The final negotiations are coming soon! In July the United Nations will serve as a framework to negotiate a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). It could be a milestone to prevent the global illegal trade in arms. Sure, the question is what can be considered legal or illegal. However, every gun, bullet, tank or whatever that won’t get into the wrong hands is worth the effort.
In a few other blogposts (here and here) I wrote about some examples that illustrate why an Arms Trade Treaty is needed. Yet I’d also like to share this video because it’s a very personal story and it shows that an ATT could stop destroying families all over the world.
Please sign this petition by Oxfam. It calls for a bulletproof Arms Trade Treaty.
A few days ago Amnesty International has published an impressive video that calls for the signing of a global and legally binding arms trade treaty. The video emphasizes that there are just few nations that are by far the biggest arms traders – for example the United States, Russia and Germany.
In July the United Nations will serve as a framework to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Oxfam International has compiled a list with lots of information on Why We need a Global Arms Trade Treaty(I wrote about the importance of an ATT in two earlier blogposts: here and here).
In my opinion, more people should know about the ATT negotiations in order to put pressure on the governments and on the delegates that will take part in the conference in July. In an ideal world there would be no weapons. This may be a utopia but we should all agree on the common denominator that weapons and bullets mustn’t be delivered to crisis regions where weapons end up in the hands of criminals, rebel groups, repressive “security” forces and so on.
If you’d like to get updates regarding the ATT you can check the ATT Monitor Blog or @controlarms on Twitter. But – thankfully – there are quite a few other organizations that are supporting the adoption of an arms trade treaty.
A few days ago the campaign 25000-euro.de (German) caught my attention. Publishing wanted posters of the owners of the German weapons manufacturer Kraus-Maffei Wegmann and calling for tips that could lead to convictions of the company’s shareholders? That’s quite a bold campaign I thought. But the motivation for it – preventing the delivery of 270 Leopard 2 tanks to Saudi-Arabia – is definitely a noble one. Does the end justifiy the means?
The organizers of this campaign (The Center for Political Beauty) say that Krauss-Maffei Wegmann’s shareholders (KMW is a family enterprise with just a couple of shareholders) have too long operated in the background. In fact, there are even people who have worked with the owners and who don’t know that these people earn their money through selling tanks and other wepaons.
The German government has already approved the tanks deal with Saudi-Arabia. In such a case the Federal Security Council decides. This decision was made behind closed doors and without consultation of the parliament. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann claims that it’s „merely“ executing the government’s decision. It could be so easy…
Photo taken from andeecollard on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0
However, I think it’s about time that in such a case decision-makers or those who „merely“ execute these decisions have to justify their actions. The owners of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann should tell the public why they will deliver 270 tanks to Saudi-Arabia, which are appropriate for oppressing protesters. Those tanks could be used to violently oppress protests in Saudi-Arabia or in neighbouring countries like in Bahrain. This has happened before.
Yesterday I stumbled upon an article titled: „Meet the millionaires and billionaires buying land in Africa“. The principle behind it is basically the same like 25000-euro.de. Those people who are making profits in ways that harm others should justify their actions. Transparency could help to avoid actions like these. If the public makes clear that it detests weapons deals with despotic regimes, land deals (landgrabs) at the expense of those who have cultivated the land for a long time or any other deal that bring profits to a minority and that harms a majority of innocent people, some people could think twice about their actions.
Do you know any similar campaigns like 25000-euro.de? I would be happy if you share them! What do you think of campaigns like this one?
A few days ago I published my first article on Global Voices Deutsch. I have already translated a few blogposts from English into German but writing articles yourself and reading them in other languages thanks to volunteer translators is a new experience. That’s why I would like to repost my article here – not in German but in French! You can read the German version here. The French version has been published on GV French. Samy Boutayeb translated the post into French and Rachel Horst translated it into English.
Le groupe d’artistes et d’activistes “Zentrum für politische Schönheit”(”Centre pour la beauté politique” en allemand) a lancé le lundi 21 mai 2012 une action spectaculaire pour mettre fin aux livraisons de chars à l’Arabie saoudite. La campagne 25 000 Europromet cette somme aux personnes donnant des informations qui permettraient de faire comparaître devant un tribunal un ou plusieurs dirigeants de l’entreprise d’armement Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. L’action a d’ores et déjà connu un important retentissement dans la blogosphère et sur les médias sociaux.
La campagne des 25 000 euros se déroule dans le contexte de projets de livraisons de chars allemands [en anglais] à l’Arabie saoudite. L’industriel de l’armement Krauss-Maffei Wegmann a décroché le contrat portant sur la livraison de 270 chars Leopard 2 A7+. Ce modèle est spécialement conçu pour des interventions en zone urbaine. Le Centre pour la beauté politique a produit une vidéo illustrant les capacités de ce char dans la lutte contre les révoltes populaires.
Le Centre pour la beauté politique justifie son action en précisant que les chars peuvent être utilisés pour réprimer des révoltes populaires dans ce pays ainsi qu’au Bahreïn voisin (Global Voices avait couvert [en] l’entrée des troupes saoudiennes au Bahreïn). Le contrat de vente de chars ayant reçu l’aval des milieux politiques allemands, la campagne “25000 Euro” entend faire comparaître les dirigeants non pas pour les livraisons de chars mais pour fraude fiscale, blanchiment d’argent ou pour d’autres délits du même ordre :
Si le monde politique n’interdit pas le commerce des armes aux conséquences mortelles, nous avons l’obligation d’être créatifs afin que les auteurs répondent pénalement de leurs actes. Dans le cas d’Al Capone, il a été finalement nécessaire d’attaquer sur le terrain de la fraude fiscale. Le Code pénal possède d’innombrables articles pouvant être invoqués.
Le caractère singulier de la campagne réside dans la mise à prix d’une sorte de “récompense” ainsi que dans la publication d’avis de recherche, présentant les responsables. La campagne souligne le fait qu’un grand nombre de ces personnes se présentent comme des antroposophes ou des artistes.
Les réactions inspirées par la campagne sur les médias sociaux sont dans leur grande majorité positives. John F. Nebel écrit sur son blog Metronaut :
C’est sans doute l’une des campagnes les plus belles et les plus radicales contre l’industrie allemande de l’armement depuis longtemps.
Le blog populaire Netzpolitik.org a également publié un article sur 25000-euro.de.
Par ailleurs, de nombreuses personnes soutiennent cette action en adressant au porte-parole du gouvernement, Steffen Seibert, la question suivante, transmise sur Twitter:
Monsieur le porte-parole (@RegSprecher), pourquoi le gouvernement fédéral soutient-il l’exportation de chars de combat auprès de régimes autoritaires ? #panzer #25000Euro
À ce jour, le porte-parole du gouvernement ne s’est pas exprimé sur Twitter, pour répondre aux questions sur le contrat de ventes de chars. @kl_gelber_Fisch se désintéresse de la précédente question et souhaiterait savoir si le gouvernement fédéral allemand privilégie la stabilité ou la liberté.
Monsieur le porte-parole (@RegSprecher), la stabilité dans les pays du Golfe est-elle plus importante que la vie et la liberté des personnes qui y vivent ? #panzer #25000Euro
Le Centre pour la beauté politique a également publié sur 25000-euro.de un appel vidéo de Abbas Al Omran (Centre pour les droits humains de Bahraïn), appelant les dirigeants à mettre fin aux livraisons de chars.
Le Centre pour la beauté politique informe en continu sur 25000-euro.de sur l’évolution de la campagne, par exemple en diffusant des informations susceptibles d’être utiles dans le cadre d’une plainte devant un tribunal.
Today, I stumbled upon an interesting infographic which is dealing with small arms (on www.pbs.org). Unfortunately, the stories that emerge from this infographic are sobering. It says that in the US there are 8.9 firearms per 10 residents. Yemen is second to the US with much less firearms: 5.5 per 10 residents. Furthermore, the Infographic shows the flag of Mozambique which is – amongst other things – depicting a Kalashnikov AK-47!
When I saw this graphic it was once again obvious to me knew why it is important to adopt a worldwide Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which would include small arms and ammunition. The adoption of the ATT is scheduled for 2012. But it is uncertain how powerful it will be in terms of scope, oversight or sanctions and so forth.
There are legal and illegal forms of arms trade but in the end the outcome is this: too many firearms end up being held by civilians. Even weapon deals between states which are negotiated to equip the security forces (and I would like to add that the notion „security forces“ may in some countries not be suitable for the military and the police) often satisfy the demand from civilians or rebel groups. One such an example are weapon deals between China and Sudan.
China sells AK-47s to Sudan where some of them get stolen and smuggled through South Sudan as well as Uganda and end up in the hands of rebel forces in the Congo. Another example is the former Afghan weapon pipeline. Most of today’s weapons in Afghanistan are relicts from the Soviet invasion when the weapon pipeline was being operated by states like the US, Saudi-Arabia or China in order to arm the Mujahideen. But many of these weapons leaked in Kashmir or India (See Bhatia: Small Arms Flows into and within Afghanistan). Those weapons that found their way to Afghanistan did not stay within the country either. It is estimated that nearly 60 per cent1 of those weapons that were delivered by the US and China to the Mujahideen sooner or later arrived in Pakistan, Kashmir or some parts of India. Today, South Asia is still suffering from this unhampered access to small arms.
It is obvious that the illegal arms trade is not the only problem. The legal arms trade between states is also a reason for concern. In the end too many firearms are stolen or sold by corrupt officials. Democratic countries have to publicly account for weapon deals with countries like Bahrain that oppress their people (see also my earlier blogpost on a deal between Germany and Saudi-Arabia to sell 200 German tanks).
Small arms and light weapons are called today’s „weapons of mass destruction“. Just look at the fact that small arms kill one person every minute (see infographic) and you know why the adoption of a global arms trade treaty is of utter importance. For this reason I try to monitor the developments with regard to the implementation of a global Arms Trade Treaty.
Next week the 3rd Arms Trade Treaty Prep Com at the United Nations in New York (July 11-15th) will take place. The purpose of a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is to set up legally binding rules to regulate the global arms trade. Questions like: which weapons will be integrated in a regulating mechanism? Will small arms and light weapons be included? Should aspects like human rights be considered when arms exports to authoritarian countries are coming under scrutiny?
“An ATT should prevent conventional weapons from being used to contribute to armed conflicts, trans-national organized crime, terrorist acts, serious human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law, which undermine peace, security, regional stability, and sustainable social and economic development.”
The German government does not seem to be concerned about possible human rights violations in Saudi-Arabia like a crackdown of Saudis who are protesting in favor of reforms or violence against protesters in nearby Bahrain (like it happened in March). Instead, the argument goes like this:
Iran is pursuing regional power ambitions => Iran is kind of an enemy and a threat for regional stability => Saudi-Arabia should be supported to be a counterbalance to Iran in the region=> If we don’t deliver them the US, Spain or others will do it.
Obviously the German government hasn’t noticed the momentum of human-rights in the Arab world. Instead of sending tanks to Saudi-Arabia the German government should stick to its declared goal of trying to prevent human rights violations. What else would you call a possible use of German tanks for cracking down protests in Saudi-Arabia or Bahrain?
