OneWorld.net (U.S.)

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 29 (OneWorld) - The UN Security Council needs to take drastic measures to stop the flow of weapons into countries facing arms embargoes, says a news study released by an independent think tank.

The report, prepared by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Uppsala University, points out that UN-backed arms embargoes are only effective in 25 percent of cases.

The first-ever study of its kind looks at 27 UN arms embargoes imposed between 1990 and 2006 -- including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Liberia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone.

Embargoes are supposed to prevent the supply of arms to the country in question, either to stop ongoing conflicts or to prevent government forces from becoming a threat to peace.

"In all 27 cases of mandatory UN Security Council embargoes since the end of the Cold War, none of them has completely stopped the transfer of weapons to the target," said SIPRI's Siemon Wezeman.

According to Wezeman and other researchers, embargoes have failed to disrupt weapons supply in a number of West African countries. The report's authors said there "appears to be a correlation" between the imposition of a UN arms embargo and improved target behavior in only one-quarter of the annual observations.

This, despite the arms embargo being "one of the most frequently used forms of sanctions" aimed at maintaining international peace and security.

According to Wezeman, "always, there have been breaches - sometimes major, sometimes small."

The report's authors suggested that the UN should urge countries to pass laws making it a crime to violate international arms embargoes.

The majority of the world's governments are hoping to create an Arms Trade Treaty during the UN General Assembly committee sessions on conventional arms.

Early this month, a number of countries submitted written proposals calling for respect of international human rights and humanitarian law in conventional arms transfers.

Two new analyses released during the UN debate, which examined what States have told the UN Secretary General, found that most governments are urging respect for human rights when decisions are made about arms transfers.

Observers say there is also strong support by a majority of governments for provisions to respect international humanitarian law, such as the Geneva Conventions and Protocols and a ban on arming terrorist groups.

Other criteria cited by many governments for the new treaty include the prevention of arms transfers where there is a clear risk of diversion, or if there is a danger the arms will be used in serious crime or have a negative impact on sustainable development.

The Control Arms Campaign, a coalition of human rights groups and aid organizations such as Amnesty International and Oxfam International, is optimistic about the prospects for a new treaty.

"It has been extraordinary to hear so many governments push for tough international arms controls that could potentially save countless lives around the globe every year," said Anna Macdonald, head of Control Arms at Oxfam International.

"In particular, many African states, where we see some of the world's worst conflicts, stressed the need for arms transfers to be assessed with regard to human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development," she added in a statement.

The next stage in the development of the proposed treaty will be the work of a group of government experts (GGE) coming from 28 countries, including the world's biggest arms exporters and many of the countries affected by irresponsible arms flows.

In February the GGE will begin weaving government submissions into the first blueprint of a future Arms Trade Treaty. Their report will be presented at next October’s meeting of the UN General Assembly's First Committee.

"Ordinary people should be greatly encouraged that most states now wish to control the flow of conventional weapons which contribute to serious human rights abuses. But a few powerful states like the U.S., China, Russia, and India unfortunately remain skeptical," said Brian Wood, head of Arms Control Research at Amnesty International.

All permanent members of the Security Council are given seats on such expert groups, but the United States has not yet decided whether to take up its assigned seat on the GGE. The United States was the only state that voted against the treaty resolution in the General Assembly; 153 states voted in favor.

Like this article? Then please support our global efforts to bring you the news and views seldom heard in mainstream media. OneWorld.net is non-profit, non-commercial public media. Every little bit helps, so thank you! Click here to help. ....................................................................................