Peace, Security and Disarmament
 

In a globalised world the issues of peace and security are inextricably linked with one another. Events like the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks dramatically show that the security of the developed world cannot be dealt with traditional hard power methods without also tackling the development needs of poorer countries. We live in an interdependent world where the security agenda cannot be categorised into previous modes of thinking- namely, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ threats. The problems of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be adequately solved without dealing with the phenomena of the failure of states often leading to major regional instability and conflicts, and a whole range of issues which have not traditionally been considered as part of the peace and security nexus at all – poverty, environmental degradation, pandemic diseases and the spread of organised crime – to mention the most prominent.

The new security debate triggered by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 requires the main players of the international community to invest a political will to finding multilateral solutions to these global threats. Heightened awareness of the deadly threats facing even the most advanced societies is creating a new sense of global community, and these challenges require a collective response through international organisations like the United Nations. The Report of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change is a document which provides specific recommendations as to how the security framework can be better adapted to the 21st century. These recommendations compliment the findings of the UN Report Investing in Development, which outlines a programme of action for the completion of the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015.  

The issue of nuclear proliferation represents one of the more marked illustrations of the perils of globalisation. The advent of nuclear weapons and their unprecedented capacity for wreaking destruction across territorial boundaries has transformed the globe. Although only five states (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are acknowledged by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as possessing nuclear weapons, others have the capability to construct nuclear devices and deliver them, if necessary, by increasingly sophisticated means. This latter aspect was emphasised in May 1998 when India and Pakistan demonstrated their respective capabilities by conducting a series of nuclear tests followed by ballistic missile launches.  

To learn more about Disarmament, click here.  





 

Small Arms and Light Weapons

Another aspect which imperils the peace of the world as been the global arms trade, currently standing at over USD $800 billion. Today most wars are fought within states, either between governments and non-state actors . In these conflicts, rebel groups, militias, and insurgents seriously threaten not just the national security of states, but also the human security of millions of people.

Armed groups possess just a small proportion of the world’s total small arms stockpile, although estimates are highly speculative. They obtain weapons through three primary channels: importation, domestic procurement, and local production. According to the available evidence, foreign state sponsorship is the most significant source for most armed non-state actors, while domestic procurement, for example from poorly guarded armouries and corrupt security forces, is important for groups with few resources and limited international connections. Indigenous production is widespread and in some cases quite sophisticated. However, while many groups service their own weapons and some produce homemade or ‘craft’ weapons, most active armed groups prefer modern, commercially manufactured firearms.

Although armed groups hold just a fraction of the world’s total small arms, they are responsible for a disproportionate number of negative impacts. These include large numbers of deaths and injuries, and serious human rights abuses, including the murder of civilians, torture, rape and plunder. Internal armed conflict is also a driver of mass displacement, both within states and across national boundaries. According to one study, armed rebel groups accounted for more than half the world’s new displacement during 2003. Groups increasingly use refugee camps as bases and sites for coerced recruitment, including the recruitment of child soldiers.

Armed groups also present serious challenges in post-conflict settings. Weapons collection, disarmament and demobilization efforts are all complicated by the loosely structured nature of many non-state armed groups. Command and control structures are often opaque, combatants are often not recognizable, not always wearing uniforms and weapons stocks are rarely centralized or recorded. These factors complicate DD&R processes, making it hard to identify combatants and creating logistical challenges for the collection of weapons.

Much greater research about the holdings and use of small arms by armed groups is needed. However, we conclude that by offering some initial policy recommendations designed to address both supply-side and misuse of small arms by non-state armed groups:

• Confront unscrupulous brokers and arms dealers. Brokers play a critical facilitating role in the supply of arms to non-state actors. Improving regulation of brokering could either be at the national level (for example through the adoption of extra-territorial legislation by states) or through the development of an international regime. Just as importantly, states must end the impunity with which many ‘sanctions busters’ operate and ensure that brokers who violate national laws and international embargoes are prosecuted and punished.

• Enforce UN arms embargoes. Recent reports of panels of experts on Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Angola reveal just how easy it has been to circumvent these measures. The international community needs to do more to police sanctions regimes and punish states and individuals who violate embargoes. It is also important to build the capacity within the UN to better monitor sanctions.

• Outlaw arms transfers to non-state actors known to commit egregious

human rights violations. While there is no international consensus in support of a blanket ban on transfers to non-state actors, efforts should be made to develop criteria that prohibit transfers to actors who are known to commit humanitarian abuses.

• Support efforts to inform armed groups of their obligations and responsibilities.
Most armed groups lack awareness of their obligations under international humanitarian law. Greater support should be provided to organizations such as the ICRC that engage armed groups before and during conflicts to disseminate information about their responsibilities under IHL.

• Hold accountable the leaders of groups that target civilians and commit atrocities.
Armed groups have been responsible for many heinous crimes committed against civilians. While there can be tensions between seeking peace and holding accountable leaders who commit war crimes, wherever possible, the worst violators of IHL and human rights norms should face justice.

• Provide support for humanitarian actors that engage with armed groups.

Even though the UN Secretary-General has repeatedly called for measures to address “all parties” in armed conflicts, many states remain reluctant to place the general question of non-state actors on the UN’s agenda. The ‘war on terror’ has made engaging directly with armed groups even more difficult. If the international community is serious about protecting civilians in situations of conflict, it needs to ensure that agencies and organizations that engage with armed groups on a daily basis to provide aid, demobilize child soldiers and seek peaceful resolution of conflicts have the resources and political support they need to be effective.

• Consider creating a mechanism through which armed groups can express their willingness to be bound by international law and humanitarian norms.

Currently, there is no international body or institution through which non-state actors can formally acknowledge international norms, including those on small arms and light weapons. The small arms community could build on the experience of groups seeking to extend the on ban landmine use, or promote principles regarding the treatment of IDPs among non-state actors.