View previous stories
	Arms Trade Treaty must make a difference for victims of armed violence by Control Arms coalition, ICRC, Amnesty & agencies   Arms Trade Treaty: A historic step towards reducing human suffering   02-04-2013 News Release   Geneva (ICRC) – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) welcomes the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty. In a vote that took place today at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, a majority of States agreed to establish, for the first time, controls on international transfers of conventional weapons and ammunition.   "This is a historic moment and a worthy response to the widespread human suffering that results from the unregulated availability of weapons," said Peter Maurer, president of the ICRC. "The text now has to be implemented in good faith so as to positively affect the lives, health and well-being of millions of people around the world. If properly implemented, it will prevent arms transfers when there is a manifest risk that war crimes or serious violations of human rights will be committed."   The treaty adopted today sets legally binding rules to regulate international trade in conventional weapons and ammunition. It requires that States deny transfers when they are aware or where there is an overriding risk that those weapons and/or ammunition will be used to commit certain international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. A key principle underpinning this requirement, and explicitly recognized in the text, is the duty of the States to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law.   A vast majority of States agreed to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty. The ICRC however acknowledges that a number of States did not vote in favour of the text. "We call on all States to join the treaty and further its humanitarian purpose," Mr Maurer said. "This will ultimately help protect people from wanton armed violence and reduce human suffering."   In most of the countries in which it works, the ICRC is confronted with the terrible consequences for civilians of inadequate controls over international transfers of conventional weapons. In 1999, the ICRC published a study commissioned by the States party to the Geneva Conventions showing that in many situations where weapons are widely available, civilians are at greater risk of death, injury, displacement and abuse. The widespread availability of weapons tends to prolong conflicts, facilitate violations of international humanitarian law, and put civilians at high risk of death or injury from weapons-related violence even after armed conflicts have ended.   http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2013/02-04-weapons-arms-trade-treaty.htm   February 24, 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.   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.   February 2013   Massive arms bazaar in Abu Dhabi exposes weakness in Arms Trade Treaty talks.   China, the USA, EU states and other arms-exporting countries must ensure that any deals brokered at an international arms fair in Abu Dhabi this week do not result in weapons reaching countries where they could contribute to serious human rights abuses, Amnesty International said.   The International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX), held every two years in the United Arab Emirates capital, bills itself as one of the biggest arms bazaars in the world. This week’s IDEX concludes today in Abu Dhabi (21 February), less than a month before states convene at the United Nations in New York to finalize a historic Arms Trade Treaty where the USA, China and some other states are hoping to get weaker treaty controls.   Amnesty International has repeatedly flagged how the poorly regulated global arms trade contributes to war crimes and other serious human rights violations around the world and since the 1990s has highlighted the problem of unregulated arms brokering.   “The wide array of conventional weapons being displayed at IDEX this week stands in sharp contrast to the narrow scope of items proposed by the USA, China and other states for the draft Arms Trade Treaty,” says Brian Wood, Amnesty International’s Head of Arms Control and Human Rights.   “And if their proposed human rights rules and brokering controls in the treaty remain weak, companies will continue to garner hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons deals for unscrupulous buyers.”   International arms fairs and exhibitions like IDEX are one of the main ways for governments and defence industry associations to promote and broker international sales of weapons, munitions, and other military and security equipment and services.   Among the more than 1,100 companies from almost 60 countries exhibiting this week at IDEX, Amnesty International has been able to identify a number of manufacturers from key arms-exporting countries whose products have previously been used in areas where serious human rights abuses have taken place.   For example, state-owned arms manufacturers from China exhibiting at IDEX this week have heavy weaponry, such as artillery systems, on display. Pakistani companies are advertising a range of munitions including small arms ammunition, mortars, artillery shells, and bombs.   Both countries have supplied a wide range of arms to Sri Lanka, which emerged from a bitter, three-decade armed conflict in 2009. During the final years of the conflict, from 2000 to 2009, Amnesty International identified China as one of the biggest arms suppliers to the Sri Lankan armed forces. Both Sri Lanka’s government and the armed separatist group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), committed serious human rights violations and abuses, and tens of thousands of civilians were killed, with many more injured and abused.   The Chinese companies exhibiting at IDEX also manufacture a wide array of small arms and ammunition, including cartridges that have been used by an armed group in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). UN peacekeeping forces in Goma in eastern DRC have collected cartridge casings with Chinese markings.   These were manufactured in 2007 and subsequently used by an armed group in DRC.   Amnesty International identified the markings as belonging to a specific Chinese manufacturer.   Amnesty International also concluded that Chinese cartridges were among those found at Bushani, DRC, where government soldiers committed rape, torture and other sexual violence.   Also on display at IDEX this week are a wide range of “less lethal” weapons – including chemical irritants like tear gas and crowd-control equipment such as baton rounds and water cannon.   Police and security forces have deployed such weapons across the Middle East and North Africa to repress the massive popular uprisings that have taken place in the region since early 2011.   While such weapons can have a legitimate use in law enforcement, they can be lethal and Amnesty International has repeatedly decried when security forces have used them to violate human rights, including through the excessive and unnecessary use of force to disperse such protests.   Among the manufacturers exhibiting such “less-lethal” weapons are two companies from the USA and France whose tear gas has been used in Bahrain. Another US firm has supplied such weapons to Egypt. In both Bahrain and Egypt, protesters have died or been severely injured during 2011 and 2012 as a result of the security forces allegedly misusing tear gas.   “Governments are letting the unrelenting commercial pressures of arms companies and their own narrow national interests take precedence over building the rule of law and respect for human rights,” said Wood.   “These are prime examples of why the world desperately needs a strong Arms Trade Treaty that would halt an arms sale when it can be foreseen that there is a substantial risk the arms will be used for serious human rights abuses.”   One exhibitor from South Korea is also promoting cluster munitions at IDEX – an inherently inhumane weapon. So far 111 states have signed, ratified or acceded to a separate international treaty banning these weapons.   Cluster bombs have been used in recent conflicts. Russian and Spanish-made cluster munitions were photographed in 2011 in Libya. Amnesty International found that al-Gaddafi forces used the weapons in residential areas in Libya and also that Syrian government forces used cluster bombs in Syria in 2012.   “It is unconscionable that internationally banned weapons like cluster bombs that blow the legs off children long after conflicts end are still being peddled at a major international trade fair,” said Wood.   Amnesty International calls on companies that manufacture or supply such indiscriminate weapons to immediately cease production and take them off the market and appeals to all states to join the international Convention on Cluster Munitions which bans their use, production transfer and stockpiling.   * Widney Brown, Amnesty International"s senior director for law and policy discusses the agendas of the five biggest arms traders: China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA in this radio interview undertaken on the 19 March, 2013.   http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/arms-trade-treaty-talks-resume/4582514   8 November 2012 (Control Arms)   Governments negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) need to ensure that next year’s diplomatic conference - aimed at regulating the US$70 billion-worth weapons trade - is a success, said the Control Arms coalition today.   Discussions, over the last four weeks at the United Nations on the next steps for negotiations on a future treaty aimed at regulating the trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, ended today with the agreement to hold new talks next year.   Prior negotiations on the ATT, which took place during a Diplomatic Conference in July, ended in failure after several governments, including the United States, blocked the agreement by demanding extra time to agree on a draft text.   Diplomats voted on Wednesday in favor of holding a final UN Conference on the ATT in March 2013 with the controversial stipulation that the text must be agreed under the “consensus” rule. Following intense lobbying by civil society, the resolution contains a proviso that if all states are not able to agree to a deal in March, the UN will keep the treaty on its current agenda. This would allow the text to be sent for a final vote at the UN General Assembly later in 2013.   “Every day we are reminded of the need to bring the arms trade under control. In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000 with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now. While agreeing on a deal next year is what’s needed, we do not want any Arms Trade Treaty. We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place,” said Jeff Abramson, Director of the Control Arms Secretariat.   The Control Arms coalition has expressed its concern over the decision to produce an agreement by the “consensus rule”, putting at risk years of talks.   “The Arms Trade Treaty is too important for any one state to be able to wield a veto. Diplomats risk weakening the text to bring in support of skeptics like Egypt, North Korea and Venezuela. This is not in the spirit of the talks that were launched in 2006,” added Maria Pia Devoto of Asociación para Políticas Públicas (Argentina).   The UN resolution agreed today will base future negotiations on a draft treaty text from the July 2012 Diplomatic Conference. The draft gives a good basis for a strong treaty, but has a few “missing pieces” which must be resolved to ensure it is an effective treaty.   Several major concerns   The coalition is working to improve the text around several issues. One major concern is that ammunition, a deadly trade of over $US 4 billion annually which needs to be better regulated and monitored, is not yet properly included.   Another clause could exempt weapons transfers from the treaty if they are labeled as part of a “national defense cooperation agreement”, leaving many current and future agreements outside the realm of an ATT.   Campaigners are also worried that the threshold for denying an arms transfer is currently set too high, so that some irresponsible deals could still slip through the net.   “It is the voices of the overwhelming majority of states that want a strong treaty which must now be heard. While a treaty which includes the greatest number of states remains the core objective, a robust text will prove far more effective in the future than a compromise text that states subscribe to, but subsequently ignore.   The agreement next year must be one that will ultimately make the greatest difference for victims of armed violence,” said Anna McDonald, Head of arms control at Oxfam.   * The following statement was issued on behalf of Valerie Amos, United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator; Helen Clark, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme; António Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; Mr. Anthony Lake, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund; and Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.   As States meet for the United Nations Diplomatic Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, we would like to articulate the key elements that we, the heads of several United Nations humanitarian, development and human rights organizations with extensive operations in the field, believe must be included in such a treaty if it is to effectively address the human cost – that is to say, the appalling humanitarian and development consequences – of the poorly regulated global trade in conventional weapons.   We recognize that important efforts have been made at the national and regional level to regulate the trade in conventional weapons. These efforts are laudable and attest to the recognition by Member States of the need for regulation. However, the current patchwork of controls is simply not adequate. The human cost of such inadequate controls, and the corresponding widespread availability and misuse of weapons, is unacceptably high.   This manifests itself in several ways: in the killing, wounding, and rape of civilians – including children, the most vulnerable of all – and the perpetration of other serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law; and in the displacement of people, sometimes on a massive scale, within and across borders.   At the end of 2010, an estimated 27.5 million people were internally displaced as a result of conflict, while millions more have sought refuge abroad. In many cases, the armed violence that drove them from their homes was fuelled by the widespread availability and misuse of weapons.   These millions of women, girls, boys and men are in desperate need of or dependent on food, shelter, medical and other forms of humanitarian and development assistance – the financial cost of which is borne by many of the Member States taking part in this week’s preparatory meeting in New York.   In December 2011, the United Nations appealed for over US$7 billion to help 51 million people cope with humanitarian emergencies around the world this year, many of whom are affected by conflict and armed violence and subject to a range of human rights and humanitarian law violations.   The value of the global authorized trade in small arms and light weapons and their ammunition is also estimated at over US$7 billion per year. Visit the related web page
	UN experts voice ‘deepest concern’ over ongoing practice of enforced disappearances by Olivier de Frouville Chair of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances   9 November 2012   The practice of enforced disappearances perseveres in many countries, a group of independent United Nations experts warned today, following their review of more than 400 cases spanning 31 nations.   At the conclusion of its 98th session held in Geneva, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances expressed their “deepest concern” that 20 years since the adoption of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the practice of vanishing people was still continuing unabated around the world.   “Enforced disappearances continue to occur in many countries, often in a persistent manner,” the UN experts said in a news release.   The Declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1992. Among its articles, it states that “any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity,” and it condemns such actions “as a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”   The Working Group was established by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1980 to assist families in determining the fate and whereabouts of disappeared relatives. It seeks to establish a channel of communication between the families and the Governments concerned to ensure cases are investigated.   30 August 2012   The practice of enforced disappearances in which citizens of a State are deliberately vanished to never be seen again is not only a heinous crime but an act that negates the very essence of humanity, a group of independent United Nations experts said today.   “Such a practice cannot and should not be tolerated nor justified whether it is used to counter terrorism or fight organized crime or suppress legitimate demands concerning issues such as democracy, freedom of expression or freedom of religion,” stated the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances.   “It is an act that negates the very essence of humanity and is contrary to the deepest values of any society,” they added in their joint statement marking the second International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.   The UN experts pointed out that 2012 marks the 20th anniversary of the General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, but voiced concern that the criminal act of vanishing people continued in some countries while others had not yet come to terms with the role enforced disappearances played in their past.   “The practice of enforced disappearances is still used in certain countries to repress individuals and intimidate people claiming their rights,” the experts stated. “In other countries, situations of the past have not been dealt with in an appropriate manner. All families of the disappeared, even though those disappearances occurred decades before, should enjoy the right to truth, the right to justice, and the right to reparation.”   In their statement, the experts also renewed their vow to work towards the elimination of enforced disappearances and emphasized their commitment in bringing truth to the families of the missing. Visit the related web page
	View more stories