by Natalie Goldring
Early in my career, I had the good fortune to work with Frank
Blackaby, a former director of the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute. He rarely spoke much at the British American Security Information
Council (BASIC) board meetings at which we interacted, but his interventions were always insightful. At
one meeting, we had become mired in administrative details and disputes. Frank
sat quietly in the back of the room as we argued our positions; it seemed as
though he might even be sleeping. After allowing the conversation to continue for
a while, Frank raised his head and asked, “But what will this do to reduce the
killing?”
The current debates over the minutia of the prospective Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT) risk losing sight of the fact that our core objective is to reduce the
killing.
Before the negotiations began, non-governmental organizations and most
governments advocating an ATT seemingly had consensus on many characteristics
of a successful treaty. A robust treaty would:
- bar countries from transferring weapons when there was a substantial risk that the weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian and human rights law;
- be broad in scope, including all types of conventional weapons, their parts and components, and their ammunition;
- cover all types of international transfers of weapons, including transfers, gifts, leases, brokering, etc.;
- have clear criteria for denial of sales;
- require public reporting of transfers; and
- have accessible thresholds for entry into force.
The treaty text we see next may not accomplish any of these
objectives.
Here’s the bottom line from my perspective: If the proposed treaty
allows governments to claim compliance with the treaty while violating
international humanitarian and human rights standards, we’re better off without
it. And unless the proposed treaty helps create conditions that can reduce the
killing, we’re also better off without it.
Natalie
Goldring is a senior fellow with the Security Studies Program at Georgetown
University. She also represents the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
at the United Nations on conventional weapons and arms trade issues.
