Keep the Arms Trade Treaty on Its Downward Spiral

First published at Heritage.org , see original article for complete footnotes.
The U.S. Goal at the Conference of States Parties of the Arms Trade Treaty: Keep the Treaty on Its Downward Spiral.

Arms Trade Treaty
Keep the Arms Trade Treaty on Its Downward Spiral
Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.
Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- The third annual Conference of States Parties (CSP3) of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will be held from September 11–15, 2017, in Geneva, Switzerland.

The United States has signed—but not ratified—the ATT. While the U.S. should attend the CSP as an observer state, it should do so in the clear recognition that the ATT is not in the interests of the United States and that there is no support for its ratification in the Senate.

In Geneva, the U.S. will not have a vote, but it should intervene in the debate to: (1) speak honestly about the ATT’s failures; (2) make it clear that it will make no voluntary financial contributions to support the ATT; and (3) warn the states parties against launching a propaganda campaign in support of the treaty or amending the treaty to expand its requirements.

Finally, the U.S. should unsign the ATT as rapidly as possible.

The Status of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

The purported purpose of the ATT is to “regulate the international trade in conventional arms by establishing the highest international standards and to prevent and eradicate illicit trade and diversion of conventional arms.”

The ATT opened for signature on June 3, 2014, and entered into force on December 24, 2014. It has 130 signatories and 92 states parties. The U.S. signed the ATT on September 25, 2013.

Many of the world’s largest and most irresponsible exporters of arms, including Iran, the People’s Republic of China, and Russia, have neither signed nor ratified the ATT. Of the 75 states parties required to file a report on their treaty activities in 2016, only 42 have done so. Congress has repeatedly opposed the ratification of the ATT and banned appropriations to prevent it from being implemented in the U.S.

The Agenda Items for CSP3

The preparatory process for CSP3 is well under way. While surprises can never be ruled out, CSP3 appears likely to focus on treaty implementation, reporting under the treaty, treaty universalization, and the treaty’s Voluntary Trust Fund (VTF).

Treaty Implementation.

Treaty implementation is under discussion in a working group. Only 70 states—barely half the total number of signatories—attended the working group meeting held on February 6–7, 2017. The meeting concluded that while traditional arms-exporting states face questions about how to implement some treaty criteria “such as gender-based violence,” other nations “have to build national control systems from the ground up.

The phrase “national control systems” is not, in itself, a reference to gun control. It refers to national legal, administrative, and policy systems that control the import, export, transit, trans-shipment, brokering, and diversion from lawful uses of all arms, from handguns to battleships. The U.S. already has such systems. On the other hand, many ATT proponents do support gun control.

As the meeting report dryly notes, “This constitutes a demanding task.” The meeting found broad support for focusing on a few treaty obligations and for “leveraging the ATT sponsorship programme [the funds given to less wealthy nations to subsidize their attendance] to ensure as wide a geographical participation as possible.”

Treaty Reporting.

Although it is supposedly central to the treaty’s success, reporting under the ATT has lagged badly. The relevant working group noted the need to improve reporting compliance, but explained the shortfall is due in part to what it asserts is “reporting fatigue.” The working group emphasized the need for CSP3 to focus on various electronic ways of improving compliance and information sharing. It explicitly downplayed the need to address issues “related to the quality and completeness of reports.”

Treaty Universalization.

The ATT’s preamble emphasizes the “desirability of achieving universal adherence to the Treaty.” In fact, after an initial rush, national signatures and ratifications have slowed to a crawl. The last nation to sign the ATT was San Marino on December 19, 2014, and only five nations have ratified it over the past 12 months. The relevant working group made few proposals to remedy this state of affairs. It did, however, suggest coordinating with pro-treaty nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and “designing and implementing universalization outreach strategies and activities” to win over nations that have not ratified the ATT.

This appears to foreshadow a U.N.-led propaganda campaign in favor of the ATT.

The Voluntary Trust Fund.

According to Article 16(3) of the ATT, its states parties are obligated to establish a VTF to “assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement” the ATT. Contributions to the VTF are voluntary. As of June 1, 2017, contributions totaling $2.004 million had been pledged or received from 10 nations. As no national applications for assistance were received by February 16, 2017, the ATT Secretariat made a variety of promotional efforts, which resulted in 19 applications being received, of which 18 were shortlisted. Of these, nine were approved, two were approved with conditions, and seven were rejected but afforded a chance to revise and re-submit. Project budgets are capped at $100,000.

Summarizing the ATT’s Weaknesses

The position of the U.S. State Department on the ATT is that the treaty provides “a basis for insisting that other countries improve national control systems for the international transfer of conventional arms,” and that “United States national control systems and practices to regulate the international transfer of conventional arms already meet or exceed the requirements of the Treaty.”

The agenda of CSP3 demonstrates that the basis the ATT provides is, at best, an exceedingly weak one. The states parties show little interest even in improving the quality of their reporting. Indeed, many states parties have not fulfilled their reporting requirements under the treaty at all. If many of these states parties need to be offered “sponsorships” merely to show up at CSPs, they clearly do not have the administrative competence to build sophisticated national control systems “from the ground up,” or to maintain them afterward. The VTF’s $2 million will certainly not close this competence gap. The evidence of the preparations for CSP3 suggests that, for most of the world, the ATT will continue to fade into irrelevance, becoming ever more focused on issues of treaty process and demands for financial assistance.

But in spite of the State Department’s claims, the NGOs that promoted the ATT had little interest in improving control systems around the world, especially if that involved confronting undemocratic powers like Iran. Their focus was on constraining the U.S. and other Western powers. Thus, in early 2017, they mounted a legal challenge to British arms exports to Saudi Arabia. While the British government defeated this challenge, the fact remains that the NGOs behind the ATT succeeded in using it (and related U.K. legal instruments) to impose considerable administrative burdens on the British government—burdens that are likely to distort its arms export approval process going forward—and to carve out a legal foothold for future legal challenges.

The emphasis the treaty implementation group gives to “gender-based violence” suggests one form such challenges may take.

In short, the ATT is the worst of both worlds—ineffective in achieving its purported end (which is a reason the U.S. should not be party to it) and constraining insofar as it concerns the U.S. and the West (which is a reason for the U.S. to oppose it). The ATT’s only saving grace is that its ineffectiveness will over time reduce the seriousness accorded to it and thus limit its ability to constrain the U.S. It should therefore be the goal of the U.S. to enhance the ATT’s growing reputation for uselessness.

What the U.S. Should Do

Molon Labe United Nations
Finally, the U.S. should unsign the ATT as rapidly as possible

There are three steps the Trump Administration should take before and during CSP3:

1. Attend CSP3 as an Observer State. The Administration should notify the ATT Secretariat that it plans to attend future CSPs and other relevant meetings as an observer state and that it is willing to pay a share of CSP and other meeting expenses proportionate to the size of its delegation. The U.S. should make this commitment because, although the ATT is a failure, it is not going to go away. The U.S. therefore needs to keep an eye on it. However, the U.S. should not accept the outcome of the first CSP, which decided that CSP costs should in the future be assessed on a modified U.N. assessment scale and thereby sought to require the U.S. to pay 22 percent of the expenses. The U.S. should pay its fair share of CSP expenses—and no more.

2. Speak Honestly About the ATT and Its Failures. The U.S. will not have a vote at CSP3, but it should not therefore lose its voice. At CSP1 in August 2015, the meeting, without any public U.S. objection, adopted majority rule decision making and a funding model that relies heavily on financial assessments of the U.S.

At CSP2 in August 2016, the U.S. delegation sat silently as Mexico hailed the ATT as part of President Barack Obama’s effort to “establish administrative measures to strengthen controls over the possession and sale of arms.”

At CSP3, the U.S. should speak out against anything that would worsen this already bad treaty. The U.S. should make it clear that it will make no voluntary financial contributions to support the ATT, and that it does not accept its purported obligation to bear a disproportionate share of the CSP’s expenses. It should reject any aspersions against its foreign or domestic policies, and, if criticized, should point out the failure of ATT states parties to meet their own obligations under the treaty. Finally, it should warn the states parties against launching a propaganda campaign in support of the ATT or of expanding it by amendment, especially if those amendments are contrary to U.S. law or policy or could be interpreted as creating grounds for private legal action to enforce the treaty.

3. “Unsign” the ATT. The Administration should formally notify the Treaty Depository—the Secretary-General of the United Nations—that the U.S. does not intend to proceed to ratification of the treaty and that it does not consider itself bound by any of the treaty’s obligations. This is colloquially known as “unsigning” a treaty, and is the legally proper way to ensure that the treaty has no effect on U.S. law or policy.

Conclusion

The ATT is losing momentum. That is good, because it was never going to work. Indeed, it was never intended to work. Its advocates saw it not as a way to put pressure on the world’s most irresponsible and dangerous arms exporters, but as a mechanism for creating norms (and fomenting legal challenges) that would make it harder for the West to export arms.

The ATT can only harm the ability of the United States to make foreign and security policy. The fact that many of the ATT’s proponents make no secret of their belief that gun control is a human right (and that the conditions the ATT imposes on imports and exports of firearms must be interpreted in that light) is another reason for the United States to steadfastly oppose the treaty.

The ATT is fundamentally a process, not an event. The purpose of that process is to develop and advance so-called norms that will constrain the U.S. legally and politically. At CSP3, the aim of the United States is simple: to limit the damage the ATT can cause and to do what it can to keep the ATT on the path it is already following—the path to effective oblivion.

About Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.:
Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in Anglo–American Relations in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. Visit: http://blog.heritage.org/author/tbromund/ to read more.

  • 19
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    8 Comment threads
    11 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    8 Comment authors
    VE Veteran - Old Man's ClubtomcatWild BillDr. StrangeloveRock Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    They are blocking me from commenting!

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    I have replied to Dr. strange twice but Ammoland pulls my comments for moderation. Doesn’t it make sense that I should be able to reply to a challenge? Oh ya, we are talking about the !ST. AMENDMENT in leftest terms.

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    Yea Dr strange the 1St Amendment does apply to everyone and that is why we are bitching about taking the civil war monuments down to please you left leaners. It is OUR 1 St. Amendment, also but not if it is not politically correct, B*S*
    Get a grip on real life outside of the give me gravy train.

    Dr. Strangelove
    Guest
    Dr. Strangelove

    @tomcat: GFY, the 1st amendment applies to everyone.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Dr S. What do you mean?

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    I thought it was possible that (communist) act was dead and buried. I agree with Rock that monument by the U.N. should be ordered to be removed and taken off our soil. It attacks our Constitution and makes a mockery of our traditions. In fact it may be a good idea to remove the U.N. from our soil and quit sending them big bucks.
    If the least that can be done for right now, at least unsign the stupid treaty and get it gone. It is just a first to total gun registration handed over to the U.N. I THINK NOT.

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @tomcat, that is a great idea! All Trump would have to do is revoke all their diplomatic visas. Shouldn’t take more than the better part of a afternoon. Then let the NYC street people live in the building, shouldn’t take more than the better part of the next morning.

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    There are a lot of things we need to get rid of … The U.N. is just another P.O.S. on the list. We need to eradicate the Deep State (Obama et al), Obamacare, all RINO’s in Congress and the Senate, all Liberal butt wipes, all Socialist Democrats, George Soros, Hilldebeest Clintoon and Fornicator Bill, Debbie Wasserman Slutz and her spies .. just about everybody on the left! But I don’t think there is enough time or talent to do so.

    Rock
    Guest
    Rock

    Zackley !

    JohnBored
    Guest
    JohnBored

    Another example of Obama’s attack against Western values, especially American values. This is also in the same mode of his Iran nuclear “agreement” not treaty. Remember, Jimmy (Israel practices apartheid) Carter signed the SALT II agreement, but could not get it ratified. He vowed to implement it anyway. President Trump should unequivocally withdraw the U.S. from this so-called treaty. It is an attempt to weaken individual human rights (self-defense) and to undermine the U.S.

    JorgeNorberto Pedace
    Guest
    JorgeNorberto Pedace

    De que espiral descendente queremos hablar,cuando estamos advirtiendo a un país belicoso que deje de hacer alarde de armamentos nucleares,y permanentemente está amenazando con llegar con sus misiles a nuestro territorio,o cuan do estamos frente a una delincuencia asesina como la MS 13,o cuando tenemos que estar en guardia,por la EXISTEN CIA de un terrorismo internacional,que ataca sorpresivamente en cualquier parte y con distintas modalidades,o cuando estamos en nuestra casa,y se nos aparece un individuo armado,con intenciones de robo.Nuevamente armas,son todas aquellas que puede utilizar el hombre con la intención de hacer daño,un auto,un camión, una motocicleta,un cuchillo de mesa… Read more »

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    This was the signature attempt by the Liar in Chief Obama to get gun control rammed through. It failed and now we must keep on driving a stake through its black heart until its dead.

    Rock
    Guest
    Rock

    Zackley !!! Hey, I find that monument to be offensive, it needs to be removed and destroyed immediately.

    Dr. Strangelove
    Guest
    Dr. Strangelove

    As much as I dislike the monument, the libtards have the same 1st amendment rights as everyone else.

    Laddyboy
    Guest
    Laddyboy

    Then, IF your statement is true, why are the monuments erected to American Patriotic War-Between-the-States statues and monuments plus the Confederate BATTLE-FLAG being REMOVED due to the HURT-FEELINGS of these same LEFTIES you say have equal rights of expression. I as an American WANT these HISTORICAL monuments and BATTLE-FLAG – – – – – B A C K !

    Rock
    Guest
    Rock

    You are 100% correct !

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @Lad, I agree, but how will you get anyone to pay attention to your worthy cause? You have to get a group to go to the streets.

    tomcat
    Guest
    tomcat

    @ Laddyboy, good thinking and rightfully so. I feel this monument is a sham to our Constitution and should be taken down. Apparently, Dr. Strangelove has his snowflake side showing. First Amendment rights are very conveniently used on the libs side to fit whatever stance they want to make, and I might add IGNORING THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION is just part of their pansy way of getting whatever they want. Most of us have much more important things to think about than political correctionist B*S*. When they violate they law they should be locked up but that doesn’t seem… Read more »

    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
    Guest
    VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

    When it comes to the libs and the lefties as my man Lt. Col. Slade says “If I were half the man I was 5 years ago I’D TAKE A FLAMETHROWER TO THIS PLACE!”