June 2004
Summary
Excessive or inappropriate arms purchases are a drain on social and economic resources which developing countries cannot afford. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognises that every state has a right to individual and collective self-defence. However, the UN Charter also requires all member states to "promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms' in order to achieve" economic and social progress and development'"(Articles 1, 55 and 56) and "to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources'"(Article 26). A majority of states have, in addition, ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to contribute to the progressive realisation of these rights through international assistance and co-operation.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) agreed in September 2000 by all 189 UN member states will not be achieved if resources are diverted from this vital task by inappropriate arms transfers. According to James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, there is a "fundamental imbalance" with the world spending US$900bn on defence; around US$325bn on agricultural subsidies and only US$50bn to US$60bn on aid. The countries of Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East hold 51 per cent of the world's heavy weapons. Both arms importers and exporters must ensure that arms transfers do not undermine sustainable development – a combination of economic growth and social progress that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For arms exporters, various exportcontrol regimes already include this requirement, as does the proposed Arms Trade Treaty. However, it is shocking how few governments make a serious attempt to consider the impact on development of their arms exports. Paying lip service to such a commitment means that scarce resources are being diverted from the fight against poverty, and millions are suffering as a result. To protect the social and economic rights of people in developing countries, it is imperative that exporting governments apply an effective and systematic methodology to assess whether proposed arms transfers will affect sustainable development.
The assessment methodology must recognise that the potential consequences of an arms transfer are not always clear-cut, and weigh these consequences alongside the legitimate security needs of the country and respect for international human rights standards in the governance of its people. In many cases, countries that import arms may have legitimate security needs. However, the costs of meeting these needs, and the way in which they are met, have to be viewed in relation to the development situation of the country: 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? Even if the legitimate security needs of a state do take precedence, is the importing government likely to abide by international human rights and humanitarian law?
Security and development: weighing the costs
Arms transfers may be essential to support a state's legitimate security needs or to improve the capacity of its security forces. Research by the World Bank also reveals that security is a main priority for poor people in all regions of the world and a necessary condition for improving their quality of life. However, in order for arms transfers to support development, the potential security benefits must be carefully weighed alongside the wider development needs of the importing country and the human rights of its people. The opportunity costs of some recent arms transfers underline this point.
In 2002, arms deliveries to Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa constituted 66.7 per cent of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide, with a monetary value of nearly US$17bn; the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council accounted for 90 per cent of those deliveries. Meanwhile, across these regions:
- more than a billion people struggled to survive on less than a dollar a day;
- one child in five did not complete primary school;
- more than 14 million children lost one or both parents to AIDS in 2001;
- nearly 800 million people suffered from chronic hunger;
- half a million women died in pregnancy or childbirth.
The misue of arms can further impede development. Irresponsible arms transfers may: encourage unaccountable and poorly trained military forces to suppress human rights and democratic development; facilitate brutal resource exploitation; contribute to environmental degradation; and to an increase in violence against women. In these cases, the development needs of the country continue to go unmet, and in some situations may increase still further. Poverty may deepen, inequalities may widen, access to basic services be further compromised, and livelihoods be threatened.
Promises in pieces
The right to sustainable development is enshrined in international human rights instruments and declarations. In addition, exporter governments have made specific commitments under numerous regional and multilateral arms export-control regimes to take the impact of arms exports on importer countries' sustainable development into account when making arms licensing decisions. The 1993 Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers, the 1998 EU Code of Conduct, the 2000 OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons, and the 2002 Wassenaar Arrangement Best Practice Guidelines for Small Arms and Light Weapons all set out the foundations for specifically taking sustainable development into account in arms transfers. However, in too many cases exporting governments are failing to respect the commitments they have made. This is unacceptable. 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.
Promises into practice
The development and adoption of an international Arms Trade Treaty provides the opportunity to establish such a methodology, and strengthen existing regional and multilateral export-control agreements. Article 4c of the proposed Arms Trade Treaty states that, excepting legitimate security needs, an arms transfer must not go ahead if it is likely to adversely affect sustainable development. Research for this report has determined that the following three levels of analysis are key to the development of a methodology for making this assessment.
- Identify arms sales of possible concern using triggers. Triggers should include questions that consider the significance of the financial value of the transfer and/or arms deal, in combination with a consideration of the development situation of the importer country.
- Map the development and human security status of importing countries using indicators. These should capture not only economic, but also social and human development characteristics by incorporating an assessment of progress in achieving the MDGs, of gender in development, and of human security.
- Deeper context and deal-specific questioning of arms-procurement processes to make an arms-export judgement against key factors. These should investigate responsible governance, arms-procurement decision making; import rationale and appropriateness and affordability against this justification; and importer capacity in terms of industrial and technological capability, and technical capacity.
This methodology should be agreed and implemented by all arms exporters with immediate effect, as a key tool to prevent arms being exported to where they will undermine sustainable development and divert scarce resources from fighting poverty.
Part 5 of this report sets out the proposed methodology in more detail. Its structure and rationale is based upon insights drawn from research findings presented in the report's preceding parts: the foundations of sustainable development and the significance of arms transfers in this context (Part 1); the range of impacts of arms transfers on sustainable development (Part 2); a review of current arms exporter practice vis-í -vis sustainable development (Part 3); and an investigation of key governance, security and development concerns in the importer context (Part 4).
