VIII. Concluding remarks

By Yves Sandoz, Director of International Law and Policy, ICRC, Geneva

As this meeting draws to a close, I would like to thank all the participants for their contributions over the past few busy days, in particular those of you who made presentations. I would also like to say how much we enjoyed organizing this meeting jointly with the Norwegian Red Cross, a partnership symbolizing the fact that the problems discussed here are of concern not just to the International Committee of the Red Cross but to the entire International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. We particularly appreciated the excellent contribution of Norwegian Red Cross staff members and the dynamism and vast political experience of the meeting's co-chairman, Jan Egeland.

My first comment as we wind up this meeting is that much is already being done, or is in the pipeline, regarding the problem of arms transfers.

The fact that governments are waking up to the problem and that some of them are starting to take action is in itself a very positive development. It is up to them to tackle these issues and any improvement in the situation depends on them. The meeting of West African States – also held in Oslo (1-2 April 1998) – to consider a moratorium on importing, exporting and manufacturing small arms in that region; the drafting of a European Union code of conduct for arms exports; meetings held on the subject by a number of governments; discussions within the United Nations and other international organizations – all these are sure signs that the message sent to governments, in particular at the 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, is getting through.

Many non-governmental organizations are also becoming involved: explaining the problem to the public and to governments, seeking and proposing solutions, mobilizing media pressure, etc.

I have been impressed by the quality of the information and analysis brought to bear at this meeting. Though naturally not in a position to summarize what has been said, I would like to make a few of what I see as particularly important points.

What must be decided is whether existing standards on arms transfers are adequate and how illicit transfers can be halted. It has, I feel, been quite clear from our discussions that when a State fails to fully shoulder its responsibility for ensuring security, or does so in an arbitrary manner, private groups or even individuals will feel that they must arm themselves for their own safety. Yet weapons proliferation does nothing but increase insecurity and erode ethical values. So the volume of available arms is a serious problem in itself. It is a striking fact that even in the midst of armed conflict, many injuries are not the result of the hostilities as such but rather of the violence that permeates all human interaction once State authority breaks down and arms flood in. It is also extraordinary how arms spread from one region to another, following the lines of tension; as is the fact that arms are sold on the black market for a pittance.

The question then arises as to the responsibility of those who manufacture, sell or are in possession of arms, particularly as regards the destruction of surplus arms so that over time the total number of weapons goes down instead of up.

We have heard a great deal of very detailed information and analysis during this meeting, and let us not forget the lively discussions that ensued, reflecting the great complexity of this issue. We are not talking about prohibited arms – these are ordinary weapons that everyone agrees are needed by the States to defend themselves and maintain order. It is thus not a question of mobilizing against an indiscriminate, particularly cruel weapon of limited military value, as was the case with anti-personnel landmines. We are getting into a much more sensitive area when it comes to the problem of small arms because of the way it relates to State security and national sovereignty. Nor are the economic stakes inconsiderable.

Thus we could find a million and one reasons not to become involved in this question. But we cannot hide behind the argument that we should do nothing because it is just too complicated, not when we see what we all agree is a matter of enormous humanitarian concern. However, it is unlikely that we are looking at as forceful or well-coordinated initiative such as the campaign to ban anti-personnel mines. There are too many different points of view and concerns among the potential campaigners. What we need to do is find a common understanding for everyone who is aware of this issue's importance and wants to take action. To this end, we need to start by organizing an ongoing exchange of information and analysis, and hold meetings such as this from time to time to engage in useful dialogue. This is the way to build and consolidate a platform upon which the different organizations involved can take action that is in keeping with their specific nature and does not neglect their priorities.

This meeting was never meant to be a negotiating forum. We have not tried to reach consensus at any price; we have endeavoured to obtain a clearer picture of where we all stand. In my opinion, the way this meeting has gone has proved that this was the right approach. It has certainly helped outline the main themes and the resulting publication will, we hope, help construct our common platform.

As regards the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, this meeting has provided a wealth of information that the ICRC can use in its study of the relationship between an influx of arms into a conflict area and the violations of international humanitarian law committed there. It will also provide a sound basis for the Movement as a whole in deciding where it stands and what its components – particularly the National Societies established in virtually every country around the globe – can do.

All that remains for me is once again to warmly thank all the participants and everyone who helped make this meeting a success, including those who made presentations, staff from both the Norwegian Red Cross and the ICRC and all those who worked so hard to prepare it.

Let us hope that this meeting constitutes a step on a long journey toward a goal which is, without a shadow of a doubt, extremely important in humanitarian terms. What is at stake is an end to the suffering of millions of men, women and children. Let us never forget that.

                      Previous Chapter          Next Chapter
                      Table of Contents