Arms Without Borders

Why a globalised trade needs global controls

This report is part of a series produced by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms), for the Control Arms Campaign

Download the full paper in PDF format (703K)

Also available in Francais (655K pdf) Résumé (141K pdf)

Espanol (415K pdf) Resumen (125K pdf)

Summary

‘My country has suffered appallingly from the effects of the uncontrolled arms trade – and continues to suffer… We don’t manufacture these guns, yet they end up in our country, erode our security and have terrible consequences for our development.’

Florella Hazeley, Sierra Leone Action Network on Small Arms, 9 July 2006

Military spending has risen steadily since 1999 and is expected to overtake peak Cold War levels by the end of 2006. This is the biggest market that the global arms trade has ever had.

At the same time, the arms trade has become more ‘globalised’, with weapons assembled using components from around the world. This has exposed major loopholes in existing arms regulations that allow the supply of weapons and weapon components to embargoed destinations, to parties breaching international law in armed conflict, and to those who use them to flagrantly violate human rights.

This paper shows how the changing pattern of ownership and production since the early 1990s means that national regulations are insufficient to prevent arms from reaching the hands of abusers. Weapons are now commonly assembled from components sourced from across the globe, with no single company or country responsible for the production of all the different components. Companies themselves are also increasingly globalised, setting up offshore production facilities, foreign subsidiaries and other collaborative ventures, sometimes in countries which have few controls over where the weapons go, or to what ends they are used.

Faced with an arms industry that operates globally, governments cannot rely solely on traditional national or regional export control systems; effective control of a global arms trade requires new international standards and regulations based on international law. This paper concludes that existing arms regulations are dangerously out of date and that states must agree a legally binding international Arms Trade Treaty to address the problem.

The global arms trade provides weapons for legitimate national self-defence, peacekeeping and law enforcement, operating in accordance with international law. But, as this paper shows, it also provides arms to governments with track records of using weapons inappropriately and unlawfully against civilians in violation of international human rights law and humanitarian law. And, without adequate controls, weapons and munitions that begin in the legal arms trade can too easily pass into the hands of armed groups and those involved in organised crime.

Traditional arms producers

G8 countries, four of whom are also Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, continue to be among the most substantial distributors of the weapons and other military equipment used in conflicts and the violation of human rights worldwide. In 2005, the traditional big five arms-exporting countries – Russia, the USA, France, Germany and the UK – still dominated global sales of major conventional weapons, with an estimated 82 per cent of the market.

Excluding China, for whose companies there is insufficient data, 85 of the world’s top 100 arms companies in 2003 were headquartered in the industrialised world. This paper shows how many of them (including Canada’s Pratt and Whitney, Germany’s Mercedes-Benz and the UK’s BAE Systems) have been involved in exports of weapon systems from China, Egypt, India and South Africa to sensitive destinations including Indonesia, Sudan and Uganda. In all those destinations, those or similar weapons and military equipment have been used to commit serious abuses. For example, armoured vehicles originally manufactured by Land Systems (OMC), a South African subsidiary of BAE Systems, have been exported to Uganda and Indonesia despite concerns that armoured vehicles have been used to commit or facilitate human rights violations in both countries.

There is no suggestion that these companies have broken current laws or regulations. But in almost all these cases, the exports would not have been permitted from the country where the controlling company is based. Indeed, it is difficult to determine whether some companies are transfering production overseas precisely to avoid relatively strict controls over direct exports at home . Austrian pistol-maker Glock plans to set up production facilities in Brazil, exports from which would not be subject to the EU’s Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. This is a control issue for all countries involved in the arms trade, not just those where global arms companies are headquartered. All governments have a duty to ensure that arms and security equipment manufactured, assembled or supplied by companies within their jurisdiction do not facilitate violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.

Emerging exporters

While the industrialised countries remain the world’s major arms exporters, a growing number of companies in the developing world, backed by their governments, are gaining a significant share of the global arms market.

The number of arms companies in the top 100 based in countries not previously considered as major exporters has more than doubled since 1990. These emerging exporters include Israel (with four companies in the top 100), India (three companies), South Korea (three companies), and one each in Brazil, Singapore and South Africa. Data from Chinese firms is not included, but it is generally recognised that at least three are significant players in global terms. Among these countries, national arms export controls vary, and do not always include explicit criteria or guidelines for authorising arms transfers that fully reflect states’ existing obligations under international law.

In 2002, the Indian governmentstopped maintaining a ‘blacklist’ of countries considered too sensitive to sell weapons to. India has subsequently exported to Myanmar (Burma) and Sudan, both of which, according to the UN and Amnesty International, systematically violate human rights and are now subject to EU and UN arms embargoes respectively.

Bypassed controls

These dynamic trends are outpacing the relatively slow efforts of some governments to control arms exports. Since the mid-1990s, the European Union, Organisation of American States, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Wassenaar Group of 39 arms-producing countries, and sub-regional organisations in East, West and Southern Africa, have all agreed standards to control the supply of weapons to and from their countries.

All of these standards have been useful. But a majority of states have not implemented them consistently and many have not incorporated them into national law. A number of emerging arms-exporting countries have not signed up to any of these measures.Therefore the mere agreement on standards has so far not enabled states to exert much effective control over the global actions of companies based in one country when operating in other countries.

As this paper shows, the global sourcing of components, licensed production overseas and the production and export of arms by subsidiary companies are insufficiently regulated by current controls. They are further undermined by inadequate controls on arms brokering, financing and transportation activities and the lack of a comprehensive system of end-use monitoring of arms and security exports.

It is clearly legitimate for emerging exporters such as China, India, Israel, South Africa, and South Korea to compete for an increasing share in the global arms market as they do in other manufacturing sectors. However, all states have a duty to ensure that their exports are consistent with their existing obligations under international law. Furthermore, it is in every state’s own security, socio-economic and political interests to regulate their exports to ensure they do not facilitate human rights abuses or fuel conflict, and do not divert resources away from sustainable development, which is the danger when states buy more arms than they need for their legitimate security needs.

When emerging or established exporters suffer a competitive disadvantage because they act responsibly to ensure respect for international law, it establishes a disincentive for states to engage in lawful behaviour consistent with their human rights obligations. All states require a ‘level playing field’ that can only be provided by a binding global agreeement on the minimum criteria for acceptable international arms transfers.

Human cost

The scale of human suffering caused by uncontrolled arms transfers makes political action by the world’s governments imperative. On average, up to one thousand people die every day as a direct result of armed violence. Countless more are injured, bereaved, abused and displaced by state security forces, armed groups, criminal gangs and other armed individuals. Between one-third and three-quarters of all grave human rights violations and 85 per cent of killings reported by Amnesty International over the past decade have involved the use of small arms and light weapons. Massive numbers of people – men, women, older people, children – die from the indirect effects of armed conflict: collapsing economies, devastated health and security infrastructures, disease and famine.

For example, attack helicopters, combat aircraft and air-to-surface missiles supplied to Israel primarily by the USA, but often incorporating components supplied by other countries, have been used in the Occupied Territories, resulting in hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries in apparent violation of international humanitarian law. At the same time, Palestinian armed groups have used rockets, explosive belts and other bombs to kill and injure hundreds of Israelis, and the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah has fired rockets at civilian areas in northern Israel.

Easy access to weapons not only contributes to violations of human rights and humanitarian law, it also increases the threat from armed groups and organised crime. This is especially the case with small arms and light weapons. For example, hand grenades bearing the markings of an Austrian company and reportedly manufactured under licence, in all likelihood in Pakistan, have been used by armed groups in numerous attacks in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, leaving scores dead and hundreds injured.

Furthermore, there are other huge costs associated with the arms trade. Government arms purchases can exceed legitimate security needs, diverting substantial amounts of money from health and education. The US Congressional Research Service estimated that collectively, countries in Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa spent $22.5bn on arms during 2004; 8 per cent more than they did in 2003. This sum would have enabled those countries to put every child in school and to reduce child mortality by two-thirds by 2015, fulfilling two of the Millennium Development Goals.

There are many measures that governments must take to address the causes of conflict, since weapons themselves do not create violence. But the availability of weapons contributes greatly to the scale of killing, suffering and fear. Control of arms transfers is therefore an indispensable element in the effort to make a more peaceful world.

The need for action

If based upon existing international human rights and humanitarian law, an Arms Trade Treaty will prevent arms transfers into conflict zones where they are likely to be used to facilitate serious violations of those laws, including torture, enforced disappearances, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. It will also help prevent the supply of arms to law enforcement agencies that use them to commit grave and persistent violations of human rights, including extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and torture. The Treaty will also help to prevent violations of key economic, social and cultural rights, reduce the diversion of human and economic resources from sustainable development and poverty reduction efforts, and reduce the flow of weapons to criminals and terrorists.

Over the past two years, the concept of an Arms Trade Treaty with principles based on international law has gained significant ground. The worldwide Control Arms campaign, with the support of hundreds of civil society organisations and more than a million people via the ‘Million Faces Petition’, has raised awareness, changed public opinion, and pressured parliaments and governments to set up an Arms Trade Treaty. So far more than 50 governments have publicly stated their support for such a treaty and more have stated their support for legally binding transfer controls .

In October 2006, a meeting of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, which addresses disarmament and arms control issues, will have the opportunity to begin this effort. At that meeting, all governments should agree a process to introduce an effective, legally binding Arms Trade Treaty that will create minimum global standards for arms transfers, in order to prevent the transfer of those arms likely to be used to seriously violate human rights, fuel conflict or hold back development.

Already a group of states led by Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan, Kenya, and the UK have circulated a draft UN resolution to start this process in October. While this welcome initiative rightly refers to better respect for international law, including the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, there is no reference so far to international human rights law, and this must be corrected if there is to be an effective treaty that will save a significant number of lives.

Section 1 of this report looks at the globalisation of the arms trade, including the role of traditional exporters and the emergence of significant new arms producers and exporters. Case studies throughout the report illustrate aspects of the changing industry and the inadequacy of current law to control it.

Sections 2 to 4 illustrate the changes in the arms industry in more detail – in particular the integration of components sourced from around the world, the licensing of arms production overseas and the ownership of subsidiary arms-producing companies.

Sections 5 to 8 look at the human cost and governments’ efforts to regulate the arms trade to date, and point out the inadequacies of national and regional measures.The report concludes by recommending that states work towards the introduction of a legally binding international Arms Trade Treaty.

Date of original publication: September 2005