Prev
Next

The arms race is now open to too many competitors

Robert Tickner

by Robert Tickner

02 Jul 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Arms Race, International Relations, United Nations, War

31 comments

This week all the countries of the world will come together in New York for negotiations on a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty.  With millions of civilians paying the price every year for unfettered access to conventional weapons, it is hard to think of a more important task.

More of a burnoff than a buyback. Pic: AFP

Conventional weapons – from warships and tanks to fighter jets and machine guns – are too often easy to obtain and every day the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is confronted with the consequences. 

We provide medical care for tens of thousands of victims of armed conflict and violent unrest every year in areas as varied as Africa, the Middle East, South America and our own Pacific region.  Moreover, assistance for vulnerable people is often not available because humanitarian operations have been suspended or delayed due to armed security threats.

As long as weapons are easily available, this will facilitate violations of international humanitarian law and endanger the provision of humanitarian assistance.  It is astounding that while the international trade in dangerous materials – including hazardous chemicals, substances that deplete the ozone layer, hazardous waste and narcotic drugs – is regulated, an international treaty governing the trade in conventional weapons does not yet exist.

We now have the opportunity to remedy the absence of international standards in this area. Governments should seize this unique opportunity to curb the costs exacted by poorly regulated international arms transfers.

Over the past 10 years, efforts to limit the human cost in this area have been gaining momentum. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, supported by a broad range of civil society organisations, has repeatedly appealed to governments to enhance protection for civilians in armed conflicts and post-conflict situations by strengthening controls on arms transfers. 

At the United Nations, preparations to address this issue have been underway since 2006 and there is now broad-based support for the adoption of an effective Arms Trade Treaty.  The United Nations General Assembly has acknowledged on numerous occasions that the absence of uniform international standards for transferring conventional weapons contributes to armed conflict, displacement, crime and terrorism, which, in turn, undermines peace, reconciliation, safety, security and sustainable development.

Under the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, all States have an obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. This entails a responsibility to ensure the arms and ammunition they transfer do not end up in the hands of those who may be expected to use them in violation of international humanitarian law. To achieve this, the Arms Trade Treaty should require States to assess whether the weapons they are transferring will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law; the treaty should prohibit transfers when there is a clear risk of that happening.

Conventional weapons of any kind can be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and grave human rights violations. For this reason, the treaty should cover all such weapons. It is equally important the treaty cover ammunition, which is the ‘fuel’ of weapons-related violence. There are already massive numbers of weapons in circulation, but their impact depends on a constant supply of ammunition.

Negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty is a historic opportunity to reduce the incalculable human and social costs of easy access to conventional arms and ammunition. Reaching agreement on the treaty will be difficult and the negotiating teams in New York undoubtedly have their work cut out for them.  But the potential gains are great. 

This is a critical humanitarian issue which should unite the Government, Opposition and all political parties represented in the Australian parliament. A robust arms trade treaty can make a difference for millions of people living with insecurity and deprivation.  We must do everything we can to make it a reality.

Robert Tickner is the CEO of Australian Red Cross.  To find out more about international humanitarian law or make a donation to Red Cross please visit www.redcross.org.au.

Most commented

31 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Gregg says:

      07:41am | 02/07/12

      I allow plasma to be extracted from my blood on a regular basis by the Red Cross but I suspect getting global agreement on arms even if wishful thinking is going to be something else to actual compliance for there are so many economies dependant on producing arms, ammunition and warfare equipment of one form or another.

      If only we could have all the conflicts of the planet decided on the sporting arens, in boxing rings, water polo pools, ice hockey rinks or in paint ball games.
      We would then have so many more medical people able to concentrate on tending to the ill.

      Hopefully it would not lead to so much more over population that we would generate food shortage conflicts.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:45am | 02/07/12

      The whole US economy is based on arms production.  Economics is about supply and demand.  Back in 1938 Roosevelt needed to spend New Deal money on something, so he was hardly opposed to the impending war in Europe. History repeats itself.

      Reply

    • Bane says:

      11:25am | 02/07/12

      Why was my previous reply to this troll (acotrel) not posted? Are they a protected species? Although maybe I should be ignoring them.
      Are you for real acotrel? Are you suggesting Roosevelt was an evil man? Should he of been opposed to the war in Europe and let tyranny have it’s way. Maybe he supported Hitler. Did he also ask the Japanese to bomb them?
      Must be tough living in a world run by evil men and you being the only shining light

    • Stone age liberal says:

      03:21pm | 02/07/12

      Bane, you need a bit of history, in 38, the US was opening debating siding with the germans and was opening accepting of eugenics. It is not that Roosevelt was a bad person but a product of his times. The US arms market is one of the largest in the world generating a considerable amount of the U.S’s GNP (about 1%) however in regards to an international proportion of weapon sales I have read (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/655-2002/6552002.html) that it is close to 40%.

    • Maude says:

      09:02am | 02/07/12

      “in 1993 the government of Rwanda imported, from China, three quarters of a million dollars worth of machetes. This was enough for one new machete for every third male.”

      The rest, as they say, is history.

      Reply

    • BrightSparke says:

      01:13pm | 02/07/12

      Last I heard Rwanda was a Tropical African country with impenetrable tracts of jungle.

      But no, the machetes were obviously deliberately bought as weapons rather than as a tool that happened to be useful as a weapon. (Like many farm tools are)

    • marley says:

      01:45pm | 02/07/12

      Rwanda has impenetrable jungle?  I don’t think so.  It’s grassland savannah with almost no forest cover.  So unless they used the machetes for lopping the tops of pineapples, I have to wonder what they needed so many for.

    • Nessy says:

      09:16am | 02/07/12

      Why are we relying on the UN for this? The GATT/WTO has a strong record (relatively) of creating rules and regulations for trade in goods and services, even intellectual property. They would be far better placed to actually get something up on arms trade than the UN.

      What was the last commercial trade issue the UN involved itself with - the Oil for Food program.

      Reply

    • Doc says:

      09:19am | 02/07/12

      Take away the firearms, and you’ll have people using machetes and lumps of 4x2 instead.

      it is, unfortunately, human nature.

      Reply

    • Brian says:

      10:40am | 02/07/12

      True. A hell of a lot easier to run away from a bloke with a 4x2 though, or to fight back enough to make it not worth the risk to him.

    • godsky says:

      11:03am | 02/07/12

      Agreed,
      Humans are humans.
      I appreciate what the red cross/crescent is trying.
      But We are no better than most animals, just better armed

    • Jim says:

      09:24am | 02/07/12

      Shows how much we focus on the wrong things when it comes to regulation. Time to drop the trade rules on all food and switch that to arms. That said, I think it might be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted - an Ammunition Treaty might be more in order?

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:39am | 02/07/12

      I find these sorts of articles, that are written mainly in the abstract, quite frustrating. In particular, the article does not spell out, in any specific way, how the obligations imposed under any proposed treaty would work. For example, would it seek to limit the ability of sovereign states to sell arms to its allies, if these allies may use the weapons to, say, engage in some sort of violent political repression?

      If so, I would argue that the whole exercise is a waste of time. States will never actually stop using access to weapons as a tool of their foreign policy, so any such treaty would be honoured only in the breach, surreptitious or otherwise. I am not even sure that such a treaty would be a good idea, if it was followed by its signatories. Important alliance arrangements rely, in substantial part, on access to weapons technologies.

      A similar problem arises in respect of sales to non-state actors. Where would LIbya and the Syrian opposition be if friendly governments were not able to arm them, due to the operation of a restrictive treaty?

      This sounds like it would create more problems than it would solve.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      10:08am | 02/07/12

      Well, we have treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and on land-mines, so maybe it would be something along those lines.  But I agree with your point - I’d like a concrete explanation of what’s being proposed.

    • JM says:

      10:35am | 02/07/12

      There is information available here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty

      Some key parts of the proposed treaty under discussion are signatory countries would take responsibility to ensure they would not allow the transfer of weapons to another country if there is a substantial risk those weapons would:
      - Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability.
      - Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.

      To me this does not seem an overly onerous obligation, but I take your point these things are difficult to implement in the real world.

    • MarkS says:

      03:35pm | 02/07/12

      “Be used in a manner that would seriously undermine peace and security or provoke, prolong or aggravate internal, regional, subregional or international instability”

      So the USA was clearly in the wrong providing arms to Britain when they fought Nazi Germany. After all without those weapons that regional conflict which ended up creating worldwide conflict would have been over so much earlier.

      Just as NATO where clearly in the wrong providing arms to the rebels in Libya, there is no doubt that this undermined peace, the Libyan government’s security and provoked, prolonged & aggravated the internal instability.

      A free pass to dictators all around the world. Yea what a grand idea and the dictators are going to listen when we beg them not to arm their proxies as well. Live on your knees in chains, it is better for world peace.

    • Status Quo = Empowerment says:

      10:38am | 02/07/12

      World peace, what a beautiful idea, hmm why didn’t I think of that.

      The toughest arms control will never hinder a determined group from their objective, the IRA is proof and a lesson to all who dream on about their version of peace.
      The true path to peace is the soloution to all problems is EMPOWERMENT, empowerment through knowlege, pride, independance, equality and capability.
      Disarming the peaceful populace will only allow tyrants free rule, and to quote a few LEADERS that shaped the world,
      Mahatma Gandhi : ” Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look apon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest”
      George Mason 1788 : ” To disarm the people was the most effective way to enslave them”

      Anon, 02/7/2012:  “History is a cruel but good teacher, failure to heed her lessons from the past will teach us the same kinds of misery for the future”
      It’s all about “Status Quo” Robert , the bullies’worst enemy is, 
      “Self Empowerment” of the victim.

      Reply

    • MarkS says:

      10:42am | 02/07/12

      Entire article is a lot if goodie two shoes, best wishes, ignore the real world bullshit.

      The day after everybody is disarmed; somebody will make a knife & declare that they are king. All that arms treaties will do is limit arms to Governments or those that some Government support. What price freedom when weapons are only in the hands of the oppressors.

      Wars do not happen because there are weapons, weapons happen because there are wars. A person is just a dead if killed by a machete then an AK47. Furthermore why the worry only about civilians? Soldiers regardless of if they are volunteers, draftees, child slaves etc are all human beings as well.

      Treaties on weapons only work when using the weapon is in fact counter productive. This is why the treaty on dum dum bullets works and why most nations do not have nukes. If the weapon is useful to that government, it will be obtained.

      Reply

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      12:09pm | 02/07/12

      Well said. War is the natural state of the human world in any case and this will never change, regardless of what we use or don’t use to try and kill each other. This kind of thing would probably work great in Imagination Land but not in the real world.

    • Stephen says:

      11:13am | 02/07/12

      Are the United Nations still going? I thought they broke up after their last album “Good News From Copenhagen” bombed.

      Reply

    • PaxUs says:

      11:16am | 02/07/12

      Too much money to be made to stop this murderous hypocrisy. When the major players within the UN are also the very same nations providing the supply…...don’t expect much to happen.  Look at Russia and Syria.  China would sell it’s grandmother if it could turn a profit. Bankers would sell their whole families for a similar profit.  The big game plan is to disarm all citizens in the West, not to end the arms trade.  We live in a global theatre complete with scripted lines for the actors within this black comedy.

      Reply

    • PaxUs says:

      11:23am | 02/07/12

      There has not been one day of peace upon the globe ever since the establishment of the United Nations.  That my friends. speaks louder than all the useless treaties in the world.  The UN can shove their one-world-government back up the sewage pipe that brought us WW1 and WW2.  Same game-plan, different name of the organisation. Hitler had every right to spit chips as did Japan.  They had no right to commit the atrocities beneath their regimes, but their motivation to stop the West bullying them was valid.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      01:35pm | 02/07/12

      I would point out that there wasn’t one day of peace on the globe before the establishment of the UN either.  At least we haven’t had a world war since it was set up.

      And I’m not sure how you think Japan’s brutal invasions of Manchuria and China were directed against western bullying.  I’d have described Japan as the bully, myself.

    • PaxUs says:

      11:29am | 02/07/12

      “In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.” Tacitus

      Reply

    • M says:

      01:13pm | 02/07/12

      You know what happens when you prohibit something, right?

      Reply

    • David says:

      02:18pm | 02/07/12

      Irony to the extreme. The US manufactures and sells more weapons than any other country. Great place to hold talks on arms treaties and restricting arms. If the US stopped selling arms to the world, most of the civil wars we see in places like Africa and the Middle East would be fought with sticks and stones and the casualty counts would be so much lower. If the US stopped selling all those weapons… oh never mind they’ll never stop.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      02:46pm | 02/07/12

      Actually, most of the bush wars in Africa have been fought with AK47s and its clones.  The Americans sure as hell didn’t manufacture them.  The average guerrilla army can’t afford aircraft, which are what constitute the bulk of American arms sales.

    • MarkS says:

      03:25pm | 02/07/12

      @David
      “fought with sticks and stones and the casualty counts would be so much lower”

      Not true, try to read some history some day. Casualty counts have gone down.

      Modern firepower has created an empty spread out battlefield where to be seen is to be killed, the smaller number of targets has resulted in a lowering of casualty numbers.

    • simon says:

      03:44pm | 02/07/12

      David, Blame Soviet Russia and unscroupolous arms dealers for the abundance of weapons in Africa ( and just about any other where there is civil unrest )
      Last I looked just about all the weapons were as Marley stated, AK’s and their clones. I can recimmend a book called ‘the Gun’ by C.J. Chivers, which goes into depth about how the AK became so prolific in hotspots around the world

      Reply

    • David says:

      07:36pm | 02/07/12

      MarkS history is actually my field. Although in a certain way you are correct that modern weapons (in particular their precision) have reduced many of the horrific injuries and large body counts of wars in the past. However, the ability to cause death on larger scales than ever before is the other side of the story. How many arrows do you think an archer can draw and fire and how much strength did the archer need to draw the string? Now compare that to what a modern automatic rifle is capable of.
      The point of my comment was simple. The US (and yes many other countries) make so much money from the arms industry they will never do anything serious to curtail those profits. I singled out the US because they sell the most.

    • Replica rolex says:

      07:19pm | 23/07/12

      I cling on to listening to the news broadcast lecture about receiving boundless online grant applications so I have been looking around for the best site to get one. Could you tell me please, where could i get some?

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:39PM

RT @ToryShepherd: Onya, @KRuddMP“@newscomauHQ: BREAKING: Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same sex marriage: http://t.co/CFaHrxyV5G”

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:39PM

RT @newscomauHQ: BREAKING: Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same sex marriage: http://t.co/2KEO6yEx5F

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:34PM

True Rudd style. Bazillion word folksy statement

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:29PM

RT @Rob_Stott: Like a lot of Republicans in the US, it's much easier to support gay marriage when you're no longer in a position to do anyt…

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter