Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-221"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.9.3-221"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I read Mr Titley’s remarkable report with very great interest. If you allow me, I would like to elaborate on two aspects.
In the explanatory statement, the rapporteur lists four “essential criteria” which European policy needs to satisfy in the field of arms exports. The third criterion, the needs and challenges of the European defence industries, and to a certain extent criterion 4, the development of a common defence policy, are potentially and factually at odds with criterion 1, namely the consistency of the Union’s external action, whereby its objectives regarding conflict prevention and promotion of human rights prevail.
After all, the European arms industry needs to export, and these exports often end up in countries which are not serviced by successful competitors for a variety of political and strategic reasons. Unfortunately, practice has shown that these are often countries which should not be supplied with arms in the interests of conflict prevention. Think of the warring parties in Congo and countries in the Middle East. On the basis of this consideration, I would argue in favour of clarity: which criterion prevails in the event of the criteria quoted by Mr Titley clashing?
Secondly, the rapporteur is completely right in putting his finger on the sore point of supervision by national governments of the conduct of their own arms dealers. Not the slightest obstacle is put in the way of these dealers, as long as they only use the telephone to set up deals between parties in other countries.
A useful addition to Mr Titley’s practical proposals could perhaps be the introduction of a licensing system to finance the trade in weapons used in war, as well as to settle arms deals. Monitoring the money circuit is bound to make it more difficult to avoid arms trade regulations. At the same time, when the financial flows are monitored, it means that governments use one and the same yardstick, unlike in the present situation, where they are intent on monitoring the real flows whilst turning a blind eye to the virtual, financial flows."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples