Shattered lives
Le Monde diplomatique
November 2004
Since the “war against terrorism” has been allowed to dominate the
international agenda, we would expect a rekindled interest in arms
controls and renewed efforts to prevent arms reaching those who commit
abuses. Yet the reverse has happened. European countries, and others,
claim to base their arms-export criteria on respect for human rights;
the US has a specific law, the Leahy Amendments, to ban military aid and
training for units of foreign security forces that commit human rights
abuses. Yet these principles are swept aside in the “war against terrorism”.
In June 2002 the G8 (1) allocated $20bn and agreed a global partnership
to prevent terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction. But it
failed to address the proliferation of conventional weapons, including
small arms, to states and armed groups that it knows will use such
weapons to terrorise civilian populations.
After 9/11 the US government massively increased military aid to many
countries. Some recipients are armed forces that have gravely violated
human rights and have been identified in the State Department’s human
rights report as having a poor record or worse. Recipients include
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Israel, Nepal,
Tajikistan, Turkey and Yemen.
In Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Yugoslavia, sanctions
were lifted. In other countries, restrictions were relaxed. In the year
after 9/11 security assistance and related aid from the US to Uzbekistan
increased by $45m. In Pakistan it soared from $3.5m to $1.3bn.
Violations of human rights – torture, deaths in custody and
extra-judicial killings – by members of security and paramilitary forces
in those countries continue. In March 2002 the US administration
introduced an emergency supplemental defence authorisation bill that
sought to lift restrictions on Indonesia and Colombia.
Close US allies, such as the UK government, appeared to follow. The
value of British arms cleared for export to Indonesia rose from £2m in
2000 to over £40m in 2002 (2). The main arms exporters in Europe –
Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Sweden – accounted for 33% of
international contracts for transfers signed between 1994 and 2001 (3).
The EU’s market share was smaller than that of the US or Russia, but it
has increased since 1 May, with enlargement adding 10 new members. Some
new states are large arms producers and exporters. The EU is now home to
more than 400 companies in 23 countries manufacturing small arms and
light weapons – hardly less than the US.
The EU code of conduct adopted in 1998, and its application, leave much
to be desired. Many reports have been received of (old or new) EU member
states exporting military, security or police equipment and know-how,
often in great secrecy, to countries that use these things to violate
human rights. At the same time private military companies contracted to
carry out tasks on behalf of governments or opposition forces
increasingly play a critical part in the supply of arms and support for
regimes. PMCs are often ideally placed to import arms. They are in
contact with governments, arms dealers and manufacturers and air freight
companies. One firm supplied arms to both parties in the conflict in
Sierra Leone.
PMCs are gaining in number and influence, and many commentators think
that the war on terror will speed this up. During the 1990s the US
government often used private military consultants or authorised them to
train police forces and troops in 24 countries; it failed to ensure that
training encouraged strict compliance with international humanitarian
law and law on human rights.
Taken from Amnesty International sources, including “Shattered Lives”,
published in 2003 by Amnesty International and Oxfam. The full text is
at <;.
NOTES
(1) Germany, Canada, US, Russia, France, Italy, Japan, UK.
(2) The Guardian, London, 1 July 2003. (3) See “Conventional arms
transfers to developing nations, 1994-2001”, Congressional Research
Service, Washington, August 2002.