The arms export policy of EU countries is based on the legally binding Common Position on the exports of military technology and equipment. The Common Position aims to prevent weapons, military technology and military components to end up with human rights violators and war mongers. It is based on human values, respect for human rights and the prevention of war and violence. Member States must adapt their national policies to the principles laid down in this Common Position.
At present, the European Commission is proposing far-reaching policy changes to de-regulate the European Union, including on military-related matters. These policy changes are motivated on economic considerations as summarised in the Draghi report on EU competitiveness as well as on security considerations, finding their latest expression in the Defence Readiness Omnibus.
What is missing in these policy proposals is a realisation that uncontrolled and unrestrained arms exports to countries all over the world will lead to more insecurity and might contribute to violence against nations and populations. The European Network Against Arms Trade, a network of researchers and campaigners that wants a controlled and restrained arms trade, is very worried that the changes the European Commission is proposing are happening mainly unnoticed while leading to a more dangerous world with more refugees and more suffering.
Dismantling export control
One particularly worrying proposal aims to “simplify” the EU directive for arms trade inside the EU, in short the ‘Transfers directive’. The first revision of this directive in 2016 was already problematic, the current revision represents a further step towards the deregulation of intra EU arms trade, with potentially significant impacts on the control of exports outside the EU. This issue looks technical in nature, but a thorough analysis and consideration of the broader picture including overseas exports and rearmament plans show that the proposal:
* effectively dismantles national export control systems without proposing alternative measures to comply with the EU Common position on arms export control or international law, in particular the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT);
* gives significant de facto powers to the European Commission (EC) outside of clear competences, appropriate governance, parliamentary oversight and European & International law;
* and makes arms companies key players who are both judge and jury when it comes to compliance with export restrictions, reducing transparency and creating a climate of widespread irresponsibility.
According to the EU Common Position, arms export control is based on a national permit system for individual exports of arms, military components and technology. This system of individual licenses is crucial, because different countries make different risk evaluations, based on democratic public debate. Clear examples of this are grave concerns about military exports to Saudi Arabia, shared in many countries but not all, and to Israel, also shared in many countries but not all.
Industry controlling itself
With its proposals to ‘simplify’ intra-EU arms trade, the EC is greatly limiting national individual evaluations and extending general licences (which authorise unlimited amounts and quantities over several years) to a wide range of actors, weapons and components, and gives the arms industry responsibility for controlling actual deliveries and possible export restrictions instead of expert government agencies. It will result in military technology, systems and components to be sold and resold and lost track of.
With general licences, the countries with the biggest production share will be in control of export, at the expense of other countries. This will lead to a loss of arms export control for smaller, component-producing countries and for countries with stricker export policies. Moreover, the proposal includes to extend general licences to ‘European’ – and not only EU- arms producers participating in cross-border projects, with the risk that arms trade is no longer under control in EU countries that stick to the Common Position, but is extended to non-EU countries such as Turkey, Ukraine or even Israel (already part of many European or EU programmes).
That the military industry cannot always export everything as quickly as they want to everywhere might be hampering commercial interests, but this is with a reason. The commercial interest of the military industry, the ‘stakeholders’ as the European Commission calls them, has to give way to overruling interests of peace and human rights. This is exactly the aim of arms export control. It also does not make sense to change arms export control policy with an appeal to ‘security interests’ when the change leads to more insecurity. (See e.g. The report: Arms trade, conflicts and human rights. Analysis of European arms exports to countries in armed conflict and human rights violation.)
National govenments should act
According to the European Network Against Arms Trade, all changes to the Transfer directive should be rejected, as they constitute another attempt by the European Commission to de facto take over the EU arms export licensing process and will result in a loss of control on arms exports by Member States. Notably, the proposal to broaden the scope of delegated acts would allow the European Commission to define key aspects of the arms export licensing process, such as defining sensitive components, cases for exemptions, conditions for general licences or the threshold of participation under wich a country cannot have a say on re-exports outside the EU (the de minimis rule), almost unilaterally . Instead of improving arms export controls, the European Commission is liberalising the international arms market even further, which poses a considerable risk to peace and human rights.
As the European parliamentary committees of Security & Defence and Internal Market have decided that this major policy change does not need approval of the planery assembly of the European parliament before entering into negotiations with the EU Council– thereby shortcutting normal democratic procedures – our hope is on national governments and parliaments to prevent this liberalisation of a market that should by all means be controlled.
Note: For an in-dept analysis of the proposed changes in the Transfer Directive see the ENAAT Briefing paper Weakening Arms Transfers Rules or how to sell principles & ethics for the sake of arms dealers
Wendela de Vries – Stop Wapenhandel Netherlands
Laëtitia Sédou – European Network Against Arms Trade Brussels/EU
Charlotte Kehne – Ohne Rüstung Leben Germany