As Arms Trade Treaty Is Signed, Arms to Syria "Would Be Inconsistent," ICRC Tells Inner City Press, UK Wants Flexibility

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 3 -- Amid the hoopla on UN signings of the Arms Trade Treaty, Inner City Press asked the UK's Alistair Burt, Costa Rica's minister, the Red Cross and Control Arms how the ATT's "Golden Rule" would apply to arming the rebels in Syria.

Alistair Burt replied that while the expiration of the EU's arms embargo on Syria provides "flexibility" that the UK wanted, no decision has yet been made; the goal was to increase pressure on Bashar al Assad.

But Christine Beerli of the International Committee of the Red Cross answered Inner City Press directly, that providing arms into Syria at this time would be inconsistent with the spirit of the ATT.

Control Arms' Anna MacDonald pointed out that the UK and France are already covered by the European Union's common position, requiring risk assessment. But how did that apply to France air-dropping weapons into the Nafusa Mountains in Libya?

Costa Rica's minister, meanwhile, said the situation in Syria is the perfect example to show why an Arms Trade Treaty is necessary. At least he took questions at the temporary stakeout in front of the Trusteeship Council Chamber. Mostly signers simply held signs congratulating themselves for making history. Fair enough.

The UN's Angela Kane was also on the panel, and afterward Inner City Press asked her a question about Syria. But that's another story. Watch this site.

Footnote: At the ATT press conference, the first question was taken by UN Correspondents Association president for 2013, Pamela Falk of CBS, who asked for a headcount of how many states signed but won't get ratification. (Can you say, USA?) As if the make the point, her first vice president, Louis Charbonneau of Reuters, re-asked the explicitly American question.  

 But during the morning, when the Security Council re-opened without the media workspace that existed before and during the relocation, and a small work table set up by the new Free UN Coalition for Access was seized by a "lady from DPI," Falk, Charbonneau and UNCA did nothing. We'll have more on this.

On Arming Syria Rebels, Oxfam Says Not Now, France Urges, Indian Clause in Arms Trade Treaty

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 25 -- As the Arms Trade Treaty talks continue in the UN's North Lawn, Oxfam came for a second time for a press conference in the Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium.

  A week ago Inner City Press asked the Oxfam panel, which included another NGO's representative from South Sudan, about how they viewed the call to arm the Syrian rebels, and how the treaty would have applied to the South Sudan struggle to separate from Sudan.

  The answers were not entirely responsive, implying that the international community could somehow agree in which rebel or liberation groups are legitimate and should be armed.

  On March 25 Inner City Press asked the question again, directly to Oxfam's Anna MacDonald, letting her know that in the interim, Amnesty International had said that currently the Syrian rebels should not be provided arms, under what its Salil Shetty called the “Golden Rule.”

  MacDonald said, “this treaty will not be a blanket blacklist” but rather “case by case.” Generally, she said, “any government considering arms to any group needs to go through proper risk assessment."

  Then she finally answered on Syria, saying “In the current situation it is highly likely that any country going that right now would conclude no, not right now, weapons would not be provided.”

  But France wants to arm the Syrian rebels - and also supports the so-called Indian clause in the most recent ATT draft, which also dropped the “three little words,” named “at a minimum.” So the list of arms covered, for example not including drones, would be just that: the final list. We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

As Arms Trade Treaty Talks Starts, How Would It Apply to Arming Syria Rebels, or SPLM-N?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 18 -- As the Arms Trade Treaty talks got underway Monday morning at the UN, as if in a parallel world France and the UK among others were pushing to be able to arm the rebels in Syria. How would the proposed ATT apply to such arms transfers, or to France's air-dropping of weapons into Libya's Nafusa mountains?

A pro-ATT press conference was given including Oxfam's Anna Macdonald, the actor Djimon Hounsou and Jeffrey Duke of the South Sudan Network on Small Arms.

Regarding South Sudan, Inner City Press how the proposed ATT would have allowed the SPLA to become armed to fight aginst Khartoum? How would it apply to the SPLM-North in Southern Kordofan? And, of course, to armin the Syrian rebels.

The question was referred to Duke of the South Sudan Network on Small Arms, who said, “what you've stated is a concern world has to come to terms with when considering how to control arms... Our struggle was a genuine, legitimate struggle for liberation against oppression everyone could see.”

There are of course other oppressions that can be seen. Can rebels there all be armed?

Duke continued that it's a “high level political decision to distinguish which groups are pursuing the rightful cause of self determination.”

Fine. But who makes that determination, which rebels are legitimate? Consider Syria. Or Sri Lanka, or Sudan. Or Palestine. Or any number of other places.

Duke said, and it is not clear if this is Oxfam's position, if you “support them, make it transparent... the ATT is supposed to indicate transparency in transfers, liberation organizations must be discussed and made public. The world cannot watch while a group is being oppressed. What's important is transparency in support.”

Is that Oxfam's position? France's? The UK's?

Oxfam's Head of Arms Control Anna Macdonald was second to answer, adding that the ATT would be “preventative.” It would not immediately “solve the problems of Syria” but could “stop future Syrias, Malis, Libyas” by stopping the stockpiling of weapons where there's a risk of human rights abuse.

But still, how would such governments be overthrown? With sling-shots?

Over in the North Lawn, India was saying the draft favors arms exporters. A Permanent Five member of the Security Council called the draft “rubbish.” Macdonald said rather than a weak consensus text it might be worth taking it to the General Assembly for a vote. Coming out of the Security Council an hour later, another Council member said the key would be implementation, and laughed at the question of Syria. And so it goes at the UN. Watch this site.