September 11 - A global human rights agenda

Frequently Asked Questions - Weapons and Their Trade

Frequently Asked Questions Prisoners, human rights and the quest for justice Basics: Why September 11 is a human rights concern Afghanistan: a vicious circle of human rights abuse What is "terrorism"? Armed conflict and the laws of war Weapons and their trade Protecting refugees

Who supplied arms and military aid to the factions in Afghanistan? What is AI’s position on this?

In all situations — whether there is an ongoing armed conflict or in times of peace — Amnesty International opposes transfers of military and security equipment and expertise (including training) that can reasonably be assumed to contribute to grave human rights violations. There are also some weapons which by their very nature are indiscriminate or cause unnecessary suffering. AI opposes the manufacture and trade of these weapons (eg. anti-personnel land mines).

Given the current escalation of the situation in Afghanistan, AI is extremely concerned that any further unconditional transfers of weapons and other military equipment and expertise to the warring parties will increase the pattern of unlawful killings, torture and other serious human rights abuses and war crimes.

Supplying the Taleban:

Since 1994, the main supplies of arms and related items to the Taleban have come from official stocks in Pakistan, or from Chinese and other sales through private dealers based in Pakistan, and with major funding from Saudi Arabia. Following the August 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United Nations Security Council imposed progressively more comprehensive sanctions on the Taleban, including an arms embargo. Despite this, arms are still entering the country and AI has appealed to the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to respect the embargo.

Supplying the Northern Alliance:

Recent supplies to the Northern Alliance have been reportedly sent from Iran and the Russian Federation via the Central Asian states (especially Tajikistan) as well as from the Slovak Republic, although the Central Asian states have denied their involvement. Further arms transfer have been proposed from the US, Russia, Iran and other states.

Potential Russian shipments, which could be valued upwards of $45 million (US dollars), reportedly include Soviet-era T-55 tanks, combat vehicles, small arms, ammunition, and possibly also Russian Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters.

Several members of the US Congress have proposed legislation that would provide up to $300 million (US dollars) of direct US government military assistance to the Northern Alliance and other “eligible Afghan resistance organizations” without providing for rigorous monitoring and reporting on compliance with international human rights standards and International Humanitarian Law. This apparently unconditional military aid would also violate several sections of US law which prohibit military assistance to the security forces of a foreign country which has a poor human rights record and is also failing to bring offenders to justice. Further concerns exist about the role US Special Operations Forces may play in training security and police forces in the region in covert operations. Given the existing patterns of human rights violations by security forces in the region, such training is likely to exacerbate the problem rather than lead to increased human rights protection.

The media has reported several incidents in the US involving anthrax shipped through the mail — incidents which may or may not be related to the attacks of September 11th. The reports mentioned that the anthrax material could have been obtained within the US. Why is anthrax still manufactured or kept in storage anywhere? Isn’t that illegal considering how dangerous it can be?

Most biological agents or toxins are considered to be unnecessarily cruel weapons because of the suffering experienced by their victims. They are also considered indiscriminate because their targeting and spread is difficult to control. For both reasons use of these weapons is illegal under International Humanitarian Law (also known as the “laws of war”).

The use, production and stockpiling of anthrax as a “weapon” is also covered under the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction which came into effect in 1975 and which has been ratified by 144 states. This convention outlaws “microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful means” and the “weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.” [Article 1]

Notably, the prohibition on producing or possessing “microbial or other biological agents, or toxins” is not absolute. With some materials small quantities are permitted for legitimate research purposes including development of vaccines and anti-toxins. This is the case with anthrax, some of the forms of which occur in nature. However, weaponizing any of these materials is explicitly prohibited. Weaponizing includes simply adding a substance to an existing weapon (eg. placing in a missile), refining a substance to make it more lethal or dangerous, and creating a substance not found in nature for the sole intention of making a weapon.

[ back to top ]