Macro-financial assistance for Lebanon (debate)
The next item is the report by Kader Arif, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the proposal for a Council decision providing Community macro-financial assistance to Lebanon - C6-0290/2007 -.
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Parliament for giving its support to the Commission proposal from last August. As the rapporteur, Mr Arif, emphasises in his report, Lebanon is in a very difficult situation both politically and economically. Its need for funding is acute. With this macro-financial assistance, the European Union is acting on the pledge it made at the international donor conference last January in Paris, when we agreed to give financial support to Lebanon.
As you know, the operationalisation of the financial assistance is beset by considerable uncertainties due to the political and constitutional crisis which has not yet been overcome. Nonetheless, the Commission is keeping to its pledge to complete all the necessary internal procedures so that the assistance can come on-stream as soon as circumstances permit.
Our talks with the Lebanese authorities on the political conditions to be linked with the programme are nearing a conclusion and I can assure you that these conditions will be in full conformity with the EU-Lebanon Action Plan established within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and with the Lebanese authorities' medium-term economic reform programme. We will of course be utilising all available means in order to minimise, as far as possible, the risk of fraud, corruption and financial abuse, as called for in the draft report.
I note that the rapporteur is proposing various amendments to the Commission proposal. We will look at these amendments very carefully and give our opinion to the Council. However, I can already tell you that we will not be raising any objections to most of the amendments on the legal provisions themselves.
The Commission is aware that, at the hearings about new financial assistance, Parliament had to react to very short deadlines. The timetable for all the institutions involved has been tight, due to the specific nature of this financial assistance as a crisis instrument.
However, in order to ease the situation and improve cooperation with the Committee on International Trade (INTA), the Commission pledges in future to inform the INTA Secretariat systematically, and in advance, of any new financial assistance transactions; this will be done by means of an information memorandum as soon as new financial assistance is in prospect.
rapporteur. - (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to present this report to you today on the allocation of macro-financial assistance (MFA) to Lebanon. This is testimony to the EU pledge to help the country recover from successive crises.
Lebanon is currently one of the world's most debt-ridden countries, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 180%. The impact of the civil war between 1975 and 1990, the 2006 summer crisis with Israel, chronic political instability and an economic policy set adrift have caused a serious economic, financial and social crisis. The reality of this situation calls for urgent action to be taken.
It transpires that funds in connection with the adoption in January 2007 of the EU-Lebanon Action Plan as part of the European Neighbourhood Policy will not be available until 2009. The exceptional MFA we are set to adopt will bridge that gap and will have an immediate impact on public finances and the balance of payments in Lebanon, provided it is implemented immediately. The MFA will consist of a donation of 30 million euros and a loan of 50 million euros to help the Lebanese Government take on post-war reconstruction and continue its economic revival.
My report fully approves the need to secure this financial assistance for Lebanon. It does, however, introduce a number of amendments to the Council's proposal for the sake of clarity and transparency.
First and foremost, we ought to bear in mind that the assistance must be strictly complementary to the finance agreed by the Bretton Woods institutions, the Paris Club, bilateral donors and the EU under other programmes. It must be coherent with EU external action or policies and guarantee the added value of the Community undertaking.
The Council will also need to explicitly and publicly take up Parliament's recommendations as to the conditions and criteria attached to the assistance, in other words improved transparency and increased sustainability of public finances, application of the budgetary and macro-economic priorities defined, implementation of specific measures to prevent any risk of fraud, corruption and misuse of funds, distribution of assistance with a fair balance among post-conflict expenditure, reconstruction, excessive debt and the social needs of the population, and full compliance with international democratic and human rights standards and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Provision of aid for Lebanon must be accompanied by real progress on the objectives mentioned, and this must be set out in a grant agreement drawn up jointly with the Lebanese authorities.
In addition to our basic work on this text, I also wish to mention some of the difficulties encountered while the report was being drawn up, given its urgent nature. It is for this reason that, for any future decision relating to the granting of MFA, the Commission and the Council must provide us with much more notice. For Parliament to carry out its work satisfactorily, it must have better-quality information in good time. In this regard, implementation of an early warning system by the Commission would ensure faster handling of the dossier by the competent committee in Parliament and avoid unnecessary delays which might have a serious negative impact on the final beneficiary of the financial aid. The quality and coherence of our work and the quality of our cooperation with the other institutions rely heavily on this factor.
In line with previous Parliament resolutions, I wish to stress that such a substantial instrument cannot be simply regarded as exceptional. It must have a regular legal basis and cannot be based on ad hoc Council decisions for each operation. A framework regulation on MFA, laid down under the codecision procedure, is necessary in order to enhance transparency, accountability, monitoring and reporting systems.
We must also make rapid arrangements for interinstitutional discussions as to the most suitable legal basis for this kind of instrument. In the case of MFA for Lebanon, one of the countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy and also classified as a developing country, we feel that the legal basis for this action should have been Article 179 of the EC Treaty instead of Article 308 of the EC Treaty.
It is precisely because Lebanon is a developing country that Parliament insists on not neglecting the social aspect of the reforms that the Lebanese Government might undertake. According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), nearly 24% of Lebanese live in complete destitution, and 52% of Lebanese are considered underprivileged. Moreover, nearly 9% of the population are illiterate, less than one-third of the population reach primary school level, and only 13% of Lebanese reach university.
Despite this reality, it must be said that the social question is not currently at the centre of Lebanese political debate, and the social content of envisaged reform is extremely limited with respect to economic and financial concerns. It is, however, in the interests of Lebanon and its partners, as I have already said, to find a fair balance between the various items of expenditure, particularly funds for education and training. It must be borne in mind that persistent social inequalities may have serious economic and political consequences which could prolong the country's instability.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. - (ES) Madam President, Lebanon is in an extremely serious and tense situation and it is clear that a way out from the institutional crisis in that country must be found. With this in mind, a working group from the Committee on Foreign Affairs will next week visit the country to do what this Parliament has always done: bear witness to the solidarity of our institution with the cause of peace, understanding, harmony, reconciliation and democratic consolidation in that country.
It was precisely with this aim in mind that Mr Arif produced his report on macro-financial assistance for Lebanon. I must say to him that, in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, we did not want to get too bogged down in technicalities given the extremely serious and tense situation in Lebanon, as I have said, following the succession of President Lahoud. However, we obviously did want to ensure full respect for the competence of Parliament as an arm of the budgetary authority, maximum clarity and transparency as the rapporteur was proposing, and therefore correct and effective use of the funding, thus avoiding any kind of corruption, as indicated by Commissioner Verheugen in his speech.
In this context, we believe that this macro-financial assistance falls within the spirit of the association agreement, or the association between the European Union and the Mediterranean countries, within the future framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and, of course, within the obligations made in the agreements of the Paris III Conference on the reconstruction and recovery of Lebanon. It also falls within the spirit of the agreements made with the international institutions.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (FI) Madam President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, I note with satisfaction that the responsible committee has adopted the proposals we tabled. It was very courageous of the Committee to propose the new concept of 'the availability period of financial assistance' and interpret it in such a way that the validity of the legal act could be prolonged simply through comitology committee procedure. The Commission is just an executive body and cannot have the role of legislator. Such it would become if it should decide on how long financial assistance should last.
On the Committee on Budgets I note with satisfaction that the responsible committee has adopted a positive position regarding our proposal for an amendment to the legal basis, although that would only be done in respect of future proposals on macro-financial assistance. A more proper legal basis we feel is Article 179 of the EC Treaty and not the general Article 308 which has now been used. We hope that the Commission and the Council will in future take account of this message from Parliament.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Madam President, the current institutional vacuum in Lebanon constitutes a major threat to the country and the region in general. With a non-functional parliament, its members in fear of their lives, a destabilised government and a paralysed economy, Lebanon must now find a way out of this crisis. More than ever, the EU must also remain alert in support of its neighbour and ally.
The macro-financial assistance proposed today by the EU is more welcome than ever before. This exceptional assistance with a time limitation, aiming to rectify the budgetary situation of a country where agreed efforts to reduce the burden of debt were destroyed by the murderous conflict of the summer of 2006, falls fully within the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. It is not, therefore, a traditional form of assistance as this budgetary support will help enhance Lebanon's political and economic sovereignty and independence. Assistance must, of course, be subject to an anti-fraud mechanism for greater transparency in the administration and disbursement of funds.
We must also ensure better coordination of the financial institutions working to rebuild the country. We must, in fact, implement the neighbourhood instrument, IMF measures and FEMIP actions in a coherent fashion to guarantee effective and sustainable assistance. As the Annapolis Conference opens up a window of hope, Lebanon remains a key factor for peace and stability in the region.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, I welcome Mr Arif's report. It is, as you would expect from Mr Arif, a well-argued and well-balanced report.
However, I regret that, once again, the EU has to pick up the bill for Israel's propensity, in the Middle East, to drop bombs first and worry about the consequences later.
It is true that Lebanon had financial difficulties before the conflict with Israel in the summer of 2006, but that war was, perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back. Lebanon, as Mr Arif has said, is now one of the most indebted countries in the world and, according to the UNDP, almost one in four Lebanese lives in complete destitution.
We have in Lebanon, despite the problems that it faces, a government determined to bring about economic stability. In such a situation, it is right that we should be prepared to provide macro-financial assistance to assist in that recovery. Mr Arif is right to argue for safeguards to ensure that we have appropriate policies for tackling corruption and to make sure that funding is not abused. The right mechanism for doing that is through absolute transparency in the granting and spending of the money, proper monitoring of expenditure and ex-post evaluation of the measures taken.
Lebanon, as the Commissioner has indicated, has become one of the EU's partner countries in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy. The money from that policy will not be available until 2009 or 2010, but when that funding does become available I look forward to the EU assisting in the social and economic reforms in Lebanon. In the interim, macro-financial assistance can make a big difference in helping Lebanon tackle its indebtedness and help bring stability to its government. I therefore welcome it.
(PL) Madam President, we are today debating macro-financial assistance for Lebanon. The latter is in the midst of the most serious economic and political crisis to befall it since the end of the war in 1990. The House has heard, from many independent experts on the problems of the Middle East, that the European Union should actively support the democratic authorities in Lebanon.
Lebanon is now at a particularly important juncture. It is at a stage when the last ghosts of war may finally be laid to rest. There is also a danger, however, that all the old conflicts will break out again. We should therefore use the instruments available to us and play an active mediating role helping to resolve Lebanon's internal conflicts. The conflict between Israel and Lebanon caused enormous damage in a country that had just managed, with great difficulty, to rebuild its infrastructure after 20 years of war. The conflict also had a negative impact on social relations in Lebanon. It led to a strengthening of radical forces, thus plunging Lebanon anew into internal cross-community conflict.
Lebanon needs time to stabilise again. It needs mediation between all parties. The financial assistance provided by the European Union and by other countries and institutions will provide an opportunity for the Lebanon to get back on course towards reform. Reform is bound to take time, but will result in the emergence of a country that is politically, socially and economically stable.
I welcome the Commission's initiative and the fact that Members of the House have taken the issue of macro-financial assistance on board. This allows us to send out a signal to the people of Lebanon assuring them that the European Union considers itself to be their partner. I should therefore also like to thank the rapporteur for so skilfully endeavouring to involve Parliament in the decision-making process regarding assistance to Lebanon. Finally, we must remember that rebuilding Lebanon is just as much in our interest as Europeans as it is in the interests of the people of Lebanon.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 29 November 2007.


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes


European code of conduct on arms exports (debate)
The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the European Code of Conduct for Arms Exports.
President-in-Office. - (SL) Firstly, on behalf of the Council I would like to express satisfaction with the traditionally good relations and cooperation between the Council's Conventional Arms Exports Working Group, COARM, and the European Parliament, more precisely with its Subcommittee on Security and Defence, SEDE. I am convinced that this well-organised and excellent cooperation will continue into the future, which is why I welcome today's debate.
Allow me to say a few words about the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. As we know, the code was adopted in 1998. It gave the European Union new impetus in monitoring the arms trade. In accordance with this code, the Union started making annual reports that are actually reports on completed arms transfers.
This year we will make a tenth annual report. I should also mention that these reports have become increasingly clear and informative. Because of this code, in the last few years most Member States have started to publish their national annual reports on the export of arms and military equipment. In 2003 the European Union defined its own list of arms and military equipment to be covered by the code and started more serious coordination of the policy for export to individual third countries. The Member States also exchange information concerning rejected and completed arms exports.
This dynamism has been transferred to international organisations, especially those in which Member States of the European Union play an important part. This applies especially to the Wassenaar Arrangement. The code was improved in 2006 and 2007, specifically with additions to the users' manual.
As we know, the code is not a legally binding document. However, the Member States have a political commitment to abide by its provisions. There have been attempts in the past to build on the code by adding a common position that would be a legally binding document by which the Member States would have to abide when exporting arms. However, there is still no agreement on adopting such a common position. The Slovenian Presidency is working for its adoption during the Slovenian period of office, that is to say in the first half of this year, or at least working to achieve substantial progress in this direction.
Maybe there is no better opportunity for this progress than that offered by the preparation of the European Union's tenth report on the implementation of the code. However, at the moment we cannot confidently predict whether our wish will be fulfilled. Of course, this is not stopping us from trying. We will therefore call on all Member States to give us their opinions on this issue and we will try to encourage them to work together on reaching a common position. If there are no impediments, the Slovenian Presidency will take great pleasure in completing the adoption procedure and will submit a report to all interested institutions, primarily to Parliament.
Allow me to say a few brief words on two other priority topics: the common position on the brokering of arms and military equipment trading, and the efforts made by the Member States to adopt internationally binding agreements on arms trading.
The European Union adopted guidelines for the brokering of arms trading in 2001, and the common position was adopted in 2003. By adopting this position, the Member States took upon themselves an obligation to adopt its elements into their national legislation and thereby regulate the brokering of arms and military equipment trading. At the moment 20 Member States have adopted the elements of this common position into their national legislation, and seven have yet to complete the process. The Presidency will follow progress in this matter, and the States which have not completed the process will be encouraged to do so as soon as possible.
Now to the last item: the international arms trade agreement. This is one of the key projects in disarmament. As you know, the European Council has recently adopted a decision to support the international agreement. The framework for the composition of the group of government experts working in this field was confirmed at last year's General Assembly. Information about the initial work of this group is encouraging; nevertheless, a lot of effort and work will have to be invested in this process.
Within our activities, we will closely follow the work of this group and support the process leading to the international agreement.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I took a little more time on Iraq but I shall be a bit briefer now, so I will try to make good on my time.
Even if the responsibility for controlling and monitoring the sale of arms rests primarily with Member States and thus with the Council, the Commission also has a clear interest through its contribution to the implementation of the EU small arms and light weapons strategy under the common foreign and security policy.
We greatly value the effective control and monitoring of EU arms exports. We remain concerned that European controls should encourage other regions to adopt and apply - at the very least - minimum standards, in order to ensure that legitimate exports are not subsequently diverted, thereby exacerbating armed conflicts and human rights violations.
In this connection, the Commission continues to engage actively with Member States, third countries, international organisations and others in order to deal with the financing of illicit arms trafficking, often linked with illicit trade in other commodities (particularly drugs), for example diamonds.
We in the Commission took advantage of our chairmanship of the Kimberley Process last year to push for the development of controls to prevent and deter the use of diamonds to fund arms purchases by rebel groups. Further, in close collaboration with the relevant customs authorities, we intend to take forward measures under the new Instrument for Stability to combat illegal trafficking in arms by air, targeting particularly aircraft travelling to and within Africa. We also play a role in the implementation of arms embargoes by prohibiting related technical assistance.
Within the European Union, control of firearms trafficking is crucial in the fight against insecurity and criminality, especially against organised crime. The policy being developed to combat firearms trafficking involves the reinforcement of controls on the legal sale and holding of firearms within the Union. This goes on to encompass the proper monitoring of the movement of firearms within the Union and the development of cooperation between national administrations in charge.
Besides these efforts, we can see that a significant quantity of firearms is also in the possession of criminals and available on the black market. The unauthorised transfer of firearms across borders, and the transfer of unmarked firearms, are therefore important sources of these illegal weapons. Steps are currently being taken at European level to enhance rules on record keeping and marking, to develop an export/import system for firearms for civilian use, and to improve cooperation between national law enforcement administrations.
Improving the traceability of firearms is a key objective, and externally - very briefly - we are also taking concrete steps outside the Union to handle the problems arising from explosive remnants of war and small arms in crisis regions, again under the Stability Instruments. For instance, in Bosnia we are currently considering supporting a project to deal with unexploded ordnance and other explosive remnants.
Certainly we will continue to support Member States' efforts to establish a treaty covering the arms trade, as our Council President has said, although we might not be under the illusion that this will not take a certain time. But hopefully it will happen very soon.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, for nearly 10 years the European Council has dragged its feet on transforming the EU code of conduct on arms transfer into a legally binding document. For the last two years there have been no technical barriers to adopting a common position on the code. Why do we finally have to get our house in order?
Firstly, there are currently estimated to be some 400 companies in our Member States producing arms. Given that research and development costs in this industry are extremely high, companies naturally wish to maximise their profits by ensuring the longest possible production runs, selling licensing agreements and, in short, seeking markets wherever they can. Companies from the 20 nations whose governments imposed strict guidelines on arms exports are clearly at an economic disadvantage vis-à-vis competitors whose governments show more leniency. All companies should have a level playing field.
Secondly, we have documented instances of companies from EU states supplying arms to China, Colombia, Ethiopia and Eritrea. How can we on the one hand applaud all efforts to promote economic development, democracy and human rights while we make the very implementation of this impossible by contributing to violent conflicts?
Thirdly, we deploy military personnel from our Member States on EU and NATO peacekeeping missions but, by failing to apply this code of conduct, we risk that they may come under fire from weapons produced within our very states as a result of irresponsible transfer.
Fourthly, how can we envisage a future Europe with a common foreign and security policy when we lack such a fundamental element in the form of a common position?
Finally, before we stand up in this Chamber championing human rights and democracy, let us ensure that we also take action that gives substance to our rhetoric.
The PPE-DE Group congratulates the authors of this motion for a resolution. We trust that the overwhelming support from Parliament will help the Council in finding a way out of the current political impasse and finally make adherence to the code of conduct a legal requirement for all Member States.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) The motion for a resolution on the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports expresses Parliament's frustration at the current deadlock on this important instrument, as our rapporteur, Mrs Gacek, has just said and whom I must congratulate.
Ten years after its establishment, the Code is still a source of pride to those who believe that the European Union must take the lead in the global debate on controlling arms transfers. We welcome the increasingly harmonised application of the Code, the detail in the annual reports presented by Member States and the outreach initiatives undertaken by the Council. However, all these advances pale into insignificance beside the most important issue: the need to transform the Code into a legally binding instrument.
We know that transforming the Code of Conduct into a common position of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) has been linked with lifting the embargo on arms exports to China. Parliament rejects the blackmail that is at the root of this three-year deadlock. No one can be unaware that the arms sold by Beijing to the Sudanese regime are feeding the conflict in Darfur and are also serving, for example, to oppress and repress the Burmese people at the hands of the illegitimate military regime. This situation frustrates Parliament because we have long known the practical and theoretical reasons which should be sufficient to rid the Council of its hesitations. A European foreign policy without common and binding rules on arms exports will always be incomplete and ineffective. In addition, one of the most significant obstacles to the full harmonisation of the internal market in defence equipment is precisely the large number of export rules in the EU.
Finally, there is a question of principle: the European Union can only present itself as a responsible and coherent international actor in this area and can only lead the work to improve international legislation if it is seen as a model to be followed. We are clearly counting on the Slovenian Presidency and Minister Lenarčič. However, we have already indicated to the next country to hold the presidency, France, a country that has particular responsibility for this continuing deadlock, that the time has come to resolve the issues and recognise the importance of placing the European Union at the forefront of effective and responsible multilateralism.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, it is 10 years since the EU agreed a code of conduct for arms exports and it is shameful that this code has not yet been transformed into an effective instrument for controlling arms exports by all EU companies and governments. As a result, European arms are still being channelled into conflict zones.
The EU finds itself in the incomprehensible position of supplying arms and fuelling conflicts in the very countries in which it is simultaneously pouring development aid. How do we explain that to our citizens? How do we explain, for example, that some Member States are still prepared to trade cluster munitions while, at the same time, the EU is spending millions of euros on mine clearance? For example, in 2005 thousands of cluster bombs were used in Lebanon with devastating results, and then in 2006 the EU spent EUR 525 million on development aid to Lebanon, partly for the removal of unexploded ordnance.
Let us not kid ourselves that it is only countries outside the EU that are supplying arms to conflict states: 7 out of 10 of the world's top arms-exporting countries are EU Member States. Is it not time that we invested in conflict resolution for troubled states instead of arms sales?
Mechanisms are urgently needed to control arms transfers and transhipments properly and to prevent the brokering of illegal arms by EU companies located outside the EU. But the first step must be to turn the 1998 code of conduct into a legally binding instrument. So I would beg the Slovenian Presidency to do its utmost to unblock the stalemate in the Council and get the common position adopted.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, as rapporteur for the control of arms exports from the European Union, I have had the opportunity to follow very closely the process of transforming the current Code of Conduct into a more efficient and effective instrument that ensures greater and better controls of arms exports from EU territory and by EU companies.
Nonetheless, in spite of the technical work done some time ago by the Council Working Group on Arms (COARM), we still do not understand - and my colleagues have said the same - why the Council is resisting adopting the common position that would enable us to transform the current Code into a legally binding instrument.
In spite of the excessive secrecy surrounding debates of this kind, we know that only a few countries are opposed to such a step, notably France, which, it seems, is making this decision dependent on an end to the embargo on exporting arms to China.
We must stress once again that these are two completely separate issues: linking them in this way shows a huge lack of responsibility in relation to the numerous victims who have to cope every day with the consequences of our irresponsible arms exports policy.
I therefore welcome the commitment of the Slovenian Presidency to conclude this process of transforming the Code into a common position during its mandate, although I recall, too, that previous presidencies made the same promise to no avail. I hope that you will succeed and you can count on our full support. I would point out, too, that it is precisely the lack of control and current laxness that allow, both legally and illegally, European weapons to end up in the hands of terrorist groups, dictators and armed factions, who mortgage the present and the future of millions of people, to whom, as needed but not without a certain cynicism, we subsequently send our development aid teams.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, we all sit here at least once a year and discuss the issue of arms exports, while the rest of the time these exports carry on quite happily. For years Parliament has been calling for a legally binding code of conduct and the Council has been unable to reach any agreement on the matter. I would appreciate it if you could tell us quite frankly which of the Member States is obstructing this process. The fact that this Code of Conduct is not legally binding is a disgrace. While this has dragged on, the EU and its Member States have become the world's number one arms exporter. Weapons are designed to kill! All arms exports are wrong.
Naturally, the Member States supply arms to crisis and conflict regions as well. The Turkish invasion of northern Iraq, for example, which violated international law, was carried out with weapons from Germany, among others. EU countries also wage wars, notably in Iraq or Afghanistan, and supply weapons to friendly countries that are engaged in warfare. We have to put a stop to this once and for all. Let us stop all arms exports.
Dual-use goods that have civilian and military applications must also come under the Code of Conduct, as must re-exports. We have tabled amendments on both these topics for tomorrow's debate, and I am very keen to see whether they will be adopted by Parliament. As I have said, arms exports kill people every day, and they must be stopped as a matter of urgency.
President-in-Office. - (SL) I have understood that the common mood of the participants in this debate is support for the code to become legally binding as soon as possible. I should add that the Presidency shares this objective and I hope, Mr Pflüger, that this year we will have more luck and succeed in achieving it or at least, as I said in the introduction, make major progress in this direction.
I would like to thank you for your support of the Council's endeavours to reach a common position, and you can trust that the Slovenian Presidency will strengthen its efforts to this end.
I would like to thank Mrs Gomes, who pointed out that there is an attempt to include new players in the implementation of the code, namely those outside the European Union borders. The previous Presidencies, for example in 2007, included countries of the western Balkans, in particular, in these activities. There are also activities relating to other countries, such as Turkey, Ukraine, north African countries and some other eastern European countries.
I will end by expressing my hope that, in the next debate of this topic in the European Parliament, the discussion will not be just about the code, but also about the common position.
I have received six motions for a resolution pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - I strongly call on EU Member States to adopt the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. The EU is based on common values and agreements, condemning illegal arms transfer and also arms transfer to countries which violate those values. In fact, it is detrimental to the principles on which the European Community is based that several Member States' governments give preference to their national political and commercial interests in continuing to sell arms.
The Lisbon Treaty strengthens the role of the EU as global player. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we take the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers seriously in order to implement it in real terms and by all Member States. Therefore, I would like to call upon the Council to give a plausible explanation why the adoption of this Common Position has been delayed.


Corrigendum to a text adopted (Rule 216): see Minutes