Global Policy Forum

Ten people died from the sniper's bullets in the Washington area. In the same three-week period, 1,600 people died from gunfire in the United States generally, and more than 17,000 around the world.

Apart from evoking horror, high-profile shootings in the United States cause us to shake our heads and lament the easy availability of guns in America. The Land of the Free, as we all know, is also the Home of the Handgun.

But the United States is not the only country affected by the proliferation of guns. The United Nations recently identified the widespread availability of small arms (the term preferred in international diplomatic circles) as a major problem throughout the world.

According to the UN, small arms wreak their damage by "increasing the lethality and duration of violence, encouraging a violent rather than a peaceful resolution of differences, and generating a vicious circle of a greater sense of insecurity, which in turn leads to a greater demand for and use of these weapons."

This description is equally relevant to many different scenarios of actual or potential violence. Whether in a war, a riot, a political protest, a domestic dispute, a bank robbery or a gang fight, the presence of guns makes it more likely that more people will be killed.

Just as globalization has increased the flow of information, so it has increased the flow of guns around the world. As borders and trade barriers have come down, military forces have been reduced. Millions of assault weapons and other guns are poured onto the global market for sale to terrorists, bandits, paramilitaries and ordinary guys carrying a grudge against society in general or against an ex-wife, a rival or a colleague. The influx of guns to neighborhoods and communities that are already suffering from crime and poverty give rise to warlike violence, greatly increasing deaths and injuries. On a larger scale, guns can be a decisive factor in destabilizing whole nations during civil wars and regional conflicts.

Through the United Nations, governments have agreed on principles and programs to address the small arms trade, or at least the part of it labeled "illicit." Their commitments are modest - countries agree to share information, to cooperate in gun tracing and to manage their stockpiles of excess guns against leakage. They agree that all countries should regulate the possession of guns, and to prosecute not only traffickers but any groups or individuals who possess guns illegally.

Obvious though this list may seem, it is highly significant as the very first approximation of a framework that could lead to a global convention on small arms. We have international treaties to prevent the proliferation of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, but in terms of actual deaths the real weapons of mass destruction are small arms, which kill some 300,000 people every year.

Next summer, UN member nations will meet to report the progress they have made on their commitments to restrict the proliferation and trafficking in guns. In the months leading up to the meeting, nongovernmental organizations operating through the International Action Network on Small Arms will be monitoring and publicizing national track records. One nation that will be closely scrutinized is the United States, which has used its considerable weight to hamper the UN process for fear of alienating its local gun lobby.

The world's largest producer of small arms has opposed such reasonable suggestions as prohibiting the sale of military assault weapons to civilians or to rebel or paramilitary groups. How sadly ironic it is that Washington found itself terrorized for three weeks by one or two guys with a gun.

Another three weeks will mean another 17,000 deaths. Efforts to stop firearm violence must be comprehensive and international in scope. There is no time to lose.