WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/00 by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Second annual report on the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: activity report, code of conduct, export, military equipment

C 340 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

(2001/C 340 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/00

by Matti Wuori (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(29 November 2000)

Subject: Second annual report on the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

When will the Council, under the French Presidency, be publishing its second annual report on the
implementation of the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports?

When will the French Presidency be presenting this second annual report to Parliament?

How will the Presidency be addressing the following weak spots in the Code of Conduct:

(cid:129) brokering;,

(cid:129) licensed production in third countries;

(cid:129) end-use control;

(cid:129) multilateral rather than bilateral consultations in the event of undercutting?

Does the French Presidency agree with the statement, made in the report Parliament adopted in September
2000, that adherence to the Code of Conduct is a condition for EU membership? How does the Council
Presidency intend to involve the applicant countries more closely in the mechanisms of the Code of
Conduct?

How does the French Presidency see the relationship between the EU Code of Conduct and the Letter of
Intent/Framework Agreement?

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The second annual report drawn up in accordance with point 8 of the enacting terms of the Code of
Conduct on Arms Exports was released on 4 December 2000, on which date it was noted by the Council.
It was published in the Official Journal of the EC (1) and submitted by the Presidency to the European
Parliament(cid:146)s Working Party on Transfers of Arms on 6 December 2000.

The Council does not think that the points referred to in the third question put by the Honourable
Member amount to actual weak spots in the Code, particularly since most of them, though coming within
the area of arms exports, do not strictly speaking come within the Code.

The Council preparatory bodies are actively engaged in working on the question of brokerage. The issues
of licensed production in third countries and of end-use control are already the subject of particular
vigilance on the part of the Member States, which have pledged to monitor exports of equipment such as
assembly lines. The question of a possible link between the sales price of arms and the form of
consultations among Member States has, however, never been broached in the Council.

In the Council(cid:146)s view, it is essential to ensure that the Associated States comply with the Code of Conduct
before acceding to the Union, as all have in any case already undertaken to do. The associated countries
receive detailed information on activities in the Council, including information on the implementation of
the Code, in the context of the regular meetings at troika level. Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage other
forms of cooperation in the field of the control of exports.

The Council believes that the process established by the Code and the process linked to the Letter of
Intent/Framework Agreement, although originating in different sources, are nevertheless convergent. While
the Code is the outcome of the political will born of the Luxembourg and Lisbon criteria, the Letter of
Intent stems from an awareness of the incidence of European transnational companies in need of an
appropriate intergovernmental framework which will ensure that their exports are effectively controlled. In
practice, however, these two instruments are found to be complementary inasmuch as the Code is seen to
focus increasingly on operational questions, whereas the Letter of Intent appears to aim at a wider target.

(1) OJ C 379, 29.12.2000, pp. 1 to 6.