A Catalogue of Failures:
G8 Arms Exports and Human Rights Violations

For 25 years, US law has stipulated that weapons should be kept out of the hands of governments that will use them to abuse human rights. Yet US commercial arms sales have frequently had the opposite effect. US arms sales directed to developing countries have quadrupled from 2000 to 2001, many of them with forces that persistently abuse human rights. In addition, US military aid is currently furnished to more than 30 countries identified by the US itself as having a “poor” human rights record, or worse.

05/19/03: Amnesty International

1. Introduction

Weak national control of the international transfer of “conventional” arms and security equipment contributes to the persistence of gross human rights violations. Of all the states with inadequate laws and administrative procedures to manage the export, transit and import of such arms – of which there are very many – none are more conspicuous than those states running the world’s largest industrialised economies – the Group of Eight.

Amnesty International is opposed to the transfer of military, security, and police equipment, technology and expertise that can reasonably be assumed will contribute to human rights violations in the receiving country, and has consistently appealed to the G8 governments to abide by this principle which they have long recognised but never fully implemented.

As this study shows, the governments of the G8 authorize unparalleled levels of arms and related assistance to the world’s armed forces and law enforcement agencies, but often to those who persistently commit gross human rights violations – equipping them, emboldening them and rewarding them.

At least two thirds of all global arms transfers in the years 1997-2001 came from five members of the G8.(1) The top supplier of weapons to the world was the United States, accounting for 28 per cent of global arms transfers. Second in line was Russia, with seventeen per cent. Third was France at 10 per cent, followed by Britain at 7 per cent and then Germany with 5 per cent.

For 25 years, US law has stipulated that weapons should be kept out of the hands of governments that will use them to abuse human rights. Yet US commercial arms sales have frequently had the opposite effect. US arms sales directed to developing countries have quadrupled from 2000 to 2001, many of them with forces that persistently abuse human rights. In addition, US military aid is currently furnished to more than 30 countries identified by the US itself as having a “poor” human rights record, or worse.

Almost ten years ago, the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United Kingdom (UK) signed up, with other participating states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), to the Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers. These Principles commit participating states to “avoid transfers which would be likely to be used for the violation or suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” However, an examination of the practices of these seven powerful states falls tragically short of their agreed benchmark.

More recently, France, Germany, Italy and the UK, as Member States of the European Union (EU), committed themselves to the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (adopted 8 June 1998 by the EU Council). Canada, the USA and many other states have declared their general support for the principles of the EU Code. Although it leaves the final decision on exports to be made by national governments, the Code does stipulate that arms should not be exported to countries where there is a clear risk they might be used for internal repression or where serious violations of human rights have occurred. However, evidence so far suggests that this promise is not being fully kept. A binding international arms trade treaty grounded in principles of international law, especially human rights and humanitarian law, rather than an ad hoc voluntary Code would provide potential victims around the world with much greater protection, but only the G8 leaders could decide on that course.

There are almost no legal or regulatory requirements amongst the G8 states for the inclusion of international human rights or humanitarian law content in the various military, security, and police force training services that they provide to states in all world regions. Even where human rights criteria are referred to in laws governing arms export and foreign military and security aid, they are often loosely interpreted. In particular, inadequate attention is given during export decision-making by governments to the long lifecycle of most types of arms and security equipment and technology – and hence to the prolonged risk of abuse.

Instead, it is short term profit making and political advantage that guide the bulk of the international arms trade. Currently, the G8 governments allow companies to engage in secretive, loosely-regulated, international trade in weapons, technologies, and training. Using the excuse of “commercial confidentiality”, the provision of meaningful and timely information to legislators, media and the general public about arms export decisions is lacking, thus undermining parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability of the trade. In addition, companies in the G8 countries have been allowed to establish foreign production facilities, sometimes under licensing arrangements with foreign companies where the licences and their impact are not subject to effective human rights conditionality or oversight. This practice allows G8 companies to evade domestic arms control restrictions by establishing production in foreign countries which have weaker arms export controls.

Some companies in the G8 countries have been involved in the supply of security equipment and devices whose prime practical purpose is for torture or ill-treatment. In many more cases, companies supply devices designed for security and crime control purposes but which in reality can easily lend themselves to torture and ill-treatment. For example, US, Russian, French and German companies are amongst the two hundred and thirty companies in 35 countries making, distributing or brokering the supply of electro-shock weapons. G8 governments do not have in place effective laws and regulations to prevent the export of such equipment to foreign security forces that are known to abuse legitimate devices to inflict torture.

The European Commission, following concerns expressed in the European Parliament, recently proposed a Trade Regulation for adoption by the European Council.(2) This will, if enacted un-amended, ban the import, export and brokering by companies and individuals within all 15 EU member states of items that the Commission has categorized as “torture equipment” including electro-shock stun belts, leg irons, thumb-cuffs and shackles. The proposed Trade Regulation will also require that all EU member states introduce controls on the export of items such as stun batons, stun guns and riot control agents such as tear gas. Amnesty International welcomes the introduction of this Trade Regulation and calls on other governments around the world to introduce similar prohibitions and controls to protect human rights.

In July 2000, six of Europe’s largest exporters of arms – France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK – signed up to the Framework Agreement Concerning Measures to Facilitate the Restructuring and Operation of the European Defence Industry. This agreement is designed to loosen controls on arms exporting companies within Europe but could undermine arms export controls since it does not provide for adequate transparency or monitoring of exports to non-participating countries. …more

August 9, 2011, 1:00 am
What Happened to My Bahrain Friend
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF

I wrote recently about an old friend, Hasan al-Sahaf, a Bahraini artist who had been imprisoned –nominally for economic offenses, but in reality for standing up to the regime. My column was an appeal to King Hamad to release him, and recently Hasan was indeed released. He telephoned with the good news, and I invited him to write a post on my blog about what happened. He courageously agreed, and here’s what he wrote:

I’d like to thank everyone who’s written to the government of Bahrain to demand my release from prison. Of course I write this note here hoping heartily that the Bahraini Minister of Interior will read it. And here’s what went on.

On May 13th at 2 am while everyone was asleep, the Bahraini security forces attacked my house with more than 30 armed men. They pulled me from my bed half naked and arrested me, and then they took me outside, where I was astonished by the number of armed forces, backed by two black tanks and seven armed jeeps. There were armed men on the roof of the house, boundary walls and around my car. They blindfolded me with a black cloth and drove me for three hours. I felt that we had left Bahrain for Saudi Arabia, and that was probably a way to make me horrified and scared. Finally I found myself in a prison cell at a police station. No one spoke to me at all that day. I could not go to sleep. For three days I was in a solitary cell, not allowed to talk to anyone or call anyone. No one told what my crime was.

After a week or so, I was transferred to another prison called Jaw where men are dehumanized, insulted, and hurt. A Bahraini officer named Jowder interrogated me. He asked me about politics and things like: What is your relationship with the American press? Do you communicate now with the American press and with whom? What are your political tastes? Why did you go to the roundabout (a center of protests)?

Just days before my release a Bahraini prosecutor visited me in prison. He asked so many questions concerning my leaving the University of Bahrain, about my business life, the reasons I am at prison, and asked about my current financial situations. At the end he told the reason for the interrogation: a U.S. journalist wrote an article calling for the King of Bahrain to release me from prison. He added that the writer accused the state of treating me this way because I am a Shiite, saying that this was a claim without a justifiable basis, and merely an opinion haphazardly stated. He asked then if I agreed with what was stated in the article. I told him I hadn’t read the article and I didn’t know who wrote it.

At the end, I told the prosecutor that I am ashamed to know that a person of another country is fighting for me, whereas my own government is torturing and humiliating me.

In the past when I had been in prison in Bahrain, I had been tortured and beaten from behind – they weren’t courageous enough to hit me face to face. This time they were more open in their torture, they punched and kicked me face to face. I was hit in the face and kicked on my legs.

There are so many people tortured: beaten by hands, sticks, shoes, etc. I saw people beaten before my eyes and screaming loudly. I also heard police calling for killing the Shia. …source

The United States under the Presidency of Barack Obama and the UK under Prime Minister David Cameron, have engaged in a Conspiracy of Silence regarding the continue tolerance of the brutal torture and oppression of the people of Bahrain by the governing al Khalifa regime. Both nations supply weapons that are used on a daily basis to gas, kill, maim and torture a peaceful people demanding freedom, democracy and protection of their Human and Constitutional Rights under Bahrain and international law. Please take a stand and help break the horrible silence of repression, demand freedom for Bahrain’s tortured prisoners of conscience and defenders of Human Rights, so together the people of Bahrain can build a free and democratic future.

Bahrain must not try activists in military court
Amnesty – 22 August 2011

The Bahraini authorities’ decision to try two prominent women activists in a military court is a backward step and raises concerns that they will not receive a fair trial, Amnesty International said today.

Roula al-Saffar, head of the Bahrain Nursing Society, and Jalila al-Salman, vice-president of the Bahrain Teachers’ Association (BTA), have been released on bail after being detained for several months for their involvement in pro-reform protests.

Roula al-Saffar will be tried next Sunday together with 13 other medical workers before the National Safety Court, a military court, although she and Jalila al-Salman, who will be tried by the same court the following day, are both civilians.

“While we welcome the belated release of Jalila al-Salman and Roula al-Saffar, it is deeply disturbing that they are to stand trial before a military court and so are at risk of being imprisoned again next week,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“Civilians should never be tried before military courts. The National Safety Court has been a parody of justice and a stain on the Bahraini authorities’ claim to uphold the rule of law,” he said.

The two activists were released on bail on Sunday after the Chairman of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), Professor Cherif Bassiouni, visited them in prison on Saturday.

Roula al-Saffar was among a group of health professionals accused of committing felonies, including theft of medicines, during the protests that began in February. They strongly deny the allegations.

Jalila al-Salman faces trial on charges that include “inciting hatred against the regime” and calling to overthrow and change the regime by force”.

She appeared before the National Safety Court several times in June before her case was transferred to a civilian court and postponed until further notice.

Later the same month, the King of Bahrain announced that all military court trials connected with the February-March protests would be moved to civilian courts.

He then backtracked on 18 August, issuing a decree which makes it clear that the new measures do not apply to all arrested protesters.

The decree requires that those charged with a felony are to be tried by the National Safety Court if their cases had already been referred to that court, which was set up when the King declared a state of emergency at the height of the protests in March.

The new law means that scores of people detained during the protests are now liable to be tried in the military court.

“This is a complete U-turn by the Bahraini authorities. After they indicated that military courts were a thing of the past, it now seems that these courts are being resurrected to do the government’s bidding ,” Malcolm Smart said.

“Anyone charged with an internationally recognizable criminal offence must be promptly given a fair trial in a civilian court.”

According to local human rights organizations, many teachers and members of the BTA were detained, harassed and tortured or otherwise ill-treated in detention for their participation in protests earlier this year.

At least 500 people have been detained in Bahrain since pro-reform protests began in February and four have died in custody on suspicious circumstances. More than 2,500 people have been dismissed or suspended from work.

BICI’s five-member investigation panel is expected to report on its findings in October. …more

Torture in Bahrain Aided by Nokia Siemens
By Vernon Silver and Ben Elgin – Aug 22, 2011

The interrogation of Abdul Ghani Al Khanjar followed a pattern.

First, Bahraini jailers armed with stiff rubber hoses beat the 39-year-old school administrator and human rights activist in a windowless room two stories below ground in the Persian Gulf kingdom’s National Security Apparatus building. Then, they dragged him upstairs for questioning by a uniformed officer armed with another kind of weapon: transcripts of his text messages and details from personal mobile phone conversations, he says.

If he refused to sufficiently explain his communications, he was sent back for more beatings, says Al Khanjar, who was detained from August 2010 to February.

“It was amazing,” he says of the messages they obtained. “How did they know about these?”

The answer: Computers loaded with Western-made surveillance software generated the transcripts wielded in the interrogations described by Al Khanjar and scores of other detainees whose similar treatment was tracked by rights activists, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its October issue.

The spy gear in Bahrain was sold by Siemens AG (SIE), and maintained by Nokia Siemens Networks and NSN’s divested unit, Trovicor GmbH, according to two people whose positions at the companies gave them direct knowledge of the installations. Both requested anonymity because they have signed nondisclosure agreements. The sale and maintenance contracts were also confirmed by Ben Roome, a Nokia Siemens spokesman based in Farnborough, England.
The Only Way

The only way officers could have obtained messages was through the interception program, says Ahmed Aldoseri, director of information and communications technologies at Bahrain’s Telecommunications Regulatory Authority. While he won’t disclose details about the program, he says, “If they have a transcript of an SMS message, it’s because the security organ was monitoring the user at their monitoring center.”

The use of the system for interrogation in Bahrain illustrates how Western-produced surveillance technology sold to one authoritarian government became an investigative tool of choice to gather information about political dissidents — and silence them.

Companies are free to sell such equipment almost anywhere. For the most part, the U.S. and European countries lack export controls to deter the use of such systems for repression.
Dangerous Products

“The technology is becoming very sophisticated, and the only thing limiting it is how deeply governments want to snoop into lives,” says Rob Faris, research director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Surveillance is typically a state secret, and we only get bits and pieces that leak out.” …more

Bahrain Government Makes U—Turn on Military Court – August 22, 2011
CONTACT: Brenda Bowser-Soder, Human Rights First
202-370-3323 – BowserSoderB@humanrightsfirst.org

Washington, DC – Human Rights First today criticized the Bahrain government’s sudden decision to bring back military courts to try pro-democracy activists. The group called the development as shocking as it is duplicitous.

“The world needs to take notice that the government of Bahrain has brought back its discredited military courts, which is further evidence that meaningful reform in that country is an illusion,” said Human Rights First’s Brian Dooley. “I met with many people in Bahrain last month who had been told their cases would now be heard in civilian instead of military courts. They were lied to.”

More than a dozen doctors and other medical professionals have been summoned to appear before the military court on Sunday August 28, even though the Bahraini authorities announced on June 26 that they were transferring all cases from military courts to civilian courts.

Among those waiting to have their cases heard are medics like Roula Al-Saffar, the head of the Bahrain Nursing Society, who was released from detention yesterday after four months in custody. Roula studied at Widener University in Pennsylvania and at the University of North Texas. She also worked for many years as a nurse at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. Though she has been released, the charges against her have not been dropped and she has now been summoned with her colleagues to appear before the military court on Sunday.

“The U.S. government has been publicly silent on Bahrain for some time now. It has not disassociated itself from the discredited National Dialogue nor spoken out against the police attacks on peaceful protests over the last few weeks. In light of this latest development, it should say clearly and publicly that any step back to military courts will have consequences for the relationship between the United States and Bahrain,” Dooley concluded. …more