This week (and a half), I will be taking a break from this daily grind of politics and offer a broader look at a handful of important issues that are having a serious impact on millions of people around the world. Today's final topic: the destabilizing effects of the trade in small arms.
One of the most underappreciated problems of recent times is the widespread proliferation in the trade of light weapons and small arms. This group of weapons includes not only revolvers, pistols and shotguns, but also grenade launchers, anti-aircraft weapons and the Kalashnikov, iconic in so many African conflicts.
The proliferation in small arms has had serious consequences. As a result, many rebel groups (and terrorist groups) have enough light weaponry to not be routed by larger national armies, but not enough heavy weaponry to win decisively. Such stalemates lead to conflicts going on ad infinitum. Think Northern Uganda or Sri Lanka.
Traditionally, those want to start a rebellion had two serious disavantages against formal national armies. Funding for armaments and manpower. The flood of light weapons in recent years have evened the playing field in both areas.
First, small arms are cheaper than heavy weaponry. And since they are lighter, the weapons can be used by people who are physically smaller. To use a bad pun, smaller arms can be used by smaller arms. That's why they have fueled another plague I wrote about last week: child soldiers (who, in turn, are disproportionately responsible for a third crisis I've written about: the targetting of humanitarian aid workers).
Light arms are used to kill an estimated 1000 people per day. That doesn't include many times more injured or maimed. In many countries, light arms represent a veritable public health crisis.
Terrorists have killed about 3000 Americans in the last 5 years. Small arms kill that many people in the world more than twice every week. The proposition that these arms are used primarily to promote freedom and uphold human rights is made laughable by a cursory look at the numbers.
Why is the small arms trade allowed to continue unrestricted if it enables so much instability and destruction? Remember, we're not talking about a revolver for someone to defend himself against a burglar. We're talking about weapons designed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time.
The reason is one that won't surprise you: money.
I'm not sure what the breakdown is between light and heavy weaponry, but the arms trade is the most lucrative industry in the world and in the US: at $900 billion annually. $900,000,000,000.
(By comparison, that's one hundred times more than the entire UN spends, who does far more good for humanity and who is, to a large degree, responsible for cleaning up the mess caused by weapons.)
As with any savvy business, the arms industry is constantly trying to expand into new, untapped markets in the developing world. The fact that many of these places are relatively unstable makes them a perfect target for these merchants.
Of course, any talk of restricting the global arms trade runs into rhetorical hurdles. In the US, many see such talk as the first step onto a slippery slope that would inevitably ban all private gun ownership. Many contend that we need to restrict the global movement of human beings not weapons; a strawberry picker is more potentially dangerous than a Kalashnikov, apparently.
Even the inventor of the Kalashnikov would probably disagree. He recently deplored the widespread proliferation of his weapon. "Whenever I look at TV and I see the weapon I invented to defend my motherland in the hands of these bin Ladens I ask myself the same question: How did it get into their hands?", the 86 year old Russian asked.
Many Americans will invoke the 2nd Amendment as some kind of defense . Some even invoked a Christian basis for posessing small arms: Jesus said it was ok.
The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of gun owners in the United States. The US Constitution only applies on US territory (and in some cases, not even there, according to the Bush administration). Restrictions on the international trade in light weapons will not cause a ban on private ownership any more than European restrictions on genetically mutated food have lead to famine in the EU. Restrictions on international trade do not imply restrictions on domestic ownership. Those who insist on the unregulated trade in guns must concede that such freedom also allows a company in Mugabe's Zimbabwe to send weapons to Hezbollah, Sudanese genociders or Kim Jong Il.
A coalition of non-governmental organizations have united to fight for better oversight of the small arms trade. This is a coalition comprised primarily of organizations who are responsible either for health care or international development. Doctors organizations, women's associations, religious charities. In other words, groups whose job it is to pick up the pieces, whose job it is to help people and societies recover from the devastation caused by these weapons.
Specifically, it wants (s)trict controls on export, transit and import of weapons are essential to prevent the further proliferation of small arms and their abuse by those violating human rights and international humanitarian law.
Not a global ban on private ownership, mind you. But restrictions on their trade across international borders.
In July, there was an international conference discussing ways to regulate the trade in such weapons. But not much came out of it. Participants proposed a global treaty setting out international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.
But critics decried its lack of teeth.
"It is crucial that the creation of an Arms Trade Treaty is formally on the UN agenda," said Brian Wood, Amnesty International's Arms Research Manager, "but if the Treaty does not prevent arms transfers to countries where they are likely to be used for grave violations of international human rights law, then it simply won't help save enough lives and deliver better security in most countries."
Not surprisingly, serious controls on the export of light weapons was opposed by the United States, Russia and other major arms exporters.
1000 people are killed every single day of the year by light weapons. Without question, these are the real weapons of mass destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment