Who gets hurt by all these weapons?

One of the most tragic manifestations of the post cold war world is the proliferation of weapons. One consequence of the change in the scope and nature of conflicts is that far greater numbers of non-combatants are being directly and indirectly injured, maimed, and killed by weapons that used to be thought of as weapons of war, to be directed against combatants. The extent of the injuries and the proportions of non-combatants affected is documented in this week’s issue by three papers that draw on the International Committee of the Red Cross’s unique database of wounds treated in its own hospitals (pp 410-7).^1–3 Yet, despite burgeoning international concern, we are woefully short of solutions to address this proliferation of illegal weapons.

The studies by Coupland and Meddings show starkly that innocent non-combatants are increasingly both victims and targets of all types of weapons, not just light arms but also landmines, and, importantly, fragmentation munitions.^1–3 In the study from Cambodia, for example, the need to make seasonal adjustments to the data reflects the need for rural communities to plant and gather, even though antipersonnel landmines may lurk below the surface of paddy fields.³ Hunger and poverty mean that few can afford to await the arrival of mine clearance teams.

Many governments, groups, and individuals are responsible for the widespread proliferation of weapons to non-state actors who appear to care little about the impact of “civil” war on innocent civilians.⁴ In Afghanistan, for example, the United States government was largely responsible for directing around $3bn of weaponry through the Afghan pipeline without any real forethought about what might become of these weapons once control was lost and what the impact might be.⁵ The evidence lies in the field hospitals of Afghanistan² and the streets of Karachi, where some 3000 die in ethnic disputes each year.

Ownership or possession of a light weapon has never been easier, or more widespread, and step by step the international community is losing control over these weapons. Once the armouries have been looted or the covert shipments have arrived, there is little that can be done to prevent weapons from entering networks that are beyond the control of the state—if indeed the state continues to exist. Africa is flooded with illegal weapons: $12 will buy an AK47 and two clips of ammunition on the Mozambique border. The same can be bought for $20 in downtown Johannesburg, a chicken in northern Uganda, a goat in Kenya, and a bag of secondhand clothes in Angola.⁶ The ubiquitous AK47—first manufactured in 1947—and other less well known weapons are tough and durable, with few moving parts to malfunction. They last forever and their owners require no real training—even a child can become a part of the “Kalashnikov culture.”⁷

When the Albanian state lost control of its entire arsenal in March 1997, irate citizens stole tanks and armoured personnel cars and careered through the streets until the fuel tanks were dry, the vehicles broke down, or boredom kicked in. The tanks were abandoned, but not so the assault rifles and ammunition, some of which may seep across the borders of the European Union, together with Albanian organised crime groups (which already control heroin trafficking in Scandinavia). In the space of a week 750 000 weapons and 1.5 billion pieces of ammunition went missing. As the European Union expands and with it the Schengen rim (the area within which there are no border controls), so union borders will move closer to the Balkans and the states of the former Soviet Union, which are also major markets for illegal weapons. Johannesburg boasts some of the finest trauma surgeons in the world, but consultants privately admit the opportunity costs within hospital budgets since the massive increase in gunshot injuries. Could this be the future for the European Union, and could “flexible sovereignty” unravel in a backlash against civil liberties as violent crime increases?

Further afield, the overseas development funds of developed nations were once supposed to finance roads, telecommunications systems, schools, hospitals, and welfare programmes. Corruption and mismanagement has weakened many states to a point of collapse, and nihilistic war has become the norm, led by warlords who profit too much from war to ever contemplate peace. Humanitarian assistance now dominates the aid agenda, leaving less and less for the tasks originally envisaged. And these changes have been facilitated by the weapons that have flowed freely into the region from major powers to leaderships that could not keep the locks on their armouries.

Many of the problems seem irreparable but, if there is a next time, arms suppliers—from the shady broker in Prague to the civil servant trained to think in the vernacular of power and advantage—might pause to think of just how permanent and damaging the legacy of weapons and violence can be. The International Committee of the Red Cross’s careful documentation of human misery should help them think very hard.

Papers pp 410,412,415