Defending the balance

Even as the one year old Russia-Ukraine war, with its trail of disaster and humanitarian crisis, is still on, a bloody armed conflict broke out last month, between Israel and Hamas — the Palestine militant group — claiming thousands of innocent lives, including women and children, on both sides. Presently, with both parties insisting on each other’s ‘pound of flesh’, the conflict between the two nations has acquired global overtones as countries have begun taking sides. A severe humanitarian crisis has unfolded in the region, involving loss of lives, estrangement from families, destruction of homes, and shortage of food, water, and medicines.

Armed conflicts are catastrophic, for they instantly deprive civilians not only of their livelihoods but their basic human rights as well. Though there are a number of reasons for disputes, tensions get precipitated into sudden armed conflicts mainly because of the easy access to arms and lethal weapons of mass destruction; a lesser acknowledged fact. Arms trade influences global military and geopolitical trends. The industry plays a vital role in the economies of many countries, as the exports of weapons, ammunition, and other military equipment generate billions of dollars. The financial value of the global arms trade in 2020 was estimated to be at least USD 112 billion, which could be even higher in real terms. According to SIPRI’s arms transfers database of March 2023, the top five arms exporters between 2018 and 2022 were the United States (40%), Russia (16%), France (11%), China (5.2%), and Germany (4.2%), collectively contributing to 76% of the global arms exports. Even Israel itself is the 10th largest arms exporter, though its exports decreased by 39% from 2013-17 to 2018-22. The top 10 importers of US arms in 2018-22 were Saudi Arabia (19%), Japan (8.6%), Australia (8.4%), Qatar (6.7%), South Korea (6.5%), Kuwait (4.8%), the UK (4.6%), the UAE (4.4%), the Netherlands (4.4%) and Norway (4.2%). The military industrial complex (MIX) in the US, as termed by president Eisenhower, is a close knit business clique of armed forces, commerce and politics.

Ironically, it has become a new normal post-WWII that on one hand lethal arms are traded dubiously while on the other hand peace and security are promoted as ideals in international forums. Terms like ‘Arms control’ and ‘Arms limitation’ are used in place of disarmament since the UN Charter does not prohibit use of conventional arms. Peace talks were always focussed on geopolitical issues rather than on those involved in global arms trade until 2013, when finally an agreement was concluded — the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). According to UNODA, “irresponsible arms transfers can destabilize an entire region, enable violations of arms embargoes and contribute to human rights abuses. Investment is discouraged, and development disrupted in countries experiencing conflict and high levels of violence. Countries affected by conflict or pervasive crime have the most difficulty attaining internationally agreed development goals”. Though the conviction of UNODA is appreciable, even the ‘responsible’ arms trade is reportedly misused to make way for ‘illicit arms trade’. The estimated worth of ‘arms trafficking’ in 2014 was USD 1.7-3.5 billion, according to May, Channing (Transnational Crime and the Developing World (2017)). Clandestine networks involving producers, brokers, traders and government officials operate under political patronage. The arms manufacturing nations may find it difficult to explain how terrorists, extremists and militias possess latest armaments, landmines, chemical and biological weapons et al.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) 2013, has laid down robust international standards and rules to govern the trade in conventional weapons, and also provides for cooperation and assistance to develop regulatory systems. The scope includes all important armaments such as battle tanks, armed personnel carriers, artillery, fighter jets, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, small arms and light weapons. The treaty aims at reducing armed conflicts and helping to create a conducive environment for UN peacekeeping efforts, and also focuses on fostering a safer environment for humanitarian relief activities in conflict zones. The accord strictly prohibits transfer of weapons that violate UN Security Council’s embargoes or are used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Signatories are mandated to develop export-import control systems and submit reports to UNODA.

Unfortunately, the response to the treaty has been half-hearted. Though 130 nations signed the treaty, only 89 have ratified it, including the UK, France, and Germany — the biggest exporters of arms. China and Russia, among the world's leaders in weapon exports, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan were among the 23 nations that abstained from ratifying the treaty on the ground that it was weak on terrorism and non-state actors. While North Korea, Iran, and Syria voted in opposition, Armenia, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Vietnam did not vote. The US and Israel have signed the agreement but haven’t ratified yet. In short, the ATT has ended up as a failure since only 60% member countries submitted reports in 2018 while the rest refused to. Worse still, according to Amnesty International, France, the UK, and Italy, even after ratifying in 2014, continued exports to Egypt, even as the political dispensation out there was engaged in crackdown on dissent killing and torturing thousands of protesters. The UK also concluded a USD 4.7-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, in spite of a relentless bombing campaign in the Yemen Civil War since 2015 by the latter.

One of the objectives of ATT is also the implementation of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which, in other words, calls for reduction of emissions. While the arms industry and military sector contribute to around 6% of emissions, the armed conflicts fuelled by arms trade further add to it. A study (sgr.org.uk) revealed that total carbon emissions of the US military, including its military bases around the world from 2001 to 2017, was 59 million tonnes, equivalent to the total emissions of an industrialised country like Sweden. The US getting exemption for its overseas military operations from emission targets in the Kyoto agreement, is not surprising.

There is no denying that military preparedness is necessary for every free nation since self-defence is an inalienable right. Nevertheless, it is equally unjustifiable to stockpile armaments beyond genuine defence needs. And furthermore, it is a sin to transfer them to state or non-state actors for accomplishing geopolitical ambitions. The consequences are global unrest, economic slowdown and humanitarian crises that every country will have to suffer from. The paradox is that billions of dollars are spent to search for life on other planets while comparable spending is done on armaments that destroy life and civilisation on this living planet. It is time for global awakening. Respect for international laws and adherence to UN Conventions need to be reinforced. Renewed efforts are necessary to ensure compliance with the mandates of ATT by all member nations, especially by the arms exporting world powers who are expected to act earnestly rather than hide behind the rhetoric.

The writer is a former Addl. Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal