APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by the Campaign Against
Arms Trade
COMMENT ON THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON STRATEGIC
EXPORT CONTROLS
1. The Campaign Against Arms Trade notes
that the second annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, covering
1998, has much the same format as the first, and that the Government
will consider suggestions for changes in the light of the substantive
report of the House of Commons Defence, Foreign affairs, International
Development and Trade and Industry Select committees.
2. CAAT made a submission following the
publication of the first Annual Report. The comments CAAT made
in that submission, dated April 1999, are pertinent to the second
Annual Report too. The points below are additional to the earlier
submission. CAAT has not commented on individual countries this
time, as to do so in an informed way would require much greater
detail on the export licences than the Annual Reports, so far,
provide.
3. CAAT is pleased to see that the 1998
Annual Report includes mention of major Government-to-Government
transfers, and that slightly greater detail is given with respect
to the equipment exported as shown in Table 9.
ROLE OF
THE DEPARTMENT
FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
4. In its April 1999 submission, CAAT made
the assumption that the Department for International Development
would co-sponsor future Annual Reports along with the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry,
and the Ministry of Defence. This has not happened and, in the
introduction, it is said that DflD's "efforts are focussed
on examining export licence application concerning poor countries
and therefore the secretary of State for International Development
is not a co-signatory to this Report as licences for these countries
only account for a relatively small proportion of the overall
licensing process."
5. However, the Foreign Secretary, Robin
Cook, told a joint meeting of the four Select committees, held
on 3 November 1999, that it was his understanding that the Department
of Trade and Industry produced a list of applications which was
then circulated to the DflD, the FCO and the MoD, and it is open
to any of the departments to request sight of any of the applications
on the list. He believed that DflD had seen 1,700 licence applications
in 1998, some 20 per cent of the total.
6. The International Development Committee,
in its report on "Conflict Prevention and Post-Conflict Reconstruction",
dated 28 July 1999, said that it was "unacceptable"
that the Secretary of State for International Development had
not signed the first Annual Report. The Committee believed that
to "exclude DflD is to suggest that its voice and the development
perspective on conflict are somehow marginal or secondary".
7. DflD, in its Response to the Report dated
21 October 1999, put the percentage of licence applications seen
by it at 15 per cent. The Secretary of State, Clare Short, commented
that she did not, therefore, consider it appropriate that she
should co-sign the Report.
8. CAAT would urge DflD and the Government
to think again. Many of the most controversial export licence
applications will have been amongst those scrutinised by DflD.
Furthermore, neither the FCO and MoD examine all the applications,
and yet their Secretaries of State sign the Annual Reports. CAAT
believes that DflD must have a full and equal voice on export
licensing along with the other three departments, and that this
should be demonstrated by having all four Secretaries of State
sign the Annual Report.
DIFFERENT FIGURES
IN DIFFERENT
PUBLICATIONS
9. CAAT thinks the Annual Reports should
be reliable reference works on military export licensing, bringing
together information that may be held by different parts of Government.
It is important that data given is consistent with that published
elsewhere, and that explanations are given for any apparent discrepancies.
10. For example, there is a difference in
monetary value of military exports shown in the Ministry of Defence's
"UK Defence Statistics 1999", table 1.13, and the Annual
Reports. The former gives the following figures:
1997identified deliveries equal £4,598
million, estimates of additional aerospace equipment equal £2,087
million making a total of £6,685 million;
1998identified deliveries equal £3,527
million, estimates of additional aerospace equipment not available.
The equivalent figures in the Annual Reports
are:
1997£3,359.59 million (Table 8);
1998£1,968.29 million (Table 9).
11. There is a discrepancy with regard to
Saudi Arabia between the UK entry in the UN Arms Register, quoted
as the source, and Table 9 in the Annual Report. The former says
that 12 Tornado IDS aircraft were exported in 1998, the Annual
Report says 18. The figures with respect to Air to Ground Missiles
are 56 and 100 respectively.
12. The answer to a parliamentary question
showed that, for 1998, the number of SIELS granted in respect
of Indonesia in the categories ML2, ML7, ML10 and ML11 were 2,
0, 16 and 9 respectively whereas the Annual Report gives the figures
as 4, 1, 15 and 10. Such differences do not encourage confidence
when considering the information in the Annual Report. (Hansard,
9.2.99)
SIELS AND
OIELS
13. There is an increased use of Open Individual
Export Licences (OIELs) as compared with Standard Individual Export
Licences (SIELs). From 2 May to 31 December 1997, 156 OIELs were
issued, or amended, whilst for the calendar year 1998 the figure
was 566. The numbers of SIELs were 6,418 and 9,869 respectively.
If the 1997 figures are extrapolated to a year, there is a small
rise of 2.5 per cent in SIELs between then and 1998, but a massive
increase of 141.9 per cent in OIELs.
14. SIELs may be used for one or more shipments
to the same consignee at the same destination, subject to the
overall quantities and values specified. OIELs allow the licensee
to make multiple shipments of a range of goods to several destinations,
normally without specifying particular consignees. According to
the DTI, open licences "are now used wherever it is possible
and reduce the burden of export controls on many exporters and
reduce the cost of administration." (www.dti.gov.uk/export.control)
15. The format of the Annual Reports could
be seen as implying that OIELs are given in respect of less sensitive
goods or destinations than SIELs, but OIELs have been granted
in respect of each Military List category, and even for such controversial
destinations as Indonesia and Turkey. It would seem from this,
and the DTI's comment, above, that the difference is more one
of administrative convenience. CAAT believes that the OIELs should
be listed together with the SIELs in the country-by-country section.
16. In additional to the reduced Government
control on military exports occasioned by the increased use of
OIELs, there are implications for transparency. The Government
would no longer be in a position to give the quantities of various
goods licensed for export, as CAAT and others have been urging
it to do. CAAT believes that strict export controls and transparency
should always take precedence over reducing administrative costs,
and hopes that the implications of the substantial increase in
the use of OIELs will be considered by the Select Committee.
THE COMMITMENT
TO TRANSPARENCY
17. CAAT feels that Tables 2A and 2B fall
far short of the legibility standards implied in the Government's
commitment to transparency with regards to military exports. In
future, if the information does not easily fit on a page, tables
should be split.
18. CAAT has received many telephone calls
asking where the Annual Reports might be obtained, since they
are unavailable from the Stationery Office and can be found only
with difficulty on the FCO's website, where they are listed under
the date of publication. It is suggested that, in future, the
Annual Reports are published by the Stationery Office, and better
links given on the website.
December 1999
|