Small Arms and Violence in Iraq

November 24, 2006

            The United States is not very popular around the world because it often favors global rules only when those rules do not limit its own policies. The list of examples is quite long.

We want rules against genocide but do not want the International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction over our citizens. We want rules against chemical and biological weapons but do not want international inspectors to have access to our own facilities. We want the Geneva Conventions to protect our soldiers but define ‘enemy combatants’ and ‘torture’ in particular ways to give us flexibility in places like Guantanamo Bay. And so on.

It is difficult to encourage others to follow these rules when we do not intend to follow them. The double standard is glaring. We need to debate whether following these global security rules might actually make us safer. It is a basic moral position: act toward others the way you want them to act toward you.

            But sometimes the United States is unpopular because it does not want any global rules at all. The United States has thwarted global efforts to develop rules in areas like global warming and protecting the rights of migrant workers.

Another good example occurred last month, when the United Nations General Assembly voted to begin global negotiations on a treaty to restrict the illegal sales of small arms across national borders. The vote was 139-1. The United States cast the only vote in opposition.

The GA resolution stated that “arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation are essential for the maintenance of international peace and security.” It said that the “export and transfer of conventional arms is a contributory factor to conflict, the displacement of people, crime and terrorism, thereby undermining peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development.” It called for a treaty to establish common standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms.

The evidence in favor of the need for such rules is overwhelming. The vast majority of conflicts around the world are civil wars, and the vast majority of deaths in these conflicts result from small arms. Ten civilians are killed for every combatant in these conflicts. Tens of millions of noncombatants have died since the cold war ended. The world’s nations are trying to figure out how to reduce the number of civilian deaths in civil wars.

The logic extends beyond civil wars to post-conflict peace building efforts. It is universally recognized that a necessary step is to disarm private militias. Our own policy in Iraq right now boils down do the disarmament of Sunni and Shia militias to prevent more violence. We are criticizing Syria, Iran, and others for arming these militias. The flow of small arms into Iraq is perpetuating the violence.

And yet the United States voted against the development of global rules to prevent illicit arms sales to war-torn countries. Why would the United States be willing to stand alone on this issue? Why would it thwart efforts to prevent civilian deaths in future conflicts and harm its own efforts to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq?

One reason is that the domestic gun lobby is dictating our foreign policy. The United States is the number one exporter of small arms, and the gun industry wants to continue its record sales abroad.

            Another reason is ideological: some parts of the Bush administration are against all forms of arms control, and others want to prevent the convergence of global arms control efforts and domestic gun control efforts. A global treaty on arms sales, according to some US officials, would violate the second amendment of the Constitution.

            Let us put aside that this is an erroneous interpretation of the second amendment – the Supreme Court has never ruled a gun control law unconstitutional because it violated the second amendment. The issue is that the United States is willing to put the profits of the gun industry over global efforts to reduce civilian deaths in civil wars around the world.

            Sometimes we lose our moral authority in the world when we say that we need certain global security rules, but they do not apply to us. But sometimes we lose our moral authority when we say that there should be no global security rules at all.