Dr Benita Ferrero-Waldner
European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood policy

Joint debate on Arms Exports, Non-Proliferation of WMD, and Defence Procurement

European Parliament
Strasbourg, 16 November 2005

Honourable Members,

Rapporteur Romeva e Rueda should again be commended for putting together a report which challenges Member States to attain better, more stringent, harmonised controls on arms exports. Whilst the report's primary focus is on stimulating improvement in European practice it also recognises the EU's potential to stimulate best practice in the European Neighbourhood and the wider world.

It advocates an International Arms Trade Treaty. The Commission strongly supports opening negotiations on a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty. We believe these would be of great value, not least in reducing the spread of illicit small arms and light weapons which help fuel human insecurity, crime and conflict around the world.

This is an area where the Commission does not take the lead but where we are fully associated under CFSP.

The Commission is regularly involved, with other international organisations and NGO's, in dealing with the consequences of inappropriate or illegal arms sales. We are also contributing, through implementing specific projects, to reducing destabilising accumulations of weapons around the world. As the report points out around half a million people die each year as a result of small arms violence. In the face of these sobering statistics we can not be complacent.

Honourable Members,

Turning to Non Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I would first like to congratulate the Rapporteur Kristovskis for this important work. It is now two years since the adoption of the EU Strategy against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Non Proliferation Regime is seriously challenged. The risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction is by many considered a serious threat. The EU is defining its budgetary priorities for the coming years. All of this makes the report not only important but also timely.

The area is not new to the Commission. As mentioned in the Report, the Commission is engaged, since long, in cooperative assistance programmes to reduce the risks associated with WMD-related materials, equipment and technologies, particularly in the area of the former Soviet Union. The Commission has also gained experience by implementing EU Joint Actions on non proliferation in Russia under the CFSP framework. These actions constitute the core of the Commission contribution so far to the G8 Global Partnership against the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The EU Strategy calls for the creation of a specific community budget line in this domain. The Commission has responded to this call by inserting important non-proliferation objectives in its October 2004 proposal for the Stability Instrument. This and subsequent proposals are under consideration here and in the Council. A positive outcome of this negotiation is essential.

While the overall financial issues are being discussed, I would like to express the appreciation to the Parliament for enabling, in agreement with the Council, the Commission to implement a series of Pilot Projects in this area. They help to define how Community Instruments might best contribute to strengthening EU non proliferation assistance. Early December will see a high level Inter-parliamentary Conference taking place in Brussels where a series of independent studies will be presented and debated on the way ahead. I am grateful for the excellent cooperation with the Parliament in organising this event. We hope to see many Parliamentarians present at this occasion.

As requested by the Report, the Commission stands ready to provide further information to the European Parliament on past and ongoing Community programmes supporting WMD non proliferation and disarmament goals. It goes without saying that the Commission looks forward to a continued good cooperation with the Council and the Parliament in support of the overall objectives defined in the WMD Strategy.

Let me now turn to defence procurement. The role of the European Parliament in such a sensitive debate is crucial, and I am very glad that the Commission will now be able to take the Parliament's contribution into account. As you know, the Commission will adopt in the next few weeks a communication on the results of the public consultation which has taken place in the last few months. It is very important that such a communication adequately reflects the position taken by the Parliament, and I warmly thank, on behalf of Commissioner McCreevy, all those who made this possible, in particular Mr Würmeling, Ms Beer and Mr Hökmark, who have made a remarkable job in their respective committees.

The Commission, which was urged back in 2002 by the European Parliament to take initiatives in this field, is particularly happy with the content of this House's contribution. The ultimate objective of the Commission in this field is to open up defence markets, which are today highly fragmented and to increase the efficiency of public spending by encouraging competition and transparency in these markets. This should benefit to both buyers and taxpayers but also to the European Defence Industry, which is suffering from a market structure which prevents it competing in the global market place.

The public debate carried out over the last few months and the various contributions received show that the majority of the stakeholders also share the same objective. Even Member States seem now convinced that something has to be done quickly in order to move things forward. The current negotiations within the European Defence Agency on a Code of Conduct clearly shows the political will to put an end to a situation which is unanimously considered unsatisfactory.

The Commission is ready to play its part in this process. In particular, it could clear up those issues where the consultation has shown that different interpretations of the existing rules have led to differences in implementation. This could be done easily and quickly, by means of an Interpretative Communication, under the Commission's sole responsibility. But also, and perhaps more importantly, it could propose new more flexible rules for the procurement of defence materiel, rules which better suit the specific nature of this materiel. This would be neither quick nor easy. It would require a new legislative proposal. At this stage, a specific Directive on Defence Procurement seems to be the most appropriate legal instrument, which could address all the important issues which national authorities need to take into account when they procure defence materiel: such as, security of supply, confidentiality, or particular urgency. The Commission will do the necessary preliminary assessments and consultations and the European Parliament will be closely involved in this process.

Honourable Members, thank you for your support.