What's a country to do?

Canada restricts military sales to countries that persist in violating human rights and are engaged in hostilities, including internal armed conflicts. Indonesia is a significant violator of human rights; it illegally invaded and still occupies the former Portuguese territory of East Timor, and is engaged in three internal armed conflicts - the still unresolved conflict in East Timor plus conflicts in Aceh and Irian Jaya.

Why then will the forthcoming annual report on Canadian military exports show that over $1 million in military goods went from Canada to Indonesia in 1996? And why were Canadian exporters last year granted permits to ship up to $32 million in military commodities to Indonesia?

To borrow the inelegant phrase of recent American presidential campaigning: "It's the economy, stupid!" A refusal to sell military goods to Indonesia, the argument goes, would put Canadian firms at a disadvantage. But such hard economic realities fly in the face of the more troubling truths described by Nobel Laureates promoting an international code of conduct to curb weapons sales (see p. 19): "Indiscriminate weapons sales foster political instability and human rights violations, prolong violent conflicts, and weaken diplomatic efforts to resolve differences peacefully."

So what's a country to do? While Canada is a significant participant in the arms trade, it is not a significant player. In other words, Canadian restraint is a necessary but far from sufficient political response to destructive arms proliferation. In the campaign against landmines Canada parlayed its marginal player status into a strength. Without any perceived axe to grind, Canada adopted a strong policy position on its own, and then led an impressive international charge in alliance with international NGO efforts. It is a strategy available for the pursuit of universal arms trade controls - perhaps starting with small arms. A strong Canadian policy would indeed end Canada's relatively modest military sales to the likes of Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, but more importantly it would set the stage for an energetic diplomatic effort in support of an international code. Who knows, in a few years we could see an "Ottawa process" culminating in a conference to sign the new arms transfer code into law.