EXPORTS OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Sub-Committee C considered the above document
at its meeting on 7 December 2006. On the substance, the transformation
of the EU Code of Conduct into a legally binding Common Position
is welcome as an excellent initiative which will significantly
strengthen the EU's standards on export controls and non-proliferation.
Also welcome is the leadership HMG has shown within the EU on
this issue. I return to substantive issues later.
First, however, there is a serious question
of procedure on which the Sub-Committee would be grateful for
clarification. The Sub-Committee regretted only receiving this
document shortly before it is to be considered in Council, yet
it is dated 30 June 2005. Given the long time this instrument
has been on the table, the Sub-Committee ought to have received
it at a much earlier date. Can you explain the reason for the
delay?
You will be aware that the Committee has recently
recommended that "the Government should provide early warning
of important new initiatives and proposed actions" (19th
Report, Session 2005-06, p. 6). I am sure that you will agree
that the Committee cannot fulfil its scrutiny function without
timely communication of documents.
Returning to matters of substance, the Common
Position deals comprehensively with a wide range of issues related
to export controls and licensing, with a strong emphasis on respect
for human rights, international humanitarian law, and the upholding
of international and regional peace and security.
However, there is room for a further strengthening
of the proposal. First, Criterion two could be strengthened by
the insertion of a reference to the rule of law and the fight
against corruption to complement those on internal repression
and human rights. Regional human rights bodies could be mentioned
under the "competent authorities" heading (point (b)),
as regional human rights bodies may, depending on the case in
question, be well placed to establish that serious violations
of human rights have taken place.
Under Criterion four, point (b), the addition
of the words "or other disputed territory/ies" after
the words "neighbouring country" might be more explicit
in covering disputes where both or several countries actually
claim the territory in question, such as Taiwan or the Spratly
islands in the South China Sea.
We would welcome the strengthening of Criterion
seven through a reference to the risk of diversion in transit,
taking into account the intangible nature of certain technology
or software.
Article 6 appears to be somewhat ambiguous,
in that it appears to indicate that dual-use goods will be exempt
from the criteria in article 2 if there are no grounds for believing
that the "end-user of such goods and technology will be the
armed forces or internal security forces or similar entities in
the recipient country". Does this wording imply that a non-state
actor, such as a terrorist organisation, could legally gain access
to dual-use goods? If so, the document should be amended accordingly.
The Sub-Committee has decided to clear the document
from scrutiny, and trusts that you will take these comments into
account during the negotiations on this Common Position in Council.
I would be grateful if you could keep the Committee informed of
the progress in negotiations.
12 December 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 12 December confirming
that the Committee had cleared the above document from scrutiny.
I am replying now to answer the additional points raised in your
letter.
Firstly, you asked why it had taken so long
for the document to be brought forward for scrutiny, given that
it was dated June 2005. I agree that it would have been far better
for the document to have been presented much earlier. However,
the Common Position required consensus amongst Member States for
its adoption, and prior to November 2006 consensus had still not
been reached. The Finnish Presidency decided to try one more time
to reach agreement, and placed the Common Position onto the December
Council agenda. They did this at short notice, and in so doing
gave us very little time to present the document to you for scrutiny.
I regret that we were not able to give your Committee longer,
but I am grateful for the swift response you were able to give
us.
In the event, Member States were still unable
to reach consensus at the Council meeting of 12 December, and
the document failed to be adopted. However, I can confirm that
the Government is keen to see adoption as soon as possible, and
will continue to work with partners to try to overcome their objections.
Sadly, I cannot guarantee that agreement will come quickly.
Moving on to matters of substance, I welcome
the Committee's comments and suggestions on the Common Position.
As the document was not adopted in December we are still in a
position to take your comments and recommendations back to partners
to see whether they would be prepared to incorporate these suggestions.
We will of course report back to the Committee on the outcome
of these discussions, and if necessary, re-submit the document
for further scrutiny.
8 January 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 8 January which
was considered at the meeting of Sub-Committee C on 18 January.
We are pleased that, in this instance, a delay in the adoption
of the document means that the Sub-Committee's comments will be
taken into account and look forward to seeing the revised document.
However, we were concerned about the implications
of some of your comments for the process of scrutiny. The Committee
understands that in this case the document was put to Council
by the Presidency unexpectedly but the letter conveys the impression
that the Government's practice is to submit documents such as
this only when consensus is reached in the EU working group. At
this point, it is often too late for the Committee to make any
useful comment.
The problems involved with this kind of document
and procedure were fully explored in the Committee's 2006 Report
"Review of Scrutiny: Common Foreign and Security Policy".
It is recognised that there may be political sensitivities and
that it may be difficult to judge when to inform the Committee
during an ongoing negotiating process, particularly one such as
this which has been underway since 2005, but it would be appreciated
if in future you would keep us informed of any proposal at the
outset, and let us have sight of the document as soon as the first
working text is produced, keeping us informed as the process develops
so that our comments can be taken into account as a matter of
course. As the Government's response to the Committee's Report
stated: "As we have repeatedly stressed, scrutiny by the
Committee is most effective, and influential, the earlier it takes
place. Reliance on definitive texts, which by their nature are
only produced late in the decision making process, reduces the
practical influence of the Committee and the impact of its work."
I look foward to hearing your reaction to the
above comments.
31 January 2007
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 31 January, I can
confirm that since the December General Affairs and External Relations
Council there has been no progress on the Common Position, and
we do not anticipate any in the next few months. This is because
there remains a lack of consensus amomgst the Member States in
favour of the proposal. And it is this lack of consensus on the
agreement of the Common Position at this time, not the substance
of the text, that I was referring to in my letter of 8 January.
As the Committee identifies, the Government
has previously stressed that we fully recognise the importance
of effective and early scrutiny. However, in this instance, because
there was no prospect of the Common Position being brought to
a Council for agreement when it was drafted in the summer 2005,
and because it remained a draft subject to amendment, we did not
consider that submitting the Council Position for Scrutiny was
justified. This is why we were surprised by the decision of the
Finnish Presidency to place the item on the General Affairs and
External Relations Council at short notice. And why we regret
that this meant that there was only limited time for scrutiny
to take place.
However, as I have said in earlier correspondence,
I welcome the Committee's comments on the proposed Common Position
and will keep you updated on its progress.
19 January 2007
| 
