What can we do to stop arms dealing to countries that use weapons against their own people?

Question

Countries often use supplied weapons against their own people and, in some cases, against the very countries who supplied them with the arms in the first place. How can this be prevented?

Yahoo! Staff Note: This is the real Jay Kay. For further details, check out the blog at: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKP…

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

How much worse is it to use weapons against your own people as opposed to your neighbours, or people a bit further away?

I actually think that if a country uses arms against the country that supplied the arms in the first place thereis some degree of poetic justice to it, on the contrary.

Do you expect an unwritten code of conduct that weapons will not be used against the supplying country but should only be used against other countries? Isn't that, even if it could ever be implemented and adhered to, extremely cynical? That would make selling arms a way to defend yourself: 'go shoot other people, kill them all if you want, but don't touch me...'

I think that we should first look at weapons that have been outlawed or should be outlawed. Think of Israel dropping cluster bombs in th elast 2 days of their invasion of Lebanon, think of Israel (I'm not picking on them, it's just more recent) allegedly using DIME weapons that destroy animals and people but leave infrastructure intact, think of the damage land mines cause years after the conflicts have ended...

I think that the way to outlaw these would be to hit countries where it matters, in the pocket. If you sell landmines to country X and country X uses them, you will have to pay for the clean up. The directors of the corporations doing the sales and the heads of state and military of the country using the weapons should be personally responsible, declaring the corporation bankrupt would not be an option. If you supply cluster bombs, then you will have to pay for the clean up as well as the loss of income and cost of relocation of the residents of the affected areas.

Basically I am saying that the true costs of conflicts must be borne by the perpetrators and their suppliers.

This could be enforced via trade boycotts, just as those used against Iraq prior to the war, ensuring that they couldn't produce any WMD.

FInally this should be applicable to every country and corporation.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

I agree with most of your points here especially around using weapons generally. Many answerers point out that arms dealing is a fact of life, one option is to try to regulate this more, and the only way to do this is globally through the UN. Sign the petition: http://www.controlarms.org

Answer 2

Could it be made illegal to trade arms? Some form of world policy perhaps? Like your tunes!!

Answer 3

Every country uses arms against their people, thats how they keep them under control.

Answer 4

their already is a Law's against arms deals but country's still do it because it is impossible to police and to the bit about using it against the people who supplied them the arms well the should have fought better about before hand. the idiots.

Answer 5

Make all the guns free!

Answer 6

we cannot do much as those that have the power decide

Answer 7

Perhaps some of the 'PAP' parasites that make the celebrities life hell should be airlifted to the Sudan and let them take some photos worthy of a newspaper print. Guns will always be available to evil dictators. What we need to do is ensure that they aren't given a chance to use them without the fear of being found out.

The United Nations is at present our best hope. By outlawing certain types of weapons altogether and by sending inspectors to Countries accused of carrying out such crimes we can at least keep an eye on questionable regimes.

Answer 8

Probably nothing. Arms sales are just too profitable. They are also very easy to transport so smugglers will always be willing to take a chance. Besides do you think any of the major powers are going to miss out on this cash cow. We are the biggest supplier of arms to the world but if we stopped selling them the customers would just go to China, N.Korea, Iran or some other rouge state and get them

Answer 9

Pretty much nothing. The reason for this is: This issue is not isolated none Democratic countries. Even countries such as the U.S. have this issue. If it is not citizens shooting citizens, it it government offices. The only difference between western countries, and none Democratic countries is the western countries believe they are killing people for the good, whereas others just don't care. Needless to say, neither are right. The only way to stop it is, stop making weapons full stop.

Answer 10

Provocative question. Simple answer is, is it can't be prevented, look at the "rendition" issue that's been discussed; Blair, "uh? we didn't know". B******s. Our government is as corrupt as any other and will turn a blind eye to the likes of BAE exporting weapons as it's a nice little earner for them. As a general populace we really have no idea what's going on - and we never will. Notice the FOI Act is being scaled down so plebs like us can't ask pertinant questions?

Aside from that. Please. Stop hitting the paps... :)

Answer 11

I don't think that is a good idea - look at Princess Diana and her crusade against landmines - you are talking about British jobs here. We should be able to sell our Hawk fighter jets wherever we please, in a spirit of international co-operation.

Answer 12

is there such a thing as free speech ? really???

Source(s):

common sense

Answer 13

Sadly, nothing. WE do not that kind of power against THOSE kind of folk Jay Kay...

Answer 14

I don't think there is anything we can do to effectively stop arms trade with abusive regimes.

Even attempting to do so would require broad international support and an effective international body that could regulate arms deals. Unfortunately, the major international players are the ones who dominate the arms trade, and it is unlikely that they'll give up such a lucrative market. Even if the major countries did commit to controlling arms sales, new suppliers would simply enter the market. Trade in arms is much like trade in drugs. So long as there is a demand, there will always be a supply.

A better, more realistic, and more long-term solution is to change the abusive regimes themselves. We should work to support democracy, individual rights, and freedom throughout the world. Governments which prey on their own people should be isolated and punished, and oppressed peoples should be supported when they attempt to fight back against despotic leaders.

Answer 15

i think that there's is no way to avoid this, it increases everyday more, it s a no-end way

Answer 16

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THIS HAPPENING .Yes one person can change the world if you believe that it needs to be stopped then take direct action against it YOU CAN STOP IT first you need to identify all companies that have any involvement in producing or shipping these items even supplying components, then highlight their involvement through the media .there are many and varied additional actions that can be taken to further weaken the evil that you are fighting ,probably it would be needed to win this particular fight, none of which could i condone . but you might find some interesting tips in such publications as "The anarchists cookbook" and "Eco defence" .
Whatever you choose to do don't hurt anyone , non violence is definitely the strongest way to deliver your message .
And remember they cant kill the spirit

Answer 17

I wish there was a way to stop so much evil in this world, but it seems that this is the price to pay for the freedoms we enjoy in a Capitalist society. Freedom of speech, and freedom to live as we want, also goes hand in hand with Freedom to Trade (Free Trade Economy). From Britain's perspective, we have lost so many industries, that we have very little left to export. Unfortunately, we do seem to have retained our expertise in producing and selling arms. How can the Government ever be persuaded to restrict this industry which raises billions for the UK / Government!

I'm sure it's the same story for all the other countries who trade arms.

No regard seems to be given as to who the "Buyer" is... Democracy or Dictator, as long as they sign on the dotted line.....

The only way I think would be if there was a significant worldwide agreement to limit weapons production; in a similar way to the Kyoto Agreement for the environment. However, unless ALL countries agree, AND then stick to it, it won't work. i.e. what about the U.S (& Australia) for example who have not signed up to the Kyoto Agreement! And we all know how the U.S. as a country seems to have no regard as to carbon emissions etc.

I still prey for worldwide committment and unity in dealing with all these issues, including arms. It just seems so hard for us "ordinary folk" to make any kind of impact when it's all linked to - and controlled by - Big Business, Power Politics, & Back handers (probably!).

Jay Kay - thank God there are people like you, who are lucky enough through talent to be in the public eye, but also have a concern for the world, and therefore potentially have more of a voice, to maybe make that little bit of difference.

For example, even this is raising these issues, and getting people to think & talk about them. You never know....One Day...... the world will work together for the good of all... Dan

Answer 18

Nothing can be done.

Arms are designed to kill or incapacitate, and when someone is coming at you with a gun or a petrol bomb or a knife or even a rock, you need to knock them down before they do you in. Every State needs arms, otherwise the criminals would walk over you. If you do not supply arms, then States will build their own - witness South Africa, who, in the apartheid days, were forced to produce their own weaponry. They started with rifles, but soon acquired such expertise and produced weaponry of such quality that I would advocate purchasing some of their surplus Casspir Armoured Personnel Carriers for use with the British forces in Afghanistan.

I'm ex-Service (OK, I was a Cook), but I now provide security for HM Criminal Courts, and you should see the weaponry that ordinary British civvies carry with them. Getting rid of arms is simlpy naive.

Source(s):

Royal Navy CPO(CK)

Answer 19

Lets all stop making fire arms. They do no good at all.

Answer 20

indeed countries like the USA supply israel who use them to kill palestinians. Also i suspect they supplied iraq as well and so thats bad too, and european countries are probbably guilty of this.

Ps who is jay kay?

Answer 21

I am not sure it can be prevented
as long as there are people in power who put money before human lives
the money from the arms deals will mean more than the attrocities that follow
sad but true xx

Answer 22

have the UN pass a law punishing any country of this violation with 10 years of no trade and no travel by its citizens. close all
embassies and consulates of said country for 10 years and only after 10 years and the violator turns him or herself in to the UN authorities, can the good graces of the country be reinstated. No Violence needed by the UN.

Source(s):

thought

Answer 23

This arms dealing has been going on for many years knowing what really happens after selling them to a country where they use it within the country and to the country that sells them. Do the sellers really care what happens after selling them? My answers is no. As long as the business deal goes well who care what really happens. Same with oil. You give them weapons they give you oil. When killing started some how the ears go deaf and eyes goes blind. One can never stop where greed over takes the morale value

Answer 24

by simply making it illegal to sell arms to these contries and enforcing the law; example fine 10% turnover for each time the company breaks the law.

Answer 25

The only answer i have to this question is that the making off all weapons is stopped, but as we all know this will never happen... why are weapons needed for if there where no guns in the world, there would be no full on wars, no school shootings, no gang wars to the extent they are at now... life would be a better for all... but the money made from arms dealing is too vast and involves too many different nations for there ever to be a total trust, it would be impossible to prove that each and every country has stopped their manufacturing of weapons... but until this time unfortunately millions will lose their lives because of a few power hungry leaders

Answer 26

Write to the Embassys.. or the Government. Find out where the sources are and stop buying/using those companies if they have other products.

Answer 27

By getting rid of deadly weapons all together then there wouldn't be a problem.

Answer 28

YKNOW if only tony blair even acted interested in thinkin bout this i wudnt know wer to start really but all ido know is many of our trouble comes from our people i think the law needs to play a big part n people at the root of the trouble need to pay they need years upon years in prison ie life in prison cause they obviously maniacs AND FURTHER TO THIS y let them into our country nehow people wonder y we racist here is it newonder cos it other countrys that start wars not us no offense to neone here

Answer 29

We can't do a Goddam thing, you can use anything to kill, not just guns, we can't stop the bastards in rich countries from making profits from the misery of others and until we do we;re fecked. Mankind sooner or later will wipe itself out, until then, we aint going to stop nothing. Governments make too much dosh from the sale of arms, do you get me?

Kevin, Liverpool, UK.

Answer 30

The arms trade has disastrous impacts the world over, and has even managed to show its ugly head in Oxford in the guise of the Said Business school. Oxford Universities new Business school opened in 2001 was mostly funded by Wafiq Said, a Syrian with links to arms dealing who fronted £20 million of the £45 million needed to build the school.
Most of the Said fortune is said to come from arms deals most notoriously the ‘Al Yamamah’ deal in 1986; worth around $31 billion over 10 years it is said to be one of the biggest arms deals of all time. Wafiq Said helped broker the deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia, admitting that ‘I benefited because the program led to construction in Saudi Arabia that involved my companies’. He gained directly from the deal as well because companies like BAe paid him for ‘helping this company fulfil its obligations in the middle east and Saudi Arabia in particular’. It included fighter planes and electro-shock battens used to torture political dissidents. The UK government turned a blind eye to the fact that they were directly benefiting a country which is renound for its human rights abuses especially in the area of criminal justice:

SO THE ANSWER IS - There is no no cure as all governments are corrupt. Where theres money to be made in arms dealing you will never find an honest politician world wide.

Answer 31

My first thoughts were that I think this could be prevented by monitoring the companies/factories that sell/trade them. If you think about it logically, globally there must only be a few manufacturers of such weapons.

Then I slowly began to deconstruct my own answer and supposed that there is actually no right answer. The reason being that even if the manufacturers were monitored, there could easily be a corrupt system of reporting, thus circumventing the purpose of control of such weapons.

It is sad to say but the Governments that allow for the supply and retail of such weapons make a hell of a lot of money and this is the catalyst and instigator of corruption.

May be another relative answer is actually setting up a body, that could be a watchdog. All countries that have these weapons factories could be involved and take part. This could perhaps be a good idea as firstly this would make it difficult and stifle any corruption. Secondly this would be away of ensuring that no one country is a dominant superpower if the countries are all watching each other.

In the interim I would suggest that might be away forward if the countries made a collaborative effort say like the U.N. or may be some kind of convention say like the Geneva Convention but obviously for the monitoring and control of weapons. The monitoring side of things could be a short tern solution. The long term goal perhaps of this anti-weapons trading body is to I think close down and stop the manufacture of weapons altogether. How utopian of me eh?!

Jay Kay, I'm not sure how to answer this as there is no simple solution as every answer can be criticised in that even if a body was setup, there would be the involvement of bureaucracy, also the financial side of things and furthermore who and how would these countries that don't co-operate and break the rules be punished?

Countries that use weapons against there own people often operate this way as there is perhaps little democracy and a lot of corruption. The question perhaps one should have asked is how these people, these mafia type governments exist and get into power in the first place?

I hate to do it… I hate to answer a question with a question but like I said there is no right answer and to find a solution is difficult and I also think anyone that suggests merely that we just stop it is being naive and simplistic as the truth of the matter is each country likes to retain and retail and that’s the way the cookie crumbles (I'm afraid to say and end on a lighter note).