|
Book Reviews
A F Musah and N Thompson (ed), Over a barrel: Light weapons and human rights in the Commonwealth, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, London, 1999
Launched in advance of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Durban in November 1999, this book provides a useful overview of light weapons issues in Commonwealth countries. It paints a grim picture of the impact of small arms throughout the Commonwealth and is designed to serve as a ‘call to arms’ for Commonwealth leaders to take action in addressing this important humanitarian issue.
The book is split into five sections. Part I looks at the history and role of the Commonwealth and advocates that Commonwealth countries should "act according to [their] collective conscience and develop a strategy to protect their citizens from light weapons violence." Part II explores the links between governance and the spread of light weapons and conflict in South Asia and shows how human rights are abused in conflicts in the region. Part III identifies how the small arms trade is undermining fragile democracies in Africa. Part IV concentrates on the role of the United Kingdom and South Africa in exporting arms to Commonwealth countries, and the shady world of small arms-brokering. Part V provides a critique of current efforts to tackle light weapons proliferation and details areas where the Commonwealth should act.
For anybody who wants an overview of the problem of small arms proliferation and proposals on how this could be addressed, this book would be a good place to start. It has an impressive scope both in terms of issues and geography. However, the chapters vary in quality with some inevitably feeling somewhat familiar due to the fact that so much has been written on the small arms issue in recent years.
?
With the benefit of hindsight, it is interesting to examine the Durban summit communiqué and see whether any of the recommendations made in this book were taken on board. Small arms and light weapons were discussed but the communiqué is couched in the broadest possible language. The heads of state "expressed concern" and "emphasised the need for urgent action by the international community." This is not to say that the book’s focus on the Commonwealth is wrong. It is important that all international groupings and organisations take up the small arms issue and there are steps which the Commonwealth could and should take. But, there is a continuing gap between the rhetoric of communiqués and practical action which should be bridged.
This poses two challenges for organisations and academics working on small arms. Firstly, stimulating increased political will is vital. Non-governmental organisations need to find ways of popularising the issues around small arms and gun violence to increase public support. This will require education, community awareness-raising and the innovative use of the media. Secondly, more detailed field research is vital to map the problem in specific areas and demonstrate practically the issues to be addressed on the ground. Books like this help to build a convincing case by underlining reasons why action is needed. However, there is still a lack of clarity among governments and law enforcement agencies on how to go about it at the practical level.
Andrew McLean
Saferworld
London
A H Cordesman, Transnational threats from the Middle East: Crying wolf or crying havoc? Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, 1999
It was the Palestinian intellectual, Edward Saïd, who declared that the Arab Middle East has been a last trauma for the West. For America, it has been a nightmare. Events that have unfolded in this region have made and broken successive American presidents. President Nixon was caught on the wrong foot during the Arab-Israeli 1973 war. President Carter lost his bid for re-election because of his perceived weakness to stand up to the Ayatollahs of the Iranian Revolution. President Reagan began his presidency by bringing home the US hostages from Iran, but only to end it miserably by getting caught up in the Iran-Contra scandal. Driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait in 1991 was not enough to save President Bush in his bid for re-election. President Clinton’s search for peace in the Middle East as his presidency winds down continues to elude him. American foreign policy in the Middle East has nearly always been characterised by uneasiness and frustration in the way it perceives threats emanating from there. Most of this, arguably, originates from a fundamental misunderstanding of the history and politics of the region.
Cordesman’s book is a reasoned attempt to correct perceptions of and provide information on the nature of these threats through a sober discussion of the latest social, political and economic trends in the region. Originally presented as a series of papers to the US Army War College, it hardly qualifies as a book, but it is invaluable as a discussion tool to assess US perceptions of threats to US security. Each threat, at least in the way the author sees it, is given its own chapter:
- narcotics and organised crime;
- immigration;
- ‘conventional’ terrorism;
- arms proliferation and long range missile strikes;
- terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; and
- energy dependence.
Each chapter is augmented through the use of statistics to propel the points along. Useful appendices (such as a description of the major terrorist groups operating today) are also included. These seem to be designed for the military-minded in terms of bullet points and the brevity of the information they contain.
Any discussion of threat analysis is prone to many weaknesses. Perhaps the major one is that of perspective. The author himself recognises the inherent conceptual and practical problem that "there are many possibilities but there is no way to assign probabilities." Worst case scenarios may receive attention because they cry out the loudest, but in terms of practical response they distract from the real issues. He takes the view that each threat must be seen in its own context. Different threats require different responses. Some of them, such as immigration and narcotic controls, the West will have to live with, as he bluntly points out. Other threats such as terrorism need a more considered response. The scale of terrorist attacks may not be rising but, at the same time, the prospect of terrorism ceasing is hardly likely. The West (and increasingly other regions such as Africa) will remain the target of extremist groups as part of their own ongoing struggle with their own governments. The possibility that they may use weapons of mass destruction is not one to be laid aside lightly. In this regard, Western contingency planning seems woefully inadequate.
Secondly, there is the spectre of generalisation. Threats can be used to damn entire races (Arab, North African and Persian) or a religion. Islam has been the object of gross generalisation for centuries. Cordesman is careful to point out that such "indictments are little more than racism." His forceful suggestion is correct that tying Islam and terrorism together is grossly myopic. A sobering thought is that even a cursory glance at the US State Department’s terrorist listing shows that most of the Middle Eastern terrorist groups are secular in nature. If Islam is not to be labelled with terrorism, it does seem that Islam is the only criterion that can possibly explain why the author has chosen to include countries of North Africa and the Sudan within the framework of the Middle East. Indeed, he even includes references to Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the popular imagination, Islam equals the Middle East, and it is easy to include other countries that may have a language or a religious affinity within that scope. This is unconvincing and flawed. If Islam becomes the benchmark with which to assess the character of a threat, then the author scores an own goal. The fear is that it reinforces the generalisations that many are trying hard to demolish.
Thirdly, there is the problem of mirror-imaging when looking at threat assessment. Cordesman refreshingly points out that it may not just be a case of seeing threats in the Middle East, but that the West may also pose a threat to the Middle East. A good example cited is the issue of narcotics. Narcotics have always been seen as supply rather than demand-driven. Where Western countries have failed to curb the demand for drugs, the tendency is to blame the countries supplying the drugs. From the supply-side point of view, it is precisely because of the demand for drugs in the affluent West that may be a threat to the domestic political and socio-economic stability of a developing country.
Overall, the book provides a very American view of the perceived threats to its future security. There is no more a monolithic Islam or Middle East than there is a West. Arguably, the West has no unity of interest. While America’s fortunes are tied to Israel as its most important ally in the region, European powers are more able to strike a balance between Israel and other Arab countries. As such, they are rarely going to perceive threats in concert.
Every trend can so easily become a threat when taken to its logical extreme. It depends upon a person’s own paradigm. In outlining US perceptions of transnational threats from the Middle East, Cordesman contributes to the paradigm shift that is needed if American foreign policy towards the region and the threats it perceives as emanating from there are to become more nuanced and sober.
Shahzad Ahmed
Institute for Security Studies
Pretoria
|
|
|