Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 17 January 2007 - Strasbourg

8. Seventh and eighth annual reports on arms exports (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Mr Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the Council’s Seventh and Eighth Annual Reports according to Operative Provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

(2006/2068(INI)) (A6-0439/2006).

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, this is now the third time that it has been my honour to address the Commission and the Council to present them with the European Parliament’s annual assessment of the implementation of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

I am delighted to be doing so at a time when, at the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the process has formally begun to adopt an international treaty on the transfer of arms, which furthermore is something that broad sectors of civil society throughout the world have always demanded.

You will have noticed that this time we have analysed two consecutive years, 2004 and 2005, in order to put an end to the time lag that has happened with previous reports between the presentation of the annual report by the Council and the European Parliament's assessment. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the Council has considerably speeded up the presentation of its annual report, it is still arriving too late – the 2005 report arrived in the autumn – and we are therefore once again insisting that it would be desirable for the Council to continue with its recent efforts to ensure transparency and punctuality and for the annual report to be available at least during the first quarter of the following year. The European Parliament must of course also do its bit and must respond punctually to the presentation of the Council's annual report.

With regard to the specific content of the report that we are dealing with today, relating, as has been said, to the Council's seventh and eighth reports, I would like to stress certain significant data and facts.

Firstly, the data. According to the statistics provided, the trend with regard to the weight of European arms exports compared to those from the rest of the world is being maintained, since around a third of all arms exports originate from the European Union. In 2004, European arms exports were worth almost EUR 10 billion and in 2005 that figure was EUR 9 billion. Nevertheless, what interests us here also is the total value of the licences issued, because that is what demonstrates whether the Code of Conduct is really being applied properly. From that point of view, the figures rise to EUR 25 billion for 2004 and EUR 26 billion for 2005.

Furthermore, another significant and worrying fact is that the countries buying European arms include China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Indonesia, Israel and Nepal, names which are regularly raised in debates on urgent matters on Thursday afternoons in this Parliament, which on the face of it would appear to be a flagrant violation of the very content of the Code of Conduct.

Secondly, and this is surely the most important aspect that we point out in our report, we must express our great disappointment at the fact that, despite the fact that Coreper decided back in June 2005 to turn the current Code of Conduct into a common position, thereby giving it a legal status at European level that it does not yet have, and despite the fact that the technical work for this change was done months ago by COAR exports, the Council has yet to bring it into effect. The most significant factor is that, in the absence of an explicit reason for that delay, the implicit underlying reason is that certain governments would be making that transformation, and hence the strengthening of the Code of Conduct, conditional upon the simultaneous lifting of the arms embargo on China.

Please allow me to make something very clear. We in this House have always believed the two issues to be independent of each other. With regard to the arms embargo on China, the Council and the Commission know what our position has been and that is that its lifting must be conditional upon clear and effective progress in terms of respect for human rights in China, particularly in relation to the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

It is clearly an important issue, and we are going to debate it, but what concerns us today is the European Union’s Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, which relates to arms exports to the whole world, not just to China. In that regard, and in other words, and excuse my frankness, we do not understand and we do not accept that delay, and nor do the huge number of organisations in civil society who for years have been working in favour of a bigger and better mechanism for controlling arms exports, both at European and at world levels, with a view to reducing the damaging impact that this kind of trade often has.

For all of these reasons, I hope that the report that this House will approve tomorrow, given its content and its political timeliness, will help in some way to improve the control of arms exports, both at European and global levels, within the framework of a future international treaty on the transfer of arms, which we hope is not too far away.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I am grateful to your House for presenting this report, and in particular to your rapporteur Mr Romeva i Rueda, who has been, as rapporteur, responsible for this annual report on the EU’s code of conduct for four years now, and of whose work the Council and the Member States are appreciative.

I also want to stress that the Council welcomes many of the suggestions in the report and will endeavour to implement them. Among the many I could mention are the further development of best practice in the application of the code’s criteria; improvement of the reports produced by the nation states and those consolidated at EU level; the complete implementation of the Common Position on the control of arms brokering; the ongoing invitation of Members of the European Parliament to certain seminars and workshops; the continuation of the EU Presidency’s practice of presenting papers from the Council working party on arms exports to the security and defence sub-committee and the invitation extended to the rapporteur to attend meetings with the working party.

The European Union and the Member States will also give their full support to negotiations towards an international treaty on the arms trade, as was stated by the Council in its conclusions of 11 December 2006, in which it also stated, inter alia, that it welcomed the formal commencement of the process of drafting a legally binding international treaty on the arms trade as accomplished by the adoption, by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 6 December 2006, of the resolution on an international treaty on the arms trade, for the purpose of laying down common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

The Council was particularly pleased to note that, in the operative sections of the resolution, the Secretary-General was requested to seek the member states’ views as to the feasibility, potential scope of, and provisional criteria for, such a comprehensive and binding legal instrument. It expressed the same sentiment concerning the appointment of a group of government experts who would begin examining these issues in 2008.

The Council therefore, in its conclusions, re-emphasised the fact that the European Union and its individual Member States would be playing an active part in this process. The European Union and all other member states of the United Nations are called on to actively support the process of drafting a treaty on the arms trade, to communicate their views to the Secretary-General and to participate in the work of the group of government experts.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, Mr Romeva i Rueda, honourable Members, the responsibility for controlling and monitoring the sale of arms obviously lies primarily with the Member States. The Commission is involved in this matter, however, through its role in the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Your rapporteur, Mr Romeva i Rueda, has once again drafted an excellent report, which calls on the Member States to do more and better in terms of applying a rigorous, harmonised and transparent approach to controlling and monitoring the EU’s arms exports. The improvements made to the European controls can and must encourage other regions of the world to start by adopting, as a minimum, good practices, and to apply them. We must make sure that perfectly legitimate exports do not end up in the wrong hands, as they would help to provoke armed conflicts or human rights violations.

While having been drafted primarily for the Member States, your report, Mr Romeva i Rueda, includes some elements that the Commission supports. On behalf of Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, I am therefore going to inform you of the comments and our remarks on these elements.

Firstly, the Commission welcomes the new focus given by your report to the issue of private security companies, and it is in favour of the development of a mechanism for regulating their activities. This issue is in some ways linked to that of the reform of the security sector, within which private companies, just like State institutions, must work in accordance with the principles of democratic control, of responsibility, of respect for human rights and of respect for the rule of law. The European Community actively supports all activities aimed at reforming the security sector in many regions of the world. Effective controls in the field of arms exports are part of this effort.

Furthermore, the Commission is playing an active role in the fight against the illicit distribution of small arms and light weapons. We share the view that improved control and monitoring of arms exports and its associated activities, such as brokering, can help reduce the illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons, as their distribution contributes to armed violence and human insecurity and sustains regional and internal conflicts.

As part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, we are also working with the Member States with the aim of implementing the EU strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons, which was adopted by the Council in December 2005. For some time now, the Commission has been working with international and regional organisations, research centres, NGOs and civil society to prevent the consequences of the inappropriate or illicit sale of arms. We need to be aware of these challenges and to be able to respond to them. In a number of regions of the world, this trafficking may be linked to the trafficking in drugs or in raw materials such as tropical wood, minerals or diamonds.

In 2007, the Commission will take advantage of its chairmanship of the Kimberley Process to help improve the implementation of the controls. We must prevent diamonds from being trafficked for the purposes of allowing rebel groups to buy weapons. We must also closely monitor the illicit trafficking in arms by air. I am aware that this mode of transport is used for many trafficking operations – particularly in the case of aircraft bound for the African continent – and we must make use of all the customs authorities in order to prevent this.

It is true that the international framework is not in favour of negotiation and of the adoption of legally binding multilateral disarmament instruments, but that must not stop us from strengthening the controls on arms exports. We support the Member States’ efforts to establish a treaty on the arms trade, even though it will take time to negotiate it. In the meantime, it is crucial for the European Union to work at national and regional level to improve and strengthen the existing measures.

Finally, the Commission is active in helping to implement international instruments and to enforce them in the various countries. The implementation of the United Nations action programme to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and the Ottawa Treaty prohibiting anti-personnel mines are actively helping to safeguard human lives.

I shall sum up, Mr President, by saying that this report really must be taken seriously by all those European officials with responsibility for monitoring arms exports. We must work together to improve our performance in this area. A consistent approach requires the use of a broad range of tools, from international diplomacy and political influence to the control of exports and development aid. For the sake of effectiveness, these tools must be used in a complementary fashion. The overriding issue that your report highlights very well, Mr Romeva i Rueda, is that there can be no real human or socio-economic development without this vital security, and your report highlights – if there were any need to highlight it – our responsibility regarding worldwide arms exports.

  Karl von Wogau, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by extending my own, very heartfelt, congratulations to Mr Romeva i Rueda for the very valuable and dedicated work he has done as our rapporteur on this subject over recent years, and which he is continuing to do today. I would also like to thank you, Commissioner, for what you have had to say about the Commission’s activities in combating arms smuggling and about the fact – well-known to all of us – that the first precondition for any economic development in developing countries is the establishment of security, without which no economic development is going to happen.

Mr Romeva’s report has to do with common rules applicable to arms exports, and the problem with these is that, while we do have common rules in the shape of the Code of Conduct, this code is not itself binding. How, then, can it be made binding in law? Firstly, this can be done by individual Member States declaring it to be so or stipulating it by law, which is what Germany, among others, has done. It can also be accomplished by means of a single European regulation, a Common Position, towards which we are now making progress, and in the direction of which we must continue.

The real problem, however, is that, although we have, in principle, common rules, these are implemented by 27 different offices in 27 Member States, and, moreover in highly divergent ways. Although the Member States keep each other informed about these matters, they do not reach decisions jointly; for example, a weapons embargo has been imposed on China, but the definition of what is a weapon under the terms of this embargo is subject to rules that are interpreted differently in the 27 Member States and in a different way again in the USA. Things cannot go on like this; we need more common ground here.

We are heading towards a common defence policy, of which the development of joint armed forces forms part. There are many who seem not to be aware of the fact that – in Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example – troops are already under European command and that they are bringing peace and security to those places. There is also a need for a single defence market, something towards which we have taken great strides over recent years, but, if both these things come to pass, there will also be a need for more joint action in the field of the monitoring of arms exports. That is one of the important tasks that we will have to deal with over the coming years, and it is one for the German Presidency of the Council too.

  Ana Maria Gomes, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Mr President, may I offer my congratulations on your re-election. I commend Mr Romeva i Rueda on the outstanding work he has done, once again, which explains the almost unanimous vote in committee.

There are a number of reasons for this consensus in Parliament on the future Code of Conduct, but the main one is as follows: bucking the trend in some Member States, where there continues to be a lack of transparency and where arms exports policy is driven by short-term considerations, we in Parliament believe that the EU needs to have a common, effective and credible arms exports policy that respects fundamental values, especially human rights, and is linked to the Union’s external and development policies, thus contributing to, and strengthening, their coherence.

Parliament’s capacity to influence the Council and public opinion on this debate is based on the fact that our positions are coherent and principled, and free of national self-interest and of the detrimental effects of a short-term approach. Parliament has been the voice of Europe on this issue. Parliament’s message on this latest report is as clear as it has always been. Firstly, we want to elevate this Code of Conduct to common position status. This is a necessary measure, proof of which lies in the fact that the European Council’s working group has had a text ready to be approved since June 2005 but is dragging its feet as regards approving it. The resolution also reiterates the importance of this measure not being contingent on the fate of the China arms embargo, which remains justified. It is also important to strengthen existing mechanisms. National reports on the implementation of the Code of Conduct, for example, must accordingly be harmonised so that we can use them to assess the extent to which the Member States are complying with it. Mr Barrot spoke of arms trafficking by air, mainly to Africa.

The general laxness in European airports, as revealed by our investigation into the CIA flights, suggests that the worst, the unthinkable, might actually be happening on this issue. Furthermore, after two years of paralysis, the time has come to put in place a system of exceptional measures for countries that have recently had embargoes lifted, Libya, a country we have just been talking about, being a case in point. The immoral race to sell arms to Libya since 2004 clearly demonstrates the importance of establishing transitional rules when there are regimes that violate human rights.

Lastly, this resolution is not solely about the Code of Conduct. In the resolution, Parliament calls on the Member States to take the lead in creating more advanced international legal instruments that will regulate and, where possible, scale back the international arms trade. Just as Europe played a key role in the Ottawa Convention on Antipersonnel Mines, the EU must remain at the forefront of the process of drawing up a UN arms trade treaty.

The external action of the EU and its Member States should be underpinned by human rights, sustainable development, and lasting peace and security. Without a coherent and effective policy on controlling arms exports, the Union will not be able to meet its core objectives or to help improve the world.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again. My congratulations to you.

(NL) First of all and most of all, I should like to congratulate Mr Romeva i Rueda on his very well laid-out report which enjoys my group’s unanimous approval and which we intend to approve here in tomorrow’s plenary. The report lists all the progress that has been made recently thanks to the unstinting efforts on the part of this House. For example, the three most recent presidencies have submitted their activities in connection with the code of conduct to our security and defence subcommittee and have also discussed these with them, and I would invite the German Presidency to do the same.

We have also, for instance, noticed the fine-tuning and clarifications of the criteria in connection with the human rights situation in the country of destination and in connection with the risks involved in preventing arms exports or reexporting exported weapons. My group, among others, takes the view that further refinement is needed in connection with the country of destination’s internal situation in connection with the repercussions on the regional situation, and in connection with the compatibility of arms exports with the country of destination’s technical and economic capacity.

Our biggest disappointment in this connection is the failure of the Member States to translate the code of conduct into a common position of the Council, a common position which would make this code far more forceful than it currently is. This would also be far better proof of the Member States being serious about contributing to worldwide arms control and disarmament. I took great interest in the Commission statements in this respect and was also delighted to hear that the Commission will be presiding over the Kimberley process. I take particular pleasure in this, Commissioner, as this was something I used to help do in a previous life.

Finally, I should like to make it absolutely clear that my group is opposed to lifting the arms embargo against China and that we urge the Member States to put much more effort into establishing an international treaty on arms trade under the aegis of the United Nations. The international context may not be very conducive to multilateral agreements, as the Commissioner was very right to point out, but that is no reason for the Member States and the EU Member States to slacken their efforts in this area.

  Liam Aylward, thar ceann an Ghrúpa UEN. – A Uachtaráin, is mór an onóir dom labhairt i mo theanga dhúchais anseo tráthnóna inniu. An fiú tada an Cód Iompair um Easpórtáil Armlóin, a chairde? Sin í an cheist is tábhachtaí atá le freagairt againn.

Faraoir, is iad na tíortha is saibhre a cheannaíonn an t-armlón is cumhachtaí. Sin é an fáth go bhfuil an oiread sin armlóin sa Mheán Oirthear, armlón atá faighte acu ó Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh agus ó Rialtas Mheiriceá.

Ní féidir an fhírinne a sheachaint. Tá cogaí san Iaráic, san Iaráin, agus sa Chuáit ó na h-ochtóidí. Deineadh ionsaí ar an Araib Shádach i rith Cogadh na Murascáile.

Tá baint mhíleata ag an tSiria le hachrann na Liobáine.

Bíodh sé ceart nó mícheart, tá blianta caite ag an Iosrael i mbun troda i gcoinne fórsaí na Liobáine, na Siria agus na Palaistíne.

Ach tharla sé seo ar fad toisc go raibh na tíortha seo ábalta teacht ar armlón lena

n-aidhmeanna míleata and polaitiúla a bhaint amach.

Ba chóir d’iarthar an domhain a bheith ag iarraidh easportáil armlóin a laghdú seachas a bheith á méadú. Sin é an fáth go gcaithfear An Cód Iompair um Easpórtáil Armlóin a chur i bhfeidhm níos déine.

Is in olcas seachas chun maitheasa atá an teannas sa Mheán Oirthear ag dul, de réir mar a dhíoltar breis armlóin leo.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for a very constructive and comprehensive report. I particularly liked the mention you made of security companies and the growing industry involving pretend soldiers. If those of you in the public gallery were to read the EU’s regulations governing arms exports, you would see how fanciful they are. According to these regulations, human rights and international agreements are to be respected. Arms must not be exported to countries in which social development is threatened, but only to stable countries. What, however, is the reality? The annual report on arms exports is pure cant. Fourteen EU countries export arms to Israel, and 12 to Indonesia. Are Israel and Indonesia examples of countries in which peace, stability and security prevail? Five countries export arms to Saudi Arabia. Is that a country that guarantees human rights? No, it is one in which women do not have the slightest opportunity for exercising political influence. According to criterion 8 of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, such exports must not interfere with social and economic development in the recipient country. However, half of Africa is on the list of countries to which we export arms. It is time that we began to apply this Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. I support Amendments 3 and 4. Lisbon and development cannot mean more arms manufacturing. Emphatically, there must be no arms exports agency if this is the outcome.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, the general purpose of this speech is to express my group’s endorsement of the report by Mr Romeva i Rueda, for we are working very closely together with him on this.

The EU’s Member States are now the world’s number one arms exporters – ahead of either the USA or Russia. Among them, the leaders are France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy are also playing major roles. Weapons kill whether they are exported from the EU or from somewhere else. That amounts to a gross violation of human rights, and a stop must be put to it.

In answering the question as to what part is played by the Code of Conduct, I would like to quote from a document produced by Germany’s Joint Conference on Church and Society, which has this to say: ‘The Code of Conduct has not, however, had the effect of curbing European weapons exports. According to surveys by SIPRI, the EU states, in 2005, overtook the traditional weapons exporters Russia and the USA.’ That the EU’s code is still merely a voluntary undertaking by the Member States is a scandal. What is needed is a Common Position by the Council, which would be binding in law on everyone.

The European Union has now set up an armaments agency, the function of which is to promote the arms industry within the European Union. The report I quoted earlier has this to say: ‘Moreover, the creation of the European Defence Agency provides the means whereby European cooperation in armaments may be promoted, which is not counterbalanced by any efforts to monitor rearmament’. That is precisely the problem, and it is for that reason that we have tabled an amendment to the effect that there should be, instead of an armaments agency, an agency for disarmament, for what is needed, rather than an agency to promote arms exports, is for a stop to be put to them.

Let me give you a few concrete examples of the countries to which they are being exported. Arms are being exported from Germany to Iraq, a trade earning EUR 28.9 million in 2004, and EUR 25 million in 2005. The report refers to the export of weaponry to the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Columbia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates – in other words, very definitely too many of them. It is for that reason that we say that there must be a stop put to the export of weapons; armaments kill, and that must stop.

What I expect of the European Union and of the German Presidency of the Council is that steps be taken to this end and that there should be no more funding of the armaments agency, for there has now come to be a sort of correlation between the European Union’s military adventures on the one hand and its exports of weaponry on the other, so its arms exports must be brought to an end.

  Georgios Karatzaferis, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (EL) Mr President, there are three rules concerning arms. The first rule is that arms are manufactured in order to kill people; they are not manufactured in order to kill chickens.

The second rule is that anyone who has money will buy some sort of arms.

The third rule is that there are no rules in the arms trade.

Let us be frank: who sold arms to Israel so that it could invade Lebanon in the summer? Who sold arms to Turkey so that it could invade and occupy Cyprus for the last 40 years? These are the facts of the matter. Who armed Saddam Hussein? The Americans armed him as their instrument against Iran. Who armed Bin Laden, the biggest terrorist currently waging war against the whole of humanity? The Americans armed and funded him when they were playing games with Afghanistan and Russia. So there are no rules. There is no point in trying to adopt rules which will not be applied.

On Friday, a missile exploded at the US embassy in Athens. This missile was never bought by the Greek army and yet it did us a great deal of damage and we do not know where it came from. Did it come from Albania, did it come from Lebanon, because it was the same missile as that used by the Albanian army and by Hezbollah. In all events, come it did. To the country in which there are 150 000 Kalashnikovs. We have never bought a single one of these weapons and yet in they come. Do you know what the problem with the Schengen agreement is? The problem is that arms are transported from one side of Europe to the other and not one customs officer checks them.

I would remind you, Commissioner, that seven years ago the biggest canon ever made was moved right across Europe. A 50-metre canon for Saddam Hussein, which was found by a customs officer in Patras. Consequently, we are labouring in vain. Let us stop manufacturing, let us start disarming if we really want to save human lives. With what we are doing, we simply look like traffic cops trying to guess who will be killed and where.

  Günter Gloser, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, I really am most grateful to you for understanding that I shortly have to leave your sitting in order to keep another appointment in Stuttgart; I should like to express my appreciation to you all, having already said thank-you to the rapporteur, but I would also like to thank you, Members of the European Parliament, for your dedication and your ongoing interest, believing as I do that this topic continues to need careful treatment. I can assure you that the Presidency will, of course, continue to seek dialogue with the Members of your House.

Various speakers have, of course, made reference to the common position, and you will also be aware that this needs to be adopted unanimously by the Member States. Although this has not actually happened, we may perhaps succeed in producing a new impulse. In any case, the presidency will try to establish whether there has been any change in certain positions. I cannot, of course, tell you today what will emerge from that, but we are trying to do something about this. I thank you again for your interest and your understanding that I must now take my leave of this sitting.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE). – Mr President, most of the content of the report by Mr Romeva i Rueda, perhaps surprisingly, is uncontroversial. It is clear, however, that Western democracies are very good at self-flagellation. We have heard much of this in some of the speeches this afternoon and in some of the rather selective examples given. So often we erect legal and other structures to extend the regulatory powers of the EU and to constrain ourselves, when if we look at terrorist and insurgent movements around the world, at the people who are really causing misery and suffering, we find that their arms and equipment do not come from the democracies but from other countries. It is those countries that should be the centre of our attentions. We therefore need international action and a treaty applicable to the real culprits. Otherwise we are in danger of sending the wrong message both to our own people and to those who supply the arms that fuel conflicts.

Faced with these circumstances, our efforts should be concentrated on a well-targeted United Nations international arms trade treaty. Indeed, substantial work at the UN has already begun. On 6 December 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution charging the Secretary-General to take this initiative forward. Ban Ki-moon will canvass the views of member states in 2007 and a group of governmental experts will meet in 2008, after which the Secretary-General will present a report to the 63rd session of the UN.

The European Union should focus on promoting this course of action within the United Nations. Little good will come of an EU arms export regime that constrains European nations while leaving countries such as China free to sell weapons to whomever they deem fit. China is the most profligate supplier of weapons to odious regimes and other groups throughout Asia and Africa, including Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe and other countries, and would certainly welcome tougher restrictions on arms exports that affect only EU Member States.

While a code of conduct is valuable, let us not misunderstand or diminish the importance of defence industries for national security and our economies, particularly in countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and some others. The UK’s defence industries play a vital economic and strategic role and should not be subject to inappropriate legal restrictions that will not apply in many other countries. The problem is not with our defence industries but with less scrupulous foreign governments and companies. The UK, with one of the world’s largest defence industries, has a duty to support the UN in this endeavour and has met this obligation. The British Defence Manufacturers’ Association has stated that it welcomes the principle behind the International Arms Trade Treaty. The UK was one of the co-authors of the UN General Assembly resolution of 6 December 2006.

If we are to achieve an international treaty that genuinely addresses the grave problems presented by certain arms exporters, then a UN treaty, encompassing China amongst others, is indispensable.

  Panagiotis Beglitis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, firstly I should like to say that the report by Mr Raül Romeva i Rueda really does formulate the problem; he has produced a very important piece of work and we in the Socialist Group in the European Parliament shall support it as we did in the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Unfortunately, the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers, Mr Gloser, has left the Chamber; I say unfortunately, because we needed today to debate the basic political problem before us: why the Council of Ministers continues to refuse to convert the code of conduct into a legally binding instrument for everyone, into an effective common position. This is the important issue for everyone and this is where we shall be judged, this is where our political responsibility will be judged.

European citizens want to know what the national, economic or strategic interests are of those governments and Member States that are still obstructing our wish to convert the code of conduct into a much more binding instrument and political position. This is not an issue of secondary importance. It is bound up with the very credibility of the European Union. It is bound up with the principles and values on which we want to build a common vision for a European Union of peace, security, stability and development for the developing nations of the developing world.

We, as the European Parliament and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, have supported the imposition of an arms trade embargo on China on the grounds of its continuing infringements of human rights and we need to remain firm here. However, we must at some point honestly say that the embargo and the sanctions against China have done absolutely nothing to improve the human rights situation in China and it is this that we need to reflect on.

The responsibility of the Member States which export arms, especially to unstable areas of the world and to third countries that infringe the fundamental principles of the UN by keeping occupying forces in Member States of the European Union, as in the case of Turkey in Cyprus, is huge. Today, a decision by the Council to convert the code into a legally binding instrument would represent not just a symbolic but also a substantive contribution by the European Union to the consolidation of global stability.

  Marios Matsakis (ALDE). – Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. I must register my fear that our efforts towards an EU code of conduct on arms exports will, to a large extent, be made in vain.

We should have no illusions. The giant arms producers and dealers of our world, niched mainly in the USA, Russia and China, are not just outside our jurisdiction but are a law unto themselves anyway. Paranoid national security phobias, widespread corruption and utter madness are fully exploited and manipulated by those whose business is selling the methodology of causing death and destruction. Exporting means of killing is, for them, a global business worth more than USD 1 trillion per annum, and they are not going to be curtailed by the dreamland romanticism of EU parliamentarians.

So let us stop wasting our time in dealing with non-effective legislative utopias, and let us start thinking about how best to tackle the problem effectively at its root cause, which is the uncontrollable research, production and trade of weapons by the continuously expanding evil arms industry of death.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a sound debate is not held in a vacuum, and following on from the examples which Mr Schlyter and Mr Pflüger quoted to us, I should like to single out three points that will help us face reality. First of all, every year, more than 500 000 people are killed by conventional weapons. This translates into one human being per minute, or 90 people during this debate. Secondly, one in three countries spend more on defence than on health care. Thirdly, countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America spend an average of USD 22 billion on weapons. This money could be used to accomplish the Millennium Objectives, such as basic education for all children and stamping out child mortality.

Mr Romeva i Rueda has made valid points in his report, and is right to say that the EU code of conduct must be made legally binding and must be enshrined in a common position. It is, as I see it, immoral to link this ambition to lifting the arms embargo against China.

Finally, the report is also right in stating the need for achieving an international arms embargo treaty within the UN. I hope that my country, now that it is a member of the Security Council, will turn its attention to this particular area.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Commission was very careful in its choice of Commissioner to bring us the introduction to this report, aware as it is that in the EU, the most frequently used weapon is the car. That is why the opening remarks were addressed to us by the Commissioner for Transport.

On a more serious note, the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports offers very little new on the subject. I believe that this report expresses this point very well and I should like to congratulate the rapporteur.

The title of this report, ‘European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports’, sounds so good. Yet, what lies behind the title? The large EU countries are among the big arms exporters, so, following enlargement of the Community, the competition should be quietly disposed of. And that now includes internal competitors as well. The report unfortunately does not say much about the fact that the United States, one of the biggest arms exporters in the world, has not signed up to arms control, or the fact that the large countries of the EU still circumvent all export reductions.

Last year at least four countries carried out nuclear weapons tests, but according to the rapporteur it is only North Korea and Iran that are dangerous, while the others are let off the hook. The arms embargo on China is still in place under the pretext that it has not led to a clear and lasting improvement in human rights and political freedom. Pardon me for being so bold, but on this basis we could ban the export of arms to most countries in the world, starting with the large EU Member States and the United States. The list would also include Somalia and Saudi Arabia, and if I am mistaken, then please correct me.

I should like to make one final remark. Only Belgium and Finland, of the old Member States, and the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia, of the new Member States, have applied for arms export licences. The biggest arms exporters are missing from that list. This is the biggest problem of the existing agreements. The rational control of arms exports is firmly supported by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, along with a number of other MEPs. What is at stake, however, is the actual package of measures put forward in the proposal. The results thus far have been woeful.

  Gerard Batten (IND/DEM). – Mr President, the Committee on Foreign Affairs states that it ‘finds it unacceptable that no steps have been taken to adopt the Code as a common position’. A common position would not be binding as such, but would define the general guidelines that Member States must conform to. The rapporteur describes the common position as ‘legally more binding on EU Member States than a code of conduct’.

The report calls on the Presidency and Member State governments to explain why the Code has not been adopted as a common position. Regret is expressed at the absence of a common position, with the justification that this has weakened both the further development of EU export controls and prevented moves towards further general harmonisation of EU export controls.

The report states that it is ‘convinced that the development and implementation of a harmonised European arms export control policy would contribute decisively to a deepening of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy’. There we have it put plainly enough. The arguments contained in the report are devices to further the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the ubiquitous and relentless need for all things to be harmonised.

The United Kingdom has a different story and background to the other countries of Europe. We have long and historic ties with our allies in the Commonwealth and throughout the world. Britain has a so far unbroken record, and a far more successful record, of defending her vital national interests than any other country represented here. Therefore, the UK Independence Party rejects this report because it must be up to Britain to decide its own arms export policy in the light of her own national and international and foreign policy and defence interests and in accordance with any legitimate international agreements she has entered into.

  Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, my speech will entirely contradict what the last speaker said, and I shall begin by saying that neither the United Kingdom nor any other isolated country, however large or powerful it may be, is capable of tackling any of the global problems of today's world alone – and this is one of them – however much the honourable Member may believe that the United Kingdom can look after itself.

Not even the European Union can look after itself, but there are things we can do, and in his report, Mr Romeva makes many proposals, as he has done on the two previous occasions – this is the third. This time he is rapporteur on the Council’s Seventh and Eighth Reports on the control of arms exports.

I would like to make another comment on something that I have heard in several speeches: it is not the intention of this report, nor of the rapporteur, nor of those of us who voted for it in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to attack the arms industry per se or the export of arms, but to attack the improper use – the abuse – of the export of arms, and therefore to promote the control that is currently laid down in the non-binding Code of Conduct, and he therefore supports – as many others will do tomorrow as well, I am sure – a Union Common Position on arms control.

This is something absolutely essential, which will help to enhance the common foreign and security policy, and which will improve the reporting, the control and our capacity to put a stop to abuses, excesses and non-compliance with the rules on the export of arms to countries, not just that are in conflict, but also failed States, or countries whose relations with the world are poor.

I have run out of time. I simply wish to congratulate Mr Romeva on his report.

IN THE CHAIR: MR McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I wish to support the warning in this report that irresponsible arms sales can lead to corruption. According to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, to which the UK is a party, inquiries into suspicions should not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of the persons involved. Criterion 1 of the EU Arms Code obliges Member States to respect their international obligations and criterion 2 to respect human rights.

I would therefore love to have been a fly on the wall when British officials yesterday attempted to explain to the OECD’s Working Party on Bribery why the Government instructed the dropping of an investigation by our Serious Fraud Office into alleged corrupt payments to secure arms sales by British Aerospace to Saudi Arabia. Were they able to dispel the widespread assumption that this was because the Saudis threatened to cancel the contract and give future contracts to France, in other words, to protect jobs? The Government’s line was that it was necessary in the interests of national security, for fear that Saudi Arabia would break intelligence links. Unfortunately for the Government’s alibi, the head of MI6 has refused to sign up to that thesis.

The Blair Government promised to be whiter than white. Instead it has set a shameful example for new and aspiring Member States on how corruption and arms sales are inseparable twins. The sooner the UK switches some of its manufacturing capacity out of arms, the better.

  Richard Howitt (PSE). – Mr President, I would like to begin by welcoming the fact that work has started this year on the International Arms Trade Treaty, with the approval by 153 Member States of the United Nations. I would like to acknowledge the leading work undertaken by the British Labour Government in getting that agreed within the United Nations and, indeed, today’s late conversion by the British Conservative spokesperson in favour.

The European Union and the Member States need to maintain a strong and proactive approach in our support for the proposed Treaty, particularly during the upcoming bilateral consultations with the new UN Secretary-General, and we need to maintain pressure on the United States Government to review its obligations to the Treaty. We need a strong, effective and legally binding Treaty covering the trade in all conventional arms and setting clear standards for when an arms transfer should not take place, including respect for human rights, and we should have an effective monitoring and enforcement mechanism.

On other matters in this report, once again I want to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, Mr Romeva i Rueda, for his excellent work, which has my strong support. Since we had this annual debate last year, 45 million more people in our world have been affected by the devastating consequences of war and, as we are only too well aware, it is not just a matter of the horrific death toll. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, violent conflict is the single greatest cause of hunger in the world today.

This year, Mr President, you and I have been in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on behalf of this Parliament, where research this year has shown, despite the UN arms embargo, ammunition and weapons in rebel hands in eastern DRC from Greece, a Member State of the European Union, and from Serbia, a state with which we are negotiating an association agreement. I say to the British Conservative spokesperson who has said in this debate that this is self-flagellation against European nations, that, when someone is killed by an illegally exported arm, quite simply I call it murder. There is no excusing them saying that because China does it too, that is acceptable. Europe has a duty to take a moral lead. We should get this common position agreed and, by next year, name and shame those states that have refused to agree to it in the Council. I thank the Germans for what they have said.

  Marianne Mikko (PSE). – (ET) Ladies and gentlemen, the arms industry is one of the most advanced sectors of the economy. Companies in the western countries today rule the global arms market due to their technological advantage. Thus we have a great responsibility, one with which we clearly cannot cope. Armed conflicts have not decreased, but have just become more expensive.

The amount of money spent on arms makes investment in education and health impossible. This vicious circle fuels conflict zones for decades. The money spent on death could have been used to educate and feed those killed until the end of their natural lives.

Arms that have already been produced eventually reach their logical target – conflict zones – even when they have meanwhile been gathered up by an ESDP mission, as happened in Bosnia. Along the way, the arms generate profits for criminals and illegal regimes.

As the head of the Moldova delegation, I know that the Trans-Dnistrian separatists obtain their financing from illegal arms deals. Territory in Cobasna controlled by the ex-KGB elite contains the largest ammunition stockpiles in Europe.

In terms of the number of victims, small arms today are true weapons of mass destruction. The Kalashnikov machine gun, for instance, has achieved an iconic status among extremists. Yet extremists have also already repeatedly succeeded in acquiring more developed weapons systems. Sooner or later our irresponsibility will turn against us.

Thus I support the transformation of the European Union arms export procedural guidelines into a legally binding document. I know that the Council is able to make the guidelines into a common position. I regret that Mr Gloser will not hear these words.

I also hope that the United Kingdom and France will put an end to the use of export credits to support arms exports, and that the bribery that accompanies this business will be punished, and not only on paper.

The world needs an international arms trade agreement, and Europe needs greater transparency in arms trading, as mentioned by the rapporteur, whom I both congratulate and thank for his work.

  Józef Pinior (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, one of the key issues etched on our collective European memory is the unscrupulous involvement of the defence industries in triggering the world wars of the 20th century. I have in mind the shameful votes taken in various European parliaments to grant loans for armaments in the run up to World War I.

In view of the current world situation, it is incumbent upon the European Union to devise a harmonised European policy on arms exports as a matter of urgency. Such a policy will strengthen and deepen the European Union’s common foreign and security policy. The Union cannot condone a situation whereby in certain parts of the world, the export of weapons produced in Europe can contribute to the violation of human rights, to fuelling conflicts, and to the misuse of funds intended to promote sustainable development.

I should also like to emphasise the need to broaden the scope of European Union legislation on the control of arms exports so that it covers private security companies. Legislation of this nature has already been introduced in the United States.

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the arms exports carried out by the EU Member States must not run counter to the fight for human rights or give succour to dictatorships or bellicose regimes. On the issues of security in Europe and around the world and the prevention of terrorism, enormous efforts are required if we are to guarantee control of European exports of conventional arms and of goods, equipment and technology that have a clearly military application.

I must stress the importance of paying careful attention to the activities and the background of countries and governments buying weapons and military equipment. The inevitable consequences of export credit mechanisms must also be removed. What we need is a clear, effective and harmonised European policy on this matter; it is vital to help strengthen the international rules on the supply of arms. I should like to end with a sentence I said in this Chamber on 16 November 2006: ‘No one will understand that the defence industries of the EU Member States at some point effectively support the waging of illegitimate wars and the propping up of dictatorial regimes’. This is not what Europe is called to do, and nor should it be what the European Union goes in for.

  Proinsias De Rossa (PSE). – A Uachtaráin, ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom an tuairisc seo a thréaslú leis an tuairisceoir. Níl aon dabht ná go bhfuil dul chun cinn maith déanta leis an gcód saorálach faoi easpórtáil arm. Is í an fhadhb mhór a bhaineann leis, áfach, ná go bhfuil sé saorálach agus nach bhfuil dualgas dleathach ar na Ballstáit cloí leis na hoibleagáidí atá ann. Tá sé in am dúinn an cód seo a aistriú ina chomhbheartas Eorpach. In Éirinn, is oth liom a rá, níor chuir an rialtas i gcrích fós na gealltaí chun reachtaíocht 1983 faoi easpórtálaithe arm a thabhairt suas chun dáta. Dá bhrí sin, tá dreasacht ag déileálaithe arm an Stát a úsáid chun srianta níos láidre i dtíortha eile a sheachaint. Go ginearálta, ní aontaím le Coimeádaigh na Breataine ach caithfidh mé a rá go n-aontaím leis an tUasal Van Orden nuair a deireann sé go mba chóir go mbeadh an tAontas chun tosaigh ins na Náisiúin Aontaithe chun conradh nua faoi thrádáil arm idirnáisiúnta a bhaint amach. Chun críochnú, tugaim lántacaíocht do mhír 28 faoi lánchosc arm ar an tSín. Ar a laghad, ba chóir go gcoimeádfar an lánchosc sin go dtí go mbeidh dul chun cinn sásúil déanta le cearta daonna agus polaitiúla.

  President. I should like to thank the interpreters and congratulate Mr De Rossa on his wonderful Irish accent.

  Jacques Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Mr President, during this debate, Parliament has once again demonstrated its considerable expertise when it comes to managing the trade in arms. I should like once again to thank Mr Romeva i Rueda, who has personally acquired a very sound knowledge of this undoubtedly difficult, but very important, matter. We can see, in fact, how the worldwide distribution of arms is fuelling all manner of violence here and there.

I have also taken careful note of the concern expressed by a number of you to see the European Union play a pivotal role within the United Nations with the aim of securing international legislation on the trade in arms.

I believe that Parliament is contributing in this way to the process of strengthening the European controls on this trade, which has so very many implications: there is an absolutely crucial ethical dimension to all of this.

I should therefore like to thank all those MEPs who took the floor in this excellent debate.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will be tomorrow.