President’s Agenda for RevCon3
In preparation for RevCon3, President-designate, Ambassador Jean-Claude Brunet of France, proposed a series of eight points for States to deliberate. These points of discussion were put forward for adoption at PrepCom in March 2018, but were never officially agreed upon by the conference. Despite the lack of consensus on the proposed agenda, it largely guided the discussions at RevCon3. Most states fell into one of two groups, those who supported enhanced controls and cooperation to reduce the illicit SALW proliferation and those who supported the PoA in its current form with little or no amendment. These are the agenda’s main points, and the positions that states adopted on each point:
- Marking
While states already hold policies regarding the marking of weapons, RevCon3 saw debates regarding new marking techniques enabled by new technologies. International guidelines set basic standards for weapons marking, meaning that certain weapon components are marked with information regarding the location and date of manufacture, but these guidelines often do not provide enough information on a weapon’s origin. Several states, including Senegal and Finland, called for laser marking and microchips to be used more widely. Other states, like Indonesia and Bangladesh, responded to these calls by adopting the position that the methods of weapons marking remains a national prerogative. Although states disagreed on what new methods, if any, should be implemented to enhance weapons marking, this debate highlighted new methods of marking weapons. Moreover, many states, which previously lacked effective marking standards, showcased their improvements in marking.
2. Record-keeping
Discussions regarding record-keeping practices were far less extensive compared to marking. However, states that commented on their record-keeping practices generally mirrored their positions on weapons marking. For example, Bangladesh reiterated that specific record-keeping practices must remain a national prerogative, while various states from Latin America and Africa called for enhanced record-keeping practices and international assistance in establishing better record-keeping practices and systems.
3. Tracing
Member states raised a series of hopes and concerns about using new technologies for tracing purposes. Although technological advancements like laser marking weapons components and microchips enable new tracing methods, other innovations in weapons manufacturing complicate tracing. Many states expressed concerns regarding difficulties associated with tracing 3D printed weapons, which may be created by anyone with access to a 3D printer. Similar concerns about modular weapons, the parts of which may be substituted between weapons, make tracing individual weapons more difficult, were raised by many states.
4. Encouraging International Cooperation
While states disagreed on the specifics regarding international cooperation, discussions on this point generally skewed positively, encouraging cooperation at the sub-regional, regional, and international levels. States in the CARICOM, African, and European Groups called for enhanced cross-border cooperation to fight illicit SALW proliferation. Despite the generally positive views towards international cooperation, other states actively expressed their disapproval of enhancing cooperation in certain fields. For example, the United States, Iran and Israel, vehemently opposed the inclusion of synergies between the PoA, ATT, and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Although these states did not oppose multilateral cooperation, they do not support more global approaches to cooperation.
5. Promoting effective international assistance
Similarly, countries that lobbied for greater international cooperation also called for more effective international assistance. Donor and receiver states highlighted the effective international assistance programs that already exist to combat illicit SALW proliferation and called for the continuation of these practices. States that were critical of enhanced cooperation adopted similar positions towards international assistance.
6. Encouraging transparency and information exchange
Debate surrounding transparency and the exchange of information about SALW proliferation again fell along the same lines as international cooperation and assistance. While most states called for greater transparency and information sharing, a vocal few, specifically the United States, Iran and Bangladesh maintain that SALW production and efforts to fight the illicit SALW trade must remain the sovereign domestic affairs of states under the current PoA.
7. Implications for the International Tracing Instrument of recent developments in small arms and light weapons manufacturing, technology and design
Many states called for specific measures to address threats posed by modular and 3D printed SALW. There were debates regarding the legitimate use of 3D printing for non-weapons related manufacturing and concerns regarding the regulation of an otherwise peaceful technology. Again, states who opposed the enhancement of the PoA did not approve of calls for the marking of multiple components on modular weapons — weapons which have substitutable components.
8. Other points
While Ambassador Brunet’s agenda largely guided debate throughout the conference, one point of contention gave rise to serious tension between states: the addition of ammunition in the PoA. Latin American and Caribbean states along with most European states called for the inclusion of ammunition, as weapons are useless without it. The United States, joined by Israel, Iran, Algeria, and others actively opposed any language that highlighted the importance of additional ammunition controls. Despite the fierce opposition from the United States, those who support ammunition controls passionately fought for its inclusion. In a charged statement, Sierra Leone’s representative called an immediate one-year embargo on the production and sale of ammunition to gauge whether conflicts escalate or deescalate. Although his remarks were met with applause, no states supported the initiative.
The United States, Israel, Cuba, Syria, and other states that opposed enhanced international cooperation, opposed the addition of language calling for equal participation of women in disarmament practices and addressing the unique threats that SALW proliferation poses for women. While some states opposed the inclusion of any new language in the PoA, others opposed the usage of the phrase “equal participation of women,” because it implies “50/50” representation of men and women.
