|
|
| ARMS
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
CURRENT UPDATES: July 12, 2006 Dear Friends, Our hearts go out to the victims of bombings in Mumbai. In our own city, security is on high alert in the subways and streets. Meanwhile, today's New York Times reports that Indiana is in greater danger from a terror attack than the biggest cities in the world, according to the Department of Homeland Security. According to the Inspector General, the Department's "National Asset Database" included 8,591 potential terrorist targets in Indiana-- that is fifty percent more than New York (with 5,687 sites listed) and more than twice as many as in California (3,212), making Hoosierville the most target-rich place in the nation. The Berne, Indiana Amish Country Popcorn was on DHS' list. Brian Lehman owns the company. "I am out in the middle of nowhere," he told the New York Times, "We are nothing but a bunch of Amish buggies and tractors out here. No one would care." But then he thought, "Maybe because popcorn explodes?" It would take a lot of popcorn to equal the damage wrought in one of India's largest cities–and it takes more than cramming a database with our national treasures (large ones like the Sears Tower in Chicago and small ones like the Sweetwater Flea Market in Tennessee) to make Americans safe. From the New School University's Parsons Building (not yet listed as a National Asset, but we are lobbying hard for it), we thank you for all you are doing, Frida Berrigan TABLE OF CONTENTS As an overwrought tween, I was often brought back to earth by my Dad's grumble of "high drama, low reality," accompanied by an eloquent roll of the eyes. Unlike my youthful histrionics, the drama at the United Nations had an important message to convey about the need for stricter controls on small arms. The inventor of the world's most popular and deadly assault rifle spoke out for arms control and campaigners delivered a similar message from more than a million people in an expressive and powerful way. But this drama could not break through to world leaders to ensure a more peaceful reality for the countless millions threatened or killed by guns every year. Lieutenant-General Mikhail Kalashnikov,
the 86-year-old inventor of the ubiquitous AK-47 released a statement
at the UN conference, saying: "Of course I feel sad and frustrated
when I see armed skirmishes with the use of my weapon also for conduct
of predatory wars and for terrorist and criminal purpose. Because
of the lack of international control The bold and dramatic Million
Faces Petition was presented to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The world's largest visual petition, it incorporates the faces of
one million people from 160 countries - a number equivalent to all
those killed by small arms since the Control Arms Campaign began
in 2003. 'This is a powerful call from a global constituency. These strong voices and moving testimonies made for good news coverage of the United Nations Small Arms Review Conference. In addition, Steven Colbert's hilarious send-up of the National Rifle Association tickled even the wonkiest funny bone–It's funnier to watch it than read it, but here is the text: THE COLBERT REPORT:Tonight's Word: Cold, Dead Fingers. As in what you America hating U.N one worlders can pry my guns from, but first, I've got one hot live finger for you. The U.N claims it's only concerned with the illicit trade of small arms overseas where they're used in local conflicts. (Think globally, shoot locally) In places like Liberia, Congo and Sudan. (World Cup of genocide) Hey, I'm against ethnic cleansing as much as the next guy, but come on, hate the cleansers, not the cleansing products. (A little club soda will get the blood off your hands) For instance, take a look at this gun. I purchased it legally right here in the United States. (On sale at Wal–Mart) Now, look at this one, I bought this one with gold bouillon in the dead of the night from a white slaver I met on a tramp steamer in the Suez Canal. (Thanks cheaptickets.com!) If we let other countries declare that this one is illegal overseas, what's to stop them from declaring this one is illegal in the U.S.? (Charlton Heston?) Now, how will that happen? I don't know. I have no idea and that's what I'm afraid of. What's the U.N going to do? (Pass a toothless resolution) I mean, yes, yes the United States is a sovereign nation, yes we're a superpower, yes their laws have no application here, yes they're talking about arms brokers, corrupt officials and drug trafficking syndicates and yes these conflicts are where thousands if not hundreds of thousands are killed and maimed. But if there's even an echo of a ricochet of a shadow of a chance that this treaty could make me feel that someday I might not be able to recreationally hunt, then saving those lives is not worth it. (Deer fur greater than Darfur) Remember the parable: First they came for the Liberian's revolvers and I did nothing, then they came for the Sudanese Glocks and I did nothing, and when they came for my sixteen rounds per minute open stock Mac 11, there was no one left to shoot for me. (Embroidered on AK-47 cozy) We do not need an international conference on small arms, what we need is an international rifle association. It wouldn't be the NRA, it'd be the..what–the IRA. I like the sound of that. If you have the right software,
you can watch Colbert's rant online at SHORT ON RESULTS, LONG ON FAILURE But even with these dramatic moments, the meeting was short on results. In fact, it was long on failure. A failure that ripples far beyond the United Nations. Small arms and light weapons
are responsible for between 60 and 90% of all conflict deaths every
year-or 1,000 deaths a day. According to the authoritative Small
Arms Survey, the global trade in small arms is worth about $4 billion
a year, with an estimated $1 billion of that considered illegal.
Eight million new guns are made every year. Sierra Leone is one example of the ripple effects of the UN conference's failure. "My country has suffered appallingly from the effects of the uncontrolled arms trade, and continues to suffer because the guns remain among the civilian population even now that our war has ended. We don't manufacture these guns, yet they end up in our country, erode our security and have terrible consequences for our development," said Florella Hazeley, with Sierra Leone Action Network on Small Arms. RED LINES STYMIE PROGRESS Many attribute the lack of progress during the two-week UN Review Conference to the United States' actions and attitude. Intended to review progress on the "Programme of Action" agreed upon in 2001 and strengthen UN efforts on small arms, the meeting was immediately stymied from the outset, when Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Robert Joseph made his "red lines" clear, saying the United States would refuse to endorse a final document that included references to development, inclusion of ammunition and a ban on sales of weapons to non-state actors. Despite the fact that 60% of the world's guns are in the hands of civilians, and many countries see stronger national gun laws as vital to tackling gun violence, Robert Joseph's delegation blocked discussion on strengthening national gun laws. And, despite widespread support for a call to hold a similar conference five years from now, the U.S. opposed it, effectively preventing follow-up review conferences on the global small arms trade from being scheduled. Joseph did say that Washington would endorse a set of global principles aimed at keeping small arms out of the hands of groups intent on human rights abuse, genocide or breaking UN arms embargoes - but not a treaty covering these same areas. In all, one hundred and fifteen governments had said they supported stronger provisions on transfer controls, but it was not enough. "It's a squandered opportunity," said Anthea Lawson, spokeswoman with the International Action Network on Small Arms. "It's preposterous especially when there was so much will from so many countries to do something." MELTDOWN ON FIRST AVENUE Some delegates said the meeting was doomed from the start. The first six days were consumed in speeches by nations, then the conference suspended work for the July 4 holiday. Negotiations on the final text only began Wednesday July 5th. By then time was tight and tempers were short. One delegate told Reuters, "There was a total meltdown at the end. You don't know if it was a conspiracy or just a screw-up." Crunched for time and saddled with huge disagreements, an "outcome document" meant to reflect a consensus on the most serious threats and the best way to fight the illegal trade in small arms proved impossible."It is deeply disconcerting that the United States would not work with the international community and compromise. The unequivocal opposition of the United States to so many issues that had near universal agreement had serious implications for U.S. credibility," said Sarah Margon, a policy advisor at Oxfam America. THE U.S. "GOLD STANDARD" Adding insult to injury, at the end of the conference the United States held up its own practices as a model for other countries to follow. In a July 3rd Baltimore Sun op-ed entitled "Small Arms, Big Danger," Undersecretary of State John Hillen says: "The United States sets the gold standard for export control. Over half a century ago, Congress legislated a cradle-to-grave approach to weaponry in which government agencies follow each piece through its life cycle, from manufacturing and brokerage through export and retransfer." "Hah," said many experts. In a letter to the editor responding to Hillen's op-ed, Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst with the Center for Defense Information, observes: "United States could be playing a leading role to strengthen the U.N. process to ensure that global action on small arms continues and is meaningful. But instead of promoting a way forward that encourages states to do more, the United States unfortunately appears to be ready to abandon the U.N. process entirely. " WHAT'S NEXT? Campaigners tried to end on a positive note and delegates plan to raise many of the same issues in the U.N. disarmament committee to begin preparing a treaty that would make law out of many of the global principles supported by non-governmental groups. Rebecca Peters, director of IANSA- the International Action Network on Small Arms, said: "The failure of this meeting will not detract from the enormous amount of work being done at local, national and regional levels around the world to protect people from gun violence. But because gun proliferation is a global problem it does require a global solution, and we will continue to seek ways to make this happen." RESOURCES: "Small
Arms, Big Danger," The Baltimore Sun, July 3, 2006 Small
Arms Facts from IANSA (PDF) The US and other states have
scuppered a deal to control the deadly trade in small arms II.COST OVER RUNS AT THE PENTAGON: We are Shocked, Shocked! In his recent speech about the
state of the economy, President George W. Bush said, "We've
got great faith in the people's ability to spend their money wiser
than the federal government can do." You don't have to look
far to find fault with the federal government's She writes: "Cost overruns have long been a Pentagon staple." But today, the scale of the problem is the issue: "Projects are as much as 50 percent over budget and up to four years late in delivery*. In recent Congressional hearings and reports from the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, the Pentagon has been portrayed as so mired in bureaucracy and so enamored of the latest high-tech gadgetry that multi-billion-dollar weapon systems are running years behind in development and are dangerously over budget." Here are some examples: The Pentagon claims to be on top of the problem: "We've got a lot of traction in the building, and I'm coming to help harness that traction and take it to the end zone," said James I. Finley, under secretary for acquisition, a former General Dynamics executive, and evidently a fan of the multiple mixed metaphor. According to the GAO, the Pentagon is planning to invest $1.3 trillion between 2005 and 2009 in researching, developing, and procuring major weapon systems. "The people" should be watching that money very carefully. RESOURCES DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS: Major Weapon Systems Continue
to Experience Cost and Schedule Problems under DOD's Revised Policy,
Government Accountability Office, April 2006 Isn't there also a war going on that is draining the people's coffers. The costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other global anti-terror operations will top half a trillion dollars next year, says the independent Congressional Research Service. In a recent report, CRS found by September 30 (the end of the current fiscal year), the government will have spent $437 billion on overseas military and foreign aid funding, including the latest $69 billion in supplemental spending signed into law this month. Add in roughly $1.5 billion
in Foreign Operations funds for Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year
2007; $50 billion in Pentagon "bridge" funds for the first
half of FY 2007, plus as-yet-undetermined supplemental funds for
the remainder of the next fiscal year, and total war-related costs
will easily soar over $500 billion one year from now. "Wars force Army equipment
costs to triple," Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press, June
26, 2006. "A war can end when the soldiers choose to stop fighting it," said Lt. Ehren Watada when he decided to stand up for international, U.S. and military law by refusing to deploy to Iraq in support of the ongoing illegal war and occupation. Lt. Watada and his mother participated in the Troops Home Fast on July 4, and a diverse group that includes Cindy Sheehan, Dick Gregory, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, Graham Nash, Dolores Huerta, Julia Butterfly Hill and more than 3,500 others are continuing it. They are demanding that we bring
our troops home from Iraq, and they are calling on the White House
and Congress to demand: Visit www.troopshomefast.org to learn more about this new campaign. V. FENCE AT THE BORDER? How About Between Congress and Corporations? Our friend Joe Richey just completed a great article that is up on the CorpWatch site called "Privatizing Immigration Control." It mentions that Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Jackson is a former executive at Lockheed Martin; one of the companies vying for $2.5 billion in contracts as part of DHS' Secure Border Initiative. Do you think he'll sing: "the
contract is mine, the doggone contract is mine," when (I mean
if) Lockheed Martin wins the bid?
Reports | Recent News Coverage | Updates
|
 |