 |
|
| 5 Conclusion 5.1 In general, the approaches to small arms nonproliferation to date fail to recognize the important functional interaction between the licit and the illicit trade as well as small arms control and nonproliferation. Small arms control as a necessary precondition to resolving the proliferation question, however, is predicated on progress in advancing restraint on the part of supplier States. What is required on the part of member States is constructive engagement on the broad spectrum of national security considerations, particularly to the extent that they pertain to alleviating growing anxieties over resurgent nationalism, legal, technical, economic and environmental questions. With the economic cost of small arms violence to the international community increasing, reassessment of priorities among foreign policy objectives on grounds of political, economic and security interests must form the basis of a multilateral consensus on the goal orientation and pursuit of small arms control. This pursuit will be an expression of a new collective will to harmonize global security. Careful long-term strategic thinking will force member States to forge a more mature relationship in the pursuit of building a consensus on the price all countries are willing to pay for (non)proliferation. Although the quest for a global resolution to the nonproliferation issue must not stand in the way of regional agreements, where attainable, the interdependence between nonproliferation and disarmament mandates a cooperative regulatory approach at the global level. 5.2 EPG's overall objective is to assist in efforts to curtail the supply of illicit small arms by making cross-border arms transfers subject to arms control, export and transparency regimes. Small arms transfer policies should be designed to support transfers that do not destabilize or threaten regional peace and security. With production monitored and limited and exports restricted and tighter controlled a reduced supply should restrict access and decrease overall circulation. 5.3 The EPG compromise cooperative regulatory approach advances a constructive parallelism between both crime control and arms control. From a bargaining point of view, this approach should lend itself to tangible results within a reasonable time frame. The compromise approach, built around a universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory Small Arms Control Regime centering on transparency and accountability, should be seen as a minimalist position concomitant to the integrated-proportional approach. What separates the compromise cooperative regulatory approach from the integrated-proportional approach is a primary focus on supply-centered prevention. The call for a global weapons buy-back program, on the other hand, transcends the scope of "Security First,� as it is currently advanced. 5.4 Highly appreciative of the UN secretary-general's personal leadership on small arms nonproliferation, EPG views its efforts as complementary to and supportive of the secretary-general's courageous efforts in moving the issue through the thicket of diplomatic entanglements. Towards that end, EPG will continue to assist and advise on how best to move the issue forward. The utility of EPG to the global small arms effort lies in bringing media attention and profile to the carnage of small arms violence, particularly in capitals. For the uniqueness of EPG lies in its ability to be highly visible at both non-governmental and inter-governmental levels of small arms action. 5.5 This consultative document has laid out the basic framework of a broad-based, cooperative regulatory approach which unifies, coordinates, and organizes small arms control efforts around a Small Arms Control Regime based on a tripartite of elements: (1) transparency regime; (2) export controls; and (3) an international code of conduct. Once established it could also contribute substantially to post-conflict stabilization and confidence building, and efforts at demobilization, decommissioning, and reintegration. Disclaimer The Consultative Document is illustrative only and, unlike the Washington Communique, should not be considered binding on any individual member of the Eminent Persons Group. The document was discussed at the Washington convocation of EPG, May 2-4, 2000, and is put forward to Member States and NGOs in the hope that it engender comment and suggestions, which EPG will consider at their next meeting in Bamako, Mali, December 18-19. EPG HOME |