Refugees and Asylum 31100

Global Disarmarment Week (24 - 31 October) is a fitting time to examine how the European Union is contributing to the thorny and intractable problems of arms control, says Peter Sain ley Berry

With global arms expenditures still running at around $2 billion per day despite the ending of the Cold War and with armed conflicts proceeding in 20 countries in Africa alone, it is not surprising that spending on arms is referred to as 'the single greatest perversion of global priorities' by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr Oscar Arias.

Although Europe collectively gives more development aid to the Third World than the USA and Japan combined, six EU member states - Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Sweden are also major suppliers of arms.

Arms and aid make uneasy bedfellows. About one third of all the economic assistance given as aid to the world's poorest countries is spent in the rich world's arms markets, according to information from the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress. Moreover, half the world's governments spend more on defence than they do on healthcare at a time when some 40,000 children die every day from lack of basic medical attention.

Two years ago the EU adopted a Code of Conduct for Arms Exports with a view to regulating arms sales. This is based on respecting eight criteria - EU and UN sanctions, human rights, absence of tensions or armed conflicts, preservation of regional peace, the security of member states themselves and their dependent territories, respect for international law, the risk of undesirable re-exports, and whether the buyer should be spending money on arms rather than on development.

If applied strictly this code would prohibit virtually all arms sales to the third world. There are precious few states neither subject to tension internally or at the regional level and which respect human rights and international law. And it is hard to argue that any which are need guns more than butter

On face value then the EU code seems ideal. In practice the devil is in the detail. The EU code only prohibits arms sales where there is 'a clear risk' of breaching some criteria and when other matters have been 'taken into account'. Even the wording of the human rights criterion is so broad as to be meaningless: 'exercise special caution ……case by case basis…..taking account of the nature of the equipment …..where serious violations of human rights have been established. (Author's italics). No arms manufacturer, no EU government, is likely to be seriously troubled by such clauses.

With the ending of the Cold War and the reduction in NATO defence budgets, arms manufacturers have been targeting the developing world. If these countries want arms, say the manufacturers, who are we to say they shouldn't have them? Here, the febrile EU code actually works to the arms manufacturers' advantage by providing a fig leaf of respectability for what Arias calls "enriching ourselves through the sale of death."

Arias asks "when one asserts that 'a country' wants arms, to whom exactly are we referring? Is it the single mother in Indonesia or the orphan who lives on a street in Egypt who are pressurising their leaders to buy tanks and missiles? Or is it a dictator…who sees arms purchases as the only way to maintain power? The poor of the world are crying out for schools and doctors, not guns and generals."

But say the manufacturers, if we don't sell arms, then someone else will and look at the jobs that will be lost, the profits given up, the taxes foregone.

That is precisely why Arias argues that an International Code of Arms Transfers is an urgent requirement. Such a Code was developed by a panel of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates under his leadership three years ago.

Whereas the EU Arms Code is permissive (all sales are permitted except where….), the Arias Code is restrictive (all arms sales are prohibited unless……..) The EU Code gives the freedom to member state governments to decide whether a certain type of arms sale would or would not pose 'a clear risk'. The Arias Code simply says that any country wishing to purchase arms must meet certain criteria, as a pre-condition.

These criteria include the promotion of democracy (so sales to dictators are simply not allowed), the protection of human rights, transparency in military spending. The Code would also prohibit arms sales to nations that support terrorism and to states involved in aggression against either their own people or other nations.

The list of eminent world statesmen and Peace Prize winners who have endorsed the Arias Code including Mikhail Gorbachev, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Lech Walesa, and ex-President Jimmy Carter. Sadly, the list of countries that have signed up to it is short. But there is evidence that the climate of world opinion is changing. The European Parliament is pressing for stronger controls on arms trade practices and only this week alled for EUR 200 million to be made available for action against anti-personnel landmines. That campaign was driven by NGOs who are also again driving governments on the issue of arms control, 600 of them in Europe alone.

According to Dr Arias, once in effect this International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers would prevent undemocratic governments from building sophisticated arsenals. Governments which systematically abuse internationally recognised human rights through practices such as torture or arbitrary executions would not receive military training. Countries who commit genocide would not be able to buy munitions. Governments engaged in armed aggression against other countries or peoples could not buy missiles. States that support terrorism would be prevented from acquiring weapons. In addition, all nations would be required to report their arms purchases to the United Nations.
The EU Code sets out, in its preamble to 'set high common standards'. The International Code - as proposed by Dr Arias would achieve them.

Back to home page

Use browser back button to view more articles in this category