UK softens its stance on Union arms export code

Date: 20/11/1997

By Mark Turner

THE UK is to shy away from proposing a legally-binding EU arms export code next year, raising fears that the guidelines it has promised to champion will lack the necessary teeth to prevent sales of weapons to repressive regimes.

Although London remains committed to proposing 'ethical' arms export criteria when it takes over the EU presidency in 1998, it is now clear that it will not attempt to enshrine the code in Union law. Junior Foreign Minister Tony Lloyd said this week that it would be "both unrealistic and impractical" to expect all the UK's partners to sign up to such a commitment.

This apparent weakening of the British stance has dashed the hopes of human rights campaigners who say that, in practice, the new UK approach means that its proposals are unlikely to go much further than an existing eight-point EU code.

They are now pinning their hopes for a tougher code on countries such as Germany and Sweden, whose strict export restrictions currently put them at a competitive disadvantage.

"I think it is highly desirable that the eight criteria be developed into a workable, meaningful common code of conduct for the EU countries," said Swedish Trade Minister Leif Pagrotsky this week, adding that he expected the signals which had so far been given by UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and French Premier Lionel Jospin to "lead to concrete actions".

Italy has also criticised the lack of EU-level control over arms exports, claiming in a recent statement that "the national export policies of Union countries continue to vary greatly, which undermines the credibility of the eight common criteria both within and without the Union. It will be necessary for the countries of the EU to ensure that the new rules are implemented."

The apparent UK backtrack has particularly disappointed organisations such as Oxfam and UK-based Saferworld, which had been pleasantly surprised at the prospect of tough EU action earlier this year.

While they welcome any moves towards a common system, human rights organisations fear that in practice a code which is not legally binding could simply be used to rationalise existing sales to repressive governments.

"To be really effective, the code will need more restrictive and explicit criteria, accompanied by clear consultation procedures, common end-use controls and increased parliamentary scrutiny and accountability," said Amnesty International, Oxfam, Saferworld and BASIC in a statement.

British Socialist MEP Glenys Kinnock also expressed concern that ambiguities in the code could let unethical exporters off the hook.

"There is a definite need for tightening up vocabulary so that arms traders can't drive a coach and horses through this," she told European Voice. "Since hearing Tony Lloyd, I will be seriously addressing some of the concerns his speech raised."

The European defence industry's position is more nuanced. "It would be extremely useful if industry knew that the rules were the same across the board," said a spokesman for the European Defence Industries Group. "But as to their strength, it rather depends on which country you operate in. In the UK, firms may rather welcome a degree of flexibility, while in countries with more stringent export policies, companies may prefer firm Europe-wide rules."

Insiders suggest that the UK's decision is partly prompted by increasing resistance in French circles to any far-reaching measures. Although Jospin has publicly endorsed the idea of a code, opposition from President Jacques Chirac and resistance to change in the French defence industry would make it difficult for him to sign up to binding rules.