Arms Trafficking and the Culture of Violence in Africa

by Eugène Goussikindey, SJ

Woodstock-Berkley Visiting Jesuits
Georgetown University
March 2, 2006

Whenever Africa gets the world-media attention, it almost al­ways marks one more entry in the index of tragedies that are becoming a trademark of the continent. I, like many others, am overwhelmed and scared by the statistics indicating the imminent loss of half of Africa’s population to HIV/AIDS. Very close friends have died of AIDS related illness and some are still battling with it. As I was pondering the consequences of HIV/AIDS on the continent, I found myself triggered to an unexpected reflection: what would be the population of Africa if one established and added an accurate projection of the death which occur as a result of arms conflict and arms related death in Africa to the death toll predicted by HIV/AIDS experts?

At first, I could not sustain the dreadful vision. It was as if the end­ of time hangs like the Sword of Damocles over Africa. Indeed, researching the wars and their consequences on the con­tinent, I quickly discovered that one needs not die through the wounds of a bullet to become a fatality of the power of arms. Through reading and conversation with the refugees from D.R. Congo, Rwanda and Burundi that I met in Nairobi, I came to be less terrified by HIV/AIDS than with arms trade and traffic; the latter became for me the worse enemy of Africa. The proliferation of conventional arms, especially of light weapons, is not only brutally destroying lives, but more importantly, it is destroying the very fabric of African societies by introducing, breeding and sustaining a culture of violence, illegality and of irresponsibility. It is the extension of the damage caused by the illicit trade of arms on African societies that I would like to explore here. The need for a concerted collaboration to deal with arms flow in Africa will be set on that background and not immediately on the “Programme of Action”� of the UN’s “Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects”� held from July 9-20, 2001. In fact, this year, from June 26 to July 7, there will be another UN “Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons”�. 

1. Beyond the Statistics
If one is to compare the “official expenses”� related to arms transfers in the world, i.e. export and import of conventional arms, Africa as a whole is far from being among the top on the list of arms buyers. Indeed, from available records, from 1993 to 1997, Africa spent 3 billion US dollars on arms, a little less than Latin America which spent 3.7 billion US dollars on arms, while Asia with 31.7 billion and the Middle East with 51 billion US dollars. At first sight, one might say that there is no need of wast­ing time and energy looking to arms flow to Africa. In fact, I rarely heard in the news a significant arms contract by an African government with major suppliers. So, why bother about arms transfers to Africa when the continent is by no means the most lucrative mar­ket? Why should the International Community to “stop selling arms to Af­rica”�?

A glance at the weapons and other military equipment transferred through official mechanisms says it all. Indeed, according to the Arms News, the main buyers of arms are in Asia and the Middle East, i.e. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, North Korea, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Taiwan, Singa­pore, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Tur­key, Syria and Israel. Mostly they purchase sophisticated materials which are inherently expensive. These countries are keen on buying fighter jets like F-16, F-18, MiG-21, MiG-29, Su-27, Su 30 or Mirage-2000. On their shopping lists, we find warships, submarines, main battle tanks, high-speed high-altitude reconnaissance jets, and new strategic weapons such as ballistic missiles or tactical rockets. At high cost, many states in Asia and the Middle East are also upgrading their fighter jets, combat helicopters and submarines with electronic equipment through improvement of the mission computer, new cockpit displays, ad­vance radar warning systems, etc. But often contracts related to these types of weapons involve some “technology transfer”� which is of interest for these countries. On the contrary, African countries are mainly purchasing light weapons, armoured combat vehicles and large-calibre artillery systems (often guns, howitzers, mortar and multi-launch rocket system), combat helicopters. Some African nations are spending on fighter jets and warships. If a “Kilo class submarine”� from Russia costs US$235 million and a F-18 fighter jet from the USA costs around US$35 million, one can understand the huge disparity in spending earlier noted.

Comparing military expenditure is one thing; evaluating each weapon and its impact on warfare and the society is another. Indeed, beyond the statistics, we have to bear in mind that the light weapons which fuel most of the conflicts in Africa are not only cheaper — an AK-47 is less than US$ 100 a unit — but they are deadly and easy to use. Armed robbers do not need an F-16 to assault banks, shops, cars, and homes in Nairobi or Johannesburg. Au­thorities do not need a Mirage-2000 or an Advance Radar System to repress civil unrest or to torture political and human rights activists. They do not need Ballistic missiles to massacre an entire village or to force people of a whole region to run away in search for refuge. The number of refugees and internally displaced people within the continent is baffling when one looks at the means used. Today, the pastoralist communities in Eastern Africa do not need a special training to replace their traditional spear by an AK-47 with devas­tating results. To start a rebellion that can throw a whole nation into chaos, one does not even need multi-launch rocket systems or battle tanks; with guns and few portable missiles whole regions are set on fire with devastating effects.

It is obvious that a fraction of the cost of a fighter jet will buy hundreds of thousands of light weapons. And this is precisely the case with Africa. A re­cent UN report has indicated that “80 million pieces of illegal arms”� are circulating in West Africa in the hands of “non-state-actors,”� while “1.5 million AK-47 rifles were be­lieved to be unaccounted for in Mozambique alone”� in 1996. Today, An­gola and the Great Lakes combined are the regions in the world most satu­rated with light weapons: rifles, hand grenades and mines, acquired both legally and illegally.

2. The New Threat
The threat caused by the proliferation of light weapons on the African continent is of unprecedented magnitude and gravity, as greater as HIV/AIDS and Malaria and, perhaps with more severe consequences. The first and disastrous impacts of HIV/AIDS and Malaria are demographic, with severe economic and social implications. Africa is losing at a rapid pace some of its most talented young people with dire consequences for its development. Yet, basic medi­cal protections combined with a significant education and change of habits can reduce the long-term effects of HIV/AIDS and Malaria. If diagnosed on time and given proper medication, people can carry on with life. However, because of the proliferation of arms, the fabric of the society itself is rapidly changing, moving toward self-destruction. This can be observed in three different areas:
1)  The growing illegal character of the flow of arms in Africa is transforming the bulk of arms transfer from a decent accountable trade to what is better described or considered as trafficking or illicit trade. The number of States involved in the network of illegally channeling substantial transfers of light weapons is alarming. The process often involves corruption, money laundering and recycling;
2) The tragic consequences of the easy use of light weapons both for the combat­ants and for the civilians are immense. Modern arms are made to kill and if one survives injuries, it is with serious disabilities. Often in Africa’s conflicts and wars, the main casualties are civilians. Death and physical handicaps are rarely recorded while psychological trauma is just “unheard”� of in this vast human tragedy;
3) the most significant and far reaching consequence of all this, in addition to the huge economic cost and the social crisis, is the shift of cultural values leading to a culture of violence now prevalent on the continent. There are dozens of groups or institutions dealing with peace in Africa. While this is worth praising, the rising number of NGOs involved in the new industry of ‘humanitarian assistance’ is but the most visible symbol of the destruction of the fabric of African societies. Their number signals the failure of some crucial social and political structures and indicates the helplessness of the African people.

Algeria, Senegal (Casamance), Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, Chad, Central Africa Republic, D.R. Congo, Republic Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea have all been recently involved in armed conflict either internally or in nation to nation confrontations. These nations continue to be frequent destinations of arms transactions. The con­flict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (D.R.C.) and its continuing effects on the Great Lakes Region stands as a vivid symbol of the new threat cause by war and arms trafficking on the continent. Although this conflict remains contained within the border the Congo, it has drawn in foreign regular troops from for Angola, Namibia, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Sudan, Chad, Zim­babwe, as well as irregular troops like The National Union for the Total Inde­pendence of Angola (UNITA), the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army and mercenaries from private or non-governmental firms from South Africa and around the world. Indirect support from countries like Libya and South Africa also fuels the conflict. Except South Africa, none of the other African countries involved in D.R.C. are official reliable arms producers. Where then are these arms coming from?

Besides the death toll of actual combatants, which has yet to be properly established in many of the warring countries, one has to account for deaths directly related to the conflict as the consequence of displacement, of dan­gerous and exhausting journeys on roads, through forests, across rivers and lakes. They are the forgotten direct casualties of most African conflicts. Driven from their home and villages by the power of guns, they never reached the safe heaven toward which they were heading to. Add the plight of refugees, their litany of suffering, rejection, and hu­miliating strategies to by-pass the various systems established to control them. It may not be senseless to conclude that the millions of refugees in Africa are simply people who have been forced to die to their past, their culture, their environment, their extended relations in order to survive transformed somewhere else. With a status of refugee, one is never fully integrated in a nation. Refugees may well be proud to give the best of themselves as a contribution to a nation but the deep feeling of being a stranger often overshadow this pride.

The illicit traffic of arms in Africa has not only generated wars. It has developed a state of fear in countries where political opposition is quelled by state intimidation and assassination. Political violence is deliberately planned and dealt with in a show of force. No wonder why, in some countries, prominent politicians breed their own militia. The building of a so-called strong national army is not often for national security but for personal security, inducing the mentality of “might is right.”� With arms accessible, many think that social and political change can be induced through violent means. Arms trafficking in Africa has also been at the origin of the illicit traffic of natural resources like oil, gold, diamonds, timber, etc. While it is true that we are in a global market, which tends to have its own dynamism and law, it is extremely worrying when countries which in the past hardly mined diamonds or gold, or exported timber suddenly become signifi­cant suppliers on the world market with little outcry from the international community. Barter is well known in traditional Africa; ironically, it has surfaced again in contemporary Africa, which is looking for a greater share in the world market. Could this trend indicate that Africa is being maintained at the periphery? To avoid control and to escape existing regulations, arms traffickers lean on corruption, falsification of docu­ments, recycling and laundering of money. It is a network of illegality where criminal practices abound.

3. The Complex Arms Movement
A characteristic of the flow of arms to the African continent is the shift of its nature from an open “trade”� to “trafficking.”� A trade, even in the most liberal envi­ronment, follows some basic rules. Normally, the main agents are known and their transactions can be recorded or monitored and be subject to verifi­cation. In Africa, the complexity the arms routes clearly shows that the concept of arms trade is not operative even when governments are involved. Under the cover of state security, many African governments easily avoid account­ability. The idea of “trafficking,”� as we term it, points at the deliberate at­tempt to escape control and to the obscure, illegal, and at times criminal nature of weapon transfer in Africa. Why has there been a significant decline from 1992 to 1997 in the UN Register of Conventional Arms’ record of the number of African states declaring their arms transfer? In 1992, they were 12 out of 51 African states to account for arms transfers; in 1993, they were 13 out of 53; in 1994, they were 10 out of 53, in 1995, they were 9 out of 53, in 1996 and in 1997 they were only 7 out of 53 states. The number has grown for the past 5 years but a strange phenomenon is that most countries simply fill the NIL report form which indicates that they neither import nor export conventional arms during the year.

Yet by contrast, research reveals that African states’ spending on conven­tional arms is on the increase. In spite of the regular attempt to conceal the transfers, it has become possible — through careful analysis of various sources like the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the reports of the major suppliers, the recipients’ use and research by transparency groups — to have a fair idea of African countries’ spending. Even if the result is the tip of the iceberg, it has significant implications. A case study by William Hartung and Bridget Moix for the World Policy Institute en­titled “Deadly Legacy: U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War”� reveals that eight out of nine countries involved in the D.R. Congo war have had their arsenals bought with the help of the US. According to these authors, “between 1991-1998, U.S. weapons and training deliveries to Africa totaled more than $ 227 million”� and “throughout the Cold War (1950-1989), the U.S. delivered over $ 1.5 billion worth of weaponry to Africa.”� Even UNITA, which was not a regular army, received “$ 250 million in covert military assistance”� between 1986-1991. The rising wave of military training funded by the U.S. in Africa, the International Military Education Training (IMET), the Expanded IMET (E-IMET), the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) and the more recent African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) points to the delivery of new military equipment as a result of the training and consequently new military spending. The new mili­tary ties stemming for these training normally favour the US arms industries in a com­petitive arms market.

Many routes taken by arms destined for Africa are planned by former covert operators of the cold war era. A great number have become private dealers and suppliers of arms. They use their old connections to organize most of the illegal transfers of arms. Firms, banks, customs, sea and air transport companies are involved with the complicity of high-ranking state officials or customs officers. Today, it is not unusual to find mining companies (oil, diamond, gold, etc.) serving as financial intermediaries in arms trafficking. In return for a free mining right (i.e. with no legal framework), they provide states and “rebellions”� with arms of which they may know nothing of the origin. It is sufficient for the dealers to have his account properly credited to arrange for weapons from the ex-Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria where the export control system are not always strict. In the database on arms “Transfers Project”� of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPI), it is evident that most of the recent transfers of weapons to Africa came from the ex-Soviet Union nations. France, Germany and the United Kingdom are also significant suppliers of arms to Africa.  

4. Reflection
We often complain about the many conflicts in Africa. Once in a while, not without serious reason, we suspect and blame the “West”� for fuelling these conflicts in order to preserve their interest through their protégés. Re­cently, some have been more resolute in taking the initiative to work for peace and reconciliation. The growing number of NGOs devoted to Peace and Reconciliation is in itself an expression of the will to tackle the problems related to conflicts and wars. It is evident that conflicts and wars do not only affect people on combat duty but also affect innocent civilians who are often targeted. Many are forced to abandon their previous occupations to seek refuge further inside the country or outside. Usually the education of children is disturbed. Some are enrolled in the army.

For adults and children, the psychological trauma is immeasurable. The lost productivity, which comes with displacement, is significant when refugees are forced to become de­pendent on humanitarian aid because they have to live in camps. The human capacity to work, to transform one’s environment, to produce for one’s subsistence is suddenly taken away from mature people. Nations at war often divert their assets and current resources to buying arms. Recently Chad has decided to use part of the oil funds destined to sustain social and education for arms because it faces a rebellion within its army. It is not always clear how much of the debt is due to arms transfer. Some service of the debt would benefit from tackling this question. It is sad that most military expenditures remain concealed because of security reasons. Africa needs more non-mili­tary aid than arms transfers and military training because the bottom-line is a financial commitment: the so-called “aid”� is always loans which have to be paid back with or without interest.

It is time to look for ways to bring about more transparency in arms transfers in Africa. The continent is still carrying the burden of the legacy of the cold war with the covert operators turning into dubious businessmen. Resources, which should be destined to health, education, and development projects, are diverted to the dealers, the suppliers of arms as well as the shipping agents, and to deadly weapons. A restriction on the flow of weapons in Africa would require a revision of the “international arms sales code”� with practical mecha­nisms for control and penalty. The UN Register of Conventional Arms could become compulsory. This calls for a new legal system that is binding on all sides involved in arms trade. Even military co-operation should follow an “accountability act”� for greater transparency when arms are delivered from government to government as a result of military training or joint military exercise. The security of African nations does not reside in the accumulation of large stockpiles of weapons. The security of African nations has to come from a comprehensive understanding of our future enshrined in legal agreements where offences and disagreements are re­solved through accepted protocols (dialogue). On the continent, there is a special need of individual, institutions, trade companies, firms and govern­ments abiding by “treaties”� and following “laws”� enacted for the common good. Grievances that lead to conflicts, i.e. human rights, political exclusion, monopoly of national resources, etc., should be tackled in coherent development programmes.

To curb the present trend in arms trafficking in Africa, there should be significant changes in the criminal and justice system with regard arms pos­session, arms trade, and trafficking. The import-export laws have to make provision for explicit declaration of weapons and material directly related to the production of arms. The border control of goods in transit at airports, seaports and roads has to be better monitored with strict regulations. The changes in laws could be accompanied by a greater co-ordination of effort made by states, the civil societies, and religious groups to reduce the illegal arms flow on the continent. It is time for African governments and African peoples to take responsibility for their own future that does not lie in wars and the cultures of violence and illegality that come with them. Peace is indispensa­ble for the development of Africa. In the present context, peace has to be redefined not only in line with conflict resolution and peace building, but also in strict correlation with arms control and transparency of legal arms trade.