LAURANCE: Well, I think, first of all, there's been about four years of very intensive research. And a consensus has formed around what the effects are of these weapons. So there's not much dispute any more.

We're talking about -- first and foremost, I think, is the fact that a significant percentage of the casualties in the conflict now are to civilians, and they're from these weapons. So you're really talking about human suffering now. No question about it.

But even more than that, the proliferation and the aggregation, or the accumulation of these weapons in societies has destabilized these societies, disrupted economic development. Militarized societies, in the sense that conflict resolution now is more and more military in nature.

And finally, governments coming out of either -- in a post-conflict situation, or democratic transition, where they need every bit of money they can get for real things, have to deal with all these injuries.

So that, I think, is the first reason that it's come to the fore, is that there's a consensus on what the effects are.

INTERVIEWER: And what would be the key issues in the small arms arena?

LAURANCE: Well, I think in terms of -- the first thing I would say is that there's a recognition now that despite the fact that we know what the root causes are of these conflicts, that there's a recognition that the best way to get at these is to focus on the tools of violence themselves.

This is also new, but it's also a consensus, that this is the way to get at it. And so that's, I think, the first thing that comes up.

In terms of getting at the problem, there's a whole range of thing. Four big ones. One is the focus on legal transfers. Most of the weapons that come into these regions come there legally, and then get distributed illegally. And they go to states and nonstate actors who habitually violate the human rights of their citizens, and violate international humanitarian law.

Secondly, something has to be done about the illicit trade, the black market trade, et cetera.

Third, I think -- and what's different than the previous era, is the fact that a significant number of these weapons are not being exported into these regions; they're already there. They're recirculated. So the third major effort has to be in identifying the surplus, collecting that surplus, and destroying it.

The fourth is to do something -- we started to call it the "Norms of Nonpossession." Create norms within a society as to who can possess weapons and who cannot possess weapons. A big problem in many of these countries that we're working in now is the fact that individual civilians have almost unlimited supply and possession of assault rifles and hand grenades. These are weapons that were designed for responsible militaries, and they're being used illegally by citizens to kill other citizens.

INTERVIEWER: Can you give me an example of specific policy measures that have occurred, and why they have or have not been successful?

LAURANCE: Well, I think -- in the last issue that I mentioned, in terms of weapons collection, we've had several examples in Central America -- take, as an example, El Salvador -- where, after the peace process, two to 300,000 weapons are still circulating, despite what was deemed a successful U.N. effort.

And the citizens of El Salvador decided that they had to start to do something about these weapons, and they organized a voluntary weapons collection program -- so-called "buy back" program -- and they've taken in over 8,000 weapons, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition and hand grenades as a start towards changing the norms in that society, reducing the number of weapons, and bringing the attention of everybody to this problem.

INTERVIEWER: Any government initiatives that have --

LAURANCE: Certainly. Certainly. On the illicit side, we have the Organization of American States treaty on illicit trafficking, which is a good start. Mainly, because, as countries ratify this treaty, they have to change their national laws and procedures. This treaty calls for a variety of things which, in the long run, really improve the situation. Licensing of producers and brokers; uniform export end use certificates, and the like.

The European Union has put together a program to combat illicit trafficking, which includes, I think, very importantly, provisions for capacity building in other countries to deal with illicit trafficking. Boosting customs control, and so on and so forth.

And there are many individual countries who've taken steps to improve their license existence also. So there's obviously a great deal of work to be done.

INTERVIEWER: Okay. What do you see as the role of civil society in dealing [inaudible] the small arms issue?

LAURANCE: Well, in my view, civil society is the most important aspect to this, because, as we know, we tend to divide this problem into the supply side and the demand side. On the supply side, very little -- very little newly produced weaponry gets exported any more. The most significant problem, as I said, is those weapons that are circulating within the country.

This means that even if you had a perfect international regime on export control, and so on and so forth, you would really only be dealing with a small part of the problem. So the biggest challenge is to do something about the weapons that are already there. And so reducing the demand becomes absolutely critical.

And that's where civil society comes in, because only civil society -- and I'm talking about local initiative, and towns and cities, and perhaps some national programs -- really gets at solving that particular problem. And that's where the NGO community is really going to have an impact.

So it's different than the traditional arms trade problem that we've been dealing with before the end of the Cold War, or during the Cold War.

INTERVIEWER: There have been a lot of criticisms of the U.S. government in terms of not addressing this problem as quickly as other governments have, or coming to the table with perhaps an agenda, trying to be sensitive to domestic policy. What can the U.S. do in terms of its own policy, to address the small arms problem?

LAURANCE: Well, the United States still continues to export arms to countries who have no business getting these arms. And they're, quote, "legal," unquote. But they certainly aren't helping the situation. So there's still a problem, as there's been for many years, in the U.S., selling weapons where they simply don't do any good, and add to the problem.

God knows there's enough weapons around the world now that the U.S. doesn't have to send any small arms and light weapons. So there's always that problem.

I think the biggest thing that the United States could do, could recognize it as a problem and begin to contribute to the international involvement in solving these problems. Quite honestly, I think there -- given the fact that there are some U.S. arms sales that I personally wouldn't agree with, the U.S. is a very small part of the problem in this area. Most of the problem comes from Eastern Europe, and China, and some of these other countries dumping their surplus on the market to the highest bidder.

So the U.S. could be very, very helpful in all these programs on the demand side. They could engage in programs of assisting building up a country's capacity to deal with these weapons. More importantly, I think they could focus on some of these other issue areas, such as development and human rights, and violations of international and humanitarian law.

They're in a good position to do it. I think their record is pretty good in that area, and -- so I think that's the best potential.

The problem with the United States is the bureaucracy is so huge that they will always have trouble getting a unified policy to deal with this problem. But there's tremendous potential for the U.S. to really contribute to the solution of this problem.

INTERVIEWER: The U.S. has blocked several international agreements and treaties from going forward: land mines, , et cetera. Does the U.S. need to be onboard in terms of supporting actions against the small arms problem, or can the international community go ahead with their agenda without the support of the United States?

LAURANCE: Well, I think the international community is going ahead on this issue without the United States, but in the case of small arms and light weapons, as the, you know, global solutions start to emerge, what's missing is the resources and the clout of the United States. I mean, that was the same with the land mines.

It's fine that the United States, you know, says that they'll abide by the policy, and so on and so forth. But not having them on board is a very critical absence, I think, for any kind of international effort. So they would become very important if they decided to join.