PDA

View Full Version : Time to Bring Some Ethics to the International Arms Trade


a_unique_person
9th October 2003, 01:06 AM
I have mentioned this topic before. It causes no end of suffering, and doesn't actually seem to solve anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3176416.stm



Charities campaign against arms trade

A campaign against the world arms trade is being launched by the charities Oxfam and Amnesty International.
They argue the trade is out of control and that Britain and America have, if anything, relaxed their control since 11 September as they seek allies in the war on terrorism.

The charities' campaign for much stricter controls follows protests against Europe's largest arms fair, held in London's Docklands last month.

The British government says this country has a good track record on arms sales and will introduce new legislation later this month to control technology transfers and the activities of arms brokers.

Loopholes

Oxfam and Amnesty International have decided the proliferation of arms is unacceptable and are launching a hugely ambitious campaign, says BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams.



"The village I grew up in Sudan is now completely awash with guns, even children as young as nine carry weapons in Torit. "

James Omunson



At its heart is a call for a legally binding arms trade treaty within three years.

It is not a move to ban the trade, merely to adopt stricter controls, across regions and in local communities.

The charities claim that national arms export controls are riddled with loopholes.

They say: "The easy availability of arms increases the incidence of armed violence, acts as a trigger for conflicts, and prolongs wars once they break out."




http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL300182003



Amnesty International, Oxfam, IANSA Control Arms Campaign
Media Briefing: key facts and figures
The arms trade is out of control
Every day, millions of men, women, and children live in fear of armed violence. Every minute, one of them is killed. From the gangs of Rio de Janeiro and Los Angeles, to the civil wars and armed rebellions in Liberia and Indonesia, it is conventional arms that are used to do the killing. The global trade in arms that brings these weapons into the hands of killers is a big business. And it is out of control.

The value of global authorized arms exports is $21 billion per year.
There are 639 million small arms in the world, or one for every ten people, produced by over 1,000 companies in at least 98 countries.
8 million more small arms are produced every year.
16 billion units of ammunition are produced each year - more than two new bullets for every man, woman and child on the planet.
Nearly 60 per cent of small arms are in civilian hands.
It is estimated that 80-90 per cent of all illegal small arms start in the state-sanctioned trade.

The human cost
The uncontrolled proliferation and misuse of arms by government forces and armed groups takes a massive human toll in lost lives.

More than 500,000 people on average are killed with conventional arms every year: one person every minute.
In World War One, 14 per cent of total casualties were civilian. In World War Two this grew to 67 per cent. In some of today's conflicts the figure is even higher.
There are 300,000 child soldiers involved in conflicts.
Torture and ill-treatment by state officials - mostly armed police - was persistent in over 70 countries between 1997 and 2000.
Women and girls are raped at gunpoint during armed conflict - for example, 15,700 in Rwanda and 25,000 in Croatia and Bosnia.

Arms proliferation and misuse destroy individuals' livelihoods and prevent countries from escaping from poverty.

One third of countries spend more on the military than they do on health-care services.
An average of US$22 billion a year is spent on arms by countries in Africa, Asia, Middle East and Latin America. Half of this amount would enable every girl and boy in those regions to go to primary school.
El Salvador's expenditure on its health services to deal with the effects of violence amounts to more than 4 per cent of its GDP.
Nearly half (42 per cent) of countries with the highest defence burden rank among the lowest in human development. For example, Eritrea spends over 20 per cent of its GDP on military.
In Africa, economic losses due to war are about $15 billion per year.
Pakistan's total defence spending is one-third of its annual GDP, or half if arms-related debt repayments are included.

Mycroft
9th October 2003, 01:11 AM
I thought you supported the rights of the poor and oppressed to avenge themselves. What gives?

a_unique_person
9th October 2003, 01:18 AM
Many of the wars around the world have nothing to do with people protecting themselves, but are little more than warlords fighting petty turf wars. Pakistan is mentioned in the press release, for example. The last thing Pakistan and India needs is to get even more arms aimed at each other.

You simplistic comment fails to take into account the many and varied armed conflicts that are occurring around the world.

It is worth noting, however, in your context, that Israel is a major arms exporter.

demon
9th October 2003, 01:37 AM
The US, the UK and Israel amongst others, supply weapons to anyone who wants them...makes a great excuse to go to war at a later date, to prop up failing economies, and to make a bid for another term in office.

No prizes for who qualifies as the latest target for this absurd and immoral billion dollar business.

Ziggurat
9th October 2003, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by demon
The US, the UK and Israel amongst others, supply weapons to anyone who wants them...makes a great excuse to go to war at a later date, to prop up failing economies, and to make a bid for another term in office.

No prizes for who qualifies as the latest target for this absurd and immoral billion dollar business.

That's funny - last time I checked, it was France and Russia who sold most of Iraq's weapons to Saddam. And THEY were the ones who wanted us to stay out of Iraq (I wonder why). I'm not a fan of the arms trade, but let's be honest about who is really doing what with whom.

Jon_in_london
9th October 2003, 03:59 AM
So far as I am concerned, if thers a willing buyer willing seller...

a_unique_person
9th October 2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Ziggurat


That's funny - last time I checked, it was France and Russia who sold most of Iraq's weapons to Saddam. And THEY were the ones who wanted us to stay out of Iraq (I wonder why). I'm not a fan of the arms trade, but let's be honest about who is really doing what with whom.

Lets be honest and acknowledge the basic thrust of this campaign, just feeding the slaughter in general. Many countries make money from this trade in human blood, from all around the world.

Ziggurat
9th October 2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by a_unique_person


Lets be honest and acknowledge the basic thrust of this campaign, just feeding the slaughter in general. Many countries make money from this trade in human blood, from all around the world.

Hey, I'm all for cracking down on the arms trade. That's a good thing. We sell too many weapons, just like Russia, France, and China sell too many weapons. But I think it's not really credible to accuse the administration's policies as being driven by the arms trade, and the particular suggestion that we sell weapons to countries in order to be able to go to war with them is completely ridiculous.

a_unique_person
9th October 2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Ziggurat


Hey, I'm all for cracking down on the arms trade. That's a good thing. We sell too many weapons, just like Russia, France, and China sell too many weapons. But I think it's not really credible to accuse the administration's policies as being driven by the arms trade, and the particular suggestion that we sell weapons to countries in order to be able to go to war with them is completely ridiculous.

I didn't suggest that. I think I am trying to stay with the spirit of the original post. However, the trade in arms, which is a major export industry for many countries, is a trade in human blood.

Ziggurat
9th October 2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by a_unique_person

I didn't suggest that.

That is correct, you did not. But Demon did suggest it, and it is to him that my criticism was really directed.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Mr Manifesto
10th October 2003, 01:26 AM
But, Ziggurat, presumably an American like demon and yourself are in a better position to do your bit to stop the arms trade in your own country, rather than countries like France, China, Russia, etc. And it will be easier to tell other nations to tow the line if the nations in question can't turn around and say, "But you're the biggest arms dealers around! Who are you to say who we can sell to?"

And think of what your ecomomy could acheive if all the R&D that went to weapons- which have an extremely limited application- went to a whole range of other research opportunities. You could make Japan in her economic heyday look like a banana republic.

Ziggurat
10th October 2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
But, Ziggurat, presumably an American like demon and yourself are in a better position to do your bit to stop the arms trade in your own country, rather than countries like France, China, Russia, etc.

Are you under the impression that I don't think that is a desirable goal? Because I do. But that has little to do with the current course of action in Iraq, contrary to Demon's silly assertion. That was my only point. Beyond that, I would be happy to see the US scale back its arms trading significantly, and agree completely that doing so would have positive long-term effects.

Zep
10th October 2003, 04:20 AM
Ethics? Arms trade? In the same room? Same city? Same COUNTRY???

Face it, AUP, you've lost the plot - some things just DO NOT happen...

Tony
10th October 2003, 07:33 AM
Ethics are for the weak.

Alaric
10th October 2003, 09:47 AM
Then im glad Im a weakling.

Im still shocked the US sells things like Blackhawk Choppers to the Chinese....and that the British and US have MBTs on the open market being sold to whomever pays. SGI selling computers used for terrain mapping....

Bleh rediculous. As for France and Russia, Britian is a big seller of maintenence kits for RUssian built tanks. Egypt for one has a collection of Soviet T-54s and T-55s with 105mm gun upgrade kits sold by britian. I wouldnt be suprised if many of the Russian weapons across the middle east actually use Western upgrade components. Even us Canucks make new avionics suites for Fishbeds and Mirages(ok its French...but they suck) at Bombardier if memory serves.