| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Arms Trade
12.30 pm
Tony Baldry (Banbury): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about any Treaty on International Arms Transfers adopted by an International Conference held under the auspices of the United Nations.
It may help the House if I explain at the outset that the Bill has been prepared by eight members of the International Development Committee from all parties. As we undertake our work as a Select Committee, we are very conscious of the devastation caused by conflict in Africa and elsewhere, invariably perpetuated by small arms and other conventional weapons. Indeed, for sub-Saharan Africa and much of the world, the weapon of mass destruction is the AK47.
Small arms are, sadly, all too often in the hands of children. It is reassuring news that, through the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, the UN will for the first time treat the enlistment of children as soldiers as a war crime under international law.
The cost of such conflict is individual and tragic, and there is also a collective cost that the developing world cannot afford. It is obviously impossible in the time available to begin to describe the individual tragedies of hundreds of thousands of children and families in Africa and elsewhere, living in daily fear of armed violence, but let me give just one example.
During the recent conflict, over 10 years or so, rebels in Sierra Leone deliberately drugged children to use them as child soldiers. As part of their terror campaign, these children with AK47s would target pregnant women and take bets on whether the foetus was male or female. That is the level of degradation that was reached.
Today, the so-called Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda is still kidnapping children and forcing them to fight against their own families and friends. Uganda spends almost a quarter of its gross domestic product on arms, yet the World Bank ranks it 147th lowest on the human development index. Angola spends more than a third of its income on arms, yet it is rated 164th lowest.
The Select Committee and all-party groups often hear evidence of why sub-Saharan Africa is going backwards—how, on existing evidence, the continent is unlikely to meet the 2015 millennium development goals. Yesterday, we had the very welcome launch by the Prime Minister of the Commission for Africa. One of the reasons why the region is going backwards is that Africa is a continent of conflict. It is estimated that $22 billion is spent every year on arms by countries the majority of whose population live on less than $1 a day. Conflict fuels poverty.
Last year, the World Health Organisation estimated the economic loss to Africa of conflict at a staggering $15 billion a year. Typically, conflict leaves a country 15 per cent. poorer, with about 30 per cent. more people living in absolute poverty. Hon. Members may ask why I am introducing a ten-minute Bill. The reason is that, extraordinarily, despite the damage that many small arms and conventional weapons cause, there is still no binding comprehensive international law to control the
5 May 2004 : Column 1342
export of conventional weapons. There is no international control on the proliferation of AK47s and similar weapons.
In fairness, the UK Government have done much to ensure that this country's arms trade and defence sales respect human rights and development needs, and they also introduced the Export Control Act 2002. Much more needs to be done internationally, and given that the Government have made significant progress and led by example, they are clearly better placed to help take the lead internationally and to act as a standard-bearer for a more transparent and accountable arms trade throughout the world.
A number of UK non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and Amnesty International have drafted a suggested text for an arms trade treaty. It is a simple, clear document that defines the criteria against which any proposed transfer of conventional arms should be permitted. It would require states to incorporate those criteria into their national law, and to make regular public reports to an international registry of all arms transferred. Such a treaty would make it clear when arms exports are in breach of international law, and when the exporter has knowledge—or ought reasonably to have knowledge—that the arms will be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian law.
Such a treaty would ensure that any state exporting weapons—not only newly manufactured arms, but re-exported, second-hand weapons—has a clear responsibility to make certain that they are used in a manner consistent with standards already agreed under international law. It would require an exporting state to monitor closely what happens once the arms leave its borders, since the manner in which the recipient state will use the weapons might affect the lawfulness of the transfer. It would be an international means of control to ensure that all nations work to the same standard.
The Bill would encourage the UK Government to act internationally to agree an arms trade treaty by 2006, and to prevent arms from being exported to destinations where they are likely to be used to commit grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Indeed, the House supported some of those principles during the progress of the Export Control Bill. On Third Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), said in support of a Government amendment that
"the Government were very much aware of the depth of concern. We have addressed that concern first by strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill, and secondly by putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development in the licensing process, together with all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule."—[Official Report, 24 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 630.]
Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has already signalled some support for my Bill's principles. When giving evidence recently to the Quadripartite Committee, he said:
"We are having consultations on this. It goes without saying that if I felt an arms control treaty would deal with many of the problems which you have raised and we could get it through, I would be in favour of it. After all, we have signed up to all sorts of instruments in terms of arms control and there is no argument there, in principle, between us".
Of course, not all countries would immediately accept the idea of an arms trade treaty, but that should not prevent us and others from forging ahead. Not all countries have signed the mine ban treaty, but since it came into force not a single country has openly traded anti-personnel land mines, and far fewer Governments are using them. Under the programme of action of the United Nations conference on small arms, Governments agreed
"to assess applications for export authorizations according to strict national regulations and procedures that cover all categories of small arms and light weapons and are consistent with States' existing responsibilities under international law."
There are many genuinely well-intentioned statements of principles and best-practice guidelines on the arms trade, but there are no treaties or enforceable international legislation. The Bill seeks to encourage transparency, accountability and a legal framework for a responsible and legitimate arms trade. It would set out principles based on states' existing responsibilities according to international standards. It would pull together relevant international laws and standards that should apply to international arms transfers, such as the Geneva conventions, the mine ban treaty and the genocide convention.
Early next year, the UK will assume the G8 presidency, and later in the year we will assume the EU presidency. The Bill seeks to encourage the UK Government to demonstrate robust political leadership by introducing an arms trade treaty that would help to reduce the risk to millions in Africa of conflict and misery. I hope that the House recognises that we will make little progress in meeting the millennium development goals and the various targets that we hope to achieve if conflict is still being perpetuated in the world due to the proliferation of small arms. I therefore hope that the House will give leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, John Barrett, Mr. John Battle, Hugh Bayley, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Quentin Davies, Chris McCafferty and Tony Worthington.
Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about any treaty on international arms transfers adopted by an international conference held under the auspices of the United Nations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 102].
5 May 2004 : Column 1344
Opposition Day
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |