Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Status and Information related to arms support to Syria pertaining to selected countries AUSTRALIA Australia has ratified the ATT. AUSTRIA Austria has ratified the ATT. In May 2013, in the discussion surrounding the EU arms embargo, Austria declared that [t]here are more than enough weapons in Syria [l]ifting the EU arms embargo undermines the US-Russia understanding that opens a window of opportunity towards a new political process. Announced, with the Netherlands, Belgium, and several other EU Member States, that they had no intention of arming the Syrian rebels in May 2013. BELGIUM Belgium has ratified the ATT. Declared, with Austria, Belgium, and several other EU Member States, that they had no intention of arming the Syrian rebels in May 2013. Opposed to the transfer of arms to the opposition outside of a UN framework. CANADA The Canadian government consistently refuses to sign or ratify the ATT. Government representatives have cited concern that the Treaty would affect lawful recreational firearms owners in Canada. The ATT would not affect these lawful firearms owners. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in contrast, has emphasized that the United States would not have supported the Treaty had it infringed on the rights of Americans to exercise their rights by curtailing domestic gun ownership. FRANCE France has ratified the ATT. France has provided non-lethal military aid to opposition forces. With the United Kingdom, France pushed for amendments to the EU arms embargo to allow non-lethal military aid to be provided to opposition groups. It was argued that arms transfers would put pressure on the regime and at the very least allow the opposition to defend itself as well as the civilians. France has also worked to structure the leadership of the Free Syrian Army for example, by training rebels in Jordan.
In June 2013, there were reports that France was considering arming Syrian opposition with weapons featuring tracking and deactivation devices to ensure the weapons stayed in the hands of the rebels. Further reports of such weapons could not be found. France announced, in mid-september 2013, that it was in support of arms transfer to the Free Syrian Army, with a number of States and a framework which can be controlled. As of late October 2013, there is no official declaration that French arms transfers effectively occurred several sources have reported French arm transports to Syria, even at a time when the arms embargo was not yet lifted. In early May 2013, before the EU embargo was lifted, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stated that Paris and London would supply arms to the rebels, citing France s status as «une nation souveraine». In late December 2013, François Hollande promised to support the Syrian coalition, citing a [shared] pledge to work for peace, security and stability in the Middle East. Despite Hollande s and Fabius bold claims, there is a scarcity of official information on the topic of arms transfers. As such, media coverage of France s plans is almost non-existent. France s contributions are also not listed in any major research database concerning arms control or arms transfer. GERMANY Germany has ratified the ATT. IRELAND Ireland has ratified the ATT. ITALY Italy has ratified the ATT. LUXEMBOURG Luxembourg has ratified the ATT. NETHERLANDS The Netherlands has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty. Declared, with Austria, Belgium, and several other EU Member States, that there was no intention of arming the Syrian rebels in May 2013. Opposed to the transfer of arms to the opposition outside of a UN framework. NEW ZEALAND New Zealand has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty.
PERU Peru has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty. PHILIPPINES The Philippines has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty. PORTUGAL Portugal has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty. SWITZERLAND Switzerland has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty. UNITED KINGDOM The United Kingdom has ratified the ATT. From late 2012, the United Kingdom has provided non-lethal military aid, including body armour and communications equipment, to opposition forces. The UK advocated for amendments to the EU arms embargo. (See FRANCE.) When the embargo was lifted, the UK government claimed that there were no plans to arm the Syrian opposition immediately. In July 2013, British military commanders advised David Cameron that small arms would not change the outcome of the conflict. That month, British MPs voted to prevent the government from providing lethal aid to Syrian opposition forces without parliamentary approval. As of November 2013, there was no evidence of plans to supply lethal arms to Syria. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The USA has signed the ATT but has not ratified the treaty. In fall 2012, United States of America put pressure on Iraq to prevent Iranian transport of weapons to Syria through Iraqi airspace, voicing the formal concern that the UN embargo on Iranian arms exports was violated. Barack Obama was initially opposed to arms transfer to opposition groups, fearing that the USA may be pulled in to a proxy war and that US-supplied weapons may proliferate within and beyond Syrian borders to unintended parties. The USA sent non-lethal military aid, including communications equipment and night-vision goggles, to Syrian rebels. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed that this equipment would help activists organize, evade attacks by the regime, and connect to the outside world. In July 2013, the House and Senate intelligence committees voiced their support for CIA shipment of weapons to opposition forces. From mid-2013, the
CIA delivered light machine guns, as well as other small arms, light weapons, and munitions, to the Syrian opposition. Beyond this, there is little specific information available in the public domain about covert American support for the Syrian opposition, although the political debate about this support in general is open. Reportedly, the USA has arranged for anti-tank weaponry, such as rocketpropelled grenades, to be supplied to opposition forces through a third party. In 2013, 50 Red Arrow-8 anti-tank missiles were provide to the Syrian rebels by an unknown country, according to the SIPRI Arms Transfers Database. The database contains no speculation about the country of origin. As of November 2013, about 600 tons of weapons had been delivered to Syrian rebels since the beginning of the year by the CIA together with Saudi Arabia and Jordan. In June 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA had begun transferring weapons to Jordan via a network of secret warehouses in order to arm groups of Syrian opposition forces. The article also reports that before President Obama s decision to arm opposition forces, the CIA had begun to stockpile Soviet-era weapons, including ammunition for Kalashnikov rifles and armour-piercing antitank missiles. Information on the arms transfer to Syrian rebels is not readily available, due to the covert nature of the CIA operations. Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel, in September 2013, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that steps were being taken covertly to arm some Syrian opposition forces. In Hagel s words, it was June of this year that the president made the decision to support lethal assistance to the opposition. As you all know, we have been very supportive with hundreds of millions of dollars of non-lethal assistance. The vetting process that Secretary Kerry noted has been significant, but I'll ask General Dempsey if he wants to add anything but we, the Department of Defence, have not been directly involved in this. This is, as you know, a covert action. And, as Secretary Kerry noted, probably to [go] into much more detail would would require a closed or classified hearing. That same month, The Washington Post reported on CIA delivery of light weapons and other traceable munitions. These shipments, according to the Post, are to flow through a network of clandestine bases in Turkey and Jordan that were expanded over the past year as the agency sought to help Middle Eastern allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, direct weapons to moderate Syrian rebel forces. The State Department also delivered vehicles and other equipment.
Mark S. Ward, the senior advisor on assistance to Syria in the State Department, told The Washington Post in September 2013 that [lethal aid] doesn t only lead to a more effective force, but it increases its ability to hold coalition groups together. They see their leadership is having some impact. Later in the article, Ward expressed his hopes for strong US-Syrian relationships after the civil war comes to a close: When you finally have a free Syrian government, you will know them and they will know us. We will have been working with them week after week, month after month. These won t be strangers. In April 2014, Reuters reported that the US government was planning to increase training and transfer of small arms to opposition forces. The weapons would be sent to moderate rebel groups located in Jordan. The shipments will not include surface-to-air missiles. Despite pressure from rebel groups, the Obama administration has expressed concern that such advanced weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Also in April 2014, a writer for the website War on the Rocks expresses the general uncertainty over whether the US is providing weapons or simply allowing arms transfers from other states to flow unimpeded. The author, with many others on the internet, looks through YouTube videos of the conflict in order to identify weapons origins. For example, Oryx Blog has pointed out a US-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile. As of May 2014, the USA has allotted over $287 million to support the unarmed opposition. Over half of this has been delivered as of March 2014.