UNODC activities on the Firearms Protocol
F. Firearms
1. In its resolution 64/179, the General Assembly expressed its concern about the serious challenges and threats posed by illicit trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition to security and stability, and about its links with other forms of transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking and other criminal activities, including terrorism. The Conference of the Parties to the Organized Crime Convention also expressed concern about the increased levels of harm and violence that transnational criminal organizations generated in some regions of the world as a result of the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition and noted that reducing the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms was one of the major components of the efforts to reduce the violence that accompanied the activities of transnational organized criminal groups.
2. UNODC has continued to promote ratification and implementation of the Firearms Protocol, and to ensure that comprehensive firearms control regimes are created in compliance with the international legal regime on firearms. The work of UNODC is aimed at strengthening the legal and institutional regime and the control capacities of countries and subregions along major trafficking routes to prevent and combat firearms trafficking and at addressing the cross-regional dimension through enhanced cooperation and exchange of information between source, transit and destination countries.
3. During 2009, UNODC organized and participated in several awareness-raising and training workshops aimed at improving firearms control regimes and promoting the ratification of the Firearms Protocol. UNODC organized a workshop for the Caribbean region, held in Barbados in June 2009. It participated in a regional workshop organized by the United States of America for Central American States, held in Belize in July 2009, and in a regional seminar organized by Saferworld in Dhaka, for South Asian countries, in November 2009.
4. In line with decision 4/6 of the Conference of the Parties, UNODC has continued to develop relevant legal and technical tools to assist Member States in their task; technical guidelines for the implementation of the Protocol are in the final review stage. UNODC organized two rounds of expert group meetings for the development of a model law against firearms. The first round, in November 2009, focused on preventive measures, while the second round, in February 2010, addressed criminal provisions and international cooperation.
5. UNODC is also participating, through the United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) mechanism, in the development and review of International Small Arms Control Standards. UNODC participates actively in the regular CASA video-conferences and has attended several meetings on firearms-related matters organized by other regional organizations, such as the Consultative Committee of the Inter-America Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials, the Organization of American States Group of Experts to develop model regulations on firearms confiscation and the meeting organized by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in September 2009 for the review of the documents relating to small arms and light weapons. Consultations on joint cooperation were held in Washington, D.C., in April 2009, and presentations on the Protocol and its implementation were delivered to Permanent Missions, NGOs and civil society organizations at the Geneva forum in July 2009.
6. Aware of the complex links between armed violence and organized crime, UNODC has actively contributed, through CASA, to various reports of the Secretary-General on the issue of preventing armed violence and related matters and supported activities to follow-up the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development. UNODC is also participating in the inter-agency armed violence prevention programme in a few pilot countries, such as Jamaica, and is contributing to the process of reviewing the Millennium Development Goals in the area of prevention of armed violence, inter alia, through the development of specific homicide indicators.
Source: International cooperation in combating transnational organized International cooperation in combating transnational
organized crime and corruption
Report of the Executive Director(E/CN.15/2010/8)
|
UNODC activities on the Firearms Protocol
F. Firearms
1. In its resolution 64/179, the General Assembly expressed its concern about the serious challenges and threats posed by illicit trafficking in firearms, their parts, components and ammunition to security and stability, and about its links with other forms of transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking and other criminal activities, including terrorism. The Conference of the Parties to the Organized Crime Convention also expressed concern about the increased levels of harm and violence that transnational criminal organizations generated in some regions of the world as a result of the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components and ammunition and noted that reducing the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms was one of the major components of the efforts to reduce the violence that accompanied the activities of transnational organized criminal groups.
2. UNODC has continued to promote ratification and implementation of the Firearms Protocol, and to ensure that comprehensive firearms control regimes are created in compliance with the international legal regime on firearms. The work of UNODC is aimed at strengthening the legal and institutional regime and the control capacities of countries and subregions along major trafficking routes to prevent and combat firearms trafficking and at addressing the cross-regional dimension through enhanced cooperation and exchange of information between source, transit and destination countries.
3. During 2009, UNODC organized and participated in several awareness-raising and training workshops aimed at improving firearms control regimes and promoting the ratification of the Firearms Protocol. UNODC organized a workshop for the Caribbean region, held in Barbados in June 2009. It participated in a regional workshop organized by the United States of America for Central American States, held in Belize in July 2009, and in a regional seminar organized by Saferworld in Dhaka, for South Asian countries, in November 2009.
4. In line with decision 4/6 of the Conference of the Parties, UNODC has continued to develop relevant legal and technical tools to assist Member States in their task; technical guidelines for the implementation of the Protocol are in the final review stage. UNODC organized two rounds of expert group meetings for the development of a model law against firearms. The first round, in November 2009, focused on preventive measures, while the second round, in February 2010, addressed criminal provisions and international cooperation.
5. UNODC is also participating, through the United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) mechanism, in the development and review of International Small Arms Control Standards. UNODC participates actively in the regular CASA video-conferences and has attended several meetings on firearms-related matters organized by other regional organizations, such as the Consultative Committee of the Inter-America Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials, the Organization of American States Group of Experts to develop model regulations on firearms confiscation and the meeting organized by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in September 2009 for the review of the documents relating to small arms and light weapons. Consultations on joint cooperation were held in Washington, D.C., in April 2009, and presentations on the Protocol and its implementation were delivered to Permanent Missions, NGOs and civil society organizations at the Geneva forum in July 2009.
6. Aware of the complex links between armed violence and organized crime, UNODC has actively contributed, through CASA, to various reports of the Secretary-General on the issue of preventing armed violence and related matters and supported activities to follow-up the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development. UNODC is also participating in the inter-agency armed violence prevention programme in a few pilot countries, such as Jamaica, and is contributing to the process of reviewing the Millennium Development Goals in the area of prevention of armed violence, inter alia, through the development of specific homicide indicators.
Source: International cooperation in combating transnational organized crime and corruption, Report of the Executive Director (E/CN.15/2010/8)
|
|
Statement of the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs in connection with the Global Week of Action against Gun Violence 10-16 May 2010
Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety, and a vested interest in providing human security and an environment conducive to development to their citizens. However, the excessive accumulation and universal availability of small arms negatively impact on security, human rights and social and economic development in many parts of the world.
This year, 2010, represents a year of renewed commitment in our struggle against the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms. In June, States will come together at the United Nations in New York to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. In July, negotiations are scheduled to start at the UN on an Arms Trade Treaty. In addition, in September, world leaders will discuss the UN Secretary-General’s report “Keeping the Promise”, which introduced the negative impact of armed violence on attaining the Millennium Development Goals. Such high-profile events are encouraging signs of action at the global level.
Although the illicit arms trade and armed violence are matters of truly global concern, their most serious impact is often suffered at the local level. Civil society organizations provide the vital linkages among international, regional, national and local players, and are instrumental in rebuilding capacities, and translating norms and standards into concrete and pragmatic actions aimed at deterring armed violence, especially in local communities.
The Global Week of Action against Gun Violence provides us with an excellent opportunity to further enhance this cooperation between civil society and governments – to ultimately make the life of people all over the world safer and more secure.
|
Keeping the promise: a forward-looking review to promote an agreed action agenda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015
Report of the Secretary-General, 12 February 2010
This report, which is issued pursuant to General Assembly resolution 64/184, presents information on progress made in achieving the Millennium Development Goals through a comprehensive review of successes, best practices and lessons learned, obstacles and gaps, and challenges and opportunities, leading to concrete strategies for action.
Armed violence is one of the threats to achieve MDGs. See section “Intensifying prevention of violence and responses to humanitarian crises”, page 11.
|
Global Week of Action Against Gun Violence
Each year activists around the world use the Global Week of Action Against Gun Violence to raise awareness, campaign for better gun laws and push for stronger regulation of the global arms trade. This year the Week of Action is 10-16 May. Last year, IANSA members in more than 90 countries highlighted the human cost of small arms proliferation and misuse; they also demanded that governments enact policies that put their citizens' security first.
Source: IANSA
|
She stresses that the US will not agree to a watered down ATT. But also that all exporters must be involved: "A document that failed to gain support from important international players capable of acting outside their reach, will undercut the objectives and purposes and would be worse than having no document at all."
She emphasises that the US will expose states seeking individual concessions: "Our goal is to make such behavior transparent to bring public and diplomatic pressure onto the offending party. (...) The way to curb abuse is to force the process into the light of day with reporting transparency (...)."
DP
US Dept of State - Ellen Tauscher - Arms Trade Treaty
Ellen Tauscher
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Carnegie Endowment For International Peace
Washington, DC
February 18, 2010
Jeff, thanks so much for your introduction. I want to thank everyone here for your energy, your commitment to these issues and your patriotism.
It’s nice to see so many friendly faces – you are what I consider “my base.”
Let me start by thanking the sponsors of this meeting, the Center for International Trade & Security, Oxfam America, the Arms Control Association, and Project Ploughshares.
As everyone here knows, President Obama has set forth a bold arms control and nonproliferation agenda.
And, for good reason, and because so many of us have made such an effort to speak out about the Prague agenda, it has garnered a lot of support, attention and media coverage.
I know that conventional arms have gotten much less attention even though they kill more people every year than nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. I am here to make sure that everyone knows that the United States is strongly committed to addressing the problems posed by the irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons.
So last October, Secretary Clinton said that the United States “is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally-binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”
We will work between now and the UN Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and we’ll need your help in achieving it. We have made that a fundamental policy commitment. So let me explain what it means in practical terms and why we’re doing this now.
Like a lot of ideas, an arms trade treaty has been in the works for a long time. The UN Register of Conventional Arms opened the door to global discussions of a range of conventional weapons.
These discussions have broadened so that we now have an A to Z list of meetings and forums on how to limit or eliminate small arms, anti-personnel landmines and other indiscriminate weapons.
But conventional arms transfers are a much wider question than just small arms or voluntary registration of some information about transfers. We need a treaty that looks at regulating all conventional weapons, from small arms and light weapons to aircraft carriers.
Unlike chemical or biological weapons, an Arms Trade Treaty cannot be a ban on conventional weapons. When conducted responsibly, arms transfers are a legitimate commercial enterprise and support global stability.
The international arms trade provides nations with material necessary to fulfill the most basic functions of a government – protecting its citizens and enforcing its national sovereignty.
What we are after is a means to have all nations do what the United States already does: examine each conventional weapons transfer before it is authorized to be certain that it will enhance … not undermine … security and stability.
We all know that there is a dark side to arms transfers that can have devastating consequences for people and regions.
Irresponsible transfers can support terrorists, enable genocidal, and create, sustain, and compound proliferation nightmares.
The Arms Trade Treaty discussions have gained momentum by a shared recognition of the disruptive and oppressive impact of illicit or ill-advised arms transfers by a number of countries and organizations.
That is why we need to explore a legally binding measure to better control transfers across international borders.
For the Arms Trade Treaty to be effective at thwarting irresponsible transfers, it must ensure that members effectively implement national laws that criminalize such transfers and allow for the monitoring of commerce. Without this, it won’t necessarily deter or stop terrorism.
So-called “legally-binding instruments” are absolutely meaningless to such terrorists. They are criminals who don’t and won’t abide by any reasonable agreements.
This means that the most only effective way to inhibit their activity is indirectly.
All states must recognize the obligation to enact and enforce laws within their territory that criminalize, isolate, and punish those terrorist groups operating within their territory or profiting from transactions that originate in or transit through their territory.
And, if the state claiming sovereign jurisdiction does not have the capability for such enforcement, then the international community must make available the resources to create such capability, both in the short and long run.
This means that any international instrument hoping to make real impact on “illicit” arms transfers must focus on requiring each party to put in place those necessary means to eliminate such rogue non-state actors both from within their territory and on the receiving end of their international commerce.
It means that weak states, where terrorists operate with relative freedom, must adapt to the very real and very difficult requirements any effective instrument will lay out for them.
They must take all necessary steps to become an effective, law-abiding state.
At the same time, conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States.
Our government has always supported effective action to control and ensure responsibility in the international transfer of arms. That’s because we believe that stable societies and secure environments are the best places for the growth of freedom and prosperity.
So we are a leading advocate of ensuring that arms transfers are done only for legitimate purposes. We carefully consider them before they are approved – I should know since I sign off on some of them – and put in place safeguards designed to ensure that small arms are used in the manner for which the transfer was intended.
The United States has one of the most comprehensive sets of requirements in the world that must be satisfied before a U.S. manufacturer is authorized to transfer arms internationally.
Every month, literally thousands of applications for export of weapons are reviewed in detail by our Government.
We have a strong and robust regulatory body. The transfer of arms are approved only when there is realistic and reasonable evidence the intended recipient has shown that they have a legitimate need and sufficient safeguards are there to preclude either deliberate or unintended re-transfers to unapproved end uses. We also consider the effect of the transfer on regional stability.
This process requires enormous effort. It is expensive. And it results in denying exports in questionable circumstances.
Although this can work to the commercial disadvantage of U.S. firms, it is the price we have to pay to try to stem the flow of conventional arms to terrorist groups, rogue states, and others who would undermine the rule of law.
It is also why the United States believes that it is the responsibility of the entire international community to settle for no less than the highest possible standards in international agreements and reporting activities.
We believe that robust and vigorous regulation and enforcement would make it much more difficult for terrorist groups or rogue nations to destabilize regions or support terrorist activity.
This is why, after careful consideration, the Obama administration has decided to actively support international efforts to achieve an effective global framework and to set high the bar that everyone must meet.
The United States will seek a result that establishes high standards of expected conduct in international activity and in national enforcement.
The Arms trade treaty negotiations will likely be long and difficult. Some participants will be tempted to take the easy road of seeking the lowest common denominator just to get a quick agreement from those states who would like to continue to support… directly or indirectly … terrorists, pirates, and genocidal warlords for a quick profit or short-term advantage.
Let me be clear, we will not rush to judgment by approving a weak or loophole-laden agreement.
The United States is not interested in a vague or weak outcome just to feel good. That would not do anything to address the real issues in arms transfers.
The United States believes an Arms Trade Treaty is sufficiently important to national security and international stability that the deliberations need to produce consensus decisions in order to command the widest possible participation.
A document that failed to gain support from important international players capable of acting outside their reach will undercut the objectives and purposes would be worse than having no document at all.
Consensus is needed to ensure the high standards necessary for an effective ATT.
It is not, nor should others hope it to be, an excuse for avoiding hard choices or real, deliberative controls. There will no doubt be serious, lengthy negotiations over most of the elements of any outcome.
In fact, it has been our experience – sometimes painful – over the course of four decades of such negotiations that there is an inevitable rush by many of the participants in those negotiations to seek simplified or shallow provisions because they “sound good” or are easily agreed to.
The United States considers the subject of conventional arms transfers, with their pervasiveness, dual-use capabilities, and potential harm, too important to national security to be treated with less than the level of detail and engagement it deserves.
This will not make the negotiations any easier, but it will give them the greatest chance of being meaningful and of commanding both the attention and participation by those states necessary to its eventual success.
Now I know that some will argue that a consensus agreement will make it tough to get real progress. Let me say two things about that.
First, some state could attempt to derail negotiations to seek an individual concession. Our goal is to make such behavior transparent to bring public and diplomatic pressure onto the offending party.
It’s sort of like earmarking in Congress. The way to curb abuse is to force the process into the light of day with reporting transparency rather than letting some members slip them into a 1,000-page bill in the dark of night.
And, there are, as you know, a handful of states who make up the backbone of the worldwide arms trade. Excluding them or not getting a universal agreement would make any agreement less than useless. In political terms, this requires a big tent policy even if bringing some into the tent is time consuming and painful.
But it is the only way to address this issue and bring about an enduring and meaningful agreement that enhances our national security and international stability.
The treaty is worth doing because it can have, unlike many things we do, a more immediate impact. Lessening the arms trade, can lead to less killing and maiming.
But the reality is that this is a very big challenge. We’re going to need your help to build the political support necessary to get this done.
Thanks very much and, Jeff, I’ll be glad to take your questions.
|
Nepal
Small arms wreak havoc in Katmandu
Small arms are posing a big threat to public security. Kathmandu has witnessed some high-profile incidents in recent times. “Small arms have wreaked havoc in the security of the Kathmandu Valley,” said Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Madan Bahadur Khadka on Sunday, discussing the Capital’s current security situation.
http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2010/01/24/top-stories/Small-arms-wreak-havoc/4376/
Date: 24 January 2010, Source: The Kathmandu Post
|
Russia: Arms Trade
Russian Arms exports defy recession
RUSSIA'S top arms exporter said Thursday its sales last year grew 10 per cent despite the economic crisis, as it looked to add new clients like Saudi Arabia, Libya and possibly even Afghanistan. The export sales of state-owned arms exporter Rosoboronexport amounted to US$7.4 billion dollars (S$10.4 billion) in 2009, up 10 per cent on the previous year, the company's head Anatoly Isaikin said. 'This is a figure that allows us to look with optimism into the future,' he told reporters, noting that the crisis failed to make a dent in Russia's overseas arms sales. Total Russian arms sales were set to top US$8.5 billion in 2009, Mikhail Dmitriyev, head of the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, said last month, citing preliminary estimates. Rosoboronexport is the leading but not the only exporter of Russian-made weapons. Isaikin said that as of today Rosoboronexport boasted an order book amounting to US$34 billion, including contracts worth US$15 billion from last year.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Money/Story/STIStory_483502.html
Date: 28 January 2010, Source: AFP
|
UN Peacekeeping Operations and Small Arms
The Burden of Disarmament: UN Peacekeeping Operations & Illicit Weapons
Why should disarmament even concern us? Excellent question; now when we take into account the fact that small arms result in at least a third of a million people killed each year, directly with conventional weapons and many more die, are injured, abused, forcibly displaced and bereaved as a result of armed violence, that indicates that on average, up to one thousand people die every day as a direct result of armed violence (Arms Without Borders 2006:4), it becomes apparent then that we not only should be concerned, rather alarmed. The impact of small arms goes beyond the fact that they simply pose a physical security threat. As mentioned earlier, in an age of globalization, even the threats we face are interconnected, the proliferation of these arms has been shown to hinder development; the cost of lost productivity from non-conflict or criminal violence alone is about USD 95 billion and may reach as high as USD 163 billion per year. (Geneva Declaration 2006:10) Although some steps have been taken in the right direction, for example since early 2001, US-supported programs in 23 countries have resulted in approximately 800,000 SALWs and 80 million rounds of ammunition destroyed (Garcia 2006:10), the world continues to be littered with illegal SALWs which pose a serious risk to global human security. Approximately 8 million small arms and light weapons are produced each year which result in over 1000 deaths per day (Amnesty International 2008) …While this appears to be outragous, to date only about 40 states (including the US and UK) have enacted laws and regulations for controlling the business of arms brokering (Amnesty International 2008).
An increase in conflicting geopolitical interest and tendency for violence has seen the demand for weapons (especially small arms) increase on a continuous basis. All the meanwhile, these conflicts have called on the United Nations (and other multilateral institutions1) operations to restore the peace. While operational success of these efforts has hindered upon the fact that states face a difficulty in agreeing on what the common challenges are, let alone the collective strategies to address them (Prins, 2006:110), one thing remains evident, and that is the fact that small arms and light weapons pose a security challenge to UN Peacekeeping Personnel as well.
http://studentpulse.com/articles/143/the-burden-of-disarmament-un-peacekeeping-operations--illicit-weapons
Date: 27 January 2010, Source: The Student Pulse
|
South Africa
South African Police fuelling arms trade: DA
DA spokeswoman Dianne Kohler Barnard said 4000 new pistols ordered by the SA Police Service (SAPS) were not to boost firepower, but "mostly to replace lost and stolen firearms". "As revealed on the ARMSCOR website, the ordering of some 4000 new Beretta pistols means that another R16 million is being spent by the police on procuring weapons," Kohler Barnard said. "However, we understand this order is almost entirely as a consequence of the fact that nearly 3000 police firearms were lost or stolen over a period of just six months last year." Kohler Barnard said the loss of the weapons was as a result of "shoddy firearm management" by the police. "Last October, it was revealed that 2944 firearms had been lost or stolen from the police - approximately three firearms lost or stolen from each station in the country," Kohler Barnard said. "Even more concerning is that these firearms inevitably fall into the wrong hands and are used in criminal activities. As police firearms are lost and stolen and then replaced at great cost, with seemingly no action from police management to prevent this, the police are unwittingly fuelling the illegal arms trade." (Times Live SA)
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article279857.ece?service=print
Date: 27 January 2010, Source: Times Live
|
|
