SMALL ARMS, IT’S TIME FOR US TO CALL THE SHOTS Amnesty International Section Franciase, Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture, Agir ici, Justice & Paix,Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, Mouvement pour une Alternative Non violente, Médecins Du Monde, Observatoire des Transferts d’Armements, Pax Christi. THE FIRST REPORT ON ARMS’ EXPORTS OF FRANCE The Ministry of Defence handed over to Parliament, the 10th of March, the first report on french arms’ exports for the 1998 year. At last a tool of transparency in France… Our organizations, which work as a collective, can only be delighted about the publication of this document, which they have had requested since a very long time. …which still need to be improve. However it remains incomplete if it intends to respond to the ‘political will fortified on transparency on arms'’ transfers’ displayed by the Government. In particular, ‘in this position/case it does not enable the Parliament to really escent the necessary control over such a subject in democracy. Indeed it is hardly possible to make sure that the taking into account of the criteria from the European Code of behavior, in particular this one about the respect of human rights in the countries which are intended to implement. It is equally impossible to verify the role played by France in the proliferation and the uncontrolled use of small arms. Besides the democratic interest a parliamentary debate on/about this report which its 1998 result would demonstrate, ‘the reactions’ of the national representation in the course of this escercise could contribute also to ‘improve its presentation’, as the Ministry of Defence requires. The 30th of March. Some positive points - The Government presents, in a clear and detailed way, the basis of France’s policy of arms’ axports as well as the French system of control. This effort of clarification enable a better comprehension o f the stakes of this ‘domain remained until now relatively unknown’, as the report reminds. In particular, the formulation of some basic criteria enable to precise the intentions of French policy of arms’ export : ‘the anticipatory/prospective’ apprehension of ‘the military potential risk represented by the exported equipment’ (criterion b) or ‘the political interpretation of the operation as it will be perceived by the purchasing country and its neighbors as well as by our partners’ (criterion c). - The analysis of the World market of arms undertaken by the Ministry of Defence as well as its section using statistical methodology, both provide bases for exchanges of work. - One extract from the first assessment of the European Code of Conduct presented by France is welcome. It suggest a transparency at the European level, about the implementation of this instrument, even if it is regrettable that there is no one intersection of refusals of notification according to the criteria on the kind of materials/weapons and countries expecting to receive them. - The publication of France’s Declaration on United Nations Organisation register, without being an innovation complete the data made public by making them easily accessible It also shows that it is conceivable to know details of the exported/materials and their volumes per country, to which they are destined. - The presentation of financial amounts of taking of orders and deliveries by great categories of materials and especially by countries to which they are destined, the long series per geographical region, the number of assents for the sale per countries expecting to receive them justify a partial appraisal of the implementation of the criteria of the European Code of Conduct, in particular this one of respect of human rights in the countries to which they are destined; the consequences that the acquisition will have on the economy of purchasing countries, thus their internal and regional situation can also be hind to the Frenchexports. - Beyond France’s known classification as one of the worlds main exporters this list of countries expecting to receive them enable to estimate the influence of France in this matter: the existing1 sources have permitted so far to enumerate 75 arms importers countries of France whereas in 1998 France had exported or authorized export towards/in the direction of 123 states out of 188 member states on the United Nations Organization. Some points to improve - The categories of goods/materials/weponry (aeronautical, maritim, landing) are too global to be able to value/estimate ‘if it exist a manifest risk’ that the exported goods/materials/weponry serves to the domestic repression ‘or if was taking into account ‘the nature of the equipment in question’ in the deliverance of permissions/authorizations to ‘countries where serious human rights’ violations have been noticed by competent organisms of the United Nations Organizations, European Council, or by the European Union2.’ Estimating the respect of human rights in the country of final destination, it is necessary to have available detailed information about the categories of exported goods/materials/weponry. - The small arms and of low calibre just like the ammunition and explosives, according to the given definition by the United Nations Organization, should be the subject of a specific presentation owing to the dramatic consequences of their proliferation and their uncontrolled use on populations and economies of/in the countries to which they are destined. - Materials of security and police, for a very big part/important are not considered as arms in France. All the same, their contribution to the violation of human rights is sufficiently recognized to give rise to the establishing of a European list of controls. It is necessary that a system of information is set up to give account of French exports of these goods/materials/wepons. - The transfers (free or for payment) of materials, in particulary within the framework of military cooperation do not seem to be included in this report whereas they are submitted to a permission/authorization of exports. The information on concerning them should be made public for two reasons: on the one hand, the transparency on these transfers is as essential as this one on exportations inasmuch as they are means of the cooperation’s policy of France; on the other hand, as had shown the ?Observatory on arms transfers? In its analysis of the parliamentary information mission on Rwanda3, the flaws in the implementation of the regulations – known as very rigorous – concern, in a good part, the transfers. The conformity/similarity of arms’ export with the criteria published by the Ministry of Defence4 This analysis does not claim to cover every issues. It is aim to give some examples of the similarity-or non-similarity-of exports of France to contain countries based on two criteria invoqued by the government and which are also in the heart of the mandate of different organizations of the collective: ‘Small arms, it’s time for us to call the shots’. Ø Risks of use of equipment for the purpose of internal repression as well as the specific situation: internal conflicts and serious obstacles/hindrances to human rights. The Ministry of Defence notes that ‘such situations keep on multiplying. The given priority to ethical criteria impose a very strict attitude’ and for this reason the details of applying this criterion are listed. The principles are thus set out in a very definite way. The reading of the report , presents yet another reality. - One single refusal noted under the criterion 2 of the European Code of Behavior ‘respect of human rights in the country of final destination’ out of the 51 notifications of refusal between the 8th of June 1998 until the 5th of May 1999. The absence of a ministorial representative in charge of human rights within the CIEEMG explains, perhaps, this weak level recognition of this criterion. Moreover, although it is clearly stated that no criterion should be subordinated to others, no more that the respect of human rights, France, nevertheless, ‘pays a particular attention to the internal situation in the countries of final destination’ (criterion 3), as well as ‘the stability and the regional security in the concerned zone’ (criterion 4)5. This account of the absence of hierarchy in the criteria is, at the very least problematic. - Among the customers – and for some, the substantial customers – which France had delivered materials in 1998, many countries are also named by Amnesty International6 as well as the competent organizations of the United Nations, The Council of Europe or the European Union for their violations of the rights of the human beings: Saudi Arabia, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey…etc. Given the absence of details about exported materials/goods/weaponry nothing proves that these materials leads to internal repression but nothing proves that they do not lead to it either. The countries named above present often situations where, as writes the Ministry of Defence: ‘repression veers away/diverges from recognized/acknowledged practices of maintenance of order within the framework of a legal state’. These countries are often in this situation, It can be feared that they have used French materials to commit violation of human rights. Ø The allocation of a excessive part of the economical resources of the purchasing countries to the arms’ purchase. Only on refusal was notified on behalf of the criterion of the Code of Behavior of the European Union. Of course, some countries affected by this criterion have found themselves denied authorization of arms’ exports according to other criteria. But we note that: - Out of the 14 countries with the lowest Index of human development named in the 1999 report of the programme of the United Nations for development, 3 ordered and received deliveries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Niger) and 7 received anticipatory consent on sale level/for sale (Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ethiopia, Niger, the Central African Republic, Chad). - Out of the 42 considered countries by the World Bank as ‘deeply debted poor countries’, more than half (24) received consent on deliveries or have ordered French arms. Without underestimating/neglecting the right to self-defence, whether individual or collective, recognized to every member State by the Charter of the United Nations, it is possible to wonder whether the sales to these countries are compatible with their technical and, especially, their economic capabilities. At last, the government displays, in this report excellent intentions for the most of the criteria which it sets out. Nevertheless if it is possible to depart from the strict application of these criteria in several cases. That of ‘the existence of defence’s agreements’ shows the limits of transparency: the defence agreements are generally secret, the assistance and military cooperation agreements are kept ignorant of the national representation/elected representatives….who recently asked to the government to lift the defence secret on these agreements7 1 Register of conventional arms of the United Nations Organization in 1998 and 1998 report of the Observatory on arms’ transfers. 2 In second criterion of the Code of behviour of the European Union on the export of arms/weapons – Luxembourg 8.6.1998. 3 Obsovatory on arms’ transfers ‘Small arms…the weight of France’ – September 1999 pp.77-85. 4 Report to the Parliament on the arms’ exports of France – results 1998 – March 2000 pp. 48-49. 5 Report to Parliament op.cited pp. 48-19. 6 Amnesty International – Report 1999 – June 1999. 7 National Assembly – Commission of National Defence and the Armed Forces account no. 28 – 7 March 2000. Examination of the information’s report on the parliamentary control of foreign/external operations (Mr. Francois LAMY reporter.)