From 14–18 July 2008, the Third Biennial Meeting of
States (BMS) on Small Arms met in New York to review the implementation
of the to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate
the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its
Aspects. The BMS also reviewed implementation of the to Enable States to Identify
and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small
Arms and Light Weapons. Neither the PoA nor the International
Tracing Instrument (ITI) are legally-binding, however, both
were negotiated and approved within the UN framework and all
UN member states have committed themselves meeting their requirements.
The BMS gives states a chance to report on national implementation
of the PoA and ITI and more importantly, to highlight their
needs for assistance and to suggest or recommend future steps
for further implementation.
Conference organization
Seven months before the BMS met in New York, chair-designate
Ambassador Dalius Cekuolis of Lithuania began organizing the
conference in coordination with a group of facilitators, whom
he charged with developing working papers and leading discussions
on select themes. The conference’s programme of work
provided for interactive discussions on these themes, which
included:
International cooperation, assistance, and national capacity-building;
Stockpile management and surplus disposal;
Illicit brokering; and
Review of the International Tracing Instrument (ITI).
While most delegations expressed support for a focused conference,
some—most notably Mexico—disagreed with which
themes were selected and expressed surprise that certain themes,
such as monitoring and humanitarian issues, were left out,
despite the known priorities of several delegations. Despite
these lingering disagreements, these delegations still participated
actively in discussion on the above topics.
Substantive discussions
In discussions on international cooperation and assistance,
which constituted a background theme in the consideration
of all other issues, delegations emphasized the need for assistance
to result in increased national capacity rather than one-time
help. Donor countries generally insisted on the necessity
of national reporting in assessing the needs of states, while
many developing countries resisted this linkage. On stockpile
management and surplus disposal, delegations highlighted challenges
the issue poses toward implementation of the PoA and made
numerous suggestions for how to strengthen relevant legislation,
procedures, and operations. During the discussion on illicit
brokering, a number of states, mostly from Latin America and
the Caribbean, urged the negotiation of a legally-binding
instrument, while others cautioned against what they see as
a difficult undertaking. Other states emphasized the development
of regional mechanisms or national legislation. During the
review of the implementation of the ITI, delegations focused
on the need for technical assistance and information exchange,
and many delegations argued the ITI should be legally-binding
and/or that it should include the marking and tracing of ammunition.
Drafting the final report
The chair began drafting the final report of the meeting well
in advance, and distributed it at the start of the conference
as WP.5.
The facilitator for discussions on marking and tracing also
circulated a draft outcome paper on the implementation of
the ITI at the start of the conference, as WP.6.
The evening after the discussion on each of these agenda items,
the chair provided additional draft language for the final
report, upon which delegations were allowed to comment to
the facilitators and the chair for consideration. The Iranian
delegation complained about this process on Tuesday, 15 July,
arguing the outcome document must be negotiated line by line
because the draft outcome text language that had been circulated
the night before contained substantive points. The following
day, the chair explained that all draft language for the outcome
document would be open to ongoing negotiations and consultations
but that the short time-frame of the BMS does not allow for
a complete negotiation of the text. He encouraged states to
cooperate actively with the facilitators to ensure their interests
were addressed in the draft language.
The final report and the way forward
Chapter IV of the final report provides a summary of concerns,
highlights, appeals, suggestions, and recommendations made
by delegations during the course of the BMS on the first three
thematic issues, including recommendations on stockpile management
and for legislation on arms brokering. It also lists some
of the other issues raised by delegations during the course
of discussions. The factual elements of the text had been
largely drafted in advance of the meeting. The fairly weak
recommendations contained in the report, compiled in sections
titled “the way forward,” were developed by appointed
facilitators, all of whom engaged in wide consultations prior
to the BMS. The majority of states, while acknowledging their
doubts and displeasure over the strength of the final draft
text, accepted this method of developing the final document.
However, the Iranian delegation demanded a comprehensive negotiation
of the text, arguing that presenting a document to states
to accept without formal negotiations on its contents undermines
multilateralism and the UN process. Despite appeals by a number
of delegations during the final day of the conference, the
Iranian delegation requested a recorded vote on the document,
to which it abstained, along with Zimbabwe. 134 delegations
voted in favour and no one opposed the report.
Overall assessment
While the substance of the final report was weaker than most
NGOs and delegations most affected by gun violence would have
liked, most agreed with Rebecca Peters, director of the , that the agreement “is
a significant step forward for the international effort to
tackle the illicit gun trade.” After the Review Conference
of the PoA ended without the adoption of a final document
in 2006, participants were relieved to end with a document
that provided tools to move forward with implementing the
PoA and the ITI.
International cooperation, assistance, and national capacity-building
Arguing that implementation of the PoA requires a holistic
approach, most delegations agreed that this topic applies
to all aspects of the PoA and should be considered at each
stage of discussion. One of the foremost concerns cited by
delegations was the problem of matching donors with specific
needs of states. Many donor countries offered suggestions
on how to accomplish this, such as by including a one-page
survey on assistance needs in annual reports ();
developing country-specific assistance programmes ();
creating regional working groups that could meet on specific
issues and report back to the BMS (United Kingdom); and developing
national strategies (Canada). Colombia
called for harmonizing legislation, building national capacity
through trainings of officials and strengthening border controls,
and strengthening international cooperation and exchange of
information. The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs presented
its Programme of Action Implementation Support System, ,
as a tool for helping connect states in need of assistance
with donor states. This website brings together basic documentation,
information on best practices, an advisory network for national
contact points, and project proposals. Many delegations, particularly
those from Latin America and including ,
,
, Mexico,
and the Central
American Integration System (SICA), opposed any preconditions,
such as requiring national reporting, for the provision of
assistance.
Stockpile management and surplus disposal
Switzerland’s WP.3
on this subject, which initiated Tuesday’s discussion,
highlighted challenges and outlined steps states can take
to address stockpile problems, especially those related to
legislation, procedures, and operations. Some delegations,
including the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) indicated the
most important aspect of stockpile management is international
cooperation and assistance. Other delegations, including ,
,
and Germany, recommended specific measures, including information
exchange, reviewing procedures and operations, developing
relevant guidelines within the UN, and improving legislative
and regulatory frameworks that govern the safety of stockpiles.
recommended the development of a new international instrument
for stockpile management and destruction and argued that awareness
raising on stockpile management procedures is key along with
increasing international cooperation and assistance. Italy
also suggested states strengthen their export controls, such
as through a “no re-transfer clause” and consider
allowing exporting countries to make regular visits to relevant
deposits to ensure the agreed arms transfer standards are
met.
Many delegations, particularly those from the west and including
the European Union, argued ammunition should be included in
the PoA’s consideration of stockpiles. While agreeing
ammunition should be included, Russia suggested the BMS focus
on illicit trade problems of ammunition stockpiles and surplus
rather than explosions, arguing that the risk of explosion
comes from ammunition for heavy weapons and mines, not from
SALW ammunition.
Illicit brokering
Citing illicit brokering as one of the fundamental impediments
to implementation of the PoA, Latin American delegations,
including ,
SICA and Mexico, Colombia, and CARICOM, called on all states
to work toward a process toward establishing a legally-binding
instrument on brokering. The said addressing the
issue of brokering requires a uniform, global, legally-binding
framework—an international treaty. Pending conclusion
of an international instrument, the ICRC urged states to establish
and adhere to regional mechanism. The ICRC expressed the view
that in authorizing brokering transactions, states must take
into account the impact on international humanitarian law.
South Africa’s delegation said that while the principle
of an international instrument on illicit brokering is good,
it is a very grey and vague area and would therefore be very
difficult to develop.
After Brian Wood presented the major findings of the 2007
Group of Governmental Experts on illicit brokering, which
were welcomed and supported by many delegations, many states
made recommendations.
said it would like the BMS to call for full implementation
of brokering agreements and
expressed the hope that the outcome document would establish
a road map for dealing with the issue of brokering and said
it would submit a proposal to the facilitator based on the
MERCOSUR working paper, WP.7. The
advocated for a regional approach to cooperation in dealing
with illicit brokering. Australia suggested ten elements for
national legislation on curbing illicit brokering and Benin
put forward possible specific solutions on brokering, including
establish creating model legislation for presentation to member
states, assistance developing accreditation systems, and establishing
regional monitoring mechanisms.
and
both offered several specific suggestions for combating illicit
brokering. Japan further stated that enactment of national
legislation insufficient and that international cooperation
was needed. Italy and Turkey called for language in the outcome
document to reflect the contribution of the Firearms Protocol
toward curbing illicit brokering.
International Tracing Instrument (ITI)
Many Latin American and African delegations, including
and RECSA, argued the ITI should have been made legally-binding
and should have included ammunition. The Philippines
called on arms producing states to comply with the ITI. Many
delegations urged improvements in information exchange and
cooperation between national contact points, regional, international,
and non-governmental organizations. Many states highlighted
the need for technical assistance in marking weapons effectively
and some recommended that it be made mandatory for weapons
to be marked at the time of manufacture and import. The urged all states to
actively trace weapons recovered during or after an armed
conflict. The ICRC also recommended that government experts
directly involved in implementing the ITI meet on a regular
basis to share their experience and consider implementation
of the instrument.
Other issues
Development and human security: A cross-regional selections
of delegations, including ,
Jamaica, Nigeria,
the Netherlands, and
highlighted the connections between the illicit trade of SALW
and development and human security. South Africa agreed that
illicit trade in SALW is a development issues but that states
should be required to include initiatives to combat this trade
as part of their overall development programmes in order to
receive financial or technical assistance from the international
community. Several delegations argued the PoA should be approached
from both supply and demand aspects and that root causes of
demand, including poverty, must be addressed.
Civil society: A cross-regional selection of delegations
that are generally accommodating of NGO participation, including
those of Canada, Ghana, ,
Jamaica, , and
emphasized the importance of civil society participation in
implementing the PoA and ITI and expressed support for the
broader inclusion of civil society in the small arms process.
Pakistan’s delegation said that while it does not object
to civil society participation, there needs to be a distinction
between member states and civil society organizations.
Gender: ’s
delegation emphasized the need for member states to include
gender considerations in their work on implementing the PoA.
Following an NGO presentation on SALW and gender-based violence,
the Australian delegation agreed that gender considerations
and the measures included in UN Security Council resolutions
and
must be included in SALW considerations.
International Humanitarian Law: The articulated the need
for states to respect International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
when considering arms transfers. The ICRC has developed a
practical guide to IHL criteria in arms transfers for use
by government officials. The ICRC also argued that increased
respect for law will reduce the vulnerability of people and
reduce the demand for SALW.
Other processes: Australia gave briefing on the “,” which is working group that
involves governments, international organizations, and NGOs
in regular informal consultations to promote and monitor implementation
of the PoA. The working group prepared a on how to strengthen the PoA beyond 2008 and refine
the process for implementation of the PoA. The United Kingdom
pointed to the adopted by the
in 2003, explaining that it uses elements
from these guidelines as a standard for exporting arms even
to states not participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement.
Panama suggested ways to limit gun ownership, including programmes
that exchange food coupons for weapons and that educate the
public on the dangers of owning a firearm. Canada gave a brief
report of a meeting in Geneva in August 2007 on controls of
international transfers of SALW, which Canada believes offered
a valuable opportunity for sustained and in-depth focus on
one aspect of the PoA and helped raise awareness about best
practices and challenges.
Presentations by intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations
A number of regional organizations reported on the nature
of SALW-related problems in their respective regions and on
the progress of programmes undertaken to combat illicit trade
in SALW, including the League of Arab States; the African
Union; North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the Organization
of American States; Organization of Security and Cooperation
in Europe; the Regional Centre on SALW in the Great Lakes
Region, the Horn of Africa, and Bordering States; the East
African Community; the International Conference of the Great
Lakes Region; and the Central American Integration System.
Interpol reported on its development of information tools
and database, information collection sharing, and expertise
sharing, related to combating illicit brokering in small arms.
The World Health Organization urged governments to move beyond
consideration of the supply dimensions of SALW and to focus
on prevention of armed conflict through available conventional
policy tools.
Representatives from a number of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) argued that the legal possession and use of guns by
citizens should be respected by any international action combating
their illicit trade, including the World Forum on the Future
of Sport Shooting Activities; the National Firearms Association
(Canada); the British Shooting Sports Council; the Canadian
Institute for Legislative Action; the Firearms Importers Roundtable;
the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia; and the Sporting
Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute. Other NGOs, including
the and its partner organizations,
provided recommendations on a variety of issues related to
the small arms process, including stockpile management and
surplus disposal; regulations on licensing for gun ownership;
consideration of gender-based
violence and the implementation of UN Security Council
resolutions 1325 and 1840; illegal brokering; and health concerns.
In addition, a former child soldier from Sudan, , rapped a song explaining his story and the plight
of child soldiers.
Consideration of the Final Report
and Outcome Documents
ITI outcome
On Thursday, 17 July, the Egyptian delegation, which drafted
the outcome
paper on the implementation of the ITI, accepted a few
changes to the paper while chairing the discussion on ITI.
The conference agreed to include an eighth paragraph noting
that some states emphasized the importance of a legally-binding
instrument (request by Colombia) and that other states considered
the nature of the document to have been settled through negotiation
(requested by the United States in response to Colombia’s
request). The Iranian delegation announced it needed to await
instructions from its capital, on the pretext that the changes
were substantive in nature, and requested a decision on adopting
the document be delayed until the following day. The Egyptian
chair was compelled to accept the outcome document ad referendum,
over Iran’s objections. This allowed delegations to
submit views on the text prior to consideration of the BMS
final report on Friday, however Iran did not raise any substantive
objections to the ITI during this time.
BMS outcome and final report
On Monday, 14 July, the chair explained that he would provide
draft outcome document language for each thematic topic on
the evening immediately following the discussion of that item.
On Tuesday, 15 July, Iran’s delegation stated the outcome
document must be negotiated, noting the draft outcome text
language that had been circulated contained substantive points.
On Wednesday, 16 July, the chair explained that all draft
language for the outcome document was open to ongoing negotiations
and consultations but that the short time-frame of the BMS
did not allow for a complete negotiation of the text. On Friday,
18 July, the chair urged states to adopt the final
report as it stood, emphasizing its non-binding nature
and characterizing it as a very modest step. The chair noted
that no delegation had approached the conference facilitators
with substantive comments on the draft text.
At least 13 delegations expressed support for adopting the
final report as it stands, including Norway, the African Group,
Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, the
United Kingdom, MERCOSUR, CARICOM, the European Union, Italy,
Japan, Kenya, and Jamaica. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
said the majority of its members were prepared to support
the text as it stood. NAM noted that, during the consultative
process leading to the outcome document, NAM’s positions
had been heard and considered and that the draft report was
in line with its positions. NAM expressed the understanding,
however, that the facilitation process was not as transparent
or inclusive as a line by line negotiation. Syria's delegation
noted there were procedural gaps in the facilitation process,
pointing to the lack of active interchange, but said it would
support the consensus.
However, the Iranian delegation blocked the adoption of the
final report by consensus, repeating its procedural concerns
and its demand for either a line by line negotiation on the
outcome text or for that portion of the report to be submitted
by the chair as a summary annexed to the final report. At
least six delegations made direct appeals to Iran to reconsider
its positions, including the Netherlands, Liberia, Nigeria,
Colombia, the United Kingdom, and Kenya. The Dutch delegation,
using strongly charged language, gave numerous examples of
where a facilitation approach lead to a successful outcome,
stating that heeding Iran’s words—requiring line
by line negotiations for all consensus documents—would
condemn the UN system to impotence. Nigeria reminded the delegates
that they represent millions of people who are dying daily
because of this issue and argued that complaints about process
and procedure should not “clog the wheels” from
reaching success. Liberia made an evocative appeal to Iran,
emphasizing its own history of conflict and stating that the
issues facing delegations was not a theoretical but rather
a matter of life and death. Several delegations also made
suggestions to overcome the impasse. Egypt suggested the chair
open up a substantive process to hear Iran’s concerns,
thereby allowing the document to be adopted. Sierra Leone
suggested that Iran’s concerns should be annexed to
final report. Nigeria suggested a footnote be annexed to the
final report indicating that the procedures used in this BMS
would not set a precedent for future meetings, in order to
assuage one of Iran's reported concerns. The chair was compelled
to suspend the meeting numerous times in order to allow for
consultations on a possible outcome.
The chair eventually reported that his efforts to achieve
consensus had not yielded results—a procedural requisite
for proceeding to a vote—and that the bureau had decided
by consensus to call a vote on the final report. In light
of this decision, the Iranian delegation withdrew its amendment
for the outcome text to be removed from the final report,
but called for a recorded vote on the draft final report.
Japan formally submitted the draft final report for a vote,
seconded by Switzerland and Colombia. Delegations voted to
adopt the final report as orally amended, with 134 states
in favor, none opposed, and with Iran and Zimbabwe abstaining.
After the vote, many states, including China and Pakistan,
emphasized that this vote should not be used as a precedent
in other multilateral venues or fora.
