World needs treaty on arms trade
Tighter regulation of arms sales will not prevent the rampant corruption characterising ‘legitimate’ transactions such as the notorious South African arms deal, but it might help save lives in places such as Syria
Published: 2012/07/05 06:50:59 AM
|
THE horrific situation in Syria, with civilians being massacred by shadowy state-linked militias, the army using heavy artillery to bombard rebel-held cities with no regard for the lives of innocent residents, and sophisticated missile systems being used to shoot down a neighbouring country’s fighter jet in international airspace, is as good an illustration as you are going to find that the global arms trade needs far stricter regulation.
Russia, which officially exported more than $6,5bn worth of military equipment in the first six months of the year, has long been Syria’s primary arms supplier. It has arms contracts worth about $4bn in place and, predictably enough, opposes a proposed United Nations (UN) arms embargo on Damascus, accused of repeated human rights abuses in its efforts to cling to power.
But Russia is not alone in cynically exploiting others’ misfortune to support its arms industry. The US, which remains the biggest arms exporter in the world with as much as 50% of the estimated $60bn-$70bn annual legal trade, is also believed to be clandestinely supplying weapons to the rebels. The resulting standoff — not dissimilar to the Cold War conflict-by-proxy that sustained dictatorial regimes the world over for decades after the Second World War — has undoubtedly contributed to the difficulty in finding a diplomatic solution to Syria’s troubles. There is little incentive for the international community to reach consensus on the action to be taken when there is so much at stake for the countries that have veto powers in the UN.
That is why there is scepticism among military analysts as to whether this week’s UN-sponsored conference aimed at establishing an international treaty governing arms sales will succeed. An overwhelming majority of UN member countries support the treaty concept, as do influential civil society groups such as Amnesty International and Oxfam, but that will mean little if the main arms-trading nations — which happen to be the five permanent UN veto holders, plus Germany — merely pay lip service to the ideal of a transparent, human rights-focused international arms trade that promotes accountability in terms of a legally binding treaty.
After all, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, an international treaty that prohibits the use, transfer and stockpiling of cluster bombs, has been signed by all UN members except the ones that matter — those that produce, or suspect they may have reason to use, cluster bombs. Without the endorsement of the US, Russia and China, this treaty is not worth the paper it is written on.
Still, there is some cause for optimism. The US, which voted against the 2006 UN resolution that launched the arms treaty process, has reversed its position under President Barack Obama and now backs a treaty that would plug loopholes in the international laws which allow arms traffickers and middlemen to ship weapons, ammunition and spare parts to murderous regimes that kill their own people.
Again, it is easy to be cynical about this, since the suggestion probably has the merit that the US has changed its tune only after noting the rise of the Chinese and Russian arms industries and realising that it is likely to lose its global dominance of the trade in the near future. But the reason for its about-turn matters less than its effect, and if US support for a treaty puts increased pressure on the other big arms producers to make similar concessions, it is to be welcomed.
Tighter regulation of arms sales will not prevent the rampant corruption characterising "legitimate" transactions such as the notorious South African arms deal, but it might help save lives in places such as Syria and other parts of the world where autocratic regimes remain in power through the barrel of the gun. As Oxfam points out, it is scandalous that there is an international agreement to govern world trade in bananas, but no treaty covering the sale of deadly weapons.
Published: 2012/07/05 06:51:00 AM
THE lack of action against Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga for being in contempt of court after failing to deliver textbooks to Limpopo schools has made it clear that unless voters step up and hold government to account at the ballot box, there is little incentive for ministers to respect the rule of law.
Next week, the Gauteng North High Court is once again set to rule on an alleged breach of the constitution by a government minister, this time after the state failed to ensure residents of Carolina in Mpumalanga have reasonable access to potable water. Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa and eight other government officials and institutions were taken to court over about 17000 people being without safe drinking water since January due to acid mine water seepage contaminating the town’s water supply.
After several months of inaction, the municipality promised to restore water supplies by June 15, but the date came and went without the promise being kept and the community was left with little alternative but to resort to court action. The municipality has argued that it has been trucking in water amounting to five litres per person per day. However, activists contend that the municipal water tanker service is unreliable and not always accessible to the average person.
Moreover, the Water Services Act stipulates that people are each entitled to 25 litres of potable water per day or 6000 litres per household per month, leaving the municipality’s efforts well short of the statutory minimum standard.
With service delivery failures on the increase, it is likely that the government will face more legal challenges on the grounds that failing to attain minimum standards amounts to a breach of people’s basic rights. However, the government’s record suggests these are unlikely to have much effect on delivery.
The court ruled that Ms Motshekga must ensure textbooks be delivered by a June 15 deadline, but it was only after the Democratic Alliance had made a song and dance that she or the officials under her leadership showed any sign of remedying the problem.
Sadly, it was public embarrassment rather than the rule of law that spurred the minister into action. Although it is encouraging that the opposition and media can still play a role in holding the government to account, voters are responsible for ensuring that the representatives they elect deliver on their promises. The old adage may seem trite, but in a democracy people really do get the government they deserve.
THE DAILY NATION: UK walks talk on corruption
Published: 2012/07/05 06:51:00 AM
|
NEWS coming out of the U K illustrates the strong sanctions available for companies that flout the rules.
The chairman of Barclays Bank, the CE and one other top official have this week been forced to resign after the bank was caught in a scandal over the manipulation of interest rates.
In an unrelated development in the US, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline will pay $2,5bn in civil and criminal liabilities in the biggest healthcare fraud settlement in history. The global conglomerate pleaded guilty to promoting drugs for unapproved use, concealing important safety information, and bribing doctors to dispense its products.
In the recent past, we have seen corporate executives sentenced to lengthy jail terms for defrauding the public or robbing shareholders, particularly in the US.
The point is that while we so often think of corruption as a government preserve, it is also deeply rooted in the private sector.
The difference is that in Kenya, we wink at corporate corruption, while elsewhere strong action is taken. Nairobi, July 4
0 comments:
Post a Comment