Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you very much. Thank you to the UNDP and the Government of Switzerland for inviting me.
Lately I have found myself in many rooms where the conflict everyone is talking about is scheduled to take place in one of twelve stadiums in Germany. I realised that if the global arms trade were governed by half as many rules as a World Cup match, there would be no need for this summit.
But unfortunately there is a need for this summit. I am sure we all know why we are here. It comes as no surprise to any of us that this very day one-thousand people will die from gun violence, or that the children armed and fighting in this world number in the tens of thousands. We know that small arms kill hundreds of thousands of people a year and are just as deserving of international attention as nuclear weapons.
And I do not think we disagree about how violence affects development. Probably we already realise that armed conflicts are the largest single cause of food emergencies, that civil wars chop an average of two-point-two percent off a country’s annual economic growth, that over the last decade Latin America has seen its GDP slashed by twelve percent each year because of armed conflict.
I will always remember the words of the late Mahbub ul-Haq, a veteran of the World Bank, the chief architect of the UNDP Human Development Report, and a dear friend. He put it bluntly: “must we starve our children to increase our defense expenditure? When our children cry for milk in the middle of the night, shall we give them guns instead?” For the developing world the choice is often that stark.
The notion that arms manufacture and trade are good for a nation’s economy has no credibility in a world as connected as ours. In a world as connected as ours, a gun fired at one of us is a moral and monetary loss to all of us. A job in an arms factory may be one small economic step forward for a worker, but it is two giant leaps back for mankind.
When it comes to the link between conventional weapons, armed violence and crippled development, the evidence is so overwhelming that practically no one disputes it.
So the question we really have to ask ourselves today is this: What can we do to reduce armed violence?
The UNDP has wisely adopted a comprehensive approach in order to address the many complex aspects of the problem.
Coming up later this month is a review of an important part of the overall UN strategy, the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. In 2001, member states declared their commitment to destroy surplus weapons, strengthen regional agreements, and establish national agencies to reduce gun violence. These commitments are honourable. But it has been hard to ensure they are honoured.
The Programme of Action is valuable but non-binding, vocal on governmental wrongs but silent on human rights, critical of the illegal trade of weapons but unconcerned with the legal trade that contributes to it.
My friends, my message to you today is this: all of us should be proud of this process, proud of how far we have come, but it is time to move forward from principles to practice. If we are truly concerned about development, we must seek and agree to the strongest possible language for international arms transfer controls. It is time not just for declarations but also for treaties; not just for politics but also for law.
I come before you today to urge we all adopt such a law. Working with a group of NGOs, including the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human progress in Costa Rica, legal experts at Cambridge University in England have drafted a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. Most of you are aware of this treaty.
The idea is simple: require our countries not to transfer weapons to states, groups or individuals if there is reason to believe the weapons will be used to violate human rights or existing international law. And particularly relevant for this summit, the ATT forbids the transfer of arms if there is clear indication that they will be used to disrupt sustainable development.
Over thirty countries have already expressed their support for this initiative, including our host, the government of Switzerland.
Of course, support for the treaty need not be limited to governments. It needs the backing of organisations and individuals as well. As far as organisations such as the World Bank are concerned, the ATT should be considered good monetary policy. The fewer arms that are allowed to serve destructive ends, the more development there will be. The more development, the better countries are able to meet their financial obligations.
Unfortunately the treaty has encountered resistance. Some delegations disagree about whether it should cover all conventional weapons. They object that it applies to arms deals to individuals as well as to other states. They feel it infringes on a nation’s right to defend its security interests.
As well-intentioned as this opposition may be, it does not serve the best interests of humanity.
First, the ATT must be legally-binding for all conventional weapons. Helicopter gunships and armed Humvees can be just as deadly as pistols and rifles.
Second, it does not matter if an arms shipment is destined for a government, an organisation or an individual. If the risk for wanton destruction is the same, the same transfer rules should apply.
And finally, no legitimate security interest is served by providing weapons to individuals or groups who are clearly at risk to violate human rights.
nly by recognising the true meaning of security can we truly achieve it. I applaud the UNDP for having long supported a definition of security that goes beyond guns and ammunition. This organisation knows that when we talk about security we should talk about public health, that when we speak of “special forces” we should speak of Médecins Sans Frontières, that when we mention defence contractors we should mention the Red Cross. In order to win a struggle over weapons we must first win a struggle over words.
My friends, today you have a chance to join in that struggle. At the end of this summit you will issue a declaration. I hope with all my heart that it will call for the adoption of a legally binding treaty on international arms transfers, and this action should begin at the 2006 Programme of Action meeting.
An ATT would make legal ties out of the moral ties by which we already know we must abide. I cannot stress enough how important these ties are. For it is within the constraints of our international system that the voices of nations are liberated. It is binding treaties that unbind countries from the fear of conflict. And it is only our unrelenting bond to each other, as human beings, that sets us free.
Thank you. |
