Business is business. That's the saying and that must have been the thinking as the ship with 77 tons of weapons and ammunition left port in China. Rocket launchers, automatic weapons and grenades, belts and belts of ammo -all bound for Zimbabwe. Business is business after all and Zimbabwe is simply a trusted trading partner for the People's Republic of China. The shipment of small arms and ammunition was both "prudent and responsible" as a transaction according to the Chinese government official asked to comment recently. You see there was some question, some concern as to how these arms would be used out there among the international community.
Not in China though.
So what if the massive shipment of weapons was being supplied to a nation that wasn't at war or confronting any real security threat from a neighboring country? So what if the the guns set sail even as the government of Robert Mugabe "prepared" for national elections -as it had a long history of "preparing"-with brutal crackdowns on opposition political parties?
Business is business.
The arms sale deal was concluded in January. The shipment left China in March, and at first, as the the guns and ammo arrived in South Africa, the government there seemed to agree -that business was indeed business. Defense Secretary January Masilela commented that there was nothing irregular about the "transaction between two sovereign nations." There was no basis in international law for South Africa to interfere.
Everything fitted into an elegant sequence. The Zimbabwe elections were "prepared" for and even as the results "remained pending" the weapons were on their way.
Then something strange happened. The guns were set to arrive in the port of Durban in South Africa and though the government found no basis for action to bar the shipment, the dock workers had. They found a moral basis for just such an action. Aware of the tensions surrounding the Zimbabwe elections, responding to the call of dissident clergy and political activists throughout the region, dock workers of SATAWU, The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union announced that they would not unload the shipment of weapons bound for Robert Mugabe and his repressive regime. The arms would have to enter the continent through some other port. The ship would simply have to turn around. Ultimately the South African government came round to share this stance. The government of Zambia followed suit and announced that the shipment would not enter the African continent through their ports either.
If the People's Republic of China must conduct its business with the Republic of Zimbabwe, they're going to have to fly the weapons in. They might end up costing a little more this way.
Oh, well -business is business.
There is something heartening about this story. The way activists and dock workers were able to find a means to act in solidarity with democratic reformers in a neighboring country. The way they advanced a truly international vision of human rights even while their governments, at least at first, failed to do the same. That's the half full part of the story's cup.
There's also an empty half.
This month a 28 nation panel will reconvene to review a proposed international treaty to regulate the trade of small arms. This is an agreement that has been in the excruciating process of drafting and negotiation for years. The agreement as it was most recently shaped and voted upon in 2006 would have barred China from concluding such an arms sale to such a country as Zimbabwe with such an extensively documented record of human rights abuses. Their continued "business" with Sudan as it represses and abuses Darfur would be facing sanction as well. The responsibilities of third party nations acting as go betweens for transport or to circumvent U.N. embargo actions would have been addressed through the treaty. South Africa would have had not only a basis but an obligation to "interfere" in the transaction.
The treaty sought to advance a fairly simple principle, one that has informed the efforts to control nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction for quite some time, the notion that governments must take responsibility for all the weapons they sell.
In 2006 there was real momentum behind the effort to enact a meaningful international agreement. At a specially convened U.N. conference the International Action Network on Small Arms, Oxfam and Amnesty International joined in proposing the Global Principles for Small Arms Sales. The United Kingdom advanced proposals in keeping with the Global Principles and 11 different African nations signed on. Mikhail Kalashnikov, the Russian designer of the gun that bears his name, forwarded a statement to the U.N. conference expressing his concern at the widespread use of small weapons such as his AK rifle and voicing support for efforts at control.
But in the end the 2006 conference concluded with only a resolve to continue talking -another conference in January of this year, again this month and again in November, and perhaps a report to the U.N. sometime before the end of the year. There was one key player in the trade of international arms who managed to derail all talk of a binding treaty. Even the U.N. resolution, supported by more than 150 nations, that only called for more negotiation on a potential agreement was opposed by that one nation -the United States.
"We don't see any need for treaties or agreements coming out of this." -so said the U.S. Ambassador at the time, John Bolton.
its as if the bushco trashing of our Constitution were not sufficient. Now we must hint at trashing the second amendment. The corporate political elite dream of a completely dis-armed citizenry. Is Mr. Driscoll aware that we have become a militarized police state? When owning a gun is a crime then only our criminal government will have guns. Perhaps Mr. Driscoll wishes to surrender himself to the beast. There are many who will not. I grow tired of seeing unarmed citizens gunned down by trigger-happy cops. Mr. Driscoll´s right wing government distributes guns freely throughout central america so that peasants may be murdered to free up land. I find it hard to believe anyone would want to make it harder for the underdogs to defend themselves. The death squads will not be limited to the third world. The criminal corporate world order will never release their stranglehold on us without a struggle. Does Mr. Driscoll actually think we will ever free ourselves by only throwing our money at the elite ? The mattoids have a target price of 200 dollars for a barrel of petroleum. Our food supply is being manipulated to produce engineered shortages. Corporate welfare and privatized prisons coupled with confiscations, siezures and hyper-inflation from FED money printing will strip us of our substance and land. There has to be limit to what they can take from us by force. If we do not at some point draw a line in the sand we will end up as slaves. It seems to me a better position for a "progressive" to take would be the de-militarization of our fascist central government.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 347 comments)
on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 4:39:33 PM
Mr. Riggs is right on most counts. An individual right to bear arms is the only thing keeping Bush from declaring martial law and canceling elections.
Of course, back when the 2nd Amendment was written, citizens were on much more level ground with the government than we are now. Citizens and governments alike had the same kind of arms - mostly muskets, pistols and swords. The only equipment the government had that the people didn't were cannons and a navy. But that cannon isn't much good to you after the first shot, when ticked-off mob of armed Americans are over-running your position - even if all they have are axes and scythes.
The Founders also made it clear that there was to be no standing army, and one could only be raised in the case of war. The military was not to be used as a police force on citizens.
Now, the government has militarized our civilian police force. Body armor, automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers, night vision goggles, thermal imaging that sees through walls and roofs allowing the user to see exactly where each person is inside a home, from the street or from a helicopter.
The government owns all the big toys and fighter jets. But none of that would help the men who unleashed such destruction against us. There's a lot more of us than there are of them, but if we have no access to arms - even small ones - they can do whatever they damn well please.
by
JC Garrett (23 articles, 27 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 165 comments)
on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:59 PM
Tom is wrong. At least as far as this country is concerned.
I have my Glock for a reason. And to my mind, it is a very good reason.
If you trust only the oppressors to have guns. Well, then, I guess the game is done. Enjoy your microchip.
No guarantee either way... but I'd rather have a chance. If only to make a statement when they come to take me to the camps..... because I will Not go.
In my pacifist, hippy freak days... never would I have thought I'd come eventually to agree with Charlton Heston.....
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 662 comments)
on Friday, May 16, 2008 at 10:31:10 PM
So nobody wants to reconcile themselves to the fact that the arms trade we are talking about is not in hand guns or flintlock muskets. It's in massive caches of AK-47's, rocket launchers and grenades. These are the tools of paramilitary thugs, militant militias and the like. THESE ARE THE OPPRESSORS. They are the snipers taking out Americans as they walk the line in Iraq and Afghanistan. The treaty (that our government said was unnecessary) would have simply insisted that governments take responsibility for where they send massive shipments of military equipment.
But the slippery slope theory I see being articulated in the comments above holds that any regulation is the same as a complete surrender of rights.
Great theory, folks. Just please realize what a useful bunch of fools you're being to a whole host of brutally repressive dictator's and their violent thugs.
by
Tom Driscoll (25 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 14 comments)
on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 7:35:45 AM
I was pretty much with you until the last sentence. When I read that, I saw that you weren't just talking about the proliferation by governments of huge shipments of weapons into places where they use them for ethnic cleansing. Here, only the police use them for that.
I hate Bolton and everything he stands for. I also think that our government has no business selling arms to most of the people they sell arms to. Like all three sides fighting in Iraq. You wanna know who's been "arming the enemy?" Not Iran. We've sold more guns and bombs to every side than Iran ever thought about.
In Iraq, at least until recently, every family is allowed one AK-47 for protection. If I were in Iraq, you can bet I'd have one. Who wouldn't?
The problem is that the bad guys, whether street thugs or government thugs, are ALWAYS going to have guns. They will buy them somewhere. A citizenry that is not armed will be slaves to a government that is armed. No revolution in history would have been possible in a case like that, including ours.
Should we have signed a treaty to be accountable for our arms sales? Yes.
Should we hope that someday in America we will vote to disarm the people while leaving an armed government?
We'd be crazy to hope for that.
by
JC Garrett (23 articles, 27 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 165 comments)
on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM
but You cant come in. If I recall correctly the US military LOST 200,000 weapons in Iraq. Thats a convenient way to keep the military spending going. Just as the Kalishnikov has been used to subdue it has also been used to free nations. We all dream of a perfect world, but this world is not perfect, it is ruled by violence and the violent take it by force. When that which is perfect has come that which is in part will be done away with. He who has no sword let him sell his cloak and buy one. I know Mr. Driscoll´s motives are honest , but they are a little too politically correct for Me. The time to beat our swords into plows has not yet arrived. When the dragon is in chains I will join You in Your endeavor Mr. Driscoll.
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 347 comments)
on Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 3:44:02 PM
You are living in a dream world. "Can't everyone just get along?" No.
The U.S. is in transition from world power monger to "what the heck happened?" As employment continues to slide and desperation follows the apathy of the past boom years, personal defense will take on a whole new meaning.
As the adage goes, dialing 911 is our government's answer to dial-a-prayer.
by
Mike Folkerth (101 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 495 comments)
on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM
You folks are all using that slippery reasoning about slopes. A whole bunch of the commentary above equates support for a treaty aimed at making governments accountable for their trade in and transit of small arms with some kind of assault in gun rights here at home. It's a false correlation. What the treaty is aimed at is the kind of proxy war manipulation and empty profiteering that throws automatic weapons onto situations of tension and conflict like gasoline on a smoldering fire. The treaty at issue proposes nothing to abrade individual gun ownership rights. Bush and Bolton might have been willing to pander to the NRA for support on this issue but the only thing they were protecting was their own ability to further militarize already dangerous situations around the world without having to be accountable to objective standards about human rights.
by
Tom Driscoll (25 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 14 comments)
on Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 1:21:34 PM
I think it should be illegal to sell weapons to oppressive governments, mercenaries and paramilitaries. However I see nothing wrong with selling weapons to militias and insurgents. Militias are necessary for people to defend themselves against an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution says a well regulated militia has a right to bear arms and is necessary to the security of a free state. Insurgents are just people who rebel against an oppressive state. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have every right to shoot the occupying American military forces and their allies. They also have the right to overthrow the puppet governments the US has placed in power in those countries. If the insurgents had no weapons then they wouldn't be able to defend their country against foreign occupation and its puppet governments.
by
Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 572 comments)
on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 5:07:40 PM
