Full Version: Weapons & Arms Sales to foreign countries
I have been wondering for some time in what ways the number of conflicts in underdeveloped countries can be reduced.
For that matter, many regional conflicts in Africa are fueled by the availability of small arms.
source
The UN yearbook on small arms does not have statistics about the number of deaths by small arms, however it does explain in what way small arms intensify small conflicts.
The main victims of such weapons are civilians.
source
and:
source (2.2 MB)
Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.
I have my doubts about this line of argument. Therefore:
Questions for debate:
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
For that matter, many regional conflicts in Africa are fueled by the availability of small arms.
QUOTE
Small arms and light weapons fuel civil wars and other conflicts, causing harm to millions of people, particularly in Africa. These small weapons are only part of a larger trade that includes heavier and more lethal weaponry, but light arms are often especially baneful because they are cheap, easy to transport and can be handled by ill-trained rebel soldiers and even children. Recent UN reports show how these weapons are illicitly exported, transported with the connivance of government officials in many countries and smuggled into war zones. In some areas, automatic weapons are so cheap they can be bought in exchange for a chicken or a few pounds of rice.
source
The UN yearbook on small arms does not have statistics about the number of deaths by small arms, however it does explain in what way small arms intensify small conflicts.
The main victims of such weapons are civilians.
QUOTE
"Small arms are easy to buy: in some places, an AK-47 assault rifle can be bought for as little as $15, or even for a bag of grain. They are easy to use: with minimal training, even a child can wield one. They are easy to conceal and transport. Since they require little maintenance, they can last for decades. They cause big losses: the Inter-American Development Bank has estimated the direct and indirect costs of small arms violence at $140 to $170 billion per year in Latin America alone. Most of all, they are deadly. According to the independent Small Arms Survey 2001, small arms are implicated in well over 1,000 deaths every single day, the vast majority of them women and children. "
source
QUOTE
"Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1996-2003, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 63.9% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations constituted 60.4% of all such agreements globally from 2000-2003, and 53.6% of these agreements in 2003.
and:
QUOTE
In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with over $6.2 billion or 45.4% of these agreements. Russia was second with $3.9 billion or 23.4% of such agreements. In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $6.3 billion, or 37.1% of all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $4 billion or 23.5% of such deliveries. Russia ranked third at $3.3 billion or 19.4% of such deliveries.
source (2.2 MB)
QUOTE
"No one but a criminal would knowingly sell a gun to a murderer, yet governments can sell weapons to regimes with a history of human rights violations or to countries where weapons will go to war criminals."
Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jan 18 2006, 01:51 PM)
We supplied the arms in a noble effort [to help fight communism, added by editor], what they do afterwards is not our fault.
I have my doubts about this line of argument. Therefore:
Questions for debate:
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
QUOTE(Sevac @ Jan 18 2006, 08:36 PM)
I have been wondering for some time in what ways the number of conflicts in underdeveloped countries can be reduced.
For that matter, many regional conflicts in Africa are fueled by the availability of small arms.
source
The UN yearbook on small arms does not have statistics about the number of deaths by small arms, however it does explain in what way small arms intensify small conflicts.
The main victims of such weapons are civilians.
source
and:
source (2.2 MB)
Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.
I have my doubts about this line of argument. Therefore:
Questions for debate:
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
For that matter, many regional conflicts in Africa are fueled by the availability of small arms.
QUOTE
Small arms and light weapons fuel civil wars and other conflicts, causing harm to millions of people, particularly in Africa. These small weapons are only part of a larger trade that includes heavier and more lethal weaponry, but light arms are often especially baneful because they are cheap, easy to transport and can be handled by ill-trained rebel soldiers and even children. Recent UN reports show how these weapons are illicitly exported, transported with the connivance of government officials in many countries and smuggled into war zones. In some areas, automatic weapons are so cheap they can be bought in exchange for a chicken or a few pounds of rice.
source
The UN yearbook on small arms does not have statistics about the number of deaths by small arms, however it does explain in what way small arms intensify small conflicts.
The main victims of such weapons are civilians.
QUOTE
"Small arms are easy to buy: in some places, an AK-47 assault rifle can be bought for as little as $15, or even for a bag of grain. They are easy to use: with minimal training, even a child can wield one. They are easy to conceal and transport. Since they require little maintenance, they can last for decades. They cause big losses: the Inter-American Development Bank has estimated the direct and indirect costs of small arms violence at $140 to $170 billion per year in Latin America alone. Most of all, they are deadly. According to the independent Small Arms Survey 2001, small arms are implicated in well over 1,000 deaths every single day, the vast majority of them women and children. "
source
QUOTE
"Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers. During the years 1996-2003, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 63.9% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations constituted 60.4% of all such agreements globally from 2000-2003, and 53.6% of these agreements in 2003.
and:
QUOTE
In 2003, the United States ranked first in arms transfer agreements with developing nations with over $6.2 billion or 45.4% of these agreements. Russia was second with $3.9 billion or 23.4% of such agreements. In 2003, the United States ranked first in the value of arms deliveries to developing nations at $6.3 billion, or 37.1% of all such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked second at $4 billion or 23.5% of such deliveries. Russia ranked third at $3.3 billion or 19.4% of such deliveries.
source (2.2 MB)
QUOTE
"No one but a criminal would knowingly sell a gun to a murderer, yet governments can sell weapons to regimes with a history of human rights violations or to countries where weapons will go to war criminals."
Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jan 18 2006, 01:51 PM)
We supplied the arms in a noble effort [to help fight communism, added by editor], what they do afterwards is not our fault.
I have my doubts about this line of argument. Therefore:
Questions for debate:
QUOTE
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
Okay, first of all, my quote had nothing to do with international arms sales. The context was this-the U.S. armed various nations and guerilla movements throughout the world to stem the tide of communism. Giving arms to various militiaries around the globe in that context, is a lot different than putting on an arms show, inviting in arms dealers and military leaders of other nations, and try to sell them our wares. The former is done with planning and aide in mind for a specific purpose. The latter is purely for profit motive alone. By no means was I endorsing military trade, but rather, the arming of peoples who otherwise unarmed, would've been under the oppressive totalitarian rule of communist dictatorships.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jan 19 2006, 06:39 AM)
Okay, first of all, my quote had nothing to do with international arms sales. The context was this-the U.S. armed various nations and guerilla movements throughout the world to stem the tide of communism. Giving arms to various militiaries around the globe in that context, is a lot different than putting on an arms show, inviting in arms dealers and military leaders of other nations, and try to sell them our wares. The former is done with planning and aide in mind for a specific purpose. The latter is purely for profit motive alone. By no means was I endorsing military trade, but rather, the arming of peoples who otherwise unarmed, would've been under the oppressive totalitarian rule of communist dictatorships.
The problem is that these weapons are around a lot longer than the conflict lasts. Furthermore it helps to stabilize regimes that are totalitarian in nature. That was the reason I included your post.
However, in our times there is no such threat like the spread of a totalitarian communism. Terrorism cannot be fought by supplying countries with weapons. Therefore, the questions remain valid.
QUOTE
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Yes, in a perfect world. Unfortunately we don't live in Utopia and never will so in this flawed world of chaotic human politics its unrealistic to expect the leading arms manufacturers to cease this most profitable trade.
Also, by initiating such a law, you would be preventing democracies from defending themselves against nations which ignored the ban. Looking at Russia in its current state for example, I cannot conceive any likelihood that Russia would sign such a deal, so in the mean time, those nations which did would be subject to pressure from those nations which Russia was arming.
Currently the USA is the worlds largest manufacturer and dealer in arms. This is not a pleasant thing to contemplate and I would love to see this trade reduced to the absolute minimum. But for as long as nations like North Korea, China and Iran continue to threaten the stability and peace of the rest of the world in order to perpetuate their own crooked forms of government, then I see no other alternative but to meet pressure with pressure.
QUOTE
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
In that case, then yes. But as you say, its so unlikely to happen any time soon that it renders the question moot.edited for spelling.
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Can I rephrase this question? Should small countries who cannot afford a munitions industry be left unable to defend themselves?
What about: Since gasoline is used for tanks and other engines of war should we ban the sale of petroleum?
Guns are tools. They are used to defend and they are used to attack. The guns are not the problem, the attitude of certain people with guns is. Bad people will always find tools for harming others.
If guns became unavailable on the open market, then these small countries would all set up their own mutions industries. Which would drain resources from more needed industries, like farming or mining. Countries need to defend themselves, and they will.
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
Wasn't your assumption that governments are using these guns to suppress/kill their populations? Now only democracies can defend themselves?
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
Why don't we just raise the price to some astronomical number that only rich countries can afford. Then these countries won't have any weapons and we can simply walk in and take over!!
For that matter, so could any small militia that is covertly funded/supplied by someone else who wants to take over.
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
It would not be signed.
The fundamental concept of the nation is sovereignity and the right to defend the country. Punishing a country because they are putting themselves in a position to defend their country seems a bit harsh.
Can I rephrase this question? Should small countries who cannot afford a munitions industry be left unable to defend themselves?
What about: Since gasoline is used for tanks and other engines of war should we ban the sale of petroleum?
Guns are tools. They are used to defend and they are used to attack. The guns are not the problem, the attitude of certain people with guns is. Bad people will always find tools for harming others.
If guns became unavailable on the open market, then these small countries would all set up their own mutions industries. Which would drain resources from more needed industries, like farming or mining. Countries need to defend themselves, and they will.
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
Wasn't your assumption that governments are using these guns to suppress/kill their populations? Now only democracies can defend themselves?
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
Why don't we just raise the price to some astronomical number that only rich countries can afford. Then these countries won't have any weapons and we can simply walk in and take over!!
For that matter, so could any small militia that is covertly funded/supplied by someone else who wants to take over.In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
It would not be signed.
The fundamental concept of the nation is sovereignity and the right to defend the country. Punishing a country because they are putting themselves in a position to defend their country seems a bit harsh.
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Should, yes. Will, no.
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
No, of course not. Democratic countries don't need imports of small arms.
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
That would help if it could actually be enforced, but won't actually ever happen in practice.
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
No, because sanctions end up hurting the most innocent people. The problem is that the small arms trade is not only lucrative in a proximate sense of the immediate weapons sales, it is also lucrative in the ultimate sense of providing much-needed instability in those colonies that industrialized nations call "developing countries". A colony which develops into a country is a state that will control its own valuable natural resources, rather than allowing those resources to be owned and/or controlled by foreigners. We drive our phat SUVs and fly our business class airliners exactly because Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still largely backward nomadic societies with immensely concentrated wealth in a few large cities. What would happen if Saudi Arabia's demand for oil approached Russia's? Or the UK's? It would go from an exporter to an importer and cause an oil crisis.
We can let the rich oil Arabs drive around in their bulletproof limos, but their societies at large must remain colonial in nature for Western civilization to survive and thrive. That is the brutal, dirty nature of life in the Northern Hemisphere. Why do we let genocide rage on the African continent? Who says we let it?? We downright instigate it! Those small arms we ship off to Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, etc. ad nauseum keep the price of diamonds, oil, coffee, rubber, and just about everything else at a level that Northerner's can afford and enjoy. Imagine if Nigerians stopped shooting each other and industrialized? All of the sudden our cheap natural resources become expensive natural resources. It's cheaper to ship them guns.
As hopeless as this plight may seem, it will not last forever. But the savior will not be mere social change, any more than the civil rights movement was about mere social change. The change will be driven by technology. At some point, technology will make everything so cheap that even the worthless life of a Darfur refugee (as measured by the North) will actually be more valuable than the materials in the ground that she walks on, and there will no longer be an incentive to exploit her and her homeland like ruthless imperialists. At that point, the people who actually care, the charitable organizations, will be empowered to help, and their work will not be undone by endless civil strife. But I'm afraid that day is too far off for many living in war zones today.
It may seem heartless and ironic, but your best bet for saving those poor souls we've killed with our lucrative weapons industry is to exploit the heck out of them by buying as many consumer goods as you can. Market forces drive technology, and the more money that is available for research, the faster we progress towards the day when all humans will be set free.
Should, yes. Will, no.
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
No, of course not. Democratic countries don't need imports of small arms.
Since it is impossible to recollect all small arms that are already circulating, should question #1 include a ban of trade with ammunition with foreign countries?
That would help if it could actually be enforced, but won't actually ever happen in practice.
In the unlikely case that such a treaty would be signed, should [developing] countries which bypass the agreement be punished by ceasing foreign financial aid?
No, because sanctions end up hurting the most innocent people. The problem is that the small arms trade is not only lucrative in a proximate sense of the immediate weapons sales, it is also lucrative in the ultimate sense of providing much-needed instability in those colonies that industrialized nations call "developing countries". A colony which develops into a country is a state that will control its own valuable natural resources, rather than allowing those resources to be owned and/or controlled by foreigners. We drive our phat SUVs and fly our business class airliners exactly because Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still largely backward nomadic societies with immensely concentrated wealth in a few large cities. What would happen if Saudi Arabia's demand for oil approached Russia's? Or the UK's? It would go from an exporter to an importer and cause an oil crisis.
We can let the rich oil Arabs drive around in their bulletproof limos, but their societies at large must remain colonial in nature for Western civilization to survive and thrive. That is the brutal, dirty nature of life in the Northern Hemisphere. Why do we let genocide rage on the African continent? Who says we let it?? We downright instigate it! Those small arms we ship off to Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, etc. ad nauseum keep the price of diamonds, oil, coffee, rubber, and just about everything else at a level that Northerner's can afford and enjoy. Imagine if Nigerians stopped shooting each other and industrialized? All of the sudden our cheap natural resources become expensive natural resources. It's cheaper to ship them guns.
As hopeless as this plight may seem, it will not last forever. But the savior will not be mere social change, any more than the civil rights movement was about mere social change. The change will be driven by technology. At some point, technology will make everything so cheap that even the worthless life of a Darfur refugee (as measured by the North) will actually be more valuable than the materials in the ground that she walks on, and there will no longer be an incentive to exploit her and her homeland like ruthless imperialists. At that point, the people who actually care, the charitable organizations, will be empowered to help, and their work will not be undone by endless civil strife. But I'm afraid that day is too far off for many living in war zones today.
It may seem heartless and ironic, but your best bet for saving those poor souls we've killed with our lucrative weapons industry is to exploit the heck out of them by buying as many consumer goods as you can. Market forces drive technology, and the more money that is available for research, the faster we progress towards the day when all humans will be set free.
QUOTE(Lawnmower Man @ Mar 7 2006, 01:11 AM)
Should small arms sales or for that matter all arms sales to foreign [developing] countries be prohibited by law [e.g. treaty between leading arms supplying countries], including effective controls? [This would include commercial sales as well]
Should, yes. Will, no.
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
No, of course not. Democratic countries don't need imports of small arms.
Why not? Does being a democracy suddenly mean that your infantry can go "booga booga booga" to invaders and the invaders will turn around and leave? Every nation in the world uses small arms, including such bastions of peace as Switzerland and Sweden. Not all nations, including democratic ones, produce such arms, and in many cases doing so would not make economic sense, what with the wonders of specialization. Should, yes. Will, no.
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
No, of course not. Democratic countries don't need imports of small arms.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Mar 7 2006, 01:46 AM)
QUOTE(Lawnmower Man @ Mar 7 2006, 01:11 AM)
Should the indicator "democratic foreign country" suffice for exceptions from question #1?
No, of course not. Democratic countries don't need imports of small arms.
The "booga booga booga" defense is vastly underrated. I used it once to repel an invasion of Elbonians, but I digress... Every "democratic" nation I can think of where the term has any real meaning is more than capable of producing its own small arms. For weapons of the scale of nuclear submarines and supercarriers, specialization is most certainly an issue to consider. However, a rural town in a moderately industrialized country is more than capable of producing its own small arms of reasonable quality. The reason small arms are so profitable is exactly because they are so easy to make and require so little skill to produce. Look how old the AK-47 is and how popular it remains. It is perhaps the most numerous assault rifle, despite being 60 years old. While it is certainly true that many countries, including democratic ones, do import small arms, it is by no means because they are incapable of manufacturing them themselves. The countries that are least able to manufacture small arms are the ones most ravaged by war. Thus, instituting a blanket ban on arms transfers might inconvenience stable democracies, but I can't find any evidence to suggest that it would put them at a significant disadvantage.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.