Merchants of death: in a booming business, small-arms brokers make a killing

International Economy, The, Summer, 2002 by John A. Kruger

To stamp out the illegal transport of weapons, arms control proponents propose shining a light on the legitimate weapons trade. Areas where arms are being purchased in large numbers in a state-to state transfer likely also support an illegal market for weapons. Following the legitimate trade may make it easier to identify illegal transfers, such as shipment diversions. But heightening transparency is easier said than done. Of some 95 countries that have weapons production capacities, only about two dozen provide detailed transfer reports on a regular basis. Russia and China, two of the world's largest exporters, do not.

Recent initiatives at the international level to improve reporting of arms transfers are proving to be only half-measures. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), for example, has established principles for tightening and harmonizing rules on exports and has called for greater cooperation and information sharing. Among other measures, the OSCE called for the international registration and licensing of brokers. But there is neither an all-inclusive definition of brokering, nor a discussion of transport agents or financiers.

The UN, meanwhile, has proven equally ineffective. In its Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, the international body only briefly discussed the subject of transparency. For the most part, the UN did what it does best: It issued a hand-wringing report and earnestly suggested that regional groups "develop, where appropriate and on a voluntary basis, measures to enhance transparency with a view to combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects."

"The [UN] General Assembly has delivered nothing on top of the program they discussed," says Loretta Bondi, advocacy director at the Fund for Peace, an NGO that has lobbied for an international brokering convention.

Meanwhile, the European Union is examining extraterritorial jurisdiction proposals that would permit foreign nationals to be tried for crimes committed against a country. While the EU historically has been opposed to countries using such powers due to sovereignty issues, there are elements of such powers in recent treaties, including one dealing with crimes of pedophilia and the recent treaty to ban landmines. Such powers could go a long way toward slowing illegal brokering activities. "It would be priceless," Bondi says. But the philosophical and political obstacles are daunting.

Whatever the outcome of these well-intentioned, if inept, bodies, most experts agree that the U.S. will need to take the lead on pushing for an international solution to close loopholes and hold brokers accountable. Curiously, despite its war on terror, it has not. "We're disappointed that the U.S. has not taken the lead, despite pleas from Customs officials and other law enforcement. There seems to be a convention allergy" Bondi says, referring to the American refusal to sign separate conventions banning the use of land mines and child soldiers in conflicts. Americans "want to go it alone" she adds, "and perhaps in the face of common sense, [they] don't pursue agreements."