V. Potential regional action and policy

Discussion

There was discussion on how the term "region" should be defined given the diverging – and changing – realities around the world. Views were expressed on the implications of the end of the Cold War and problems inherent to any arms embargo or moratorium.

Work could be undertaken on a regional scale, yes, but also on a sub-regional scale, i.e. in three or four countries. It must be recognized that different countries had different national interests. Therefore, an issue that loomed large in one place might not seem so important in another. Each should be allowed to set its own priorities but an effort should be made to provide everyone with links, the means to join forces on common ground.

In the matter of regions, the view was expressed that "South Asia" was an outmoded concept. When it came to arms transfers, the region that had to be considered stretched from Iraq across central Asia and into southern China and south-east Asia.

One participant emphasized that the problem regions were not just Africa, Asia and Latin America, but Europe and its fringes as well. There was an awareness within NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that Europe's periphery deserved a great deal of attention, but he wondered why there was such willingness to cooperate on drug trafficking yet so little interest in small arms and light weapons.

Another expert felt that the OSCE had an important role to play as it included both producing and receiving countries.

NATO expansion implied the new members acquiring NATO-compatible weapons. This in turn meant the creation of instant surplus stocks of pre-NATO weapons and ammunition. The enormous supplies of surplus weapons in eastern Europe represented "a ticking time bomb".

Participants were reminded that a government that lacked effective control of its own territory was unable to implement guidelines or rules, wherever they were agreed. One alarming phenomenon was that private companies had de facto control of great swathes of national territory in some countries.

Another expert agreed, saying that even the most effective arms embargo amounted at best to a sieve.

Whenever a moratorium was considered, a number of questions should first be asked. For example, even if effective in halting the flow of arms, would it help achieve the overriding development goals within the region? Would it be viewed as equitable, i.e. would one side or another in the conflict not be made to feel more vulnerable because of it? And, finally, was there an identifiable geographical entity within which the concept could hold, i.e. was it feasible, was it implementable?

Another expert said that it was important, when a hot conflict was in progress, that the outside world cooperate to cushion the impact on countries bordering the conflict zone.

In many places, logging, the mining of precious gems and the sale of other "legal" items was the oxygen on which the illicit arms trade depended. This should not be tolerated. Remove the economic activity that served as its catalyst and the arms trade would collapse.

One participant stated that as part of anti-drug efforts some states were supplying arms to the military forces and that these same weapons were eventually being used by paramilitary death squads. On the other hand, he warned, governments should not be allowed to use control of illicit weapons as a pretext and simply exploit restrictions as a means of counter-insurgency.

                      Previous Chapter    Next Chapter
                      Table of Contents