Standing Behind Africa: The Case for Signing the UN Arms Trade

On April 2nd, 2013, United Nations General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with 154 countries voting in favor of the measure. The treaty seeks to implement an array of measures that would hold nations more accountable in international trade of firearms. The treaty is aimed at establishing a more transparent record of arms trade among nations in the goal of discouraging transactions that might lead to violations of human rights. The insular opposition to the measure was raised by Iran, Syria, and North Korea, the only three states that voted against the treaty. 23 countries including Russia, Egypt, and India abstained. On 25th of September, Italy joined the ranks of 9 other countries that have so far ratified the treaty, as the first European state to cement its support for the measure. Negative reports and sophistry surrounding the passage of the treaty clearly diminishes the potential impact of this legislation on mollifying chaos and the death toll in many areas that are ravaged by both interstate and intrastate strife.

In the U.S. the treaty faces a bleak future. Opposition to the treaty in the senate is headed by Jerry Moran, junior Republican senator from Kansas. So far, Moran has been able to garner the support of 61 senators. In the house, the 181 member opposition is led by Representative Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. Republican legislators dominate both coalitions. Misperceived threat of an overreach on Americans’ second amendment rights shapes the opposition’s talking-point. This is despite the fact that the language of the treaty cannot be more precise and articulated on this matter. The text of the treaty clearly identifies its goal to reaffirm “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system,” leaving no objection that the focus of the treaty is purely interstate. Other commentators have stated, rather credulously, that the U.S. has “nothing to gain” from the treaty. A palpable sense of irony cuts through this opposition. The Republican Party, despite its vigor in continuously emphasizing and championing a broad, expansive international strategic involvement on the part of United States, has failed to perceive and grasp the treaty’s potential in swaying many existing global conflicts in our direction. The Republican Party’s aversion for the treaty, simulacrum of only those showed by Iran, North Korea, and Syria, proves once again that politics of war never fails in delivering the most peculiar bed fellows. One does not need to look any further than the list of countries that have already ratified the treaty to notice a clear pattern. It is our moral and strategic obligation to accelerate and strengthen the support given to this treaty by a critical region in the world: West Africa.

Two West African nations have moved at a quick pace to ratify and enforce the treaty. Nigeria was the first country to ratify the treaty in August of last year. Mali immediately followed suit as the second. Ghana was among the first nations to call for the adaptation of this treaty. In fact, if the treaty somehow manages to circumvent the hindering ideological oppositions, such as the one in the United States, its success would indeed be a diplomatic achievement for the African nations. This would be the first — undoubtedly the most significant — chapter in African states’ attempt to influence and implement an international norm.

The legislative history surrounding the adaptation of the treaty shows how the lobbying power of many West African countries influenced the shape and content of the treaty. Ghana led the coalition of 103 states in the goal of reframing the original language of the treaty to include the final and more “comprehensive” language against the illicit transfer of small arms. Ghana and Niger were also the main forces behind expanding the scopes of the legislation to include “munitions and ammunitions”. As early as 2010, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had already put its weight behind the treaty and has ever since reaffirmed its strong support on numerous occasions.

This should not come at any surprise. Insurgent groups such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND), and Boko Haram, benefited immensely from their serendipitous access to the arsenal that Mohammad Gaddafi had built over 40 years, as guns and ammunitions rapidly flowed into West Africa after the fall of Gaddafi’s regime. A study published by OXFAM in 2007 concluded that a staggering 98 percent of ammunition in Africa is imported, and that West African countries produce very little ammunition within their own borders. The problem is most vividly witnessed in West Africa, but news out of Darfur is a harbinger of the spread of this disease across the continent. A recent study by Amnesty International found that China, Russia, and Belarus are supplying Sudan with guns and ammunition in complete disregard for the fact that the arms have been used against civilians in the region. United States has also earned its share of public opprobrium for its participation in feckless arms deals. The sale of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia and providing military equipment to General Yusuf Mohamed Siad of Somalia are two remarkable examples of our indirect engagement in arming those with a sanguine record of human rights violations. Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo are the other two victims of illegal arms trade. The problem has its strongest hold in West Africa, but it is beginning to engulf the whole continent. United States and Allies must act.

There is no question that the escalation of the on-going conflicts across the continent has already drained our resources and those of our allies. France finds itself trapped in the region as the intensity of conflict in Central African Republic increases, forcing them to deploy 2000 soldiers to the region. France has already spent 70 million Euros to secure Mali and the spread of conflict in the area can only bring more financial damage to our closest allies. Despite these warning signals, the current administration continues with its costly approach to defending the region, building expensive drone projects in the horn of Africa, all the while completely disregarding the immense impact that can be drawn from our support for international legislations that seek to mitigate the on-going conflicts. Concrete and effective diplomatic solutions such as this are consistently flouted, falling victim to shortsighted ideological bickering. Africa’s felicitous move towards reform should not be met with constant idleness from the Western nations. Africa does not have to become inured with our inertia. They have taken the first step towards reform, and our moral imperative to join cannot be overstated.