Vol. 472 No. 7
17 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, made under Ireland's Presidency of the EU in imposing greater control on the world armaments sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24055/96]
The Government's overriding objective in the field of arms exports is the promotion of restraint and responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and technologies for military use. At the global level, there are no general guidelines or multilateral agreements governing the transfer of weapons. The Government believes it is essential that states accept the need to exercise restraint and responsibility in their exports and imports of conventional arms and agree to observe certain principles in the matter. We have, accordingly, sought during the Irish Presidency to gain a greater degree of acceptance at EU level of the need for action in this area.
Our own perspective as a small country with no armaments industry and no military obligations towards other countries differs considerably from that of major arms exporting countries, which include a number of our EU partners. Under Article 223 of the Treaty any member state can take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material. This means that, in legal terms, arms export policies in EU member states remain national policies. Thus, any proposals which would significantly constrain the prerogative of national decision-making on specific arms exports will almost inevitably be resisted, in particular by the major arms exporting member states.
Nevertheless, despite these difficulties it has been possible to make some progress on this issue. Under the EU's agreed common criteria on arms exports known as the Luxembourg and Lisbon criteria, member states are encouraged, in the framework of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, to inform and consult each other increasingly on matters of arms export control policy. This ongoing process is intented to develop a common approach leading to a harmonisation of national policies. The Irish Presidency has been able to secure agreement on initial elements of interpretation of particular criteria and some practical measures for application of the criteria for internal use by arms export licensing authorities. This is a start, but further work is needed to achieve an eventual common interpretation of the criteria.
At a wider international level, the Wassenaar Arrangement has recently been established with a membership of 33 countries, including all 15 EU member states as well as all other major exporters of conventional arms, dual-use goods and technologies, with the exception of China. It has, therefore, the potential to play an important role in developing international restraint in exports of arms and related dual-use goods and technologies, through the mechanisms of information exchange and peer review. As EU Presidency, Ireland has been making considerable efforts to ensure that the Wassenaar Arrangement is in place and operational at the earliest possible date.
In my reply to a similar question on 31 October, I informed the House about the steps taken to secure approval of a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use goods. I indicated that, as arms exports remain subject to national export controls, it is for each member state to take the necessary steps nationally to control exports of all items on the munitions list of the Wassenaar Arrangement. Ireland has taken this step through the signing by the Minister for Tourism and Trade of the Control of Exports Order, 1996, on 3 December.
The Government is also continuing its efforts at the United Nations to promote its objectives in the area of international arms transfers and controls. At the Disarmament Committee of the UN General Assembly, which concluded on 15 November, Ireland joined a representative group, including developing countries, as an original cosponsor of a new German initiative concerned with consolidating peace through practical disarmament. This German resolution was adopted by consensus.
This year's Disarmament Committee session also saw the adoption of a new resolution on anti-personnel landmines. This non-consensus resolution was adopted resoundingly with 141 countries in favour. It urges states to pursue vigorously an effective, legally binding international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines with a view to completing the negotiations as soon as possible. This is a highly significant vote giving further impetus to the international movement to ban anti-personnel landmines, a particularly abhorrent form of conventional weapon.
Obviously, having proposed a Private Members' Bill here on anti-personnel landmines, I welcome the move at the United Nations. There has been some movement from the Government on the matter and I acknowledge that also.
Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs outline the progress of the EU Commission's policy document on the armaments industry, "The Challenges Facing the European Defence-Related Industry, A Contribution for Actions at European Level"? Will he inform the House if, and to what extent, this document has been discussed under the auspices of the Irish Presidency?
Among other measures, of course, this particular document would allow for the channelling of a greater proportion of EU Structural Funds into weapons research. In addition, an objective of the Western European Union armaments organisation would be to boost research and development in weaponry to facilitate the international arms trade and the placing of arms contracts. How does that square with Ireland's stated policy on the arms trade? What has Ireland, as Presidency, done in relation to that Commission document?
The Deputy is well aware, and I made it very clear in my reply, that these matters are primarily a matter for each member state. In a reply in recent months I elaborated on the fact that there are widely divergent views within the member states, as the Deputy would well know. In the Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Group on Conventional Arms Exports, for example, the ongoing effort to build on the Luxembourg and Lisbon criteria is progressing extremely slowly because of the divergence of views within the member states.
Ireland achieved agreement during its Presidency on initial elements of interpretation of particular criteria and some practical measure of application of the criteria. It is a slow, painstaking progress because of the divergent views.
The other aspect of interest is, of course, that there are major arms exporting countries within the EU, of which the Deputy is well aware. The agreement we reached, the Wassenaar Arrangement which I outlined, could become more important for the exchange of information of arms but, of course, much of this information is considered to be very sensitive both within member states which export arms and, indeed, outside the EU.
In that respect, the Government set out its views in this House in relation to what happened in the EU on 3 December. It is a slow process. As Ireland does not export arms, our position is, and will continue to be, quite open in relation to what we are trying to achieve within the EU.
Given the serious implications for human rights of the global arms trade, will the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House if the Government is satisfied that respect for human rights is adequately provided for in the EU Commission policy document? This mentions human rights in passing by referring to the need for export limits in inhuman weapons. Will he inform the House whether the Government is satisfied with the decision taken by the Commission to limit rather than ban the trade in weapons acknowledged to be inhuman? Will he outline the steps, if any, which have been taken by the Government, in its capacity as EU Presidency, to address these issues?
The Government elaborated on its position in the White Paper in relation to the conduct for conventional arms transfers. Of course, if we were in a position to do so, we would like to see a much stronger EU position. However, as I said to the Deputy, because this is dealt with primarily by member states those countries involved in arms transfers are not prepared to go as far as the Government would wish, but the Deputy is well aware of the situation from his involvement in Government. We have, as he knows, guidelines for the international transfer of arms.
Human rights are to the forefront in all agreements and documents of the EU and that will continue to be the case. The Government will obviously work closely with the non-aligned movement. There is much work to be done but we are going slowly, and not as quickly as I, the Deputy or this House would wish, in the right direction.
Will the Tánaiste inform the House if the Government recognises the elements of the Commission's policy document and that they undermine the Conver programme, the objective of which is to facilitate and encourage the development of commercially viable activities not related to defence in areas of Europe threatened by unemployment due to the shrinking arms trade, and which was allocated a total budget of 500 million ECU for the period 1994-97 with a reserve of 245 million ECU added in 1995? Will he inform the House if the Government will use its influence as EU Presidency to ensure that contradiction is redressed in order to cap the EU arms trade and to promote the Conver programme?
The Deputy is well aware that our Presidency ends on 31 December and it may not be possible to achieve all the targets outlined by him in his remarks, but we will continue to press for our point of view, which is agreed by most but not all parties, on the situation on arms transfers.
As we are dealing with the second priority question, I may not call Deputy Kitt. I can only call the Deputy who tabled the question.
In calling Question No. 19 I observe the time allocated for priority questions is exhausted so we will take Question Nos. 19 and 20 as other questions.
