Minister of Foreign Affairs Knut Vollebæk

Small Arms - Great Challenges

The Fridtjof Nansen Memorial Lecture, Hague, 12 October 1998

Introduction

Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Every day we receive reports of violence and horrifying acts involving the use of small arms. During this decade alone, an estimated 6 million people have been killed in conflict or post-conflict zones around the world. The vast majority of the victims—as many as 90 per cent according to the International Committee of the Red Cross—have been civilians.

Guided missiles are not found among the warring parties in the Great Lakes Region, nor are Stealth aircraft employed in the clashes between the factions in Afghanistan. Most commonly used to carry out the bloodshed are low-technology “small arms”—automatic rifles, grenades, submachine guns, high-powered pistols and other military weapons that can be carried and fired by the individual. Increased access to such weapons has also been an important factor behind the recent developments in Kosovo.

The small arms issue is not a small issue but a great challenge to the international community and to our common efforts to expand the global rule of law. It is therefore an honour and a pleasure for me to be here in The Hague, the "home-from-home" for diplomats. The capital of international law is the ideal venue to present this year's "Fridjof Nansen Memorial Lecture," on the need to control and limit the criminal use and excessive accumulation of small arms.

This year The Hague celebrates its 750th anniversary. Next year we will be commemorating the centennial of the First International Peace Conference in this city, which resulted among other things in the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Ever since, The Hague has been associated with progress in international cooperation, not least in the legal sphere. Both the establishment of the International Court of Justice and that of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia are rightfully seen as major advances in the development of international legal instruments, and in the area of disarmament, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons plays a key role. The Hague will also be hosting the International Criminal Court which is being set up to prosecute and punish the most serious international crimes.

Not many years ago the idea of a permanent international criminal court was met with disbelief and even sarcasm. It was regarded by many as an idealistic and quite hopeless project. Hard work and unyielding commitment has, however, paid off. The same could happen in other areas that are not yet regulated by international law, such as that of small arms.

It was not without hesitation that I decided on the theme of my lecture. Small arms are among the most complex areas on the international political agenda today. The issue involves security, crime prevention, disarmament, human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as other humanitarian and development concerns. At the same time, we still lack a common international understanding on the issues, challenges and action to be taken.

The fact that an issue is complex is no reason to shy away from it. Certainly, the lack of international consensus makes the subject even more challenging to address. However, let me add that over the past year we have seen signs of a growing common understanding of the need to deal with this problem.

My own strong interest in the small arms issue stems from humanitarian concerns, and my answers are principally those of a politician. The problem I am addressing is the uncontrolled accumulation, transfer and use of small arms or, to put it briefly, the problem of the wrong weapons in the wrong hands for the wrong reasons.

I will talk about small arms as a problem area, but it is important to remember that a weapon in itself does not kill. It is always a human being who pulls the trigger. Often, he or she has a perfectly legitimate reason for using the weapon, for sport, hunting or self defence. It is, however, the use of small arms in uncontrolled violence, atrocities and criminal activities that constitutes the problem and is the focus of this lecture.

My argument is that legal instruments may contribute substantially to improved international control of these weapons, but that they can only provide a partial answer to this complex challenge. New legal instruments may be desirable, but should perhaps not be the main focus of our efforts. Practical action is what is needed and a number of initiatives have already been launched.

Fridtjof Nansen's legacy

Fridtjof Nansen, whom we are commemorating with this lecture, was one of the most remarkable figures Norway has ever fostered. Polar explorer, politician, scientist, writer, diplomat, artist and, last but not least, humanist, Nansen was one of those exceptional individuals who have played crucial roles on the world stage and contributed to the shaping of history.

Fridtjof Nansen's many international achievements include the repatriation of almost half a million prisoners of war from 26 different countries. He also organized a population exchange in Asia Minor, which involved moving one and a half million Greek nationals living in Turkey to Greece, and resettling half a million Turkish nationals living in Greece in Turkey. In parts of the former Soviet Union there are still people whose first name is "Nansen" - a living commemoration of his role in providing humanitarian relief to the famine-stricken populace in the 1920s. It is said that between six and seven million were saved as a direct result of Nansen's efforts. These efforts were acknowledged by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1922.

What marked Nansen's activity was his unique ability to find solutions to overwhelming practical problems and the sheer energy he directed towards solving them. What motivated his actions was a deeply felt humanitarian and moral obligation, which was often in conflict with the views of politicians with a more cynical approach to world politics.

It is clearly in the spirit of Fridtjof Nansen that we are committing ourselves to trying to reduce the human sufferings caused by the excessive use of small arms.

One of Nansen’s main goals was to achieve a more humane treatment of people who were the victims of armed conflict. He firmly believed in international cooperation. Nansen was not only the first High Commissioner for Refugees, he was also Norway's representative to the League of Nations from its foundation until his death. At the same time, Nansen never had the patience to wait for the necessary international consensus on humanitarian action. In several cases he initiated action immediately, and raised support for his activities afterwards. This was not necessarily the way the Government wanted it, but it undoubtedly made for efficiency.

If we ask ourselves how Nansen would have addressed the problem of small arms, I believe his answer would be something like the following: Yes, we need more knowledge about the problem, but lack of detailed knowledge and international consensus cannot be an excuse for inaction.

The development of international cooperation

Since the days of Fridtjof Nansen, much has been achieved in the area of international humanitarian cooperation and assistance. Important international and regional organizations have been founded, and today we have a large number of legal instruments that regulate relations between states in a way that was unthinkable some hundred years ago. The traditional principle of state sovereignty has been married to the reality of state interdependence.

We have moved beyond the chaotic situation where there were very few internationally recognized legal regimes and instruments. Instead we have an international system that covers an impressive range of issues concerning the international community as a whole, for instance conventions regulating the conduct and means of warfare in armed conflict, states’ obligation to ensure human rights and intergovernmental cooperation to protect the environment.

We have moved quite a distance towards Nansen's prediction that "instead of the international anarchy, where peoples took the law into their own hands, that we have known so far, a new world order is established based on justice and law between peoples instead of power." Clearly, the skier and polar explorer was following in the footsteps of another pioneer, Hugo Grotius.

Despite the complexity and diversity of the international system, these legal instruments and regimes provide certain guarantees for the actors involved, for instance a greater degree of stability and predictability in situations that previously were unregulated or only partly regulated. In addition, the international law-making procedure has undergone a democratization process. Norway has benefited from this development, in which each state has the opportunity to influence the law-making procedure on a formally equal footing. This is why small states can often play a leading role in the development of international law and regimes.

The scope and state of the problem

Throughout the latter half of this century, much political attention and diplomatic effort has been focused on preventing the spread and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons - the so-called “weapons of mass destruction.” This focus was necessary, and remains so. The real responsibility for mass destruction, however, lies with other, less exotic weapons which have been spread far and wide. And they have been used frequently.

These weapons are cheap, portable and easy to use. Therefore they are used by all combatants—state military forces, militias, and insurgents alike. The light weight and small size of these weapons has also made possible the widespread recruitment of child soldiers.

These arms are readily available today, as the end of the Cold War has freed massive surplus arsenals in many states, and the black-market trade is thriving. The vast supply of arms, while not itself causing conflicts, encourages resort to warfare, and the easy availability of arms lengthens the duration and the lethal nature of wars. These conflicts—almost all of them internal wars, rather than inter-state wars—not only cause untold civilian casualties and suffering, but also create massive internal displacements of people and flows of refugees, placing a severe strain on neighbouring countries and on international aid and relief systems.

They also undermine economic development. With economies in shambles, extremely poor socio-economic conditions and weak democratic institutions, the effect of war may well be devastating and represents a threat to the state as a social organization. And even when protracted wars are ended, they all too often leave a legacy of an armed and insecure society, which may undermine the consolidation of peace and the re-establishment of governance and economic activity.

Small arms are also the most commonly used tools in political repression, crime and terrorist attacks around the world. Consider the mass killing of nearly four dozen men, women and children in Chiapas last Christmas, and the massacre of 62 people—mostly tourists—in Luxor, Egypt, last November. In both cases, the killers employed high-powered assault rifles. The March 1997 grenade attack on a political rally in Phnom Penh, killing 20 and wounding more than 100 people, provides one of countless contemporary examples of the use of fragmentation weapons in attacks on civilians.

Daily, many people are threatened by the widespread availability and misuse of small arms. In some parts of the world businesspeople have to take out “kidnapping insurance” as security against well-armed bandits. And—most distressingly—aid workers are being robbed at gunpoint with increasing frequency. In one recent and tragic case, six Red Cross relief workers in Chechnya were murdered—shot to death as they lay sleeping in their temporary home. Add to this list women, children, tourists, political activists, police, and peacekeeping troops, and you begin to get an idea of how pervasive this threat actually is.

The availability of small arms

No one knows with any certainty how widely small arms have proliferated. Estimates range from 100 to 500 million military-style guns in circulation, in addition to hundreds of millions more designed for police or civilian use. There are no credible guesses even as to the number of grenades in circulation. Small arms are rarely reported in official statistics on the arms trade, are often manufactured and transferred covertly, and are impossible to quantify independently. The pipe lines of small arms supply stem from four main sources:

More than 70 states are known to produce various light weapons and ammunition, and direct sales from weapons manufacturers to foreign governments or private entities are one of the main sources of supply. Such sales are generally regulated by governments. Because export licensing is decided upon nationally on a discretionary basis, the policies range from very stringent to fairly liberal.

Surplus military inventories are a second major source of light weapons supply today. In the 1990s, several military forces have sold or given away vast quantities of excess assault rifles, carbines, .45 caliber pistols, machine guns and grenade launchers, along with associated munitions. In most cases, these weapons became redundant as a result of the end of the Cold War.

Unofficial government supplies to foreign governments or insurgent groups have been a third major source of small arms proliferation. Pipelines established to combatants in south Asia, southern Africa and Central America during the 1980s continue to spill over today, as the weapons outlive the original purpose for which they were shipped. In many cases these arms now pose a direct threat to the state that originally supplied them. And, while the shipments are intended to further the political and/or economic interests of the supplier state, once the conflict ends, the supplier almost never takes responsibility for either the cost of disarmament or the impact on civil society when disarmament fails.

The fourth channel of supply is the black market, in which private dealers or brokers knowingly violate arms sales laws for commercial gain. The secretive nature of arms smuggling makes it impossible to identify the magnitude of the illegal traffic with any certainty, but some have estimated that it accounts for as much as half of all light weapons transfers. Moreover, illegally acquired arms contribute disproportionately to violent conflict and crime, since they constitute the principal source of supply for insurgents, governments under embargo and criminals.

Recent initiatives

National, regional and international government bodies and civil society groups have launched a broad range of relevant initiatives in the past year. They cover everything from demobilisation of combatants and development programmes, to gun collection mechanisms, regional arms control agreements, and police efforts to curb illegal firearms trafficking. The breadth of these initiatives indicates the complexity of the issue. I could continue for the rest of my lecture giving you examples of initiatives, but I shall instead focus on a few initiatives that are central to the international debate.

In 1995, in one of the first efforts undertaken by the international community to address the problem of small arms, the United Nations General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare a report on small arms, with the assistance of a Panel of Government Experts. The Panel's report was endorsed by the General Assembly last autumn (UNGA Document A/52/298). It addresses the problem of the excessive and destabilizing accumulation and transfer of small arms in armed conflicts from a disarmament perspective. Among its specific recommendations was the implementation of weapons collection and destruction programmes in conflict and post-conflict situations. It pointed out the need for an integrated and comprehensive approach, one which includes the promotion of security and economic development to create employment opportunities—especially for former combatants. I fully agree with such an integrated approach. The Expert Panel will be presenting a follow-up report to the General Assembly next year.

The Government of Switzerland has offered to host a UN conference on illicit transfers of small arms, and the General Assembly will be charged with making a decision on whether and when it should eventually take place. I am in favour of a conference, but I believe that it is essential to discuss further the exact scope of such a conference and whether it should only address illicit trafficking. Before a decision is made we should secure broader international support and a clear understanding of the focus of the exercise.

Regional initiatives have also made great strides in the past year. West African heads of state will be gathering for an ECOWAS summit in Abuja in two weeks’ time to declare their support for a region-wide moratorium on small arms production, imports and exports. This initiative was proposed by the President of Mali some years ago. At a meeting in Oslo in April this year, West African states, Western arms exporters and potential donors expressed support for the initiative.

In June 1997 the 15 members of the European Union made a political commitment to curb illicit trafficking in conventional weapons, and at its Birmingham summit last May, the “Group of 8” gave its support to the negotiation of an international agreement. Furthermore, today and tomorrow (12-13 October), the Belgian Ministry of Development Cooperation is convening a two-day government conference in Brussels—on “Sustainable Disarmament for Sustainable Development”—focusing on the negative developmental impacts of the plague of small arms.

In recognition of the need for greater coordination and harmonization of these many on-going initiatives, and to intensify and spur on other necessary efforts, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs invited representatives from 20 governments to take part in a dialogue on small arms in Oslo in July. For the first time governments actually agreed to intensify and harmonize their efforts in an effective and coherent manner. In the Oslo Document, common understanding was reached on the main concerns and challenges. A number of action areas have been identified, for example combating the illicit traffic in small arms, tighter control of legal transfers and the urgent need for the reduction of small arms in war-torn societies.

I personally co-hosted a follow-up Ministerial Special Information Briefing on Small Arms in New York on 25 September. I was overwhelmed by the interest shown - about 100 countries were represented. I hope that the Oslo Document can help to broaden international support for action against the excessive accumulation of small arms. In a further effort to be practical, in my speech to the General Assembly three weeks ago, I announced the launching of a Trust Fund for support to prevention and reduction of the proliferation of small arms in areas of conflict. It is clear that without technical and financial resources, a great many of the promising international initiatives now under way will be futile. We encourage other countries to contribute to the Fund.

The responsibility for limiting small arms proliferation lies principally with governments, but civil society has a very important role to play. El Salvador’s “Guns for Food Programme” provides an excellent example of how civil society—in this case largely led by the business community—can devise and implement solutions to the deadly small arms problem. The programme held its 17th and final round in July 1998, having collected more than 2,600 rifles and machine guns, 2,500 grenades and 276 rocket launchers in addition to many other weapons of war. A similar effort, backed by the churches, is under way in Mozambique. And The Hague Appeal for Peace will address small arms at the NGO Conference planned for May 1999 in this city.

Courses of action

Transparency measures

One of the most important initiatives governments can undertake is to provide greater transparency around the small arms exports they authorize. Indeed, fuller information about the magnitude and destination of current and future small arms shipments is a necessary prerequisite for the development of sound policy recommendations. Such transparency would facilitate and improve the ability of governments to ensure end-use verification of the weapons exports they are authorizing. Transparency around planned arms shipments could also prove to be an early indicator of pending violence and instability. Increased openness could also serve as a confidence-building measure between forces within a state, or between states in a region, potentially heading off some of the purchases spurred on by fear of the unknown.

The limitations of transparency measures are obvious: they will depend on the availability of reliable government statistics and the governments' willingness to share these with others. Government transparency measures will not, of course, extend to black-market (or covert) arms shipments, although independent researchers could play a useful role in this context. An improved marking system for small arms and ammunition could also make it easier to trace illegally possessed weapons to their origin.

Greater transparency about arms transfers is the aim of the UN Register of Conventional Arms, which covers seven categories of major military equipment. Regrettably, the Register has not yet achieved its full potential, since not all UN member states submit their data. As it is presently configured, the UN Register does not give a complete picture of the holdings of armaments globally, since it does not cover indigenous arms production. Nor does it cover the weapons that fuel most of the armed conflicts today, small arms and light weapons. The Register is in our view too narrowly defined to provide a realistic picture of destabilizing accumulations of conventional arms.

The Wassenaar Arrangement (on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-use Goods and Technologies) provides an opportunity for enhanced transparency in arms transfers for the participating states, among them major arms exporting countries.

Another welcome development in this field is the recently adopted EU Code of Conduct on arms exports, which sets minimum criteria to which Norway has also subscribed. A central concern of both the Wassenaar Arrangement and the EU Code of Conduct is that the exporting country should exercise restraint in its arms exports, taking into consideration effects on the recipient country and on the region, and seeking to avoid transfers that would have a destabilizing effect, or that would undermine peace and stability in the region concerned. This concerted policy should also have a positive effect by reducing the flow of small arms into areas of conflict.

The existing global instruments should be refined and expanded, in particular to expose the proliferation of small arms. At the national level, arms producers and authorities should cooperate to ensure sufficient marking and means of identification of all armaments in order to make tracking and control easier. In the absence of agreed procedures, more information on national arms export policy and practice could be provided on a voluntary basis. For this purpose the Norwegian government submitted a Report to the Storting on the export of military materiel for the year 1997. A summary of this report is available in English and is being distributed internationally.

International humanitarian law

International humanitarian law, or the law of war, sets out detailed rules restricting states’ right to choose methods and means of warfare. It comprises a universal body of law aimed at protecting the victims of armed conflict, including, but not limited to, civilians. It is essential that these rules are known and respected.

There are a number of widely ratified treaties that fall under the heading of international humanitarian law. Next year we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the four Geneva Conventions, and a growing number of states are becoming parties to the two additional protocols from 1977.

All of these treaties have sprung from the need to strike a balance between security requirements and ensuring humane treatment of the victims of armed conflict. In times of war, the right to use rifles, guns and other small arms is unquestionable. There are, however, rules as to the types of ammunition that are permitted, and there are limits to how much damage or harm can be inflicted on the persons involved. The bombing of civilian areas during the Second World War and the massive death tolls among civilians contributed to the creation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These conventions stress the principle of proportionality: the damage inflicted on civilians is only justifiable if it is commensurate with the intended military advantages. Excessive damage is not permitted. This applies not only to the users of bombs and missiles - the rules must also be followed by the users of small arms.

The use of such weapons in violation of these rules may lead to criminal prosecution and punishment of the individuals involved. Recent trials here in The Hague and in Arusha, and the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court, bear witness to a true willingness to punish the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Crimes where small arms are undoubtedly used as instruments for the infliction of death and suffering.

In addition to the individual responsibility of officers and soldiers, as well as other individuals, the conventions I have mentioned place an obligation on the states parties to “respect and ensure respect” for the conventions in question. Article 1, which has the same wording in all four Geneva Conventions, is an example of this. But what does it mean to “respect and ensure respect”? First of all, states have an obligation to implement international humanitarian law nationally. This includes banning weapons and ammunition that are not consistent with this body of law. States are also obliged to train their armed forces to avoid illegal use of arms that are permitted. They also have an obligation to punish individuals who violate these important rules.

Rules are of little use, however, if officers and combatants are not familiar with their contents. The whole system is based on the assumption that the bearers of arms receive training in the fundamental rules of warfare, and abide by them. When small arms are made available to actors outside the regular, organized armed forces, there is no guarantee that the weapons are accompanied by the necessary knowledge. On the contrary, we have seen far too many examples of small arms in the hands of bandits, drug traffickers, rebels and even child soldiers - many of whom, I am sure, have never heard of the Geneva Conventions. The results are, as we know, tragic.

The question has therefore been asked whether those who supply small arms to the violators of the provisions of international humanitarian law should share some responsibility with these violators. It has been argued that since the availability of small arms may increase the risk of unlawful acts, supplier-states should take measures to reduce this risk and thereby strengthen respect for international humanitarian law. Although it may be difficult to argue that states have a legal obligation to do this, those who argue that they have a moral responsibility may, in my view, have a good case.

It is against this background that the Norwegian Government has supported efforts focusing on the problem of small arms availability and its possible solution. It seems likely that there is a connection between easy access to small arms and the use of force contrary to international humanitarian law. The International Red Cross Committee is working on a study on the connection between these two factors, and the issue will be discussed next year at the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. With Norwegian government support, the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers in April this year held a meeting of experts in Oslo, where the ICRC presented its preliminary findings. I look forward to the findings of this study when it is completed next year.

Can new legal instruments be a possible course of action?

The right to bear arms is recognized in most countries, through constitutional provisions or otherwise, and it is unrealistic to imagine the creation of a legally binding instrument banning small arms altogether. This would be like banning kitchen knives. It is not the existence of a knife or small arms per se which constitutes the problem. It is the excessive, uncontrolled use of these weapons which must be prevented.

In the course of this century we have witnessed the adoption of prohibitions on the production and use of different types of weapons or weapons systems. We all recall the recent success of the anti-personnel landmine campaign which led to the Convention to ban the production, transfer and use of such mines that will enter into force next March. Many of these weapons have been banned because they expose civilians and others to “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”. However, most of the small arms existing in the world today do not fall into any of these prohibited weapons categories, and as I stated earlier, it is unlikely that they will be banned altogether. It is more realistic to talk about achieving standards that govern the uncontrolled use and illegal transfer of small arms.

Legal norms on the USE of small arms

The laws of war provide us with a number of legal instruments regulating the use of small arms. Many of these rules are, however, applicable only in international conflicts, leaving internal conflicts subject to a more limited legal regime. As we all know, conflicts within states are the most common in our world today, and it is unfortunate that these laws provide for only limited protection in these situations. Moreover, many situations of internal strife are not covered by the definition of a “non-international conflict”. The use of small arms in certain riots and internal disturbances is therefore not covered by international humanitarian law at all.

It is also recognized that international humanitarian law mainly deals with states and individuals serving in a state’s armed forces. The responsibility of non-state actors, for instance the members of a rebel movement, is covered only in a limited way. These persons may commit terrible and inhumane offences against civilians using small arms, offences contrary to the civilians’ right to life, dignity and integrity, which are fundamental human rights. However, as we know, only states can violate international human rights, not individuals. An individual can only commit offences against international humanitarian law and national law, and these rules do not always provide sufficient protection against inhumane treatment.

There are therefore major limitations as regards the merits of this body of law in the field of use of small arms, and other measures have therefore been suggested. One of these is linked to legal norms for the transfer of small arms.

Legal norms for the transfer of small arms

One solution is to try to curb the illicit traffic in newly manufactured small arms. A major breakthrough in this area was achieved by the Organization of American States (OAS) in November 1997 with the signature of the Convention against Illicit Manufacture and Trafficking of Firearms, Ammunition and Related Materials. The treaty requires states to strengthen border controls, mark firearms and share information on weapons producers, dealers, importers and exporters. The treaty now awaits ratification and implementation by OAS member states, and it builds on and complements the development of a system of Model Regulations, which was previously implemented by the OAS.

Similar work has just been started at the global level by the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice on an international legal instrument - a "protocol" - addressing the illicit manufacture and trafficking of firearms. This protocol will form part of the planned Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.

Another strategy is to try to address the large number of small arms already in illicit circulation. A number of countries have introduced amnesty programmes to persuade people to give up weapons illegally held, often in conjunction with weapon collection programmes where individuals or local communities are rewarded for handing in guns. The West African Moratorium referred to earlier is a case in point. Not only will imports of new weapons be curbed, except for supplies to military and security forces, but the participating states are also encouraged to collect and destroy surplus arms.

It has been suggested that the international community should work towards a binding international convention that prevents the transfer of weapons by states to non-state actors. The Norwegian government supports such efforts, but this is a proposal that needs further clarification. It has been suggested that only so-called "military-type weapons" be part of such a convention. This seems to me to be a useful proposal, but it will undoubtedly be hard to agree on what constitutes a "military-type" weapon. Again, traditions differ between countries. Some manufacturers have dual production lines for military and civilian markets, with only minor modifications to make the weapon "civilian". The distinction between military and civilian weapons should be made clearer, both visually and functionally.

In this context due regard should be paid to the legitimate security needs of entities other than states. This includes international organisations or arrangements and entities that have been recognized as such. UN peacekeepers and legitimate regional security organizations obviously need to be in lawful possession of arms. They should not be affected by the prohibition on the transfer of weapons to non-state actors.

The way ahead: the need for intensified international action

To sum up my discussion on legal instruments: the process of developing new international legal instruments, particularly in an area as complex as small arms, will undoubtedly be complicated and tedious. At best, new legal instruments will be effective some time in the next century. Meanwhile, I believe that the focus should primarily be on enhancing the implementation of existing international rules and regulations, particularly in international humanitarian law.

In the final analysis, much of the action needed must be undertaken on a national, discretionary level, and is not likely to lend itself to binding international arrangements. Furthermore, instruments to regulate new manufacture and transfers will not necessarily help to control the use of the excessive number of weapons already held in conflict areas.

The other side of the coin is that there are a number of things we can do, even without new legal instruments. In this context, stricter law enforcement is a key element. Education on the relevance of existing laws to small arms is another. Laws in themselves will not do the trick. States are the instrument that regulates relations between men. Support for society building is therefore necessary in many cases. We must maintain a broad agenda in our future work. Small arms action must address security, humanitarian and development concerns. Without security, people cannot invest in their own future, and there will be no development. But the reverse is also true: without development, many of the root causes of human insecurity cannot be properly addressed, and there will be no security.

Small arms proliferation requires a broad agenda and poses great challenges to the international community. The issue is inextricably linked with matters of peace and peacekeeping, sustainable economic development, and security in the many meanings of the word. There is, therefore, no simple solution. The focus of efforts in this direction must be to promote a web of initiatives to limit or end the indiscriminate use and curb the oversupply of these weapons. The ultimate aim, of course, is to reduce the human suffering and threat to human dignity represented by these arms.

If we compare the present situation with that of only a year ago, we can see that a great deal is happening—at the national, regional, and international levels, and with the involvement of governments, non-governmental organisations, academics, and international government organizations.

A consolidated strategy to control the excessive availability of small arms must comprise four main elements:

The first step is at the national level by imposing strict export control policies.

The second step is to expand the international consensus on exercising restraint in arms transfers, including transparency measures.

The third step is to combat illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons that fuel armed conflicts today.

The fourth step is to set up regional programmes with the support of the international community to assemble and destroy excess weapons, particularly small arms, in post-conflict situations.

If my lecture leaves the impression that small arms represent an extremely complex problem issue, I'm afraid this is true. At the same time, complexity does not mean that action is futile - even by individual states. A great deal can be achieved without broad international consensus and new legal instruments.

What makes me hopeful is the impressive number of initiatives undertaken at local, national and regional levels. I have touched upon several of them, but let me also mention the need for increased cooperation and information sharing between police forces, intelligence units and customs officials - within and between countries - as an example of practical initiatives. In addition there the efforts to establish credible judicial and penal systems and to train local police, as well as to ensure strict enforcement of appropriate laws and regulations on civilian possession of small arms.

We must focus on practical action that can be implemented immediately and that will have an impact in the short term. We must strive for a constructive, incremental and cumulative process that will involve an increasing number of actors. Hopefully, such a process will enhance the shared international understanding of the issues concerned and the actions necessary - and even initiatives for a new legal framework which seem unrealistic today could appear feasible in a few years. The history of The Hague bears witness to this and gives grounds for optimism.