View previous stories
	Mobilising against the illicit arms trade by ICRC, Amnesty, Reliefweb & agencies   3 July 2012   Ten years ago, tens of thousands of Kalashnikov assault rifles were transported into the West African country of Liberia. It was a violation of the UN arms embargo. The weapons were used by forces loyal to Charles Taylor to commit the most terrible crimes.   Boys, some as young as 11, were handed these weapons and told to kill. In the farms and villages of places such as Bong County on the border with Guinea, these Kalashnikovs became weapons of massive destruction. The resulting civil war killed a quarter of a million people.   Today around the world there are an estimated 50 to 70 million Kalashnikov rifles. Originally produced as the AK-47 after the Second World War, it is now the iconic weapon of global insurgency, gang warfare and terrorism.   The AK-47 is a simple weapon, which is why it can be easily used by children. Reliable, accurate and deadly, it can fire 600 rounds a minute. Ammunition is cheap and readily available.   They are illegally and irresponsibly bought and sold, smuggled and bartered, in black markets for a quick profit.   July 2012   Arms Trade Treaty: arms and ammunition are not just another form of commercial goods. (ICRC)   Statement Statement by Christine Beerli, Vice-President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, United Nations Diplomatic Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty.   The work you do here this month will affect the lives, health and well being of tens of millions of people around the world for decades to come. A strong Arms Trade Treaty is crucial for protecting civilians as well as medical and humanitarian workers assisting those who are most vulnerable. An effective Arms Trade Treaty is an essential tool for ensuring that international humanitarian law is respected by all parties to armed conflicts.   In many parts of the world, weapons are far too easy to obtain and armed violence is pervasive: this situation is created and sustained by the inadequately regulated international trade in conventional arms. In 1999, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published a study conducted at the request of States party to the Geneva Conventions. It showed that in many contexts where weapons are widely available, civilians face similar risks of being wounded or killed in weapons-related violence after an armed conflict has ended as during it. Last year, an ICRC study titled Health Care in Danger, which was based on data from 16 countries in which the organization works, revealed that armed attacks on health-care facilities and personnel, and on ambulances and people seeking health care should be a global concern.   In most of the countries in which it works, the ICRC is witness to the effects of inadequate control over transfers of conventional weapons. Tens of thousands of victims receive ICRC medical support. Those who have been disabled are treated either in our rehabilitation centres or in those that we support. But all too often, assistance for the sick and wounded is simply not available because humanitarian operations have been suspended or delayed owing to armed attacks and armed security threats.   The ICRC study, Health Care in Danger, drew attention to the indirect consequences of armed attacks on health infrastructure and personnel. Following a single attack on a hospital 2,000 persons in need suffered a dramatic reduction in surgical care for years. In one of the poorest countries on earth, an estimated 150,000 medical consultations per year will not take place as a result of the killing of two doctors and 15 medical students at a graduation ceremony. In another country ravaged by armed violence, 628 health-care professionals had been killed and 18,000 doctors had fled, with catastrophic consequences for the health system.   As long as weapons are too easily available, they will be misused, lives lost, serious violations of humanitarian law committed, and medical and humanitarian assistance endangered.   The negotiation of an Arms Trade Treaty is an historic opportunity. For the first time since the establishment of the United Nations, governments have an opportunity – and thus a responsibility – to put in place international standards for the transfer of conventional weapons. One of the most important objectives of the Arms Trade Treaty must be to reduce the human cost of the availability of weapons. It must do so by setting clear rules for transferring conventional arms, as States have done for other dangerous materials, including hazardous chemicals, toxic waste and narcotic drugs.   At three International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent since 2003, States party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have recognized that their obligation "to ensure respect" for humanitarian law entails a responsibility to ensure that the arms and ammunition they transfer do not end up in the hands of those who may be expected to use them in violation of the law. The Arms Trade Treaty should require States to assess the likelihood that serious violations of humanitarian law will be committed with the weapons being transferred. The treaty should prohibit transfers when there is a clear risk of that happening.   In this regard, it is important to emphasize that serious violations of humanitarian law are well defined. They include "grave breaches" – as defined in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocol I of 1977 – and "war crimes," as defined in Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.   Conventional weapons of every kind can be used to commit serious violations of humanitarian law and international human rights law. The treaty should therefore cover all such weapons. It is equally important that the treaty cover ammunition, which is the “fuel” of weapons-related violence. There are already massive numbers of weapons in circulation, but their impact depends on a constant supply of ammunition. To be truly effective, the Arms Trade Treaty must apply the same criteria to ammunition transfers that it does to transfers of weapons.   The end of the Cold War and the exponential increase in international trade in recent decades have had many benefits. But they have also facilitated the flow of conventional weapons throughout the world, with appalling consequences for civilians and their communities. Arms and ammunition must never be regarded as just another form of commercial goods. It is now time for governments to renew their commitment to the Geneva Conventions, to international human rights law and to the rule of law in general, by establishing strict and universal rules for international transfers of conventional weapons.   Key Principles for the Arms Trade Treaty. (Amnesty International)   The ATT must aave clear humanitarian and human rights goals The purpose of the ATT is to prevent international transfers of conventional arms that contribute to or facilitate human suffering by establishing the highest possible common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. Such standards should assist the prevention of illicit trafficking and enhance peace and security, socio-economic development and respect for international law, especially international human rights and humanitarian law.   * Access the report: http://reliefweb.int/node/507665   Guns out of control, by Robert Kennedy.   In October 2008, Congolese rebels launched a killing spree in the town of Kiwanja that left 150 people dead. The guerrillas went house-to-house grabbing young men, dragging them outside, and shooting them in the face and chest.   Helping them in the massacre were arms that the rebels had looted from a military depot in the town of Rumangabo a few days earlier. The depot was loaded with small arms imported to the Democratic Republic of Congo from China.   But it wasn"t the first time that the depot had been looted.   "I"ve taken Rumangabo two times," guerrilla leader Laurent Nkunda told Amnesty International shortly after the 2008 attack. "We can"t even count the number of weapons we captured at Rumangabo, there were so many.   "After the first time, the FARDC [Congolese military] filled it up again with arms of all calibres… It"s the government that gave them to me. I would like to say thank you to China, for giving the FARDC all these weapons," Nkunda said.   But Nkunda"s apparent glee over the easy availability of small arms is cause for deep despair among many others.   The world is awash in "small arms". But unlike chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry, there are no global treaties restricting conventional weapon transfers. Wanton violence against civilians is fuelled by the trade, non-government organisations say, and hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year by such arms.   Now, after 15 years of NGO advocacy and global negotiations, United Nations member states are meeting in New York to hammer out a first-of-its-kind global Arms Trade Treaty.   Many believe the treaty will quell human rights abuses facilitated by the power of the gun. But it remains to be seen whether a deal can come to fruition and - if a treaty is finalised - how effective it will be.   "There is always a chance that it will fail and we will have nothing," the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs told Al Jazeera.   Most agree global rules governing the trade are necessary. Only 52 governments around the world have laws regulating arms brokers - less than half of those impose criminal or monetary penalties for illegally trading weapons.   The UN estimates the repercussions from armed violence worldwide totals $400bn annually. "Without adequate regulation of international arms transfers and high common standards to guide national export decisions, the human tolls and financial costs will remain colossal," the UN said.   Big business   About 75 per cent of the global trade in conventional weapons is controlled by the five permanent United Nations Security Council members: the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom.   There is a surge in the sales of weapons. The volume of worldwide arms transfers from 2007-11 was 24 per cent higher than during 2002-06, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.   Amnesty said the main goal of negotiations is to create a treaty that requires states "to undertake a rigorous case-by-case risk assessment of each proposed arms transfer". Signatory countries will have to scrutinise who will ultimately use the weapons and for what purpose. If a chance exists that the arms could be used to commit human rights violations, a deal doesn"t get done.   Civil society groups want nations held accountable through legally binding rules. Countries that sign the treaty must pass domestic laws to ensure their weapons companies abide by the treaty. That, some observers say, could derail a global agreement.   "The Arms Trade Treaty won"t stop all illicit arms transfers, but it has the potential to significantly and positively change behaviour by requiring states to put in place basic regulations and follow common sense criteria that reduce irresponsible arms transfers and hold arms suppliers more accountable for their actions," Daryl Kimball of the US-based Arms Control Association wrote in an e-mail.   Opposition to the treaty in the United States is led by the powerful National Rifle Association, which sees the treaty as a threat to Americans Second Amendment right to bear arms. But proponents say it will have no impact on a country"s internal gun sales.   "The US government already controls the export and import of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition," said Kimball. "It is in the interest of the United States to ensure that other states are required to follow similar practices."   Lurcrative trade   Some advocates worry that the lucrativeness of the arms trade may impede progress towards a treaty. The US is by far the preeminent dealer of conventional weaponry. From 2000-08, the US sold arms worth $166bn. Russia, the second largest supplier, sold weapons for $74bn during the same period, according to a Congressional Research Service study.   The UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) says its the weapons industry that needs to be abolished outright.   "CAAT believes that treaty will have little impact in stopping the flow of weapons, or preventing the devastating impact of the arms trade," Kaye Stearman told Al Jazeera. "CAAT believes that there is no such thing as a responsible arms trade and that the ATT will add greater legitimacy to the existing arms trade."   Proponents argue, however, that even without strong enforcement mechanisms, a treaty will force nations and the arms industry to think about the consequences before selling weapons - which ultimately could save people"s lives.   The easy flow of the Kalashnikov assault rifle (also known as an AK-47) is a prime example of light weapons used to commit human rights violations that a stringent treaty could curb, civil society groups say.   Between 50 million and 70 million AK-47s are in the hands of soldiers, rebels, terrorists and criminals around the globe. An Oxfam report titled "The AK-47: The World"s Favourite Killing Machine" notes the spread of the Kalashnikov goes largely unchecked by governments, "threatening the lives and safety of millions as weapons fall into irresponsible hands".   "The proliferation of, and ease of access to AK-47 and similar assault rifles around the world, more than any other small arm or light weapon, continues to result in mass suffering, with no end in sight," the report said.   Factfile: Weapons   875 million: Number of small weapons such as revolvers, assault rifles and sub-machine guns in circulation, according to the Small Arms Survey   300,000: Estimated number of people who die in violent conflict each year - 90 per cent of whom are killed by small arms fire, according to the UN   US$3.4bn: Value of arms bought between 2000 and 2010 by countries subject to arms embargoes   US$400bn: The cost of armed violence worldwide each year, according to the UN   US$17bn: Cost of conflicts fuelled by imported weapons in Africa in 2007 alone- almost the same as it received in foreign aid. Visit the related web page
	Healthcare in the crossfire by Integrated Regional Information Networks   May 2012 (IRIN)   As Mohammed Mohammedi lay trapped in the car with his co-worker, pinned down by heavy gunfire, they promised each other that whoever made it out alive would tell the other’s family. Now, 12 years after he was captured and beaten by militias in Somalia while carrying out a polio vaccination campaign, he realizes this was a “futile promise”.   “If you ask someone at WHO [World Health Organization], ‘What is the extent of the problem?’ [of attacks on health facilities and workers],” said Rudi Coninx, with the Emergency Risk Management and Humanitarian Response team at WHO. “If they were honest they would say, "I don’t know" as nobody collects these data in a systematic way."   Mohammedi said he was released after clans who knew the polio vaccination health staff paid the militias. If he or his co-worker had died, there was no international mechanism, then or now, to record that he had been hurt while doing his job as a health worker.   “One of the first victims of war is the healthcare system itself,” wrote Marco Baldan, the chief war surgeon at the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in an August 2011 agency report, which noted that violence against healthcare is “one of the most crucial yet overlooked humanitarian issues of today".   Less than one year after launching this report, and a campaign to document and rein in violence against healthcare facilities and workers, the agency suspended its work in Pakistan after one of its programme managers was kidnapped and killed while travelling home in an ICRC vehicle.   Mohammedi, a WHO polio operation and technical officer now working in Pakistan, told IRIN that regardless of the precautions, humanitarians always face danger. “An agreement with the war-lords, clan, [or] military leader is the best valid agreement, though even that is not a 100 percent guarantee of a person’s safety.”   Fighting often hampers access for health workers in two of the four countries where polio is still endemic - Pakistan and Afghanistan.   Despite international conventions in place to protect health facilities, workers and marked vehicles, as long as they maintain a “neutral function and treat all patients equally, irrespective of political, religious or ethnic affiliation”, the Geneva Convention carries little authority with militias, said Mohammedi.   “Free access is not and will never be possible if the agreements are made by people sitting around a table outside of conflict areas. The militias have a different way of thinking - the only agreement for a militia at war is to kill… For the militia, a prisoner of war is still the enemy.”   The Geneva Convention forms a major part of negotiating access for the medical humanitarian NGO, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), but it is difficult when “non-state actors” never agreed to it in the first place, said Michiel Hoffman, a Brussels-based operational advisor to MSF.   Somalia is the only country where MSF is forced to use private guards to protect its health facilities, which is not ideal, but necessary, Hoffman told IRIN. “It is hard to provide healthcare when there is a general disregard for everyone’s lives,” he said. “To have any weapons near a health structure makes them the target of conflict.”   Health facilities have become even more vulnerable as soldiers increasingly enter hospitals to “settle scores”, said Robin Coupland, an ICRC medical advisor, in a January 2012 WHO bulletin.   From a review of internal and public sources, ICRC documented 655 violent events affecting healthcare in 16 countries in conflict from 1 July 2008 to December 2010, of which 41 percent were reported only in internal agency reports.   Documenting the extent of the problem is the first step to start doing something about it, said Coninx.   The “compounded cost” of violence on healthcare, such as healthcare staff fleeing, inventory stock-outs and curtailed vaccination campaigns are also hard to measure, ICRC noted.   On 21 January 2012, WHO’s executive board passed a resolution committing the agency to collecting and distributing data on attacks on health workers, facilities, vehicles and patients in the next two years.
	View more stories