Saferworld could not agree more that guns, and other such weapons, devastate lives and undermine development. We have campaigned for many years for better controls on the export and import of arms, and more effective action to counter their proliferation in societies such as Uganda. We see an international arms trade treaty as a vital step and we were delighted when the UK government gave the treaty its support in 2005.
As Gareth Thomas argues, there has already been some progress in tackling the scourge of small arms. The adoption of the UN Programme of Action was a major step. We have also seen progress at national and regional levels – not least in East Africa, where states have been making firm steps to improve small arms control through the development of a legally-binding regional protocol and comprehensive national action plans to tackle small arms in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.
However, we still desperately need an international agreement to better control the transfer of conventional weapons. Since the UN Small Arms Review conference in July this year failed to toughen global efforts to better regulate transfers of small arms, it is even more important that we see positive progress towards an ATT on all conventional arms.
Next month, the first crucial steps towards an ATT will hopefully be taken– when UN member states will vote on a resolution, tabled by the UK, with Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya, at the first committee at the General Assembly. The resolution will call for the UN Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts to examine the feasibility, scope and parameters for an ATT.
Many states have already given their support to the ATT, but it is not enough for the resolution just to pass. Only a resounding victory in its favour will give the ATT the momentum it needs in the complex negotiations that will follow.
Ultimately, the arms control will only succeed if given force at the national level. While impressed by the leadership the UK government has given to the ATT, we challenge Thomas’s statement that ‘we have strong arms controls in the UK’. Yes, the UK government has stronger arms controls than many, but there are many loopholes in existing legislation that continue to allow for UK weapons to reach regions of conflict and fall into the hands of unscrupulous users.
For example, 70 per cent of the components in the Turkish-made Land Rover Defender 110 military vehicles used by Uzbek troops during the Andijan massacre in May 2005 were made in the UK, yet the export of these components did not require a licence. And, on occasion, where evidence of illicit activity has come to light, the government has appeared reluctant to investigate thoroughly. For example, in a case of a UK company negotiating in 2004 to supply rocket launchers, field guns, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and pistols to the embargoed Sudan.
In May 2007, the government will conduct a review of the first three years of the Export Control Act. This review provides a timely opportunity for the government to respond to calls from Saferworld and others, such as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Strategic Export Controls, to close the existing loopholes, not least on extraterritorial controls on arms brokering and improve the monitoring of the use of arms exported from the UK.