Transatlantic Security
Back to the main
page on Transatlantic Security
Small Arms and Light Weapons
Back to Small Arms and Light Weapons
page
"Biting the Bullet" Briefing 2
Regional Initiatives and the UN 2001 Conference: Building
Mutual Support and Complementarity
By Elizabeth Clegg, Owen Greene, Sarah Meek and Geraldine
O'Callaghan
With contributions from: Eleanor Abrahams, Martinho Chachiua,
Maria Cohrs, Joseph Dube, Rubem Cesar Fernandes, Diego Muro
Ruiz, Christina Torsein and members of the Cambodia Working
Group on Weapons Reduction
Edited by Theresa Hitchens
Content:
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Learning From Each Other
4. Review of Regional Initiatives
5. Promoting and Reinforcing National
and Regional Action: The Role of the UN 2001 Conference
Annex: Summary of Regional and International Initiatives
on Small Arms and Light Weapon
6. Regional Initiatives
7. Inter-regional Initiatives
8. Global Initiatives
9. Endnotes
1. Executive Summary
As the agenda for the United Nations (UN) 2001 Conference
on The Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All Its Aspects takes shape, governments should begin
to identify a set of standards, mechanisms and specific agreements
that will help consolidate, reinforce and co-ordinate regional
and national measures to address the problem of the proliferation
and misuse of small arms. An important element of this approach
will be to build upon the wealth of regional and national
experiences and perspectives that illustrate the different
contexts in which efforts to combat the proliferation and
misuse of small arms and light weapons have occurred. At the
same time, agreements reached at the UN 2001 Conference should
be substantial, establishing an agreed comprehensive 'international
action programme' for sustained global effort on this complex
problem. However there remain issues and concerns that are
common to all regions: these should be identified and addressed
internationally within the context of the UN 2001 Conference.
This briefing, the second in the Biting the Bullet
series, reviews some of the current regional efforts on small
arms and light weapons. It identifies common approaches that
have been used in different regions to counter the proliferation
and misuse of small arms and light weapons, these include:
law enforcement and crime control; supplier restraint and
transparency; national legislation and regulation of arms;
and arms reduction and control. The briefing analyses initiatives
using these approaches that are moving forward in West Africa,
Eastern and Southern Africa, the European Union (EU), and
the development of cooperation between EU Member States and
other countries and regional organizations, including Cambodia
and the Southern African Development Community. The briefing
identifies the impact and priorities of these initiatives,
suggesting ways in which the UN 2001 Conference is both relevant
to the region and what the region can contribute to the outcomes
of the Conference.
The briefing concludes with recommendations on the ways in
which regional processes can be reinforced and further developed
by the international community, focusing especially on the
contribution of the UN 2001 Conference. Experience is showing
that much of what happens nationally and regionally needs
reinforcement and further development with assistance from
the international community. The UN 2001 Conference comes
at an important time for providing the framework - through
the international action programme - to develop, reinforce
and co-ordinate these national and regional processes, through
developing appropriate international norms, standards, programmes
and mechanisms. Using the illustration of combating illicit
arms trafficking, this briefing outlines some of the processes
that could be taken forward through the UN 2001 Conference
which would build upon and strengthen national and regional
efforts.
The briefing contains an annex, which provides background
information on many current regional and international initiatives,
including those in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and
inter-regionally, such as the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
2. Introduction
As the agenda for the United Nations (UN) 2001 Conference
on The Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in
All Its Aspects takes shape, governments should begin
to identify a set of standards, mechanisms and specific agreements
that will help consolidate, reinforce and co-ordinate regional
and national measures to address the problem of the proliferation
and misuse of small arms. An important element of this approach
will be to build upon the wealth of regional and national
experiences and perspectives that illustrate the different
contexts in which efforts to combat the proliferation and
misuse of small arms and light weapons have occurred. At the
same time, agreements reached at the UN 2001 Conference should
be substantial, establishing an agreed comprehensive 'international
action programme' for sustained global effort on this complex
problem.
Existing regional small arms initiatives should form the
basis for many of the elements adopted into the international
action programme to build upon work that is already underway
and to avoid duplication in efforts to combat illicit trafficking.
Such an approach will aid the UN and its Member States in
developing proposals to support and complement existing measures,
while moving beyond these achievements to establish a multi-faceted
and holistic programme of action on small arms and light weapons
at the global level
Global measures are required to effectively address the international
problem posed by the continued transfer and re-circulation
of small arms and light weapons. Both the legal and the illicit
trade in weapons transcend national borders and regional agreements.
In particular, the illicit trafficking of weapons crosses
the world, exploiting lax legislation and weak law enforcement
and border controls. Therefore, while it is critical to develop
practical measures, such as cross border co-operation, which
are tailored to regional and sub-regional needs, the UN should
take a central role in developing consensus in norms and standards
worldwide and identify specific measures which require global
application to be successful.
This briefing, the second in the Biting the Bullet
series, sets out some of the key current regional initiatives.
It identifies common approaches, analyses the impact and priorities
of these initiatives, and suggests ways in which the UN 2001
Conference is both relevant to the region and what the region
can contribute to the outcomes of the Conference. The briefing
concludes with recommendations on the ways in which regional
processes can be reinforced and further developed by the international
community, focusing especially on the contribution of the
UN 2001 Conference. The briefing includes an annex, which
provides background information on many current regional and
international initiatives.
3. Learning From Each Other
The problems associated with small arms and light weapons
vary from region-to-region and country-to-country. In Brazil,
El Salvador, Jamaica, South Africa or the United States, the
use of weapons in violent crime is a major cause for concern.
In Albania, Cambodia and Mozambique, the collection and destruction
of weapons left over from wars remains a high priority. In
countries embroiled in conflict, it is important to stop legal
or illegal transfers of weapons, while in others the use of
weapons to violate human rights must be halted.
Building consensus by increasing co-operation and control
at the regional level has proven to be one of the most successful
approaches to implementing practical change. There are a number
of high profile initiatives to combat trafficking already
underway. The Organization of American States (OAS), the European
Union (EU), the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
have all agreed important regional measures to tackle illicit
weapons flows.
Whereas consensus often eludes larger institutions, the smaller
size and common concerns of these groups can facilitate agreement
more easily. Regional organizations are also better placed
to develop specific control measures tailored to the dynamics
of weapons problems in a particular region. Regional and sub-regional
institutions can also address the challenges of combating
small arms and light weapons in the context of shared regional
concerns such as crime, drugs or conflict; and implement cross-border
control by building on existing regional dialogue and confidence-
and security-building measures. Consequently, regional initiatives
have developed distinct frameworks and priorities for action.
However there remain issues and concerns that are common to
all regions: these should be identified and addressed internationally
within the context of the UN 2001 Conference.
Practical and political initiatives to tackle small arms
The variety of factors which have driven the proliferation
of small arms in different regions and the variable impact
upon societies has led to the development of a wide range
of initiatives embodying different objectives and methodologies.
Many of these initiatives have been grouped around common
approaches. This briefing looks at key initiatives taken under
each approach. Regional examples of these approaches include:
Law enforcement and crime control
The Americas have adopted an approach which focuses on law
enforcement and crime control, where the problem of small
arms proliferation has primarily been addressed as one of
illicit arms manufacturing and trafficking linked with criminal
networks and the drug trade. In response, the OAS in 1997
concluded a convention to prevent and combat the illicit manufacture
of and transfer in firearms, reinforced by the adoption of
model regulations. Parts of the Americas, such as Central
America, have complemented this approach with a focus on weapons
collection and reduction in the context of disarmament, demobilization
and re-integration of ex-combatants, the implementation of
peace accords, and changing national controls on the civilian
possession of weapons.
Supplier restraint and responsibility
European Union governments have focused on the ways in which
small arms are undermining development and fuelling conflict
outside the KU. European Union initiatives are, therefore,
mainly focused on preventing flows of small arms from the
EU to regions where there are already excessive accumulations,
and assisting countries and regions affected by small arms
proliferation.
National legislation and regulation of arms
In Southern Africa, the impact of small arms proliferation
is felt directly by almost all governments and societies,
and the priority is therefore to tackle small arms proliferation
in order to reduce insecurity and suffering within their own
region and societies. The incomplete nature of the disarmament
processes in Mozambique and Angola in the mid-1990s left large
numbers of small arms in circulation. These arms have fuelled
an upsurge in violent crime across the region and have contributed
to the continuation and lethality of the armed conflict in
Angola. Declarations by the members of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) and Southern African Policy Chiefs
Coordinating Organisation (SARPCCO) in 1998, together with
the development of the Southern Africa Action Programme
on Light Arms and Illicit Trafficking, have indicated
recognition of the extent of the problem and outlined a comprehensive
agenda for action. These have included measures to combat
and prevent illicit arms trafficking; control and limit legal
possession, transfer and accumulation of small arms; encourage
information exchange; promote weapons reduction and destruction
of confiscated and surplus arms; and reflect the dual concerns
in the Southern African region relating to crime and conflict.
Arms reduction and control
In West Africa, the primary concerns relating to small arms
and light weapons proliferation continues to be their use
as a tool in the region's several ongoing internal conflicts,
and the threat that illicit flows and wide availability of
light weapons has posed to fragile peace accords. Large quantities
of weapons have entered and/or are re-circulating within the
region, fuelling conflict, undermining development, and increasing
levels of violent crime and banditry. In an effort to stem
the flow of small arms into and, their re-circulation within,
the region the 16 members of the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) agreed in November 1998 a moratorium
on the import, export and transfer of small arms. Significantly,
this effort to limit legal arms flows into the region is complemented
and reinforced by the Programme for Co-ordination and Assistance
on Security and Development (PCASED), which involves mobilising
resources to enhance the capacity of governments and their
agencies (Judiciary, police and customs) to combat illicit
trafficking, enhance legal controls on weapon flows and possession,
and promote wider awareness and involvement of civil society.
The premise of this approach is that small arms proliferation
undermines peace, structural stability and long-term development.
Conceptually, this approach offers a more coherent and progressive
framework for addressing the supply and demand for illicit
weapons within the context of human security. However, without
sufficient resources and implementation mechanisms, the broader
framework risks being marginalised as a commendable but unattainable
ideal when contrasted with the concrete and practical law
enforcement approach.
Developments at international levels
National and regional initiatives have been encouraged and
reinforced by initial global efforts to address the proliferation
and misuse of small arms. The United Nations has provided
an important arena for raising awareness, developing common
understandings of the scope of the problem and recommendations
for action, and stimulating international responses. A key
focus of such activities has been the work of the UN Panel
of Governmental Experts on Small Arms between 1996-97, and
the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms between
1998-99. The 1997 Report of the UN Panel of Experts developed
shared understandings of the nature, characteristics and scope
of the problems associated with small arms proliferation,
and made a number of initial recommendations for action. The
1999 Report of the UN Group of Experts reviewed progress in
the implementation of these recommendations and negotiated
further recommendations, including on the aims, objectives
and scope of the UN 2001 Conference. The UN General Assembly
overwhelmingly endorsed both reports.
Linked with this process, the UN has helped to arrange a
number of regional workshops on illicit trafficking and small
arms proliferation, and supported a number practical disarmament
measures. A so-called 'Group of Interested States' has met
regularly since 1998 under German chairmanship in the context
of the UN to consider proposals for practical disarmament
measures, and has helped to mobilise support for a number
of initiatives, including for training and 'lessons-learned'
workshops in Central Africa and Central America. The United
Nations and its agencies have further supported weapons collection
projects. These efforts are complemented by on-going negotiations
of a protocol to prevent and combat the illicit manufacture
of and transfer in firearms and their parts and components
and ammunition, in the context of the UN convention against
transnational organised crime.
4. Review of Regional Initiatives
The challenge of reviewing current initiatives is large.
This section explores the impact of some key initiatives to
address the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
It then identifies ways in which these initial steps should
be developed in order to reach their full potential. The main
purpose of this section, however, is to examine those elements
of each approach that should inform the deliberations and
outcomes of the UN 2001 process. The annex to this briefing
contains full descriptions of these regional activities.
It is important to realise that the potential for success
of any initiative relies on national commitment and implementation.
For this to take hold, several factors need to be considered.
First, those countries participating in the initiative should
have the political support to follow through on implementation.
Related to this, the initiative should have enough relevance
to the country that it sees it as being in its interest to
see it successfully concluded. Third, some countries may look
at other measures, which reinforce but are outside the scope
of the regional agreement, such as changing national arms
export policies or controlling the civilian possession of
small arms and light weapons. These individual efforts should
also be supported under broader regional initiatives. As a
final point, those outside these regions should look at ways
to support, elaborate and assist in the development of additional
approaches, through financial and technical assistance or
other means. The UN 2001 Conference is therefore timely, as
it will provide the forum for many of these discussions.
4.1 Controlling small arms through
law enforcement: the Organization of American States
Developing regional consensus
For many years a lack of political will proved an overwhelming
obstacle to controls on small arms in the Americas. However,
the concept of a hemisphere-wide convention on illicit weapons
trafficking, which emphasized common regional concerns of
narcotics trafficking and organised crime, generated high-level
political endorsement and met with more enthusiasm than previous
bilateral efforts.
In November 1997, OAS Member States signed the Inter-American
Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking
in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
The agreement is regarded as a remarkable success story and
is seen as a groundbreaking initiative, influencing current
policy debates and decisions beyond the Americas
Aims of the convention
The OAS Convention seeks to "prevent, combat, and eradicate"
illicit manufacturing and trafficking and to promote co-operation
and information exchange among Member States. It establishes
a broad set of commitments, control mechanisms, legal requirements,
and co-operation procedures, including measures to:
-
criminalise illicit manufacturing and trafficking;
-
mark weapons at manufacture and import;
-
establish an effective export, import and transit licensing
system;
-
strengthen controls at export points;
-
exchange information on producers, dealers, importers
and exporters, routes and techniques used in illicit trafficking;
and
-
exchange experience and training in areas such as identification,
detection, tracing and intelligence gathering.
Strengths of the OAS approach
The OAS approach has significant strengths. In particular,
the legally binding Convention emphasises shared regional
concerns, specifically drug trafficking and transnational
crime. It focuses on increasing co-operation rather than increasing
sanctions against countries that are seen to facilitate the
illicit arms trade in the region. The Convention also sets
out clear responsibilities for states to combat trafficking
through the courts, the police and domestic legislation.
Importantly, the Convention is focused on practical issues.
Concurrent to the Convention negotiations, the OAS Member
States also formulated a set of practical guidelines. Developed
under the auspices of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission (CICAD), the Model Regulations for the Control
of the International Movement of Firearms, Their
Parts and Components and Ammunition, also were adopted
in November 1997. These guidelines serve as the minimum standards
required for harmonised licensing and record-keeping of firearms
imports and exports. The CICAD regulations complement the
Convention with uniform measures for the practical implementation
of an agreement that would otherwise be in danger of being
solely a political symbol. However, unlike the OAS Convention
itself, these model regulations are not legally binding and,
to date, the United States is the only Member State to have
adopted them.
Limitations and challenges of the OAS approach
As in any effort, especially a first effort, there are
concerns that the Convention has some inherent weaknesses,
which may become more pronounced when the Convention approach
is adopted in other regions or in an international protocol.
Specifically, the narrow scope disregards government transfers.
The OAS Convention addresses only commercial transactions,
making no reference to transfers by governments to other states
or sub-state parties.
In addition, although the simplicity of the OAS Convention
is often regarded as its strength, it can also be seen as
its weakness. Its narrow focus emphasises the enforcement
of existing laws and improved implementation of import
and export procedures. The OAS Convention does little to change
current policies. Finally, the Convention frames illicit trafficking
as an issue of crime control and law enforcement, failing
to address the linkage between arms trafficking and conflict.
While this may have reflected the views of the most vocal
countries negotiating the Convention at the time, increasingly
countries in the region are recognising the need to look at
the role of illicit arms trafficking in the context of conflict
and post-conflict development.
Many OAS Member States also face challenges in the implementation
of the Convention. Although ten countries were able to conclude
ratification relatively quickly, legislative hurdles, insufficient
resources and limited infrastructure are hindering efforts
in others. The success of the OAS Convention will depend on
the existence of strong national structures to ratify, implement
and co-ordinate policies. In states in conflict or in the
process of post-conflict reconstruction, which lack the bureaucratic
structures necessary for proper enforcement, implementation
will be difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, introducing
new legislation or institutionalizing provisions on record-keeping,
identification and information exchange would, at the very
least, demand a considerable investment of human and financial
resources. Such measures may not be a top priority when allocating
either new or existing funds.
The relevance of the OAS Convention for the UN 2001 Conference
The OAS approach to illicit trafficking important elements
that could inform the agenda and outcomes of the UN 2001 Conference.
The OAS is made up of a diverse group of states, both major
suppliers and major recipients of weapons. Despite their differences,
these states were able to rapidly build consensus by focusing
on common concerns. Key elements of the regional convention,
such as harmonised licensing procedures and marking weapons,
are relevant to all regions and require international controls
in order to be truly effective. The experience of the Americas
in getting agreement on these issues may be relevant to the
UN 2001 Conference process.
While the OAS Convention should influence the international
negotiations, the UN 2001 Conference also represents a critical
opportunity for the international community to reinforce and
strengthen the regional agreement. United Nations Member States
should identify ways to support further ratifications and,
more importantly, secure effective implementation of the Convention.
The UN 2001 Conference provides a focus for donor countries
to co-ordinate and commit the financial and technical assistance
urgently required to enable States to implement the Convention.
In addition, the Conference could provide a forum for OAS
countries to share their experiences and insights with other
regional organizations which are attempting to address illicit
trafficking.
4.2 Supplier restraint and responsibility:
the European Union
Co-operation on arms issues, and particularly small arms,
among the EU Member States is a relatively recent phenomenon.
It began in 1997 with agreement under the Dutch Presidency
of the EU Programme for Preventing and Combating Illicit
Trafficking in Conventional Arms, which specified particular
relevance for initiatives to tackle small arms. This co-operation
was further developed in the Joint Action on the European
Union's contribution to combating the destabilizing accumulation
and spread of small arms and light weapons of December
1998. This initiative was reinforced by the agreement in May
1999 of a Resolution on combating the excessive and uncontrolled
accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons
as part of the EU's emergency aid, reconstruction and
development programmes, which effectively approved the
use of EU development aid for tackling small arms proliferation
EU restraint in small arms proliferation.
EU restraint in small arms exports
In a move that heralded the global promotion of supplier restraint
and responsibility in the field of arms exports, the EU agreed
in June 1998, the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.1
While the development of EU-sponsored initiatives to reduce
levels of small arms in affected regions was already underway,
the adoption of the EU Code signified a crucial acknowledgement
of the role of EU Member States in acting to prevent the proliferation
and misuse of arms from their territories. Moreover, the EU
Code was the first regional initiative that established terms
of reference for consultation on, and the co-ordination of,
arms transfer policies. Accordingly, the EU Code can be seen
as marking the beginning of a new phase in multilateral efforts
to control the export of arms, including small arms, by placing
the issues of human rights, internal and regional security,
and development at the centre of decisions on arms exports.
The UN 2001 Conference thus presents an important opportunity
to internationalize those concepts that underpin the EU Code.
Assessing the impact of the EU Code
The EU Code is the most progressive effort to date in terms
of multilateral efforts to control arms transfers. Nevertheless,
the jury is still out on whether the criteria and operational
provisions of the EU Code are, in themselves, sufficient to
make a significant impression on the trade in small arms and
light weapons.
Guidelines open to interpretation
The bulk of the EU Code comprises guidelines of varying detail
and sophistication. They are organised under the eight EU
criteria on conventional arms transfers (agreed in 1991 and
1992), and require Member States to take into account the
human rights record of the recipient, their internal and regional
situation, and relative levels of military and social expenditure.
Some of the guidelines (e.g., those relating to human rights)
are substantially more developed than others (e.g., those
relating to internal instability), reflecting the political
pressures that weighed most heavily on the Member States as
they negotiated the Code's provisions. However, even the more
elaborate guidelines are open to a degree of flexible, subjective
interpretation, raising concerns that the arms export policies
of the Member States may continue to diverge.
Limited consultation mechanisms
In an effort to address the latitude with which the Member
States can interpret the EU Code guidelines and to promote
the harmonization of policy, Operative Provisions were also
agreed. These require Member States to notify all others when
they have denied an arms export licence under the criteria
of the Code. They also require that, should another Member
State wish to take up such a licence, it must first inform
the country that issued the denial. At the time the Code of
Conduct was being negotiated, these provisions were widely
criticised by some EU governments and NGOs as being insufficient
to ensure the development of a common approach, since they
would not allow for wide-ranging discussion on the implications
of arms exports to sensitive end-users.
Lack of transparency hinders accurate assessment
Ultimately, the impact of the EU Code on exports of small
arms is difficult to assess, in part due to a lack of transparency
in EU Member States's arms export policies. Only a small number
of governments produce detailed annual reports setting out
information on their arms exports. A well-informed analysis
of the impact of the Code on the arms export policies of all
fifteen Member States is therefore impossible. The only indication,
to date, of how the Code is functioning has been contained
in the Consolidated Report of the first Annual Review of the
- EU Code of September 1999. This report recorded a fairly
low level of denial notifications. Although the correlation
between the level of denials and any tightening of policy
may not be clear, this nevertheless suggests that Member States
are not having to turn down a significant proportion of new
arms export licence applications. Beyond this, rumours of
undercutting, and the fact that several Member States have
continued to conclude controversial deals, would also suggest
that, in terms of tightening of arms export policy, the EU
Code has not had a significant impact.
Priorities for developing the EU Code
In order to ensure that the objectives of the EU Code are
implemented in letter and spirit a number of priorities for
development of the Code have been identified, including:
Further elaboration of a number of the criteria (in particular
those relating to development and internal instability) which
would reduce possibilities for varying interpretations of
the criteria;
-
Development of the Code's consultation mechanisms to
allow multilateral discussion of potential undercutting
to develop more easily a common approach moving, in the
medium term, towards a binding no-undercutting rule;
-
Adoption of high standards of transparency by the Member
States in their national reporting and in the information
provided within the Consolidated Report, so that parliaments
and the public can conduct an informed assessment of the
working of the Code; and
-
Agreement on a range of additional measures for the control
of arms transfers, including the adoption of licensing
and registration requirements of arms brokering agents,
rigorous controls on the end-use of arms once exported,
and controls on the production arms under licence to EU-based
companies.
EU Code as spur to wider international controls
One of the most significant benefits of introducing of the
EU Code has been the increased level of understanding of arms
export policy in practice that has arisen among EU Member
States through the operation of the Code. Beyond this, perhaps
the most important aspect of this agreement is that it provides
a basis for engaging other governments and regional groupings
on the issue of arms transfer restraint. Indeed, the EU Code
explicitly states that "Member States will use their best
endeavours to encourage other arms exporting states to subscribe
to the principles of the Code of Conduct". To date, the EU
associate states - including Norway, the Baltic Republics
and countries of Central and Eastern Europe - have declared
their adherence to the principles of the EU Code, while it
is also referred to in the KU-US and EU-Canada Small Arms
Declarations of December 1999.
The United Nations Member States previously have agreed common
guidelines on arms exports - in the form of the 1996 Disarmament
Commission Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers.
These are nevertheless vague and focus excessively on measures
relating to the combating of illicit trafficking. In terms
of efforts to internationalize common standards for the transfer
of arms, including small arms, the advent of the 2001 Conference
is very timely. Indeed, the opportunity exists for the Conference
to make a vital contribution to international security by
developing updated international guidelines relating to the
transfer of small arms and light weapons that take into account
the progress that has been made in the EU, OAS and other fore
in recent years. Moreover, the combination of elaborated criteria,
consultation mechanisms and an annual review process - as
outlined in the context of the EU Code - is potentially a
very useful model that could be adapted at the wider international
level.
At the same time it is important to note that, the advancement
of internationally accepted standards for controlling the
export of small arms could potentially play an important role
in bolstering the effectiveness of regional agreements such
as the EU Code. By reducing the perception, and the reality,
that restraint on the part of a group of states will be undercut
by others, governments that are politically inclined towards
restraint may be encouraged to implement their controls to
greater effect.
4.3 Donor-recipient Co-operation:
EU-Cambodia
In December 1998 the EU Member States agreed a Joint Action
on the European Union's contribution to combating the
destabilizing and spread of small arms and light weapons.
This Joint Action, an initiative of the German EU Presidency,
provides a comprehensive and co-operative programme for the
EU to tackle small arms proliferation. The EU Member States
have sought to implement the Joint Action through several
projects including the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) project on disarmament-for-development in Albania and
weapon collection programme in Cambodia. They have also worked
to encourage partner countries to support the objectives of
the Joint Action.
Cooperation between Cambodia and the EU
After some 30 years of conflict, Cambodia suffers intensely
from the excessive availability, possession and misuse of
small arms and light weapons. The 1998 elections established
a context in which political violence involving such weapons
declined and political interest in tackling small arms proliferation
increased. At the highest political level, Prime Minister
Hun Sen declared that widespread gun violence was damaging
prospects for stability, development, tourism and inward investment.
In late 1998, decrees were issued rendering all arms illicit
that were not explicitly licenced, banning discharging firearms
in celebrations, and tightening restrictions on the possession
of weapons by government officials and off-duty police.
National weapons collection programme
A national weapons collection programme was initiated, starting
in Phnom Penh and extending to all other regions, which required
citizens to hand in unauthorized weapons to the police. There
was a coercive dimension to such collections, as it was understood
that citizens who failed to hand in their unauthorized weapons
would be vulnerable to later penalties. Weapons were collected
at road blocks as well as through house-to-house collections.
However, non-governmental organizations were invited to observe
the process, helping to raise confidence and awareness. Some
5,000 weapons collected in Phnom Penh were destroyed at a
public event attended by Hun Sen in March 1999, and overall
more than 45,000 weapons reportedly had been collected by
spring 2000.
Development of donor/recipient co-operation
This process was welcomed and encouraged by the international
community. In May 1999, the Cambodian government responded
to an EU Council circular, concerning possible co-operation
in tackling small arms proliferation problems in the framework
of the EU Joint Action. An EU fact-finding mission was sent
to Cambodia in July 1999, to assess the scope for EU-Cambodia
co-operation, and to report on frameworks for co-operation
and immediate priorities. On the basis of this report, an
EU project to support Cambodian efforts to control and reduce
small arms proliferation was established, which began in April
2000. The aims of this project are to:
-
assist in the development of appropriate laws and regulations
controlling the manufacture, possession, sale, transfer,
and use of weapons and associated materials;
-
promote civil society awareness of the problems and the
involvement of NGOs and the general public in response
measures;
-
assist in improving the weapons collection and destruction
process, including systems for record-keeping, safe storage,
and destruction of collected weapons; and
-
advise in ensuring appropriate weapons collection and
disarmament during the process of demobilization and reintegration
of the Cambodian armed forces. In July 2000, a Japanese
mission was sent to Cambodia was consider whether and
how Japan could offer similar assistance.
Lessons learned
Cooperation between the EU and Cambodia to tackle excessive
availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons provides
an important example that could usefully be adapted to many
other countries and circumstances. Although the process remains
in its early stages of development, the co-operation highlights
a number of points of general interest. These include the
following:
Initiatives taken by countries affected by small arms
proliferation. As the Cambodia experience underscores,
there is scope for even poor, war-torn countries suffering
from the problems of small arms proliferation to make a significant
start before co-operative projects with donors have been established.
Consultative project design. It is important
for co-operative projects to be designed according to the
specific circumstances of the country involved, and to build
on existing national and local initiatives, rather than immediately
redesign them according to precedents established elsewhere.
Technical advice and assistance. The need
for technical advice and assistance with the development of
policy, law and procedure has a particularly important role
to play in such co-operation and its contribution to project
implementation can be critical.
Possession and use of weapons by the police and army.
The Cambodian government's restrictions on the possession
and use of weapons by off-duty police and officials had a
significant impact.
Transparency. Public confidence and support
for weapons collection processes requires reliable and transparent
procedures for record-keeping, secure storage and destruction
of collected weapons, to address concerns that collected weapons
may simply be recycled, perhaps to criminals.
Role of local non-governmental groups. In
Cambodia the Weapons Reduction Working Group NGO coalition
has an important role to play in raising awareness, monitoring
weapons collection, and disseminating principles of good practice.
Concerned members of civil society came together in 1998 to
address the problem of small arms proliferation in Cambodia.
The Working Group encourages governments to support micro-disarmament
work that raises the issue of small arms on the Cambodian
and international agendas. The role of civil society in the
Cambodian situation has been recognised by both the government
and the EU.
Future challenges
Cambodia, and the implementation of the project under the
Joint Action, faces substantial challenges for the future.
For example, most donor concern for the demobilization process
has focused on supporting reintegration, with the risk that
disarmament, safe storage and disposal of the weapons rendered
surplus by this process is neglected. Similarly, in the medium
term, measures to control and reduce small arms proliferation
need to be accompanied by development of the police, judiciary
and other bodies to ensure a secure and just environment for
citizens.
4.4 Donor/Recipient Co-operation in Albania: The
Lessons Learned
Albania faced intense challenges during the 1990s. After
years of isolation under the authoritarian rule of Enver Hoxha's
Communist regime, it entered into: a formidable process of
transition. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons
have contributed greatly to its difficulties. Internally,
the transition has been associated with a growth of violent
crime; and criminal organisations. The problems associated
with excessive availability and misuse of such weapons were
exacerbated in 1997, after more than 500,000 weapons were
looted from Albanian government stockpiles in disturbances
fallowing the collapse of some pyramid investment schemes.
It was widely recognized that the Albanian government lacked
the capacity on its own to tackle the situation. Since 1998,
co-operation has developed between Albania, the EU, UN and
other segments of the international community to tackle three
problems brought about by the surfeit of weapons. This co-operation
has not yet been sufficient, but progress has been achieved
and the experience is a valuable example for other nations.
Important precedents have been set by the voluntary weapons
collection project established in the Gramsch district in
Central Albania in 1998, which linked weapons collection with
the provision of community development assistance. The project
aimed at collecting 20,000 small arms and light weapons and
was co-ordinated locally by the UNDP with the support of a
number of: donor countries. The European Union also considered
supporting this project, on the condition that the collected
weapons and ammunition were destroyed rather than returned
to government stockpiles, as originally agreed by the UN.
By the end of 1999, more than 6,000 arms and large quantities
of ammunition had been collected.
The principle of supporting 'guns for development aid' weapons
collection programmes is now accepted, and the Gramsch project
has established an important precedent which should be considered
in other parts of the world facing similar problems. The project
:has provided a number of more specific lessons. Firstly,
the successful implementation of a 'weapons for development'
programme requires sustained :confidence-building and detailed
consultation at the local level, and close co-operation among
local police, the communities and the project managers. Secondly,
since the delivery of development assistance can often lag
considerably behind the weapons collection process itself,
gun collection should be considered part of a community-building
exercise and associated with the spin-offs included with being
part of a project (such as access to project vehicles and
mobile telephones to help with local emergencies). Thirdly,
it is important to aim to destroy collected weapons: communities
are likely to be skeptical about a process which simply returns
them to Government stockpiles. Fourthly, it is important to
prepare specifically for the secure storage and destruction
of ammunition. Large quantities of old and unstable ammunition
were collected in Gramsch, raising specific challenges: ammunition
and: explosives are generally dangerous to store and transport,
and safe destruction requires specialized expertise. Fifthly,
weapons collection is a process; obsolete weapons or second
or third weapons may be handed in during the first round,
with other weapons appearing only in later rounds of collection
as confidence increases. Sixthly, the number of weapons collected
is only a crude measure of success; the spin-off effects on
community attitudes towards guns and on police-community relations
is generally at least as important.
At the end of 1999, it was decided to extend the weapons
for development project to some regions neighbouring Gramsch.
However, their coverage will remain limited. Thus it has been
important to complement them with national programmes to strengthen
and enforce legal controls over weapons, and to enhance the
capacity of the police and judiciary to ensure a secure environment
for citizens and development programmes.
4.5 Embedding controls within
the context of security and development: the ECOWAS approach
West Africa is a region which has been engulfed by civil
war and regional unrest. The proliferation of small arms has
added increased instability in the region and since the mid-1990s
various West African leaders sought to address this problem.
Mali, in particular, took the lead in bringing together the
countries in West Africa to work towards a mechanism to curb
the proliferation of small arms following its request to the
UN for assistance missions on small arms. These two missions
(in 1994 and 1995) suggested the need for a sub-regional approach
to combating small arms proliferation, which focused on the
need to address feelings of personal insecurity and the ability
of the state to provide for the security of its citizens before
long-term sustainable development could flourish in the region.
The ECOWAS Moratorium
In October 1998, the 16 ECOWAS heads of state agreed upon
a 3-year moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture
of small arms and light weapons. The Moratorium itself is
a political declaration, not a legally binding treaty, but
it is a foundation and agreement from which the countries
in West Africa can work. Nearly all initiatives to control
and constrain the transfer of weapons have been taken by supplier
states, therefore it is significant that a region which purchases
weapons initiated action on the proliferation on small arms;
it is particularly significant that it was not at the behest
of anyone else's wishes.
The elaboration in March 1999 of PCASED was an important
step toward implementing the political agreement. This programme,
supported financially by external donor states, is intended
to operationalise and reinforce the Moratorium by building
internal capacity among states (including within the police
and judiciary) to sustain efforts against arms trafficking.
It promotes arms collection efforts, the development of legal
and regulatory measures relating to weapons possession and
transfer, and the establishment of a regional arms register.
In practice, the need to establish transparency and control
over weapons has meant that more attention has been paid to
the security elements of the programme than its development
component.
Challenges of implementation
Many of the functionaries within ECOWAS States responsible
for implementing and monitoring the Moratorium are unaware
of the requirements imposed by the mechanism. The Programme
for Co-ordination and Assistance on Security and Development
also addresses inadequately some of the fundamental questions
of those working to support the Moratorium, both inside the
region and among the donor community. Continuing lack of certainty
about the purpose of the Moratorium was illustrated by the
fact that in 1999, the secretariat implementing the agreement
received:
-
three requests for arms imports to be exempted from the
Moratorium;
-
three reports by countries outside ECOWAS for clarification
on acquisition attempts by signatories to the Moratorium;
-
four reports for deferring acquisition of arms; and
-
two information requests for export details.2
The exemption requests were granted to states in the region
that wanted arms for training purposes or to replace weapons
for use by national security forces.
While limited, these queries and reports indicate that the
Moratorium is recognised as a control regime, although one
needing more specific operational guidelines and greater technical
and financial support. In response, in December 1999, the
annual summit of ECOWAS heads of state adopted a code of conduct
for the Moratorium that sets out objectives and priorities,
including establishing national commissions, regional focal
points, and more support within ECOWAS. The code of conduct
also establishes a waiver procedure for ECOWAS states wishing
to import, export or manufacture light weapons while the Moratorium
is in operation. The provision requires prior authorization
from ECOWAS before importing arms for peacekeeping operations,
hunting, training or sports shooting. Such weapons must be
registered when they arrive in an ECOWAS country, and their
removal from the region is required when they are no longer
being used.
The engagement and support of supplier states
The role of exporters is key to the success of this initiative.
The Wassenaar Arrangement, a grouping of 33 arms-exporting
States, stated in December 1998 that its members would 'undertake
an appropriate collaborative role with ECOWAS Member States
to respect the provisions of the Moratorium, and will be open
to providing advisory and/or technical assistance in the implementation
of the Moratorium.' Such assistance will be of great value
to States in the region that face enormous challenges in halting
arms trafficking. Equally important, however, is the need
for each Member State of the Wassenaar Arrangement to implement
domestic procedures notifying its arms manufacturers and brokers
that arms exports to West Africa are largely off limits.
The Moratorium example underlines the many challenges for
a regional control mechanism developed among politicians with
little regard as to how the controls would be implemented
or the political promises delivered. Its approach, which has
heightened awareness and co-ordinated action between States
within the region on arms trafficking and brought pledges
of technical and legal assistance from external states to
combat the trade, is certainly of relevance to other regions
facing similar challenges. Of particular interest in the West
Africa approach, has been the explicit recognition that insecurity
was undermining development in the region, and that small
arms and light weapon are at the crux of the problem. The
UN 2001 Conference process can take from the experience of
the ECOWAS countries the challenge of implementing a complex,
regional agreement and the need for clear implementation strategies.
The types of assistance to be sought (both technical and financial)
have required in-depth analysis and discussion in the region,
and it is now, after almost two years, that practical steps
for achieving greater implementation of the Moratorium are
going forward. Countries in other regions contemplating similar
measures should look at the challenges of implementing such
broad agreements and identify concrete steps that can be taken
early on.
4.6 Working towards a comprehensive
approach to control: EU-SADC
Southern Africa is awash with illicit small arms, a legacy
of violent conflict in the region. With the exception of Angola
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the region now is
largely at peace. However the spread and misuse of weapons
continues, partly as a result of the failed disarmament process
in Mozambique and partly as a result of leakage from the ongoing
conflicts in the northern parts of the region.
Southern Africa as a whole has been quick to understand,
and take steps to address, the small arms problem that afflicts
many parts of the region. One of the most significant developments
to date has been the May 1998 agreement - endorsed by EU and
SADC Ministers in November 1998 - of a regional Action Programme
on Light Arms and Illicit Trafficking.3 The Action
Programme provides a broad framework for action to tackle
small arms proliferation in four key areas:
-
combating illicit trafficking;
-
strengthening legal controls on accumulations and transfers
of arms;
-
promoting the removal of arms from society and the destruction
of surplus arms; and
-
enhancing transparency, information exchange and consultation
on arms.
Crucially the Action Programme also pointed to those areas
where the EU would be best placed to assist Southern Africa
in implementation.
Impact of the Southern Africa Action Programme on small
arms
To date, the potential that the Southern Africa Action Programme
has, to impact directly on the small arms problem, is yet
to be realised. The main reason for this is the relative slowness
with which both the EU and SADC can move from policy development
to practical implementation. The co-ordination of two complex
bureaucracies representing 15 or more states with varying
views and priorities is not an easy task. Accordingly, while
political will has been generated relatively quickly, the
translation of policy priorities into practical action, on
the part of both the EU and SADC, is happening more slowly.
Nevertheless, many positive developments have emerged in
conjunction with the Southern Africa Action Programme which
have increased the likelihood of sustained action to tackle
small arms proliferation in Southern Africa in the medium-
to long-term. Among the most beneficial aspects have been:
Mainstreaming of the small arms issues within regions.
In parallel with the development of the Southern Africa Action
Programme, important developments also took place within the
respective EU and SADC political structures. In Southern Africa,
the SARPCCO (Southern African Police Chiefs Co-ordinating
Organisation) summit of July 1999 elicited a declaration on
small arms. In addition, the SADC summit of August 1999 established
a small arms working group and nominated SARPCCO as the implementing
agency for SADC policy.
Synergy between political and operational agencies.
An important feature in Southern Africa has been the way in
which political and operational agencies have moved in tandem
to address the small arms problem. As the law enforcement
agency most regularly confronted with the consequences of
the spread and misuse of small arms, the police often have
the clearest understanding of how to tackle the problem. The
SARPCCO Declaration of August 1999 is a clear indication of
the priority attached by Southern African police to small
arms. In Southern Africa, moreover, the police have, through
their co-operation, played a leading role in breaking down
the barriers of suspicion and mistrust which existed among
many countries in the region.
In addition, the effective division of labour that has developed
between SADC and SARPCCO on small arms has been particularly
constructive. For example, at the first meeting of the SADC
working group in Botswana, October 1999, SARPCCO was mandated
to draft a SADC protocol on small arms and light weapons and
a strategic implementation programme, by July 2000. These
tasks were completed by the SADC legal sub-committee by early
2000 and the Protocol and Implementation Programme await approval.
Developing inter-regional partnerships. High-level
political endorsement of the Action Programme has paved the
way for the development and institutionalisation of an unique
dialogue between the EU and SADC on small arms issues. In
September 1999, a meeting of EU and SADC governmental experts
in Pretoria discussed the development of practical projects
within the framework of the Action Programme, leading to the
decision by the EU to sponsor Operations Rachel (the joint
South Africa-Mozambique weapons collection and destruction
initiative) with a grant of 200,000 euros. Subsequently, a
meeting of senior EU and SADC officials in November 1999 agreed
upon the establishment of a dedicated EU-SADC small arms working
group. This development represents important progress in the
cementing of the EU-SADC partnership and should provide a
focus for increased co-operation in the coming months and
years.
Future priorities
In order to maximise the effectiveness of efforts to address
the proliferation and misuse of small arms in Southern Africa,
the processes which have emerged in support of the Action
Programme need to be sustained and developed further. The
high-level political commitment which has hitherto been shown
in Southern Africa, and on the part of the KU, needs to be
sustained so that policy and operational officials can move
forward with confidence to implement the commitments contained
in the Action Programme and in the various regional declarations
on small arms. However, in order for the implementation phase
to succeed, EU and SADC governments, operational agencies,
and non-governmental organizations will need to work in partnership
to identify and develop practical projects aimed at addressing
the small arms problem. Finally, the quick and effective disbursement
of financial support by donor governments will be essential
if the positive developments now underway are to result in
a tangible reduction in the threat posed by small arms proliferation
in Southern Africa.
Lessons for UN 2001
When considering ways in which the regional can inform the
international, there are several aspects of the Southern African
approach which merit particular attention. Those aspects of
Southern African efforts outlined above - the commitment shown
by the Southern African region, the developing synergy between
political and operational agencies, and the experience of
developing strategic partnerships with other regions and actors
- set a positive example. Beyond this, there are particular
aspects of the Action Programme approach which could usefully
inform and shape the processes and outcomes of the UN 2001
Conference.
A broad approach. The broad approach which
underpins the Action Programme is one of the most important
aspects of the agreement. The focus on both measures to stop
illicit trafficking and to strengthen legal controls represents
a clear acceptance of the links between the legal and the
illicit. Furthermore, the Action Programme also recognises
the importance of domestic regulation of firearms ownership
to the effectiveness of efforts to reduce violent crime and
prevent conflict. As such, the broad approach embodied in
the Southern Africa Action Programme could provide a useful
model for the UN 2001 Conference.
Practical focus. The way in which the Southern
Africa Action Programme addresses the issues relating to small
arms and illicit trafficking could be useful in the context
of the developing UN 2001 agenda. The key themes of the Action
Programme are elaborated in terms of clusters of issues, many
of which have a practical focus. For example, the complex
issue of combating illicit trafficking is broken down as follows:
strengthening laws and regulations; strengthening operational
capacity; improving systems to trace illicit arms flows; and
improving information exchange. Each of these areas is in
turn elaborated to specify steps that could be taken in terms
of implementation. Such an elaboration of principles and norms
in terms of practical action should be a significant part
of the UN 2001 conclusions.
Encourages external support. Furthermore, the
practical orientation of the Action Programme also facilitates
and encourages the engagement of and support from the donor
community. For example, strengthening the capacity of the
police, customs and other operational agencies to tackle illicit
trafficking was identified as a priority across the SADC region,
while technical and financial assistance and training were
seen as potentially valuable areas for external support. Exploring
the development of and support for practical initiatives is
one way of ensuring that the UN 2001 Conference actually makes
a difference on the ground in regions affected by small arms.
Promoting inter-regional co-operation to tackle small
arms. In the context of the Southern Africa Action
Programme, the EU-SADC partnership represents an important
model in the context of global action to tackle small arms.
Since those regions that are afflicted by the proliferation
of small arms often have a paucity of resources that could
be directed towards addressing the problem, external assistance
can provide a much needed boost. It will be crucial, then,
for the UN 2001 Conference to ensure that adequate funds are
made available for the implementation of initiatives at the
regional level.
The important role of NGOs and civil society.
Lessons can also be drawn from the role of NGOs and civil
society in the recent progress on small arms in Southern Africa.
Initially, Saferworld and the Institute for Security Studies
played an important facilitating role in the development of
the Action Programme and in building widespread support for
the initiative. However, the conception of initiatives and
practical projects on small arms involved other civil society
organizations from the Southern African region. The period
since the development of the Action Programme has witnessed
a steadily growing recognition in political circles of the
constructive role that civil society can play, whether through
weapons collection initiatives or through awareness raising.
Indeed, the SADC small arms working group has explicitly acknowledged
the role of civil society in the development and implementation
of policies to address small arms, thereby guaranteeing future
co-operation on this issue.
A useful approach for UN 2001
In conclusion, there are many aspects of the Southern African
experience in addressing the proliferation and misuse of small
arms that could provide a valuable guide for the UN 2001 Conference.
At the same time, the UN 2001 process can also support the
development and implementation of the Southern Africa Action
Programme by pledging financial and technical assistance for
implementing a range of practical projects aimed at controlling
or reducing small arms transfers and availability. In this
regard, the Conference should urge UN Member States to support
not only those projects with a proven track record, but to
take a more innovative approach supporting new projects with
a clear potential.
4.7 Taking forward the Action Programme
model in the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa
Background
Despite the fact that, in recent years, many countries within
the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa have suffered from
violent conflict and instability, action to stem the proliferation
of small arms has lagged behind regions such as Southern Africa
and West Africa. However, in recent months, a range of initiatives
have developed which offer the prospect of comprehensive and
practical action in this region.
High level political commitment
From 12-15 March 2000, the Kenyan government sponsored a mayor
conference entitled, The Great Lakes Region and the
Horn of Africa Conference on the Proliferations
of Small Arms and Light Weapons from which emerged the
"Nairobi Declaration",5 signed by the foreign
ministers of 10 regional governments. The Nairobi Declaration
is significant for three main reasons. Firstly it embraces
both a broad understanding of the nature of the problem of
small arms and articulates the need for a comprehensive response.
Secondly, it represents an acknowledgement of the need for
action on small arms at the highest level. Thirdly, it brings
together a group of countries which, with the exception of
their links through Interpol, together had no prior form of
political affiliation or organization. As such, the Nairobi
Declaration greatly enhances the prospects for co-ordinated
action to implement a comprehensive approach, it adds weight
to those initiatives that are developing on the ground - through
operational agencies and NGOs, and it increases the capacity
of countries in the Great Lakes and the Horn Of Africa to
shape the negotiations and outcomes of the UN 2001 Conference.
Police co-operation providing impetus
In parallel to the process leading to the articulation of
high level political will, the development of EAPCCO (the
Eastern African Police Chiefs Committee) as a major regional
actor has enhanced possibilities for action on the ground
to address small arms. Since progress of the operational track
was significant in generating impetus on small arms in Southern
Africa, the involvement of police forces in the Greater Horn
holds out prospects for similar progress. Moreover, with increasing
interest in tackling small arms being shown by sub-regional
political bodies - including the East Africa Co-operation
and IGAD - sustained political commitment can be generated.
The Action Programme as a platform for practical action
In terms of practical approaches, the most important development
to date has been the emergence of a Draft Regional Action
Programme to Combat Small Arms Proliferation in East Africa
and the Greater Horn, which emerged from a meeting of
senior police officers and officials from sub-regional intergovernmental
organizations hosted by four non-governmental agencies6
on 31 January and 1 February, 2000. In order to build wider
support for the draft Action Programme, it was subsequently
presented to a number of meetings and conferences in the region,
including the East African Police Chiefs Conference and the
Kenyan government conference. One difference in the orientation
of the East Africa and Greater Horn Action Programme, when
compared with the earlier developments in Southern Africa,
is that it explicitly provides for the enhancement of sub-regional
institutions to facilitate implementation of measures to tackle
small arms. In this way, it is hoped that this focus will
help concentrate regional efforts and external assistance
towards concrete and practical projects that have a significant
impact on the levels of small arms in circulation in the Great
Lakes and Horn of Africa.
Support from civil society
The recent encouraging developments at political and operational
levels are likely to be given further impetus and support
from an increasingly active network of civil society organizations
which are forming the Eastern Africa network of the International
Action Network on Small Arms. Following the Nairobi Declaration
of March 2000, a seminar was hosted by the International Resource
Group which brought together a wide range of non-governmental
perspectives including representatives from professional NGOs,
church and community groups and from business. The purpose
was to discuss the issue of small arms proliferation in the
Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa and a great deal of enthusiasm
was generated for practically oriented initiatives such as
the Action Programme.
Conclusion
Having identified the problem and having developed a comprehensive
framework for action on small arms, the major challenge facing
the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa is now the implementation
of existing agreements and commitments, and finding the resources
that will be required to assist in this process in the short,
medium and long term. With increasing interest in the small
arms issue at all levels, including between civil society,
police, national governments and sub-regional political organisations,
progress looks set to continue at a steady pace. It is thus
to be hoped that developments in the UN 2001 context will
support the efforts to develop and implement the comprehensive
approach which is developing in East Africa and the Greater
Horn, and will, at the same time, take on board the concerns
and priorities which are being raised by civil society.
Continue to Section 5
Back to UN 2001 links
Back to Small Arms
and Light Weapons page
|
