Small arms: the real weapons of mass destruction?

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.