No longer should the peace business be undermined by the arms business by Óscar Arias, Desmond Tutu, Bianca Jagger 10:17am 14th Sep, 2006   September 21, 2006    The Deadly Hole in Global Security, by Óscar Arias. (The Boston Globe)    International security will be at the top of the agenda at the UN General Assembly meeting this week in New York. For many leaders, enhancing security involves spending more money on weapons for themselves and their allies. The five years since 9/11 have seen a boom in the conventional weapons trade, accompanied by a new willingness to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses committed in the pursuit of the war on terrorism. Yet the focus on the production and distribution of weapons to allies, whatever their human rights record, does not enhance global security.    International terrorism and nuclear proliferation, in particular, are not problems that can be solved simply by a show of military strength by the United States, or any other country. Too many governments still think in terms of this kind of Cold War-era strategy when trying to address the security challenges of today.    The Cold War-mindset endorsed proxy wars, leading the United States to train and equip mujahideen like Osama Bin Laden in its fight against Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The Cold War-mindset promoted arming regimes with questionable human rights records for "strategic" reasons, resulting in US forces eventually having to face enemies armed with US-made weapons in Panama, Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq.    What has become clear is that in order to advance global security, nations must unite to prevent the transfer of arms to dictators and human rights abusers. This is not done by looking to the false security of military buildup, but by strengthening the safeguards of international law.    There have been international treaties to control the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons for decades, but until now the world has remained unconvinced about the global implications of an uncontrolled trade in conventional weapons. As a result, such weapons as handguns and attack helicopters are bought and sold every day with no comprehensive treaty to regulate the dangerous trade.    The loose patchwork of national and regional regulations means it is all too easy to supply weapons to embargoed destinations, to parties engaged in armed conflict, to those who use them to violate human rights, or to those who spend vastly more on their militaries than on meeting critical development needs. The inadequacy of arms controls contributes to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year. It is estimated that an average of 1,000 people are killed by small arms alone every day, most of them in the developing world.    The best fix available for this deadly hole in global security is the comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty, which has been proposed before the United Nations. The principle behind the treaty is simple: require all countries not to transfer weapons to states, groups or individuals if there is reason to believe that the weapons will be used to violate human rights or existing international law.    The treaty is supported by more than 50 governments. Not surprisingly, the biggest opposition comes from those with the most money to lose. Russia, the United States, France, China, and the United Kingdom -- the five permanent members of the Security Council -- account for roughly 80 percent of the world"s arms sales, and of these nations, only the UK and France have expressed support for the treaty. A mix of outdated strategy and financial interest has undermined the security goals that these states have pledged to pursue.    But they have a chance to switch to the right course. Next month, the Arms Trade Treaty will be put to a vote in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly. The nations of the world should put the moral gain of humanity above the monetary gain of a few, and recognize that lasting stability is best advanced not by instruments of death but by mechanisms of law.    An Arms Trade Treaty would make legal ties out of the moral ties by which we already know we must abide. Only then will we be able to effectively respond to the security challenges of our era, and thereby genuinely make our world a safer place.    * Óscar Arias, a Nobel Peace laureate, is the president of Costa Rica.    September 13, 2006    No longer should the peace business be undermined by the arms business, by Desmond Tutu. (The Independent/UK)    For many years, I"ve been involved in the peace business, doing what I can to help people overcome their differences. In doing so, I"ve also learnt a lot about the business of war: the arms trade. In my opinion it is the modern slave trade. It is an industry out of control: every day more than 1,000 people are killed by conventional weapons. The vast majority of those people are innocent men, women and children.    There have been international treaties to control the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons for decades. Yet, despite the mounting death toll, there is still no treaty governing sales of all conventional weapons from handguns to attack helicopters. As a result, weapons fall into the wrong hands all too easily, fuelling human rights abuses, prolonging wars and digging countries deeper into poverty.    This is allowed to continue because of the complicity of governments, especially rich countries" governments, which turn a blind eye to the appalling human suffering associated with the proliferation of weapons.    Every year, small arms alone kill more people than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. Many more people are injured, terrorised or driven from their homes by armed violence. Even as you read this, one of these human tragedies is unfolding somewhere on the planet.    Take the Democratic Republic of Congo, where armed violence recently flared up again, and millions have died during almost a decade of conflict. Despite a UN arms embargo against armed groups in the country, weapons have continued to flood in from all over the world.    Arms found during weapons collections include those made in Germany, France, Israel, USA and Russia. The only common denominator is that nearly all these weapons were manufactured outside Africa. Five rich countries manufacture the vast majority of the world"s weapons. In 2005, Russia, the United States, France, Germany and the UK accounted for an estimated 82 per cent of the global arms market. And it"s big business: the amount rich countries spend on fighting HIV/Aids every year represents just 18 days global spending on arms.    But while the profits flow back to the developed world, the effects of the arms trade are predominantly felt in developing countries. More than two-thirds of the value of all arms are sold to Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.    In addition to the deaths, injuries and rapes perpetrated with these weapons, the cost of conflict goes deeper still, destroying health and education systems.    For example, in northern Uganda, which has been devastated by 20 years of armed conflict, it has been estimated that 250,000 children do not attend school. The war in northern Uganda, which may be finally coming to an end, has been fuelled by supplies of foreign-made weapons. And, as with so many wars, the heaviest toll has been on the region"s children. Children under five are always the most vulnerable to disease, and in a war zone adequate medical care is often not available.    The world could eradicate poverty in a few generations were only a fraction of the expenditure on the war business to be spent on peace. An average of $22bn is spent on arms by countries in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa every year, according to estimates for the US Congress. This sum would have enabled those countries to put every child in school and to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015, fulfilling two of the Millennium Development Goals.    This year, the world has the chance to finally say no to the continuing scandal of the unregulated weapons trade. In October, governments will vote on a resolution at the UN General Assembly to start working towards an Arms Trade Treaty. That Treaty would be based on a simple principle: no weapons for violations of international law. In other words, a ban on selling weapons if there is a clear risk they will be used to abuse human rights or fuel conflict. The UN resolution has been put forward by the governments of Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, and the UK. These governments believe the idea of an Arms Trade Treaty is one whose time has come.    I agree. We must end impunity for governments who authorise the supply of weapons when they know there"s a great danger those weapons will be used for gross human rights abuses. Great strides are being made towards ending impunity for war criminals. It cannot be acceptable that their arms suppliers continue to escape punishment. No longer should the peace business be undermined by the arms business. I call on all governments to put the control of the international arms trade at the top of their agenda.    September 14, 2006    Curb this deadly trade, by Bianca Jagger. (The Guardian)    Those who oppose the proposed UN arms treaty could derail a chance to save millions of lives    As the UN general assembly opens this week, it has its best opportunity in years to make a life-saving difference to people all over the world. An opportunity to stop human rights abuses, limit the threat of terrorism, and reduce suffering for millions. The opportunity is a draft resolution for an international arms trade treaty that would place tough controls on sales.    The treaty would make it illegal to sell weapons to human rights abusers; make it harder for weapons to end up in the hands of criminals and terrorists; and help regulate a trade that is spiralling out of control - $900billion dollars spent spent on defence versus only $60bn on aid. Every day over 1,000 people lose their lives through armed violence..    Nicaragua, my birthplace, is still awash with weapons, the legacy of a bloody conflict - fuelled by the US arming the Contras - in which more than 40,000 civilians were killed. Nicaragua is now one of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere.    For decades, the US provided millions of dollars in military aid to oppressive governments in Latin America; many of those countries now have high levels of armed violence. As a human rights campaigner, I have advocated on behalf of countless victims of conflict, from Latin America to the Balkans to the Middle East. I can attest to the devastating effect on the civilian population, particularly on women and children.    Some nations still try to block the treaty"s progress - though their arguments are flawed. The resolution would not undermine states" sovereignty or ability to lawfully defend themselves with force. It would not hamper law enforcement to provide security for their citizens. Arms importers and exporters would simply have a clear set of rules to abide by, rather than the current hotch-potch of uneven and conflicting regulation.    The treaty would promote real security. It would help to stop armed groups that pay no heed to international law equipping themselves. An Amnesty International report last year detailed shipments of more than 240 tonnes of weapons from eastern Europe to governments in Africa"s war-torn Great Lakes region, and on to militias involved in massacres, mutilation and mass rape.    More than 50 countries have voiced support for an arms trade treaty, but to make it happen we need a majority of the 192 member states.    For once the international community can act pre-emptively to prevent carnage, not be forced to mop up afterwards. It is an opportunity that the UN must seize.    (Bianca Jagger is goodwill ambassador for the Council of Europe). Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item