Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.17.1-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, unfortunately, this is yet another agreement at first reading – but I expect Mrs Weiler will talk about that later.
We must take the opportunity to reach a compromise under the French Presidency. Currently, armaments are not covered by the rules on the internal market, which means that all such products need to be licensed individually: from simple products such as screws or elements of uniforms, all the way up to highly complex weaponry, everything requires an individual licence. 27 different national systems issue these individual licences, and we are now trying to simplify and harmonise the matter, in order to provide greater clarity and so that the real work – namely inspections – can focus on the complex systems: in other words, so that, rather than having to monitor everything equally by means of individual licences, we can really concentrate on what is essential.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that any such simplification must not weaken the Member States’ responsibility for arms exports and for monitoring them: absolutely not. This responsibility is mainly concentrated in the licensing procedure. The licences lay down restrictions on use and end-use, which are a fixed component of the product and its supply and which the recipient is obliged to comply with. A European regulation must strengthen this responsibility on the part of the Member States, as well as requiring them all to use the same procedure.
Simplification in a field as sensitive as this absolutely must take account of the fact that there are repeated contraventions in the EU against the restrictions on exports to third countries. Weapons from the EU are being used in countries notorious for their violations of human rights, such as 82 armoured military vehicles that, in September 2006, were exported via France and Belgium to Chad, contrary to EU law. Previously, although Member States could, on paper, require the recipient to comply with the end-use clauses, they had no practical recourse against a recipient in another Member State that re-exported the goods contrary to the restriction.
For example, the NGO Saferworld has noted with regret that Romania has no effective sanctions against contraventions of the national weapons transfer system. With this directive, we want to change that. With this directive, we have strengthened the Member States’ responsibilities. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the directive is based on internal market legislation, on Article 95 of the EC Treaty – in other words, on the first pillar of the treaty, which has unfortunately made it impossible to directly include foreign-policy agreements under the second pillar, such as the European Code of Conduct on arms exports. Even so, we have a clearly worded recital that makes it plain that it is the Member States that bear the responsibility in this field.
My main concern as the European Parliament’s rapporteur was to increase transparency and democratic controls, in order to prevent contraventions or, if they do occur, to punish them. The preconditions for facilitating arms transfers are strengthened responsibility on all sides and greater mutual trust.
In particular, we have strengthened two licensing procedures – first the global authorisation and second the general authorisation – and, in so doing, have laid down clear obligations for businesses seeking a general authorisation. In future, these businesses will have to be certified, as the only way of obtaining general authorisations. Certification will require seamless accountability from the business up to the highest management levels with regard to compliance with the export restrictions imposed. Member States are required not only to withdraw certification from businesses that fail to comply with these restrictions, but also to punish them. In future, a list of businesses with general authorisations will be published in publicly accessible registers, which will provide the public with greater transparency and monitoring options. General authorisations will also have to be published, with all the obligations they include.
All the Member States must use the same criteria for the certification of businesses: this is a particularly important point. The directive will therefore increase the pressure on Member States that have so far authorised and managed arms exports with no visibility. This means that a field that, according to Transparency International, is particularly prone to corruption will for the first time be properly transparent."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples