Canada: International Arms Dealer?
This past July, our beloved Canada has made yet another unfortunate shift in foreign policy, this time regarding a UN motion. The Arms Trade Treaty is a potential multilateral UN treaty designed to control, limit, or fully prevent arms from getting into conflict zones, and into the hands of people who violate human rights or commit international crimes. The architects of this treaty propose that all nations agree to a common standard for the import, export and transfer of all conventional weapons – which include anything short of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Many western countries, including Canada, already have standards that take into consideration existing trade embargos for regions that display patterns of violence. However, many other countries do not, and weapons continue to flow into the hands of those who commit horrible atrocities around the world.
Since the Treaty was brought forth into the UN general assembly in 2006, some countries have expressed their opposition to it. This summer, our own Canadian delegation may have dealt the potential treaty a fatal blow. Our delegation, which consists of 9 government employees, and 1 gun lobbyist (Steve Torrino, the president of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association), made the recommendation this past July that the treaty not include “recreational” weapons, that this treaty should include only military weapons and none specifically designed for hunting or sport shooting. This was a recommendation that shocked many other delegations, and which caused immediate opposition from those of 10 member countries.
The reason given for this shocking stance on international arms trade, according to Torrino and other gun lobbyists, is that they want existing Canadian gun laws respected. They claim that Canada is an importing country, and that this treaty could potentially make the import of “sport” weapons difficult. They also claim that this would undermine legislation that has already passed here in Canada and that this is a legitimate business, one in which no countries or companies would be likely to export to those kinds of areas anyways.
While it is true that Canada is a net importer of hunting and “sport” weapons, it is unlikely that Canada would be a country that would be denied access in this treaty. Almost immediately, 10 delegations politely expressed their dismay at Canada’s stance on the issue. The head of the Mexican delegation expressed that, in his experience, a high number of confiscated weapons from Mexico’s notorious gangs are weapons designed for hunting, but which have been modified into assault weapons. The head of the Nigerian delegation pointed out that arms don’t discriminate, that, despite their specific design, they can just as easily shoot men, women, and children as they can animals. Along with Mexico and Nigeria, other countries whose delegations respectfully disagreed with Canada’s new stance included Senegal, South Africa, Brazil, the U.K., Australia, Uruguay and Sweden. It should be noted that many of those countries are currently dealing with high rates of violent crimes and/or human rights violations.
Other critics of this new position say that the proposed Arms Trade Treaty would have no implications for domestic gun ownership in Canada. Our regulations are already fairly strict, and the treaty is not likely to hinder any import into Canada. This is a treaty directed towards rogue states, countries that are currently immersed in violent conflict, or where human rights violations are above a safe level where exports of guns to them would endanger considerable human lives. They also criticize our delegation’s position based on the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of what a “sport” or “recreational” weapon is, making this aspect of the treaty impossible to enforce, and that, most importantly, other countries who oppose the treaty could use this as a tool to destroy it.
What most Canadians are unaware of is that Canada is actually among the world’s biggest arms exporters. While the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council represent the biggest arms exporters, Canada places in the top 15 for the first decade of the 2000’s, and this is increasing. Even with strict legislation already in place, and an apparent commitment to abide by international embargoes, Canada continues, as of this year, to provide countries with high rates of violent crime or who are involved in human rights violations with deadly weapons. These countries include the Philippines, Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, Libya and Tunisia. How can we continue to pride ourselves on our strict regulations when we both supply human rights violators with weapons, and also have a delegation striving to defeat stricter regulations on the trade of dangerous weapons?
Paul Meyer, Canada’s former ambassador of disarmament to the UN in Geneva, says that an unbalanced representation in the delegation is to blame for this new stance. He says that our delegation does not represent all of civil society, but has unfair representation from a particular group with a particular agenda – gun lobbyists. Meyers also points out that Canada has been seen as a world leader in robust, multilateral arms control, but that this shift significantly dilutes our commitment to this objective. With all of the controversy surrounding firearms registration in the Canadian political landscape, our delegates should have been selected to reflect the positions of all Canadians, and not just gun lobbyists.
Of course arms continue to flow into conflict zones, and into the hands of those who wish to do harm to innocent civilians. Private arms dealers continue operate around the world, and are making significant profits from the deals they make. While they do ship significant amounts of arms to conflict areas, the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council export most of the world’s arms. Canada should be providing support for any regulations that limit the flow of deadly weapons into conflict zones. Instead we threaten their viability. As a country whose population prides itself on international leadership for peace, we should not be jumping from the world’s 15th highest exporter of military hardware to its 12th. We should not be making the biggest purchases of military weapons in our country’s history, as the government announced last year is the case with our $9 billion on 65 F-35 Fighter jets. We shouldn’t be letting our reputation and status in the world be destroyed, but more importantly, we should not be facilitating the destruction of communities by violent criminals and human rights violators. As world leaders in robust arms control, what decisions we make have a strong effect on what actions other delegations take. By opening the door to stronger opposition against the Arms Trade Treaty, we undermine the safety of communities, and the value of human lives around the world.
