Two sides of the same coin: Establishing controls for SALW and major conventional weapons

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War there has been a growing tendency within the arms control community to treat major conventional weapons and small arms and light weapons as separate fields of action. This essay challenges the utility of this differentiation and argues instead that effective arms control requires that the full range of conventional weapons be addressed when policy proposals are formulated.

Notes

1. The small arms community has not yet agreed on exact definitions for SALW and major conventional weapons. However, consensus does seem to be growing around the definitions developed by the United Nations. For the purposes of this analysis, therefore, SALW are defined to include pistols and revolvers, rifles, machine guns, portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, mortars up to 100 mm, and anti-personnel mines. Major conventional weapons, on the other hand, include tanks, airplanes, ships, helicopters, mortars 100 mm or over, artillery, anti-armor mines, and armored personnel carriers.

2. Michael Klare, ‘An Overview of the Global Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons’, in Jayantha Dhanapala et al. (eds.), Small Arms Control: Old Weapons, New Issues (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), pp.4–5.

3. I gratefully acknowledge Elizabeth Nathan's research assistance with this section of the essay.

4. Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, UN Document A/CONF.192/15, accessed at <http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/poa.html>.

5. The modern trade in major conventional weapons can actually be traced to decisions in the Kennedy Administration to sell weapons abroad, contrasting with the prior policy of giving older weapons away as a component of US foreign and military assistance programs. With the massive oil price increases that followed the 1973 Gulf War, a second major change occurred – former aid recipients had the financial resources to demand the best that their money could buy, including American-made major conventional weapons. Institutionally, the passage of legislation providing for Congressional oversight of certain major conventional weapons transfers in the mid-1970s resulted in the trade in such weapons becoming a feature of Congressional–Executive relations, hence further increasing attention to these transfers. However, most disputes between Congress and the Executive Branch dealt with weapons transfers to Israel's adversaries. These disagreements did not tend to be about the weapons trade per se, but concerned the balance of military power in the Middle East.

6. States from the non-aligned movement felt that the Register would have to go beyond weapons transfers to include information on military holdings and procurement in order to be helpful to them. See Edward J. Laurance, Hendrik Wagenmakers and Herbert Wulf, ‘Managing the Global Problems Created by the Conventional Arms Trade: Assessment of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms’, Global Governance, Vol.11 (2005), p.228.

7. The 33 original members were Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. See Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technology, Press statement, 12 July 1996. See also Wade Boese, ‘The Wassenaar Arrangement’, in Tamar Gabelnick and Rachel Stohl (eds.), Challenging Conventional Wisdom: Debunking the Myths and Exposing the Risks of Arms Export Reform (Federation of American Scientists and Center for Defense Information, June 2003), p.173.

8. For a current Wassenaar membership list, see <http://www.wassenaar.org/welcomepage.html>. Although participants in the Wassenaar Arrangement have devoted significant attention to MANPADS in recent years, small arms and light weapons as a whole have received much less attention. In 2003, the participants in the Wassenaar Arrangement adopted Elements for Export Controls of Man-Portable Air Defence Systems (MANPADS). For the full document, see <http://www.wassenaar.org/2003Plenary/MANPADS_2003.htm>.

9. In the mid and late 1990s, the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) initiated and coordinated the Project on Light Weapons, an international network of almost 250 academics, journalists, activists, and field researchers from nearly 40 countries. This network helped form the nucleus of what is now an extensive coalition of more than 700 groups and individuals, the International Action Network on Small Arms. IANSA has been extremely involved in efforts to control the production, transfer, and use of small arms and light weapons at local, regional, and global levels. It has facilitated the development of regional affiliates, and has ensured that those most affected by small arms violence are represented at key international meetings and negotiations. IANSA has aided the dissemination of materials developed by its constituent organizations, and has generally magnified the presence and effectiveness of groups working on these issues.

Many organizations and individuals have published important reports on small arms and light weapons in the last decade. Among the leading organizations in this regard are Amnesty International; Biting the Bullet, which is a joint effort of International Alert, Saferworld, and the University of Bradford; the Bonn International Center for Conversion: Human Rights Watch's Arms Project, which has produced numerous ground-breaking publications based on field mission research on light weapons transfers and violations of the laws of war in countries such as Kenya, Angola, Rwanda, and Turkey; and the Small Arms Survey, which publishes an annual yearbook on small arms, as well as numerous special reports and occasional papers.

10. United Nations reports and supporting documents from these conferences are available at <http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/salw.html>.

11. Michael Klare, ‘Small Arms Proliferation and International Security’, <http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/smallarms/> (undated document accessed 6 December 2005).

12. See the UN's web site on small arms and light weapons: <http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/salw.html>. Identical language may be found at: Project Ploughshares, ‘Small Arms and Light Weapons: A Global Humanitarian Challenge’ <http://www.ploughshares.ca/control/interactive/> (undated). This formulation is used frequently; a Google search listed nearly 100 examples using the exact words quoted above.

13. Aaron Karp, ‘Negotiating Small Arms Restraint: The Boldest Frontier For Disarmament?’ Disarmament Forum, No.2 (2000), p.5.

14. See Project Ploughshares, Armed Conflicts Report 2005 <http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/ACRText/ACR-TitlePageRev.htm>.

15. For example, see Michael von Tangen Page, William Godnick and Janani Vivehananda, ‘Implementing International Small Arms Controls: Some Lessons from Eurasia, Latin America and West Africa’, International Alert, 2005, available at <http://www.international-alert.org>. In the Executive Summary (p.7), the authors mention the interrelationship between proliferation of small arms and light weapons and ‘other issues such as security sector reform, corruption, drugs, criminality and terrorism needs to be better understood and a holistic approach to SALW work is needed. Further, in the case of Central Asia there is a need for greater research on the nature of SALW proliferation as the concentration up to now in the region has been, understandably, focused on weapons of mass destruction.’ They move from small arms and light weapons to weapons of mass destruction, without mentioning major conventional weapons. Similarly, in their impressive study, Brazil: The Arms and the Victims (ISER, 2005), Rubem César Fernandes and his colleagues present extensive documentation of the small arms situation in Brazil. Major conventional weapons are only mentioned in reference to the collapse of the Brazilian export trade in weapons.

16. Stephen Biddle, ‘Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare’, Foreign Affairs (March/April 2003), pp.31–46.

17. ‘Air Force Reports Outcome of Bombings in Belalcazar, Cauca, El Espectador’, FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-LAT-2002-1022, 22 October 2002; ‘Colombian Army Recovers Puerto Leguizamo Area After Heavy Fighting’, Bogota Caracol Colombia Radio in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-LAT-2001-0623, 23 June 2001.

18. Dan Molinski, ‘Colombian Helicopters Attack Insurgents’, The Mail & Guardian, 24 April 2005, at <http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid = 235957&area = /breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/#>.

19. ‘Chechen Rebel Website Says 9 “Invaders” Killed in Nozhay-Yurtovskiy’, KAVKAZ-TSENTR NEWS AGENCY in FBIS Translated Text, NewsEdge Document Number: 200505121477.1_e5f30010299c9d67, 12 May 2005.

20. James Meek and David Hearst, ‘Russian Forces Steamroll Into Breakaway Republic: Yeltsin Flexes Military Might by Invading Rebel Republic’, The Guardian, 12 December 1994, accessed at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4531511-103495,00.html>.

21. ‘Russia offers choppers to PA’, Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005, accessed at <http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1113877274662&p = 1101615860782>; ‘Sources: At least 13 Palestinians killed in Rafah’, CNN, 18 May 2005, accessed at <http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/17/mideast/>; Ewen MacAskill, ‘Helicopter Raid Kills Five Palestinians in West Bank’, The Observer, 1 September 2002, accessed at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,784398,00.html>; ‘Two Palestinians Killed by Israeli Attacks’, The Guardian, 4 December 2001, accessed at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,611803,00.html>.

22. ‘Residents Say Israeli Gunships Resumed Attacks on West Bank Refugee Camp’, Beijing Xinhua in FBIS Transcribed Text, FBIS-CHI-2002-0408, 8 April 2002.

23. ‘Western Rebel Commander Comments on Zouan-Hounien Attack’, Radio France Internationale in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-AFR-2003-0506, 6 May 2003; ‘Rebels say New Army Helicopter Attacks Kill Nine’, Paris AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-AFR-2003-0415, 15 April 2003; ‘AFP Updates Fighting, Reports Mounting Pressure for Truce’, Paris AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-AFR-2002-1007, 7 October 2002.

24. ‘52 Killed in ‘Fresh’ Sri Lankan Military Offensives Against Tamil Tigers’, Hong Kong AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-NES-2000-1222, 22 December 2000; ‘LTTE Claims 22 Civilians Killed in Sri Lankan Air Raid’, Hong Kong AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-NES-1999-0915, 15 September 1999; ‘Rebels Keep Up Mortar Attacks as Sri Lanka Advance Stalls’, Hong Kong AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-NES-97-240, 28 August 1997.

25. ‘Spokesman Says Rebels, Government Forces Clash in Upper Nile Region’, Paris AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-AFR-2002-0730, 30 July 2002.

26. ‘Manila Pounds Mountain Lair of Muslim Rebels Holding 17 Hostages on Jolo’, Hong Kong AFP in FBIS Daily Report, FBIS-EAS-2000-1001, 1 October 2000.

27. ‘Compilation of Global Principles for Arms Transfers’, working draft, 11 January 2006, Principle 4: Factors to be taken into account.

28. Programme of Action, Section II.7, accessed at <http://disarmament.un.org:8080/cab/poa.html>.

29. For details on the working group's meetings and relevant documents, see <http://disarmament.un.org:8080/cab/salw-oewg.html>.

30. Report of the Open-ended Working Group to Negotiate an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons, UN General Assembly document A/60/88, 27 June 2005, accessed at <http://www.iansa.org/documents/2005/marking-tracing-report-2005.pdf>.

31. Such scrutiny has been especially effective when the potential recipients have been human rights abusers. Establishing national, regional, and international codes of conduct is one way to address this concern by denying weapons transfers to countries that repeatedly violate internationally recognized human rights standards. The proposed Arms Trade Treaty is a current example of this approach. See: ‘The G-8: Global Arms Exporters Failing to Prevent Irresponsible Arms Transfers’, Control Arms (Amnesty International, IANSA, and Oxfam) 22 June 2005, accessed at <http://www.controlarms.org/downloads/globalarmsexporters.pdf>.

32. ‘[B]ullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body’. See <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm>.

33. In 2003, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe produced a handbook of best practices: Handbook of Best Practices on Small Arms and Light Weapons. However, these were generally suggested best practices, rather than a compilation of particularly effective existing practices in individual countries. For the full report, see <http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1373/handbook.pdf>.

34. US Department of State, ‘The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems’, 20 September 2005.

35. Biting the Bullet, International Action on Small Arms 2005: Examining Implementation of the UN Programme of Action (London: IANSA, 2005), p.31.