|
|
|
 |
 |
|||
|
|
By Lyndon Jeffels (Reproduced from the Daily Mirror, October 16, 2003) The recent launch of 'Shattered Lives', a campaign organised by Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), has opened a debate on small arms which they hope will lead to positive changes in governmental and civilian attitudes to this most serious of international problems. Every minute of every day, someone is killed by armed violence. In that same minute, 15 new guns and 30,000 new bullets are produced. Small arms cause over half a million deaths a year, far in excess of conventional weapons of war, so is the problem too monumental to be effectively addressed? To answer this question we have to first examine the nature of the issues involved, and decide if the necessary change in attitudes is a realistic target. The foremost consideration is simply the volume of arms in the world today. It is estimated that the global small arms stockpile (including machine guns, grenades and portable anti-tank systems) is in the region of 639 million, of which 60% are in civilian hands and 80-90% were originally sold legally. A total of 98 countries produce arms, while Europe and the USA lead the way in overall production. It is noteworthy that while most arms are produced in the first world, it is the third world that endures the majority of victims. Inevitably, some small arms possession is required, both by armed forces and the police, but even use by these agencies can precipitate the acquisition of arms by dissident groups and terrorists. The 'Shattered Lives' report highlights the 'ever-downward spiral' in which the availability of arms creates a climate of fear. Insecure groups and individuals arm themselves for protection, and others, who respond by arming themselves, perceive their actions as a threat and a demand for yet more weapons is created. A significant obstacle to future peace in Sri Lanka, is the number of army soldiers who have deserted with their weapons since fighting ceased. The government has no exact figure on the number of deserter's arms in circulation, but Mr M.N Junaid, Secretary to the Interior Ministry, admitted recently that a figure of around 30,000 was to be expected. As many ex-militants move to Colombo and become involved in opportunistic crime and organised crime groups, the usage of these weapons is likely to be an omnipresent feature of life in the capital. Phil Esmonde, Oxfam Great Britain, has highlighted three particular areas on which Sri Lanka must focus. He believes that "demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration", are essential if Sri Lanka is to step confidently out of the shadow of war. It is a sad fact that nearly half of newly pacified countries revert to war within a decade. Protracted periods of extreme armed violence lead to a legitimisation of violence, which, the new report says, 'permeate(s) into previously unaffected areas of society'. If the number of weapons is to be effectively reduced, the production of weapons must be challenged at source. Herein lies the difficulty: Small arms equal big business. The five permanent member of the UN Security Council - China, Russia, France, the UK and the USA - account for 88% of authorised arm's exports. The financial value of this business amounts to approximately US$21 Billion per year, a figure exclusive of the black market, which accounts for up to US$10 Billion. It is therefore not surprising to learn that UN members have dragged their feet on this issue. In July 2001, the member states met for the 'United Nations Conference on the Illicit Transfer of Small Arms and Light Weapons In All Its Aspects'. A program of action was agreed upon, requiring countries to adopt regulations on the export, import and transfer of small arms and to ensure that seized small arms are destroyed. A 2003 IANSA report on the implementation of the program, found that while some states had made progress, most had fallen far short of their obligations. After a UN implementation meeting around the time of the report, where no consensus was reached on moving forward, another such meeting was agreed for 2005, followed by a review conference in 2006. The 'Shattered Lives' sponsors have drafted an Arms Trade Treaty, which they wish governments to ratify prior to the 2006 conference. The Treaty draws on a broad range of international laws, furnishing states with a clear exposition of their rights and duties. Incredibly, despite the exponential growth in the small arms and their horrific effects, there is still no legally binding international treaty governing their trade. While the new treaty will provide a concise framework against which states can be judged, one must wonder to what extent such a document can really bite, in the face of big arms profits and illicit arms dealing. However, moves are afoot on a regional level to combat small arms. The Sri Lankan government very recently approved a paper supporting the establishment of an arms commission. At the campaign launch, Dr. James Arputharaj of IANSA declared, "Sri Lanka is seen as a leader in South Asia", by virtue of forming the new commission. It is to be hoped that this eminently sensible step, will ensure that the many illicit arms on the island are safely destroyed, to secure a more peaceful future. Notwithstanding, Sri Lanka faced tough criticism for supplying its police with AK47 assault rifles. As the only country in South Asia to do so, it could be argued that Sri Lanka is exacerbating the small arms problem. Mr M.N Junaid, Secretary of the Interior Ministry, defended the position, stating that the AK47's were supplied only in response to the increased threat to the police force in the early eighties. He added, 'We are trying to gradually get the police to do policing work and not defence work'. The Sri Lankan predicament is not, of course, solely the fault of the government. According to Dr. Chris Smith, in his 2003 Small Arms Survey report on Sri Lanka, 'the LTTE has proved extremely adept at trawling the international black market for illegal small arms…and even more proficient at moving equipment from distant locales into the north-east of the island'. Dr. Smith adds that the 'steady flow' of illegal weapons into the LTTE have 'significantly elongated the violent conflict'. Echoing the sentiments of Phil Esmonde from Oxfam GB, Dr. Smith expresses his fear that if not dealt with appropriately, conflict weapons could again be utilised to fuel further conflicts across the country, 'such as a violent resurgence of the JVP'. While Sri Lanka differs from many developing countries in having legislation for the control of firearms, it is doubtful whether security forces can do this through implementation of the legislation, some of which is nearly 100 years old. With the loss of 65,000 lives, two-thirds of which are thought to be civilians, Sri Lanka cannot afford to treat this subject lightly. The situation in Northern Ireland has plainly demonstrated how arms decommissioning can become the key issue, in the pursuit of long-term peace. While all micro level initiatives, such as the new arms commission, are a step in the right direction, it is only through macro level organisation that the crisis can be tackled efficiently. However, such international leadership is sorely lacking. The recent 'War on Terrorism' illuminated the flexible alliance between the West and human rights. Arms are being exported to countries with little regard paid to their shocking human rights records. President George W. Bush is labouring under the misapprehension that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Despite identification in a human rights report by the US State Department as having a 'poor' human rights record, or worse, many nations are enjoying extensive US military aid, while continuing their abuses with impunity. The irony is that the 'War on Terrorism' is fuelling the proliferation of weapons. In 2002, US security assistance and related aid to Uzbekistan rose by US$45 million. During the same period the figure for Pakistan soared from US$3.5 million to US$1.3 billion. Meanwhile, security and paramilitary forces in both countries continue to commit gross human rights violations, including torture, deaths in custody and extra-judicial killings. When the United Kingdom and the United States have the collective power to override all UN Security Council dissension and manipulate fair weather allies for their own ends, surely it is futile to expect allegiance to a treaty which would have emasculated their arms donations? Small arms devastate lives. Even if never fired, a gun can be used as a tool to suppress democratic change, effect forced migration, restrict basic needs, facilitate sexual violence and hold back human and economic development by decades. As the world opens the twenty first century with a bloody and arguably unjustifiable conflict, we must surely aim for more peaceful future resolutions. The control and reduction of small arms is undoubtedly a key prerequisite to achieving this high ideal. The problem is huge and the solution difficult. Only with international co-operation, ideally led by a more morally aware Anglo-American coalition, can there be a real answer to one of the world's most pressing concerns.
|
|
Today's Stories Naval surveillance is the millstone around LTTE's neck
Small Arms: the real weapons of mass deaths, destruction
|
Contact
Information: Send mail to