Why the Arms Trade Treaty (as currently drafted) will not work
About a week ago on Twitter I was informed by @ArmsTreaty that “Strong #ArmsTreaty would prohibit flow of arms to Syria now”. I was sceptical and replied “how?”. I got no response.
No doubt the person who runs that particular Twitter feed is too busy playing high politics in New York to explain themselves to me. Fair enough. However a look at the recent draft treaty circulated by the chair (http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/pd...) suggests that the Arms Trade Treaty will do nothing to stop murderers like Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Clause 6 says that State Parties, before allowing arms exports, must make an assessment as to whether there is a “substantial risk” (not any risk) that various nasty things will happen as a result of the proposed sale, such as “serious” (not any) violations of international humanitarian/human rights law. However, luckily for the murderous buyers like Assad, in clause 6.3, even if a State realises that selling arms will result in a substantial risk of a serious violation of international law “including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”, then all they need to do is take “appropriate precautionary and preventive measures” to “mitigate” (not eliminate) “such risk”. And, luckily, under clause 7C (“enforcement”) the responsibility for monitoring and action is purely in the hands of the exporting state, who, one presumes, will find their own conduct to be impeccable.
Let us put ourselves in Vladimir Putin’s shoes. Suppose he signs this treaty and it comes into force. Bashar Al-Assad rings up and says “I need some attack helicopters refurbished”. Putin says “what for?” Assad says “well, you know, I may need them one day”. Putin agrees to refurbish them and then transfers them back to Syria. But to mitigate such “risk” he says to Assad “please promise not to kill civilians with these”. Assad says “OK”. Organisations like Human Rights Watch then notice these helicopters being used to kill civilians indiscriminately.
What happens next? What difference will the Arms Trade Treaty make, as is stands? Under the draft treaty, Putin has done nothing wrong and is required to do nothing more. If the treaty will not make a difference what is the point? Let’s suppose you think that Putin’s request for an assurance is not “appropriate”. What will the international community do about it?
No doubt the person who runs that particular Twitter feed is too busy playing high politics in New York to explain themselves to me. Fair enough. However a look at the recent draft treaty circulated by the chair (http://www.geneva-academy.ch/RULAC/pd...) suggests that the Arms Trade Treaty will do nothing to stop murderers like Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Clause 6 says that State Parties, before allowing arms exports, must make an assessment as to whether there is a “substantial risk” (not any risk) that various nasty things will happen as a result of the proposed sale, such as “serious” (not any) violations of international humanitarian/human rights law. However, luckily for the murderous buyers like Assad, in clause 6.3, even if a State realises that selling arms will result in a substantial risk of a serious violation of international law “including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”, then all they need to do is take “appropriate precautionary and preventive measures” to “mitigate” (not eliminate) “such risk”. And, luckily, under clause 7C (“enforcement”) the responsibility for monitoring and action is purely in the hands of the exporting state, who, one presumes, will find their own conduct to be impeccable.
Let us put ourselves in Vladimir Putin’s shoes. Suppose he signs this treaty and it comes into force. Bashar Al-Assad rings up and says “I need some attack helicopters refurbished”. Putin says “what for?” Assad says “well, you know, I may need them one day”. Putin agrees to refurbish them and then transfers them back to Syria. But to mitigate such “risk” he says to Assad “please promise not to kill civilians with these”. Assad says “OK”. Organisations like Human Rights Watch then notice these helicopters being used to kill civilians indiscriminately.
What happens next? What difference will the Arms Trade Treaty make, as is stands? Under the draft treaty, Putin has done nothing wrong and is required to do nothing more. If the treaty will not make a difference what is the point? Let’s suppose you think that Putin’s request for an assurance is not “appropriate”. What will the international community do about it?
No comments have been added yet.
