(New York, July 19, 2001) -- Many delegates have
tried to single out shadowy gunrunners as the chief culprits, while
neglecting the governmental role in supplying the weapons used to commit
atrocities.

The United States, exhibiting a strong isolationist strain, has joined
states such as Russia and
China with a longstanding hostility toward
global regulatory agreements, and together they are
threatening to produce a watered-down "Program of
Action," Human Rights Watch said. In the final two days of the
conference, a struggle over the program could still prompt a walkout by
either supporters or opponents of a stronger commitment
to curb weapons flows.

"This conference is set to produce a 'Program of Inaction,'" said Joost
Hiltermann, executive director of the Arms Division at Human Right
Watch. "It has helped raise public awareness of the spread of small
arms. But it hasn't put forward a serious plan for stopping this
terrible human rights problem."

A coalition of humanitarian and human rights groups has vowed to keep up
the pressure on governments to stem the trade in small arms, and to
refocus the debate on the human cost of uncontrolled weapons
proliferation.

States should take responsibility for stopping the spread of small arms
by strengthening arms trade controls to keep weapons out of the hands of
human rights abusers, enforcing those controls better, reining in
private traffickers, doing more to secure arms stockpiles, and disposing
responsibly of vast quantities of cheap surplus weapons.

Hiltermann said the United States had missed an opportunity to promote
its own record on arms trade controls, which are relatively stringent.

"The U.S. government seems to have concluded that it wants no
entanglements in international treaties," said Hiltermann. "It's tragic
that Washington has not used its powers for good in this case. To the
contrary, it has been an obstacle to progress, doing all that it can to
keep civil society out of the debate."

Instead of addressing the governmental role in the arms trade, the
conference sought technical fixes, such as marking weapons and improving
border policing, which are aimed exclusively at illicit arms
traffickers.

Worst of all, Human Rights Watch said, the "Program of Action" is
non-binding and unlikely to establish a follow-up process that would
hold governments to even their rhetorical commitments.

Human Rights Watch said the conference should have adopted a clear
standard: that no government should authorize any transfer of arms to a
state or non-state actor as long as there is a clear risk that these
arms will be used by the likely recipient to commit gross human rights
abuses, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

For more information on the U.N. Small Arms Conference, please see:

U.N. Conference on Small Arms Trafficking, New York (HRW Press
Statement, July 9, 2001) at
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/mines/2001/arms-press-0710.htm.

Small Arms Campaign: Obstacles to Progress (HRW Campaign Page) at
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/small-arms/