Armed for the price of a sandwich Calls for tighter controls as cheap guns flood Africa ANALYSIS

Earlier this month, a study by the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that worldwide spending on equipment meant to maim or kill had last year topped dollar-1 trillion, or pounds-560bn, for the first time.

That's about pounds-100 on arms for every person alive.

The US alone accounted for almost 50-per cent of the global total, mainly because of soaring spending on its war on terror. Needless to say, arms companies are raking in the money from the heightened demand with sales at the top 100 firms up 25-per cent in 2003 on the year before.

It is little wonder then, amid this ocean of military hardware, that human rights campaigners will today call on the G8 leaders to end the arms trade to unstable regimes and help the poorest escape their privation and persecution.

Their argument goes: what is the point of ploughing in billions of pounds in aid and wiping out similar amounts in debt relief if the people the money is helping are being tortured and killed by unsavoury elements, even rulers, who buy their military hardware from the world's richest nations?

It may seem strange that while there is a legallybinding, global agreement on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, there is not a similar one on conventional arms - which account for far more injuries and deaths.

While there is international support for the UN programme of action on small arms and light weapons, it clearly is not effective and does not go nearly far enough to stem the tide.

In spring, the Commission for Africa published a report, which called on the G8 to begin the process of developing an arms trade treaty (ATT), which would end the illicit trade in conventional weapons and tighten up the legitimate one.

It pointed out that several of the makers, exporters and brokers of arms to Africa were actually to be found in the G8 and EU.

However, on a more positive note, it said that there was a gathering consensus for a new deal and, indeed, many African nations were already trying to improve the control of weapons already circulating in their countries.

For example, in February at a meeting called by the Tanzanian government in Dar es Salaam, representatives of 31 governments agreed that "as a minimum, states must ensure that all transfers should consider the risk that exported arms might be used in the commission of serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, including the risk that such arms might be diverted into the wrong hands such as terrorists and that may affect regional and/or internal security and stability".

But while governments might be willing to clamp down, there are often the nefarious middlemen to contend with. The commission's report noted: "Arms brokers play a major role in supplying weapons to African conflict zones.

"A number of countries such as the US, Belgium, Estonia and Finland have controls on brokering, including extra-territorial activities, but elsewhere controls often do not cover extra-territorial aspects."

In a speech following the commission's report, Jack Straw, who is pressing for an ATT and will lead the charge tomorrow at a meeting of G8 foreign ministers, highlighted the current sorry state of affairs with three examples.

The first was how it was estimated that in the Congo alone, where six years of armed conf lict had left millions dead, there were up to 800,000 illegal small arms.

The second was how conventional weapons in the Sudan were bringing terrible suffering to many thousands.

He pointed out that most of the scores of thousands of people who had died in the conflict "perished not from armed violence but from starvation - but the conditions of starvation have been enforced by guns".

The third was how more than a tenth of El Salvador's annual wealth was lost due to violence - double the amount of government spending there on health and education.

Mr Straw went on to praise the government's own record on arms trading, highlighting legislation that "modernised" the UK's export licence controls.

But campaigners have been less than convinced about that record. Only this month, there were claims from human rights groups that Britain was among international arms suppliers who fuelled serious human rights abuses in Nepal by supplying its government with helicopters and rif les.

Campaigners believe that while some of the G8 leaders might sign up to an ATT, the stumbling block could come with trying to get the US and Russia on board.Yet, hope springs eternal. It has been pointed out that while some nations did not sign up to the 1997 Ottawa Convention on land mines, the international momentum created has meant not a single country has traded in them for the past eight years. Campaigners are hoping that a similar momentum can be created on the transfer of conventional arms.

But even if the arms trade ended tomorrow, the world would still be awash with millions of weapons, many illegal and pointing at its poorest inhabitants.

LOOPHOLES IN LAWS

The Control Arms Campaign's report on exports claims to expose loopholes. It says:

Britain

From January 2003 to June 2004 licensed arms exports to countries with serious human rights concerns, including Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Israel and Indonesia.

Canada

Exports to countries involved in armed conflict or human rights abuse, including light armoured vehicles and helicopters to Saudi Arabia and aircraft engines and handguns to the Philippines.

France

Exports "bombs, grenades, ammunition, and mines" to countries subject to EU arms embargoes such as Myanmar and Sudan.

Germany

The use of German components is found in military equipment destined for countries involved in serious human rights violations such as engines incorporated into military vehicles that have ended up in Myanmar.

Italy

Large quantities of socalled "civilian firearms" sent to Colombia, Congo and China.

Russia

Exports heavy weaponry, including combat aircraft, to places such as Ethiopia, Algeria and Uganda.

America

Military aid given to states carrying out human rights violations including Pakistan, Nepal and Israel.