Small arms – big bills

The global production of domestic firearms and military-style small arms such as handguns, assault rifles and grenades is estimated at 7.5 million units annually. These are added to an already considerable global stockpile of some 650 million small arms. About 100 countries and over 1,130 companies currently produce components for manufacturing weapons. This contributes to a considerable surplus that, combined with poor regulation and control, keeps the cost of such weaponry low and their availability high.

Small arms are an essential feature of the security sector – for militaries, police and for the maintenance of internal security and stability. Globally, the defence sectors are estimated to possess some 41% of all small arms, while police are estimated to hold a little more than three per cent. By contrast, civilians legally hold more than 55 % of the global stockpile, with the rest divided between insurgent groups and private security companies. Given these diversified ownership patterns, it is surprising that most countries exert comparatively loose regulatory controls over their weapons stockpiles. Among developed and developing countries alike, regulation of the security services – including their auxiliaries and paramilitary or militia structures – is weak. Equally disconcerting, legislation governing civilian ownership is inadequate in most states: the law is often hopelessly out of date and enforcement mechanisms are woefully ineffective.

These meagre regulatory controls have tremendous human and financial costs. Arising out of real and perceived insecurity, repression, socio-cultural preferences and various forms of predatory behaviour, the demand for and proliferation of these weapons further threatens human security and aspirations to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Indeed, it is the civilians of developing countries that are often forced to shoulder the larger burden of the effects of arms availability as they have fewer social support systems and safety-nets at their disposal.

Despite their proliferation across civilian and military populations, the total estimated legal trade in small arms is less than US$ 4 billion per year – some ten per cent of the global trade in conventional weapons. This US$ 4 billion, however, goes a long way.

Its most visible impacts are the epidemic-levels of fatal and non-fatal injury and the catalysing of cross-border and internal displacement. Although estimates are generally unreliable, as many as half a million people are killed each year by the use of small arms in conflict and in otherwise “peaceful” societies. Well-over 90% of on-going conflicts are taking place in and between developing countries – and high-levels of armed criminality are evident in countries with low and medium-levels of development. These are the effects of small arms proliferation, as reported every day in the world’s media, from Haiti to Iraq.

These social, economic and humanitarian costs need to be added to the relatively low cost of purchasing small arms. There are additional, ‘hidden costs’ as well: from inner-city neighbourhoods in the US to remote villages in Northern Uganda, arms availability erodes the quantity and quality of social services. This is especially the case with respect to access to primary and hospital-based health care, as well as the resilience of education systems and enrolment rates.

Although the relationships are not clear-cut, arms misuse can undermine legitimate economic activity including formal and informal trade and agricultural production. Moreover, power inequalities arising out of gun possession and misuse contribute to high levels of personal and community insecurity, damaging relationships of trust so vital to social cohesion and economic activity. The perceived and real impacts of arms misuse also limit investment and the ability of development agencies and personnel to provide much needed assistance and services.

Many countries and international aid agencies are gradually coming to recognise the extent of these costs to human development. Some states have intensified their efforts to generate multilateral and regional norms and standards associated with arms exports, imports and civilian-level regulation. There has also been a rapid growth of practical interventions undertaken by international aid agencies, donors and NGOs, designed to reshape and strengthen accountability in the security sector. These range from weapons collection programmes, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of ex-combatants to experiments in community policing and public health-based violence reduction programmes.

The direct and indirect costs of arms proliferation reach far beyond the initial purchase cost of the weaponry. Investing efforts now in controlling the global surplus of small arms, regulating civilian and military possession and in undoing the damage of militarised societies will prove equally broad in reach.

 

Source(s):
‘Tackling poverty by reducing armed violence’, by O Green, 2003 Full document.
‘Small Arms Survey: Rights at Risk’, Oxford University Press, 2004
‘Small Arms Survey: Development Denied’, Oxford University Press, 2003

id21 Research Highlight: 4 June 2004

Further Information:
Robert Muggah
Small Arms Survey
Ground Floor
Avenue Blanc 47
CH-1202 Geneva
Switzerland

Tel: + 41 (0) 22 908 5782
Contact the contributor: Muggah@hei.unige.ch

Small Arms Survey, Geneva

Other related links:
'Holding up development: The effects of small arms and light weapons in developing countries'

'Military spending and development' Insights #50

'Sites for sore eyes' id21's links on military spending and development