II. Controlling arms availability at the international level

The OAS Convention against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials

By Cecilia Jaber, Advisor to the Vice-Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico

In November 1997, 29 member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) have signed the "Interamerican Convention against the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of fire arms, ammunition, explosives and other related materials".

It is important to recognize that, taking into account the relevance and delicacy of the questions involved, the Convention was approved in a record time.

Background

The first official initiative, if we may say, can be traced at the X Summit of the Permanent Mechanism of Consultation and Political Coordination (Grupo de Rio) held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, the 2-4 September 1996. Based on a conviction that the illicit trafficking of arms had become one serious threat to economic growth and development, the Mexican government proposed on that occasion, to take "a firm, clear and unified action against the unrestricted arms sale". President Ernesto Zedillo clearly pointed out that a serious aspect of this phenomenon was related to the negative impact it had on the development of infrastructure and basic services required by societies. He also warned against the illicit arms sale as a threat to the consolidation of democracy.

The Mexican concern was echoed by the Heads of State gathered in Cochabamba, as they stated in the final Declaration, the convenience of "establishing measures to prevent an arms race in Latin America, which would deviate the necessary resources for our economic development, as well as elaborating a convention that stem illicit arms trafficking in the region for its clear link with the illicit drugs trafficking, terrorism and organized crime".

The Americas Summit, held in Miami in December 1994, can also be mentioned as an important precedent. In the Plan of Action, the Heads of State expressed their will to "strengthen the efforts aiming to control the fire arms, the ammunitions and the explosives, in order to prevent their controlling by the drugs dealers and criminal organizations".

As we mentioned before, the Grupo de Rio, based in the final Declaration in Cochabamba, established a Working Group, which met in November 1996 and march 1997. It was decided at that time that the initiative should be developed in the Organization of American States (OAS). The Grupo de Rio had also submitted to the first Working Group a Draft, which became the working basis for the experts or working group appointed by the OAS itself.

The XX Session of the OAS General Assembly approved the Convention in November 13, 1997 and it was signed the next day by the following States members: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Vincent, St. Kitts and Nevis, Surinam, Uruguay, USA and Venezuela.

The Convention will enter into force once it is ratified by two State parties. Until now, only Belize has ratified it and the Mexican Congress has already approved its ratification and the correspondent process at the governmental level is expected to be concluded in a short term.

Objectives

In article II, the Convention establishes as its main objectives:

 

"to prevent, fight and eradicate the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of fire arms, ammunitions, explosives and other related materials;

promote and facilitate cooperation and exchange of information and experiences among the States Parties in order to prevent, fight and eradicate the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of fire arms, ammunitions, explosives and other related materials."

Contents

One of the most important challenges that the working group had to overcome in the elaboration process was the lack of definitions in this area, specifically in the United Nations. The working group has therefore elaborated the definitions corresponding to "illicit manufacturing", "illicit trafficking", "ammunitions", "explosives", "other related materials" and "controlled delivery".

The Convention has also incorporated important innovations in response to specific needs and demands from a very wide range of interests in accordance to the situation of the different State parties. One of those which must be mentioned is the requirement of an adequate marking of the arms at the manufacturing process, in order to facilitate its tracing and identification.

An important issue was also the exchange of information, which implied the need to keep the confidentiality for delicate matters such as police or judicial investigations. To solve this problem, it was finally established that the exchange would take place "in accordance with the correspondent domestic legislation and the relevant international treaties". In this regard, the delegations reached a consensus on the commitment for the State party receiving the information to "guarantee the confidentiality of any information, when required by the State party which provide the information".

The problem of extradition posed also a long debate about the convenience to include it. The State parties agreed to have an article on extradition based on the Interamerican Convention against Corruption.

We can finally mention that the establishment of a Consultative Committee was the subject of long discussions. It was decided that this Committee would be composed by all States parties, it should take its decisions on a voting basis and elaborate its own rules, which must be adopted by a majority. The decisions taken by the Committee would be "recommendations" and it would celebrate its first meeting once the Convention is ratified.

The British American Security Information Council summarizes the commitments included in the 30-article Convention as follows:

 

instituting legislative measures to criminalise illicit manufacturing and trafficking, as well as offenses deemed to facilitate such activities;

marking firearms at the time of manufacture and import to facilitate identification and tracing;

establishing an effective system of export, import and international transit licenses;

strenghthening controls at export points;

exchanging information in areas such as: producers, dealers, importers and exporters; routes and techniques used in illicit trafficking; and scientific and technological information for prevention, detection and investigation;

exchanging experience and training in areas such as identification, detection, tracing and intelligence gathering;

providing technical assistance in the above mentioned training areas;

providing mutual legal assistance to facilitate investigation and prosecution of illicit activities and establishing illicit weapons activities as extraditable offenses;

establishing a consultative committee consisting of one representative from each state party to meet annually, with special meeting when necessary.

Conclusions

For this meeting purposes, it is convenient to highlight the specific concerns that inspired the Mexican initiative to promote a regional effort aiming to establish an effective control of arms transfers . We can summarize them as follows:

Its impact as a collateral aspect of other criminal activities, in particular drugs trafficking;

Its negative impact in political and social stability, mainly in the increase of criminality among population, and the resulting diversion of economic resources.

The phenomenon has thus to be focused by an integrated approach which attends not only the immediate consequences on banditry and criminality, but also preventive measures that include a general approach to development.

The Mexican government considers then this Convention as a first step in the regional cooperation aiming to control the illicit arms trafficking in a wider effort to reach effective international cooperation against this problem.

 

Controlling the availability and unlawful use of arms at the international level: the United Nations and civil society

By Ed J. Laurance, Deputy Director, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA

Introduction

It is now clear that conflict in the post-Cold War era presents challenges that did not exist in the previous era. The globe is now dominated by intra-state or internal conflict, prosecuted by criminals, terrorists, and irregular militia and armed bands who indiscriminately and unlawfully use small arms and light weapons. Resolving this crisis involves a recognition that the weapons associated with this suffering are different than in the past. The tools of today's violence are small arms and light weapons; assault rifles, hand grenades, rocket launchers and other light weapons designed for legitimate military use but too often being used against civilians. These weapons are cheap, portable and very lethal. There are hundreds of thousands of these weapons in circulation, as well as a vibrant trade using acquisition modes rarely seen during the Cold War. Most importantly, the negative effects are now visible for all to see- deaths to women and children, many of them the result of deliberate targeting, disruption of human development programs, and a militarization of society which has seen conflict resolution become increasingly violent. In the words of Jan Egeland, there are too many weapons in the wrong hands, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Reducing the spread and unlawful use of the weapons calls for new thinking, by civil society, national governments and the United Nations.

The Role of the United Nations

What has been the UN role in raising awareness of this reality and taking action to resolve what is now a humanitarian crisis? The formal call for action came in the January 1995 Supplement to the Agenda for Peace written by then Secretary-General Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali. After reviewing the progress made in weapons of mass destruction, he called for "parallel progress in conventional arms, particularly with respect to light weapons." He introduced the concept of micro-disarmament, referring to the light weapons actually being used in the conflicts with which the UN is dealing, those "that are actually killing people in the hundreds of thousands." He singled out two weapons in particular, anti-personnel land mines and assault rifles. The work on light weapons can be usefully divided into three types of activity.

Studies and Inquiries

In 1996 an International Commission of Inquiry investigated allegations that former Rwandan government forces were being supplied with arms in violation of a previous Security Council-imposed arms embargo. The Commission confirmed these allegations and concluded that much more could and should be done to stem the flow of weapons in this region. This inquiry has recently been expanded to include Burundi.

On 3 May 1996 the United Nations Disarmament Commission adopted a consensus set of "Guidelines for international arms transfers".

A Panel of Experts on Small Arms presented a report in September 1997 that contained 23 recommendations for action by states and international organizations to alleviate problems associated with these weapons.

The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice of the UN Economic and Social Council produced a report on Firearm Regulation for the Purpose of Crime Prevention and Public Health and Safety in April 1998.

General Assembly Resolutions

During the fall of 1997 the General Assembly adopted a resolution that calls for an ammunition study, Member State views on the feasibility of having a global conference in 1999, and the convening of an experts group to examine the feasibility of the recommendations of the Small Arms Panel.

A fall 1997 General Assembly resolution asks states, with the support of the Secretary General, to conduct pilot projects that will demonstrate the feasibility of linking disarmament and development in a practical manner.

In May 1998 a draft ECOSOC resolution was supported by over fifty countries, including the G8. The resolution encouraged Member States to consider specific regulatory approaches.

Action

The combatants in conflicts involving the UN employed mainly small arms and light weapons, and United Nations peace forces and the civilian populations in these conflict areas have been increasingly subjected to their negative effects. Due to these negative effects, these peace operations now routinely involve weapons collection, disarmament, and destruction.

In October 1993 Mali requested the Secretary-General to assist in the collection of light weapons proliferating in that country. The requested assistance was provided in the form of an Advisory Mission in August 1994. The result has been a relatively successful turn-in and collection of weapons, as part of the successful resolution of the conflict between Mali and the Tuareg minority, as well as a demonstration of how disarmament and human development are linked.

A Change of Focus

It will be noted that most of the above action took place in the First Committee, with an arms control and disarmament focus. In the case of General Assembly resolutions, a vocal minority of states have abstained or voted no based on the argument that attempts to control this class of weapon gets at the very heart of a state's internal affairs and domestic security. The way forward in this political environment, where the solutions are narrowly defined in arms control and disarmament terms, will be challenging.

But more recently there has been a change in thinking in the UN, as the links between the availability of weapons and violations of international humanitarian law and human rights become impossible to ignore.

A new coalition of UN departments and agencies is forming around this issue to better reflect the multi-dimensional and humanitarian nature of the problem and its solutions. The new head of the Department of Emergency Relief (formerly Humanitarian Affairs), The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Conflict have begun to address the impacts of the spread and unlawful use of these weapons in their areas of operations and expertise.

As the UN Development Program's mandate has expanded to good governance programs, they have been drawn closer to the problems associated with the spread and unlawful use of weapons. This is true in regard to their work in improving police forces, as well as their potential to get involved with weapons collection.

The recent reorganization of the UN has seen the new Department of Disarmament and Arms Regulation step up its work on small arms and light weapons, to include the addition of staff dedicated to this problem and initiatives with other departments and agencies.

While not a formal part of the UN, international financial institutions have begun to recognize that conflict waged with these weapons seriously impedes economic development. The new post-conflict section of the World Bank is actively exploring the funding of voluntary weapons collection programs. The Inter-American Development Bank is using consultants and sponsoring conferences to explore how they can contribute to the cessation of violence by focusing on the tools of violence.

Frustrated by their inability to use the General Assembly to direct assistance to states experiencing these problems, a Group of Interested States has begun to fund pilot projects by using an informal meeting format between donors and affected states.

Finally, a major shift in thinking has taken place in regard to the importance of NGOs in dealing with this crisis. Recently NGOs with knowledge of these weapons and their misuse have had much more interaction with the UN. The positive experience of both governments and international governmental with the anti-personnel landmine NGO coalition had a lot to do with this development.

Civil Society : What have the NGOs contributed to this point?
The Generation of Knowledge

Four years of research by academics and NGOs has produced a body of knowledge that is now being used to fashion practical policies that can lead to reducing the spread and unlawful use of small arms and light weapons. This research has led to a consensus that:

- The causes, effects and solutions related to these conflicts are international in nature, requiring a multilateral response;

- There is no longer any doubt as to the increased availability of the small arms and light weapons used in these conflicts, and the causes of such availability;

- A consensus is also emerging on the types of weapons involved in these conflicts. They are typically smaller, weigh less, cost less, and are more portable and less visible than major conventional weapons; and

- The modes of acquisition of this class of weapon differ from the superpower-dominated arms supply system of the Cold War.

Action by NGOs

Recently NGOs have begun to take more direct action beyond providing knowledge and data. For example, NGOs have:

- Launched campaigns for a code of conduct for states which export these weapons (BASIC, Saferworld, Amnesty International, International Alert, Oxfam, The Arias Foundation);

- Launched more general campaigns against violence which include a component focusing on the tools of violence (World Council of Churches);

- Conducted courageous field work which has led to UN inquiries (Human Rights Watch);

- Begun to work closely with and provide capacity for governments which are addressing this problem (Institute for Security Studies in South Africa);

- Planned and conducted voluntary weapons collection programs in Mozambique, El Salvador and Cambodia;

- Specialized in bringing governments and NGOs together (International Alert, Quaker Office in Geneva); and

- Have concentrated on developing NGO networks in developing countries (Project Ploughshares and BICC in the Horn of Africa).

NISAT and Prep Com

In December 1997 two unconnected events occurred almost simultaneously which accelerated the role of NGOs and civil society in addressing the problems associated with small arms and light weapons.

NISAT

In Norway, four NGOs -The Norwegian Red Cross, Norwegian Church Aid, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)- formed the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers (NISAT). The formation and work of NISAT is based on the following principles;

1) Violence can be prevented and ameliorated by focusing on the tools of violence;

2) NGOs can and must work with governments;

3) Solving this problem will require a multi-dimensional approach; and

4) The audience should be global.

To date NISAT has supported ongoing initiatives that show promise for international application, such as the West African moratorium and the ICRC study linking availability of weapons and violations of international humanitarian law.

Prep Com

In Washington, at a December international conference attended by academics, NGOs and national governments, a consensus was reached that it was time to accelerate the transition from knowledge to action. A first step was the establishment of the Preparatory Committee for a Campaign on Small Arms and Light Weapons (Prep Com) on 15 January, as an Internet community of NGOs and individuals dedicated to preparing for a global campaign to alleviate the problems associated with the proliferation, accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. Its basic mission is to provide a place for NGOs and individuals to meet for this purpose, and build that coalition of NGOs with which governments can collaborate.

The mission calls for establishing a "place," which now exists for a variety of functions. Many non-Prep Com members check this site regularly, including staff of governments and international organizations. It has also proven to be a valuable place for reference when talking about the issue and what is being done about it. Members exchange news of their efforts and request assistance for their projects. In its first 100 days, the site (www.prepcom.org) was visited more than 6000 times, by users from more than 20 countries. Prep Com has grown from 12 members at launch to over 60 from more than 50 countries. And NGOs with a full range of concerns are represented -- peace and security, nonviolence, arms control, conversion, specific regions, human rights, handicapped persons, public health, gun control, women and children's rights, child soldiers, development, religion and youth. The individuals who have joined Prep Com represent almost all of those who have been writing and thinking about this issue for the past several years.

Governments have used the information on Prep Com to keep up with the issue and as a source of consultation. Prep Com has been widely supported by governments, including financially in some cases. This bodes well for the essential cooperation that must take place between governments and NGOs in any global effort that emerges.

Next Steps for NGO Global Action

The increasing level and variety of NGO activity is leading the international NGO community to consider steps which move further toward the formation of an actual campaign.

Governments and NGOs from the south are being encouraged to join the global effort, as a means of projecting their concerns, sharing their solutions, and opening up the possibility that the resources of the international community can be utilized to solve the problems endemic to their societies.

Late in the summer of 1998 a representative sample of NGOs - north, south and international - will meet to draft documents which contain viable alternatives and options for a campaign- themes, structure, etc. These documents will then be circulated widely among the international NGO community and become the basis for the formal launch of a campaign at a 14 October NGO Conference in Brussels.

Conclusion

The end game of all of the action underway, be it NGO, government or international organization, is that governments must improve upon how they export, import, acquire, distribute, use, store and secure the small arms and light weapons that now circulate in large quantities. Governments and NGOs cannot be sure at this stage which path will be taken to bring about the required changes in governmental behavior. The challenges of securing such changes in the United Nations has been noted. The use of the mechanism Group of Interested States to fund pilot projects is promising. Shifting the action to the Conference on Disarmament or the CCW will undoubtedly face similar challenges. Perhaps what is needed is a convention similar to the anti-personnel landmine treaty. It would not ban any weapons but rather create a legally binding instrument that would require states to behave responsibly regarding the use, storage, distribution, control and export of small arms and light weapons.

But it is now certain that whichever path is chosen, and perhaps there will be multiple paths, NGOs will be critical to the work. These NGOs will be from a wide set of perspectives and closely linked to the most critical element in this piece, the members of civil society who are suffering from the spread and misuse of these weapons. This meeting in Norway is even further evidence that a consensus is growing toward agreeing with the president of Mali, who just two months ago in this city, referring to his own moratorium initiative, proclaimed that approaching these problems through disarmament is not idealism or naivete. The best approach to reducing armed violence is to deal with the tools of violence.

Discussion of presentations by C. Jaber and E. Laurance

The need was stressed for action at regional and worldwide levels, and questions were asked about the degree to which the governments were willing or able to do what had to be done.

A participant emphasized the simple fact that, whether one liked it or not, there were plenty of weapons in circulation and no prospect of them disappearing soon. They were there and the only immediately available course of action to curb their use was an attempt at behaviour modification, i.e. reducing the propensity to use them or at least changing the manner in which they were used. International humanitarian law had an obvious role to play in this respect. [Editor's note - International humanitarian law does specifically focus on the behavior of combatants.]

The point was made that in any case this was an extremely complex problem and there was no single solution. It was obvious that region-to-region coordination was sorely needed. For the moment those concerned about the problem were like members of an orchestra, each playing the same tune but on different instruments – and the music still sounded awful.

One participant voiced the opinion that when it came to illicit trade, governments simply did not want to know. It was the duty of the NGOs to force them to face the facts.

Another expert said that the applicability of international humanitarian law was a difficult issue. But what about the humanitarian imperative? It was possible to agree about basic Right and Wrong and so avoid a situation whereby each individual group felt compelled to argue from the restrictive confines of its own particular purview.

                                 Previous Chapter         Next Chapter
                                 Table of Contents