By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

NEW YORK, United States – On Tuesday, the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly voted 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) to adopt a landmark treaty controlling trade in conventional arms.

The treaty, seven years in the making, places prohibitions on exports of conventional weapons in violation of arms embargoes, or which the exporting state assesses could be used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, organized crimes, or terrorism.  States must also act to prevent conventional weapons from reaching the black market.

Anna Macdonald, head of Oxfam’s campaign on arms control, described the treaty as “for the millions of people whose lives have fallen apart because of armed violence every day, from Guatemala to Kenya, Jamaica, Albania and a whole range of other countries.”

As the first major arms accord since the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the new regulations will cover exports of small arms and light weapons, as well as tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, military jets, attack helicopters, warships, battleships, missiles, and missile launchers.  The same type of international controls will be applied as currently govern nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  The treaty does not place prohibitions on imports, however.

Furthermore, the agreement has no power over the domestic weapons trade in any country.  It will require national regulations controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers, however.

“The world has been waiting a long time for this historic treaty. After long years of campaigning, most states have agreed to adopt a global treaty that can prevent the flow of arms into countries where they will be used to commit atrocities,” said Brian Wood, Head of Arms Control and Human Rights at Amnesty International, from the UN conference in New York.

Unfortunately, the arms treaty may lack teeth.  While it will be legally binding on those countries that ratify it, the treaty does not provide for an enforcement agency.  This leaves each signatory responsible for self-enforcement through the passage of new laws.  Supporters argue, however, that the stigma of breaking international law will provide a sufficient deterrent to illegal arms trades.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was asked on behalf of nations backing the treaty to put it to a vote in the General Assembly on Tuesday.

Several major arms nations signed the treaty, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany.  Several emerging weapon trading countries also signed such as South Africa and Brazil.  African countries showed particularly strong support, with many of their governments emphasizing that in the long run, the treaty would curb arms sales that had fueled many conflicts on the continent.

Three members of the U.N. voted in opposition: Syria, Iran, and North Korea.  Iran and North Korea are under arms embargoes, while Syria’s government, fighting a two-year civil war, depends upon arms from Russia and Iran.  Syria argued that a draft of the treaty failed to refer to the arming of “non-state terrorist groups”.  Iran claimed the treaty was filled “loopholes” and ignored the “legitimate demand” to prohibit the transfer of arms to those who committed aggression, while North Korea purported it was unbalanced, saying the treaty would allow exporters to deny arms to importers that have a right to legitimate self-defense.

The dissent of the three prevented a consensus last week at a U.N. treaty-drafting conference, which forced a vote by the General Assembly on Tuesday.

“Despite Iran, North Korea and Syria’s deeply cynical attempt to stymie it, the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations have shown resounding support for this lifesaving treaty with human rights protection at its core,” said Brian Wood.

Abstaining were some of the world’s largest exporters: Russia and China.  The former cited concerns about ambiguities, such as how the terms like genocide would be defined.

“Having the abstentions from two major arms exporters lessens the moral weight of the treaty,” said Nic Marsh, a proponent with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo.  However, he noted, “By abstaining they have left their options open.”

Other abstainers included Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and other countries, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are supplying weapons to Syrian opposition groups.  India, a major arms importer, also abstained, citing concerns tis current trade contracts could be blocked.

In Washington, U.S. President Obama’s administration welcomed the treaty, which Secretary of State John Kerry described as “strong, effective, and implementable.”  He further stated the treaty would “strengthen global security while protecting the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade.”

Mexico released a statement on behalf of 98 U.N. members, declaring that “an effective implementation of this treaty will make a real difference for the people of the world.”

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “The world wanted this treaty and would not be thwarted by the few who sought to prevent the introduction of robust, effective and legally-binding controls on the international trade in weapons.”

However, the arms treaty almost did not come into fruition before the U.N.  Last year, treaty discussions fell apart when the United States, followed by Russia and China, backed out, claiming they needed more time to consider the issues.  For the U.S., 2012 was a critical presidential election year, and the Obama administration was under considerable domestic pressure from the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) led gun lobby.

Presently, the N.R.A. has vowed to prevent the ratification of the treaty by the Senate, claiming it will undermine domestic gun-ownership rights.  More than 50 senators have already indicated their opposition.  However, the U.N. asserts that the treaty will have no impact on domestic gun sale legislation.  Furthermore, as a concession to the United States, an earlier draft of the treaty was modified to remove a provision requiring states to record importation of ammunition and to prevent the ammunition from being diverted to other countries.

Countries will decide individually whether or not to sign and ratify the treaty.  It will become internationally effective 90 days after the 50th ratification, which may take two to three years.

“This is not a panacea, it is not going to solve all problems overnight but it is an important step. We have seen time and again that international treaties affect the behavior even of those states who fail to sign up,” Anna Macdonald said.

For further information, please see:

Al Jazeera – UN Adopts Landmark Arms Treaty – 3 April 2013

Amnesty International – UN Puts Human Rights at Heart of Historic Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

BBC News – UN Passes Historic Arms Trade Treaty by Huge Majority – 28 April 2013

The Guardian – UN Approves First Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013

The New York Times – U.N. Treaty Is First Aimed at Regulating Global Arms Sales – 2 April 2013

Returns – U.N. Overwhelmingly Approves Global Arms Trade Treaty – 2 April 2013

The Washington Post – U.N. Approves Global Arms Treaty – 2 April 2013