Visiting Friends by Chloe Hassard

Towards the end of January, two pupils from Friends’ School Lisburn, Chloe Hassard and Caroline Finney, came to Brussels for a week of work experience with QCEA. They attended a number of meetings and have each written a short piece for the QCEA blog. In this post, Chloe reflects on her time here. Look out for our next post, in which Caroline will share her experiences.

Caroline and Chloe
Image: QCEA

With much excitement and anticipation, I arrived in Brussels on 21^st January to begin a week of work shadowing at the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA). I am currently in the sixth form at Friends’ School Lisburn – a Quaker school in Northern Ireland. Over the course of my week here in Brussels, I experienced the various aspects of QCEA’s work and saw first hand how Quaker values translate into European politics. The week encompassed various meetings at the European Parliament, including ‘Palestine: Living under occupation’ and a Climate Parliament event, ‘Renewables in Turkey’, which was of particular interest to me as I co-chair the Eco-Committee at school. I also had the opportunity to visit Residence Palace and the International Press Centre, as well as to listen to discussions on the ‘Cyprus Conundrum’ and ‘Restoring human security to conflict affected and fragile states’.

Personally, I found the discussion on the future of Cyprus and the prospect of its unification most striking, because – living, as I do, in Northern Ireland – I could understand and relate to the difficulties of uniting two distinct peoples as one. The debate encompassed differing opinions on the causes of the ‘Cyprus Conundrum’ and possible solutions. It became clear that in Cyprus there is a tendency to blame the other side, an unwillingness to compromise, and a lack of empathy. I was particularly struck by a statement made by one of the speakers: there is a presumption that there is no solution. This needs to change. Only then can there be change in the typical characteristics of a divided country.

With regard to my plans for university and beyond, I am considering Law with Spanish – and therefore my week spent here at QCEA has been of the utmost value to me. I have been able to witness interpretation in the European Parliament and have been able to fully appreciate not only the necessity of law, but also the need for law to represent those who live by it. And this is why QCEA’s place in European politics is so valuable.

 Chloe Hassard

Where is Inequality Headed?

The European Union (EU) was created from a desire for peace and prosperity after the carnage of World War II. It all began with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 which aimed to unify and expand state economies, raise living standards, and reduce unemployment. The purpose was to create the basis for a region of economic and social equality, in turn leading to harmonious integration and unity in a European Community.

Tony Atkinson. Image: European Trade Union Institute

However, peace in the EU is threatened by rising economic inequality. On Friday 25^th January, I attended a lecture entitled ‘Where is inequality headed?’ organised by the European Trade Union Institute, and delivered by Tony Atkinson, Deputy Director of Economic Modelling at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. During his lecture, Tony Atkinson tackled some thought-provoking points concerning the current growth of inequality in Europe. He identified the need to delve deeper into national issues concerning inequality. A ‘static poor’ and ‘rising rich’ are leading to greater disparity in income, with a small percentage of the population amassing a large proportion of national wealth, while those at the bottom end of the scale receive a static income. Tony Atkinson’s analysis of historical evidence of income disparity raises the question as to whether inequality will continue to grow or remain constant. The increase in inequality over the last 30 years has been due to the rapid growth of the top 1% of wage incomes, i.e. the ‘rising rich’.[1]

In his lecture, Atkinson highlighted that inequality had mainly decreased in the Nordic countries over the last twenty years, inequality hs been rising elsewhere, by 4%, for example, in Germany. An article entitled The Equality Trust Research Digest: Trends and Measures states that ‘in the 1960s Sweden and the UK had similar levels of income inequality. By 2005 the gap between the two had increased by 28%’.[2]  Quakers have spoken out against economic inequality in the UK, and the current UK economic and political ethos. According to Meeting for Sufferings by minute S/12/03/3, 31 March 2012, ‘Quakers in Britain deplore the increasing concentration of economic authority and the social stratification that transmits inequality across generations … [enabling] leaders of finance and industry to take salaries and bonuses that are many hundreds of times larger than those of their employees’.[3] The concern would be the same for every population, including every EU Member State. Unless we take action, growing income disparity will lead to an increase in relative poverty and insecurity for many, whilst a small percentage will continue receiving a disproportionate income.

Tony Atkinson also made reference to the Managing Director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde’s, recent speech, ‘A New Global Economy for a New Generation’. Lagarde stated that ‘excessive inequality is corrosive to growth, corrosive to society; [thus] more economic stability, more sustained economic growth [supports] healthier societies with stronger bonds of cohesion and trust’.[4] If the problems of inequality are not solved, at the local, regional and global level, this can only be disastrous, sustaining visible disparities of wealth and leading to further social inequality. There is a need to change the economic mindset; increasing inequality has the potential to weaken democracy and create a more unstable macro-economic climate. This has been seen in Greece over the past three years where demonstrations and general strikes have taken place in protest against the public spending cuts and taxes raised by the government to fulfil bailout funding. This social unrest is the result of dramatic economic inequality levels in Greece, visible also in Spain and Portugal. Even countries perceived as economically sound, may be time-bombs, slowly ticking away with rising inequality.

Atkinson made a fascinating point about rising inequality in Germany. The country has been portrayed throughout the financial crisis as one of the main game-players in the introduction of austerity measures in Europe over the last year, perceived as guiding the EU away from economic uncertainty. Nevertheless Germany’s inequality is rising. In 2008, the average income of the top 10% of the working-age population In Germany was 57,300 euro (70,000 US dollars), nearly eight times higher than that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of 7,400 euro (9,100 US dollars).[5] One indication of inequality is the Gini coefficient. Gini ranges from where 0 is equal to perfect equality and 1 equal to perfect inequality. This ranking shows some interesting results: the Gini for the US is 0.42, for the UK 0.34, and for Germany 0.28.[6] The relative equality of Germany is now changing; inequality is rising and dissatisfaction towards government and EU policy is also rising, and not just only in Germany.

We need to give expression to our Quaker testimony to equality by showing respect towards everyone and cooperating on a basis of equality. We need to acknowledge that everyone has a part to play in working towards greater equality instead of working only for profit. Only then can true equality begin to become a reality.

 

---

[1] http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/research-digest-trends-measures-final.pdf

[2] http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/research-digest-trends-measures-final.pdf

[3] http://www.quaker.org.uk/statement-equality

[4] http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2013/012313.htm

[5] http://www.oecd.org/germany/49177659.pdf

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

 

PEACE in Nothern Ireland

“The PEACE programme is a fine example of the European Union’s longstanding commitment to peace and reconciliation”. These were the words of EU Commissioner for Regional Policy Johannes Hahn at the opening of an event held yesterday in Brussels celebrating the role of the EU in promoting peace in Northern Ireland. The PEACE programme, currently in its third iteration (PEACE III), is managed by the Special EU Programming Body and is funded through the European Territorial Cooperation objective. Since its inception in 1995, the PEACE programme has funded over 20,000 projects in Northern Ireland. It has cost just under €2 billion with the aim of “reinforcing progress towards a peaceful and stable society, and promoting reconciliation”[i]. The projects range from large infrastructure and economic regeneration schemes to small community-led mediation groups.

Many of the speakers reminded us that the peace in Northern Ireland is still fragile. The recent riots in Belfast are a visible reminder of this, but that some communities remain isolated and segregated is certainly of more concern. Education, for example, is still divided along religious lines. Many of the projects funded by the PEACE programme try to promote integration between previously segregated communities at the local level. We heard from ‘Theatre of Witness’, a community theatre project which describes itself as “bringing survivors of violence together with perpetrators and witnesses to explore issues of accountability, healing, guilt, restorative justice, forgiveness and redemption”. People who suffered during the Troubles play themselves in theatre productions, allowing audiences to collectively bear witness to their pain.

In the video below you’ll see excerpts from their show ‘I Once Knew a Girl’.

There is uncertainty as to the future of the PEACE programme due to the current difficulties in EU budget negotiations. If all goes well, the next stage of the programme, PEACE IV, would commence in 2014, and Commissioner Hahn did remark that some funding has been secured. We’ll await the outcome of the European Council meeting next week to see the future of what is obviously a worthwhile EU peacebuilding project.

Throughout the event, those people working in the projects in Northern Ireland reminded us of the importance of listening to communities affected by conflict. By understanding their grievances and suffering, often passed down through generations, peace programmes can make a positive impact on creating societies where conflict is managed in a nonviolent and constructive way.

---

[i] EU Regional Policy website. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/activity/ireland/index_en.cfm [Accessed 31/01/2012]

‘Living Under Occupation’

François Alfonsi, Jill Evans and Ana Miranda are all members of the European Free Alliance (EFA), a group of only seven Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who represent stateless nations and regions. François Alfonsi is a long-standing campaigner for Corsican autonomy and works for U Partitu di a Nazione Corsa (Party of the Corsican Nation). Jill Evans is a member of Plaid Cymru (The Party of Wales), a left-wing nationalist party advocating Welsh independence. Ana Miranda grew up in Galicia in northern Spain, and now represents the region in the European Parliament. She is a member of the Bloque Nacionalista Galego (The Galician Nationalist Bloc), a left-wing nationalist coalition that campaigns for Galicia’s right to self-determination. Given their credentials it should come as no surprise that these three advocates for minority self-determination recently returned from a trip to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I attended an event in the parliament this week to hear all about their trip.

I won’t go on to explain what they did there because, helpfully, they made a film of their trip. It is very well put together and makes clear the impact of the occupation on the everyday lives of Palestinians in the West Bank. Through a series of interviews with Palestinians, NGOs, and politicians from Israel and Palestine, the three MEPs explore what it means to be ‘living under occupation’.

Defence Cooperation: Is it the way to build peace?

“The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples”.
Article 3 – Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union

Steering Board of the European Defence Agency: Credit: European Defence Agency

Europe is said to be slowly losing its global influence. The continent, which undoubtedly has its economic woes, is alleged to be on the decline politically and militarily, not least because of the significant reductions in defence spending taking place in countries across the continent. Europe is now often warned that it must invest in its military capabilities or face global decline. A recent commentary from the European Policy Centre, suggested that “the time has come for European Union (EU) leaders to get more serious about defence integration in Europe – or they will simply have to live with its [Europe’s] continuing, and quite dangerous, military decline”.

This gradual wane in power is often mentioned alongside a shift in American foreign policy to the Asia Pacific region. As the US becomes increasingly sensitive to the rise of China (and others), and thus focuses more on building alliances in that region, so, it is said, those in the corridors of power in Washington are becoming less willing to provide security guarantees to Europe and European interests. The US, facing defence cuts of its own, would like to see European states working together on issues of defence so as to ‘share the burden’ of looking after EU-US mutual geo-strategic interests.

Armed forces from European countries cooperate in a joint military exercise in Italy in 2011. Credit: European Defence Agency

Both US pressure and squeezed European defence budgets have moved many to call for increased defence cooperation on the continent. If European governments could work together on defence procurement, they could reduce duplication and spend more efficiently; improving military capability without increasing costs. This idea is still in the early stages of development.

This story was the backdrop to a debate hosted by ‘Madariaga – College of Europe Foundation’ that I attended on behalf of QCEA last week. The panellists were each invited to answer the question, ‘Is Europe ready for an American disengagement’? They were Jamie Shea, Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges at NATO, and Sven Biscop, Director of the “Europe in the World” Programme at the Egmont – Royal Institute of International Relations.

Is the US really disengaging?

The event began (as such events often do) by challenging its own terms of reference. Both speakers questioned whether the US was indeed ‘disengaging’ at all. Whilst there has been a shift in the ‘geopolitical axis’ to the Asia Pacific region, it was agreed that Europe remains of strategic importance in Washington. This was demonstrated by the recent NATO-facilitated deployment of US patriot missiles in Turkey; the fact that 40,000 US troops are still based on European soil; the Sixth Fleet of the US Navy being based in Naples; the significant contribution of the US to the NATO-led international peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR); and the fact that for the first time the US is on good terms with all NATO members.

There is a different story to be told however. The speakers noted that warnings of an American disengagement are not without foundation. First of all, there are no longer any ‘big projects’ for the US and Europe to work together on. With operations in Afghanistan slowly drawing to a close and no other immediate ‘wolves at the door’, the scope for transatlantic military cooperation is diminishing. Secondly, the US is now investing more time in developing and strengthening alliances elsewhere and this inevitably means less focus on Europe. Thirdly, the US, seeing stability in Europe after the Cold War, now considers the continent ready to look after its own interests, and to do more ‘burden sharing’ in foreign policy areas of mutual importance. This US pressure on Europe to do more is manifested in calls by senior US officials to reverse defence cuts. These pleas are made all the more urgent by the prospect of deep cuts to the Pentagon budget over the coming years. For now, America is quite some way off ‘disengaging’ from Europe, but it does want Europe to spend more on defence, and to be willing to project and to use its military power.

Austrian, Belgian, Czech, German and Slovenian troops on a joint training exercise organised by the European Defence Agency. Credit: European Defence Agency

More defence cooperation in Europe?

The speakers mentioned two obstacles to an increased focus in Europe on defence and military issues. The first and most obvious stumbling block is that Europe is facing economic austerity. The major defence spenders (UK, France and Germany) are cutting budgets, not increasing them.  The second is that Europe is far from having a coherent collective foreign policy; national governments are very unwilling to give away sovereignty on matters of defence.

The most oft cited solution to the first problem is to increase the level of defence cooperation between European states, so called ‘Pooling  and  Sharing’, within the EU or ‘Smart Defence’ in NATO. By working together governments might reduce duplication and increase efficiency, both in research and development expenditure and operational costs. It is said that Europe could work together to increase operational capacity without increasing costs. The European Defence Agency (EDA) is the EU organization created to advance this goal within the EU. Its mandate, as described in Council Joint Action 2004/551/CSP, is fourfold: to develop defence capabilities; to promote defence research and technology; to promote armaments cooperation; and to create a competitive ‘European Defence Equipment Market’ and strengthen the ‘European Defence, Technological and Industrial Base’. The EDA describes itself as offering “multinational solutions for capability improvement in a time where defence budget constraints foster the need for cooperation”[i]. It has facilitated joint projects on air-to-air refuelling and counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) technology for example.

Members of the EU Military Committee during its meeting in October 2012. Credit: Council of the European Union

If we are seeking a solution to the second issue, that of a coherent collective foreign policy, it is less obvious. Sven Biscop highlighted that without a collective strategy for security and defence, how can European states make collective decisions? Put another way, it will be difficult for European states to cooperate on issues of defence when they don’t all agree on what they need defending against. The EU, in documents such as the 2003 European Security Strategy and its subsequent updates, is moving towards a more integrated approach, but this is still, as with defence cooperation itself, in the early stages. (See this QCEA background paper on the European Security Strategy.) Despite its relative youth, security and defence cooperation within the EU is not without substance however. There have been twenty five Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions since their inception in 2003. Other CSDP structures include the EU Military Staff, the EU Operation Centre, and the EU Military Committee. It is quite clear that the EU is slowly but surely becoming a forum for military and defence cooperation.

How might Quakers address this issue?

The European Union began as a peace project (or a peace process, see September’s Around Europe), but there is now the obvious worry that parts of it are being co-opted by military interests. Increased defence cooperation is worrying for those advocating nonviolent and peaceful solutions to conflict.  There are some difficult questions to be asked of the EU. Primarily, how does an increased focus on defence and security, or ‘militarisation’ as it is sometimes called, contribute to its role as an actor for peace? The EU, upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, was described as the “most successful example of peacebuilding ever achieved in world history”. But the question is, will it remain so?

Further Reading

The Brookings Institute, a US-based foreign policy think-tank, released “The Implications of Military Spending Cuts for NATO’s Largest Members” in July of last year. Whilst the angle is very much of the ‘geopolitical’/’strategic’ nature, it has some interesting statistics and analysis on defence budgets in the UK, France, and Germany.

For an example of serious hesitation by a MemberState to cooperate on issues of defence, see this report by (you guessed it) the UK House of Commons on the European Defence Agency.

For more information on the relationship between the EU and the US (as well as some over the top Flash graphics) see this website created by the European External Action Service.

Finally, see this thorough analysis here by the German Marshall Fund of the United States asking (and answering) the same question as the Citizen’s Controversy debate:  “A Post-American Europe? Not Just Yet”.

---

[i] Taken from the website of the European Defence Agency. http://www.eda.europa.eu/Aboutus [Accessed 16/01/2012]

Video: Rami Levy Supermarkets in the West Bank: Promoting Peace or Normalising the Occupation?

This is a guest blog post by former Programme Assistant Hannah Slater.

QCEA is pleased to present a new short-film looking at the role of the Rami Levy supermarkets in the West Bank. You can watch the video below, and please share it with friends and colleagues!

Rami Levy stores have been springing up across the West Bank for several years now. Israeli businesses have been providing services to the settlements for decades but there is something different about these supermarkets. Rami Levy stores are located just outside the settlements, drawing both Israeli and Palestinian customers from the area.

In these shiny, well-stocked supermarkets, Palestinians and Israelis shop side by side. Families and individuals from both sides of this 60-year conflict encounter “the other” as they roam the aisles searching out the best deals.

On the superficial level, the integration of both communities in the economic forum of a supermarket is a positive development, especially at a time when separation (or even apartheid) policies are becoming the norm. The best way to break down the pernicious stereotypes which fuel hatred and fear and which are sadly deeply entrenched in this conflict is for Palestinians and Israelis to actually meet each other. In a supermarket, shoppers are all there with the same objective; finding good products at good prices. Politics are not part of the equation.

But is this really the case? The argument that economics and politics are separate, unconnected spheres is a fallacy which has been disproved time and time again, in many places and contexts. How do Rami Levy stores affect the social, economic and political dynamics of the West Bank on a deeper level?

Rami Levy currently has four supermarkets in the West Bank. They are situated just outside the settlements of Gush Etzion, Sha’ar Binyamin, Beitar Illit and Mishor Adumim[i]. Like many other Israeli industries in the West Bank, they provide jobs for Palestinians as well as Israelis.

Job provision for the Palestinians is an argument that has long been used by those who seek to justify the occupation of the West Bank, where hundreds of Israeli companies now operate.  But really what we should be asking is why unemployment is so high in the West Bank in the first place. The occupation discriminates against Palestinian business and keeps economic activity at minimum levels. To have Israeli companies providing a few jobs here and there is not a substitute for a healthy Palestinian economy.

Like any other discount chain, Rami Levy seeks to undercut its competition. In this case its competitors are Palestinian shopkeepers. Israel already maintains a tight stranglehold on the Palestinian economy through the restriction of access and free movement of goods and people. Are Israeli supermarkets in the West Bank another means of dominating the Palestinian economy? With Palestinian infrastructure (even that which is funded by international donors) unable to gain permits and at high risk of demolition, it is unlikely that a Palestinian supermarket in the West Bank would have been granted a permit.

The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy calculated the costs imposed by the Israeli occupation on the Palestinian economy to be $6.9 billion for 2010 alone[ii]. (In 2009 the Israeli economy measured $214 billion and the Palestinian economy measured $12.79 billion.[iii]) Despite talk of an economic peace between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel, it is clear that economic warfare is a major arrow in the Israeli bow.

Rami Levy stores were considered to be so harmful to the Palestinian economy that the PA called for a boycott of the supermarkets in 2010. Nevertheless these stores continue to attract Palestinian shoppers with their reliable supply, cheap prices and wide-ranging goods, even at the expense of the Palestinian shopkeepers.

Rami Levy’s profits return to Israel. Tensions are created in communities between those who work or shop at Rami Levy and those who work and shop at Palestinian stores. If a Palestinian shop goes out of business and a family loses its livelihood, it’s a victory for the occupation which seeks to transfer Palestinians out of large areas of the West Bank, as noted in a recent EU report on Area C.

Rami Levy contributes to the normalisation of the occupation by alienating Palestinians from their own communities and encouraging Palestinian shoppers and workers to appreciate the Israeli provision of jobs and services and cheap goods. While it is important not to encourage the mentality of “us versus them,” it is also crucial to recognise that it is the occupation that has created a situation of high unemployment and prices in the West Bank. Encouraging Palestinians to shop in Israeli supermarkets undermines not only Palestinian identity and solidarity, but also the two-state solution.

We also know that founding entrepreneur Rami Levy himself is a supporter of the Zionist project. In 2011, the magnate moved into the real estate business, investing in the development of the Nof Zion settlement in occupied East Jerusalem. He told the Israeli National News that his motivations in this investment are not only as a business but also because “of my love for the city of Jerusalem and its importance to the Jewish people[iv].”

The political role of these supermarkets is clear when you consider the separation for security narrative which dominates Israeli thought today – both politically and in the general population. Israel claims that the only way to protect its citizens is to separate them from the Palestinians by a vast separation barrier (“the Wall”), checkpoints, and a totalitarian permit regime. But when it comes to Palestinians foregoing their own long-fought-for identity to shop in Israeli supermarkets, this discourse suddenly disappears.

While bringing together Israeli and Palestinian families and individuals in their everyday lives is ostensibly a positive step for peace on a personal level, it is important to be vigilant to the ways in which these supermarkets can undermine Palestinian social, political and economic life and indeed the two-state solution through the normalisation of the occupation.

---

[i] Israel National News ‘Zionist Entrepreneur Saves Jerusalem Neighborhood’ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141777#.T6ksl-joLgU

[ii] Palestinian Ministry of National Economy ‘The Economic Costs of the Israeli Occupation for the Occupied PalestinianTerritory’ September 2011

[iii] CIA World Factbook Country statistics on Israel https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html and Country statistics on West Bank (and Gaza) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/we.html

[iv] Israel National News ‘Zionist Entrepreneur Saves Jerusalem Neighborhood’ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141777#.T6ksl-joLgU

Arms exports: a subject of debate in the European Union

The control of arms exports is highly technical, often controversial – and very interesting. This was proved at a conference this week which was hosted by the European External Action Service of the European Union (EU) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in the field of arms control. I listened to many interesting discussions and thought-provoking presentations, but there were three issues which I found most intriguing. I’ll discuss these here in turn.

The event was organised by the European External Action Service, and brought together the Council Working Group on Conventional Arms (COARM) and NGOs working in non-proliferation and arms control. Credit: C Venables

Issue no. 1: ‘Lowest minimum standard’ or ‘robust and effective controls’?

The first issue concerns the European Union’s current legislation in this area and how it is interpreted. In 2008, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common Position (2008/944/CFSP) on arms export control. It contains a legally binding set of criteria which EU Member States must use when issuing export licenses for military technology. These criteria state that Member States must not contravene international humanitarian law, and, perhaps more importantly, the criteria create obligations to ensure exported arms won’t be used in internal repression or human rights abuses. Civil servants from the Member States, whose job it is to assess exports against these criteria on a day-to-day basis, asserted that the criteria do not need changing; that they are fit for purpose. Representatives from civil society were less enthusiastic and highlighted a number of cases in which the system had failed, despite being implemented correctly.

Tahrir Square, Egypt: European countries exported arms to North Africa and the Middle East before and possibly even during the pro-democracy protests of the ‘Arab Spring’. Credit: Lilian Wagdy (CC BY 2.0)

These two divergent views are in fact both valid and provide insight in to the arms export controls of the member states. The disagreement suggests a difference in the way the responsibility of exporting states to ensure military goods do not end up in the hands of human rights abusers is understood. How far must governments go to protect those in other countries from the negative effects of their arms exports? Do governments currently complete a sufficiently thorough analysis to ensure that a particular export is not used in human rights abuses?  The recent use of European arms in suppressing protests in the Middle East and North Africa suggests not. But, answering this question comprehensively would require transparency within the system to allow outside scrutiny – not something governments are always happy to do. For now, perhaps the criteria need to be treated as the lowest minimum standards, not, as they are often interpreted, as a “gold-standard” for which governments should strive but need not always meet.

Issue no. 2: Are we all neo-imperialists?

This leads on to the second issue, which concerns criterion eight of the EU Common Position. It reads:

“Member States shall take into account… whether the proposed export would seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.”

The International Monetary Fund (pictured) is often criticised for loan conditionality. Should industrialised states deny exports to the Third World due to lack of progress and development? (Image in Public Domain)

There was considerable discussion both during the sessions (and in the coffee breaks!) on what implications this criterion had. It was criticised as being patronising and even neo-imperialist: why should exporting states have a say in how developing countries spend their money? This marks another area of tension, but it occurred to me that many relationships between the global North and South operate in this way. It is standard practice in the international financial institutions to give loans and grants on the condition of economic reform, for example.

Issue no. 3: The Arms Trade Treaty

It was no surprise that much of the day was devoted to the Arms Trade Treaty, and these discussions provoked more thoughts. The negotiations to create global legally binding criteria on the transfer of arms ended at the UN in July without consensus. On the final day of negotiations, the United States and Russia derailed the efforts of many countries, stating that they needed more time to discuss the proposals. The discussions were not fruitless, however, as a draft treaty had been created, and this text will form the basis of the second round of negotiations next March.

There is concern that the proposed Arms Trade Treaty will not cover the transfer of ammunition. Credit: Todd Huffman (CC BY 2.0)

But it is not yet clear what the Arms Trade Treaty will actually do in practice. This is due in no small part to the fact that the current draft contains many loopholes and ambiguities. There are concerns about ammunition being excluded, the status of ‘Defence Cooperation Agreements’, and how far International Humanitarian Law will be integrated. Will the final text end up being no more than a legitimisation of the arms trade? One can imagine harmful and destabilising arms deals being defended because they conform to the standards of the treaty. This prospect is worrying. There is time between now and March for some of these problems to be worked out and there are many people across the EU, both in government and in civil society, who are working hard to create a robust treaty. This would hopefully make some progress towards stopping the damage currently caused by the international transfer of arms.

As I indicated at the start, these are informal thoughts and questions rather than QCEA policy work, but I hope you find them interesting. We do not work actively on arms control, but these issues are relevant and topical, and thus demand our collective attention.

-

For detailed information on the implementation of the EU Common Position, see this research project by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The European External Action Service has a lot of information too, and publishes an annual report on EU arms exports. For a detailed survey of how EU arms exports were involved in the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa see this report funded by Oxfam GB, Amnesty UK, and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

For information on the broader issues surrounding the international arms trade, see Campaign Against Arms Trade in the UK, Campagne Tegen Wapenhandel in the Netherlands, and the European Network Against Arms Trade for other European countries.

The Arms Trade Treaty is supported by a coalition of NGOs called ‘Control Arms’. Their website has loads of interesting and informative resources. ArmsTreaty.org lists the negotiating positions of all states, so check to see what your government is doing there. The Flemish Peace Institute published a research paper a number of days ago detailing the role of the EU in the ATT negotiations, it makes for interesting reading.

UPDATE (03/01/2012): Elizabeth Kirkham of Saferworld has produced a great briefing paper on where the ATT currently stands. Well worth a read.

If you are interested in these issues and would like more information, please do not hesitate to get in touch: cvenables [at] qcea.org