Governments urged to unite on criteria for export of armaments

Date: 09/01/1997

By Rory Watson

THE Dutch presidency is seeking to introduce greater consistency into the way EU governments apply existing criteria when vetting export applications from weapons manufacturers.

A voluntary eight-point code of conduct adopted by the Union five years ago is designed to prevent arms sales to politically unstable parts of the world, military aggressors or dictatorial regimes.

But critics complain that differing national interpretations of the guidelines result in export bids blocked by one government being allowed by another. “Everyone agrees that the decision to award export licences is a national one, but the Netherlands wants more uniform application of the criteria. The second concern is that current divergences in interpretation create an uneven playing-field for ex-porters,” said one EU diplomat.

The Dutch attach considerable importance to conflict prevention policies. But, after failing to win agreement on a common European arms export policy during the 1991 Maastricht Treaty negotiations, they are expected to adopt a more pragmatic attitude over the next six months.

“This calls for a gradual approach. What they are expected to do is to call for more transparency and they will urge governments to explain more fully to their partners the factors behind their decision. Hopefully, that will lead to a more uniform application of the criteria,” said one observer.

Germany, Sweden, Ireland and the British Labour Party all favour clearer restrictions on arms exports.

More than 600 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) throughout the Union are also currently lobbying parliamentarians in every member state to unite behind the demand for a clearer code.

Sales of EU armaments to the developing world during 1995 amounted to 6 billion ecu. European troops involved in peacekeeping operations in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia even found themselves facing the very weapons originally sold by their own countries.

Advocates of tighter controls point out that it is often the industrialised countries themselves which have to shoulder the financial repercussions of the weapons trade by funding humanitarian assistance, reconstruction packages and peacekeeping missions.

They argue that the continued rationalisation of the European weapons industry and increased cross-border joint ventures and mergers between EU manufacturers are a further threat to the uniform implementation of the existing criteria.