MICRO-DISARMAMENT: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

David B. Kopel, * Paul Gallant ** & Joanne D. Eisen ***

INTRODUCTION

“Micro-disarmament” is a term of art in the small arms prohibition community, referring to the disarmament of the civilian population in a particular country. Advocates of micro-disarmament argue that the success of micro-disarmament in particular countries demonstrates that reducing or eliminating the prevalence of firearms reduces violence. Micro-disarmament successes are touted as proof of the desirability of ever-broader campaigns to disarm civilian populations worldwide. This article examines six case studies of micro-disarmament: Cambodia, Bougainville, Albania, Panama, Guatemala, and Mali.

In each of these six countries, we argue, micro-disarmament has failed or has not been nearly as successful as firearms prohibitionists have claimed. We suggest that the emphasis on disarming civilians as the key to peace is mistaken, because, as these six case studies demonstrate, true and lasting peace must be based on protection of human rights. When human rights are secure, violence will diminish; conversely, when human rights are denied, many people will refuse to surrender the tools necessary to defend their lives and liberties. 1

I. HUMAN RIGHTS AND DISARMAMENT

The United Nations has recognized that the preservation of fundamental human rights is essential to avoiding armed conflict. According to the preamble of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” 2 According to Article 8 of the Universal Declaration, “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy.” 3

Thus, the Declaration recognizes that when a government destroys human rights and all other remedies have failed, the people are “compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression.” 4 Because “[e]veryone has the right to an effective remedy,” the people necessarily have the right to possess and use arms to resist tyranny, if arms use is the only remaining “effective remedy.” 5

The Universal Declaration followed the same logic as did William Blackstone in his Commentaries, the most influential legal treatise written in English, which has had enormous influence in every nation which has adopted the Common Law. In detailing the Common Law’s protection of human rights, Blackstone first set forth the three primary rights: personal security, personal liberty, and private property. 6

Blackstone then turned to the auxiliary rights, such as the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, which protected the primary rights.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. . . . [A]nd it is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. 7

So according to Blackstone, humans have “the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” 8 Likewise, the Universal Declaration affirms the right, as “a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression.” 9

In 2001, the UN pointed to a practical application of the Universal Declaration’s right to rebellion against oppression: the decades-long war fought by the African National Congress and other violent groups against the apartheid regime in South Africa. 10

Although arms possession as “a last resort” protection for human rights is implied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has, oddly, begun promoting disarmament, even in countries where arms possession is the last resort available to protect human rights.

Following the Cold War, the UN turned its attention away from nuclear disarmament and toward the issue of small arms and light weapons (“SALW”). In 1992, then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali coined the term “micro-disarmament,” explaining, “[b]y this I mean practical disarmament in the context of the conflicts the United Nations is actually dealing with and of the weapons, most of them light weapons, that are killing people in the hundreds of thousands.” 11 He also acknowledged that the solution to conflict “lies in commitment to human rights with a special sensitivity to those of minorities, whether ethnic, religious, social or linguistic.” 12

The United Nations is not really composed of “nations,” but is instead composed of members of the governments of various nations. The “nation” and the “government” are not necessarily synonymous. Few people would argue the Pol Pot regime represented the Cambodian people, that Saddam Hussein represented the people of Iraq, or that the Duvalier regimes represented the people of Haiti. Almost all governments, especially dictatorial governments, are concerned foremost with their own political stability. Hence, the government-centric United Nations manifests an instinctive bias in favor of controlling insurgencies by controlling the arms of the insurgents, rather than by addressing the oppressive conditions that created the insurgencies. 13

According to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “[o]ver the past decade, the destabilizing accumulation of illicit small arms and light weapons has emerged as a major concern of the international community . . . . These arms fuel, intensify and contribute to the prolongation of conflicts.” 14 When Annan and other disarmament advocates complain about destabilization, they are in effect advocating for the status quo of existing dictatorships.

Annan has recognized that government abuse of human rights is a major, direct cause of armed conflict: “Efforts to prevent armed conflict should promote a broad range of human rights, including not only civil and political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development.” 15 But what Annan elides is the fact that the “last resort” that forces a government to stop human rights abuses is the ability of the victim population to use arms to protect itself from the government. To deprive the victims of their defensive arms would deny them “the right to an effective remedy,” as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 16

Arms prohibitionists claim that arms possession leads to human rights abuses. Peter Herby, a legal specialist with the International Committee of the Red Cross, writes, “as highly lethal arms become diffused throughout a population, the conditions for violations of humanitarian law increase.” 17 Prohibitionists argue that arms possession causes not only apolitical violent crime, but also civil conflict. The greater the number of weapons in the hands of “non-state actors” (the prohibitionists’ term for anyone not deemed politically reliable by the government), the greater the destabilization. 18

However, the prohibitionists have misunderstood the issue of causation. 19 The confusion between association and causality is rampant throughout the disarmament literature. Despite the premise behind the name of the United Nations Trust Fund for the Consolidation of Peace through Practical Disarmament, 20 weapons do not cause conflict; hence, reducing the number of weapons does not necessarily reduce conflict. As this Article details, voluntary weapons collection programs have often failed to disarm the perpetrators of violence and to bring peace. Indeed, a typical result is increased violence.

II. CAMBODIA

When Cambodia was a French colony, from 1863 to 1953, the French rulers passed many laws to prevent the Cambodian peasants from arming. 21 On April 17, 1975, a revolutionary war brought the Cambodian communist party to power, and the state of Democratic Kampuchea came into existence. The new government of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge perpetrated a reign of terror against unarmed civilians, resulting in the deaths of at least one million people. 22

On December 25, 1978, an invasion by Vietnam ended Pol Pot’s regime. A period of internecine factional fighting ended on October 23, 1991, when the four warring factions 23 signed the Paris Peace Agreements 24 and invited the UN to help restore peace and normalcy and to supervise free elections in the country. 25 The Paris Agreements gave the UN a broad mandate to disarm and demilitarize the warring factions, and to improve human rights. 26 UNTAC, the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, was created. 27

The terms of the Paris Agreements stipulated that troops from all four factions would be disarmed and demobilized by the UN. This meant collecting more than 300,000 conventional weapons from an estimated 425,000 combatants (203,300 regular army and 220,290 militia). 28 In theory, when this goal was reached, there would be peace and a “neutral security environment as a prelude to activities aimed at creating a neutral political environment,” 29 thereby enabling Cambodians to vote in national elections without coercion. This would represent a major step toward democratization and a humanitarian climate.

However, the Khmer Rouge (“PDK”) refused to disarm from the start, and the remaining factions grew reluctant to proceed with their own disarmament. One cannot fault the response of the remaining factions, because only the PDK would benefit from a unilateral disarmament. The phenomenon of “decaying consent” has occurred before in disarmament programs. 30 Leaders of warring factions may sign an agreement, but ground forces may refuse to adhere to those agreements when doing so appears detrimental to their own survival. U.S. criminologist Franklin Zimring posed the question “[i]f unilateral disarmament is rational, why do people not give up their guns voluntarily . . . ?” 31 The answer is simple: unilateral disarmament is contrary to the survival instinct and, as UNTAC discovered, the instinct is overcome only with great difficulty.

The UNTAC program is the only known instance in which there was an attempt to record empirical data using weapon injuries as an outcome measure after micro-disarmament. David Meddings and Stephanie O’Connor compared the incidence of weapon injuries before and after the UNTAC disarmament. 32 They estimated that “around 25-50%” of Cambodia’s combatants were “believed to have been disarmed” during the peacekeeping operation, and although a stable government was left in place at the time of departure of the UN, “[t]he annual incidence of weapon injuries was higher than the rate observed before the peacekeeping operation.” 33 If weapons cause violence, then at least some decrease in violence should have resulted from removal of 25-50% of the weapons.

A great deal has been written about UNTAC, and it is generally agreed that the disarmament process was a failure. 34 We believe that, in terms of disarmament, 25-50% is quite an accomplishment. What UNTAC actually achieved, however, was the creation of more victims.

Because of continued violence, the UN issued another disarmament imperative just prior to the 1993 election. Yasushi Akashi, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative to Cambodia, issued a directive that rendered unlicensed civilian weapon possession illegal, as of March 18, 1993, although the Paris Agreements had given UNTAC no legal authority to issue such a decree. Penalties for violation of the UN directive included confiscation of the weapon and imprisonment for a period of six months to three years. 35

Five years after the UN imposed gun licensing law, violent crime was still rising in Cambodia. 36 Gun-rights advocates often argue that gun licensing or registration laws can set the stage for gun confiscation, since the government will know where to find all legally-owned guns. In Cambodia, gun confiscation did follow the UN’s gun-licensing fiat. In 1999, the Cambodian government, with UN support, banned all firearms, blaming the nation’s crime problem on “the large number of guns in circulation, thought to be about half a million . . . .” 37 Eventually, the BBC News reported, there would be house-to-house searches and a ban on all weapons, including firearms previously registered and even arms carried by off-duty police and soldiers. ³⁸

At the 2001 UN Conference on the Illegal Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, Sar Kheng, Cambodian Minister of the Interior, said that “illegally held arms” (i.e., all non-government arms) were “major obstacles to efforts to reconstruct and rehabilitate the country and to the building of democracy and respect for human rights.” 39 He explained:

The Government of Cambodia has designated management of all arms and explosives as its major task, and has instituted several measures, such as collecting and confiscating all arms, explosives and ammunition left by the war; instituting practical measures to reduce the reckless use of arms; and strengthening the management of weapons registration. Those who possessed weapons during the civil war wish to continue possessing them for self-protection. On the other hand, criminals have no intention of giving up their weapons, because they need them to carry out their criminal offences. However, with assistance from the European Union and from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), there has been some success in raising the awareness of the problem among a majority of Cambodians. 40

As of February 2002, 112,562 of Cambodia’s SALW had reportedly been confiscated. 41

Although the current Cambodian government is not engaged in genocide, it nevertheless has a poor human rights record and is attempting to eliminate the political opposition with threats of violence. 42 The UN/European Union (EU) gun surrender programs could be seen as another neo-colonial assault on the sovereignty of the people of Cambodia, carried out, as most neo-colonial programs are, with the connivance of a local élite which holds power by force of arms.

Today in Cambodia, about 3 percent of rural families are mired in land disputes against public officials and the military. 43 The root of these disputes traces back to the communist regime when all land became state property. 44 Oxfam’s Song Vannsin described the current situation: “[d]isputes over land arising from abuse of power and the absence of a map-based land titling system are clogging up the courts and causing widespread civil unrest.” 45 According to opposition leader Sam Rainsy, land confiscation is “a potentially explosive issue that affects no less than 10,000 families.” 46 Continued civil unrest is ensured by government policies that try to squelch protest against continuing land theft. Ironically, the government has complained that the act of protesting land theft “can affect security and order.” 47

Abusive, criminal behavior of the Cambodian regime is not limited to property confiscation. 48 As the UN admitted in its International Drug Control Programme report, Cambodia has become a center for “illicit drug production and trafficking, smuggling and exploitation of human beings, kidnappings, prostitution, illegal gambling, arms trafficking and extortion,” and much of this criminal behavior is “protected by Cambodian officials.” 49 The government’s involvement in the international crime of the trafficking of women for sexual exploitation is an extreme violation of human rights. 50

Although the French were fairly successful in disarming the colonial Cambodian civilian population, several factors have changed. Despite UNTAC’s shortcomings, the UN “did manage to create an awareness of human rights that had hitherto been non-existent. . . .” 51 Thus, the people were sensitized to the illegitimacy of abusive treatment. The Cambodian people have suffered decades of political and criminal violence. Many Cambodians have personally learned how to use arms for protection against criminals, including government criminals. It seems doubtful that disarmament plans, even those enforced by government coercion, will persuade the populace to surrender all their weapons. 52 As the Working Group for Weapons Reduction in Cambodia (“WGWR”) survey recently noted, “it is increasingly common in Cambodian society for people to believe that weapons are needed to protect businesses and homes.” 53 And weapons are widely available and relatively cheap. 54

Even while the Cambodian government refuses to improve its treatment of its own citizens, the government begs for funds from donor countries, not to aid the people, but to disarm them. 55 The same Cambodian government promotes pedophile tourism in their country. 56 As long as foreigners in Cambodia may purchase the right to commit government-sanctioned atrocities upon Cambodian children, it is wrong for international agencies to deprive families of the firearms which may be the only practical means of preventing the girls in the family from being abducted and forced into a life of daily rape. The authors of Small Arms Survey 2002 admitted, “Most people, while broadly supportive of the weapons collection process, remain reluctant to participate in it themselves so long as the rule of law is not fully established in the country and there is a lack of public trust in the security forces.” 57

As John Locke explained, the foundation of the people’s political sovereignty is their God-given property right to their own bodies. 58 Accordingly, when Cambodians choose to retain their arms so that they may defend themselves and their families against programs of commercial rape and other government-sanctioned violent crimes, the Cambodian people are, in effect, choosing to retain their sovereignty. The root of the crime problem in Cambodia is the criminal government that steals land from peasants, cooperates with organized crime, and enriches itself by participating in the sex-trade enslavement of women and children. It is entirely reasonable for the Cambodian people to want firearms to protect their families from government criminals, and to guard against the recurrence of a genocide like the one that took place the last time the Cambodian people were disarmed. 59

Sadly, yet another disarmament program is being instituted in Cambodia. On January 13, 2003, the Japanese government announced it would provide up to $3.6 million (US) to implement the euphemistically-named “Peace Building and Comprehensive Small Arms Management Program in Cambodia.” 60 The new disarmament program, in the Bakan district, pays for public works construction of medical clinics, schools, roads, or bridges, if the locals surrender a sufficient number of firearms. 61 In other words, if a community does not surrender its only practical means of protecting itself from genocide, common criminals, and government-sponsored criminals, the government will not build any schools, clinics, roads, or bridges.

The rationale for the latest disarmament program is that “small arms have been sometimes used for criminal objectives, which severely harm the security and social stability of Cambodia, and thus the reduction of arms has been considered as one of the first prioritized social actions toward sustainable peace in Cambodia.” 62

To the contrary, the reduction of civilian arms in Cambodia was the sine qua non for the Khmer Rouge genocide, 63 and continuing efforts to disarm Cambodia’s citizens have contributed to the continuing criminal victimization of the Cambodian people by the Cambodian government. The international disarmament programs in Cambodia are not just failures at attempts to do good; the programs have been actively harmful to the Cambodian people.

III. BOUGAINVILLE

On the Pacific island of Bougainville, the people had no arms until they were driven to rebellion by many years of human rights abuses perpetrated by the kleptocratic colonial government of Papua New Guinea. 64 The Bougainville Revolutionary Army (“BRA”) brought the PNG government to a standstill with homemade weapons and battlefield acquisitions. 65

The Bougainville Peace Agreement 66 was signed on August 30, 2001. The Agreement ended formal hostilities, provided for the establishment of an autonomous Bougainville government, and promised a referendum on full independence from PNG to be held within 10 to 15 years. Yet, rather than moving forward expeditiously with a referendum on independence, the UN is obsessing with its intricate, failing weapons disposal program. 67

After the signing of the peace agreement, a total of 1,639 weapons were registered and placed into locked containers; but, when it became obvious that the PNG government would not obey the peace agreement, at least two break-ins occurred where the sequestered weapons were stored. 68 The first time, 110 weapons were removed. After the second break-in an additional 360 were discovered missing. As Philip Alpers and Conor Twyford pointed out, “With so much energy being directed at weapons disposal, potential existed for community-wide resentment to develop as other needs were not met, or were met more slowly than expected.” 69 That is exactly what came to pass. 70

It has become clear that both the Australian and the PNG governments are loathe to hold the promised referendum on the future of the islanders. This is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which requires that, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” 71 The kleptocracy’s theft of the resources of the Bougainvilleans, and consequent impoverishment of the people, appears to violate Article 25 of the Universal Declaration:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. 72

Unfortunately, the collection of weapons—rather than the restoration of human rights, or attention to basic human needs—is the first priority of the UN mission on Bougainville. As actually administered, the current “peace” program in Bougainville, like its predecessors, is relentlessly focused on removing weapons from the hands of civilians and is indifferent to improving the lives of former combatants and the rest of the population, including women and children. 73

IV. ALBANIA

One of the most dramatic illicit gun transfers in recent history occurred in Albania during March 1997. The transfers were caused by the collapse of several elaborate pyramid schemes in November and December 1996, which impoverished the Albanian people, many of whom lost their entire life savings. 74 The result was widespread anarchy and the toppling of the Sali Berisha administration. 75 During the anarchy, “virtually all inmates escaped from the Albanian prisons.” 76 The combination of a sudden upsurge in violence 77 and mistrust of government 78 caused civilians to loot 1,300 armories, 79 removing more than 550,000 weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition, as well as explosives, according to government estimates. 80 However, both the International Monetary Fund and the British Broadcasting Corporation reported that the figure was closer to one million weapons; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that 1.5 million weapons were looted by civilians. 81

Although 75,548 weapons were quickly recovered by government agents in 1997, 82 in February 1998 the Albanian government deemed it necessary to request aid from the UN to retrieve the balance of the missing weapons. Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, led a fact-finding mission in Albania in mid-June 1998. The two initial proposals were: (1) the creation of a paramilitary force that would carry out house-to-house searches and confiscation, or (2) a compensated gun surrender program, which the UN expected would create an increase in black market gun trafficking into the region. 83

Instead, the innovative solution was a voluntary weapons collection program that would be linked to building community development projects such as roads, schools, and communications systems, and strengthening the capabilities of local police in order to improve security. This program was similar to the Japanese program currently being implemented in Cambodia. 84 There would also be an intense public information and education campaign, including TV and radio spots, posters, T-shirts, and musical concerts. 85 The pilot project would not use coercion, but would support the government’s new law on weapons collection. 86 It would be located in Gramsh, 87 one of Albania’s thirty-six districts, where officials estimated that ten thousand weapons could be collected. 88

The UN was extremely pleased with the results of the Gramsh voluntary disarmament program. UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Dhanapala declared, “The project was considered a success: some 6,000 weapons and 137 tons of ammunition were collected, and the number of violent crimes involving the use of small arms fell dramatically.” 89 Secretary-General Annan was even more enthusiastic, “In spite of the relatively modest quantity of weapons collected . . . Gramsh had been declared a weapon-free area, with no reports of illegal or criminal activities involving weapons in the district for the last 15 months.” 90

Did the weapons collection cause the drop in crime? A social scientist would classify the Gramsh data as an “interrupted time series study.” In such a study, the scientist looks at the rate of some variable before the “interruption”, and then at the rate of the variable after the interruption.

The problem with drawing social science conclusions from Gramsh is that we have only two data points. The first data point (before the interruption) comes from 1997, a point when the violence rate was artificially elevated because of the worst political and social instability that Albania had suffered for decades. 91 No prior information is available to indicate whether the decline of crime from 1997 was simply a return to normal levels, following the end of the pyramid schemes crimes. There is no further information beyond the fact that crime diminished. It may well be that the crime decline was long-lasting, but without more data, we do not know. 92

The other great challenge in conducting an interrupted time series study is excluding the effect of other variables. Imagine, for example, that a social scientist wishes to test the hypothesis that tobacco consumption makes people violent. Since tobacco consumption declined after New York City significantly raised its tobacco taxes in 2002, the scientist conducts an interrupted time series study of homicide rates in New York City. His two data points are 2001 and 2003. He collects the data, and finds that homicide in New York City was much lower in 2003 than in 2001. Has the social scientist proven that reduced tobacco consumption leads to reduced homicide?

Of course not. The scientist failed to account for other variables that changed between 2001 and 2003. Most significantly, in 2001, New York City suffered many homicides as the result of terrorism; in 2003, New York City suffered no such homicides. The change in the uncontrolled variable (terrorism prevalence) overwhelmed whatever change might be attributed to the variable (homicide) which the social scientist was studying. 93

In Gramsh, Albania, while the weapons collection program was going on, there was a great improvement in the standard of living. 94 The UN Pilot Project brought one million dollars into the district of Gramsh. 95 The funds were used to create local infrastructure and to give jobs to the local populace to build needed roads and bridges, schools, and telephone lines. 96 The effect on crime rates from variables such as employment-generating projects, improved infrastructure, and last, but not least, helpful attention paid to peoples’ problems by government and UN officials, appears to have been overlooked. We are unaware of any acknowledgement in UN-sponsored literature that these variables might account for much, or all, of the decline in violence that the UN credits to the weapons collection program. U.S. criminologist Gary Kleck explains:

Univariate interrupted time series studies of crime, which merely note shifts in the level of crime at a particular point in time, are worthless for judging why the crime rate changed. It is impossible to say whether the crime rate in Albania would have declined anyway, even in the absence of the arms collection program. And given that many other things changed at the same time as the program, it is impossible to tell whether the arms collection program had any effect at all, above and beyond the effects of those other factors. 97

We are not denying that the arms collection in Gramsh may have been one of the reasons why the crime rate declined; our point is that the evidence does not support the claim that the arms collection was definitely a cause of all, or a significant part of, the change in the crime rate—particularly because focusing only on the arms collection ignores dramatic improvements in the job situation and other social needs. The UN deserves credit in Gramsh, but attributing all the credit for the change in the crime rate to the weapons collection program does not seem supportable.

Because of the success of the Gramsh Pilot Project, the Weapons in Exchange for Development (“WED”) programs in the districts of Elbasan and Dibra were undertaken in 2000. 98 We know that the WED program was considered a success because it led to the Small Arms and Light Weapons Control (“SALWC”) Project in 2002. 99 However, we are unaware of any claims made of a reduction in violence in Elbasan or Dibra.

Concomitant with the UN’s Weapons in Exchange for Development program in 2000, the Albanian government created a task force of 250 police, to visit every household in the country and request the surrender of weapons. 100 During the visit, the head of the family would be expected to hand over all arms. He would sign a document that his home was weapons-free. If he were later found to possess arms or ammunition, he would be subject to arrest, prosecution, and incarceration for up to seven years. 101

Lawrence Doczy was Manager of the SALWC project and later of the SSSR (Support to Security Sector Reform) Programme, which introduced community-based policing in five pilot communities. Doczy estimated that approximately 200,000 weapons were recovered by the Albanian government between 1997 and the Spring of 2003; of these, 25,000 were recovered with help from the UN weapons collection programs. 102 Doczy explained, “It is widely believed that [of the originally looted government estimate of 550,000 weapons] approximately 150,000 had been trafficked out of the country during the Kosovo crisis and the unrest in Macedonia, leaving an estimated 200,000 still in the hands of the civilians.” 103 He added, “I think that the full disarmament of the population is a myth. It will NEVER happen . . . Our plan from the beginning was to try to skim off all that we can and subsequently recommend to the government to modify the law and go for the registration of the remaining weapons to bring them under control.” 104

The Weapons in Exchange for Development (“WED”) program expired in July 2002, as did the amnesty period for voluntary surrender of weapons. Yet an estimated 200,000 weapons were still unaccounted-for among the civilian population. 105 So a few months before WED was set to expire, the Albanian government enthusiastically embraced another weapons collection program aided by the UN. On March 12, 2002, the United Nations Development Programme (“UNDP”) approved the new Small Arms and Light Weapons Control (“SALWC”) program. Targeting eighteen districts, or about half the country, the program aimed for “the surrender and collection of the greatest number of weapons.” 106 Due to a shortage of funding, the SALWC project tried to foster competition in weapons surrenders; only the locales most successful in collecting weapons would earn public works projects. A new feature of SALWC was “development and establishment of a pilot database project as the basis for a centralized, government-operated weapons control system.” 107

Johan Buwalda, program manager for UNDP’s Weapons in Exchange for Development Program, commented, “It is not only weapons collection. It is also weapons control. So we will assist the police in setting up a database, storing these data, managing the data. . . .” 108

The prior UN role in weapons collection in Albania, SALWC, evolved into the current SSSR (Support to Security Sector Reform) and was expected to extend until the end of 2005. 109 The stated objective was gradually to cease direct support for weapons collection and to introduce community-based policing in five pilot communities, in order to improve safety and security for the populace and to improve police accountability. In addition, a component of the program will computerize the handwritten gun registration system. 110 The UN hopes that, as the people in Albania become more secure and more trusting of their police, they will register their weapons.

Alfred Moisiu, President of Albania, observed that many Albanians were reluctant to disarm, noting, “Most people are not agreeing to hand over the arms, the weapons, because the situation is still not secure here in our country.” Moisiu acknowledged that his countrymen believed that unilateral disarmament endangered law-abiding citizens who surrendered their weapons, because criminals always will be able to acquire weapons. 111

Citizens may be reluctant to participate in the UN-sponsored gun registration program because laws later could be changed to prohibit possession of those registered weapons. 112 After all, in Cambodia, the UN-mandated gun licensing program was followed a few years later by a UN-supported gun confiscation program. 113

It is not unreasonable for Albanians to be skeptical about trusting the government. As Human Rights Watch reported, in Albania, there is “impunity for police abuse, failures of various government branches to uphold the rule of law, trafficking in human beings, and widespread violations of children’s rights . . . .” 114 Organized crime syndicates have trafficked more than 20,000 Albanian women to Greece for sexual exploitation. Albanian children are also trafficked for what amounts to de facto slavery for the crime syndicates, “to be used in labour, to beg in public places or clear car windows at traffic lights. In other cases, Albanian criminal networks have trafficked babies, which according to the police authorities are sold for US $200.” 115 To state the obvious, government complicity in human trafficking is a major violation of human rights and international law. 116

Even in Canada, a wealthy country where people do trust their government, firearms registration has been an abysmal waste of resources; the program was supposed to cost two million dollars (Canadian), but is well over one billion, and on its way to two billion. 117 Now Canada is a country where spending eighty-five million dollars, or a great deal more, on an unproductive government program will still leave a great deal of money for the government to spend on social needs. But wasting even a few million dollars in Albania 118 can mean that very urgent public needs will go unmet.

Nevertheless, the Albanian population can look forward to more attempts at weapons control. There was yet to be another amnesty. 119 The Albanian government’s disarmament programs likely will continue, although UN funding may be running out. 120 The Albanian government faces the task of confiscating or registering the remaining weapons—at least 200,000, but perhaps as many as 700,000. 121

Rather than persisting in a futile attempt to disarm the public, it would be more effective for government to control police abuses, to pay better attention to fundamental human rights, to spend its resources on required infrastructure, and to reduce the civilian need for arms by protecting the people against slave traffickers.

V. PANAMA

A typical voluntary weapons collection program (“VWCP”) occurred in the city of San Miguelito, Panama, during 1998. 122 William Godnick’s thorough discussion of the 1998 program sets forth the assumptions of the disarmament community: there is a causal relationship between violence and the number of arms in the hands of the public (even in non-criminal hands); further, “[t]here is a wide consensus among supporters of VWCP that the symbolism of collecting and destroying the tools of violence provides enormous intangible benefits to post-war society.” 123 Despite the feelings about intangible benefits, Godnick recognized that the challenge “is to find tangible and quantifiable evidence that these programs improve social wellbeing.” ¹²⁴

In San Miguelito, a community of 300,000 poor people, the Arms Exchange program offered people a choice of food, construction materials, small appliances, or employment opportunities, in exchange for guns. The program also included increased police enforcement in a crime-ridden area where police presence formerly had been minimal. The program collected 108 illegal firearms during 1998; additionally, the National Police (PN) collected another 97 firearms, for a total of 205. The total cost per weapon was averaged at $200 (US). 125 Godnick noted, “According to San Migueilto Mayor Cano Gonzalez the violent crime rate has been reduced by 75% since the implementation of Arms Exchange.” 126

As in Gramsh, Albania, 127 social conditions significantly improved after the implementation of the arms collection program. Was the collection of arms the main cause of the improvements?

Perhaps not. Mayor Gonzalez acknowledged that youths in certain hotspots committed 60% of San Miguelito’s crimes. 128 Mayor Gonzalez offered employment opportunities to these youths, in exchange for the surrender of their weapons. In other words, the San Miguelito program did not just get guns off the streets; it got the criminals off the streets, and into jobs. As Godnick stated, “the focus of providing employment opportunities in the individual’s home community is worth re-examining.” 129

Godnick acknowledged that a dramatic decrease in crime, due to the removal of only 205 weapons, might be implausible. 130 Godnick’s caution is bolstered by the observation of Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Jayantha Dhanapala, that, in Central America, for every firearm collected by a disarmament program, one hundred weapons remain in circulation. 131 Even if the San Miguelito program removed 10% of the guns (instead of just 1%), their removal might be expected to be less significant than the removal of the criminals responsible for 60% of the crime. And perhaps the willingness of the youthful criminals to get real jobs, and give up their guns, was significantly enhanced by the much-increased police presence.

Godnick posed the question, “Is the program cost of US $200 per firearm turned in a good social investment? The answer is clearly yes.” 132 He is clearly right, regarding the guns surrendered by the criminals. But the broader implication of the San Miguelito success is not that crime can be stopped by spending $200 per gun for gun surrender programs. Rather, the evidence suggests that crime can be stopped by much more expensive programs: significantly increased police, and a jobs program for unemployed youths. The $200 per gun program was built on top of these expensive, and worthwhile, investments. The San Miguelito story does not offer evidence that $200 per gun, in isolation, would have succeeded.

San Miguelito does, however, prove that UN-affiliated micro-disarmament programs do not necessarily have to foster violations of human rights. No matter how one parcels out the credit to the various elements of the San Miguelito program, the program was a success at improving the lives of the people of San Miguelito. The San Miguelito program did not foster the violation of human rights—unlike the harmful micro-disarmament programs in Cambodia, in Bougainville, and in Albania (after the initial success in Gramsh). San Miguelito offers at least the hope that all of the UN’s disarmament resources might eventually be used only for projects that do not harm human rights.

VI. GUATEMALA

The Mayan Indians of Guatemala have suffered a long history of de facto slavery, starting with their conquest by the Spanish in 1524. 133 Guatemala remained under Spanish rule until 1821 when the Spanish withdrew, and the country became a republic in 1839. Its history has been replete with political turmoil.

The country’s first major restrictive gun law, Decree Number 36, was enacted in 1871. Many more gun laws followed. 134 These regulations rendered lawful firearm acquisition and possession beyond the financial means of the average Guatemalan.

When the Mayan Indians, generally unarmed, 135 became more active in political affairs in 1960, the response of government was violent suppression. The result was a thirty-six-year-long civil war, the longest in Latin American history, 136 that claimed approximately 200,000 lives, in what some have labeled a genocide. 137

Although small bands of armed insurgents were active, most of the Mayan population did not have arms, and therefore did not involve itself in the insurrection. The government was so determined to crush the insurrection that there appeared to be no limits on killing anyone; according to the BBC News, the zeal of the army to eliminate just one small group of only 100 insurgents in 1966 resulted in the deaths of 10,000 people. 138

The Mexico Accord, signed on April 26, 1991, emphasized human rights and the rights of indigenous people. It was followed by the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights, of March 29, 1994, which paved the way for establishment of a UN presence in Guatemala, called MINUGUA (United Nations Observer Mission in Guatemala). 139

MINUGUA was a peacekeeping mission created by the Security Council in 1997 “to verify agreement on the definitive ceasefire between the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (“URNG”).” 140 Among its objectives was the demobilization and disarmament of URNG combatants. 141

But the disarmament was incomplete. Godnick stated, “It is recognized that United Nations sponsored disarmament programs have not been able to recover a fraction of the weapons in circulation. The 1,800 weapons collected from the guerrillas in Guatemala after the conclusion of more than three decades of conflict is a prime example of this.” 142 In addition, 642 URNG combatants did not comply with the program. 143

The Guatemalan government did not continue with the disarmament process and did not institute formal civilian weapons collection programs at that time. 144 Despite the surrender of 1,800 URNG weapons, observers noted that “Guatemala is experiencing increased crime and violence. . . .” 145

Laurance and Godnick, who also observed the increase in violence after the ceasefire and weapons collection, 146 pointed out that the increased violence occurred in the cities, rather than in the Mayan-populated countryside. 147 And, they further acknowledged that, in general, the Mayan people still remain unarmed. 148

Could the remaining weapons be the cause of all this violence? Could 642 armed, URNG ex-combatants have migrated to the city and been responsible for the crime wave? 149

Although there is no dispute over the fact of increased violence in the cities, there is question about the number of weapons present in Guatemala. Godnick and Vázquez report 181,051 legally registered weapons, and 1.5 million illegal weapons, making Guatemala “the most highly armed country in the sub-region.” 150

The present Guatemalan government is part of the problem. There is rampant government corruption 151 and a continuing pattern of human rights abuses 152 and social inequality. 153 Human Rights Watch reported, “Charges of government corruption produced violent reprisals in several instances. . . . In February, a witness in one high-profile corruption case, César Augusto Rodas Furlán, was shot dead in Guatemala City.” 154 Human Rights Watch documented many acts of intimidation against human rights defenders. The perpetrators possessed the kind of information that “had traditionally been the domain of military intelligence.” 155

Guatemalans do not believe that criminals will be dealt justice. 156 It is no wonder, since the government is so busy defending its own power structure and protecting itself from the “destabilizing” effects of those who seek legitimate redress of civil rights grievances.

According to Waszink, “The maras [delinquent drug gangs] are responsible for assaults on buses and other criminal acts. In Guatemala City each major bus company experiences an average of 3-4 assaults daily.” 157 With crime increasing in the cities, and with assault and kidnapping for ransom an everyday occurrence, 158 it is not surprising that Guatemalans are arming for self-defense, or that private security is a growth industry. Although the constitution of Guatemala guarantees the human right of civilians to possess weapons, 159 the bureaucratic requirements to own firearms can disarm some people whose lives may be in danger, and push some of them into the black market. 160

The crime problem has provoked some Guatemalans to argue against more stringent weapons control and collection laws. One pro-gun civilian group, the Guardianes del Vecindario, used billboards around the country to advertise messages such as “Thieves and Murderers Prefer Unarmed Victims.” 161 Another group, the Association for the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, protested with newspaper advertisements against new regulations and against international interference with Guatemalans’ natural right to self-defense. 162

Guatemala has a multitude of problems that might tend to foster a culture of violence. Furthermore, the country is geographically situated to function as a conduit for smuggling drugs and other contraband. After the settlement of the civil war, it appears that about three-fourths of the rebels obeyed the disarmament agreement.

There is still widespread lawlessness; in 2003, local media reported that “murders, assaults and kidnappings increased by more than 150%.” 163 Perhaps the reason is that, according to Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “There are wide-ranging social inequalities. Discrimination across ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines remains disturbingly prevalent. And Guatemala has fallen short of its obligations to pay reparations to war victims and to substantially increase tax revenues to pay for much-needed social investments.” 164

Although the United Nations Verification Mission has completed its job and is leaving Guatemala, the UN and Guatemala have agreed on the opening of “an Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and for the creation of a special body to investigate clandestine groups.” 165

As a public relations response to the continuing problem of violent crime, the government of Guatemala has implemented a goods-for-guns program. According to the BBC News, Guatemalan President Oscar Berger acknowledged, “It would not produce major results in the short term . . . but together we will resolve, little by little, the problems of violence in Guatemala.” 166

VII. MALI

Mali has been touted by the disarmament community as a showcase success. But the events in Mali do not support such claims.

Mali, an inland country in West Africa, is among the world’s ten poorest nations. 167 Mali attained independence from France in 1960 and is twice the size of modern-day France. Ten percent of the Malian population live as nomads in the country’s northern desert, which accounts for seventy percent of Mali’s total territory. 168 The country’s southern inhabitants are more agriculturally inclined. 169

Among the minority groups in Mali are the Tuareg, whose current population is estimated at approximately 500,000. 170 They live not only in the north of Mali, but also in Algeria, Libya, Niger, and Burkina Faso. 171 Severe droughts of the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, and again between 1980 and 1985, destroyed the social fabric and the economy of the north. 172

But the national capital in Bamako did not offer aid or relief; the entrenched culture of central government kleptocracy was unchanged. 173 As a result of the droughts and the economic upheaval, many young men were forced to emigrate, and many of them were welcomed into Muammar Khaddafi’s Libyan army. Not only were they trained and armed, but they were exposed to the religious, social, political, and economic ideas in Khaddafi’s Green Book. 174

The series of uprisings in Mali that occurred during the early 1990s were almost inevitable; they were led by only about 3,000 angry young men with guns and fueled by government paralysis and by atrocities committed by an incompetent and abusive Malian army. 175

Poulton and Youssouf described many incidents where the army failed to accept the rule of law. In one incident, Tuareg leaders called to negotiations in Léré were murdered. 176 In October 1994, the Swiss Consul met a similar fate. 177 Although Alpha Oumar Konaré, the president democratically elected in 1992, had earnest intentions of ending the civil strife that had plagued northern Mali, peace was not forthcoming until 1995. In late 1994, the government gained control of its army. Colonel Siraman Keita was brought in as Chief of the General Staff of the Malian army, and Boubacar Sada Sy was installed as Minister of Defence. The military in the north, which had been guilty of excessive use of force and abuse of the civilian population, was withdrawn and sent south. In effect, the war against the people of Mali was ended by the Konaré government and by the new leadership of the army, terminating their policy of violence against civilians.

There was much more to the peacemaking than just the withdrawal of a renegade army. Another factor that led to peace was a series of meetings that were held in 1994-95, 178 led by Kare Lode, a representative of Norwegian Church Aid (“AEN”). 179 The armed ex-combatants became convinced that the peace effort was in earnest. Lode said, “Even the organizing of the meeting was a positive factor: in may [sic] cases armed robbery in the area had stopped completely by the time the meetings were held, and the local market reopened immediately afterwards.” 180

At the end of this process, disarmament finally began. 181 The process for the “cantonment” of arms was not implemented until November 15, 1995. According to Poulton and Youssouf, “At first there was barely a trickle of candidates, larger numbers arrived later as confidence was built.” 182

Although the cantonment process was expected to last four weeks, it was extended until January 10, 1996. A total of 10,000 ex-combatants surrendered, 3,000 of whom gave up their weapons. 183 Those 3,000 weapons were burned on March 27, 1996, in the dramatic ceremony now known as the Flame of Peace. 184

Lt. Col. Kalifa Keita of the Army of the Republic of Mali estimated that some 3,000 Tuareg combatants 185 had been successfully and productively integrated directly into the army and other government positions. Poulton and Youssouf reported that a total of 1,479 ex-combatants were integrated into the uniformed forces, with an additional 149 placed in civilian administrative positions. 186 Sophie Boukhari, a UNESCO Courier journalist, reported in 2000 that “[a]bout 2,400 ex-combatants were absorbed into the army and the civil service.” 187 Kouca and Ecawell reported the “integration of 2,540 ex-combatants within the army, the gendarmerie, the frontier guards, the customs, the forestry and the civil administration.” 188 Alhassane reported “Some 2,390 ex-combatants in all the movements have been integrated into the armed forces of the State and 150 into the public service.” 189

In 1996, the UN implemented another program, PAREM (Programme d’Appui à la Réinsertion socio-économique des Ex-combatants du nord Mali), for the re-integration of ex-combatants who had not been given government jobs in the military or in another position. 190 As Poulton and Youssouf noted:

“there are tricky political matters of judgement concerning ‘who is an ex-combatant’ . . . The Government decided to be flexible . . . In any case, who cares if they are getting a little bit extra? Songhoy, Fulani, Bozo, Arab or Tamacheq [minority groups in Mali], they all deserve a better start in life than has been possible during the past 5 years of insecurity, following 25 years of drought and 100 years of repression.” 191

The central government kept its word about decentralization. The Konaré government recognized the legal authority of 682 villages in the North (there were only 19 legally-recognized villages prior to decentralization), which would now control how their own funding would be spent. 192

UN authors Poulton and Youssouf admit that the weapons are not all gone from Mali and can be easily replaced:

While nobody believes that we are rid of every illicit gun in Mali, making a start on disarmament mattered enormously. The number and quality of the weapons are unimportant: anyone can obtain another weapon, for guns are all too easily available from nearby flash-points like Chad and Liberia. The imp