Susan WaltzSusan Waltz, professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, is available to speak with journalists about the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which takes effect Dec. 24. As chair of Amnesty International in 1996-98, she helped launch the international movement for such a treaty and has continued to advocate for its passage.

Q: Last month, the United Kingdom was criticized for selling weapons to “countries of concern.” Will sales like those continue after Christmas?

Waltz: As countries put their treaty obligations into effect, we should begin to see a drop off in weapons transferred to countries where there is a strong likelihood they will be used to violate human rights and humanitarian law. But note that the ATT doesn’t specifically prohibit sales to “countries of concern.” It only prohibits sales to countries that are under a United Nations arms embargo or where there is near certainty that the arms will be used in serious violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international law. In general, though, the ATT imposes an added layer of scrutiny: exporting states have an enhanced responsibility to weigh the human rights consequences before they approve an arms deal.

Q: How will the world measure the impact of the ATT going forward?

Waltz: It might be difficult to measure quantitatively, but we will know the ATT has had some impact if proposals for arms deals start to receive more scrutiny by governments. European Union countries have actively supported the ATT, so one place to look would be the approvals process for European arms exports. Disproportionate use of force against Gaza this summer brought calls for suspending U.S. weapons transfers to Israel, and that’s in alignment with the ATT. On the front end, what I’d like to see is a prominent display at some of the big international weapons shows—the arms bazaars— reminding both sellers and buyers of the treaty’s provisions.

Q: Right now, the treaty is only binding on the 55 countries that have ratified it. Are there key countries that have not that we should be worried about? Do you think more countries will sign on when they see how it works elsewhere?

Waltz: France, Germany, Belgium, Finland and the UK—all big arms manufacturers —have ratified the treaty. The U.S. hasn’t, but we’ve signed it and in other ways have indicated intentions to abide by it. But many other countries, including two of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, have neither signed nor ratified the Arms Trade Treaty; that’s a point of concern. So far, 125 countries have signed the ATT, though, and ratifications continue to arrive.

Q: In places like Sudan, sometimes dubbed “Africa’s arms dump,” will the impact be felt immediately? Or will it unfold over time?

Waltz: Illicit arms will likely continue to flow into Sudan, which has been under a partial UN arms embargo since 2004. Unfortunately, China has neither signed nor ratified the ATT, and many of the state-supplied weapons into Sudan and South Sudan are of Chinese origin.

Q: The U.S. government is under a lot of pressure from various parties to arm the Syrian resistance and to provide arms to the central Iraqi government and the Kurdish forces. What factors does the government need to consider as it weighs these choices?

Waltz: The fact that there is credible documentation that some units within all of these forces have committed serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law should raise the barrier on further supply of weapons. The conflict with ISIS is very complex and there are many different actors engaged. At the very least, the U.S. and other suppliers should carefully vet the intended recipients to ensure that they have not been involved in past atrocities and that they understand their obligations under international law.

Beyond the concerns about how weapons might be used in the immediate conflict, we also have to remember that small arms and light weapons have a very long shelf life and they travel easily. Unless there is careful control, when this conflict is over the weapons will continue to circulate.

The Arms Trade Treaty requires suppliers to weigh the likelihood that transferred weapons will be diverted for use by other parties in their decision to transfer weapons. We’ve already seen diversion of U.S. weapons from Iraq, and at least one bundle of weapons the U.S. recently airdropped to the Kurds was actually retrieved by ISIS. It’s hard to weigh immediate effects against long-term consequences, and I don’t envy the people who have to make the call.

Contact Waltzat 734-615-8683 or swaltz@umich.edu. Bio: http://bit.ly/1BYvs6q