Blog
Supply and Demand: Arms Flows and Holdings in Sudan New report from the Small Arms Survey: The latest Sudan Human Security Baseline Assessment (HSBA) Issue Brief: Supply and Demand: Arms Flows and Holdings in Sudan Across the country, numerous actors are militarized and either actively engaged in armed combat or preparing for the possibility of future conflict. This 12-page brief reviews small arms supply and demand among the spectrum of armed actors in Sudan, including the SAF, the SPLA and Darfur-based insurgent groups. It highlights recent trends and developments as well as describing the primary supply chains and mechanisms by which arms transfers to - and within - Sudan take place. Key findings include: * Demand for small arms and light weapons among a range of state and non-state actors is on the rise in the post-CPA and Darfur Peace Agreement periods. In the lead-up to national elections in April 2010 and the referendum on Southern self-determination in January 2011, supply and demand are likely to remain high. * China and Iran together accounted for an overwhelming majority (more than 90 per cent) of the NCP's self-reported small arms and light weapons and ammunition imports over the period 2001-08. Transfers to Southern Sudan by Ukraine through Kenya have been documented in 2007-08. * Despite the extensive and growing weapons holdings of state security forces, a significant majority of weapons circulating in the country remain outside of government control. Khartoum's official security forces possess some 470,000 small arms and light weapons, while perhaps 2 million weapons are in the hands of civilians countrywide. * Khartoum's acquisitions of new weaponry will likely lead to greater arms proliferation and insecurity in Sudan, given that government stocks are a major source of weaponry for armed groups (both allies and adversaries). * The UN arms embargo has not prevented weapons from reaching Darfur, due to the unwillingness of the governments of Sudan, Chad, and other parties to abide by the terms of the embargo and the lack of robust monitoring by the African Union/UN Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID). * The European Union (EU) arms embargo appears to have been largely effective in prohibiting direct weapons transfers from the EU to Sudan, but European arms manufacturers, brokers, and transporters continue to be involved in indirect arms transfers to the country. There is a clear need for better enforcement of the embargo and due diligence by EU-based companies and individuals. * Available information indicates that the governments of Chad, Libya, and Eritrea have been involved in arming non-state groups in Darfur either as part of an official policy or by turning a blind eye to such activities. PLEASE NOTE the new website for the Sudan HSBA project: 'Supply and Demand: Arms Flows and Holdings in Sudan', and all previous HSBA publications, can be downloaded from www.smallarmssurveysudan.org For further information about the publication and the HSBA project, contact:
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
CCW killers In the United States there has been a rise in the number of people applying for CCW (Concealed Carry Weapons) permits. CCW is the is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. CCW supporters argue that allowing more law abiding people to carry guns will help defend against criminals they may encounter. Concealed handgun permit holders killed eight law enforcement officers and 77 private citizens (including 10 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) during the period May 2007 through October 2009 according to a new Violence Policy Center (VPC) online resource that tallies news reports of such killings. The web site, CCW Killers, is updated monthly to include new fatal shootings and changes in the legal status of concealed handgun permit holders facing criminal charges. (Any concealed handgun permit holders who are eventually acquitted of their alleged crimes are not included in the tallies maintained on the site although the facts surrounding the shooting are detailed.) The new VPC Web site offers detailed descriptions of the 46 incidents, which occurred in 18 states. Of these incidents, 10 were murder-suicides involving firearms and eight were mass shootings (three or more victims) that claimed as many as 11 lives at a time. Law enforcement officers were killed in Florida (two incidents), Idaho, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (two incidents). All of the law enforcement killings were committed with guns. Private citizens were killed in Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida (nine incidents), Idaho (two incidents), Kentucky, Michigan (three incidents), New York, North Carolina (two incidents), Ohio (three incidents), Oklahoma (two incidents), Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina (two incidents), Tennessee (five incidents), Texas, Utah (two incidents), and Virginia (three incidents). All but one of the killings were committed with guns. Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, states, "This new web site makes clear that contrary to the false promises of the gun lobby the simple and deadly fact is that state concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers, mass shooters, and other murderers." Because most state systems that allow the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviews and tallies concealed handgun permit holder killings as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
A lie by any other name still stinks The below article from the UN Dispatch is the latest confirmation of something we have mentioned previously; namely, that those opposed to an Arms Trade Treaty have no hesitation in lying to try and make their case. A UN Dispatch reader in New Hampshire was at the receiveing end of a National Rifle Association push poll about the Obama administration's decision to join a treaty process at the UN to limit the sale of small arms to irresponsible end-users, like militias that use child soldiers. From our man in the north country: I just got a call from the National Rifle Association that was about "The outrageous united nations scheme to ban guns in America." They then asked if I'd like to hear a message from some NRA person so of course I delighted in the opportunity. I'm not sure who it was, but it was a man talking about how the UN and some politicians are trying to get gun laws that will keep guns from Americans. At the end, a woman came back on and asked me this question: "Do you believe that third world dictators along with Hillary Clinton should be able to determine our gun rights here in America?" Amused, I said "yes, but it's a terribly leading question." Then they just said thanks and hung up. Couldn't turn my phone recorder on fast enough. [emphasis mine] For the record, the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, does not yet exist. A few weeks ago, however, the Obama administration breathed new life into a process to control the sale of arms to irresponsible governments and militias by, for the first time, agreeing to a General Assembly resolution that set a time table for negotiations. It's not like such a treaty could ever affect domestic American gun policy, but predicting opposition from the domestic gun lobby, the Obama administration nevertheless inserted a provision in the resolution stipulating that domestic guns sales would not regulated by the agreement. The gun lobby follows this issue closely. They know that the United Nations has neither the ability nor desire to regulate domestic gun sales. Still, they deliberately mislead people by framing this process as an insidious global effort to take Americans' guns away. This is a flat out lie. And to the extent that it makes a treaty process to limit the sale of weapons to militias and governments with poor human rights records or ties to insurgent groups, it is a dangerous lie.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
UN 's First Committee debate on conventional weapons, Oct. 20, 2009
Yesterday the United Nations's First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), continued its thematic debate on conventional weapons and heard the introduction of two resolutions dealing with arms stockpiles and military spending.
Small Arms and Arms Trade Treaty excerpts follow: The question of including small arms and light weapons in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms as an eighth category also dominated discussion, with one representative deeming the absence of that class of weapons “unfortunate”. Another, Slovenia’s speaker was concerned about the Register’s status, as an international confidence-building and transparency mechanism. That was a valuable tool, and Slovenia urged all countries to participate actively and provide national reports, which would prove the Register’s relevance. Frustrated by the pernicious and persistent negative effects of small arms and light weapons across Africa, Kenya’s delegate said that insecurity scared away investors at the expense of socio-economic development. Moreover, a new trend of piracy was seeing increasingly sophisticated smalls arms and light weapons in the hands of criminals. With the insecurity, instability, human rights violations and lost development opportunities caused by the illegal arms trade, there was no more time to waste to establish a strong and robust arms trade treaty, Austria’s speaker urged. “Current discussions on procedural questions distract us from the main goal -- a strong treaty -- and should therefore be postponed until the International Conference on the ATT itself or its last preparatory committee meeting,” he said. Future consideration of the arms trade treaty in the United Nations, asserted India’s representative, should be undertaken based on a step-by-step process, in an open and transparent manner with no artificial deadlines, while recognizing that prospects of an instrument of universal acceptance would be enhanced through a consensus- driven decision-making process and outcome. It was vitally important that any such instrument be consistent with the right of self-defence of States and their right to protect their legitimate foreign policy and national security interests. The process that had begun in 2006 towards the conclusion of an arms trade treaty would hopefully result in an instrument that fully respected humanitarian law and the sovereignty of States, France’s representative said. In the process, he underlined the importance of international support and cooperation, of discussions that reflected regional organization’s experiences, and of the need for the voices of civil society to be heard. France was confident that agreement could be reached. “Where there is a will there is a way,” he said, adding that France would support the draft resolution on the treaty, before the Committee.
...
SANJA STIGLIC ( Slovenia)
Slovenia supported the efforts to establish an arms trade treaty, convinced that a robust instrument would effectively regulate the international trade of conventional weapons, she said. “It is time to make a step forward and set a road map for future negotiations for the Treaty itself,” she said, noting her support for the draft text on the topic proposed by the United Kingdom. The course had been set for the work in the coming, which included the convening of a conference in 2012, where the arms trade treaty should be finalized and opened for signature. “Soon, we should have a well-functioning ATT as a valuable instrument for effective regulation of the international arms trade.” She said that the status of some existing international confidence-building and transparency mechanisms was a concern, namely the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. That was a valuable tool, and Slovenia urged all countries to participate actively and provide national reports, which would prove the Register’s relevance. Slovenia fully supported the draft resolution on transparency in armaments, to be presented by the Netherlands, saying that would be a step forward in disarmament and arms control. SERGE BAVAUD ( Switzerland) said that it was important to decide on parameters for a 2012 United Nations conference on an arms trade treaty that could lead to an effective and inclusive treaty. Turning to the Register of Conventional Arms, he regretted that the group of governmental experts had been unable to adopt substantive recommendations for strengthening that instrument and had not succeeded in adding small arms and light weapons to the Register as an eighth category. Switzerland, a member of the group, had desired action on the basis of those few recommendations that had been adopted, particularly the determination to seek the views of Member States on whether the absence of those weapons from the Register had affected its relevance and level of participation.
...
ERIC DANON ( France) said armed conflicts killed 500,000 and injured 300,000 each year, and those numbers would not drop. Arms control over conventional weapon needed States’ responsibility, transparency and respect of international humanitarian laws. That required, among other steps, addressing the trade of small arms and light weapons. France had proposed to improve the Programme of Action at the last Biennial Meeting of States. Under France’s initiative as president of the European Union, the subject of light arms was spotlighted.
He said that annual reports should be submitted to the United Nations Register of Conventional Weapons. France regretted that no agreement had been reached to include small arms as an eighth category in the Register, but prospects were promising. Turning to landmines and cluster munitions, he noted that France had been the twentieth State to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions. There was a possibility of reaching agreement on a Protocol on cluster munitions within the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and he hoped discussions initiated in 2008 would continue. This year, France and Germany were presenting a draft resolution on the problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus, and trusted it would be adopted by consensus. The process that had begun in 2006 towards the conclusion of an arms trade treaty would hopefully result in an instrument that fully respected humanitarian law and the sovereignty of States, he said. France was confident that agreement could be reached on a legally binding treaty regarding the export, import and transfer of conventional weapons. “Where there is a will there is a way,” he said, adding that France would vote in favour of the draft resolution on the treaty, which was before the Committee. In the process, he underlined the importance of international support and cooperation, of discussions that reflected regional organization’s experiences, and of the need for the voices of civil society to be heard. GRIFFIN SPOON PHIRI ( Malawi) applauded recent progress in the field of disarmament, including the Conference on Disarmament’s programme of work, the Security Council’s summit last month and the talks between the United States and the Russian Federation. Still, the proliferation of small arms and light weapons continued to have a devastating impact. In Malawi, small arms had made civilians and business developers scared, and other countries were similarly affected by that scourge. He called on the international community to implement initiatives to combat the spread of those weapons, including the implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action. Bolstering those efforts required an effective arms trade treaty, and he noted that open-ended working group meetings on the treaty had addressed the issues.
...
FEDERICO PERAZZA (Uruguay), speaking on behalf of Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), stressed the members’ commitment to the Programme of Action as the main instrument for the adoption, in the regional and international context, of measures to control the proliferation of small arms and light weapons. Issues of ammunition and explosives should be taken into account, as those were among the current challenges to the Programme’s implementation. The non-binding nature of the Action Programme instrument also challenged its implementation. MERCOSUR also supported the conclusion of a legally binding instrument to regulate the illicit traffic of small arms and light weapons. That instrument would make it possible for States to trace and track illicit weapons, establish systems to check final user certification, check against diversion, and achieve reconciliation and finalisation of end-user certificates.
He said that confidence building measures were important tools for strengthening peace and security. By reducing uncertainties, such measures were great instruments for integration through greater transparency, and the MERCOSUR region had pioneered their implementation. The group proposed that new measures be sought to deal with cross-cutting areas of defence, as a complement to pervious ones. MERCOSUR supported the total ban on cluster munitions. The States of the region also believed that one of the top dangers to peace and security emanated from the use of anti-personnel landmines. In that regard, it welcomed the upcoming Conference of States Parties to the Mine-Ban Convention, to be held in Cartagena. They hoped that it would be decisive in dealing with the landmines problem. The Convention must become universal. ANGELA HAMILTON BROWN ( Jamaica) commended the recent positive developments of the global disarmament and non-proliferation agenda, and hoped that renewed desire would stimulate changes in the area of conventional weapons. She particularly sought coordinated decisive action was essential to arriving at a permanent solution to the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, as the uncontrolled access and proliferation of those weapons and ammunition posed severe humanitarian and socio-economic challenges to many States. For Jamaica, a causal nexus existed between drug trafficking, the illicit proliferation of small arms and the presence of criminal gangs, a connection that gave rise to a highly organized crime network supported by various sophisticated criminal organizations, within and outside the region. That had created a subculture that glorified violence and gun ownership. She said that, since 2000, Jamaican police had recovered more than 5,000 assorted weapons and more than 127,000 rounds of ammunition, but those seizures had had little impact on escalating gun-related crimes. Over the past five years, crime-fighting measures had been implemented, aimed at tackling the import, transit and export of narcotic drugs and illicit firearms and ammunition. Those efforts had included the establishment of a counter-narcotics and major crimes task force, the passage of the Proceeds of Crime Act to confiscate illicit firearms and other assets of drug dealers and the consolidation of intelligence agencies. Collaboration with the Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Latin America and the Caribbean remained crucial to Jamaica’s efforts. Jamaica continued to call for the full and prompt implementation of the small arms and light weapons Programme of Action, noting the inability of many developing countries to effectively implement that instrument. Jamaica also called for closer international cooperation to assist developing countries in a timely manner to satisfy their implementation commitments. She hoped the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States in 2010 would build on past accomplishments. “One very important element in the fight against the illicit trade in [small arms and light weapons] will be the development and adoption of an arms trade treaty,” she said. PHILIP RICHARD O. OWADE ( Kenya) said that small arms and light weapons had made crime flourish across the continent. In addition to their humanitarian impact, the spread of these weapons meant that insecurity had scared away investors at the expense of socio-economic development. A new trend of piracy was also having a serious negative impact off the Horn of Africa, at a time when the disturbing threat of small arms and light weapons falling into the hands of criminals and terrorists was gaining traction. Pirates had indeed acquired increasingly sophisticated weapons. Kenya anticipated the coming Fourth Biennial Meeting of States to address these and related issues. ... KAMAL KHAIR ( Sudan) said that illicit small arms and light weapons affected poor and developing countries. Sudan was dedicated to fighting the spread of those weapons and was working to strengthen existing efforts on an international and national level. Sudan had worked towards destroying its munitions, tracking and marking firearms and related endeavours. However, financial assistance was needed, in accordance with chapter II of the Programme of Action against those weapons. Sudan supported a proposal for a fund towards the programme’s implementation. Training and capacity-building processes were imperative, as were strengthening border and police operations. He said that the easy access to those weapons by groups of terrorists was a real threat, and he implored producer States to refuse to export those arms to non-State actors. The bilateral efforts of Sudan with neighbouring States were redefining boundaries and better strengthening border control to stem the flow of those weapons and of transnational crime. Sustainable development should be a consideration in that regard. HAMID ALI RAO ( India) said that conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons, posed a grave danger to the security of States and carried serious humanitarian concerns. Those weapons disrupted political stability and social harmony, derailed pluralism and democracy, hampered growth and development and fuelled international terrorism and internal conflicts. The Programme of Action outlined a realistic, achievable and comprehensive approach to address that problem at national, regional and global levels. National Governments bore the primary responsibility for preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade. Arms transfers should be banned to non-State actors and terrorist groups. He said that India was pursuing the goal of a non-discriminatory universal and global ban on anti-personnel mines. The process of completely eliminating those weapons would be facilitated by effective non-lethal and cost-effective alternative technologies. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons remained the only forum of a universal character that joined main users and producers of major conventional weapons, thus ensuring that the emerging instruments had greater prospects of making meaningful impacts on the ground. India had proposed a broad-based dialogue to consider a new and strengthened format for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which would, by common agreement, reaffirm and strengthen the application of international law in regulating and protecting victims of warfare. India had regularly provided national submissions to the United Nations Register of Conventional Weapons, he said. Careful consideration should be given in the future work of the governmental expert group to a new class of equipment, which was now being used in combat operations, before their inclusion in the Register. India had participated in the open-ended working group on the arms trade treaty. The group had acknowledged the respective responsibilities of exporters and importers, based on United Nations Charter principles and it had recognized the need to address the problems relating to unregulated trade in conventional weapons and their diversion to the illicit market. Considering that such risks could fuel instability, international terrorism and transnational organized crime, the group supported international action to address that problem. He said that future consideration of the arms trade treaty in the United Nations should be undertaken based on a step-by-step process, in an open and transparent manner with no artificial deadlines, while recognizing that prospects of an instrument of universal acceptance would be enhanced through a consensus- driven decision-making process and outcome. It was vitally important that any such instrument be consistent with the right of self-defence of States and their right to protect their legitimate foreign policy and national security interests. RAPHAEL HERMOSO (Philippines), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed deep concern over the continuing illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, calling on producer States to strictly apply legal restrictions on that trade, to supply only responsible Governments with them and to strictly use international instruments to identify and trace illicit arms. His country diligently complied with international regulations on those arms, which were similar to its national laws, although in its laws, the term “firearms” was used in an even stricter sense than in the United Nations Programme of Action. It had made progress in the area by maintaining partnerships with the local firearms industry, private security firms, gun clubs and civil society. Placing high value on cooperation with the United Nations system on small arms and light weapons, the Philippines, he said, was also taking measures to prevent exports of the weapons that would violate sanctions regimes or contravene bilateral, regional or multilateral commitments on non-proliferation. The country shared information on illicit transfers, ensured that there was control of imports and exports and did not re-transfer previously-imported weapons. His country also supported the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the Mine-Ban Convention, as well as a future arms trade treaty, which he hoped could address the instability, terrorism and organized crime derived from illegal arms transfers.
...
DELL HIGGIE ( New Zealand) urged continued tangible progress on the full range of conventional weapons issues, adding that Colombia would soon host the second Review Conference of the Mine-Ban Convention. New Zealand looked forward to strengthening the Convention’s implementation, but acknowledged that there was still much to be done. Victims’ needs were not being sufficiently met and mined land had yet to be cleared in many countries. Also, while landmine use had been curbed, use by non-state actors was a challenge, which the Review Conference must address. New Zealand looked forward to participating in the first Meeting of States Parties of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. New Zealand had ratified the treaty and urged others to do so as well. He said that his country had worked with its partners to deal with the flow of illicit arms, a complicated problem that could not be ignored. The Government looked forward to working with other States towards a strong outcome to next year’s Fourth Biennial Meeting of States to the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms and light weapons. The open-ended working group on an arms trade treaty had allowed for a frank airing of views, and regional meetings had made his region more aware of the impacts of unregulated arms trade. All were ready to move to the next phase –- substantive negotiations -– and New Zealand welcomed the path that resolution “L.38” had laid. Globally applicable, legally binding standards to redress the “patchwork” of inconsistent controls on weapons transfers were needed. Finally, he said that the arms trade treaty could not hope to shut down the arms trade or curtail resources used by States in legitimate arms purchases. Rather, it would require exporters to seek prior approval from their national authorities, which, in turn, would consider approving export applications against standardized international criteria. On the rules of procedure governing a United Nations Conference to adopt the treaty in 2012, he said the prospect of taking decisions on a consensus basis only was referenced in operative paragraph 5 of “L.38”. New Zealand would be content if all participants in 2012 wished to support the treaty’s adoption without a vote. A consensus outcome was optimal, but could be elusive.
MEIR ITZCHAKI (Israel) said for some time now, the international community had been witnessing the humanitarian effects resulting from illegal conventional arms transfers, which had allowed terrorist groups to gain access to those weapons, undermining stability. The Middle East had been particularly vulnerable to such transfers to terrorists, despite standing restrictions. The recent conflict in the region had shown that those weapons were not outside the reach of the terrorists. Hizbullah, supported by Iran, continued to use those weapons. Israel was encouraged to hear Iran say that illicit transfers posed a threat to the Middle East. In recent months, transfers from Iran and Syria had continued to Hizbullah, in contravention of Security Council resolutions. That had been coupled with Hizbullah’s effort to entrench itself in the Lebanese political scene.
He said that the principal priority of the international community should be the prevention of arms transfers to terrorists, and a norm banning those transfers must be created. Curbing illicit transfers to terrorists must begin with strong national action. There could be no justification for such transfers or for turning a blind eye to them. Israel had submitted a working paper on that issue, demonstrating the need for immediate and comprehensive action. Practical steps should be identified to advance the issue, including identification of national programmes. Israel looked forward to continuing discussion with other delegations on that paper. His country had long maintained vigorous export control over arms. Those controls met the highest international standards. On 31 December 2007, its new export control law had entered into force. That law gave high priority to the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions. Small arms and light weapons were the weapons of choice of terrorists and that they had humanitarian consequences, with disturbing statistics, he stressed. Action, therefore, must be prioritised to address that the illicit trade in those weapons. The United Nations Action Programme was the cornerstone of international action to curb those weapons. Its adoption had pushed States to act on that issue, but challenges remained. Israel looked forward to the biennial meeting to review implementation, and it was ready to play its part. The meeting’s successful outcome would be a step towards preventing arms transfers to terrorists. PAUL BADJI ( Senegal) said that upheavals in regions around the world were rooted in the illicit transfer of conventional weapons, which perpetuated conflict, spread crime, heightened the risk of terrorism and undermined development. An arms trade treaty would only be effective and viable, however, if it included all conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons, and ammunition, brokering activities, and fully respected international humanitarian law. The treaty should also build institutional capacity and international cooperation and be underpinned by a transparent process that included transporters, importers and exporters in good-faith negotiations. He said that the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms should continue to receive support from Member States, especially arms-producing States. Small arms and light weapons compromised Africa’s development, and he appealed for the implementation of the final document from the Third Biennial Meeting of States on the Programme of Action to stem the spread of those weapons. Support and active commitments were necessary to combat the illicit trade, and the same commitment should encourage a legally binding instrument on marking and tracing. The full news releases is here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Lights, Camera, Action!
The situation with guns in the USA is often best described as surreal. Thus, it only makes sense that a reality tv series, even if not very well done, is being made on the subject.
What motivates the "average" American to buy a gun? Maybe this show will offer a clue.'' Excerpt from a Los Angeles Times review follows: October 21, 2009 Wednesday
TELEVISION REVIEW;
Gun sales, seen aimlessly;
Customers. Hidden camera. That might sound diverting but isn't, really. ROBERT LLOYD, TELEVISION CRITIC Part D; Pg. 10 "In America," says Josh T. Ryan at the start of every episode of "Lock 'n Load," a new reality series premiering tonight on Showtime, "a new gun is manufactured every 10 seconds. And all sorts of people are buying them." As that works out to 3,153,600 new guns a year -- about three-quarters the number of new people who are manufactured in America over the same period -- one would think that, yes, there will have to be some variety. That number does not seem to be too high, or too low, to Ryan, who works at the "family-owned" Shootist gun shop outside of Denver -- it is not his family that owns it -- where he keeps up a steady stream of chatter as he puts customers in the gun of their dreams. Hidden cameras record their conversations -- it is sort of "Taxicab Confessions" in a gun store, without the profound glimpses into the human condition that "Taxicab" can afford, or the sex. Ryan prompts the patrons to talk, but the stories don't really develop into much; and although the arms-buying demographic is indeed wider than one who has not spent much time in a gun store might imagine, their reasons for buying tend to be variations on the same few themes: I was robbed; I don't want to be robbed; guns are fun to collect and shoot. (At cans and watermelons and paper targets mostly; in the whole six-episode run there is, interestingly -- and happily -- almost no talk of hunting.) Every once in a while, a snippet of non-gun-talk flashes by, but those roads are not really explored. And when the store is robbed, the ramifications of big weapons disappearing into the criminal underworld are never discussed.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Sudanese women channel Lysistrata
It appears Sudanese women must have read classic Greek playwright Aristophanes, especially his famed comedy Lysistrata.
According to this BBC report they have slightly modified the primary method of persuasion, but the end goal, to bring about peace, remains the same. BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political
Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring October 15, 2009 Thursday Sudan: Women threaten to protest naked unless "men drop their guns"
Text of report in English by privately-owned Sudanese newspaper Juba Post on 15 October
Women at the women's union have vowed to take off their cloths and walk in the streets naked if the men at battle do not drop their guns. "They should not blame us when we go naked because we can't watch our children die no more" Jennifer Kujang Abe, the union's chairperson exclaimed. "We alone know how much pain we go through when we labor these children. We don't need to carry on more pain by watching them die just because of our merciless men. Thousands of women and children are reported dead or to be the most affected during conflicts in south Sudan, while the youth become the idle and so the most disastrous. In most cases they are the ones who pick up the guns to go to battle. In Lakes State alone, Save the Children NGO estimates that 60per cent of youth are idle.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
American Republican Lawmakers to gun violence researchers: We don't need no stinking research! Congressional Republican lawmakers (currently the minority) on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee are questioning a National Institutes of Health study designed to puzzle out why inner city teenagers who drink and carry firearms, and hang out with others who do the same, seem to end up in emergency rooms with gunshot wounds. Relevant excerpt follows: the gathering of abstract knowledge by qualified researchers who study criminal behavior is a laudable endeavor which consistently benefits the American people, often in ways that the public does not see. And yet we have trouble understanding the administration's desire to spend, for example, $642,561 in taxpayer funds to learn how inner city teenagers whose friends, acquaintances and peers carry firearms and drink alcohol on street corners could show up in emergency rooms with gunshot wounds. The day-follows-night quality of this question and its potential answer simply does not seem to justify the expense that would be borne by people who work and pay their taxes.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Hillary Clinton speaks I found the statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding supporting the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Suffice it to say that this is hardly a breakthrough in trying to bring about an ATT. The key part is this: The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area by seizing the opportunity presented by the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations. As long as that Conference operates under the rule of consensus decision-making needed to ensure that all countries can be held to standards that will actually improve the global situation by denying arms to those who would abuse them, the United States will actively support the negotiations. Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly. Note that she does not say that the U.S. supports an ATT per se; only that it supports negotiations. We await with not quite baited breath for an explanation of what the U.S. considers irresponsible arms transfers. Predictably, the Heritage Foundation, a prominent rightwing think tank in the United States, issued a memo criticizing Clinton's heavily caveated statement. It states: The Administration's decision to participate on the basis of consensus is wrong. The U.S. cannot ensure that the conference will operate on such a basis, nor can consensus guarantee that the U.S.'s export controls--which the Administration rightly lauds as the world's "gold standard"--will form the basis for an arms trade treaty. In practice, since most of the world's states have low standards for the export of conventional arms, the U.S.'s demand for consensus will be used to pressure the U.S. to lower its own standards or expand the treaty in ways that would conflict with the U.S. Constitution. The behavior of the U.N.'s member states demonstrates that there is no basis for consensus in the negotiation of this treaty. The pursuit of consensus, as high-minded as it may sound, will therefore produce an ineffective treaty.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
A reversal of US policy?
Stop the presses. Yesterday, the United States reversed policy and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales. This is great news, right? Well, appearances can be deceiving. Let's look at the fine print.
According to this Reuters article the U.S backs talks as long as they operate by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto. According to the article: The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making." "Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement. While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous. "The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement. However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal." "Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier. We don't know where the State Department written statement the Reuters article references is. As we write this it is nowhere to be found on the State Department website.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
First Committee side events For those in New York City who are interested in current U.N. First Committee discussions on small arms and Arms Trade Treaty issues there are various side events. One took place on 13 October. That was "Corruption, Transparency and the Arms Trade Treaty" by the Control Arms campaign. The next is "Peacebuilding and the Arms Trade Treaty," also by Control Arms, on 19 October. It takes place in Conf. Rm. A, going from 1.15 to 2.30 p.m.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
October 9 remarks to the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) As the U.N. deliberates on an Arms Trade Treaty this month it is worth reading remarks made October 9 by various national representatives to the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security). Excerpts follow: Addressing the Committee as it wrapped up the first week of its general debate, El Salvador’s representative said that although numerous commitments had been made with regard to nuclear disarmament, it remained vitally important to consider the issue of conventional weapons, particularly small arms and light weapons, as those were the cause of the greatest number of deaths in many countries. That was mainly because of their growing proliferation and trafficking. Those weapons were the greatest threat to national, regional and international security and were the ones used most often by criminals and other outlaws. Peace and security were not only threatened by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, but by conventional weapons, said Eritrea’s speaker. Those weapons, particularly small arms and light weapons, were known for escalating conflicts and violent crimes, fuelling terrorism, impeding post-conflict reconstruction, and undermining long-term sustainable development in many regions of the developing world, particularly in Africa. For that reason, she attached great importance to the United Nations Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects. The representative of Lesotho said that, as a small developing country, small arms and light weapons were more of a threat to his country than nuclear weapons. Those weapons easily found their way into the hands of criminals. Since 2006, the country had destroyed 5,921 illegal small arms and light weapons. The international community needed join hands in addressing the threat posed by illicit trade in those weapons. The 2001 Action Programme was key to promoting long-term security and development in developing countries. Developing countries confronted major threats stemming from conventional weapons, said Niger’s representative, drawing attention to the devastating impact of mines and cluster munitions, which often rendered large swaths of land totally useless. Small arms and light weapons increased transnational crime in many parts of the world and led to spikes in all kinds of trafficking, including drugs. And, the people in the affected regions often found themselves helpless. He agreed with other speakers that preventing that phenomenon called for international action, particularly implementation of the Action Programme. Zambia’s delegate was also troubled that landmines posed a stumbling block to growth and sustainable socio-economic development and burdened Governments with financial obligations. A landmine survey of Zambia from August 2008 to July 2009, covering seven of its nine provinces, would provide the data upon which a national policy could be formed. Zambia also urged Member States to stop using cluster munitions and to ratify the Convention banning those dreadful weapons. Expressing strong support for the elaboration of a comprehensive arms trade treaty that would establish common international standards for responsible trade in conventional weapons and ammunition, the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) told the Committee that conventional weapons were used to commit the vast majority of violations of international humanitarian law. They caused untold suffering among civilians caught up in armed conflicts and their aftermath but, despite that fact, a vast array of conventional weapons remained easily accessible, even to those who consistently flouted the law. Also endorsing the elaboration of an international arms trade treaty was Georgia’s representative, who said that would be an effective instrument in tackling the proliferation of conventional arms. He said that the illicit production, accumulation, transfer and flow of small arms and light weapons were among the greatest challenges to international security. The existence of occupied territories outside the scope of international control mechanisms created fertile ground for the spread of weapons.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Stopping The Terror Trade Excerpt below: Irresponsible arms transfers taking place across the world are destroying both lives and livelihoods.
Hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year as a result of foreseeable patterns of armed violence fuelled by the poorly regulated global trade in conventional arms. This terror trade also contributes to hundreds of thousands more men, women and children being injured, raped, displaced, impoverished, and denied other rights – economic, social, cultural, civil and political – established in international law.
An effective Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) should be one that helps to protect lives, livelihoods and rights. The treaty should protect the ability of states to lawfully sell, acquire and possess arms for their security, law enforcement and self-defence, consistent with international law and best practice standards. But to ensure real security, it should also require states not to transfer arms internationally where there is a substantial risk that they will be used in serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, whose protection forms part of states’ existing international
obligations. An effective ATT should also prevent international arms transfers where there is a substantial risk that they will facilitate patterns of armed violence including terrorist attacks, gender-based violence, violent crime and organized crime; or that they will seriously impair poverty reduction or socio-economic development.
A small number of states are now seeking to undermine the inclusion of such rules based on international law and limit the types of conventional arms that should be included in the scope of the ATT. This jeopardizes the efforts of the majority of states to establish a treaty with rules that will contribute to real security.
This document focuses on a fundamental area of risk assessment: the risk that international transfers of conventional arms will be used for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. It presents the voices and experiences of individuals and communities subject to grave, persistent and systematic human rights abuses and war crimes fuelled by the irresponsible supply of
arms. It shows how rigorous risk assessments by arms-transferring states can in each case prevent arms from fuelling these abuses. And it illustrates the kinds of arms and equipment used in such abuses, which must be included in an ATT capable of delivering real security.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Bizarro United States This entry in the Huffington Post nicely encapsulates the general current bizarre situation in the United States when it comes to guns Excerpt follows: When I was a kid, there was a recurring segment called "Tales of the Bizarro World" in Superman comics. Superman stood for "truth, justice and the American way". In the Bizarro world people were governed by the Bizarro Code which states "Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!" Where else but in Bizarro world would the Credit Card Act of 2009, an act designed to protect consumers against unscrupulous credit card practices, be coupled with amendment 1067, inserted by Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that allows concealed weapons to be carried into The National Park and National Wildlife Refuge system? In true Bizarro logic, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., stated, "The fact is American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape." The confusing red tape regarding credit card rules and rates was what the bill was supposed to be about. ... In the Bizarro world, you can rally millions of people to support the unrestricted use of firearms that will inevitably bring about injury and death, pony up $50 million for useless abstinence programs, but can't get people to agree on national health care reform that would benefit everyone. I was a kid when I read about the Bizarro world. I didn't expect it to actually be a Bizarro world when I grew up.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Gun Show UnderCover: Report on Illegal Sales at Gun Shows Yesterday the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, released the 36-page report " Gun Show UnderCover: Report on Illegal Sales at Gun Shows." Undercover investigators working on behalf of the mayor's office repeatedly bought guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows even though they disclosed they probably couldn't pass a background check. The investigation tested private, unlicensed dealers at the shows in Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee to see whether they would sell weapons to someone who said he or she probably could not pass a background check. It also tested licensed dealers at the same shows to see if they would sell to a gun to a person who was buying the weapon for someone else, or what is called a "straw purchase." Combined, 74 percent of the sellers failed the integrity tests, the mayor's office said. Excerpts follow: The investigation sought answers to two questions:
Question 1: Would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably could not pass a background check?
Question 2: Would licensed dealers sell guns to people who appear to be straw purchasers? Results
• 63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows.12 94 percent of licensed dealers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to apparent straw purchasers. • In total, 35 out of 47 sellers approached by investigators completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers. Investigators also observed that some private sellers appeared to be illegally “engaged in the business” of selling firearms without a license, including a seller who sold to investigators at three different shows and who acknowledged selling 348 assault rifles in just under one year – for approximately $174,000 in revenue. More information on the report here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Dying for action: Decision time for an urgent, effective Arms Trade Treaty Excerpts follow: Since the ATT process began, Oxfam estimates that 2.1 million people have died either directly or indirectly2 as a result of armed violence. 3 This figure comes from data gathered by the Global Burden of Armed Violence project, led by the Secretariat of the Geneva Declaration, a network of more than 100 governments committed to reducing armed violence by 2015. Inevitably the figure of 2.1 million deaths is a broad estimate.4 However, it reflects the appalling results of violence that civil society organisations see every day while working in conflict zones and countries with high levels of criminal violence. Among those 2.1 million deaths – overwhelmingly of civilians – more than 700,000 have been caused by the direct and indirect impact of armed conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Sri Lanka. In 2009 the figures were pushed upwards as the world’s deadliest war, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), got worse. Even more people died as a result of criminal and other violence, with the highest rates in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. The huge cost of armed violence also goes wider than the number of deaths to include 16 million people severely injured each year,6 42 million people displaced by conflict and persecution at the end of 2008,7 the $18bn that armed conflicts cost Africa each year,8 and the 12 per cent of their GDP that armed violence cost Latin American countries each year through the 1990s.9 ... Transfers of arms and ammunition to Chad by France, Israel, and Serbia since 2006, including the reported transfer from Serbia in 2006 of 48,610kg of cartridges worth around $900,000,21 despite the substantial risk of diversion to armed groups. The risk of diversion was apparent at the time of the transfer: in January 2006 the UN Panel of Experts on Sudan reported that Darfuri armed opposition groups ‘have continued to receive arms, ammunition and/or equipment from Chad’,22 and in 2007 the UN Panel proposed that the UN Security Council impose an arms embargo on eastern Chad.23 Some of these Israeli and Serbian weapons were indeed diverted.24
• The crowd-control weapons, pistols, assault rifles, and machine guns that Belgium’s Walloon regional government reportedly approved for export to Libya in 2009 – at the same time as the UK blocked exports of small arms to Libya on the basis that such a transfer would be at substantial risk of being diverted to another user.25
• The 53 tons of 7.62mm small arms ammunition flown from Kinshasa and Lubumbashi in the DRC to Zimbabwe aboard a DRC-registered aircraft on 20 and 22 August 2008. 26 looking at an example like the DRC, where the world’s worst conflict continues, shows the need not only to control arms coming into a country, but also, as above, those going out.
The arms and ammunition that sustain its brutal conflict, where killing and rape are still rampant, are overwhelmingly of foreign manufacture. The most widely used weapons are derivatives of the Kalashnikov AK-47. In the eastern part of the DRC, NGO researchers have identified examples of such weapons manufactured in Bulgaria, China, Egypt, Romania, Russia, and Serbia.28 In this, the DRC is typical. According to a report by Oxfam, IANSA, and Saferworld in 2007, at least 95 per cent of Kalashnikov derivatives used across Africa have been imported from outside the continent.29 ... Box 2: What an effective Arms Trade Treaty would look like34
It would ensure that no international transfer of arms or ammunition is authorised where there is substantial risk that the transfer will:
• Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, acts of genocide, or crimes against humanity;
• Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender-based violence, violent crime, or organised crime;
• Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes, or customary law rules relating to the use of force;
• Be diverted from its stated recipient;
• Adversely affect regional security;
• Seriously impair poverty reduction or socio-economic development,
• Involve corrupt practices; or
• Breach other arms control agreements to which states involved in the transfer are a party.
It must have no loopholes. It must include:
• All weapons – including all conventional military, security, and police arms, related equipment and ammunition, components, expertise, production and maintenance equipment, and dual-use items that can have a military, security, or police application;
• All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer, re-transfer, transit, and transhipment, in the state and private trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts, and aid; and
• All transactions – including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance, and security.
It must be workable and enforceable. It must:
• Provide guidelines for its full, clear implementation;
• Ensure transparency – including full national annual reports of international arms transfers;
• Have an effective mechanism to monitor compliance;
• Ensure accountability – with provisions for adjudication, dispute settlement, and sanctions;
• Include a comprehensive framework for international co-operation and assistance.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Disproportionate sales of crime guns among licensed handgun retailers in the United States Dr. Garen Wintemute, Professor of Emergency Medicine and Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program, UC Davis School of Medicine, has a new article, "Disproportionate sales of crime guns among licensed handgun retailers in the United States," published in Injury Prevention journal. See the abstract here. His objective was "to determine risk factors among licensed firearm retailers for disproportionate sales of handguns that are later subjected to ownership tracing, generally after use in crime." Results: In multivariate analyses, cases had larger sales volumes, sold inexpensive handguns more often, had a higher percentage of sales denied because the prospective purchasers were prohibited from owning firearms, and were more likely to be in an urban area, in or near a city with a policy of tracing all recovered crime guns. The effects of several risk factors, including status as a pawnbroker and sales to law enforcement personnel, appeared to be mediated by purchaser characteristics for which denied sales are a proxy measure. Conclusions: A number of factors—most of them characteristics of the retailers or of their handgun purchasers, and most of them available in existing data—were linked to disproportionate sales of handguns that are later used in crime. A few interesting excerpts from the article follow: An estimated 348 910 violent crimes involving
guns, including an estimated 11 512 homicides,
were committed in the USA in 2007.1 2 Firearms are
used in an estimated 68% of all homicides in the
US, and handguns in 73% of homicides involving
firearms.2 ... Federally licensed retailers are important sources
of these guns.5 Of persons incarcerated during the
1990s for gun crimes, 12–19% of those in state
prisons6 and 19% of those in federal prisons7
purchased their guns personally from a gun dealer
or pawnshop. Others use surrogate or ‘‘straw’’
purchasers and acquire guns from licensed retailers
indirectly.8 Licensed retailers who are themselves
corrupt are linked to nearly half (48%) of guns that
are trafficked—intentionally diverted into illegal
commerce.8
A retailer’s importance as a source of crime guns
is often estimated by the number of guns it sells
that are later subjected to ownership traces by
ATF. Traces are performed at the request of law
enforcement agencies worldwide on guns they
have recovered, usually in connection with a crime.
A completed trace ends with the gun’s first retail
sale. In 1998, just 1020 (1.2%) of 83 272 licensed
retailers accounted for 57.4% of all traced guns.9 In
at least 17 major US urban areas, 10 or fewer
retailers account for the majority of all traced crime
guns.10
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Price of Doing Nothing AFP reports that according to a new study by Oxfam International some 2.1 million people have died either directly or indirectly from armed violence over the last three years as talks on a global arms trade treaty have stalled. More than 2,000 people have died from such violence every day since 2006, when governments agreed on the need to regulate the arms trade, said British charity Oxfam and 11 other non-governmental organisations. "Eight out of every 10 governments want to get an arms trade treaty agreed and ordinary citizens are calling for one too," said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International. In a report entitled "'Dying for Action - decision time for an effective Arms Trade Treaty" the lobby groups lament that talks on a global arms trade treaty have been "going at a snail's pace because of self interest and delaying tactics by some major arms exporters." Among the 2.1 million deaths -- mostly civilians -- more than 700,000 have been caused by armed conflicts including those in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, according to the report. This year the world's deadliest war in the Democratic Republic of Congo worsened, pushing the number up further, it said. It lamented recent "dangerous" arms deals with Chad, Zimbabwe and Libya, which it says should not have been done "as thousands of weapons can end up in the wrong hands. "In all these cases, the sale of arms should have never been authorised," said Hobbs. There is an event, organized by the United Nations University, Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations and Oxfam International, to mark the launch of the new report taking place later today at the UN headquarters in New York.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Interim Review of ATF's Project Gunrunner The Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Justice has released a report on Project Gunrunner, the effort to reduce arms trafficking from the United States to Mexico. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mexican drug trafficking organizations (cartels) are a pervasive organized crime threat to the United States, according to the Department of Justice’s 2009 National Drug Threat Assessment. The cartels use firearms trafficked from the United States – primarily from the Southwest border states of Texas, California, Arizona, and to a lesser extent, New Mexico – in their lucrative drug trafficking operations. Project Gunrunner is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) national initiative to reduce firearms trafficking to Mexico and associated violence along the Southwest border.
In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and in fiscal year (FY) 2009 appropriations, ATF received $21.9 million in funding to support and expand Project Gunrunner. In May 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) opened an evaluation of Project Gunrunner, which is ongoing. We are issuing this interim report on Project Gunrunner plans as ATF is expanding the project.
In our review, we concluded that aspects of ATF’s Project Gunrunner expansion plans will enhance its ability to combat firearms trafficking. However, in our view some planned Project Gunrunner activities do not appear to represent the best use of resources to reduce firearms trafficking, and issues with new office locations, staffing structure, personnel with Spanish proficiency, and program measures need to be addressed.
ATF has reported that by September 30, 2010, it plans to place Gunrunner resources (personnel, offices, and equipment) dedicated to firearms trafficking investigations in McAllen, Texas; El Centro, California; and Las Cruces, New Mexico, including a satellite office in Roswell, New Mexico. Each of the three office locations will be staffed by a Gunrunner team, which will consist of Special Agents, Industry Operation Investigators, Intelligence Research Specialists, and Investigative Analysts. Four ATF agents will also be located in Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana, Mexico. We believe the decisions to place new Gunrunner resources in McAllen, El Centro, Juarez, and Tijuana to be sound, based on ATF’s own criteria and our additional analysis. However, we question the decision to place Gunrunner teams in Las Cruces and Roswell.
We also concluded that the staffing model ATF plans to use for the new Gunrunner teams appears adequate, provided ATF defines the reporting and supervisory structure. However, we found that ATF has insufficient numbers of personnel proficient in Spanish on Gunrunner teams. Finally, we concluded that more specific program measures are needed to accurately measure Project Gunrunner’s impact on cross-border firearms trafficking. In this interim report we make seven recommendations for ATF to improve its allocation of resources and implementation of Project Gunrunner expansion plans.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Shooting Down the MDGs: How irresponsible arms transfers undermine development goals Oxfam is also publishing a report this week showing the urgency to have a treaty that regulates arms trade.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns In the United States the Washington Post reports that a new report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group of about 450 mayors nationwide, urges President Obama to adopt dozens of reforms to help curb gun violence, including steps to crack down on problems at gun shows and the creation of a federal interstate firearms trafficking unit. The report "Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns," presents 40 recommendations that "would dramatically improve law enforcement's ability to keep guns out of the hands of criminals -- and, in doing so, save innocent lives."
The strategies outlined in the report focus on the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. According to the report, hard work by ATF field agents has "been undermined by congressional restrictions, inadequate resources, and a lack of leadership from federal officials in Washington."
The proposed changes could be accomplished within existing laws through agency reforms, regulatory moves and better funding, the report said.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Skirting the Law: Post-CPA Arms Flows to Sudan The paper says militaries in north and south Sudan are engaged in an arms race that risks plunging the nation back into civil war. The report said China and Iran continued to be the main source of weapons that were adding to turmoil in the country. It also said the southern military, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), had been stockpiling light and heavy weapons, mostly from Ukraine, for the past two years.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Dealing with Arms Intermediaries: The Pentagon’s Missing Controls on Contractors Engaged in Arms Transfers Given that two of our favorite topics, okay, two of my favorite topics, are arms dealers and private contractors I want to call your attention to the report released yesterday by Amnesty International USA.
The report, Dealing with Arms Intermediaries: The Pentagon’s Missing Controls on Contractors Engaged in Arms Transfers, charges that millions of taxpayer dollars have landed in the hands of at least six arms dealers with problematic backgrounds who transferred arms abroad, due to loopholes in the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD) hiring of private contractors.
Millions lost, due to a loophole? Oops, sorry about that chief! Of the six arms intermediaries examined in the report -- Aerocom (Moldovan air cargo firm), Petr Bernatik (Czech arms broker), Irbis (Kazakhstan air cargo firm), Henrich Thomet (Swiss arms broker), Bao Ping Ma / Poly Technologies (Chinese arms broker and manufacturing firm) and Tomislav Damnjanovic (Serbian arms broker and freight forwarder) some are listed by the United Nations as being involved in violating U.N. arms embargos on Angola and Liberia. One was previously accused of trafficking rocket-propelled grenades to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Another’s agent has been indicted by a U.S. federal grand jury for smuggling weapons into the United States for use by organized crime. Many of them have been involved in attempts to arm human rights violators. As a reporter might say, private contractors are, from a news coverage perspective, the gift that keeps on giving. Read the press release here and the full report here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault In a first-of-its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009. "This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous," notes study author Charles C. Branas, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Epidemiology. "Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?" What Penn researchers found was alarming - almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered. A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting. Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person's possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot. These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study's controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes. "The U.S. has at least one gun for every adult," notes Branas. "Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research 'designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.'" See the University of Pennsylvannia School of Medicine news release here and the article abstract here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2007 Homicide Data The Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. has released a new report, When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2007 Homicide Data. From the introduction: Intimate partner violence against women is all too common and takes many forms. The most serious is homicide by an intimate partner.1 Guns can easily turn domestic violence into domestic homicide. One federal study on homicide among intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined, concluding that “the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence].” A woman must consider the risks of having a gun in her home, whether she is in a domestic violence situation or not. While two thirds of women who own guns acquired them “primarily for protection against crime,” the results of a California analysis show that “purchasing a handgun provides no protection against homicide among women and is associated with an increase in their risk for intimate partner
homicide.”5 A 2003 study about the risks of firearms in the home found that females living with a gun in the home were nearly three times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun in the home.6 Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide. See the full report here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Protect Children, Not Guns Last week the Washington, D.C.-based Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) released its annual Protect Children, Not Guns report finding an increase in firearm deaths among children and teens for the second year in a row, after a decade of decline prior to 2005. Using the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDF’s report shows that 3,184 children and teens were killed by firearms in 2006, a 6 percent increase from the previous year.
“Gun violence affects all of us by increasing health care costs, disrupting social services and decreasing national productivity,” said CDF President Marian Wright Edelman. “We need to ensure that those we elect to public office enact legislation that will protect children by limiting the number of guns in our communities and controlling who can obtain firearms and the conditions of their use. Individuals and communities must act to end the culture of violence that desensitizes us—young and old—to the value of life.”
The 3,184 children and teens killed nearly equals the total number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq since the war started and is more than five times the number of American combat fatalities in Afghanistan.
Protect Children, Not Guns shows how gun violence exacts a high toll on society: The number of children and teens in America killed by guns in 2006 would fill more than 127 public school classrooms of 25 students each.
More preschoolers (63) were killed by firearms than law enforcement officers (48) killed in the line of duty.
Since 1979, gun violence has ended the lives of 107,603 children and teens in America. Sixty percent of them were White; 37 percent were Black.
The number of children and teens killed by guns since 1979 would fill 4,304 public school classrooms of 25 students each.
The number of Black children and teens killed by gunfire since 1979 (39,957) is more than 10 times the number of Black citizens of all ages lynched throughout American history (3,437).
CDF’s report shows that every two hours and 45 minutes a child or teen is killed by a gun. That’s almost nine children and teens each day and 61 every week. More 10-19-year-olds die from gunshot wounds than from any other cause except car accidents.
Black males ages 15 to 19 are almost five times as likely as their White peers and more than twice as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed by a firearm. Between 1979 and 2006, the yearly number of firearm deaths of White children and teens decreased by about 40 percent, while deaths of Black children and teens increased by 55 percent.
Protect Children, Not Guns outlines a series of action steps that individuals can take to help diminish the threat of gun violence to our communities. These recommendations provide practical approaches to reducing the number of child and teen gun deaths. Click here to view the full Protect Children, Not Guns report.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Security Council’s Role in Disarmament and Arms Control: Conventional Weapons and Small Arms Security Council Report has published a report on the Security Council’s Role in Disarmament and Arms Control: Conventional Weapons and Small Arms. This is the second Security Council Report Cross-Cutting Report on disarmament. It follows the report published on 1 September 2009 which dealt with the Council’s approach to weapons of mass destruction. This second part of the study addresses the Council’s role in respect of conventional weapons and small arms. It looks specifically, in a cross-cutting way, at the impact on disarmament at the local level resulting from Council arms embargoes and mandates for disarmament and demobilisation in the field of former combatants. There is some inevitable overlap between the two reports, but due to the complexity of the issues and the timing of the Security Council debate on 24 September on nuclear weapons, it seemed wise to publish them separately rather than as one single study. Cross-Cutting Report in:
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The politics of destroying surplus small arms: inconspicuous disarmament This was originally published as a special issue of Contemporary Security Policy. Some of the articles from that issue are in the NISAT document library.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Still Silly at the Heritage Foundation In a September 18 blog post those little rascals at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative "think tank" in Washington, DC have once again denounced the yet to be negotiated, let alone voted on, Arms Trade Treaty. We say the same thing we said on 31 August in response to the announcement of their Aug 21 backgrounder on the ATT. To wit, it is rather fantastic to write that an ATT will "reduce the ability of democracies like Israel to defend their people against terrorism," among other equally silly assertions, considering there is not yet a final draft ATT for states to consider. However Heritage is guaranteed the right to its their view, notwithstanding its tenuous grasp of reality.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
90-year-old buried in his Pontiac with his guns Sometimes the headline says it all.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Carry A Gun! It's Manly, Patriotic, and Makes A Statement Not to give anything away but the subtitle reads Guns don't kill people, _______ idiots with guns kill people.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
NISAT Podcast No. 2 - full text - Small Arms Survey, 2009 Hi, and welcome back to NISAT, the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers. I’m David Isenberg. Here are some questions to ponder. How many guns are there in the world? How many are being sold each year? Who is selling them? What is the value of the commerce in guns? Of course, nobody knows precisely down to the last Glock automatic, or AK-47 and M-16 rifle but there are reasonably authoritative sources one can turn to for answers. The best of them is the annual Small Arms Survey yearbook, produced by a group of the same name, based in Geneva. As it says on its website, it is the principal source of public information on all aspects of small arms. In the interest of full disclosure I should note that it is NISAT’s database which provides the data that the Survey crunches in producing their annual yearbook. Here are some figures worth pondering from the latest edition, released earlier this year. The Survey estimates that the documented global authorized trade in firearms was worth approximately USD 1.58 billion in 2006. The undocumented trade, which remains prevalent, despite greater reporting on firearms transfers is likely to be at least USD 100 million. Assuming that the trade in light weapons—along with parts, accessories, and ammunition for small arms and light weapons—is also under-reported in the UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE), the actual value of the trade in small arms and light weapons almost certainly exceeds the previous USD 4 billion estimate. According to available customs data, the authorized trade in small arms and light weapons, and their parts, accessories, and ammunition increased by approximately 28 per cent from 2000 to 2006 after adjusting for inflation. In terms of dollar value there was an absolute increase of some USD 653 million in the value of the global trade from 2000 to 2006. According to COMTRADE data, between 2000 and 2006 the value of global transfers of small arms and light weapons rose from USD 2.31 billion in 2000 to USD 2.97 billion in 2006. It is also noteworthy that the increase in the value of the global trade is not explained by a rise in exports of military small arms and light weapons destined for Iraq or Afghanistan, or to peacekeeping forces worldwide. In fact, the three largest absolute increases in the trade in small arms and light weapons reported to UN Comtrade were, in descending order, small-caliber ammunition, sporting and hunting shotguns, and pistols and revolvers. Suspected or known significant exporters of small arms that report little or no information on their firearms exports include Belarus, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and South Africa. Other exporters, including China, Pakistan, Singapore, and the Russian Federation, provide some data on exports of sporting shotguns and rifles, but little or no data on their military firearms exports. In 2006 the top exporters of small arms and light weapons (those with an annual export value of at least USD 100 million), according to available customs data, were (in descending order) the United States, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Austria, and Belgium. The top importers of small arms and light weapons for that year (those with an annual import value of at least USD 100 million), according to customs data, were (in descending order) the United States, France, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Germany, and Australia. The United States is consistently the largest exporter, and it alone accounted for 22 per cent of all exports in the period 2000–06. The exports of no more than 20 countries account for 80 per cent of the trade in small arms and light weapons. The United States imports most of the world’s exported handguns and many of the world’s exported sporting and hunting shotguns and rifles. The United States alone was responsible for, on average, 27 per cent of all imports of small arms, light weapons, and their parts, accessories, and ammunition. In 2006 handgun sales to the United States accounted for 59 per cent of the major exporters’ sales, and US imports of sporting and hunting shotguns and rifles accounted for 42 per cent. I realize that is a lot of numbers to remember. So head over the Small Arms Survey and peruse the yearbook when you have some time. One can find the entire yearbook online at their website. For the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers. I’m David Isenberg.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Small Arms Survey 2009 The second podcast, Small Arms Survey 2009, is now online. Go to the podcasts page to play Please note we are having a slight technical difficulty and you may find both currently posted podcasts playing when you first open the page. If so, just pause the one to which you don't want to listen. This problem should be resolved soon.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
62nd Annual DPI/NGO Conference
Schedule
This schedule will reflect the detailed conference agenda including the Opening and Closing sessions and the roundtables, and the list of speakers and their biographies. Representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations and civil society attending the 62nd Annual Conference will have the opportunity to attend all the sessions and acquaint themselves with the latest developments and thinking on issues of nuclear disarmament and conventional weapons. It is hoped that the discussions and exchanges will offer attendees insights and ideas, which they can turn into actionable projects upon their return from the Conference. WEDNESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2009
10:00 A.M. - Opening Ceremony - Ex Convento San Hipólito ...
THURSDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2009
10:00A.M. – 11:30A.M. Roundtable II: Removing the Tools of Armed Violence Armed violence destroys lives and livelihoods, breeds insecurity, fear and terror, and has a profoundly negative impact on human development, imposing enormous costs on states, communities and individuals. It directly and indirectly kills hundreds of thousands of people each year and injures countless more, often with lifelong consequences. Living free from the threat of armed violence is a basic human need and a precondition for human development, dignity and well-being. Roundtable II will analyze the elements of conflict that are present in all human societies, especially where there is conflict for resources. Bearing in mind that the prevention of conflict is made far more difficult if weapons are easily available, the Panel will examine how governments and civil society can work together to reduce the availability of arms. Speakers will discuss regulating the supply of arms; reducing the demand for arms; managing existing stocks of weapons; removing weapons from circulation and defending human rights. The Panel will also examine the role of NGOs in promoting peace and development. Moderator: Pablo Macedo, Director General, United Nations Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, and Chairperson-designate for the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States (BMS4) to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. Speakers: Alexander Galvez, co-founder and Executive Director, Transitions Foundation of Guatemala Alfredo Ferrariz Lubang, Regional Representative, Nonviolence International Southeast Asia Christiane Agboton Johnson, Deputy Director, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
12:00 P.M. – 1:30 P.M. Breakout Sessions A Strong and Effective Arms Trade Treaty: A Tool for Improving Human Rights, IHL and Preventing Organized Crime After years of global campaigning, civil society and governments have succeeded at getting the UN to discuss a global, legally-binding treaty to regulate international trade in conventional weapons. This session will examine the need for an immediate start of negotiations of such a treaty that will help to protect human rights and international humanitarian law as well as help in poverty reduction and preventing organized crime. Sponsors: CLAVE, IANSA and Arms Trade Treaty Steering Committee of NGOs (ATTSC) Speakers: María Pía Devoto, APP, Argentina Ana Yancy Espinoza, Arias Foundation, Costa Rica César Marín, IANSA, Venezuela
1:30 P.M. – 3:00 P.M. Lunch
3:30 P.M. – 5:00 P.M. Afternoon Workshops - Various Sites 5:30 P.M. – 7:00 P.M. Roundtable III - Ministry of Foreign Affairs ... Preventing and Ending Illicit Traffic in Light and Small Weapons: The Case of the Dominican Republic
Sponsor: Global Foundation of Democracy and Development (FUNGLODE) (Dominican Republic)
Co-Sponsor: Dominican Association of the United Nations (ANU-RD)
Venue: Popular Art Museum
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
SALW mentions in "Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2001-2008"
The latest annual report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service on the global arms trade was released Sep. 4.
Excerpts follow: p. 7
Less traditional European and non-European suppliers, including China, seem to have been successful in securing some agreements with developing nations in recent years, although at lower levels, and with more uneven results, when compared with the major weapons suppliers.
...This tier of arms suppliers is more likely to be sources of small arms and light weapons and associated ordnance, rather than routine sellers of major military equipment.
p. 10
China’s likely client base could be states in Asia and Africa seeking quantities of small arms and light weapons, rather than major combat systems. pp. 10-11
China, among others, has been a key source of a variety of small arms and light weapons transferred to African states. However, since the prospects for significant revenue earnings from these arms sales are limited, China may view such sales as one means of enhancing its status as an international political power, and increasing its ability to obtain access to significant natural resources, especially oil. Controlling the sales of small arms and light weapons to regions of conflict, in particular to some African nations, has been a matter of concern to the United States.
The United Nations also has undertaken an examination of this issue in an effort to achieve consensus on a path to address it.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
NISAT Podcast No. 1 - full text This is the text of the first NISAT podcast, recorded earlier today. Hi, and welcome to the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers or NISAT for short. I’m David Isenberg. Today marks the first NISAT podcast, a feature we plan on doing regularly in the future. Let’s get right to it. On September 2 the Violence Prevention Research Program, at the University of California, Davis, in the United States released a new report titled "Inside Gun Shows: What goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody's Watching." It is by Garen Wintemute, a doctor and well known public health researcher. The report reflects observations made at 78 guns shows in 19 states, most of them during 2005-2008 It’s a fascinating report which you can read in NISAT’s document library, where we just uploaded it. But I would like to quote just a few excerpts from it. Before doing so however, it is important to note that Wintemute is neither anti-gun or pro-gun. He is just anti-violence. Now, here is the first quote. America’s rates of gun ownership are unique. We account for less than 5% of the world's population but 35% to 50% of all firearms in civilian hands. Not surprisingly, death rates from gun violence are far higher in the United States than in other high-income countries. But America is not a uniquely violent society. As Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins demonstrated some years ago, our rates of violent crime do not exceed those of other high-income countries—though they are above average. It is our rate of death from violent crime that is unique, and this high mortality rate results from our unique propensity to use firearms to commit violent crimes. Wintemute notes that the 1999 Columbine high school massacre was made possible by guns bought at gun shows. Second quote. At lunchtime on April 20, 1999, high schoolers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed 12 fellow students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and wounded 23 others. After exchanging fire with the police, they shot themselves. All four guns used in the massacre were purchased at local gun shows, but none of them by Harris and Klebold. Three guns—two Savage shotguns and a Hi-Point 9mm carbine—were bought for them by an 18-year-old friend, Robyn Anderson, at a Tanner Gun Show near Denver the previous December. Anderson bought the guns from private parties rather than from licensed gun retailers. “While we were walking around [the show],” she would later testify, “Eric and Dylan kept asking sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy their guns from someone who was private—and not licensed—because there would be no paperwork or background check.” Anderson stressed that “[a]ll I had to do was show my driver’s license to prove I was 18. I would not have bought a gun for Eric and Dylan if I had had to give any personal information or submit to any kind of check at all.” Just the day before, in fact, Harris and Klebold had tried to buy guns themselves at the show. The boys were 17 years old at the time. No one who would sell to them, but they were told that they could buy the guns if they brought someone with them who was at least 18 years old. Anderson believed it should have been obvious that she was buying the guns for Harris and Klebold; though she was making the payment, “they were handling the guns and asking the questions.” The fourth gun, a semiautomatic TEC-DC9 assault pistol, was bought at a Tanner Gun Show in August 1998 by Mark Manes—again from a private party, not a licensed retailer—and sold to Harris and Klebold the following January. Why does any of this matter? The report puts it this way. Private party gun sales are quick and convenient. Even a completely law-abiding gun purchaser might appreciate the absence of paperwork that characterizes private party sales. And their anonymity will attract those who put privacy at a premium. But the same attributes of private party sales that make them convenient for legal gun buyers make them the principal option for a felon, fugitive, domestic violence offender, or other prohibited person. The key is that while it is always illegal for a prohibited person to buy a gun, it is only illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person if the seller knows or has “reasonable cause to believe” that he is doing so. Again, a private party seller cannot initiate a background check. He is under no obligation to inquire directly. The matter is easily finessed. As one gun seller said while contemplating a possibly illegal handgun sale, "Of course, if I don't ask, nobody knows." For the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers. I’m David Isenberg.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Congratulations, Canadian gun addicts Congratulations, if you are a Canadian and a "gun addict." A brand new web site has been created just for you.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The upside of the recession For those who think the ongoing global recession is just one continuing plunge into the depths take heart. As they say every cloud has a silver lining. And, according to this Sep. 4 article in Blogging Stocks "vice stocks," i.e., gun manufacturers, in marketplace jargon are managing to do quite nicely. Take Smith & Wesson, for example. Its quarterly revenue is up 19.8%. Quarterly earnings are up 125%. And Smith & Wesson has been exceeding analysts' estimates all year. According to the article: But there is still plenty of upside ahead. Severe economic downturns generally increase crime. That causes increased demand by both consumers and police departments for high-quality weapons.
... In short, the outlook remains promising. And a poor economy won't do anything to change that. Expect sales and earnings to jump at least another 25% in the year ahead. The stock should do considerably better.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
What it means to wear a gun in public
We have been trying to find the words to express exactly what we find unsettling about the phenomenon of people in the United States who, objecting to the Obama Administration's plan to revise health insurance policy, show up at town hall meetings and rallies wearing guns.
We came across this article in Salon, a U.S. web magazine, published last month, which lays out in detail, exactly what the problem is. Excerpt follows: In early August, a protester came to a raucous Tennessee congressional forum packing heat. Days later, President Obama's healthcare event in New Hampshire was marred by a protester posing for cameras with a pistol and sign reading, "It is time to water the tree of liberty" -- a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote promising violence. And this past week, 12 armed men -- including one with an assault rifle -- not only showed off their firearms at Obama's Arizona speech, but broadcast a YouTube video threatening to "forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority." These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. Generating maximum media attention, the weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm. With that implicit threat, the incessant arguments about gun ownership have been supplanted by a more significant debate over which should take precedence: The Constitution's First or Second Amendment? Based on America's history, the Founders' answer to that question clearly lies in the Bill of Rights' deliberate sequencing. The First Amendment ethos guarantees people -- whatever their politics -- a fundamental right to participate in their democracy without concern for physical retribution. It is the primary amendment because America was first and foremost created not as a gun-owners' haven, but as a place to shelter citizens from oppression. Over two centuries, we have taken this tradition seriously, enacting statutes reinforcing freedoms of speech, creating the secret ballot, and outlawing harassment at Election-Day polling stations. This is why, whether tracing roots to Colonial England, Nazi Germany or any other tyranny, so many Americans say they came here specifically looking for protection from political persecution. While the First Amendment doesn't ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear -- a freedom that is now under siege. Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us -- whether pro- or anti-health-reform -- afraid to speak out. And so we face a choice that has nothing to do with healthcare, gun ownership or any other hot-button issue that protesters of both parties are fighting over. It is a choice about democracy itself -- a choice that comes down to the two axioms best articulated by, of all people, Mao Zedong. One option is willful ignorance: We can pretend the ferment is unimportant, continue allowing the intimidation and ultimately usher in a dark future where "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Better, though, is simply making public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" -- and without the threat of bloodshed.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border In light of all the publicity given this year to the issue of trafficking of U.S.-origin guns to Mexico here is a relevant report produced by the U.S. Congressional Service. ATF also reports that Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) are increasingly sending enforcers across the border to hire surrogates (straw purchasers) who buy several “military-style” firearms at a time from FFLs. The DTOs also reportedly favor pistols chambered to accommodate comparatively large cartridges that are capable of piercing through armor vests usually worn by law enforcement officers, and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Less frequently, but no less troubling to law enforcement, the DTOs have also sought .50 caliber sniper rifles that are capable of penetrating bullet-proof glass and lightly armored vehicles.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Canadian filmmaker wants series to trigger `national discussion' on guns
For those living in Canada
Canwest News Service
September 3, 2009 Thursday 05:55 PM EST Canadian filmmaker wants series to trigger `national discussion' on guns. Ruth Myles David `Sudz' Sutherland is walking a fine line: the Toronto filmmaker wants Guns, his two-part miniseries airing on CBC this week, to ``provoke a national discussion'' about gun violence in Canada, yet he's an entertainer first and foremost, and the big-budget production has to succeed on that level before any other.
``It's my dream to make entertainment that the world wants to watch,'' said Sutherland, whose previous film Love, Sex and Eating the Bones garnered awards at home and abroad. ``We're not just part of Canada's A/V Club. We're part of the world's A/V Club. Guns sold in 20 territories. This is our biggest success internationally.''
The four-hour movie tracks the illegal gun trade through the intersecting stories of families on both sides of the law.
Toronto Weapons Enforcement Unit members Det. Rick Merriweather (Shawn Doyle) and Det. Const. Ford Sanders (Lyriq Bent) have mid-level gun trafficker Bobby Duguid (Gregory Smith) in their sights, but he's of even more interest when they realize his father (Colm Feore) is an arms dealer with global contacts. Add Bobby's girlfriend Frances (Elisha Cuthbert), as well as lower- level criminals Derek (KC Collins) and Conrad (Cle Bennett), into the mix and you've got an ensemble piece that explores the issue through various entry points.
``The drama in there, in terms of all the characters' evolution, we take you on a journey in a way that I don't think we've seen on Canadian television. Everybody's human there and they're all part of families,'' Sutherland said. ``Being a criminal is a job. It's a job for Paul (Feore). It's a job for Bobby (Smith). It's the family business for them.''
And it's that economic reality that is the driving force behind the trade in illegal guns, Sutherland maintains.
``I think we're going to have to take things more seriously. We're going to have to look at prevention, not just jailing. It's not just a black thing. Increasingly, it's a poor-young-male thing that goes across any race or cultural background,'' Sutherland said. ``That's the crux of the matter: that these young men have to be made part of the economy.''
A devotee of David Simon (The Wire), Sutherland did the groundwork before crafting the script with his writing and producing partner, wife Jennifer Holness.
``I've got a lot of friends who are cops that I grew up with and I've got a lot of friends who are criminals that I grew up with,'' he says matter-of- factly. He spent time in court, hearing cases involving the gun trade, and time listening to the stories of those on both sides of the law.
While the couple was writing Guns, Holness saw her first gun up close.
``It was the end of our street and we live in a nice neighbourhood. The way she described it was `like a big L,' '' Sutherland recalls. She ID'd it in on- hand resource material, zeroing in on a Sig Sauer.
``It's a huge gun and it was in the hands of a boy. It was an altercation and he was yelling `You wanna get dead? You wanna get dead?' That's the street where we walk our baby,'' said the 39-year-old father of three.
With a budget of just under $9 million, the production had to watch every penny, budgeting in such expenses as $14,000 for four hours of helicopter time. And since Sutherland wrote the parts with the big-name talent of Feore and Cuthbert in mind, ``Out of a nickel, we squeezed literally 10 pennies . . . We did some crazy things on that and made the money go extra long. That's why it looks so good.''
It does, too. There's a sheen and polish to the movie that has earned Sutherland that old backhanded compliment, ``It doesn't look Canadian.''
``With Flashpoint, for instance, and others, these shows aren't taking any shortcuts. Our visual look has evolved. The criticisms of the past have to stay in the past. We're talking about a whole different thing now. It's a new generation of storytellers and those stories reflect what's going on here, as well as worldwide. It's a new day.''
And that national discussion that Sutherland wants to provoke? He recommends that parents watch Guns with their kids and then talk about the issue afterward.
Most 16-year-olds he spoke to during his research said they could get a gun with just two phone calls, Sutherland says.
``I think a lot of times, parents are afraid to go there. I think the kids already know a lot of this. I think the parent will have an interesting reaction to this.''
Calgary Herald
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
What, you mean you DON'T want an AK-47? Here's an interesting item from Wired's Danger Room. It appears that in Afghanistan the must-have automatic rifle for Taliban fighters is not an AK-47. Instead, it's the Kalakov, the name the Afghans give to the AK-74, a Russian weapon based on a 5.45mm cartridge.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Inside Gun Shows: What goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody's Watching
On September 2 the Violence Prevention Research Program, an organized research program of the University of California, Davis, released a new report. It is "Inside Gun Shows: What goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody's Watching."
Click here to download a copy of the executive summary or individual chapters.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Busted This was big news when this story first broke the other year in the United States. Now it ends with a whimper.
New York Times
September 1, 2009
Pg. 6
By C. J. Chivers
An arms dealer in Miami Beach who had extensive business with the Pentagon to supply ordnance for Afghanistan’s security forces pleaded guilty last week to conspiracy. The dealer, Efraim E. Diveroli,of AEY Inc., admitted that he had arranged the repackaging of millions of old, made-in-China cartridges for assault rifles, and then had certified that they had been made in Albania. As part of a plea agreement, the government dropped more than 80 other charges. Two other men who worked for AEY on the Afghan contract have also pleaded guilty. A fourth man is awaiting trial. At his sentencing on Nov. 10, Mr. Diveroli, 23, could receive up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The ATT from the parallel, rightwing, universe On August 21, the Washington, D.C.-based conservative Heritage Foundation published a study of the U.N.’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty. As one might expect from such a place it claims the ATT has numerous problems inherent in this proposal, which is now being considered. Heritage states the campaign behind the treaty is based on faulty premises, and the treaty, if brought into being as currently projected, will facilitate, not curb, the illegal arms trade, while at the same time posing a danger to the Second Amendment, to the ability of the U.S. to resist tyranny around the world, and to U.S. export controls. This is a rather fantastic claim considering there is not yet a final draft ATT for states to consider. But America's First Amendment guarantees them the right to express their views, notwithstanding their tenuous grasp of reality.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Small Arms: Destination Unknown The recent release of an aircraft transporting arms by the Nigerian government reveals how the illicit arms trade sustains the country’s most notorious of militant groups, Jody Ray Bennett writes for ISN Security Watch.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
United Nations Disarmament Yearbook on the Arms Trade Treaty The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook Volume 33 (Part II): 2008 is now online. Chapter 3, on conventional weapons issues, is worth taking a look at. Here is what it says with regard to an Arms Trade Treaty (pp. 127-131). Towards an arms trade treaty
By operative paragraph 2 of resolution 61/89 entitled “Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to establish a GGE, to examine, commencing in 2008, the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, and to transmit the Group’s report to the Assembly for consideration at its sixty-third session.97
Pursuant to that request, the Secretary-General established a GGE comprising experts from 28 countries,98 chaired by Roberto García Moritán(Argentina). It met for three sessions at United Nations Headquarters, from 11 to 15 February, 12 to 16 May and 28 July to 8 August respectively.
During the course of its work, the GGE considered the feasibility, scope and draft parameters of a potential treaty. In its report,99 the GGE noted that the question of feasibility had both political and technical dimensions, which impacted on the security concerns of all States. It also noted that treaty feasibility would be dependent on establishing: (a) collectively agreed upon
98 Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Finland,
France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
99 See the Secretary-General’s report on establishing an arms trade treaty of 26 August 2008, A/63/334. (d) potential for universality. The Group underscored that the key to answering the question of feasibility lay in the clear definition of the fundamental goals and objectives of a potential treaty.
On the issue of scope, the GGE noted that no single existing instrument contained an all-encompassing list of options raised in Member States submissions. In this regard, the Group considered the seven categories of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, SALW and whether categories, such as ammunition, explosives, components, defence services, technology related to the manufacture of weapons and ammunition should be included. With regard to types of activities, the Group considered: exports, imports, transfers, re-exports, transit, trans-shipment, licensing, transportation, technology transfer and manufacturing and foreign licensed production, as well as countering illegal re-exports, unlicensed production and transfers, illicit arms brokering, and transfers of arms to non-State actors. Also mentioned were stockpiles and production of conventional weapons.
On the issue of draft parameters, the GGE agreed that principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter would be central to any potential treaty. It also discussed, with differing views, the applicability of existing international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The GGE also pointed out that a potential arms trade treaty would have to take into account other possible parameters, such as General Assembly resolutions and the Guidelines for international arms transfers adopted by the Permanent Members of the Security Council in 1991 and the Disarmament Commission in 1996. The GGE also raised the need to address the following thematic aspects: terrorism and organized crime; regional stability; socio-economic development; unlawful transfers to non-State actors; unauthorized re-export; unlicensed production; illicit brokering; right to manufacture and import; end use/end-user assurances; diversion; and compliance with Security Council arms embargoes and other international obligations as necessary conditions for transfers. Noting the complexity of the issues of conventional arms, the GGE recommended further consideration of the issues, within the United Nations framework, in an open and transparent manner to achieve, on the
basis of consensus, a balance that would benefit all. Further to the GGE’s recommendation, by operative paragraph 3 of resolution 63/240, adopted on 24 December, the General Assembly decided to establish an open-ended working group (OEWG) that would meet in six sessions from 2009 to 2011, to further consider the elements, contained in paragraph 27 of the report,100 where consensus could be developed for inclusion in an eventually legally 100 Ibid. binding arms trade treaty, and transmit an initial report to the Assembly at its sixty-fourth session.
General Assembly, 2008 63/240. Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms Last tabled in 2006, this year the resolution underwent several substantive changes. It endorsed the report of the GGE, taking into account the views of Member
States, and encouraged all States to implement and address, on a national basis, the relevant ecommendations. It commended States to consider how to achieve implementation to prevent the diversion of conventional arms from the legal to the illicit market, where they could be used for terrorist acts, organized crime and other criminal activities, and called upon States in a position to do so to render assistance upon request.
It also decided to establish an OEWG, inter alia, to meet for a one-day organizational session in New York by 27 February 2009 to agree on organizational arrangements, including the dates and venues for its future substantive sessions. The Secretary-General was also requested to transmit to the OEWG Member States’ replies along with the GGE report, and to render the working group all necessary assistance, including the provision of essential background information and relevant documents.
First Committee. Before voting in favour of the draft resolution, six States took the floor to explain their support. The United Kingdom stated that it was remarkable that, while extensive and complex regulations for WMD had been developed, in terms of production capabilities and the weapons themselves,
nothing remotely similar existed at the international level for conventional weapons and that that situation must not be allowed to continue. Australia welcomed the consensus report of the GGE, including the recommendation to engage in further discussions. Japan asserted its understanding that, as a result of prior consultations between the Secretariat and Member States, the Secretariat would absorb additional expenditures for the 2009 OEWG and no
additional expenditure in the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 would be incurred.Mexico strongly supported the draft but regretted that, as
per the Secretariat, the draft resolution had budgetary implications that could not be absorbed. Mexico therefore requested the Secretariat to make additional
efforts to absorb those costs.Uruguay hoped that the draft arms trade treaty would enter a decisive phase leading to the adoption of a legally binding instrument to allow the reduction of the human costs of weapons proliferation, prevent unscrupulous arms dealers from taking advantage of the weakest link in the supply chain, ensure that all arms exporters worked under the same standards, and prevent weapons and ammunition from being transferred when there was a risk that they would be used to commit violations of international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
Nigeria saw the draft as a positive move towards fashioning a universal and legally binding instrument to control and eliminate the illicit trade in and circulation of weapons.
Before abstaining from the vote, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, on behalf of Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, stated its belief that haste to achieve a treaty would lead to a weak text that lacked objectivity, balance and universality and, to the detriment of developing countries, would be susceptible to politicization. It also found it strange that with the challenges facing the NPT and other disarmament instruments, there was an effort to create another regime aimed at perpetuating the
competitiveness of weapon-producing countries, without striking a balance between States that produce conventional weapons and those that import them
for self-defence.
After the vote, seven States explained their abstentions. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela believed that it was more effective to strengthen the existing mechanisms for preventing, combating and eliminating the diversion of conventional weapons to illicit activities. China believed that follow-up discussions on measures to be taken should be conducted in the context of the GGE report so as to regulate the arms trade and prevent the diversion of conventional weapons from legal to illicit channels and to adhere to the principle adopted by the GGE on the need to build consensus and not prejudge the outcome of discussions.India supported a step-by-step approach that emphasized consensus-building, not just on elements but on an agreed framework that would lead to legally binding instruments developed in the United Nations that were objective, balanced, non-discriminatory and capable of securing the broadest possible adherence of the main producers, recipients
and users of conventional weapons. Pakistan asserted that the draft sought to predetermine the result of the proposed OEWG’s work by suggesting that the outcome would be an arms trade treaty. The draft resolution also failed to take into account the GGE recommendation that further consideration of the matter should be on the basis of consensus. The Russian Federation was not fully convinced that an even broader format would enable a consensus
when it eluded the relatively small group of experts representing 28 States.
Nevertheless, it would not object to the establishment of an OEWG if its mandate was based on the recommendations of the GGE’s final report and on the principle of consensus.Belarus believed that the mandate of the working scope of an arms trade treaty. Additionally, taking into account the interests of
all potential parties to the treaty from the very beginning of the negotiations could contribute to its universality and future feasibility. It regretted that the
draft did not include a direct reference to the fact that the OEWG should adopt its decisions on the basis of consensus. The Islamic Republic of Iran considered the comprehensive implementation of the PoA a priority and was concerned that a premature move towards and arms trade treaty would lead to
undermining its effective implementation.
Voting in favour of the draft, four States took the floor in explanation.
Singapore firmly believed that further consideration of a common international standard for the control of imports, exports and transfers of conventional arms must be conducted on a step-by-step basis in an open and transparent manner with further deliberations and decision-making conducted on the basis of consensus.Cuba believed that the draft took into account the primary considerations and proposals put forward by its delegation, particularly in reaffirming the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, international law and the inherent right to self-defence of all States. Moreover, the draft would establish an OEWG to consider matters on which consensus could be reached by all States on an equal footing. The United Republic of Tanzania supported the draft in recognition of the final preambular paragraph, which included SALW in the category of conventional arms. It did so with the understanding and hope that, during the sixty-fourth session, the phrase “small arms and light weapons” would be included at the end of operative paragraph 7 of the draft. Morocco welcomed the establishment of an OEWG, which it saw as an appropriate framework for addressing the complex and universal problem. That underscored the maturity of the idea of an arms trade treaty and confirmed the political will of member countries to become part of the process.
After casting its vote against the draft, the United States asserted that the only way to achieve a balanced and effective international mechanism for
controlling conventional arms trade was on the basis of consensus. It reiterated its support of promoting responsibility in arms transfers and reducing the destabilizing trade in illicit arms, but stated that it did not believe that a global arms trade treaty would accomplish that goal. Furthermore, while the GGE
called for time to reflect before starting any follow-on work at the United Nations, the draft rushed towards convening an OEWG. Additionally, it saw nowhere in the draft, protections to allow States to participate in a process that touched directly on a most sensitive and important part of the United Nations Charter: the right of individual Members to self-defence.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
British parliament wants quality over quantity with regard to an Arms Trade Treaty
On August 19 the United Kingdom's Commons Committee on Arms Export Controls issued a report titled Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2009): Conclusions and Recommendations.
Among other things it said: Progress towards an Arms Trade Treaty 21. We conclude that the Government is to be commended for its continuing commitment to an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). We recommend that the Government continue to seek an ATT that is as strong as possible. We conclude that a successful ATT should be clearly enforceable, have as wide a scope as is achievable, and underline the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian law.
We concur with the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that if in the future, the Government is forced to choose between giving priority to the strength of the treaty or achieving the widest possible ratification, it should give priority to securing the strongest possible treaty. (Paragraph 122). Click here for the full report including testimony and written memoranda (173 pages in PDF format) on the Parliamentary website.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Americans who can't buy guns Here is some interesting information regarding background checks for firearm transfers conducted in 2008 in the United States. Though it may come as a surprise there are some people there who are not allowed to buy a gun. Click here for complete information. Summary findings From the inception of the Brady Act on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2008, over 97 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. Nearly 1.8 million applications were denied. (Table 1) In 2008, 1.5% of the 9.9 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (71,000) or by state and local agencies (76,000). The denial rate for applications checked by the FBI (1.2%) was lower than the rate for checks by state and local agencies (1.9%). (Table 2) Among all state agencies, denial rates for instant check systems ranged from nearly 5% to less than 1%. (Table 3a) A felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason for a denial by a state (46%), a local agency (24%), or the FBI (56%) in 2008. (Table 4) A domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restraining order was the second most common reason for denial by a state (14%) or local agency (17%) in 2008. (Table 4) Among all agencies conducting background checks, 48% of applications were denied due to reasons other than a felony conviction in 2008. (Table 5) In 2008 nearly 28,000 denials were appealed (19% of denials) and nearly 11,000 appeals resulted in reversal of the denial (39% of appeals). (Table 6) According to state and local checking agencies that reported arrests, an estimated 1,299 persons were arrested in 2008 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application. (Table 7) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) field offices investigated 5,573 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) denials that were referred by the FBI in 2008. (Table 8) Records of persons ineligible to possess a firearm due to a mental health commitment or adjudication increased 25% in the NICS Index during 2008; overall, the number of records in the index increased 7%. (Table 9)
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Who doesn't want Viktor talking? Here is an article from the August 14 Moscow-based Grani.ru. According to the U.S. Foreign Broadcast Information Service it is an anti-Kremlin website owned by exiled magnate Berezovskiy. Article by Vladimir Abarinov: "Safe Bangkok" American justice is brilliant at losing extradition cases -- remember, for instance, former Minister of Atomic Energy Yevgeniy Adamov, who never did get extradited to the United States by Switzerland and who returned to his hearth and home, where he was soon set free. But in this case the "merchant of death" Viktor Bout (But) was in too much of a hurry when he raised his spread fingers to the cameras as a sign of victory. The Russian media were equally in too much of a hurry when they announced that the court in Thailand had all but passed a "not guilty" verdict on the innocent martyr. The court has not, of course, passed any kind of "verdict," and the case is by no means closed.
Viktor Anatolyevich Bout likes to say that he has never been an arms dealer in his life, his business is purely peaceful, and all the accusations against him have been concocted by unscrupulous rivals and American propaganda -- they cannot catch Bin Laden, he says, so they are taking it out on him. Recently a new theme has appeared in his retaliatory invective: Apparently it is American intelligence taking revenge on him for refusing to cooperate. He speaks about the attempts to recruit him rather vaguely -- no names, no concrete circumstances. But he demands details from his accusers, wrapping himself in a cloak of purity. "Everyone shouts: 'He carried weapons, he broke sanctions.' What sanctions did I break? Where is the evidence, the facts? Where is the evidence that such and such a number of aircraft belonging to Bout carried such and such cargo illegally? Where are the documents, where are the financial transactions? To this day nobody has presented any evidence," he argued recently in an interview for Kommersant when he was already in a Thai jail.
In fact the dossier on the "arms baron," who was played in a movie by the attractive intellectual Nicolas Cage, is extremely detailed, specifically indicating actual flights, the cargo, the dispatcher, and the recipient. The materials of the UN investigation may be studied here (link supplied to
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/571/65/IMG/N0157165.pdf?OpenElement http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/571/65/IMG/N0157165.pdf?OpenElement ), and the results of journalistic investigations here, here, here, and here. (links supplied to
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/bow/report.aspx?aid=157 http://projects.publicintegrity.org/bow/report.aspx?aid=157 ;
http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1732009.html http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1732009.html ;
http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1732009.html http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1732009.html ;
http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1733012.html http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1733012.html ).
It is simply that among those interviewers whom he agrees to talk to, nobody puts concrete questions to him, and he will not talk to those who are capable of putting such questions. He once agreed to talk to a New York Times correspondent. The correspondent showed him a copy of an invoice -- and Bout declared it to be a forgery.
Nor does he take any notice of the United Nations: "These people do not have operational experience, they have not been professional police officers or lawyers. They heaped everything together into a pile..." Viktor Anatolyevich is being dishonest here. As a real professional, he is extremely well informed about the methods by which the sanctions regime is monitored. This is indicated if only by the complex, confused way of camouflaging the true routes, the content of the freight containers, and the information about the dispatcher and recipient. There are well-known cases of Bout's aircraft flying under false identification marks. Quite a detailed list of the aircraft pool belonging to Bout and the companies affiliated to him exists. The numbers of the aircraft, their models, and other identifying signs are known; these aircraft have been observed on numerous occasions in territories controlled by illegal formations. Therefore Viktor Bout knows perfectly well what evidence could be produced against him.
He also has a second line of defense: "You know, if every cab driver was arrested for having a bad person in his cab, there would be no cab drivers left. I am a carrier... What difference does it make to you what these bits of metal are, if the documents are in accordance with the law? You are simply doing your job." This argument does not stand up to criticism. Unlike the cab driver, the air carrier bears full responsibility to the customs and border authorities for the contents of his freight compartments. He has in his hands all the accompanying documentation for the freight -- he simply cannot not know, he has no right not to know what kind of goods he is carrying.
If you say this to Bout, he will not be at a loss for words, just as he was not in the New York Times interview. "Illegal arms?" -- he repeats the question with an air of injured innocence. "What are they? If rebels control the airport and the city and give you permission to land, what is illegal about that?" In the end, he reasons philosophically, the rebels become the government, and arms deliveries to them become legal. "Arms are no different from medicines," Bout declares moralizingly. "In fact medications can do more harm than weapons."
You cannot fault him on brazenness and cheek. Here is an example of his opinions on general political subjects: "In fact, democracy in the United States has recently been turning into a totalitarian fascist regime." Well, of course: "And the Russians have only just begun to understand what the United States is, after Georgia. Once the Americans have decided on something, they could not care less about the what or the how. They follow Goebbels's method -- if you keep on saying the same thing again and again, everyone will believe you."
All this desperate demagoguery is not, of course, criminal, these are simply sketches for a portrait. However, let us return to the actual case.
Viktor Bout was arrested by the Thai police in Bangkok after he made contact with a person who was conducting talks on his behalf on the delivery of a large consignment of arms to the biggest rebel army in Latin America – the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). According to the American theory, he had come to Thailand to take part in the concluding stage of the negotiations. According to the indictment, we are talking about the sale of portable antiaircraft missile systems, antitank grenade launchers, AK-47automatic rifles, antipersonnel mines, C-4 plastic explosives, night vision instruments, "ultralight" aircraft, and drones. The rebels, however, were imaginary -- their parts were played by FBI agents who lured Bout into a trap in this way. The Thai authorities were fully informed about the operation and provided assistance to the Americans. When the trap snapped shut, the United States officially demanded the extradition of the arrested man.
The extradition case dragged on, after a fashion, for six months: First the witnesses were absent, then the defense lawyers were sick. US interests were represented in the Bangkok criminal court by Thai prosecutors, which is to say, representatives of the state. In the end Judge Chittakorn Pattanasiri decided to refuse extradition, but again, not because of the shortage of evidence, as some Russian commentators assert, but because he regards the Colombian partisans as freedom fighters. FARC is on the American list of terrorist organizations, but is not regarded as such in Thailand. "This is apolitical case," the judge declared. "Under Thai laws the charges are invalid."
The American side states that the judge's decision is contrary to the spirit and letter of the bilaterally extradition agreement. The prosecutors are planning to appeal to a higher court. Until the appeal is heard, Bout will remain behind bars.
According to the journalist Douglas Farah, author of a book about Viktor Bout, the Russian Government is not simply playing an interested part in the Bout affair, but has exerted marked pressure on Thailand as well as offering it highly advantageous gas and oil contracts. Why is Moscow so interested in thwarting the extradition of a patented "merchant of death" to the United States? "He could tell them a lot about the structure of the Russian intelligence services and about the Russian military industry," Douglas Farah says in an interview for the journal Foreign Policy. "He could probably provide a great deal of information about various non state organizations to which he has supplied weapons and which are active to this day, from Hezbollah to the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia... If he starts talking he could damage many people, first and foremost Russians."
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
U.S. and Mexico announce arrangement to bolster cooperation on international firearms trafficking cases Yesterday the United States and Mexico signed a Letter of Intent to develop a coordinated and intelligence-driven response to the threat of cross border smuggling and trafficking of weapons and ammunition. It recommends a joint strategic implementation plan to develop cooperative protocols to govern weapons and ammunition trafficking investigations in the United States and Mexico and improve information sharing between the two countries to better identify smuggling and trafficking trends and support bilateral investigation efforts. Reuters wrote about it here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Arms Trade Treaty: Countering Myths and Misperceptions Last month Saferworld released a briefing paper The Arms Trade Treaty: Countering Myths and Misperceptions. Written by Elizabeth Kirkham it addresses the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) process, aiming to dispel some of the myths and misperceptions that have been raised in ATT discussions at the UN and elsewhere.
Excerpt follows:
As momentum builds behind an ATT, more states are seeing the benefits of being involved in the process and are lending their support to the initiative. Seven out of the top ten major arms exporting states already support the establishment of an ATT.
Evidence suggests that creating an international norm helps to influence the behaviour of countries, even if they do not sign up to a particular treaty. For example, although the US has not acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty it has not used antipersonnel landmines since the treaty was signed.
As the momentum behind the ATT initiative has grown, a number of governments have changed or clarified their position and now support an ATT. There is still time for other
governments to change their positions as work progresses; most governments will want to be part of the majority process.
A few states may be reluctant to accept their obligations to respect the UN Charter and other international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian
law, or to apply these explicitly to international transfers of conventional weapons and munitions.An ATT would clarify and reinforce the connection between states’ existing legal
responsibilities and arms transfers. All governments have an overriding interest in establishing a stable and secure international system that saves lives, protects livelihoods
and responds to the basic rights and needs of the world’s people.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
What is that A-Bout? Here is another reason for an Arms Trade Treaty. The below is excerpted from this International Relations and Security Network blog post. Yet Thailand argues that its domestic laws do not provide for trying “aliens killing aliens outside of Thailand.” This sounds very 20th century to me. It shows that when it comes to illegal arms trade, international legal mechanisms have not yet made the transition into the 21st century and hence the new realities of the post-Cold War globalized world. The Bout case demonstrates that we urgently need an effective Arms Trade Treaty, as is under discussion at the United Nations (also see this Saferworld report).
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
America the Ironic
Not everyone can master irony well. Yet, some people in the United States, by bringing loaded guns to health insurance reform meetings, seem to manage quite nicely.
New York Times columnist Gail Collins details the lunacy, oops, I mean, irony. Excerpt follows: Thanks to the health care protests over the past week, the nation seems to have come to a fragile consensus on a few critical issues. For instance, government-run death panels — not good. And, Nazis — nobody likes them.
Interestingly, we do not have any agreement at all on the question of whether it is a good plan to bring a gun to a gathering of angry and overwrought people. To be honest, I thought we might be able to nail this one down.
But no. ... We are getting yet another series of reminders of the vast gun gap in this country. There is the part that thinks a room full of red-faced men and women screaming at one another is the worst place in the world to bring a firearm. And then there is the part that holds it is exactly the place where you need it most.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Lawyers, Guns and Money Back when one is a child he or she is taught that legislators are motivated just by trying to do the right things. Of course, as soon as one gets past kindergarten one starts learning, to use the vernacular, that money talks and BS walks. In that regard we invite you to visit the Open Secrets website run by the Center for Responsive Politics. It recently added a new feature that helps you connect the dots between specific industries and the lobbyists going to bat for them. Unfortunately, this is just for industries in the United States and legislators in the U.S. Congress. Still, given that the United States imports most of the world’s exported handguns it is worth looking at. Below is some data taken from the website. Feel free to visit the site and search among different congressional cycles, see who the recipients are, and find out exactly how much it takes to buy, a congressman or senator, oops, we mean allow a citizen to express their constitutional right to free expression SummaryNational Rifle Assn The National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t just the most powerful pro-gun lobby in Washington. It is the most powerful lobby of all, at least according to Fortune magazine, which put the NRA at the top of its list of “Power 25” lobbying groups in 2002. The NRA goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, background checks for gun owners, and registration of firearms. NRA’s influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads and the like. (The NRA spent an $20 million on such activities during the 2000 elections alone, estimates the Annenberg Public Policy Center.) Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the NRA supported proposals to arm airline pilots with guns. Cycle Total Democrats Republicans % to Dems % to Repubs Individuals PACs Soft (Indivs) Soft (Orgs)
2010 $87,300 $13,150 $74,150 15% 85% $0 $87,300 $0 $0
2008 $1,160,612 $236,580 $924,032 20% 80% $4,950 $1,155,662 $0 $0
2006 $947,625 $137,888 $809,737 15% 85% $2,450 $945,175 $0 $0
2004 $1,150,130 $159,596 $990,534 14% 86% $18,581 $1,131,549 $0 $0
2002 $2,028,389 $159,100 $1,866,991 8% 92% $4,750 $1,270,766 $221,344 $531,529
2000 $3,140,346 $250,250 $2,883,146 8% 92% $11,900 $1,639,224 $350 $1,488,872
1998 $2,041,961 $285,700 $1,756,261 14% 86% $1,300 $1,690,661 $0 $350,000
1996 $1,671,696 $265,700 $1,405,996 16% 84% $1,200 $1,582,771 $0 $87,725
1994 $2,222,238 $434,769 $1,787,469 20% 80% $500 $1,918,238 $0 $303,500
1992 $1,774,346 $653,542 $1,113,304 37% 63% $700 $1,773,646 $0 $0
1990 $870,493 $314,208 $556,285 36% 64% $0 $870,493 N/A N/A
TOTAL $17,095,136 $2,910,483 $14,167,905 17% 83% $46,331 $14,065,485 $221,694 $2,761,626 The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, individual and soft money donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002. NOTE: Soft money contributions were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle and were banned after the 2002 cycle. Data for the current election cycle was released by the Federal Election Commission on May 12, 2009. National Rifle Assn: Recipients
Select Cycle: Money to Congress: 2008 Cycle
Dems: $235,330
Repubs: $824,632
Others: $0
Incumbents: $906,612
Non-Incumbents: $153,350 House # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats
58 $3,800 $220,430
Republicans
168 $3,228 $542,382
Independents 0 $0 $0
TOTAL 226 $3,375 $762,812
The US House of Representatives has 435 members.
Senate # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats
2 $4,975 $9,950
Republicans
20 $6,692 $133,850
Independents 0 $0 $0
TOTAL 22 $6,536 $143,800
The US Senate has 100 members.
Top Recipients
House Sali, William T
$13,850
House Mahoney, Tim
$12,400
Senate Chambliss, Saxby
$12,350
House Young, Don
$10,150
Senate Alexander, Lamar
$9,900
House Bachmann, Michele
$9,900
House Bee, Timothy
$9,900
Senate Dole, Elizabeth
$9,900
House Feeney, Tom
$9,900
House Harris, Andy
$9,900
House Keller, Ric
$9,900
House Kuhl, John R Jr
$9,900
Senate McConnell, Mitch
$9,900
House Musgrave, Marilyn
$9,900
House Paulsen, Erik
$9,900
House Stivers, Steve
$9,900
House Tiahrt, Todd
$9,900
House Souder, Mark E
$9,750
House Latta, Robert E
$9,000
House Buchanan, Vernon
$8,950
See all recipients Based on data released by the FEC on May 12, 2009. National Rifle Assn: Congressional Committees
Select Cycle:
House Totals
Committee Total Democrats Republicans From Individuals From PACs
Admin
$3,000 $1,000 $2,000 $0 $3,000
Agriculture
$167,850 $92,050 $75,800 $0 $167,850
Appropriations
$110,050 $46,750 $63,300 $0 $110,050
Armed Svcs
$86,750 $23,900 $62,850 $500 $86,250
Budget
$55,750 $12,450 $43,300 $0 $55,750
Education
$66,950 $6,950 $60,000 $0 $66,950
Energy/Commerce
$100,650 $36,350 $64,300 $0 $100,650
Financial Svcs
$131,700 $43,750 $87,950 $0 $131,700
Govt Reform
$61,530 $6,380 $55,150 $0 $61,530
Intl Relations
$47,000 $6,000 $41,000 $0 $47,000
Judiciary
$58,200 $4,000 $54,200 $0 $58,200
Resources
$81,500 $18,400 $63,100 $750 $80,750
Rules
$14,950 $2,000 $12,950 $0 $14,950
Science
$91,250 $36,850 $54,400 $0 $91,250
Sm Business
$74,650 $19,400 $55,250 $0 $74,650
Transportation
$177,830 $60,580 $117,250 $250 $177,580
Vet Affairs
$67,350 $29,900 $37,450 $0 $67,350
Ways & Means
$45,782 $6,500 $39,282 $0 $45,782
Intelligence
$28,350 $7,950 $20,400 $0 $28,350
Global Warming
$1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $1,000
Homeland Sec
$39,650 $2,000 $37,650 $0 $39,650
Senate Totals
Committee Total Democrats Republicans From Individuals From PACs
Appropriations
$40,500 $2,500 $38,000 $250 $40,250
Armed Svcs
$59,150 $0 $59,150 $1,250 $57,900
Banking
$18,350 $2,500 $15,850 $0 $18,350
Budget
$30,250 $0 $30,250 $0 $30,250
Commerce
$26,800 $0 $26,800 $1,500 $25,300
Energy
$27,350 $2,500 $24,850 $0 $27,350
Envir/Pub Wks
$35,700 $7,450 $28,250 $0 $35,700
Finance
$25,300 $7,450 $17,850 $0 $25,300
Foreign Rel
$12,900 $0 $12,900 $0 $12,900
Govt Affairs
$21,100 $0 $21,100 $250 $20,850
Health/Ed/Labor
$21,800 $0 $21,800 $0 $21,800
Indian Affairs
$21,150 $2,500 $18,650 $1,250 $19,900
Judiciary
$21,300 $0 $21,300 $0 $21,300
Rules
$44,850 $0 $44,850 $250 $44,600
Sm Business
$21,300 $0 $21,300 $0 $21,300
Vet Affairs
$15,850 $0 $15,850 $0 $15,850
Intelligence
$12,350 $0 $12,350 $0 $12,350
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Something is rotten in Bangkok As Doug Farah literally wrote, or co-wrote to be precise, the definitive book on Viktor Bout, this blog post he wrote on yesterday's decision merits reading. Excerpt follows: Most of the defendant’s legal arguments centered on the fact that no evidence linked him to the FARC. But the sole legal issue at hand was whether the extradition request was valid. The Thai foreign ministry testified in court that it was. With strong Russian pressure mounting to keep Bout from being extradited — the nation’s Duma, or lower house of parliament, passed a resolution condemning the extradition request. The judge felt trapped. In March, he said in open court, amazingly, that he was in a “tough position” because “bilateral ties with Russia and the United States could be at stake.” Apparently he decided he feared the Russians more than the Americans. But that may be a mistake. A large, bipartisan group of senior congressional leaders have shown a strong interest in Bout’s case, and some are already pushing for a retaliatory U.S. response. Rep. Ed Royce, a California Republican who has led the congressional effort to hold Bout accountable for his actions, stated: “If this ruling holds, this [U.S.-Thai] relationship will be set back dramatically.” “While the Thai Foreign Ministry has stated that the extradition request meets the conditions of the Thai-American extradition treaty, the Russian government has been pushing hard for Bout’s release,” Royce continued. “Politics seems to have trumped the law. Something is rotten in Bangkok.” Something is rotten indeed.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Bout is just the middleman; target the big fish This editorial in today's National newspaper in Thailand puts the Bout court decision in perspective. Let's not just focus on convenient small fry. Excerpt follows. Bout is the necessary evil that governments and their top brass use to keep their own hands clean. Perhaps the search for truth and justice should go beyond such unofficial middlemen to include other more powerful individuals who stand to gain from this type of transaction.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The clock is ticking More coverage on yesterday's decision by the Bangkok Criminal Court in Thailand to extradite accused arms dealer Viktor Bout to the United States. The court gave the United States 72 hours to file an appeal. The clock is ticking.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Thailand Won’t Extradite Bout We can hear the screaming from Washington, D.C. as the news circulates that today a Thai judge rejected a request by United States authorities for the extradition of Viktor Bout, the Russian businessman and suspected global arms trafficker. Bout was arrested in a March 2008 sting operation at a hotel in Bangkok after allegedly agreeing to sell millions of dollars worth of weaponry to undercover U.S. agents posing as rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. For a quite interesting article on some details of Bout's past operations see this just published article in the UAE National newspaper.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Australia's black market Just what does a black market gun go for these days? Well, it is impossible to generalize as every market is different (the laws of supply and demand vary) but this recent Sydney Morning Herald article gives us some idea of prices in Australia. Excerpt follows: Informed sources say one of Australia's best-kept secrets is a thriving arms blackmarket. Like drugs, the guns are out there. All it takes to get them is contacts - and plenty of cash. TWO months ago, within shooting distance of some of this week's raids in Melbourne's northern suburbs, an underground arms dealer with Hells Angels connections was offering for sale two boxes of hand grenades. Each box contained 25 grenades, described by sources as ''the copper wire models used in Vietnam''. The price? A cool $250 each - $12,500 the lot. Even allowing for the middleman's mark-up, it's easy money (or drugs) for the soldier who stole them from an army base.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
America's inalienable right to cheap ammo
In these troubling economic times, when it is unclear whether people get to keep their job, be able to find a new one if they are unemployed, or face losing their homes, it must be encouraging for U.S. citizens to know that at least one member of its legislative branch (Congress) has dared to dispense with the inane and trivial and, instead, focus like a laser beam on the truly important things in life.
That brings us to Rep. Rodney Alexander, (R-Louisiana), who has introduced a resolution (H. Con. Res. 173) "Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Federal Government should not levy any additional taxes on firearms or firearm ammunition during the current economic hardship." The resolution was introduced on July 30. It was referred to the Ways and Means Committee. For those suspicious people who might think that the congressman is just another paid lackey of a special interest group we hasten to note that a check of records (which you can do yourself at OpenSecrets) shows that he received not a single penny in political action committee contributions from the National Rifle Association or any other "gun rights" group. Thus, his resolution is apparently based just on his ideological convictions. Way to go Congressman Alexander. It is good to know you are not letting yourself being distracted by other, lesser issues, such as the health care debate or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. See the full resolution here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The status quo for US guns to Mexico continues From today's Washington Times: Sunday, August 9, 2009
Prospects dim for Mexican firearms treaty
President Obama's call for the Senate to ratify a hemispheric small-firearms treaty dominated his last visit to Mexico, but in the four months since, both the treaty pledge and the drug violence that prompted it have dropped off the radar - a victim of Congress' full schedule and gun politics.
That means on Sunday Mr. Obama will go with an empty hand to Mexico, which blames the U.S. for many of the weapons used by drug cartels that have violently thwarted a crackdown by Mexican authorities. And even though Mr. Obama and his administration have accepted that blame, prospects are dim for passage of the treaty, which calls on countries to license gun manufacturers and try to control illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition and explosives.
The chief U.S. negotiator for the 1997 treaty, known by its Spanish acronym of CIFTA, says it was written specifically to avoid forcing the U.S. to change its laws, and says it does not give any other country a say over what is legal or illegal in the U.S. - and that gun-rights groups were even involved in writing parts of the treaty. Full article here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Africa and an arms trade treaty It concludes thusly: There has been a high level of commitment and participation in the ATT process by states, international organisations and NGOs, with only the US having actively voted against furthering the process. While support for the development of an ATT has been significant, negotiations on the details and parameters of a treaty still need to take place, and these are likely to be lengthy and complex. This was reflected in the GGE report, where it was stated that consensus was currently lacking in many areas.
Though several states abstained from voting in favour of the ATT resolution at the First Committee and General Assembly meetings in 2008, many of those countries have at some time expressed their support for the initiative. These include Egypt, Sudan and Libya. However, the concerns and issues raised by these states need to be addressed as not doing so may result in them blocking the process at a later stage, or withdrawing their support for the initiative completely.
Despite the Bamako Declaration and other African regional agreements highlighting the importance of appropriate and effective controls over arms transfers, there has been little bilateral discussion between states on the development of an ATT. There has also been little engagement by the AU. Given that Africa is one of the regions that could be substantially impacted by an ATT, African countries might consider developing a more unified approach, or even a common position, to highlight their issues and concerns on the development of an ATT.
At the first regional seminar held in Dakar in April 2009, some participants expressed a desire to see the development of an AU common position on an ATT, though it was acknowledged that this could take time and that regional organisations might be able to engage more efficiently in the ATT process by developing common regional positions that could be fed into the UN process.49 African countries that have shown support for the initiative should consider initiating discussions with states that have tended to be more cautious so as to ease concerns and build support for the initiative. African civil society organisations could also support this process and encourage governments to engage more proactively in ATT processes. States might also consider including national defence forces and arms industries in discussions on an ATT at the national level so as to address their concerns and to reduce opposition towards the process.
Lastly, African countries should take a more pro-active stance in showing their commitment and support towards the ATT initiative by abiding by and implementing the principles that have been put forward to guide its development. Most African countries do not export arms and should therefore focus on strengthening their import controls and regulations, reducing corruption and promoting greater transparency in arms procurement. This will highlight the potential benefits of an ATT for African countries and, in turn, possibly reduce uncertainties and reservations.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
"A Battle of Goliaths" Q&A Washington Post Style reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia and John Feinblatt of Mayors Against Illegal Guns discuss New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's showdown with the NRA over gun rights. Ed's note: A representative of the NRA was invited to join the Q and A but was unable to participate.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Skewing gun violence data One cannot have a useful debate or, ultimately, have good policy if does not use sound data. Unless one is a fulltime epistemologist one relies on government agencies to collect fulltime, accurate data. But, as this Chicago Sun Times story shows there may be reason to believe that some will try to influence research to benefit their own side. We know, you're shocked, shocked you say. Still, this is a little bit more blatant than the average case. Excerpt follows: Chicago Sun Times
August 5, 2009 Wednesday
Final Edition NRA lobbying skews gun violence data BYLINE: Carol Marin, The Chicago Sun-Times EDITORIALS; Carol Marin; Pg. 26 ... We have lousy numbers on gun violence. Why, in this sophisticated world of a data mining, where marketers can profile you within an inch of your life, can't we track victims of violence? Not only the dead ones, who tragically are easier to count, but the ones who are shot but don't die? Could the answer, at least in part, be the massively powerful, heavily funded National Rifle Association? Back in 1997, PBS' "Frontline" reported that when the respected Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta published a "mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries," the CDC was already firmly in the gunsights of the NRA. And so the CDC's effort to exhaustively investigate gun-related injuries was met with intense NRA lobbying that, not surprisingly, fueled Congress' unwillingness to fully fund the CDC's continued research. Kathleen Monahan, the former project director for the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System, puts it this way: "While firearms injuries are one of the leading causes of hospitalization and death for Americans, the CDC was prevented for years from investigating injuries and deaths due to firearms. This was always attributed to the NRA's power in Congress. This is well known among gun violence prevention researchers." The NRA, for its part, makes no bones about its attempts to inhibit or limit research on gun violence. "We've interjected ourselves when we think there would be biased, outcome-based research," Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's legislative liaison for Illinois, said Tuesday by phone. "We have anti-gun researchers with a bias from the git-go. . . . We don't think taxpayer dollars should be used . . . to drive an agenda to restrict law-abiding citizens' access to firearms." But restricting access to information? Not a problem. The NRA's fearsome clout goes a long way to explaining why only 17 states are part of the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System. Begun in 2002, it ran out of funding by the time Illinois applied in 2004. Private money from the Joyce and MacArthur foundations came to Illinois' rescue as it tried to examine gun violence. Still that money covers only three counties. "Information is the gun lobby's enemy," said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center, based in Washington. So much so that when it comes to suicides, the CDC does not break out its data with regard to the method used. Hanging? Drug overdose? Gun? If you don't break the numbers out specifically, well, then you end up talking less about guns, don't you? And that, clearly, is the point. As phenomenal as the work of the CDC is, it lives at the mercy of a Congress that still too afraid of the NRA. Given the shooting epidemic in Chicago and other cities, that's a scandal.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Mayors, Guns & Money This article in the August 5 Washgton Post is well worth reading to understand the politics of gun control in the United States. Excerpt follows: Mayors, Guns & Money;
N.Y.'s Michael Bloomberg has picked a fight with the gun lobby. His arsenal: 450 other mayors and his own deep pockets.
They've got 4 million followers.
He's got 16 billion simoleons.
This could get verrrrry interesting.
This being the stare-down between the National Rifle Association and Michael Bloomberg.
Behemoth vs. behemoth.
Since the Reagan revolution, few lobbies have been mightier than the NRA. The Second Amendment defenders rarely lose on Capitol Hill, but lose they did just a few days ago, falling short in a sit-up-and-take-notice squeaker of a Senate vote on an amendment that would have let gun owners carry concealed weapons across most state lines. Score one for Bloomie and 450 of his closest mayor buddies (they call themselves Mayors Against Illegal Guns) . . . and their D.C. lobbyists and their consultants and their ad people. Score one against the NRA and the amendment's sponsor, that rising GOP star Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.
The Thune amendment inspired a gymnastic lobbying effort, juiced by Bloomberg's wealth -- he's injected $2.9 million of his own money into the mayors group since 2007, a spokesman confirms. Zooming in on how Bloomberg's group, far from an established Beltway force, out-lobbied the once-invincible NRA affords a glimpse of Capitol gamesmanship in the new Democratic-controlled Washington. There's a war room, of course, famous names dialing famous names and some in-your-face tactics, too.
And, naturally, there's enough bad blood left over to ensure many fights to come.
"The problem is that the NRA isn't willing to look at reasonable things," Bloomberg says in an interview. As for the Thune amendment that he just finished blocking, Bloomberg sums it up like this: "Another obstacle in the way of sanity."
In the opposite corner, the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, calls Bloomberg an "elitist mayor with a big mouth . . . and a radical agenda . . . self-appointed mayor of America." And Thune's spokesman Kyle Downey says, "The fact that a guy who rides the New York subways with armed guards can tell the rest of America that they cannot defend themselves is absurd."
Things might never have gotten to this point if not for a seminal sit-down in April 2006 -- five months after Bloomberg was reelected -- at Gracie Mansion, New York's mayoral residence. Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino -- a natural ally as the New York mayor was born in Beantown -- invited about a dozen fellow mayors to talk about guns.
During his first term, Bloomberg had been introduced to the grimmest of mayoral rituals: late-night phone call, drive to the hospital, dead police officer, consoling the family.
"It brings it down to an emotional level when you actually look people in the eye, when you're in the room and see the body," Bloomberg says.
The other mayors knew the ritual well. They were all fed up, and they blamed gun-law loopholes and the availability of illegally obtained guns. Mayors Against Illegal Guns was born.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Another day, another mass murder in the USA
"A man carrying guns and a gym bag walked into a busy fitness center just outside Pittsburgh Tuesday evening and opened fire, killing at least three people and wounding nine others, some of them critically, the police and witnesses said."
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
MP Meinya bats for Arms treaty From the August 3 Sangai Express: Under the initiative of the Controls Arms Foundation of India, a briefing session for Parliamentarians on India's role at the ongoing United Nations Process for An Arms Trade Treaty - ATT was held at the Constitution Club in New Delhi today.
Speaking as the Chief Guest of the afternoon session, Dr Thokchom Meinya, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha from Outer Manipur said arms and ammunition move freely and the impact are seen directly.
This greatly undermined development, particularly Manipur, which is one of the most affected places, he said.
Underlining the need for control of Arms, he said that there is an urgent need for legal binding on arms transfer, so as to save life and prevent violence.
As a parliamentarian, the role is to advocate an international standard on Arms trade and transfer.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Silly season in America In the United States of America it is always silly season when it comes to the tenor of the debate regarding small arms. For a sense of the current level of ridiculousness see this August 1 column by New York Times columnist Gail Collins. Excerpt: ... So the story gives us an excellent entry into the question of whether states should be required to recognize other states’ gun carry permits.
The Senate recently held a debate on just such a proposal, during which the sponsor, John Thune of South Dakota, said that if people from his state were able to go to New York and visit tourist attractions while carrying their concealed weapons, “Central Park would be a much safer place.”
This suggests how much Americans have to learn about each other. Central Park is way safer than South Dakota. There were no murders and three serious assaults in Central Park in 2008, compared with five murders and 341 assaults in Sioux Falls alone. There was a horrible near-fatality in the park this week, but it involved a rotting tree limb that fell and hit a man on the head. If South Dakotans would like to come to visit carrying concealed chain saws, it is possible that we can do some business. ...
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Creating a human rights standard for the arms trade treaty This article, "Creating a human rights standard for the arms trade treaty," by Clare da Silva appeared earlier this year in Disarmament Forum (2009: 1/2, S.[27]-35.) Excerpt follows: Conclusion
States already have obligations under current international law to look closely at other states’ human rights practices and to assess the risk of breach before deciding what action to take, and these procedures work, as demonstrated by the CAT and the ECHR. Incorporating and applying a human rights standard in an ATT would operate in a similar way, requiring all arms transfer authorizations to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. States would be required to assess the types of conventional arms in question, the stated end use, and the stated end-user to make a determination as to whether there is a substantial risk of serious violations of human rights by the specific end-user and whether such violations are likely to be facilitated by the transfer of the conventional arms under review. Existing law and practice show that this is a workable standard that can be applied by national authorities charged with assessing authorization applications.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Sixteen Million One: Understanding Civil War As small arms and light weapons are most prevalent in civil conflict it is useful to think about why such wars happen. A recent work on the subject is Sixteen Million One: Understanding Civil War, by Patrick M. Regan, professor of political science at Binghamton University, State University of New York. It draws from a decade of research on civil conflicts to explore the conditions that would drive individuals to take on the life of a rebel. As part of his research, Regan met with Palestinian resistance fighters struggling against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. The book combines tales from his wanderings into this war zone and reflections from his travels at home and abroad, with evidence from scholars who search for explanations for why people rebel. “We can talk about anticipating genocides, eliminating dictators, preventive interventions and eradicating poverty,” said Regan. “But unless there is a clear grasp of how and why these issues arise, society and in particular, policy makers, will not be able to design effective ways of controlling these devastating forms of conflict. It is equally important for parents contemplating sending their young into the struggles of others since, ultimately, it is the broad public who has to bear the burden of the outcomes. It is therefore vital that we have clear ideas about the causes and the implications.” Regan points out that a lack of understanding of civil wars makes them particularly challenging for the policy community to respond to effectively. He uses Rwanda as an example and suggests it was a tragedy that the world did little to stop. Regan also notes that Iraq and Afghanistan are tragedies the world did much to inflame.
From the Amazon page: Review
An intimate account of the struggle to understand why civil wars occur and what we can do to prevent them. Regan deftly links his personal experiences with academic research on civil war. He presents a powerful message: People rise up against their governments when they have little else to lose; structural poverty stands as the root cause of civil war. --Scott Gates, Director, Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO and Professor of Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
If you want one book that summarizes our best understanding of the origins, processes, and outcomes of civil war, jargon-free and populated by real people, this is it. --Ted Robert Gurr, author of Why Men Rebel This is a magnificent introduction to the fundamental dilemmas facing a world that has witnessed some 16 million deaths due to civil war violence in the past half century. In it, Patrick M. Regan, a leader in the statistical branch of international relations theory, brings to light the meaning of civil wars for those who fight them. While never losing sight of the scientific findings in his field of study, Regan relates his own life history and those of rebels to illuminate the motivations that drive young men to violently confront established state armies. In observing and even interviewing rebels whose lives are precarious, he brings arcane theory down to everyday reality, proposing in the end practical actions that ordinary citizens can take to help stall the epidemic of civil wars. --David D. Laitin, the James T. Watkins IV and Elise V. Watkins Professor of Political Science, Stanford University Review
Magnificent [Regan brings arcane theory down to everyday reality, proposing in the end practical actions that ordinary citizens can take to help stall the epidemic of civil wars. -David D. Laitin, Professor of Political Science, Stanford University
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Special Issue: Guns, Crime and Social Order This journal is normally subscription based but as this is a special issue these articles can be downloaded. I suggest you take advantage of it while you can. Special Issue: Guns, Crime and Social Order
Contents: August 2009, Volume 9, No. 3
Guest editors: James Sheptycki and Adam Edwards
To see an article, click its [PDF] link. To add articles to your marked citations, check the boxes to the left of the titles you want, and click the 'Add to Marked Citations' button. To see one abstract at a time, click its [Abstract] link.
James Sheptycki and Adam Edwards
Preface: Guns, crime and social order
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 259-264. [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
Philip J. Cook, Wendy Cukier, and Keith Krause
The illicit firearms trade in North America
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 265-286. [Abstract] [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
Biko Agozino, Ben Bowling, Elizabeth Ward, and Godfrey St Bernard
Guns, crime and social order in the West Indies
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 287-305. [Abstract] [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
James Sheptycki
Guns, crime and social order: A Canadian perspective
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 307-336. [Abstract] [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
Colin H. Roberts and Martin Innes
The 'death' of Dixon?: Policing gun crime and the end of the generalist police constable in England and Wales
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 337-357. [Abstract] [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
Simon Hallsworth and Daniel Silverstone
'That's life innit': A British perspective on guns, crime and social order
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 359-377. [Abstract] [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
Adam Edwards and James Sheptycki
Third Wave criminology: Guns, crime and social order
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 379-397. [Abstract] [PDF] [References] [Request Permission]
The British Society of Criminology seeks a NEW EDITOR/EDITORIAL TEAM For Criminology & Criminal Justice An International Journal
Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009 9: 399-400. [PDF] [Request Permission]
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Regulating the arms trade Regulating the arms trade
Jordan is currently hosting an important conference on the international trade of conventional arms with a view to regulating the transfer of weapons between countries and keeping them from falling into the wrong hands.
At stake is the transfer of arms to terrorist groups who could use them to wreak havoc with human lives and cause untold material destruction.
But that’s not all.
Trade in arms negatively impacts economic development, especially in developing countries. Unfortunately too many poor countries spend too much on weapons and too little to improve the living standards of their peoples.
Weapons can also be used to quell freedoms and facilitate the commission of human rights violations, again especially in poor countries. In other words, arms can be the tools to perpetuate tyranny in undemocratic nations.
Above all, access to arms contributes to armed conflicts between nations. Too many regional wars erupted because of the availability of weaponry. No wonder there is a pressingneed to control and regulate the arms trade.
The Amman conference is also held against the backdrop of a UN resolution in 2006 calling for the adoption of a treaty to regulate the sale of arms between nations; 39 states voted in favour of that resolution with only the US casting a negative vote.
There is little surprise that Washington is once again the pariah nation in matters that most of the international community see eye to eye on. The US is a major weapons producer and exporter and does not want the watchful eyes of the UN over its trade in arms.
To be sure, 24 other countries abstained in the vote, something which suggests there are also states that would prefer to keep their arms trade free of international supervision. It so happens that the abstaining states are all major arms traders.
The majority states in the UN must continue their crusade to regulate the arms trade with the hope that the major manufacturers of weapons, big and small, will one day yield to the will of the growing number of countries wanting to stop the unchecked arms trade in the world.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Arms Trade Treaty conference in Jordan The Jordan Times reports today that Jordan will host on Tuesday an EU-funded Arms Trade Treaty conference that aims to address loopholes and imbalances in regional standards relevant to arms sales. Regional Arabic Spokesman for the British Government Martin Day said on Sunday, "The arms trade has become a global business, and the world needs to have certain criteria to regulate the sales of weapons in a responsible manner in order to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists."
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Arms Trade Treaty: Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Prospects for Arms Embargoes on Human Rights Violators David Kopel, a former Assistant Attorney General in the state of Colorado, USA, and frequent writer on gun issues, albeit from a pro-gun viewpoint, writes: The Arms Trade Treaty: Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Prospects for Arms Embargoes on Human Rights Violators. That's the paper I presented at the recent annual conference of the Research Committee on Sociology of Law, in Onati, Spain. It is now available on SSRN. Along with co-authors Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen, I will be revising for law review submission soon. In the meantime, comments are welcome.
For those of you who prefer to read in French or Castellano (as they say in Spain), there is an 8-page summary in French, and the abstract is reprinted in Spanish; both appear at the end of the document. In English, the Abstract says:
"Advocates of the proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) promise that it will prevent the flow of arms to human rights violators. This paper first examines the ATT, and observes that the ATT, if implemented as promised, would require dozens of additional arms embargoes, including embargoes on much of Africa. The paper then provides case studies of the current supply of arms to the dictatorship in Zimbabwe and to the warlords in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The paper argues that the ATT would do nothing to remediate the conditions which have allowed so many arms to be acquired by human rights violators in Zimbabwe and the DRC. The ATT would have no more effective force than the embargoes that are already imposed by the UN Security Council; therefore states, including China, which violate current Security Council embargoes could just as well violate ATT embargoes. Accordingly, the ATT is a distraction, and human rights activists should instead examine alternative methods of addressing the problem of arms in the hands of human rights violators.
The full paper will be uploaded to the NISAT document library in the near future. Many of Kopel's other papers are already there.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Arms Transfers beyond the State-to-State Realm The following excerpt is from an article "Arms Transfers beyond the State-to-State Realm" by Denise Garcia of Northeastern University in the latest issue of International Studies Perspectives (2009, 10, 151–168). In her concluding section she writes: Conclusion: Prospects for New Norm Building Paths This article has shown that despite the absence of a de jure international norm banning the transfer of weapons to nonstate actors, in many instances, governments have been consistently and gradually developing an international norm restricting arms transfers beyond the state-to-state realm. This new body of law comprises regional mechanisms, legally and politically binding instruments, as well as soft law that set clear constraints on the long-standing and previously entirely unfettered practice of interference through arms transfers. At a minimum, states must establish criteria for permissible transfers from states to nonstate actors prohibiting the transfer of weapons to groups that are known to commit egregious human rights violations. Thus, a new norm would ideally be embedded in a normative structure of human rights and international humanitarian law norms. In terms of potential norm formation and consolidation, the norm would be embedded in a previously existing framework of normative understandings. According to the literature, this would be more conducive to norm building. It is important to note that despite the existence of ‘‘normative understandings’’ and the existing framework of international human rights and humanitarian law, the specific contents of the norm analyzed here are unique, and this is part of the explanation why this norm is so unpalatable to so many states, as it represents a new norm that will potentially have a profound effect on foreignpolicy making. Nonstate actors are key actors in contemporary conflicts and have an impact on the lives of millions of people. Therefore, they must be accountable to international law, as the ways in which they misuse arms constitute a major human security challenge and a challenge to peace, security, and stability as seen in the cases here. In norm building framework, they are already enshrined in one of the most widely adhered to multilateral instruments: Article 3 common to all 1949 Geneva Conventions. This is one of the principal bodies of international law and a potential norm that severely restricts the transfer of arms beyond the state realm could cogently be built on this edifice. This is the case also because the humanitarian consequences of the misuse of arms by nonstate actors far outweigh the political and financial gains. In 2006, at the 61st General Assembly, member states adopted resolution A⁄RES⁄ 61 ⁄ 89, entitled ‘‘Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: Establishing Common International Standards for the Import, Export and Transfer of Conventional Arms.’’ As a result, the Secretary-General called on states on their views on the feasibility, scope, and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms. Six states called for a prohibition on transfers to nonstate actors in an ATT. At this stage of the process and given the small number of countries that called for a ban, it seems still quite contentious to include a paragraph crystallizing the emerging norm at the multilateral level. As highlighted by the precedent set by UNSC Resolutions 1373 and 1540, measures that may hinder diversion to nonstate actors seems more likely to muster adherents. Therefore, criteria on transfer controls in general may have an impact on nonstate actors. If the ATT applies transfers controls comprehensively to all endusers, then, nonstate actors will fall under the same limiting scheme (Parker 2008). There are three groups as far as an emerging international norm is concerned. There is only a small group of states that accepts the total ban of sale to nonstate actors as a principle that will govern the ATT negotiations. The second larger group of states accepts the emerging norm that the transfer of arms should be based upon human rights law considerations or be diverted to terrorists should be included in the ATT (Parker 2007). And the third group of states that is totally opposed to entertaining the subject and some of the reasons were explained here through the precedent cases. In July 2008, participants at the Biennial Meeting of States on Small Arms voted for the inclusion of following issues in the implementation of the Program of Action: controls on production and supply, including re-export; illicit manufacturing, including unlicensed manufacturing; and prohibiting the supply of small arms and light weapons to nonstate actors and terrorists.25 This reinforces the process now leading up to the negotiations of the ATT. The NGO campaign for an ATT does not explicitly call for a ban on transfers to nonstate actors. But it does (like the draft 2006 Guidelines seen as well as the instruments at the African level) call for respect for the principle of nonintervention in the affairs of sovereign states, which implicitly covers arming opposition groups in another state. One can therefore conclude that the world has not yet developed a de jure global norm concerning transfers to nonstate actors, but efforts remain and the issue is still on the agenda. For the theoretical implications of my article, there are two main conclusions. First is that de jure failure of norm making does not mean a breakdown in de facto norm evolution and progression. As I showed in depth, in numerous occasions states reaffirmed their inclination for norm construction and genuine concerns for the adverse consequences of the nonexistence of the norm. I also demonstrated that initiatives led by states (mostly, in this case) and NGO as well as the establishment of soft law is instrumental in the making of norms today. The case I analyzed is beleaguered by reluctant states and fraught with controversy and ethical dilemmas. Yet a steady trend of norm formation and norm consolidation can already be seen in Africa and Europe, and in general in the last decade. Second, this is a case of failed norm diffusion at the international level and works as a control case for the literature in international relations. For the policy-making world, it works as a case that is perhaps one of the hardest to move; however skilled negotiation tactics and ‘‘world time context’’ might prove successful to be integrated multilaterally in some form. I showed that the existence of a de facto normative understanding especially through soft law and regional legally binding treaties can accelerate action to create treaties to include the new norm and that the facto norms may also spur action at the international level in general. If there are no failed norm building cases in the literature, then there are no control cases and therefore little or no variation in finding alternative and competing explanations. This study can point to a few ingredients to bring results to bear and understand what are the conditions for states to craft difficult or unpalatable norms; that is norms that go against deeply ingrained states’ interests: a few states that are involved and committed to move the process forward (in this case the United Kingdom and Canada especially); skilled and authoritative research on the issue; cross cutting examination across several bodies of law done by scholars and practitioners (in this case, human rights and international humanitarian law); intersection with other issues of interest to the major players (in this case in question, it intersects with terrorism), and time for the issue to mature (the ban of transfers of weapons is on the agenda for about ten years).
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The International Arms Trade This book, The International Arms Trade, by Rachel Stohl and Suzette Grillot, will be published next month. There doubtlessly will be small arms relevant content in it, as one of the co-authors, Ms. Stohl, has long specialized in that area. The multi–billion dollar business of the international conventional arms trade involves virtually every country in the world. Around the globe, people’s lives are being irrevocably changed by the effects of guns, tanks, and missiles. These weapons have the potential to cause a deadly and current threat – one responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year. This succinct and accessible new book explores the complexities and realities of the global conventional weapons trade. The first book on the subject in nearly a decade, The International Arms Trade provides an engaging introduction to the trade, the effects, and the consequences of these weapons. The authors trace the history of the arms trade and examine how it has evolved since the end of the Cold War. In particular, they assess the role of the largest arms exporters and importers, the business of selling conventional arms around the world, and shed new light on the illicit arms trade and the shadowy dealers who profit from their deadly commerce. The book also looks closely at the devastating effect the business can have on countries, societies, and individuals and concludes with an evaluation of the various existing control strategies and the potential for future control opportunities. The International Arms Trade will be invaluable for students and scholars of international relations and security studies, and for policymakers and anyone interested in understanding more about the conventional arms trade.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
God, cars, and guns Giving new meaning to the phrase drive-by shooting is this news from the United States. Butler Car Dealer Offers Free AK-47 With New Truck
July 17, 2009
BUTLER, Mo.(AP) - A Missouri car dealer is receiving national attention for an unusual promotion. Max Motors in Butler, Missouri, south of the metro, is giving an AK-47 assault rifle to every customer who buys a new vehicle.
More than 90 percent of the calls and emails the dealer is getting enthusiastically support the rifle giveaway.
"Just remember God, Guns and Guts are what made this country great," said a customer calling the dealership.
Ever since Muller started giving away an AK-47 assault rifle to every customer who buys a new car, business has been booming.
He's already given away four vouchers worth $450 each to buy the rifles, and the program doesn't officially start until August.
"An AK-47 is primarily a home defense or a sporting gun. You wouldn't use it for hunting. We want people to have the right. We're real firm believers in the Second Amendment. People should have the right to defend themselves," said Muller.
Muller knows the giveaway is controversial. That's why he's doing it.
"It's all about shamelessly promoting the dealership. We're just trying to sell cars. You gotta stand out. We're a little country dealer," said Muller.
With a row of Vipers and Corvettes for sale, Muller said he's just trying to appeal to what every red-blooded American wants... fast cars, and big guns.
"We love race cars, pickup trucks and shotguns," Muller said. "This nonsense about we have to change the way we build cars. Why? General Motors is the number one car manufacturer in the world."
A "buy American proponent," Muller is troubled by giving away a foreign rifle. But, that changed with one phone call.
"We manufacture a US made AK-47, but it's wonderful to see some Americans that really want to defend themselves," said a gun dealer who called Muller.
"A US made AK-47 would beat the heck out of a Romanian AK-47s," said Muller.
The gun dealer went on to say he wants to buy a car from Muller no matter what.
Last year at this time, the dealer gave away a free handgun with every sale. Muller said about 80 percent of his customers took the voucher for the guns.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Arms Trade Treaty: adoption of report to the General Assembly From the French Permanent Mission to the United Nations: 17 July 2009 - Arms Trade Treaty: adoption of report to the General Assembly At the conclusion of its second working session of 2009 and in accordance with the mandate established by UNGA resolution 63/240, on July 17, the open-ended working group on the Arms Trade Treaty adopted a report for the UNSG and the First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.
Following the work conducted by the open-ended group of government experts in 2008, the adoption of this report marks a new step forward in the process leading toward an arms trade treaty, which began in 2006 following an active campaign by NGOs. It demonstrates a now-established consensus on the relevance of this process and on the reality of the problems it is designed to remedy.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Zimbabwe - Arms and Corruption: Fuelling Human Rights Abuses Excerpts follow: For instance in 2001 the Zimbabwe Defence Industries (ZDI) entered into a joint venture with a DRC company, Strategic Reserves, to form the Congo-Duka company to facilitate the shipping of arms and foodstufs. Moreover a document dated 3 February 2000 speaks of a meeting between a Czech company, Arms Moravia, and a Congolese general about the sale of 6 RM70/122mm rocket launchers, 1,000 RPG-7s (rocket propelled grenades), and 500 machine guns for a total value of US$1,128,500.
Arms Moravia submitted two documents dated 19 January 2000 to the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade. One handwritten document lists the Zimbabwe National Army as client, while the other typed document lists the Ministère de la Défense de la République du Congo, but both refer to the sale of 1,000 RPG-7s. ... The case below illustrates how Zimbabwe’s defence industry remains interlinked with European and US arms dealers, engaging in transactions which not only beneft Zimbabwe’s state arms manufacturer, but which exemplify the inadequacy of European and US measures to stop European and US arms companies engaging in arms deals with sanctioned companies and regimes, mediated by individuals listed on government arms trafcking watch-lists. An Arms Trade Treaty would ensure that all States were required to undertake a rigorous risk assessment that an arms transfer in which they were involved was not likely to be diverted to undesirable end-users: a key route by which arms are supplied to groups and governments using them for serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law.
On the morning of 4 February 2008, after a delay of several days, an Ilyushin 76 transport aircraft arrived from Harare (Zimbabwe) at Podgorica airport in Montenegro.
According to the packing list the cargo consisted of 1,349 stripped MAG58 bodies, 2,051 barrels, and various other machine gun parts. The MAG58 machine gun is a 7.62mm general-purpose machine gun originally manufactured by Fabrique Nationale of Belgium (although there is no indication that Fabrique Nationale were involved in this particular transfer).
The consignor (sender) of the shipment was Shumba International Limited c/o Zimbabwe Defence Industries. The airway bill only lists Zimbabwe Defence Industries. The consignee (recipient) was the Montenegrin defence company previously known as Yugoimport Mont (currently Montenegro Defence Industry). The documents identify the Swiss based company BT International, one of the several arms brokering companies run by the Swiss arms broker Heinrich Thomet, as having brokered the deal. During a visit to Montenegro Defence Industry, between 19 January and 22 January 2009, the authors of this report were informed that the machine guns supplied from Zimbabwe had been bought for refurbishment. This was confrmed by a temporary import permit issued by Montenegrin Customs that accompanied the shipment.
Further inquiries revealed that the overhauled machine gun parts, with the exception of the barrels and receivers, were imported in the United States. The authors of this report also obtained documentation in Montenegro associated with the Zimbabwe import, indicating that Yugoimport Mont intended to export Belgian-origin “7.62mm” small arms parts to a US small arms dealer, Ohio Ordnance Works (the machine guns imported by Yugoimport Mont from Zimbabwe for refurbishment were Belgian-origin 7.62mm small arms). The arms seller identifed on the U.S. import licence for this transfer was, once again, the above-mentioned Swiss-based BT International.
On Ohio’s website various MAG accessories and spare parts have been advertised for sale. In an email dated 9 June 2009 to IPIS the legal counsel of Ohio Ordnance did not deny nor confrm that the parts came from Zimbabwe. He said: “Ohio Ordnance is, and continues to be, fully compliant with the laws of the United States, and strongly rejects any implication that it would knowingly or wilfully participate in any transaction that would violate those laws. Additionally, while the company has no comment on your article, the company will state that its acquisition of any frearms parts from sources overseas is lawful and in full compliance with the laws of the United States”. If the arms imported from Zimbabwe Defence Industries to Montenegro were then re-shipped to a US dealer, then this may have been to evade US sanctions on Zimbabwean individuals and entities.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Recent Trends in Arms Trade Given the OEWG meeting that concluded yesterday at the United Nations in New York people might wish to look at the big picture by reading the background paper report Recent Trends in Arms Trade released by SIPRI in April. International transfers of small arms and light weapons Since the mid-1990s global attention has become increasingly focused on transfers of SALW, which have come to be regarded as the type of conventional weapon that can cause the most instability in a country or region. Governmental transparency international transfers of SALW continues to lag behind transparency levels for other types of conventional weapon transfers, although advances have been made in recent years. For example, in December 2003 the UN General Assembly invited member states to provide information on SALW transfers to the UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA), which had previously covered only major conventional weapons, and in 2006 states were invited to do so using a standardized reporting form. As of 31 December 2008, 56 states had submitted data to UNROCA on their SALW transfers on at least one occasion since 2003. The major suppliers and recipients according to UNROCA data are presented in tables 5 and 6. However, the information submitted to UNROCA covers only a fraction of international transfers of SALW because many significant exporters (e.g. China, Russia and the USA) have not submitted data. In addition, since a high proportion of European states have submitted SALW data to the UNROCA, they are overrepresented among exporters. (For more on reporting to UNROCA see section V below.) The only other regularly updated source of information on the global trade in SALW is the customs data that states submit to the UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database (Comtrade). The Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers (NISAT) collects and collates customs data from Comtrade and compiles an annual register of international SALW transfers (see table 7).
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
IPS reports on the OEWG Inter Press Service reports on the just concluded open-ended working group for an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). ... One of the clearest examples demonstrating the need for such a treaty was the business of the recently arrested Israeli arms dealer, Leonid Minin. Minin relied on legal companies in many countries to illegally ferry arms to conflict zones around the world in such a way that made him immune to prosecution in any one country. According to Control Arms, one 1999 transaction alone involved using separate shell companies based in Gibraltar and the British Virgin Islands, a bank in Hungary and a plane from England to traffic 68 tonnes of Ukrainian weapons through Burkina Faso to government forces in Sierra Leonne and rebels in Liberia, both accused of egregious human rights abuses. Despite his machinations, Minin had to use phony end user certificates and these would have been exposed as illegal in any of the countries involved in the scheme if authorities had bothered to check, but under current international law they are not required to do so. Amnesty cites Minin's arrest and subsequent release in Italy in 2000 as a prime reason this treaty is needed. Minin was arrested near Milan but could not be prosecuted because Italian authorities did not have jurisdiction over places where actual crimes were committed.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
International Terrorism and the Feasibility of an Arms Trade Treaty The last essay "International Terrorism and the Feasibility of an Arms Trade Treaty" by Scott Nason concluded thusly: An increase in regulation imposed upon the small arms industry can be an effective response to the threat posed by an accessible arms market. However, a control regime is certainly not a panacea for the small arms trade is simply too massive and composed of too many different players, each possessing radically different interests, to be able to realistically regulate the industry with absolute effectiveness. By attending to the threat posed by small arms rather than neglecting it, the threat of terrorism can be lessened by limiting access to what is evidently an oft used type of weapon. The reasons behind the current lack of a strong small arms control regime, either at national or international level, should not be underestimated. With a global stockpile of an estimated 639 million, small arms are ubiquitous, rendering any effort to regulate them a daunting task. There is also great disparity of firepower between small arms and advanced weapons such as WMD. The consequences, not only in terms of causalities, stemming from a single WMD attack would undoubtedly dwarf that of a small arms attack. Policymakers recognize this and tend to focus exclusively on the latter weapon type. Furthermore, the small arms industry is an immensely profitable export industry and resists any efforts to curtail its revenue by potentially restricting certain categories of buyers. The UN small arms process is an opportunity to put international legislation in place where there has been none. The UN small arms process is unprecedented in its breadth of scope and the engagement by all of the major states in its development. While stagnation currently plagues the UN process, the major players have not indicated any desire to disengage. This creates an excellent opportunity to make progress in the development of an arms trade treaty by changing the agenda and proposing revisions to the process. The revisions should limit its scope to only the illicit trade in small arms and using existing models of strong control regimes. A rigorous set of transfer controls should be a crucial part of an arms trade treaty based upon the OSCE best practice export guidelines as well as provisions focused upon arms brokers. These standards are specific and accepted currently by a relatively wide number of states. If the UN process is changed, as suggested by these proposals, an arms trade treaty is feasible. Such a treaty would address a neglected, but dangerous category of weapons in an unprecedented manner. It is directly in line with the counterterrorism objectives of the United States to support an arms trade treaty with these specifications. The proposed treaty would address two of the aforementioned primary methods of weapon procurement by a terrorist organization: brokered and open market sales. Universal serial numbers, brokering legislation, and a mandated high standard of export criteria would severely limit activity in these two areas. State-sponsorship does not need to be addressed in such a treaty, since it is already illegal under customary international law and its enforcement is within the authority of willing states. Theft from government stockpiles would also undergo little change under an arms trade treaty for it is already explicitly illegal under national criminal laws, although universal serial numbers would provide an opportunity to identify countries with weak stockpile security. In sum, the UN small arms process and its desired outcome of an arms trade treaty is both feasible and advantageous. It is in the best interests of the United State to advance the negotiations toward such an international instrument curtailing the illicit trade in small arms.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Shooting Down the MDGs: How irresponsible arms transfers undermine development goals From the press release: Irresponsible arms transfers are undermining many developing countries’ chances of achieving their Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets. This paper shows new evidence of how this is happening in parts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa – either by draining governments’ resources or by fuelling armed violence or conflict. Either way, irresponsible arms transfers undermine governments’ development objectives and their citizens’ economic, social, and cultural rights. Governments and their citizens urgently need a strong Arms Trade Treaty to ensure that all states involved in an arms transfer consider the impact of that transfer on the MDGs and sustainable development.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Firearms in major motion pictures, 1995-2004
The Journal of Trauma. 2009 Mar;66(3):906-11
Firearms in major motion pictures, 1995-2004.
Binswanger IA, Cowan JA Jr.
Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.
BACKGROUND: Firearms are a major cause of injury and death. We sought to determine (1) the prevalence of movie scenes that depicted firearms and verbal firearm safety messages; (2) the context and health outcomes in firearm scenes; and (3) the association between the Motion Picture Association of America ratings and firearm scene characteristics. METHODS: Ten top revenue-grossing motion pictures were selected for each year from 1995 to 2004 in descending order of gross revenues. Data on firearm scenes were collected by movie coders using dual-monitor computer workstations and real-time collection tools. RESULTS: Seventy of the 100 movies had scenes with firearms and the majority of movies with firearms were rated PG-13. Firearm scenes (N = 624) accounted for 17% of screen time in movies with firearms. Among firearm scenes, crime or illegal activity was involved in 45%, deaths occurred in 19%, and injuries occurred in 12%. A verbal reference to safety was made in 0.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Depictions of firearms in top revenue-grossing movies were common, but safety messages were exceedingly rare. Major motion pictures present an under-used opportunity for education about firearm safety.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Effects of state-level firearm seller accountability policies on firearm trafficking J Urban Health.
2009 Jul;86(4):525-37. s Effects of state-level firearm seller accountability policies on firearm trafficking Webster DW, Vernick JS, Bulzacchelli MT. Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA, dwebster@jhsph.edu Criminals illegally obtaining firearms represent a great risk to many urban residents. This cross-sectional study of 54 US cities uses data on state laws governing gun sales, a survey of law enforcement agencies' practices to promote compliance with gun sales laws, and crime gun trace data to examine associations between these policies and practices with gun trafficking indicators. Higher levels of local gun ownership were linked with greater intrastate gun trafficking. Regression models estimate that comprehensive regulation and oversight of gun dealers and state regulation of private sales of handguns were each associated with significantly lower levels of intrastate gun trafficking. Discretionary permit-to-purchase licensing laws' negative association with intrastate trafficking disappeared when local gun ownership is controlled. The effects of these relatively restrictive gun purchase laws on trafficking may be mediated by the laws' lowering of gun ownership. Relatively low prevalence of gun ownership may also be a prerequisite for passage of discretionary purchase. We observed no effect on intrastate trafficking of laws limiting handgun sales to a maximum of one per person per month.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Preventing homicides. Is it as important as preventing tainted spinach? Considering there are efforts underway in various states in the USA to allows students to carry guns at colleges we thought we should mention this article published last year in the The Journal Of School Health (2008 Jan; Vol. 78 (1), pp. 58-61.) ...
Based on a review of violent deaths that have occurred in American schools since 1992, an important lesson is that these events can happen anywhere and interventions should not only be targeted at those subgroups that have higher prevalence rates.[ 2] For example, the perpetrator in the recent Amish school shootings, a mega event, was an adult male, while perpetrators of all previous mega events were male students. Except for Pennsylvania, mega events occurred in states that experienced these events during 4 or fewer school years since 1992.
One might also usefully ponder the question whether preventing future homicides is at least as important as preventing people from eating tainted spinach. In a recent article, Dr Peter Lewis, a physician serving as a member of the Steering Committee of Physicians for Social Responsibility, compared actions by industry and federal and state government to the recent tainted spinach episode in the United States to lack of action by these same groups in the wake of the Amish school shootings.[ 16] In this article, Dr Lewis highlights that the use of firearms in this country is responsible for more injury and death than food outbreaks such as the spinach episode and, therefore, should deserve much greater attention, particularly by government, to protect the public health. Full text of the article will be uploaded to the NISAT library in the near future.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Delegation and Flexibility in an Arms Trade Treaty In an article titled "From the United Nations Arms Register to an Arms Trade Treaty -- What Role for Delegation and Flexibility?" in the spring 2008 issue of the ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law Cristiane Carneiro wrote: Establishment of a dedicated bureaucracy to which powers to monitor, interpret, and implement an arms trade treaty would be delegated will be key to an effective agreement. This group of individuals can improve on the accomplishments of the UN Register without the requirements of periodical consensus reviews by a Group of Governmental Experts. Moreover, a dedicated bureaucracy can devise selective incentives and mobilize domestic constituencies as a means to promote compliance. With respect to selective [*495] incentives, this bureaucracy could explore excludable benefits to an arms trade treaty. For example, preferential trade status could be subordinated to membership and fulfillment of treaty obligations by the recipient state. Whereas this strategy relies primarily on coercion, there is also a role for persuasion through the mobilization of political elites and domestic constituents. n97
There are several other reasons for emphasizing delegation. In particular, newly established democracies will be more attracted to the treaty if it contemplates "locking in" mechanisms. After all, this is the main motivation for joining among this category of states. Alongside, a dedicated bureaucracy might be better equipped to tackle connected problems, such as the diversion of licit transfers. n98
The gains from delegation are not perceived equally by states. In fact, democracies (as opposed to newly established democracies) are more resistant to encroachments upon their sovereignty. Here, flexibility of commitments may help to reconcile states interests, thereby facilitating universal membership. I foresee a role for two forms of flexibility: time limits and escape clauses. As explained before, scholars have found a negative correlation between the number of participants and the imposition of limits on agreement duration. n99 As the number of participants approaches universality, we tend to observe less, if any, limits on agreement duration, due to the presence of renegotiation costs. A possible compromise would establish relatively long limits on duration, much like the institutional features of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. n100
Finally, escape clauses will appeal to democracies as well as non-democracies. The latter may temporarily withdraw from treaty obligations when facing a national security crisis. Interestingly, because escape clauses are costly, "escaping" from the treaty may expedite the resolution of crises that would otherwise linger in time. Democracies may see escape clauses as a suitable counterweight to agreement rigidity, especially when there is resistance by organized interest groups domestically. For example, the armament industry is likely to be more accepting of an arms trade treaty that allows for temporary withdrawal. It is important to keep in mind that organized interest groups perceive costs and benefits associated with regulation in a concentrated manner, as opposed to less organized groups within society, such as voters and [*496] policymakers. Therefore, resistance from organized interests is much more effective at influencing governments. n101
It will be challenging to create escape clauses that balance costs and benefits adequately. Escape clauses must impose a burden so as to deter unwarranted withdrawal; but if these clauses are excessively costly, their function as guarantors of agreement survival will be at stake. With respect to an arms trade treaty, engineering escape clauses is no easy task. I leave further thinking on this issue for future research.
Overall, recourse to delegation and flexibility mechanisms will contribute to a strong and universal treaty. It will be helpful to assess what role these mechanisms have played in similar treaties. For now, the scholarship on legalization and regime design call attention to these two features of international agreements as prominent aspects for successful negotiation and enforcement.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Postinternationalism and Small Arms Control From the Amazon page: Even though impacts generated by the widespread availability and ongoing use of small arms and light weapons have not reached a magnitude sufficient to radically reorder contemporary world affairs, awareness of the nature and extent of these impacts has compelled some international actors to take decisive action. Damien Rogers examines how the international community has responded to the challenge of controlling small arms and light weapons since the early 1990s. Using a post internationalist analytic framework, he specifically focuses on the maturing relationships between particular actors of world affairs and the nascent interconnectivity between their strategies for, and approaches toward, controlling these weapons. Furthermore, the book identifies ways in which the captains of small arms industry, arms brokers and chief users of these weapons are able to mitigate, resist or elude the intended effects of those responses. About the Author
Dr Damien Rogers, Affiliate Scholar of the School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Australia.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
2009 edition of the Small Arms Survey The new, 2009,edition of the Small Arms Survey is out. Click here for details. According to the press release: GLOBAL SMALL ARMS TRADE UP 28% FROM 2000 TO 2006
US demand for guns remains key driver of trade
The value of the authorized global trade in small arms and light weapons, including their parts, accessories, and ammunition, jumped 28 per cent from 2000 to 2006, an increase of some USD 653 million, according to UN customs data presented in the 2009 edition of the Small Arms Survey. The growth was most pronounced in transfers of parts and accessories for pistols or revolvers, which doubled (increased by 101 per cent) over the period, but all categories saw increases with the exception of military small arms and light weapons, which dropped by 29 per cent.
The United States continues to drive the global small arms trade, remaining the largest importer of pistols and revolvers, sporting shotguns, and small-calibre ammunition. Greater demand for small arms in the United States was responsible for 48 per cent of the worldwide increase in imports from 2000 to 2006.
This year’s Survey utilizes new data sources and benefits from the expansion and refinement of existing sources to update estimates of the global trade in small arms and light weapons. Using customs data and other information supplied by 53 countries, the Small Arms Survey estimates the global authorized trade in firearms (all small arms and some light weapons) at approximately USD 1.58 billion in 2006. The actual value of the trade in all small arms, light weapons, their parts, accessories, and ammunition almost certainly exceeds the previously reported estimate of USD 4 billion.
‘Current data shows that the global trade in small arms and light weapons is robust and even expanding, and that handguns are driving it’, said Small Arms Survey Programme Director Keith Krause. ‘We don’t know whether these weapons are destined for civilians, police, or military forces. But it is striking that handguns have outpaced all other small arms and light weapons over the period.’
The Small Arms Survey 2009: Shadows of War also reviews the factors that influence the distribution and intensity of post-conflict violence, together with some of the new strategies designed to address such violence.
Armed violence can persist long after the formal end of war. Managing it is essential to the long-term recovery of affected societies, yet conventional approaches to post-conflict security promotion, including the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants, are often unable to meet these security needs. The Survey’s post-conflict section includes case studies of Aceh (Indonesia), Afghanistan, and Southern Lebanon.
This edition of the Survey reveals that:
• According to available customs data for 2006, top exporters of small arms and light weapons, including their parts, accessories, and ammunition (those with annual exports worth at least USD 100 million) were the United States, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Austria, and Belgium (in descending order). China and the Russian Federation are probably also top exporters, but customs data alone does not support this status.
• The 2009 Small Arms Trade Transparency Barometer finds that the most transparent major exporting countries are (in descending order): Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway, with the Netherlands, Serbia, and the United States tied for fifth place. The least transparent countries are Iran and North Korea (tied),
followed by South Africa, the Russian Federation, Israel, and Taiwan, in that order.
• A new household survey supports independent reports of some 1,000 deaths and widespread property damage in Southern Lebanon as a result of the 2006 Hizbollah–Israel war. Although Southern Lebanon is presumed to be a Hizbollah stronghold, the survey reveals strong support for state security institutions (Lebanese army and police).
Published by Cambridge University Press, the Small Arms Survey 2009: Shadows of War is the Survey’s ninth annual global analysis of small arms issues. An independent research project funded by numerous governments, the Small Arms Survey is the principal source of public information and analysis on all aspects of small arms and armed violence.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Global Week of Action Calls for Advance on an Arms Trade Treaty
Article by Dominique Dye: "Global Week of Action Calls for Advance on an Arms Trade Treaty"
Institute for Security Studies
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 A Global Week of Action Against Gun Violence took place from the 15th to the 21st of June 2009. The annual campaign aims to draw attention to the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons worldwide, and to lobby for stricter controls over arms and the arms trade.
More than 80 countries took part in the 2009 campaign - carrying out various activities, including radio interviews and debates, press conferences, and civil society meetings. While numerous events were held, these seem to be focussed more on talk than action.
The arms trade treaty (ATT) initiative was a major focus area of this year's campaign, with many government, civil society and international organisations advocating for its development. The ATT initiative calls for the establishment of common international standards to regulate the legal arms trade to ensure more responsible arms transfers by preventing weapons transfers to conflict zones where they might contribute to further instability and human rights abuses. There have been several reports of supposedly legal arms transfers that have been rumoured to be destined for countries in conflict or with high crime rates. These include transfers to South Africa, Kenya, and more recently to Equatorial Guinea.
While states have a legitimate right to procure arms to maintain their national security, arms flows to conflict zones or countries that experience high crime rates can contribute to escalating and prolonging armed violence. The envisaged principles of an ATT would aim to, amongst other things, enforce stricter regulations over arms transfers to ensure that states' obligations under international law, humanitarian law and UN arms embargoes are respected. African countries have for the most part shown considerable support for an ATT and if such a treaty is successfully negotiated and implemented, it may hold many benefits for the continent.
Apart from the global week of action, several other campaigns and initiatives are being carried out to promote and advance the ATT initiative. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), with the support of some civil society organisations, launched a project in 2009 to promote discussions and increase participation from all stakeholders in the ATT process. The project involves hosting regional seminars to facilitate the exchange of views between governments, regional organisations and civil society groups, with the intent of national and regional views then being integrated into the international process to develop an ATT. The first of these seminars was held in April this year in Dakar, Senegal, for Central, Northern and West African countries.
A report was released at the end of last year by a group of governmental experts (GGE) tasked to assess the feasibility, scope and draft parameters of an ATT. The report stated that there were differing views amongst participants on an ATT, and 'also recognised that numerous unresolved issues in the global conventional arms trade required further discussion'. To facilitate further development of the initiative, an open-ended working group (OEWG) was established this year. The group is tasked with considering certain elements of the GGE report to assess where further consensus could be developed for inclusion of these elements into an eventual ATT. The OEWG met for a first substantive session in New York in March this year and is preparing to meet for a second session from the 13 - 17 July.
While support for the development of an ATT has been significant, actual negotiations on the details and parameters of a treaty need to take place, and these are likely to be lengthy and complex. Little progress was made at the first substantive meeting of the OEWG, so it is yet to be seen whether the group will be able to develop any consensus on the scope, feasibility and parameters for a treaty and forward the ATT process.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
AFRICAN SOLUTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM The below excerpt comes from the article " AFRICAN SOLUTIONS TO AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM: ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT IN AFRICA" by Guy Lamb and Dominique Dye in the Spring 2009 issue of the Journal of International Affairs. The full article will be uploaded to the NISAT document library in the near future. CONCLUSION Despite the noticeable reduction in major armed conflicts in Africa, long-term peace remains elusive in many areas across the most marginalized continent. A key component of this dynamic is the availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons. Non-state actors, such as rebel groups and militias, as well as repressive governments, are still able to source small arms and light weapons domestically or through regional and international smuggling networks. Securing such weapons is nonetheless more complicated than it was in the 1990s, as international and regional arms control and disarmament initiatives have constrained access to the more conventional sources of small arms and light weapons.
Further constructive action aimed at deepening the effectiveness of these arms control and disarmament process, both internationally and in Africa, is crucial. This process requires the targeting of donor assistance to allow for measurable and sustainable capacity building of the national and inter-state arms control and disarmament agencies and strategic operational projects. In turn, as early evidence suggests, such measures will further promote continental integration and peace-building.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Guns and Nature Hindustan Times
July 6, 2009 Monday Men carrying 'warrior gene' more likely to join gangs, use weapons Washington, July. 6 -- Men who join gangs, are among the most violent members, and use weapons may be the carriers of a particular variation of the so-called 'warrior gene', according to a study. Conducted by Florida State University researchers, this is the first study to confirm a link between the warrior gene, scientifically known as Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), and gangs and guns. The researchers behind the study say that their findings apply only to men, as girls with the same variant of the MAOA gene seem resistant to its potentially violent effects on gang membership and weapon use. Research leader Kevin M. Beaver, a noted biosocial criminologist at FSU's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, says that this study sheds new light on the interplay of genetics and environment that produces some of society's most serious violent offenders. "While gangs typically have been regarded as a sociological phenomenon, our investigation shows that variants of a specific MAOA gene, known as a 'low-activity 3-repeat allele,' play a significant role," said Beaver, an award-winning researcher who has co-authored more than 50 published papers on the biosocial underpinnings of criminal behaviour. "Previous research has linked low-activity MAOA variants to a wide range of antisocial, even violent, behaviour, but our study confirms that these variants can predict gang membership. Moreover, we found that variants of this gene could distinguish gang members who were markedly more likely to behave violently and use weapons from members who were less likely to do either," he said. The researcher points out that the MAOA gene affects levels of the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin, which are related to mood and behaviour, and those variants that are related to violence are hereditary. The "warrior gene" has been found, in previous studies, to be more prevalent in cultures that are typified by warfare and aggression. "What's interesting about the MAOA gene is its location on the X-chromosome," Beaver said. "As a result, males, who have one X-chromosome and one Y-chromosome, possess only one copy of this gene, while females, who have two X-chromosomes, carry two. Thus, if a male has an allele (variant) for the MAOA gene that is linked to violence, there isn't another copy to counteract it. Females, in contrast, have two copies, so even if they have one risk allele, they have another that could compensate for it. That's why most MAOA research has focused on males, and probably why the MAOA effect has, for the most part, only been detected in males," he added. For their research, Beaver and his colleagues examined DNA data and lifestyle information drawn from more than 2,500 respondents to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Their findings have been published in the online edition of the journal Comprehensive Psychiatry.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Rwanda To Host United Nations Regional Meeting On Programme Of Action On Small Arms In Kigali, 8-9 July This takes place later this week. Rwanda will host a United Nations regional meeting on the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons for States of the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes region and Southern Africa, on 8 and 9 July, in Kigali, the capital.
The meeting is organized by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), through its United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (UNREC) and in collaboration with the Regional Centre on Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States (RECSA) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The event is supported by the Governments of Austria and Norway.
Officials from Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe have
been invited to participate. Officials of international, regional and subregional organizations, including the African Union, RECSA and SADC, as well as representatives from civil society, are also expected. Invited to attend the meeting is Pablo Macedo of Mexico, Chair-designate of the Fourth Biennial Meeting of States on the Programme of Action (2010), which is formally known as the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.
The Kigali event is the second in a series of regional meetings planned in follow-up to the report of the Third Biennial Meeting of States held in New York from 14 to 18 July 2008. The report stresses the importance of regional approaches to implementation of the Programme of Action, and underscores the usefulness of convening regional meetings, particularly in the years between the global biennial meetings of States (see disarmament.un.org/cab/bms3/1BMS3Pages/1thirdBMS.html ).
In accordance with the report's recommendations, the Kigali meeting aims to consider and advance implementation of the Programme of Action at the regional level. At the first meeting of the series, held on 22 and 23 June in Sydney, Australia, for States of the Pacific region, participants developed draft regional implementation guidelines for the Programme of Action for further consideration at the national level.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Mystery Guns to Saudi Arabia The Winnipeg Free Press reports on a somewhat mysterious shipment of guns to Saudi Arabia from the Canadian province of Ontario. Evidently Manitoba exported a cache of guns worth $1.2 million to Saudi Arabia last year, but the federal government won't say who sold them, who bought them, or what they were used for. Read the whole article here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
EAPC Workshop on Combating Illicit Brokering in Small Arms and Light Weapons
As this ended yesterday we thought it worth mentioning.
EAPC Workshop on Combating Illicit Brokering in Small Arms and Light Weapons, 1-2 July 2009 (NATO) Illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons (SALW) to unlawful or illegitimate actors continues to contribute to conflicts, organised crime or other activities. International efforts to combat this problem are strengthening; for example, at the Third United Nations Biennial Meeting of States on SALW in 2008, the subject of illicit brokering was one of four key themes singled out for special consideration by states. A way forward was articulated in the final outcome document of the meeting that emphasised, inter alia, the importance of further development of national legislative and administrative processes that deal with regulating brokering activities in SALW. It is in this context that the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) will hold the Workshop on Combating Illicit Brokering in SALW on 1-2 July, 2009, at NATO Headquarters. The aims of the Workshop are to provide a forum for exchanging information on achievements relevant to implementation of the UN Programme of Action concerning SALW brokering activities, best practices and recommendations for further achievements; to highlight the current international situation on arms brokering in SALW and elucidate the challenges it poses to international security; to identify types of legislation and administrative procedures that require increased attention in combating illicit brokering activities and explore the ways in which these types of legislation and procedures may be better enforced; to update EAPC members on measures whereby states may deepen the extent of international cooperation between them and; to encourage states to proactively engage in combating the illicit brokering in SALW. An array of international organizations (IOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will support this workshop with experts who will provide detailed presentations on the problem of illicit brokering and possible ways forward in overcoming such a challenging issue. Each morning and afternoon, there will be a panel discussion to permit participants to exchange their views on how prospective developments to mitigate the threat of illicit brokering in SALW could be further enhanced. The event will be attended by representatives of the member states of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, Istanbul Cooperation Countries (ICI), Mediterranean Dialogue (MD), Contact Countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Surplus Arms in South America The Small Arms Survey recently released an issue brief " Surplus Arms in South America." It examines ownership among the armed forces, law enforcement agencies and public in the 12 independent countries of the region.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
MEXICAN AMBASSADOR IS APPOINTED AS PRESIDENT OF MEETING OF UNITED NATIONS ON ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF ALL KINDS OF SMALL AND LIGHT WEAPONS States News Service
June 19, 2009 Friday DATELINE: MEXICO CITY, Mexico Ambassador Pablo Macedo Riba, General Director of the United Nations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE), was appointed President of the Fourth Biennial State Meeting on the application of the Action Program of the United Nations, to take place in 2010 to counter, combat and eradicate illegal trafficking of small and light weapons of all kinds. The Action Program adopted in 2001 is the instrument with the most State participation dealing with the trafficking of small and light weapons of all kinds and the biennial meetings are the follow-up mechanism for examining the progress made by the States in prevention and countering of illegal trafficking of this kind of weapons. The appointment of the Ambassador is an example of the trust that the international community has in Mexico as a committed stakeholder for countering illegal trafficking of small and light weapons at a national, regional and international level. A good example of the aforementioned was the initiative of the country which in 1997 celebrated the Inter-American Convention against the Fabrication and Illegal Trafficking of fire weapons, ammunition and explosives and other related materials (CIFTA); also its participation in the negotiation of the Palermo Protocol on Weapon Trafficking and the relentless support to the United Nations Action Program since it was adopted in 2001. During the biennial meeting, Mexico will seek to adopt an integral instrumentation perspective of the Action Program that would include technical elements to counter the trafficking of weapons and the adoption of concrete measures to deal with humanitarian and prevention aspects as well. Ambassador Macedo has expertise in disarmament. He was President of the Disarmament Conference; presided over two Working Groups of the Ad-hoc Committee in charge of negotiating the Convention on the Prohibition of development, production, storage and the use of chemical weapons and about their destruction which constitutes one of the most important instruments for countering the proliferation of chemical weapons and on which Mexico recently adopted a law that was nationally implemented. Regarding conventional weapons, Ambassador Macedo was the head of the Mexican delegation that successfully negotiated the Oslo Convention on Cluster Ammunition and which was recently ratified by Mexico.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Real War in Mexico: How Democracy Can Defeat the Drug Cartels (excerpt) The July/August 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs journal includes the article "The Real War in Mexico: How Democracy Can Defeat the Drug Cartels" by Shannon O'Neill. This excerpt is relevant: To start, the United States needs to take a hard look at its own role in the escalating violence and instability in Mexico. This means enforcing its own laws--and rethinking its own priorities. When it comes to the gun trade, U.S. law prohibits the sale of weapons to foreign nationals or "straw buyers," who use their clean criminal records to buy arms for others. It also forbids the unlicensed export of guns to Mexico. Nevertheless, over 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico and traced are found to have come from the United States. These include not just pistols but also cartel favorites such as AR-15s and AK-47-style semiautomatic rifles. To stop this "iron river" of guns, Washington must inspect traffic on the border going south--not just north--and increase the resources for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (Even with recent additional deployments, a mere 250 ATF officers and inspectors cover the 2,000 mile border,) This effort should also include a broader program of outreach and education, encouraging responsible sales at gun shops and shows and deterring potential straw buyers with more explicit warnings of the punishment they would face if caught. Reducing the tools of violence in Mexico is a first step in addressing U.S. responsibility. (p. 70)
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Firearm and Explosives Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and implementing regulations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and designated state and local criminal justice agencies use the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to conduct checks on individuals before federal firearms licensees (gun dealers) may transfer any firearm to an unlicensed individual. Also, to assist the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the FBI conducts NICS background checks on individuals seeking to obtain a federal explosives license or permit. Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list. Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor (i.e., prohibiting information) pursuant to federal or state law, such as a felony conviction or illegal immigration status. In response to the request, this report addresses (1) the number of NICS background checks involving terrorist watch list records, the related results, and the FBI's current procedures for handling these checks and (2) the extent to which the FBI has taken action to collect information from NICS background checks involving terrorist watch list records and share this information with counterterrorism officials to support investigations and other counterterrorism activities. In summary, from February 2004 through February 2009, FBI data show that 963 NICS background checks resulted in valid matches with terrorist watch list records; of these matches, approximately 90 percent were allowed to proceed because the checks revealed no prohibiting information and about 10 percent were denied.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Adding insult to injury The below article had to be read to be believed. The money quote is this: Upon learning of his son's death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a "bullet fee"—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Gun Connection Given recent gun violence in the United States this June 20 op-ed by New york Times columnist Bob Herbert merits reading. Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams...
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Chairman Elliot Engel's opening statement on the GAO report The following is excerpted from Chairman Elliot Engel's opening statement at the hearing on the GAO report:
Today's hearing will focus on the just released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico. I commissioned this report last year with the former Ranking Member of this Subcommittee Dan Burton and several other Subcommittee Members.
The availability of firearms illegally flowing from the United States into Mexico has armed and emboldened a dangerous criminal element in Mexico, and it has made the brutal work of the drug cartels even more deadly. Data in the GAO's report shows that 93% of firearms recovered in Mexico and traced in FY 2008 originate in the United States. In FY 2006 and 2007, the number was 95%. This is even higher than the 90% figure that is most frequently cited in the press, and it is simply unacceptable.
This is not the first time this Subcommittee has focused on what the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has referred to as the "iron river of guns" illegally flowing from the United States into Mexico. When the Merida Initiative was announced in October 2007, the United States and Mexico put out a joint statement in which the U.S. pledged to "intensify our efforts" to combat the trafficking of weapons to Mexico. As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have been waiting for too long for us to live up to this commitment, and I will not let up the pressure until we do.
It has been a year and a half since the Merida Initiative was announced. Shockingly, the GAO's report states that until just a couple of weeks ago, a U.S. strategy to combat firearms trafficking to Mexico was nowhere to be found. On June 5th, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) released its 2009 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy which, for the first time, includes a chapter on combating illicit firearms trafficking to Mexico. But, implementation still has not begun. It is mind-boggling that for a year and a half, we have had no inter-agency strategy to address this major problem, but instead have relied on uncoordinated efforts by a variety of agencies. A strategy to combat arms trafficking to Mexico should have been in place and running on October 22, 2007 - the day that Presidents Bush and Calderon announced the Merida Initiative. I'm glad President Obama has finally begun to address this.
The June 5th announcement was certainly a step in the right direction, and we now anxiously await further direction on this inter-agency strategy and the roles and responsibilities of various U.S. agencies. As the GAO reports, ATF and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) - the two main agencies implementing efforts to combat firearms trafficking to Mexico - do not effectively coordinate their efforts. I fully endorse the GAO's recommendation that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security finalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ATF and ICE. I was also pleased to author a provision in the House-passed Foreign Relations Authorization Act which will create an Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention of Illicit Small Arms Trafficking in the Western Hemisphere to ensure that our efforts to curb firearms trafficking are better coordinated, not just with regard to Mexico but with all countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
I was not surprised to learn in the GAO report that certain provisions of federal firearms laws - including the Tiahrt amendment - present challenges to U.S. efforts to curb firearms trafficking to Mexico. Current restrictions on collecting and reporting information on firearms purchases not only make the jobs of our fine police officers more difficult than they already are, but also inhibit our ability to effectively curb firearms trafficking to Mexico.
GAO reports that of the 87% of firearms recovered in Mexico originating from the United States between 2004 and 2008, 19% were manufactured in third countries and imported into the United States before being trafficked into Mexico. This is why we must once again enforce the ban on imported assault weapons that was previously enforced during the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In recent years, the George W. Bush Administration quietly abandoned enforcement of the import ban. As a result, the U.S. civilian firearms market is flooded with imported, inexpensive military-style assault weapons. These assault weapons - which often come from Eastern Europe - are being trafficked from the U.S. across the border into Mexico. To get around the ban, importers have been able to skirt restrictions by bringing in assault weapons parts and reassembling them with a small number of U.S.-made parts. Enforcing the existing import ban requires no legislative action and would be a win-win for the US and Mexico. On February 12th, I sent a letter to President Obama - signed by a bipartisan group of 52 of my colleagues - urging him to once again enforce the ban on imported assault weapons. The data in today's report only reinforces the need to return to enforcement of this ban.
Finally, I would like to once again call upon the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, also known as CIFTA. The treaty was signed during the Clinton Administration and must be ratified, so the United States can tell our friends in the hemisphere that we are serious in addressing the problem of illegal weapons trafficking.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Written testimony of Mr. Jess T. Ford, U.S. Government Accountability Office Regarding the U.S. GAO Report, if you don't want to read the entire full 83 page report you can find the 10 page written testimony of Mr. Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade, GAO, to the U.S. congressional subcommittee here. From the summary: Available evidence indicates a large proportion of the firearms fueling Mexican drug violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of increasingly lethal weapons. While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally trafficked into Mexico in a given year, over 20,000, or around 87 percent, of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced over the past 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Around 68 percent of these firearms were manufactured in the United States, and around 19 percent were manufactured in third countries and imported into the United States before being trafficked into Mexico.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Chapter 7, 2009 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy With all the recent publicity about the U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last week on "U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico" most people are unaware of another report, released in early June, which had a very relevant chapter. Specifically, on June 5th the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy released its 2009 National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, which for the first time includes a chapter (Chap. 7) on combating illicit firearms trafficking to Mexico. Click here for the full report.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico: Report from the Government Accountability Office The following is an excerpt from the June 19, 2009 hearing of the U.S. Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on "U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico: Report from the Government Accountability Office." As pro-gun groups in the U.S. have criticized the Government Accountability Office report released at the hearing we thought this excerpt relevant. The full hearing transcript will be posted to the NISAT document library in the near future. WITNESS: JESS T. FORD, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE;
...
Mr. Ford, who has testified before Congress over 40 times, is no stranger to this subcommittee. I was pleased to welcome you here in October of 2007 for a hearing I chaired just as the Merida Initiative was announced and it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the subcommittee once again.
In fact, you've been with GAO so long as Mr. Ford, you were even there when we had President Ford. So it's nice to have someone with a lot of experience and I look forward to listening to your testimony today. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
MR. FORD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate those kind words.
I'm pleased to be here today to discuss our recent report related to illicit arms trafficking to Mexico.
In recent years, violence along the Mexican border has escalated dramatically as the administration of President Felipe Calderon has sought to combat the growing power of Mexican drug trafficking organizations and to curb their ability to operate with impunity in areas of Mexico.
Mexican officials have come to regard illicit firearms as the number one crime problem facing the country. According to the Department of Justice 2009 National Drug Threat Assessment, Mexican drug trafficking organizations represent the greatest organized crime threat in the United States, controlling drug distribution in many U.S. cities.
In particular, law enforcement reporting indicates Mexican drug trafficking organizations maintain drug distribution networks and drug supply distributions in over 230 U.S. cities.
In March of 2009, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it planned to increase resources on the U.S.-Mexican border, including more personnel and greater use of available technologies.
And as the chairman mentioned, just two weeks ago the ONDCP released its new Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, which for the first time contains a chapter on arms.
Today I'm going to discuss the data that's available on the types, sources and uses of arms, the key challenges that confront the U.S. government in its efforts to combat illicit sales of firearms in the United States and to stem the flow of these arms across the Southwest border into Mexico, the challenges facing U.S. agencies collaborating with the Mexican authorities, and the U.S. government strategy for addressing this issue.
Available evidence indicates that a large proportion of firearms fueling the Mexican drug violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of increasingly lethal weapons.
While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally trafficked into Mexico in any given year, over 20,000, or around 87 percent, of the firearms seized and traced over the past five years have originated in the United States, according to ATF.
The data we're using is ATF data. We spent a lot of time working with them and I can get into that in the Q&A about what we know about this issue. We believe this is the best data that's currently available that indicates what the nature of the problem is.
In the last three years, over 90 percent of the guns that were traced from Mexico came from the United States, according to ATF. The chart that I've got to my left is a summarization actually of the three of five years of information that came from ATF, including the number of guns that were -- the actual number of guns that were traced from the United States, and if you total that number up, it's over 20,000 guns over the last five years.
Of that amount, ATF data shows that approximately 68 percent of the firearms were manufactured in the United States and 19 percent were manufactured in third countries. The remaining amounts ATF was not able to identify for us exactly where the guns were manufactured.
According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly used -- excuse me, have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. For example, many of these firearms are a high-caliber, high-powered weapons such as AK-47s and AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles.
According to ATF trace data, many of these firearms came from gun shops and gun shows in the Southwest border states, such as Texas, California and Arizona. U.S. and Mexican government and law enforcement officials stated that most guns trafficked to Mexico are intended to support the operations of Mexican drug trafficking organizations, which are responsible for most of the trafficking of arms into Mexico.
The U.S. government faces several significant challenges in its efforts to combat the illicit sale of firearms and to stem the flow of arms across the border.
First, according to ATF officials, certain provisions of some federal firearms laws present challenges in their efforts to investigate firearms cases. The three areas that they identified for us include the restrictions on collecting and reporting information on firearms purchases, the lack of required background checks for private firearms sales, and limitations on reporting requirements on multiple gun sales.
Another major challenge that we found is that ATF and ICE, the two primary agencies responsible for implementing efforts to address the smuggling of arms and identifying the nature of the problem, are not consistently coordinating their efforts effectively, in part because the agencies lack clear roles and responsibilities and have been operating under an outdated interagency agreement. This has resulted in some instances of duplicate initiatives and confusion in operations.
Additionally, we found agencies lack systematic analysis and reporting on data related to arms trafficking and that they are also unable to provide complete information to us on the results of their efforts to stop guns from being smuggled into Mexico.
We believe this type of information could be useful to better understand the nature of the problem and to help plan ways to address it and to make more progress in stopping the illicit smuggling of arms into Mexico.
U.S. law enforcement agencies and the Department of State have provided some assistance to Mexican counterparts in combating arms trafficking, but these efforts face several key challenges.
U.S. law enforcement agencies have built working relationships with Mexican federal, state and local law enforcement, as well as the Mexican military, which has given the United States the opportunity to provide the Mexican government counterparts with technical and operational assistance to address the firearms problem.
For example, although the Merida Initiative, which provides general law enforcement and counternarcotics assistance to Mexico, does -- it does not provide dedicated funding to address the issue of arms trafficking.
A number of officials told us that it would be helpful to combat arms trafficking such as establishing bilateral, multilateral (sic) -- multiagency arms trafficking task force to help address this problem.
Furthermore, U.S. assistance has been limited in helping the Mexican government to expand its capabilities to provide better trace information to the U.S. government to better understand the overall nature of gun trafficking and gun problems in the country.
Okay, according to Mexican and U.S. government officials, extensive corruption in federal, state and local levels is another problem that impedes U.S. efforts to develop effectible -- effective and dependable partnerships with the Mexican government. Mexican government officials indicated that anti-corruption measures such as increased use of polygraph and psychological testing, background checks and salary increases are efforts under way to try to address this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to mention the new strategy other than to acknowledge the fact that it's the first time that our government has put together an articulated strategy to deal with the gun issue. The strategy is new. It just came out two weeks ago. There are some key issues related to the strategy that have not yet been fully announced by the administration.
The key issues in our mind have to do with an implementation plan that will go along with the strategy and we think it's critical that this plan have clear sense of who's going to be responsible for carrying out the key parts of the strategy, and it will have some performance indicators so we will know somewhere down the road how effective the strategy is working. And we have a recommendation in our report that ONDCP provide that type of information
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we made a series of recommendations to the attorney general's office and Homeland Security covering such issues as: addressing the issue of how some of the legal constraints might be addressed and, if they feel necessary, to approach the Congress with whatever remedies they believe need to be taken; that they finalize this memorandum of understanding that's been under negotiation for several months; to better improve their working relationship between ATF and ICE; that they improve their data- gathering techniques related to the nature of the problem and reporting of results on gun smuggling; that they expedite their working relationship with the Mexican government to enhance eTrace capability so that we have a better understanding of the nature of gun trafficking in Mexico; and as I mentioned, that ONDCP incorporate the implementation plans and performance measures so that Congress will have a better understanding of whether we're having success in this area.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.
...
So I'll call on Mr. Mack.
REP. MACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And as I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm having a little bit of difficulty in -- or having any confidence, real confidence, in the report.
It's not to say that I don't think some of the recommendations that you come up with might be good ones. But I don't know that the report itself is something that we should put a lot of value in.
I would -- most of the things that you have talked about, most of the numbers you've talked about has been based upon the number of guns that you were able to trace. And we know that a majority of those guns that are -- that you're able to trace are the ones that come from the U.S. But that leaves out a majority of the guns that are being seized.
So I'd ask, how many guns were you able to trace to Cuba or Venezuela or Bolivia or Ecuador or from other continents? That would be a question that I'd have for you.
Also, in -- you know, just I think two days ago we were at another hearing together where you had said that Radio or TV Marti -- that less than 1 percent of the people in -- or Cubans see it. And I suggested then that how could you do -- how would you even contemplate that someone -- a Cuban would answer the phone and say, "Yes, I watch TV Marti," when they're in Cuba living under a brutal dictatorship?
So these two things -- this report and that report -- I'm having a hard time having any kind of real confidence in the report itself.
So if you could comment on how many of the weapons do we know come from Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador? And if you agree that if we had a strong border between U.S. and Mexico -- if that would stop any of the guns that are moving south -- if that would stop it as well.
MR. FORD: Okay, well, let me maybe respond first to the issue of the data that you indicate you believe the way we portrayed that information is flawed. I don't agree with that conclusion.
What we've got is a summary of information that came from ATF. It's ATF data. It's not GAO data. The ATF data is based on guns that were identified and traced from Mexico. As we clearly state in our report, that represents approximately a quarter of the guns that the Mexican government reported that they seized in 2008. So we clearly identify that in the report.
Secondly, the -- with regard to -- the data is the data. It's 20,000 guns. Those guns --
REP. MACK: Let me just say this: So it would be -- so you would also say that to say that 90 percent or 95 percent of the guns in Mexico are coming from the U.S. is false? That is not an accurate statement?
MR. FORD: That's right.
And we don't say that.
REP. MACK: Right. But other people are saying that.
MR. FORD: Well --
REP. MACK: I think it's important that -
MR. FORD: -- our report does not say that. Our report clearly states the facts.
The facts are it's 90 percent of the guns that were traced, that we were able -- that the Mexican government and ATF were able to send back here to be traced by ATF. It does not represent the 75 percent of the guns that we don't know where they came from because they were never submitted for trace. That's clearly stated in our report. So if someone's misreporting that, you know, that's not my problem. But our report is based on the facts.
The second thing that I think is more important in this is -- and the thing that I think that you all should be concerned about is, regardless of whether we know the -- 100 percent of all of the guns that have been seized in Mexico -- where they came from, I think we should be concerned by the fact that 20,000 of those guns we know for sure came from here.
And I think that in terms of us coming through with a policy and a program to address this problem at the border is -- to address your second question -- yes, I do think we need to tighten up on the border.
When we started this project our government was not -- this was not a priority -- to stop southbound trafficking of arms. Our agencies were focused on northbound activities. And we are -- most of the agencies that we've dealt with during the course of this job were just not focused on the whole issue of arms.
So I think, yeah, we need to tighten up on the border. I think it's an important thing. I think the new strategy that just came out is an effort to try to do that.
But the data that we used in our report we believe is sound. And we do believe that further effort actually to expand tracing in Mexico will shed further light on this issue if in fact we can get the Mexican government to send more traces here.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Senate to State Department: Get with the [ATT] Program It is true that the United States is not exactly what you would call an enthusiastic supporter of a future Arms Trade Treaty. In fact, on an average day its level of support doesn't each reach the level of lukewarm. Nevertheless, members of the U.S. Congress think it should do more. So earlier this week eight members of the U.S. Senate sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton to be "a strong proponent of an international Arms Trade Treaty." June 16, 2009
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Madame Secretary:
As you may know, the second session of the UN Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the Arms Trade Treaty is about to convene at the United Nations from July 13 to 17 in New York. At the previous session, U.S. Ambassador Donald A. Mahley made a statement saying the United States is undergoing a full review of the Treaty. We welcome this statement and urge you to be an active proponent of a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations.
Over the past two decades, the largely unregulated trade in conventional weapons has fueled violent conflicts, facilitated grave violations of human rights, undermined efforts towards sustainable development, and helped arm insurgent groups around the world. A significant source of arms to conflict zones and to known human rights violators continues to be irresponsible arms exports by countries around the world. While currently legal under international law, these irresponsible transfers often fuel the illicit arms trade. For example, recent evidence indicates that arms and ammunition transferred to Yemen has been illegally transshipped across the Gulf of Aden into Somalia, arming virtually every fighting force in Somalia and helping to fuel the conflict.
Unlike with the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, there is no global legal instrument that regulates the interstate transfer of conventional weapons. It is time for this national security loop hole to be filled.
Spearheaded by seven governments from every continent, including the United Kingdom and Japan, the Arms Trade Treaty process has already gained the support of over 140 governments at the United Nations. This process calls for the creation of international regulations on the export, import, and international transfer of conventional arms to help prevent arms transfers to parties under UN arms embargoes and those likely to commit grave human rights violations, acts of terrorism, and other violations of international law.
Given the threat posed by the proliferation of conventional arms to U.S. national security interests, it is critical that the United States actively engage in the Arms Trade Treaty process. As the worlds largest exporter of conventional weapons and a government that is widely considered to have the gold-standard on arms export controls, the United States has a special responsibility to promote responsible global arms trade. Such was the intention behind the International Arms Sales Code of Conduct Act, passed by Congress in November 1999, which required the President to begin negotiations toward a multilateral regime of arms export criteria. The second Working Group offers the opportunity to engage in such negotiations.
We urge you to be an active proponent of a strong Arms Trade Treaty at the United Nations in the upcoming Working Group discussions. We also look forward to future collaboration between the State Department and the Senate as you work with U.S. allies to further global efforts to control the global arms market and pursue global standards as enshrined in U.S. law. Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator Richard Durbin
United States Senator Daniel Akaka
United States Senator Russ Feingold
United States Senator Tom Harkin
United States Senator Patrick Leahy
United States Senator Carl Levin
United States Senator Jack Reed
United States Senator ###
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Global Week of Action Against Gun Violence The Global Week of Action Against Gun Violence was from 15-21 June 2009, organised by the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).
Events were being held in over 80 countries to draw attention to the human cost of gun proliferation and misuse. Campaigners in The Gambia have joined their colleagues around the world in demanding effective policies to stem the flow of guns and make communities safer. In The Gambia, the Gambia Action Network on Small Arms, coordinated by the West Africa Network for Peace-building (WANEP) is conducting the following events: sensitisation of its members and other stakeholders as well as paying courtesy calls on relevant ministries.
This is designed to advocate for active participation in further discussions on the proposed treaty and enhance awareness on the dangers of arms proliferation for the ultimate realisation of an Arms Trade Treaty.
According to a press release from WANEP, this year's campaign is targeted at the need for the Gambia government to take an active role in the forthcoming United Nations discussions about an Arms Trade Treaty.
The need for a strong Arms Trade Treaty is urgent: 1000 people are killed every day by conventional weapons. The idea of the treaty received overwhelming support in the UN last December, with only one country voting against.
We are proud that the Gambia has supported the resolution at the UN last December, but this will be rendered meaningless unless it is translated into practical action. It is vital that the government participate fully in the UN working group discussions in July and argue for a tough, effective treaty to control this deadly trade.
"The treaty should ban transfers of arms or ammunition in five instances: when those weapons will be used for gross violations of international human rights or humanitarian law; when they would undermine development or involve corruption; provoke or worsen armed conflict; contribute to " These restrictions should not be controversial, but some countries with vested interests will try to block them.
The GANSA Coordinator said: "Our government must step forward now to argue for a tough Arms Trade Treaty. Otherwise, the voices of less scrupulous countries will prevail, and dangerous arms transfers will continue unchecked."
The Gambia Action Network on Small Arms GANSA comprises 14 national organisations and networks intervening on the broader thematic areas of peace, human rights and development. Formed in August of 2007 and coordinated by WANEP, GANSA is a member of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), the global movement against gun violence. IANSA is a network of 800 civil society organisations working in 120 countries to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons (SALW).
First launched in 2001, the Global Week of Action against Gun Violence has grown to be the largest coordinated gun violence prevention event in the world. Monrovia Star Radio Online in English
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 T10:44:23Z The Liberians United to Expose Hidden Weapons has called on government to ratify the UN treaty on arms trade.
The programs Manager of the group told Star Radio the endorsement of the arms trade treaty would curtail the transfer of arms and ammunitions.
According to Mr. Kerian Pelenah, the international trade of arms and conventional weapons is unregulated.
Mr. Pelenah said at least one thousand people are killed daily by conventional weapons worldwide.
He said in Liberia, arms are still being used to terrorize civilians and stall development.
Mr. Pelanah said over the past five years, his group has succeeded in uncovering over four thousand arms throughout the country.
The Programs Manager of the anti-violence group spoke Tuesday, the first day of the observance of the Global week of action against gun violence.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges According to the summary: Available evidence indicates many of the firearms fueling Mexican drug violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of increasingly lethal weapons. While it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally smuggled into Mexico in a given year, about 87 percent of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. Many of these firearms come from gun shops and gun shows in Southwest border states. U.S. and Mexican government and law enforcement officials stated most firearms are intended to support operations of Mexican DTOs, which are also responsible for trafficking arms to Mexico. The U.S. government faces several significant challenges in combating illicit sales of firearms in the United States and stemming their flow into Mexico. In particular, certain provisions of some federal firearms laws present challenges to U.S. efforts, according to ATF officials. Specifically, officials identified key challenges related to restrictions on collecting and reporting information on firearms purchases, a lack of required background checks for private firearms sales, and limitations on reporting requirements for multiple sales. GAO also found ATF and Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the primary agencies implementing efforts to address the issue, do not effectively coordinate their efforts, in part because the agencies lack clear roles and responsibilities and have been operating under an outdated interagency agreement. Additionally, agencies generally have not systematically gathered, analyzed, and reported data that could be useful to help plan and assess results of their efforts to address arms trafficking to Mexico. U.S. law enforcement agencies have provided some assistance to Mexican counterparts in combating arms trafficking, but these efforts face several challenges. U.S. law enforcement assistance to Mexico does not target arms trafficking needs, limiting U.S. agencies' ability to provide technical or operational assistance. In addition, U.S. assistance has been limited due to Mexican officials' incomplete use of ATF's electronic firearms tracing system, an important tool for U.S. arms trafficking investigations. Another significant challenge facing U.S. efforts to assist Mexico is corruption among some Mexican government entities. Mexican federal authorities are implementing anticorruption measures, but government officials acknowledge fully implementing these reforms will take considerable time, and may take years to affect comprehensive change. The administration's recently released National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy includes, for the first time, a chapter on combating illicit arms trafficking to Mexico. Prior to the new strategy, the U.S. government lacked a strategy to address arms trafficking to Mexico, and various efforts undertaken by individual U.S. agencies were not part of a comprehensive U.S. governmentwide strategy for addressing the problem. At this point, it's not clear whether ONDCP's "implementation plan" for the strategy, which has not been finalized, will include performance indicators and other accountability mechanisms to overcome shortcomings raised in our report. The Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the House Foreign Affairs Committee was supposed to hold a hearing yesterday on the report, but it was postponed until today.
The witnesses will include Mr. Jess T. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade Team, United States Government Accountability Office (GAO).
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
The Arms Trade Treaty: Challenges and Opportunities Two of PRIO's researchers, Hilde Wallacher and Kjell Erling Kjellman, wrote a Background Paper," The Arms Trade Treaty: Challenges and Opportunities" for an in-house seminar on the ATT Process that took place yesterday. It details and recommends Norwegian strategies and priorities for the ATT.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Arms Trade Treaty excerpt from UK Foreign Affairs Committee Report
The below is excerpted from the British Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report, "Global Security: Non-Proliferation," from the 2008-09 Session.
Here you can browse the report together with the Proceedings of the Committee. The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 3 June 2009.
…
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) 311. In December 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89, endorsing the idea of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to "establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms".[636] The FCO told us that the criteria for assessing exports would include:
the recipient country's respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. The Treaty would thereby contribute to preventing imported arms being used for human rights abuse, repression, terrorism, and undermining social and economic stability and development.[637]
312. A Group of Governmental Experts met between February and August 2008 to discuss issues relating to an ATT. Its report revealed differences, among other things, over:
Whether an international treaty is the best way to improve the regulation of conventional arms;
Whether its scope would be more effectively established by a simple, generic set of descriptions of the categories of weapons covered or a comprehensive list;
Which activities and/or transactions should be covered;
Which international legal standards should be explicitly referred to in a treaty as the basis for the criteria that must be applied in deciding whether to approve an arms transfer. [638]
313. On 31 October 2008, 147 states voted in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly to move forward with work on a Treaty, up from the 139 who had voted in 2006 to initiate the process. Only the US and Zimbabwe voted against the resolution. However, 19 countries abstained, including China, Russia, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, India and Pakistan. There was particularly strong support from countries in Europe, South and Central America and Africa. The resolution called on the UN to convene an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG), in which all Member States can participate, which is due to meet a maximum of six times, starting in 2009, and then submit a further report to the General Assembly.[639] According to the FCO, these meetings will seek "to establish areas of agreement on the possible scope and parameters for a treaty."[640] The full General Assembly passed resolution 63/240 in December 2008, endorsing the First Committee's resolution of 31 October.[641]
314. The Government has been a strong supporter of an ATT since 2005. In July 2008, the Committees on Arms Export Controls concluded that the Government "is to be commended and supported in its efforts to achieve a comprehensive and effective international arms trade treaty."[642] The UK Working Group on Arms told us that "alongside its international partners, the UK has continued to play a lead role in promoting the ATT on the international stage."[643]
315. We conclude that the Government is to be commended for the energy and commitment which it has displayed in seeking to achieve a comprehensive and effective international Arms Trade Treaty. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Government should provide an update on the status of the negotiations on the Treaty.
FEASIBILITY OF AN ATT
316. While acknowledging the concerns of some states, the Government set out a positive view of the feasibility of the ATT in its March 2007 submission to the Group of Governmental Experts.[644] Opponents and sceptics put forward a variety of arguments against the proposed treaty. Some of those countries that have not endorsed it, like Zimbabwe, largely reject it because they see it as an unwarranted infringement upon national sovereignty.[645] Other positions are more nuanced. The previous US Administration was suspicious in general of binding international legal commitments of this kind, preferring in the context of conventional non-proliferation to act multilaterally through the Wassenaar Agreement, and did not believe that an ATT could be effective. During the debate in the General Assembly First Committee in October 2008, a representative of the US Government stated:
The only way to convince all major arms exporters to sign on to the ATT would be to weaken its provisions. Concluding a weak ATT would legitimise an international standard based on a lowest common denominator that would not address the problem of illicit and irresponsible arms transfers.[646]
When we asked him to respond to this argument, Roy Isbister said:
I respond by disagreeing. For a start, if you get the world's largest exporter [the US], the one country that is exporting more than 50% of the arms moving around the world, on side, then you are going a long way to not lowering the bar.[647]
317. Bill Rammell told us that the Government "want as strong a treaty as we can possibly deliver",[648] qualifying this by adding that:
We are certainly not looking for the lowest-common-denominator approach […] However, in taking it forward—and we are making progress—there is a balance to be struck between the strength of the treaty on one hand and, on the other, the number of states willing to sign up to it. Clearly, a key judgement for us will be ensuring that we do not concede too much in negotiations and end up with a universally adopted treaty with very little impact.[649]
In his evidence to us, David Hayes, representing the Export Group for Aerospace and Defence (EGAD), said: "Fundamentally, we see the concept as being one of raising the bar at the lower end of the continuum of export control systems, rather than adding another layer on top of systems that are already fairly rigorous".[650]
318. The UK is often considered to have a rigorous export control regime, and an ATT would potentially add little or nothing to the national regime. Concerns about UK conventional arms exports to Israel have been revived in recent months in the context of Israel's military action in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. Writing before the latest crisis in Gaza, the Campaign against the Arms Trade argued that the Government had failed to uphold the arms export criteria contained within the 2002 Export Control Act with regard to Israel. It also noted that no arms embargo was imposed during Israel's 2006 conflict with Hizbollah in Lebanon.[651] When asked if an ATT would have altered UK policy on selling arms to countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia, both Roy Isbister and Dr Plesch told us that, as they conceived it, it would.[652] However, David Hayes disagreed.[653]
319. We conclude that whilst there are inherent dangers in adopting a lowest common denominator approach to an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a treaty that is both inclusive and credible can be achieved. We further conclude, however, that if in the future, the Government is forced to choose between giving priority to the strength of the treaty or achieving the widest possible ratification, it should give priority to securing the strongest possible treaty.
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ATT
320. Another important issue in terms of feasibility which is yet to be seriously addressed in the negotiations is that of effective enforcement, which will be crucial to the credibility of a future treaty but, as discussed above, will be difficult to achieve. Bill Rammell told us: "We are not looking for a paper tiger; we are looking for a legally enforceable instrument".[654] Roy Isbister stated that this was "clearly a complex question […] You will have all the normal problems and, hopefully, solutions involved in enforcing international law",[655] whilst David Hayes said: "To be credible, the treaty needs to be enforceable. The tightness of rules is important, because a loose treaty would achieve little more than to bring export controls into disrepute".[656]
321. We conclude that effective enforcement will be crucial to the credibility and effectiveness of an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and we recommend that the Government does all it can to make this issue a high priority in future negotiations. We further recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government should set out its current position with regard to the ways in which an ATT would ideally be enforceable.
SCOPE OF AN ATT
322. During its deliberations in 2008, the Group of Governmental Experts disagreed over important issues relating to the scope of a treaty.[657] Firstly, some countries favoured agreeing a comprehensive list of weapons to be covered by the ATT, perhaps drawing on the list used under the Wassenaar Arrangement, in order to ensure that nothing important is excluded from its scope.[658] Others appeared to prefer the idea of a treaty that is based on a simple, generic description of the categories of arms covered, similar to those that are used under the 1995 UN Register on Conventional Arms, a voluntary reporting mechanism for participating states which covers seven categories of major conventional arms, on the grounds that it could be relatively straightforwardly updated. Secondly, there were differences over which activities and/or transactions should be included. Key issues of debate included dual-use arms and equipment, brokering, transit and trans-shipment and in-country transfers, with some arguing that most, if not all, activities and/or transactions should be covered but others suggesting a more restrictive approach.
323. The Government set out its views on both issues in a March 2007 submission to the Group of Governmental Experts. On whether a treaty should be based on a simple, generic description of categories of arms covered or a detailed list, the Government stated that there are arguments for and against both. However, at the March 2009 meeting of the Open Ended Working Group, UK Ambassador for Arms Control and Disarmament John Duncan added that "no single existing list will be adequate for our global needs."[659] The Government favoured a treaty that covers all conventional arms and equipment, munitions, the technology used to produce and maintain them, and their parts and components. It also supported consideration of including dual-use items "directly relevant to the above arms, munitions and production technology."[660] In addition, it called for a treaty to make clear what is meant by the terms "import, export and transfers." The Government also favoured including other activities within the scope of a treaty, "including brokering, transit and trans-shipment, loans, gifts and temporary imports/exports for demonstration or exhibition". Finally, it suggested that the treaty should cover only transfers between states, excluding internal transfers.[661]
324. The UK Working Group on Arms has expressed concerns about how discussions within the Group of Governmental Experts on scope have proceeded:
[The ATT] must also be as comprehensive as possible, applying to all conventional arms; including their components, manufacturing technology, production equipment and relevant dual-use goods. It is of great concern that discussions amongst governments are focusing on using the seven categories on major conventional weaponry from the UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNRCA), plus small arms and light weapons, often referred to as '7+1'. Under such formulation, the ATT would not cover many categories of weapons, police and internal security equipment that are used in the commission of human rights violations, including ammunition and explosives, many types of military vehicles and aircraft, and many categories of ordnance including short-range missiles and bombs. Utilising the UNRCA categories would also not include components and parts, which are central to international supply chains that dominate the increasingly global nature of the production of conventional weapons.
As a starting point, the UKWG recommends that the Wassenaar military list should be utilised, as it is comprehensive, multilateral, enjoys the support of a majority of arms exporting states, and is an agreed international standard for the classification of conventional weapons […] The ATT must also cover all aspects of international arms transfers, including import, export, transit, transhipment, overseas production and arms brokering activities.[662]
325. Bill Rammell played down fears that a generic '7+1' approach would be adopted, rather than a list akin to the Wassenaar military list, arguing that the negotiations were not yet at "that detailed stage".[663] Dr Plesch told us that some states may be suspicious about drawing too much on the Wassenaar military list because the Wassenaar Agreement was in origin a "Cold War device".[664] He added:
many States—you can already see it in the UN debate—are starting to ask, 'Well, will there be no monitoring amongst those states that hold these weapons as it is just about transfers, and what happens to States that produce their own?' Those lists could be used not only for the reduction, removal and scrapping of weapons, but possibly for the monitoring and verification of holdings as part of a separate process.[665]
326. We recommend basing an Arms Trade Treaty on a detailed list of the weapons to be covered rather than on a set of simple generic descriptions of the categories of arms covered. We conclude that the Government should take this position in future negotiations. We further recommend that a broad range of activities and/or transactions should be brought within the scope of the treaty, including dual-use items, brokering and trans-shipment.
STANDARDS TO BE DEFINED IN AN ATT
327. In August 2008 the Group of Governmental Experts also disagreed about which international legal standards should apply under an ATT.[666] Some countries clearly favoured a minimalist approach, where explicit reference is made only to a very limited number of existing treaties—for example, the UN Charter. While the Charter refers to the importance of upholding and promoting human rights, it places strong emphasis on both the right of states to self-defence and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Flowing from this minimalist approach would be a relatively limited set of conditions that must apply when considering whether to approve an arms transfer. Other countries, including the Member States of the EU, argued for a more expansive approach, where explicit reference is made not just to the UN Charter but more widely to the applicability of existing international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. This expansive approach would be the basis for the conditions to be applied when considering whether to approve an arms transfer.[667]
328. Both in its evidence to us[668] and in its March 2007 submission to the Group of Governmental Experts, the Government endorsed a relatively expansive approach and suggested that the following criteria should be followed when deciding whether or not to approve a specific arms transfer:
Whether the proposed transfer will: Breach any international or regional commitments; Be diverted to a use which would breach any international or regional commitments; Be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law; Be used in the furtherance of terrorist acts; Be used in the commission of violent crimes; Be used to provoke or exacerbate internal or regional conflict; Be used to destabilize countries or regions; Seriously undermine the economy or hamper the overall development of the importing state; Be diverted to one of the above uses.[669]
Roy Isbister told us:
If it is a narrowly focused treaty […] it will be a failure. If the protections of human rights and international humanitarian law are not included, it will be a failure. We need those elements […]. The debate on international humanitarian law is easier to win than the human rights debate. In general more states are comfortable with the international humanitarian law side than with human rights.[670]
329. We recommend that an Arms Trade Treaty should fully incorporate the protections provided by international human rights law and international humanitarian law. We conclude that the inclusion within its ambit of human rights protections should be viewed as a key test of the likely credibility and effectiveness of such a treaty.
THE FUTURE OF NEGOTIATIONS TOWARDS AN ATT
330. Negotiations on the next steps with regard to an ATT are to proceed on an 'overwhelming majority' basis, breaking with the customary UN tradition of proceeding by consensus on such issues. In its August 2008 report, the Group of Governmental Experts called for further progress "on the basis of consensus".[671] However, the resolution of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on 31 October 2008 simply called for consensus to be further "developed".[672] The UK has been a strong supporter of an 'overwhelming majority' approach. UK Ambassador John Duncan has been quoted as saying that the Group will "work on the basis of majority, but […] strive to achieve consensus in the first instance."[673] This shift away from a requirement for consensus may reduce the ability of small numbers of countries hostile to the idea to undermine the entire negotiating process. However, it can be argued that there are also risks in such an approach. The previous US Administration claimed that it was the removal of "consensus-process language" that led it to vote against the resolution of 31 October 2008 and threw into doubt its participation in the Open Ended Working Group. However, a requirement for consensus can lead to frustration, as for example with negotiations on bans on cluster munitions and landmines which were eventually moved outside the UN framework. On the ATT, Roy Isbister told us: "Given that we have made progress and are still making progress, it would be remiss to suggest that we should move outside a UN formula at this stage".[674]
331. The Open Ended Working Group is due to meet a maximum of six times. It held its first substantive session on 2-6 March 2009. The UK Working Group on Arms also highlighted a series of EU- and UN-sponsored regional meetings taking place over the next 15 months, calling them "an alternative platform to discuss elements further from Group of Governmental Experts consensus".[675] They went on to tell us that:
A resolution in 2009 will need to mandate the OEWG to move in 2010 beyond the least controversial issues, to more contentious items such as arms transfer criteria. This mandate will be necessary to speed the process towards the negotiation of a comprehensive, meaningful ATT.[676]
Bill Rammell told us that the Government hopes that a further resolution reflecting the work of the Open Ended Working Group during 2009 will be passed by the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October or November of this year. This would "set in train negotiations on the treaty during 2010."[677] In subsequent written evidence, the FCO added:
The Open Ended Working Groups (OEWG) will broaden discussion from the 28-member Group of Government Experts which met in 2008 to include all members of the UN General Assembly. We think this will enrich the discussion to take account of the various aspects of arms export controls that different regions think should be addressed within an ATT to make it robust. It will also facilitate wider ownership and understanding of the benefits of an ATT […] An OEWG will also provide a broader forum for all UN Member States to further consider those elements in the 2008 Group of Government Experts' report where consensus could be developed for their inclusion in an eventual legally-binding treaty […] Our general approach will be to seek support for UK positions, and to take account of the views of others in so doing. We cannot predict at this stage how each negotiation and discussion will be develop but we are sure that achieving as close as possible to universal support is a goal worth pursuing.[678]
332. We conclude that it is to be welcomed that negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty are proceeding on an 'overwhelming majority' basis rather than by consensus, and we recommend that this continues. We further recommend, however, that in order to secure a treaty that is as widely supported as possible, all the parties to the negotiations should seek to keep them within the UN framework. We conclude that much depends on how effectively the Open Ended Working Group advances negotiations during 2009.
Universality of an ATT
333. The ATT has faced opposition from the US and Zimbabwe which voted against the 31 October 2008 resolution, and, in practice, from many of those states which abstained in that vote. Russia, one of the abstainers, is an interesting case. By all accounts, one of its main concerns is the costs that adherence to an ATT might impose on its struggling defence industry.[679] When asked whether Russia and China were "still sitting on the sidelines", Bill Rammell told us "Yes, but I do not think that they are in the position of outright hostility; rather, we are in the position of needing to persuade and convince those states to move."[680]
334. The country which supporters of the ATT want most to convert is the US, which dominates the global arms export market. During the Bush Administration, the US was an implacable opponent of the proposed treaty, although it did participate in the Group of Governmental Experts. The Obama Administration may take a different view. NGOs working on the issue believe that the early signs, which include more positive US participation in the first meeting of the Open Ended Working Group in January 2009, have been good.[681] The Obama 'transition team' did not make a specific statement on the issue, but in September 2008 Obama stated that "In general, I strongly support international initiatives to limit harm to civilians caused by conventional weapons."[682] At the first substantive session of the Open Ended Working Group, held on 2-6 March 2009, while noting that the previous Administration had been opposed to the ATT, the US representative stated:
the United States is currently undertaking a full review of what we might seek through these discussions. I look forward to being able to share the initial results of that review with you during the next session of this Open Ended Working Group.[683]
335. The Government is certainly hoping for a change of US position. Bill Rammell told us that "we are encouraging their attendance at the forthcoming Open Ended Working Group. There are hopes of movement, but we have to keep working and negotiating."[684] Despite the strong opposition of, amongst others, the National Rifle Association, there is little evidence that US public opinion as a whole is particularly hostile.[685] But doubts must remain as to how much 'political capital' an Obama Administration will be prepared to expend on the ATT, when it has so many other objectives in the sphere of proliferation, not least with regard to nuclear weapons. It is as yet unclear whether a shift in the US position could trigger moves by other abstainers, such as China, Russia, India and Pakistan. Roy Isbister said: "In terms of a knock-on effect, certainly if you have the main exporter falling into line than everybody will have to reassess their own relationship to the process."[686]
336. When asked if all Member States of the EU were pulling their weight in the negotiations, Bill Rammell responded that none of them had displayed any reluctance about supporting an Arms Trade Treaty, adding: "All our EU partners are helping us, some extremely enthusiastically."[687]
337. We conclude that securing the support of the new US Administration for an Arms Trade Treaty should be a priority for the Government. We recommend that the Government should intensify its efforts to persuade those states that are as yet not persuaded of the merits of a treaty to change their mind.
THE ROLE OF NGOS AND THE DEFENCE INDUSTRY
338. The Government has encouraged the involvement of NGOs active on conflict, development and human rights issues, along with the UK defence industry, in the ATT process. The FCO said:
We are working to ensure that the UN agrees to maintain the momentum that has been generated so far […] We also want to generate more support and understanding of the issues surrounding this proposal and to broaden the discussion. It is an issue that should be important not just to governments and NGOs, but to industry, academics, 'think tanks' and religious leaders […] We are also working very closely with a core group of NGOs and UK industry through the Defence Manufacturers' Association and Society of British Aerospace Companies in support of the ATT process, to galvanize a broader global coalition to act as multipliers and to act directly to influence the sceptics and opponents by raising awareness more widely of what an ATT would be and the benefits that could accrue.[688]
Coalitions of NGOs such as the UK Working Group on Arms and the Control Arms campaign have been influential at the international level. The Government has provided funding to a number of NGOs such as Saferworld for their work on arms control issues.[689]
339. We conclude that the co-operation between the Government and key NGOs involved in the campaign for a credible and effective Arms Trade Treaty, which has included providing official funding for NGO activities on transfer control issues, has been productive. We recommend that the Government should continue to foster these productive relationships.
340. The UK Export Group for Aerospace and Defence (EGAD), which brings together the Defence Manufacturers Association, the Society of British Aerospace Companies and a number of other trade bodies, views an ATT as being an important means through which 'irresponsible' and illegitimate conventional arms transfers, which damage the reputation of all companies in the field, can be reduced.[690] Given that, they argued that the UK already has a tightly regulated arms trade at the national level and therefore the defence industry has little to lose by supporting the idea of an ATT. EGAD also emphasises to its members that an ATT will level the playing field, removing the competitive advantages currently enjoyed by companies in countries where the regulatory framework is weaker. The UK Working Group on Arms has developed a longstanding relationship with EGAD and played an important role in persuading it to endorse the idea of an ATT in mid-2006. This does not mean that their views completely overlap. For example, EGAD has said in the past that it opposes the inclusion of any dual-use items within the scope of the ATT.[691]
341. The Defence Manufacturers Association has on occasions joined meetings about the ATT between Government officials and representatives of more sceptical governments, for example, in Russia, as part of efforts to win them around.[692] EGAD told us that it "applaud[ed] [the Government] for its outreach activities in other countries, but believe that much more of this needs to be done".[693] However, David Hayes indicated that EGAD had no specific future plans for greater co-operation with the Government on lobbying work.
342. Some commentators have argued that, if the US defence industry can be persuaded of the merits of an ATT, its influence is such that the US Government may well follow.[694] Referring to contacts which EGAD had had with US counterparts, David Hayes suggested that it was more likely to happen the other way round. On whether the US defence industry favoured an ATT, he answered:
As you would expect, some do and some do not […] As and when the political climate in the US changes and the new Administration give a lead in one direction or another, I would expect to see a shift in what might be called corporate positions on the arms trade treaty. I do not expect to see it until that point.[695]
343. We conclude that the wholehearted support of the defence industry for an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will help significantly in pursuit of an effective treaty and in its successful implementation. We recommend that the Government should swiftly draw up plans for greater co-operation with the UK Export Group for Aerospace and Defence on lobbying and outreach over the coming period, particularly with the aim of persuading the US defence industry of the merits of an ATT.
THE FUTURE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN ATT AND EXISTING NON-PROLIFERATION INITIATIVES
344. The FCO emphasised that it funds "a range of SALW [small arms and light weapons] projects undertaken by the UN, EU, OSCE and other international and regional organizations, NGOs and civil society more widely".[696] This has included expenditure of £31 million through its Conflict Prevention Pool since 2001. Funding worth £3.25 million was provided for 20 such projects during 2008. NGO beneficiaries included the International Action Network on Small Arms, Saferworld and the Small Arms Survey.[697]
The UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons
345. An ATT could have an impact on existing initiatives in the sphere of conventional non-proliferation, such as the 2001 UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (the UN PoA) and the Wassenaar Arrangement.[698] The UN PoA is a non-legally binding political agreement that proceeds on the basis of consensus.[699] It has produced a number of concrete initiatives—for example, on the marking and tracing of guns and on illicit brokering. In 2005 the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons was agreed.[700] At the 2005 biennial meeting of states, it was agreed to establish a Group of Governmental Experts to consider further steps to enhance international cooperation in preventing, combating and eradicating illicit brokering in small arms and light weapons. Its report was published in 2007 and contained a range of recommendations.
346. In 2006 a Review Conference on the implementation of the UN PoA was held in New York. However, participants were unable to agree an outcome document and for a few months there were fears that the entire process might collapse. A special edition of the Small Arms and Human Security Bulletin in the aftermath of the 2006 Review Conference stated:
The immediate reason for the RevCon's failure to agree an outcome document was the United States' objection to any continuation of the UN's role in monitoring small arms control efforts. The US argued that effective follow up should be limited to national and regional action.[701]
However, it was agreed to continue with the system of biennial meetings, and in July 2008 the Third Biennial Meeting of States focused on cooperation and assistance, curbing illicit brokering, stockpile management and surplus disposal. The International Action Network on Small Arms stated afterwards that "the UN small arms and light weapons process remains healthy, two years after the meltdown at the UN Review Conference."[702] The FCO told us that the meeting "achieved a reasonable outcome, with a final document agreed, albeit by a vote."[703]
347. There was common agreement that the UN PoA could run parallel to any ATT. Roy Isbister stated that:
I think there was a period when there was confusion among states wondering whether if they had an ATT, it meant that they did not need a POA, or asking why they needed an ATT when they were looking at a POA […] I think that we have now separated the two and are comfortable that both can move forward. There is still a lot of value to be had from the programme of action.[704]
While acknowledging that EGAD was less engaged with the UN PoA than with the ATT process, David Hayes told us: "I can see the two running in parallel, because the arms trade treaty has a much broader potential scope than the other activity."[705] The future prospects of the UN PoA also depend on the position taken by the new Obama Administration. There are some initial indications that the US position will change, but as Roy Isbister said when giving evidence: "It is too early to say."[706]
348. We conclude that it is desirable that the new US Administration takes a more positive attitude to the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. We recommend that the Government should encourage such a shift. We further recommend that due care be taken by all stakeholders to ensure that the Arms Trade Treaty process and the UN Programme of Action remain complementary and mutually reinforcing.
The Wassenaar Arrangement
349. It remains to be seen what form the final ATT will take and whether it will supersede the Wassenaar Arrangement. Some states might wish to retain the Arrangement if the ATT does not contain similarly strong provisions, for example, in the area of transparency and scrutiny of arms transfers. A conceivable alternative to an ATT might be to extend the membership of the Wassenaar Arrangement. However, Dr Plesch described the Wassenaar Arrangement as a "Cold War device",[707] whilst Roy Isbister argued that "it is not regarded well" by a significant number of states, adding: "It is seen as a political and excluding instrument—if you are not in, you are out".[708] In his evidence, Bill Rammell said:
I am not a critic of the Wassenaar Arrangement; in terms of establishing a framework and a forum for sharing information and best practice, it has been positive. However, if we can get a legally enforceable treaty through the ATT, that must be a step forward.[709]
350. We conclude that, while the Wassenaar Arrangement may in due course be superseded wholly or in part by an Arms Trade Treaty, the positive gains made under the Arrangement should, as far as is possible, be incorporated into the Arms Trade Treaty and built upon. 636 For the text of this resolution, see http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT-GAResolutions.shtml Back 637 Ev 189 Back 638 Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/63/334, 26 August 2008, http://www.poa-iss.org/DocsUpcomingEvents/a-63-334-e.pdf Back 639 For the text of the resolution, see http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/ATT_1com08.pdf Back 640 Ev 260 Back 641 For the text of resolution 63/240, see http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT-GAResolutions.shtml Back 642 Business and Enterprise, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees, First Joint Report of Session 2007-08, Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2008): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2006, Quarterly Reports for 2007, licensing policy and review of export control legislation, HC 254, para 137 Back 643 Ev 284 Back 644 For the full text of the UK's submission to the Group of Governmental Experts, see Report of the Secretary-General, Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/62/278 (Part II), pp 223-9, submitted 12 March 2007, http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT-ViewsMS.shtml. Paras 7-11 deal with the issue of feasibility. Back 645 A group of ten Arab League states issued a statement explaining why they would be abstaining on the resolution. A key concern was that human rights and sustainable development criteria could be used to target importing countries. See Reaching Critical Will, First Committee Monitor, No. 5, 2008, p 20, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/FCM.html Back 646 Reaching Critical Will, First Committee Monitor, No. 5, 2008, pp 18-20 Back 647 Q 144 Back 648 Q 301 Back 649 Q 300 Back 650 Q 201 Back 651 Ev 248 Back 652 Q 148 Back 653 Qq 200 and 201 Back 654 Q 300 Back 655 Q 145 Back 656 Q 186 Back 657 Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/63/334, 26 August 2008 Back 658 For the Wassenaar Arrangement, see para 29. Back 659 UK Statement to the Open Ended Working Group on the scope of a potential Arms Trade Treaty, http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/docs/OEWG09_S1_statements/UK-Scope_4mar.doc Back 660 Q 302 Back 661 Report of the Secretary-General, Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/62/278 (Part II), pp 223-9, submitted 12 March 2007; the issue of scope is covered in paras 12-16. Back 662 Ev 284 Back 663 Q 301 Back 664 Q 151 Back 665 Q 151 Back 666 Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/63/334, 26 August 2008 Back 667 Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/63/334, 26 August 2008 Back 668 Ev 302, Q 303 Back 669 Report of the Secretary-General, Towards an arms trade treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms, UN Document A/62/278 (Part II), pp 223-9, submitted 12 March 2007; the issue of parameters is covered in paras 17-26. Back 670 Q 161 Back 671 See para 27 of the report of the Group of Governmental Experts. See also "Arms Trade Treaty discussion creeps forward", Arms Control Association, December 2008, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_12/armstradetreaty_progress Back 672 See para 5 of the resolution. Back 673 "Arms Trade Treaty discussion creeps forward", Arms Control Association, December 2008 Back 674 Q 164 Back 675 Ev 285 Back 676 Ev 286 Back 677 Q 303 Back 678 Ev 302 Back 679 J. Erickson, "The arms trade treaty. The politics behind the UN process", German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Working Paper No. 9, July 2007, p 6, http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4149 Back 680 Q 305 Back 681 Q 162 Back 682 "Arms Control Today 2008 Presidential Q&A: President-elect Barack Obama", Arms Control Association, December 2008, http://www.armscontrol.org/2008election Back 683 US Statement to the Open Ended Working Group, http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/docs/OEWG09_S1_statements/US-5Mar.PDF Back 684 Q 304 Back 685 J. Erickson, "The arms trade treaty. The politics behind the UN process", German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Working Paper No. 9, July 2007, p 78, http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4149. On the role of the National Rifle Association, see "Change for the worse", NRA Publications, no date, http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/change.html Back 686 Q 163 Back 687 Q 307 Back 688 Ev 190 Back 689 Qq 166-169 Back 690 In December 2008 it was announced that the Defence Manufacturers Association and the Society of British Aerospace Companies had agreed in principle to merge. Back 691 Business and Enterprise, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees, First Joint Report of Session 2007-08, Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2008): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2006, Quarterly Reports for 2007, licensing policy and review of export control legislation, HC 254, Q 65 Back 692 J. Erickson, "The arms trade treaty. The politics behind the UN process", German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Working Paper No. 9, July 2007, p 6, http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4149 Back 693 Ev 280 Back 694 J. Erickson, "The arms trade treaty. The politics behind the UN process", German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Working Paper No. 9, July 2007, p 10, http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4149 Back 695 Q 204 Back 696 Ev 190 Back 697 UK national statement for the Third Biennial Meeting of States on the implementation of the UN Programme of Action, 14 July 2008, http://disarmament.un.org/cab/bms3/1BMS3Pages/1National%20Statements/UK/UNCL%20UK%20National%20Statement.pdf Back 698 For the text of the UN Programme of Action, see http://www.disarmament2.un.org/cab/poa.html Back 699 Ibid., para 22 Back 700 UN Doc A/RES/60/88 Back 701 Humanitarian Dialogue, Small Arms and Human Security Bulletin, November 2006-February 2007, p 1 Back 702 Reaching Critical Will, First Committee Monitor, No. 5, 2008, p 17 Back 703 Ev 190. "Albeit with a vote" means that consensus was not possible. 134 states voted in favour. Iran and Zimbabwe abstained. There were no votes against. Iran objected throughout the meeting to the procedures being followed. It is worth noting that China, Russia, India and Pakistan were amongst those who voted in favour. The US did not participate in the vote, having not attended the meeting. However, it did vote against the resolution on the issue considered by the First Committee on 29 October 2008. For full details of the vote, see http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/1com08/votes/L57.pdf Back 704 Q 175 Back 705 Q 206 Back 706 Q 178 Back 707 Q 151 Back 708 Q 145 Back 709 Q 300 Back
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Pro-Gun Globalization There are many obstacles to reducing the violence caused by the use of small arms and light weapons around the world. One of the less appreciated reasons is the global activism by pro-gun NGOs. As a 2007 paper "Globalizing the Right-Wing: Conservative Activism and Transnational Politics" by Clifford Bob notes: In recent years, the NRA and domestic gun groups from many other countries have gone global. They have done so in several different ways. First, pro-gun groups from the US, Canada, Belgium, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and elsewhere, have formed a “transnational advocacy network”—the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA). Notably, pro-control NGOs have formed an analogous network, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) which has repeatedly clashed with WFSA in a variety of global arenas in which SALW policymaking occurs. Second, the NRA and other WFSA members actively lobby their home states not only on domestic gun issues but also on international arms sales to conflict zones. For instance in 1999, NRA lobbying helped scuttle U.S. participation in a West African arms moratorium proposed in the wake of the bloody Liberian and Sierra Leonean civil wars. Third, WFSA and the NRA have intervened in other countries to oppose new gun control laws. The 2005 Brazilian referendum is a notable example in which not only the NRA, but also Canadian firearms groups and WFSA provided advice and support to Brazilian pro-gun advocates. The NRA has also been active in such countries as South Africa, Japan, and the U.K. Finally, WFSA and its individual members have actively lobbied at UN conferences against efforts to control trade in small arms and light weapons. In short, the pro-gun groups—just like the pro-control network—see the entire world as the setting for an interlocking conflict in which the prize is global SALW policy. The full paper will be uploaded to the NISAT document library in the near future.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Postinternationalism and Small Arms Control by Damien Rogers, Australian National University, Australia
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
In Memorium: Pablo Gabriel Dreyfus In Memorium Pablo Gabriel Dreyfus On 1 June Pablo Dreyfus and his wife Ana Carolina were killed when Air France flight 447 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. On that day we lost a close friend and collaborator. Since 2001 Pablo had often worked with us and Norwegian Church Aid, and been a guest at PRIO on many occasions. For the last year work projects meant that he and I had spoken or emailed every week, sometimes every day. Pablo was an accomplished researcher. He was comfortable working with seemingly endless tables of data, open sources and using charm to obtain information from interviewees - who were often reluctant military officers. He needed to understand the subtleties and idiosyncrasies of each data point, and had an uncanny ability to improvise methodology when the data turned out not to be what we thought it was. Sometimes he would talk at length: an introduction of ‘Let me explain ...’ could lead to literally hours of explanation, often replete with diagrams drawn on a whiteboard. But while this led to many late nights in the office it was worth it, because every so often he was able to explain something new to someone like me.
But much more importantly, Pablo had an abundance of human qualities. His waistline betrayed a love of food and enjoyment of living. He could be relied upon to resolve arguments with humour – even to the point of re-writing Monty Python scripts with members of the Small Arms Survey playing lead roles. Ultimately, his research was motivated by a desire to use it to change policy, to reduce the numbers of people killed and injured. After hours chats over a beer or two quickly left the dreary subjects of work and detoured to history and anecdotes about his family. He was a good friend, someone with whom I could talk openly and candidly, without fear of censure. I took the above picture at a break in a conference, and that’s how I will remember him – working hard, but smiling and joking whenever he could.
The books and articles we had planned together will never be written. He’s not going to send me any more Month Python clips or show me what a real Argentinian steak tastes like. His death is a great yawing gaping loss. Nicholas Marsh
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
ATT must read
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Yet more law journal articles We just added 57 U.S. law journal articles to the document library, such as: Guns, Cowboys, Philadelphia Mayors, and Civic Republicanism- On Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment
State Assault Rifle Bans and the Militia Clauses of the United States Constitution
Race, Riots, and Guns
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
More law journal articles We just added 77 more U.S. law journal articles to the document library. Here are a few of them: Book Review - THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED- THE EVOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT The Embarrassing Second Amendment The Fifth Auxiliary Right REVOLT OF THE MASSES- ARMED CIVILIANS AND THE INSURRECTIONARY THEORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IT ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING- THE BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO ARMS UNCLE SAM HAS TO WANT YOU- THE RIGHT OF GAY MEN AND LESBIANS (AND ALL OTHER AMERICANS) TO BEAR ARMS IN THE MILITARY STOCKPILING WEAPONS - CAN PRIVATE MILITIAS RECEIVE PROTECTION UNDER THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS Paranoia, Patriotism, and the Citizen Militia Movement: Constitutional Right or Criminal Conduct GUN SHY: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS AN UNDERENFORCED CONSTITUTIONAL NORM Constitutional Tales of Violence: Populists, Outgroups, and the Multicultural Landscape of the Second Amendment Don't Know Much about History: the Current Crisis in Second Amendment Scholarship THE NAKED EMPEROR: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE FAILURE OF ORIGINALISM HISTORY IS NOT ENOUGH: USING CONTEMPORARY JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN INTERPRETING THE SECOND AMENDMENT A WELL REGULATED RIGHT: THE EARLY AMERICAN ORIGINS OF GUN CONTROL DEAD OR ALIVE: ORIGINALISM AS POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM IN HELLER
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Heritage Foundation: We Don’t Need No Stinking Accurate Quotation In the last post we talked about unintended humor and how those who oppose any kind of control measures for small arms and light weapons control measures depict anyone on the other side as hopelessly naive and unrealistic about how the world works. A perfect example of this appeared yesterday on a blog of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in the United States. The entry is about Harold Koh, the Obama administration’s nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department. The blog post author, Thomas Bromund, a fulltime Heritage Foundation researcher, complete with PhD, writes: Harold Koh, the nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, supports “the global regulation of small arms” and a “global gun control regime.” And he believes it is “needlessly provocative” for any U.S. representative to refer to the right to bear arms when speaking to a foreign audience: the very mention of the Second Amendment, apparently, is offensive. That has very serious implications for domestic policy, but what does Koh want to do with the legal, international arms trade? The answer is simple: he wants to ban it In 2002, Koh spoke on the subject at Fordham Law School. In his remarks, he emphasized the importance of what he called “bright-line norms,” i.e. absolute rules. A bright-line norm that we can all endorse, for example, is that human slavery is wrong. But Koh wants a great many more such norms. One of them is against the production and use of antipersonnel landmines. That, though, is only the start. Koh then noted regretfully that “we are a long way from persuading governments to accept a flat ban on the trade of legal arms.” The emphasis was his. Talk about taking something out of context! Koh’s remarks were republished in an article (which is in the NISAT Document Library) published in the Fordham Law Review in 2003. Out of the 13749 words in the text of the article Bromund chose one sentence, “we are a long way from persuading governments to accept a flat ban on the trade of legal arms” which was written in a simple declarative, not regretful, sense. That sentence appears about 13 pages into the article. Having read that far one might think Bromund could struggle on to read the following sentence, “Given that small arms will continue to be lawfully traded, what kind of enforceable norms can be developed in the relevant law-declaring forum?” Koh then describes three norms he thinks should be incorporated into a future regime. First, a marking and tracing regime. Second, transparency and monitoring of these processes by international NGOs. Third a "transfer ban" that would prevent legal arms from being transferred either to illicit users or to recognized human rights violators. Transparency and monitoring by NGOs on conventional arms transfers has long been done by NGOs, from SIPRI in Sweden, IISS in England to FAS in the U.S., to name just three groups. And, with respect to a transfer ban, as Koh states, “Although this would not be easy to do, under our own U.S. domestic arms law, there are already restrictions on making transfers or licenses to certain gross violators of human rights who have been so certified by, for example, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the State Department, congressional staffs, and my own former bureau at the State Department, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In fact, the United States has long had done end-use monitoring of the commercial export of defense articles, services, and related technical data subject to licensing under its Arms Export Control Act. The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM/DDTC), Department of State, is responsible for administering the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that implement the AECA. At the risk of appearing impolite, might we dare to point out to Mr. Bromund that nowhere in the article does Koh call for a “a complete ban on the international trade of all arms.” What he does write is “For in the end, the only meaningful mechanism to regulate illicit transfers is stronger domestic regulation.” Yes, we sympathize with Mr. Bromund. Finding that sentence would have meant reading on for another four whole paragraphs. The horror, the horror.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Unintended legal humor In the past we have mentioned the numerous law journal articles that we have been putting in to the NISAT document library. We have already put in hundreds with more to come. Yet we would not want to give the idea that everything written in these articles is the one and only truth. Sometimes, given that many are written by law students, they are just glorified opinions. Take this one, for example, “The U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons: An Exercise in Futility.” It was published in the Spring 2003 issue of the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law. It was written by Bobby L. Scott who received his J.D. in 2003 so he was a student when he wrote it. According to his summary: ... In the summer of 2001, the United Nations held its Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (hereinafter "Conference"). ... " To accomplish this objective, participating states vow to undertake numerous measures in the Programme of Action which can be classified as measures seeking to control the illicit manufacture, trafficking, transfer, trade, possession and stockpiling of small arms and light weapons; measures seeking to adequately control the legal trade, thereby reducing the illegal trade; and measures that set up organizational support mechanisms for measures to combat the illicit trade. ... This is perhaps due to the utopic liberal idealogy that is characteristic of many international activists, representatives, and NGOs dealing with firearm control issues. ... At first blush, the meaning seems relatively apparent; the definition of an "illicit transfer" is specifically defined transfers, constituting "international trade in conventional weapons, which is contrary to the laws of States and/or international law. ... The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects represents true progress by the international community in addressing the serious concerns of indiscriminant violence, crime and oppression that plague modern society. ... Secondly, there is crucial ambiguity within the Programme of Action, specifically in the definition of what constitutes a "small arm" or "light weapon," and what realistically constitutes an "illicit transfer." ...
Note his use of language like, “utopic liberal idealogy that is characteristic of many international activists, representatives, and NGOs dealing with firearm control issues.” This is typical of those who oppose any kind of control measures for small arms and light weapons control measures. They depict anyone on the other side as hopelessly naive and unrealistic about how the world works. Here is Hilde Wallacher's, a PRIO researcher who works on issues relating to the development of international laws and regulations pertaining to arms transfers and the arms trade, immediate response. The author clearly has an anti-gun control agenda, and tries to make the connection between the PoA and civilian gun ownership. He makes a few decent arguments, but overall the text is weak, flawed with unfounded conclusions and aggressively biased rhetoric (liberal as a term of abuse etc). When he drew parallels to Hitler and Lenin who refused anyone but their party members to own guns he really lost me. Also, his ability to at the same time criticize the PoA for being inefficient and weak and also a very dangerous development is almost funny.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
New SIPRI report: ‘Air Transport and Destabilizing Commodity Flows’ The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has today published a new report. Entitled ‘Air Transport and Destabilizing Commodity Flows’, the report shows how air cargo carriers involved in humanitarian aid and peacekeeping operations have also transported a range of other conflict-sensitive goods such as cocaine, diamonds, coltan and other precious minerals. The report reveals that 90 per cent of the air cargo companies identified in arms trafficking-related reports have also been used by major UN agencies, EU and NATO member states, defence contractors and some of the world‘s leading NGOs to transport humanitarian aid, peacekeepers and peacekeeping equipment. In some cases, air cargo companies are delivering both aid and weapons to the same conflict zones. The report also outlines some EU-centred solutions which can change the behaviour of some companies and put others out of business. According to Hugh Griffiths, one of the report‘s co-authors, ‘The problems have been recognized by the EU, now it is a question of selecting from the available options and coming together as a community with coordinated measures.’ A pre-publication copy of 'Air Transport and Destabilizing Commodity Flows' can be downloaded here. Download the Executive Summary here.
Contact the authors Hugh Griffiths +46 (0)73 339 7474, +46 (0)8 655 9781 or email: griffiths@sipri.org. Mark Bromley +46 (0)70 845 6032, +46 (0)8 655 9735 or email: bromley@sipri.org.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
More law journal articles We are continuing to add past U.S. law journal articles on various small arms issues to the document library. Below are just a few of several score recently uploaded, with many more coming in the near future. - SEEN BUT NOT HEARD: CHILD SOLDIERS SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS UNDER THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT
- THERE'S NO SMOKING GUN: CITIES SHOULD NOT SUE THE FIREARM INDUSTRY
- MUCH ADO ABOUT NOT VERY MUCH: THE EXPIRATION OF THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AS AN ACT OF LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY
- CAUSES AND CORRELATES OF LETHAL VIOLENCE IN AMERICA; AMERICAN HOMICIDE EXCEPTIONALISM
- "THE GOOD SAMARITAN IS PACKING": AN OVERVIEW OF THE BROADENED DUTY TO AID YOUR FELLOWMAN, WITH THE MODERN DESIRE TO POSSESS CONCEALED WEAPONS
- THE "SHOOT THE CARJACKER" LAW UNDER FIRE: A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF A CONTROVERSIAL EXPANSION OF JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
- MILLER VERSUS TEXAS: POLICE VIOLENCE, RACE RELATIONS, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AND GUN-TOTING IN TEXAS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY - AND TODAY
- COMMUNITARIANS, NEOREPUBLICANS, AND GUNS: ASSESSING THE CASE FOR FIREARMS PROHIBITION
- WHY PROTECT PRIVATE ARMS POSSESSION? NINE THEORIES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
RAND says nearly all illegal guns seized in Mexico have been smuggled from the United States p. 24
…
Arms Trafficking. Mexican authorities are increasingly outgunned by well-armed traffickers, and nearly all illegal guns seized in Mexico have been smuggled from the United States. The arms trade in many ways mirrors the dynamics of the drug market. Drugs flow north from Mexico to the United States, and guns flow south from the United States to Mexico. In 2004, it was estimated that there were 16.5 million illegal weapons in Mexico. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) data show that 90–95 percent of the guns used in drug violence in Mexico enter illegally from the United States.21
Official numbers reveal that, from December 2000 to December 2005, Mexican customs officials were able to confiscate a mere 1,791 weapons: not even one per day.22 In 2007, the number of guns confiscated jumped to 9,000.23
As with drug smuggling and kidnapping, it is not unusual to find police officers, military personnel, and customs agents involved in the illegal arms trade. Over the past few years, several government officials have been arrested on both sides of the border for participating in the arms trade.24 On September 12, 2007, three high-ranking Mexican
police commanders from Baja California states were arrested by ATF agents in Phoenix for illegally purchasing weapons at a gun show.25
(U.S. law prohibits foreigners from buying weapons.) In addition, attempts to stop the flow of guns into Mexico have also been hampered by technological limitations. For example, until recently, Mexi-
21 “ATF: Most Illegal Guns in Mexico Come from U.S.,” USA Today, August 11, 2008; see also David McLemore, “U.S. Officials Praise Mexico for Anti-Drug Efforts,” Dallas Morning
News, August 12, 2008.
22 Sergio Aguayo Quezada, “Mexico: A War Dispatch,” Open Democracy, June 25, 2007.
23 Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, “Real Solutions for Challenges Along the U.S. Mexico Border: The Merida Initiative,” lecture, Heritage Foundation,
Washington, D.C., Heritage Lecture No. 1095, April 28, 2008.
24 Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “Mexico: Dynamics of the Gun Trade,” STRATFOR, October 24, 2007.
25 “Mexican Officers Arrested at Gun Show,” USA Today, September 12, 2007.
p. 25
can authorities lacked X-ray equipment to inspect vehicles entering the country, and inspection capacity remains limited.26
One of the most significant barriers to stopping the flow of guns is the U.S. government. Some Mexican government officials have accused the U.S. government of taking a lax stance against arms smuggling. “The firepower we are seeing here has to do with a lack of control on that side of the border,” said Mexican Assistant Secretary of State Patino in May 2007.27 Their argument is that they need the help of the United States in curbing arms trafficking just as much as the United States needs Mexico’s help in curbing drug trafficking.
26 Burton and Stewart, 2007.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Facts on U.S. arms to Mexico
There has been lots of debate in the United States and Mexico over U.S. origin of small arms and light weapons being acquired by Mexican criminals, particularly the drug cartels. Many say the United States has the obligation to reduce the flow of weapons from the U.S. Other say that the supply of U.S. weapons is an exaggeration and that Mexican drug cartels get most of their weaponry from countries other than the U.S. Lots of heated claims but not much light. What is the truth? Well, here are some facts. According to the 2002 book Guns in American Society the Mexican Constitution guarantees the right of Mexicans to possess arms. Even so, gun control laws in Mexico are very strict, and police discretion in enforcement makes possession of firearms of greater than .22 very difficult. David Koppel, who runs The Second Amendment Project, a research center of the Independence Institute, reports that: Today, notwithstanding the constitutional right, arms possession in Mexico is severely restricted by a wide network of laws. Article 160 of the Federal Penal Code authorizes government employees to carry guns. Article 161 requires a license to carry or sell handguns. Article 162 provides penalties for violations, and also bans the stockpiling of arms without permission. Article 163 states that handguns may only be sold by mercantile establishments, not by individuals. Further, handgun carry permit applicants must post a bond, must prove their need, and must supply five character references. The most important gun laws are contained in the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives. It establishes a Federal Arms Registry controlled by the Ministry of National Defense. Both the federal and state governments are required to conduct public information campaigns to discourage all forms of weapons ownership and carrying. Only sports-related advertising of firearms is permitted. Title Two of the Federal Law of Firearms allows possession and carrying of handguns in a calibers of .380 or less, although some calibers are excluded, most notably .357 magnum and 9mm parabellum. Members of agricultural collectives and other rural workers are allowed to carry the aforesaid handguns, .22 rifles, and shotguns, as long as they stay outside of urban areas, and obtain a license. ... In practice, possession of firearms above .22 caliber is severely restricted. As with much of the rest of Mexican law enforcement, corruption is a major element of the gun licensing system. Because government permits are difficult to obtain, there is a thriving market in smuggled handguns from the United States. One effort to control smuggling was Operation Forward Trace, conducted in the 1990s by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. BATF agents examined federal gun registration documents (Form 4473) held on file at gun stores in southwestern states, and recorded the names and addresses of buyers - especially those with Hispanic names - who had purchased self-loading rifles or inexpensive handguns. BATF then contacted the purchasers, and demanded to know where the guns were. In July 2001, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Mexican Attorney General Rafael Macedo de la Concha announced a cooperative law enforcement program, aimed partly at weapons smuggling. Mexican police would provide computerized information about seized firearms to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) so that BATF can trace the guns. for criminal investigation. Ashcroft also assigned US prosecutors in districts bordering Mexico to serve as contacts on gun smuggling cases. Even government agencies, frustrated with the Defense Ministry, sometimes smuggle in their own weapons from the U.S. Now, given the above, consider these figures, taken from the NISAT database, which relies on official sources of information. Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2000 Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 10,015
Pistols & Revolvers 7,950
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 1,227
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 381
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2000-01 Carbines 3,404
Non-Military Rifles 2,392
Pistols and Revolvers 8,089
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2001
Pistols & Revolvers 3,660
Pistols & Revolvers 2,347
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 1,638
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 63
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 198
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 26
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2001-02 Carbines 2470
Non-Military Rifles 41
Pistols and Revolvers 3846
Shotguns 166
Military Rifles 500
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2002
Military Rifles, Machineguns, & other 29
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 240
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 105
Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 8
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2002-03
Semi automatic Assault Weapons 452
Carbines 362
Grenade Launchers 380
Non-Military Rifles 19
Pistols and Revolvers 988
Sub Machine Guns 51
Military Rifles 464
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2003
Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 1
Pistols & Revolvers 474
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 88
Military Rifles, Machineguns, & other 73
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 762
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 82 Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2003-04 Carbines 414
Pistols and Revolvers 981
Rifle AR-15 77
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2004
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 1,306
Military Rifles, Machineguns, & other 107
Pistols & Revolvers 986
Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 392
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 7,751
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 53
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2004-05
Pistols and Revolvers 214
Rifles (non-military, all types) 14
Rifle AR-15 2,886
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2005
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 3,235
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 1,371
Military Rifles, Machineguns, & other 2,016
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 36
Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 12
Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 11
Pistols & Revolvers 246
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2005-06
Carbine (all types) 720
Grenade Launcher (all models) 42
Pistols and Revolvers 757
Rifles (non-military, all types) 80
Rifle AR-15 919
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2006
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 106
Pistols & Revolvers 787
Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 308
Military Rifles, Machineguns, & other 3,976
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 2,081
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2006-07
Category I, Non-automatic and Semi-automatic Firearms 10,530
Exports from United States of America to Mexico in 2007 Grenade launchers, Flame Throwers & other 1
Sporting & Hunting Rifles 633
Sporting & Hunting Shotguns 3,619
Military Rifles, Machineguns, & other 5,232
Pistols & Revolvers 3,546
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
U.S conservatives to world: We don't need no stinking international law It seems the pro-gun side in the United States, as exemplified in this Heritage Foundation webmemo is concerned that Harold Koh, the prospective nominee for the U.S. State Department Legal Adviser position, considers the need for “the global regulation of small arms” a pressing issue, and, he might even support a “global gun control regime." Evidently American conservatives are concerned that international law might actually influence U.S. laws. Oh, the horror, the horror! Presumably they would prefer a U.S. policy that ignored international law. Oh wait, that is what they had with the Bush administration torture policy. We saw how well that worked.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
De-evolution in US gun policy It is not every day that a former president of the United States weighs in on the debate over small arms. So we think we should point you to the op-ed written by former President Jimmy Carter, regarding the former ban on assault weapons in the USA, published in the April 26 New York Times.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Small arms and jurisprudence To paraphrase a past American television program, we have spanned the globe, or at least part of the American law journal world, to bring you the constant variety of jurisprudential sport… the thrill of victory… and the agony of defeat… the legal drama of small arms debate and conflict in the legal arena. After all, what could possibly be more exciting than reading what lawyers and law students write about America's famed Second Amendment, gun manufacturer liability, the necessity of concealed carry laws, the linkages between firearms policy and mandatory sentencing, gun sales as lawful commerce, the Afro-American pespective on firearms, the risks and benefits of handgun ownership, gunfree school zones, and scores of other equally erudite, if recondite, articles. Okay, so maybe reading about the fine points of an assault weapons ban isn't quite as exciting as watching Manchester United play. Still, since so much of the debate over small arms is a legal one perhaps you might want to spend a few minutes skimming what have uploaded. And we just uploaded 378 law journal articles with more to come.
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
German school violence In March a 17-year-old former pupil Tim Kretschmer, armed with weapons his father kept at home, killed 15 people, including nine pupils, eight of them girls, three teachers, at the Albertville secondary school in the town of Winnenden, north of Stuttgart, and later, three passers-by, and later killed himself after being cornered by police. This was not the first mass school shooting in Germany. In April 2002, wearing a mask and dressed as a ninja, 19-year-old expelled student Robert Steinhäuser shot and killed 16 people at the Johann Gutenberg gymnasium in Erfurt. Thirteen teachers, two students and one police officer were killed and another seven people were injured, as he moved from classroom to classroom. His last words before his suicide were: "That's enough for today", said to a teacher who confronted him. In 2006 an 18-year-old former pupil, named only as Sebastian B., wounded 37 at the Geschwister Scholl secondary school in Emsdetten, a small town of 36,000 in northwestern Germany, near the city of Münster, before killing himself.
In light of these shootings we thought this article merits attention:
Homicide Studies
Volume 11 Number 3
August 2007, pp. 189-212
An Exploratory Analysis of German and U.S. Youthful Homicide Offending Victoria B. Titterington
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas
Volker Grundies
Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Freiburg, Germany
For the time being, comments must be emailed to the author who will post them here. We hope to provide an automatic comment-system in the future.
Mexican Drug Cartels: Yes We Can Are the Mexican drug mafias obtaining lots of their weapons from the United States? Many in the United States who opposed stricter gun control legislation, such as the National Rifle Association special interest group have been saying no; that it is just hype by the "liberal media." Yet a new study by the Washington, DC-based Violence Policy Center finds that Mexican gun traffickers easily obtain military-style weapons from the U.S. civilian gun market.
And not just any gun |