end of 2011, the number of people forcibly displaced by conflict worldwide was in excess of 42 million people, including 26.4 million internally displaced persons and 15.4 million refugees.    In many cases, the violence that drove them from their homes was fuelled by the widespread availability and misuse of weapons, including small arms.    Providing them with the shelter, food, medical and other forms of humanitarian assistance which they so desperately need as a result comes at a staggering cost to the international community.    This conference is also an opportunity to address the frequent suspension and delay of life-saving humanitarian and development operations because of threats to the safety of, or actual attacks against, our staff and those of other organizations. Between 2003 and 2012, 809 humanitarian workers were killed in armed attacks and a further 817 were injured.    It is an opportunity to reduce the violent crime and insecurity that plague so many societies, undermine development, fuel conflict and poverty and exacerbate sexual and other forms of gender-based violence and violence against children.    We recognize that the current draft treaty text contains many of the elements needed for the effective control of the global arms trade. However, if States are to seize this opportunity fully to address the human cost of the poorly regulated arms trade they must strive to go beyond the current draft and agree a comprehensive and robust treaty that contains the following if it is to be effective:    First, it must require States to assess the risk that serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law may be committed with the weapons being transferred, including through diversion to unintended end-users.    It must also require States to refrain from authorizing transfers where there is a substantial– rather than “overriding” – risk that the weapons will be used to commit such violations.    Second, the Treaty must include within its scope all conventional weapons. This includes small arms as well as parts and components.    As the United Nations Secretary-General observed in his 2011 report on small arms, the trade in small arms is poorly regulated. In many countries, because of a lack of regulation and controls or a lack of capacity to implement those that that exist, it is far too easy for small arms to fall into the hands of those who use them to commit violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.    Third, such a treaty must include ammunition within its scope. For armed conflict to continue, supplies of ammunition need to be continuously renewed. Without ammunition existing stocks of conventional weapons cannot be used.    Again, as the Secretary-General noted in his report on small arms, the popularity of certain types of weapons among armed groups is linked to the easy availability of their ammunition. Preventing resupply of ammunition in situations of high risk to civilians should be a priority. Regulating the transfer of ammunition is as important as regulating the transfer of the weapons themselves.    Fourth, the Treaty must not contain loopholes. It should cover All types of transfer, including activities such as transit, transshipment, loans, leases, gifts as well as brokering and closely-related activities. And it should not exclude arms transfers from the treaty’s scope on the grounds of obligations undertaken with regard to “other instruments” or as a result of contractual obligations under “defence cooperation agreements”.    We strongly urge Member States to place the humanitarian, human rights and development concerns at the forefront of their discussions by taking these elements into account and striving for a comprehensive and robust Arms Trade Treaty. A treaty that makes people and communities safer by reducing the overwhelming human cost of inadequate controls on arms transfers.    12 BILLION THE NUMBER OF BULLETS PRODUCED EACH YEAR    Thousands of people are killed, injured, raped, and forced to flee from their homes as a result of the unregulated global arms trade. The Control Arms campaign is a global civil society alliance calling for a bulletproof Arms Trade Treaty: a global, legally binding agreement that will ease the suffering caused by irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons and munitions.    To follow the UN negotiations through tracking of State’s positions, blogs and analysis click here. http://controlarms.org/en/    Mar 2013    Nobel laureates call on President Obama to agree to a robust Arms Trade Treaty.    Ahead of next week negotiations at the UN on the Arms Trade Treaty 18 former Nobel Peace Laureates have written to US President Obama to call on him to agree and support the adoption of a strong text.    In the letter, names such as Oscar Arias, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter and Leymah Gbowee say that “as humanitarians and peacemakers, we cannot accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are gunned down each year, with millions left maimed and traumatized.”    The Laureates reminded the President of the devastation cause by armed violence and the lack of international regulations and urged President Obama to join them “in this historic endeavor”.    Efforts to obtain signatories were coordinated by a variety of coalition members including International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War; Pax Christi International; Amnesty International and Oxfam-America: http://controlarms.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/03/Laureates-Letter-on-ATT-to-Obama-w-18-signatoriesfinal-3.12.pdf    March 5, 2013    NGO Leaders Urged President Obama to lead negotiations for a strong ATT.    Leaders of non-governmental organizations encouraged President Obama to support and play a leading role in negotiations to conclude an effective Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Negotiations are set to resume during the 18th to the 28th of March.    In a letter delivered to the White House last week, NGO leaders argued that an ATT is a necessary step to reduce the enormous human suffering cause by irresponsible international arms trade and brokering. The United States is largest weapons supplier in the world.    “The United States, as the world’s leading arms supplier, has a special responsibility to provide the leadership needed for an ATT with the highest possible standards for the transfer of conventional arms and ammunition,” they write.    The letter was endorsed by leaders representing 36 human rights, development, religious, and security organizations, including: Amnesty International USA; Arms Control Association; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Oxfam America; National Association of Evangelicals, among others.    In the letter, the organizations highlighted two key issues upon which Obama’s leadership is particularly important. These include a stronger human rights risk assessment previous to a weapons transfer and including ammunition in the scope of the treaty.    Mar 2013    Arms Trade Treaty in reach. (Oxfam)    The bloody Syrian civil war has now been raging for two years. Since the uprisings began, nearly 70,000 people have been killed, hundreds of thousands have been wounded, and over a million refugees have fled the country.    Much of this suffering has been fuelled by the continued import of arms - including helicopters, fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles - by the Syrian government. According to the UN, some of these arms played a central role in the government"s crackdown on protesters in 2011.    Despite international outrage, the world has been able to do little to stem this deadly flow of weapons. With the failure of the UN Security Council to impose an arms embargo on Syria, only an incomplete patchwork of national and regional rules exists to prevent arms from ending up in the conflict-torn country, making it all too easy for irresponsible arms transfers to continue slipping through the net.    But all this could change if the international community acts to reach agreement on a effective Arms Trade Treaty.    For more than a decade, millions of people across the globe have campaigned for a global treaty to bring the poorly regulated international arms trade under control. From March 18, governments of the world will meet at the United Nations to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty to effectively control the $60 billion a year international trade in arms.    Eight months ago, the original UN negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty failed to reach agreement, after the United States and a handful of other countries called for more time to consider the proposal. Following this delay, arms continued to flow unchecked to worsening conflicts, not just in Syria, but also in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mali, fuelling further deaths and suffering.    Yet there are hopeful signs that the reservations expressed last July are lessening. In America, the US government reaffirmed its support for the Arms Trade Treaty immediately after President Obama"s re-election, and domestic debate on arms control once again became front-page news following the horrific Sandy Hook massacre.    China, once doubtful about the merits of the Arms Trade Treaty, voted in favour of continuing the negotiations for the first time ever last November. Such developments suggest the world has an historic opportunity now to achieve a strong and effective treaty.    The current draft treaty contains some positive elements. For example, the treaty would oblige countries not to transfer arms where they are likely to contribute to serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law. Countries would also be required to consider the risk of arms being used to commit gender-based violence or undermine development gains. These are important provisions that supportive countries must fight hard to keep in the final agreement.    But there are also a number of loopholes that could considerably weaken the treaty"s impact. For example, we all know that guns are powerless without bullets, yet the draft treaty has weaker controls for ammunition compared to other types of weapons. Failure to control ammunition would mean little change for communities awash with guns, as these weapons last for decades and easily move from conflict to conflict.    The draft also makes exemptions for defence cooperation contracts between nations. This means countries could use contractual obligations to continue transferring arms to places where they are likely to be used for serious human rights violations. This is exactly what happened in March 2012, when Russia"s foreign minister cited a 2008 defence agreement to justify a shipment of refurbished helicopters to Syria.    For the Arms Trade Treaty to be effective, these and other loopholes must be closed. When it comes to the difficult decisions, countries should not settle for a compromise deal in the interests of reaching a broad global consensus.    Getting the maximum number of countries to adhere to the Arms Trade Treaty is an important aim. Yet history has shown that strong treaties create high international standards and bring about change, even for non-signatories. A weak treaty that gives legitimacy to crooked arms deals, no matter how many countries sign on, may be worse than no treaty at all.    Countries that support action to regulate arms trading must therefore stand firm and make the tough decisions needed to achieve a strong treaty, rather than settling for an easy but ineffective agreement. The millions of people worldwide killed, injured or displaced through violence facilitated by poorly controlled arms need robust regulations, not a quick fix.    In its current form, the treaty does little to increase responsibility and restraint in the international arms trade, leaving millions of people at the mercy of irresponsible arms deals.    * Getting it right: The pieces that matter for the Arms Trade Treaty published by Oxfam and Saferworld, outlines the key weaknesses in the current draft treaty and, using case studies illustrates the impact that a comprehensive and robust treaty could have on the many conflicts currently raging around the globe. And importantly, the paper makes recommendations on what a strong treaty would look like.    Recommendations for a strong arms trade treaty:    Comprehensive in scope:- It must control all types of conventional weapons, ammunition and munitions, and parts and components. It must also cover all the ways in which international arms transfers take place.    Robust criteria:- It should ensure that arms are not transferred if there is a substantial risk that they would be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights law, exacerbate armed violence and conflict (including gender based armed violence), encourage corruption, or undermine development.    Incorporate public reporting:- Members states should be obliged to report all transfers. In addition activities like brokering must be carefully and comprehensively covered.    Come into force as soon as possible:- The Final Provisions must ensure the earliest entry into force for the treaty, and define amendment provisions that allow the States Parties to revisit the treaty over time.    http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/blog/2013/03/getting-it-right-final-push-for-strong-arms-trade-treaty    February 2013    Arms Trade: A Lethal Business and an Urgent Treaty. (Danish Institute for Human Rights)    While Americans debate President Barack Obama"s gun control plan, a much bigger debate is going on worldwide that few Americans are aware of—whether to restrict the global trade in conventional weapons.    There are more laws governing the international trade of bananas and coffee than of arms, despite the fact that 1,500 people are killed daily from armed violence and six out of 10 human rights abuses involve light weapons.    March will be the last chance for United Nations (UN) Member States to fill this legal gap and set up global rules for the trade in weapons by negotiating and adopting a long awaited Arms Trade Treaty.    Although President Obama’s administration has come out in support of the treaty, the administration faces strong opposition from the National Riffle Association (NRA), which has vowed to fight the adoption of a treaty on the grounds that it would not protect Americans Second Amendment rights. Yet, the treaty applies only to international arms transfers and not to internal gun laws in signatory countries. The NRA’s opposition represents not the voice of American citizens, but that of an arms industry that directly profits from gun sales at home and abroad.    UN treaty negotiations, which began in July 2012, have focused solely on the role of states, forgetting a major stakeholder in the arms trade: companies. Human rights are increasingly the business of corporations, and not addressing the role of industry in the treaty is a mistake. Companies are the lifeblood of the global arms trade, with European and U.S. companies dominating the industry.    In 2010, the total sales of the top 100 arms companies reached $ 411.1bn. Of these companies, 44 were U.S.-based, and together accounted for 60 percent of all arms sales that year.    The arms trade isn’t just big business; it’s too often a lethal one, too. The Russian-owned arms company, Rosoboronexport, has been Syria’s main weapons supplier since 2007. In the absence of global regulation or UN arms embargo, the company has been able to operate freely, and Syria’s arms imports have since increased more than five times compared to the previous five-year period. Human Rights Watch, an international NGO, argues that the company could be considered complicit in the crimes against humanity carried out by the Syrian government.    Shipping companies dominate the international transport in weapons and many of them have been caught shipping weapons from or destined to states under UN sanctions. In 2009, for example, the United Arab Emirates seized a ship bound for Iran carrying 10 containers of North Korean-manufactured arms disguised as oil equipment. The ship was owned by an Australian subsidiary of a French company and sailed under a Bahamian flag; a perfect illustration of the complex jurisdiction involved in policing the arms trade, made all the more difficult by the lack of global laws regulating companies operating in the trade.    Like shipping companies, private security companies undermine regulations on arms transfers. The American-owned Blackwater, for example, provided guns as gifts to the King of Jordan and exported ammunition to Iraq and Afghanistan without U.S. government approval. Conversely, governments can use these companies to undermine arms embargoes. In 2012, the UN noted that member states are failing to respect the arms embargo on Somalia by allowing private security companies in their jurisdiction to train Somali forces accused of human rights abuses. By effectively regulating the global arms trade, loopholes of this kind can be addressed.    Human rights, although traditionally the responsibility of States, are now also the business of companies. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights—unanimously adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011—set that in stone. The principles provide a roadmap for states on how to ensure that companies—including those operating in the arms trade—respect human rights both at home and abroad. They state that governments have the responsibility to reference the Guiding Principles when negotiating on issues of international trade to ensure that all countries speak one human rights and business language, helping to minimize the human rights impacts of global trade.    When UN Member States began to negotiate the treaty, most of them failed to reference the Guiding Principles. March, therefore, will be the last chance for governments concerned with protecting human rights to fill the private sector gap in the draft treaty and live up to the standards set by the principles. To do this, UN Member States, should reference the Guiding Principles in the treaty’s preamble, and then approve the treaty. Doing so will ensure that international law regulating the arms trade is clear and robust, helping to close the loopholes and grey zones in which companies engaged in the arms trade operate, and giving the heart of the treaty—safeguarding human rights—a fighting chance of success.    July 2012    Time to end ‘body bag’ approach to arms control and support a robust Arms Trade Treaty. (Control Arms Coalition)    Political leaders the opportunity to place human rights and humanitarian aims above self-interest and profit.    The Control Arms Coalition, which includes Amnesty International, Oxfam and organizations from more than 125 countries, called on governments to agree a treaty with strong rules to ensure respect for international human rights and humanitarian law.    On average one person dies every minute as a result of armed violence, with thousands more abused and injured every day.    “In Syria, Sudan and the Great Lakes of Africa, the world is now once again bearing witness to the horrific human cost of the reckless and overly-secret arms trade.    Why should millions more people be killed and lives devastated before leaders wake up and take decisive action to properly control international arms transfers?” said Brian Wood, Amnesty International Arms Control and Human Rights Manager.    “The Arms Trade Treaty negotiations are an acid test for political leaders to face up to the reality and agree rules leading to the end of irresponsible arms transfers that fuel grave abuses of human rights.”    A failure to deliver a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will result in many more millions of civilians being killed, injured, raped and forced to flee their homes as a direct result of the irresponsible and poorly regulated trade in arms.    For decades people in every region have borne the cost of the more than USD 60 billion arms trade which also fuels armed-conflict and violence, corruption and severely weakens progress on development.    “We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to truly make the world a safer place. This isn’t just any Treaty, but one that can rein in a trade that is spiralling out of control at the moment,” said Anna Macdonald, Oxfam’s Head of Arms Control Campaign.    “From Congo to Libya, from Syria to Mali, all have suffered from the unregulated trade in weapons and ammunition allowing those conflicts to cause immeasurable suffering and go on far too long,” Macdonald added.    There are currently no comprehensive legally binding international rules governing the global trade in conventional arms, and gaps and loopholes are common in both national and regional controls.    Campaigners from around the world are determined to make governments put an end to the ‘body bag’ approach, which in some cases sees arms embargoes imposed by the UN Security Council, but even then, only after reckless arms trading has fuelled a human catastrophe.    Instead, an ATT is urgently needed that will prevent arms transfers that fuel human rights abuses, poverty and conflict.    For the ATT rules to to be effective it must require governments to strictly regulate the sale and transfer of all weapons, arms, munitions and related equipment used in military and internal security operations – from armoured vehicles, missiles and aircraft through to small arms, grenades and ammunition.    Governments must be required to undertake rigorous risk assessments prior to any authorization of an international arms transfer or transaction, and publicly report on all authorizations and deliveries. Trading without permission or illegally diverting arms should be made a criminal or other offence under national laws.    Those that fail to comply with treaty obligations should be held to account.    “It is an absurd and deadly reality that there are currently global rules governing the trade of fruit and dinosaur bones, but not ones for the trade of guns and tanks,” said Jeff Abramson, the Director of the Control Arms Secretariat.    “Advocates from around the world are speaking out for governments and ministers to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty that will save lives with both strong policies and direct impact on the ground,” Abramson added.    Amnesty International has highlighted how the world’s ‘Big Six’ arms suppliers, – China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom and USA – supply large quantities of weapons to repressive governments across the world, despite the substantial risk the arms would be used to commit serious human rights violations. This included US arms supplies to Egypt and Bahrain as well as Russian and Chinese arms to Sudan.    Oxfam recently published research showing the impact the annual global USD4 billion trade in ammunition has on the poorest people in the world, particularly those living in conflict-hit or fragile states such as Afghanistan and Somalia.    Most governments want to see a strong treaty text, but some have been trying to weaken the treaty rules and definitions. The United States, China, Syria, and Egypt have voiced their opposition to including ammunition. China wants to exclude small arms and “gifts” while several Middle East governments oppose human rights criteria in the treaty.    http://www.controlarms.org/news    July 2012 (ICRC)    Arms Trade Treaty: arms and ammunition are not just another form of commercial goods - Statement by Christine Beerli, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations Diplomatic Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, New York, July 2012:    http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/2012/att-arms-availability-statement-2012-07-03.htm    June 2012 (Control Arms)    Unregulated arms cause serious human rights abuses, poverty and war crimes; small arms alone kill more people every year than the atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.    They paralyze health, education and other services. The world needs a solid ATT that prevents the transfer of small arms, weapons and munitions if they are likely to contribute to the loss of human rights, lives and livelihoods.    One person dies every minute from armed violence. In that same minute, 15 new arms are manufactured. This has to stop.    July 2012 (Amnesty International)    Hundreds of thousands of supporters from Amnesty, Oxfam and other organizations from across the world had signed the petition, as part of the campaign to achieve an Arms Trade Treaty that protects human rights.    Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, urged Ban Ki-moon to do everything in his power to ensure an effective Arms Trade Treaty is achieved.    “We must finally put an end to the body bag approach, where arms embargoes are imposed only after the killing has already gone on far too long,” said Salil Shetty.    “People all over the world know that we must have a treaty which addresses the cause of the problem, not just the result.”    Millions of people are killed, injured, raped, repressed and forced to flee their homes every year as a result of the irresponsible and poorly regulated arms trade.    There are currently no comprehensive legally binding international rules governing the global trade in conventional arms, and gaps and loopholes are common in both national and regional controls.    Amnesty International wants to see a treaty that makes clear arms must not be transferred where there is substantial risk that they will be used to commit or facilitate serious human rights abuses.    http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/control-arms Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item