For the last week, I have sat in a comfortable room in Geneva, along the lake with a picturesque view of the Alps. Joining 500 other representatives of governments, industry, international organizations and civil society, I had come for the Second Conference of States-Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the global treaty adopted in 2013 to regulate the international trade in conventional arms.
But while we sat in the room discussing how many working groups to establish, people around the world were suffering and dying from the very weapons the ATT is intended to regulate.
Instead of talking about irresponsible arms transfers, or potential violations that undermine the legitimacy of the treaty, the week focused on bureaucratic process and functions. Governments decided to establish three working groups—on treaty universalization, treaty implementation, and transparency and reporting. They created a voluntary trust fund to provide assistance to governments needing help with treaty implementation with a 13-member selection committee. Lastly, they appointed a permanent head of the secretariat for the treaty.
All of this could of have been done before the conference even started, which would have left ample time to discuss the actual implementation of the ATT. While establishing bureaucratic processes are essential for the long-term operation of the treaty, the lack of substance was both disheartening and disappointing.
Civil society representatives took to the floor several times to raise issues related to the human cost of conflicts waged by conventional arms. Yet the only government to speak about the urgency of discussing arms transfers and potential treaty violations was Zambia, which gave an impassioned plea that went unacknowledged. The Control Arms coalition—an international group of civil society organizations—spent the week jumping through bureaucratic hoops in order to offer its paper on the arming of Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, after being rebuffed for its suggestion to include an agenda item on the application of the ATT.
The Third Conference of States-Parties will be in Geneva in September 2017, under the leadership of Finland, which has stated several times that it would like to see a focus on substantive aspects of treaty implementation.
That work should start immediately. Since the operations of the treaty are now complete, states-parties have no further excuses not to focus on what the treaty was intended to do—regulate the trade in conventional arms in order to reduce human suffering and save lives.
This article originally appeared in Arms Copntrol Association on August 30, 2016.
Conventional Arms
For the last week, I have sat in a comfortable room in Geneva, along the lake with a picturesque view of the Alps. Joining 500 other representatives of governments, industry, international organizations and civil society, I had come for the Second Conference of States-Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the global treaty adopted in 2013 to regulate the international trade in conventional arms.
But while we sat in the room discussing how many working groups to establish, people around the world were suffering and dying from the very weapons the ATT is intended to regulate.
Instead of talking about irresponsible arms transfers, or potential violations that undermine the legitimacy of the treaty, the week focused on bureaucratic process and functions. Governments decided to establish three working groups—on treaty universalization, treaty implementation, and transparency and reporting. They created a voluntary trust fund to provide assistance to governments needing help with treaty implementation with a 13-member selection committee. Lastly, they appointed a permanent head of the secretariat for the treaty.
All of this could of have been done before the conference even started, which would have left ample time to discuss the actual implementation of the ATT. While establishing bureaucratic processes are essential for the long-term operation of the treaty, the lack of substance was both disheartening and disappointing.
Civil society representatives took to the floor several times to raise issues related to the human cost of conflicts waged by conventional arms. Yet the only government to speak about the urgency of discussing arms transfers and potential treaty violations was Zambia, which gave an impassioned plea that went unacknowledged. The Control Arms coalition—an international group of civil society organizations—spent the week jumping through bureaucratic hoops in order to offer its paper on the arming of Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, after being rebuffed for its suggestion to include an agenda item on the application of the ATT.
The Third Conference of States-Parties will be in Geneva in September 2017, under the leadership of Finland, which has stated several times that it would like to see a focus on substantive aspects of treaty implementation.
That work should start immediately. Since the operations of the treaty are now complete, states-parties have no further excuses not to focus on what the treaty was intended to do—regulate the trade in conventional arms in order to reduce human suffering and save lives.
This article originally appeared in Arms Copntrol Association on August 30, 2016.
Recent & Related
Intergenerational Solidarity and Learning in an Era of Declining Trust
The UN Annually Votes on Ending the US Embargo on Cuba. What Does it Mean for Unilateral Sanctions and Their Impact on Human Rights?
Experts React: The Midterms and America’s Place in the World
The Lame-Duck Period is Full of Peril in the War on Iran
Is Reforming the UNSC Realistic? Article 27(3) of the UN Charter Offers a Starting Point.
Beyond the Populist Zeitgeist
A New Transatlantic Equilibrium
Forging a European Foreign Policy
A Superpower in Decline
What Is Going on in Cybersecurity?
The Implications of Ukraine’s Starshield Access for the US Military
Egypt’s Parallel Inc. & the Myth of Sovereign Efficiency
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.