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.