-Caveat Lector- >From http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,759043,00.html
Observer Worldview Extra Beware peacemakers selling arms Labour's international objectives are constantly undermined by arms sales controversies. The law can crackdown on football hooligans abroad, but gun runners can act with impunity Observer Worldview Dan Plesch Sunday July 21, 2002 The Observer While Tony Blair is playing a very high profile role trying to solve international crises from Kashmir to Iraq, but his government's policy on arms exports is still encouraging weapons sales to the very countries that he is trying to bring peace to. A new export control act will do little to help. The most recent example of this problem was the supply of parts for F16 jets that the US sells to Israel. It is this same type of warplane that the Israeli government is using to destroy the Palestinian Authority's buildings. When Jack Straw announced the sale he claimed that there was no significant change of policy but MPs such as Roger Berry expressed outrage that the work of years was being undermined. So, what is really going on? And can we do better? A new exports control bill will become law after passing its final debate in the House of Lords next Tuesday and last Friday a powerful House of Commons Committee released reviews of arms exports in the last year. It would be unjust to say that there has been no change at all since the Tories were in office. Under Robin Cook, the government adopted a Code of Conduct on arms exports after extensive pressure from groups including Amnesty and Oxfam. With the support of other governments, notably Sweden, and an international coalition of non-governmental organisations, the EU adopted a code of conduct on arms exports in 1997. This was the first time that the EU had ever sought to control the arms market. In Britain, the government for the first time began to publish an annual report recording where British arms have been sold. Until then, the UK has kept this record a closely guarded secret. However, these codes do not have the force of law and commercial interests - profits and jobs - are still paramount. Four Parliamentary Committees released a joint report on Friday that criticized the government for breaching its own guidelines by selling weapons to countries engaged in civil wars including Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Most seriously, this Joint Committee, which consists of the Defence, Development, Foreign Affairs and Industry Committees, reserved its strongest criticism for the continued sales to India and Pakistan. The two nuclear- armed nations are still on the brink of war over the disputed province of Kashmir. Nevertheless, on his recent peace mission to the region the Prime Minister was actively promoting sales of the Hawk ground- attack warplane. On Tuesday, the government will get its new export control bill through its final stages in parliament. Again, Tony Blair has supported the officials in the Department of Trade and Industry who are loyally supporting the interests of major arms manufacturers. Despite making great claims for a new approach to policy, the new law is so full of 'loopholes' that the whole thing should rightly be seen just as an arms exports assistance act. In the late 1990s, high ranking retired officers such as the former UN commander in Bosnia, General Sir Michael Rose, joined with groups like Christian Aid and Saferworld to press Tony Blair to create stronger restrictions on arms sales by turning the 'Code' into law. But far from getting better the new law simply reduces to non-binding advice key issues which have widespread support. These principles include the need to consider the impact arms sales may have on peace in the regions they are being sent to and on harm they may do to the economic development of Third World nations. The most recent example came with a proposed sale of an overpriced military air-traffic control system to Tanzania which only a last minute intervention from Clare Short held up. In addition to undermining these well established and common sense criteria, the new law also fails to introduce proper political and policing controils on weapons sales. MPs are not to be allowed to know in advance, where the government is considering selling weapons to. This was a key recommendation of the Joint Committee and is a practice that is common in other EU states and even in the US. There will be new restrictions on the middle men who broker arms deals but they can be side-stepped with ease. It is as if the rules were made just so something was seen to be being done. A key problem is that there will be no regulation of deals made by UK citizens when they are abroad. So just step off the Eurostar in Brussels and any arms deal you make will be beyond our law. In many Third World states with weak law and order Britiish and other Western businessmen can act with impunity. Only by making their actions there illegal under UK law can we deal with the harm our citizens are doing overseas. We seem to manage to control the actions of football hooligans overseas so why can't we tackle the far more serious problem of gun running. For people trading arms while still working in Britain the government has introduced a system of regulation. But anyone can apply on a case-by-case basis. We may need a license to own a dog or a TV set, but not not if you want ship guns to Yemen, Colombia or Indonesia. But should we be bothering to try to control armaments at all? And if so what kind of system can we really make stick? The conventional 'realistic' view is that we need arms exports to keep our industry going because it is vital to the nation's security. But the reality is that more often than our and other nations' exports end up being used in Iraq or other nations where we end up having to send out armed forces. A classic case of creating demand for our own products. Then it is argued that there is no point in trying to introduce ethical standards. The absurdity of this argument becomes clear when one realises that many of those who oppose an ethical policy, such as Lord Chalfont, are the same people who told us that we had to wage the Cold War as an ethical, moral struggle against communism. In tackling the arms issue it is time to move beyond codes and regulation and reintroduce the security agenda that even in the 1960s was considered quite seriously. This is to aim for the systematic global management and elimination of armaments. Far from being an impractical dream there are already a set of concrete agreements that can be built on. Back in 1990, NATO and the Soviet Union agreed and stuck to incredibly detailed agreements that resulted in thousands of tanks and guns being crushed and chopped up. In the Balkans, the arms control section of the Dayton Agreement that ended the Bosnian war is even more detailed and is working well. Today these deals should serve as models for the ultimate goal on the Indian subcontinent, South East Asia and even the Middle East. The government is obsessed with target dates. It should propose a target of 2010 for a global system to manage and whereever posssible destroy weapons of every description. � Dan Plesch is Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (www.rusi.org ) and writes a regular monthly online commentary for Observer Worldview. You can contact him via [EMAIL PROTECTED] or send your views to Observer site editor Sunder Katwala at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with comments on articles or ideas for future pieces. About Observer Comment Extra The Observer website carries additional online commentary each week, responding to recent pieces to continue the debate and offering additional coverage of the major issues. See Observer Comment and Observer Worldview for this week's pieces. Follow this link for details of how to offer a piece. The Observer's online commentaries are also trailed in the print pages of the newspaper. Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A<>E<>R + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut." --- Ernest Hemingway <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
