Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 5

Written Answers - Conference on Conflict Prevention.

Ray Burke

Ceist:

42 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will inform Dáil Éireann of the Government's and the EU's reaction to the plan of action drawn up by the International Conference on Conflict Prevention and presented to the Dutch President in the Office of the EU Council on 3 March 1997, with particular reference to the recommendation that the EU arms trade must submit to a binding code of conduct which would prevent the supply of arms, with the emphasis on light arms, to countries in conflict and to high risk countries where conflict is likely to break out. [7461/97]

A European conference on conflict prevention, organised by Saferworld and a range of other European non-governmental organisations, was held in Amsterdam on 27-28 February. My colleague at the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, attended and addressed the conference. An action programme on conflict prevention and peace building was agreed at the conference and presented to the Dutch Presidency.

The Government recognises the value of conflict prevention and accepts that a comprehensive approach to preventing conflict in the world has implications for a wide range of issues. It strongly supports the development of the greatest possible measure of cohesion between the foreign policy of the European Union and its development co-operation policy. This is particularly significant with respect to countries and regions of tension, whose precarious stability is too often put at risk by excessive accumulations of arms. In this context, the regulation of arms transfers is an important but difficult issue.

Under Article 223 of the Treaty on European Union 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. This is the framework within which the proposal to which the Deputy refers — the proposal for a common, restrictive and binding interpretation of the EU's eight common criteria on arms transfers based on a code of conduct and leading to the establishment of an EU arms transfer policy at the highest existing levels of restraint — must be viewed.

As I told the Deputy in reply to a similar question on 11 December 1996, despite these constraints it has been possible to make some progress on this issue. However, the progress to date is only a start and further work is needed to achieve an eventual common interpretation of the criteria. Conferences such as the one mentioned by the Deputy can play a role in maintaining pressure on countries which do not, in practice, subscribe to the goal of achieving the maximum possible transparency and restraint in arms transfers.

Barr
Roinn