Small Arms Monitor, Vol. 12, No. 2
Editorial: Pushback to Pushback
2 July 2024
Emma Bjertén
When delegations left the meeting of the Fourth Review Conference (RevCon4) of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects (UNPoA) on Thursday, 27 June it seemed like “they got this.” By Friday, that feeling was gone. With objections to language on ammunition, diversion, and gender, states struggled until the last moments of Friday’s meeting, when they finally did adopt the outcome document by “consensus-ish”—a lackluster, somewhat compromised form of dissatisfied agreement.
Good spirits, for the most part
On Thursday morning, states seemed to have found the path to address the remaining issues under discussion, with the hope to reach consensus the following day. The Chair of RevCon4, the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the UN, Ambassador Maritza Chan, had told delegates that the outcome document draft three was their draft and she said she was proud of the work delegations done so far. Earlier in the week, Ambassador Chan concluded that states had done tremendously well. They had three issues that required further discussion to reach consensus: ammunition, international assistance, and the Open-ended Technical Expert Group (OETG). These issues had been divided into groups where states had parallel consultations behind closed doors facilitated by Indonesia, Switzerland, and the Philippines, respectively. But there was still time. The Chair emphasised that she believed in every single one of the delegates and now was “the time to push the pedal to the metal and find consensus.”
On Thursday, 27 June a fourth draft outcome document was published with the intention to be the last. It would ensure that states had enough time to communicate with capitals before the adoption of the document the next day. Just a couple of adjustments and states were almost there, we thought…
During the nine days of RevCon4 and the additional months that states had been working together, they had put a lot of effort to reach consensus. The zero draft outcome document, which in many eyes was considered strong, had taken some turns and delegates had made, as one state described, “painful” sacrifices to reach consensus despite opposite positions. States had disagreed over language on climate change, ammunition, and the inclusion and references to other frameworks. The reference to the Global Framework for Through-life Conventional Ammunition Management (the Global Framework) was maybe the most problematic one for those states that managed to keep ammunition out of the conversation of the UNPoA for nearly 23 years. The reference to climate change that was introduced in draft zero was watered down to reference to the environment. Everybody was not pleased, in fact several states made it clear they were not happy, but willing to compromise.
To vote or not to vote…
In the early morning on Friday, 28 June, something happened that drastically changed the positive and cheerful atmosphere that often had defined the meeting to that point. The rumor was that the United States was unhappy with the language on ammunition. When participants met early Friday morning, the hopes for adopting a consensus-based outcome document was at risk. Some seemed taken by surprise by this last-minute shift and several participates started to fear it was going to be a long night.
About an hour after scheduled time the Chair, Ambassador Chan announced that they were close to consensus on the document and the team was just addressing some technical fixes. Discussion was ongoing but the UN Secretariat planned to issue another draft at 12:00 and the afternoon meeting was going to start 15:00 as planned.
When the meeting started Friday afternoon and the Chair asked if draft document five could be adopted by consensus, the United States immediately asked for the floor and requested a vote on paragraph 43, which refers to the adoption of the Global Framework. Ghana quickly responded saying it wanted to strengthen paragraph 43 and change it to “welcome” instead of “take not of” the adoption of the Global Framework. Since there were going to be a vote on 43, Ghana also asked to reinstate paragraph 78, a previously deleted paragraph, which stated: “To acknowledge that States that apply provisions of the Programme of Action to small arms and light weapons ammunition can integrate applicable policies and practices into their small arms and light weapons control efforts with a view to strengthening the implementation of the Programme of Action.” Ghana also asked to reinstate another deleted paragraph, 166: “To encourage coordination between marking, record-keeping and tracing commitments and measures contained in relevant instruments with those of the International Tracing Instrument.” Ghana’s statement was followed by applause from the back of the room.
Due to the comment by Ghana, the United States requested votes on paragraphs 43, 78, and 166. Egypt asked for suspension for 10 minutes for consultation and “to cool down the temperature of the room,” a comment that led to liberating laughter.
While delegates formed small circles, 10 minutes turned into an hour. As the delegates left the room, new rumors claimed that states were working on consensus to get the United States to backtrack. It was said that the US delegation had expressed concern about diversion and if it could get what they wanted in that regard it might be willing to drop the votes on paragraph 43, 78, and 166.
After some time, delegates once again gathered in Conference Room 1. The United States asked to withdraw its requests for votes. Ghana followed by asking to withdraw its request to reinstate paragraphs 78 and 166. Even if Ghana recognised that the alternative was weakened, it said it was flexible and cooperative.
The Secretary-General of the conference read the modifications made in paragraph 5, 15, 18, 20, 46, 101, 120, 138, and 165 on diversion.
When the Chair asked the delegations if they wished to adopt by consensus as orally amended, Russia requested to speak. Russia said it supported the consensus, but in light of its previously made statements it wanted to distance itself from the consensus on the paragraphs that included language that was unacceptable for it on gender issues. It specifically referred to the differential impact of illicit SALW on men and women boys and girls, including paragraphs 24, 29, 60, 82, 124, 125, 129, 132, 133, and 200. Russia said it would not be bound by any obligation arising from these paragraphs and expressed that it does not believe the paragraphs to be the basis for future negations.
Once again, the chair had to ask if the document could be adopted and at 17:25, the final document of RevCon4 was finally adopted by “consensus-ish” and the room was filled by applause.
Gender
The nine-day meeting of RevCon4 took place 18–28 June, which means delegates met to discuss SALW during both the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict on 19 June and the International Day for Women in Diplomacy on 24 June. These days were recognised during RevCon4. On 19 June, a group of states delivered a statement that responded to a call from the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict for more gender-responsive approaches in the implementation of the UNPoA. The statement, delivered by Croatia, noted that between 70 and 90 per cent of conflict-related incidents of sexual violence involve weapons and firearms. The group of states emphasised their commitment to ensure that gender-based violence, as well as other important aspects related to gender equality, would be included in the RevCon4 outcome document. On 24 June, several states congratulated the Chair of RevCon4 and other colleagues on the International Day for Women in Diplomacy and highlighted the need for women’s meaningful participation.
Perhaps these days contributed to the attention to gender at RevCon4, or maybe it was because draft zero of the outcome document contained about 25 paragraphs that in some way referred to gender. Either way, in the consultations of the draft text, delegates spent an unexpected amount of time discussing the language on gender. This would have been hard to believe 20 years ago. The gendered language was more or less absent from the UNPoA process until RevCon3, when states made efforts to gender mainstream the UNPoA. States built on this language in the seventh Biennial Meeting of States (BMS7) and the eighth Biennial Meeting of States (BMS8). You would think that the language on gender that already had been agreed on by consensus in previous UNPoA meetings would be accepted, but it didn’t prevent a small group of states from working to delete references to gender or, as in the case of Russia, formally disassociate itself from these paragraphs.
As mentioned in the previous issue of the Small Arms Monitor, outcome document draft zero introduced new language such as “diverse women and men” and “women and men in all their diversity,” an attempt to move towards a more intersectional approach to gender. The discussion on “women and men in all their diversity” and disaggregated data in paragraphs 62, 86, and 138 in outcome draft two, which listed both sex and gender, caused “gender panic” even among states that otherwise are strong supporters of gender mainstreaming and the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. There was an expressed fear that this new language could question the men-women binary.
In the consultations that ended the first week of RevCon4, the Democratic Republic of Congo expressed its support for keeping gender but argued it was important to use consensus language. It emphasised that binary language should be used, that “women in their diversity” doesn’t exist, and asserted that “women are women”. A number of states, including Jamaica and Saudi Arabia, also expressed they could not accept the language on diversity. The statement was followed by France, saying, “without getting involved in a philosophical debate,” it wished to see the language on “in all their diversity” being retained. Several states, including Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, made similar remarks.
This discussion seemed to divide states into three groups: one that wanted to delete all references to gender, one that supported the gendered language as long as it is strictly binary, and a third group with states open to embracing a more accurate understanding of gender that recognises all genders and gender identities. In the final outcome document, the language on “in all their diversity” was deleted and the reference to disaggregated data only mentions sex, not sex and gender. This is a shame, because if states had to choose one, they should have kept gender instead of sex. Gender is a more accurate and useful concept when we talk about SALW. People are not necessarily targeted by gun violence because of their sex, they are rather targeted because of the socially constructed characteristics of women, men, trans, non-binary, and gender-non conforming people. SALW violence often relates to how gender roles are constructed, performed, and expressed in relationships of and between different groups, and it's well past time for the UNPoA process to address this.
Whatever states views are regarding this matter, there is a reality outside Conference Room 1 where people who don’t fit into the gender binary or gender norms are being targeted and killed by SALW just because they are who they are. Canada, which in its national policies often acknowledges Two-Spirit Peoples—i.e. the First Nations term for people outside of the gender binary—made a strong statement highlighting its commitment to aligning the priority of gender equality with the goal of reducing weapons. Canada said, “This commitment is enhanced by consulting with civil society, indigenous peoples, youth and members of the LGBTQI plus communities, and advocating for a feminist and intersectional approach disarmament, nonproliferation and arms control that actually leaves no one behind.” The representative of Canada argued that it is not due “to some politically correct or woke enterprise on anyone's part. It stems from a realisation that unless we include everyone in this process of dealing with the expansion of small arms, we shall not be able to succeed.” This was also something that several civil society organisations addressed in the session on civil society presentations on 20 June, including WILPF.
The absent presence in the UNPoA
Another paragraph that states disagreed on that did not make it into the final document was paragraph 144 in the first draft outcome document, which called on states to “encourage efforts that explore masculinities in the context of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in collaboration with relevant national authorities and civil society organisations.” Despite the support from a number of states, the line on exploring masculinities was quickly removed. This is also a shame, considering how essential it is to understand the role that masculinities play in the possession and use of SALW and in ensuring the effective implementation of the UNPoA. Studies have shown that 90 per cent of international armed homicides are committed by men and men constitutes 91 per cent of victims killed by gun violence. You would think that these figures would make anyone want to know why this is? But the resistance to address masculinities in the UNPoA is not surprising; rather, it reflects and confirms how gender often has been, and obviously to some degree still is, understood within the UN framework and its member states as being equal to women and “women’s issues”.
To address masculinities is the same as opening the door and try to rearrange power positions in a patriarchal world order where cisgendered men are the norm. Civil society organisations like WILPF and feminist scholars have problematised this interpretation of gender as being only about “women,” as this leads to a parallel process where men and norms of masculinity are often ignored, and gendered power relations are overlooked. This interpretation of gender has often made men a silent or a non-existent category in policies, an absent presence that can be compared with white people, non-disabled, and heterosexual people, other so called non-categories that in the Western media often are seen as the norm. For example, in photos of world leaders, we tend to notice the few women and others, but we are often blind to the majority of men. This is also relevant in the UNPoA process. Even if the category of men has found its way into the outcome document, the language on masculinities was removed. The majority of men are delivering statements often calling for women’s increased participation. It was therefore unusual to see all the women in delegations lining up for a photo shoot on 24 June on International Day for Women in Diplomacy.
Despite this, there still are delegations unwilling to talk about masculinities. Partly because of this the absent presence of men is slowly being made more visible in the UNPoA process: men as gun owners, perpetrators, victims, participants in arms control and disarmament negotiations where the once unwilling to talk about masculinities often are men. Even if the word masculinities was removed, there is still new language in the final outcome document that will be impossible to implement without exploring masculinities in the context of the illicit trade in SALW. Paragraph 125, for example, calls on states “To recognise that eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, including by addressing gender roles, norms and expectations for women and men to acquire illicit arms, contributes to preventing and combating gender-based and sexual violence and conflict-related sexual violence.” This paragraph is an important step forward and will be essential for the implementation of the UNPoA.
Adoption of the document
Brazil said in its statement in the first week, “A successful adoption of an outcome document in this Review Conference could give a much-needed boost to other disarmament processes. If we can be pragmatic and find compromise around a pressing issue such as the illegal trade in small arms and light weapons, we can also do so in other urgent issues in disarmament.” Even if it can be questioned whether a document is adopted by consensus when one state disassociates itself from several of its paragraphs, RevCon4 shows what other disarmament forums potentially could accomplish if there is political will.
The final outcome document recognises gender roles, norms, and expectations for women and men to acquire illicit arms, includes new language on violence associated with SALW and public and mental health concerns, and refers to gender-responsive policies instead of gender-sensitive as in BMS8. Draft outcome document zero referred to the impact of the illicit trade in SALW on the environment and climate change. Even if this was watered down to references to environment in the final outcome document, it still illustrates, compared to BMS8, a new perspective being addressed. The outcome also refers to the adopted Global Framework and establishes a new body of work with the Open-ended Technical Expert Group.
Despite negotiating into the last minute, Ambassador Chan managed what seems to be the impossible task of finishing the meeting on time. It is important to acknowledge that states managed to adopt the RevCon4 outcome document in an extraordinarily difficult multilateral environment, in which two UN Security Council member states are playing major roles in two of the deadliest wars, which has been leading to increased polarised tensions and making people question what UN really is for. In this state of affairs, adopting an outcome document on SALW is an achievement in itself. But the document also has strong language on gender. Even if important aspects like diversity, the need to move beyond the gender binary, and masculinities were lost on the way, the outcome document managed to address important aspect of the gendered impacts of SALW in a time of gender backlashes and negative trends for women’s rights. In a side event organised by UNIDIR, this negative trend was discussed and participants emphasised the need for a pushback to pushback. In the last day of RevCon4, we witnessed another kind of pushback to pushback when a state from the global majority pushed back on the biggest arms exporter in the world. This strong persistence and brave leadership illustrated in this action is something member states should keep in mind when they start with the hardest part of the RevCon4 outcome document—its implementation.
[PDF] ()