Disarming Postwar Societies

Related Links

• Online Feature: Global Security
• State of the World 2005

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Michael Renner: Senior Researcher

August 11, 2005 - 2:00pm EDT

It is estimated that global production of small arms ranges between 7.5-8 million units per year. While most of these weapons are meant for military use, many end up in the hands of private citizens, insurgent groups, and guerilla combatants. In countries recovering from armed conflict, removing these weapons from the hands of ex-combatants is essential to securing long-lasting peace. What has been done to disarm and demobilize postwar nations and how can this process be accelerated?

Join Worldwatch security expert and State of the World 2005 project co-director, Michael Renner for a discussion that explores how disarming postwar societies can lead to a more peaceful world.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Worldwatch Live. Our guest today is Worldwatch Senior Researcher and State of the World 2005 Project Co-Director, Michael Renner. Welcome Michael!

Michael Renner:

Uppsala, Sweden: As the UN Charter never will be changed because of the VETO - how realistic would it be to build a new World Org on the foundation of the I C C treaty and "The Rule of Law" ?

Michael Renner: Perhaps building an entirely new organization isn't the way to go. What counts more is that "like-minded" states (and civil society organizations) do all they can do to make new norms such as those underlying the ICC stick and not give in to efforts to undermine them. This definitely won't be easy, but putting together an entirely new organization is even more challenging.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: How Effective is disarmament and arms control on enhancing global peace and stability? The increase of violence in underdeveloping countries caused by small arms indicates otherwise.Why is this?

Michael Renner: It took many decades for governments to recognize the crucial importance of small arms proliferation. Since the mid-1990s, we are now seeing belated, and still very slow-moving efforts to addres this serious problem. So it's still a bit early to conclude that disarmament and arms control efforts are ineffective. But the only way we can expect progress is through continued grassroots pressure.

Canberra, ACT: Is there any agreed-upon method for disarming postwar societies, or does most of our discussion on the issue focus on the ideal rather than the actual process? What do you see as the most effective means for actually achieving disarmament?

Michael Renner: There are lots of efforts in this regard, in the context of peacekeeping missions (both UN and non-UN), demobilization and reintegration efforts for ex-soldiers/fighters, national and local efforts to address small arms-related crime, and getting rid of surplus weapons of national armies. The methods used vary widely, as does the rate of success. There's no one "blueprint" that will work everywhere. More important is to continue to learn lessons emanating from these efforts. Ultimately, building trust and a sturdy political process are probably most important as underpinnings for disarmament success. If people (individuals & groups) don't feel secure enough to relinquish their weapons, then no model approach will persuade them to change their minds.

Clearwater, Florida: Is there a viable plan for world security if a worldwide depression occurs as the result of rapid depletion of world oil supplies? If yes, what is it? If no, how does such a scenario play out?

Michael Renner: I don't think there is such a plan, whether viable or not. The assumption by the majority of governments and businesses still seems to be that somehow the oil age can be extended for quite a number of decades, and that somehow we'll figure out what will come after oil. Although wind and solar, and energy efficiency, have made some strides since the 1980s, there still is highly insufficient support for further developing these alternatives. That kind of support needs to be mobilized soon, along with efforts to change the economic infrastructure in ways that will be less energy-intensive overall.

There's a growing number of books out there looking at various scenarios for the post-oil age, and it's clear that major adjustments will be required. So far, the attention and willingness of most policymakers is lacking, however.

CHICAGO,IL: Why the intelligentia does not think of constructive approach of reducing poverty, and greed of powerful nations, which is the base factor of all violence. Can we think of Gandhian way of Non Violence in our society? Can we Start the teachings from schools.

Michael Renner: Your point goes straight to the underlying issues that are so often ignored. In many ways, the world's poverty is but the other side of the coin of a minority of the world's population living in affluence and excess. You are right to point to schools. If we begin to teach our children the full implications of our life of affluence, then we will have future citizens and voters who are able and willing to make more sophisticated political choices.

Ann Arbor MI: It seems to me that part of the problem is the lack of accountability by the arms manufacturing industries throughout the world. As long as small arms are mass-produced and have no registration or recycling requirements, there will always be a problem. Can't manufacturers be required to charge a deposit (increasing the cost) that would be refundable upon return?

Michael Renner: Interestingly, the small arms manufacturers are typically not very large and powerful companies -- at least compared with their brethren who manufacture large caliber weapons. There are growing efforts to get a measure of control over the weapons trade. The problem is that by and large, the focus is on illicit weapons, even though the dividing line between licit and illict is often purely theoretical. The focus is on denying weapons to non-state groups (rebels, crime syndicates, etc.) but not really on state recipients. And an even more fundamental problem is that practically nothing has been done to restrict the actual production of weapons. It's like scooping up water that's leaking all over the place, but not thinking of shutting off the faucet.

Tokyo, JAPAN: when we think about the Disarming Postwar Societies, we should recognize the concept of human security, particularly in the rural poor. So in this discussions, how should we think on the concept? On the other hand, when we think about the Disarming Postwar Societies, we should think about the poverty as structural violence. Because we know that have interaction between Disarming Postwar Societies and poverty as structural violence. How do you approach?

Michael Renner: Yes, the concept of human security is very important in this context. Traditional security thinking assumes that weapons generate security, but human security (and related concepts that have been developed over the past two decades or so)realizes that the real-world outcome is oftne the opposite, and that social, economic, and environmental conditions (structural violence) are often what ultimately drives insecurity. We need to udnerstand that peace and disarmament is only in part about the weapons.

Amsterdam: How do national/global education/employment policies according to your opinion affect environmental issues if we reconsider them as vital signs for future? At present, they dictate forthcoming availability of human resources and thus contribute to global economical as (un)planned. If a state doesn't guarantee eduacational programmes that are going to fullfil future demands for experts in the field of environmental problem solving, may we expect improvements in quality of global life? I am an university graduate environmentalist and constantly face deficit of comprehension and definitions of ecological professions, which are preoccupied by natural scientests, who may luck capability to perform humanistic/althruistic interpretations demanded by society for purposes to enforce ecological argumentations.

Michael Renner: I am not sure I entirely understand the point you are raising, but if you are saying that peace and security depend crucially on policies in the field of employment and environment (and thus, human wellbeing), then I would certainly agree with you. One of the problems we face is that the field of policy-making is so compartmentalized that the cross-connections between different challgnes are all too often overlooked or downplayed.

Hilo, Hawaii: Considering the root causes for localized conflicts are increasing with competetion for diminishing resources, how would reducing arms availability help long term? What's the difference between being killed by a machete, as in Rwanda, vs. being shot by the most technologically advanced weapons systems? Shouldn't the primary objective focus on addressing the root causes of conflict, population pressures and degrading local life support systems (assuming global market forces are not involved)?

Michael Renner: Yes, the roots causes of conflict need to be addressed, no ifs or buts. However, the easy availability of weapons that can kill or injure large numbers of people with very little effort means that conflict, if and when it breaks out, can be so much more devastating. Yes, lots of people were killed with machetes in Rwanda, but let's not forget that smal larms were also used quite prominently and helped to give the killers added impunity vis-avis their victims. So, I don't think it's an either-or issue. We need to get serious about the roots of conflict AND about the means with which conflicts are carried out.

Letchworth, UK: Industrialized countries are playing a not-so-funny game: on one hand they want deveoping countries to stay war free, on the other hand they provide small and not so small weapons to them or the rebel groups in the area. How can this issue be tackled?

Michael Renner: You point to a major hypocrisy in Western policy (which, by the way, extends to isues of nuclear weapons as well). The only way we'll see a difference in Western policy is if NGOs continue to make such cases public, engage in "naming and shaming" campaigns, and make it clear that the proftis to be had from selling weapons will always be dwarfed by the ultimate costs of such policies. Of course the profits usually flow to a small group of people, whereas the costs tend to burden societies at large. Only sustained public criticism will make a difference. And there are results. Norway and Germany, for instance, have largely discontinued previous policies of selling off surplus small arms (whereas the US, UK, and Russia, for example, still maintain their old policies).

Dubai: Disarming is only the symptom .Why are you not aiming at of igniting the spark of love through spiritual education (paradime shift)

Michael Renner: I suppose my answer is similar to one to an earlier question. I don't think it's really a question of either-or. The weapons issues needs to be tackled because we know from bitter experience that easily available weapons will be used, sooner or later, in one place or another. No matter how much we attend to root causes of conflicts or focus on morals, spiritualism, etc., this is still important. But I fully agree that only dealing with weapons issues (which can often be very narrow and "technical")limits our efforts needlessly. I hope as a species we can become better at understanding the many dimensions of human life and human problems, and bringing the best of the human experience and of human knowledge and ingenuity to this and other problems.

Letchworth, UK: Beside the strategic and political interests for a country or a compay in trafficking in weapons, in purely financial terms the global market must be massive. Given the sometime fantastic technologies and mind behind these weapons, from a purely financial/economical standpoint, would it be -so- difficult to convert those factories and research centers to peaceful purposes?

Michael Renner: The small arms market isn't really all that large, if estimates can be trusted. It's certainly much smaller than the market for larger-caliber weapons, such as tanks, missiles, jet fighters, etc.

At the end of the Cold War, there was for a while a discussion about converting weapons factories to civilian use (and military bases, too). That discussion certainly showed that in many cases, you could undertake some sort of conversion or some refashioning. The biggest problem was the enormous reluctance of weapons companies and military bureaucracies to push this along as much as possible. Efforts were undertaken to discredit and belittle conversion efforts. And so we missed a window of oportunity during the 1990s. Now, of course, the "war on terrorism" has rescued the military industry, stepping into the void left when the Cold War ended.

The most important questions in this context, then, are not of a technical nature, but of a political nature. Are we, as a society, willing to push forward alternatives?

Washington, D.C.: The pro-gun advocates repeatedly cite that in societies or even cities where citizens are able to arm themselves, crime rates are lower. They cite places like Switzerland, Vermont, and Israel as places with guns and lower rates and places like Washington, D.C. where guns are prohibited and have very high rates of crime. They also note, quite cogently, that the first thing any dictator does when assuming power is to disarm the population. I realize this is not a perfect homologue to your discussion but the statistics that underlie this supposed correlation do merit examination.

Michael Renner: It's not nearly as straightforward as pro-gun advocates argue. Two points:

In Switzerland, adult males have their military-isued guns stored at home (for the time when they are called up to do military service), but they are stored securely, unlike the situation with guns in the US. Even so, in a European context, Switzerland has a relatively high gun-related homicide rate.

As to the argument that dictators disarm their populations, it's not the same situation everywhere. In Saddam Hussein's Iraq, citizens were quite well armed, for instance.

So we need a bit more nuance than the arguments of the pro-gun people seem to allow.

Miami, Fl.: What are the great advantages and disadvantages of using money as the basis for distributing resources?

Michael Renner: Well, that seems like a rather open-ended question, and I supposed the answers you'd get would vary tremendously, depending on who you ask and where the individuals concerned live -- in other words, do they mostly benefit from the kind of money-economy that we have, or are they mostly put at a disadvantage?

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today!

Michael Renner: Thanks, Steve, for moderating this Web chat, and thanks to everyone else for a range of great questions. I apologize for joining the chat late today and for thus having to keep my answers a bit shorter in order to catch up.