by Rachel Stohl & Rhea Myerscough

While the threat of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction dominates the international security agenda, the trade in conventional weapons — which encompasses everything from handguns to fighter aircraft — is busy fueling today's wars, killing hundreds of thousands of people every year, and causing immeasurable human suffering.

The conventional arms trade is a multi-billion dollar business, dominated by a few major players. In 2005, global arms transfer agreements totaled $44.2 billion, 75% of which were concluded by the five permanent members (P-5) of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom). The P-5 was also responsible for 79% of the $25.4 billion in global arms deliveries completed in 2005. The United States has dominated the post-Cold War arms trade. The United States alone was responsible for 29% of all arms transfer agreements and 46% of all arms deliveries in 2005.

Since 2001, the United States has rewarded support of US policies and missions in Afghanistan and Iraq with increased arms transfers, in many cases providing weapons to states that the United States has criticized for human rights violations, lack of democracy, and prior support of terrorism. An analysis of 25 key US allies in the “war on terror” reveals that, not only has US military assistance has increased across the board, but many countries have already received more total military assistance in the four years after Sept. 11, than in the 12 previous years combined. On average, countries have received 50% more US weaponry and military training in post-September 11 years than in pre-September 11 years.
Although government procurement and military build-ups necessitate the transfer of big-ticket conventional weapons such as armored tanks and attack helicopters, the majority of fighting in the intrastate conflicts of the post-Cold War world has been done with small arms and light weapons. These weapons include everything from pistols to shoulder-fired missiles to mortars to rocket propelled grenades. Small arms appeal to all warring parties-including government actors, terrorists, insurgents and criminals–because they are cheap, portable, concealable, easy to use, extremely lethal, widely available, incredibly durable, and have legitimate uses by militaries, police, and civilians.

Thus, the 648 million small arms already in circulation, and the 8 million more produced every year, are wreaking havoc across the globe. Not only are these weapons responsible for the hundreds of thousands of conflict deaths and thousands of conflict-related injuries every year, but also an additional 200,000 non-conflict deaths, which range from murders to accidents to suicides. The United States spends around $150 million dollars each year covering the public health costs of gun violence.

The legal small arms market, worth $4 billion a year, and involving in more than 90 countries, is supplemented by a lucrative illicit small arms trade worth an additional $1 billion a year. Small arms in particular fuel or reignite conflicts, provide tools for criminal violence, and disrupt attempts at peace-building and post-conflict development.
Both major conventional weapons and small arms are available for purchase on legal or black markets. In fact, the majority of weapons sold on the black market are weapons that were legally transferred at one time, but have been diverted. Weapons can be diverted to the black market through a variety of routes: violation of regional or international sanctions and embargoes, looting of national arsenals, theft and loss of government or civilian weapons, sale for cash by soldiers, individuals buying weapons legally and reselling them illegally, and craft production. Weapons on the black market tend to follow conflicts. In West Africa, for example, weapons and fighters moved from Liberia, first to Sierra Leone, then to Cote D'Ivoire, and finally on to Guinea, fueling regional instability in every country.

Unlike weapons of mass destruction, no single treaty addresses the conventional weapons trade. Further, one single treaty would not be sufficient to stem the proliferation and misuse of these weapons. Initiatives must be undertaken at the national, regional, and global levels that complement each other and address different aspects of the arms trade and its impacts. The most effective initiatives will be those that simultaneously control the supply of weapons, take potentially destabilizing stocks out of circulation, end misuse of weapons, and address demand.

Three treaties have been proposed by governments and non-governmental organizations to control the supply of small arms by creating and implementing firm international controls, including regulations and standards for arms exports and export criteria. The first is a convention on international arms transfers that sets out normative export criteria based on states' current obligations under international law, known as the Arms Trade Treaty. A UN resolution passed in December 2006 authorized the start of the process for developing such a treaty in 2008. The second is an international agreement on brokering that creates international laws and procedures that discipline the activities of arms brokers and strengthens national laws to prosecute traffickers who violate these norms. The third is an international agreement that develops systems for adequate and reliable marking of arms at manufacture and/or import and record-keeping on arms production, possession and transfer, so countries can keep track of who is shipping weapons where and through which third-party countries.
Beyond these treaties, states can work together to ensure that weapons are only legally transferred to responsible and legitimate end-users. These kinds of activities range from adhering to arms embargoes, strengthening oversight of existing national laws and weapons stockpiles, developing a common international end-use certificate and other shipping documents, as well as effective end-use monitoring, and improving cooperation within and between states to more efficiently stem uncontrolled arms proliferation.

In addition to preventing new weapons from entering the black market, destruction of surplus or obsolete weapons is also a crucial step towards controlling the arms trade. Insecurely stockpiled weapons can easily find their way to the black market, unless destroyed or safely managed and secured. The United States has spent $27 million since 2001 to destroy approximately 900,000 small arms and light weapons and over 80 million pieces of ammunition in 25 countries. The US State Department began its small arms destruction efforts in fiscal year 2001 (FY 01), with a budget of $2 million, with which it funded destruction projects in four countries. The most recent budget requested for worldwide small arms destruction, however, provides a six-fold increase, with $44.7 million requested for the coming fiscal year. This increase reflects the new emphasis on Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) destruction–since this new focus began in 2004, US programs have destroyed over 18,600 MANPADS in 17 countries.

An additional component to supply-side control strategies are disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programs, which collect weapons from ex-combatants and armed gangs following an armed conflict, and then destroy or safely store these weapons to prevent future theft or misuse. Weapons collection and buy-back programs can also prevent arms proliferation and violent crime in communities with destabilizing buildups of weapons.
Beyond controlling supply, it is also important to make sure weapons already in circulation are not misused. Weapons must be properly licensed and law enforcement and military personnel must be properly trained in the internationally accepted codes of conduct for weapons use and held fully accountable to citizens, parliament and the judiciary.

Reducing the demand for weapons is another key control component. States or individuals acquire weapons for many different reasons, from ensuring personal security to acquiring territory or resources, while also influenced by price and availability. Demand-reduction strategies should also be linked to security sector reform be built into existing arms control programs, such as DDR, and provide incentives for giving up weapons. Although every situation is unique and demand for weapons depends on particular political, societal and cultural circumstances, some broad-spectrum conclusions can be reached. In general, demand-oriented control policies must establish methods other than armed violence by which money, security and power may be achieved. Such strategies may include such disparate facets as institution building, enhancing economic development and social welfare and judicial reform.

Controlling the conventional arms trade is a challenging issue for policy-makers and concerned activists. However, rather than focusing on one catch-all solution, several approaches to controlling the conventional arms trade can be undertaken concurrently and in fact, no one solution would be sufficient to address to multi-faceted impacts of the trade in conventional arms in general and small arms in particular. Implementing practical and lasting solutions will take time, creativity, and the participation of many different actors, but the hundreds of thousands of people affected by this deadly trade every year need practical solutions. Their lives depend on them.

---

Rachel Stohl is Senior Analyst at the World Security Institute's Center for Defense Information and co-author of The Small Arms Trade (Oneworld, 2006). Rhea Myerscough is Research Assistant at CDI. For more information, contact CDI, 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036; www.cdi.org.