Dr. Oscar Arias
New York, 29 May 1997
Today, I have the pleasure of being in the company of an extremely distinguished group of international leaders. We have come together on this occasion as humanitarians and as spokespeople of civil society to publicly unveil an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers that we have written. In addition to those present, the Code has been fully endorsed by 7 more Nobel Peace laureates: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Lech Walesa, Rigoberta Menchú, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Joseph Rotblat, Mairead Corrigan Maguire and Norman Borlaug. Last week, we received a letter from President Jimmy Carter expressing his support for this Code of Conduct, saying it is "a critically important step toward defining moral benchmarks which all countries in the world can and should strive to meet." And just yesterday, President Mikhail Gorbachev wrote to reaffirm his full support for the idea of limitation and strict international regulation of arms transfers. Although he raised serious concerns about the sections dealing with human rights and democracy, he said, "I am ready to continue cooperation with you, Mr. President, and with your commission. May I ask that at the press conference planned for May 29, you announce that I support continuation of the work on the Code within the framework of the United Nations, and subject to my positions on Articles 3-5."
At this time, I would like to read the statement that we will sign in a few minutes.
{BEGIN STATEMENT}
We come from different nations with varied histories, and in the past, the world has honored each of our struggles for peace and justice with the Nobel Prize for Peace. Today, we speak as one to voice our common concern regarding the destructive effects of the unregulated arms trade. Together, we have written an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers, which, once adopted by all arms-selling nations, will benefit all humanity, nationalities, ethnicities, and religions.
This International Code of Conduct would govern all arms transfers, including conventional weapons and munitions, military and security training, and sensitive military and dual-use technologies. The Code stipulates that any country wishing to purchase arms must meet certain criteria, including the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights, and transparency in military spending. It would also prohibit arms sales to nations that support terrorism and to states that are engaged in aggression against other nations or peoples.
The international community can no longer ignore the repercussions of irresponsible arms transfers. Indiscriminate weapons sales foster political instability and human rights violations, prolong violent conflicts, and weaken diplomatic efforts to resolve differences peacefully. Arms transfers often take place under a cloud of secrecy, and generally respond to the desires of a few while ignoring the needs and rights of the many. Sadly, many governments continue to divert scarce resources toward arms purchases while their people live in abject poverty.
Millions of civilians have been killed in conflict this century, and many more have lost their loved ones, their homes, their spirit. In a world where 1.3 billion people earn less than 1 dollar a day, the sale of weapons simply perpetuates poverty. Our children urgently need schools and health centers, not machine guns and fighter planes. Our children also need to be protected from violence. The dictators of this world, not the poor, clamor for arms.
Once in effect, this International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers would prevent undemocratic governments from building sophisticated arsenals. Governments which systematically abuse internationally recognized human rights through practices such as torture or arbitrary executions would not receive military training. Countries who commit genocide would not be able to buy munitions. Governments engaged in armed aggression against other countries or peoples could not buy missiles. States that support terrorism would be prevented from acquiring weapons. In addition, all nations would be required to report their arms purchases to the United Nations. This Code of Conduct would undeniably promote global peace and security, and protect human rights.
We call on all nations to endorse this International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. The citizens of the world must demand that leaders support this Code as well as similar efforts on the national and regional level. Only through solidarity, compassion, and courageous leadership can we make violence and its vestiges a distant memory of the past.
{END STATEMENT}
Friends:
Allow me to expand on why I convened this group of Nobel Peace laureates to write an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers.
War, and the preparation for war, is one of the greatest obstacles to human progress. Violence does not resolve problems, rather, it fosters a vicious cycle of arms buildups, conflict, and poverty. Yet, instead of addressing the root causes of conflict, many states often utilize military might in order to control increasingly desperate populations.
Many developing countries continue to be burdened by high percentages of their population living in misery. Let us not forget the magnitude of the challenges that face us as we enter the 21st century. In today's world, nearly 1 billion people are illiterate, more than 1 billion lack access to potable water, and 1.3 billion earn less than $1 a day. Unfortunately, half of the world's governments dedicate more resources to defense expenditures than to health programs.
Imagine what we could do if a portion of world military spending was redirected toward investing in human development. In 1995, world military spending totaled nearly $800 billion dollars. If we redirected just $40 billion dollars of those resources over the next 10 years to fighting poverty, all of the world's population would enjoy basic social services, such as education, health care and nutrition, reproductive health, clean water and sanitation. Another $40 billion dollars would provide all people on the planet with an income above the poverty line for their country.
World leaders must make human security the priority for the 21st century. In contrast to the traditional concept of security linked to military capacity and economic power, human security represents the degree to which human beings are protected from ignorance, sickness, hunger, neglect and persecution. Until the demands for human security are met, discord will continue to boil in all regions of the world, periodically escalating into violent confrontations.
History has recorded more devastating conflicts in the 20th century than ever before. While our technological capability to destroy has multiplied, our ability to empathize with the problems of the afflicted has minimized. Who can forget the massacres of millions in the Russian Revolution, the Holocaust, Japan, Cambodia and Rwanda?
As we approach the turn of the century, our common future is threatened by regional conflicts and arms races that are raging around the world. The people of Somalia, Chechenya, and Pakistan can all attest to the fact that the end of the Cold War has not brought the political stability to all regions of the world. The people of East Timor and Tibet are acutely aware that not all peoples enjoy the right to self-determination. The fate of Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace laureate, and the supporters of her democratic party depicts how the military regime in Burma has responded to clamors for democracy by firing bullets. In these cases and many others, the indiscriminate international arms trade has empowered non-democratic governments, stifled independence movements, and intensified territorial conflicts.
Since the end of the Cold War, many industrialized nations have reduced their defense budgets. Thus, those countries' arms merchants have turned to the developing world, where the majority of conflicts take place today, for new clients. In 1994, arms transfers to the developing world totaled 25.4 billion dollars. Together, the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - France, the United States, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom - were responsible for over 90 percent of those arms transfers. Ironically, those entrusted with guaranteeing world security seek to ensure their own economic prosperity through the sale of weapons. In 1993, the United States was responsible 73% of arms sales to the developing world. Even more incredibly, 90 percent of the US arms customers that year were not democracies and over two-thirds were characterized by the US Department of State as human rights abusers.
For many industrialized countries that manufacture arms, economic prosperity is seen as partially contingent upon a thriving military industry. Armament production is viewed by many as indispensable for technological development and as a vital source of employment. World leaders must accept the fact that we cannot let the free market rule the international arms trade. We must not enrich ourselves through the sale of death. When will the aerospace executives read the diaries written by those imprisoned, tortured and maimed by military regimes? Only blindness could hide from us the fact that the arms trade is a friend of dictators and an enemy of the people. The time has come to make people more important than arms.
For these reasons, in 1995 I proposed to my fellow Nobel Peace laureates that we join together to write an International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers.
Some might question the Code's relationship to the supply and demand concept of a free market. If a country's leaders want arms, some might ask, who are we to say that they shouldn't have them? That question merits two responses. First, as I stated above, the arms manufacturers have been aggressively promoting sales to the developing world in order to make up for the drastic reduction in arms procurement by most industrialized countries since the end of the Cold War.
Furthermore, when one asserts that "a country" wants arms, to whom exactly are we referring? Is it the single mother in Indonesia or the orphan who lives on the street in Egypt who are pressuring their leaders to buy tanks and missiles? Or is it a dictator, such as President Mobutu of Zaire, who sees arms purchases as the only way to maintain power? The poor of the world are crying out for schools and doctors, not guns and generals.
Another argument posited to justify the sale of arms is that if one country does not sell arms to a nation that wishes to buy them, someone else will. That is precisely why all arms-selling nations must agree to certain restrictions. Only a comprehensive, international effort to monitor and regulate arms transfers will be effective.
We can no longer say business is business and turn a blind eye on the poverty and oppression caused by arms transfers. Just like slavery and the drug trade, the arms trade reaps profits from the commerce of death.
To make this Code of Conduct a reality may take some time. But humanity cannot wait. The poor and the forsaken cannot wait.
There is no time to delay. We know that with a fraction of the resources now dedicated to weapons procurement, it would be possible to resolve the most serious problems of health, education, hunger and housing which afflict the world, and within a reasonable time period. We must use our wisdom to form an alliance of global citizens against the arms trade. Our sword will be our determination and will, our shield will be our solidarity. Let us win this struggle to regulate arms transfers, for if we are not its victors, we will certainly be its victims.
(Speech by Dr. Oscar Arias during the public signing of the Nobel Peace laureates' International Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers.
New York City, 29 May 1997, Cathedral of Saint John the Divine)
For more information on the International Code of Conduct,
contact Carlos Walker at code@arias.or.cr
