On September 30, 2021, the Forum launched a new resource page for sharing an understanding of law and practices, case studies, potential research avenues and a variety of recommendations related to arms exports that are below Congressional notification thresholds (or simply not required). We welcome additional information, suggestions, and commentary here.
|
0 Comments
Video of event available at https://youtu.be/llgsmpLNkdE?t=247
This event was hosted by the Forum on the Arms Trade and the Security Assistance Monitor. Panelists and recommended resources
Opening Remarks and Presentations (time indicated when remarks begin)
Q&A
Concluding Comments
Event Recap: Legal Approaches to Reduce Gun Violence -- Mexican and U.S. Strategies, August 18, 20218/30/2021 Video of event available at https://youtu.be/cg3WshmbtfI?t=124
This recap should not be quoted directly and does not fully describe the nuances of comments made. Please listen to video for direct quotations. The Forum thanks Lauren Speiser for the notes and initial draft of this recap. Panelists are not responsible for the summaries provided here. This event was hosted by the Network to Prevent Gun Violence in the Americas, the Forum on the Arms Trade, the Giffords Law Center, and Global Exchange Panelists
Welcome and Opening Remarks: John Lindsay-Poland described Mexican gun violence as an “unprecedented and growing humanitarian crisis.” (link) He then spoke about the Mexican government’s unprecedented lawsuit (filed August 4th) against 11 US gun manufacturers and distributors, who allege that those companies are responsible for much of the violence occurring in Mexico. Lindsay-Poland briefly introduced the panelists and provided descriptions of their recent work. Panel: Each panelist gave an overview of their unique expertise regarding the legalities and challenges in current U.S.-Mexico gun relations.
Q&A:
Final comments:
Additional resources:
 click for video (first event in series: Exploration of Arms Reduction and Jobs)
Video of event available at https://youtu.be/0rwErPjE16k Panelists discussed their work individually around weapons divestment campaigns, ethical investor advising, and communities finding employment alternatives to the defense industry. Jeff Abramson, Director of the Forum on the Arms Trade and senior fellow at the Arms Control Association, kicked off the event (3:43) with an introduction of panelists and a recognition that, because there are real people and jobs tied to the arms manufacturing industry, a full conversation about divestment must take into account employment alternatives and ways forward to ensure a smooth transition. Lillian Mauldin, founding member of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency, then spoke about Women for Weapons Trade Transparency’s efforts to convince the University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) to divest from their $52.5 million worth of weapons manufacturers debt and equity securities in their Permanent University Fund as of August 2020 (7:47). She discussed how these investments are currently putting UTIMCO at significant risk of financial, legal, and reputational loss, due to the numerous lawsuits and human rights law violations brought against many of the weapons manufacturers in which UTIMCO is currently invested. She discussed precedent for the implementation of screens to prevent investments in weapons manufacturers; touching on examples of Norway's Government Pension Fund and Eventide Asset Management. Addressing employment concerns brought by some engineering students at UT Austin regarding UTIMCO’s potential divestment, Lillian emphasized that UTIMCO’s investments were purely as a result of their fiduciary duty to the UT System, and not a result of their desire to build relationships with certain companies or funds. Finally, Lillian discussed Women for Weapons Trade Transparency’s plan to take the campaign to the UT System Board of Regents following UTIMCO’s denial of capability to implement policy suggestions aligned with divestment. See also:
Rich Stazinski, Executive Director of the Heartland Initiative, discussed Heartland’s work to help institutional investors better understand risks of investing in companies involved in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (15:08). He discussed historical precedent for socially responsible investment, including colonial-era Quaker opposition to prisons, Protestant refusal to invest in nuclear weapons in the 1960s, South African resistance to apartheid in the 1980s, and the development of concern with harm to civilians that developed in the 1990s. Rich elaborated on the differences between screening and divestment. Generally speaking, divestment is the act of intentionally selling shares of a company as part of a campaign to reprimand them for a proscribed behavior. Screening on the other hand is the removal of companies that are rated as poor performers on Environment, Social or Governance (ESG) or other indicators. This often occurs before shares are ever purchased. Rich referenced the emerging gap in investment screening regarding artificial intelligence and surveillance technologies, noting that current screening practices are not considering these new technologies and a diversified weapons market. Since production for these new technologies is often spread widely across multiple vendors, many companies contributing to modern weaponry are not being captured by existing investment screening. When asked by Lillian what could be done to fill in these gaps, Rich recommended that activists develop relationships with technical experts and asset owners so that all parties understand the evolving landscape. Finally, Rich commented on conduct-based exclusion in socially responsible investing practices. He remarked that most funds have relied on UN Security Council (UNSC) arms embargoes as standards for exclusion, but due to the highly politicized nature of UNSC proceedings, these designations fail to screen actors. See also:
Atlanta-based journalist Taylor Barnes (website) discussed her work covering defense industry workers and defense communities (22:27). Taylor commented that many defense industry workers during the pandemic were surprised to find out that they were designated as essential workers. She described a video of Anthony, a Fort Worth Lockheed Martin worker who was infected with Covid-19, that went viral among F35 manufacturers in Fort Worth Texas after he called into question Lockheed Martin’s care for its employees. Taylor described her solutions journalism coverage of the transition from defense industry to green economy jobs in Huntsville, Alabama; particularly how one one engineer adapted his understanding of jet engines from his time working on fighter jets to create an innovating new wind energy technology. She recounted how a union leader at a Space Force contractor near Huntsville discussed her reporting live on pro-labor talk radio and told listeners,, “transitioning from defense to climate spending is something that actually helps working people, rather than killing working people overseas.” Lastly, Taylor discussed her latest coverage of community concern in Asheville, North Carolina over the construction of a F-35 engine parts plant for a division of Raytheon. The deal was negotiated without public transparency and the town’s residents only had one hour on one day to voice their opposition in a town hall meeting. A coalition of individuals opposing the deal, Reject Raytheon AVL, believes that the green economy will create far more jobs than the military industrial complex. See also:
During the Q&A, guest commentator William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Program of Center for International Policy, discussed the green economic transition as a political issue (41:40). He commented that, in Congress, supporting the military industrial complex for job creation is the path of least resistance. When asked by Lillian how defense contractors and weapons manufacturers play up job creation in their lobbying and advertising, William described how jobs are put up front in defense industry advertising, and how defense industry lobbyists use jobs as a lobbying tool to encourage representatives to support increased funding for these companies. He also outlined his research finding that job creation numbers are often overinflated, in particular those associated with arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The panel ended with optimistic, forward-looking remarks from panelists. Lillian emphasized the importance of coalition advocacy and solidarity among those who envision a world in which the manufacture, sale, and use of arms and weapons of war has decreased. Indeed, Rich remarked, “The next generation of advocates are even less constrained by convention than those that came before them. The goal isn’t simply to fix our world, but to build a better new one.” Parece que es evidente la consigna del título de este artículo, ya que el desarme humanitario busca reducir el sufrimiento humano. Sin embargo, a lo largo del tiempo, nos hemos dado cuenta de la necesidad de recordarlo, tanto al momento en que se hacen las negociaciones multilaterales o se emprenden nuevas iniciativas locales, es importante poner sobre la mesa que todo lo que se hace es por y para las personas que son constantemente afectadas por la violencia armada en el mundo. ¿Por qué lo digo? Durante el 2020, vimos el fortalecimiento de múltiples iniciativas dirigidas desde el seno de las Naciones Unidas para incorporar las voces de jóvenes de todo el mundo, que nos ayudaran a evidenciar que las dinámicas de la violencia armada son diferentes de acuerdo con los contextos en los que surge, así como en los efectos diferenciados dentro de una misma población. De igual manera, el impulso de la sociedad civil no se hizo esperar, con la creación de redes como la Global IANSA Youth for Gun Control, en el fortalecimiento de la iniciativa Youth Network parte de la Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, o las Voces Emergentes del Forum on the Arms Trade. La urgencia del llamado de “cese al fuego” mundial por parte del Secretario General durante la pandemia por COVID-19, nunca había sido más urgente, pues la emergencia sanitaria estaba evidenciando lo frágiles de nuestras estructuras sociales y si, constantemente, nos encontramos señalando cómo ponemos en condiciones de vulnerabilidad a las poblaciones migrantes, a los niños, niñas y adolescentes, a las mujeres y las personas de la comunidad LGBTQ+, entre otras, entonces el coronavirus nos mostró cuán profundamente estaban arraigados los daños y que tan cotidianamente decidíamos ignorarles. Ahora, sólo tenemos que voltear ligeramente la vista para percatarnos de los resultados catastróficos de la violencia armada bajo una pandemia de la que no se preveían los alcances inmediatos, ni las secuelas. Pero no debemos de sucumbir ante la desesperación. Todas estas circunstancias, nos dan la oportunidad de no seguir repitiendo los mismos discursos en los mismos espacios, sino de abrir canales para escuchar otras visiones y acciones, replantearnos los ejercicios democráticos en donde no sólo es necesario hacer lo que dicen “las voces de las mayorías”, sino que, desde el impulso feminista que también ha permeado nuestro mundo contemporáneo, incluir la palabra de las mal llamadas “minorías” y de aquellas “formas” que tradicionalmente se han ignorado o subestimado. ¿Cómo vamos a entender cuáles son las necesidades de la población objetivo, sino les entendemos como sujetos activos de derechos? Dejemos que los cantos de Brasil de Linda Quebrada y Jup do Bairro nos inunden los sentidos para detectar qué nos falta por atender, que las historias como La Llorona de Guatemala nos cuente de dónde venimos, o que los Scouts nos cuenten por qué los #RobotsAsesinos son parte de una realidad que pronto nos alcanzará en América Latina. Esta semana del 26 al 29 de abril se llevan a cabo los Grupos de Trabajo del Tratado sobre el Comercio de Armas, de cara a la Séptima Conferencia de Estados Partes del Tratado, que se espera suceda del 30 de agosto al 03 de septiembre de este 2021. Desde la sociedad civil y la Academia estaremos dando seguimiento a las discusiones que se pondrán en las mesas de trabajo para la prevención del desvío de armamento convencional, la promoción y adopción de medidas que transparenten las transferencias de estas mercancías entre los Estados, así como la búsqueda de formas de implementar las disposiciones del Tratado de manera aterrizada al interior de cada uno de los países de acuerdo a sus circunstancias particulares. Todo esto en aras de que, en algún momento, los Estados acuerden comprometerse para avanzar en el camino de evitar el sufrimiento humano. Particularmente, el Tratado sobre el Comercio de Armas abre la oportunidad de revisar las exportaciones que se realicen por parte de los países, resaltando la importancia de evitar violaciones al derecho internacional de los derechos humanos[1], así como la violencia por motivos de género[2]. Y es precisamente por los efectos tan convulsos que ha evidenciado la pandemia de COVID-19, que fortalecer y apoyar los pasos de los liderazgos de la sociedad, pero especialmente el de las poblaciones que están siendo afectadas de manera diferenciada, se vuelve pertinente. Estos ejercicios no se deben de ver de facultad exclusiva de los países, sino que es necesario voltear al interior y recuperar cuáles son las preocupaciones de la gente y entonces sí, ampliar el espectro de protección que nos brinda el contenido de este Tratado en particular. La violencia con armas de fuego es un tema primordial en nuestra región. Como Cindy Kamtchoum lo señaló durante las sesiones de octubre de 2020 de Primer Comité de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas: “Escuchen nuestras voces, inclúyanos en los procesos de toma de decisiones que, literalmente, determinan si viviremos.” [1] Tratado sobre el Comercio de Armas, Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, 2 de abril de 2013, art. 7.1.b) ii) [2] Ibid., art. 7.4.
Just before the close of 2020, EU member states’ foreign ministries reached agreement over the set-up of the European Peace Facility (EPF) to pay for "external action having military or defence implications". It is meant to "swiftly respond to crises and conflicts" and "to empower partner countries". Its initial focus is expected to be on Africa, however its potential reach is global. While only half the size of its original ask (due to some nervousness about the basic concept and larger budgetary constraints), the EPF still provides for € 5 billion to be spent over the next seven years, including on controversial ‘train and equip’ packages. By establishing this as an ‘off-budget’ facility, member states are circumventing EU treaties under which the EU budget cannot be used to provide arms. The type of arms envisaged as being suitable for transfer under the EPF include those frequently causing the most harm and most at risk of misuse and diversion in fragile contexts, such as small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition, armoured vehicles, etc.
Civil society organisations, including ours, have long argued against the EPF, as recent history suggests that providing weapons and ammunition to security forces in fragile states is more likely to exacerbate than solve local and regional conflicts. As we argued, along with twelve other organisations in a 2019 letter to the EU foreign policy chief, and in a November 2020 statement from 40 civil society organisations from around the world, we have seen little evidence that military-focused ‘train and equip’ efforts lead to improved peace, justice, and development outcomes. On the contrary, experience demonstrates that this type of military assistance can harm peace and development and rarely provides its intended leverage. It often fails to address the underlying drivers of conflict and can instead be counterproductive, leading to unintended consequences, such as the violent repression of peaceful civil society actions, furthering the impunity of military forces, fomenting military-backed violence and conflict, and corruption. The initial focus of the EPF is likely to be in Africa, possibly in the Sahel, where Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger have set up a joint force known as the G5 with 5,000 troops to confront jihadists. Somalia and the Central African Republic have also been mentioned as potential beneficiaries. Whereas German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas calls the EPF “a fundamental investment in peace and stability that will allow the EU and its partners to effectively and flexibly address international crises”, there is reason to be wary that the EPF will be used to advance the interests of EU member states more than and potentially at the expense of the security of the people affected by crises. Time and again we have seen examples of military aid transferred to further European geopolitical interests rather than in support of the human security needs of people in fragile states. Recent statements by key European figures strengthen such fears. Speaking about the EPF in February 2020, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated: "We need guns, we need arms, we need military capacities and that is what we are going to help provide to our African friends because their security is our security. […] We are not going to grow, we are not going to invest, we are not going to create jobs without stability". In December 2020, President Emmanuel Macron of France (which has been a leading proponent of the EPF) said in a joint press conference with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi that he “will not condition matters of defence and economic cooperation on ... disagreements (over human rights).” While this was not in the direct context of the EPF, it nevertheless raises obvious and significant concerns about how the EPF will be used. Beyond its fundamental conceptual failings, the EPF as it stands now also has numerous operational shortcomings. These include a lack of transparency, both in decision-making as well as public reporting; weak and permissive safeguards against ‘misuse’; a lack of meaningful involvement of local people affected by crises and insecurity (in support of whom EPF actions will ostensibly be undertaken), at any point in the process; and a weak due-diligence framework to ensure the Facility’s activities are conducted in accordance with international law. Instead of establishing a strong framework of safeguards within the EPF itself to pritoritise the protection of civilians and their rights, member states have instead chosen to push decisions on these matters downstream, such that they will be decided politically for each assistance measure under the Facility. This means that maintaining high standards on arms transfers, strict application of international law and effective oversight will be vulnerable to political pressure and excessive secrecy. The unresolved weaknesses of the EPF are risking the EU’s self-styled reputation as a force for good. However, little resistance to its adoption is expected from either the European Parliament or national parliaments, if they have a say at all. Therefore, as so often, it seems it will fall to civil society to hold member states to account. Roy Isbister heads the Arms Unit at Saferworld, based in the United Kingdom, leading their work on conventional arms. Frank Slijper leads the Arms Trade project at PAX, based in the Netherlands.
It seems like we’ve been here before. This year, the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) hopes to take the UK Government to court, seeking a Judicial Review over its decision last July to continue arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies in the war in Yemen, in spite of the devastating human toll exacted by that conflict, and the overwhelming evidence of gross and repeated violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by the Coalition.
Didn’t CAAT just win a case like this a year or so ago? Yes, indeed. The story so far: In June 2019, the Court of Appeal, overturning a previous High Court decision, ruled that the process by which the government made decisions on export licences to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen was “irrational and unlawful”. Specifically, Criterion 2c of the government’s Consolidated Criteria on arms exports states that an export licence shall be refused if there is a “clear risk” that the equipment “might be used” for serious violations of IHL. Yet, the government had not even attempted an assessment of past patterns of violations of IHL by Saudi Arabia and the Coalition. Instead, it had relied on its ongoing engagement with and training of the Saudi government and military to conclude there was no “clear risk”. The Court of Appeal rejected this absurd position, that a previous record of violations was irrelevant to an assessment of future risk, and the government had to stop issuing new licences to Coalition states for possible use in Yemen, and to retake all past licencing decisions on a lawful basis. (However, existing licences, including indefinite Open General licences, were not cancelled, allowing BAE Systems’ extensive support for the Saudi Air Force to continue unabated). A year later, in July 2020, the government announced that it had completed its review, and concluded that all was well, there were only a “small number” of possible violations of IHL among all the hundreds of incidents assessed, and that these were “isolated incidents” that did not constitute any “pattern”. Therefore, there was indeed no “clear risk” of future violations, and that arms sales could continue without any concern for the potential civilian toll this might exact. It is this latest decision that CAAT is challenging. The idea that there have only been a “small number” of violations of IHL flies in the face of a huge body of evidence from UN experts and Yemeni and international NGOs. These organisations have used highly rigorous methodologies and sources, and have access to on-the-ground witnesses, which the UK government does not. The evidence includes repeated bombings of residential areas, schools, hospitals, market places, agricultural targets, and many others, usually with no evidence of any nearby military target . According to the Yemen Data Project, almost a third of the thousands of Coalition air strikes since the bombing began in 2015 have struck civilian targets. The “patterns” of violations are plain to see. The government have provided only the barest outline of how they have reached these, on the face of it, absurd conclusions. They have not said what constitutes a “small number” of cases, or what they mean by a “pattern”, only that the incidents occurred “...at different times, in different circumstances and for different reasons”. The next stage of this saga – which started with CAAT’s initial application to the High Court in 2016 – is for CAAT to seek permission for a new Judicial Review - “JR2” - of the government’s review of licencing in response to CAAT’s victory in the original Judicial Review. This starts again with the High Court, and could yet go all the way to the Supreme Court. (For those not familiar with the UK court hierarchy, check this). While the full Grounds of CAAT’s application are subject to legal confidentiality, the basic premises are straightforward: 1) We challenge the conclusion that there are only a “small number” of cases of violations of IHL, based on the huge volume of evidence above. 2) We likewise challenge the conclusion that there is no “pattern” of violations. 3) We argue that, even if there were no “pattern”, this would not be sufficient to conclude that there is no clear risk of future violations. Even a single incident could constitute a serious violation of IHL, and there can very well be a risk of further “isolated” incidents even so. Since we know so little about the government’s methodology, or even the details of their conclusions, which they say must be kept secret for reasons of national security, we have no idea what evidence the government may or may not have to support its conclusions. If we are granted permission for JR2, most of this evidence will have to be heard in Closed session, where CAAT will be represented by security-cleared Special Advocates, who cannot disclose the content of the sessions to CAAT or our regular lawyers. We do not know, therefore, what secret evidence the government might bring to these closed sessions in an attempt to justify their conclusions. But we find it hard to believe that there is anything that could reasonably gainsay the vast weight of evidence from so many credible and respected sources. The way it appears to us is that, whatever the evidence, and whatever courts have said about previous decision-making processes, the government is determined to find a way to interpret things that allow them to maintain its relationship with the UK’s overwhelmingly largest arms customer, Saudi Arabia, whatever mental and legal gymnastics this may require. We hope that the courts will exhibit similar scepticism. The government must respond to our Grounds for Judicial Review by January 22nd, after which the High Court will decide if, on the basis of these submissions, we have a case. If not, we may still seek a hearing to decide if the case may proceed. If JR2 does get the go-ahead, it will be months yet before it comes to court. The case, as they say, continues. Sam Perlo-Freeman is Research Coordinator at the Campaign Against Arms Trade.
Assistance to victims of antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions has been constantly evolving since it first was included as an obligation in Article 6.3 of the Mine Ban Treaty.
For instance, it is now agreed that:
With this in mind, what developments can we expect on victim assistance in 2021?
In 2021, those of us interested or working on victim assistance can also look forward to:
Undoubtedly, 2021 will also be a challenging year. But It should be one that continues the collective work to ensure we build a more inclusive, accessible world for all – including women, girls, men and boys who are survivors, families of those killed and injured, and the communities affected by all types of weapons. Wanda Muñoz is a member of SEHLAC in Mexico and an inclusion, victim assistance, and humanitarian disarmament expert.
We should know almost immediately if the next U.S. administration will take a more responsible approach to the arms trade. That's because a 30-day Congressional review period on the sale of 7500 precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia will end just after the expected January 20 inauguration of the next President. At that point, the new Biden administration would be able to issue licenses for the sale (unless Congress quickly takes blocking actions before then). If Biden keeps to expectations, he will not issue those licenses. That would be consistent with his October 2 pledge: Under a Biden-Harris administration, we will reassess our relationship with the Kingdom, end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil. If Biden truly wants to uphold values and make U.S. weapons recipients accountable for their actions, his administration could also take steps to slow and suspend major weapons sales to the United Arab Emirates. Less than a month ago, nearly all the Democrats in the Senate made clear their opposition to much of a $23 billion arms package to Abu Dhabi that the Trump administration is attempting to rush forward in its closing days. The UAE, which remains a key partner in the Saudi-UAE coalition in Yemen and is violating the UN arms embargo on Libya, simply should not be receiving U.S. arms at this time.
At present, there is not a clear indication from the incoming President on what he will do with these time-sensitive sales. Whether any of the necessary letters of offer and acceptance (LOAs) have been signed with the UAE that would put contracts in place is not clear, despite Trump administration efforts to move ahead. If not, Biden can delay concluding them. If some LOAs are signed, he can also hold off on delivery, especially for armed drones, precision-guided and other munitions that could be transferred most quickly. While the Abraham Accords offer great promise for improving regional relations in the Middle East, the reward for the accords should be peace and a lessening of prospects for conflict, not the influx of tens of billions in new weaponry. How the U.S. approaches arming yet other countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Israel, Qatar, Bahrain and more, will be closely watched as the Biden team has indicated a desire to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (a.k.a. the Iran nuclear deal). Fueling regional arms races could make that more difficult. Biden has also promised to reverse the Trump administration policy that transferred export oversight for semi-automatic and many other small arms to the Commerce Department, which ended Congressional transparency into such sales. Quick steps to return to the previous policy would also show his administration seeks a more responsible arms trade approach. As the Obama presidency was nearing its end in late 2016 and early 2017, his administration held back on weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Nigeria that the Trump administration later moved forward. It will be promising if Biden renews concerns about arms sales to many regimes with highly problematic human rights records that Trump has supported, including to the Philippines (amongst a long list of countries). Even more telling would be actions to again support the Arms Trade Treaty. An easy early first step would be for the Biden administration to retract the letter Trump sent to the United Nations in 2019 that denied legal obligations from the United States' 2013 signature. Further efforts to honor U.S. signature to the ATT, including to seek ratification of the treaty (as embedded in the 2020 Democratic party platform), may take longer but would also show U.S. dedication to again align itself with nearly all its allies in promoting global norms on responsible arms trade. Jeff Abramson is a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association and manages the Forum on the Arms Trade Taking Comments - A principled and inclusive response to COVID-19, focused on the most at risk7/1/2020 Responding to COVID-19 in a principled and inclusive way requires consideration of the different risks the pandemic poses to vulnerable, marginalized and at-risk individuals and communities, and planning to mitigate those risks. A recent paper, collaboratively developed amongst experts who share humanitarian disarmament as a guiding approach, outlines specific risks and offers suggestions for ensuring we build a better future.A Humanity & Inclusion briefing paper identifies the difficulties COVID-19 poses to at-risk groups, particularly in conflict- and humanitarian-crisis affected areas. It also shows how the tenets of humanitarian disarmament can inform a “principled and inclusive response.”
We invite comments and discussion about this paper, which may be submitted below. |
AboutThe "Looking Ahead Blog" features comments concerning short- to medium-term trends related to the arms trade, security assistance, and weapons use. Typically about 500-1000 words, each comment is written by an expert listed on the Forum on the Arms Trade related to topics of each expert's choosing. Archives
September 2021
Pdf'sMarch 11 (2015)
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed