Sunday, 9 September 2018

Triangle Relationship between public policy, good governannce and peace.

MD. Shakhawoat Hossain
Department of Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Dhaka.




Introduction:
Public policy has an essential link between establishing good governance and attaining durable peace. These all three parts always reflect positively or negatively in internal and external environment of any country, because when we think about a state, first of all we want to observe well presents of these three issues, then we can decide whether is good or bad. So it is true that, when a state policy process will be characterized with accountability and transparency then it can be able to manage legitimate election to establish an active parliamentarian government who will work for creating strong public administrative body, operate state institution honestly, take effective strategies for strengthening democracy, settling structural violence and any kinds of political disputes, enhancing good governance and rule of law, protecting minority people, human rights and fundamental freedoms and show their creativity and talent in the process of agenda setting (problem recognition), policy formulation ( proposal of solution), decision making (choice of solution),  policy implementation ( putting solution into effect) and policy evaluation ( monitoring result) to preserve peace and security. In the following I would like to discuss about public policy, governance and peace and try to show a triangle relationship among them.

Public policy:
Public policy has many competing definitions. Some are very complex, while others are quite simple. Despite their variations, they all agree on certain key aspects. They agree that public policies result from decisions made by governments and those decisions by governments to retain the status quo are just as much policy as are decisions to alter it. Some famous scholar definition of public policy are given below -
·         Thomas Dye offers a particularly succinct formulation, describing public policy as "Anything a government chooses to do or not to do". From this Dye specifies two important issues-First, Dye specifies clearly that the agent of public policy-making is a government. This means that private business decisions, decisions by charitable organizations, interest groups, other social groups, or individuals are not in themselves public policies. Second, Dye highlights the fact that public policies involve a fundamental choice on the part of governments to do something or do nothing and that this decision is made by individuals staffing the state and its agencies.

·         William Jenkins's conceptualization of public policy is bit more precise than the one offered by Dye illustrates many of the same themes. He defines public policy as ' a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within the specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve(Jenkins 1978).

·         A middle-range definition is also provided by James Anderson. He describes a policy as ' a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern '(Anderson, 1998:3)
(2002).
·          According to Adger et al. (2002). “Public policy is the outcome of a series of decisions on what constitute a problem, what possible solutions are and how to implement the preferred solution”.

Features of public policy:
Public policy has some basic features. These include -
·         Public policy is characterized by its publicness that is public policies are meant to protect the interest of the public in general.
·         Public policy must be in line with the constitutional law.
·         Reflection of the political commitment of the party in power.
·         It is compulsory to all. That is no one above the implication of public policy. For that matter public policy could be treated as the utilitarian law of the land.
·          Public policies are goal oriented and purposive as against random governmental action.
·         Reactive as well as proactive by nature.

Governance:
The term governance is refers to a broader range of processes which contribute to the aggregation of interests and demands and to the coordination of social activities (Mayntz 1993).  Beside this governance has also different meaning, but here we will use the term governance as good governance. According to the World Bank (1992) Governance is ' the exercise of political power to manage a nation's affairs' and ' Good governance involves- an efficient public service, an independent judicial system and legal framework to enforce contracts; the accountable administration of public funds; an independent public auditor, responsible to a representative legislature; respect for the law and human rights at all level of government; a pluralistic institutional structure, and free press”.

Features of good governance:
Some important features of good governance are given below -
·         Participation: All men and women should have a voice of decision making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interests. Such broad participation in built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively.
·         Rule of law: Legal framework should be fair and enforced impartiality, particularly the laws of human rights.
·         Transparency: Transparency is built on the free flow of information, processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them.
·         Responsiveness: Institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders.
·         Consensus orientation: Good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is the best interests of the group and where possible, on policies and procedures.
·         Equity: All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.
·         Effectiveness and efficiency: Processes and institutions produce results that meet needs while making the best use of resources.
·         Accountability: Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organizations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders.  This accountability differs depending on the organization and whether the decision is internal or external to an organization.
·         Strategic vision: Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human development along with a sense of what is needed for such development.

Peace:
Peace is absence of absence of war. It is always emphasis the establishment of positive, life-enhancing values and social structure. It is a most preferable thing all over the world. However, peace, like many theoretical terms, is difficult to define. Like Happiness, harmony, justice and freedom.
·         Johan Gatling, a founder of peace studies and peace research, has proposed the important distinction between "positive “and "negative “peace. “Positive peace “denotes the simultaneous presence of many desirable States of mind and society. Such as harmony, justice, equity and so on."Negative peace “has historically denoted the “absence of war" and other forms of large-scale violent human conflict.

·         The Webster's Third new international dictionary define peace in many ways -
a.       Peace is “a state of security and order within a community provided for by law, customs or public opinion"
b.      Mental or spiritual condition marked by freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotion”
c.       “Astate of mutual concord between governments; absence of hostilities and war.

Key features of peace:
a.       Presence of cooperation.
b.      Freedom from fear.
c.       Freedom from want.
d.      Economic growth and development.
e.       Absence of exploration.
f.       Equality.
g.      Justice.
h.      Freedom of action.
i.        Pluralism.
j.        Dynamism.


Triangle relationships among public policy, governance and Peace:
For proving the triangle relationships among public policy, governance and peace, we need be clear about some important issues.
·         Firstly, “who is actually influence in the processes of public policy”?  We know that public policy is whatever government chooses to do or not to do. So every single activities of government is related with public policy and definitely government influence as the very important actor for problem identification, decision making, policy formulation and policy evaluation.

·         Secondly, we also need to be clear that what types of government is preferable for promoting effective public policies”? It is true that only good governing system can take important part for making policies according to the state need and people interest. Such as they can contribute for establishing and enforcing "rule of law", arranging fair election for establishing democratic government, taking steps for protecting violence against women, minority people and civil security,  creating enabling policies for participation in the global economy, improving government services to citizens through public innovation, strengthening public institutions for economic development, enhancing public administration capacity, empowering citizens through organization of civil society, extending services through public -private partnership etc.

·         Thirdly, we have to find out “what functions of good governance are related in public policy”? It is true that, good governance always related with acting according to the public interest. So they often maintain some important functions in public policy which are given below -
a.       Strong commitment to integrity, ethical values and rule of law.
b.      Openness and comprehensive stakeholder engagement.
c.       Defining outcomes in terms of sustainable economic, social and environmental benefits.
d.      Determining the intervention necessary to optimize the achievement of intended outcomes.
e.       Developing the capacity on entity, including the capability of its leadership and the individuals within it.
f.       Managing risks and performance through robust internal control and strong public financial management.
g.      Implementing good practice in transparency and reporting to deliver effective accountability.
We need take care about the relationships between functions of good governance in public policy, because if the functions of good governance do not work in policy, it will create difficulties in policy implementation process. For example - In the women policy of Bangladesh it is clearly indicated that government is responsible for taking effective steps for women empowerment economically, socially and politically,  this policy is good and must appreciate it for our sustainable development  and governance also good (as they claim), but what are the outcomes of this policy. We often saw that women those who come out for work or attending in social or political events are facing harassment, discrimination, sexual assault and so on. So it's clear that government fails to create proper accommodation and security for women, that's it can't make peace in our society. So only good governance and good policy is not enough, good governance functions also need to relate with it.

·         Fourthly, “what types of strategies government should take for post conflict reconstruction and peace building”? Because this is very important and it requires active governmental participation in policy making which interact with public interest. Some important strategies government should take for achieving durable peace which are given below-
a.       Building inclusive social contracts: Building inclusive social contract is an important mechanism for peaceable co-existence of various groups in a society. It requires attention to the relationship between state institutions in all group in society including the most vulnerable ones and those previously discriminated against. A solid inclusive social contract underpinned by democratic governance can help maintain equilibrium between competing interests and reduce fragility and likelihood of organized violence and can be helpful for achieving durable peace.
b.      Promoting Rule of law, justice, security and human rights: For ensuring durable peace government should aware about promoting rule of law, concern about the principles of human rights and ensure everyone has access to justice and provides a secure and predictable development environment.
c.       Make inclusive political process: Government should improve inclusive political process, because it can ensure citizen participation, voice and accountability through electoral process, parliamentary development, constitutional process and civic engagement.
d.       Responsive and accountable institution: It helps to enhance trust in the legitimacy and capacity of state.
e.       Conflict prevention: To build local leadership capacities and mechanism to help prevent and manage conflict.

·         Lastly, we have to finalize which theory of public policy we need to use to implement these triangle relationships among public policy, governance and peace?  

a.       Public choice theory: We can't use public choice theory in this model, it just work for minimizing personal interest. So it will be difficult for government to take decisions based on the individual interests, because everyone can have specific choice or demands. Example- The government of Bangladesh takes policy for providing free and compulsory primary education for every child, but we can see that many private primary schools in our country which have good reputation for excellent academic opportunity compare to the government run primary school. So parents those have good economic condition, they are sending their children in good schools instead of government primary schools. So its create little bit classification in our society which not able to ensure proper implement of this policy which can bring peace.

b.      Elite theory: We also can't use elite theory for this model, because in elite theory public policy making always influence by elite groups and their interests. So it can't able to ensure mass people interest. Example- Association of South Asian Nations (ASEAN) State decision making process always influence by elite concept. So we its decisions making process always characterized with conservative attitudes.

c.       Game Theory: We know that game theory mainly focuses on the others do in terms of competition.  So competition can make policy process very competitive for bring peace.

d.      Group theory: If we use group theory in this model, we have possibility to get good outcome from it, because in group theory individuals and common interests group has rights to interact together in central facts of politics according to their demands and needs. So when every citizens and institutions can get equal opportunity to take part in decision making or can share their attitude and views about the problem in their society, It will make state authority more accountable in the process of policy making based on the specific claims and demands and solve any kinds of problem or disputes very easily for achieving sustainable development and peace. Example- In pluralistic society like USA, Every single citizen and interest group has rights to freedom of speech and they can contribute in state public policy making and they have also rights to criticize the policy. So it helps state government to make policy according to the people interest.
Conclusion: To sum up, it can be said that public policy, governance and peace are closely link with one another where key strategies are come from the government. If the government of the state can able to take effective steps for promoting public policies focusing on the people interests and demands and emphasize on the establishing good governing system, it will be easer gain sustainable development and durable peace.

Reference
A.     "Public policy making in Bangladesh: an overview" by Dr. Salahuddin Aminuzzaman, University of Dhaka.
B.     "Understanding Governance" by R.A.W Rhodes.
C.     Building inclusive societies and sustaining peace through democratic governance by UNDP.
D.    Peace a world history by Antony Adolf 2009, UK.
E.     Webster's Third International dictionary, 1993.
F.     Irfan Islamy, principles of state policy formulation, 2002, Jakarta.
G.    Thomas Dye, 1976, policy analysis: what governments do, why they do it and difference it maake, University of Albama Press.
H.    Relationship between governance crisis and public policy: Beyond the policy window by Hin Yeung Chan, Lignan University.
I.        Public policy and Governance by Sudir Kumar (2012). Department of Political Science, BBAU.
J.       Good governance and policy analysis by Saeed Parto, 2005.
K.     Good governance in the public sector -consultation Draft for an International framework, June 2013, by IFAC( International Federation of Accountants)
L.      Theories of Peace: A synthetic Approach to Peace thinking, by Johan Gultung, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, 1967.





Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Peace Journalism concept development.


Peace Journalism concept development

Peace journalism is one of the prominent concepts by Johan Galtung which mainly highlights the peace initiative and focus the only transformation of conflict into resolution. It can bring positive changes in contemporary journalistic practice and establish peace in the society. It also promotes the ways and activities of mass media to the needs of society. So the importance of peace journalism and its proper implementation is highly accountable to prevent war, conflict resolution, and reconstruction and reconciliation process. We can learn many things from peace journalism studies about how media involvement in producing report create good or ill in the society, how media can contribute  as an active participant and  mediator to establish peace in the society, how media development and deregulation and commercialization creates lots of crises for media to work on behalf of society and most importantly we can learn what types of obligations media should consider for the needs of protecting public purpose and profits to bring peace in the society. It is really true that, although it seems to be a good idea to promote peace journalism in traditional journalistic culture, we should be aware of the probable obstacles of this practice and make agenda how to develop media peace discourse for ensuring effective implementation of peace journalism concept and emphasize on the benefits what peace journalism can bring or establish. We can improve this concept by adding some universally ethical issues which can define and consider about current problematic issues of news producing and help a journalist to use their professional commitments and responsibility to the needs of society. The term peace journalism was proposed Johan Galtung in the 1970s, now it is practice and studies all over the world. But it has still lots of sites to develop to ensure proper acceptance of peace journalism in the field of communication, especially in journalism study and needs to develop how this concept can confront conflicting situations effectively that can make the ways and aspirations of mass media to the needs of establishing peace in the society. Some important issues should include in peace journalism studies for building its effectiveness in reconciliation. Such as- what strategies should a journalist follow to balance out the sensation of stories, what types of news values should be consider during reporting a conflict to promote peace journalism, how can stimulate dialogue by a  journalist between the parties involved in the conflict, how to reduce the privatization and commercialization of media, what types of causes and criteria influence journalist to follow war journalism in framing their report and how to change this kind of journalistic attitude into peace journalism, how to develop peace journalism as a medium  of peace building and conflict resolution process.


MD. Shakhawoat Hossain
Department of Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Dhaka.

Friday, 2 February 2018

Small arms and Light weapons: Impact on wars and Conflicts.

MD. Shakhawoat Hossain
Department of Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Dhaka.





Abstract
Small arms and light weapons are generating a great impact on wars and conflicts, including civil wars. In the cold-war era, the small conflicts were range for small arms. However, war can be trigger on for many reasons, and the use of small arms and light weapons is one of the dangerous of them. The availability and carrying flexibility these types of weapons create tremendous security threat for human being anywhere in the world. So it is a kind of big concern to protect illegal trade of small arms and light weapons and its impact on transferring conflict into war.  In this writing, I would like to explain some cases and survey of small arms and light weapons; and its impact on conflict and war.

Introduction
Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) is a term used in arms control. Small arms refer to hand-held small caliber firearms. Light weapons include a wide range of medium caliber and explosive ordnance. These two types of arms are mostly responsible for engaging in conflicts as well as in wars. We know that the immediate post cold-war period was characterized by internal conflicts with severe negative consequences for internal cohesion and political stability. Aside from the internationally unacceptable processes of engagements, the conflicts were highly prosecuted with the use of the highly lethal small arms and light weapons. So it is experienced that the illegal and miss use of small arms and light weapons can make peace keeping and security process very vulnerable and even it can be the cause of mass destruction or genocide by terrorist groups or any kinds of hidden guerrilla groups.

Definition of Small arms
There is no universally accepted definition of small arms. But, UN defined the small arms in general angle.
A definition adopted by the “UN Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms”: Small arms include revolvers and self-loaded pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, sub-machine guns, and light machine guns.

In Cambodian perspective, A `weapons’ is defined as including: all types of firearms and pistols; firearms which cause watery eyes, fainting, or poisoning: all types of automatic or semi-automatic firearms; soundless firearms or soundless equipment; all types of rocket; all types of chemical weapons; all types of biological weapons; all types of electrical shock sticks; all types of grenades and mines; all types of explosive substance; and all types of bullets (Cambodia, 1999, art. 2).
In 8 December 2005, UN General Assembly declared that, “Small arms refer to hand-held small caliber firearms, usually consisting to handguns, rifles, shotguns, manual, semi-automatic, and man portable machine guns.

Definition of Light Weapons

In 8 December 2005, UN General Assembly defined the light weapons: This definition is- “Light weapons” are broadly speaking weapons designed for using by two or three persons serving as a crew, although some may be carried and used by a single person.

Broadly speaking, the term, light weapons, refer to any weapon that can be carried by one or two people. Light weapons include military-style guns-- pistols, carbines, assault rifles, and light machine guns to grenade launchers, mortars, mobile anti-tank guns and rocket launchers, and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile launchers. Munitions used with these weapons; such as bullets, grenades and missiles, landmines; and explosives are also encompassed by the term.

Beating the People by Small Arms and Light Weapons
The people, who are beaten by the small arms and light weapons, are specifically mentioned below- 
        I.      Civilians: Millions of people are caught in the crossfire of warfare or become victims of armed crime. Many are women and children.
     II.           Children: The light weight and small size of these weapons has made it possible for children to be recruited or compelled to become soldiers. For example, child soldiers were particularly exploited in recent wars in Liberia and the Sudan.
   III.            Political Dissidents, Union Organizers, Land Rights Activists and Journalists: Small arms are the principal tool of intimidation used by repressive police and military forces. The massacre in Chiapas last December of 45 unarmed civilians, carried out by government-affiliated paramilitary forces with high-powered AK-47 assault rifles, is one of countless examples.
   IV.            Foreign Relief and Development Workers: Armed conflict often creates the humanitarian emergencies that relief workers are called in to alleviate. In addition, aid workers are increasingly coming under fire that being killed, kidnapped, or threatened.
     V.            International Peacekeeping Troops: The United Nations found that small arms and light weapons pose the principal threat to international troops seeking to establish or maintain peace among combatants.

Small Arms and Light Weapons; Impact on Wars and Conflicts
Small arms and light weapons fuel civil wars and other conflicts that causes harm to millions of people. Africa can be a most relevant example for such kinds of hamper. These small weapons are only part of a larger trade that includes heavier and more lethal weaponry. But light arms are often especially baneful because they are cheap, easy to transport and can be handled by ill-trained rebel soldiers and even children.

Recently, UN reports show how these weapons are illicitly exported and transported with the connivance of government officials in many countries and smuggled into war zones. In some areas, automatic weapons are so cheap than the chicken or a few pounds of rice.
Thus, the impact of wars for light weapons and small arms are broadly discussed below:

Focusing on small arms and light weapons for Wars
With the end of the cold war, increased attention is being paid today to the devastation wrought by armed conflict around the world. Previously referred to by official Washington as "low intensity conflicts," these wars have resulted in the death of well over one million people this decade. The vast majority of these casualties--as many as 90 percent--are civilian victims of indiscriminate warfare.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has determined that small arms are the principal cause of death in conflicts. In fact, these arms are thought to be responsible for 90 percent of recent war casualties. Small/light arms are cheap and portable, and are used by all combatants--state militaries, militias, and insurgents. It is the prevalence--that is, the widespread proliferation--of these arms, combined with their indiscriminate use that renders them responsible for so much of the killing. In addition, small and light arms are used in crime and terrorist acts around the world.

Small Arms and Light Weapons; Utility and Lethality
The utility and lethality of rapid fire assault rifles, automatic pistols and submachine guns and their diffusion to non-state actors has given such groups a firepower that often matches or exceeds that of national police or constabulary forces. I would like to mention the features of small arms and light weapons in the wars and conflicts. Typically, any act of violence and the extreme case of conflict- war, is perpetrated with the aid of weapons deployed by all sides in order to subdue or annihilate the opponents. To this extent, each epoch in the development of humanity boasts of its unique weapons of war that are germane to the pursuit of its agenda. Some of these deadly and injury-inflicting weapons include; spears, swords, catapults and knives.

With the advancement in technology, other weapons for prosecuting wars, with no less lethal capabilities, such as Dane-guns, and at some point, machine guns and bombs, became the weapons of choice for warring parties. However, as the world continued to advance in the development of science and technology, so also is the continuous advancement in the capacity to destroy, kill or maim. Subsequently, the international system became awash with series of weapons of mass-destruction, such as; ballistic missiles, landmines, rocket launchers, biological and chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons. Indeed, the technologically-driven lethal weapons have limitless capacity, to the extent that an entire city could be destroyed with the drop of a bomb. Japan experienced the wrath of nuclear weapons during the Second World-War, when two of such bombs were dropped in the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This resulted in the death of countless number of people and the unquantifiable destruction of two cities, the consequent surrender of Japan and the change in the country’s foreign policy focus.

The destructive and damaging effects of these weapons subsequently became a concern for the international community, especially the nuclear powers. The possible havoc the weapons could wreck on the international system as evinced in the Japanese experience encouraged the initiation of global coalition to limit and prohibit the use of weapons of mass destruction, such as; chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear weapons. In an unprecedented initiative, the two cold-war adversaries, the United States and the former Soviet Union, in time, realized the dangers of the arms’ race in the Cold-War era, and thus, organized bilateral talks called the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I (SALT I) aimed at global armament control.[i] This eventually became the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) and Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT II) Agreements. These talks led to more armament control collaborative efforts in later years, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I, II and the New START). All these efforts were basically aimed at controlling and managing the stockpiling and the deployment of weapons of mass destruction, which Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 192 includes perhaps the most dangerous weapon in recent times, the unmanned aerial vehicle (drone). 

In terms of planning and execution, the resultant civil-wars are prosecuted often time, with the warring parties going against the norms of international conventions. As mentioned earlier, there are associated reasons deriving from both the external environment and the African internal environment that provide the platform for relatively easy and smooth possession of small arms and light weapons. From the external dimension, the easy access to illicit small arms and light weapons is related to the changed circumstances of the military hardware companies in Eastern European, consequent upon the dramatic end of the Cold-War. Specifically, a number of Eastern European countries, such as Ukraine and Bulgaria were left with massive stockpiles of Soviet-era small arms and light weapons after the Cold-War. Thus, they had to seek new markets outside of Europe, and Africa; for its many pockets of crisis provided the perfect market. Mush’s (2001) argument in this respect is poignant.

Civilians Affected by Small Arms; a Short Survey
These consider the following examples-
        I.            Modern conflicts claim an estimated half a million people each year. 300,000 of these are from conflicts, and 200,000 are from homicides and suicides.
   III.            Every minute, someone is killed by a gun
   IV.            At least 1,134 companies in 98 countries worldwide are involved in some aspect of the production of small arms and/or ammunition.[iii]
     V.            Civilians purchase more than 80% of all the firearms that are currently manufactured worldwide each year.[iv]
   VI.            There are at least 639 million firearms in the world today, of which 59% are legally held by civilians.
VII.            Over 80 percent of all these casualties have been civilian
VIII.            90 percent of civilian casualties are caused by small arms. This is far higher than the casualty count from conventional weapons of war like tanks, bomber jets or warships.

Present Problem of Small Arms
Some of the factors include that small arms are often
        I.            Long-life;
     II.            Low maintenance;
   III.            Relatively cheap and easily available;
   IV.            Highly portable and so easily concealable.
The above therefore makes it easy for things like:
        I.            Illicit trafficking;
     II.            Operation by young children. (There are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers in the world.)

Recommendation by the Journal of Studies in Social Sciences
The following recommendations are suggested by Journal of Studies in Social Sciences-
        I.            The institutionalization of good governance regime in member-states,
     II.            Institutional limitation of weapons in circulation,
   III.            Legal supervision and centralization of data on weapons,
   IV.            Initiation of a dialogue or partnership with arms manufacturers or suppliers,
     V.            Establishment of a data base and regional arms register

Conclusion
At last it can be said that, the uncontrolled presence of SALW has not only led to conflict, it has also exacerbated conflicts on various occasions, and indeed, encouraged the revisit of old conflicts, thereby, undermining the security arrangement of the sub-region, and also impacting, negatively, on all aspects of life. Admittedly, the problem is increasingly complex and policies to control and regulate these weapons will not come easily. Nonetheless, the scale of death and injury caused by light weapons is such that the international community must continue to search for effective means of controlling and reducing that lethal commerce of small arms and light weapons in the world.




Reference:
A.     UN Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, 1997.
B.     UN General Assembly; 8 December 2005.
C.     Ibid
D.    United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs (UNDDA)- 2001, A Destruction Handbook, Small Arms, Light Weapons, Ammunition and Explosives.  
E.     Musah, A. (2001), “Africa: The Political Economy of Small Arms and Conflicts”. DPMN Bulletin, Vol. – VIII, No-1, pp- 94-112.
F.     Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), (2000). Tackling Small Arms and Light Weapons: A Practical Guide for Collection and Destruction, Bonn.
G.    Kleck, Gary, Nothing Succeeds Like Failure. (1996) Under Fire: Gun Buy-backs, Exchanges and Amnesty Programs. Washington, D.C., p-78.
Berman, E. (2001), “Arming the Revolutionary United Front”, African Security Review, Vol. 10, No 1. p- 89.