|
id21 recently
invited development workers, activists and researchers to 'guest edit'
the id21 site and newsletter.This week Jane Chanaa
examines the role governments and development organisations could play
in minimising the negative effects of arms trade.
Buying
arms; selling lives:
critical roles in arms control
The
world spends US$ 900 billion on defence each year, but only around US$
50 billion on development aid. Across Africa, Latin America, Asia and
the Middle East, an average of US$ 22 billion is spent annually on arms.
This sum would enable those regions to meet the Millennium Development
Goals (MDG) of achieving universal primary education and reducing infant
and maternal mortality. Instead one child in five does not complete
primary school, more than 10 million children die each year, and half
a million women die in pregnancy or childbirth. id21 Guest Editor
Jane Chanaa points to the crucial roles that development organisations
and exporter and importer states must play in halting the negative impact
of arms deals on development.
Countries have a
right to self-defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations
(UN) Charter. But the same Charter also requires countries to achieve
peace and security 'with the least diversion for armaments of the world's
human and economic resources'. Excessive or 'inappropriate' arms purchases
are a drain on social and economic resources, particularly for developing
countries. Thorough, transparent assessments of arms deals are needed.
There is a real urgency for arms importers and exporters to carefully
weigh the legitimate security needs of a country, against the impact
of arms sales by assessing the extent to which development commitments,
arms controls and human rights are being compromised. Development organisations
also have a critical role to play in the development and implementation
of such assessments.
The potential consequences
of an arms import are not always clear-cut. When a government decides
on an arms purchase according to legitimate security needs and to meet
a specific development target, it can positively affect sustainable
development. A rare example of this is the case of the Ghanaian government's
decision to acquire US naval vessels for the protection of fishing grounds.
This resulted in fines on foreign fishing vessels that significantly
contributed to the government treasury as well as conserving natural
resources.
Importer governments
sometimes do make decisions with development commitments clearly in
mind. In January 2003, Brazil's new government under President Lula
decided to suspend the purchase of 12 military jets costing between
US$ 700 million and US$ 1 billion, reportedly so that it could spend
more on social programmes. About 15 % of the country's population are
seriously malnourished, and around 33 % of Brazilians live in poverty.
Yet all too often
governments' large expenditures on arms do not take into account the
acute development needs of their countries. The decision to import arms
is normally taken within a single ministry, or by a relatively small
select group of officials, and is rarely open to public scrutiny. In
addition, government decisions to import arms are generally conducted
entirely separate to decisions to pursue development commitments. Initiatives
such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRSP) process rarely include
commitments to balance development and defence needs.
Arms export control
regimes in the EU, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) and the Wassenaar Arrangement (a group of the 33 major
arms exporting states) include commitments to take sustainable development
into account when making arms licensing decisions. In spite of these,
it is shocking how few governments make a serious attempt to ensure
that arms exports do not undermine sustainable development. In fact,
two of the world's biggest arms exporters - Russia (an OSCE member)
and China do not incorporate any sustainable development considerations
into their arms-export licensing decisions. Denying arms export licenses
on sustainable development grounds or even incorporating such a commitment
into the national licensing regime is extremely uncommon amongst exporter
countries.
Most states do not have a systematic way of looking at arms deals and
sustainable development; they have simply not thought through the assessment
process. And as it is with importing governments, there is a lack of
dialogue between the different government departments of the exporting
countries, which could help to reach an informed licensing decision.
Only the Netherlands and the UK seem to have an established policy of
consulting the government department for development in the export decision-making
process.
Usually development
organisations are reluctant to deal explicitly with issues around arms
purchases, but these organisations - whether a non-governmental organisation
(NGO), government, or the UN - have a responsibility to address all
factors which limit sustainable development, including the impact of
arms sales. There is an urgent need for development organisations to
hold both arms importer and exporter states to account for their rhetoric
without genuine action toward sustainable development needs worldwide.
Strong foundations exist, in terms of human rights standards, development
commitments and export-control legislation, that development organisations
can build upon to advocate for a more thorough approach to assessing
the critical relationship of arms deals and sustainable development.
Ensuring responsible
action
Studies for each
arms deal are essential to investigate whether a purchase is meeting
the legitimate security needs of a country whilst at the same time not
negatively affecting its development. Such impact assessments should
include a thorough assessment of an importing country's progress towards
reaching the MDGs, increasing human security and other measures of development.
Studies must incorporate questions based on individual deal-specific
issues. These should focus on responsible governance, the reasons for
the purchase, appropriateness and affordability, and importer technological
and technical capacity. Investing in these studies would help importers
take responsible decisions. Development organisations must lobby for
these studies to be established and become common practice.
With the involvement
of a wider range of government experts in arms procurement decision-making,
including those from other government departments, appropriate decisions
based on factors such as cost-effectiveness would be possible. Importer
governments should also draw from the expertise of development practitioners
in the country and think tanks, as well as independent international
experts.
Exporter governments
should hold importer accountable for the ways in which arms are used
and monitor agreements. More specifically, they must be responsible
for formulating an internationally agreed and publicly accessible methodology
for assessing the impact of arms deals on development. The global implementation
of an Arms Trade Treaty is also necessary so that licenses refused by
one exporter are not granted by another. By supporting the establishment
of such an international Arms Trade Treaty, governments would impress
upon importers that they are obliged to take the impact of arms transfers
on sustainable development seriously.
Exporter governments
should also establish a clear mandate for their development agencies
to become involved in decision making. Development organisations, in
turn, must press exporter and importer governments to ensure that they
uphold their obligations and commitments under arms control agreements,
international humanitarian standards and the MDGs. Importing governments
would have to ensure that security forces have the necessary training
and support to manage and use their arms responsibly and according to
international human rights standards and international humanitarian
law.
Finally, all decisions
must be transparent and accountable to parliament and civil society
in both importer and exporter countries. Development organisations should
advocate for stronger parliamentary and public participation both in
the decision-making process and in the budgeting of arms purchases.
They should also press for military expenditure to be included in the
PRSP process and other poverty-reduction targets.
Arms importers,
exporters and development organisations all have a critical role in
ensuring that the transfer of arms between countries is for the right
reasons. The lives of future generations should not be compromised by
diverting scarce resources away from areas such as education or health.
Governments have to keep their promises.
Jane Chanaa
Oxfam GB
274 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7DZ
UK
Tel +44 (0) 1865 311 311
Fax +44 (0) 1865 312 600
Email dhiller@oxfam.org.uk
www.oxfam.org.uk
Source(s) 'Guns
or growth? Assessing the impact of arms sales on sustainable development'
[PDF] Amnesty International, International Action Network on Small Arms,
Oxfam GB, by Jane Chanaa, Debbie Hiller, Kristiana Powell, Ken Epps
and Helen Hughes, June 2004
June
2004 Insights Issue #50:Military spending and Development
Comment on this week's guest
editorial by emailing insights@ids.ac.uk
Become an id21 Guest Editor yourself - visit http://www.id21.org/id21-info/GuestEds/index.html
for more information.
See also:
Arms
are out of control: how inappropriate weapons sales exaggerate poverty
Disarmament,
demobilisation and reintegration in the Republic of Congo
Reintegrating
girls from fighting forces in Africa
Coping
with conflict: livelihoods and development in Nepal
The
impact of conflict on women: the case of Somalia
Views
expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21
or other contributing institutions. Unless stated otherwise articles
featured on the id21 web-site may be copied or quoted without restriction,
provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged.
|
