Once again, India has been forced to abstain from voting in favour of a discriminatory multilateral Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), following other previous pacts such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Fissile Missile Cut off Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
The Un General Assembly passed the Treaty during its session on April 3, with 154 countries voting for and three countries (Iran, North Korea and Syria) against it. Twenty-three countries, including India, Russia and China abstained.
Surprisingly, Pakistan voted for the Treaty.
Non-Aggressor
As the world’s largest importer of arms, without an industrial base for production of arms, India has reasons to object the ATT.
Firstly, India finds it difficult to accept that the Treaty will enable arms exporting countries to impose unilateral conditions on the countries that import arms.
Secondly, ATT has failed to address India’s concerns about the illegal transfer of arms to terrorist organisations, insurgent groups and other non-state actors who oppose democratically elected governments.
India’s defensive continental strategic culture does not allow arms export.
The country’s domestic arms production includes 39 Ordnance factories owned by the Federal Government. Its main concerns are the horizontal and vertical proliferation and easy availability of small arms and light weapons (SALW).
Countries exporting arms have the responsibility to ensure that they do not provide weapons without strict end user verification to eliminate the possibility of such weapons used to wage intra-state conflict by non-state actors.
Illegal trafficking
ATT should have refrained from imposing new norms, reinforced the existing obligations and responsibilities of all countries under international law and provided a mechanism for their effective application to the trade in SALW.
From the beginning, India has argued that such a Treaty should make a real impact on illicit trafficking in conventional arms and their illicit use by terrorists and other unauthorised and unlawful non-state actors.
India has consistently maintained that ATT should ensure a balance of obligations between exporting and importing states. However, the draft Treaty is weak on terrorism, insurgency and non-state actors and these concerns find no mention in the specific prohibitions of the Treaty.
Sequence of events
The following sequence of events will help in understanding the issue from India’s perspective. The country has been an active participant in ATT negotiations from the beginning. India’s argument is based on the legitimate right to self-defense and there is no conflict between the pursuit of national security objectives and the aspiration that the ATT should be strong, balanced and effective.
India’s position is strengthened by the argument that international community has not evolved rules for the trade of guns and tanks.
Restraining criminals
A Treaty to help prevent irresponsible arms transfers that fuel and sustain conflict, destroy lives and undermine development, was therefore, long overdue.
It is now universally recognised that illicit trade in conventional arms is a major factor in armed violence by organised criminals and terrorists. India’s security interests are directly impacted by illicit and irresponsible transfers from outside the country.
New Delhi had, therefore, every reason to look forward for effective global pact on the issue and the priority of the international community should be to combat and eliminate the illicit trade in such arms.
However, the Treaty passed by the UN falls short of India’s expectations.
ATT is supposed to cover tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light arms. It aims to force nations to set up national controls on arms exports.
Countries must also assess if a weapon can be used for genocide, war crimes or by terrorists or organised crime before being sold by strengthening the end-use agreement. The Treaty will be open for signature on June 3 and will be enforced 90 days after the 50th signatory ratifies it.
Flawed and unfair
India also argues that ATT is not only flawed but also tilted against weapons-importing countries and is in favour of exporting countries.
India’s primary concern is that the Treaty has not embargoed transferring arms to terrorist armed groups and to non-state actors.
According to some observers, the Treaty aimed to protect the interests of US and European arms dealers and that war against terror has not been accorded its due importance.
Sujatha Mehta, Head of the Indian delegation at the UN, argued that ATT is “weak on terrorism and non-state actors and these concerns find no mention in its specific prohibitions.”
She said the Treaty does not contain provisions to curb arms-flow to religious extremists. As a result, even if the ATT is signed and ratified by the UN, it will not help to control the menace of religious extremism and terrorism.
India’s concern is understandable as it has witnessed the devastating menace of terrorism within its territory. Russia and China, which have been victims of terrorists have also argued against the Treaty.
After experiencing complex negotiation processes of several other Treaties, India is weary of pacts that do not ensure its security or that of other countries , except those exporting arms.
Balaji Chandramohan is our New Delhi Correspondent
