Could Union’s weapons sales still contribute to genocide?

Date: 01/04/04

WITH Africa and Europe intertwined through the legacies of colonialism, there can be few things that can be described as a purely African matter. The Rwandan genocide, which erupted ten years ago next week, was no exception.

The central African state may be a former Belgian colony but became a staunch French ally when François Mitterand occupied the Elysée. It was France which provided military training to the Rwandan army, some of whom passed on their knowledge to the Interahamwe militia. That Hutu-controlled force is believed to have spearheaded the wave of violence that left an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus dead.

Although much of the killing was done with rudimentary weapons such as machetes, rifles and hand grenades were also used. France was a major supplier of the latter. In 1993, it was shipping up to twenty tonnes of arms and ammunition to Rwanda per day. There have even been reports - officially rebutted - that it continued arms deliveries one month after the genocide was under way.

Ten years on, is there still a possibility that Europe could put weapons in the hands of those who perpetrate heinous crimes?

In theory, there isn't. The 1998 EU code of conduct on arms exports is specifically designed to prevent member states from exporting weapons in cases where this may exacerbate regional tensions or contribute to internal repression. Yet the code's critics believe its provisions are far from watertight.

"The guidelines in the code are politically binding but the phrasing is such that member states can get away with quite a lot," notes Simeon Wezeman from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. "They say, for example, that you're not supposed to sell to countries in war. But what exactly is war? India and Pakistan have been at war for quite some time yet still Europe is one of the biggest suppliers to both countries."

Wezeman feels that the level of parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports in Europe is inadequate. In the US, the 1976 Arms Export Control Act requires the government to notify Congress of each major defence contract worth more than $14 million. But there is no equivalent provision in the EU.

A review of the code by the Council of Ministers is due to be completed by the end of this year.

Conflict prevention advocates are seeking that greater attention should be paid to what happens to weapons from EU countries once they arrive at their destination.

In particular, they want a register of authorized arms brokers established to ensure that weapons originating in Europe are not then sold to warring parties by unscrupulous middlemen.

"If the EU is serious about ensuring that weapons don't get to African conflicts and human rights crisis zones, they must ensure stronger controls on arms brokers," says Vanessa Haines from campaign group Saferworld.

A new report by her organization says it is "difficult to assess whether the code has actually led to increased restraint to any significant degree since EU states are still supplying arms to countries that abuse human rights, suffer internal instability or that are situated in regions of conflict and tension". The 2003 annual report on implementing the code, for example, indicated that weapons were still being sold from the EU to Algeria, Colombia, Israel and Indonesia.

The horrors witnessed in Rwanda also led to reflection about how the international community can intervene in crises to prevent them from escalating. Since then, the idea of peace-enforcement - rather than just peacekeeping - has gained greater currency.

Even though the EU's military structures are still in their infancy, it has undertaken a mission in Africa, widely considered to have been successful. That was last year's Artemis operation (which was French-controlled) in Congo's Ituri province. That mission had what was known as a 'Chapter 7' mandate from the UN, effectively a license for troops to fire at combatants if that is deemed necessary to enforce the peace.

Last month the African Union decided to set up a force of 15,000 troops, which could take action to prevent genocide if a Rwanda-like situation was to erupt in the future. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, has meanwhile backed the idea of having a UN special rapporteur on the prevention of genocide.

"The world has taken note of its failure in Rwanda," says Oxfam's Helen Palmer, who worked as a journalist in the country while the genocide was occurring. "There are positive developments. At the same time, I don't think anyone can say it wouldn't happen again."