CHANGE IS POSSIBLE
This is an enormous—and enormously complex—industry. Changing it won’t be straightforward. We outline below how we think the rules of the game could be changed to create more accountability, transparency and, ultimately, security.
We want governments to:
Re-define the terms of the trade and the secrecy that protects it.
•Ban offsets in the arms trade. There’s a reason they’ve been banned in most other sectors.
•Halt the use of public funds and personnel to pursue private arms contracts.
•Ensure the publication of detailed, comprehensive defense budgets by all countries, with minimal ‘black’ budgets.
•Get governments to adopt the Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (Tshwane Principles, 2013) into practice.
Do a better job monitoring the trade.
•Auditing and accountability processes for departments of defense and the companies that they use.
•Accountability for corporations and governments when they don’t do a good enough job of keeping their exported product controlled.
•Proper investigations and follow-up on allegations of corruption without political interference.
•Sanctions against companies found guilty of corruption.
•Imposition of a legal obligation that defense contractors reveal the intermediaries they use in deals: the publication of the names of agents, brokers and middlemen used to negotiate deals, what they are paid and what they do for that money.
•Publicize the names and behavior of companies and their subsidiaries implicated in quid pro quo corruption.
•Increase penalties against individuals and companies so that they serve as a deterrent.
Align expenditures with real threats, while reducing waste.
•Adopt transparency in defense strategies and procurement processes; show how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security that have been identified.
•Reductions in military expenditures.
•Regional coordination of defense reductions.
•Never pressure countries that have opted out of excessive defense expenditure to opt in.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
This is a problem of enormous proportions, well-funded and powerful, with deep historical and institutional roots. Faced with this seemingly overwhelming advantage, it is easy to fall into apathy or despair. What, after all, can an individual do to change a systemic problem?
Not much. But we are not merely individuals. We are the beginning of an international network that will share innovation, resources and practices to make defense industry players conform to basic standards of accountability and openness, and ensure governments allocate funds to defense (or to alternative sectors) in ways that meet the real needs of their citizens.
So how do we get there? There is not going to be a tidy checklist. There are a lot of things that need to be changed. This is how we get started:
First, learn to recognize the myths and dispute them. Stop engaging in the mythology of the arms business. The first step in this process is to generate an informed public debate about the global arms industry, its business model and practices, and its stated justifications.
Second, several of the myths point us in the direction of seeking long-term, sustainable approaches to security, rather than panic-driven kneejerk responses. They suggest a different set of questions to guide policy: how are today’s threats different from past threats and what does this mean for our countries’ needs, and our world’s needs?
Knowing that weapons, allies and contexts are unstable, and that weapons control regimes are inadequate, we should ask: what are the long-term consequences of today’s deals? Spending does not necessarily lead to security. Spending on the wrong type of military equipment will not increase security; and worse, spending on defense can divert public funds away from more effective uses. If we need to create jobs and stimulate the economy, that concern should take precedence; but we should look to other sectors that create more jobs, and more civilian technology, than defense.
The question to start with should be: What is the most effective use of public funds to increase sustainable human security?
Third, demand transparency. Partisan economic and political interests, not concern with public security, often dominate arms trade decisions.
Transparency is the best way to combat this tendency. Demand it not only within your own government, but also in how your government and private corporations engage in security sector assistance and arms deals with foreign countries. National security does not require secrecy. The greatest security a country can experience is through transparent and accountable democratic practices. There may be need for some secrecy, but it should always be the exception and never be used to hide improper influence, misbehavior or grand larceny. Support groups in other countries that are also advocating for transparency and find ways to work together at the intersection of trade deals. Take a look at the Stop the Shipment campaign for inspiration: it is a campaign that attempted, through putting pressure on various governments and international organizations, to stop a contemporaneous shipment of tear gas to the notoriously repressive Bahraini regime.
Fourth, demand accountability. Corruption is endemic to the trade; it is a problem for every society that engages in arms transactions, producers and purchasers alike.
Some countries have good laws to govern corruption and accountability; make sure they are being applied. Support whistleblowing that reveals corruption and overreach. The levers of accountability as they currently exist in even the most law-governed countries are insufficient, a fact that is proven time and again when oversight functions as a rubber stamp. Whistleblowers risk their livelihoods and freedom to expose this fact and deserve our support.
Fifth, following the leadership of local advocates, we can act in solidarity with each other. There will be specific strategies, needs and avenues for engagement that make sense for different contexts. For instance, in the US, pressuring Congress to commit to return military spending to pre-911 levels and demanding increased, rather than decreased, regulation of the trade would have a major impact. In Nigeria, the place to start may be budget transparency and an end to ‘security votes’. In many countries, enabling the voice of civil society to criticize and oversee the defense sector is the first crucial step.
Together, we can foster an evidence-driven, accountable and transparent public discussion of the global arms business. Together, we can start pointing out the absurdities that protect a business to the detriment of the security and economic prosperity of the world. By doing so, we can make the world a safer, more prosperous and more harmonious place.