Darfur, Sierra Leone, Conflict in Africa

I watched the movie "Blood Diamond" today. The movie is set against the backdrop of the conflict in Sierra Leone where the rebel army (RUF) drafted chidren as soldiers in the war. And as I saw scene after scene of how mere boys were drafted as soldiers into a mindless war - I thought the same thing that I think everytime I read about the crisis in Darfur - why doesn't anyone blame the corporations who supply the weapons?

Every society has conflict. Pick any large enough society, and there will exist groups in conflict. But without modern weapons, what's the worst they'd do to each other? They might fight - even kill - each other, but there will not be able to cause carnage on such a large scale. The fight might be bloody, but one man will not wield the power to kill hundreds of his enemies. The fight will likely require physical strength, and will be fought by men, not boys.

But introduce missile launchers, automatic weapons and helicopter gunships - and the imbalance of power shifts drastically. In Darfur, these modern weapons have been a force multiplier that have allowed well-equipped troops to ruthlessly decimate defenseless populations. Yes, the conflict would still have existed in the absence of these weapons - but it would not have had such a lopsided result.

The diamond industry has taken steps to identify and block the flow of "blood diamonds" out of conflict-torn areas - because the trade of such diamonds funds atrocities in places like Sierra Leone. So why hasn't the weapons industry done the same? Why don't we hear the weapons industry agreeing to track and block the flow of weapons into Darfur? The New York Times commentator Nicholas Kristof has done wonders to raise awareness about Darfur - but I'm baffled why he hasn't tried to identify the corporations supplying the weapons?

U.N sanctions, more international aid for refugees - these are all band-aids; we need to staunch the flow of weapons into conflict-torn areas.