Morality of Arms Trade

Saferworld, a London-based, independent organization that specializes in foreign-policy and arms-trade issues, recently issued a report on a number of European companies and individual businessmen actively involved in illegal arms sales to African countries. The report seemed aimed at influencing public opinion in support of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's fresh initiative to introduce into the EU arms market a new code of ethics. The code Blair proposes could be effective, but only if all major arms exporters adhere to it. Russia and China, not to mention Ukraine and Belarus, which are trading Russian military hardware semi-clandestinely, however, are highly unlikely to do so.


But they are not alone in opposing such strictures. Arms manufacturers and businessmen from Western Europe have been reluctant to accept that moral standards should apply to their trade. And the Saferworld report for 1997 argues that the flow of illegal arms into Africa comes above all from Europe.


"An overwhelming number of arms-trading deals in Africa are illegal. They are carried out primarily through European sea ports by commercial companies and individual businessmen fromEuropean countries, mainly France, Belgium and England," the Saferworld report says.


From 1990 to 1997, Saferworld experts brought to light 40 illegal arms sales to developing countries, including Rwanda, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda and former Zaire. Belgian companies, for example, sold two shipments of surface-to-air missiles and several aircraft to Sudan in violation of the UN arms embargo against that country. And last April, several French Caravelle planes were sold to Zaire.


"The illegal arms business is flourishing first of all because of weak state control over arms sales and, secondly, because of legislative gaps among European countries," said Saferworld director Paul Ivis. For him, the biggest danger is that "these traders are dumping arms into the most unstable African states." Thus, Ivis is convinced that European countries must take urgent measures to stop the illegal arms trade. Above all, legal control over arms exports must be tightened.


The British government is preparing to set an example for the rest of Europe by tightening its own laws. But Blair does not intend to stop there. Just a few months ago, he stated that while Britain has the EU chairmanship, he will promote a European convention based on the British government-sponsored code of ethics on the conduct of arms sales. Blair is hoping to use the initiative to introduce certain moral principles into international arms trade. Signatories to the agreement will be obligated to avoid sales to foreign states that might use the arms for internal repression or foreign aggression.


Paris has already expressed its support for the British initiative. "The French government is looking with interest into the possibility of adopting 'rules of conduct' for arms trading both at an all-European level and a UN level," French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin said.


Over the past few months, there has been persistent talk among Western politicians about moral criteria for the arms trade. Several developing countries have turned to other sources to fill their arsenals -- above all, Russia, China and North Korea -- in the wake of condemnations by the West of their human rights situation. Following intense criticism in the U.S. Congress of Jakarta's repressive policies in Eastern Timor, for example, Indonesia made a large purchase of Russian aircraft -- Su-30 fighter planes and MI-17-V helicopters -- instead of U.S. F-16 and British Hawks. After Nigeria had been put on a black list by London and Washington, the country announced its intention to buy arms from Beijing and Pyongyang.


The United States was first to advance the idea of a code of ethics for the arms trade. But because the document encompasses European activities, it was drawn up in London. Labour has always been more favorably disposed to the idea than the pragmatic Tories.


As for the United States, the world's largest arms manufacturer and exporter, the Congress has long since placed moral unilateral self-limits on American exporters. One such example is the U.S. State Department's weekly revised blacklist of states known to sponsor international terrorism. The shipment of U.S. arms to such countries is prohibited under any circumstances. Included among these countries are large consumers of weapons such as Syria, Iran and, for a long time, Pakistan.


The geographical and market niches that have been abandoned by the Americans have been eagerly taken up by less discriminate sellers, above all Russia, France and Israel, which could not but provoke protests on the part of U.S. arms manufacturers and dealers.


These concerns are shared by British and other European weapons producers, which are losing out to Russia, China and North Korea in the competition for Asian markets. They have begun to lobby their governments either to make the moral criteria for arms sales apply universally through the United Nations so that Russia, China and North Korea would also abide by them, or to reject them altogether.


As he prepares to advance his initiative throughout the European Union, Blair, apparently, is hoping that a code of ethics for arms sales will become international in nature over time. But as the Saferworld report shows, given the high profits involved, this business is unlikely to be seriously regulated by an ethical code any time soon.


Alexander Shumilin is a staff writer for Kommersant Daily. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.