Policy recommendations

  • All EU Member Sates should work towards an effective new Arms Trade Treaty and towards a new international instrument for the control over brokers. All EU Member States should implement extra-territorial legislation that enables them to control European brokers¡¦ operations from abroad;
  • The EU should adopt a legally binding Common Position on arms trade without any further delay, thereby making the Code of Conduct (CoC) a legally binding instrument;
  • The EU should strengthen the Code of Conduct so that all EU Member States are required to control all transit, are required to apply the CoC criteria for licensed production overseas or subsidiaries, and are required to demand end-user certificates and control over the re-transfer of their arms;
  • The EU should guarantee a more effective use of criterion 8 of the EU-Code of Conduct that takes greater account of the economic situation in the receiving country. This criterion should be redefined in such a way that Member States will only be able to permit a transfer if it can be ensured that the transfer will not harm sustainable development and the applicant/recipient can identify a legitimate defence need for the specific transfer;
  • The EU should discuss high military spending in their bilateral dialogues with those countries that receive EU development aid with the aim of lowering these expenditures and using these funds for development goals;
  • The EU should work towards more coherent policies; the EU council and Commission work groups on arms control and development policies should regularly meet and discuss issues of common concern.

Case: Arms-trade Policies

13-12-2010 EU’s weapon exports: profit is all that matters

In 2008, the EU declared the EU code of conduct on the control of exports of military technology and equipment legally binding; Meaning, that the export of weapons to third countries is restricted by certain criteria, like: “Member States shall deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the military technology or equipment to be exported aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim.” [1] It is understandable that the weapons industry wants to make profit. However, according to a report (presented below) published on November 22nd, EU Member States seem to have the same interest, as they are approving weapons exports to third countries, by not applying the agreed criteria.

An Vranckx of the Conflict Research Group edited ‘Rhetoric or Restraint? Trade in military equipment under the EU transfer control system. A report to the EU Presidency’ which was a collaboration between the University of Gent, several European NGOs, and the Belgian Federal Service of Foreign Affairs. In the report it was presented that weapon deals were made with Israel, Morocco, Russia and Venezuela that should have been refused under the set criteria. Also weapons were exported to countries, like Mali and Chad, without any attention being paid to the consequences for local development and human rights situations in both countries and the region. Lastly, the report mentions that too often weapons exported from the EU do end up in conflict situations and some Member States are not taking the necessary precautions to prevent this. Most of the small arms used in the conflict in Colombia originate from an EU member state.   

Fair Politics welcomes the research on this topic, and hopes that the EU Member States will stop exporting weapons to developing countries where they are being used to destabilise the region. Stability is a necessity in order to give development a chance.

For the full report click here

[1] Article 2 criteria 4, Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP: defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:335:0099:0103:EN:PDF>.