The Arms Trade Treaty talks that began in New York this month provide an extraordinary, historic opportunity to protect human rights.

The last attempt at such an agreement to control the global trade in conventional weapons was in the 1920s and failed disastrously. We must not squander this opportunity now.

If a strong treaty is agreed in the next two weeks, countless lives will be saved in the years to come, and much armed violence can be prevented.

By contrast, if governments allow weasel formulations to creep into the text, a unique opportunity will have been wasted.

To begin with, the obvious good news: It is remarkable that we have got so far. When Amnesty International first came up with the idea of an arms trade treaty almost 20 years ago, we were mocked for our naiveté. But a few farsighted governments came on board just a few years later.

Gradually, with pressure from all across the world, a consensus has grown. In 2009, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for a “strong and robust” treaty that would adhere to the “highest possible” standards. The one solitary vote against came from Zimbabwe.

Most governments want to see a treaty that prevents the sale or transfer of weapons or munitions where it is likely that they will be used to commit or pave the way for serious human-rights violations.

Irresponsible arms transfers contribute to the deaths of around half million people on average every year and facilitate the majority of the world’s human-rights violations, including unlawful killings, sexual violence, the recruitment of child soldiers and the forcing of millions of people to flee their homes.

Armed conflicts result in around 250,000 deaths each year. For instance, 64,000 women and girls are estimated to have suffered war-related sexual violence in Sierra Leone’s civil war between 1991 and 2002.

In 2011, there were at least 14 countries in a situation of armed conflict in which parties “use children, kill or maim children and/or commit rape and other forms of sexual violence against children,” according to the UN Secretary General.

Kenya has a vital role to play in these negotiations, to be a champion for strong human-rights protections. When Assistant Minister of Defence David Musila addressed the negotiations last week, there was much to be positive about.

Now Kenya’s voice needs to remain strong and steadfast in demonstrating leadership on human rights as the negotiations enter the crucial final phase.

The steadily mounting death toll in Syria provides a powerful reminder of why a treaty on all conventional arms — heavy weaponry, munitions and small arms alike — is urgently needed.

Half a million people die from conflict every year — one man, woman or child every minute. Tens of millions are injured and forced to flee their homes. The new treaty can help change that.

Amnesty International has published a series of studies in recent months, from Sudan, from Bahrain, from the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere, highlighting the devastation caused by the irresponsible and poorly regulated arms trade.

On Syria, the role of Russia has dominated headlines, because of its role as armourer-in-chief to President Bashir al-Assad. But Russia is not alone: Syria has received munitions from France, tanks from Slovakia, upgraded firing systems from Italy, small arms from Egypt and weapons from China and Iran.

Elsewhere, the picture is similar. Egypt received $640 million’s worth of military equipment from the United States in the five years to 2009. China, Pakistan, Britain and the United States all supplied arms to Sri Lanka, where the UN reckons that 40,000 civilians were killed in 2009, several times more than have died in the past two years in Syria, Libya and Egypt combined.

More than 100 governments, including arms-manufacturing countries, have played a positive role in arguing for strong language in the treaty that would help protect human rights.

It is regrettable that some governments of the global South whom we would have hoped would speak out strongly in favour of the treaty have so far failed to do so.

They need to argue against US proposals to water down the treaty rules to please Beijing and Moscow, for example by excluding ammunition.

Voices in favour of a strong treaty have come from around the world. Amnesty International alongside our partners in the Control Arms Coalition collected over 600,000 signatures in just three months, which we handed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York earlier this month.

People from the small West African state of Mali alone provided 20,000 signatures. The violent instability of recent months, fuelled by weapons that have flowed across the border from Libya, means Malians understand all too well what an important role such a treaty could play.

As Ban Ki-moon rightly noted, in response to the petition: “The world is over-armed.”

As the negotiations near their conclusion, it will be tempting for governments to offer endless compromises to those in a small minority who want to block a strong treaty.

Why not, for example, allow “gifting” of guns or bombs or rockets, as an act of generosity? Which, by pure happenstance, might then pave the way for an act of equally remarkable generosity — giving a few million tonnes of oil, say — in return.

It should seem obvious that intelligent people must not even contemplate such a possibility. And yet such designer loopholes are already being discussed in New York.

These loopholes could make the entire treaty so leaky that it will sink without trace.

The treaty must be robust and principled, therefore effective and fair, or it is nothing. It has to make states’ responsibilities clear, drawing from their existing obligations under international law.

It must be comprehensive in scope. It should include rigorous control mechanisms and risk assessment procedures.

Justus Nyang’aya is Amnesty International Kenya’s country director