END THE ARMS BAZAAR: SUPPORT AN INTERNATIONAL CODE OF CONDUCT October 1998
As you read this, 28 wars are raging across the world—and 90% of their casualties are civilians.
Over 25 million people have been killed in conflicts since the end of World War II. Yet rather than pursuing real disarmament, our governments are spending over US$2 billion every single day on armies and weapons. And regimes that abuse human rights are eagerly supplied by the world's arms producers.
People have worried for years about the dangers of nuclear weapons—and rightly so, but much less is heard of the huge stocks of ‘conventional’ non-nuclear weapons. An irresponsible global arms race is fueling human rights abuses, destabilising whole regions and undermining sustainable development. A commission of Nobel Peace Prize winners have proposed an International Code of Conduct to control global weapons sales and they need your support now.
An irresponsible global arms trade—mostly from rich to poor countries—is fueling human rights abuses, destabilising whole regions and undermining sustainable development. At the same time, the world’s most powerful governments are spending vast sums on their own military hardware.
The proliferation of ‘small arms’—guns, grenades, mines, rifles and mortars—are responsible for most of the casualties of modern warfare. Small arms can be easily smuggled, and are recycled from one war-zone to another. Almost anyone with money can buy them. Dictatorships like Indonesia, Burma and Iraq have all been able to purchase vast quantities of such weapons—to use against their own people.
Confronting this problem requires internationally-agreed rules governing weapons sales—rules which put human life above profit. Recently, a commission of Nobel Peace Prize winners, led by Dr Oscar Arias, the former President of Costa Rica, have drafted an International Code of Conduct governing arms sales. The ‘Arias Plan’, which has received high-profile support, proposes a binding set of international rules governing weapons sales which would be endorsed by the world’s governments.
The Code of Conduct stipulates that any country wishing to buy arms must meet certain criteria, including respect for democracy and human rights. It would prohibit arms sales to regimes that support terrorism or are engaged in war with their neighbours. It would put an end to the arming of brutal dictators, genocidal despots and oppressive regimes by the weapons-producing nations.
A strong Code of Conduct is just a first step. To prevent war and end the huge waste of money on weapons, we need to demilitarise international relations. To do this, governments need to agree on an international programme to steadily reduce all types of weapons, while building up the capacity of the UN to keep the peace.
In fact, 186 countries have signed an agreement—the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—which commits all signatories to pursue negotiations on “a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” In other words, our governments have already agreed to start work on real disarmament. Now it's time they did.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please write to one or more of your representatives in your national parliament or congress. Ask them to urge your government to:
• Publicly announce its support for the International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, and press for the adoption of the Code by all countries;
• Call for negotiations to begin on a treaty to steadily reduce all types of weapons worldwide, as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
What is the arms trade?
Military spending in industrialised countries is down from its Cold War peak. But in the face of declining domestic demand, arms producers are continually seeking out new markets—largely in the developing world. The latest figures show that the international arms trade grew by 12% in 1997. What is truly unsettling is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, supposedly responsible for maintaining global peace and security, account for 85% of weapons exports.
Irresponsible arms sales can have devastating effects. Recent television pictures from Indonesia have shown British-supplied tanks, armoured vehicles and water cannon being used to suppress pro-democracy demonstrations. The situation in the Gulf is a stark reminder of how western countries armed Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, only to have their weapons turned against them. And war rages in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, drawing in Angola, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe, as precious resources for health and education are diverted to buy arms and ammunition.
How can the arms trade be curbed?
The Nobel Peace Prize-winner and former President of Costa Rica, Dr Oscar Arias, has called military spending “the single most significant perversion of global priorities”. He estimates that US$780 billion was spent on the military in 1997—the figures in the factbox below give some idea of what else that money could be spent on.
Dr Arias is leading a commission of Nobel Peace Prize-winners which has drafted a proposal for an International Code of Conduct on arms transfers. The Commission includes Amnesty International, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Guatemalan human rights activist Rigoberta Menchu, East Timorese leader Jose Ramos-Horta, and the Dalai Lama. The Code of Conduct seeks to prevent exports to regions of instability, and to human rights abusers, dictators and military aggressors, by laying out criteria which governments should meet in order to be eligible for arms transfers. It also aims to promote greater transparency and accountability in the arms trade. All countries that adopt the Code would introduce national legislation and regulations to ensure its implementation and enforcement at the national level. Ultimately it is hoped that the International Code of Conduct will be adopted by the General Assembly at the United Nations.
In June 1998, the countries of the European Union agreed upon a regional Code of Conduct on arms transfers. In it they agree to not export weapons to countries if there is “a clear risk” they could be used for internal repression; if they would provoke or prolong armed conflicts; or if they will hamper sustainable development in the recipient country. The EU Code has been criticised for being too vague: unlike the proposed Arias Code, it does not lay out a long and specific list of “don'ts”, and merely requires nations to “take account” of the arms they export to countries with poor human rights records. But while the EU Code has its faults, it is at least evidence that many countries can agree on guidelines and principles relating to the arms trade.
The next step needs to be the adoption of the Arias Commission’s Code of Conduct by as many as possible of the world’s governments—particularly the major arms suppliers. This will help put an end to irresponsible arms sales that threaten lives and freedom for the sake of profit.
What about the existing national arsenals —including those of the big powers?
A strong Code of Conduct is only a first step. It is equally important to address the huge existing stockpiles of weapons in all parts of the world, which include literally hundreds of thousands of tanks and missiles, tens of thousands of combat aircraft and thousands of warships.
As long as we live in an international system where each nation is armed to the teeth and free to attack others at any time, we are unlikely to achieve lasting peace.
And world military expenditures—more than two thirds of which are spent by the Northern industrialized countries—represent an obscene waste of resources which are desperately needed for priorities such as protecting the environment and meeting human needs.
What has been done so far about conventional disarmament?
Chemical and biological weapons have been banned by two separate treaties which have been signed by most of the world’s governments. Nuclear weapons have also been regulated by various agreements and nuclear arms reduction treaties, though the nuclear powers show no serious interest in eliminating their weapons. Efforts towards conventional disarmament have been still more limited.
Recently, two measures have been agreed to reduce conventional weapons. The 1990 treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe cut the levels of military hardware stationed in Europe. And the 1997 Ottawa Convention, although not signed by China, Russia or the US (the major land mine producers and exporters), was a significant step on the road to ridding the world of land mines. This treaty demonstrates that non-governmental groups and governments of small or middle-sized countries can accomplish a great deal without waiting for the militarily powerful countries to go along. Another land mine treaty process is also underway in Geneva. While it aims at more modest reductions of land mines than those agreed in the Ottawa Convention, it has been signed by the major landmine producers and exporters.
In the early 1960s, there were detailed negotiations on a treaty for "general and complete disarmament" between the United States and the Soviet Union. The two sides even produced a "Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations," laying out the essential requirements for a treaty, and the statement was endorsed by the full UN General Assembly. While the governments negotiating may not have been entirely serious to start with, for a short period the talks took on a new urgency after the two sides almost stumbled into a world war in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. That sense of urgency quickly faded, however, with the assassination of President Kennedy and the removal of Chairman Khrushchev.
What needs to be done?
US/Soviet tensions up until 1990 meant that any reduction in the conventional forces of the major powers was very unlikely. But now that has changed and the world has an excellent opportunity to devise a serious integrated approach to global conventional disarmament.
In fact, when 186 governments signed the legally binding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), first drawn up in 1968, they committed themselves to pursue global conventional disarmament. Article VI of the NPT commits signatory states to pursue negotiations on “a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” It is worth remembering, when politicians scoff at the idea of a largely disarmed world, that they have already promised to deliver one.
A coalition of NGOs, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, have recently developed a far-reaching programme which offers one way to achieve worldwide disarmament. Known as ‘Global Action To Prevent War’, it combines stepped-up conflict prevention by the UN, a strengthening of the international rule of law and successive cuts in conventional forces and weapons worldwide. These aims would be fulfilled over a period of thirty years, and would become international law through the signing of four separate treaties.
The first treaty would set up an international mediation service, and lay the foundations for a standing UN force which could act if necessary to prevent military aggression or genocide. Successive treaties would steadily reduce levels of weaponry while building up the UN's capacity to provide an alternative source of security. (For more information on Global Action to Prevent War, see the website: www.idds.org or contact the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies (IDDS), 675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA, Tel: +1 617 354-4337, Fax: +1 617 354-1450, email: globalaction@idds.org)
We have a long way to go before such a programme is implemented in its entirety, but if we want the next century to be less violent than the last, it is time to start.
For additional information about the International Code of Conduct contact:
Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress
Apartado 8-6410-1000, San José, Costa Rica
Tel: 506 255-2955, Fax: 506 255-2244,
email: info (at) arias.or.cr, website: www.arias.or.cr
KEY FACTS
• How big is a billion? If you were to count by one number every second, without stopping, it would take you 11-and-a-half days to reach one million, and 32 years to reach one billion.
• The world spends US$780 billion every year on maintaining its military and buying new weapons —that’s $2.1 billion every day.
• Dr Oscar Arias estimates that if just 5% ($40 billion) of that annual $780 billion were channeled into anti-poverty programmes over the next decade, the whole world could have basic social services.
• A further 5% over ten years could provide everybody on the planet with an income above the poverty line.
• u UNICEF estimates that spending just $7 billion a year for the next decade could educate every child on Earth.
• Half the world’s governments spend more on the military than on health care.
• Industrialised countries account for 93% of all weapons exports. The USA alone accounts for over half of that.
• 72% of all US arms sales in 1993 went to developing countries. Of those weapons, almost half went to countries that were not democracies.
• The $200 million that has been spent on weapons by the warring sides in Afghanistan over three years could have built 400 rural hospitals, or educated 200,000 children.
Sources: Arias Commission, UNICEF, US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military and Social Expenditures 1995, UNDP