Skip to main content
Normal View

Arms Trade.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 2 February 2005

Wednesday, 2 February 2005

Questions (118, 119)

Arthur Morgan

Question:

162 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the basis on which the Taoiseach supports ending the EU ban on arms exports to China; the basis on which the Taoiseach is impressed with China’s commitment to change its human rights record; and if there is any other country for which he accepts the argument that progress on human rights must be gradual. [2803/05]

View answer

John Gormley

Question:

179 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason the Government is in favour of lifting the EU arms embargo on China; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2805/05]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 162 and 178 together.

China has for some time been seeking the lifting of the EU arms embargo on that country. China has argued that the embargo is discriminatory and does not reflect the nature of the present relationship between China and the EU. It has argued that its purpose in seeking the lifting of the embargo is to remove a symbolic impediment to EU-China relations, rather than to increase arms exports from the EU.

At the EU-China Summit held on 8 December 2004, the EU confirmed its political will to continue to work towards lifting the embargo. The Chinese side welcomed this positive signal and considered it beneficial to the sound development of the comprehensive strategic partnership between China and the EU. The EU reaffirmed that work on strengthening the application of the EU code of conduct on arms exports was continuing.

The European Council, at its meeting on 16-17 December 2004, reaffirmed its political will to continue to work towards lifting the embargo. At the same time, the EU underlined that the result of any decision should not be an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China. In this regard, the European Council recalled the importance of the criteria of the EU code of conduct on arms exports, in particular criteria regarding human rights, stability and security in the region and the national security of friendly and allied countries. The European Council also stressed, in this context, the importance of the early adoption of a revised EU code of conduct on arms exports, and the new instrument on measures pertaining to arms exports to post-embargo countries known as the "toolbox".

The EU code of conduct on arms exports is a politically binding document which has been in operation since 1998 and contains eight criteria for assessing applications for export licences for military equipment. Included in these criteria is respect for human rights in the country of final destination and the preservation of regional peace, security and stability. Work on revising the code of conduct is currently ongoing and progressing well at technical level within the EU.

During his discussions with Chinese leaders in Beijing last month, the Taoiseach indicated that Ireland was ready to support the lifting of the arms embargo once the revised code of conduct was in place. He recalled the mutual understanding that the lifting of the embargo was not intended to lead to an increase in EU arms exports to China. He also explained the importance to the EU of continued progress in the promotion and protection of human rights in China.

The Government continues to examine this issue with our EU partners, in the context of our overall relationship with China, our ongoing commitment to human rights and the broader regional and international context. The EU will return to collectively take a decision on lifting the embargo once technical work on revising the EU code of conduct on arms exports has been completed.

Human rights are universal and should always be respected. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many parts of the world. This is particularly so in countries which have little or no experience of democracy or of respect for individual human rights. The approach of the Government is to seek to encourage the governments of such countries to move in the direction of greater respect for human rights. This is in no way to condone any violations which take place but it is to be realistic in recognising that radical change will not take place overnight and that change can often be best achieved through engagement.

Question No. 163 answered with QuestionNo. 93.
Top
Share