Battle rages over arms exports

Date: 14/05/1998

By Mark Turner

BRITISH proposals for a Europe-wide code on ethical arms exports are still in a state of flux, only weeks before the end of the UK presidency which had touted the move as one of its top priorities.

The draft code calls on EU member states not to sell weapons to unstable regions, countries which could threaten European security or regimes which break internationally accepted standards of behaviour.

It also calls on governments to inform each other when they grant export licences to countries which have been denied by other Union member states, a move designed to prevent unscrupulous nations from undercutting more ethically sound governments.

But a debate is still raging over just how binding the rules should be. Discussions on the new code have also taken on new currency in the wake of allegations that the UK government facilitated the return to power of ousted Sierra Leone President Ahmed Kabbah earlier this year, in contravention of a United Nations arms embargo.

The code, based on the UK's own arms export policy, expressly stipulates that export licences should be denied to countries covered by a UN arms embargo and bans exports which could "aggravate tensions or existing conflicts". But critics say UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's apparent defence of the counter-coup, which returned a democratically-elected government to power, demonstrates how grey such issues can be.

Disagreement over the proposed EU-wide code centres on whether it should be a 'joint position' - a strong form of European foreign policy law - as the Scandinavian countries and Germany (which have relatively progressive arms export laws) insist, or a non-binding EU declaration as favoured by the UK and others. France is resisting even that, calling for the code to be a declaration between European states, but not formally within the ambit of the Union.

Governments are also divided over the consultation mechanisms within the code. Most countries believe that all EU member states should be informed when a country sells to regime which has been turned down by another. But France argues that the state exporting arms should only have to inform the country which previously refused. Others fear that they would have to give more information than currently required by national parliaments.

Furthermore, there are disagreements over how tightly the EU governments should commit themselves not to sell to states which abuse human rights and could use equipment for internal repression. A number of countries are unwilling to make excessively prescriptive judgements about domestic policies.

Groups like Amnesty International, Oxfam, Christian Aid and Saferworld have long expressed fears that the code is ambiguous and might achieve little in practice, especially without proper parliamentary scrutiny and binding commitments.

"Britain's draft proposal for a European code of conduct on the arms trade still falls short of its objective of 'setting high common standards governing arms exports'," they said in a recent statement.

"Tougher export guidelines, more rigorous consultation procedures and increased transparency are still needed if it is to help stem the flow of arms from Europe to the developing world."

UK Socialist MEP Glenys Kinnock has also warned against weak drafting. "The code must meet essential standards and should be clear and explicit," she said recently. "I urge those negotiating to consider the implications of such progress, and to respond to the call for public and parliamentary scrutiny of this evil trade."

The UK Presidency has not yet secured an agreement on its proposals for a Europewide code on ethical arms-exports.