Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-16-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041116.7.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, it is a privilege to be here today to discuss with you an issue to which this Parliament and the Dutch presidency attach great importance: arms export policy and the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. I shall begin with some comments on the report on the Council's Fifth Annual Report and on the motion for a resolution. Please allow me to start with some general remarks about the Code of Conduct.
Much time has been devoted to the status of the Code. Parliament expresses a clear preference in its report for making the Code legally binding. You may be aware that there is no consensus on this issue in the Council: about half of the Member States are in favour of making the Code legally binding, but the other half opposes it. However, there is something more important than the question of whether the Code is politically or legally binding. That is the actual content of the Code and the way it is implemented, because changing the status in itself would probably have little or no effect on the arms export policy of individual Member States.
The Romeva i Rueda report stresses the importance of increased transparency. I agree and am therefore pleased that the Council's 2004 Annual Report will be more transparent than previous ones. We hope that further steps can be taken, probably as soon as next year.
The transparency of the national reports is also of importance. The Dutch presidency, together with SIPRI, recently organised a meeting with Member States on how to improve national reporting. I am sure that subsequent presidencies will follow-up this initiative.
The resolution also advocates a monitoring system to control end-use. This is an area where more work could be done. A recent US Government study shows that, in the case of the US, between 15 and 20% of authorised exports to so-called 'vulnerable' destinations do not end in the hands of the indicated end-user. We have no figures for the EU, but there is no reason to think they would be dramatically different. We will therefore, as a first step, organise a meeting on post-shipment controls where we will be briefed by the US authorities on their experiences with post-shipment control programmes.
This brings me to probably the most politically sensitive issue. I know that the EU arms embargo vis-à-vis China attracts the special attention of this Parliament and of many national parliaments. I take note of the appeal in the resolution not to lift the arms embargo. The issue of the future of the arms embargo is still under discussion in the Council. It is therefore not possible to discuss this issue in detail. However, let me say that the Dutch presidency is well aware of the various concerns expressed by parliaments, the public, NGOs and also by important partners like the US and Japan.
One such concern is the human rights situation in China. The EU takes every opportunity to discuss human rights issues with China, and monitors carefully the developments on the ground. All these concerns are taken into account in the discussion.
We are also discussing measures supplementary to the Code of Conduct that should prevent an increase in the flow of arms and military technology from Europe to China should the embargo be lifted. The aim of these measures is to increase transparency and intensify consultation among Member States. It is not yet clear when this discussion will be concluded.
In conclusion, the Dutch presidency is pleased to see that the European Parliament pays so much attention to the important issue of arms export policy. As I said earlier, increased dialogue on this issue between the Council and Parliament is one of the objectives of our presidency. Progress has been made or is under way on many of the points mentioned in the report and the resolution.
There are areas where further progress is possible. The transparency of the national reports is one; harmonisation of the interpretation of the criteria is another. However, we can say that the glass is already more than half full. Please be assured that the Netherlands will do its utmost in the remaining six weeks of its presidency to fill the glass even fuller.
The Code of Conduct on Arms Exports was adopted in 1998, and it is no exaggeration to state that it has become one of the more successful instruments of our common foreign and security policy. Arms export policy has traditionally been veiled in secrecy. It was considered to be an essential element of undiminished national sovereignty in which interference by others was, to put it mildly, not welcome. However, since 1998 we have witnessed increasing transparency, increasing inter-state consultation and increasing harmonisation in the European Union.
That is impressive progress, and the success of the Code of Conduct is also illustrated by the interest taken in it by third countries. I am not only talking about countries aspiring to become Member States of the European Union, but others too. The Code of Conduct is a useful tool that can help them establish an efficient and responsible export control policy.
The Dutch presidency attaches great importance to further harmonisation of the European arms export policy and to making that policy even more transparent. One of the priorities of our presidency is the conclusion of the first review of the EU Code of Conduct. We hope to be able to finalise this review before the end of the year. I stress that I use the words 'first review' on purpose. It is important that we see the Code as a living document which should regularly be held up to the light, and take into consideration internal and external developments and views. Hence I am sure that this will not be the last review of the Code.
In its endeavours to enhance transparency, the Dutch presidency has also stressed the importance of increased dialogue with the European Parliament. On 1 September the Committee on Foreign Affairs held a debate with the Dutch chairman of the COARM working group on the EU Code of Conduct and the current review. The committee's rapporteur, Mr Romeva i Rueda, participated in a conference on the review of the Code on 30 September in The Hague. We have also invited Mr Romeva i Rueda to an informal meeting with the COARM working group on 3 December to discuss Parliament's report. Furthermore, we have invited Mr Romeva i Rueda to participate in a meeting which the presidency is organising, together with the Czech Government, in Prague, to inform the candidate countries and Norway on the implementation of the Code. We think it is important that the parliamentary role in European arms export policy is highlighted in that regard.
At this point I would like to make some more specific remarks on the draft report and on the motion for a resolution. The European Parliament report refers to the Council's 2003 report. Since then a lot has happened, most importantly the review of the Code of Conduct. Some of the points addressed in the report are being discussed in the framework of this review. In this respect I should mention the following points.
The European Parliament report welcomes the common position on arms brokering. In the present review there is already consensus to extend the application of the Code to brokering activities. The same is true for licensed production overseas, and transport and trans-shipment. Licence applications for these activities will become subject to the criteria and practices set out in the Code of Conduct. Furthermore, the Code should also be applicable in cases of so-called intangible transfers of technology.
Outside the context of the review of the Code of Conduct, we have made progress in areas such as outreach. I have already mentioned the seminar in Prague in December. In September, Member States agreed on a more coherent approach concerning outreach. The Council Secretariat will keep a database on the outreach activities of the individual Member States so as to achieve better coordination.
Progress has also been made in the further development of the denial notification and consultation system – one of the core elements of the Code. Consultations on denials are now taking place in such a way that all Member States are informed about the consultation. Only the final decision of a Member State as to whether or not it will undercut the denial is not automatically shared with all the partners. Furthermore, an electronic database is being developed by the Council Secretariat, which will contain the denials notified by Member States, as well as information on the consultations they have undertaken. This database will contribute greatly to the efficiency of bilateral consultations and the transparency of their outcomes."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples