Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
July 9 - 13, 2001 - Global Policy Forum - Email 'Listserv' News
GPF List-Serv
July 9 - 13, 2001Welcome from Global Policy Forum!
US Up In Arms Over Conference
The UN's landmark Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (ITSALW) was scarcely underway when the US called into question the conference's most basic assumptions. John Bolton, the US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, declared that his government would not support any document that constrained an individual's right to own weapons because "responsible use of firearms is a legitimate aspect of national life." Mr. Bolton also announced that the US would shoot down any plan of action that curbed the legal trade and legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons.
In an attempt to head off US concerns, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a statement saying that the purpose of the conference is not to take guns away from their legal owners, but to target "unscrupulous arms dealers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, terrorists and others who bring death and mayhem into streets, schools and towns throughout the world."
However, the Secretary General's statement did not assuage the fears of the Bush administration or gun lobby groups. Gun lobbyists addressed the public outside the UN, bombarding passers-by with anti-UN literature. One group even claimed that the UN was a "corrupt communist organization" that was trying to impose its tyrannical whim on US citizens.
The US position disheartened many of the conference's participants, the majority of whom are in favor of taking steps to limit the flow of illicit weapons. The Netherlands and Canada articulated the most progressive position, reminding delegates that most illicit arms start off as legal weapons, which somehow fall into the wrong hands. Therefore, a serious program of action would include a standardized international system for vetting weapons exports and documenting where they wind up.
But in light of the US position, such measures are unlikely. Conference organizers-who had high hopes at the outset of the conference-acknowledge that the conference will not give rise to a substantive program of action. As long as major weapons-producing countries-Russia, China, and the US-refuse to discuss regulating the legal trade of weapons, eliminating illicit weapons is a goal that will remain out of range.
The Insecurity of Small Arms
During the opening week of the conference, a UK Brigadier addressed one of the working panels with an anecdote. At a military conference, he said, many attended a panel titled provocatively "How to Quickly End Your Career." Among the career-ending faux pas for an officer were - to be caught stealing public funds and to leave a briefcase of secrets behind somewhere. The third path to disgrace proved most relevant for the UN audience - an officer must not loose the cache of Small Arms and Light Weapons under his command. This example emphasized the need for governments to keep a close eye on lethal weapons, just as their military officers must do.
The Preparatory Committees battled over whether to widen the conference to include the legal aspect of the arms trade - a huge 80-90%. In the end, delegates voted overwhelmingly against including discussion of legal trade at the conference. The UN Secretary General's speech at the conference opening acknowledged the difficulty of countering the "responsibilities" of states to provide security and self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter. The Netherlands, Canada and Norway insisted that the illicit trade cannot be tackled without looking at the legal trade in arms. Canada called for "controls governing legal transfers of small arms and light weapons." UNICEF also called for binding codes of conduct to better regulate the arms trade, as did the International Commission for the Red Cross.
NGOs and the Small Arms Conference
If NGOs working against the small arms trade had been optimistic about the possible outcome of the conference, many lost hope when they heard the opening statement of US Under-Secretary of State John R. Bolton on Monday, July 9. As a July 11 editorial in the New York Times put it, "the Bush administration might as well have sent Charlton Heston, president of the National Rifle Association, to deliver its opening address."
NGOs will have to keep up their work in spite of these setbacks and try to bring governments around. But the commercial pressures of the arms industry are very strong and the market seems insatiable. Perhaps we should welcome even a very modest document, as one speaker emphasized at the International Exchange on Women and Small Arms on the 13th. But NGOs would not be faithful to their mandate if they didn't fight for serious controls and express their disgust at the failure of states to produce the most elementary regulation of this killing trade
UN-Iraq Feud Continues
After months of negotiations, the Security Council renewed the Oil-for-Food humanitarian program that will allow Iraq to export oil for the next five months. Nevertheless, the public relations war between Iraq, the UN, and other states rages on. The UN has finally responded to Iraq's allegations that the UN spends more on feeding its mine-sniffing dogs than the Iraqi people. According to Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Office of the Iraq Programme, "The average cost of feeding one dog…was US $34 per month, or US $408 per year and not US $1,248 per year as stated in the council recently." This latest spat appears all the more absurd when neither Iraq nor the UN has devised an effective plan of action for alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people, who bear the brunt of UN sanctions.
Milosevic at the Hague: What Does It Mean?
Leaders of Western nations and human rights groups continue to herald the proceedings against Milosevic as a major triumph for the cause of international justice. Human rights campaigners in Asia expressed hope that soon leaders of their own countries would be held responsible for crimes they have committed. Bosnian Serb leaders now appear willing to arrest suspects indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during 1995 as Bosnia drove back Serbian forces.
But other commentators remain skeptical, even going so far as to assert that the purpose of the tribunal is merely to justify NATO's military campaign in Kosovo by digging up horror stories committed by Serbians, while failing to investigate crimes committed by NATO during the bombing campaign that cost the lives of hundreds of civilian women, children, and men in Belgrade. When the international tribunal was asked to review NATO's actions Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte declined the opportunity to open an investigation after publishing a committee report written by a former NATO lawyer. In the report the committee admitted it relied heavily on public documents produced by NATO, and "tended to assume that the NATO and NATO countries' press statements are generally reliable and that explanations have been honestly given."
For others, the proceedings against Milosevic represent another example of the selective justice of the international legal system. Pinochet has been allowed to avoid a trial despite very serious crimes in Chile. Henry Kissinger has not even been indicted for his many offenses. And when victims of the 1982 Lebanon massacre charged Ariel Sharon with war crimes recently in a Belgian court, the Belgian government apologized and expressed its embarrassment. Close to half a billion US dollars have been spent on the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the UN has raised only $34 million to create a court to prosecute RUF leader Foday Sankoh for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. Foday is alleged to have, among other things, used drugs and intimidation tactics to force children to fight his battles. As a representative of Human Rights Watch noted, "The people of Sierra Leone are no less human beings. The kids that are being slaughtered were also kids - they had hopes, they had dreams."
A Desperate, 'Quick' Solution - Technology
The UNDP Human Development Report has just been released. We had been wondering what to expect after respected guru Richard Jolly was replaced by World Banker Nancy Birdsall. Sure enough, the report turned out to be a celebration of technology as a fix for world poverty. Worst of all, the report made a controversial endorsement of genetically modified foods. The report insists out that scientific breakthroughs have been the key to improving the social standards in poor countries. It hails new technological innovations and knowledge diffusion as a means to spread prosperity across the globe, but fails to acknowledge that all too often technology can deepen inequality and poverty.
The report tends to assume that technology will diffuse 'automatically' in a free market environment. But more than ever, the results of scientific research are protected by patents and other kinds of intellectual property rights that restricts their diffusion.
The report acknowledges that high product prices and global "market failures" impede technological advancement. The report also acknowledges that "technology is created in response to market pressure - not the needs of poor people, who have little purchasing power."
The report enthusiastically focuses on the tremendous benefits that the poor in developing nations will gain through the introduction of newer technologies. It affirms that with the internet, farmers in developing countries can access information about crop prices and weather and even gain direct access to the market, thereby cutting out the middle man. But how many African farmers are going to buy computers, when they don't even have access to electricity and phone service. Basic needs such as food and shelter must come first. Access to clean water, education, health care, and adequate housing is much more crucial for long-term development.
The Human Development Report was born just over a decade ago as an argument with the World Bank's World Development Report. This year's version leads us to wonder whether the HDR still has a voice separate and independent from the Bank, or whether it will now become just another voice in the Washington Consensus chorus.
And now the links . . .
