Web pages about "Democratic Republic Of Congo"

ICC in difficulty ten years after the Rome Statute

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:27:01 +0100

Thursday 17 July marks the tenth anniversary of the Rome Statute, the treaty that led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Set up in 2002, the ICC is mandated to investigate and prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, when national authorities are unable, or unwilling to do so.

Lauded as one of the most ambitious steps by the international community in recent history, the ICC has made significant progress in its investigations. But its work is being obstructed by serious internal and external difficulties.

The Court’s first investigations in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Darfur region of Sudan and northern Uganda have focussed on some of the most serious human rights situations in the world. Afghanistan and Colombia are also being assessed.

Prosecuting cases is the problem. To date, the Court has issued 12 public arrest warrants, with another requested by the Prosecutor on 14 July 2008. Only four people have been arrested and surrendered for trial. The first case has been stayed. The accused may be released on fair trial grounds.

Without its own police force, the Court’s ability to prosecute cases depends upon the willingness of states to arrest and surrender those charged.

If a state fails or refuses to arrest and surrender persons to the Court, it was thought that other states and intergovernmental organizations would pressure them to do so. In practice, this is proving ineffective.

In response to the government of Sudan’s refusal to arrest and surrender former Minister of Humanitarian Affairs Ahmad Harun and Janjaweed leader Ali Kushayb to the Court, the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement in June 2008 calling for cooperation.

However, Sudan continues to refuse to implement the warrants. Four senior leaders of the Lords Resistance Army accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in northern Uganda still remain at large.

An obstacle within the ICC emerged in June 2008, before the start of the Court’s first trial. The case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was stayed by the Trial Chamber to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial.

This was because the Prosecutor was unable to disclose to the defence exculpatory and mitigating evidence that had been provided confidentially by the United Nations and other organizations.

Confidentiality agreements are provided for in the Rome Statute, but only in exceptional circumstances and for the purpose of generating new evidence. A decision has been made to release the accused. Both decisions are the subject of appeals.

The possible collapse of the Court’s first case on fair trial grounds is deeply troubling. In particular, victims of the charges will be denied the opportunity to participate in the case.

However, the Trial Chamber’s decision to ensure the rights of the accused to have access to all information which could demonstrate their innocence demonstrates the Court’s determination to apply the highest standards of justice.

To date, 107 states, over half the international community, have ratified the statute. Many other states, including governments who originally opposed the statute, are in the process of ratifying.

Even the USA, which launched a worldwide campaign against the ICC, has since supported its work at the United Nations Security Council and indicated that it may cooperate with the ICC’s future investigations.

Amnesty International is a strong supporter of the Court. The organization lobbied extensively during the drafting of the Rome Statute for a just, fair and effective permanent court.

The long-term success of the Court as a central element of the new system of international justice will depend on its ability to prosecute cases. However, arrest and surrender of suspects is a matter largely outside the ICC’s control.

The supporters of the Court, therefore, have a vital role to ensure that cooperation is demanded bilaterally from states and through intergovernmental organizations. Efforts must also be taken to ensure that missions conducted by intergovernmental organizations are mandated to execute arrest warrants.

Media briefing: Now is not the time to relax UN arms embargo on DRC

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:52:29 +0000

Amnesty International today urged the UN Security Council not to weaken the arms embargo on the DRC, arguing that any relaxation would be premature and could prove counter-productive to the protection of human rights. The organization is especially concerned by proposals to remove embargo restrictions on the non-integrated units of the DRC security forces.

“Arms and munitions are still being used by members of the regular army and police, as well as by armed groups, to commit daily abuses against civilians, including widespread killings and rapes. There has been too little DRC government progress towards professionalizing its security forces and ending impunity to justify a loosening of UN controls at this stage.”

Under the terms of the existing embargo, the DRC government can, subject to prior notification to the UN, obtain arms imports for the use of security force units that have gone through the national programme of integration and reform. There is, however, a ban on supplies to units that have not completed this process.

“Any relaxation of the embargo would be inconsistent with UN and other international initiatives to promote effective reform of the security forces and to end human rights violations, including entrenched sexual violence and the recruitment and use of child soldiers.”

Only one month ago the UN Group of Experts established to investigate alleged breaches of the arms embargo documented apparent instances of embargo violations by the DRC government and by states supplying arms to the government. Far from proposing a relaxation of controls, the Group recommended a strengthening of the capacity of the UN peace-keeping force to the DRC, MONUC, to monitor the embargo.

“If the UN Security Council and the international community are to help the DRC reduce human rights violations, then it is vital that the UN closely monitor all military transfers to the DRC to ensure that these reach only their lawful recipients and are used only in a lawful manner. The proposal currently before the Security Council is a step back from such close monitoring.”

Amnesty International also warned that that it would be inappropriate to ease the embargo while the integration into the regular army of armed groups in the eastern Kivu provinces is unresolved. On 23 January 2008, representatives of these armed groups undertook in an “Act of Engagement” to submit their forces to a process of demobilization or integration, but the modalities of this process have still to be negotiated. These negotiations are likely to prove extremely fraught. A previous initiative, known as the “mixage”, to integrate Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP armed group into the national army failed dismally and was the spark behind the latest resumption of conflict in North-Kivu in the last months 2007, attended by mass human rights abuses and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Background

The UN Security Council is discussing possible changes to the existing arms embargo to the DRC, which expires on 31 March 2008. A draft currently before the Council maintains a prohibition on supplies of arms and other military aid to armed groups operating in the DRC, but removes restrictions on supplies to non-integrated army brigades anywhere in the DRC and brigades going through integration in the east of the country. The draft also removes a requirement that military supplies to the government be imported only through designated “receiving sites” which are subject to inspection by the UN peace-keeping force, MONUC.

Although the DRC has seen an improvement in security in parts of the country, conflict has not yet ended in all areas, especially in the eastern province of North-Kivu. Across the country, armed groups and government security forces alike continue routinely to use arms to kill, rape, torture and loot. The regular army (FARDC) and police remain among the foremost perpetrators of human rights violations.

On 19 February 2008, the latest UN Group of Experts’ report provided case studies of apparent violations of the embargo by the DRC government and by states supplying arms to the government, as well as instances of failure by the government to notify MONUC of incoming shipments of military supplies. The Group recommended a strengthening of MONUC’s monitoring capacity and efforts to restart an “effective process” to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate members of illegal armed groups.

The national Security Sector Reform programme is at a virtual standstill across the country since the demise of the government body, CONADER, in charge of demobilization. Another government body established to replace CONADER is not yet functional. An estimated 78,000 combatants, mainly in the east, are still awaiting demobilization or entry into integrated army brigades. Many of these non-integrated units operate as de facto armed groups, operating outside state control and army command structures. This is the case, for example, with the 85th non-integrated brigade in Walikale territory, North-Kivu province, which is allegedly heavily involved in the trafficking of cassiterite and other minerals, and has been responsible for numerous human rights violations.

In the Act of Engagement signed on 23 January 2008, Congolese armed groups in the provinces of North- and South-Kivu undertook to observe a cease-fire and to immediately halt human rights abuses against civilians, including killings, sexual violence and the recruitment of children. The cease-fire has been repeatedly broken, however. An AI delegation recently returned from North-Kivu found substantial evidence that these groups are continuing to recruit children and that all forces in the province, including the regular army, are continuing to rape and commit other human rights violations with impunity. Between 1 and 12 March 2008, 13 civilians in North-Kivu were unlawfully killed by armed groups.

Press freedom: Deliberately targeted for doing their jobs

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:54:41 +0100

The freedom of the press is an essential element of the protection of human rights. Despite many issues and challenges, a fully functioning free press operates as the "fourth estate", exposing abuses of power and holding the other pillars of society to account. UNESCO places the media above all forms of communication and defines it as "an essential component in the building of a world at peace."

In reality, the press in most parts of the world is not completely free. Different situations present different threats and restrictions on press freedom, some more deadly than others, but there are few places where journalists are fully free to seek out and expose the truth.

Kofi Anan, speaking on World Press Freedom Day last year, said that most journalists who die in the line of duty around the world are murdered -- "deliberately targeted, as individuals, for exposing corruption or abuses of power; for opposing entrenched interests, legal or illegal; in short, for doing their jobs." In times of political strife, journalists are often among the first victims when groups turn to violence to achieve their aims.

The situation for journalists is stark in some of the conflict scarred countries of Africa. In 2002, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) named Zimbabwe one of the world's worst places to be a journalist. Almost all foreign journalists have been expelled from the country, Zimbabwean journalists are among the thousands who have fled the Mugabe government seeking asylum

In 2002, the government enacted the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). Many of the provisions of the AIPPA contravene international human rights standards, particularly in relation to freedom of expression. The Daily News, Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, was closed in September 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled that the newspaper was publishing illegally because it had not registered with the state-controlled Media Information Commission (MIC), a requirement of AIPPA. The MIC has refused to register the paper, which remains closed at the time of writing.

An AI report, Zimbabwe: Rights Under Siege, issued in 2003 catalogued abuses against journalists in Zimbabwe. "In 2002 alone, approximately 44 media workers were arrested and five media workers were physically attacked. Two media houses were petrol-bombed in 2002, bringing the total number of bomb attacks on the physical infrastructure of the independent press to four since 2001."

The most dangerous place in the world

However, for just over a year, the most dangerous place in the world for journalists has been Iraq. Of twelve journalists listed as killed since the beginning of the year by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF -- Reporters Without Borders), five of them have been killed in Iraq. According to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), 38 media workers -- journalists, cameramen, photographers and translators -- have been killed since the beginning of the war.

The circumstances surrounding these deaths have highlighted worrying trends in US policy towards journalists. The US Army has publicly stated that it prefers embedded journalists, journalists who travel with troops receiving greater access to information and protection from the army. However, these journalists are usually restricted in the kinds of stories they can cover, as they are barred from leaving the unit and are rarely given access to people outside.

Journalists who reject the option of "embedding", preferring to try and do their job freely, have said that they are increasingly afraid that they are being deliberately targeted by the coalition forces as well as armed groups. A lack of proper investigation of incidents by the US forces has done nothing to dispel this view, despite denials by US spokespeople.

What is clear, however, is that the coalition forces are failing to protect journalists in Iraq. An investigation by RSF into the US attack on the Palestine Hotel in Iraq, in which two journalists were killed, found that, while there was no evidence that the hotel had been deliberately targeted, the army was "criminally negligent". According to the RSF report, "Two murders and a lie" published in January this year, soldiers in the field were never told the hotel was full of journalists. "The question is whether this information was withheld deliberately, out of contempt or through negligence."

In the most recent incident on 18 March, in which two journalists working for the Arabic satellite news channel Al-Arabiyya were killed, the US military concluded that they were killed in an "accidental shooting" by soldiers who opened fire within the "rules of engagement". These rules of engagement have not been made public, despite numerous calls for the military to do so.

The killings happened in the context of continuing criticism of the two main Arabic channels, Al-ArabiyaAl-Jazeera, by the coalition. Muwaffak al-Rubai, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, accused the stations of inciting violence, lying and being "anti-coalition". The Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor described a report about US forces targeting women and children as "poisonous". Al-Arabiya was previously banned from working and its bureaux in Baghdad were closed for two moths. Al-Jazeera was banned from covering the activities of the governing council for a month at the beginning of the year.

In a meeting with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), the British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon made the occupying forces' policy chillingly clear. "The journalists know that they had to write the truth in return for the protection they were given. If they write rubbish, they might find themselves less well looked after."

This lack of protection has put journalists at increased risk from armed groups in Iraq. The GuardianTimes reporter James Hider on 14 April this year as saying that the threat of kidnapping has become so acute that the majority of western journalists are no longer venturing beyond Baghdad. There have also been a number of incidents of journalists being detained by the coalition forces, such as the Korean journalists detained in March and the four Iraqis working for Reuters and NBC who were held for three days in January and, according to Reuters, subjected to sleep deprivation and other "uncomfortable treatment". newspaper reported

The Geneva Conventions specifically state that journalists are civilians and should be protected as such under the Conventions. The consistent failure of the coalition forces to acknowledge their duty to protect journalists, whether or not they agree with what they write, and the attacks upon them have been condemned by the NUJ.

Caught in the line of fire

The situation does not necessarily improve once open conflict has ended. An Amnesty International action for World Press Freedom Day highlights the increase in acts of repression and intimidation by the authorities against journalists in the Democratic Republic of Congo. "Despite optimism that the transitional period in the DRC, which began in June 2003, would lead to an improvement in respect for the right to freedom of expression, the indications are that the situation is worsening.

"Journalists in the DRC have suffered serious human rights abuses in pursuing their profession. Some journalists have been killed, tortured or "disappeared". Many are routinely threatened and harassed. But the most prevalent and systematic official tactic to stifle legitimate press comment and to intimidate journalists has been the (ab)use of criminal laws governing libel and similar offences. Under these laws, the DRC authorities have unjustly arrested, detained, imprisoned or imposed punitive fines against hundreds of journalists in recent years."

In Venezuela, journalists are being caught in the line of fire, according to the General Secretary of the IFJ, Aidan White. Over three days at the beginning of March, the IFJ reports that two cameramen were shot, a photographer was injured by rubber bullets and two other reporters were hit by tear gas and sharp items. They also report that a female journalist was assaulted and received death threats and two other journalists were stripped of their equipment and then punched by government supporters.

Amnesty International has criticized the Venezuelan government for failing to effectively investigate incidents of political violence attributed to both government and opposition supporters. "The impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators encourages further human rights violations in a particularly volatile political climate."

Less deadly pressures

In countries removed from bitter conflicts, journalists generally face less deadly pressures on their work. However, this does not mean that they are free to find and print the truth.

In China, there was an increase of 60 per cent in the number of people detained or sentenced for Internet-related "offences" in 2003 compared to the previous year. A number of those who have been arrested are journalists, such as Liu Haofeng, who was sentenced to three years for "endangering state security" by writing two articles that appeared on a China Democracy Party website based in California. Mu Chuanheng, one of the first Chinese dissidents to use the Internet to express his views, served a three-year sentence for "incitement to subvert state power".

Tao Haidong was sentenced to seven years for "incitement to subvert state power" for posting three books he wrote criticising the Communist Party on the Internet and Xu Wei has been tortured and ill-treated as he serves a 10-year sentence for posting articles of political and social concerns on the Internet. (People's Republic of China: Controls tighten as Internet activism grows)

The authorities in Viet Nam have also targeted Internet users. At least ten people, including Nguyen Vu Binh, a 35-year-old journalist and writer, have been arrested and some sentenced to long prison terms for using the Internet whilst criticising the government or sharing information with overseas Vietnamese groups. (Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Freedom of expression under threat in cyberspace)

In Cuba, 23 of the 75 dissidents sentenced to long prison terms last year were journalists. They included members of independent journalist organisations, cooperatives and news agencies not recognised by the authorities, including Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández, president of the unofficial Agencia de Prensa Sindical Independiente de Cuba (the Independent Union Press Agency), Ricardo Severino González Alfonso, President of the unofficial Sociedad de Periodistas "Manuel Marquez Sterling" (Manuel Márquez Sterling Journalists' Society), and Cuba correspondent for RSF and Raúl Rivero Castañeda journalist and director of the unofficial press agency, Cuba Press, which he founded in 1995. (Cuba: One year too many: prisoners of conscience from the March 2003 crackdown)

Fourteen journalists in Eritrea have been held in secret incommunicado detention since the authorities clamped down on increasing criticism of the government and calls for democratic reform in September 2001.Ten of them were arrested in September 2001, when the government also shut down all the privately-owned news media, which remain closed, and four others have been arrested since then. (Eritrea: Arbitrary detention of government critics and journalists)

In Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association (EFJA) was banned in November 2003. Its president, Kifle Mulat, who also edits an independent newspaper, has been jailed four times and frequently receives threats. Over the past twelve years, the EFJA has documented arrests of hundreds of private-press journalists, editors, publishers, owners and distributors, with scores sentenced to prison terms. It has campaigned against the government's proposed new Press Law, which would be even harsher than the current 1992 law that was entitled "Proclamation for the Freedom of the Press".

Iran's judiciary relies on vague laws relating to defamation and national security that are frequently used to close publications and try and imprison journalists and commentators. Limits to freedom of expression and association are exacerbated by a flawed judicial structure. It lacks true independence and requires judges to draw both on written and non-codified, traditional law, while also holding them personally responsible for damages.

In many areas of the country, judges also serve as investigators, prosecutors and judges on the same case: an astonishing lack of separation between prosecutorial powers and judgement that flies in the face of international standards, which has resulted in a catalogue of unfair trials that have lead to the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience.

Article 513 of the Penal Code, under which offences considered to amount to an "insult" to religion can be punished by death or imprisonment, has been used to suppress the media. In 1999, journalists connected with the newspaper Neshat (Happiness), including the publisher, Latif Safari, editor Mashallah Shamsolvaezin and another journalist, Emadeddin Baqi, were detained, tried, convicted and sentenced, each to prison terms in excess of two years, for the publication of two articles which discussed the place of the death penalty in society. In April 2004, Mashallah Shamsolvaezin and Emadeddin Baqi become co-founders of Society for Defence of the Rights of Prisoners, an NGO aimed at helping those imprisoned in connection with freedom of expression.(Iran: A legal system that fails to protect freedom of expression and association).

In Russia, restrictions on freedom of expression included the takeover or closure of independent news outlets such as the television network TV-6, which was closed down in January 2002. TV-6 had been a persistent critic of government policy, especially over the war in Chechnya. (Annual Report 2003: Russian Federation)

Media ownership and restrictions

Alongside such official threats to media freedom, an increased narrowing of media ownership, with fewer and fewer proprietors owning more and more media outlets, has brought its own restrictions. Media freedom depends on, according to UNESCO, "independent and pluralistic media, and a better balanced dissemination of information, without any obstacle to the freedom of expression."

To take the example of one of the world's biggest media companies, News Corporation, the Iraq war clearly illustrated a cohesive editorial line across its outlets. From The Australian newspaper to Fox NewsThe Times and The Sun in the United Kingdom, every News Corporation outlet strongly voiced support for the war. As these outlets make up an increasing percentage of the world's mainstream media, this kind of unanimity works against a pluralistic media landscape. in the US and

A survey of commercial television in the United States, in relation to the Iraq War and its aftermath, by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) showed that 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three major misconceptions* about the issues and 45% held all three. PIPA's report on the survey also found that, the more misconceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that they supported the war. As News Corporation continues to expand its control of the world's media, the more danger there is that "a better balanced dissemination of information" will be more of an aspiration and less of a reality.

In the UK, a recent series of articles in The Daily Express reporting that "hordes of Gypsies" are ready to "flood in" to the country on 1 May provoked a strong reaction. The Minister for Europe, Denis McShane, called it a "rancid hate campaign", with other MPs condemning it as "obscene" and "racist". What is particularly striking about this, though, is that the newspaper's own journalists reported the stories to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). They sought help from the PCC to protect them by introducing a "conscience clause" to protect those who resist pressure to produce stories they regard as racist.

Editorial pressure and interference -- such as the fact that the newspaper's editor, Peter Hill, admits that the proprietor Richard Desmond contributes to editing the front pages -- restricts the ability of journalists to write fair, balanced and truthful articles and stories. The fact that Peter Hill is a member of the very same PCC to which the journalists complained denies journalists adequate protection. The PCC ruled that it has no jurisdiction to respond to the journalists' call. The issue has now been taken up as a campaign by the NUJ and a group of Labour Party MPs.

There is nothing wrong with having an editorial position; in fact, a range of newspapers with different stances on issues adds to the pluralism of the media. But editorial pressure on journalists to distort, hype and write things they know are untrue does the opposite.

Threats and obstacles to a truly free press are widespread and take many different forms, some more stark than others. The starkest, of course, is the on-going threat to journalists' lives. This is why a number of journalist organisations came together with Amnesty International at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April 2004 to launch the Movement to Protect Media in Zones of Conflict - the Need for a Protective Press Emblem (PEMBLEM).

However, this is only the first step. Journalists have found that being clearly marked with the word Press is not a defence. Any emblem needs to be backed up by international respect for those who wear it; if not, then it could as easily become a target. Journalists deserve protection like any other civilian. It is the duty of all -- be they large armies, armed insurrectionists, governments or opposition campaigners -- to protect them. The world's press might not be ideal and the pressures outlined above may affect what they publish, but the world would be a far less free place if they were not there at all.

* The three misconceptions were that: 1. US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and al-Qai'ida; 2. troops found weapons of mass destruction; and 3. world opinion favoured the US going to war with Iraq.

Control Arms Campaign: Tangible momentum and potential for real change

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:44:04 +0100

By Mary Robinson

On this 55th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, threats of new terrorist attacks and the dangers of weapons of mass destruction dominate the headlines.

But the real weapons of mass destruction go largely unnoticed by those of us who live far from conflict and war. Those weapons are the 639 million small arms in circulation, and at least 16 billion units of military ammunition produced every year – enough to shoot every man, woman and child on the planet twice.

Such figures on their own would mean little, if it were not for the fact that the easy availability of arms increases the incidence and impact of armed violence, and can trigger conflict and prolong wars once they break out.

During my five years as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, I spent a huge proportion of my time meeting people who had been terrorized by armed violence.

I went to Colombia and met some of those caught in the crossfire. I witnessed the same in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Time and again, a tide of weapons fed the slaughter and kept the conflict going.

So where do the weapons used to deny people their most basic human rights come from?

According to the 2003 edition of the Small Arms Survey, 1,134 companies in at least 98 countries are involved in some aspect of small arms production. At least 30 countries are regarded as significant producers, with the United States and the Russian Federation dominating the global market. Between them, these two countries account for more than 70% of total worldwide production of civilian firearms. Russia and the US, together with the three other permanent members of the UN Security Council - France, UK and China - supply 88 per cent of the world’s arms.

As the survey points out, “The majority of countries involved in the small arms trade still fail to provide comprehensive official data on their annual arms exports and imports. A significant proportion of the global trade in small arms is conducted in secrecy, reinforcing an environment in which corruption and black markets thrive.”

The lack of data on the arms trade also makes it easy for many of the weapons traded legally to end up in the wrong hands. Almost all (80-90 percent) small arms start off in the legal sphere - they are manufactured legally and their initial trade is state-sanctioned. Yet many get into the wrong hands where they fuel conflict and abuse in the most unstable areas of the world.

Added to this significant problem, the situation has become worse since the terrible attacks in the United States on 11th September 2001. In the name of fighting a "war on terror", more arms have been supplied to regimes that have poor human rights records. Some of the recipients of increased US military aid are armed forces that have committed grave violations of human rights, and which the US state department itself has identified as being amongst the worst human rights violators.

In the year after the 11th September attacks, security assistance from the US to Uzbekistan, for example, increased by $45 million, despite the continuation of systematic human rights violations in the former Soviet state.

Several other countries, including the UK, have cleared for export increasing numbers of arms to countries in which human rights violations continue. For example, UK arms sales to Indonesia grew by 20 times from 2000 to 2002.

The displacement and deaths of millions of innocent civilians are not the only human rights consequences of such exports. Governments in countries at war are also much less able to meet long-term commitments to education, healthcare and housing - all of which are fundamental human rights.

Despite the deadly nature of the trade, there are currently no binding international laws to regulate the arms industry.

Over the last five years, the problem of the illicit proliferation of small arms has been recognized and there have been small steps towards international controls. The UN Program of Action on small arms and light weapons, adopted in July 2001, contains some positive provisions including measures to monitor progress on collection and destruction of arms. However, it does not mention human rights, makes few references to international humanitarian law, and doesn’t provide a mandate for creation of a binding law.

Responsibility for controlling the arms trade lies with all exporting and importing countries. As the world’s largest exporters of arms, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council must face up to their role in fuelling the conflicts that destroy people’s livelihoods and trap countries in a cycle of violence and poverty.

The need for strong action by Security Council members was highlighted by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his 2002 report to the Council. For example, he recommended that the Council support the development of an international weapons marking and tracing instrument and also mentioned the need to enhance transparency in armaments.

The urgently required international action, recognized by the United Nations, is the subject of a new Control Arms campaign, launched by Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).

The organizations have banded together to press for regulation in the form of an Arms Trade Treaty. The proposed treaty includes legally binding criteria based on existing international law, to stop the flow of arms to human rights abusers, repressive governments and criminals. Governments would be required not to sell arms where they would be used to violate human rights or international humanitarian law, at last injecting regulation into a dangerously unregulated trade.

Though the campaign was only launched two months ago, numerous governments from Macedonia to Mali, Cambodia to Costa Rica have all expressed their support for an Arms Trade Treaty. With key influential leaders such as President Lula of Brazil also backing the campaign, there is tangible momentum and potential for real change.

After World War Two, countries pledged support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to stop the “barbarous acts” that had outraged the world’s conscience. But atrocities continue and it is now time to control the arms fuelling these violations.

This can only be achieved by the creation of a new universal declaration – an Arms Trade Treaty.

Mary Robinson is a former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is now Honorary President of Oxfam International and heads the Ethical Globalization Initiative.