Why did campaigners drive a tank around london? This presentation is to say a big thank you to all of you who have campaigned with us for a bullet proof arms trade conflict at the United Nations. Last summer we drove a tank around London to draw attention to the disastrous impact of the weapons trade on conflict and poverty and to remind the UN of the urgency of passing a binding treaty. For example conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has claimed 5.4 million lives since 1998. This is a war mainly fought with light and portable hand held weapons, such as automatic rifles and rocket propelled grenade launchers. A relatively small number of weapons in the wrong hands has the potential to cause a lot of death and suffering in a poor country.

What’S at stake? Every year countries sell around $50-$60 billion dollars worth of weapons in open and public trade. Many of these weapons are sold to the armies of secure, stable and responsible states, and are not used in humanitarian and human rights abuses. But on the other hand some of these weapons go to countries where they are used for humanitarian and human rights abuses, or they fall into the wrong hands. And then there’s the global black market in small arms and light weapons worth $1 billion per year. Just where these weapons are illegally exported to is difficult to trace and many weapons circulate from one conflict to another.

Time’S running out Every 60 seconds a person dies of the consequences of armed violence. Many more are displaced and forced to leave their homes and farms, pushing them further into poverty and vulnerability. Education and health services are destroyed and people die of diseases that might otherwise have been cured. A small number of weapons in the wrong hands can do a lot of harm

What does the treaty say? After 10 years of determined campaigning the Arms Trade Treaty was agreed on April 2, 2013 at the UN headquarters in New York What does the treaty say? It states that governments shouldn’t sell weapons to other countries if there’s a substantial risk of human rights violations, and violations of the UN charter obligations. This includes the risks that weapons may be diverted away from the intended recipient or that an arms sale adversely affects regional security or seriously impairs poverty reduction and social development. This would exclude providing weapons to countries involved in virtually all the 21st century’s conflicts. Instead of the old approach of ‘asking no questions’ the Treaty obligates selling countries to ask lots of questions!

156 countries voted for the treaty After 6 years of negotiations and 13 years of campaigning, the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of the Arms Trade Treaty. 156 countries finally voted in favour, 3 voted against (Syria, North Korea and Iran) and 21 abstained (including some influential countries like China, Russia, India and Saudi Arabia). (Note – the figures on the slide are slightly different because one country changed its vote from abstain to yes and another voted later)

There’s no tipping point now The Arms Trade Treaty was opposed by three countries; Syria, Iran and North Korea. Under the terms of the treaty they would be unable to import weapons from other countries due to their poor human rights records and UN resolutions pending against them. However the Treaty will be binding on all the countries who ratify it and will become international law once 50 countries ratify the treaty. Therefore a small number of countries will be unable to prevent the vast majority of countries from passing the treaty into law The Treaty covers almost all types of weapons from pistols through tanks to warships. It excludes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as they are already covered by separate UN treaties.

There are some loopholes which need closing The treaty is, however, a compromise and there are loopholes which need closing. One key exclusion is that the treaty doesn’t cover ammunition (eg: bullets) and weapons components. So a country, even with broken weapons, could continue to get them repaired and use them for human rights violations without breaking the treaty. However these issues shouldn’t take away from the massive achievement of the UN to finally regulate the deadly trade in weapons

Thanks!