8/14/2019 Think Piece II

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/think-piece-ii 1/2

Think Piece II

International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights

By: Rona Ysais

September 04, 2009

The international community has been diligent, indeed, in developing treaties and conventions regardingthe proliferation of weapons. In historical context, on 11 November 1868, the first formal agreement

 prohibiting the use of weapon in war was adopted, which is the St. Petersburg Declaration. Since then on,

there have been wide range establishments and adaptations of treaties and conventions that address the

issue. The commonality of all these agreements is that, it does not involve in its mandate the private

companies that produce weapons. The goal of the international community is to alleviate the use, as well

as, the production of weapons. The question is how are they or we going to stop it? Does by having these

myriad treaties and conventions will help?

The arms industry is a global industry and business that manufactures and sells weapons and military

technologies as well as equipments. Arms producing companies also referred to as defense companies or 

military industry. It was said that they are mainly producing for the military forces; we are not born stupid

not to know that these companies engaged in the black market to sell their products. Their Products

include guns, ammunition, missiles, military aircraft, military vehicles, ships, electronic systems, and

more. The arms industry also conducts significant research and development. Do they mean further 

development of weapon that can be use in destruction of humankind?

What is really the essence of having a weapon? For instance, nowadays, people keep in their own homes

a gun, for the purpose of protection. What if that gun “for protection”, handled by a kid and points it to

another person and suddenly pulled the trigger, probably, it will cause death. In the Philippines, even in

America, every year, there is a report that says this kind of instances. There are still many instances that

arms at home have been misused. Is it still for protection?

Furthermore, fatalities are caused by the misuse of weapons regardless of conflict or peace times. We

have known various conflicts from all over the world and ever since in the time of history, weapons are

rampant in the conflict. Used of nuclear bomb can not only cause death of people but also destruction of 

the environment. Another weapon that can cause severe damage to people is the used of asphyxiating gas

or simple destructive gasses, will suffocate to death anyone who inhales it.

Is there any instance(s) that has been recorded in which a conflict has been ended by using weapons?

Does a conflict will really be settled by using of weapons? Some people will agree that, weapons can be a

way of resolving conflicts. But do these people think of the civilians, as well as the environment including

the animals? Are weapons really helpful? Yes, in a sense that it escalates more the conflict. Furthermore,

it triggers to another emergence of conflict. Lastly, it makes the owner of the companies that are

manufacturing weapons filthy rich.

Summer of this year the Stockholm International Peace Research released a data that shows United Stated

as still the largest arm exporter, followed by Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. With that,

knowing that they are in the VETO power of the Security Council, who do you think private companies

8/14/2019 Think Piece II

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/think-piece-ii 2/2

that produces arms will be involve in the mandate? Another instance, China has a significant proliferation

of arms. Recipients of China’s technology reportedly include Pakistan and countries that the State

Department says support terrorism, such as North Korea and Iran. Further, China also trade arms with

Africa; some of the arms make their way into the African Conflict. There is an assurance that companies

that produces weapons will not be involve in the mandate as long as the States with VETO power are in

the position to impede such decision.

The concentration of states, instead of propagating peace, is to make way to different rise of conflicts. The

“war on terror” campaign of the United States during President Bush Administration, for some instance it

did de-escalate some conflicts, however the terrorist was challenge in a sense that there are still conflicts,

after the “war on terror” campaign, rise and became much stronger. No matter how many campaigns

against terror and war by the international community, if there is still wide spread proliferation of arms

still all this conflicts will not be resolve.

 Now a day, weapons are not only for the adults however more for the children involve in armed conflict.

Children at their young age, instead of pen and paper for school, what they have in their arms are

weapons for killings. These child soldiers are trained very hard to kill and cause chaos, as long as there is

 proliferation of arms, instances like this will not be resolve in due time. If these children will be given

chance to reintegrate with the society, probably they will be train to make a better living than put

theirselves in hell.

Weapons, indeed, promote death and conflict but not peace. Weapons promote inequality and hierarchy,

for those who have the weapons they have the power to control over those who do not have access with it.

They enslave whoever they want and eventually, they enslave theirselves in a sense that they are not

making a better world to live in, but a world that will also bring them to their grave.

In a personal note, I think, war can be ended by stopping the proliferation of arms of different kinds. Amuch peaceful way of living a life is that an assurance that there is absence of the weapons that can cause

or trigger the rise of the conflict. People started everything, and for that they are the ones who can also

end everything and make a better place to live in. People need to be responsible of every act they do.