COMMENTARY: Under fire: the international arms trade
The Independent (UK)
Editorial & Opinion; 47
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2362718.ece
March 15, 2007
Byline: Martin Bell
Where are the weapons coming from? It was a question that crept into my mind more and more as I reported on conflicts around the world. I used to pick up bullets and shells at the scene of shootings and bring them home -- although I have stopped doing so these days on security grounds.
Of course, arms supplies are not the stuff of three minute TV reports, but they are the fuel that keeps wars alive. And, the manufacturers' markings on my souvenirs tell a damning story about the inadequacy of the regulations on the international arms trade.
On Monday in Geneva, seven governments, including the United Kingdom, will unveil their vision for an international Arms Trade Treaty. This Treaty is sorely needed. Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been controlled by international treaties for decades, yet there is still no comprehensive, legally binding treaty to regulate sales of conventional weapons, from AK 47s to fighter planes. And it is conventional weapons that do the killing in the wars of the 21st century. Campaigning groups such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms say that the need for the Treaty is urgent and overwhelming.
From the reporter's point of view, all wars are local. It is the here and now of human conflict that makes them so compelling. But the sources of the weapons and ammunition being fired are usually not local. Take Afghanistan, one of the most heavily armed countries in the world. It is thought that there could be as many as 10 million small arms circulating in a country of only 23 million people.
These guns have come from all over the world, as countries including the United States, Russia (and the Soviet Union before it), the UK, France, India and Pakistan armed their favourites in the region. The result of 30 years of irresponsible arms dealing is a well armed and resurgent Taliban, proving a tough adversary for British troops.
The Treaty proposed by the British government, and campaign groups, would prevent any arms transfer where it is likely that the weapons will be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights law. Of course, a Treaty will not by itself stop arms transfers that fuel conflict and human rights abuses. Most wars are fought with weapons from other wars, supplied by dealers whose fortunes depend on their skill in covering their tracks. But it will, for the first time, introduce an element of restraint on governments in the sale and transfer of conventional weapons. It is time to end the present free for all.
Most of the world wants this Treaty; 153 governments voted for it last December at the UN -- the US was the only government to vote against. By launching such a bold vision for the Treaty this Monday, the UK will position itself as far from the US as it is possible to be. It seems that, at least on this issue, it has an independent foreign policy.
This is not just about stopping our troops facing a lethal legacy in Afghanistan. Arms are being sold to human rights abusers today, and it is not only British troops who are bearing the brunt, but millions of people living in conflict zones across the developing world. Take Darfur, where more than two million people have fled their homes following government sponsored attacks in the last four years. Antonov aircraft, helicopter gun ships and fighter jets have been used in these attacks, according to eyewitnesses. Who is supplying the Sudanese government with weapons?
It is impossible to get a full picture, but certainly the Russian and Chinese governments are involved. Amnesty International has reported that in July 2004, the Sudanese government announced the import of 12 MiG 29 jet fighters from Russia at the same time as the Sudanese government was being accused in the United Nations Security Council of supporting Sudanese militia in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
A month after this deal went through, in August 2004, I visited Darfur for the first time. It was the worst humanitarian catastrophe I had ever seen. Floods and food shortages were compounding the suffering already caused by armed conflict and ethnic violence. It was a desperately bleak situation, which has not improved in the two and a half years since that visit. Indeed, aid agencies' access to people in need is currently at its lowest ever point because of rising insecurity.
No government, including our own, can escape responsibility for its arms transfers, whether it directly supplies arms to human rights abusers or not. Every time a government sells or transfers weapons, it must consider the likely human cost. That is the principle that the Arms Trade Treaty is based on, and that is the duty owed by all countries, particularly arms producing nations, to the millions of people living in the world's collapsed states and war zones. (Emphasis added.)
* The writer was a BBC correspondent from 1965 1997
(c) 2007 Independent & Media PLC
