John Duncan

Why Does UK Industry Support an Arms Trade Treaty?

This article is written by Brinley Salzman of the UK Defence Manufacturers Association. The views expressed here are the DMA’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the British Government.

An initiative that genuinely seeks to establish a global benchmark in export control compliance is to be welcomed and supported. Industry has an important role to play at this vitally important time in the development of the ATT. Defence Industry is already heavily regulated, but that regulation is not universal in scope or effect. This uneven landscape provides one of the key arguments deployed in support of an ATT.

What arms should an ATT control? It must not be limited in scope compared to the range of military systems that might be relevant to the purpose of any ATT and that many countries have already control. An ATT must not exacerbate the problem of an uneven regulatory landscape. A balance must be struck between comprehensiveness and regulatory burden.

How should arms be controlled? Responsible industry recognises that defence exports are at the heart of the foreign and security policy interests of any State. A Treaty would require states to consider their existing obligations under international law; but many nations appear to have differing views on how those obligations should be interpreted and brought to bear on export licensing decisions.
 
It is recognised that Governments have the moral and practical responsibility to implement controls responsibly, fairly and transparently. But how could this be brought together into a coherent package in a community of vastly different interests?

Industry has an important role to play. The moral arguments for an ATT, that underpin human security, social and economic development, are not incompatible with good business practice. Corporate responsibility is a fundamental part of good business strategy. Ethical and responsible business gives competitive commercial advantage.

The concept of a ‘level playing field’ is important during global economic crisis. Pressure on Industry and Governments is growing. Driven, at least in part, by smaller slices of the cake being available to high-value manufacturers, this pressure presents the increased risk of some suppliers entering or revisiting markets that, until recently, would have been considered off limits. This would be a highly undesirable outcome.

The global supply chain supports many thousands of skilled jobs in many parts of the world. Defence Industry is, therefore, a catalyst for high-value manufacturing growth in developed and developing economies. Openness in the world trade system is essential for successful growth, but that trade must be carried out both responsibly and securely. A Treaty that clearly establishes the highest common standards and transparency of implementation can go a long way toward achieving this.

Final exports of defence materiel must be licensed, but the bureaucracy attached to the international movement of components in the supply chain must be reduced. There are countries where we would welcome the opportunity to place work for reasons both of cost and of the availability of skilled people; our ability to do so is limited at present. An ATT must give Governments confidence to trust the extension of the supply chain and reduce bureaucracy.

The potential, long-term benefits of a Treaty to regulate the trade in conventional arms extends beyond Defence Industry: spin-off benefits of good governance, transparency and stability feed into inward investment, supply-chain security and economic growth that allow for poverty reduction and respect for human rights.

There are many arguments in favour of an ATT, but a broader horizon is required, based on the way we characterise an ATT. It should not be viewed through the optic of a traditional disarmament or arms control instrument. It is a new way for the international community to address the inter-relationships between conflict, poverty, development, human rights and trade. All sectors, health, education, agriculture should be engaged in this debate and appreciate the opportunities for growth and security.

Posted at 16:42 16 July 2009 by John Duncan  |  Comments[0]

ARMS TRADE TREATY: WORK CONTINUES

Guest Blogger - Jesse Clarke, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign & Commonwealth Office

This week I gave a presentation on the Arms Trade Treaty to a group of UK academics who specialise in international law.  

The presentation took place as part of the FCO Legal Advisers' Annual Academic Seminar and provided an opportunity to report on recent progress made towards an Arms Trade Treaty.  Of particular interest to the audience was the idea that an Arms Trade Treaty would seek to establish strong and universal standards against which states could assess arms transfers.  

Many of these standards are anchored in international law and reflect states' existing obligations, commitments or responsibilities under international law (e.g. regarding UN sanctions, human rights, humanitarian law and sustainable development).

From the lawyers’ perspective, an ATT is a modest but significant project.  Modest because it does not seek to redefine existing international law, and yet significant because it would require states to consider arms transfers through the prism of international law as it exists today.  The presentation ended with a useful discussion.  It is fair to say that the academics are supportive of an ATT and see it as a very positive development. 

They asked some probing questions about state responsibility for arms transfers, the likely scope of an ATT, and our engagement with the US and the Commonwealth, but  I am confident that the exchange of ideas between government lawyers and academics will assist the effort to negotiate a strong ATT that is fit for purpose.

As John has commented on Twitter, picking up a War Child post On the Congo: “1,400 people died needlessly today. And yesterday. And they will tomorrow”. So the humanitarian case for an ATT is being measured in human lives. The UN Secretary General has said several times that while we must deal with the threat posed by Nuclear Weapons proliferation, Conventional Weapons and their uncontrolled proliferation are currently the most destructive Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Posted at 01:12 12 May 2009 by John Duncan  |  Comments[2]

THE ARMS TRADE: LAW AND ECONOMICS

Stuck in Washington after the ASIL conference (see last post) before calls next week, and with the G20 dominating the news set me thinking about one of the questions the sceptics often ask – Why do we need a new treaty surely we just need nations to act more responsibly?

Well its true a new treaty is not going to solve the problems by itself – you can’t simply legislate for responsible behaviour. We can’t even manage that domestically.

Most countries have laws against speeding and despite all the law enforcement of  national police and courts, people still break the law. Why would we imagine that a new law would work at the international level where we don’t have anything comparable in terms of law enforcement.

Ah! say the sceptics then you admit the ATT won’t work.

No, It will work because the ATT is a more complex idea than that. It started out as an effort to tackle Human Rights and Humanitarian issues. And those are still at its heart and important reasons for taking action.

But there are perfectly good economic reasons for nations to behave responsibly. In one sense the ATT is the mechanism to allow us to focus those economic drivers.

Development: huge amounts of aid money have been spent dealing with the effects of our failure to properly regulate the arms trade. We simply can’t continue in the current financial climate to see our efforts to make progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals undermined like this. We are going to have to regulate the arms trade much better than we have.

Industrial co-operation: many of the major arms suppliers restructured into global companies over a decade ago. The current patchwork of controls is clearly not working. Worse because the there are no common international standards it has prevented industrial cooperation and inward investment. Putting the arms trade onto a sound regulatory footing would increase confidence and gradually allow greater cooperation where the sanction for “irresponsible” behaviour would be that companies would be unwilling to co-operate, or trade with those who do not meet the international standard.

In his speech to Britain’s ambassadors last week David Miliband said that“ Economic risk needs to be addressed by a political bargain” this is very much the heart of what an ATT process entails; understanding the link between politics and economics, achieving a synergy between the moral and the self interested approach. As we have seen with the Kimberly Process, or Blood Diamonds, it is quite possible to use economic interest to produce a result that meets a moral imperative.

Posted at 01:12 30 March 2009 by John Duncan  |  Comments[5]

Arms Trade Treaty: The UN Launches Further Urgent Work

A quick note from the Airport lounge as I head back to Geneva. A little over 2 hours ago the UN 1st Committee took a decision to launch further urgent work on the ATT. A good result after 4 weeks intense negotiation by my team.

In  a vote 148 countries voted to support the Resolution, put forward by the UK and the 7 Co-Authors (Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica Finland, Kenya and Japan), an overwhelming majority.

Only the US and Zimbabwe voted against while 18 countries abstained. Of the 18, many said they had difficulties with the procedure rather than the substance. Absolutely right too given the backdrop of the terrible events in the Congo. Any better example of why we need an ATT I can hardly imagine.

Posted at 20:44 31 October 2008 by John Duncan  |  Comments[0]