24 Amendments of Krzysztof LISEK related to 2012/2303(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas arms exports can have inter alia a considerable impact not only on security, but also on development, and must therefore be at the very least embedded within a strict arms control system operating with maximum effectivenessit is important to strengthen the European Union's export control policy for military technology and equipment;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas Article 10 of the Common Position clearly states that compliance with the eight cthe Member States, where appropriateria takes precedence over any, may also take into account the effect of proposed exports on their economic, social, commercial orand industrial interests of Member States;, these factors shall not affect the application of the above criteria.
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the Common Position contadefines no democratically produced and binding list, together with reasons, identifyingthe broadest common understanding for the countries armsol of exports to which would violate one or more of the eight criteriaof military technology and equipment serving the coordination of national export control systems;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas there is no standardiseda development towards a stronger verification and reporting system providing information as to whether, and to what extent, individual Member States' exports violate the eight criteria, and whereas there are no sanctions mechanisms, either, should a Member State engage in exports which are clearly not compatible with the eight criteria; whereas there is no possibility of havinghas been observed since the presentation of the annual Council reports according to article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment; whereas the Member Countries shall overcome legislative and organizational obstacles in order to achieve better possible compliance with the eight criteria independently verified;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas littlesignificant progress has been made on reaching agreement between the Member States with regard to applying and interpreting the Common Position’s eight criteria, principally thanks to the Common Position User’s Guide, drawn up by COARM, giving detailed definitions of best practices with regard to the application of the criteria;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas, despite the progress made with regard to transparency thanks to the COARM information exchange mechanism, by no means all EU Member States make a full submission to COARM; whereas, because of individual Member States’ differing data collection and submission procedures, data sets are incomplete and vary, which considerably reduces transparency in this area;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas measures on trafficking of small arms and light weapons have been adopted in recent years, with an updated List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies under the Wassenaar Arrangement being adopted in February 2012, and areas such as control of arms brokering, licensed production outside the EU and end-user control have been put on the agenda and, to some extent, incorporated into the Common Position itself, but many products, in particular in the fieldWassenaar Arrangement agenda; whereas the EU control regime of export of dual- use goods, are still not cnd technologies is governed by a legally binding arms exports control systemRegulation 428/2009;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas many surveillancethe use of military technologiesy and surveillance software products and many other goods used in a host of recipient countries for repressive measures againstequipment, produced in the EU, vary in their populations are not included either in the Common Military List of the European Union or in the EU list of dual-use goodd countries;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas it has been argued that the events of the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) could not be foreseen; whereas nonetheless the human rights situation in those countries, which, in connection with issuing arms exports licences, should have been (and must be) taken into account, was (and is) known; whehave shown that the Common Position has been implemented effectively; whereas those events have indeed been discussed at almost every COARM meeting held since the beginning of 2011, and whereas those meetings made it possible to harmonise the required review of Member States’ national policies with regard to exports to the countries concerned; whereas this consultation process between Member States has been accompanied by enhanced due diligence measures, suspension measureas the events of the Arab Spring have revealeand measures to postpone authorisation, and twhe weaknesses of the Common Position and, to some extent, a number of countries’ disregard for it and the criteria it containsreas, as a result of the existing information exchange mechanisms both within and outside COARM, it was possible for the various Member States to take these decisions swiftly;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Acknowledges that the EU is the only union of states to have a legally binding framework, unique in the world, through which arms export control is being improved, including in crisis regions and countries with a questionable human rights record, and welcomes the fact, in this connection, that European and non- European third countries have joined the arms exports control system on the basis of the Common Position; notes with concern, however, that the eight criteria are applied and interpreted with varying degrees of rigour in the EU Member States; calls therefore for a standard, uniformly strictmore uniform interpretation and full implementation of the Common Position with all its obligations;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Takes the view that the Common Position should bewould benefit – with account being taken of the degree of confidentiality required by the Member States in their decision-making – from being complemented by a regularly updated, publicly accessible list, with detailed reasons, providing information onreasons indicating the extent to which exports to particular recipient countries are, or are not, in keeping with the eight criteria;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers thatas appropriate to prepare an advisability and feasibility study on whether a standardised verification and reporting system shouldall be established to provide information as to whether, and to what extent, individual EU Member States' exports violate the eight criteria;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Insists, in the light of the Common Position review process, that support should be voiced for powerful, clear and unambiguous wording in the Common Position in order to preventensure the criteria from beingare interpreted and applied differently; insists in particular that Article 10 of the Common Position be acted on and that, accordingly, application of the criteria not be neutralised or stopped because of political, economic or geostrategic interestsin a more uniform way;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. RegretsTakes note of the fact that there is no possibility of having compliance with the eight criteria independently verified, that there are no mechanisms for sanctions for vio control of complying to the criteria takes place according to national regulations; is of the eight criteria by a Member State, and that there are no plans to that effect; takes the view that ways and means of carrying out independent verification and mechanisms for sanctions for violations of the Common Position should be provided foropinion that national parliaments or specific parliamentary bodies have to assure the effective control of the application of the criteria;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Member States, with regard to export controls and application of the eight criteria, to pay greater attention to goods which may be used for both civilian and military purposes, such as surveillanceall military technology, and similarly to spare parts and products suitable for use in cyber warfare or for non-lethal human rights abusesequipment as mentioned in the common position 288/944/CFSP;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls furthermore for the eight criteria to be extended and applied also to the transfer of military, security and police personnel, to arms-exports-related services, know-how and training, and to private military and security services; calls for it to be made mandatory - where security technology and, in general, dual- use goods are to be exported - for compatibility with the eight criteria to be verifiedto better apply the criteria of the common position 2008/944/CFSP before suggesting new ones;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that methods for collecting data on arms exports, as well as practices for publishing data sets recorded, vary in the Member States, as a result of which the COARM annual report does not include important information and therefore is not up to date or reliable; calls accordingly for the introduction of a standardised collection and submission procedure, to be applied uniformly in all Member States,include standardized information on issued export licences and does not include some important information on real export of arms; welcomes initiatives of the Member States to improve the situation in order to submit and publish up- to-date and exhaustive information;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. SuggestCalls ion this connection that additional information be collected from Member States and published both at national level and in the COARM annual report, in particular a list of countries arms exports to which would violate one or more of the eight criteria, together with a comprehensive list of EU Member States which have exported arms to those countries during the data reporting periode Member States to provide additional, more up-to-date information that could if necessary be used as a basis for drawing up a joint list of countries arms exports to which would violate one or more of the eight criteria;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the Directive 2009/43/EC simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community has made arms exports within Europe considerably easier; calls in this connection for the COARM annual report also to include detailed information on arms exports within Europe which violate one or more of the eight criteria by establishing shared responsibility between the Member States and the operators, without however making control any less stringent; reiterates the fact that COARM regularly updates a User’s Guide to help Member States implement the Common Position;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Takes the viewNotes with satisfaction fact that government officials responsible for issuing national export licences and civil society organisations addressing the issue of arms export control should bre regularly consulted at COARM meetings, since they can make an important contribution to implementing the Common Position and help improve the quality of the information exchanged;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27