http://albadri10.tigblog.org/ What's on the minds of young leaders from around the globe? en-us http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/344585 By Abukar Albadri, Special to The Times

MOGADISHU, SOMALIA -- The voice on the other end of my cellphone was oddly calm, but intent.
"Abukar, I am calling to inform you that we have decided to take your life," the caller said. I glanced down at my phone to see the caller ID, which read "private."
"You're not worthy to live," the man continued. "You have three hours to tell your family and say your last words."
"Who is this?" I demanded.
"I am a man," was the reply.
It wasn't my first death threat. As a journalist in Somalia, I've received more than I'd care to count. In some, angry callers curse me as a "puppet" of the U.N.-backed transitional government in Baidoa and the Ethiopian troops that support it. Others accuse me of being a "terrorist" supporting the Islamic insurgents.
But this call came at the end of one of the darkest days of my life. Just a few hours earlier, I'd attended the funeral of a friend and colleague, Mahad Ahmed Elmi, a radio host gunned down that August morning. Then, as my fellow journalists and I drove back from the burial, a roadside bomb struck our convoy, killing Ali Iman Sharmarke, another prominent media figure in Mogadishu.
This month, gunmen shot another friend, Bashir Nur Gedi, acting manager of Shabelle Radio, who had been arrested and detained by government forces in September.
International journalist organizations say at least seven reporters have been killed in Somalia this year. No one has been caught or punished in any of these attacks.
After I hung up, dozens of questions ran through my mind: What am I guilty of? Who is my enemy? Why am I being targeted?
But for the first time, one question would not go away: Should I leave Somalia?
Many times I'd stood over the graves of friends. Now I imagined friends and family weeping over mine.
I began working as a journalist 10 years ago, at age 19, because I wanted to alert the world to the untold stories of Somalia. I had always admired an older cousin who had worked as a radio correspondent during the Mohamed Siad Barre regime, which fell in 1991.
As a journalist in the capital, Mogadishu, I've covered street battles, assassinations and public executions. I've had guns pointed at my head and I've stepped over twisted bodies on the road. I've been summoned to news conferences in the presidential palace only to be detained by corrupt officials who demanded a bribe.
Over the years, I've watched governments and authorities come and go. Warlords, Islamic courts, transitional governments. One thing stays the same: When new groups rise to power, they attack the media.
Today journalists who have dedicated their lives to telling the stories of Somalia find themselves caught between suicidal insurgents and the blazing guns of the transitional government's mad soldiers. Each is trying to make the media its puppet.
This year the government has arrested more than 50 journalists; eight remain behind bars. Officials have attempted to close media outlets and have imposed laws that restrict the activities of reporters. Somalia is the second deadliest country in the world for journalists, after Iraq, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
At the same time, insurgents have attacked and harassed us, distributing leaflets in many neighborhoods threatening to kill any journalist perceived as supporting the government. This summer we were flatly warned that we faced attacks if we covered the government's reconciliation conference.
I used to think that with commitment, dedication and a strong heart, I could survive. Now I'm not so sure. This job can be rewarding. But sometimes it feels like a curse.
During the reign of the Islamic Courts Union in 2006, I watched a guard tie a 50-year-old man to a stake after he was found guilty of stabbing another man to death. Then, in accordance with the regime's interpretation of Islamic law, the son of the victim stepped forward and cut the accused from his groin to his collarbone.
Some women began to ululate in support, but many spectators vomited or passed out. I turned away. The scene took place outside a primary school, as students peered over the wall. I thought to myself: What is happening to my country?
It got worse: In March angry crowds dragged the bodies of government soldiers and burned them on the streets. With bullets and missiles flying, I decided to take a couple of photographs, scrawl some quick notes and get away.
As I was getting ready to leave, I felt a gun at my head. A militiaman ordered me to drop my camera. I did. I emptied my pockets, raised my hands and pleaded for my life. He took my camera and cellphone, then turned to an angry, questioning crowd and declared me a spy. The crowd began cursing me and chanting.
"I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist," I shouted, showing my press card. Sweat poured from my body. I feared I would end up like the government soldiers.
The militiaman, however, had a different punishment in mind. He led me away to his leaders, eager to show off his captive.
I was lucky. The militia leaders knew me, and vouched for me. They let me go.
Still, those experiences were not a turning point. It was the killings of my two colleagues in August. But it was not an easy decision. I was born and raised in Mogadishu. To leave would feel as if I were giving up.
Instead I went into hiding, leaving my house, suspending my work and limiting my movements.
I grew suspicious. I viewed every passerby as a potential assassin.
One day, a friend and I were moving from one of our hide-outs to another when three young men came up behind us. We started walking faster. They walked faster. My heart raced. We stopped to let them pass, and one of them muttered something as they went by.
We thought we were safe. But a few minutes later, as we arrived at our destination, we saw the same three men approaching from the road ahead. We froze. I began praying and asking for God's forgiveness.
My friend said something to me, but I couldn't hear his words. I closed my eyes and waited for the bullets. I remembered the man on the phone days earlier, the chilling hatred in his voice.
Then the young men passed us by, with a simple nod and hello.
Were they just trying to intimidate us? Had something distracted them from their attack? Were they simply three men taking a walk?
It didn't matter anymore. My decision was made.
Five days later I left the country.
Albadri has worked as a journalist for several Western media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times. He is currently living in Djibouti and hopes one day to return home.]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:07:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/344585 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/344577
Journalist - Somalia

Somalia's new Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein (C) is welcomed in Mogadishu Jan. 20, 2008. Five people died in fighting on Wednesday around the Somali capital, where the AU peace and security commissioner had flown in to meet the new prime minister(Reuters Photo).

Just as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has become a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, the presence of thousands of Ethiopian troops in Somalia is creating a generation of religious warriors such as Alshabab, Islamic Front of Somalia (JIS), Alliance for Reconstitution of Somalia (ARS), and nationalist members radicalized by a daily diet of violence that leaves dozens of lives.
Somalia is occupied by a renowned enemy, Ethiopia, carrying a proxy war funded by the United States. Thousands of innocent and destitute civilians including children and women were victimized under the guise of the so-called global war on terror.

The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) facing Iraqi-style insurgency is yet to succeed in the control of the capital city's virtual green zone. Somalis believe the continuing battle for control of Mogadishu has revealed insurgents to be an increasingly influential power based in a city dominated by the Ethiopian-backed TFG.

The Islamic movements have very good credit in the eyes of Somalis. They restored the hope of the people one time, when the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) defeated and disarmed ruthless warlords who divided the country into small fiefdoms under their militia control. But Western powers have repeatedly described them as terrorists and the enemy of their strategic vision of Africa and of the world.

When UIC restored the short-lived peace to the country, the Somali diasporas returned home to invest in business, industry, education, and real estate. But most of those businesses have been destroyed after December 2006 when the city fell into Ethiopian hands.


Islamist movement have reformulated both the style and ideology of their operation despite differences.
Before the Ethiopian invasion, Arab countries tried to reconcile between TFG and UIC, but those attempts ended fruitless. Three serial meetings in Sudan under the auspices of the League of Arab States failed to persuade both parts to reach compromise and come up with a good plan to end the conflict.
Things went worse when the former Prime Minister of TFG Ali Mohamed Gedi said, “I will never meet the Islamist leader." He added, "To meet Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, the mentor of the Islamic movements, means to meet Osama Bin Laden.”

This statement by Gedi led UIC members to adopt a more radical stance by refusing talks with TFG until Ethiopian forces retreated from Somali land they occupied by then.

In the early days of Ethiopian invasion, Arab nations did not play major role in the Somali affairs. Officially, Arabs stood but observers of what was similar to the invasion of Iraq. Instead, a few Arab well-wishers and good Samaritans sometimes provided some financial support to the Islamic movements through business companies.

Comeback Militancy

After the Ethiopian troops took over the country, however, Islamist movement have reformulated both the style and ideology of their operation despite differences.
These movements and nationalist leaders formed new Alliance for Reconstitution of Somalia (ARS) to drive Ethiopian forces out of the country, but disputes over war terminology has split ARS with other movements apart.


Alshabab, the most militant, adopts the Islamic concept of self-defense "Jihad" to describe attacks on invading Ethiopian forces. The ARS prefers the term "liberation" instead.
Sheikh Mukhtar Robow Ali, known as Abu Mansoor, a leader of Alshabab militants, declared that his team is no longer member of the Asmara-based ARS because of their interpretation of Jihad.

Abu Mansoor said the Asmara-based alliance refused to use the Islamic term "Jihad" instead of "Liberation" in order to please Western powers. "ARS respected the western powers, and we respect Allah," he said.

The successive split of the Islamic movements in Somalia changed the political landscape and created new challenges among groups opposed to the transitional government and the Ethiopian occupation.

Divisions among Islamic movements are likely to strengthen Ethiopian occupation and enable some informants of the western powers and Ethiopian forces to join them, which formerly led to failure of the Union of Islamic Courts, Said Sheikh Abdalla Omar, a Somali scholar.

In response to these internal division Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, the leader of the former UIC and the current chairman of ARS, urged Alshabab leaders to stop misleading the people of Somalia.

Talking to some local media he said, “This is not a time for division, it is time for unity against the enemy, so Alshabab leaders must consider that.” “Some Alshabab leaders claimed secession from the Alliance, but this doesn’t mean using terms or words that would benefit the enemy of our people,” Sheikh Ahmed added.

Such calls to unify the resistance movements succeeded somehow to keep a few prominent Alshabab leaders within the confinements of ARS. Sheikh Hassan Abdulle Hersi, well known as Hassan Tukri, an Alshabab leader in the remote south areas of Somalia still remains within ARS.

“Allah ordered us to obey him, his prophet and our leaders; unless I see leaders committing some thing controversial to Islam I will obey them,” He said, “Unity is the only solution to face the enemy,” Abdulle Hersi said.

Former members of Al Itihad Al Islami, an Islamic movement that the U.S. government added to its terrorists list joined with ARS and both remained in unity. The movement changed its name to al-Itisam Bil-Kitab Wa-Al-Sunnah (abidance by the book and path of the profit)

In November 2007 al-Itisam chose its leader Sheikh Bashir Ahmed Salad, a Somali professor who used to teach Islamic studies in Pakistan and Malaysia. In December the movement formed a military wing named Jabhadda Islamiga Somalia (JIS) (Islamic Front of Somalia).Other small armed groups have started to appear in Mogadishu joining the violent attacks on Ethiopian troops and claiming no harm to Somali civilians.


Officially, Arabs stood but observers of what was similar to the invasion of Iraq.

Divided in Means, United in Goals
Despite fears that such disputes between Islamist Movements in Somalia would halt efforts to liberate the country, the common ground still remains large and fertile. Until today the common goal is still to install Islamic statehood and restore the Shari' a law in the country.

A year ago, Ethiopian forces entered Somalia’s capital to escort the Ethiopian backed president of Somalia Abdulahi Yusuf Ahmed and his former Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi and toppled the UIC only to find themselves later bogged down in the inescapable Somali quagmire set up by remnants of the USC and clan insurgents. Today, Ethiopian Forces are in the dilemma of choosing between U.S. dollars and Ethiopian blood.

A withdrawal of Ethiopians from Somalia is “A tall order.” Ethiopian Premier Meles Zenawi said that he would not be able to withdraw his forces unless the 8,000 African peacekeepers are deployed to Somalia.

African states have until now failed to send in troops they pledged, and only 1,500 Ugandan forces and dozens of Burundians are currently on the ground in Mogadishu.

More than 6,000 civilians are believed to have died in the fighting this year, and over 1 million have been displaced without food and basic health and shelter needs,.

The country remains without functioning government since more than 17 years when the central government collapsed in 1991, and the internationally recognized TFG failed to restore law and order. Islamic insurgency and clan-based violence continues to escalates.

Somalia, a war-torn nation in the horn of Africa, has moved to the crossroad of regional and international interests leaving its people with little hope for a near end to the inherited 17 years of statelessness and political turmoil.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abukar Albadri is a Somali freelance Journalist based in Mogadishu. He has worked previously with LAtimes, DPA, Spanish News Agency (EFE) and Aljazeera English. Currently he is a member of Somali Journalists Society (SJS) and the Federation of Arab Journalists (FAJ).


]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:37:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/344577 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/37136
Mogadishu (GLED) –after four days of heavy fighting that engulfed more than 75 people, the situation of Mogadishu yet is in dilemma and the people are still worrying about another possible war.
Both parts are still threatening each other and the people are still confusing as if the other fighting will take lives of many other people.
A mission team from GLED Somalia visited the hospitals and the war areas to assess the situation and help those are still in the war areas with out a way to escape.
The GLED team met in Madina Hospital a 3 month old young girl called Amina Zahra Moalim who was seriously wounded in the arms and the stomach.
The team made an interview with Amina’s Mother and asked how her infant was victimised.
The gloomy mother crying said “The fighting was the misfortune of my daughter, because she was 85 days only in the world, now she is victim and no body is trying to punish those harmed my child” adding that “the bullets hit her arm and stomach and I am afraid that she will be mentally retarded because she banged her head on the ground when she bounced from the bet to the ground because of the reaction of the missile that destroyed the house”.
Amina’s situation is very critical and she is the youngest victim in the fighting.
Her family are very poor, her father is teacher and her mother was keeping small kiosk in front of their house but the storms of the missiles those destroyed their house and wounded Amina also destroyed the kiosk.
The perpetrators of the cases like these are members of the transitional federal government (TFG) and want to make the blood of the people as bridge to reach political positions.
Most of the education sectors are still closed; the people are alert to flee while more than 180 wounds remain in the hospitals those GLED Team visited on Tuesday-Monday.
Ugaso Sharif 23, pregnant mother of two children was paralysed by bullets on her backbone, she is in very serious situation and the doctors told her that they can’t do any thing for her.
Ugaso said “before a week I was working to get survival for my kids, but now I am paralyse and I feel very helpless, I don’t have money to go outside the country and the doctors told me that they have no way to safe my life” adding that “my house was destroyed, and my children are in displacement, while the perpetrators are still announcing another war”.

The situation is very critical, the people are hopeless and the phenomenon is another war that will destroy the lives of the rest of the people.

Not only Amin but the fighting affected the people extremely.
Elmi Mohamed Ahmed a 13 years old child who was seriously wounded in the stomach and other parts of his body, but recovered after four hours surgery told GLED “I was preparing to go to school with my younger siblings, unfortunately the fighting started, three of us were seriously wounded and my younger sister died”
Uneasy efforts are maintained by some well-known moderate religious leaders, but still don’t seem to have means to bring parts to gather in same table, because the fighting parts have still energy to fight and kill more people with out accountability.

Why the people feel that they are in dilemma?
The people are too nervous about the situation that they are facing at moment and at the future.
Prof. Abdulkader Mohamed Osman a lecturer in Somali Institute of Management and Administration development (SIMAD Institute) in Mogadishu shows his anxiety about the future of the country.
Osman said “I am worrying how the things are going on, the Sharia courts seem to have defeated the warlords and want to take power in the capital city” adding that “if the Islamists succeed the power, United States may attack on Somalia like Afghanistan and Iraq pursuing allegedly Alqaeda members, if the warlords succeed the security will worsen and killings of innocent people will continue.”.
Aweis Nur Abukar secretary general of Somali Youth Development network said to “I don’t believe that one of the rivals will fully succeed, but the result is the massacre of the people and displacement of the rest” adding that “The international community can send all of them to international criminal court in Hague and charge them war crimes, because they committed war crimes and violated the arms embargo in the country”.
Anfa Amin, the GLED deputy chairlady said “as the fighting is going the arms embargo is violated and the gun dealers order new frighting” adding that “If the UN waits more years these warlords will finsih the people and they will kill like the beasts”
The Islamists started propaganda offering CD-Room video clips about the fighting edited with some of their aims intended to succeed the public opinion to the Cyber-café.
Somalia is with out government for a long time and the people in the country are the hostages of the guns and gangs since 1991 when the central government was ousted from the authority.


Abukar Albadri
P.O.Box: 205 Mogadishu, BN03040 Somalia
Tel: 002521 271535, Mobile: 002521 572300
Email: albadri10@yahoo.com
Mogadishu - Somalia.
]]> Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:01:00 EST http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/37136 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/37134
Mogadishu (GLED) –after four days of heavy fighting that engulfed more than 75 people, the situation of Mogadishu yet is in dilemma and the people are still worrying about another possible war.
Both parts are still threatening each other and the people are still confusing as if the other fighting will take lives of many other people.
A mission team from GLED Somalia visited the hospitals and the war areas to assess the situation and help those are still in the war areas with out a way to escape.
The GLED team met in Madina Hospital a 3 month old young girl called Amina Zahra Moalim who was seriously wounded in the arms and the stomach.
The team made an interview with Amina’s Mother and asked how her infant was victimised.
The gloomy mother crying said “The fighting was the misfortune of my daughter, because she was 85 days only in the world, now she is victim and no body is trying to punish those harmed my child” adding that “the bullets hit her arm and stomach and I am afraid that she will be mentally retarded because she banged her head on the ground when she bounced from the bet to the ground because of the reaction of the missile that destroyed the house”.
Amina’s situation is very critical and she is the youngest victim in the fighting.
Her family are very poor, her father is teacher and her mother was keeping small kiosk in front of their house but the storms of the missiles those destroyed their house and wounded Amina also destroyed the kiosk.
The perpetrators of the cases like these are members of the transitional federal government (TFG) and want to make the blood of the people as bridge to reach political positions.
Most of the education sectors are still closed; the people are alert to flee while more than 180 wounds remain in the hospitals those GLED Team visited on Tuesday-Monday.
Ugaso Sharif 23, pregnant mother of two children was paralysed by bullets on her backbone, she is in very serious situation and the doctors told her that they can’t do any thing for her.
Ugaso said “before a week I was working to get survival for my kids, but now I am paralyse and I feel very helpless, I don’t have money to go outside the country and the doctors told me that they have no way to safe my life” adding that “my house was destroyed, and my children are in displacement, while the perpetrators are still announcing another war”.

The situation is very critical, the people are hopeless and the phenomenon is another war that will destroy the lives of the rest of the people.

Not only Amin but the fighting affected the people extremely.
Elmi Mohamed Ahmed a 13 years old child who was seriously wounded in the stomach and other parts of his body, but recovered after four hours surgery told GLED “I was preparing to go to school with my younger siblings, unfortunately the fighting started, three of us were seriously wounded and my younger sister died”
Uneasy efforts are maintained by some well-known moderate religious leaders, but still don’t seem to have means to bring parts to gather in same table, because the fighting parts have still energy to fight and kill more people with out accountability.

Why the people feel that they are in dilemma?
The people are too nervous about the situation that they are facing at moment and at the future.
Prof. Abdulkader Mohamed Osman a lecturer in Somali Institute of Management and Administration development (SIMAD Institute) in Mogadishu shows his anxiety about the future of the country.
Osman said “I am worrying how the things are going on, the Sharia courts seem to have defeated the warlords and want to take power in the capital city” adding that “if the Islamists succeed the power, United States may attack on Somalia like Afghanistan and Iraq pursuing allegedly Alqaeda members, if the warlords succeed the security will worsen and killings of innocent people will continue.”.
Aweis Nur Abukar secretary general of Somali Youth Development network said to “I don’t believe that one of the rivals will fully succeed, but the result is the massacre of the people and displacement of the rest” adding that “The international community can send all of them to international criminal court in Hague and charge them war crimes, because they committed war crimes and violated the arms embargo in the country”.
Anfa Amin, the GLED deputy chairlady said “as the fighting is going the arms embargo is violated and the gun dealers order new frighting” adding that “If the UN waits more years these warlords will finsih the people and they will kill like the beasts”
The Islamists started propaganda offering CD-Room video clips about the fighting edited with some of their aims intended to succeed the public opinion to the Cyber-café.
Somalia is with out government for a long time and the people in the country are the hostages of the guns and gangs since 1991 when the central government was ousted from the authority.

_______________________________________________________________________
Abukar Albadri
P.O.Box: 205 Mogadishu, BN03040 Somalia
Tel: 002521 271535, Mobile: 002521 572300
Email: albadri10@yahoo.com
Mogadishu - Somalia.
]]> Wed, 29 Mar 2006 13:48:00 EST http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/37134 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/36395
Mogadishu (08/03/2006) GLED Somalia marked the International Women's Day on Wednesday as national women’s day by various events in Mogadishu, Baidoa, and Hudur of Somalia.
In the opening of a celebration in Baidoa the Prime minister of Somalia Ali Mohamed Gedi said “Not Only memorials but we have to do action to ensure the women rights” adding that “I am sure women in Somalia are the cornerstone of the Socio-economy, Political, and community in Somalia”. The Prime Minister pledged that his government will give more rights to women.
At a media briefing in a press conference in Mogadishu, the chairman of GLED Somalia Abukar Albadri stated women as the sight of the eyes, he said “No one can go with out the sight of the eyes, and women is like that” adding that “regardless off the killing, raping, harming, torture women help men to survive”.
Albadri called on the Somali authorities to come with the solution of the Arms in the hands of the people.
He stated the gun as the master of the drought and insecurity in Somalia; he said “Where there is gun there is no life”.
The minister for women and family affairs of Somalia Fowsiya Mohamed Sheikh urged the women to stand for their rights and fight for protection.
She said “My Ministry stands to protect women from physical harm, assault, abuse and rape, but the situation is barricade to us” adding that “I am sure women can do more than men can do”
For the 31st anniversary of international women’s day as national day, GLED Somalia handed 40 women certificates after they finished one year course of computer programs, secretarial duties, sewing skills, and cloth colouring.
GLED Somalia also gave other one year chance for other fifty women who will benefit from GLED’s Vocational training center with out charge.
Madina Mohamed Ali, 21 years old single mother who benefited from GLED’s Vocational training center praised the GLED Somalia.
Madina said “I am delighted to take this opportunity to say thanks to GLED, because they enabled us chance to work” adding that “Now I am sure I know skills to get job, and I request GLED to continue the chances they give the women especially teenage girls”.
Abdulahi Mohamed Shirwa, an outstanding peace activist in Mogadishu speaking in the ceremony said “The intelligence can’t accept what we are doing on women, and they are still providing us their kind” adding that “GLED is Symbolic for the peace and the development of the women rights, I am sure where there is peace the rights come”
Although the day was market in many parts of Somalia, unfortunately the situation of women is not good.
The women are excessively affected by Drought, Insecurity and diseases, while the last year more than 124 women were raped or met sexual harassment.
During this year more than 53 women died for wounds caused by GUN, while more than 60% of the people those are affected by the acute droughts are women.
In Somalia the access to birth control, pre-and post-natal care, and HIV prevention, testing, and counselling, among other basic services, are missing and women don’t have access to take control of their lives.
International Women’s Day is celebrated in many countries around the world. But in Somalia it is a national day when women are recognized for their rights without regard to discrimination, whether national, ethnic, Religion, linguistic, cultural, economic or political. It is an occasion for looking back on past struggles and accomplishments of women and for looking ahead to the potential opportunities that await future generations of women.
In 1975, during International Women's Year, the United Nations began celebrating International Women’s Day on 8 March. Two years later, in December 1977, the General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day f or Women's Rights and International Peace to be observed on any day of the year by Member States, in accordance with their historical and national traditions.
Then Somalia adopted the day as national and started to celebrate with the women in adopting the UN resolution, while the former government of Somalia gave remarkable priority to this day.
The government made the day as national holiday.
This celebration came at a time that Somali women have 25 parliamentary members in the national assembly that becomes 12% of the parliament and one minister in the cabinet.
The Somali transitional federal Government TFG is not recognizing the role of women in the reconciliation process but the women are the leaders of the reconciliation and peace promotion.
]]> Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:51:00 EST http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/36395 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/36394
Mogadishu (08/03/2006) GLED Somalia marked the International Women's Day on Wednesday as national women’s day by various events in Mogadishu, Baidoa, and Hudur of Somalia.
In the opening of a celebration in Baidoa the Prime minister of Somalia Ali Mohamed Gedi said “Not Only memorials but we have to do action to ensure the women rights” adding that “I am sure women in Somalia are the cornerstone of the Socio-economy, Political, and community in Somalia”. The Prime Minister pledged that his government will give more rights to women.
At a media briefing in a press conference in Mogadishu, the chairman of GLED Somalia Abukar Albadri stated women as the sight of the eyes, he said “No one can go with out the sight of the eyes, and women is like that” adding that “regardless off the killing, raping, harming, torture women help men to survive”.
Albadri called on the Somali authorities to come with the solution of the Arms in the hands of the people.
He stated the gun as the master of the drought and insecurity in Somalia; he said “Where there is gun there is no life”.
The minister for women and family affairs of Somalia Fowsiya Mohamed Sheikh urged the women to stand for their rights and fight for protection.
She said “My Ministry stands to protect women from physical harm, assault, abuse and rape, but the situation is barricade to us” adding that “I am sure women can do more than men can do”
For the 31st anniversary of international women’s day as national day, GLED Somalia handed 40 women certificates after they finished one year course of computer programs, secretarial duties, sewing skills, and cloth colouring.
GLED Somalia also gave other one year chance for other fifty women who will benefit from GLED’s Vocational training center with out charge.
Madina Mohamed Ali, 21 years old single mother who benefited from GLED’s Vocational training center praised the GLED Somalia.
Madina said “I am delighted to take this opportunity to say thanks to GLED, because they enabled us chance to work” adding that “Now I am sure I know skills to get job, and I request GLED to continue the chances they give the women especially teenage girls”.
Abdulahi Mohamed Shirwa, an outstanding peace activist in Mogadishu speaking in the ceremony said “The intelligence can’t accept what we are doing on women, and they are still providing us their kind” adding that “GLED is Symbolic for the peace and the development of the women rights, I am sure where there is peace the rights come”
Although the day was market in many parts of Somalia, unfortunately the situation of women is not good.
The women are excessively affected by Drought, Insecurity and diseases, while the last year more than 124 women were raped or met sexual harassment.
During this year more than 53 women died for wounds caused by GUN, while more than 60% of the people those are affected by the acute droughts are women.
In Somalia the access to birth control, pre-and post-natal care, and HIV prevention, testing, and counselling, among other basic services, are missing and women don’t have access to take control of their lives.
International Women’s Day is celebrated in many countries around the world. But in Somalia it is a national day when women are recognized for their rights without regard to discrimination, whether national, ethnic, Religion, linguistic, cultural, economic or political. It is an occasion for looking back on past struggles and accomplishments of women and for looking ahead to the potential opportunities that await future generations of women.
In 1975, during International Women's Year, the United Nations began celebrating International Women’s Day on 8 March. Two years later, in December 1977, the General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day f or Women's Rights and International Peace to be observed on any day of the year by Member States, in accordance with their historical and national traditions.
Then Somalia adopted the day as national and started to celebrate with the women in adopting the UN resolution, while the former government of Somalia gave remarkable priority to this day.
The government made the day as national holiday.
This celebration came at a time that Somali women have 25 parliamentary members in the national assembly that becomes 12% of the parliament and one minister in the cabinet.
The Somali transitional federal Government TFG is not recognizing the role of women in the reconciliation process but the women are the leaders of the reconciliation and peace promotion.

]]> Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:41:00 EST http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/36394 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30907
For Immediate Release: Wednesday 19 October 2005

Dirty tricks as Brazilian gun referendum approaches (PRESS RELEASE) GLED SOMALIA

Nelson Mandela’s lawyers furious at abuse of his image by pro-gun lobby

With only a few days to go until Brazil goes to the polls in a radical referendum about banning the sale of guns and ammunition, the pro-gun lobby has appropriated the image of Nelson Mandela and his fight against apartheid to support its arguments that guns should not be controlled in Brazil.

This Sunday, 122 million Brazilians will go to the polls to answer the question: Should the commercial sale of guns and ammunition to civilians be prohibited?

Campaigners for both the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes have been given free airtime to promote their views. The image of Mr Mandela appeared in a TV advert for the ‘no’ campaign, linking his fight for freedom to the pro-gun lobby’s argument that people should be allowed to own firearms.

But in South Africa, Mr Mandela has been a firm advocate for gun control, with his face and signature appearing on certificates given to those who handed in their guns during a disarmament campaign in 1994. Lawyers for Mr Mandela have now written to the President of the Parliamentary Front of the pro-gun lobby in Brazil to complain about the abuse of his image in the campaign.

“It is incorrect, improper and illegal to use the reference to Mr Mandela fighting against apartheid, when such struggle bears no relation to the sale of guns,” says the letter.

“The outrageous cooptation of Nelson Mandela’s image in these ads sends a distorted message that Mr. Mandela supports the work of the pro-gun lobby in Brazil,” said Josephine Bourgois, a YES campaigner with the Rio de Janeiro-based NGO Viva Rio. “His lawyers have now set the record straight and, in doing so, have revealed that the wealthy and powerful gun lobby will stop at nothing to keep selling their deadly wares, even deliberately misrepresenting the facts.”

Heather Sutton of Sou da Paz, who is campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote to prohibit the sale of guns, added, “The ‘yes’ campaign is backed by doctors, lawyers, well-known actresses and singers, and public security experts – ten Nobel Peace Prize Laureates recently signed a petition in favor of the measure and activists all over the world rallied for a ‘yes’ vote in cities all over the world. No wonder ‘no’ campaigners are scrabbling to make up supporters.”

#Cont
Brazil has the highest number of gun deaths in the world, around 38,000 a year – or
more than 100 every day. This is a higher rate than in many conflict zones. It is also a significant arms producer. The referendum will be the first time in the world that a nation has put its gun laws to a popular vote.


CONTACT PERSONS
SOMALIA: Abukar Albadri +2521 572300 or +2521 217098
UK: Anthea Lawson +44 (0)20 7065 0875 or +44 (0)7900 242 869
Brazil: Jessica Galeria +55 21 2555 3750 or +55 21 8128 8808
South Africa: Joseph Dube +27 11 403 4590 or +27 835 888 765

For more information about the referendum see www.iansa.org



GLED Somalia is IANSA Members and IANSA is a global network of more than 600 civil society organisations working to stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons. Its members include victim support groups, human rights activists, public health professional and research institutes.


-Ends-
]]> Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:29:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30907 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30886
Abdul Hakeem Haji Shiqey, one of the owners of the studio that dubs popular Bollywood films into the Somali language, said that the assailants assaulted his mother, sisters and wife and took his father hostage.

"They also robbed my mother of one thousand dollars and took my wife's gold jewelry," Haji Shiqey added.

Computers, an archive of more than 7 000 films and other equipment was destroyed.

Earlier in October, Islamic courts warned all cinemas and distributors against showing films during the holy month of Ramadan.
]]> Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:55:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30886 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30888 Prohiben ir al cine en Somalia por Ramadán

Mogadiscio, 3 oct (PL) Las cortes islámicas de Somalia dictaron hoy la prohibición de ir al cine durante el mes del Ramadán porque consideran que el llamado séptimo arte sólo emite mensajes relacionados con drogas y violencia que llevan a la perdición.


Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed Siyar, presidente de la Unión de las Cortes Islámicas, hizo el anuncio de la medida en conferencia de prensa.



"Prohibimos ver cualquier película durante el mes de Ramadán porque llevan a la gente a la perdición", dijo el jefe de los tribunales islámicos.



El Ramadán se iniciará mañana.



Según Sheikh Sharif: "El cine se basa en las drogas y los actos malignos e inducen a los matones a hacer contra gente inocente lo que ven en las películas".



El dictamen incluye el castigo para quienes no sigan el precepto y advierte a los dueños de salas, a los padres, a los jóvenes y a los suministradores de electricidad que interrumpan cualquier actividad relacionada con el cine.



En Mogadiscio, la capital de Somalia, hay cerca de 800 salas cinematográficas, y algunas de ellas tienen sus propios custodios armados.



rgc/js


]]> Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:55:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30888 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30889 Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:55:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30889 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30890
Los milicianos de la corte de Al-Furqan en Mogadiscio, la capital somalي, confiscaron ayer todo el material técnico que pudieron llevarse, como equipos de filmaciَn y ediciَn y vehيculos, antes de destruir el resto, seٌalaron las fuentes.

El pasado dيa 3, las cortes islلmicas, apoyadas por algunos de los clanes armados que mantienen a Somalia sumida en el caos, anunciaron la prohibiciَn de ir al cine durante el mes sagrado del Ramadلn, al considerar que las pelيculas sَlo difunden 'mensajes sobre las drogas y la violencia y llevan a la perdiciَn'.

Abdul Hakeem Haji Shiqey, propietario del estudio Al Faghi, situado en la localidad de Hamar Weyne, al norte de Mogadiscio, explicَ, en una rueda de prensa, que los asaltantes torturaron a su madre, a su esposa y a sus hermanas y que se llevaron como rehén a su padre, a quien luego liberaron.

'En el ataque, los milicianos saquearon todas nuestras propiedades, destruyeron el estudio y torturaron a mi madre, a la que también robaron 1.000 dَlares', explicَ Shiqey, quien aٌadiَ que los milicianos también despojaron a su esposa de todas sus joyas.

Shiqey se lamentَ especialmente de que los atacantes destruyeran por completo los archivos del estudio cinematogrلfico, que contenيa mلs de 7.000 pelيculas, vيdeos y DVDs, asي como material informلtico en disquetes.

Segْn el propietario del estudio, los milicianos no dijeron los motivos del ataque, pero ésta no es la primera vez que su familia, como otros miembros de la comunidad minoritaria Benadir, han sido agredidos por las fuerzas de la corte islلmica Al-Furqan.

'Somos atacados y robados sistemلticamente por las milicias, que también secuestran a nuestros familiares y sَlo los liberan cuando pagamos un rescate', explicَ Shiqey.

Pese a la prohibiciَn de las cortes islلmicas de acudir al cine durante el Ramadلn, muchas de las mلs de 800 salas de cine de Mogadiscio han continuado funcionando en el mes sagrado de los musulmanes, en particular las pertenecientes a poderosos clanes tribales con milicias fuertemente armadas y que han colocado guardias para proteger los edificios.

El estudio Al Faghi producيa pelيculas y vيdeos de conciertos que distribuيa en el circuito cinematogrلfico somalي y hacيa también doblajes de filmes estadounidenses e hindْes al lenguaje local, aunque su propietario afirma que la empresa no estaba trabajando durante el Ramadلn.

Somalia ha vivido inmersa en el caos desde enero de 1991, cuando los lيderes de los clanes somalيes, conocidos como 'seٌores de la guerra', derrocaron al dictador Mohamed Siad Barré, en el exilio, y controlan desde entonces el dividido territorio somalي con la ayuda de milicias armadas que imponen 'la ley del mلs fuerte'.

Sَlo desde el aٌo pasado, Somalia tiene un Gobierno Federal de Transiciَn, reconocido internacionalmente y que en junio se trasladَ al paيs desde el exilio en Kenia para tratar de restablecer el orden.

La Administraciَn interina funciona, sin embargo, desde la ciudad de Jawhar, situada 85 kilَmetros al norte de Mogadiscio, debido a que en la capital no se puede garantizar la seguridad personal de algunos de sus lيderes, incluido el presidente y su primer ministro.
]]> Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:55:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30890 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30770 By: Abukar Albadri,

Mogadishu – Somalia: – On 14th October 2004 it was one day of happiness and hopeful for the war remnant population of Somalia.
“All that glitters is not gold” said Adan Omar Nur, a University student in Mogadishu who was analysing the government operations since its lifetime
Nur speaking about the progress of the government said “All we were waiting to get from the government was to restore the security, but the misfortune is that they increased the instability” adding that “They violated the UN arms embargo and imported weapons”
Today (Friday Oct. 14, 2005) the government Officials including the president Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed are celebrating the first anniversary of the President’s inauguration of the office.
Ceremonies are going in Jawhar, the provincial base of the government and Mogadishu the former presidential palace, which is under control of the adherents of the interior Minister Eng. Hussein Mohamed Aideed.
The entire government members in Jawhar are participating the celebration but in Mogadishu only two transitional federal government (TFG) officials are participating.
Hussein Mohamed Aideed the interior Minister and Mohamoud Ali Gabow the appointed mayor of Mogadishu are organizing the ceremony while more than five misters (The powerful warlords and other 100 PMs ignored the celebration)
All these ceremonies are not making any sense for the people regarding their feelings.
Habibo Ahmed Mohamed a small business owner in Mogadishu said “In the oath ceremony we were expecting good hope but now what we are expecting is war” adding that “I don’t know why UN is observer and not punishing these warlords like the ones in Rwanda, Serbia and other countries in the world”.
Khalif Kaahim, a resident in Garowe the Capital of Puntland regions believes that the government is functioning and the main obstacle is the faction leaders in Mogadishu.
Kaahim said “The president is ready to work for the people but the warlords in Mogadishu are confronting him” adding that “once he will defeat them”.
But Hussein Awkerow a resident in Baidoa has different idea from them.
Awkerow said “The birth of the government was the birth of the instability in our town (Baidoa)” adding that “We are expecting them to stop the backing of the fighting groups other wise they will take the responsibility of every crime”

The coverage of the media
The Puntland Post online newspaper called the president as a political-hero its commentary on Thursday, but the Mogadishu based Midnimo Online newspaper called the president as an army officer who shot himself.
By the way how is the image of the Government regarding like this day before one year?

The Image of TFG
189 out of 275 members of the Somalia’s newly formed parliament elected Abdulahi Yusuf as the president of the five years in 10th Oct. 2004, it was sudden that Abdulahi Yusuf Ahmed came to the power, while the people was expecting that a warlord from Mogadishu will come to the power.
Mr. Yusuf at his inaugural ceremony said “If I was a warlord I promise to be peace activist, ...you elected me to restore the stability if I see it that I can’t do I will back it to the parliament” adding that “I am requesting to the African Union and IGAD to send twenty thousands of peace keeping troops to Somalia”.
With in days critical dispute started between the government leaders and split them into factions and started to fight.
The Most horrible time of the government was 17th March when bloody fight happened in the parliament session in Nairobi, the brawling disheartened the people and the international community.
The government’s relocation to the country and the IGAD peace keeping forces became invariable decisions between the government factions.
The UN monitoring team for accused the president and 10 other cabinet members to have involved the violation of the arms embargo against Somalia.]]> Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:03:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30770 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30769
CC: USA, EU, AU, IGAD, League of Arab States

CC: Local and International Media, Human rights Organization and Peace promoters.

Ref: Press Release

Sub: Endorsing the UN Security Council’s resolution 1630 (2005) on their 5280th Meeting.

“The More UN Security Council Tightens the Arms embargo against Somalia the threat of the security in Somalia, in the region and the other world decreases”.

THE GREEN LEAF FOR DEMOCRACY (GLED Somalia) is endorsing the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1630 (2005) adopted on Friday 14th October 2005 in the Security Council’s 5280th Meeting.

It was significant step and a way forward to adopt such resolution that is reviving the hope of the war ravaged people in Somalia.

The weapons in Somalia are free and more than half of the people have guns, so that it results all crimes against Human rights including: Killing, raping, Abduction for ransom, Hijacking, massacre and other awful deeds.

“The most Important thing that Somali people want is peace and to get their freedom from the gun” Said the Country coordinator of GLED Somalia Abukar Albadri.

“The people in Somalia are hostages for guns, gangs, warlords and drug dealers and it is the world that can do crucial action to safe these innocent people”.

GLED requests all the G8 countries, the UN member states and US Government to support the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to adopt a resolution that can decrease the GUN VIOLENCE AGAINST THE HUMANITY.
GLED Somalia is rejoicing at the UN resolution set forth

Decision: The draft resolution (S/2005/625) received 15 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions and was adopted unanimously as resolution 1630 (2005).

(a) Reaffirming and sustaining the arms embargo on Somalia, in accordance with Security Council resolution 733 (1992), paragraph 5;
(b) Implementing a trade embargo on the export of charcoal originating in Somalia;
(c) Implementing a ban on foreign vessels fishing in Somali waters and a trade embargo on the export of fish taken in Somali waters.

Appeal
GLED Somalia is appealing to:
1. UN Security Council to sustain and tighten the arms embargo against Somalia until Somalia stands by itself and set criminal Court for the countries, companies and individuals committing the arms embargo violation, charcoal exportation, illegal fishing and other crimes against human rights.
2. The International Community to support the Somali Government to restore the security and establish stability and reconstruction.
3. The UN Members states and G8 countries to support the ATT, because TO TRADE ONE BULLET MEANS TO KILL ONE PERSON.

CONCLUSION
The UN Security Council’s resolution 1630 (2005) is the start of the new way forward that can short the existence of the 15 years old civil war in Somalia.
]]> Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:30:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/30769 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/28853
For Immediate Release:
3pm BST, Friday 26 August 2005

Global commitments to small arms controls under threat from US at United Nations World Summit

Activists around the world today condemned US attempts to remove all references to controlling the small arms trade from a United Nations document due to be signed by more than 170 world leaders next month.

With less than three weeks before heads of state arrive in New York for the unprecedented summit on poverty and UN reform, the US has taken an axe to the proposed outcome document for the summit, requesting the deletion of the only two commitments on small arms:

• To “adopt and implement an international instrument to regulate the marking and tracing, illict brokering, trade and transfer of small arms and light weapons.”

• To implement the 2001 UN Programme of Action. This agreement was an early step by the international community towards controlling the trade in small arms.

More than 140 States have expressed support during the last few months of negotiations for the inclusion of one or both of these commitments on small arms in the measures to be agreed by the summit.

“The World Summit will set the agenda on security and development for the years to come. The uncontrolled proliferation of guns is the missing link for both of these issues. How can people work their way out of poverty when they can’t step outside for fear of bullets? The majority of governments who are beginning to recognise this must not allow the US to let arms control slip off the agenda,” said Rebecca Peters, Director of IANSA.

Small arms kill at least 300,000 people a year and injure over a million more. They prevent access to healthcare, education and humanitarian assistance and fuel the conflicts that destroy economies and employment opportunities. IANSA members are calling for a new global legally-binding treaty to control the arms trade.

The World Summit will take place at UN headquarters in New York on 14-16 September. Negotiations on the outcome document are now in their final stages. The text of the US proposed amendments is available at www.reformtheun.org.

Contact: Anthea Lawson +44 (0)20 7065 0872 or +44 (0)7971 834 578

IANSA Somalia, Contact Person
Abukar Albadri,
Mogadishu Somalia
Tel: +2521572300


IANSA is a global network of more than 600 civil society organisations including victim support groups, human rights activists, public health professional and research institutes.
www.iansa.org
]]> Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:25:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/28853 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25564 Failing to prevent irresponsible arms transfers


Contents

Introduction 3
Canada 6
France 9
Germany 12
Italy 15
Japan 18
The Russian Federation 22
The United Kingdom 24
The United States of America 28
Conclusion 32
Appendix: Global principles for arms transfers 35
Notes 38


Introduction
The international arms trade lacks effective control. Irresponsible arms transfers continue to fuel armed violence. They contribute to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and they undermine development. The uncontrolled proliferation of conventional arms, particularly small arms and light weapons (hereafter referred to as small arms), has taken a terrible toll on communities worldwide. The cost in lost lives, lost livelihoods and lost opportunities to escape poverty is incalculable. Arms deliveries were worth some US$28.7 billion worldwide in 2003 – a paltry sum compared to the human, security and development costs.
Yet, contrary to their responsibilities and legal obligations, the G8 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA - are still supplying weapons and munitions to irresponsible end users. Six of the eight G8 countries are among the top 10 largest global arms exporters, and all of the eight export large amounts of major conventional weapons or small arms. So the G8 has a particular responsibility to help create an effective system of global control of arms transfers.
As these tables show, the G8 countries are among the world’s leading arms suppliers, exporters of major conventional weapons, and exporters of small arms.
This table shows the leading arms suppliers compared and the value of all arms deliveries to the world (in millions of current US dollars) between 1996 and 2003.
Country USA UK France Russia Germany Italy Canada Japan
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 10 No ranking or value for arms deliveries is provided by the Congressional Research Service Report for Canada and Japan
Arms deliveries worldwide between 1996 and 2003 in millions of current US dollars 151,867 43,000 30,200 26,200 10,800 2,700

This table provides an indication of the volume of major conventional weapons supplies by the G8 countries in 2003 according to SIPRI.
Country Russia USA France Germany Canada UK Italy Japan
Major conventional weapons export, by volume, in 2003 in US$ million. 6,980 4,385 1,753 1,549 556 525 277 No data is provided by SIPRI for Japan
Please note that the SIPRI values are an indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not the actual money values of such transfers. These figures can not be compared with others.

The value of small arms exports in 2001 by the G8 countries.
Country USA Italy Germany Japan Canada UK Russia France
Small arms exports in 2001 in US$ million 741.4 298.7 156.7 70.3 53.6 44.8 42.2 33.7

The data included in this report is the latest comprehensive data available. Please note the figures are pulled from different sources, as shown by the above tables, which use different methods of calculation so care should be taken when making comparisons.
Each of the G8 governments has a particular responsibility to control arms and to respect and ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. However, as this report shows, inadequate controls and poor practice in implementing and enforcing those laws and regulations which do exist mean that arms are still being exported from the G8 to groups and governments that persistently abuse human rights and which exacerbate human suffering.
Excessive or inappropriate arms purchases are also a drain on social and economic resources. In some developing countries the result is that badly needed resources are diverted away from the fight against poverty. Many of the G8 countries are large donors to aid programmes in Africa and Asia. However, continuing arms transfers to developing countries undermine their pledges to relieve debt, combat AIDS, alleviate poverty, tackle corruption and promote good governance.
The transfer of arms and related military assistance also impedes development when the items are transferred to unaccountable and poorly trained military forces that are used to suppress human rights, democracy and socio-economic development. Such arms transfers can facilitate brutal resource exploitation, and environmental degradation. They can contribute to an increase in violence against civilians. The presence of guns in society has a particular impact on women’s lives. Large numbers of women and girls are at risk of armed violence, whether they are directly involved in the fighting or dealing with the emotional, social and economic consequences of the loss of male relatives who have been killed or injured by gun violence. Given the effects of weapons misuse, it is shocking how few governments give serious thought to the impact on development and human rights of their arms exports. And for the few that do, it has yet to become a genuine priority.
The challenge to the G8 governments is clear. They must co-operate to control and limit the flow of arms. These most powerful governments need to establish a global system of controlling international arms transfers through an Arms Trade Treaty. Such a Treaty would create legally binding arms controls on all international arms transfers and ensure that all governments control arms in line with the same basic international standards including human rights and humanitarian law. This Treaty would be applied equally to the broadest possible range of weapons, munitions and equipment for use in military operations and law enforcement, including their components, technologies, and technical assistance and material resources for training to make use of such weapons, munitions and equipment. It would help stop such arms falling into the hands of those who use them to attack civilians, to launch indiscriminate attacks and to perpetrate a wide range of other human rights abuses.
This report uses case studies to illustrate the scope of shortcomings common across the G8 and other countries. The report focuses on loopholes and weaknesses in arms exports controls and their implementation. Many of the problems highlighted in relation to one country also apply to others. For example, both France and Germany have exported arms to countries subject to a European Union (EU) arms embargo, such as Myanmar (Burma), China and Sudan. The failure to enforce controls on the transfer of equipment that can be used for torture and ill-treatment applies not only to the French government, but also to the German, Russia, UK and US, governments. The continued transfer of weapons, including small arms, to countries where they may be used to facilitate human rights abuses is highlighted using examples from Italy and Japan, and the increasing concern over the lack of control on the transfer of dual-use technology and components is illustrated using cases from Germany, Japan, and the UK. Thus, the examples included in the report have been selected because they show why a tough, comprehensive, enforceable Arms Trade Treaty is urgently needed. This may have helped to prevent many of the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law illustrated by the cases cited in this report.
On 23 and 24 June 2005, Foreign Ministers from each of the G8 countries will meet to discuss the UK Foreign Secretary’s proposal for a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty covering all conventional weapons including small arms and light weapons, and including provisions to address particular loopholes. Two weeks later the G8 Heads of States will take part in a Summit focusing on Africa.
Control Arms Campaign partners -- Amnesty International (AI), Oxfam International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) -- are urging the Foreign Ministers and Heads of State of the G8 countries to actively support the UK proposal and join the call for a global Arms Trade Treaty.

Canada
In 2003, Canada exported US$556 million of major conventional weapons including aircraft, warships, artillery, armoured vehicles, missiles and target acquisition and radar systems. Canada is also a major exporter of small arms and light weapons, including ammunition. In 2001, it exported small arms worth US$53.6 million.
Responsible arms exporter?
In 2002, Canada exported military equipment to several countries involved in armed conflict and/or human rights violations including light armoured vehicles and helicopters to Saudi Arabia (see the box below), and firearms to Turkey, where in 2002 dozens of killings by security forces were reported. According to the UN commodity trade database (UN Comtrade) data, in 2002, Canada transferred small arms ammunition to India, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
According to official Canadian policy, the government closely controls arms exports to countries in conflict and to governments with persistent records of human rights violations. However, such sales beg the question of how exactly human rights abuses are weighed up by Canadian officials and ministers when deciding whether to authorize an export.
The Canadian government assesses licence applications on an individual case-by-case basis. It also appears that the Minister of International Trade personally reviews applications “involving potential exports of offensive military goods and technologies, unless they are going to a NATO ally or to a small group of other countries with which Canada has similarly close relations.”
Sales to Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia was the largest recipient of Canadian weapons in 2004. According to official data submitted to the UN commodity trade database (UN Comtrade), Canada in 2004 exported equipment included within the category “Tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, motorized, parts, not elsewhere specified.” to Saudi Arabia worth US$179 million.
Gross human rights violations have been carried out in Saudi Arabia for many years. In the Amnesty International Report 2005, AI stated that killings by the security forces and armed groups escalated in 2004. Most killings by security forces took place in Riyadh, Makkah and Jeddah. Some took place during clashes with armed groups and gunmen wanted by the authorities. However, most took place following car or street chases and house raids by the security forces. Dozens of people were killed by armed groups in different parts of the country. The killings were carried out during armed attacks and following hostage-taking operations.
Considering the extensive nature of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, it is surprising that Saudi Arabia is one of only 16 countries to which automatic firearms can be exported according to Canadian regulations. The other countries are Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the USA. In March 2005, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal were added to the list.

Exports to the Philippines
The Philippines is a regular recipient of transfers of Canadian military equipment. Canadian aircraft parts and engines as well as handguns worth US$11.6 million in total, were transferred to the Philippines between 1990 and 2001.
Aerial bombing by the Philippines armed forces had been reported for many years. In 2000, AI reported that periodic aerial bombardment of villages suspected of harbouring members of opposition groups had led to the mass displacement of civilians, particularly in Mindanao. In 2001 AI said that over 400,000 civilians in central Mindanao were internally displaced amid reports of apparently indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian areas suspected of containing forces of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Aircraft parts and aircraft engine parts continued to be transferred to the Philippines during 2000 and 2001.
Sales to the USA: Canada’s big loophole
More than half of Canada’s arms sales are to the USA, which raises two major concerns.
Firstly, the Canadian government is unable to exercise sufficient oversight on the re-export of Canadian military items from the USA: the USA has re-transferred items to other countries where there were strong concerns the weapons would be used to commit violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. In contrast, the re-export of most military goods imported from the USA by Canada requires authorization from Washington to “ensure Canada is not used as a diversionary route to circumvent US embargoes”.
Secondly, military exports to the USA are not recorded in the Canadian government’s annual report. Therefore there is almost no information available on these exports. Transparency is seriously lacking, and not even the Canadian Parliament can scrutinize and oversee these exports.
Because of the unique defence production agreements between Canada and the USA, arms exports by Canada to the USA are not subject to the same stringent controls as other countries – in fact, no export permits are required for Canadian arms exports to the USA. According to press reports, Canada has exported armoured vehicles, landing gear for fighter aircraft, and a host of components for US weapon systems which are frequently transferred by the USA to countries at war or to governments involved in human rights violations.
In April 2004, Defense Daily, the leading US military periodical, reported that the US government was on the verge of buying new military equipment on behalf of Pakistan. The equipment included Canadian-built Bell 412 helicopters, originating in Mirabel, Québec, the sole assembly site for the Bell 412 model in North America. The helicopters will be shipped as civilian aircraft, yet if these helicopters were classed as military aircraft then it is unlikely that the Canadian government would have approved an export permit for their shipment to Pakistan.
Canadian helicopters to Colombia
Between September 1998 and February 2000, the Canadian government sold over 40 surplus ‘Huey’ CH-135 helicopters to the US government. Thirty-three of these were upgraded in the USA and then redirected to the Colombian military as part of Plan Colombia, a mainly military aid package purportedly set up by the USA to dismantle the drugs trade.
Although Canada would never have licensed these helicopters directly to Colombia, the loophole in its law that allows the re-export of upgraded equipment without Canadian consent means that military equipment and weapons can be transferred to sensitive destinations.

France
France was the third largest supplier of conventional arms, in terms of total value, in 2003. France is both a significant producer and exporter of major conventional armaments and a medium producer of small arms and light weapons. In 2001, France small arms exports valued at US$33.7 million.
Embargo busting?
France has continued to export military equipment to countries subject to EU arms embargoes, including Myanmar (Burma), Sudan and the People’s Republic of China. This shows that successive French governments have not abided by their commitments to implement arms embargoes effectively, despite official policy requiring them to respect arms embargoes imposed by the EU.
French exports to Myanmar (Burma)
Since 1996, there has been an EU arms embargo on Myanmar (Burma). In April 2001 the EU extended the embargo, and confirmed the embargo on the export of arms and military equipment from EU member states. Yet, according to official data in the UN Commodity trade database (UN Comtrade), France made shipments of equipment within the category “bombs, grenades, ammunition, mines, and others” (930690) to Myanmar (Burma) in 1998, 1999 and 2000.






The French government should provide specific details of what exactly was exported to Myanmar (Burma). The categories of munitions listed above raise serious concerns regarding whether or not the French government has enforced the EU embargo on military exports to that country or fulfilled its obligations under the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.


French exports to Sudan
In November 2004, Amnesty International expressed concern that France has been one of the countries sending arms to Sudan in apparent violation of a 1994 EU arms embargo. According to data provided to the UN by French customs officials, France registered transfers to Sudan for goods under the category 930690 for “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, and similar munitions of war and parts thereof”. For example:









It appears that such transfers violate the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (1998) as well as the EU embargo on Sudan imposed on 16 March 1994. AI France wrote to the French government in December 2004 calling on it to publish without delay detailed information on the date and nature of the contracts, and the intended use and recipients of the items transferred in order to determine whether these were transferred before the imposition of the UN embargo and whether they complied with the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. No written reply had been received from the French government by the end of May 2005.

French exports to China
An EU arms embargo on the People’s Republic of China has been in force since 27 June 1989. However, EU countries have interpreted this differently. France has been able to transfer some weapons to China and the French government has been at the forefront of calls to lift the EU arms embargo on China.
The French government has also reportedly given approval to the French company Thales Angenieux’s proposal to set up a licensed arms production facility with North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd. in Beijing to produce night-vision goggles, called LUCIE, which can be assembled with full military specifications. A licence for image intensifiers from a British company, Pyser SGI, was refused by the UK government which has adopted a narrower intrepretation of the EU arms embargo on China.
The lack of transparency
It is difficult to determine exactly what military equipment and weapons France exports and thus the potential detrimental impact on sensitive destinations because the information contained in the French government’s annual report to Parliament and the data submitted to UN mechanisms by the French government do not specify what equipment falls under the different categories. Furthermore, information submitted to different mechanisms can vary considerably, making it difficult to cross check the data across them. For example, there were discrepancies between the data in the French annual reports and that submitted to the UN Comtrade. In some cases information appears absent, for example no data is entered under Sudan in the French annual reports covering exports for 2002 and 2003, or under Myanmar (Burma) in the French annual reports covering exports for 1999 and 2000. This contradicts the figures supplied by French customs.
Lack of controls on transfers of police and security equipment
Although French laws and regulations control and restrict the transfer of most military, security and police goods, some types of equipment are excluded. French arms export law does not contain any specific reference to the control of leg-irons, thumb-cuffs, electric shock stun weapons (batons, stun guns, stun belts and other equipment) which can easily be used as a means of torture and ill treatment. Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern about this loophole to the French authorities.
Despite severe internal repression by the Kenyan police and a suspension of tear gas supplies from the UK, tear gas manufactured by the French company, Nobel Sécurité, was exported from France to Kenya during the late 1990s. Such exports would appear to contradict French government policy which states that, in accordance with the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, the supply of arms likely to be used to contribute to internal repression must be refused. However, it remains unclear whether the export of such tear gas for “police” use requires export licence authorization by the French government.

Germany
Germany is ranked the fifth largest arms supplier in the world. At least 279 companies in Germany are producing or trading military, security and police products and services. According to the Small Arms Survey, Germany in 2001 it exported small arms worth US$156.7 million.
In 2003, Germany licensed small arms exports to many countries including Egypt, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, all countries where serious human rights abuses have been committed.
Components – a gaping loophole
Despite a theoretically restrictive arms exports policy, German-made components are sometimes being incorporated into military equipment that could easily be used to facilitate human rights violations or contribute to conflict or internal repression. According to a recent report by the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS) and Oxfam Germany, “the Federal Government and its agencies apply a double standard.” The report points out that it is easier to get an export licence for arms components than for entire weapons systems. This loophole is particularly due to the inconsistent German arms export licensing system which consists of a dual legal structure: the restrictive War Weapons Control Act and the Foreign Trade and Payments Act which facilitates arms exports.
German engines for Ukrainian assembled armoured vehicles to Myanmar (Burma)
There is evidence that German engines are being incorporated into military vehicles available in Myanmar (Burma). According to the Ukrainian armoured vehicle manufacturer, Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (Ukraine), German Deutz engines are incorporated into the Ukrainian BTR-3U Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC) that are fitted with a machine gun, grenade launcher and anti-tank guided weapon system.
It is unclear whether these engines have been exported from Germany or are produced under a German licence in the Ukraine.
It was reported that in 2003 the Ukraine had signed a contract to supply 1000 BTR-3U to Burma over the next 10 years. The APCs would reportedly be sent in component form, to be assembled in Myanmar (Burma). At the same time the Ukraine government reported to the UN Register of Conventional Arms that it had actually shipped 10 BTR-3U to Myanmar (Burma) during 2003.
However, under the 2000 EC Regulation on Dual-Use goods, which is legally binding on all EU members states, the export of dual-use goods for use in military systems to countries under embargo are in fact subject to arms export controls. This covers products intended for incorporation into military equipment or for the development, production or maintenance of such equipment, or for use in a plant for production of such equipment.
It is unclear whether the German government applies the Dual-Use regulation to cases involving exports of components to third countries who may then export items to embargoed destinations, nor whether it was reasonable for the company to have knowledge that its products may have been re-exported to embargoed destinations.
It is important to note that the case was first published in September 2004 and details of the transfer of 10 BTU to Myanmar (Burma) during 2003 have been on the UN Register of Conventional Arms since May 2004. Details of the involvement of Deutz in the development of these vehicles still remain on the Ukrainian manufacturer’s website.
In May 2005, it was reported that the German authorities were conducting investigations into the Deutz company for possible breeches of an EU arms embargo on Myanmar (Burma). According to a report in the German magazine Focus, Deutz supplied engines to a company in the United Arab Emirates from March 2000 to March 2001. These were then resold to a Ukrainian company which adapted them for use in armoured vehicles.
It is clear that the human rights record of the Myanmar (Burma) security forces is appalling. The Burmese army, the Tatmadaw, have used military vehicles to capture, detain and enforce conscription of child soldiers. Military vehicles have also been used to quell student pro-democracy demonstrations. The German government should make every effort to ensure that German components are not being used by the security forces of Myanmar (Burma).
A significant number of licences issued by the German government are for “dual-use” items i.e. items that have a military as well as civilian use. Between 1999 and 2003, about half of the total licences reported by the German government in its Report on Military Equipment Exports were for military components. The lack of public information makes it difficult to confirm that German components are not being incorporated into equipment exported to armed forces that do commit such violations.
Licensed production of Heckler and Koch assault rifles in Turkey
The German company Heckler and Koch has engaged in a number of licensed production arrangements. In the late 1990s, the German government authorized the licensed production of calibre HK33 5.56mm assault rifles in Turkey. These were replacements for the Turkish military’s outdated G3 rifles, also produced with a German licence by the company MKEK in Turkey.
On 23 August 2000 the Turkish Minister of Defence signed a contract with a consortium of companies from Germany (Fritz Werner), Belgium (New Lachausee), Spain (Santa Barbara) and France (Manurhin) to install an ammunition manufacturing plant in Turkey. The plant will be run by MKEK and the lead foreign company will be Fritz Werner of Germany. This licensed production deal, which is estimated to be worth between €40 million and €45 million (approximately between US$35.9 million and US$40.4 million), will give MKEK the ability to produce 5.56mm calibre ammunition for assault rifles.
The German, Belgian and French companies listed above have all been granted export licences by their respective governments to fulfil this contract. This is despite the much-criticized previous authorization by the German government of licensed production with MKEK, where Heckler and Koch MP5 sub-machine guns were exported from Turkey to Indonesia. It still remains far from clear how, if at all, the governments of Germany, Belgium and France will ensure that MKEK will not export ammunition to forces likely to use them for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Among MKEK’s other clients have been the governments of Burundi, Libya, Pakistan and Tunisia – all countries where AI has reported serious human rights violations by the security forces.
Turkey lacks effective arms export controls based upon respect for international law. Despite its formal adherence to the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, there is a real danger that the Turkish government will continue to allow the export of significant quantities of small arms and ammunition, many produced under licence from European companies, to security forces in other countries that persistently commit human rights violations.

Italy
Between 1996 and 2003, Italy was the tenth largest arms supplier. Italy in 2001 exported small arms valued at US$298.7 million. In recent years, Italian small arms have been transferred to a number of countries experiencing violent conflict or where violations of human rights and international humanitarian law occur including Algeria, Colombia, Eritrea, Indonesia, India, Israel, Kazakstan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone.
Such international transfers appear to flout Italian law 185/90 which prohibits exports to countries whose governments are responsible for proven gross violation of human rights and to countries engaged in conflict, under arms embargoes or receiving Italian development aid whose defence spending exceeds their defence needs. Italian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are concerned that in practice the prohibitions in Italian law are being diluted by the Italian government in order to allow the transfer of arms to such countries.
Small arms exports to Algeria
In a parliamentary debate in November 2004 the Italian government defended sales to Algeria. The Under-Secretary of State for Disarmament at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Senator Alfredo Luigi Mantica, stated that “Algeria was not condemned by EU and/or UN bodies for human rights violations so the prohibitions of the Italian arms control law 185/90 are not applicable”.
Algeria is a country which has been ravaged by serious human rights abuses resulting in the killing of around 500 people in 2004. In 2001 and 2002, the Algerian security forces shot dead some 100 unarmed citizens in the context of demonstrations in the northeastern region of Kabylia. An official commission of inquiry, which was established to look into killings committed between April and June 2001, concluded that the security forces had resorted to excessive use of lethal force during the demonstrations. Despite the authorities’ repeated announcements that those responsible would be brought to justice, AI has received no information from the authorities indicating that any member of the security forces has been brought to trial for excessive use of lethal force during the demonstrations in 2001 and 2002. Torture and ill-treatment continue to be reported in Algeria. The Algerian government has generally failed to investigate allegations of human rights abuses, including by the security forces, and bring perpetrators to justice.
In 2003, Italy exported a range of arms and ammunition within several UN Commodity trade database (UN Comtrade) categories including sporting and hunting rifles, revolvers and pistols and small arms ammunition worth nearly US$600,000 to Algeria. In 2002, it exported a range of small arms including sporting and hunting rifles, shotguns, and a large number of pistols and revolvers to the value of US$1.4 million to Algeria. In 2001, it exported nearly US$300,000 of revolvers, pistols, sporting/hunting shotguns, and small arms ammunition to Algeria.
The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions have not been granted access to Algeria.
‘Civilian firearms’
A loophole in Italian law means that non-military, so-called “civilian firearms”, continue to be exported without the same level of control over the recipients or end-use which applies to weapons categorized as military weapons. Only a few types of small arms – such as rifles and machine guns which are automatic and built specifically for military purposes – are actually categorized as military weapons. About 33 per cent of arms, semi-automatic weapons, spare parts and ammunition exported, fall outside the remit of the arms control law. Also, a number of weapons routinely used by the police are normally not considered military arms. Licences for these weapons are issued by local authorities and the standard of information the exporter must provide in order to obtain an authorization is lower than that required under the arms control law. Weapons which have been exported in this way include manual and semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols and revolvers, all of which can be used to commit serious human rights violations.
This is a significant loophole because, according to the data from the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), between 1999 and 2003 Italy exported “civilian” small arms and munitions to the value of approx US$1,916 million. During that period, “civilian” firearms were sold to a number of countries including Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, the Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, EU states, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates and the USA.
This lax categorization means that Italian companies are able to export “civilian” firearms to countries devastated by armed conflict and gross human rights violations, or subject to a UN or EU arms embargo. For example, in 2003 Italy exported weapons within the UN Comtrade categories including pistols, revolvers and sporting/hunting shotguns to the People’s Republic of China.
Berettas in Brazil
Italian Berretta handguns are one of the foreign small arms most frequently confiscated by the police in Brazil, a country which accounts for 8 per cent of the world’s gun fatalities. Until recently, the government had failed to exercise due diligence in curbing the use of small arms by civilians. In the years between 1999 and 2003, Italy exported firearms and ammunition worth US$10.63 million to Brazil.
In the last 10 years, 300,000 people have been killed in Brazil, many as a result of urban violence and the widespread proliferation of handguns and small arms, which account for 63 per cent of all homicides in Brazil.
Sixteen-year-old Camila Magalhães Lima lost the use of her legs in 1998 when she was hit by a stray bullet in a shoot-out between thieves and private security forces while walking home from school. “I had plans for the future; I wanted to travel the world, take a modelling course, and continue my gymnastics training. From one day to the next, my dreams were shattered – all because of the irresponsibility of supposedly civilized men who only feel brave with a gun in their hands.”
Many of the weapons are made in Brazil, but guns are also imported from several countries including, in order, the USA, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, Austria, and France.

Japan
Japan “does not export any arms whatsoever”, according to official national policy. However, official data on the UN commodity trade database (UN Comtrade) indicates that Japan has sold a wider variety of arms than is permitted under Japanese legislation, which has effectively banned military exports. For example, in 2003, Japan exported arms to the Philippines within the categories of “military rifles, machineguns and other”. In 2000, the Philippines government reported that it had imported goods within the category “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war”, and “parts and accessories of Military Weapons” from Japan.
According to information submitted to the UN, other recipients of similar weapons and munitions from Japan include Denmark, Germany, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the USA. In 2000 Japan exported “military weapons” to Israel, and in 1999 Malaysia and Indonesia reported that they had imported “military weapons” from Japan. Such transfers would appear to contradict the policy of no arms exports, and furthermore, include countries where armed forces have committed grave human rights violations.
At least 57 companies in Japan are known to be involved in the military, security and police trade. In 2003 there were at least 11 companies in Japan producing small arms and light weapons or their parts or small arms ammunition. According to UN Comtrade data, in 2001 Japan exported small arms worth US$70.3 million. The main recipients of these exports were Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, and the USA. Others included the People’s Republic of China, Cyprus, Lebanon and South Africa. This figure puts Japan in the top 13 exporting countries for small arms and light weapons. Although Japan claims that all these weapons are for hunting and sporting use only, it is unclear how such weapons are defined and what end use monitoring is in place to ensure they are not used for serious abuses.
Loophole – the definition of arms
Japan continues to be one of the top producers and exporters of “non-military” small arms since, under Japanese legislation, hunting and sporting weapons are not classified as “arms” and are therefore not subject to the same controls as firearms covered by the Export Trade Control Order.
There are two major concerns in regard to Japanese controls on small arms: the lack of control on the export of “civilian” weapons and the narrow definition of arms which has the potential to exclude weapons with military specifications. According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which is responsible for granting permission to export weapons, hunting and sporting weapons are “mostly exempt from restriction…meaning it is not required to obtain an export license to export them.”’ However, another official has stated that an export licence is required. It is unclear exactly what the controls are on these civilian weapons since the information coming from the Japanese government appears contradictory. There are concerns that these different interpretations of the legislation within METI are confusing and risk leading to exports that would not give due consideration to the human rights and development concerns of the transfer. If Japan were to adopt an Arms Trade Treaty this would provide a clear and consistent set of standards that would be agreed on an international level.
For certain sporting and hunting weapons whose performance is deemed to be similar to that of military small arms, exporters are required to apply for an export licence. However METI does not make public its guidelines for distinguishing between military small arms and sporting and hunting weapons. The Ministry may not approve the export of such weapons if it is believed that they may be turned over to military use or if the customers are among the Foreign Users’ List of prohibited end-users. This list contains 160 specific organizations based in Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria and Taiwan.
It is unclear from the data submitted to UN Comtrade whether the weapons exported in 2003 under the category of “arms, ammunition and parts” were military or civilian firearms. Recipients of these weapons included Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Lebanon, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Thailand and the USA.
Such transfers raise serious concerns about the number of export licences issued for weapons that are not in practice necessarily restricted to recreational use. The use of sporting and hunting weapons has been reported in human rights abuses, for example the massacres of civilians by “death squads” in Algeria, and by armed groups in the Solomon Islands. There also exists the concern that it would be possible to gain an export licence for hunting and sporting weapons destined for military or police end-users, especially users who abuse human rights. Since Japan does not provide a public report of exports licences granted we cannot check where sporting and hunting weapons have gone to.
Furthermore, in Japanese law the definition of “arms” does not explicitly include tear-gas and police equipment so although these weapons are controlled by the Export Trade Control Order they are not subject to the ban and information is not freely available as to what controls are placed on the export of these goods. The export of electro-shock equipment and leg-irons does not require a licence, this is despite the fact according to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners “chains or irons shall not be used as restraints.” In addition, while Japanese law prevents the export of arms to countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflict, and it also forbids export to areas “not in conformity with the spirit of the Japanese Constitution”, there is no specific ban on exports that may contribute to human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law.
Dual-use technology
Japan is a leading player in the international market for dual-use technology – that is civilian technologies which can be used to advance the development of military equipment and weapons. However, Japanese law on dual-use goods and licensed production of dual-use goods abroad does not provide sufficient controls to prevent goods from being transferred to end-users where they may be used to facilitate human rights abuses.
In line with the Wassenaar Arrangement , the Japanese government provides a list of restricted countries and products but still permits transfers of products that clearly can have a military end-use, bringing into question the claim not to have an arms trade. Japan’s advanced technological capability, particularly in the computing and electronics fields, has meant that its dual use technology has played a part in many types of missile systems around the world. In 1996, for example, the Netherlands army bought 640 Toshiba computers as an “off the shelf” item to be incorporated into an extensive command and control system.
Japan’s lack of control on the re-export of supposedly “civilian” dual-use goods, produced under license production agreements with other countries means that Japanese equipment may be transferred to end-users with poor human rights records without the Japanese parliament being able to exercise any oversight. For example, Kawasaki Heavy Industries has a joint venture with Germany’s MBB to produce the BK117, a dual-use light transport helicopter which is most often used for purposes such as medical evacuations. However it has “hardpoints”, points at which weaponry such as guns or missiles can be attached to convert it to military use. In 1985 a military version of the BK117 was unveiled at the Paris air-show, fitted with eight anti-tank missiles, a roof-mounted sight for the missiles, a sight for a turret-mounted machine gun and radar warning sensors. German airworthiness authorities had certified an increased weight version of the model, allowing for weapons and equipment to be attached.
Such transfers show that Japan is not implementing its national policy of no arms exports. It appears from government statements that the Japanese government has already considered and decided on a shift in export policy in favour of pursuing projects “related to support of counter-terrorism and counter-piracy”. Licences will be granted on a case-by-case basis, however using criteria that have not yet been made public. The absence of clear principles based on international law raises concerns that such exports will be granted to destinations where there is a risk that arms transfers could contribute to human rights violations or have a detrimental impact on the sustainable development of the recipient country. In his public statement the Chief Cabinet Secretary stated that:
“Decisions will be made on the basis of individual examination of each case, in light of Japan’s basic philosophy as a peace-loving nation that aims at avoiding the escalation of international conflicts.”
Prime Minister Koizumi later qualified this statement, saying that there is a possibility that Japan may sell arms to Southeast Asian nations to fight piracy.

The Russian Federation
The Russian Federation is a key player in every aspect of the international arms market. It is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of major conventional weapons and small arms. Between 1996 and 2003, Russia was the fourth largest arms supplier. In 2003, Russia exported small arms worth at least US$42.2 million.
Arms exports with scant regard for human rights?
The lack of criteria based upon relevant principles of international law governing weapons sales in Russia means that it has continued to sell weapons to states whose forces have committed abuses, including during violent conflict such as Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda. In 2003, Russia exported conventional weaponry, including combat aircraft, to Algeria, India, Iran, and China; attack helicopters to Ethiopia, India and Uganda; and 269 missile launchers to China and 74 to India. All of these states armed forces have committed grave abuse during armed conflict or carried out serious human rights violations.
Russia is also a major exporter of small arms and light weapons. In 2003, it exported sporting and hunting shotguns worth US$1.7 million to Algeria. The use of sporting and hunting weapons has been reported in human rights abuses. In 1997 such weapons were used in the massacres of civilians by “death squads” in Algeria.
In Russia’s export control system, there is virtually no reference to controlling arms exports for reasons connected with respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, the potential impact on regional stability, or the possible effects of such transfers in undermining the sustainable development of the importing country. The principles governing exports are set out in the Law on Military-Technical Co-operation and the Law on Export Controls, but these relate mainly to the interests of the Russian Federation, and “the observance of international treaties on nuclear non-proliferation, arms reduction and disarmament, and the banning of chemical, biological, and other types of weapons of mass destruction.”
The Russian Federation has signed a number of major contracts with India and is in line to modernize and re-equip Indian paramilitary forces with equipment including Mi-17 helicopters and AK small arms. This includes weaponry for border security forces that operate in Kashmir as well as Assam. New contracts have been signed with Iran, reportedly for advanced electronic warfare systems for use against planes and missiles. Russia also signed an agreement in June 2004 with the Mexican government for the maintenance and final assembly of helicopters (Mi-8/-17s, Mi-24/-35s and Mi-26s) at a plant in Mexico City. A number of these helicopters are already in service in Colombia, despite continuing international concern about human rights violations attributed to the armed forces, and evidence of their links with paramilitary groups.
In early 2003 Russian officials visited Pyongyang, North Korea, to discuss military upgrades for tanks and supplies of night vision equipment and ammunition. Russia has recently delivered military equipment and training to Myanmar (Burma) under a deal worth US$130 million and has also recently supplied helicopters to Nigeria. Serious human rights violations in these three countries have been documented.
Russia’s main markets are China and India. It has continued to supply these two countries over the years with missile launchers, combat aircraft and battle tanks, despite regional tensions. Other important markets are Algeria, Kuwait, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Sudan, Vietnam, and Yemen – most states whose security forces have contributed to long-standing and acute human rights problems.
Exports to Ethiopia
In 2000, when Ethiopia and Eritrea were at war, Russia exported 307 large calibre artillery systems to Ethiopia. Both parties to the conflict were subject to an arms embargo imposed on 17 May 2000 by UN Security Council Resolution 1298, but this was lifted one year later on 16 May 2001. It is not clear from the data available when exactly Russia exported these weapons.
In 2003, Russia exported 18 large calibre artillery systems and seven attack helicopters to Ethiopia. These exports from Russia have raised serious concerns about the impact of such weaponry on long-standing border tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Russia has been a major supplier of arms to Ethiopia and has also supplied aircraft to Eritrea. Large calibre artillery systems can consist of guns, howitzers, or multiple-launch rocket systems.
Russia is one of the biggest exporters of conventional weapons and munitions, including small arms and light weapons, yet these exports take place without adequate consideration being given by the Russian authorities to the fact that the arms may be used to facilitate serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. This highlights the inadequate adherence by the Russian Federation to its political commitments, undertaken through the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the UN, and to its commitments under relevant international law.

The United Kingdom
The UK is the second largest arms exporter in the world by value with sales of US$4.3 billion a year. In 2001, the UK exported US$44.8 million worth of small arms. The government claims to have “one of the strictest and most transparent arms export licensing systems of any country”. A major overhaul of the UK’s export controls took place recently, with new export control legislation entering into force in 2004. This legislation, for example, placed new controls on international arms brokering activity. Despite these positive developments, a number of controversial licensing decisions, problems over reporting and inadequate capacity to enforce the system continue to raise concerns.

The UK governments plans, by 31 March 2006, to cut 35 per cent of the staff working in a section within the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which is responsible for assessing arms applications. In an attempt to cope with such staff shortages, the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering an option of “involving private sector partners” in processing licence applications. Both of these proposals raise serious concerns about the impact that this would have on the effective implementation of the UK national criteria and EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.
Increase in open licensing of exports
A major problem with the UK arms export control system is that the UK government is increasingly using open licences , particular with the transfer of military technology, and is encouraging exporting companies to use them “whenever these are available”. Open licences allow the exporting company to make multiple shipments to specified destinations. Once such a licence has been issued there is no further advance authorization or scrutiny prior to the shipment of the goods.
For example, in 2004 the UK Government authorised Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) for armoured all wheel drive vehicles to Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - countries where armed forces and police have committed persistent human rights violations. Such licensing would appear to undermine the UK government’s criteria, governing its arms exports, on human rights.
Since no records are published on the amount of equipment exported under these licences by the DTI, the increasing use of open licences makes effective scrutiny more difficult in the annual reporting. The problem is that the government neither publicly reports on the final destination or the end-use of such equipment, nor the final product(s) the components are being incorporated into. This is particularly problematic for exports of components that are intended to be incorporated into other weapons systems in the recipient country. As the parliamentary committee that scrutinizes decisions puts it:
“The lack of information about incorporation OIELs [Open Individual Export licences] is worrying, as it means we only have a partial picture of how British components and technology are being used abroad.”
There is a clear risk that the UK arms transfers could be diverted or re-exported “under undesirable conditions” to countries with weak export controls such as Turkey, so the use of OIELs by the UK government increases such risks. In 2004, the UK government issued 19 OIELs for Turkey which cover a broad range of equipment including components for air defence systems, components for naval electronic warfare equipment, components for heavy machine guns, components for surface to air missiles, components for combat aircraft, and components for weapon control systems. The UK government provides no information regarding the military or security products in which these UK components will be used in or their intended end-use. This makes it difficult to monitor which of these products will be re-exported from Turkey to a third country. Some of Turkey’s export customers include the armed forces of Kuwait, Nepal, Egypt, Oman and Pakistan.
In 2003, the UK government issued an open licence including crowd control ammunition, tear gas/irritant ammunition, and CS hand grenades to the Maldives. In August 2004, the UK government expressed concerns over the human rights situation in the country:
“We are concerned by reports of attacks by the police on peaceful protesters in Malé last Friday, the subsequent declaration of a state of emergency, and large numbers of arrests…...”
To the best of our knowledge, the UK Government has neither reviewed nor revoked the licence despite the risk of use of this type of equipment.
In 2003 the UK Government also licensed OIELS including tear gas, crowd control, irritant ammunition and stuns grenades to several countries such as Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia and Turkey where there are concerns about the misuse of force by police and security forces.
Arms exports and sustainable development
Criterion eight of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports requires EU governments to take into account whether a proposed arms export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country. This criterion has been at best poorly implemented. In 1999, four EU countries were involved in a major arms sale to the South African government. No consideration whatsoever appears to have been given to the detrimental impact on the country of this massive arms deal and the promise of tens of thousands of jobs in the South African defence industry has not materialised.
The development cost of arms transfers in South Africa
In 1999 South Africa agreed to purchase armaments – including frigates, submarines, aircraft and helicopters – from suppliers including Germany, France, Sweden and the UK. The cost at 2003 prices of the armaments was US$6 billion. This far exceeds government spending on other projects such as combating HIV/AIDS (US$53.8 million per year). The six billion dollars could have purchased treatment with combination therapy for all five million AIDS sufferers for two years.
In another deal, the UK government’s decision to authorize the export of a US$40 million military air traffic control system to Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, in 2001 created controversy and confusion about how criterion eight was included in the UK’s 2002 Export Control Act. This decision was criticized for being too expensive by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and provoked an internal dispute among UK ministers and departments, including the Department for International Development and the Treasury, who were concerned that the military system would exacerbate Tanzania’s external debt.
Since the Tanzania debacle, the UK government has developed its own methodology for ensuring that arms exports do not undermine sustainable development by identifying destinations where sustainable development might be a concern and then examining the possible impacts of arms transfers on those countries. Yet, this methodology does not deal with the potential impact from arms sales, particularly from cumulative transfers, on countries not included on the list of destinations of concern as highlighted by the sale of BAE Hawk jets to India.
Hawk aircraft to India
In 2003, the UK government announced the sale of BAE Hawk jets to India. Forty-two of the 66 jets are to be produced under licensed agreement in India and the total contract will cost US$1.7 billion, which is the equivalent of 10 years of UK bilateral aid to India. US$1.7 billion could pay for one year of extra primary schooling for 20 million girls (US$85 per year per child).
The deal has also raised other concerns about its impact on regional tensions between India and Pakistan, especially in relation to Kashmir since the Hawk is a military aircraft. It can deliver “a comprehensive array of US/NATO compatible air-to-air and air-to-surface weaponry with pinpoint accuracy, by night as well as day, but at a fraction of the cost of major line aircraft types”. The Hawk aircraft can be used in ground attacks and is capable of carrying a “heavy and varied weapons load”, including tactical nuclear weapons. Such a transfer is irresponsible in the context of continuing tensions in Kashmir between the two regional nuclear powers India and Pakistan.
Enforcing controls on the brokering of prohibited equipment
It is unclear how actively the UK authorities are enforcing a new law, the Export Control Act, which came into effect in May 2004. The Act prohibits the brokering of arms to embargoed destinations and also the brokering of certain “restricted equipment”, such as those items that can be used for torture or ill-treatment, unless expressly authorised by the UK government. The “brokering” of such equipment is now prohibited for the British registered companies and also for British citizens no matter where they carry out their brokering activities (either in the UK or abroad). It also covers foreign nationals when in the UK.
Brokering torture equipment
In December 2004, the New Statesman magazine published details of a UK-registered company, TLT International, that was offering a range of stun guns and stun batons on its website. The company claimed to be “a manufacturers outlet, please make enquiries” and stated that orders should be “only by bulk purchasing”. The company claims to be a Global Facilitator and “is the true and honest company to open a Gateway to and from W. Africa and Far East.”
Despite the fact that this information was made public in December 2004, the company was still advertising the stun weapons on its website in March 2005. The government has yet to make a public statement about any investigation into the activities of this company.

The United States of America
The USA continues to dominate the international arms market. It is a world leader in both arms exports and production. It ranked first among the world’s conventional arms suppliers between 1996 and 2003, with deliveries worth in total US$151.9 billion or on average around US$19 billion per year. The largest recipients of US weapons (in terms of financial value) in 2003 were Egypt, Greece, Italy, Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and the UK. Between 2000 and 2003 Saudi Arabia was the largest purchaser of defence articles from the USA; its purchases totalled US$6.3 billion.
The USA also remains the world’s largest exporter of small arms, light weapons and ammunition. In 2001, it exported small arms and light weapons worth US$741 million. This was mainly made up of military small arms and light weapons, small arms ammunition, pistols, revolvers, and sporting and hunting rifles.
More than 40 per cent of the largest 100 defence companies in the world are from the USA. Four of the five top arms companies globally – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon – are US companies.
US military aid
Significant arms transfers have been made from the USA to recipients in countries where there are major and persistent human rights concerns. These include Colombia, Egypt, India, Israel, Nigeria, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela.
According to US law (the Leahy amendment), no US military aid may be provided to any unit of a foreign security force if there is credible evidence that such a unit has committed gross violations of human rights. Yet, military aid from the USA to security services and armed forces with a persistent record of human rights violations continues. Significant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in some of these countries are carried out or facilitated by paramilitary and armed forces equipped courtesy of US military assistance. For example, the Colombian armed forces have been a relatively large recipient of US military rifles and machine guns despite continuing international concern about human rights violations attributed to the armed forces, and evidence of their links with paramilitary groups.
In August 2003, the US government lifted the ban on military assistance to the government of Rwanda and in 2004 the US concluded a military cooperation agreement with Rwanda whose armed forces and officials have been accused by UN investigations of backing armed groups in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
US military assistance to Nepal - should be conditional on improved human rights
Since 2001, the USA has provided over US$29 million in Foreign Military Financing to Nepal. This includes grants for military equipment, training, and services. In 2003, it provided 8,779 assault rifles under Foreign Military Sales to the Nepalese security forces. Yet, the Nepalese Army has been involved in arbitrary arrests, “disappearances” and the killing of civilians suspected of sympathizing with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). On 1 February 2005, the King dismissed the government, assumed direct power and declared a state of emergency. Political leaders were arrested and the King severed all internal and external communications links. The state of emergency was lifted on 29 April 2005. However, many fundamental rights which had been suspended were not restored.
On November 2004, the US Congress had approved a government spending bill for the fiscal year 2005, which made US military aid to Nepal conditional on improvements to its human rights record. US law obliges the government of Nepal to cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) by granting access to all places of detention, and to resolve all security related cases involving individuals in government custody. The Nepalese government must also show that it is taking effective steps to end torture by its security forces and to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations. Following US Congressional approval, the Nepalese Chief of Army Staff agreed to respect court orders and cooperate with the NHRC. However, the Nepalese armed forces have continued to commit human rights violations.
As part of the fiscal year 2005 government spending bill, the USA must cut off military aid to the Nepalese government and armed forces unless the US President either certifies that the Nepalese government has met the above conditions, or exercises a national security waiver. The USA reportedly postponed military training sponsored by the US Pacific Command for the Royal Nepalese Army in April 2005. By May 2005 the US government had not announced a decision on whether or not to deny military aid for the fiscal year 2005 despite a grave deterioration in the human rights situation in Nepal. The USA is likely to review the situation after 31 May 2005.
The US government is using funding from the fiscal year 2004 to continue providing military aid to Nepal, reviewing each instance on a case-by-case basis, which is why the State Department has not had to comply with the obligation passed in the government spending bill for the fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, the US President has requested US$4 million in Foreign Military Financing for the fiscal year 2006 to help the Nepalese government pay for US defence articles such as small arms, armour plating, and grenade launchers.


Increasing US military assistance to Pakistan
On 27 October 2001, immediately after the attacks on 9/11, and formally in June 2003, the US government waived restrictions on arms transfers to Pakistan, which had previously been imposed because of Pakistan’s nuclear testing and programmes and because General Pervez Musharraf had deposed an elected government.
Since then transfers to Pakistan of US military equipment, as well as military education and training, have increased each year. Pakistan has been promised US$300 million in US foreign military grants (these include sales and services) and US$2 million in military training for the fiscal year 2005. Major US military grants and proposed sales have included six C-130 military transport aircraft (grant of US$7 5million); six Aerostat surveillance radars (sale worth US$155 million); 12 radars and 40 Bell helicopters (sale worth US$300 million); military radio systems (sale worth US$78 million); and the proposed sale of eight P-3C aircraft, six Phalanx guns, and 2,000 TOW missiles worth up to US$1.2 billion.
In 2004, the US government designated Pakistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” for its support for the US “war on terror”. In March 2005, the US Department of State approved the sale of F-16 fighters to Pakistan in a major policy shift, despite the risk of an arms race with India, which neither country can afford, and possession of nuclear weapons by both states. Before the fighter jets can be transferred, however, the US President must receive US congressional approval.
Pakistan and India, both nuclear powers, ha]]> Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:42:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25564 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25563
G8 member states are undermining their commitments to poverty reduction, stability and human rights with irresponsible arms exports to some of the world's poorest and most conflict-ridden countries, according to new research issued today. G8 weapons have been exported to countries including Sudan, Myanmar (Burma), the Republic of Congo, Colombia and the Philippines.

On the eve of a meeting of G8 foreign ministers in London (23-24 June), a new report reveals how the G8 countries -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA -- are still supplying military equipment, weapons and munitions to destinations where they contribute to gross violations of human rights.

"Each year hundreds of thousands of people are killed, tortured, raped and displaced through the misuse of arms. How can G8 commitments to end poverty and injustice be taken seriously if some of the very same governments are undermining peace and stability by deliberately approving arms transfers to repressive regimes, regions of extreme conflict or countries who can ill-afford them?" said the Secretary General of Amnesty International, Irene Khan.

The report from Amnesty International, Oxfam International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) makes a clear case for the G8 to support the call from the UK government and 10 other countries for an international Arms Trade Treaty.

“This research shows that, as well as the G8 being responsible for more than 80% of the world’s arms exports, they persist in selling weapons that oppress the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. G8 foreign ministers meeting this week must back the Arms Trade Treaty and agree a process to make it happen," said Barbara Stocking, Director of Oxfam.

The report, The G8: Global arms exporters - Failing to prevent irresponsible arms transfers, exposes a series of loopholes and weaknesses in arms export controls common across many G8 countries:

• Canadian military exports to countries involved in armed conflict or human rights abuse including light armoured vehicles and helicopters to Saudi Arabia and aircraft engines and handguns to the Philippines;
• French exports in the UN category of "Bombs, grenades, ammunition, mines and other" to countries subject to European Union arms embargoes such as Myanmar and Sudan;
• The use of German components in military equipment destined for countries involved in serious human rights violations such as German engines incorporated into military vehicles that have ended up in Myanmar;
• A loophole in Italian law allowing large quantities of so-called "civilian firearms" to be exported to countries suffering gross human rights violations such as Colombia, the Republic of Congo, and China;
• Russian exports of heavy weaponry including combat aircraft to states whose forces commit human rights violations such as Ethiopia, Algeria, and Uganda;
• Substantial US military aid to states carrying out persistent human rights violations including Pakistan, Nepal and Israel;
• Japan's export of small arms and light weapons to countries with poor human rights records such as the Philippines;
• The lack of control on UK equipment that can be used for torture or ill-treatment and the UK’s increased use of "open licences" that allow companies to make multiple shipments without adequate scrutiny.

The examples included in the report show why a tough and enforceable Arms Trade Treaty is urgently needed. It should be international, legally-binding and based on international law -- especially human rights and humanitarian law -- because these universal standards if observed, would save lives, prevent suffering and protect livelihoods.

"In view of the massive loss of life and destruction of property and livelihood's fuelled by irresponsible arms transfers, the G8 must turn rhetoric into reality and push for negotiations to start on an Arms Trade Treaty by 2006. To do anything less would be a disgraceful betrayal of the millions of men, women and children subject to human rights violations and fear of armed violence every day," said Rebecca Peters, Director of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).

Background
The Control Arms campaign was launched by Amnesty International, Oxfam International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) in October 2003. It aims to reduce arms proliferation and misuse and to convince governments to introduce a binding arms trade treaty.

For more information, please contact:
Amnesty International: James Dyson. +44 (0)2074135831. Mobile: +44 (0)07795628367. jdyson@amnesty.org
Oxfam: Clare Rudebeck. + 44 (0)1865 312 530. Mobile + 44 (0) 7769 887 139 crudebeck@oxfam.org.uk
IANSA: Alun Howard. +44 (0) 207 7065 0866. Mobile +44 (0) 7900 242 869

Contact person of Somalia:
Abukar Albadri,
P.O.Box: 205 Mogadishu
BN 03040 Somalia
Mobile: +2521 572300
Email: albadri10@yahoo.com
Mogadishu Somalia
]]> Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:39:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25563 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25561 The G8: Global arms exporters - QA

What are your main concerns and what do you want to see happen?
G8 commitments to end poverty and injustice mean little if some of the very same governments are still allowing arms exports to repressive regimes, regions already racked by conflict and countries who can ill afford them.

Such irresponsible arms transfers continue to fuel gross human rights violations including the indiscriminate killing of civilians and to undermine any chance of development.

The G8 foreign ministers meeting in London (23-24 June) must seize this historical moment to give their unequivocal backing to a tough and enforceable Arms Trade Treaty.

How do arms exports fuel poverty?
By allowing or even encouraging excessive or inappropriate arms purchases, the scarce resources of developing countries are being diverted away from the fight against poverty.

(For example, in 1999 South Africa bought frigates, submarines and aircraft from France, Germany and the UK among others for around $US6bn – Enough money to buy combination therapy treatment for all South Africa’s 5 million AIDs sufferers for the next two years).

Development is also undermined when arms and military assistance ends up in the hands of poorly trained military forces that are used to violate human rights, suppress democracy and destroy infrastructure and resources needed for socio-economic development.

(For example, Russia has exported military aircraft and components to the Sudanese Government despite its repeated use of such aircraft to bomb villages and support ground attacks on civilians; France has exported components for attack helicopters assembled in India and exported to Nepal where helicopters are used to attack villages)

Is any of the research published in your report new?
There are some new findings in the report. Some of the cases have been mentioned before but have been updated because of new developments. However, our main purpose has been to highlight abuses that are little known and identify patterns of irresponsible arms transfers committed by all members of the G8.

Which G8 countries are the worst offenders?
As the report shows each of the G8 countries has failed to prevent irresponsible arms transfers to countries involved in human rights violations and/or armed conflict.

We do not rank who are the worst offenders. From the victims' standpoint, all abuses are serious, regardless of who perpetrates them.

How would an Arms Trade Treaty help?
An Arms Trade Treaty would make it illegal to supply arms to those likely to use them to violate international human rights and humanitarian law, which with few exceptions is not the case at present. Once incorporated in national law, such a treaty would make it possible to challenge government export decisions through the courts.

It would also establish a new global standard creating a level playing field for all states and making it far more difficult for governments and arms dealers, brokers and traffickers to operate in flagrant breach of its terms.

Finally such a treaty would also bring greater transparency to the murky arms trade by obliging states to authorize all arms transfers and publish comprehensive national annual reports on those transfers. This would enable much more public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight of the international arms trade.

Which weapons would this treaty cover?
It covers all conventional weapons - that is, anything that is not a weapon of mass destruction (for example, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which are covered by separate international conventions). This includes small arms, missiles, tanks, and jet fighters.
Small arms and light weapons include anything that can be operated by a single person or a crew of two people - this includes handguns, rifles, shoulder-fired grenades, mortars and small missile launchers.

Aren’t existing embargoes and international law enough to control the arms trade?
No. There is no binding, comprehensive international law to control and regulate the arms trade. As our report shows, most national arms controls are riddled with loopholes or are poorly enforced.

Neither are arms embargoes enough on their own. They are usually imposed as a reaction to a humanitarian crisis already underway and do little to prevent it. They are unevenly or poorly applied and subject to political influence.

Effective international arms embargoes are needed to prevent specific crises becoming worse. But the main focus of arms embargoes is the end-user rather than the supplier - it is like going for the drug user rather than drug pusher and supplier. An Arms Trade Treaty would be a more proactive tool.

Will the US or Russia ever sign up to an Arms Trade Treaty and what is the point of it if they don’t?
As the world’s first and fourth biggest arms exporters respectively (measured by value of exports), the support of the US and Russia is obviously very important.

However, a consensus is already emerging in support of the development of an Arms Trade Treaty amongst a number of governments including the UK government, which is hosting this G8 meeting, most EU governments, Canada, Brazil, Kenya and the Commission for Africa.

The political momentum of such a Treaty should also not be underestimated. For example, although not all states have signed the 1997 Landmines treaty, it has established an international norm and not a single country has openly traded anti-personnel mines since it came into force.

Don’t countries have a need and a right to defend themselves especially given the “war on terror”?
We are not calling for a complete ban on arms – only on arms transfers to destinations where they are likely to be used for grave human rights violations.

States have the right to resort to arms to ensure that the life, liberty, and physical integrity of all their citizens are protected against external military attack, or imminent threat to life during internal law-enforcement operations. The United Nations Charter (Article 51) gives all states the legitimate right to self-defence, but it also requires states to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 1).

Who is to judge when arms “are likely to be used for grave human rights abuses”?
It is about applying human rights law and international humanitarian law to decisions of whether to allow an arms export or not. Most states have signed and approved these agreements. For example, policing with guns must conform to the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms for Law Enforcement Officials (1990).

How could such an Arms Trade Treaty ever be enforced?
An Arms Trade Treaty would at least require all states to issue regular and comprehensive reports on all international arms transfers (import, export and transit) This would open the trade to public scrutiny and political pressure.

Secondly, the treaty would be incorporated into domestic law so governments would be required to act within the law. If the Arms Trade Treaty had provisions to control arms brokering, the export of licensed arms production, transhipment of arms and other common loopholes in national arms control laws, then these provisions could be enforced through the arms licensing systems of states and the Treaty would be even more effective.

Thirdly, such a treaty would itself become part of international law. Depending on the provisions of the treaty, violations could be pursued through the international and national courts.

Wouldn’t such strict arms controls lead to massive job losses in arms producing countries?
States have an international legal and moral responsibility to control the weapons and ensure that they are transferred and used appropriately. By cutting out irresponsible arms transfers, an Arms Trade Treaty would result in more secure arms industry jobs in the longer term.

At the same time, tough arms controls in line with international law would have a net benefit for the world economy, creating in the longer-term investment and job opportunities in areas currently shunned by business interests because of the risks posed by repression, violent conflict, crime and instability.

Given the longevity of most weapons, how can you be sure about their use at a later stage once they have been exported?
An important element of an Arms Trade Treaty would be end-use controls and long-term risk assessment.

Robust end use certification and monitoring procedures are needed to ensure that when arms and equipment are sold, they are not misused by the purchaser to commit human rights violations, or passed on to a third party who may do the same. An ATT would oblige governments to take into account the longer term risk of such diversions when deciding whether to allow an arms transfer to go ahead.

There should also be follow up checks to verify that the equipment is being used in accordance with end-use assurances.

What difference would an Arms Trade Treaty really make given that the world is already awash with weapons?
Obviously both supply and demand must be addressed. We need an Arms Trade Treaty to cut off the supply of weapons to human rights abusers, but we are also calling for governments, donor agencies and civil society to support and finance community-level initiatives to make people safe from armed violence and to reduce the misuse and illegitimate demand for arms.

Efforts to reduce the misuse and illegitimate demand for arms promote community policing, gun-free zones, alternative livelihoods, weapons collection and gun destruction programmes will simply be undermined if new weapons are still allowed to flood the market.

Why are you targeting the G8 countries when others (like China) may be just as guilty?
It is true that many non-G8 states such as China are also allowing irresponsible arms transfers but it should not be forgotten that the G8 includes the world’s five biggest arms exporters, (US, UK, France, Russia and Germany) accounting for 84 per cent of all arms exports worldwide and thus has a specific global obligation to take the lead.

Over time, the G8 could exert massive political and economic pressure on China and smaller states to adopt similar arms export rules to provide for a safer world.

The G8 countries have also repeatedly declared their concern about the problems of Africa which is the continent most scarred by conflict and repression fuelled by irresponsible arms transfers. It is therefore time for them to turn their rhetoric into reality by opening negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty.

(In 2000 the G8 stressed, in the Miyazaki Initiatives for Conflict Prevention, the importance of regulating exports of small arms and committing themselves to refuse arms exports if there is a risk they will be used for repression or aggression. In 2003, the G8 prioritized peace and security in Africa and promised to help African governments curb illegal arms trafficking.)

What relevance does your demand for an Arms Trade Treaty have for the main G8 agenda of debt relief and aid for the developing world?
Our demand for an Arms Trade Treaty is a longstanding one and we have chosen this moment to re-state our case for one because the UK Foreign Secretary, as chairman of the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers on 23-24 June, is tabling a specific proposal to his G8 colleagues for a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty.

Without such a Treaty, the risk is that debt relief and foreign aid will simply go towards more excessive or inappropriate arms purchases instead of programmes and polices to tackle poverty.

If, as frequently happens, G8 weapons and munitions end up in the hands of poorly trained military forces, armed groups and gangs that are used to violate human rights, suppress democracy and destroy socio-economic infrastructure and resources, they totally undermine any chance of real development.






Contact person of Somalia:
Abukar Albadri,
P.O.Box: 205 Mogadishu
BN 03040 Somalia
Mobile: +2521 572300
Email: albadri10@yahoo.com
Mogadishu Somalia

]]> Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:34:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25561 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25559 The G8: global arms exporters
Failing to prevent irresponsible arms transfers


Contents

Introduction 3
Canada 6
France 9
Germany 12
Italy 15
Japan 18
The Russian Federation 22
The United Kingdom 24
The United States of America 28
Conclusion 32
Appendix: Global principles for arms transfers 35
Notes 38


Introduction
The international arms trade lacks effective control. Irresponsible arms transfers continue to fuel armed violence. They contribute to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and they undermine development. The uncontrolled proliferation of conventional arms, particularly small arms and light weapons (hereafter referred to as small arms), has taken a terrible toll on communities worldwide. The cost in lost lives, lost livelihoods and lost opportunities to escape poverty is incalculable. Arms deliveries were worth some US$28.7 billion worldwide in 2003 – a paltry sum compared to the human, security and development costs.
Yet, contrary to their responsibilities and legal obligations, the G8 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA - are still supplying weapons and munitions to irresponsible end users. Six of the eight G8 countries are among the top 10 largest global arms exporters, and all of the eight export large amounts of major conventional weapons or small arms. So the G8 has a particular responsibility to help create an effective system of global control of arms transfers.
As these tables show, the G8 countries are among the world’s leading arms suppliers, exporters of major conventional weapons, and exporters of small arms.
This table shows the leading arms suppliers compared and the value of all arms deliveries to the world (in millions of current US dollars) between 1996 and 2003.
Country USA UK France Russia Germany Italy Canada Japan
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 10 No ranking or value for arms deliveries is provided by the Congressional Research Service Report for Canada and Japan
Arms deliveries worldwide between 1996 and 2003 in millions of current US dollars 151,867 43,000 30,200 26,200 10,800 2,700

This table provides an indication of the volume of major conventional weapons supplies by the G8 countries in 2003 according to SIPRI.
Country Russia USA France Germany Canada UK Italy Japan
Major conventional weapons export, by volume, in 2003 in US$ million. 6,980 4,385 1,753 1,549 556 525 277 No data is provided by SIPRI for Japan
Please note that the SIPRI values are an indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not the actual money values of such transfers. These figures can not be compared with others.

The value of small arms exports in 2001 by the G8 countries.
Country USA Italy Germany Japan Canada UK Russia France
Small arms exports in 2001 in US$ million 741.4 298.7 156.7 70.3 53.6 44.8 42.2 33.7

The data included in this report is the latest comprehensive data available. Please note the figures are pulled from different sources, as shown by the above tables, which use different methods of calculation so care should be taken when making comparisons.
Each of the G8 governments has a particular responsibility to control arms and to respect and ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. However, as this report shows, inadequate controls and poor practice in implementing and enforcing those laws and regulations which do exist mean that arms are still being exported from the G8 to groups and governments that persistently abuse human rights and which exacerbate human suffering.
Excessive or inappropriate arms purchases are also a drain on social and economic resources. In some developing countries the result is that badly needed resources are diverted away from the fight against poverty. Many of the G8 countries are large donors to aid programmes in Africa and Asia. However, continuing arms transfers to developing countries undermine their pledges to relieve debt, combat AIDS, alleviate poverty, tackle corruption and promote good governance.
The transfer of arms and related military assistance also impedes development when the items are transferred to unaccountable and poorly trained military forces that are used to suppress human rights, democracy and socio-economic development. Such arms transfers can facilitate brutal resource exploitation, and environmental degradation. They can contribute to an increase in violence against civilians. The presence of guns in society has a particular impact on women’s lives. Large numbers of women and girls are at risk of armed violence, whether they are directly involved in the fighting or dealing with the emotional, social and economic consequences of the loss of male relatives who have been killed or injured by gun violence. Given the effects of weapons misuse, it is shocking how few governments give serious thought to the impact on development and human rights of their arms exports. And for the few that do, it has yet to become a genuine priority.
The challenge to the G8 governments is clear. They must co-operate to control and limit the flow of arms. These most powerful governments need to establish a global system of controlling international arms transfers through an Arms Trade Treaty. Such a Treaty would create legally binding arms controls on all international arms transfers and ensure that all governments control arms in line with the same basic international standards including human rights and humanitarian law. This Treaty would be applied equally to the broadest possible range of weapons, munitions and equipment for use in military operations and law enforcement, including their components, technologies, and technical assistance and material resources for training to make use of such weapons, munitions and equipment. It would help stop such arms falling into the hands of those who use them to attack civilians, to launch indiscriminate attacks and to perpetrate a wide range of other human rights abuses.
This report uses case studies to illustrate the scope of shortcomings common across the G8 and other countries. The report focuses on loopholes and weaknesses in arms exports controls and their implementation. Many of the problems highlighted in relation to one country also apply to others. For example, both France and Germany have exported arms to countries subject to a European Union (EU) arms embargo, such as Myanmar (Burma), China and Sudan. The failure to enforce controls on the transfer of equipment that can be used for torture and ill-treatment applies not only to the French government, but also to the German, Russia, UK and US, governments. The continued transfer of weapons, including small arms, to countries where they may be used to facilitate human rights abuses is highlighted using examples from Italy and Japan, and the increasing concern over the lack of control on the transfer of dual-use technology and components is illustrated using cases from Germany, Japan, and the UK. Thus, the examples included in the report have been selected because they show why a tough, comprehensive, enforceable Arms Trade Treaty is urgently needed. This may have helped to prevent many of the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law illustrated by the cases cited in this report.
On 23 and 24 June 2005, Foreign Ministers from each of the G8 countries will meet to discuss the UK Foreign Secretary’s proposal for a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty covering all conventional weapons including small arms and light weapons, and including provisions to address particular loopholes. Two weeks later the G8 Heads of States will take part in a Summit focusing on Africa.
Control Arms Campaign partners -- Amnesty International (AI), Oxfam International and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) -- are urging the Foreign Ministers and Heads of State of the G8 countries to actively support the UK proposal and join the call for a global Arms Trade Treaty.

Canada
In 2003, Canada exported US$556 million of major conventional weapons including aircraft, warships, artillery, armoured vehicles, missiles and target acquisition and radar systems. Canada is also a major exporter of small arms and light weapons, including ammunition. In 2001, it exported small arms worth US$53.6 million.
Responsible arms exporter?
In 2002, Canada exported military equipment to several countries involved in armed conflict and/or human rights violations including light armoured vehicles and helicopters to Saudi Arabia (see the box below), and firearms to Turkey, where in 2002 dozens of killings by security forces were reported. According to the UN commodity trade database (UN Comtrade) data, in 2002, Canada transferred small arms ammunition to India, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
According to official Canadian policy, the government closely controls arms exports to countries in conflict and to governments with persistent records of human rights violations. However, such sales beg the question of how exactly human rights abuses are weighed up by Canadian officials and ministers when deciding whether to authorize an export.
The Canadian government assesses licence applications on an individual case-by-case basis. It also appears that the Minister of International Trade personally reviews applications “involving potential exports of offensive military goods and technologies, unless they are going to a NATO ally or to a small group of other countries with which Canada has similarly close relations.”
Sales to Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia was the largest recipient of Canadian weapons in 2004. According to official data submitted to the UN commodity trade database (UN Comtrade), Canada in 2004 exported equipment included within the category “Tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, motorized, parts, not elsewhere specified.” to Saudi Arabia worth US$179 million.
Gross human rights violations have been carried out in Saudi Arabia for many years. In the Amnesty International Report 2005, AI stated that killings by the security forces and armed groups escalated in 2004. Most killings by security forces took place in Riyadh, Makkah and Jeddah. Some took place during clashes with armed groups and gunmen wanted by the authorities. However, most took place following car or street chases and house raids by the security forces. Dozens of people were killed by armed groups in different parts of the country. The killings were carried out during armed attacks and following hostage-taking operations.
Considering the extensive nature of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia, it is surprising that Saudi Arabia is one of only 16 countries to which automatic firearms can be exported according to Canadian regulations. The other countries are Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the USA. In March 2005, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal were added to the list.

Exports to the Philippines
The Philippines is a regular recipient of transfers of Canadian military equipment. Canadian aircraft parts and engines as well as handguns worth US$11.6 million in total, were transferred to the Philippines between 1990 and 2001.
Aerial bombing by the Philippines armed forces had been reported for many years. In 2000, AI reported that periodic aerial bombardment of villages suspected of harbouring members of opposition groups had led to the mass displacement of civilians, particularly in Mindanao. In 2001 AI said that over 400,000 civilians in central Mindanao were internally displaced amid reports of apparently indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian areas suspected of containing forces of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Aircraft parts and aircraft engine parts continued to be transferred to the Philippines during 2000 and 2001.
Sales to the USA: Canada’s big loophole
More than half of Canada’s arms sales are to the USA, which raises two major concerns.
Firstly, the Canadian government is unable to exercise sufficient oversight on the re-export of Canadian military items from the USA: the USA has re-transferred items to other countries where there were strong concerns the weapons would be used to commit violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. In contrast, the re-export of most military goods imported from the USA by Canada requires authorization from Washington to “ensure Canada is not used as a diversionary route to circumvent US embargoes”.
Secondly, military exports to the USA are not recorded in the Canadian government’s annual report. Therefore there is almost no information available on these exports. Transparency is seriously lacking, and not even the Canadian Parliament can scrutinize and oversee these exports.
Because of the unique defence production agreements between Canada and the USA, arms exports by Canada to the USA are not subject to the same stringent controls as other countries – in fact, no export permits are required for Canadian arms exports to the USA. According to press reports, Canada has exported armoured vehicles, landing gear for fighter aircraft, and a host of components for US weapon systems which are frequently transferred by the USA to countries at war or to governments involved in human rights violations.
In April 2004, Defense Daily, the leading US military periodical, reported that the US government was on the verge of buying new military equipment on behalf of Pakistan. The equipment included Canadian-built Bell 412 helicopters, originating in Mirabel, Québec, the sole assembly site for the Bell 412 model in North America. The helicopters will be shipped as civilian aircraft, yet if these helicopters were classed as military aircraft then it is unlikely that the Canadian government would have approved an export permit for their shipment to Pakistan.
Canadian helicopters to Colombia
Between September 1998 and February 2000, the Canadian government sold over 40 surplus ‘Huey’ CH-135 helicopters to the US government. Thirty-three of these were upgraded in the USA and then redirected to the Colombian military as part of Plan Colombia, a mainly military aid package purportedly set up by the USA to dismantle the drugs trade.
Although Canada would never have licensed these helicopters directly to Colombia, the loophole in its law that allows the re-export of upgraded equipment without Canadian consent means that military equipment and weapons can be transferred to sensitive destinations.

France
France was the third largest supplier of conventional arms, in terms of total value, in 2003. France is both a significant producer and exporter of major conventional armaments and a medium producer of small arms and light weapons. In 2001, France small arms exports valued at US$33.7 million.
Embargo busting?
France has continued to export military equipment to countries subject to EU arms embargoes, including Myanmar (Burma), Sudan and the People’s Republic of China. This shows that successive French governments have not abided by their commitments to implement arms embargoes effectively, despite official policy requiring them to respect arms embargoes imposed by the EU.
French exports to Myanmar (Burma)
Since 1996, there has been an EU arms embargo on Myanmar (Burma). In April 2001 the EU extended the embargo, and confirmed the embargo on the export of arms and military equipment from EU member states. Yet, according to official data in the UN Commodity trade database (UN Comtrade), France made shipments of equipment within the category “bombs, grenades, ammunition, mines, and others” (930690) to Myanmar (Burma) in 1998, 1999 and 2000.






The French government should provide specific details of what exactly was exported to Myanmar (Burma). The categories of munitions listed above raise serious concerns regarding whether or not the French government has enforced the EU embargo on military exports to that country or fulfilled its obligations under the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.


French exports to Sudan
In November 2004, Amnesty International expressed concern that France has been one of the countries sending arms to Sudan in apparent violation of a 1994 EU arms embargo. According to data provided to the UN by French customs officials, France registered transfers to Sudan for goods under the category 930690 for “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles, and similar munitions of war and parts thereof”. For example:









It appears that such transfers violate the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (1998) as well as the EU embargo on Sudan imposed on 16 March 1994. AI France wrote to the French government in December 2004 calling on it to publish without delay detailed information on the date and nature of the contracts, and the intended use and recipients of the items transferred in order to determine whether these were transferred before the imposition of the UN embargo and whether they complied with the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. No written reply had been received from the French government by the end of May 2005.

French exports to China
An EU arms embargo on the People’s Republic of China has been in force since 27 June 1989. However, EU countries have interpreted this differently. France has been able to transfer some weapons to China and the French government has been at the forefront of calls to lift the EU arms embargo on China.
The French government has also reportedly given approval to the French company Thales Angenieux’s proposal to set up a licensed arms production facility with North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd. in Beijing to produce night-vision goggles, called LUCIE, which can be assembled with full military specifications. A licence for image intensifiers from a British company, Pyser SGI, was refused by the UK government which has adopted a narrower intrepretation of the EU arms embargo on China.
The lack of transparency
It is difficult to determine exactly what military equipment and weapons France exports and thus the potential detrimental impact on sensitive destinations because the information contained in the French government’s annual report to Parliament and the data submitted to UN mechanisms by the French government do not specify what equipment falls under the different categories. Furthermore, information submitted to different mechanisms can vary considerably, making it difficult to cross check the data across them. For example, there were discrepancies between the data in the French annual reports and that submitted to the UN Comtrade. In some cases information appears absent, for example no data is entered under Sudan in the French annual reports covering exports for 2002 and 2003, or under Myanmar (Burma) in the French annual reports covering exports for 1999 and 2000. This contradicts the figures supplied by French customs.
Lack of controls on transfers of police and security equipment
Although French laws and regulations control and restrict the transfer of most military, security and police goods, some types of equipment are excluded. French arms export law does not contain any specific reference to the control of leg-irons, thumb-cuffs, electric shock stun weapons (batons, stun guns, stun belts and other equipment) which can easily be used as a means of torture and ill treatment. Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern about this loophole to the French authorities.
Despite severe internal repression by the Kenyan police and a suspension of tear gas supplies from the UK, tear gas manufactured by the French company, Nobel Sécurité, was exported from France to Kenya during the late 1990s. Such exports would appear to contradict French government policy which states that, in accordance with the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, the supply of arms likely to be used to contribute to internal repression must be refused. However, it remains unclear whether the export of such tear gas for “police” use requires export licence authorization by the French government.

Germany
Germany is ranked the fifth largest arms supplier in the world. At least 279 companies in Germany are producing or trading military, security and police products and services. According to the Small Arms Survey, Germany in 2001 it exported small arms worth US$156.7 million.
In 2003, Germany licensed small arms exports to many countries including Egypt, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, all countries where serious human rights abuses have been committed.
Components – a gaping loophole
Despite a theoretically restrictive arms exports policy, German-made components are sometimes being incorporated into military equipment that could easily be used to facilitate human rights violations or contribute to conflict or internal repression. According to a recent report by the Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security (BITS) and Oxfam Germany, “the Federal Government and its agencies apply a double standard.” The report points out that it is easier to get an export licence for arms components than for entire weapons systems. This loophole is particularly due to the inconsistent German arms export licensing system which consists of a dual legal structure: the restrictive War Weapons Control Act and the Foreign Trade and Payments Act which facilitates arms exports.
German engines for Ukrainian assembled armoured vehicles to Myanmar (Burma)
There is evidence that German engines are being incorporated into military vehicles available in Myanmar (Burma). According to the Ukrainian armoured vehicle manufacturer, Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (Ukraine), German Deutz engines are incorporated into the Ukrainian BTR-3U Armoured Personnel Carriers (APC) that are fitted with a machine gun, grenade launcher and anti-tank guided weapon system.
It is unclear whether these engines have been exported from Germany or are produced under a German licence in the Ukraine.
It was reported that in 2003 the Ukraine had signed a contract to supply 1000 BTR-3U to Burma over the next 10 years. The APCs would reportedly be sent in component form, to be assembled in Myanmar (Burma). At the same time the Ukraine government reported to the UN Register of Conventional Arms that it had actually shipped 10 BTR-3U to Myanmar (Burma) during 2003.
However, under the 2000 EC Regulation on Dual-Use goods, which is legally binding on all EU members states, the export of dual-use goods for use in military systems to countries under embargo are in fact subject to arms export controls. This covers products intended for incorporation into military equipment or for the development, production or maintenance of such equipment, or for use in a plant for production of such equipment.
It is unclear whether the German government applies the Dual-Use regulation to cases involving exports of components to third countries who may then export items to embargoed destinations, nor whether it was reasonable for the company to have knowledge that its products may have been re-exported to embargoed destinations.
It is important to note that the case was first published in September 2004 and details of the transfer of 10 BTU to Myanmar (Burma) during 2003 have been on the UN Register of Conventional Arms since May 2004. Details of the involvement of Deutz in the development of these vehicles still remain on the Ukrainian manufacturer’s website.
In May 2005, it was reported that the German authorities were conducting investigations into the Deutz company for possible breeches of an EU arms embargo on Myanmar (Burma). According to a report in the German magazine Focus, Deutz supplied engines to a company in the United Arab Emirates from March 2000 to March 2001. These were then resold to a Ukrainian company which adapted them for use in armoured vehicles.
It is clear that the human rights record of the Myanmar (Burma) security forces is appalling. The Burmese army, the Tatmadaw, have used military vehicles to capture, detain and enforce conscription of child soldiers. Military vehicles have also been used to quell student pro-democracy demonstrations. The German government should make every effort to ensure that German components are not being used by the security forces of Myanmar (Burma).
A significant number of licences issued by the German government are for “dual-use” items i.e. items that have a military as well as civilian use. Between 1999 and 2003, about half of the total licences reported by the German government in its Report on Military Equipment Exports were for military components. The lack of public information makes it difficult to confirm that German components are not being incorporated into equipment exported to armed forces that do commit such violations.
Licensed production of Heckler and Koch assault rifles in Turkey
The German company Heckler and Koch has engaged in a number of licensed production arrangements. In the late 1990s, the German government authorized the licensed production of calibre HK33 5.56mm assault rifles in Turkey. These were replacements for the Turkish military’s outdated G3 rifles, also produced with a German licence by the company MKEK in Turkey.
On 23 August 2000 the Turkish Minister of Defence signed a contract with a consortium of companies from Germany (Fritz Werner), Belgium (New Lachausee), Spain (Santa Barbara) and France (Manurhin) to install an ammunition manufacturing plant in Turkey. The plant will be run by MKEK and the lead foreign company will be Fritz Werner of Germany. This licensed production deal, which is estimated to be worth between €40 million and €45 million (approximately between US$35.9 million and US$40.4 million), will give MKEK the ability to produce 5.56mm calibre ammunition for assault rifles.
The German, Belgian and French companies listed above have all been granted export licences by their respective governments to fulfil this contract. This is despite the much-criticized previous authorization by the German government of licensed production with MKEK, where Heckler and Koch MP5 sub-machine guns were exported from Turkey to Indonesia. It still remains far from clear how, if at all, the governments of Germany, Belgium and France will ensure that MKEK will not export ammunition to forces likely to use them for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Among MKEK’s other clients have been the governments of Burundi, Libya, Pakistan and Tunisia – all countries where AI has reported serious human rights violations by the security forces.
Turkey lacks effective arms export controls based upon respect for international law. Despite its formal adherence to the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, there is a real danger that the Turkish government will continue to allow the export of significant quantities of small arms and ammunition, many produced under licence from European companies, to security forces in other countries that persistently commit human rights violations.

Italy
Between 1996 and 2003, Italy was the tenth largest arms supplier. Italy in 2001 exported small arms valued at US$298.7 million. In recent years, Italian small arms have been transferred to a number of countries experiencing violent conflict or where violations of human rights and international humanitarian law occur including Algeria, Colombia, Eritrea, Indonesia, India, Israel, Kazakstan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone.
Such international transfers appear to flout Italian law 185/90 which prohibits exports to countries whose governments are responsible for proven gross violation of human rights and to countries engaged in conflict, under arms embargoes or receiving Italian development aid whose defence spending exceeds their defence needs. Italian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are concerned that in practice the prohibitions in Italian law are being diluted by the Italian government in order to allow the transfer of arms to such countries.
Small arms exports to Algeria
In a parliamentary debate in November 2004 the Italian government defended sales to Algeria. The Under-Secretary of State for Disarmament at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Senator Alfredo Luigi Mantica, stated that “Algeria was not condemned by EU and/or UN bodies for human rights violations so the prohibitions of the Italian arms control law 185/90 are not applicable”.
Algeria is a country which has been ravaged by serious human rights abuses resulting in the killing of around 500 people in 2004. In 2001 and 2002, the Algerian security forces shot dead some 100 unarmed citizens in the context of demonstrations in the northeastern region of Kabylia. An official commission of inquiry, which was established to look into killings committed between April and June 2001, concluded that the security forces had resorted to excessive use of lethal force during the demonstrations. Despite the authorities’ repeated announcements that those responsible would be brought to justice, AI has received no information from the authorities indicating that any member of the security forces has been brought to trial for excessive use of lethal force during the demonstrations in 2001 and 2002. Torture and ill-treatment continue to be reported in Algeria. The Algerian government has generally failed to investigate allegations of human rights abuses, including by the security forces, and bring perpetrators to justice.
In 2003, Italy exported a range of arms and ammunition within several UN Commodity trade database (UN Comtrade) categories including sporting and hunting rifles, revolvers and pistols and small arms ammunition worth nearly US$600,000 to Algeria. In 2002, it exported a range of small arms including sporting and hunting rifles, shotguns, and a large number of pistols and revolvers to the value of US$1.4 million to Algeria. In 2001, it exported nearly US$300,000 of revolvers, pistols, sporting/hunting shotguns, and small arms ammunition to Algeria.
The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions have not been granted access to Algeria.
‘Civilian firearms’
A loophole in Italian law means that non-military, so-called “civilian firearms”, continue to be exported without the same level of control over the recipients or end-use which applies to weapons categorized as military weapons. Only a few types of small arms – such as rifles and machine guns which are automatic and built specifically for military purposes – are actually categorized as military weapons. About 33 per cent of arms, semi-automatic weapons, spare parts and ammunition exported, fall outside the remit of the arms control law. Also, a number of weapons routinely used by the police are normally not considered military arms. Licences for these weapons are issued by local authorities and the standard of information the exporter must provide in order to obtain an authorization is lower than that required under the arms control law. Weapons which have been exported in this way include manual and semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols and revolvers, all of which can be used to commit serious human rights violations.
This is a significant loophole because, according to the data from the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), between 1999 and 2003 Italy exported “civilian” small arms and munitions to the value of approx US$1,916 million. During that period, “civilian” firearms were sold to a number of countries including Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, the Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, EU states, Guatemala, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates and the USA.
This lax categorization means that Italian companies are able to export “civilian” firearms to countries devastated by armed conflict and gross human rights violations, or subject to a UN or EU arms embargo. For example, in 2003 Italy exported weapons within the UN Comtrade categories including pistols, revolvers and sporting/hunting shotguns to the People’s Republic of China.
Berettas in Brazil
Italian Berretta handguns are one of the foreign small arms most frequently confiscated by the police in Brazil, a country which accounts for 8 per cent of the world’s gun fatalities. Until recently, the government had failed to exercise due diligence in curbing the use of small arms by civilians. In the years between 1999 and 2003, Italy exported firearms and ammunition worth US$10.63 million to Brazil.
In the last 10 years, 300,000 people have been killed in Brazil, many as a result of urban violence and the widespread proliferation of handguns and small arms, which account for 63 per cent of all homicides in Brazil.
Sixteen-year-old Camila Magalhães Lima lost the use of her legs in 1998 when she was hit by a stray bullet in a shoot-out between thieves and private security forces while walking home from school. “I had plans for the future; I wanted to travel the world, take a modelling course, and continue my gymnastics training. From one day to the next, my dreams were shattered – all because of the irresponsibility of supposedly civilized men who only feel brave with a gun in their hands.”
Many of the weapons are made in Brazil, but guns are also imported from several countries including, in order, the USA, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Czech Republic, Austria, and France.

Japan
Japan “does not export any arms whatsoever”, according to official national policy. However, official data on the UN commodity trade database (UN Comtrade) indicates that Japan has sold a wider variety of arms than is permitted under Japanese legislation, which has effectively banned military exports. For example, in 2003, Japan exported arms to the Philippines within the categories of “military rifles, machineguns and other”. In 2000, the Philippines government reported that it had imported goods within the category “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war”, and “parts and accessories of Military Weapons” from Japan.
According to information submitted to the UN, other recipients of similar weapons and munitions from Japan include Denmark, Germany, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the USA. In 2000 Japan exported “military weapons” to Israel, and in 1999 Malaysia and Indonesia reported that they had imported “military weapons” from Japan. Such transfers would appear to contradict the policy of no arms exports, and furthermore, include countries where armed forces have committed grave human rights violations.
At least 57 companies in Japan are known to be involved in the military, security and police trade. In 2003 there were at least 11 companies in Japan producing small arms and light weapons or their parts or small arms ammunition. According to UN Comtrade data, in 2001 Japan exported small arms worth US$70.3 million. The main recipients of these exports were Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, and the USA. Others included the People’s Republic of China, Cyprus, Lebanon and South Africa. This figure puts Japan in the top 13 exporting countries for small arms and light weapons. Although Japan claims that all these weapons are for hunting and sporting use only, it is unclear how such weapons are defined and what end use monitoring is in place to ensure they are not used for serious abuses.
Loophole – the definition of arms
Japan continues to be one of the top producers and exporters of “non-military” small arms since, under Japanese legislation, hunting and sporting weapons are not classified as “arms” and are therefore not subject to the same controls as firearms covered by the Export Trade Control Order.
There are two major concerns in regard to Japanese controls on small arms: the lack of control on the export of “civilian” weapons and the narrow definition of arms which has the potential to exclude weapons with military specifications. According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), which is responsible for granting permission to export weapons, hunting and sporting weapons are “mostly exempt from restriction…meaning it is not required to obtain an export license to export them.”’ However, another official has stated that an export licence is required. It is unclear exactly what the controls are on these civilian weapons since the information coming from the Japanese government appears contradictory. There are concerns that these different interpretations of the legislation within METI are confusing and risk leading to exports that would not give due consideration to the human rights and development concerns of the transfer. If Japan were to adopt an Arms Trade Treaty this would provide a clear and consistent set of standards that would be agreed on an international level.
For certain sporting and hunting weapons whose performance is deemed to be similar to that of military small arms, exporters are required to apply for an export licence. However METI does not make public its guidelines for distinguishing between military small arms and sporting and hunting weapons. The Ministry may not approve the export of such weapons if it is believed that they may be turned over to military use or if the customers are among the Foreign Users’ List of prohibited end-users. This list contains 160 specific organizations based in Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria and Taiwan.
It is unclear from the data submitted to UN Comtrade whether the weapons exported in 2003 under the category of “arms, ammunition and parts” were military or civilian firearms. Recipients of these weapons included Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Lebanon, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Thailand and the USA.
Such transfers raise serious concerns about the number of export licences issued for weapons that are not in practice necessarily restricted to recreational use. The use of sporting and hunting weapons has been reported in human rights abuses, for example the massacres of civilians by “death squads” in Algeria, and by armed groups in the Solomon Islands. There also exists the concern that it would be possible to gain an export licence for hunting and sporting weapons destined for military or police end-users, especially users who abuse human rights. Since Japan does not provide a public report of exports licences granted we cannot check where sporting and hunting weapons have gone to.
Furthermore, in Japanese law the definition of “arms” does not explicitly include tear-gas and police equipment so although these weapons are controlled by the Export Trade Control Order they are not subject to the ban and information is not freely available as to what controls are placed on the export of these goods. The export of electro-shock equipment and leg-irons does not require a licence, this is despite the fact according to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners “chains or irons shall not be used as restraints.” In addition, while Japanese law prevents the export of arms to countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflict, and it also forbids export to areas “not in conformity with the spirit of the Japanese Constitution”, there is no specific ban on exports that may contribute to human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law.
Dual-use technology
Japan is a leading player in the international market for dual-use technology – that is civilian technologies which can be used to advance the development of military equipment and weapons. However, Japanese law on dual-use goods and licensed production of dual-use goods abroad does not provide sufficient controls to prevent goods from being transferred to end-users where they may be used to facilitate human rights abuses.
In line with the Wassenaar Arrangement , the Japanese government provides a list of restricted countries and products but still permits transfers of products that clearly can have a military end-use, bringing into question the claim not to have an arms trade. Japan’s advanced technological capability, particularly in the computing and electronics fields, has meant that its dual use technology has played a part in many types of missile systems around the world. In 1996, for example, the Netherlands army bought 640 Toshiba computers as an “off the shelf” item to be incorporated into an extensive command and control system.
Japan’s lack of control on the re-export of supposedly “civilian” dual-use goods, produced under license production agreements with other countries means that Japanese equipment may be transferred to end-users with poor human rights records without the Japanese parliament being able to exercise any oversight. For example, Kawasaki Heavy Industries has a joint venture with Germany’s MBB to produce the BK117, a dual-use light transport helicopter which is most often used for purposes such as medical evacuations. However it has “hardpoints”, points at which weaponry such as guns or missiles can be attached to convert it to military use. In 1985 a military version of the BK117 was unveiled at the Paris air-show, fitted with eight anti-tank missiles, a roof-mounted sight for the missiles, a sight for a turret-mounted machine gun and radar warning sensors. German airworthiness authorities had certified an increased weight version of the model, allowing for weapons and equipment to be attached.
Such transfers show that Japan is not implementing its national policy of no arms exports. It appears from government statements that the Japanese government has already considered and decided on a shift in export policy in favour of pursuing projects “related to support of counter-terrorism and counter-piracy”. Licences will be granted on a case-by-case basis, however using criteria that have not yet been made public. The absence of clear principles based on international law raises concerns that such exports will be granted to destinations where there is a risk that arms transfers could contribute to human rights violations or have a detrimental impact on the sustainable development of the recipient country. In his public statement the Chief Cabinet Secretary stated that:
“Decisions will be made on the basis of individual examination of each case, in light of Japan’s basic philosophy as a peace-loving nation that aims at avoiding the escalation of international conflicts.”
Prime Minister Koizumi later qualified this statement, saying that there is a possibility that Japan may sell arms to Southeast Asian nations to fight piracy.

The Russian Federation
The Russian Federation is a key player in every aspect of the international arms market. It is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of major conventional weapons and small arms. Between 1996 and 2003, Russia was the fourth largest arms supplier. In 2003, Russia exported small arms worth at least US$42.2 million.
Arms exports with scant regard for human rights?
The lack of criteria based upon relevant principles of international law governing weapons sales in Russia means that it has continued to sell weapons to states whose forces have committed abuses, including during violent conflict such as Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda. In 2003, Russia exported conventional weaponry, including combat aircraft, to Algeria, India, Iran, and China; attack helicopters to Ethiopia, India and Uganda; and 269 missile launchers to China and 74 to India. All of these states armed forces have committed grave abuse during armed conflict or carried out serious human rights violations.
Russia is also a major exporter of small arms and light weapons. In 2003, it exported sporting and hunting shotguns worth US$1.7 million to Algeria. The use of sporting and hunting weapons has been reported in human rights abuses. In 1997 such weapons were used in the massacres of civilians by “death squads” in Algeria.
In Russia’s export control system, there is virtually no reference to controlling arms exports for reasons connected with respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, the potential impact on regional stability, or the possible effects of such transfers in undermining the sustainable development of the importing country. The principles governing exports are set out in the Law on Military-Technical Co-operation and the Law on Export Controls, but these relate mainly to the interests of the Russian Federation, and “the observance of international treaties on nuclear non-proliferation, arms reduction and disarmament, and the banning of chemical, biological, and other types of weapons of mass destruction.”
The Russian Federation has signed a number of major contracts with India and is in line to modernize and re-equip Indian paramilitary forces with equipment including Mi-17 helicopters and AK small arms. This includes weaponry for border security forces that operate in Kashmir as well as Assam. New contracts have been signed with Iran, reportedly for advanced electronic warfare systems for use against planes and missiles. Russia also signed an agreement in June 2004 with the Mexican government for the maintenance and final assembly of helicopters (Mi-8/-17s, Mi-24/-35s and Mi-26s) at a plant in Mexico City. A number of these helicopters are already in service in Colombia, despite continuing international concern about human rights violations attributed to the armed forces, and evidence of their links with paramilitary groups.
In early 2003 Russian officials visited Pyongyang, North Korea, to discuss military upgrades for tanks and supplies of night vision equipment and ammunition. Russia has recently delivered military equipment and training to Myanmar (Burma) under a deal worth US$130 million and has also recently supplied helicopters to Nigeria. Serious human rights violations in these three countries have been documented.
Russia’s main markets are China and India. It has continued to supply these two countries over the years with missile launchers, combat aircraft and battle tanks, despite regional tensions. Other important markets are Algeria, Kuwait, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Sudan, Vietnam, and Yemen – most states whose security forces have contributed to long-standing and acute human rights problems.
Exports to Ethiopia
In 2000, when Ethiopia and Eritrea were at war, Russia exported 307 large calibre artillery systems to Ethiopia. Both parties to the conflict were subject to an arms embargo imposed on 17 May 2000 by UN Security Council Resolution 1298, but this was lifted one year later on 16 May 2001. It is not clear from the data available when exactly Russia exported these weapons.
In 2003, Russia exported 18 large calibre artillery systems and seven attack helicopters to Ethiopia. These exports from Russia have raised serious concerns about the impact of such weaponry on long-standing border tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Russia has been a major supplier of arms to Ethiopia and has also supplied aircraft to Eritrea. Large calibre artillery systems can consist of guns, howitzers, or multiple-launch rocket systems.
Russia is one of the biggest exporters of conventional weapons and munitions, including small arms and light weapons, yet these exports take place without adequate consideration being given by the Russian authorities to the fact that the arms may be used to facilitate serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. This highlights the inadequate adherence by the Russian Federation to its political commitments, undertaken through the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the UN, and to its commitments under relevant international law.

The United Kingdom
The UK is the second largest arms exporter in the world by value with sales of US$4.3 billion a year. In 2001, the UK exported US$44.8 million worth of small arms. The government claims to have “one of the strictest and most transparent arms export licensing systems of any country”. A major overhaul of the UK’s export controls took place recently, with new export control legislation entering into force in 2004. This legislation, for example, placed new controls on international arms brokering activity. Despite these positive developments, a number of controversial licensing decisions, problems over reporting and inadequate capacity to enforce the system continue to raise concerns.

The UK governments plans, by 31 March 2006, to cut 35 per cent of the staff working in a section within the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which is responsible for assessing arms applications. In an attempt to cope with such staff shortages, the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering an option of “involving private sector partners” in processing licence applications. Both of these proposals raise serious concerns about the impact that this would have on the effective implementation of the UK national criteria and EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.
Increase in open licensing of exports
A major problem with the UK arms export control system is that the UK government is increasingly using open licences , particular with the transfer of military technology, and is encouraging exporting companies to use them “whenever these are available”. Open licences allow the exporting company to make multiple shipments to specified destinations. Once such a licence has been issued there is no further advance authorization or scrutiny prior to the shipment of the goods.
For example, in 2004 the UK Government authorised Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) for armoured all wheel drive vehicles to Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - countries where armed forces and police have committed persistent human rights violations. Such licensing would appear to undermine the UK government’s criteria, governing its arms exports, on human rights.
Since no records are published on the amount of equipment exported under these licences by the DTI, the increasing use of open licences makes effective scrutiny more difficult in the annual reporting. The problem is that the government neither publicly reports on the final destination or the end-use of such equipment, nor the final product(s) the components are being incorporated into. This is particularly problematic for exports of components that are intended to be incorporated into other weapons systems in the recipient country. As the parliamentary committee that scrutinizes decisions puts it:
“The lack of information about incorporation OIELs [Open Individual Export licences] is worrying, as it means we only have a partial picture of how British components and technology are being used abroad.”
There is a clear risk that the UK arms transfers could be diverted or re-exported “under undesirable conditions” to countries with weak export controls such as Turkey, so the use of OIELs by the UK government increases such risks. In 2004, the UK government issued 19 OIELs for Turkey which cover a broad range of equipment including components for air defence systems, components for naval electronic warfare equipment, components for heavy machine guns, components for surface to air missiles, components for combat aircraft, and components for weapon control systems. The UK government provides no information regarding the military or security products in which these UK components will be used in or their intended end-use. This makes it difficult to monitor which of these products will be re-exported from Turkey to a third country. Some of Turkey’s export customers include the armed forces of Kuwait, Nepal, Egypt, Oman and Pakistan.
In 2003, the UK government issued an open licence including crowd control ammunition, tear gas/irritant ammunition, and CS hand grenades to the Maldives. In August 2004, the UK government expressed concerns over the human rights situation in the country:
“We are concerned by reports of attacks by the police on peaceful protesters in Malé last Friday, the subsequent declaration of a state of emergency, and large numbers of arrests…...”
To the best of our knowledge, the UK Government has neither reviewed nor revoked the licence despite the risk of use of this type of equipment.
In 2003 the UK Government also licensed OIELS including tear gas, crowd control, irritant ammunition and stuns grenades to several countries such as Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia and Turkey where there are concerns about the misuse of force by police and security forces.
Arms exports and sustainable development
Criterion eight of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports requires EU governments to take into account whether a proposed arms export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country. This criterion has been at best poorly implemented. In 1999, four EU countries were involved in a major arms sale to the South African government. No consideration whatsoever appears to have been given to the detrimental impact on the country of this massive arms deal and the promise of tens of thousands of jobs in the South African defence industry has not materialised.
The development cost of arms transfers in South Africa
In 1999 South Africa agreed to purchase armaments – including frigates, submarines, aircraft and helicopters – from suppliers including Germany, France, Sweden and the UK. The cost at 2003 prices of the armaments was US$6 billion. This far exceeds government spending on other projects such as combating HIV/AIDS (US$53.8 million per year). The six billion dollars could have purchased treatment with combination therapy for all five million AIDS sufferers for two years.
In another deal, the UK government’s decision to authorize the export of a US$40 million military air traffic control system to Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, in 2001 created controversy and confusion about how criterion eight was included in the UK’s 2002 Export Control Act. This decision was criticized for being too expensive by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and provoked an internal dispute among UK ministers and departments, including the Department for International Development and the Treasury, who were concerned that the military system would exacerbate Tanzania’s external debt.
Since the Tanzania debacle, the UK government has developed its own methodology for ensuring that arms exports do not undermine sustainable development by identifying destinations where sustainable development might be a concern and then examining the possible impacts of arms transfers on those countries. Yet, this methodology does not deal with the potential impact from arms sales, particularly from cumulative transfers, on countries not included on the list of destinations of concern as highlighted by the sale of BAE Hawk jets to India.
Hawk aircraft to India
In 2003, the UK government announced the sale of BAE Hawk jets to India. Forty-two of the 66 jets are to be produced under licensed agreement in India and the total contract will cost US$1.7 billion, which is the equivalent of 10 years of UK bilateral aid to India. US$1.7 billion could pay for one year of extra primary schooling for 20 million girls (US$85 per year per child).
The deal has also raised other concerns about its impact on regional tensions between India and Pakistan, especially in relation to Kashmir since the Hawk is a military aircraft. It can deliver “a comprehensive array of US/NATO compatible air-to-air and air-to-surface weaponry with pinpoint accuracy, by night as well as day, but at a fraction of the cost of major line aircraft types”. The Hawk aircraft can be used in ground attacks and is capable of carrying a “heavy and varied weapons load”, including tactical nuclear weapons. Such a transfer is irresponsible in the context of continuing tensions in Kashmir between the two regional nuclear powers India and Pakistan.
Enforcing controls on the brokering of prohibited equipment
It is unclear how actively the UK authorities are enforcing a new law, the Export Control Act, which came into effect in May 2004. The Act prohibits the brokering of arms to embargoed destinations and also the brokering of certain “restricted equipment”, such as those items that can be used for torture or ill-treatment, unless expressly authorised by the UK government. The “brokering” of such equipment is now prohibited for the British registered companies and also for British citizens no matter where they carry out their brokering activities (either in the UK or abroad). It also covers foreign nationals when in the UK.
Brokering torture equipment
In December 2004, the New Statesman magazine published details of a UK-registered company, TLT International, that was offering a range of stun guns and stun batons on its website. The company claimed to be “a manufacturers outlet, please make enquiries” and stated that orders should be “only by bulk purchasing”. The company claims to be a Global Facilitator and “is the true and honest company to open a Gateway to and from W. Africa and Far East.”
Despite the fact that this information was made public in December 2004, the company was still advertising the stun weapons on its website in March 2005. The government has yet to make a public statement about any investigation into the activities of this company.

The United States of America
The USA continues to dominate the international arms market. It is a world leader in both arms exports and production. It ranked first among the world’s conventional arms suppliers between 1996 and 2003, with deliveries worth in total US$151.9 billion or on average around US$19 billion per year. The largest recipients of US weapons (in terms of financial value) in 2003 were Egypt, Greece, Italy, Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and the UK. Between 2000 and 2003 Saudi Arabia was the largest purchaser of defence articles from the USA; its purchases totalled US$6.3 billion.
The USA also remains the world’s largest exporter of small arms, light weapons and ammunition. In 2001, it exported small arms and light weapons worth US$741 million. This was mainly made up of military small arms and light weapons, small arms ammunition, pistols, revolvers, and sporting and hunting rifles.
More than 40 per cent of the largest 100 defence companies in the world are from the USA. Four of the five top arms companies globally – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon – are US companies.
US military aid
Significant arms transfers have been made from the USA to recipients in countries where there are major and persistent human rights concerns. These include Colombia, Egypt, India, Israel, Nigeria, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela.
According to US law (the Leahy amendment), no US military aid may be provided to any unit of a foreign security force if there is credible evidence that such a unit has committed gross violations of human rights. Yet, military aid from the USA to security services and armed forces with a persistent record of human rights violations continues. Significant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in some of these countries are carried out or facilitated by paramilitary and armed forces equipped courtesy of US military assistance. For example, the Colombian armed forces have been a relatively large recipient of US military rifles and machine guns despite continuing international concern about human rights violations attributed to the armed forces, and evidence of their links with paramilitary groups.
In August 2003, the US government lifted the ban on military assistance to the government of Rwanda and in 2004 the US concluded a military cooperation agreement with Rwanda whose armed forces and officials have been accused by UN investigations of backing armed groups in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
US military assistance to Nepal - should be conditional on improved human rights
Since 2001, the USA has provided over US$29 million in Foreign Military Financing to Nepal. This includes grants for military equipment, training, and services. In 2003, it provided 8,779 assault rifles under Foreign Military Sales to the Nepalese security forces. Yet, the Nepalese Army has been involved in arbitrary arrests, “disappearances” and the killing of civilians suspected of sympathizing with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). On 1 February 2005, the King dismissed the government, assumed direct power and declared a state of emergency. Political leaders were arrested and the King severed all internal and external communications links. The state of emergency was lifted on 29 April 2005. However, many fundamental rights which had been suspended were not restored.
On November 2004, the US Congress had approved a government spending bill for the fiscal year 2005, which made US military aid to Nepal conditional on improvements to its human rights record. US law obliges the government of Nepal to cooperate with the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal (NHRC) by granting access to all places of detention, and to resolve all security related cases involving individuals in government custody. The Nepalese government must also show that it is taking effective steps to end torture by its security forces and to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations. Following US Congressional approval, the Nepalese Chief of Army Staff agreed to respect court orders and cooperate with the NHRC. However, the Nepalese armed forces have continued to commit human rights violations.
As part of the fiscal year 2005 government spending bill, the USA must cut off military aid to the Nepalese government and armed forces unless the US President either certifies that the Nepalese government has met the above conditions, or exercises a national security waiver. The USA reportedly postponed military training sponsored by the US Pacific Command for the Royal Nepalese Army in April 2005. By May 2005 the US government had not announced a decision on whether or not to deny military aid for the fiscal year 2005 despite a grave deterioration in the human rights situation in Nepal. The USA is likely to review the situation after 31 May 2005.
The US government is using funding from the fiscal year 2004 to continue providing military aid to Nepal, reviewing each instance on a case-by-case basis, which is why the State Department has not had to comply with the obligation passed in the government spending bill for the fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, the US President has requested US$4 million in Foreign Military Financing for the fiscal year 2006 to help the Nepalese government pay for US defence articles such as small arms, armour plating, and grenade launchers.


Increasing US military assistance to Pakistan
On 27 October 2001, immediately after the attacks on 9/11, and formally in June 2003, the US government waived restrictions on arms transfers to Pakistan, which had previously been imposed because of Pakistan’s nuclear testing and programmes and because General Pervez Musharraf had deposed an elected government.
Since then transfers to Pakistan of US military equipment, as well as military education and training, have increased each year. Pakistan has been promised US$300 million in US foreign military grants (these include sales and services) and US$2 million in military training for the fiscal year 2005. Major US military grants and proposed sales have included six C-130 military transport aircraft (grant of US$7 5million); six Aerostat surveillance radars (sale worth US$155 million); 12 radars and 40 Bell helicopters (sale worth US$300 million); military radio systems (sale worth US$78 million); and the proposed sale of eight P-3C aircraft, six Phalanx guns, and 2,000 TOW missiles worth up to US$1.2 billion.
In 2004, the US government designated Pakistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally” for its support for the US “war on terror”. In March 2005, the US Department of State approved the sale of F-16 fighters to Pakistan in a major policy shift, despite the risk of an arms race with India, which neither country can afford, and possession of nuclear weapons by both states. Before the fighter jets can be transferred, however, the US President must receive US congressional ]]> Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:32:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/25559 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667 http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/24289 Maymun Hasan Yare 14 years old was street child in that raod she lost her parrents in the civil war, she was originally from Qoryooley District of Lower Shabell Region of Somalia, she didn't get any care since1994 when she lost her father and mother in clanish fighting between the farmer clans in Qoryooley area.
once she made a problem from three boys who are also street chilren like her, they tried to rape her, they forced her to follow them in destroyed building near Hamar Jadid secondary school in Hawl wadaag district, 2:00 in the night, they were all drunk, when they tried to start their abusive actions she asked them one question.
she said "have you parents, or brothers and sisters?"
they said "No...No..."
she said to them "let as pretend as the other people in their houses, I will be your sister and one of the other street girls will be our mother, and so that we will be a family"
they said "that is good Idea"
they consulted them selves and allowed her to be their sister and they stopped the raping.
Maymun saved from them and removed from there when they started to sleep.
in the morning I made Maymun telling the story happened to her at the night, they she told me all the story.
Maymun was very happy how she saved her self from the three cruel street boys.
Albadri
any comment or question about the story, reach me albadri10@yahoo.com ]]> Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:20:00 EDT http://albadri10.tigblog.org/post/24289 2.0666667 45.36666672.066666745.3666667