Are industrialised states sacrificing development goals to earn money from the weapons trade? In 2002 arms deliveries to non-Western states made up two thirds of global arms exports. 90% of weapons were exported by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and USA. The arms trade threatens achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). International agreement is needed to ensure exporters assess how proposed arms transfers affect development.

An Oxfam report warns that money spent on weaponry is being diverted from the fight against poverty. The estimated total annual expenditure on arms ($900bn) is much higher than the $60bn allocated to aid. Oxfam reports that:

• Military expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa rose by 47% during the late 1990s.
• Seven developing countries – Oman, Syria, Burma, Sudan, Pakistan, Eritrea and Burundi - spend more on arms than they do on health and education combined: a further fourteen spend more on the military than on both health and education taken individually.
• The cost of a radar system bought by Tanzania could have provided health care for 3.5 million Tanzanians.
• The six billion dollars which South Africa spent on new weapons in 2003 could have purchased treatment drugs for all the country’s five million AIDS sufferers for two years.
• When India agreed to buy a billion dollar US radar system in 2003, aid agencies were still searching for $50m to tackle a polio epidemic.
• Half of Pakistan’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) goes on defence: when it was preparing to spend several billion dollars on arms in 2003, aid agencies fighting a tuberculosis (TB) epidemic struggled to find funds for this country where TB kills more than 50 000 a year.

Irresponsible arms transfers encourage unaccountable and poorly trained military forces to suppress human rights and democratic development. Arms traders facilitate brutal resource exploitation. Diamonds, oil, copper, timber, gold, and other minerals that should have led to improvements in development have been used to fund conflict and repression. Where weapons are freely available, armed, sexual violence against women is often widespread.

Few arms exporters pause to consider the effects of the weaponry they sell and many fail to respect commitments they have made. Russia and China have no procedures to consider development issues when licensing arms experts. Of the 17 countries surveyed, who are parties to the arms export codes developed by the EU or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, only two (the Netherlands and the UK) have a stated policy of consulting colleagues in development ministries before approving arms exports.

When considering selling arms, developed states should use an assessment methodology that recognises that the potential consequences of an arms transfer are not always clear-cut. These consequences need to be weighed alongside the legitimate security needs of the importing country. Among the questions arms exporters must ask are:

• are the benefits of the transfer in meeting legitimate security needs greater than their cost in terms of the impact on the development of the country?
• is there an informed, lawful and transparent governance system in control of the security sector institutions asking for the weaponry?
• does the recipient state’s history demonstrate genuine commitment to human rights and international humanitarian law?
• will selling weapons encourage a regional arms race?
• does the imported equipment directly address security requirements?

Oxfam, Amnesty International, the Arias Foundation, Project Ploughshares, Saferworld and other partners in the International Action Network on Small Arms propose an Arms Trade Treaty to create legally binding arms controls and ensure that all governments control arms trade to the same basic international standards. Exporting states urgently need to engage more fully with the impact of arms transfers on sustainable development by adopting a thorough and transparent methodology for assessment.

Source(s):
‘Guns or growth? Assessing the impact of arms sales on sustainable development’ Amnesty International, International Action Network on Small Arms, Oxfam GB, by Jane Chanaa, Debbie Hiller, Kristiana Powell, Ken Epps and Helen Hughes, June 2004 Full document.

Funded by: DFID and Oxfam GB

id21 Research Highlight: 11 October 2004

Further Information:
Debbie Hiller
Oxfam GB
274 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7DZ
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1865 311 311
Fax: +44 (0) 1865 312 600
Contact the contributor: dhiller@oxfam.org.uk

Oxfam GB

Other related links:
'Small arms in the wrong hands. Development, conflict and Britain's arms trade'

'Military spending and development'

'Guns but no bread: how arms exporters are failing developing countries'

'Small arms – big bills'

Human Rights watch

'The Arms Trade is Big Business' - Global Issues