It has been established that this essay will deal with the “Control Arms” campaign yet this does not explain the full extent of the purpose of this essay.  The author of this essay is specifically inclined to discuss the following questions: Has the “Control Arms” movement influenced modern gun control initiatives in any major way, since its creation?  And if so, what does this tell us about the success (or failure) of other NGOs trying to accomplish the same thing?  To receive the answer to those questions the essay will give a brief historical background on the campaign highlighting “Control Arms” major accomplishments.  It will then continue to do a cross-comparative analysis of the “Control Arms” campaign and other similar organizations (both Governmental and non-governmental) seeing which have been the most effective (or least) in accordance to the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This analysis will prove that the “Arms Control” movement has been influential in stopping laws and other circumstances that favor proliferation yet the campaign has not reached its full success quite yet.

      Before one can discuss the founding and major accomplishments of the “Control Arms” campaign, they must first understand its function.  While it clearly focuses on arms trade, and arms control the fashion it does this is quite fascinating.  The campaigns main goal is to deal directly with governments in trying to get them to sign an international arms control treaty.  This strategy is quite different from other similar campaigns because the general public is not always in the main focus.

      One of the most major ways that this campaign involves the general public is the “million faces petition”.  This is one of the most unique and innovate ideas ever utilized by an NGO.  The whole point of this idea is to send in to the “Control Arms” computers a photo of yourself with your ‘digital signature’ (name and contact info).  Unfortunately, due to legal restriction, only those of the age 16 and above can ‘sign’ the petition.

      The creation of this campaign falls in perfectly with the goals of its mother organizations.  OXFAM goal is to give people a higher standard of living, free of crime, poverty and illness.  As for Amnesty International, their goal is to protect human rights across the globe, including that of being free from war.  The IANSA campaign is most clearly related to this subject seeing their only goal is to stop the proliferation of weapons.  There are offices in many countries that act as ‘embassies’ in those countries dealing with the specific issues of each country.  As well, each of the mother organizations have representatives in their offices.  This all leads back to the main issue that people who created OXFAM, Amnesty International, and IANSA (and their backers) had in mind; Human rights. 

      The history of this campaign, to be frank, is quite dull.  That statement though, is in no way condescending; not everything is full of flash and glamour that would be worth writing a novel over.  Yet, the founders did have the best of intentions in creating it, for helping those who are being.  With the financial backing of its three founders, the “Control Arms” campaign launched in October of 2003.  Supporters of this cause organized many launch events in dozens of countries trying to get their message out.  Perhaps the most advertised event, though, was the one held in Trafalgar Square, London, England.  Hundreds of “fake” tombstones were set up with the words, “one person every minute killed by Arms.”

      In the campaigns short life, it has managed to accomplish some pretty amazing feats.  For example, on October 3^rd, 2005 with much lobbying from “Control Arms”, the EU (European Union) announced that the member governments would support an international arms trade treaty.  While there were other minor ‘victories’ for this campaign, the larges and most influential decision that was taken due to the “Control Arms” campaign’s lobbying occurred last year.  This success came from one of the world’s most known organizations, the UN (United Nations).  This was the first step towards an UN global arms control treaty and was overwhelmingly accepted by almost all UN members.  The only exception during the vote was the United-States who voted against the motion.       
 
 
       It would be beneficial to examine some of the theories that some political analysts think that a worldwide treaty on arms control would not work.  Mr. Peter Schuck has one of the most interesting ideas on this debate.  Though his theory is limited to the United States, and what is happening in that particular country to stop gun violence, it rings true on a global level, and deals specifically with the “Control Arms” campaign’s attempt to created a treaty.  He argues that legislative attempts to either bring down the gun industry or to produce more extensive controls have failed².  The reason for this, he argues, is that the lawyers suing the industry have invested a great deal of time and effort into trying to win yet they have very little to show for it in terms of “new liability-promoting legal doctrine or jury awards sustained on appeal³.  He continues to contend that these lawyers are actually doing more harm than good for the anti-gun campaigners by creating negative legal precedents and furthering empowering pro-gun groups⁴.  Only minor successes have been garnered by the anti-gun group, such as making a small gun manufacturer go out of business (Davis Industries) and making larger manufacturers to change more dangerous designs (Colt).

      This brings other problems that are not directly related to the attempt of stopping the proliferation of guns, but it does have everything to do with public image.  If juries continually keep voting for pro-gun groups, how can the “Control Arms” campaign gain legitimacy in the United-States?  Along the same line of thought, these loses for the anti-gun campaign bring much unwanted and unneeded press to their cause further alienating the general public from the cause.  If the United States ever does ratify and an accord stating it will limit gun proliferation, these legal precedents might allow it to be shot down in the courts if it is ever challenged in court. While this might seem that the campaign might be on the road to oblivion, there are other factors that need to be examined before making a conclusion.  

      Another reason why the anti-gun lobby has not succeeded is due simply to the sheer amount of money that their opposition is using.  One has simply to look at the amount of money being spent by the pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies.  Examining the Brady Campaign⁵ to Prevent Gun Violence expenditures with that of the NRA (National Rifle Association) will shed light on the matter.  The most recent information given by Harry Wilson is for the year 2004.  During that year the Brady Campaign spent $166, 108 on money for lobbying the government (this was during the presidential election year).  On the other hand, the NRA spent $12, 695, 089⁶; this amount is 76 times that of the Brady Campaign.  This huge difference between the two opposing groups is nothing particularly new.  Even from 1980, where the campaign started contributing to national elections were they outstripped, and badly at that, with the NRA donating 1.5 million and the Brady Campaign donating $75, 000⁷.

      Taking this into account, how does this affect the “Control Arms” campaign and their effort to stop the proliferation of weapons?  Well, it affects them extremely badly.  This massive expenditure by the NRA, this is not even including other pro-gun groups, has been highly successful in getting officials that are pro-guns elected into the legislative bodies.  These officials will clearly vote against anything that their financial backers would not approve of thus further impeding any attempts at this treaty.  This also partially answers one of the questions that were raised at the begging of this essay, the one asking if the “Control Arms” methodology was working.  So far, it would seem that only huge amounts of money are the only deciding factors affecting legislative decisions, and thus the campaign would be a failure in this respect.  Again, though, there are other factors that influence the “success” or “failure” of any specific campaign.

      These huge obstacles seem like nothing can get in the way of the pro-gun activists.  But that is not true.  During its relatively short life, compared to many of the grassroots organizations previously discussed, the “Control Arms” campaign has had many huge successes.  What are these ‘huge’ successes? And how did they come about?  One of the larger successes that the “Control Arms” campaign has enjoyed was not enjoyed in North America, as one would assume, but in Europe.  This region of our globe is responsible for much of the licit and illicit arms trade that occurs around the globe, roughly 2/5 or 39%⁸.  On October 5^th of last year, during the 2770^th General Assembly affairs council meeting the European Union officially accepted a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty by accepting United Nations standards on the subject⁹. 

      There is no denying that gaining the support of the European Union was a huge success for the ‘Control Arms’ campaign.  Yet, there was a previous success that was needed before the support of the EU would have been possible.  That success has to do with the United Nations.  On October 27^th, 2006 the United Nations held a vote in the General Assembly that would create an International Arms Trade Treaty that would stop weapons transfers that cause conflict, poverty and interfere with human rights¹⁰.   

      Yes, those were real and meaningful successes on the part of the ‘Control Arms’ campaign.  But how were these objectives achieved by this organization?  Well, by educating the public on the issues at hand and trying to do that in a unique and interesting fashion.  One-way they did this was by hosting the “Million Faces Petition” that was discussed commencement of the essay.  It was mentioned that only people of the age 16 and above could enter the online petition but the organizations involved made provision for those of younger age.  Young children were allowed to draw pictures of themselves and send them in to the site; these photos are put on the IANSA website¹¹.  They also heavily advertised special events such as the International Day of Peace.

      These events helped the campaign to legitimate itself in the eyes of citizens.  Even though it is perfectly legal in many countries that does not necessarily mean it is accepted.  Take smoking for example, it is legal in Canada but it is viewed as a bad habit by most and many smokers are stigmatized.  Perception is everything, and by dealing with issues that people care about it these organizations have helped make themselves legitimate.  This can be seen in certain polls held by the Gallop organization (a polling service in the United States).  Three polls were held from 1993 to 1996 in which people from across the country were polled.  The questions being asked were related to small arms and rifles seeing if they should be made illegal.  Small arms being banned had the least support at 57% of the population while semi-automatic assault rifles had the highest support at 77% nationally¹².  Similar trends are seen in Canada, but this time the question had to do with the Gun Registry enacted by the previous Liberal government (2002).  In a poll held by Ipsos-Reid, 52% of the respondents were for the registry whereas 43% were against¹³.     

      To understand why governments, in particular, wish to keep the arms trade viable certain examples can be used.  One of the best examples is that of France, during the last century.  Mr. Edward Kolodziej has written a particularly good analysis on the subject.  He argues that after World War II, starting roughly, in the 1960s the French military went through expansive changes.  Pressure on the French military was growing to cut costs of production by creating more efficient manufacturing plants and by seeking highly skilled professionals.  The cost-benefit of research and development also had to be upgraded¹⁴. 

      Kolodziej continues his argument stating that after these ‘necessary’ changes had taken place in France the arms manufacturing sector took on a whole new life, so to speak.  Arms began to be treated like any other commodity or service and thus did not become necessary simply for the protection of the state.  Thus, due to this new era of supply and demand, the French found it necessary to maintain a high domestic military presence¹⁵.  
 
 
      At the onset of this essay the question was asked if the freedoms of people were being inhibited because of arms trade.  This question is linked with the ‘Control Arms’ movement, because their whole motivation for trying to curb arms trade is to guarantee the rights of individual around the world.  They have taken the legal route in the countries that they participate in and this had led to a limited number of successes in their goal.  Under the ‘Legal Rights’ section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (henceforth, CCRF), section 7 decrees

“7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice¹⁶.”  
 

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights also contains similar language,

      Article 3.

      Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

      Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 
 

       The Arms Trade Treaty is a step in this direction, yet governments are slow on the uptake.  Should NGOs be more forceful in their ideals?  Would this lead government to acknowledge there is a problem and move faster to help?  An example of this more forceful conduct is that of what happened with Greenpeace during one of their anti-nuclear test campaigns in France.  One of their boats staging the event, the Rainbow Warrior, exploded eerily close to the beginning of their campaign; while there is no conclusive evidence, many think it was an inside job, trying to grab the attention of the global media.  Certainly, nothing could be proven without a doubt, but the explosion did garner world press, and was even condemned by heads of states¹⁷.  Does this form of media attention actually help the cause of these NGOs and more importantly, does it help their legitimacy?  That is not a question that can be answered with a definitive ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but it is a question that is worth considering. 

      There are different strategies on how to limit arms proliferation around the world.  The NGOs methods have been discussed, those being public education, lobbying the governments and getting involved in international organizations.  What, though, are some other ideas political analysts have come up with to stop gun proliferation?  One alternative method to stop gun proliferation is proposed by Nicole Ball.  She argues that governments providing aid to less developed countries should link development assistance to the amount of money being spent on the military by that particular country.  She also says that countries that spent on their militaries during the 1980s usually ranked lowest in the United Nation Development Program Human Development Index during the next decade¹⁸.  She proposes to do this using three main leverages for countries that either will not or cannot comply; they will not be discussed in great detail due to the limitation of space in this essay.  One proposal is boosting aid to countries by other countries while simultaneously boosting aid by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund if they cut back their militaries.  The next proposal is to trade technology.  Lastly, she proposes sanctions if governments refuse to cooperate¹⁹. 

      There are only so many ways of going about changing the political reality that exists in the world today.  Thus, the second set that will be discussed are somewhat similar to those of Nicole Ball.  Proposed by Andrew Pierre, they also encase systematic conditions against ‘offending’ countries.  This includes selective controls on weapons entering certain countries.  He also emphasizes the need to work with the recipient states to help create and arms-control regime.  While it was thought that if these states created the arms-control regime that outside suppliers would support it; but it was shown that both the supplier and the recipient would need the same goal for this to work²⁰.  He lastly proposes that the UN Register of Conventional Arms be used on a much broader level.  This register simply encompasses trade done on a country-by-country basis that allows the UN to monitor anything out of the ordinary.  The only down side to this is that the information gathered is only made available by April 30^th of the next year, making swift action not possible²¹.