The public debate surrounding the 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers aboard Oceanic Viking and the tragic rescue operation unfolding near Cocos Islands where one asylum seeker has already died has re-exposed Australia’s low humanitarian threshold.

It’s simply illogical that as a community we put such a high expectation on our government to protect and support people displaced by crises at home – like the Black Saturday bushfires – yet for some reason we suspect people who have fled persecution overseas are less deserving of support, or even that they must have done something to deserve it.

We live in a global community. Outside the borders of Australia the world and its people do not become less important, or less deserving of human decency. It is our continued and stubborn ignorance of this fact that allows 16 million refugees around the world so sit in a state of limbo. In this state refugees must wait for a handful of nations, Australia among them, to show drip-fed mercy by providing enough resettlement places to meet less than 1% of the need for them. Most refugees would like to go home but too often this is simply not an option - conflicts can run on for decades leaving refugees stranded. The situation is appalling and it needs national, regional and international solutions to fix.

Ensuring asylum seekers Australia comes in contact with can access their rights to seek refuge is one, obvious thing. But we need to start thinking beyond meeting our immediate obligations to people that happen to take the initiative to seek out our help.

This issue is so much larger than the question of what to do with the small number of asylum seekers who attempt to seek refuge in Australia by boat. Australia needs to start thinking big, and thinking long-term about preventing crisis from happening in the first place and establishing mechanisms to deal with the human impact when it occurs.

We simply aren’t doing enough to address the causes of conflict and disaster. While domestically our politicians squabble over how low they can set the bar on reducing our carbon emissions and our overseas aid budget falls short of the UN Millennium Development Goal targets – people living in the developing world know that poverty, climate change, the unregulated arms trade and the commercial exploitation of vulnerable people and their natural environment is, and will continue to force large population movements unless governments like Australia live up to their responsibilities.

According to a 2007 report by the International Alert, climate change may result in 46 countries – home to 40 per cent of the world’s population – being placed at greater risk of being affected by violent conflict. This is due mainly to increased competition over land and scarce resources and the destabilising impact of climate related disaster. In our own region, Solomon Islands was included in this group of countries. The report found that another 56 countries, home to 1.2 billion people, are at risk of political instability, with potential violent conflict and disaster risk in the long term as a consequence of climate change. Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Tonga and Vanuatu were all included in this group of countries at risk.

Australia has a responsibility and the capacity to be doing much, much more to address climate change and other causes of conflict and calamity. We are not on track towards meeting the UN Millennium Development Goal target of 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) in Overseas Development Assistance by 2015 – at present we’ll only be giving 0.5% of GNI by that year. Given the cyclical relationship between poverty and conflict this funding gap is simply unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that our leaders – in Australia and around the world – are still no closer to agreeing on deep cuts to our carbon emissions and a mechanism for helping particularly vulnerable communities cope with the inevitable effects of climate change. These factors are linked to global refugee movements – and thus they should be considered in our response strategies.

Nevertheless, even if Australia was living up to its obligations and addressing the root causes of conflict, the reality is that crisis-related displacement in some form or another is inevitable. It is up to Australia, as a large power in our region, to lead on developing a regional mechanism that works to address the human impact of conflict and disaster and ensure displaced people have access to a long-term solution.

The so-called “Indonesia solution” isn’t working because it focuses on keeping asylum seekers out of Australia (and their plight out of the minds of Australians) – rather than creating genuine long-term solutions for refugees. Refugees in Indonesia languish without access to their basic human rights like education and the right to work. What hope have they got to live a meaningful and productive life without the ability to send their kids to school and earn a living?

A humanitarian solution would emphasise genuine durable solutions for refugees. This was the approach taken after the World War II, when global leaders took a more humanitarian approach to assisting those displaced and permanently resettled hundreds of thousands of people. Why are we now avoiding our responsibilities to resettle people facing modern conflict and persecution in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Congo? Given the increasing targeting of civilians in these wars there is arguably no greater time to look for better durable solution options.

In the Asia-Pacific region, a humanitarian solution would mean governments with capacity like Australia increasing the resettlement places available to refugees and providing greater support to countries like Indonesia and Malaysia to uphold the rights of their refugee and asylum seeker populations. It would also include escalating financial support for agencies mandated to protect refugees in the region, including UNHCR and the International Organisation of Migration. A humanitarian solution would not force refugees into prison-like detention – it would prioritise community settlement options where people’s rights are better upheld and refugees are able to grow roots in their new community.

This humanitarian approach would reduce the need for asylum seekers to risk their lives on rickety boats destined for a country that frankly, is too paralysed by its own domestic race politics to provide them the welcome any survivor of war deserves.

conflictvoice:

‘You had the feeling that you were mopping the floor when the tap was open. One moment you disarm a group, and then a week later the same group has fresh arms and ammunition’.

Patrick Cammaert, former commander of MONUC,

the UN-peace keeping operation in the Democratic Republic of Congo,

at a press conference in 2007

On Wednesday I watched as the US’s Disarmament Ambassador announced to the UN First Committee that the US would vote in favour of negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty by 2012.

On face value, this seems like an amazingly positive turnaround – and particularly fitting coming only days after Obama won his hotly debated Nobel peace prize for work in disarmament and UN diplomacy. The Arms Trade Treaty was initially dreamt up by a group of Nobel Laureates – so what better way to demonstrate Obama’s commitment to the prize than roll up his sleeves and get to work on a treaty all about stopping irresponsible arms transfers that fuel human rights abuses.

And we’re not talking about just shifting policy gears – the US has abandoned its old beaten up foreign affairs Chevvy and is now on the multilateral UN bus (a bit less partying than the Venga bus but they do have more flags). Up until this point the US has been one of the Arms Trade Treaty’s biggest critics. In 2008 the US and Zimbabwe were the only governments in the world to vote against working on the Arms Trade Treaty – what do they say about being judged by the company we keep? Little wonder really –the US being the world’s biggest arms exporter and not against of using so-called “military aid” to mess with the political affairs of fragile states around the world.

But that was then – when the Bush administration was all about shunning the international community and pursuing unilateral and humorously named military operations in far away places, with no so humorously tragic consequences. The New York Times just reported that over 85,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the invasion in 2003 – and I wonder how many at the hands of weapons irresponsibly or illicitly transferred into the country. For that matter I have to wonder how many of the 4,500 odd US troops who have lost their lives in this Iraq war were killed with weapons made in and shipped from the US (or Russia, the other major global arms exporter who would gladly see the back of an Arms Trade Treaty).

Given US resistance to a legally binding treaty it did seem almost monumental when the US delegate took the floor to give his government’s commitment to it. But then he said something that reminded me that while the US is offering it’s right hand in friendship, it’s still giving us a bloody belting with the left. He said, “Mr Chairman, the Arms Trade Treaty is just too important to be left to a majority vote”, before going on to make it clear that the US will only support the treaty if the text is agreed by absolute consensus.

The hypocrisy is clear – the US is willing to invade sovereign countries to enforce democracy and majority rule, but when it comes to regulating the global arms trade (or more importantly, US exports) it just won’t do.

Too bad every diplomat and NGO knows full well that absolute consensus will ruin any chances of negotiating an effective treaty – by giving a veto power to every state in the room (including ones that import weapons for the purpose of waging war against their own citizens). The Dutch, Swiss and New Zealand delegates said it would create a “recipe for the lowest common denominator”. Germany said it would give a “premium to those with the smallest ambitions”. Cote de Ivoire reminded us all that nothing should stand in the way of states being able to agree on a treaty that saves lives.

But despite these pleas the UK and co-authors (Australia among them) have redrafted a resolution on the treaty that caves in to this deadly demand. It includes a paragraph that clearly states decisions on the treaty will be made by consensus. All delegates will vote on this resolution at the end of the month.

The co-authors of resolution have literally impaled themselves on the US’s double-edged sward. It’s a despicable misuse of US power and shows a clear lack of vision on the part of the co-authors. All I can say is I hope the more progressive states including Norway, Canada, Ireland, Germany and New Zealand fight tooth and nail to get absolute consensus out of the resolution and put the Arms Trade Treaty back on track. Millions of lives depend on it.

Delegates at the UN watching Oxfam event on the Arms Trade Treaty

We know that the United States is pushing for the ATT resolution to dictate that treaty negotiations happen by absolute consensus. This would give veto rights to any state that wants to water down the treaty text. That means states could easily remove from the text any tough provisions to restrict irresponsible arms transfers.

Ok, let’s pause for a minute and consider the purpose of an Arms Trade Treaty. I’m pretty sure the main objective is to stop irresponsible arms transfers. That is, stop them from happening before they manage to fuel human rights abuses and other violations of international law. Can you imagine any state guilty of abusing the human rights of their own citizens agreeing to a treaty that would limit their capacity to maintain that repression?

Come on!

It is the unwillingness of states to ensure arms are used responsibly that has led us to the appalling situation we’re in – where since the ATT discussions begin in 2006 an estimated 2.1 million people have died – or just under 2000 people per day over that time period. To be fair, some states want to do the right thing but simply don’t have capacity to implement stringent laws that control arms transfers across their borders. There’s plenty we can do to help these smaller and poorer states control their arms without lowering international standards.

If we really want this treaty to protect lives it must do more than deliver the lowest common denominator standards. This treaty is about setting high standards and holding states to account to them – Not setting the bar so low that even Russia can leap over it with ease. And I say that with full respect to our northern neighbours, but I’m pretty sure that implementing Russia’s version of tough arms export control measures on a global scale aint going to save too many lives – let alone halt the escalation spiral that is the military budget of most fragile states.

The answer has to be an Arms Trade Treaty that can stop irresponsible arms transfers and save lives. This is only going to be achievable if the authors of the latest ATT resolution stick to their proverbial guns and ensure the negotiations happen in the tried and tested, logical and responsible way that so many negotiations have been conducted before. Where states strive to reach consensus but where they cannot agree, because of the intransigence of a minority, they have that aged old democratic right to vote.

I’’ve spent the last three days sitting inside the UN headquarters watching the dynamics of First Committee unfold. First Committee is one of the six main committees of the General Assembly that meets every October to discuss disarmament. This year discussions of the Arms Trade Treaty are somewhat overshadowed by the big ticket item: nuclear weapons disarmament and non-proliferation. But despite the packed agenda the UK government and supporter states (and civil-society!) are adamant an Arms Trade Treaty resolution will be tabled by the end of next week.

Watching the debate on the floor isn’’t exactly thrilling. Diplomats recite their pre-prepared and vetted national statements to the backs of their fellow delegates, seated in neat rows facing the front. The arrangement doesn’t generate much open dialogue and debate, and to be honest most delegates look bored. In fact given the impersonal and dry operating environment it is amazing any decisions get made at all.

But beneath this banal façade there is actually a lot going on. The real dynamism happens in the corridors, the coffee shops and private meeting rooms dotted around the UN building – where diplomats meet to orchestrate their strategies and power plays. Rumours circulate about the back-door dealings on the Arms Trade Treaty – states lining up to take it down, others just as keen to push it forward.

But then there is another category of states – that have neither an agenda nor a voice. A large group of states that lack the necessary resources to commit diplomats to even attend First Committee, or can only commit one diplomat to multiple Committees so that they must run manically between them throughout the day, trying to catch glimpses of the events unfolding so they can report back to their capital.

Unfortunately the states that tend to have least capacity to engage in these discussions (whether on the floor or in the margins) are the ones whose citizens stand to lose the most if an effective Arms Trade Treaty is not achieved. These are the states that also lack the resources and capacity to deal with corruption, crime, powerful armed groups and monitoring porous borders. And even if they don’t have a substantial weapons trade problem now, they have no protection from unscrupulous traders if the demand for weapons escalates in future (which no doubt it will given emerging factors driving conflict, such as climate change).

These are the states that need the microphone! I want to hear from Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Central African Republic, Guatemala…! The states that have everything to gain and nothing to lose from addressing the irresponsible arms trade. The odds are stacked against these states but it is imperative that they have a voice.

For our part, NGOs navigate the conference hall and the margins seeking to influence states as best we can. The challenge is to remind states that we’’re not just talking about weapons, and we’re not just talking about trade –we’’re actually talking people. People who face horrific violence – because global leaders haven’t yet managed to work out a global deal that puts the rights of people to security over the national interests of weapons producers and traders. Let’s hope that this week marks a turning point and we start to hear more from marginalised voices in defining solutions to the irresponsible arms trade.