Armed conflict has cost African economies $284 billion since 1990. That's what the headlines inspired by a study released today from Oxfam International shout. But the real story is not how much money is lost to conflict on the continent; it's how much is being made in the global arms trade.

The Oxfam study points out that $3 billion is roughly the same amount that the international community has shelled out in aid to Africa during the same period, implying that if the conflicts ended, Africa could cover the cost of education, clean water, and treating health scourges like HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria without any outside help.

I guess that's meant to get someone's attention.

But the real money shot comes further down, where the researchers point out that the Kalashnikov, like nearly all weapons and ammo supporting the "African genocide state," comes from outside the country and usually outside the continent. As in, from the very same nations that are "helping" Africa by sending aid.

The study does not name names, but others are less timid about calling out the United States, Eastern European mobsters, and the neighborhood arms dealer, South Africa.

The United Nations is currently negotiating a global Arms Trade Treaty that would restrict the sales of arms to Africa and other conflict zones such as Haiti, Colombia, and Guatemala. The United States opposed a resolution by the United Nations to draft such a treaty last year, but was unable to block it.

Strange, isn't it, that our focus in the "drug war" is on the supplier, while in armed conflict, the arms pushers remain strictly out of our government's sights.

If you'd like to put the United States on target to join the other 153 countries pushing for global arms control, check out Oxfam's Control Arms campaign.