UNGA okays Arms Trade Treaty, but will it go the CTBT way?

The 193-member United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday approved the Arms Trade Treaty with 154 votes in favour, three against and 23 abstentions, an event where interestingly India and Pakistan were on the same page. India objected to several clauses of the ATT and finally abstained, rather than attracting the American ire by voting against it. India can derive succor from the fact that Russia and China, fellow BRICS countries, also abstained during the voting, albeit on different grounds. Countries which sign the treaty will have to report their arms sales every year, but those like India which have opted to remain out of its ambit will have no such obligation. In any case, the treaty lacks teeth in the sense that it has no enforcing mechanism.[caption id=“attachment_684621” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Arms control. Reuters[/caption] Though it is the first-ever treaty that links global arms to human rights records of buyers and aims at making the ever-increasing $70 billion global arms trade more transparent than ever before, it would take a long time, perhaps years, before it becomes operational in true sense. The next stage in the cumbersome process to make the treaty operational is on 3 June when it will be open for signature. It can become operational only after 50 signatory states ratify it and from the day this feat is achieved it will come into force 90 days thereafter. But it remains to be seen whether the US itself, the prime mover and shaker behind the treaty, will be able to ratify it given the massive domestic opposition to it. Vocal critics of the treaty like the powerful National Rifle Association have opposed the treaty tooth and nail and vowed to block its ratification arguing that it would undermine domestic gun-ownership rights. Good, bad and the ugly The good part of the treaty is that it will regulate the global arms trade and make it difficult for those states which have been flouting human rights with impunity to get access to the arms as freely as they have been all these decades. Terrorists as well as the underworld will get a jolt by the treaty, but then these non-state actors are known to have evolved and mutated over the years and been able to bypass many such international legislations in the past. The bad part is that given the fact that major arms exporting countries like Russia and China and major arms importing countries like India, Pakistan and Indonesia have abstained from the voting, it is highly questionable that the treaty would be able to achieve its mission objectives. The ugly part is that the treaty is ill-equipped to deal strongly with terrorists and other non-state actors – a point driven home by India. The Indian objection in this regard found support from several powers like Russia, Indonesia and Syria who argued against the treaty saying that it did not ban outright arms transfers to rebel groups and other non-state actors. Why India abstained? This question was answered by India’s Permanent Representative to the Conference of Disarmament in Geneva, Sujata Mehta, in her address on 2 April during the UNGA session on the ATT. While proffering India’s Explanation of Vote (EoV), Mehta pointed out that India had stated in the concluding plenary of the final conference on ATT on 28 March, that the draft treaty text sought to be adopted through this resolution fell short of India’s expectations and a number of other key stakeholders in producing a text that is clear, balanced and implementable and able to attract universal adherence. “From the beginning of the ATT process, India has maintained that such a treaty should make a real impact on illicit trafficking in conventional arms and their illicit use especially by terrorists and other unauthorized and unlawful non-State actors,” Mehta said. “India has also stressed consistently that the ATT should ensure a balance of obligations between exporting and importing states. However, the draft treaty that is annexed to the resolution is weak on terrorism and non-state actors and these concerns find no mention in the specific prohibitions of the Treaty. Further, India cannot accept that the Treaty be used as an instrument in the hands of exporting states to take unilateral force majeure measures against importing states parties without consequences. The relevant provisions in the final text do not meet our requirements.” Mehta pointed out that India already has in place strong and effective national exports controls with respect to defence items. She said every member state has a legitimate right to self-defence and India’s considered stand is that there is no conflict between the pursuit of national security objectives and the aspiration that the Arms Trade Treaty be strong, balanced and effective. “My government will undertake a full and thorough assessment of the ATT from the perspective of our defence, security and foreign policy interests. At this stage we are not in a position to endorse the text. Therefore, India has abstained on the resolution,” ambassador Mehta said. Syria In conclusion two points need to be made as to why the treaty would prove to be a paper tiger. On the India objection, supported by Russia and Syria, that the treaty was soft on non-state actors, the argument of the US-led Western community was that the treaty could not have a specific reference to terrorists, non-state actors and rebel groups because there have been times when “national liberation movements needed protection from abusive governments”. Their obvious reference is to Syria. But even in this context the West seems to have floundered big time. That is because even after the treaty becomes fully operational, if at all it does in foreseeable future, it is highly unlikely that it would lead to drying up of arms supplies to Syria when Iran is dead against such a move and Russia hesitant to do the West’s bidding to push Syria over the ropes. CTBT The second point is even more damning. The US, which alone accounts for 30 percent of global arms exports and which ensured the passage of the treaty at the UNGA, is itself a doubtful candidate when it comes to the treaty’s ratification. As pointed out earlier, powerful lobbies are working overtime within the US to ensure that it is not ratified when it comes up before the Senate. After all, the US has done similar things with its other pet international legislations. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a case in point. The US, which has been trying for years to shove CTBT down the Indians’ throat, is itself playing truant in this context. The US signed the CTBT on 24 September 1996 but has not ratified it till date even though of the total member states of 196, as many as 183 have signed and 159 ratified it. The writer is a Firstpost columnist and a strategic affairs analyst who can be reached at bhootnath004@yahoo.com.