It is almost inevitable that NATO troops should be given unenviable tasks, and their latest mission is no exception.  In Macedonia they are not peace-makers or peace-enforcers, but collectors of weapons.  

We have seen in Northern Ireland how sensitive is this issue.  Already there has been bloodshed in Macedonia and it is difficult to see what the mission can accomplish.  The NATO objective is to collect 3,000 weapons from the Albanian Muslims in 30 days, which averages one weapon for each NATO soldier.  Rough estimates put the rebels’ arsenal at 100,000 weapons, and NATO does not expect to receive much that is state-of-the-art.  The exercise seems little more than symbolic.  Perhaps the rebels hope that the small-scale handing over of weapons will persuade NATO not to bring home the troops, thus providing the longer term protection they feel they need.  Meanwhile, the Macedonian army is taking advantage of the thirty-day truce to re-arm.  Escalation seems the most likely outcome.

If there is a problem that can be separated into supply and demand we always seem to tackle the demand side.  If we burn too much fossil fuel we put pressure on millions of car drivers and home owners, not the handful of organisations that extract the fossil fuel; if we want to reduce the criminal aspect of street drugs we punish users and small pushers, not the drug barons.  The United Nations estimate that there are some 500 million light weapons in the world, half of which are held illicitly by individuals and guerrilla forces.  If NATO and UN soldiers were each to decommission one gun every thirty days for the rest of their lives it would not stem the flow.

There exists twice the number of weapons than are needed to meet the world’s legitimate requirement, and so the world’s manufacturing output ought to be halved.  We have recognised the need to curb nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and anti-personnel land mines; the same principle applies to light weaponry.  It would be easier to dismantle or destroy several hundred arms factories than deal with the consequences of illegal arms held by 250 million near-criminals. 

Even without guns, human beings will find ways of inflicting pain and death on other human beings.  Nevertheless, a drastic reduction in guns would have a significant effect on the large-scale suffering that accompanies civil war, ethnic cleansing and organised crime. 

Increasingly, we are becoming aware of the complex inter-reliance of nations on other nations.  If cultural and sporting exchange is desired, and aid and trade required, the price must be measured in world stability.  Whether by diplomacy or by stronger methods, the UN needs closer control on the world production of weapons.  No doubt the protests will be loud and self-righteous, but the prize is worth the struggle.