Guns and violence. It is a problem faced around the globe, on ethnic battlefields and on city streets. Today there is a powerful initiative at hand which puts the benefits of peace ahead of the profits of war. A group of distinguished scholars, politicians, scientists and former military officers, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Laureate Oscar Arias Sanchez and John Kenneth Galbraith, have proclaimed their support for the establishment of codes of conduct for the international weapons trade. These codes are designed to ensure that accountability, transparency, respect for human rights and regard for regional stability are integral factors in the consideration of an arms sale. And hopefully, American soldiers will no longer find themselves faced by weapons built or supplied by their own government.
From Bosnia to Burundi, the horrors of war are startlingly obvious. But it is an astonishing lack of political will which allows the culture of violence to keep its hold. French President Jacques Chirac, in his recent address to Congress, asked for U.S. and European solidarity to confront the threats to stability and peace, citing the poverty and strife in Africa and elsewhere. "We must not run the risk of leaving to coming generations a legacy of yet more crises, yet more famines, yet more wars . . . let us not abandon the values that lie at the very heart of our civilization," he warned. Yet according to the Congressional Research Service, in 1994, France ranked No. 1 in arms transfer agreements with the developing world, racking up $11.4 billion worth of agreements in that year alone. With agreements signed to transfer submarines to Pakistan, fighter aircraft to Qatar and frigates to Saudi Arabia, the list hardly reads like a positive contribution to peace and stability.
With much the same tone, President Clinton made an appeal for peace in his State of the Union address, saying "we still have a long way to go before our streets are safe and our people are free of fear." Unfortunately, this too belies the fact that for many countries, the United States is the one responsible for the flood of weapons flowing across their borders, whether directly or indirectly. And despite being trumped by France for the top spot in 1994, the United States is no less guilty. Delivering $6.7 billion in weapons in 1994, the U.S. still clinched the top spot for arms deliveries to the developing world. And accounting for nearly half of all arms transfer agreements with the developing world from 1991-1994, the United States is unlikely to lose its title as No. 1 arms dealer any time soon.
In light of the U.S. position as the world's No. 1 arms dealer, President Clinton's vision of the United States as "the world's best peacemaker" is hardly credible. Paying lip service to peace while raking in the profits of war is not an even trade-off. Instead, we should take a cue from this group of eminent leaders and thinkers and promote codes of conduct which will establish stricter criteria to govern weapons sales, and value lasting peace over fleeting profits.