Will the U.S. Back an Arms Trade Treaty?

Why Ammunition Is Central to an Effective and Binding Arms Trade Treaty

As the debate over domestic gun control is going strong in the U.S., so too is a worldwide advocacy effort to regulate the international arms trade. The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) currently under negotiation seeks to do just that by creating common international standards for arms transfers. How the U.S. approaches the vexed question of ammunition may determine the success of negotiations.

Month-long negotiations failed in July 2012 after the U.S. blocked the consensus necessary for the treaty’s adoption. A further and “final” UN Diplomatic Conference scheduled for March this year is promising to have the potential for an agreement to finally be reached. However, tricky issues remain to be resolved in the draft text, such as the U.S. opposition to comprehensive regulation of ammunition. Given that most countries take an opposing view to the US on this issue, it may well be the central element that makes the rise or fall of the ATT.

Following his re-election, President Barack Obama now finds himself in a more comfortable position to support a comprehensive and binding treaty as indicated when he announced full support of the new ATT last November.

If the current Congress plans to refuse ratification of the final treaty for reasons of alleged encroachment into sovereignty over internal affairs regardless of how it treats ammunition, then a greater incentive exists for President Obama to agree to comprehensive measures in the ATT that promise to sustainably curb conflict worldwide. This cannot be achieved without provisions enabling states to restrict the irresponsible and illicit international trade of ammunition.

In fact, this applies to any state with an arms industry. The same states that rush – sometimes rightfully so - to ask for intervention on humanitarian grounds at the UN Security Council. Those states crying out against regimes that crush their own civilians such as in Libya and in Syria, but fail to address the double-standard they are setting for themselves: fuelling conflict by manufacturing and selling arms and ammunition whilst attempting to mediate it.

Domestic Politics versus International Cooperation

In April 2012, the U.S. publicly stated that it remained open to a practical solution for the ammunition trade to be effectively controlled, noting that “over seven billion rounds of ammunition” were produced in the United States every year. The question now therefore is whether the U.S. government is really facing policy-making constraints or if this is simply a way of protecting the arms industry.

Out of the top ten largest arms-producing companies listed by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for 2010, eight are American – the top three being Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing – and employ approximately 890,120 people. It is also interesting to note that between 2009 and 2010, 16,100 jobs were lost in those companies. This should be analyzed against the gradual decrease of defense budgets over the past three years and the resulting drop in defense asset orders from governments worldwide. In difficult economic times, domestic politics predictably continue to override the international agenda.

But at what cost should national level politics take precedence over solving the root causes of conflict? This question is relevant now more than ever as the ATT seeks to influence the availability and circulation of lethal weapons in war-torn countries.

Compliance, Criteria and Enforcement

According to civil society advocates the treaty must reflect accountability and transparency to the best possible extent. Luke Roughton, Oxfam New Zealand’s Arms Control Coordinator explains that the current ATT draft is missing vital elements necessary to reduce human suffering. He adds that “one of the most important elements of the ATT, the scope, needs to be tightened up. It needs to be consolidated so that the ATT applies to all conventional weapons and crucially, ammunition, on an equal basis. There is no sense in stopping the irresponsible transfer of some weapons while allowing the equally irresponsible transfer of others.”

Another major issue with the current text is the standard of risk assessment. The wording is currently rather vague as it mentions an “overriding risk” without defining it. According to Oxfam, “transfers must not be allowed if there is a "substantial risk" of any of the negative consequences listed in the criteria.” This higher standard would allow for better prevention of atrocities and human rights abuses facilitated by the free circulation of arms.

What the Future Holds

Over nine days of diplomatic talks, the looming danger of loopholes should – in theory – be sufficient warning of the catastrophic consequences of a weak treaty, driven by a lack of compromise and a failure to meet the ambitions of those most affected by armed conflict. Such a failure would invalidate the initial goal of the treaty, cancel any accountability to those who suffer from gun violence and be counterproductive to international peace.

Many other interconnected issues need to be addressed as a follow-up to any agreement on the ATT: corruption, gender-based violence, the drugs trade, human trafficking, International Humanitarian Law, Demobilization, Disarmament and Reintegration to only name a few. Over the next decade, the consolidation of protective measures should accompany the implementation of the treaty.

Adeline Guerra writes about international security issues, conflict and foreign policy-making. She will be attending the Arms Trade Treaty United Nations Diplomatic Conference in New York in March 2013. For more, go tothehotpotatomag.com or follow her on twitter @AdelineGuerra.

© Scoop Media