Cette semaine d'ouverture de la session est l'occasion pour les Etats membres de répondre à l'invitation qui leur faite de signer ou de ratifier les instruments internationaux dont le secrétaire général est le dépositaire. Ainsi le Secrétaire général a annoncé que plusieurs Etats (une vingtaine) avaient procédé le 24 septembre à la signature du Traité sur le Commerce des armes (TCA). Au 26 septembre 110 Etats avaient signé le Traité et 7 l'avaient ratifié (voir). Il entrera en vigueur après la cinquantième ratification. La France a annoncé le prochain dépôt du projet de loi d'autorisation de ratification (au mois d'octobre communiqué). L'entée en vigueur devrait être assez rapide compte tenu notamment de la position commune des 28 Etats membres de l'Union européenne sur le TCA.
Les Etats-Unis ont procédé à cette signature le 25 septembre. Le Secrétaire d'Etat s'est efforcé en cette circonstance de rassurer sur la portée du traité. Il a souligné qu'il n'affectait pas les libertés constitututionnelles en matière de possession d'armes. Il ne portait pas atteinte non plus à la règlemation stricte que les Etats-Unis appliquent en matière d'importation et d'exportation d'armes. Le TCA aurait finalement pour objet de conduire les autres Etats à s'aligner sur la démarche de contrôle strict que pratiquent depuis longtemps les Etats-Unis. On relève que le Département d'Etat n'annonce pas la ratification du traité par les Etats-Unis On rappelle que la matière relève du pouvoir règlementaire de l'Exécutif et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire que le TCA fasse l'objet d'une ratification pour être appliqué. De fait, souligne M. Kerry, il est déjà appliqué en substance. La ratification est donc improbable, compte tenu de la sensibilité de la question du commerce des armes aux Etats-Unis.
Remarks at the Arms Trade Treaty Signing Ceremony
La Russie de son côté n'envisage pas de signer le TCA. Elle estime que le Traité est incomplet, parce qu'il ne règlemente pas la fourniture d'armes à la rébellion qui constituerait une ingérence contraire au droit international. La non-ratification ne dispense évidemment pas la Russie de respecter les obligations déjà imposées par le droit international et notamment l'interdiction d'autoriser l'exportation d'armes destinées à un gouvernement qui s'en sert pour commettre de graves violations des droits de l'homme et du droit humanitaire (complicité, Projet d'articles sur la responsabilité internationale de l'Etat).
Russia’s special opinion on the Arms Trade Treaty
Do you think it is a mere coincidence that the adoption and ratification of the treaty are taking place against the background of the events in Syria?
It is in large part a coincidence. Chronologically, the draft treaty emerged in the mid-1990s and was put on the UN agenda in 2006, that is, long before the Syrian conflict. It would be more logical to link its adoption to the emergence of conditions for its signing by the United States, the world’s leading arms exporter and the only superpower. During the diplomatic conference in July 2012, the Barack Obama administration refused to support the treaty at the last moment because of its reluctance to lose a voting contingent on the eve of the presidential elections (there is domestic opposition to the treaty). Now that Obama has been reelected and is serving his last term, his administration has decided to back the ATT. The US position was decisive for its adoption by the UN General Assembly.
At the same time, it is obvious that Syria may be the first victim of the treaty when it comes in force, because the actions of Bashar al-Assad’s government fall under Article 6.3 (“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms… if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in… attacks directed against civilian objects…”). Moreover, there has been negative coverage of arms supplies to Syria. That said, it wouldn’t be entirely appropriate to link the treaty’s approval with the events in Syria.
Why Russia has abstained from voting on the treaty? Is it because the ATT requires transparency of deals on all conventional arms, and that this runs counter to the interests of the arms lobby?
Russia (and this is reflected in the statements of its officials at the talks) objects to the treaty’s formulas that allow for dual interpretations and dual standards (what does this mean: “if it has knowledge… that the arms or items would be used in… attacks directed against civilian objects”, etc?) Also, Russia is solidary with a group of countries that haven’t supported the treaty because it does not contain a ban on the supply of arms to non-government actors.
In the last few years Russia’s supplies of arms and military hardware have become much less transparent. It is possible to identify in open sources no more than 60% of the cost of supplies declared by the Federal Service on Military-Technical Cooperation. However, the increase in transparency envisaged by the treaty does not present a substantial threat to the Russian arms business. The treaty requires information on the amount of arms supplies rather than their cost, which could potentially threaten the commercial interests of Rosoboronexport (the Russian arms export agency). Moreover, the text of the treaty reads, “reports may exclude commercially sensitive… information” (which means that this information will not be quoted at all).
In general, the assumption that some arms lobby is affecting Russia’s position on the ATT is fairly dubious. A study we conducted last year showed that the majority of directors of Russia’s leading defense enterprises do not even know what the ATT is all about. The reason for this is different. We must admit that as a whole this treaty does not benefit Russia. Without giving anything to Russia, the ATT threatens it with the loss of some markets. The ATT can also be used to exert diplomatic pressure and for an information war. Russia will not be able to use the ATT to its advantage as much as Western countries, due to a lack of adequate diplomatic and media resources and competent external secret services.