ARMS TRADE: «FOR» , «AGAINST»... 

The following conclusions regarding the attitude of Ukrainian people towards the arms trade business are based on the results of a national sociological study conducted by the Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Research Center. This center is part of the sociological service arm of the National Strategic Studies Institute (NSSI). The survey was conducted on April 7-19, 2004, in 86 populated areas in all territorial and administrative areas of Ukraine: 24 regions, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol. The study was conducted as a multistage sample, which categorized the attitudes of people (older than 18) by sex, age, education, and home region. The NSSI polled about 1800 respondents. As such, the error range of the survey is estimated at no greater than 2.3% (authenticity - 0.954). 

Figure 1 Attitude of the population from different regions of Ukraine and different age categories to the participation of Ukraine in the arms trade on the world market, in %

Analysis of the answers in Figure 1 above shows that Ukrainian citizens have a generally low level of awareness and limited amount of information on this issue. In addition, the survey shows that Ukrainian attitudes are equivocal. Approximately 2/5 of citizens more or less approve of Ukraine's activity on the world arms market, slightly more than 2/5 disapprove. Almost 1/5 found the question difficult to answer. The Director of the Sociological Service of the National Strategic Studies Institute, Victor Nebozhenko, points out that among opponents of the arms trade, categorical disapproval is preferred by a small margin, while 2/3 of those who approve it do so only after making the caveat that it must not damage the state image. This allows concluding that society treats the arms trade rather preconceivedly. 
If one examines attitudes to this business in different regions of Ukraine (in which the geopolitical inclinations of the population and the role of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) in the economy differ considerably) one can't but notice the difference between West and South on the one hand and Eastern Ukraine on the other. In Western Ukraine (Transcarpathia, Volyn, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, and Chernivtzi regions) the percentage of proponents of the arms trade (46%) far exceeds the percentage of opponents (35 %). The same situation is true in Southern Ukraine (Mykolayiv, Odesa, Kherson regions, Crimea, and the city of Sevastopol): 45% of respondents approve of the arms trade, 30% - disapprove. In contrast, in Eastern Ukraine (Dnipropetrovsk, Donetzk, Zaporizhia, Lugansk, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Chernigiv regions), where MIC enterprises are most highly concentrated, the opposite is true: 51% oppose the arms trade business and only 34% are for it. Sociologists believe that these differences in attitudes among the different regions are more a result of geopolitical views than rational-economical ones. 
At the same time, generational differences of opinion regarding the arms trade seem to contradict the idea that opinion reflects geopolitical views. This is because there is practically no substantial difference between the opinions of youth and people of pension age (both were more against than for), despite the generally pro-western geopolitical orientation of Ukrainian youth and soviet-Russian orientation of pensioners. People of working age, perhaps concerned about the availability of jobs and incomes to support their families, approved of the arms trade.

Believe it or not? 

Equivocation by citizens regarding the arms trade is most likely connected to the mixed (but suspicious) attitudes in Ukraine towards foreign media accusations of illegal arms trade in the country. (Figure 2). 

Figure 2  Attitude of the population of different regions of Ukraine to the accusations that Ukraine engages in illegal arms trade on the world market, in %

About 50% of respondents had never heard of such accusations, were not interested in this question, or had no definite opinion regarding the issue. Among those with definite opinions, two groups stand out. The first one was made up of respondents who rejected such accusations and thought that they were spread by the enemies of Ukraine. Many of these respondents cited the most recent and loudly scandalous accusation - that Ukraine sold "Kolchuga" Missile Defense Systems to Saddam Hussein, pointing out that the accusation was never proven after America invaded Iraq. The other most visible group is that of those who believed that the accusations of illegal operations on the world arms trade market were at least partly well-grounded. These often cited that Ukraine has never provided strong evidence of its innocence, even to its own citizens. 
Those who were convinced that accusations made by international organization are well-grounded formed a very small group. Again, those most supportive of current Ukrainian policy were found in the West and the South and those most against in the Central and East. 
NSSI specialists believe the differences of opinion between the West/South and Central/East groups are unlikely to be due to prejudiced attitudes , because there was little evidence of a correlation between attitudes towards the arms trade and assessments of how well-founded the accusations against Ukraine were (Figure 3). 

Figure 3 Interconnection between attitudes of citizens towards the arms trade and assessments accusations that Ukraine engages in illegal arms trade on the world market, in %

It is notable that 42% of absolute proponents of the arms trade thought the accusations against Ukraine were either totally or partly well-grounded and only 29% thought they were groundless. Also notable was that while 32% of absolute opponents of arms trading considered the accusations to be more or less well-grounded, a significant 19 % thought they were not well-grounded at all. Among the intermediate groups, whose attitudes to the arms trade depended on international perceptions of the trade, approximately the same percentages thought the assessments well-grounded and groundless. It seems that citizens' assessments of the legality of the Ukrainian weapons trade are not strongly correlated with practical attitudes towards the participation of the country in this trade. 

Czech weapon dealers protest against greater restrictions 

The Czech arms industry has accused the government of making it more difficult to export military technology, but campaigners against the weapons trade are encouraged that tougher controls on such sales could be on the way. The Foreign Ministry, which has long been under pressure from nongovernmental organizations to restrict sales of military material to conflict zones, said that the process of issuing export licenses "has became more complicated." Weapons dealers face greater obstacles now that the Czech Republic has adopted stricter EU guidelines on exports of weapons. 
According to Jiri Hynek, president of the Czech Defense Industry Association, has asked Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda for a meeting to discuss the situation, the government had recently rejected an application by gun maker Ceska zbrojovka to export pistols to Colombia. Czech firms sold arms to that country between 1999 and 2002, as well as to hot spots including Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, according to Amnesty International. Hynek also said that civil servants were delaying the processing of licenses, adding: "Many companies prefer to withdraw their applications once they suspect that their applications will end up being rejected." 
Meanwhile, the Czech News Agency reported in mid-August that Industry and Trade Minister Milan Urban said the government wants stricter rules on the arms trade. 
Barbora Pechotova, coordinator of the Prague-based Working Group on Arms Trade Control, which is pressing for tighter controls on weapons sales, said she hoped such developments indicated a firmer new stance by the government. "It seems like progress," Pechotova said, "but we cannot say yet if there is a general improvement in the system [of controls on arms exports]." 
Foreign Ministry spokesman Vit Kolar said that in the first half of 2004, the Foreign Ministry rejected about 10 export license applications worth some 10 million Kc ($385,000). 
In the same period in 2003 it issued several hundred licenses for military material worth hundreds of millions of crowns. (Prague Post)

Fraternally or equally? 
Even more difficult to evaluate are Ukrainian attitudes towards national cooperation with Russia in the common production and promotion of arms on world markets (Figure 4). Over a third of citizens more or less approve of this cooperation (35%), another -third disapproved (35%), and the last third were not sure about their attitudes or were not interested in it at all (30%). 

Figure 4 Attitude of  citizens from different regions of Ukraine towards cooperation between Ukraine and Russia in arms production for the world market, in %

In the opinion of NSSI sociologists, this data shows that opinions regarding this problem are as yet unformed. This despite the fact that , in soviet times, the Ukrainian MIC was integrated with that of Russia and structures promoting Soviet arms on the world markets existed only in Moscow. One surprising result was that, despite the commonly cited negative attitude of Western Ukraine towards economical cooperation and integration with Russia, on this integration issue there was little difference in opinion between the West and the East. 
In southern regions, Crimea, and Sevastopol, respondents were strongly in favor of cooperation with Russia, if cooperation would be on parity. All other regions seemed to hold similar attitudes both for and against military cooperation between Ukraine and Russia. 
The ambiguity of public opinion, recorded by the sociological survey, shows the essential divergence in citizens' perceptions of the arms business on the one hand, and the absence of a clear government informational strategy in support of this trade on the other hand. It also reflects the activity, or lack of it, by the Ukrainian state on spreading information about military and technological cooperation issues. This especially true of cooperation with Russia: a considerable percentage of Ukrainian MIC leaders are sure that they must rely on Russian capital (stock) while others seek partners in the West and in Asia. 
It's necessary to point out that media sources, including foreign ones, have played an important role in the formation of public opinion on arms business issues. Poor competitiveness of the home informational space The polarity of opinions among journalists has contributed to a multicolored picture of the Ukrainian arms trade. 
As one can see, state bodies developing military and technological policy and international arms trading are confronted by a public which has not clearly formed an opinion on the subject. To build a positive domestic attitude, these bodies would be advised to cooperate with non-governmental organizations (well established in Western countries already) and also to develop more active interaction with the media. It's worth admitting that despite some efforts at increasing transparency in the arms business, many dark spots still remain. The existence of these spots undoubtedly damages the state. This leaves society vulnerable and presents average citizens with a great quantity of heterogeneous and contradictory information from the media. 

Research was completed in April 2004

A Code of Conduct for Arms Sales
The 1993 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Principles Governing Ñonventional Arms Transfers, the 1998 EU Code of Conduct, the 2000 OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons, and the 2002 Wassenaar Arrangement Best Practice Guidelines for Small Arms and Light Weapons all set out the foundations for specifically taking sustainable development into account in arms transfers. However, in too many cases exporting governments are failing to respect the commitments they have made.
. Two of the world's biggest arms exporters, including to developing countries, Russia, an OSCE member, and China do not incorporate sustainable development considerations into their arms-export licensing regimes.
. Of 17 countries surveyed who are parties to the EU Code of Conduct and/or the OSCE Document:
- only 10 would even consider denying a license on sustainable development grounds;
- only seven have actually incorporated the commitment from this regional agreement into their national licensing regime (through national policy, regulation and legislation);
- only four have ever denied arms-export licenses on sustainable development grounds: Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK;
- only two, the Netherlands and the UK - have a stated policy of consulting the government department for development in the export decision-making process.

Current commitments under the Wassenaar Arrangement, OSCE and EU The Wassenaar Arrangement is a multilateral forum set up specifically to deal with arms issues. It comprises 33 states, the majority of global arms manufacturers and exporters, including the US, EU member states, a number of Eastern European states, along with Argentina, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Turkey. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is a wider forum, comprising 55 states in Europe, Central Asia and North America.109 These two forums have agreed several principles concerning arms transfers and sustainable development - OSCE Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers (1993) - OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons (2000)
- Wassenaar Arrangement Best Practice Guidelines for Small Arms and Light Weapons (2002) which include identical text requiring participating states to take into account:
the nature and cost of the arms to be transferred in relation to the circumstances of the recipient country, including its legitimate security and defense needs and the objective of the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources.

The EU Code of Conduct, agreed in June 1998, aims to set "high common standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in conventional arms transfers by all EU
Member States." It has a set of eight criteria governing arms transfers. Criterion Eight refers to: The compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defense with the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources.

The EU Code of Conduct, agreed in June 1998, aims to set "high common standards which should be regarded as the minimum for the management of, and restraint in conventional arms transfers by all EU
Member States." It has a set of eight criteria governing arms transfers. Criterion Eight refers to: The compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defense with the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources.
In considering this Criterion:
Member States will take into account, in the light of information from relevant sources such as UNDP,World Bank, IMF and OECD reports, whether the proposed export would seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country. They will consider in this context the recipient country's relative levels of military and social expenditure, taking into account also any EU or bilateral aid.
The European Union has tried to take a positive step in introducing a Code of Conduct in the sales of arms. The intention is to have a more responsible export of arms. This does not mean that their arms sales are not fraught with problems.
Sadly, again the Americans seem unwilling to commit to an international agreement that would help towards benefiting humanity; Europe seems more willing to do something. Yet while Europe may seem more progressive on this issue, it does not mean that their arms sales are not fraught with problems.
Even though the code has been signed there are still many criticisms about it that say that it falls short of establishing effective monitoring of sales and transfers by a Member State. It is also claimed that it will still be probable that arms can be exported to the regimes that would be the most likely to use them and violate international humanitarian law (which lays down the rules of war).
UK, for example has been strongly criticized by Oxfam for the many loopholes in its arms sales policies even in the light of the Code of Conduct. The UK sells a lot of arms to other countries, most of which have suffered conflicts of some kind. (The UK is the fourth largest arms exporter, with USA, Russia and France being the largest, second and third, respectively.)
As part of the Code of Conduct, an annual Arms Report is published. However, Amnesty International and others are urging for the report to be more open and less opaque so that it is possible to assess how the Code has actually worked in practice.
South Africa used to be one of the top arms exporters in the world, and are still prominent. During the Apartheid era, they were known for selling arms to human rights violators. Since 1994, though, Human Rights Watch have pointed out that they have made "remarkable progress ... in adopting a set of human rights friendly policies in relation to arms transfers." This policy is called the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC). The Conventional Arms Control Bill to implement this policy is still in the works. However, in their 2000 report on South Africa they point out though that "[a]t the same time, it believes that the South African government must urgently address the inconsistencies that have emerged between its arms export policies and practices, and deny all human rights abusers its weapons, the tools with which such abuses have been committed." South Africa is a well-respected and increasingly more influential developing country that is growing in stature. It has a lot of influence in Africa as well, so their use and exports of arms are of particular interest too.

The Arms Trade Treaty
The development and adoption of an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) provides the opportunity to work towards the establishment of such a methodology. The Arms Trade Treaty proposed by Oxfam,
Amnesty International, the Arias Foundation, Project Ploughshares, Saferworld, the Federation of American Scientists and other NGOs in the International Action Network on Small Arms focuses on the
supply of arms, and once adopted, will be an international means of control to ensure that all nations are working to the same standard of arms transfers (see Appendix 2). This Treaty will also help to ensure
that deals rejected by one exporter are not licensed or authorized by another.
Article 4 of the proposed Treaty lists several factors which must be considered when making an export decision, and Article 4c clearly states that an arms transfer must not go ahead if it is likely to adversely affect sustainable development. At the time of writing, the ATT text is still under development by a group of international legal experts and policy makers. The current text reads as follows:
In considering whether any international transfer of arms may be authorized ... Contracting Parties shall take into account whether transfers of arms of the kind under consideration are likely to adversely affect sustainable development ... In such a circumstance there shall be a presumption against authorisation.33
There is also a critical role to be played by international and nongovernmental development organizations. Strong foundations exist in many states. In terms of human rights legislation and export-control legislation that development organizations can build upon to advocate for a more thorough approach to assessing the critical relationship of arms transfers and sustainable development.
To make this happen these organizations need to: talk to exporter governments to explain and elucidate the importance of the arms transfer vs. sustainable development relationship, reminding them of their current commitments under multilateral and regional legislation and international human rights standards;
- urge exporter governments to do all that they can to improve their assessment practices in line with the recommendations of this report, and offer support and expertise in this process;
- work together to establish the proposed international Arms Trade Treaty and advocate for the global implementation of the standards it proclaims.