The Human Rights Blog

Liam Kelly holds History of Art degree from Nottingham University.  He writes for newspapers, magazines, and blogs in the UK. He is also an Amnesty International member, human rights advocate, and campaigner with particular focus on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Liam curates the Twitter feed @ArmsTreaty.

This may sound bananas, but there are currently no legally binding, international rules regulating the arms trade. In fact, it is easier to trade guns than it is to trade bananas.

The global trade in arms and ammunition has an enormous human cost. We’re not talking about harmless yellow fruit here; we’re talking about bullets, guns, grenades, bombs, mortars, and missiles, otherwise collectively known as conventional arms. Every day, thousands of people are killed, injured, raped, and forced to flee from their homes as a result of armed conflict, armed violence, and human rights violations and abuses which are perpetrated using conventional arms. The statistics are horrifying.

And just as it sounds bananas that this is happening, it might also sound like we’re talking about distant humanitarian disasters and malevolent, unscrupulous governments in a galaxy far, far away from here. We’re not. The U.S. is the world’s single largest arms exporter, along with the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Germany, and France[1], and despite national regulations, has sent arms to some highly questionable people, as have the rest of this group. These nations, which make up the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Permanent Five Members, plus Germany[2], are suppliers to human rights abusers, despots, and dictators the world over.

The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, recently visited Asia accompanied by representatives from leading British defense firms (‘defense firm’ being arms dealer parlance for ‘arms dealer’), touting for business.[3] He was closely followed by Foreign Secretary William Hague who, when asked an uncomfortable question about British arms exports by a journalist in Singapore, replied with a standard diplomatic response;

“We have one of the most rigorous systems of scrutiny. Our arms exports with any other country in the world are at par with the rest of the E.U.”

So rigorous that British Hawk jets were used by the Indonesian military to bomb unarmed innocent civilians in East Timor during the genocide there.[4] [5] [6]

David Cameron’s February 2011 trip throughout North Africa at the height of the Arab Spring, again accompanied by British arms dealers[7], prompted the same rehearsed line. However, inadequate and loophole-ridden national regulations of international transfers of conventional weapons permit arms to be supplied to those flagrantly violating human rights and humanitarian laws. Just as the UK supplied Indonesia with fighter jets, so has it repeatedly supplied dictators like Gaddafi and Mubarak in places such Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia with arms used for repression.[8]

Secretary Hague, however, does have a point; the UK’s system is one of the most rigorous compared to the rest of the world. The problem being, it’s just not good enough.

The catastrophic results of the globally unregulated arms trade

In an average year, small arms kill around a third of a million men, women and children – and leave hundreds of thousands more injured, disabled, and traumatised. Additionally, there are an estimated 300,000 armed killings outside of conflict each year. One person is killed every single minute of every single day by armed violence – in that same minute, 15 new arms are manufactured. Conflict costs African countries $18bn USD every year, and there are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers in the world today, primarily in Africa.[9]

So why does the world pay this terrible price? The simple and sad answer is that the arms trade is worth billions.

Highly profitable arms fuel today’s most violent conflicts. Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime continues to receive arms used to commit massacres and war crimes from Russia[10], with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar widely suspected to be supplying Syrian rebels who in turn have committed grave human rights violations. Violence rages in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and South Sudan, where China is accused of supplying arms in exchange for oil and gas despite UN arms embargos, which have little impact on stopping the flow of arms.[11] The impotency of UN arms embargos has been demonstrated almost every time a UN arms embargo has been placed, severely lacking in both scope and enforceability.

The issue seems to have entered the public consciousness earlier this year after two high profile convictions. First, after a protracted extradition from Thailand, notorious arms trafficker Viktor Bout was convicted and sentenced to 25 years by a U.S. court for agreeing to sell arms to people he thought were Colombian militants intent on attacking American soldiers.[12] The so-called ‘Merchant of Death’ was previously committed to the silver screen in the Hollywood film Lord of War, where he sells and ships arms to dictators and murderers all over the world, fuelling some of the most brutal conflicts in modern history, including those of Liberia and Sierra Leone.

One of Bout’s regular customers was the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, coincidentally the second high profile conviction of 2012. In June, he was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment by the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague for war crimes after his role in arming, aiding, and abetting RUF rebels in Sierra Leone in exchange for ‘blood diamonds,’ contravening UN arms embargos at the time.[13] Taylor directly supplied weapons, moral and tactical support, and encouragement for RUF rebels who committed heinous crimes; murder, mutilation, the decapitation of children, and widespread sexual violence. Many of these crimes could not have been committed were the perpetrators not armed.

But the cases of these two individuals merely scratch the surface of the murky world of the global arms trade. The Viktor Bouts and Charles Taylors of this world are instantly replaced by more arms dealers and war criminals and the endless flow of arms continue to fuel the bloodshed. This tragedy must, and can, be stopped.

Control Arms Campaign

The Control Arms campaign, a global civil society alliance campaigning for a “bulletproof” Arms Trade Treaty (informally know as ATT), is calling for a global, legally-binding Treaty, to control this deadly trade, where none currently exists. Over one million people signed their Million Faces Petition, which was presented to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2006. Then, at the UN General Assembly in December 2006, a huge majority of 153 governments voted in favor of developing an ATT. In 2009, work began in earnest on developing a treaty.[14] The final negotiating conference is now in session, having begun on July 2^nd.

Despite these successes, some governments want to weaken the Treaty by not including ammunition for example, governments such as the United States. After three weeks of the scheduled four, negotiations are not going well. Procedural wrangling and delay tactics have managed to take talks off track, though they have not yet been completely derailed.

Of the world’s biggest arms exporters (the UNSC Permanent Five plus Germany), France, Germany, and the UK have voiced strong support for a robust ATT, which includes all conventional arms and ammunition. The US, influenced by interpretations of the Treaty’s scope by the National Rifle Association, is now siding with Russia and China (and a minority of nations such as Iran, Cuba, and Pakistan) in attempting to water down the ATT.[15] The NRA fears the Treaty will interfere with the Second Amendment, a misguided posture given that the ATT explicitly states it is only intended to regulate the transfer of arms across international borders, not domestically.

Pressure needs to be kept on governments to make sure that they do not weaken the Treaty, to ensure that human rights are at its heart. The demand is simple: no arms for atrocities, no transfer of arms or munitions to places where there exists a risk that they will be used for human rights abuses.

What Happens Next?

As we enter the final week of negotiations, the situation could not be more precarious. A majority of nations are pushing for a strong treaty, with a minority of powerful nations resisting, placing “national interests” above human rights, above human life. The decisions made at the UN in the next few days will directly affect the lives of millions of people affected by armed violence – this is literally a case of life or death.

We are on the verge of what could be one of the greatest human rights breakthroughs in history. But we are not there yet.

Notes:

What’s the deal with bananas and the global arms trade?

Full text of the revised ATT

Popularity: 3% [?]

Earlier this month, I received word that  The Culture Project, a prize-winning theatre company dedicated to tackling critical human rights issues through artistic performance, will showcase a second installment of its latest series entitled, ”Blueprint for Accountability,” on June 7, 2010 at 7:30PM at the Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, NYU.  The series can also be accessed online via ForaTV.com.

Combining traditional panelist discussion with interpretive theatrical performances, Blueprint for Accountability provocatively addresses the use of torture in the War on Terror, focusing on the nearly 200 detainees who remain in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. (Included in this number is child-prisioner Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who is the youngest person to ever be held in Guantanamo and the only Western citizen to remain at the detenion camp.)

“Blueprint for Accountability will feature a powerful and provocative panel discussion with former CIA Officer Valerie Plame Wilson, retired Iraq commander Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, author and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., best-selling author and investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, and Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights Vince Warren.

Punctuating the experts’ discussion, Director Fisher Stevens (The Cove, 2010 Best Documentary Academy Award) will screen vital archival footage and bring to life compelling dramatic scenes performed by acclaimed actors James Spader, Liev Schreiber, Julianna Margulies, Mariska Hargitay and Matt Dillon.”

Blueprint for Accountability was launched by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last year. In the clip below, Maddow is joined by Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq during 2003-2004, Pulitzer-Prize winning author Ron Suskind, and Vince Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights as they discuss taking responsibility for the illegal the use of torture.

For more information about The Culture Project’s Blueprint for Accountability, please visit:

LinkTv

www.cultureproject.org

www.facebook.com/blueprint4acct

www.twitter.com/blueprint4acct

Popularity: 2% [?]

This Sunday marks the start of the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World, during which over 1,000 delegates will review The Ottawa Treaty, otherwise known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, or simply The Mine Ban Treaty. With the review conference and President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony just days away, the Obama Administration deemed it an appropriate time to announce its decision to join human rights bastions like China, Pakistan, Cuba, and Myanmar, in its refusal to support The Mine Ban Treaty.   158 other countries endorse the Treaty, including every other country in the Western Hemisphere (minus Cuba) and all our NATO allies.  The decision was made in a brief, closed-door State Department session and no official reasons have since been offered.

The Mine Ban Treaty bans the construction and development of all AP landmines.  State Parties must also promise to destroy all their AP landmines within four years, provide annual transparency reports and offer victim assistance for those devastated by landmine explosions. The Covenant’s inception was inspired by Princess Diana’s 1997 visits to Angola and Bosnia, where she was famously photographed wearing a helmet and ballistic jacket while walking through mine fields.  At the time, Angola had more than one landmine per Angolan citizen, or 10 million land mines, buried in the country while Bosnia had an estimated 750,000.  As a result of Princess Diana’s work and The Mine Ban Treaty, more than 2.2 million AP landmines have been removed worldwide in the past decade.

The United States’ refusal to ratify The Mine Ban Treaty seems a strange turn, even for an Administration that has, thus far, straddled the fence in their approach to human rights. The fact that President Obama intends to send an observer to Cartagena was viewed by most as a positive indication of the United States’ intended support of the Treaty.  Moreover, since the United States has not produced or used an AP landmine in over a decade, and since nearly all of the United States’ allies support the Treaty, it is particularly puzzling that the State Department’s only explanations for this decision are conflicts with current national defense needs and US security commitments.

If the Obama Administration truly wants the world to believe that human rights is, indeed, an “essential element of American global foreign policy,” as Secretary of State Clinton said earlier this year, the Administration must break free of the human rights routine of former President Bush and take substantive steps towards protecting the world’s citizens. The first step could have been an easy one; ratifying a covenant that the United States already follows. How sad that such a perfect opportunity was missed.  Perhaps a second review of The Mine Ban Treaty is necessary not only in Cartagena, but in Washington as well.

Has this post sparked your interest?  Read more at:

The Nobel Peace Prize’s International Campaign to Ban Landmines

The Miss Landmine Beauty Pageant

UNICEF – Landmines pose a particular threat to children

Popularity: 2% [?]

Welcome to Part II of the “Human Rights Informational Series.” Last week, I posted the five essential things I think everyone should know about human rights.  This week, I’ve included the five essentials to understanding treaties , which may be particularly useful information for budding human rights activists or those who simply want to build a stronger foundation in human rights.

Part II – The Five Essentials to Understanding Treaties

1. Treaties are…

According to the The Vienna Convention, a treaty is a written, international agreement between states (countries) that is governed by international law.  In order for a state to be bound to the treaty and its obligations, the treaty must be ratified by the state and entered into force.  States that sign a treaty, but do not ratify, are not bound to it by international law.  Likewise, a treaty that has been ratified but not entered into force is not binding.  For example, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was signed by the United States, but never ratified.  Thus, when the CRC was entered into force, the US was not bound to it.

Once entered into force, all states that ratified the treaty must perform the treaty’s obligations in good faith, or pacta sunt servanda, which is Latin for “agreements must be kept.” If a state does not perform the treaty in good faith, a case may be brought against the state in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

2. Treaty disputes are settled by the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ is the primary international court of the United Nations, located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.  The ICJ has a panel of 15 elected judges who resolve treaty disputes between nations.  However, in order for the ICJ to preside over a state, the state must have accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction. This can be accomplished in three ways, but most commonly, a state agrees to the ICJ’s jurisdiction through a clause in the treaty, or jurisdictional clause, giving the ICJ authority to resolve potential disputes.

3. States can’t agree to just anything.  Restrictions do apply.

According to The Vienna Convention, a treaty that derogates from peremptory norms is void.  Peremptory norms of international law, or jus cogens, are certain standards accepted by the international community, which cannot be violated by any state and thereby provide limits to international treaties.  An actual list of limitations does not exist; rather, case law precedence, social customs and political standards set the peremptory norms.  Thus, treaties that allow for genocide, slavery, certain war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., are automatically void ab initio because they conflict with peremptory norms.

4. What does the United States Constitution say about treaties?

Article 6 of the US Constitution states that the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.  Article 2, which is also known as the Treaty Clause, explains that the President has the power to make treaties by and with the advice and consent (two-thirds) of the Senate.

As “Chief Diplomat” of the United States, the President also has constitutional authority to enter into Executive Agreements – accords with other nations without the advice and consent of the Senate. Such agreements are usually made for political, foreign-policy reasons and are typically used in limited capacity.

5. Even though treaties are the supreme law of the land, not all treaties prevail over US law.

Treaties are either self-executing or non-self-executing.  A self-executing treaty does not require federal legislation in order for the treaty to have the effect of law.  Simply put, once the United States ratifies a self-executing treaty, the US must automatically abide by the treaty’s obligations.   A non-self-executing treaty, on the other hand, requires that additional federal legislation, called “implementing legislation” be enacted to essentially write the treaty into law.

It is particularly important to know and understand that human rights treaties that are ratified by the United States are always non-self-executing.  Again, before a human rights treaty becomes the supreme law of the land in the United States, Congress must first pass implementing legislation.  (Incidentally, it is for this reason that I happen to find the United States’ failure to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child exceedingly perplexing, since ratification alone would not cause the CRC’s obligations to trump US law.)

For more reading about treaties, please take a look at the link below:

The International Law of Treaties

Popularity: 1% [?]

On November 20^th, 193 countries will celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the most rapidly and comprehensively ratified treaty in history of the world – The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).  Two countries, however, will sadly miss out – Somalia and The United States of America.  Embarrassingly, the US stands with Somalia as the only two countries on the planet that have not ratified the CRC. What’s even more embarrassing is that Somalia has an excuse. Since a Somali government did not exist at the time of ratification, the country literally could not ratify the treaty.

Throughout history and still today, many societies believe that children are without rights, likening children to property, such as cattle or dogs.  The CRC is a legally binding, international treaty that recognizes basic human rights for children, such as the right to survival and the right to be free from abuse and exploitation.  Since ratification, the CRC has been integral in helping countries and international organizations shape new laws that protect children from horrors like forced conscription, child labor, disease, abuse, and more.  While many of the world’s children still suffer enormously at the hands of adults, the CRC stands as a symbol of hope and a guide towards positive changes for the protection of children worldwide.

How disgraceful that for 20 years, the United States has essentially stood alone as an opponent of a treaty designed to recognize the human rights of children.  How pitiable that US critics of the CRC point to the potential loss of US sovereignty as their primary reason to reject a treaty that aims to protect the lives of children.  How highly misguided of others to seriously believe that the CRC is anti-American and anti-family!  How can a treaty, which recognizes a child’s right to live freely, without torment or neglect, be considered anti-family?  True, a parent’s right to raise their child as they see fit is protected by the Constitution.  However, I have yet to see concrete evidence of how the CRC, which promotes children’s rights, would undermine parents’ rights? Do critics actually want us to believe that the two notions are mutually exclusive?

President Obama and emerging others, such as child rights champion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), don’t seem to believe this either.  Earlier this year, the Obama Administration voiced its dedication to move human rights back to the front burner of American political debate, and specifically mentioned the CRC.  This year, change was promised to us all, including children.  In keeping with this promise, it is high time for the US to take substantive steps towards ratification of the CRC before our nation goes down in history as the only democracy in the world that denies the concept of children’s human rights.

Front page photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Popularity: 1% [?]