PRESS CONFERENCE BY INTERNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ON SMALL ARMS

PRESS CONFERENCE BY INTERNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ON SMALL ARMS

It was a disappointment that the words “human rights” had not yet made it into the final document of the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, Ernie Regehr, Director, Project Ploughshares, Canada and the World Council of Churches, told correspondents this afternoon during a press conference of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) at Headquarters.

[IANSA is a global network of 320 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from 70 countries around the world, working to reduce the threat to life posed by the easy availability and widespread misuse of small arms.]

However the Programme of Action of the Conference turned out, Mr. Regehr said, the Conference has had a very constructive and positive impact on international attention to the extraordinary problem of small arms and light weapons worldwide.  It had galvanized an energetic NGO movement and put the issue of small arms and light weapons much higher on the agenda of a group of like-minded States.  There was a possibility that NGOs and sympathetic States will be able to put together an effective coalition for continued attention to the problem.

A positive point in the Programme of Action was a strong emphasis on the humanitarian and human aspects of the impact of small arms and light weapons.  The Programme of Action also emphasized that the problem needed a comprehensive approach and went beyond a strict arms control and law-enforcement issue.  One of the key issues of the Programme of Action, not yet approved by the Conference, was the call for increased attention to the regulation of the international transfer of arms.  Another issue was the reference to the importance of regulation of civilian gun-ownership, which was not approved yet either.  The references to tracing and marking and to brokering were not nearly as strong as IANSA hoped as it would be.  Another important element of the Programme of Action was the follow-up, he said.

He announced that IANSA would issue a press release at the end of the Conference.

Conmany B. Wesseh, Executive Director, Center for Democratic Empowerment in Liberia, said in his country, small arms and light weapons had been used to kill 10 per cent of the population during the last 10 years.  He had come to New York with the expectation that Governments would wake up to their responsibility to free his country and region of small arms and light weapons.  They could do so by agreeing, among other things, on a treaty or a binding agreement to deal with arms brokering; by highlighting human rights; and by agreeing on standards that would not promote the transfer of arms to non-State actors under one guise or another.

He appealed to all States who were making difficulties to listen to “the wailings of the children of Sierra Leone who were made limbless because of small arms, the mothers of the Great Lakes region who have lost their children to roving armed bands, and to the fathers of Liberia who must choose flight from their home because small arms are in the hands of criminal bands and human rights violators”.

Rebecca Peters, Senior Fellow, Open Society Institute, addressing the issue of regulation of civilian possession of arms, said the United States, over the last two weeks, had not only isolated itself from its traditional allies but had also aligned itself with interesting new “bed-fellows” like Cuba and China to block the efforts to stop proliferation of guns around the world.  The United States had also missed an opportunity to assert its leadership in areas where it could earn “some points on the world stage”.  In some aspects, the United States had pretty good laws on export controls and brokering, and could have made a positive contribution by providing a model and raising standards for other countries. 

In “a shameless attempt to pander to the domestic gun lobby”, the United States had been intransigent on the question of regulating civilian gun-possession, she said.  She said that made no sense, because guns were regulated in the United States, although weakly.  “The principle of regulating civilian possession is completely compatible with existing American law”, she said.  Around the world, virtually every illegal gun began its life as a legal product.  It was ironic that the inclusion or non-inclusion of language about regulating civilian gun-ownership would make no difference to the ability of United States gun-owners to take their sons on hunting trips or legally amass lethal arsenals in their living rooms.  Purely for the sake of proving its loyalty to the “extremist gun lobby”, the United States had been prepared to jeopardize the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in other countries where there was no domestic regulation of guns.  That was a “breathtakingly selfish position”, she said.

Julieta Castellanos, Foro Ciudadano, Honduras, said human rights in Central America were in danger of moving backwards.  It was no longer a problem of political or ideological persecution but one of violence.  The proliferation of guns without regulations was producing a higher death toll now than during the time of civil war.  Governments were not assuming their responsibilities to keep their citizens safe. The Governments of Central America, in failing to pass laws controlling gun trafficking, was responsible for the criminal violence, even more so, because involved in the illicit trafficking were people with connections to Governments.

She said the Conference would be a lot more effective if it resulted in a legally binding international agreement.  The effects of the conference would depend on how committed Governments would be, but also on how closely civil society could monitor and push Government action.  She was concerned that human rights would move backwards and that the small gains made would be rolled back with the increasing criminal violence being used as an excuse for increasing violations of human rights by the States.

Asked whether the concept of the legal role, connected with the illicit role was diminished in the outcome document, Mr. Regehr said that had been the case from the beginning, as the Conference was called the Conference in the Illicit trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.  There was an inextricable link between the illicit trade and the laws that regulate trade. States had been very reluctant to build up the legal framework for the regulation of guns and had been focusing on the violation of laws.

In answer to a correspondent’s question, Ms. Peters said so far, a clause in the document that would regulate civilian possession of guns had been a sticking point for the United States for reasons that had nothing to do with legal gun-

ownership in the United States.  That was purely for public relations and caving into the gun lobby.  It was a red light it had not wanted to move on at all.  The clause about transfers of guns on a government to government basis rather than governments to groups was another one of the red light items.

Answering a question about marking, Mr. Regehr said there was movement in the Conference towards agreeing on a feasibility study.  The expectation from the IANSA community was that the Conference would decide to mandate the international community to pursue a treaty committing all States to universal standard for marking and tracing.

Asked whether characterizing the United States position as “pandering to extremists” would contribute to the process of mutual understanding, Ms. Peters said the position needed to be labeled for what it was.  As the United States was the most powerful country in the world, and responsible for more than half of the gun production, there was a lot of power on the side of the gun lobby.  There was nothing in the proposal before the Conference that would infringe on domestic laws of the United States.

Commenting on the same question, Mr. Wesseh said the debate belonged in the Congress.  This was the United Nations, consisting of many other countries with their own constitutions and bills of rights.  There was an effort to agree on universally accepted standards.  In Liberia, you could not use a gun to defend against poverty.  A gun there was used to create more poverty and misery.  He encouraged the United States policy-makers to see that there was something other than the borders of that country.

Ms. Castellanos added that the obstruction of the United States and other countries had enormous consequences for her region, because guns in Central America did not stand for healthy activities like hunting.  They were creating violence that was depriving people of their fundamental right to life.  Countries obstructing progress on the Programme of Action had given preference to the interests of gun producers, rather than to the rights of the people living in affected countries.

Asked what the next step would be if the Programme of Action was not strong enough, Mr. Wesseh said the issue would continue to be on the agenda.  It could not be buried.  In the United States there would be more school shootings, in Jamaica, more gang wars.  NGOs would continue to make the governments accountable.  In the United States the issue would remain on the agenda for the coming years, and those who wanted to be re-elected should take note.

Asked about the voluntary code of conduct for the arms industry, Mr. Regehr said that self-regulation was by definition a good thing, but it did not replace the need for strong, effective and accountable public regulation.  Ms. Peters said that, looking at the amount of gun violence in the United States, relying on self-regulation by the industry had not been a success.

* *** *