As crowds scatter a Japanese journalist stands his ground and raises his camera’s viewfinder to his eye. He is approached by a soldier who, pushing him to the ground, shoots him at point blank range in the chest. The footage is grainy and shot from a distance but the lack of detail makes it all the more chilling. Your imagination sharpens the details.
Kenji Nagai became the first casualty of the 2007 uprising in Burma (Myanmar) during an armed repression of protests by civilians and monks through the streets of the capital Rangoon. A rare expression of malcontent in a country ruled by a vicious junta who have imposed two decades of oppression, restriction of human rights and disastrous economic mismanagement on its people. Yet Burma’s generals are economically supported and routinely armed by countries around the world who ignore calls for economic and arms embargoes on the regime or simply sidestep the existing ones. There could not be a clearer example of the need for the UN’s proposed international arms treaty than Burma.
Good news for the people of Burma then because after years of tireless campaigning from groups around the world negotiations took place over the last two weeks on the Arms Trade Treaty at the UN in New York. Two weeks of talks have been scheduled as nations came round the table to discuss what the treaty will look like. 
I remember years ago getting involved in campaigns against the unethical nature of the arms trade. At the time there were discussions about the possibility of something like the Arms Trade Treaty, but these were usually followed by wistful sighs and a forlorn agreement that something like this would never come to fruition for various reasons: the “interests”, lack of trust among the major players, countries and companies that make billions from the trade with too much to lose, etc. All that, or most of it at least, appears to have changed. What once was a far-fetched idea banded about between NGOs and campaigners has resulted in a major UN treaty process.
The Treaty is vital to ensure that development in countries around the world is not stifled by the arms trade. The Treaty needs to be able to protect people in countries where arms brought in would be used for “external aggression or internal repression” - countries like Burma.
Under the junta’s rule Burma remains one of the most underdeveloped nations in the world. Less than 2% of government spending is spent on healthcare and education combined. Mark Farmaner, Co-director of Burma Campaign UK said: “When we did the calculations we discovered spending was 19p per person, per year on health and education, which is tiny.” Compare this to an estimated 40% of government on military spending. Estimates place Burma’s standing army at over 500,000 and it has recently continued to upgrade its military.
Deals on arms also take place with India, China, Ukraine and most recently Russia, from whom Burma purchased 20 MiG-29 fighter jets in December 2009 in a deal worth nearly $560 million.
Back to the negotiations and it seems that countries like China and Russia, along with a number of smaller exporters like Egypt and Israel, remain sceptical about the treaty, although the United States, in a remarkable about face from its position under the Bush administration, has agreed that the ATT must go ahead.
Overall the signs are promising and progress is being made, but it is now up to the international community, pushed on by NGOs to ensure that a comprehensive, “bulletproof” agreement is reached and the early signs are promising. The draft documents which have come out of negotiations are all centred on sustainable development, human rights and humanitarian law, and a practical and transparent implementation mechanism in line with demands from NGOs.
However there have been cause for concern. A catch-all approach by the Chair of including all proposals means that too many caveats and too much weak language have made it into the early drafts. Also, in a worrying sign for the transparency of the process the Chair took the controversial step of blocking NGO access to six sessions. Whilst NGOs did manage to gain places on governmental delegations this is clearly not a good sign especially for smaller states who rely heavily on NGOs as their advocates in the process.
Several key states including China, Russia, India, Iran and Israel have all abstained from the vote on the original UN Resolution calling for the ATT. It has been argued by some parties that certain states will abstain or refuse to ratify the treaty. Their view seemingly being that if they don’t sell the arms, somebody will and if that is the case, why should they miss out? However, Katherine Nightingale, until recently Oxfam’s Arms Policy Advisor is confident “What is important is that the standard of the ATT is high because what you will then see is behaviour change even in non-signatories because of the nature of the business, the climate changes under the weight of the treaty.
”We also believe that countries like India who while they have abstained in the first instance, are not wholly opposed to the idea. We believe there may be some nations who are unwilling to move on this just yet but whom we can bring on board when we need to.”
Standards will need to be high for there to be any effect on states seeking to modernise their weaponry like Burma. Some states would have the treaty only deal with small arms - handguns and rifles, weapons only one person is needed to operate. “In the early 90s the Burmese were looking to arm their military but they have done that now. They have even imported the technology to manufacture handguns, rifle and machineguns. The gun used to kill Kenji Nagai was almost certainly made in Burma.” says Mark Farmaner. “What the Burmese generals are trying to do now is modernise their forces and so any treaty would need to cover the high-tech artillery and equipment Burma is buying at the moment,” he warns, “if it only covers small and light weapons it will not have enough of an effect on countries like Burma.”
Tags: arms trade treaty, ATT, burma, Control Arms, united nations
Another really interesting blog. Go Oxfam North - you seem to churning them out!
January 15th, 2011 at 10.35 am