VP/HR — Syria arms embargo
30.5.2013
Question for written answer E-006137-13
to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)
Rule 117
Pino Arlacchi (S&D)
The European Council decision to bring the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition forces to an end could have devastating consequences. There are no easy solutions in putting an end to the bloodshed in Syria, but sending more arms and ammunition is clearly not one of them. Transferring more weapons to Syria can only increase the number of civilian deaths.
In February 2012, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Syria reported that the rebels had committed ‘war crimes, including murder, extrajudicial killings and torture’[1].
UN Security Council Resolution 2083 (2012) says that all states shall take measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply of arms and related materials to al-Qaida and other individuals and entities associated with it. One of the most powerful armed groups, Jabhat al‐Nusra, is linked to al-Qaida in Iraq.
In April 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty, which prohibits states from exporting conventional weapons that would be used for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or terrorism.
Moreover, the EU Common Position says that Member States must deny an export licence application if there is a clear risk that the equipment may be used to commit violations of international humanitarian law or human rights.
In light of the above:
- 1.Could the Vice-President/High Representative clarify how is it possible that during the Council meeting on Syria, the minority position of UK and France, which contradicts the last Parliament Resolution on Syria, was in the end adopted?
- 2.Does the Vice-President/High Representative not believe that this action will worsen the civilian situation and cause a strong reaction by supporters of Assad, as already shown by Russia’s reaction?
- [1] See http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42687.
OJ C 42 E, 13/02/2014