EU Code of Conduct: USA
71. In our February Report we recommended that
the Government take every opportunity to press the USA to align
itself with the principles of the Code, as Canada has done. In
its response, the Government noted that it had indeed taken appropriate
opportunities to do so and that it was looking forward to constructive
participation in future discussions on development of an international
code of conduct on arms transfers.[89]
72. In the course of our May visit to Washington,
we raised this issue with some of our interlocutors. It is indeed
evident that there is some suspicion of the EU Code in the US
Administration. One way forward may be through bilateral understandings.
The USA and the UK have recently agreed the text of a Declaration
of Principles on defence industrial and equipment co-operation,
which includes a commitment to harmonise export procedures and
as far as possible conventional arms export policies. A high-level
council is to be established to pursue these and related measures.
Another way forward is through agreement in multilateral fora.
It may be that the Wassenaar Arrangement offers a promising route
for this and other initiatives, although its recent Plenary was
in most respects disappointing in its outcome.
73. US conventional arms transfer policy does not
appear to differ in any important way from the EU Code or the
UK national criteria. In some respects, notably its addressing
of the question of criteria for upgrade programmes, it is an improvement.
Harmonisation of the policies pursued by the USA and Europe
on arms export controls should not present insuperable problems.
A visibly coordinated approach between the USA and Europe would
present a powerful message to those arms exporting nations not
within a consensus. We remain of the opinion that there would
be value in an internationally harmonised system of conventional
arms export policies to be followed by the major arms exporters.
72 
