EuropaWorld 13/7/2001 When It Comes to Controlling Illicit Arms, Both Europe and America Have an Agenda

Writing recently in the New York Times, the distinguished columnist Thomas L. Friedman, called the European Union 'America's ideal ally in a messy world.' Friedman's theme was that although there were differences in outlook between the US and the EU, the two were united on major issues, democracy, the rule of law, free markets and so on. Warming to his theme, Friedman even likened the EU to a second United States as a force for good in the world.

It is always agreeable to receive the compliments of friends although we shouldn't exactly be swept away on a flood of euphoria. While Europe certainly agrees with the United States on many of the fundamentals, the differences cannot be swept aside quite so easily. There are many issues on which we look forward to our transatlantic cousins becoming more European in outlook and, well, less American. Gun control is one of them.

These differences between the American and the European view of the world were on show again this week in New York as the United Nations got down to the serious task of attempting to agree measures to control the enormous volumes of small arms and light weapons washing around the world. For the next two weeks representatives of over 100 governments will debate measures to curb the illicit trade in portable weapons that the UN estimate to have been responsible for some 4 millions deaths in the past ten years.

The World Body reckons that there are some 500 million of these arms hidden away in the nooks and crannies of the developing world - the leftovers of countless wars and conflicts. There are thought to be 10 million guns in Afghanistan alone and the quantity of surplus but lethal ironmongery in several African countries - Somalia is a good example - would equip every young male with an assault rifle or a pistol, a machine gun or a grenade launcher.

These are the weapons that kill by far the largest numbers of people in the conflicts that rage through the towns, plains and forests of the developing world. And the people that they kill and maim are nine times more likely to be civilians - mainly women and children - than soldiers. Cheapness of weapons leads to cheapness of life, which is why the delegates to the UN Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons will make strenuous efforts to arrive at broad international agreements on the supply, traceability and destruction of such weapons.

The European Union, speaking through Foreign Minister Louis Michel of Belgium - which for the next six months holds the EU's rotating presidency - has promised total co-operation with the UN's efforts, building on the agreements the EU has already managed to put in place among its fifteen member states.

The United States, on the other hand, and with one ear to its own powerful gun lobby, has voiced its reservations over any international agreement that might restrict the right of citizens anywhere to hold such weapons legally. As a result no binding international treaty will emerge from this conference, not that the gun-runners and the traffickers have ever taken much notice of treaties.

In fact both the US and the EU have an agenda which, if not totally hidden, they would still prefer to keep obscure. 500 million surplus and illegal weapons do not grow on trees. The vast majority were manufactured in the ordnance factories of Europe and America. And this trade continues. Each working day up to £10 million worth of small arms pours out of these factories - an export trade worth some £2 billion a year. Of which America takes 60 per cent and Europe 40.

Few are suggesting an end to arms manufacturing. Just as well, neither Europe nor America are prepared to see their profitable arms manufacturers put out of business. Yet it is clear that with such a flood of new weapons reaching the market, world stocks of small arms are inevitably going to increase, with many continuing to find their way into illicit hands. UN Conference notwithstanding, gun law will rule unless and until some very tough international trading rules are put in place, and which bite on the manufacturers.

Arms can be regarded as a form of pollution and the principle of the polluter paying for potential or actual environmental degradation is well established. Why should arms be exempt? The arms manufacturer cannot be allowed to operate in a political vacuum with no responsibility for how his products are used. Even if first use is strictly controlled, the arms manufacturer should have a responsibility for his product through all subsequent uses until the weapon is destroyed. The only way to ensure this is to demand that for every new gun sold, the purchaser has to provide one, if not two, obsolete weapons in exchange.

UN Secretary-General specifically set his sights on the manufacturers in a pre-conference address. "These arms are doing incredible damage in cities, in war-torn areas and I hope we can get the manufacturers and governments to work with us in controlling the flow of these illicit arms," he said. However, the UN has been at pains to stress that it is the illicit trade that is being targeted and that the UN Charter forbids it to intervene in matters which are the subject of a member state's own domestic legislation, such as the right of American citizens, for example, to keep firearms.

Europe has been one of the driving forces behind the desire to control small arms. As Louis Michel said in his address 'public opinion is expecting us to act.' He means European public opinion of course. Over small arms as over climate change and the use of the death penalty, public opinion in Europe differs radically from that of the United States.