Doctor Fred Chuck Parker saw
the effect of small arms up close
when he served in Vietnam.
Today he heads up NATO’s Arms
Control and Co-ordination Section,
which attempts to help countries
tackle the threats
of surplus or unstable light arms.
We talk about weapons
of mass destruction.
For some the true weapons of mass
destruction are smaller weapons
because to a large extent weapons
of mass destruction are not usable.
They are so destructive
that hopefully that remains the case.
But unfortunately,
small arms are quite usable.
Last year, 750,000 people
died from small arms.
And we’re not talking about wars.
Two thirds died outside of wars.
You’re talking about 200 million
weapons. That’s phenomenal.
And our own estimates
are maybe 70 million of those
there’s no reason
that you can justify having them.
What problems do
excess weapons cause?
This leads to a problem
that has two results.
One result is that…
because there are so many of them
and because they are poorly stored
and secured, they can be stolen.
These weapons that should ensure
your national power, disappear.
We’ll never get rid of this problem
because it’s too lucrative.
But we can make the playing field
more difficult for the criminals.
What about other threats?
The other is that they are
badly stored, in terms of safety.
And they are mixed,
so it’s not just small arms.
They store small arms ammunition
with artillery ammunition,
and they’re stored together,
and over time these things
deteriorate. They become unstable.
So they are unsafe.
So, you have not only a problem
with them being stolen,
but a problem with safety.
So, they can
detonate spontaneously
or because
somebody makes a mistake.
In the last decade,
in North America and Europe,
there have been 60 detonations.
Is enough attention being given
to eliminating manpads?
The impact of a single manpad
shooting down an airliner…
Not only the death
of the people on the plane,
but the impact on travel
but on the economies
would be a terrible
economic worldwide impact
to shoot down
an airliner with a manpad.
So, because the impact is so great,
we can’t afford that.
So, anything less
than perfection is not enough.
Can we account for every
man-portable system out there?
No. Are there some
out there missing? Yes.
Is destroying weapons
still too expensive?
Any sort of society
that is trying to develop
has problems
with small arms and light weapons.
And the costs are terrible.
If we were not to fight this,
these numbers would grow.
And they would grow geometrically.
And we’d be forced
to take on this issue
and the cost would be… would
skyrocket, more than they are now.
It’s not so much the cost of doing it,
it’s the cost of not doing it.
That would be terrible.
There are many nations
now seeking assistance because,
once again, it costs money
to take care of this problem. So…
What you see is a tiered approach,
both from the United Nations
and actually in our own efforts,
we try to come up with simple
solutions to make things better,
and then as you go up to scale
to try to make things perfect.
How does NATO’s Trust Fund help?
The Trust Fund is a very useful tool
because it allows nations that
perhaps have a small contribution
and they might not make
it because it’s too small,
but you can pool those contributions
and have it administered by our
Maintenance and Supply Agency
that has a great deal of expertise,
so they will make sure
that the money gets spent
how it is supposed to get spent.
And then we have outcomes.
We have destroyed 427,000
small arms and light weapons.
We have destroyed
105 million rounds of ammunition.
2 million hand-grenades.
We’ve destroyed 24,000
tons of various other munitions.
And you’ll recall that I said
that the ammunition is stored badly,
not only small arms, but rocket
propelled grenades, mortars,
artillery ammunition,
all stored together.
We’ve destroyed
a thousand manpads
and then 9,000 rockets and missiles.
How has NATO tackled
this problem in Afghanistan?
We started a project
three years ago, in May of 2008,
and finished last April
on physical security
and stockpile management
in Afghanistan.
And the idea is
to work on Afghan capacity
to do it themselves
rather than us doing it for them.
Now, part of this project ended up
constructing 12 depots, basically,
that meet all kinds
of international standards,
where you can store
400 pallets of ammunition,
there are maintenance facilities
to take care of the ammunition.
And we had an enormous amount
of specialist training.
So, now we believe that Afghanistan
is in a much better place
to deal with this issue themselves.
How would you summarise
NATO’s work in this area?
NATO doesn’t direct it. We don’t
order anybody to do anything.
So, we’re matching recipients and
donors, making the needs known,
and helping donors more efficiently
use their money, which is…
These days money is difficult.
We believe that by focussing
on practical, useful outcomes,
that we make a contribution.