Globalization and the Kalashnikov: Public–Private Networks in the Trafficking and Control of Small Arms

Abstract

This article will show how trends of globalization have transformed both the proliferation of and efforts to control small arms and light weapons (SALW). We first examine how the distribution of small arms has become more diffused, moving away from a state‐centric model of ‘arms transfers’ to circulations of SALW through outsourced networks comprising a myriad of public and private actors. We then show how the post‐Cold War international environment has allowed progressive norm entrepreneurs like middle powers and NGOs greater voice in determining SALW policy. Simultaneously, however, it has also allowed great power states and defense companies to benefit from the legitimacy of associating with human rights groups, ‘capturing’ the SALW policy process, particularly the Arms Trade Treaty, in a way that protects their interests. Efforts to transfer, exchange and control small arms and light weapons are thus indicative of wider global political processes in which power is diffused through multilayered networks and complexes. Exploring the policy implications, we argue that these networks enable actors to augment their power and capacity through alliances with other agents, but simultaneously constrain their scope of action and ability to control the process. This makes it more difficult for actors representing the public interest to override those acting in private or particularist interests. Policy Implications Globalization makes it more difficult for those making policy in the public interest to constrain and resist capture by private interests, or to control the direction of the process when there are many actors involved. Therefore: Global policy success requires a thorough understanding of how to navigate and operate in multilevel, multi‐actor, multinational and multi‐scale networks. Global policy makers and activists need to become increasingly familiar with operating strategically in networks and complexes of public and private actors, selecting allies and contractors who share values and interests that are consistent with the intended policy outcomes. A smaller, more coherent campaign network can sometimes be more effective and mobilize more strategically than a broad‐based, diffused coalition. Rather than focusing simply on state‐centric treaties, global policy making around multifaceted issues like SALW proliferation may be better served by created multilayered ‘regime complexes’, incorporating a network of mutually reinforcing institutions, norms, treaties, programs, embargoes and campaigns.

The Role of Civil Society in the International Negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty

“…It suggests that civil society can influence complex human security issues. The success of the campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions has been attributed in part to the fact that they were ‘single issue’ campaigns (Bolton and Nash, , p. 174), focusing on marginal and ‘easily stigmatised’ (Bolton et al., , p. 4) weapons systems. The campaign to control conventional arms was by contrast ‘much more complex and multifaceted’ (Hubert, , p. xiv).…”

“…The campaign to control conventional arms was by contrast ‘much more complex and multifaceted’ (Hubert, , p. xiv). Indeed, an ATT was regarded as one of ‘the most ambitious and difficult goals to achieve in global governance’ (Bolton et al., , p. 4). Nevertheless, Control Arms and its partners were able to effectively engage in the negotiations on the ATT and shape the outcome so that many of its campaign priorities were reflected in the final treaty text.…”

Nascent Spirit of New York or Ghost of Arms Control Past?: The Normative Implications of the Arms Trade Treaty for Global Policymaking

“…Recognition that existing arms control instruments were failing to stem the trafficking in SALW, which caused the ‘overwhelming majority’ of casualties in postSecond World War conflicts (Krause, , p. 8), prompted the development of a ‘growing network of states, businesses and civil society organizations campaigning to create new international norms, treaties and institutions to regulate, control and alleviate the impact of SALW’ (Bolton et al., ). UNGA‐mandated discussions led to the adoption in 2001 of both the Firearms Protocol – the first international binding instrument on SALW – and the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA), an effort to coordinate global, regional and national policies on SALW control (Price, ; Karp, ; Krause, ; Garcia, ).…”

“…The onus of enforcement lies with the exporting states, which may entrench the unequal military balance between the major powers and the rest of the world (Stavrianakis, ). Many large multinational arms companies based in North America and Europe welcomed the ATT negotiations as a way to reduce the inter‐jurisdictional complexities of the global arms trade and prevent them being undercut by firms in more permissive legal environments (Bolton et al., ; Sears, ).…”

The Legality of Small Arms Production

“…The past thirty years have witnessed increased attention brought to the global proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW) due to their recognition as the primary cause of death in conflict situations since the end of the Cold War, with women and children being disproportionally affected (Lustgarten 2015;Bolton, Sakamoto & Griffiths 2012;Killicoat 2006). Notwithstanding numerous attempts to combat their illicit distribution and misuse (Bolton, Sakamoto & Griffiths 2012;Greene 2000), including the arguably most extensive multinational agreement to this day, the 2014 Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) (Lustgarten 2015), these deadly weapons still regularly find their way into in the hands of child soldiers, insurgents, and terrorists around the globe (Hanson 2011;Marsh 2002).…”