Transatlantic Security
Back to the main
page on Transatlantic Security
Export Controls
Back to the main page on Export Controls.
European Framework Agreement:
Sample Letters
Letter from the Arms Transfer Working Group
(ATWG) to U.S. Officials
Letter from the United Kingdom Arms Working
Group (UKAWG) to European Officials
Sample Letter to U.K. Parliamentarians
Letter from the Arms
Transfer Working Group (ATWG) to U.S. Officials
August 8, 2000
Dear __________,
We are writing as participants of the Arms Transfer Working
Group - an alliance of more than 30 arms control, human rights,
peace and religious organizations working for the non-proliferation
of conventional weapons - to express our concern about the
"Framework Agreement concerning Measures to Facilitate the
Restructuring and Operation of the European Defense Industry"
signed in July by the defense ministers of France, Germany,
Italy, Sweden, Spain and the United Kingdom. We are especially
concerned about the link between the U.S. Defense Trade Security
Initiative (DTSI) and the Framework Agreement. We believe
that these new arrangements, especially taken together, could
result in a lower level of control over the transfer of sensitive
arms and technology.
Although the Framework Agreement is aimed at restructuring
the European defense industry, its implementation may also
impact the way U.S. arms and technology are handled by European
governments and firms. For example, the goal of the Agreement
is to eliminate existing obstacles to intra-European joint
ventures and mergers - consolidation being deemed necessary
in the face of domination by U.S. companies - thereby facilitating
the movement of technology and subsystems among participating
European states. This may mean that the DTSI's favoritism
to certain states as a reward for adopting strict control
procedures - like the planned ITAR exemption for the United
Kingdom - becomes meaningless in the end, as there are fewer
and fewer "national" companies. The lack of transparency surrounding
transfers among firms involved in joint production or within
multinational firms makes it all the more difficult for the
United States to exercise control over its exports once they
arrive in Europe.
In addition, by encouraging parties to the Agreement to reduce
barriers to trade in defense goods, parts, and technology
- even those not traded in the context of joint production
- the new European arrangement will further reduce the level
of control over the movement of arms across Europe. Indeed,
the Framework Agreement has the potential to move European
states down a slippery slope toward the lowest common denominator
of export controls.
Further, the Framework Agreement is designed to make the
European defense industry more competitive in the global defense
market by facilitating the joint decision-making process on
third-party exports. If the Europeans are successful in capturing
more market share, U.S. firms could respond by demanding further
reforms of U.S. arms export controls. This could conceivably
develop into a race to the bottom as the American and European
defense industries struggle to secure lucrative third-party
contracts.
When you presented the U.S. government's reform initiative
to non-governmental organizations in May, you indicated that
your goal was to elicit tighter levels of control by close
allies. Instead, the European Framework Agreement represents
a considerable step in the opposite direction. Clearly, the
DTSI has not had its desired impact. We therefore urge Departments
of State and Defense to engage the responsible European governments
at the highest possible level to seek a mutually agreeable
way to implement this agreement without decreasing the effectiveness
of current U.S. and European export controls.
Finally, we would like to have the opportunity to meet with
you to discuss these concerns, and to be given an update on
negotiations with the United Kingdom and Australia on ITAR
exemptions. Please contact Arms Transfer Working Group co-chairs
Tamar Gabelnick (202-675-1018) or Erik Floden (202-546-0975)
at your earliest convenience to set up such a meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Letter from the United Kingdom Arms
Working Group (UKAWG) to European Officials
22nd June 2000
Dear ____________,
Re: Request for a meeting on the Letter of Intent between
6 Defence Ministers on Measures to Facilitate the Restructuring
of the European Industry
We are writing to request a meeting with relevant officials
from the XX department on the forthcoming Framework Agreement
on Measures to Facilitate the Restructuring of the European
Industry.
While BASIC acknowledges - and welcomes - the possibility
that this new agreement has the potential to strengthen export
control policy. At the same time, we have the following concerns:
· Export controls could be reduced to the lowest common
denominator: The Letter of Intent (LoI) asserts clearly that
any new arrangements will be 'within the ambit of the EU Code
of Conduct on Arms Exports.' However, since the criteria of
the Code are subject to differing interpretation, there may
well be differences between the six participating states on
the legitimacy of certain potential recipients of arms. New,
simplified procedures for the export of arms raise concerns
about the risks of diluting such more restrictive export control
criteria of participating states, increasing the prospects
of EU export controls being reduced to the lowest common denominator.
· 'White Lists' will not be made public: The proposed
white lists of acceptable destinations for the export of joint
venture equipment will not be made public. This undermines
the aims of the EU Code and UK policy to increase transparency
over arms exports.
We understand that the details of this agreement, such as
the countries to be included in the White Lists and end-use
controls, will be finalised over the next year. BASIC believes
that, in order to ensure that this agreement improves common
export controls, experts from the NGO and academic community
must be consulted during this process. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with your office to ensure that UK Government
policies on export controls and transparency are protected
in the implementation of the agreement.
Therefore we ask you to consider meeting with representatives
from the UK Arms Working Group at the earliest opportunity
to establish a dialogue on this important issues at the earliest
possible opportunity. In addition, it is our understanding
that UK defence industry representatives already have been
provided several briefings on the subject - and we would welcome
a similar opportunity.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Sample Letter to
U.K. Parliamentarians
MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 1AA
23rd June 2000
Dear MP
Re: Forthcoming Agreement on Arms Export Controls could
threaten EU Code of Conduct, Transparency and Parliamentary
Scrutiny
I am writing to you regarding a forthcoming agreement which
has the potential to undermine European arms export controls
and threaten progress on transparency and parliamentary scrutiny
of weapons transfers.
In 1998, the Defence Ministers of the six leading European
arms manufacturing countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain,
Sweden and UK) signed a Letter of Intent (LoI) on "measures
to facilitate the restructuring of the European Defence Industry".
After two years of negotiations it is expected that a "Framework
Agreement" will be adopted on July 24th at Farnborough
Air Show. The agreement will be legally binding, with the
status of an international treaty, requiring ratification
by national parliaments.
The Framework Agreement will have a direct impact on the
export control policies and procedures of the signatory countries.
Although the text of the agreement is not public, it is understood
that it will do the following:
-
Simplify and reduce export control procedures on all
joint ventures among any of the six participating states:
Industry currently argues that existing licensing procedures
impedes joint ventures across European borders, thereby
undermining the future of the European defence industry.
This agreement will allow for the free circulation of
components and finished products in joint ventures amongst
the six participating states.
-
Ensure that export licensing decisions will be taken
by collective agreement of all state participating in
the joint venture: Currently, decisions on where to
export joint venture equipment is the sole responsibility
of the country of final assembly. Under the terms of this
new agreement, all participating countries will
have a say in which countries it will be exported to.
Although this is meant to be a consensus decision, it
is likely that a country's influence on the final decision
will be proportionate to its role in the joint venture.
-
Establish 'White Lists' of acceptable destinations:
For each venture, participating states will agree
a 'white list' of legitimate destinations to which the
defence equipment can be exported. These lists may vary
depending on the project - for instance restrictions on
the export of a helicopter may be different to that of
small arms and light weapons.
While many officials involved in the negotiations maintain
that this is a positive initiative, there are a number of
areas which are a cause for concern for NGOs and parliamentarians
calling for tougher controls on arms exports.
-
· Possibility that export controls will be
reduced to the lowest common denominator: The LoI
asserts clearly that any new arrangements will be 'within
the ambit of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.'
However, since the criteria of the Code are subject to
differing interpretation, there may well be differences
between the six participating states on the legitimacy
of certain potential recipients of arms. New, simplified
procedures for the export of arms raise concerns about
the risks of diluting such EU Member States' more restrictive
export control criteria, increasing the prospects of EU
export controls being reduced to the lowest common denominator.
-
White Lists will not be made public: The aim
of the agreement is to promote a competitive European
defence industry, and the 'white lists' of export destinations
for joint venture equipment will not be made public because
of "commercial confidentiality". This runs counter to
the stated aim of the EU Code of Conduct to promote "greater
transparency" among the 15 EU states. It further prevents
any form of parliamentary oversight on joint venture exports.
The priority now is to ensure that the LoI results in the
most effective and transparent export controls, which adhere
to the toughest interpretation of the EU Code of Conduct criteria.
Attached is a series of parliamentary questions which we
hope you will consider tabling. If you require any further
information of have any questions please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Back to European Export Regulations
page
Back to the main page on Export Controls.
|
