VI. Potential international action and policy

Discussion

There was broad agreement that the problem of small arms proliferation was both complex and in need of a coherent, worldwide solution. Much of the discussion focused on the global code of conduct on arms transfers, which had been proposed by a group of Nobel peace-prize laureates, as the basis for a set of universal rules.

Whatever the regional specifics, worldwide norms – worldwide solutions – were needed. Ultimately, everyone would have to take into account global rules. One need only consider the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personnel mines and ask oneself why it was so significant. For one thing, under its influence funds for mine clearance and victim assistance had materialized that had simply not been available two years before.

Another participant felt that although the situation was extremely complex, what was missing regarding arms proliferation was a vision of precisely what should be sought in terms of international rules. (With lasers it had been simple: "Thou shalt not blind".) The small arms problem was more complicated but there nevertheless must be common ground available, something that everyone could agree was right, something such as "Thou shalt not transfer arms to whomsoever violates human rights and humanitarian law". Any successful set of rules would have to be truly universal and based on precepts embraced by all States.

Until there was broad public support for action, governments were not going to advance. But such support was building. In the previous six months, for example, the European Union had become much more specific about what it wanted to achieve regarding the arms trade. And this example showed how pressure could be exerted on political bodies by promoting a "Code of Conduct" (such as that prepared by a group of Nobel laureates led by former Costa Rica President Oscar Arias).

The question was asked what technical steps could be taken to ensure that, once transferred, small arms and light weapons could be kept track of so as to oblige those who transferred them to face responsibility for how they were eventually used.

Another participant suggested that a deposit be required upon purchase (for example $50 for the purchase of a $50 AK-47) to ensure that the weapon was returned afterwards.

One participant said that it was in any event clear that the time was now gone when the horrors committed with small arms and light weapons had to be accepted as a simple fact of life, about which you could do nothing. As for what actually could be done, there seemed to be agreement that many different measures were possible.

                      Previous Chapter      Next Chapter
                      Table of Contents