Closing Loopholes in Arms Trading
By Patrick Tucker
New report points out dangers of lazy international arms control.
The globalization of the arms industryeverything
from manufacturing tank parts to the sale of guns and armored vehiclesis
helping abusive governments get their hands on banned weapons and flout
international arms control treaties, according to the Control Arms
Campaign. U.S., European, and Canadian arms manufacturers circumvent
many arms control regulations by subcontracting the manufacturing of
weapons such as the Apache attack helicopter overseas to countries like
China, Egypt, and Turkey. Though the practice is perfectly legal, the
manufactured weapons have found their way to destinations such as
Colombia and Sudan, where they are often used to kill or displace
civilians, the campaign charges in a recent report titled "Arms Without
Borders."
Both the United States and the European Union have policies against
selling certain types of arms directly to China due to that country's
human-right record. However, some weapons manufacturers are allowed to
subcontract labor to Chinese companies; China's new Z-10 attack
helicopter could not operate without weapons and parts technology that
comes from various U.S. and European firms. China has recently sold
attack helicopters to the Sudanese government, which both the United
States and the United Nations have accused of genocide. "This report
reveals a litany of loopholes and destroyed lives," says Jeremy Hobbs,
director of Oxfam International, one of the member organizations of the
Campaign. "Arms companies are global, yet arms regulations are not, and
the result is the arming of abusive regimes. Europe and North America
are fast becoming the IKEA of the arms industry, supplying parts for
human-rights abusers to assemble at home, with the morals not included."
This trend in subcontracting the manufacture of weapons is fueled, in
part, by a rise in military budgets across the globe. While military
conflicts have been decreasing (a fact all too easily overlooked, given
the dominance of the Iraq war in the U.S. and international media),
military budgets have been trending upward and reached roughly $1
trillion in 2005, the highest figure in more than a decade. China,
India, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were among the countries that increased
their purchase of armaments. The United States government recently
indicated that it, too, might permanently expand the size of its
military. With an annual budget of around $400 billion, and 1.4 million
in personnel, the U.S. military is already the largest in the world.
According to the report, increased defense spending is itself a
problem. Military budgets are often in excess of legitimate need, and
defense spending diverts resources away from education and health.
Countries in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa spent
$22.5 billion on weapons in 2004, an 8% jump from 2003. With the same
amount of money, those countries could have enrolled every child in
their respective countries in school and reduced child mortality by
two-thirds by the year 2015.
One remedy to the situation would be a new international arms control
treaty based on already existing humanitarian, human rights, and
international criminal law. The treaty would set minimum global
standards for arms transfers and, if implemented correctly, still enable
the responsible manufacture and sale of arms for defense, policing, and
other vital missions. "Like much international law, the Treaty could be
most effectively enforced through a system of public oversight based on
regular reporting by states of their arms transfers. Legal review and
redress of cases through national judicial procedures should be used
where necessary," the report states.
A new global arms accord as extensive as the one the Campaign is
proposing might strike policy makers as wishful; after all, if
governments were able to reach agreements on subjects like weapons they
wouldn't feel the need to buy so many guns. Regardless, a precedent does
exist for international small arms control. Prior to 1997, roughly
26,000 people per year were killed or injured by land mines. The 1997
Ottawa Treaty has since brought that number down considerably.
"The only people who have an interest in the continued failure to
control the global arms trade are those who benefit from irresponsible
transfers. Everyone else, including ordinary people, most economic
actors, and almost every government, has an overwhelming interest in
ensuring the responsible and consistent regulation," the authors
conclude.
Source: "Arms Without Borders: Why Globalised Trade Needs
Global Controls" by edmund Cairns et al. The Control Arms Campagin:
Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms,
and Oxfam International. 2006. Available for download from
www.controlarms.org.
To order the print edition of the
March-April
2007 issue of THE FUTURIST ($4.95 plus $3 postage and handling) or to become a
member of the World
Future Society ($49 per year).
Send comments about our Web pages to:
webmaster@wfs.org
COPYRIGHT © 2007 WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY, 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 450, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814. Tel. 301-656-8274. E-mail info@wfs.org. Web site
http://www.wfs.org. All rights
reserved.
