Statement by Mr John Tilemann, International Security Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to the United Nations Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, as delivered on 13 July 2010.
(as delivered)
Australia is encouraged by the statements made by delegations yesterday and this morning.
In particular, we are heartened by the extent to which States appear to have developed shared views and perspectives on key issues – and the atmosphere of cooperation prevailing.
Australia shares the views expressed by many delegations on the elements of an Arms Trade Treaty and the principles that underlie the development of the Treaty.
In order to contribute to this helpful discussion, and as requested by our Chair, we would like to take this opportunity to set out in more detail the elements that Australia considers should be included in the Arms Trade Treaty.
We will revert to principles in a later intervention.
By way of introduction let me recall the comment of our delegation yesterday: we recognise that many of the issues before us – such as scope and parameters – cut across many of the elements of the future Arms Trade Treaty. Nonetheless, we have attempted to list eight elements which we consider to be essential.
First, the Arms Trade Treaty must clearly define the arms and activities that fall within the scope of the Treaty.
In relation to arms, Australia supports the inclusion of the categories of arms already mentioned in statements made by many delegations in this forum, such as the categories in the UN Conventional Arms Register, as well as small arms and light weapons, conventional arms components and ammunition.
The arms falling within the scope of the Treaty should be as clearly and precisely defined as possible, and in a manner which ensures that emerging technologies can be covered – as far as possible without requiring formal amendment of the Treaty.
Second, in relation to activities that would fall within the scope of the Treaty, Australia considers that the Treaty should address the broadest range of activities possible, including imports, exports, brokering, re-exports, transit and trans-shipment.
Defining these activities will be important in order to ensure parties have a common understanding of the activities covered by the Treaty.
Third, the Treaty will need to set out obligations that will apply to those arms and activities that fall within the scope of the Treaty.
We agree with those delegations who have argued in favour of State responsibility for authorisation of arms transfers.
The Arms Trade Treaty should set out clearly defined and demonstrable criteria that States must take into account in authorising transfers of arms.
We should remain flexible on how to translate these factors into obligations, keeping in mind the desire to reflect existing best practice in relation to responsible transfers and respecting the principle that States have the sole responsibility to implement the Arms Trade Treaty.
As we stressed yesterday no State should be precluded from imposing stricter requirements than those contained in the Arms Trade Treaty.
We agree with the distinguished representative of the United States that the Treaty should be a ‘floor’, not a ‘ceiling’, when it comes to setting standards for responsible transfers.
We also agree with the distinguished colleague from the Russian Federation that the Arms Trade Treaty should not legitimise standards lower than those already applied by most leading arms exporting countries.
Fourth, while the Treaty should have the broadest possible scope, it is impossible to ignore the need for recognition that certain activities should fall outside of the scope of the Treaty, for example, activities related to military operations, exercises and training.
In this regard, Australia notes that these exceptions must be framed narrowly and avoid the creation of loopholes.
Fifth, building upon clear definitions of arms, activities and mechanisms for State authorisation of arms transfers, Australia considers that the Treaty should include provisions on transparency, which is essential to the effective functioning of an Arms Trade Treaty.
Reporting requirements should seek to build upon, and, to the extent possible, be compatible with, States’ existing reporting obligations in relation to arms transfers.
We should also be open to consideration of best practice and, possibly, innovative reporting mechanisms for small States.
Sixth, Australia views implementation as the sole responsibility of States, and the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty should reflect this and not prescribe the means of implementation.
Consequently our seventh point: an essential element of an Arms Trade Treaty will be allowing States to seek and and provide – on a voluntary basis – technical, financial and other assistance in the implementation of the Treaty.
Eighth, in addition to these key elements, an Arms Trade Treaty should address procedural issues:
• the relationship between the Arms Trade Treaty and other international obligations
• the relationship between parties to the Treaty and States not party
• avenues of dispute settlement
• meetings of States Parties
• review and amendment of the Treaty
• as well as final provisions including:
o entry into force
o authentic texts
o signature and ratification processes.
Australia looks forward to constructive discussions on all these key issues.