 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
id21
viewpoints 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. 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 October 2004 Sources June
2004 Insights Issue #50:Military spending and Development
What's your viewpoint? Click here to go back to id21 viewpoints Submit
your research to id21
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
