Activities of Hannah NEUMANN related to 2020/2003(INI)
Reports (1)
REPORT on Arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP
Amendments (28)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7
Citation 7
— having regard to the updated Common Military List of the European Union, adopted by the Council on 187 February 2019207 , _________________ 7 OJ C 985, 123.3.201920, p. 1.
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas due to the sharp difference in data formats, in particular as regards the different type of information that Member States use in order to generate data on the value of licences, the annual reports as tool for comparison between countries and destinations or developments over time is unfortunately very limited; whereas because of these shortcomings EU institutions and EU citizens need to rely on alternative sources of information in order to obtain objective information about the EU28 or EU27 exports to third countries;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas both the global and regional security environment has dramatically changed, especially with regard to the Union’s southern and eastern neighbourhood;
Amendment 38 #
The 20th and 21st EU annual reports on arms exports
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the publication of the 20th and 21st EU annual reports on arms exports according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP which is compiled by the Council Working Party on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM) and published in the EU Official Journal; deplores the late publication of information about exports during 2017 and 2018;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that ten19 Member States made full submissions to the 20th annual report, and eleven to the 21st; deplores the fact that two of the main exporting countries – Germany and the UK –19 to the 21st; underlines that full submission means to submit both the number and value of licences granted and the value of actual exports broken down by Military List category; equally deplores that for the 20th report, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom, and for the 21th report Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Malta and the United Kingdom did not report actual exports while, for both reports, France and Italy only submitted aggregated actual exports; states that for the 20th annual report 27 Member States, with the exception of Greece, made at least partial submissions, and for the 21th annual report all 28 Member States submitted data, while around a third of the countries were incomplete in their submissions; deeply deplores that, with the exception of Spain, the EU’s main exporting countries which are also the countries with the biggest administrative capacities, did not manage to make full submissions; urges all Member States to make full submissions to the 22nd report;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Deplores the fact that Member States use very different information in order to generate data on the value of licences, which renders the annual report considerably less usable as a comparative data set and serves to diminish its transparency and accountability before citizens and parliaments; urges France, in particular, to refrain from submitting data on the value of licences at pre-contract stage and broad values for global licences, which undermines the comparability of the report; stresses the importance to report actual arms exports including the value of actual exports under global and general licences;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that the EU has been implementing a number of arms embargoes25 decided a number of arms embargoes25 on countries such as Belarus, Central African Republic, China, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Russian Federation, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe; is deeply worried about the non-respect of the arms embargo against Libya and calls on the EEAS to create and implement more robust procedures for monitoring the compliance of all Member States with EU arms embargos and make the findings public; _________________ 25 https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main?chec ked=
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls that between the 25th February 2016 and the 14th February 2019 Parliament has, via plenary resolutions, called at least ten times on the HR/VP to launch a process leading to an EU arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, the UAE or other members of the Saudi- led coalition in Yemen; reiterates this call once again;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Underlines that arms exporters that fuel conflicts like the one in Yemen, risk complicity in war crimes;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Reiterates recent calls of the European Parliament to stop the exports of surveillance technology and other equipment that can facilitate internal repression, to several countries including Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Supports the Council’s decision to introduce a clear reporting deadline for national submissions; encourages the Member States to submit their data preferably in May after the reporting year in order to allow a timely public debate; welcomes the steps taken towards the online approach and encourages the further development of the latter;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Notes that a growing number of components in weapon systems are of civilian origin or dual-use character which poses the question of which rules apply in inter-communal transfers and how to establish a coherent export control system between all Member States;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that most Member States have not outlined a policy regulating the transfer ofdeveloped an export policy for weapons components to be transferred to another Member State which would ensure that any export to third countries from the Member State of assembly is consistent with the export policy of the Member State providing the components; regards this as particularly problematic in the context of the increasing divergences between licensing practices across the EU; observes that Directive 2009/43/EC on intra- Community transfers has proven ill- equipped to achieve the stated goal of setting high, in its current form, is not designed to achieve highest common standards for exports to third countries;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Notes that this problem is exacerbated where Member States have adopted a so called ‘de minimis’ rule where the Member State providing components below a certain threshold does refrain from assessing the decision to export the assembled weapon system to a third country;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Observes a trend whereby the diverging export policies of the Member States are increasingly considered as obstacles to cooperation projects, which is giving rise to a multitude of bilateral and specific agreements on weapon systems that allow for exports to third countries based on the least restrictive standards, rather than a joint, EU-wide approach; recalls that the purpose of the Council Common Position on arms exports was and is to prevent such divergences and to establish a coherent common arms export policy;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Notes that several Member States have expressed their intention to jointly develop main weapon systems such as battle tanks, fighter jets and armed drones;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Underlines the fact that the interinstitutional agreement on the establishment of the EDF authorises the Commission to assess whether the transfer of ownership or the granting of an exclusive licence of EDF-co-funded military technology contravenes the security and defence interests of the EU and its Member States or the objectives of the fund as set out in Article 3 of the proposed regulation; notes that this new legislation establishes a specific type of control functionn active role for the Commission with regard to a specific category of exports of military technology to third countries;
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that under the EPF, Member States and the European External Action Service (EEAS) will work ontowards creating an EU-level system for arms transfers to third countriesinstrument that will allow the EU to provide military equipment to strengthen capacities of third countries; notes that current plans foresee that supplies will be subjected to relevant national and Union arms export control laws and rules, in particular as regards export licences for which exporting Member States retain exclusive authority;
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Stresses that in the context of EPF a new EU-level instrument would potentially deliver joint risk assessment prior to any decision to transfer arms and ammunitions to third countries in the context of the military capacity-building pillar of EPF, assess individual measures against the eight criteria of the Common Position, and establish safeguards and possible sanctions with a view on the end- user; is concerned about the potential effects of inadequate safeguards in this context;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that the lack of convergence of national arms export policies and decision-making is becoming increasingly untenable in the context of the prevailing Europeanisation of arms production and the stated ambitions and plans to increase this further; thus potentially undermining human rights and international law, creating additional market distortions, and related obstacles for strategic planning of relevant companies and armed forces;
Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 – point c a (new)
Paragraph 21 – point c a (new)
ca) to hold biannual joint meetings between COARM and COHOM to discuss implementation of the human rights criteria of the Common Position;
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Stresses that effective end-use controls are crucial for a responsible export policy and for lowering the risk of diversion in particular; strongly welcomes the EU funded iTrace project in this respect and demands its continuation and broadening; calls on the Council, the Member States, and the EEAS and the Commission to set up a large-scale training and capacity-building programme for national and EU officials on arms export controls with a strong focus on building mutual understanding of the eight criteria, joint risk assessments, setting up of safeguards, and pre- and post-licensing verification; stresses the need to use EU funding to ensure that sufficient staff resources are available at national and EU levels and at delegations and embassies in importing countries for the purposes of implementing viable end-use controls; calls on the EEAS and COARM to report on iTrace any identified diversion of EU- origin goods as part of the annual report;
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
25a. Promotes the transformation of the eight criteria of the Common Position into Community law;
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 b (new)
Paragraph 25 b (new)
25b. Calls on COARM to examine the issue of transparency in arms exports alongside the issue of transparency in dual-use export licensing and to consider pursuit of common approaches to transparency across both instruments;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Considers that regular consultations with national parliaments, arms export control authorities, industry associations and civil society are central to meaningful transparency; calls on COARM to enhance dialogue with civil society and consultations with Parliament and arms export control authorities; encourages civil society and academia to exercise independent scrutiny of the arms trade and security technology transfers from and to third countries and calls on the Member States and the EEAS to support such activities, including by increasing financial means, notably under the future NDICI;
Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Stresses the need, in the spirit of the 16 September 2019 Council conclusions, for meaningful parliamentary oversight; stresses the need to respond to the annual report of COARM annually by a European Parliament report in order to ensure a minimum of parliamentary scrutiny;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 b (new)
Paragraph 26 b (new)
26b. Reiterates the detrimental effect that the uncontrolled export of cyber- surveillance technologies by EU companies can have on the security of the EU’s digital infrastructure and on human rights; expresses its concern about the ever-increasing use of certain cyber- surveillance dual-use technologies against politicians, activists and journalists; strongly condemns the increasing number of human rights defenders facing digital threats, including compromised data through confiscation of equipment, remote surveillance and data leakages; stresses, in this regard, the importance of a rapid, effective and comprehensive update of the EU’s Dual-Use Regulation;