"Use of Small Arms- Big Hindrance to World Peace"
Meet held at Kolkata on 7 June 2003 by
SASANET-India (Kolkata) jointly with
War Resisters' International (WRI-India)
War Resisters' International-India (WRI) together with SASA Net had organized a one day seminar entitled "Illicit trafficking and Use of Small Arms- A big Hindrance to World Peace" to echo the growing concern over the ever rising use of small arms and illicit trafficking involved behind it.
The programme was held at the spacious campus of Nitika Programme Centre in Calcutta on 7th of June 2003, Saturday. The meeting was well represented by nearly 40 participants from NGO sector and friends from different walks of life. Apart from NGO representatives, who are naturally concerned about this issue, there were representatives from Media, persons dealing with international relations, Chartered Accountants, people from literary circle and a considerable number of youth representatives.
The programme began at 9.00 a.m. After the formal registration, the main programme began at around 10.00 a.m following a tea-break. Each participant was given a side bag with reading materials and hand-outs on the issue of small arms. To make the participants well prepared for the issue and to get things across more clearly each participant was given documents relating to SASANet and the cause of concern for small arms along with the letter of invitation that they had received.
The proceedings for the day started with a brief introduction to the issue by Mr.Diptendu Mukherji of WRI (India) who felt that the issue of small arms was a newer area of concern than other issues that we are normally concerned about like that of environment but the post-war situations have led us to believe that it is not just big bombs or missiles which cause war but small arms in the hands of anybody and everybody have led the world to a situation of perpetual violence and he felt that it was time we not just be concerned about the issue but start acting towards a solution of the problem.
followed next and gave a brief introduction to SASANet and its areas of concern, War Resisters' International (WRI) was also introduced as an international body committed to fight against war and violence in a non-violent manner.
was the next guest speaker. Dr. Bhattacharya is a professor of the International Relationship department of the Jadavpur University of Calcutta. She rightly pointed out that today there is a lot of talk about weapons of Mass destruction but the fact is that these weapons are rarely used and in the meanwhile the proliferation of small arms, which is going on everyday, is escaping everyone's view. She felt that Small Arms which was in a state of proliferation in the post cold-war era is now in a state of diffusion - not only in the hands of state army but also private army and militia. Detailing on the issues of illicit trafficking, especially in the context of South East Asia Dr. Bhattacharya rightly stated that it was not always that illicit trafficking takes place without the knowledge of law-making authorities, it also happens that that state are often accused of handing over small arms to various factions to curb insurgencies which in turn begin to change hands and reach every corner of the state. She also explained how porous border areas, like that between India and Bangladesh, make trafficking of small arms possible and difficult to curb. Moreover, she felt, the growing tendency of people to incline towards a particular ethnic, religious community has made trading of small weapons possible. Sometimes political arithmetic results in the proliferation of small arms in common hands. Dr. Bhattacharya cited the example of the accusation of how the LTTEs, fighting for their rights in Sri Lanka, were trained in handling small weapons by the Indian army. She echoed the general feeling that small arms trade and use would continue as long as the economic balance, political balance of the countries do not change and the people do not urge the law-makers to take concrete examples. (We have provided the full text of her paper in this booklet)
, representing the voice of media, from The Telegraph-Anandabazaar group of newspaper, elaborated on how the media glorify violence and use of arms through newspaper or television. She felt that the gory faces of violence, though repulsive for the senses, are true pictures of reality. Speaking on her experiences at local level she boldly spoke on how politicians are involved in handing over illegal weapons to criminals as well as their party members to 'carry out the needful'. She cited how weapons are produced at local levels - with ordinary pipes in ordinary factory sheds or households, on the other hand how dismantled AK-47 s, Pipeguns etc. arrive from areas like Burma in ships and are then fixed and sold in markets to criminals and others. Ms Goswami sarcastically commented that journalists know a lot of truth but are often 'briefed' by their editors on 'how to go about writing the article' - explaining what to omit and which facts to keep intact because most media are biased . Her examples of illicit trafficking startled all when she revealed how old women and children are often used as mediums to carry the illicit trafficking because they are cheap to 'handle' as well as do not arouse much of suspicion; she also gave an example of how once such trafficking was caught when arms were being transported by ambulance from one area to another. She felt that the only way to curb this would be to empower people to force authorities to take necessary action; stronger action, she felt, would also encourage the public to shun fear and report to the authorities about . (We have included her paper in this booklet)
, explained the problem from an NGO perspective. According to him the factions that are being created the world over perpetuate a lot of violence and encourage the youth to take up arms. As an example he cited the recent Godhra carnage where localized small arms like knives, pistols were used to kill each other due to the creation of Hindu and Muslim factions. He felt that such use of small arms are actually promoted by interested political parties and questioned that when the law makers themselves give small arms how is it possible to curb illicit trafficking? He emphasized on a stronger role for the NGOs as a watch dog to see that such division into ethnic, religious groups do not arise which would promote illegal usage of arms.
, a New Delhi based NGO, looking at the problem from a social perspective, claimed that the trafficking and usage of small arms have increased manifold because we have unknowingly fallen prey to media glorification of gun-violence. She felt that we are constantly exposing our children and youth to violent movies or action games which initiate a fondness for small arms- the youth begin to associate possession of these guns with power. We, as parents, also help perpetuate violence by offering toy guns to children as gifts. She said that the action against small arms should start from the level of children and as parents we must instill such values that they do not take up guns and instead help fight gun violence.
, explained the whole thing in the light of economic situation. He explained how a major bulk of economy of the so called first world countries depend on arms trade, especially to the poorer third world nations. There is a huge demand for small arms because there is a huge supply of small arms by the bigger nations. Illegal trafficking is also promoted by them not just to obtain political stronghold through unethical means but also to obtain a bulk of money. He stressed that most youth get involved in this kind of trafficking because they find an easy substitute for obtaining jobs, which is rarely available. Mr. Majumdar felt that root cause of the problem lied with the disbalance in global economy. He pointed out that illegal usage of small arms is very grave in South Asia because low per capita income compels the people to involve in illicit trafficking of arms which involves fat compensations. Bigger countries, he stressed, often support warring factions and supply small arms with the motive of taking economic control over the situation. He concluded that unless this root problem is attended to there would be no quick fix solution to the problem.
, raised the issue of rising political violence and use of small arms in the villages as seen in the recently concluded Panchayat election in the state. Women are thrust into a precarious state in any violent situation, shouldering the burden of rebuilding a disjointed family and bearing the pain of her own intense psychological trauma. She cited the example of a village in South 24 Parganas where young girls from most of the families are in red light area and the menfolk are seen with guns, roaming around freely. She felt that there is a link between rise of violence, social break down and erosion of values. She stressed on the need to create public awareness on the issue through electronic and print media.
attributed the problem to the growing number of displaced people in any area. As an example he cited how Kasba-Tiljala region in Calcutta, notorious for criminal activities and illicit exchange of small arms have a large number of displaced people settled there from Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries. The recent terrorist attack on the American Centre in Calcutta, after investigation, trailed back to this very region where the youth were locally supplied with arms. He pointed out that the problem with displaced people was two fold - their need for an identity in terms of power and their need for money- both of which compel them to participate in trading and usage of small arms.
Discussing about the UN Conference of July 2001, it was felt that though late, it is good that atleast there has developed a need to put a control on arms trade. But, as Dr.Sanjukta Bhattacharya pointed out, there is always a lack of proper zeal when it comes to implementation. It has been nearly two years since the July 2001 conference but how far has the implementation been made possible. The general feeling was that, though there may be trade laws regarding arms but what about the huge number of military surplus which are being made available? Is there any stringent law to regulate these? Moreover it was felt that while describing small arms there is no proper guideline to decide which weapons come under small arms and which do not. For instance indigenous arms like bows, arrows, bushels, knives are not specifically termed as small arms but in areas like Africa, India or Afganisthan these arms pose great threats once they are in wrong hands.
There is another big problem as to keeping account of the total number of legal weapons available - no country actually maintains these records. Unless that is done no resolution can be implemented. There was also concern on how irregularities at the border level result in the illicit trafficking- how can UN ensure that these cross border trade would be curbed? Another very pertinent question, which comes up in the post-war scenario is -how far would UN be able to enforce its member countries in following the guidelines? US attack on Iraq has made people hesitant in understanding the role of UN as a serious Peace-keeping body. And lastly it was felt that how would the UN be able to curb state sponsored violence which makes maximum usage of small arms?
The post lunch session dealt on the solutions which was possible as individuals, as families and as state to curb illicit trafficking and usage of small arms. The discussion took place in groups and the following resolutions emerged following the discussions:
The programme concluded with distribution of T-Shirts depicting the need to stop gun violence sponsored by IANSA. The participants felt that this was a unique way one could communicate the problem to others without speaking a word.
ILLICT TRAFFICKING AND USE OF SMALL ARMS AND ITS EFFECTION SECURITY AND WORLD PEACE
Sanjukta Bhattacharya
Department of international Relations
Jadavpur University, Calcutta
(Paper presented at a seminar on "Illicit Trafficking and Use of Small Arms and Consequent Hindrance to World Peace", organized by War Resisters International (WRI-India) and South Asia Small Arms Network (India), on 7 June 2003.
"The proliferation of small arms and munitions and explosions has ....aggravated the violence associated with terrorism and organized crime. Even in societies not beset by civil wars, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability. These, in turn, have damaged development prospects and imperiled human security in every way."
-Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General
All over the world today, one of the issues of greatest concern is that of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), chemical, biological and nuclear. These, though they have the potential to cause vast destruction, are, because of that very fact, rarely used. On the other hand, small arms which are proliferating every day, cause immense damage to life and property on a continuous basis in many countries. According to the International Network on Small Arms, there have been 2,12,350 gun deaths since 1 January 2003, that is, in the course of only five months. The actual figures may be even higher, because many deaths go unreported especially in war zones or unstable areas where the administrative apparatus may not be working properly.
Data collected by Oxfam on deaths in modern conflicts revealed that 80 percent of all casualties are reportedly civilians and 90 percent of these deaths are caused by small arms. An estimated 500 million small arms and light weapons are floating around in the world today. These weapons can usually last a long time and need little maintenance; they can linger on for years after a given conflict and surface where they are needed at any other point of time. In my paper, I will try to analyze how these small and light weapons can cause insecurity, hinder smooth transitions to more peaceful societies, and affect security and peace all over the world. Secondly, I will also attempt to show that it is not only illicit arms trafficking but also states, who through their policies of arms transfers and trade, add to the problems created by the easy availability of small arms.
First, however, what do we mean by small arms? According to the NATO forces policy, small arms are "all crew-portable weapons of a caliber less than 50 mm and include a secondary capability to defeat light armour and helicopters". Some of the direct fire weapons which fall under this category are pistols, rifles, anti-tank weapons, machine guns of all sizes and rocket propelled grenade dischargers. Beyond the parameters of the NATO definition, however, there are larger but eminently portable weapons, for instance, shoulder fired weapons like surface-to-air missiles (Sums), and others like howitzers, rocket launchers and light anti-tank weapons. Though these come into the category of light weapons and not small arms, I am including them in this study in view of their large scale use by non-state actors. Of a different genre are anti-personnel mines and specially crafted explosive devices using RDX or some other substance. These too, can cause mayhem and anarchy and destabilize a state and should also come simultaneously under scrutiny. All these are of utmost importance because not only can they lead to insecurity but also change the foreign policy focus of states.
The next question is, how do these small arms create insecurity in a state? To answer this, a brief historical perspective is necessary. During the Cold War period, transfer of arms was from a handful of major industrial powers, both of the East and the West, mainly to developing countries of the Third World. Driven by the urge to find allies in the Third World, the United States (U.S.) as well as the Soviet Union and some of their camp followers, and later on, China in the capacity of an independent actor, aided in the proliferation of small arms and light weapons through overt or covert transfers. Sometimes these were in the form of arms aid or arms sales, but often support, entailing covert transfer of arms, was given to warring factions in internal conflicts. A classic example of this is Angola in the 1980s. The Soviet Union is estimated to have sent around $2 billion worth of arms every year to prop up the MPLA (the Movement for the Popular Liberation of Angola). Apart from conventional weaponry, it sent SA-14 and SA-16 surface-to-air missiles. The U.S., to counter the growing popularity/strength of the Soviet Union in the region, supported the rival faction, the UNITA (National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola), and though the arms the Americans initially sent were mainly AK-47s produced in Hungary, Romania and China, captured from other wars, after 1986, as a part of President Reagan's roll back doctrine, American made Stinger SAMs were also included in the package.
Another example is Nicaragua, where the United States, first openly and then clandestinely, supported the Contras against the Sandinistas. The illicit transfer of arms, of which President Reagan claimed later to know nothing, led to the Iran-Contra scandal, which involved a complex transfer of arms, first legally from the U.S. to Israel, which then sold these under dubious circumstances to Iran, which did not have diplomatic relations with the U.S., and the money from this sale was sent, with CIA involvement, to a secret account in Switzerland, which was then used by the CIA to fund secret arms transfers to the Contras. All this clandestine circumnavigation was done because the U.S. Congress had put a ban on arms aid to the Contras after the CIA had helped to mine Nicaragua's harbour. The result of the huge inflow of arms to Nicaragua was that it continued to fuel the civil war in the country for years until, in fact, both the Soviet Union and the United States stopped supporting their respective clients at the end of the Cold War.
With the end of the Cold War, the prime motive which drove the superpowers to deliver arms to Third World clients no longer exists, that is, superpower competition does not drive the arms trade with the Third World in the current phase of international relations. One of the fall outs was the end of some conflicts which had been fuelled by arms supplied by the superpowers like, for example, Nicaragua, and to a lesser extent, Cambodia. But, at the same time, the end of the Cold War also resulted in a lessening of constraints as well as support which the superpowers had exercised over their respective clients, and new conflicts, earlier suppressed primarily because of the power of rulers or regimes propped up by the United States or the Soviet Union, emerged. Today, many states are dealing with insurgent and separatist low intensity conflicts. As such, they seek weapons more suited to counter-insurgency operations than for defense against external threats, that is, small arms. Also, in many areas, non-state actors like drug cartels and local warlords apart from insurgent and separatist forces, have emerged as major consumers of arms. In the past decade or so, there appears, therefore, to be a major increase in the demand for small and light weapons.
While the demand for these items has grown, there has been an increase in supply as well. Here, I would like to bring in kind of theoretical model to explain the link between supply of arms and global violence. During the Cold War, one can talk about a proliferation of small arms, which means an increase in the number of weapons possessed by governments, but now there appears to be a diffusion of these items, which suggests a dispersion of arms within societies. It is not merely governments and state owned entities which possess these arms but non-state actors like private militias and criminal organizations. Although arms races between regional rival states do continue, though to a lesser extent, today there is a growing incidence of arms races between ethnic, religious and insurgent groups. The earlier concern was about local arms races erupting in inter-state war like the Ogaden war between Somali groups and Ethiopia in 1977-78; the current concern is more with the human toll resulting from intra-state conflict of different types and the sense that no society is free from the threat of armed violence. And one reason for this is the greater dispersion of cheap arms within societies.
This, in fact, has been termed as the Diffusion/Global Violence model by an eminent professor of peace studies, Michael T. Klare. This model is especially helpful in strategic analysis because it helps us to understand that regional and international security is most at risk when the diffusion of small arms and global violence converge. That is to say, the risk of global violence is greatest where the diffusion of arms coincides with the fragmentation of societies along ethnic, tribal, caste, linguistic or other similar lines. As confrontation and competition between social groups within a society increase, the very diffusion of small arms enhances the possibility that antagonistic confrontations will lead to violence. Here, let me cite the example of Rwanda. The Hutu government of President Habyarimana, pressurized by the United Nations to sign a power sharing accord at Arusha with the rival Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) led by Tutsi exiles who had launched an attack on Rwanda from Uganda in 1991, began to act at another level in an attempt to preserve Hutu supremacy in the government by arming private Hutu militias, significantly the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi. Matters reached a head when a plane carrying Habyarimana as well as the President of Burundi exploded over Kigali airport under dubious circumstances. This set the scene for a systematic killing of especially Tutsi citizens which resulted in a genocide of an estimated 700,000 people, the total destabilization of the country leading to a RPF victory and the exodus of around two million Hutu refugees. There had been massacres of Tutsis earlier in Rwanda but never on this scale. This was made possible largely because of the arming of the militias. Although primitive weapons were also used, small arms were the weapons of choice. The continued presence of such arms makes the tenuous peace fragile, and the transformation to a strong democracy difficult.
Bosnia, Haiti, Colombia, Somalia, Liberia, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, the Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Gaza and the West Bank - all provide similar examples, though the contexts are different and the intensity of conflicts varies. In the absolute current context, Iraq is facing and will continue to face lawlessness and violence as increasing numbers arm themselves with legally or more often illegally acquired small weapons. While conflicts in these societies have deep and complex roots, the abundance of arms at every level of society means that any increase in inter-communal, inter-ethnic or other types of tension will entail an increase in the risk of violence and bloodshed.
The Diffusion model is also in line with other trends in global politics in the post-Cold War period. Many analysts have written about the erosion of the power and authority of the state by global economic forces as well as of the growing assertiveness and inverse empowerment of individuals, groups, clans, tribes and other similar actors. As global market forces diminish the economic power of the state, its capacity to fulfill the increasingly strident demands of earlier peripheral groups, is also adversely affected. This, in turn leads citizens to shift their primary political loyalties to groups who show promise of taking up their specific agendas and are more accessible. These communities are generally organized around ethnic, tribal, religious, caste or linguistic lines. According to the political scientist James Rosenau, there appears to be a "relocation of authority", in which an increasing number of non-state and sub-state actors have begun to play a significant role at various levels of state, regional and global politics.
This diffusion of authority is producing a kind of disorder within states, as a result of which citizens, not feeling satisfied/ secure under the authority of the state, seek closer association with their ethnic, tribal or religious peer groups. A recent example is again Iraq, where citizens dissatisfied with an suspicious of the governance of the occupying power and the interim authority, turn to the mullahs for succor. Something similar happened earlier in Afghanistan and in Somalia as well, where tribal warlords began to gain the allegiance of large numbers as the power of the state began to fragment. The situation becomes even more problematic when association with ethnic, religious or any other group gets linked with the issue of identity, where a group then seeks to promote its identity as a religious, tribal, ethnic, caste or even linguistic group at the expense of others, and demagogues can then stir up violent passions if it is felt that the identity of the group is being threatened by the state or by non-state actors within or outside the state. The greater the decline in state power and consequently its ability to protect and fulfill the demands of its minorities, the more the likelihood of these minorities joining non state constituencies. Also, there is a greater chance that these non-state actors would form militias and paramilitary bands in their own defense. Once one group arms itself, rival groups would do the same in fear of attacks. This would, in turn, lead to a kind of internal arms race among different internal constituencies, mostly involving small and light weapons, in which potential rivals try to increase their respective military capacities. We do not have to go to Somalia, Sudan, Central or West Africa for examples; we just have to take a look at India's Northeast and the rival factions there, which not only stand up to the state but also fight each other.
These groups are unable, for the most part, to get arms at the legitimate international market. They, therefore, acquire them through illegitimate means like theft from government arsenals or purchases in the black market. The Khalistanis used to undertake bank robberies, other groups hold people to ransom - and all this provides the money needed to buy illicit arms.
When one looks at the supply side of small arms, one must again look at international economic trends. I had mentioned earlier that globalization is eroding the economic power of the state. Actually, key economic decisions are no longer being taken solely by the state as under mercantilism or economic nationalism. These are shifting to transnational economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank and also to large transnational corporations. While legitimate firms take advantage of the liberalized climate to enhance their profits, it is important to note that criminal enterprises can also thrive in this atmosphere of reduced governmental interference. These, too, operate on a transnational scale moving drugs, diamonds, endangered species and firearms to wherever the demand lies. These organizations supply small and light weapons as well as ammunition to insurgents, separatists and terrorist groups which depend on illicit arms to meet their military demands.
What is interesting that the state response to insurgency or other forms of conflict is most often repression through military means involving the use of brute force. An increase in violence, however, too often has the opposite effect of strengthening the arguments of those who had advocated violence against the state in the first place. The end effect is a spiral of violence which can literally tear apart the fabric of a society. Here too, we need not go to distant lands for examples - we need only to look at Kashmir and Sri Lanka.
While bringing out the links between diffusion of arms and global violence, I did not explain how this diffusion takes place. In the 'proliferation' model of the Cold War times, I have mentioned that there were only a handful of industrial country suppliers and the recipients were mainly states under the patron-client relationship of those days. Under the 'diffusion' model, a much larger number of actors play a significant role as producers, distributors and recipients of weapons. Distributors include not only government and state owned enterprises, but also small and medium sized firms, private brokers, insurgent and separatist forces and black market operators. Moreover, the list of major producers has also grown. In addition to major industrial country suppliers, light weapons are being manufactured and exported by several Third World countries like Argentina, Egypt, India, South Korea, Taiwan and South Africa as well. Further, a significant portion of the arms traffic is now accounted for by independent brokers who even advertise their ware on the internet, and also black market dealers. While brokers supply mainly to governments, security firms, etc., black market operators supply to pariah states and non-state actors. Covert transfer of arms is also undertaken at times by government agencies themselves, usually to give clandestine support to insurgent and separatist forces, perhaps to destabilize another country or for some other reason. The ISI in Pakistan is alluded to by India as having given such aid to insurgents within the country. It is also suspected that India gave similar support to the LTTE in earlier times. Further, as mentioned earlier, theft by non-state actors is a well known method to increase arms supplies. This is nothing new - we still eulogize the Indian freedom fighter of the revolutionary terrorist variety, Surya Sen, for the his raid on the Chittagong armoury during India's struggle for freedom. Today, one hears of raids on government arsenals and private gun stores, and in states where corruption is rampant, the connivance of corrupt officials is not unheard of. Croats and Slovenians acquired arms through raids on the Yugoslavian National Army before the breakup of former Yugoslavia. Insurgents and others also enhance their military needs through arms captured in battlefields from government agents. The LTTE acquired large stocks of arms in this manner. And finally, exchanges between insurgents and criminal organizations, whether for profit or in pursuit of common political objectives, is widespread.
This nexus, in fact, is a major cause of worry internationally. Investigators in India have found that insurgent groups in Assam and Nagaland regularly receive arms from insurgents in Myanmar and Bangladesh and there is a LTTE connection here as well. Similarly, Muslim insurgents in Kashmir get arms from other Muslim extremist groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. In fact, there is a close nexus between Muslim extremist groups all over the world, religion, identity and common goals acting as a binding link. However, ideology apart, purely criminal groups profit from the beliefs and commitments of others and act solely for monetary gains. The Italian Cosa Nostra and the Colombian drug cartels are good examples of such groups, who move arms not for ideological reasons but for money. The breakup of the Soviet Union and the uncertainty that followed also gave opportunity to unscrupulous persons to make a fast back selling purloined or otherwise illegally acquired arms, which then began to appear in the black market. One illustration of that is close to us - the Purulia arms drop case.
In fact, Illicit trade in arms is quite extensive. In the post-Cold War period, the United Nations has been quite active in imposing arms embargoes because of the increase in internal violence within states, the threat of nuclear proliferation, insurgencies acting like a firestorm inflaming whole regions, etc. Also, as noted, there has also been an upsurge in low intensity conflicts in Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Perhaps the only source of arms supply to countries subjected to UN embargoes, underground political organizations and criminal groups including drug cartels is through illegal means. What these buyers require are mainly small and light weapons. As such, the demand for these items has grown and black market dealers and criminal organizations have become major suppliers and are thriving on the sale of these weapons.
At this point, however, I wish to point out that it is not merely illicit trafficking in arms which contributes to global violence and insecurity. Sometimes, arms sold through legal channels land up in places where they should not be. The massive supply of arms, estimated to be worth a whopping $6 billion, to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s to help them in destabilizing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, is now showing up in insurgents hands in Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and countries of Central Asia. In fact, there is known to be a large illegal arms bazaar in Pakistan's Northwest, where the main items on sale comprise of arms received from the Americans in the 1980s and weapons captured from the Russians in the same period. To give another example, arms supplied to Somalia in the 1980s, which was then an ally of the U.S., helped to kill 17 U.S. Rangers and injure 84 more in gunfights in 1993, at a time when central authority in the state had broken down and the guns supplied by the Americans had been looted by warlords. Similar examples can be given of Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, E1 Salvador or Guatemala, where generations born and brought up under the ravages of long civil wars, think nothing of using guns, once supplied on instructions of the superpowers, but later illegally acquired by private individuals, to settle disputes.
Today too, this kind of supply of arms by major nations still continues, though the contexts may be different. The problem is that these countries produce massive amounts of arms every year or have huge left over stocks. In many industrial countries, the arms industry is a big export earner, and the arms industry drives the arms trade. Any cutback in production would spell a loss in export revenues for the state. The United States is, for instance, the world's top weapons merchant today. In 1996, the U.S. State Department licensed nearly $500 million worth of small abroad. The U.S. Commerce Department authorized nearly $70 million in shotgun sales. The U.S. is selling tens of thousands of light weapons abroad each year. While many of these deals are on a state-to-state basis for foreign militaries, many deals are also direct commercial sales from private U.S. arms brokers to private foreign buyers. Deals involving less than $14 million - an amount that can purchase about 20,000 assault rifles - do not require Congressional notification and therefore, occur without any public scrutiny. Once sold, these weapons can easily change hands. In 1993, U.S. supplied assault rifles to Thailand were found in the arms depots of the Khmer Rouge. In 1997 alone, Mexican officials seized over 23,000 firearms, originally bought in the U.S., from criminals.
The U.S. also gives away thousands of weapons which it calls excess every year. Since 1995, the U.S. is reported to have given away at least 300,000 light weapons to dozens of countries. It gave away arms in the 1990s even to countries with ongoing conflicts or those accused of human rights abuses like Algeria, Bosnia, Mexico, Turkey and Colombia.
European countries, too, have given away or sold weapons to countries with ongoing conflicts and human rights violations. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the downsizing of military forces in former Warsaw Pact countries unleashed a cascade of weapons, especially small arms. Germany, for instance, disposed of a large number of small and light weapons inherited from East Germany. One of the countries it sold these weapons to was Turkey, which has been accused of gross human rights violations, particularly in the Kurdish region. In July 1995, Ukrainian arms were reportedly sold to Rwandan exiles based in eastern Zaire, who used them to fuel the civil war in Zaire as well in their conflict with the Tutsis. Bulgaria supplied arms to Ethiopia which was having a border war with Eritrea, and Russia supplied arms to Burundi, internationally known for human rights violations apart from the internal conflict with its Hutu majority. What should be recognized is that many illegally acquired weapons currently in circulation, may have been transferred legally to governments at one time. Although endues certificates are necessary before transfers can be finalized, there is corruption at all levels, especially in unstable states. Zairian end-use certificates, for instance, were issued for arms transfers to Rwandan refugees in UNHCR camps in Zaire in 1995-96.
Reports indicate that small arms were the only weapons used in 46 of the 49 wars fought between 1990 and 2001, and, as mentioned earlier, 500 million small arms are going the rounds globally at present. Three million civilians, a number almost equivalent to the population of Ireland, were killed by small arms between 1990 and 2000.
In fact, there appears to be a symbiotic relationship between the easy availability of small arms and violence in different parts of the world. A combination of guns and poverty, especially in the poorest states, has spawned cultures of violence, in which the distinction between crime and political struggle becomes blurred. And ultimately this can only result in the further breakdown of civil society, and in extreme cases like Afghanistan, military intervention by third parties, which, in any case, does not appear to be a solution, especially in relation to the gun culture of these societies. Warlords and their private armies continue to thrive in Afghanistan, and the easy availability of small arms transforms group tensions into low intensity conflicts and minor incidents into massacres. In fact, small arms may be the major weapons of today. Illicit trafficking and diffusion of small and light weapons, therefore, are a major hindrance in the path of international, national and human security and consequently, world peace.
(These views were shared at the one day meet on "Illicit Trafficking and Use of Small Arms and Consequent Hindrance to World Peace", organized by War Resisters' International (WRI-India) and South Asia Small Arms Network (India), held on 7 June 2003.)
In two recent wars - Afghanistan and Iraq - people have seen live coverage and learnt new words. Actually everyday words - used in different connotation. Words used in different targets, state of the art bombers, aircraft carriers and satellites. Because the US spends 400 billion dollars plus a year on military expenses.
In we look at our country, even without fighting a war, our men, soldiers die everyday near Indo-Pak line of control. Between 19 December 2001 and April 2003, 387 men died at and around line of control. 75 of them died in land mine blasts, 99 in enemy action, 104 in environmental & psychological strain and 109 in accidents. Apart from this scores of people die in Jammu and Kashmir because either they are terrorists, or counter insurgents, or police or innocent lives. In this killing field, small arms play the only role.
Let us focus on the problem (of illicit trafficking of small arms) locally.
(Bihar, in Eastern India thrives with gun culture. Munger, Gaya, Hazaribag - there are illegal factories that manufacture guns. These firearms are then circulated throughout eastern and north eastern parts of India. Trains, buses, cars and even ambulances are used to transport guns. Single shutter, .32 calibre revolver, .38 pistol, 9mm pistol etc. These arms are extensively used by rowdies sheltered by political parties anti socials, goons, dacoits. The underworld of Bihar connects itself effectively with West Bengal, Orissa and North East. These arms are also sold in Bangladesh.
Old women and small children are made carriers of the arms quite often. In fact these hopeless creatures are forced to be carriers in exchange of little money. Sometimes they are caught and abused by police and security guards. The improvised fire arms and weapons thus transported are also used during elections. Apart from human carriers, large consignments are transported by trucks clandestinely.
Terrorist and separatist movements of some kind or other are integral part of India's problems. And there is no place for non-violent movement in this land of Mahatma Gandhi. Scores of ethnic clashes, caste conflicts and communal killings take place every year. And there are enough illegal arms available to arm the criminals. Private army like Bihar's Ranvir Sena are equipped with improvised AK-47 guns. Eastern border with Bangladesh in porous enough for killers to cross over safely.
While discussing small arms we omit the burning point of South Asia - Kashmir. Over the years we have seen how the small weapon pattern has changed from just AK-47 to rocket propelled grenades fired from rifles etc. In the beginning of separatist movement in the late eighties, we used to hear mainly of AK-47. Then there came AK-56, antipersonnel mines, hand grenades, mortars and rocket launchers.
AK-47 is also extensively used in north-eastern states where different ethnic groups and extremists operate in close nexus. Guns are available. Money is available. And there is no dearth of sympathy groups or interest groups. I think time has reached when protesting wars should be supplemented by protest over use of small arms. It can be generated at micro levels, by NGOs, by women groups and even by Pancahyat members.
Media can definitely play a vital role in building up a strong movement in the illegal small arms trafficking. Undertaking investigative journalism is a must for that. Busting the politicians anti socials nexus, interviewing victims and making the reports public will create awareness about this problem. Time may come when people will resist any kind of violence at their levels.
-------------------------------------------------------
* Ms. Sharmistha works with Telegraph/ Anandabazar newspaper group
|
