History has been made! An Arms Trade Treaty

By Chris Thompson, Education and Engagement Officer at the WCIA



History has been made! Please forgive the use of an overused expression but I feel in this context it is absolutely appropriate.

On 2nd April 2013 at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly 180 nations voted on an international treaty to control the export of weapons. By an overwhelming majority of 154 in favour, 3 against and 23 abstentions the resolution was passed. Do not underestimate the significance of this vote.

For the first time ever, there exists an international Arms Trade Treaty to control the global flow of conventional weapons. This means that governments will be expected to regulate arms export contracts to ensure that weapons will not be used for war crimes, human rights abuses or organised crime.

Although there already exists arms treaties which regulate weapons for mass destruction, this treaty is the first to cover weapons which are used to kill people on a daily basis. This includes battle tanks, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, warships, missiles, small arms, light weapons and ammunitions.

Now that the General Assembly has voted in favour of the treaty, countries will be able to ratify the agreement from 3rd June 2013. 90 days after 50 countries have signed, it will become international law. However, the success of the treaty will depend on the will of governments to honour the agreement and even then there is no guarantee that governments will be able to persuade their own parliament to ratify the treaty.

This is a massive victory for citizens around the globe and organisations that have campaigned for an Arms Trade Treaty should celebrate. However, there is clearly much more to be done to ensure that governments honour the treaty and take action to regulate the arms trade and ensure that standards become universal.

For now though, let us bask in the glory of the last couple of days and congratulate everyone who took action for an Arms Trade Treaty. Well done!

Legal Affairs Committee Annual Lecture

On 14 January 2013 the second lecture in what I hope will be an ongoing series of lectures by distinguished highly international lawyers took place at the Temple of Peace in Cardiff. Prof. Christian Tomuschat, Emeritus Professor at the Humboldt University in Berlin gave a lecture entitled “The Judgment of the ICJ of 3 February 2012 in Germany v Italy – A Formalistic Aberration?”. The lecture was organised by the Legal Affairs Committee of the Welsh Centre for International Affairs and Aberystwyth University law school.
This lecture followed on an outstanding first lecture given one year earlier by Prof. David Kennedy of Harvard University. Prof. Kennedy was a hard act to follow, but Prof. Tomuschat did not disappoint. He gave a brilliant analysis of the recent litigation at the International Court of Justice between Germany and Italy (Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), in which he was leading counsel for Germany. So this was a chance to hear right from the centre of the action what it means to take a case to the ICJ and how it was argued.

Prof. Tomuschat has had an extremely distinguished career as an academic but also as a practitioner at the highest level. Before moving to the Humboldt University to take up the Chair of International Law after German unification, he was Professor of International Law at the University of Bonn. He has lectured extensively throughout the world, including giving the prestigious general Course on Public International Law at the Hague Academy of International Law. Prof. Tomuschat has also appeared as counsel before the European Court of Human Rights. At United Nations level, he has been a member of the Human Rights Committee and the International Law Commission. He is a member of many learned societies and is a Member of the Institut de Droit International. He has also published a vast body of work on public international law.

Prof. Tomuschat’s lecture was notable for its outstanding analysis of the dispute between Germany and Italy over the non-payment of compensation to Italian prisoner of war. But perhaps the most memorable aspect of it was his analysis of jus cogens which clearly demonstrated the limits (and problems) of the doctrine and in the most rigorous manner questioned the unthinking reliance on it of too many international lawyers.

The lecture was very well attended by members of all the Welsh law schools, as well as the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England. The bar has been set very high for 2014. Who will face the challenge of keeping up with, if not the Joneses, at least the Kennedys and the Tomuschats? It will be an event not be missed, and I wish him or her all the best.

Prof. Ryszard Piotrowicz

Dept. of Law and Criminology

Aberystwyth University

Blood and the Thunderer

We all have a duty to choose our words carefully - and that includes those making the accusation of anti-Semitism.

by Martin Pollard, WCIA Chief Executive

A few days ago I found myself caught up in an argument on Facebook – one of those you sort of do, sort of don’t go looking for – about David Ward’s comments on Holocaust Memorial Day. In case you’ve missed this particular controversy, Ward is the Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford East who posted the following on his blog:

“…saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new State of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza".

This is arguably a fair comment about Israel, but wrapped up in an unfortunate choice of words which could certainly be construed as anti-Semitic. Making any blanket reference to “the Jews” sounds clearly like criticism of Jewish people, or Judaism, as a whole; this may not have been Ward’s intention (his later apology seemed sincere) but it offended enough people for that not to matter.

It also undermined his argument. During my minor Facebook altercation I was trying to make the point that this kind of slapdash choice of language does no favours to those who would engage in a legitimate critique of the state of Israel. By leaving himself open to accusations of anti-Semitism, or at the very least insensitivity, Ward lost not only the moral high ground but also the chance to engage in rational debate about the continuing political and humanitarian mess in the Middle East. He wanted to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians; instead he drew the ire of the Holocaust Educational Trust, his own party and a fair chunk of the general public.

Fast forward to today and we have another ‘anti-Semitic’ controversy, again with the emphasis on unfortunate timing around Holocaust Memorial Day. This time, Rupert Murdoch has apologised for a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe in the Sunday Times (possibly the first time Murdoch has apologised for anything, as fellow cartoonist Steve Bell noted acidly on the Today programme). We are told by the paper’s acting editor Martin Ivens that “Jews (and others) throughout the country reacted to this cartoon with a visceral disgust”.

But on this occasion, the controversy is in my view wholly unjustified, and raises serious questions around freedom of speech. Scarfe’s cartoon shows the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall containing Palestinians’ blood and body parts. The caption reads: “Israeli elections. Will cementing peace continue?"

Brutal, yes. Shocking, perhaps. And understandably offensive to some, especially considering its poorly-timed publication. But it is highly questionable whether such an image can be considered anti-Semitic. This cartoon plainly falls in the category of political comment, not religious or cultural diatribe: it is about Israel and its actions in the Occupied Territories; more specifically it alludes to Israel’s continuing policy of building illegal settlements on Palestinian land. It does not contain a stereotypical image of Jewishness. It contains blood; but contrary to the view of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, it does contain a ‘blood libel’.

Anyone comparing Scarfe’s trenchant political point with the obviously anti-Semitic cartoons produced regularly in Iran and elsewhere is at the very least disingenuous. More worrying is the pernicious subtext – heard all too regularly – that in some way to criticise the actions of the Israeli government is to promote distrust or hatred of Jews.

No-one should doubt that there are two sides to the Israel/Palestine story, and no peace activist or anti-Zionist should convince themselves that Israelis are not themselves under threat, or that their security concerns are not real. It is the duty of any careful critic to listen to both sides, and certainly to stand firm against the anti-Semitism that does emerge – sometimes explicitly enough to cause me a gasp of horror – in public debates about Israel and Palestine.

But we must also claim, as loudly and vociferously as necessary, the right to criticise any state that fails to afford protection or equal rights to those within the borders it controls, or that effectively ghettoises a substantial portion of the population. That criticism can and should be levelled legitimately against the government of Israel – as it can against other governments – until a lasting peace is finally achieved. And if we all choose our words carefully, we should do so without fear of causing irrelevant offence.

The Annual Forum and Anniversary Lecture with a focus on UNA Wales

On 4^th December the WCIA held its Annual Forum at the Temple of Peace, Cardiff.  The aim of the afternoon was to involve members in formation of strategy to take the WCIA forward through discussion groups which proved successful.

The three discussion groups were on the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Temple of Peace, CEWC and one on involving students and those aged 18-30 in the WCIA. The main suggestions focused on involving first year university students through fresher’s fairs, societies and interactive events such as model UN. This led on to the presentation on the exciting plans of the UNA Wales gender equality and responsibility to protect interns which included many of the ideas that had been suggested in the discussion groups such as model UN and organising a debate on R2P and the Syrian Crisis for 5 February, demonstrating the effectiveness of the discussion group format. 

Subsequently, the group divided again to discuss promotion of the campaigns. The gender equality group engaged in exploring how to promote the campaign within the local community. Ideas included introducing gender equality in schools and trying to break down gender stereotypes e.g. the assumption of blue for boys and pink for girls. This idea had already been successfully addressed by the previous interns who had also created lesson plans and resources on gender equality and R2P in English and Welsh for schools to use. Other suggestions included community lectures by successful women, a pledge system on gender equality for individuals and businesses and increased support for women’s sports. This shows the value of the members’ input as many good ideas were presented which could be used in the campaigns. The final contribution concerned the promotion of international women’s day in March, which Zulfia the gender equality intern is focusing on, through the use of female role models within the communities to raise awareness for gender inequality in Wales.

The Responsibility to Protect group debated the pros and cons of R2P and discussed different ways to engage people. Ideas under discussion included setting up UNA societies within universities, using video conferencing to engage members, doing more activities to promote student action, appealing to lecturers as well as students and hosting debates on R2P within schools and universities. 

The day concluded with a lecture by Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International, giving a talk on the North African uprisings. Kate's talk provided a stimulating and at times shocking insight into the  Middle East and North Africa uprisings. Kate raised awareness of the need to hold leaders to account for their actions and cited how Amnesty have been gathering evidence in areas of conflict to do just that. 

Becky Dunn

UNA Wales Student Member and Blogger