Guns but no bread -
how arms exporters are failing developing countries

It is a commonly held belief that developing countries rely primarily on small arms – which, being relatively cheap, should not be a huge financial burden to the country. But in fact, the countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East own 51% of the world’s heavy weapons and in 2002 they imported two thirds of all arms deliveries worldwide, at a value of nearly US$17 billion.

Excessive or inappropriate arms purchases are a drain on social and economic resources which developing countries simply cannot afford. Developing countries across these regions are struggling to meet their Millennium Development Goal targets. In 2001:

• More than a billion people had to live on less than a dollar a day;
• One child out of five did not complete primary school;
• More than 14 million children lost one or both parents to AIDS;
• Nearly 800 million people suffered from chronic hunger;
• Half a million women died in pregnancy or childbirth.

Importing arms may be essential to support a state’s legitimate security needs. The right for states to arm for self-defence is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. However, this same charter also underlines the responsibility of states ‘to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources’ (Article 26). As spending by one country on arms often leads to reciprocal spending by its neighbour, it is the responsibility of all states to refuse to export arms to countries and regions where the potential economic and social risks out-weigh any assumed security benefits.

Promises in Pieces

For arms exporters, various export control regimes in multilateral fora already include the requirement to consider the impact on sustainable development, as does the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, which would be an international control on all arms transfers.

For example, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers, agreed in 1993 by 55 member states, including the major arms producers – the USA, Russia, and China – requires states to take into account the nature and cost of the arms to be transferred in relation to the circumstances of the recipient country. This includes taking into consideration a country’s legitimate security and defence needs and the objective of the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources. The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (1998) is similar.

However, it is shocking how few governments fully respect these commitments. A survey conducted by Oxfam has revealed that:

• Three of the world’s top six exporters to countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East – Russia, China and Ukraine – do not incorporate sustainable development into their arms export licensing regimes. Russia alone delivered US$12.5 billion worth of arms from 1999-2002, exporting major quantities to medium development countries India and China.
• Of 17 countries surveyed who were parties to the EU Code of Conduct and/or the OSCE Principles:
  • Only 10 would consider denying a licence on sustainable development grounds.
  • Only 4 have ever denied an arms export licence on sustainable development grounds.
  • Only 2 – UK and Netherlands – have a policy of consulting the government department for development.
• If the potential impact is considered at all, it is generally in a subjective and random way.

This is clearly unacceptable. Lip service to such commitments leads to the diversion of scarce resources from fighting poverty and people suffer or die as a result. Excepting legitimate security needs, transfers with an adverse impact on sustainable development must not go ahead. Exporting governments must apply an effective, thorough, transparent methodology to assess whether proposed arms transfers will affect sustainable development.

Debbie Hiller
Policy Adviser
Oxfam Great Britain Control Arms Campaign
dhillier@Oxfam.org.uk

This article has been taken from an upcoming publication by the Control Arms Campaign ‘Guns or Growth - Assessing the impact of arms transfers on sustainable development’. The full report will be published in June 2004, and proposes a detailed methodology to be used in assessing the impact of arms transfers on sustainable development.
www.controlarms.org

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.