CIAO DATE: 09/04

Relevant Now More than Ever

Rachel Stohl

Center for Defense Information

March 2003

The UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects was held July 9-20, 2001. These two weeks were filled with tense negotiations and lengthy discussions on the myriad of issues raised by the proliferation of small arms. In the end, many governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) left disappointed because the Program of Action (PoA) did not set a concrete agenda for future action. But despite its deficiencies, the PoA now stands to play a crucial role in world security, particularly in light of the new paradigms surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. This article demonstrates how the conference raised the profile of the small arms issue, highlighted the controversy surrounding small arms policy, established a way forward to counter the negative impacts of small arms proliferation, and emphasized the importance of preventing small arms from getting in the hands of terrorists.

Conference Debates

Small arms are the weapons of choice in the majority of today's ongoing conflicts. Small arms proliferation in these circumstances affects the livelihood of individuals, political stability, and economic development. The use of small arms leads to an estimated 500,000 deaths every year. The proliferation of small arms contributes to the development of humanitarian crises by fostering new crime cycles, augmenting violent conflict, and facilitating forced and voluntary migration. Small arms use further weakens fragile states, and puts legitimate troops at direct risk. In post-conflict situations, the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms endangers peacekeepers, diminishes national and multinational business opportunities, impedes the ability of humanitarian and relief organizations to conduct their efforts, and hampers sustainable development. In El Salvador, for example, the proliferation of small arms to various segments of the population led to a higher casualty rate after the decade-long civil war concluded than during the war itself. Controversy surrounding many of these issues weakened the outcome of the conference. Governments spent more time disagreeing on how to best address the consequences of small arms proliferation rather than creating a strong, concrete PoA. Further, while other issues-particularly civilian possession, transparency, and export controls-occupied negotiators long into the night, the most divisive issue was the role of non-state actors. The United States adamantly refused to allow any mention in the PoA of restricting small arms to non-state actors. Many African states took the opposite position, and the conference nearly collapsed because of an inability to find compromise language. (Only after the African states relented did the conference go forward.)

Relevance to Terrorism

No one at the time could have imagined the significance of the debate about restricting arms transfers to non-state actors. Now, as the United States wages its war on terrorism, arming non-state actors, such as the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, is part of the U.S. strategy and is consistent with U.S. national interest. Indeed, in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration initially proposed lifting a ban on the exportation of weapons to countries that persistently abuse human rights, refuse democracy, or support terrorism. Although the administration has backed away from this proposal, the United States continues to pursue the expeditious exportation of weapons to those groups and countries that will help stamp out terrorists. While the majority of countries at the conference spoke out against arming non-state actors, the current security environment has encouraged some countries to change their position. Russia, for example, is now openly arming the Northern Alliance and other countries may well follow suit and use the arming of non-state actors as part of the global strategy against terrorism.

Conference Criticisms

Critics of the conference maintain that participants failed to mandate a follow-up process to create legally binding standards and norms. The conference ignored current international legal obligations and also failed to codify these obligations. Further, member states could not agree to begin a process that would result in an international agreement creating norms controlling the activities of arms brokers and strengthening national laws to prosecute illicit arms-traffickers. In addition, the PoA contains no process to produce an international agreement on the marking and tracing of weapons. (Only a recommendation to conduct a UN feasibility study on marking and tracing was included in the PoA.) Standardizing export controls, preventing intermediaries from circumventing legal channels, and improving the tracing of the flow of weapons worldwide would not only deter the illegal transfer of small arms, but would also make it easier to apprehend and punish those that partake in such activities.

The Way Forward

Although the conference left many disappointed, there were some positive aspects. First, the PoA established a comprehensive approach to address the proliferation of small arms, including the recognition that proliferation causes grave humanitarian consequences. Second, the conference served to galvanize political, media, and public support for limiting the proliferation of small arms, a class of weapons often ignored. Third, the conference energized and mobilized NGOs to continue their work collaboratively on all aspects of the small arms issue. In that vein, the PoA will provide a framework for future action by NGOs and like-minded states.

Controlling the flow of small arms was not only an issue for the international community in July 2001; it is also an integral part of the current efforts to fight terrorism. Disarming ex-combatants, destroying surplus stockpiles of weapons to prevent their theft or diversion, maintaining strict criteria for small arms exports, and incorporating strict end-use monitoring, are all essential in controlling the proliferation of small arms to keep these weapons from ending up in the hands of terrorists.