Introduction

Trafficking firearms involves the manufacture and illegal distribution of firearms, their
components and ammunition. The firearms that are usually most trafficked are: (i) Small arms
(revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles, and light
machine guns) and (ii) light weapons (heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-tank
and anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles, portable anti-tank missile and rocket launchers, portable
anti-aircraft missile launchers, and mortars of less than 100 mm caliber).1 According to a brief
elaborated by the Council on Foreign Relations of United States a 2012 issues, the financial
value of the illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons is worth $1 Billion per year,
higher than the value reported in 2010 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which
estimated a value of this criminal market between $170 Million and $320 Million. 2 The
international trend of illegal trade of firearms usually goes from developed countries that
manufacture and sell the guns, to purchasers in developing countries, especially in countries with
high demand of guns due to civil and domestic conflicts or small wars. In those countries, the
guns are also resold and smuggled, usually to neighbor territories. Bearing this in mind, the aim
of this paper is to introduce the main characteristics of this illegal activity, related to the social,
economic and politic background of the countries or regions involved. The document conveys
information about (i) general background characteristics of some of the most involved countries
or regions and (ii) relevant data about firearms trafficking in those territories.

Background of countries involved in Firearms Trafficking

Currently, trafficking of arms occurs almost in every region of the world; however, this
trafficking is usually focused in areas affected by intense domestic conflicts, violence or
presence of organized crime and criminal networks, where the demand for illicit weapons is
higher.3 As a result, most of the sales (almost 75%) are targeted to developing countries located
in (i) Africa, mainly Libya, Sudan and South Africa, (ii) Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia and
Syria, and (iii) Latin America, mainly Central America. 4 The 5 permanent members of the UN
Security Council (US, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China), together with Germany and
Italy, account for around 85% of the arms sold between 2004 and 2011, a trend that currently
remains stable. The high participation of these countries is relevant because while trafficking of
arms has been usually conducted by private entities or actors, these governments contribute to
boost the criminal market by arming paramilitary groups involved in insurgencies against rival
governments, often conducted in contravention of United Nations arms embargoes.

Arms providers
The countries with an important participation in the legitimate arms market are also, usually, the
producers and therefore providers of trafficked guns. Specifically, between 2011 and 2014,
United States and Russia dominated the arms market in developing nations, with both countries
leading the ranking on the value of arms transfer agreements. China and some countries in West
Europe, such as France, United Kingdom, Italy and Germany, have also participated arming
subversive or paramilitary groups developing nations
As a result, the main producers and distributors of guns worldwide, have in common that are
developed nations, with leading economies7 , a very high human development8 , and a high level
of income.

United States
Unites States currently leads the expenditure of weapons worldwide, in fact, according to the
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, among the top 20 global weapon dealers, 16
are U.S. corporations, including: (1) Lockheed Martin, (2) Boening, (3) Northrop Grumman, (4)
General Dynamics and (5) Raytheon . In 2014, The United Sates ranked first in arms transfer
agreements with developing nations, with a participation of $29.8 billion or 48.2% of these
agreements. Between 2007 and 2014, the highest purchase orders in firearms happened in the
Near East (58.2% of arm transfer agreements) and Asia (32,2% of arm transfer agreements)
Regarding the involvement of United States in gun trafficking worldwide, in 2012 a study found
out that almost 70% of firearms recovered in Mexico between 2007 and 2012 were traced to the
US. Most of these firearms were not manufactured in the United States; however, loose state gun
and ammunition control laws in the southern states happened to favor the gun smuggling towards
Mexico.

Russia
Russia is the second source of armament worldwide. Between 2007 and 2014 Russia made
$41.7 billion in arms trade agreements. Also, in 2014 this country ranked first in the value of
arms delivered to developing nations, with $8.4 billion or 40.8% of such deliveries. Also in
2014, Russian arms agreements with developing nations included two Kilo submarines valued on
$1.2 billion and around 200 T-90 battle tanks for approximately a value of $1 billion with
Algeria, S-400 air defense systems totaling nearly $3 billion with China, and antitank shells
valued on $432 million with India.
The capture of Viktor Bout in April 2002, the single biggest private arms trader in the world,
pointed out the involvement of Russia in firearms trafficking. This Russian citizen established
his business after the collapse of Soviet Union, he purchased a fleet of Soviet military aircraft
including Antonov and Ilyushin cargo planes as surplus of the Cold War and employed them in
operations to deliver firearms to various combatants in Africa, and anti-Taliban forces in
Afghanistan during the 1990s. According to United Nation documents, in exchange for illicit
diamonds, Viktor Bout supplied weapons to Liberian President Charles Taylor to destabilize
Sierra Leone. Also Viktor Bout supplied arms to both sides in the Angolan civil war and
delivered weapons to various warlords across Central and North Africa. Operating through
Eastern Europe, Bout transported weapons through Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine to Liberia
and Angola until he got arrested in 2002.

China
From 2011 to 2014, the value of China’s arms transfer agreements with developing nations was
approximately of $3 billion annually. In 2014, the total of China’s arms agreements had a value
of $2.2 billion. Most of these agreements can be partially attributed to continuing contracts with
Pakistan, a key historic client. Rather than large agreement for major weapons, China had several
smaller valued weapons deals in Asia, Africa, and the Near East. This situation is related to the
lower level of sophistication of Chinese weapons, in contrast to those weapons produced in
Russia or United States. Regarding the involvement of firearms trafficking, in 2014 it was
discovered the case of a mining magnate committing mafia-style crimes, including gunrunning,
with the support of corrupt officials who worked for the state. Liu Han, the magnate, and his
younger brother Liu Yong were related to an investigation for murder, assault, illegal detention,
interference in state functions, affray, extortion, gambling, illegally buying and selling guns,
illegal gun ownership and fraud.14 In 2015, an organized firearm gang of 24 suspects was
dismantled in China’s Hubei Province. The suspects were accused of manufacturing, selling
(primary online) and possessing guns without license. In the process, 23 guns, 70 rifle bullets,
135 hunting gun bullets, 10,000 buck shots and 1,000 pieces of gun- manufacturing components
were seized.

Western Europe
France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy—the four main West European arms
suppliers—have supplied a wide variety of sophisticated weapons to a number of purchasers.
The four suppliers, as a group, registered a significant decrease in their collective share of their
arms transfer agreements with developing nations between 2013 and 2014. This group fell from
25.4% in 2013 to 9.5% in 2014 of arm trades agreements. Of these four nations, France was the
leading supplier with $4.3 billion in agreements in 2014. Italy, meanwhile registered $800
million in arms agreements in 2014. All of them can produce both advanced and basic air,
ground, and naval weapons systems.16 Although these nations have strong laws and regulations
to confront gunrunning, the terrorist attacks in France, 2015, evidenced a gun trafficking ring
operating in West Europe. Investigations carried out by the Europol and the French police
suggest that weapons flow from Russia via the Balkan states into the rest of Europe. Also,
according to Europol, many weapons trafficked in West Europe come from the western Balkans
after being held illegally after armed conflicts in the region.

Arms Purchasers
According to a United States Congress study, developing nations continue to be the primary
target of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers. Between 2007 and 2010, the value of
arms transfer agreements with developing countries comprised 74.4% worldwide
Between 2011 and 2014, the percentage increased to 75.5% of all these agreements globally and
in 2014 it reached 86.0%.18 As previously stated, trafficking of fire arms is a significant issue in
Africa (mainly in Libya, Sudan and South Sudan), Middle East (mainly Syria), and Latin
America (mainly Central America). These regions and countries where the traffic of firearms
takes place share the common characteristic of experiencing high levels of unemployment and
poverty19 , medium of low human development level20 , income inequality21 and systemic
corruption. Also, these territories are or recently were involved in armed conflicts, and usually
have a strong presence of gangs and organized crime that demand guns to perform criminal
activities.

Africa
The political and economic instability of African Countries related to forming states and
democracies, as well as the persistent inequality in land property and income, the intense
corruption and a low level of human development, among other local situations, have fueled the
emergence of armed conflicts across the continent.22 Before 2012, due to intense situations of
violence, Mali, Somalia and South Africa were the main hotspots for firearms trafficking, while
now the focus of this criminal activity turned to Libya and Sudan.

Libya
According to The United Nations, Libya is the epicenter of the illegal weapons trade including
MANPADs [portable air defense systems], which fuels conflicts in at least 14 countries
worldwide. According to The panel of experts of The UN, the main obstacles to contain the
proliferation of illicit weapons are the difficulty of controlling non-state armed actors over the
majority of stockpiles in Libya (currently three ports in the country are controlled by rebel
groups) as well as ineffective border control systems. As a consequence of the inability to secure
its borders, Libya has let weapons to be handed to radical groups, fueling the conflict, terrorism
and insecurity in almost every continent.

Sudan and South Sudan

According to The Guardian, Sudan and South Sudan are some of the most heavily armed
countries in the world. Sudan, in fact, is known as the “Africa’s arms dump” due to the high
number of arms related to the armed conflict between government forces, paramilitaries, rebels,
militia, foreign fighters, bandits as well as inter- and intra-communal warfare. Global arms trade
and smuggling from neighboring states is one of the issues intensifying the situation of violence
in Sudan.
In South Sudan, for instance, ownership of guns and small arms has increased during its three
years as an independent nation. Arms and ammunition are openly available in local markets
across the country, at very affordable (around US$1 per cartridge). The increase in gun
ownership is partly due to the number of rebel and militia groups that have recently emerged
The spread of firearms in Sudan and the trade of illegal weapons are related to Liberation
movements, especially those in neighboring countries. For many years’ liberation movements
and valley people of the Turkana of Kenya, the Dodoth of Uganda and the Toposa of South
Sudan, have traded arms across the three countries’ borders. According to Jonah Leff, Director
of Operations at Conflict Armament Research, most of the traded arms in Sudan and South
Sudan are small guns such as AK-type assault rifles. PKM machine guns and RPGs are also
available, but in much smaller quantities. Even so, German HK G3 rifles sometimes cross the
border from Ethiopia and Kenya

Middle East
Conflict areas in the Middle East, and especially the strong and increasing presence of extremist
groups during the last decade, have fueled the firearms trafficking in the region. However,
although radical groups are the ones performing trading weapons illegally, there is evidence of
the involvement of Departments of Security of countries with economic or political interest in
the region. For instance, it was recently uncovered that in 2012 the State Department of the
United States moved guns off the radar from Libya (Benghazi Port) through Turkey to Syria, to
support Islamic revolutionary groups there.25 In fact, corporate media reports that ISIS in Iraq
received many of its weapons due to the Iraqi retreat from Mosul. ISIS, however, already had
plenty of weapons before the takeover, mostly from the United States. Jamal Maarouf, leader of
the Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), claimed that the U.S. provided weapons to them. Also, al-
Nusra (al-Qaeda-linked group) and other terrorist groups in Syria have received weapons
indirectly from the SRF. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, helped in the creation of al-
Nusra, so when the group was dissolved, its members integrated to ISIS, which means that pre-
ISIS members have indirectly received weapons from United States.

Latin America
The high demand of weapons in Latin America is related to organized crime activity, especially
to drug trafficking. Mexico is currently one of the countries with an increasing number of illegal
weapons seized in the border with United States. According to the Mexican annual report
elaborated by the Attorney General Office27 , 60% of all confiscated weapons in Mexico are
mainly seized in the states of Tamaulipas, Guerrero, and Jalisco, with 7 out of 10 weapons
confiscated coming from the United States. According to the Small Arms Survey Report, 2013,
the illicit trade in firearms in Mexico’s border with United States is likely to be at least 100–200
units per day, or 35,000–70,000 units each year. These weapons usually end up in the hands of
drug trafficking organizations members who are willing to purchase powerful weapons, such as
.223 and 7.62 × 39 mm caliber rifles, 5.7 × 28 caliber rifles and pistols, and .50 caliber rifles’.
From January 2009 to July 2011, 75 per cent of firearms reportedly bound for Mexico and seized
at the US border were rifles, shotguns, and machine guns. The ratio of handguns to other
firearms seized at the border is also similar to the ratio of handguns seized in Mexico, accounting
for 24 per cent of seized firearms (vs. 28 per cent for firearms seized in Mexico.). This could
indicate the suspicions that United States is one of the main sources of weapons smuggled in
Mexico Among the seized weapons, fragmentation grenades, rockets, and anti-personnel mines
were also found. Convictions include members of criminal networks such as Sinaloa Cartel, Los
Rojos, The Jalisco Cartel - New Generation (CJNG), Los Zetas, The Pacific Cartel, and the
Knights Templar29, among others. Due to Gangs activity, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador
also report a relevant presence of trafficked firearms and ammunitions. The illegal trade of guns
in this region is strongly related to systemic corruption of state officers and law enforcers. For
instance, in September 2015, a former coronel, Roberto Pineda Guerra, was arrested for running
a stockpile of weapons in El Salvador.30 In Colombia, the traffic of firearms is specially related
to the armed conflict subversive and paramilitary forces, as well as criminal gangs. In the case of
the FARC guerrilla (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia), there is evidence that
weapons were mainly traded from United States and Eastern Europe, and smuggled through
Venezuela and Brazil.

The Legal and the Illegal Arms Market

In analysing the weapons market and the Colombian market, it is first necessary to distinguish
between two opposing but related factors: the licit and the illicit weapons markets. There are at
present in Colombia approximately 1,250,000 firearms in the hands of civilians holding some
type of licence, without including those held by the State’s security forces. Authorized firearms
in the hands of civilians are legally purchased from INDUMIL, the small State-owned firearms
industry, which is the sole legal producer and importer of firearms in the country. Firearms
acquired by civilians are also illegally imported or purchased on the domestic black market and
later legalized and registered with INDUMIL, which is also responsible for maintaining lists in
the firearms register. In Colombia, because of the lack of strict regulations, there has, over the
years, been an extensive proliferation in firearms, in legally registered weapons and in automatic
and semi-automatic weapons, which are supposedly for the exclusive use of the State’s security
forces. In 1993, a new measure on firearms control entered into force which established two
distinct categories of firearms licences: the first, possession of a firearm, limits the possession of
a firearm to the house or the workplace; and the second, licence to carry firearms, allows a
person to load the firearm. The former licence is valid for up to ten years and may be issued for
one or two firearms. The latter must be renewed annually, allows only one firearm per person
and requires proof that the firearm is essential for self-defence. This firearms control measure
includes an amnesty and a period of grace for the registration and legalization of previously
acquired firearms. At present, there are approximately 919,759 registered firearms with licences
to carry firearms and 334,152 with licences to possess firearms. This new measure has in some
degree enabled the Government to begin to collate its own information and to gain a clearer idea
of the extent of the problem. Despite controls, however, many civilians, including some of the
agents mentioned as being involved in the five stages of the drugs trafficking chain, obtain their
arms from the legal market and end up using them for illegal purposes. It is estimated that the
number of illegal firearms has reached five million, although most experts calculate the number
to be roughly three million. Moreover, the illegal arms market in Colombia has grown
considerably in the last ten years, and this increase is largely related to the needs generated by
irregular groups involved in the internal arms conflict. In contrast to other leftist insurgent
groups in Latin America, the Colombian guerrillas have received little support from outside the
country, especially in the way of weapons. Certain Central American countries have served as
training grounds during the 1980s for Colombian guerrillas; and, although the former Soviet
Union and its allies maintained close political links with armed insurgents, Colombia was never
a priority for the Communist bloc. For this reason, and for many years, the guerrillas’ weaponry
was rudimentary and was acquired through combat and not as part of an elaborate strategy
connected with the international arms trade. With the end of the cold war, countless weapons and
munitions, brought to Central America over the past ten years, are now part of a huge black
market—Nicaragua, El Salvador and Panama—which has been infiltrated by Colombian
guerrillas. The various international arms supply sources for guerrillas are reflected in the
various types of arms that its members use in combat—from G-3s, Galils and Uzis to AK-47s
and M-16s. Another possible source are the drugs cartels which, due to the structure that they
possess for importing various weapons, do not hesitate to do business with guerrillas. The growth
and power of these drugs cartels have turned them into large arms importers. Although their
needs are different, as mentioned earlier, these weapons, usually small arms, are acquired in
various parts of the world through intermediaries. In this way, the drugs trade is protected and a
demand is created for small arms. An apparently common method of obtaining these arms is the
exchange of drugs for weapons, in which process the same secret air routes are used to bring the
drugs and take away the weapons. And, just as drugs money is laundered, illegal weapons are
easily transferred and sold at a price. As the drugs cartels seek other markets, mainly in Europe,
the supply bosses will probably switch to arms buying. If these small and light arms continue to
be easily obtained on the black market and to be routinely used by drug traffickers, guerrillas and
paramilitary groups, they will also be used by common criminals and civilians who will feel
threatened by being surrounded by so many arms.
All the above-mentioned weapons can be classified as small arms, which demonstrates that
whilst unflagging efforts are being made with regard to nuclear and strategic weapons, very little
has been done in the field of small arms. It is evident that the so-called drugs industry is much
more complex than has been described here and that the illicit drugs trade has infiltrated local
economies. It is also clear that the interrelationships between drugs and arms are numerous and
diversified and that they reflect the very complex nature of these issues.
more sophisticated weapons are obtained and they are intended more specifically for use in the
drug trafficking trade. “Chichipatos” and “traquetos” generally carry high-calibre pistols for self-
defence, and the couriers are accompanied by bodyguards armed with similar weapons as well as
with automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The cartels, which in their turn dominate the
transport aspect of the trade, also seek small and sophisticated arms to enable their bodyguards to
move around the large cities in which they carry out their operations with the necessary
discretion. Although some light and automatic weapons are used, the arms requirements of the
drug barons are not of such a military nature as the communications media sometimes portray
them as being. For small-scale drugs traffickers, and these are the majority, weapons are often
undesirable, because they attract unwanted attention on the part of the authorities. At one stage,
the Medellín cartel set up an elaborate terrorist organization, under the command of Pablo
Escobar, using dynamite in car bombs and groups of men hired to engage in violent combat
against the Colombian State at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. With the
death of Pablo Escobar and the dismantling of his organization, the use of high explosives by
drugs traffickers and the scourge of terrorism have diminished.

The Global Principles of the Arms Trade Treaty reflect

India’s values and Constitution
Rajiv Gandhi’s statement reflected India’s belief that arms control was a key aspect of a foreign
policy based on interdependence and the promotion of peace and stability. These principles were
based on the Directive Principles of State Policy set out in India’s Constitution: ‘Promotion of
international peace and security —The State shall Endeavour to— (a) Promote international
peace and security; (b) Maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) Foster respect
for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another;
and (d) Encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.’ 2 India has traditionally
supported initiatives to control arms. In 1959, India called for the United Nations to pay attention
to the existence of large armaments and the unchecked growth of arms, which posed a threat to
international peace and security. In 1965, India along with seven other nations, called for an
international treaty based on the principles of non-proliferation – this treaty was to be a step
towards achievement of general and complete disarmament. India was one of the first countries
to ratify the Biological Weapons Convention of 1974. India is also an original signatory to the
Chemical Weapons Convention, having signed it on 14 January 1993, and was among the first
65 countries to ratify the Treaty. Recent years have seen a departure from India’s earlier
emphasis on disarmament. In 2005, India became the world’s tenth largest military spender. In
the words of one Minister, ‘India needs to become self-reliant in Defence Production to
effectively meet the fast changing ground realities of defence operations. India also needs to
keep pace with the changes taking place by induction of new equipment, up-gradation of existing
military hardware and changing over to new strategies and tactics’.3 However, the Government
of India has continued to speak up for international law, stating that human rights are an ‘Ancient
concept [found in the] Vedas, Puranas and other ancient literature [and are an] essential
ingredient of Indian culture and ethos.’ It was this heritage, and the legacies of Buddha, Ashoka,
Tagore, and Gandhi that led Martin Luther King in 1959 to say: ‘To other countries I may go as
a tourist, but to India I come as a pilgrim’, and Nelson Mandela in 1980 to praise India for an
‘exemplary role in world affairs’.4 Now, as India emerges as a global power, people across the
developing world look to India to champion the voices of the world’s poor, with countries like
Cambodia and Kenya, and Nobel Laureates like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Oscar Arias,
seeking India’s support for an Arms Trade Treaty. The ATT would prohibit states from
authorising arms transfers where there is a clear risk that the weapons could be used in violation
of the UN Charter or to commit serious abuses of human rights, serious violations of
international humanitarian law, acts of genocide, or crimes against humanity. This is in line with
India’s Constitution and values which aim to hold back those dictators and armed militants who
place no value on human life. The call for an international Arms Trade Treaty has been
supported by eminent Indians from all walks of life including Nobel Prize-winning economist
Amartya Sen, Honorary President of the International Inter-Parliamentarian Union Dr Najma
Heptullah, and former Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister Professor M. G. K. Menon. In the
words of Admiral L. Ramdas, Chief of Naval Staff from 1990 to 1993: ‘As someone who has
served in the Indian Navy around the world, I have seen the human cost of conflict and
instability fuelled by uncontrolled arms sales. An Arms Trade Treaty is a crucial aspect of
ensuring security for India and the whole world.’5 Ordinary Indians, too, are backing the call. In
a six-country Ipsos MORI survey this year, 90 per cent of Indians agreed that there should be
strict controls on where weapons can be exported to.6 Already, 20,000 Indians have given their
‘faces’ to a huge photo petition in support of an Arms Trade Treaty, part of a worldwide petition
of over a million people from 160 countries. The idea of an Arms Trade Treaty recognises the
reality that in an ever more interdependent world, instability and violence anywhere can
undermine development and security everywhere.

Lack of regulation of the international arms trade is hurting

India’s citizens
‘Any weapon has only one purpose…to destroy something. My legs are lifeless; I have no
sensation in them. Only the wheelchair ensures my mobility. Everything that Kashmir had in the
past has been ruined in the last 15-20 years. There has been so much armed conflict…so many
guns, so many weapons…they are freely available… that all humanity is destroyed. Today a
human being has no value.
From the legal to the illegal
The arms trade was one of the first to globalise, and yet there are still more regulations on the
international trade in music than on the international trade in arms7. One of the consequences of
this is that weapons often move from the legal trade to the illegal trade – in fact, 80 per cent of
the world’s illegal weapons start off as legal weapons. The arms trade often works through long
supply chains that go through several middlemen, so that a weapon may be made legally in
country A, be sold to a legal buyer in country B, resold to another legal buyer in country C,
resold to an illegal trader in that country and then smuggled to criminals or armed militants in
country D. And, in recent years, India has often found itself in the position of country D, with
civilians suffering at the hands of men with illegal weapons produced in a country where the first
sale in the chain was legal. Yet, the countries in which the weapons were first manufactured take
no responsibility for their use later in the chain. Currently, in the absence of an Arms Trade
Treaty there is nothing that can be done to stop this. However, if the ATT is signed, India could
establish obligations for all countries in the supply chain of these weapons. The whole weapons
chain needs to be tackled, not just the last link.
Where do weapons come from?
India is part of a region that is flooded with arms. According to the United Nations, India is
home to about 40 million firearms. The primary source for the proliferation of weapons in south
Asia was the first Afghanistan war, with a further arms source in south-east Asia. The known
countries of origin of illicit arms uncovered in north-east India are: China, USA, Russia,
Belgium, UK, Czeckoslovakia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Thailand, Cambodia, and Bangladesh.
Many of these weapons have ended up with non-state actors in India. The biggest arms haul
destined for India to date was seized off the coast near Chittagong in Bangladesh, in April 2004.
The haul – worth an estimated US$4.5m–$7m – included around 2,000 automatic and semi-
automatic weapons, among them 1,290 Type 56-1/Type 56-2 Kalashnikov-type assault rifles;
150 T-69 rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers; quantities of 40mm RPG ammunition;
25,000 hand-grenades; and 1.8m rounds of small-arms ammunition. The shipment came via
Hong Kong to Singapore8. According to Bangladeshi press reports, it included weapons of both
Israeli and US manufacture. The shipment was then transported north through the Strait of
Malacca to be transferred in the Bay of Bengal to two trawlers, the Kazaddan and Amanat, which
ferried the weaponry to a jetty on the Karnapuli River, Chittagong. Most of the weapons that
were seized in Chittagong were reportedly destined for the armed groups operating in north-east
India. To date there is no explanation as to where those weapons are. An Arms Trade Treaty will
require countries to be responsible for the ultimate destination of such weapons. As things stand,
we can trace a lost suitcase more easily than a weapon that has moved from the legal to illegal
trade.
A Gun Runner’s Route Source of weapons:
I) Tammu Bazaar, at the Indo–Burmese border II) Mandalay Price of the weapons: Rs 600 for a
Chinese hand-grenade; Rs 25 per unit for ammunition. Place to be supplied: The gun runner was
due to supply to a woman based in Churachandpur in Manipur, north-east India, from where it
would be sent to Dimapur in Nagaland, another state in north-east India. Source: B. Nepram,
South Asia's Fractured Frontier (Mittal Publications, 2002).
Easy availability of arms helps fuel the ongoing conflicts – north-east separatists, Kashmiri
separatists, and Naxalites have all been able to get hold of foreign-made weapons through
middlemen. Armed violence by Naxalites has killed 1594 people in 2005.9 Naxalite groups now
have access to the AK series of rifles, landmines, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs),
among others. Though there are also ‘Cottage industry’ pistols, known as ‘kattas’ produced using
a variety of ordinary items, including plumbing pipes and jeep steering columns these home-
made weapons lack the ‘quality’ of foreign-made weapons and are a disappointing second choice
for men who want to achieve power through fear and violence.

The rise of insecurity

The spread of illegal arms in India is fuelling demand for legal arms, as desperate citizens seek
refuge in the false promise that arming themselves will protect them from attack. The majority of
the estimated 40 million firearms in India are in civilian possession. In the Indian state of Uttar
Pradesh alone, there are 900,000 arms licence holders, and the number of arms dealers is at
present pegged at around 1,400. In the words of a gun dealer , ‘Gun shops are mushrooming in
the state like public telephone booths’.10 Such insecurity exacerbates poverty: the promises set
out in the Government of India’s Common Minimum Programme (CMP) cannot be met in the
context of instability fuelled by uncontrolled weapons. The lack of an international Arms Trade
Treaty is exacerbating this crisis by making it easier for criminals and militants in India to obtain
weapons.
Efforts to tackle the problem
India has laws governing small arms but these have not been able to prevent a flood of arms.
According to the latest official report available, the Ministry of Home Affairs Annual Report
2001–2002, a drive to curb unlicensed and illicit arms in June 2001 saw only 30 people arrested.
In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, criminals have established substantial armed groups. Despite its
stringent regulation of arms transfers, exports and imports, India still faces the problem of
weapons which are smuggled into the country by various groups. The seizures of these weapons,
though not by any means a true measure of the real extent of illicit weapons trafficking, assist the
authorities in a statistical assessment of the size of the problem. For example, in Jammu and
Kashmir and the north-eastern areas alone, the security forces have, since 1990, seized
approximately 39,000 AK series (see box below). The markings and types of weapons
confiscated clearly indicate that these are brought into India through illicit channels from outside
the country. ‘Arms captured in Jammu and Kashmir can equip nearly four to five divisions of
battalions in India. In Bihar a pistol can be bought for a price varying from Rs 2500 to Rs 4000
while a carbine fetches Rs 5,000. An AK rifle costs 1 lakh and more. In the state of Manipur, an
armed group, the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) has over 2,500 weapons in its
armoury. This includes grenade launchers, assault rifles of the AK series, rocket propelled guns’
(Air Commodore Prashant Dikshit (Retd), Defence Analyst).

Recovery of Arms from Terrorists/ Militants in Jammu and

Kashmir, 1990–2004
AK Rifles & Pistols: 36, 273
Universal Machine Guns: 996
Rocket Launchers: 774
Source: Ministry of Home Affairs Report, 2003–2004
On 15 January 2005, the Indian army seized a huge cache of arms in the state of Manipur in the
north-east. Raids on the ‘general headquarters’ of the Peoples’ Liberation Army, the biggest
armed group in Manipur, led to the recovery of 77 weapons, including 56 Kalashnikov rifles.
The box below lists types of arms seized in India
Types of Arms Seized in India 1. M 14 9. Pistols/revolvers 2. M 16 10.
Chinese hand-grenades 3. M 20 11. Rocket-propelled grenades 4. M 22 12.
Rocket launchers 5. G-series 13.
Sten-guns 6. AK-47/56/74 14.
General purpose machine guns
7. Light machine guns 15.
Self-launching rifles 8. Carbines 16. Air defence guns
India cannot tackle this problem through domestic legislation alone but needs other countries to
play their part too, and the best framework for this is an international Arms Trade Treaty that
would commit all countries to shared standards and promote responsibility throughout the
weapons supply chains. The ATT would oblige states to ensure that all arms transfers are
authorised by all governments involved in the transfer. This is quite simply the requirement that
states exercise control over the weapons that pass, by any means, from their jurisdiction to
another jurisdiction. It means that each agreement for the provision of weapons must be
reviewed individually, and each scrutinised in light of other obligations under international law.
An Arms Trade Treaty would make it harder for weapons to move from the legal to illegal trade
and would help make India safer.

India’s defence industry

India has the largest defence industry on the subcontinent (see the figure below which illustrates
defence expenditure over recent years). This makes the country's stateowned munitions factories
a significant source of arms exports to smaller neighbouring nations, such as Nepal, Myanmar
(Burma), and the Maldives.12 The Government is now seeking a more global scope for arms
exports. India is also the largest arms importer in the developing world, purchasing some $15bn
in weapons every year, a figure expected to rise to $50bn by 2015, and is now developing closer
ties with other international arms suppliers. In the past several years, the Government of India
has ushered in phased liberalisation to the defence industry. According to the Defence Minister,
the Government has come up with a policy on strengthening arms production. In a recent speech
the Minister said: ‘Today, India is going through an epochal transformation and is emerging as a
formidable economic and political power. We are confident in facing the global challenges in the
new economic milieu and are moving forward to scale greater heights. While India's progress on
the economic front is a welcome sign, it needs to equally address its strategic and security
concerns. India needs to become self-reliant in Defence Production to effectively meet the fast
changing ground realities of defence operations.

India and Nepal

India was for several years the biggest supplier of arms and ammunition to Nepal. This
continued even after the takeover of power by the King, and some of these arms were used to
suppress a peaceful movement for democracy led by the leaders from the seven parliamentary
parties and civil society. Although India justified the sales on the grounds that weapons were
needed to confront violence by Maoists, the conflict actually saw a rise in Maoist support and
power. The legacy of those sales was such a thorn in Nepal–India relations that in June 2006
India agreed to cancel all the arms debt inherited by the new Government – a reported 100 crore
rupees – as well as make substantial new aid pledges, so that, in retrospect, it is plain that the
sales failed to meet even the narrowest financial objectives. Yet India felt that it had little choice
about whether to arm the Nepali King’s dictatorship because, as the well-known argument goes,
even if India refused to sell arms to Nepal, another country would not hesitate to do so. This is
exactly what happened. In July 2005, India and a number of other countries eventually
suspended military supplies in protest at the King’s takeover, and China and other countries
moved to provide alternative supplies. China dispatched truckloads of arms and ammunition to
Nepal, and Nepal’s army chief Pyar Jung Thapa also visited Pakistan where he was reported to
have accepted a Pakistani offer of training for Nepalese troops. Thus a progressive move by
India to uphold peace and prevent the fuelling of conflict was thwarted by the lack of any global
agreement on the regulations of arms transfers; in plain terms, the lack of an ATT undermined
India’s foreign policy.
The UN’s 2005 Human Development Report notes: ‘Putting the threat posed by violent conflict
at the heart of the development agenda is an imperative, not just to save lives today but to save
the future costs of humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and reconstruction – and to reduce the global
threats posed by a failure to advance human security, an ATT would establish a common set of
legally-binding international standards, which would prevent competitor arms export countries
from stepping in to supply arms when responsible exporters will not. An Arms Trade Treaty
would not challenge India’s national security nor impede India’s capacity for self-defence.

Conclusion
The arms trade is out of control, fuelling conflict and poverty around the world. There is an
emerging call for the governments of the world to agree to an international Arms Trade Treaty
(ATT). India should back this call for an Arms Trade Treaty because: • The Global Principles of
the Arms Trade Treaty reflect India’s values and Constitution • Lack of regulation of the
international arms trade is hurting India’s citizens • An Arms Trade Treaty would not end India’
s arms production and trade but only require good practice by all countries. Indian Nobel
Laureate Amartya Sen wrote in the International Herald Tribune in June 2006: ‘My own country,
India, has good reason to use whatever influence it has, especially with the growing recognition
of its importance in the global world. This is not only because reduction of armed conflicts fits
well into the global objectives that were championed by India when it struggled for
independence and sought a global voice, but also because India itself suffers a great deal from
the illicit movement of arms that feed local insurrections and terrorist acts’. 17 In a world awash
with uncontrolled weapons of death and destruction, it is time to find solutions. A globally-
agreed understanding to regulate the arms trade can be a way out of the crisis. India’s leadership
in this is critical because it is a victim but also because its voice is heard by the G8 and the rest of
the developing world. India’s role at the UN General Assembly in October 2006 will be closely
watched by the world. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is conscious of India’s global
presence. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in 2004, he noted, ‘ What is required for the
international community to successfully deal with global challenges, whether they be security
challenges, economic challenges or challenges in the sphere of the environment, are the
existence of international institutions and a culture of genuine multilateralism…each of us has to
be prepared to take on new obligations and larger responsibilities relevant to the needs of our
times…we are confident that in an inextricably interdependent world that we live in, our
commitment to the common good…will be resolute and firm.
• Firearms trafficking, or gunrunning occurs almost in every region of the world, but is focused
specially in war zones or territories affected by high levels of violence and organized crime
activities. • The flow trend of firearms trafficking occurs mainly from developed countries to
developing countries. The main suppliers of weapons are, in order, the United States, Russia,
China, France Italy and Germany. The main receivers of illegal weapon trade are developing
nations, especially in Africa, Middle East and Latin America. • The smuggling of weapons in
conflict zones has destabilized several regions, and currently boosts the rise of extremist groups
and, therefore, global insecurity. The main effects in terms of violence and political instability
are observed in Africa, where efforts to consolidate democracy are constantly undermined by
intense corruption, criminal activity and flows of trafficked firearms. • The border between the
United States and Mexico is the main hotspot for firearms trafficking in the Western
Hemisphere. The fact that the proportion of handguns vs. firearms seized in the border is similar
to the proportion seized inside Mexico, indicates that there is a constant trafficking flow across
the border, feeding the fire capacity demands of Mexican criminal networks. The convergence of
(i) a legal gun market across the United States, (ii) intense drug trafficking activity, and (iii)
complex criminal networks operating across Mexico, make the US-Mexico border and
“hyperborder”32 with several trafficking flows that include movement of humans (specially
migrants), money, arms, drugs and hydrocarbons. • While most of illegal gun suppliers are
private actors and entities, evidence suggests that the involvement of governments, deliberatively
arming groups of nations in conflict, intensifies the global trafficking and destabilization of
several countries.