Assault rifle seized in Mexico. Drug gangs illegally import firearms from the United States, which helps them drive their criminal activity. Credit: GAO

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO, Jan 13 2025 (IPS)

The case of a man arrested in Texas, in the south of the United States, for shipping arms parts to Mexico immediately caught the attention of authorities in both countries. But it was only one thread in a web that continues to become more and more tangled.

At a binational meeting in early October, following the inauguration of leftist President Claudia Sheinbaum on 1 October, Mexicans complained to their counterparts about the flow of gun parts through online shops and the United States postal service into Mexico.

The host, the Mexican government, briefed the United States government on the issue and asked for more measures to control the smuggling, including uniform shipping codes to make it easier to identify packages and confiscate them, which Washington has so far rejected.“Most trafficked weapons are obtained by dozens or hundreds of proxy buyers who conduct multiple transactions of low quantities of weapons, which are then trafficked across the border in large quantities of small shipments, usually in private cars. Detection and interdiction of these shipments is impossible”: Matt Schroeder

Sheinbaum herself stressed in her morning conference on Thursday 9 January the importance of cooperation to curb trafficking at customs and borders.

“Just as they are concerned about the entry of drugs into the United States from Mexican territory, we are concerned about the entry of weapons. What we are very interested in is that (with Trump) the entry of weapons stops,” she said.

Mexican drug cartels hire individuals in the United States to ship parts to Mexico, where they assemble the weapons, and people who receive payment in cash or remittances on both sides of the border.

In the Texas case, which broke out in December 2023, the accused sent parts and manuals, and assessed on how to assemble 4,300 rifles in exchange for payment of US$3.5 million.

It is a modality that belongs to the so-called “ghost guns”, which can be manufactured with 3D printers or assembled with parts without serial numbers, making them untraceable.

Eugenio Weigend, an academic at the public University of Michigan, with its campus in Ann-Arbour, Michigan, noted that the manufacture of so-called “miscellaneous weapons”, such as components, is on the rise.

“They are a problem. Traffickers find many ways, it’s a new channel they use, it’s one of several options. It adds another layer to the arms trade and exacerbates the problem” of drug trafficking and violence, he told IPS from Austin, capital of the border state of Texas.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 does not regulate the fragment industry, so minors and people who would not pass a legal background check in the United States can buy them.

In recent years, the production of these components has increased exponentially in the northern nation, with lethal consequences for Mexico.

As the November report Under the Gun: Firearms Trafficking in Latin America and the Caribbean, produced by the non-governmental Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), explains, transnational criminal organisations frequently change their methods and ways of obtaining weapons, persistently seeking the least guarded route.

Fragments are components, such as frames and receivers. However, specific figures for seizures of arms parts alone are not always published in a disaggregated manner, as statistics tend to group together both whole weapons and their components.

US and Mexican government delegations met in October in Mexico City to discuss security issues. Despite bilateral efforts to control the trafficking of whole or parts of arms to Mexico, this flow continues to flourish, fuelling violence in the country. Credit: SRE

Lethal mix

While Mexico provides drugs for the United States trafficking and consumption market, its northern neighbour supplies weapons to criminal gangs, in a vicious cycle that causes its share of death in both territories.

Between 2016 and 2023, seizures of shipments to Mexico more than tripled, according to the non-governmental Small Arms Survey (SAS), based in the Swiss city of Geneva.

In parallel, figures from the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)  indicate that half of the weapons seized in Mexico were manufactured in the United States, while almost one-fifth came from other countries.

In more than one-sixth of the cases, non-United States companies produced them, while the ATF was unable to establish their origin in a similar percentage.

ATF was able to trace half of the product to retail buyers, but failed to link almost 50% to a specific buyer. Half were handguns and one third were rifles.

The statistics show an obvious underreporting, as the ATF only receives weapons that a federal agency, such as the attorney general’s office or the Army, captures in Mexico and forwards to it. But captures by state agencies are excluded.

Texas and Arizona were the main sources, due to their gun shops and fairs, and this Latin American country was the main market. There are more than 3,000 arms manufacturers operating in the United States, including several producers of parts kits.

Since 2005, the trend in the manufacture of miscellaneous weapons, which are essentially frames and receivers, has been on the rise, totalling 2.7 million in 2022. But between then and 2023, production fell by 36%, according to the United States Department of Justice, based on its partial figures.

Guns boost the capacity of criminal groups vying for access to the juicy United States criminal market, which also has an impact on violence levels in Mexico.

This has a direct impact on violence in this country of 130 million people, where more than 30,000 homicides occur annually, most of them committed with firearms, and more than 100,000 people go missing.

“Most trafficked weapons are obtained by dozens or hundreds of proxy buyers who conduct multiple transactions of low quantities of weapons, which are then trafficked across the border in large quantities of small shipments, usually in private cars. Detecting and interdicting all of these shipments is impossible,” SAS researcher Matt Schroeder told IPS from his Washington headquarters.

Estimates indicate that between 200,000 and 873,000 firearms are trafficked across the United States border into Mexico each year, with between 13.5 million and 15.5 million unregistered firearms circulating in Mexico.

The trafficking of US weapons, especially high-powered rifles, has fuelled violence in Mexico throughout this century, and US and Mexican authorities have failed to curb it. Infographic: Wilson Center

Inefficient

Measures implemented by both governments have not been sufficient to stem the flow of arms and their fragments.

The two nations formed the High-Level Security Dialogue in 2021, with five groups, including one on cross-border crimes. They are also part of the Bicentennial Framework, a binational security initiative that replaced the Merida Initiative that the United States funded between 2008 and 2021.

The United States has provided Mexico with US$3 billion in assistance since 2008 to address crime and violence and strengthen the rule of law, without the desired results.

This could be explained by facts such as those detected by the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found no specific activities to achieve the set goals, nor performance indicators and evaluation plans.

In 2021, the GAO recommended improved weapons tracing, investigations of criminal organisations and greater collaboration with Mexican authorities.

That year, Mexico sued eight companies, including six United States-based producers, for US$10 billion in damages for negligent marketing and illicit trafficking of weapons in a case before the United States Supreme Court.

And on the other side, the administration of outgoing President Joe Biden, in office since January 2020 and set to hand over to ultraconservative tycoon Donald Trump on 20 January, stepped up federal controls on the purchase and distribution of guns.

Because of the loophole, the ATF issued a provision in 2022 reclassifying parts kits to have serial codes. The United States Supreme Court is considering a lawsuit brought by the producers of these kits against the measure.

The academic Weigend envisioned a complicated panorama, especially with Trump’s return to the White House.

In Mexico “this issue will continue to be a priority and a problem on the border, but in the United States I am not so optimistic that a regulation will pass at the federal level,” he said.

“Perhaps the Mexican administration will raise its voice more than the United States, it can generate more information about the impact of guns in the country, do more research, highlight the fact that the Hispanic population (in the United States) suffers more gun violence than other groups,” he said.

In fact, during his first term in office (2017-2021), Trump had a mixed performance on gun control, as his administration strengthened background checks for gun buyers and increased prosecution for gun crimes.

But it did not establish stricter laws, production and sales increased in 2020, among other causes due to the covid-19 pandemic, and the fight against cross-border trafficking made little or no progress.

For researcher Schroeder, binational trafficking requires resources to shore up several areas.

“A significant reduction in this trafficking requires, at the very least, a significant increase in resources for inspection at ports of entry and exit, for investigation of trafficking schemes, and greater coverage and education of potential sources of weapons in the United States,” he said.

Bilateral cooperation is on hold on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, who has criticised Mexico for its role in drug trafficking, to which the Mexican government has responded by asking it to help stem the flow of weapons.

A latent threat is the disappearance of the ATF, which would complicate the investigation and tracing of weapons. Republican senators Lauren Boebert, an explicit gun enthusiast, and Eric Burlinson introduced an initiative to that effect on Tuesday 7 January.

Even as countries around the world have started to sign on to and ratify a landmark international treaty that would for the first time regulate the international trade in conventional weapons, experts here are warning that the treaty in itself will not be able to maintain peace and security in Africa.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was almost unanimously passed by the U.N. General Assembly in April 2013 following a decade of often contentious negotiations. It covers small arms to battle tanks, combat aircrafts to warships.“Without import control regimes along with export controls, it will be hard to reap the benefits of the treaty." -- Thomas Countryman

Thus far, 118 states have signed on to the treaty, though only 31 have ratified the agreement. Ultimately, 50 ratifications will be needed before the ATT can come into effect.

Of the 31 states that have ratified the treaty, just two have been African – Nigeria and Mali. Yet even if, or when, more African governments decide to ratify the ATT, experts here, including some who helped negotiate the treaty, say its effect in maintaining peace in Africa will be somewhat limited.

“The ATT is an important step toward prosperity, peace and security in Africa, but by itself is not enough,” Thomas Countryman, the chief U.S. negotiator on the ATT, said this week at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank here.

In a follow-up interview, Countryman told IPS that African countries played a “very valuable role” in advocating for the treaty, but acknowledged the impediments that developing countries in Africa may face in institutionalising and implementing the ATT before and post-ratification. He also noted that the United States and the European Union are prepared to assist in the ratification and regulation process as required.

Most African countries did sign the ATT, except for Egypt and Sudan, which abstained from the General Assembly vote. In addition, Somaliland, Sierra Leone, Western Sahara, Equatorial Guinea, and Sao Tome and Principe took no public position.

For now, Countryman says, it is critical that countries implement effective and transparent export and import arms control mechanisms.

“Without import control regimes along with export controls, it will be hard to reap the benefits of the treaty,” he stated.

An important part of this, Countryman says, is implementing effective border control and customs services, both in law and practice. Other steps include the establishment and implementation of an effective legal framework for the prosecution of both internal and external illegal arms trades.

This includes, Countryman notes, the need for stronger mechanisms over government weapons.

“It is essential … [that] African states institute effective controls over state-owned stockpiles of current and legacy weapons,” he said.

Many armories in Africa were built during the colonial period or the early days of independence.

“Additional arsenals were purchased legally by the governments in the cause of national security for the military and the police,” he continued. “However, such arms are not always adequately secured.”

Securing such caches is not an obligation under the ATT, which deals solely with the international transfer of arms. However, Countryman notes that such a concern is directly related to the goals of the treaty, particularly ensuring civilian safety.

Transparency is key

“The treaty is complimentary to other actions that should be taken to stop violence perpetrated with illegally traded conventional arms,” Raymond Gilpin, the dean of the National Defense University (NDU), here in Washington, told the CSIS panel discussion on Wednesday.

Gilpin particularly emphasised the role of partnerships between the public and private sector in tackling the illicit arms trade. In this, he said, a similar model could be seen in global attempts to force greater transparency in the extractives sector in developing countries.

“As with minerals, if we leave the decision-making to the state alone, we might face reluctance in developing more transparency, a lack of resources or corruption in implementing the ATT requirements. Furthermore, one has to consider the influence of violent non-state actors in arms trade and diversion,” Gilpin said.

“Price stability as well as predictability of supply and demand relies heavily on transparency… Transparency is one of the main pillars of the ATT, and a lack of this element costs companies a lot of money.”

Gilpin made specific reference to an annual publication called the Transparency Barometer, put out by the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey. While the barometer serves as an important outlet for policy-relevant research on small arms and armed violence, Gilpin said, it focuses mostly on the exporting countries.

Control and transparency in the import-control regimes is also a very important aspect to tackle the illicit trade of arms, he cautioned.

African countries need to be more prepared for the ratification and implementation of obligations imposed by the ATT, Gilpin warned.

African states could be hindered in ratifying the treaty due to “a lack of capacity and expertise to draft the laws and prepare documentations for the parliamentary submissions, but also include state complicity,” he said.

Furthermore, certain countries view the import and management of arms as national security-related secrets. Thus, he suggests, confidentiality might be holding some countries back from ratifying the treaty.

Gilpin also emphasised the importance of strengthening public awareness about the need to prevent crimes associated with the gun violence, particularly during election campaigns on the continent.

“People get desensitised to the issue during the periods of relative peace and stability,” he said. “But to prevent conflicts from escalating and to maintain peace, civil societies need to more actively push elected officials to take more action to tackle the issue.”

Viktor Bout is extradited to the United States aboard a Drug Enforcement Administration plane on Nov. 16, 2010. Credit: DEA

By George Gao
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 28 2013 (IPS)

Viktor Bout earned a few monikers in his heyday: “Merchant of Death”, “Sanctions Buster” and “Lord of War”. He’s the poster boy for illicit arms brokers – a guild of shadowy intermediaries who link arms suppliers to their end users.

While Bout sits in a jail in the southern U.S. state of Illinois, U.N. member states are concluding an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) – an international agreement that hopes to control a trillion-dollar industry and curtail the use of arms for human rights violations. They justify in the most compelling ways that what they do is actually good for the world, using phrases like ‘in defence of humanity’ and ‘arming people to keep the peace’.

But “arms brokering” in general was hardly brought up during ATT negotiations at U.N. headquarters, from Mar. 18-28, even though Bout’s like-minded successors and contemporaries – many of who fuel the abuse of arms – remain at large.

“There’s something sinister here,” said Kathi Lynn Austin, executive director of the Conflict Awareness Project, referring to the relationships between governments and arms brokers.

“Governments around the world depend on brokers to carry out their national security operations,” she told IPS, pointing out that brokers are the main facilitators of any arms trade.

“If you talk about including these actors (in the ATT), and if you talk about bringing stronger control, then you open a can of worms and put a lot of governments on the spot,” said Austin, who’s own efforts led to Bout’s capture.

The reason brokering was not discussed, suspected Austin, was that governments made up their minds about brokering before ATT negotiations even began.

“Had there more time for (member states) to better understand the role of brokers and transporters, than you might have seen a stronger lobby for brokering,” she said.

“I just think we ran out of time (to convince them),” she added.

Brian Wood, head of arms control at Amnesty International, told IPS that there is an absence of national and international regulations surrounding brokering. Over two-thirds of U.N. member states lack national laws regulating the activity.

The final ATT itself contains only one small paragraph on brokering, which starts, “Each State Party shall take measures, pursuant to its national laws, to regulate brokering under its jurisdiction.”

Wood noted the significance of the phrase “pursuant to its national laws”. He said, “If two-thirds of countries don’t have (national) laws regulating brokering, then (by definition) the activity is not going to be illicit.”

Andrew Feinstein, author of “The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade”, told IPS that individual arms brokers are closely linked with defence contractors, governments and intelligence agencies.

Many governments and corporations are largely intertwined with arms brokers, using them as intermediaries to pay bribes and conduct other shadowy activities, he explained.

“Virtually every individual broker who is engaged in massive illegal arms trading activity are at one time or another being accessed by one or more intelligence agencies in the world,” he said.

Feinstein noted that such collusions might have played out during ATT negotiations.

“Defence companies, defence contractors and the defence sector are enormously powerful,” he said. “The ways their voices are heard are through the power they wield over governments.”

“These industries have incredibly close relationships with governments… They have an access to government which is quite unique,” said Feinstein, who served as a member of parliament for the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.

He also noted the U.K.’s position in the ATT talks. “The U.K. has been positive about some of the (strong ATT) measures imposed, but the way in which the U.K. engages in the trade is that they use a huge number of intermediaries from the world for the illicit trade,” he said.

“I think the U.K. is supporting transparency measures with the knowledge that the really big players (U.S., Russia and China) are going to put it back, and I don’t think they’re actually going to be that disappointed with it,” he added.

Feinstein warned that if the final ATT is too watered down, it might be worse than not having a treaty at all.

“It (would) effectively provide a stamp of approval for the status quo as it currently functions, a status quo that only intensifies conflict… and most ironically make the world a more dangerous place,” he said.

Who are the arms brokers?

Wood of Amnesty International told IPS, “The top arms brokers are what I call professors of the arms trade.

“They work systematically. They have a breadth of technical and legal knowledge. They have commercial acumen. They know the right people, and they’ll offer a ‘one-stop-shop’ type of service,” he said.

However, few people have a clear view of the arms brokering network. “No one has a list of arms brokers, because the governments don’t control them… We (only) get a snapshot of what’s happening,” said Wood.

The most “nefarious” brokers are the ones who are corrupt and who work to circumvent U.N. arms embargos, he added.

Feinstein, who spoke with an arms dealer as recently as last week, told IPS, “They have certain common characteristics. The first that strikes me about all of them is that they’re all these absolutely charming, larger than life, charismatic characters.”

Another characteristic, said Feinstein, is that “to a sociopathic extent”, these brokers are unable to comprehend the effects of their actions.

“They justify in the most compelling ways that what they do is actually good for the world, using phrases like ‘in defence of humanity’ and ‘arming people to keep the peace’,” he said.

“They’re unable to see the other side of what they do, the real human consequences of the ways they make huge amounts of money,” he added.

Brokering in the future

“Arms brokering thrives on globalisation,” said Wood, co-author of “The Arms Fixers: Controlling the Brokers and Shipping Agents” with Johan Peleman.

“There’s loads of submarkets for different things, thousands of products… this is tens of thousands of items being traded every day,” said Wood.

“The arms market themselves have become more differentiated,” he explained. “A lot of the stuff that’s traded are parts or components, so they’re not the finished systems.

“You have a lot of people who specialise in particular kinds of equipment. It’s a niche market,” he added.

“If they are not regulated… people may wake up and realise that brokers have taken them for a ride,” he warned.

A lot of attention goes to the U.S.-made weapons in the hands of criminal groups in this Latin American country. But there is little talk of another problem: the large number of light weapons in the hands of civilians.

The Mexican Constitution establishes the people’s right to “own guns in their homes for their safety and self-defence”, with the exception of high caliber weapons, while the 1972 Federal Law on Firearms and Explosives stipulates the requirements for enrollment in the Federal Arms Register.

Experts disagree on whether the current violent situation gripping society needs to be answered with a reform of the law, or simply application of its precepts.

“Mexico has one of the most restrictive laws. I don’t think the law is the conflict, but how it is applied,” Magda Coss, author of “Arms Trafficking in Mexico: Corruption, Weaponisation and Culture of Violence”, told IPS.

“In the application there are many flaws, there are many citizens who are unaware of them,” she said.

“On the other hand is the corruption of the authorities. There is no follow up of seizure and storage” of legal arms to prevent them from ending up on the black market,” added the expert, whose book was published in 2010.

Gun ownership in homes and their flow into the streets has helped worsen violence in Mexico, while the drug cartels are supplied through the illicit flow of arms by gangs involved in large-scale trade.

In 2011, the National Defence Ministry (Sedena) had 2.45 million registered weapons, mostly rifles and shotguns for hunting and target shooting, followed by semi-automatic pistols.

But the ministry recognises that only one in 300 weapons circulating in this nation of nearly 117 million people is legal and complies with all requirements.

In Mexico, citizens own more than 15 million illegally-sourced guns, according to the 2011 report, “Estimated firearms in civilian hands,” part of the annual Small Arms Survey developed by Geneva’s Graduate Institute of the International and Development Studies.

Experts like Luis Gutierrez, president of the non-governmental Circulo Lationamericano de Estudios Internacionales (Latin American Circle of International Studies), recommend the design and approval of a new gun law, with strict standards on purchase, possession and transfer.

“The current law is outdated and lacks effective enforcement. At home you can purchase any type of clandestine weapons, such as assault rifles and grenades,” said the activist, whose organisation is part of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA).

The fight against drugs, began since 2006 by then president of Mexico, the conservative Felipe Calderon (2006-2012), left a toll of 100,000 dead, 25,000 missing and 240,000 displaced, according to statistics by the independent Mexico Evalua (Mexico Evaluates), the National Institute of Statistics and Geography and the Attorney General.

Since Calderon’s successor, the likewise conservative Enrique Peña Nieto, took office on Dec. 1, the violence has increased the number of deaths to 850, according to a count by the Mexican press.

Mexican drug cartels augment their firepower with heavy weapons smuggled from the United States, while illegal light guns come through the southern border from Central American nations.

Between 2007 and 2012, the Mexican government seized 140,000 weapons, mostly lethal rifles such as the AK-47, AR-15 and M-16, according to figures by the Department of Defence.

The perception of insecurity that surrounds Mexican society has led civilians to acquire weapons, despite continuing social rejection to improve facilities for obtaining them. In the U.S., it is estimated that there are 270 million guns in the hands of a population of 313 million people.

A 2011 survey by consultancy Parametría found that 51 percent of Mexicans polled disapprove of gun ownership in the home, while 38 percent support a total ban.

Analysis by the Small Arms Survey places Mexico 42 out of 170 countries surveyed on the number of small arms in the hands of individuals, who mostly own this category of guns, including machine guns, rifles, assault rifles, shotguns and automatic and semiautomatic pistols.

“They don’t run awareness campaigns. The campaigns of ‘depistolization’ do not highlight the implications of having weapons at home,” Coss said, referring to the campaigns to retire weapons that are run every year by the national government and city authorities in Mexico.

The law governing this sector requires that authorities “will conduct permanent educational campaigns that induce a reduction in possession, carrying and use of weapons of any kind”, but the provision is not enforced.

Gutierrez is committed to prohibition, but recognises that the current situation hinders that goal.

“The laws that enable the acquisition of weapons should not exist, there should be a blanket ban, but at the moment this vision would encounter resistance from sectors of the population and stakeholders,” he said.

“The justification of arming a society is a grave irresponsibility,” he said.

Mexico is one of the biggest promoters of the International Arms Trade Treaty, the first binding agreement to regulate the flow, currently being negotiated at the United Nations.

But the deal was blocked in July 2012 by China, the United States and Russia.

The parties will meet again in March in New York to try to unblock the negotiations. Mexico is part of the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials, in force since 1998.

But Mexico did not join the regional campaign, “Promoting Firearms Marking in Latin America and the Caribbean”, that the Organization of American States runs in more than 20 countries, despite continuing allegations that the arms trade is responsible for many livelihoods in the region.

An investigation by the Conflict Awareness Project has exposed an active arms trading network of associates of former trafficker Viktor Bout that involves companies from the United States, South Africa and the United Kingdom, among other countries.

All are cross-linked in a complex system with its centre in the island of Mauritius.

The traffickers’ ultimate goal was to access countries such as Iran, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and possibly Syria, researchers say.

Kathi Lynn Austin, executive director of the Conflict Awareness Project, led the investigation and just returned from South Africa, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Mauritius. The former U.N. arms investigator was able to track down the illicit activities of this network led by two main actors who once were Bout’s top lieutenants: Sergey Denisenko and Andrei Kosolapov.

“Many actors involved in this network had a connection to Viktor Bout and are back in the game of shipping arms to war zones,” Austin said.

Bout, also known as the “merchant of death,” is a former Soviet Air Force officer who in April was sentenced to 25 years in prison for trying to sell weapons and aircraft missiles to what he thought were members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) but were in fact part of a sting operation set up by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

This time around, the illicit activities took place in Mauritius, an island situated on Africa’s southeast coast. It is a strategic spot due to its location as a gateway between Africa, Asia and the Middle East and thanks to tax incentives, drop-box addresses and offshore banking.

The Denisenko-Kosolapov network tried to obtain an Air Operation Certificate from the Mauritius government, which is required for planes to take off. For that purpose they sought a partnership with a local aviation company with a pre-existing certificate so they could quickly start working.

“What they were doing was very similar to patterns I have seen before,” Austin said during the press briefing. “They wanted a flag of convenience, they wanted something called an air operation certificate.”

With multiple relationships, proxies and agreements, the two arms brokers built a complex network that involved companies such as Avialinx TRD (United Arab Emirates), Gibson & Hills Investment LTD (Mauritius), Superfly Aviation (Mauritius) and Island Air Systems LTD (Mauritius.)

“They actually operated with multiple layers, shell companies and holding companies with offshore bank accounts in order to facilitate their network,” Austin explained.

After different negotiations and change of tactics, and following a meeting between representatives from the Conflict Awareness Project and the Department of Civil Aviation and the Foreign Ministry of Mauritius, earlier this month the Mauritian authorities denied the application of the company Island Air System for the air operation certificate.

“We’ve stopped a trafficking operation from taking root in Mauritius,” said Austin. “But multiple governments still need to take direct action to shut down this global network for good.”

Although Denisenko and Kosolapov are barred from entering the U.S., they tried to evade U.S. sanctions and regulations by acquiring U.S. pilots, pilot training, aircraft and aviation services.

Since Denisenko is currently listed in the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN), any U.S. person or entity is banned from doing business with him or his companies.

“He actually acquired a lease agreement through a Finnish company called Alandia Air and leased a plane out of the U.S. from Bangor, Main, from a company called C&L Aerospace,” she said.

It was the U.S. division of the C&L Aerospace company that got caught up in the illicit activities of Denisenko and Kosolapov.

In the report, the company expressed their concern with the Denisenko connections: “We did not even think to check the possibility that they were performing illegal activities.”

The executive director of the Conflict Awareness Project told IPS that she met with the U.S. embassy in Mauritius and gave them information from the investigation, but she did not have an opportunity to follow up with the U.S. government.

“We’ve demonstrated an illegal activity occurring in the U.S. so then it becomes a matter for investigation and judiciary,” she explained.

The full report will be published on Wednesday under the title: “Viktor Bout’s Gunrunning Successors: Catch Me if You Can.”

This investigation’s finding were presented at the United Nations as some 190 governments are in the midst of negotiations for a global Arms Trade Treaty. It reveals the importance of a strong and effective treaty to control the flow and supply of weapons, ammunition and armaments.

When the main issue of controversy seems to be the inclusion of small arms and ammunition, Conflict Awareness Project’s report evidences the need to agree on a robust definition of cover brokers.

It recommends that any definition should include “the entire cast of intermediaries facilitating an arms trade transaction, such as dealers, transporters, financial entities, insurance agents and holding company managers.”

“You can have solid laws, good track records, and well-meaning intentions,” said Austin, “but without a uniform international standard, arms traffickers can still take advantage of the best-governed nations of the world.”