Small Arms Monitor - Final Edition

[Kavitha Suthanthiraraj]

Small Arms Monitor of "Third Biennial Meeting of States (BMS) on Small
Arms"
Final Edition


The Small Arms Monitor is produced by Reaching Critical Will and the
Arms Control Reporter.
For more information visit:http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/
salw/bms2008/monitor/no6.html

Summary
Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will and Michael Spies, Arms Control
Reporter

From 14–18 July 2008, the Third Biennial Meeting of States (BMS) on
Small Arms met in New York to review the implementation of the 2001
Programme of Action (PoA) to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the
Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects. The
BMS also reviewed implementation of the 2005 International Instrument
to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable
Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons. Neither the PoA nor the
International Tracing Instrument (ITI) are legally-binding, however,
both were negotiated and approved within the UN framework and all UN
member states have committed themselves meeting their requirements.
The BMS gives states a chance to report on national implementation of
the PoA and ITI and more importantly, to highlight their needs for
assistance and to suggest or recommend future steps for further
implementation.

Conference organization
Seven months before the BMS met in New York, chair-designate
Ambassador Dalius Cekuolis of Lithuania began organizing the
conference in coordination with a group of facilitators, whom he
charged with developing working papers and leading discussions on
select themes. The conference’s programme of work provided for
interactive discussions on these themes, which included:

* International cooperation, assistance, and national capacity-
building;
* Stockpile management and surplus disposal;
* Illicit brokering; and
* Review of the International Tracing Instrument (ITI).

While most delegations expressed support for a focused conference, some
—most notably Mexico—disagreed with which themes were selected and
expressed surprise that certain themes, such as monitoring and
humanitarian issues, were left out, despite the known priorities of
several delegations. Despite these lingering disagreements, these
delegations still participated actively in discussion on the above
topics.

Substantive discussions
In discussions on international cooperation and assistance, which
constituted a background theme in the consideration of all other
issues, delegations emphasized the need for assistance to result in
increased national capacity rather than one-time help. Donor countries
generally insisted on the necessity of national reporting in assessing
the needs of states, while many developing countries resisted this
linkage. On stockpile management and surplus disposal, delegations
highlighted challenges the issue poses toward implementation of the
PoA and made numerous suggestions for how to strengthen relevant
legislation, procedures, and operations. During the discussion on
illicit brokering, a number of states, mostly from Latin America and
the Caribbean, urged the negotiation of a legally-binding instrument,
while others cautioned against what they see as a difficult
undertaking. Other states emphasized the development of regional
mechanisms or national legislation. During the review of the
implementation of the ITI, delegations focused on the need for
technical assistance and information exchange, and many delegations
argued the ITI should be legally-binding and/or that it should include
the marking and tracing of ammunition.

Drafting the final report
The chair began drafting the final report of the meeting well in
advance, and distributed it at the start of the conference as WP.5.
The facilitator for discussions on marking and tracing also circulated
a draft outcome paper on the implementation of the ITI at the start of
the conference, as WP.6. The evening after the discussion on each of
these agenda items, the chair provided additional draft language for
the final report, upon which delegations were allowed to comment to
the facilitators and the chair for consideration. The Iranian
delegation complained about this process on Tuesday, 15 July, arguing
the outcome document must be negotiated line by line because the draft
outcome text language that had been circulated the night before
contained substantive points. The following day, the chair explained
that all draft language for the outcome document would be open to
ongoing negotiations and consultations but that the short time-frame
of the BMS does not allow for a complete negotiation of the text. He
encouraged states to cooperate actively with the facilitators to
ensure their interests were addressed in the draft language.

The final report and the way forward
Chapter IV of the final report provides a summary of concerns,
highlights, appeals, suggestions, and recommendations made by
delegations during the course of the BMS on the first three thematic
issues, including recommendations on stockpile management and for
legislation on arms brokering. It also lists some of the other issues
raised by delegations during the course of discussions. The factual
elements of the text had been largely drafted in advance of the
meeting. The fairly weak recommendations contained in the report,
compiled in sections titled “the way forward,” were developed by
appointed facilitators, all of whom engaged in wide consultations
prior to the BMS. The majority of states, while acknowledging their
doubts and displeasure over the strength of the final draft text,
accepted this method of developing the final document. However, the
Iranian delegation demanded a comprehensive negotiation of the text,
arguing that presenting a document to states to accept without formal
negotiations on its contents undermines multilateralism and the UN
process. Despite appeals by a number of delegations during the final
day of the conference, the Iranian delegation requested a recorded
vote on the document, to which it abstained, along with Zimbabwe. 134
delegations voted in favour and no one opposed the report.

Overall assessment
While the substance of the final report was weaker than most NGOs and
delegations most affected by gun violence would have liked, most
agreed with Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action
Network on Small Arms, that the agreement “is a significant step
forward for the international effort to tackle the illicit gun trade.”
After the Review Conference of the PoA ended without the adoption of a
final document in 2006, participants were relieved to end with a
document that provided tools to move forward with implementing the PoA
and the ITI.

Conference Highlights
Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will and Michael Spies, Arms Control
Reporter

Discussion on Substantive Issues

International cooperation, assistance, and national capacity-building
Arguing that implementation of the PoA requires a holistic approach,
most delegations agreed that this topic applies to all aspects of the
PoA and should be considered at each stage of discussion. One of the
foremost concerns cited by delegations was the problem of matching
donors with specific needs of states. Many donor countries offered
suggestions on how to accomplish this, such as by including a one-page
survey on assistance needs in annual reports (Japan); developing
country-specific assistance programmes (China); creating regional
working groups that could meet on specific issues and report back to
the BMS (United Kingdom); and developing national strategies (Canada).
Colombia called for harmonizing legislation, building national
capacity through trainings of officials and strengthening border
controls, and strengthening international cooperation and exchange of
information. The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs presented its
Programme of Action Implementation Support System, www.poa-iss.org, as
a tool for helping connect states in need of assistance with donor
states. This website brings together basic documentation, information
on best practices, an advisory network for national contact points,
and project proposals. Many delegations, particularly those from Latin
America and including MERCOSUR, Guyana, South Africa, Mexico, and the
Central American Integration System (SICA), opposed any preconditions,
such as requiring national reporting, for the provision of assistance.

Stockpile management and surplus disposal
Switzerland’s WP.3 on this subject, which initiated Tuesday’s
discussion, highlighted challenges and outlined steps states can take
to address stockpile problems, especially those related to
legislation, procedures, and operations. Some delegations, including
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) indicated the most important aspect
of stockpile management is international cooperation and assistance.
Other delegations, including Australia, China, and Germany,
recommended specific measures, including information exchange,
reviewing procedures and operations, developing relevant guidelines
within the UN, and improving legislative and regulatory frameworks
that govern the safety of stockpiles. Italy recommended the
development of a new international instrument for stockpile management
and destruction and argued that awareness raising on stockpile
management procedures is key along with increasing international
cooperation and assistance. Italy also suggested states strengthen
their export controls, such as through a “no re-transfer clause” and
consider allowing exporting countries to make regular visits to
relevant deposits to ensure the agreed arms transfer standards are
met.

Many delegations, particularly those from the west and including the
European Union, argued ammunition should be included in the PoA’s
consideration of stockpiles. While agreeing ammunition should be
included, Russia suggested the BMS focus on illicit trade problems of
ammunition stockpiles and surplus rather than explosions, arguing that
the risk of explosion comes from ammunition for heavy weapons and
mines, not from SALW ammunition.

Illicit brokering
Citing illicit brokering as one of the fundamental impediments to
implementation of the PoA, Latin American delegations, including
MERCOSUR, SICA and Mexico, Colombia, and CARICOM, called on all states
to work toward a process toward establishing a legally-binding
instrument on brokering. The International Committee for the Red Cross
(ICRC) said addressing the issue of brokering requires a uniform,
global, legally-binding framework—an international treaty. Pending
conclusion of an international instrument, the ICRC urged states to
establish and adhere to regional mechanism. The ICRC expressed the
view that in authorizing brokering transactions, states must take into
account the impact on international humanitarian law. South Africa’s
delegation said that while the principle of an international
instrument on illicit brokering is good, it is a very grey and vague
area and would therefore be very difficult to develop.

After Brian Wood presented the major findings of the 2007 Group of
Governmental Experts on illicit brokering, which were welcomed and
supported by many delegations, many states made recommendations.
Norway said it would like the BMS to call for full implementation of
brokering agreements and Mexico expressed the hope that the outcome
document would establish a road map for dealing with the issue of
brokering and said it would submit a proposal to the facilitator based
on the MERCOSUR working paper, WP.7. The Netherlands advocated for a
regional approach to cooperation in dealing with illicit brokering.
Australia suggested ten elements for national legislation on curbing
illicit brokering and Benin put forward possible specific solutions on
brokering, including establish creating model legislation for
presentation to member states, assistance developing accreditation
systems, and establishing regional monitoring mechanisms. China and
Japan both offered several specific suggestions for combating illicit
brokering. Japan further stated that enactment of national legislation
insufficient and that international cooperation was needed. Italy and
Turkey called for language in the outcome document to reflect the
contribution of the Firearms Protocol toward curbing illicit
brokering.

International Tracing Instrument (ITI)
Many Latin American and African delegations, including CARICOM and
RECSA, argued the ITI should have been made legally-binding and should
have included ammunition. The Philippines called on arms producing
states to comply with the ITI. Many delegations urged improvements in
information exchange and cooperation between national contact points,
regional, international, and non-governmental organizations. Many
states highlighted the need for technical assistance in marking
weapons effectively and some recommended that it be made mandatory for
weapons to be marked at the time of manufacture and import. The
International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC) urged all states to
actively trace weapons recovered during or after an armed conflict.
The ICRC also recommended that government experts directly involved in
implementing the ITI meet on a regular basis to share their experience
and consider implementation of the instrument.

Other issues
Development and human security: A cross-regional selections of
delegations, including Ghana, Jamaica, Nigeria, the Netherlands, and
Yemen highlighted the connections between the illicit trade of SALW
and development and human security. South Africa agreed that illicit
trade in SALW is a development issues but that states should be
required to include initiatives to combat this trade as part of their
overall development programmes in order to receive financial or
technical assistance from the international community. Several
delegations argued the PoA should be approached from both supply and
demand aspects and that root causes of demand, including poverty, must
be addressed.

Civil society: A cross-regional selection of delegations that are
generally accommodating of NGO participation, including those of
Canada, Ghana, Iceland, Jamaica, New Zealand, and Norway emphasized
the importance of civil society participation in implementing the PoA
and ITI and expressed support for the broader inclusion of civil
society in the small arms process. Pakistan’s delegation said that
while it does not object to civil society participation, there needs
to be a distinction between member states and civil society
organizations.

Gender: Iceland’s delegation emphasized the need for member states to
include gender considerations in their work on implementing the PoA.
Following an NGO presentation on SALW and gender-based violence, the
Australian delegation agreed that gender considerations and the
measures included in UN Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820
must be included in SALW considerations.

International Humanitarian Law: The International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC) articulated the need for states to respect International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) when considering arms transfers. The ICRC has
developed a practical guide to IHL criteria in arms transfers for use
by government officials. The ICRC also argued that increased respect
for law will reduce the vulnerability of people and reduce the demand
for SALW.

Other processes: Australia gave briefing on the “Geneva Process on
Small Arms,” which is working group that involves governments,
international organizations, and NGOs in regular informal
consultations to promote and monitor implementation of the PoA. The
working group prepared a food-for-thought paper on how to strengthen
the PoA beyond 2008 and refine the process for implementation of the
PoA. The United Kingdom pointed to the Best Practice Guidelines for
Exports of SALW adopted by the Wassenaar Arrangement in 2003,
explaining that it uses elements from these guidelines as a standard
for exporting arms even to states not participating in the Wassenaar
Arrangement. Panama suggested ways to limit gun ownership, including
programmes that exchange food coupons for weapons and that educate the
public on the dangers of owning a firearm. Canada gave a brief report
of a meeting in Geneva in August 2007 on controls of international
transfers of SALW, which Canada believes offered a valuable
opportunity for sustained and in-depth focus on one aspect of the PoA
and helped raise awareness about best practices and challenges.

Presentations by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations
A number of regional organizations reported on the nature of SALW-
related problems in their respective regions and on the progress of
programmes undertaken to combat illicit trade in SALW, including the
League of Arab States; the African Union; North Atlantic Treaty
Organization; the Organization of American States; Organization of
Security and Cooperation in Europe; the Regional Centre on SALW in the
Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa, and Bordering States; the East
African Community; the International Conference of the Great Lakes
Region; and the Central American Integration System. Interpol reported
on its development of information tools and database, information
collection sharing, and expertise sharing, related to combating
illicit brokering in small arms. The World Health Organization urged
governments to move beyond consideration of the supply dimensions of
SALW and to focus on prevention of armed conflict through available
conventional policy tools.

Representatives from a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
argued that the legal possession and use of guns by citizens should be
respected by any international action combating their illicit trade,
including the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities;
the National Firearms Association (Canada); the British Shooting
Sports Council; the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action; the
Firearms Importers Roundtable; the Sporting Shooters Association of
Australia; and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing
Institute. Other NGOs, including the International Action Network on
Small Arms (IANSA) and its partner organizations, provided
recommendations on a variety of issues related to the small arms
process, including stockpile management and surplus disposal;
regulations on licensing for gun ownership; consideration of gender-
based violence and the implementation of UN Security Council
resolutions 1325 and 1840; illegal brokering; and health concerns. In
addition, a former child soldier from Sudan, Emmanuel Jal, rapped a
song explaining his story and the plight of child soldiers.

Consideration of the Final Report and Outcome Documents

ITI outcome
On Thursday, 17 July, the Egyptian delegation, which drafted the
outcome paper on the implementation of the ITI, accepted a few changes
to the paper while chairing the discussion on ITI. The conference
agreed to include an eighth paragraph noting that some states
emphasized the importance of a legally-binding instrument (request by
Colombia) and that other states considered the nature of the document
to have been settled through negotiation (requested by the United
States in response to Colombia’s request). The Iranian delegation
announced it needed to await instructions from its capital, on the
pretext that the changes were substantive in nature, and requested a
decision on adopting the document be delayed until the following day.
The Egyptian chair was compelled to accept the outcome document ad
referendum, over Iran’s objections. This allowed delegations to submit
views on the text prior to consideration of the BMS final report on
Friday, however Iran did not raise any substantive objections to the
ITI during this time.

BMS outcome and final report
On Monday, 14 July, the chair explained that he would provide draft
outcome document language for each thematic topic on the evening
immediately following the discussion of that item. On Tuesday, 15
July, Iran’s delegation stated the outcome document must be
negotiated, noting the draft outcome text language that had been
circulated contained substantive points. On Wednesday, 16 July, the
chair explained that all draft language for the outcome document was
open to ongoing negotiations and consultations but that the short time-
frame of the BMS did not allow for a complete negotiation of the text.
On Friday, 18 July, the chair urged states to adopt the final report
as it stood, emphasizing its non-binding nature and characterizing it
as a very modest step. The chair noted that no delegation had
approached the conference facilitators with substantive comments on
the draft text.

At least 13 delegations expressed support for adopting the final
report as it stands, including Norway, the African Group, Nigeria,
Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, the United Kingdom,
MERCOSUR, CARICOM, the European Union, Italy, Japan, Kenya, and
Jamaica. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) said the majority of its
members were prepared to support the text as it stood. NAM noted that,
during the consultative process leading to the outcome document, NAM’s
positions had been heard and considered and that the draft report was
in line with its positions. NAM expressed the understanding, however,
that the facilitation process was not as transparent or inclusive as a
line by line negotiation. Syria's delegation noted there were
procedural gaps in the facilitation process, pointing to the lack of
active interchange, but said it would support the consensus.

However, the Iranian delegation blocked the adoption of the final
report by consensus, repeating its procedural concerns and its demand
for either a line by line negotiation on the outcome text or for that
portion of the report to be submitted by the chair as a summary
annexed to the final report. At least six delegations made direct
appeals to Iran to reconsider its positions, including the
Netherlands, Liberia, Nigeria, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and
Kenya. The Dutch delegation, using strongly charged language, gave
numerous examples of where a facilitation approach lead to a
successful outcome, stating that heeding Iran’s words—requiring line
by line negotiations for all consensus documents—would condemn the UN
system to impotence. Nigeria reminded the delegates that they
represent millions of people who are dying daily because of this issue
and argued that complaints about process and procedure should not
“clog the wheels” from reaching success. Liberia made an evocative
appeal to Iran, emphasizing its own history of conflict and stating
that the issues facing delegations was not a theoretical but rather a
matter of life and death. Several delegations also made suggestions to
overcome the impasse. Egypt suggested the chair open up a substantive
process to hear Iran’s concerns, thereby allowing the document to be
adopted. Sierra Leone suggested that Iran’s concerns should be annexed
to final report. Nigeria suggested a footnote be annexed to the final
report indicating that the procedures used in this BMS would not set a
precedent for future meetings, in order to assuage one of Iran's
reported concerns. The chair was compelled to suspend the meeting
numerous times in order to allow for consultations on a possible
outcome.

The chair eventually reported that his efforts to achieve consensus
had not yielded results—a procedural requisite for proceeding to a vote
—and that the bureau had decided by consensus to call a vote on the
final report. In light of this decision, the Iranian delegation
withdrew its amendment for the outcome text to be removed from the
final report, but called for a recorded vote on the draft final
report. Japan formally submitted the draft final report for a vote,
seconded by Switzerland and Colombia. Delegations voted to adopt the
final report as orally amended, with 134 states in favor, none
opposed, and with Iran and Zimbabwe abstaining. After the vote, many
states, including China and Pakistan, emphasized that this vote should
not be used as a precedent in other multilateral venues or fora.