ATT Monitor, Vol. 14, No. 3
Editorial: A world on fire
27 August 2021
Allison Pytlak
Our world is on fire—and not just from the climate crisis.
It is on fire from the gun shots, the missile strikes, the bomb blasts, and all the other destructive violence being unleashed daily across the globe. In the year since Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) states parties last met for their annual conference, fighting and violent repression has erupted or deepened in Tigray region; Myanmar; Armenia and Azerbaijan; the Sahel; Colombia; Yemen; Syria; Gaza; and Afghanistan, amongst other places.
These are not just abstract names on a map. These places all represent someone’s home; someone’s personal history; where their family and loved ones are. They have deep cultural or historic significance. The regularity with which armed violence and conflict erupts across the globe can almost make one numb to stories of loss, pain, and displacement. But no matter the context, the scale, or the locale, this violence is all enabled by arms, ammunition, and military equipment.
Our world is on fire.
But it need not be. Instruments like the ATT were created in order to “contribute to international and regional peace, security, and stability”; to “reduce human suffering”; and to “promote cooperation, transparency, and responsible action by states.”
This may seem oxymoronic or naïve, not least given the Treaty’s acknowledgement of a state’s “legitimate” right to acquire conventional arms. The end result or impact of arms transfers can never be a happy story, because weapons and related equipment are developed with the express purpose of causing death or harm, and so even “responsible” trading in them will inevitably lead to the same result. Which is why WILPF has always advocated for an end to the arms trade, not just doing it better or more safely. Recent developments in Afghanistan demonstrate the folly and fallacy of “responsible” arms trading and militarism, as the weapons and equipment provided to Afghan armed forces are being captured and used against them by the same adversary they sought to defeat. Tragically, this is not a new story in Afghanistan or elsewhere: when weapons are poured into a conflict, it is a near certainty that they will remain there for decades to come, affecting the lives of future generations, damaging the environment, and undermining efforts at future peace. Violence only begets more violence.
As you read this editorial, you may be thinking: “oh this tired argument again!” or wondering “when will civil society develop a new narrative?”.
Well, we challenge readers and in particular ATT states parties to turn that question around and ask instead, “When will this narrative stop being necessary and what can I do to make that change happen?”.
The Seventh Conference of States Parties (CSP7) is the culmination of a year’s worth of work, conducted mostly online, on diverse aspects of ATT implementation and universalisation. The CSP7 president, Ambassador Gberie of Sierra Leone, as well as his team and working group chairpersons, have done well at maintaining momentum, seeking input, and being broadly inclusive and transparent during an uncertain and challenging time for multilateral diplomacy.
The conference will dispense with general debate and instead move almost directly into thematic discussion about effective stockpile management and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW), which has been the priority focus of the CSP7 presidency. To that end, a draft working paper has been prepared which outlines how this focus (which is more traditionally connected with the UN Programme of Action on SALW) aligns with ATT implementation and objectives, as well as other frameworks and issues such as development and the gendered impact of arms. The paper includes five outputs, which are subject to agreement by states parties during CSP7.
The majority of the CSP7 agenda will allocate time to the three usual agenda items: implementation, universalisation, and transparency and reporting. Within each of those items, there will be reporting back from the chairpersons of the three corresponding working groups on these subjects, in which there are also some outputs for adoption by states parties. Among these outputs are a draft paper outlining the elements of a process for assessing the risk of diversion and proposed updates to the current, voluntary templates that states parties use for their initial and annual ATT reports. The latter has been under development for almost two years, and the proposed changes enjoy wide support, but in recent consultations at least one state party began to raise questions that could indicate challenges for their adoption at CSP7.
Another thorny issue could be discussion about financial contributions, which has also been an open issue for more than one meeting cycle. Unpaid dues from some states parties have prompted discussion about the Treaty’s financial rules and debates on if non-payment of contributions should lead to a loss of certain “privileges” such as voting, being an office holder, or joining subsidiary bodies. Across the UN system, non-payment of dues has become problematic and, in the ATT context at least, is increasingly being framed as a compliance issue mainly by larger or better-resourced states parties.
Some of these parties are also significant weapons exporters or their allies, and it’s not gone unnoticed that discussions on compliance do not seem to extend to certain of their own weapons transfers that do not align well with the obligations found in ATT articles 6 and 7.
Civil society and others that follow the ATT and work to support its universalisation and implementation in various ways have been sounding the alarm for many years that the annual CSPs (or other Treaty mechanisms) do little to promote or assess accountability with those aspects of the Treaty that are at its core.
Rather, side events are often left to provide the real-world counterfactual to the narratives spun in formal meeting settings. The CSP7 side event schedule is impressive, and many events will consider some specific contexts of concern: one will look at national legal action in relation to arms transfers and Yemen; another at legal obligations and Palestine; a third event will consider the impact of irresponsible arms trading on current conflicts.
The burden of accountability should not fall to civil society or other observers; nor should channels such as national court systems or human rights review mechanisms become the only recourse for action. Action must be taken by and among states parties, whether through their own statements as a way to register concern over specific transfers, by developing review mechanisms or relevant subsidiary bodies, or through joint declarations, as has occurred in other weapons treaties. Avoiding this elephant in the room is damaging for the ATT’s credibility and impact and undermines other work done to further other aspects of Treaty implementation.
“I'm convinced of the enormous benefit of the Arms Trade Treaty, we can never take its relevance for granted,” stated the vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross to CSP5, in 2019. “Humanitarian imperatives must never be trumped by economic, security and diplomatic interests. It is vital that the humanitarian perspective—particularly respect for IHL—is systematically placed at the centre of decision-making, as is required by the Arms Trade Treaty.”
[PDF] ()