Alba is a member of the War Studies Department at King’s College, London. She wrote this piece as part of her internship with Arts4Refugees. Her motivation was to help her peer group understand the unique experiences of post-conflict communities. This article was edited by Cassia Jefferson, a fellow student journalist from Oxford University.
Backstory podcast
The post-conflict weaponry dilemma: lessons for Ukraine and beyond
In the wake of war, nations grapple with reconstructing infrastructure, institutions and communities. Yet in the slowly settling dust of explosions, a less obvious challenge emerges: illegal arms networks form amidst the chaos, threatening both civilian lives and state sovereignty. Originally intended as a counteroffensive against aggressive belligerents, the same weapons can perpetuate unrest in the shape of organised and violent crime, and enter black markets for weaponry worldwide.
While Ukraine is receiving substantial ammunition from NATO to defend itself against Russia, concerns are being voiced about the fate of the weapons after the war finally ends. As witnessed in numerous post-conflict communities, the proliferation of arms can pose severe threats to lasting peace and nation rebuilding. To ensure a stable plan of action, decision-makers must address the weaponry dilemma respective to each possible outcome of the conflict. While the war remains to be concluded, lessons must be drawn from other post-conflict communities to tackle the issue of how to deal with preexisting weapon stockpiles after arms have been laid aside.
Ukraine’s Current Situation
Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, NATO countries have supplied Ukraine with large amounts of weaponry. These include Stinger missiles, tanks, fighting vehicles, artillery rocket systems, drones, depleted-uranium shells and cluster munitions. In 2024, they will also receive F-16 fighter aircraft and long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems. However helpful these may be to bolster Ukraine’s defence against Russia, officials have raised concerns about the potential of these weapons to escalate the conflict if they end up in the wrong hands. Head of Interpol Jürgen Stock has warned that they may be obtained by criminals through the global hidden economy.
Lessons from the past: Afghanistan and Libya
Afghanistan
Afghanistan serves as a stark reminder of the damage which can be caused by weapons obtained by maleficent forces. The US initially supplied weapons with an estimated worth of $28 billion to support the mujahideen in their resistance against Soviet aggression. However, following the retreat of the US military from Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban seized large caches of weapons intended for the Afghan forces.
These weapons are reportedly appearing on the border between India and Pakistan, sold to separatist insurgent groups by Taliban merchants. So far, tens of thousands of people have been killed since the beginning of the Kashmir-conflict in the 1990s, and the influx of high-tech black market weapons will further destabilise the region. Experts fear that the same weapons may end up in Syria, Yemen and parts of Africa – all the while financially supporting the oppressive Taliban-regime in Afghanistan.
Libya
Libya’s poorly regulated weapon stockpiles jeopardised peacekeepers, aid workers, and locals. In the wake of Muammar Gaddafi's ousting, nearly $120 million worth of UK-supplied armaments acquired since 2005 remained perilously unmonitored. The ensuing NATO bombings ironically targeted the very weapons that its member nations had previously exported to the dictator over decades. Notable among these suppliers were France and Germany, which respectively made $3.2bn and $1.4bn in profits on arms deals between 1970 and 2009. In addition, EU states sold weapons for a total of €834m between 2005 and 2009. On top of these Western contributions, a great share of weaponry was bought from the USSR (later Russia) and Belarus.
With such vast and practically unguarded stockpiles left behind post-Gaddafi, Libya turned into a veritable gold mine for insurgent groups on the hunt for weaponry. Between 2012-13, there was an uncontrolled proliferation of arms spread through illicit trafficking to non-state opposition groups in other conflict zones. The Peace Research Institute Oslo published a detailed report stating that the weapon flux from Libya had significant effects in Mali and Sinai, supplying armed insurgents with previously unavailable types of arms. The report also revealed that large amounts were trafficked to Gaza, Syria and nonstate groups in North Africa. However, the report concludes that the trafficking from Libya has decreased in the last decade due to regional and international measures: “domestic stocks of arms were insufficient to meet domestic demand, making illicit exports less attractive.”
International efforts
The 2021 UN Security Council
Weapon proliferation remains an issue for the international community and demands significant mitigating efforts. In 2021, the UN Security Council held a meeting on the spread of small arms and its effect on civilians in multiple conflict zones, raising concerns about human rights abuses, transnational organised crime and terrorism. The senior United Nations disarmament official stressed that the illicit trade of armaments undermines peace and security on multiple levels and severely affects vulnerable populations in conflicted areas.
Seven out of thirteen peacekeeping operations at the time of the meeting were being carried out in Africa. Five of these were in the Central African region, including the Central African Republic, Somalia, South Sudan and Mali. Strengthening the fight against the proliferation of illicit weapons would go a long way in reducing the need for peace operations, noted Badreldin Elamin Abdelgadir, Executive Secretary of the Regional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, Horn of Africa and Bordering States.
Several representatives also emphasised the need to address sexual and gender-based violence triggered by the illegal arms trade and stressed the disproportionate impact on women and children. Weapon proliferation in Somalia and South Sudan has made women and girls more exposed to exploitation, oppression and human trafficking.
In 2014, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was established “to prevent and eradicate illicit trade and diversion of conventional arms by establishing international standards governing arms transfers.” 112 states have ratified the treaty, but some of the largest arms exporters such as the United States and Russia are yet to do so. Weapons worth billions are still being transferred to countries where they may be used to commit violent crimes and human rights breaches. Especially after war, armaments inflation hinders the stable rebuilding and healing of affected communities in which people are killed, injured and forced into migration because of armed violence. These repercussions can last much longer than the conflicts themselves.
Investigative reports following the horrific Paris attacks in 2015 revealed the shocking ease with which terrorists could buy weapons within European borders. Inconsistent EU legislation and chronic bureaucratic failures inadvertently proliferated the black market arms trade. An initial push by the EU in 2008 for more stringent measures regulating assault rifles was largely unsuccessful, as this proposed legislation did not include simulated alarm weapons which fire blanks. In 2013, Slovak authorities highlighted how easily these modified weapons can be reconverted into lethal armaments. Despite such warnings, there was no significant action from the EU until the dismal results of these investigations emerged in 2015. The thriving illegal arms trade in Europe underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive and equitable approach to gun control across all member states. Such measures would help reduce the likelihood of terror attacks as devastating as those seen in France eight years ago.
A need for post-war planning in Ukraine
The conflict in Ukraine raises the same issues. At some point, there will be an end to the war. No matter the circumstances, the weaponry dilemma is unavoidable.
Although NATO and Ukraine officials are careful to publicly discuss any possible scenario where Kyiv might have to compromise or face defeat, how the arms flux is handled will define the future of post-conflict Ukraine. For the soldiers on the front line, the children hiding in bunkers and the families seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, the main priority will be reconstructing their homes and communities. But a heavy flow of weapons might hinder this process. All the attention is focused on the visible enemy attacking Ukraine’s borders, but someone must take accountability for the invisible threat growing within the nation itself. As history has shown on multiple instances, the weapons transferred into warzones will eventually be redirected to attack supplier countries unless adequate precautionary measures are taken. That’s the weaponry dilemma- a paradox that needs to be addressed.
References
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/arms-control/
https://thearmstradetreaty.org/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/26/gadaffis-arms-stockpile
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-weapons-afghanistan-taliban-kashmir-rcna67134
https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15406.doc.htm
https://press.un.org/en/2021/sc14656.doc.htm
Thank you for reading an A4R 🎨 Post. Don’t forget to share it with your friends and family.