Africa: Do not bow down to pressure, A Bullet Proof Arms Trade Treaty or no Treaty

By Alyne Cistone

 

I woke up this morning feeling sad and disfranchised. Yesterday was a defining moment in the Arms Trade Treaty Negotiation process. The first draft of the ATT was finally tabled in plenary and for the first time, we all had a chance to get a sense of whether a comprehensive ATT was within reach by Friday.

The item that struck a painful code for not just me but most African countries was the exclusion of Ammunition from within the scope of the text.  Memories of friends and families of friends that have perished and continue to perish through gun violence came flooding back. How deserving they are of a law that would prevent the same happening to others!

 Until now, African states have played a key role in calling for a strong Arms Trade Treaty. With just three days to go on the treaty negotiations, campaigners are calling on Africa to hold firm and resist any pressure to cave in on key issues like ammunition.

“Africa is awash with small arms and ammunition, but what is a gun without a bullet? African states have a key role to play on the outcome of the negotiations for a robust arms trade treaty which includes controls on the trade and transfers of small arms and ammunition. Africa must hold firm and resist any pressure to cave in on key issues like ammunition.” Said Baffour Amoa, President of the West African Action Network on Small Arms (WAANSA).

Africa is one of the regions in the world most affected by the impact of armed conflict. Weapons have flowed into the region for decades devastating the lives and livelihoods of countless people. The economic cost of conflict for Africa is also high – with armed conflict costing an average of $18bn per year.

“Every day, I see the impact of armed violence on my community the same scenes unfold in hospitals and clinics across Africa.  There are more than 50 African states taking part in the negotiations – they have the future of so many lives in their hands. They must use their courage and continue to fight for the strong treaty Africa deserves.” Said Dr. Robert Mtonga, Co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

Last week, Malawi delivered a statement outlining the minimum humanitarian principles that must be included in the treaty signed by 73 other states, including 22 from Africa. This included an unequivocal call for the treaty to encompass all conventional arms, including small arms, light weapons and ammunitions.

As well as ammunition, another critical focus during the final days of negotiations is on the steps governments will be required to take before deciding whether an arms transfer should go ahead or not.

Amnesty International recently documented arms supplies from China, Sudan and Ukraine, which triggered indiscriminate attacks by both the South Sudanese Armed Forces and armed opposition groups in South Sudan. If the treaty has strong criteria that protect human rights, then such arms transfers would not be allowed to take place in future.

Africa has so much to lose this week if the treaty is weak or has big gaps in it which allow irresponsible or illicit transfers to continue. The inclusion of small arms, light weapons and ammunition must be non-negotiable – these are the weapons of mass destruction in Africa” added Robert Mtonga.

Tackling corruption in the poorly-regulated, international arms trade is also a growing concern amongst African states, particularly Ghana, Zambia and Nigeria, who say corruption is mainly responsible for some of the major difficulties that exist in accounting and reporting on arms transfers.

They say the treaty needs to have the strength to clamp down on corruption at different stages in the arms pipeline in order to have maximum benefit.  There are also concerns that the loophole that allows states to give weapons/military equipment as gifts should also be closed.

“We need to see real progress now on many important areas – particularly on small arms, light weapons and ammunitions. But we are running out of time now with less than three days of negotiations left. I call on all those states that have shown an interest in protecting lives in Africa to demonstrate their commitment now.”  Concluded Baffour Amoa.

The final negotiated text of the first ever Arms Trade Treaty is expected this coming Friday.

 

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT): an historical opportunity and indispensable tool to help promote international peace

Angeline Annesteus

 

The current practice of allowing irresponsible transfer of military and security equipments has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of life, loss of livelihoods and gross International human rights and humanitarian laws violations. Nations of the world are finally gathered in New York to develop a treaty that will help bring about the much needed accountability, transparency in arms trade that ultimately will positively impact human rights.

While there have been different forms of national and regional regulations on arms flows, there are currently no comprehensive legally binding international rules governing the global arms trade. As a result, UN arms embargoes are violated, and gaps and loopholes are common in both regional and international controls allowing arms brokers to make huge profits while trading with scrupulous regimes, rebel groups, terrorists, and militias who are chief human rights violators.

It is an absurd and sad reality that from oil to bananas there are international agreements governing their trade while there is none controlling arms flows. This July 2012, political leaders have a historic opportunity to negotiate a comprehensive and robust internationally agreed treaty to regulate the global arms trade and finally place human rights, sustainable development, and humanitarian ambitions above profit and self-interest.

The ATT seeks to strictly regulate the sale and transfer of all weapons, arms, munitions, and related equipment used in military and international security operations, and will require states to publicly report on all deliveries and undertake rigorous risk assessments prior to any authorization of an international arms transfer or transaction.

There is no doubt, if delegates leave no room for loopholes in the final agreement, the ATT will certainly be an indispensable tool in maintaining international security. 

Financing Adaptation: Who Will Pay?

[images from BBC]

by Nathan Thanki and Graham Reeder

Given that we’re now experiencing another summer of bizarre weather events, including deadly heat waves, wildfires, and storms in the US, and increased chances of another El Nino year, many in the US are finally opening their eyes to what scientists have been telling them for years: climate change is real, but not only that, it is happening now. Climate change is no longer a theoretical danger, it is a tangible phenomenon that is striking worldwide. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of climate change lies in the fact that it affects first and foremost the world’s most vulnerable people, usually those who have done the least to cause climate change.

Hopefully that knowledge will lead us to conclude that adaptation to climate change is something that should be developed, studied, and supported with finance, technology, and capacity. Depending on the resilience of a community, people will adapt to climate change when driven to in a variety of different ways. This is why it is important to support adaptation proactively, not as a last minute band-aid solution. Building strong and resilient communities that are informed about and prepared for the challenges they will face is the only way to avoid catastrophe when the challenges of climate change hit; this became all too clear in the US during Hurricane Katrina, when careless and underfunded disaster management led to tragedy on a totally unnecessary scale.

From that we should probably conclude that adaptation to climate change is something that should be developed, studied, and supported with finance, technology, and capacity. But if one looks into the history of the concept of adaptation, we see that not everyone has reached such obvious conclusions. Initially it seemed that to prioritise adaptation was 'defeatist' – a sort of acceptance that climate change was happening already which would allow big emitters to say "well hang about, it's already happening and it aint so bad, let's keep going here." For years the fight was meant to be on how to stop these emitters from business as usual: the mitigation battle. It turns out that mitigation can be a money spinner for some, and as the carbon markets and their various complexities were born and grew up into the evil bastard children they now are (just google REDD+ human rights violations for a whole litany of errors), the adaptation element was banished to more obscure corners of academia and activism. There is good work being done on adaptation, but it has largely been done in universities and scientific agencies or with smaller NGOs. The most high profile adaptation planning is done by developed world governments who are investing in their own adaptation planning and implementation, while doing very little at the multilateral level beyond giving encouraging words of support to those doing further research.

In Durban everyone was interested in the Green Climate Fund. One of the big demands from civil society was that this new tool in the already cluttered climate finance toolbox would address the adaptation gap by specifying that at least 50% of funds should be for adaptation projects. Closing the “adaptation gap” has long been a priority of developing countries, and in the discussions surrounding the GCF it was clear that it had become a priority for much of civil society too. For good reason: the report from the GEF to the Conference shows that some $3 billion have been doled out for mitigation projects, compared to a measly $300 million for adaptation.

Read more…

Cross post: Rio+20 fails to deliver on Health and Migration issues

 

-Cross posted from the International Centre for Migration Health and Development (ICMHD) at  http://icmhd.wordpress.com/

Rio+20 fails to deliver on Health and Migration issues

Image

As the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, also known as Rio+20 or the Earth Summit, wrapped up at the end of last week, responses from experts, media and civil society ranged from lukewarm notes of voluntary commitments made by some countries on the side to outright rejection of the outcome and the conference itself. Overall, world leaders and governments failed to come to a strong agreement that would ensure a safe and just future through a post-2015 sustainable development regime. Instead, they largely spent time hammering out trade agreements and making noncommittal statements about the importance of a broad range of issues.

In terms of migration and health, the Rio outcome document titled “The Future we want”, delivered very little new progress. At the original Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, leaders were committed to developing better modelling and research on migration and the environment, new policies and programmes that would address environmental migrants and displaced people, and stronger capacity to address the needs of environmental migrants. Since then, progress has been mixed, positive examples include the annual Global Forum on Migration and Development and the Global Migration Group, two organisations that improve data, consolidate information, develop strategies, and encourage best practices on links between migration and development.

However, most of the progress made and research done on migration and development has been from a strictly economic perspective. This prioritises working conditions and remittances, which are important, but fails to see migration for what it is: a cross-cutting issue that needs to be addressed in a wide range of sectors, like health. A cross-sectoral approach to migration would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of all the work that needs to be done to protect this often highly vulnerable group of people.

Health outcomes were little better, Health and Population are at least considered a thematic area in the framework for action and follow-up, but the outcome was weak overall, with fewer than half of the paragraphs using “commit” as operative language, favouring weaker language such as “recognise,” “emphasize,” and “reaffirm.” Thankfully, the text did commit countries to consider population trends, including migration, in development planning, though it neglected the important ties between migration, development, the environment, and health.

Language concerning reproductive health, though present, was not as strong as it should have been, largely due to strong objections by the Vatican, an observer state in the process. In her closing remarks last Friday, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said “while I am very pleased that this year’s outcome document endorses sexual and reproductive health and universal access to family planning, to reach out goals in sustainable development we also have to ensure women’s reproductive rights. Women must be empowered to make decisions about whether and when to have children. And the United States will continue to work to ensure that those rights are respected in international agreements.” Reproductive rights are a fundamental precondition for sustainable development, and migrant and refugee women need special consideration as they face their own unique sets of circumstances that strongly influence their reproductive health.

Despite the failure of the world’s governments to come to a robust agreement last week in Rio, important work on all of the issues of sustainable development, including migrant health, is still being done at a range of different levels.

-Graham Reeder