Anger over blocked UN arms treaty
Iran, North Korea and Syria have blocked a United Nations treaty that would for the first time regulate the multi-billion international arms trade.
The treaty had required agreement by all 193 UN member states.
Foreign Secretary William Hague said today he was “deeply disappointed”, adding: “After seven years of intensive work, the international community had never had a better chance to agree a global, legally binding treaty that would make the world a safer place.”
But Jo Adamson, the British ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament, struck a hopeful note. “This is not failure,” she said. “Today is success deferred, and deferred by not very long.”
Other countries too, refused to let the treaty die.
In an unexpected twist, Mexico proposed that the conference go ahead and adopt the treaty without the support of the three dissenting countries, saying there was no definition of “consensus”.
Several countries supported the idea, but the Russian delegation objected and called the proposal “a manipulation of consensus”.
Kenya said “the will of the overwhelming majority is clear” and that a letter would be sent to secretary general Ban Ki-moon with a draft resolution asking the UN chief to bring the treaty before the General Assembly for adoption as soon as possible.
The Kenyan diplomat spoke on behalf of the United States, Britain, Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria and Norway.
The Control Arms Coalition, representing about 100 organisations which have campaigned for a strong treaty, said the earliest the General Assembly could vote is April 2, when the chairman of the negotiations, Australian ambassador Peter Woolcott, will present his report to the full world body.
There has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated £40 billion global arms trade.
For more than a decade, activists and some governments have been pushing for international rules to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organised crime.
Hopes of reaching agreement were dashed last July when the US said it needed more time to consider the proposed accord – a move quickly backed by Russia and China. In December, the UN General Assembly decided to hold a final conference and set yesterday as the deadline.
The draft treaty would not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it would require all countries to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.
It would prohibit states that ratify the treaty from transferring conventional weapons if they break arms embargoes or promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The final draft made this human rights provision even stronger, adding that the export of conventional arms should be banned if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
Before the vote, optimism had been growing that the long-debated treaty would become a reality, but concerns remained that Iran and other countries would object.
Both Iran and North Korea are under UN arms embargoes over their nuclear programmes, while the Syrian government is in the third year of a conflict that has escalated to civil war.
London-based Amnesty International said all three countries “have abysmal human rights records – having even used arms against their own citizens”.
Iran’s UN ambassador Mohammad Khazaee said the draft treaty had major loopholes, was “hugely susceptible to politicisation and discrimination” and ignored the “legitimate demand” to ban the transfer of arms to those who commit aggression.
“How can we reduce human suffering by turning a blind eye to aggression that costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of people?” he said.
North Korea’s representative called the text “a risky draft which can be politically abused by major arms exporters”, citing arms embargoes and human rights as criteria to ban arms exports.
Syria’s UN ambassador Bashar Ja’afari said his country was perhaps the best example of the results of the illegal arms trade. He cited seven objections, including the treaty’s failure to include an embargo on delivering weapons “to terrorist armed groups and to non-state actors”.
In considering whether to authorise the export of arms, the draft says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organised crime. The final draft would allow countries to determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.
The draft would also require parties to the treaty to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market.
