DISEC I: Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weaponry

Yixuan Yang 

DEAR DELEGATES:

Welcome to YMUN Taiwan!

I am Yixuan, a rising junior in Jonathan Edwards college. Having entered university thinking that I’d be a political science/economics major , I realized that history lectures were the only ones I wasn’t dozing off in—fortunately, I made that switch in time. Coming from Singapore, I was thrilled to see snow in New Haven until that winter wonderland degenerated into a blizzard. On campus, I’ve served on the secretariats of Yale Model United Nations XLII and Yale Model Government Europe, chaired for YMUN and SCSY, and have loved the passion and energy that delegates bring to these conferences. In my free time, I also attempt to dance with the Yale Ballroom Team and love watching really trashy horror flicks.

I am thrilled to welcome you to DISEC this year. The world is experiencing a series of revolutionary changes that threaten to destabilize the global order at every juncture—questions of security and disarmament are as pertinent now as ever. I hope that through this experience, you will gain a more in-depth understanding of the complexities involved in problem-solving and diplomacy, which lie at the heart of every Model UN conference. Most importantly, I hope we remember that we are never debating in a vacuum—these are real-world issues that have a very palpable human impact. It is with this in mind that we feel truly empowered with the knowledge and strength to make a difference.

Again, I am excited to meet all of you in May! If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me any time at yixuan.yang@yale.edu.

Looking forward,

Yixuan Yang 

COMMITTEE HISTORY 

Source: http://www.pwsmun.in/assets/images/committee/DISEC.png

Established in 1946, the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) was the “First Committee” of the United Nations General Assembly. DISEC was created immediately after World War II, where six years of total war had devastated populations and economies across the globe and created a compelling need for peace and reconstruction. The two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the war, but it left the world reeling from the ruinous impact of military technology and desperately seeking solutions to contain such cataclysmic potential. Against this backdrop, the questions of disarmament and peace took on particular significance as states rallied together to shape a more peaceful and predictable post-war order.

All 193 member states of the United Nations are entitled to a vote in DISEC. Its functions and powers are clearly set out in the UN Charter, which states that “the General Assembly may consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments.” Though DISEC cannot pass binding resolutions, impose sanctions or authorize military intervention, it is able to exert considerable influence through recommendations to the UN Secretariat and UNSC. In fact, the very first UN General Assembly resolution, titled “Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy”, was passed in January 1946 on the recommendation of DISEC. Since then, DISEC has consistently played an instrumental role in the UN, establishing guidelines on nuclear proliferation after WWII and the arms race during the Cold War. In recent years, technology and warfare have evolved to take on more unconventional forms and implicate more non-state actors. In light of this, our two topics for this conference--the proliferation of small arms and cyberwarfare--are even more pertinent for the world today.

TOPIC HISTORY 

With the end of the Cold War, global attention turned to the prevalence of localized armed conflict - or “low-intensity conflict - estimated to have caused over a million deaths in the past decade, 90% of which are civilian casualties from the indiscriminate use of violence. SALW lies at the heart of such violence, as such weapons are easily obtainable and operable. Not only are they used by militias, insurgents and combatants in conflict zones around the world, they are often widespread amongst crime syndicates and terrorist groups as well. This has had severe impact on developing countries--government resources are diverted from crucial public services such as health and education, foreign investment and economic growth take a dive, and society is deprived of the skills and labor of small arms victims, some of whom are even recruited into gangs and militias since young. Small arms and light weapons (SALW) refer to any weapon that can be carried or operated by one or two individuals. These range from guns--pistols, assault rifles, and light machine guns--to rocket launchers, grenade launchers, mortars and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile launchers. By definition, these weapons are mobile, portable and relatively easy to operate, rendering them accessible to the average civilian.


The proliferation of small arms is no doubt a pertinent issue in developed nations such as the US, where gun control has been a topic of much controversy. However, the nature of SALW trade in developed countries differs significantly from the rest of the world. Thus for the purposes of a more structured debate, we will focus on the SALW trade in developing nations faced with weak state protection, feeble law enforcement and protracted conflict zones. The infographic below is illustrative of the impact and distribution of small arms around the world and gives a good idea of which developing nations are most adversely affected by the trade.

This infographic raises two salient points. First, most SALW are concentrated in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where there is rampant gang violence and civil conflict. Second, a large proportion of arms in these regions are illicit, meaning that they were first legitimately sold to security forces, but were then stolen or smuggled, eventually circulating through the black market and landing into the hands of gangs, insurgents, terrorist groups and civilians. Thus, there is an important distinction between the legal and illegal arms trade when we talk about SALW proliferation.

How did the arms get there?

Please start with this video for an overview of the global trade in small arms:

This video raises an important question: why is it that most of the weapons are produced in the developed world but end up in the developing world? To understand the source and impact of the small arms trade, let’s look at a case study of Somalia.

Case Study: Small Arms in Somalia 

Somalia has experienced two decades of continuous civil conflict and is considered emblematic of a failed state, where the government has lost its authority over society. In 1991, civil war broke out across Somalia after rebels ousted President Mohammed Siad Barre. As part of the Cold War proxy theatre, the USSR and US had been sponsored NATO-caliber arms (weapons with cartridges that were designed as a common standard amongst NATO countries) in Somalia ever since 1960. When the Barre regime collapsed, militias and insurgents looted the state’s ammunitions stockpiles, leading to a large proportion of such weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors. The Red Cross estimated in 1999 that in Mogadishu alone, its 1.3 million residents owned more than a million guns. In addition, arms were trafficked to Somalia through neighboring countries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. When the Cold War ended, a large surplus of small arms stockpiles flooded the international market, often reaching developing countries like Somalia where demand was exceedingly high.

The conflict persisted till 2006, when the Transitional National Government splintered after denying the Islamic Courts Union its electoral victory. More radical offshoots of the ICU, such as Al-Shabaab, began waging jihad and igniting a new round of civil war. As a result, neighboring Ethiopia has become one of the largest weapon suppliers in sub-Saharan Africa, supplying SALW to opponents of Al-Shabaab.

Somalia is an example of the vicious cycle between the arms trade and civil conflict. In many other parts of Africa, however, small arms impose huge costs even in post-conflict situations. While heavy weapons are “difficult to obtain and operate and easier to decommission or monitor” , the circulation of small arms does not end with the cessation of war. According to a 2002 study titled Development Held Hostage: Assessing the Effects of Small Arms on Human Development, “the durability of small arms ensures that once they are present in a country they present a continuous risk - especially in societies where there are large accumulations of weapons...They frequently outlast peace agreements and are taken up again in the post-conflict period by criminal gangs, vigilantes, dissidents and individuals concerned about personal security”. [to put in quote bubble] This creates a “culture of violence” where gun ownership is not just a symbol of power and status, but becomes a requisite for survival and the intuitive response to settling political and personal disputes. In South Africa, for instance, state sponsorship of arms during the apartheid led to a massive arms buildup that spun out of government control post-apartheid.

Summary

· SALW are often produced in developed nations, making their way to developing nations through both legal and illicit means

· Cheap, easily-accessible, operable and portable--remain in the market and are difficult to regulate even in post-conflict situations

· Cause a vicious cycle perpetrating civil conflict and gang violence, create a culture of violence where even civilians are compelled to arm themselves for protection

CURRENT SITUATION

Source: Sipri Statista Charts, The Independent

I. Producers of SALW

According to the Global Small Arms Survey, more than 1000 companies from 100 countries worldwide produce small arms and light weapons as well as their ammunition. As seen below, the largest exporters of global arms include the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and other countries with significant industrial capacities able to meet both international and domestic demand. These companies could be either state-owned, private, or a mix of both.

Case Study: Flow of Arms to South Sudan

South Sudan has one of the highest rates of population armament in the entire world. This is closely-related to its history of violent conflict. Civilian ownership of arms proliferated as early as the 1950s, where the South Sudan Secessionist movement gained traction during the First Sudanese Civil War. This was further aggravated by the Cold War theatre, where foreign governments provided both incumbent and rebel forces with weapons as a tool for proxy warfare. Moreover, Sudan’s immediate neighbors were instrumental in its armament. As state law enforcement weakened and borders turned porous, foreign armed groups began to move into South Sudan, bringing weapons, conflict and instability. For instance, the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army set up operational bases in South Sudan and left many weapons in the hands of non-state actors. Foreign governments also had a vested interest to sponsor particular sides of the civil conflict - Eritrea, supported the rebel Eastern Front in South Sudan; Chad and Libyan governments likewise armed rebel groups in Darfur. This shows how the proliferation of SALW are often a direct result of larger geopolitical tensions.

Please refer to this link for an interactive map of the SALW supply flows to South Sudan. You can play around with the controls to look at statistics for different countries, time periods and type of arms.

Even then, not all blame can be attributed to historical events. As much as foreign governments can provide arms, it remains a fact that Western countries, Russia and China are the largest current producers of such arms as seen in the interactive graphic above. The US exported around $550 million worth of civilian arms alone to South Sudan in 2010. Likewise, China and Russia are two of the largest buyers of Sudanese oil - reportedly consuming over 80 percent of its oil exports - giving them an interest in sponsoring Sudanese movements. According to a UN report, China has sold over $20 million in military equipment to South Sudan. As part of the arms embargo, China has stopped selling arms to South Sudan in 2014. Even then, large numbers of them remain in circulation, many in the hands of non-state actors through redistribution, re-capturing or the black market.

Thus, we can see that stemming the flow of SALWs is not just a question of conflict governments, but also one of addressing developed/more powerful states with a clear vested interest in the region.

Summary

· SALWs are produced overwhelmingly in developed countries and states with great geopolitical sway such as Russia/China

· May circulate to conflict regions due to direct government sponsorship, which often involves geopolitical vested interests

· Sudan as a prime example of how geopolitics played into SALW proliferation

Questions to Consider 

· How does one separate legal and illegal trade in SALW? What are the different mechanisms to deal with each?

· What are the socioeconomic and geopolitical factors behind SALW trade? What are some immediate, medium-term and long-term measures to manage these?

· What are the vested interests involved? What are the different levels of engagement needed to resolve these?

II. SALW, crime and local enforcement

We’ve talked about the prevalence of small arms in areas where civil conflict is rife and Cold War tensions escalated violence. In this section, we will examine how small arms exacerbate crime and the failure of local law enforcement in addressing such trends.

Case Study: Mexico - Gun Smuggling and Cartel Violence

Please watch the following two videos - the first talks about the US sale of firearms to Mexico, the second surveys drug cartel violence in Mexico. The second video is slightly long, so you may wish to read the accompanying news article instead.

The videos make a few important points. A large proportion of US firearm flows to Mexico is completely legal through direct commercial sales, but more than a quarter (2009 numbers) are diverted into the hands of non-state actors such as drug cartels. Some of them arise as many Mexican military members defect to the cartels, bringing their weapons with them. Others are stolen, intercepted or lost, thus entering the black market trade. These SALW fuel cartel violence--Mexico’s homicide rate is five times that of the US.

Local law enforcement is weak in the face of such rampant violence. The government struggles to provide its police officers with enough resources, funds and protection from the dangerous drug cartels. Moreover, police corruption is a serious problem - an estimated 63 percent of Mexicans do not trust their municipal police force, while 66 percent view them as corrupt. In the face of tempting bribes and more importantly, threats to themselves and their family, police officers often find it easier to collaborate with cartels instead . This makes it even more difficult to monitor the sales and circulation of SALW.

Mexico’s case is not unique. The corruption of domestic security forces often exacerbate violence. In Cambodia for instance, police officers often “rent out” their police arms to boost incomes. Likewise, Human Rights Watch reported that the Indonesian military was the largest source of weapons for rebel forces, as members of the security forces actually sold weapons during the Aceh insurgency.

Summary

· SALW also contribute to the escalation of criminal violence

· Firearm sales from developed to developing countries are often legal, but fall into the wrong hands due to a lack of adequate monitoring

· Local law enforcement is either weak or corrupt

Questions to consider

· How can local law enforcement be strengthened? What gets in the way?

· How can we stop legal trade from going to illegal hands?

III. International action

SALW have been a key focal point in disarmament. The subject was first broached by the UN in 1991, where Resolution A/RES/46/36 mandated an expert panel surveying the type and flow of illicit small arms around the world. In 1998, the UN Office on Disarmament (UNODA) was created both to promote nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in conventional weapons such as landmines and small arms.

Arms Trade Treaty

The ATT was a landmark UN treaty adopted by the General Assembly in April 2013. The resolution encompassed provisions for regulating legal international trade in many types of conventional weapons, including SALW. All states are obliged to establish controls with regards to such arms trade such that they do not contribute to human rights abuses such as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes . It has been signed by 130 states to date. This includes the top few arms exporters such as the US, the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. However, this treaty explicitly states that it does not interfere with existing national arms regulations or the right to bear arms. It thus focuses mainly on the monitoring of arms exports such that they do not violate existing arms embargoes, and tracking of export destinations for greater data on SALW flows.

This treaty has important implications especially for ongoing conflict states like Syria : many countries sponsor Syrian rebels against Assad’s forces. Arms belonging to rebel groups are especially vulnerable to theft and loss, falling into the hands of more radical forces. Hence, it becomes particularly difficult to define what qualifies as a contribution to crimes against humanity, since the flow of weapons is so fluid and non-state actors exist on a wide spectrum.

Summary:

· The UN broke significant ground with the Arms Trade Treaty

· It explicitly steers clear from interfering with domestic arms-bearing regulations

· However, several provisions in the ATT are vague when applied to real conflict situations

Questions to Consider:

· Why do countries disagree on SALW treaties?

· Consider the different levels of invasiveness for each measure (e.g. research and monitoring is relatively less invasive as opposed to embargoes and arms regulations) - how can the UN balance effective solutions with a respect for individual sovereignty?

BLOC POSITIONS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTx_FKbAjSU

Although North Korea, Iran and Syria explicitly voted in opposition to the ATT, most governments generally agree in principle that trade in SALW must be regulated. However, the degree and form of regulation is a matter of controversy. Russia and China - two leading weapon exporters - and 23 other states abstained from voting, believing that a UN treaty on such matters may be a breach on national sovereignty. Much pushback also arises in civil society. In the US, for instance, there is overwhelming opposition to treaties like the ATT from the right--organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Heritage Foundation have explicitly spoken out against the treaty. These groups are cautious about any regulation on gun trade - even if it technically concerns only international trade -, fearing it would infringe on rights to individual gun ownership as well.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 

· Start with understanding the impact of small arms. What are they and why is it so important to stem their proliferation? What other issues (e.g. civil conflict, crime, culture of violence) do they intersect with, and how does that complicate the problem?

o This provides a great overview to the issue, including definitions, impact and responses to the small arms trade

o This provides key facts and figures about the global trade in small arms.

o This looks at the impact of small arms in Africa

o This provides an overview to small arms in Latin America

· Then look at the actual flow of SALW around the world:

o This provides the most comprehensive global study of small arms trade

§ You can toggle with different countries and dates.

· Read up on international treaties and task forces

o UNODA: here

o Arms Trade Treaty: here 

· How should you research your country's position?

o Is your country a net importer or exporter of arms? This is not definitive of a country’s position (e.g. the UK and France are net exporters, yet support regulating the flow of arms), but can be a good starting point to understanding your country’s stake in the issue.

o This provides a comprehensive overview of both international action and individual state positions on gun policy.

· This piece from The Heritage Foundation is a great example of domestic resistance to SALW.