The Committees on Arms Export Controls

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Committees on Arms Export Controls"

Natalie Logan
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Committees on Arms Export Controls Committee Office, House of Commons, Palace of Westminster, London SW1A 0AA Tel Fax Web REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN INFORMATION TO THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE COMMITTEES ON ARMS EXPORT CONTROLS ARISING FROM THE GOVERNMENT S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR JANUARY MARCH 2012 The Committees need to see sufficient information about the Government s licensing decisions to come to a reasonable understanding of why a licence has been granted or refused in any particular case. This means that, while the quality of information supplied by the Government is generally very high, we will ask for further information in some cases. Note: When reference is made to a country s human rights situation or record, we are drawing on annual reports published by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the US State Department and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Committees wish to receive the answers to the questions by 2 November Note: OIEL: Open Individual Export Licence; SIEL: Standard Individual Export Licence; OITCL: Open Individual Trade Control Export Licence; SITCL: Standard Individual Trade Control Export Licence SECTION A: Questions related to public material Argentina: Given the current political tensions between the United Kingdom and Argentina and the Foreign Secretary s letter to the Chairman of 26 April 2012 the Committees wish know why were SIELs issued for components for military aeroengines, components for military support aircraft, equipment employing cryptography and imaging cameras issued during this period. The Committees also wish to know why OIELs were issued for: a) equipment employing cryptography, equipment for the development of equipment employing cryptography, software for the development of equipment employing cryptography and technology for the development of equipment employing cryptography; b) hydrophones and towed hydrophone arrays; and c) components for combat aircraft, components for military training aircraft; components for military electronic equipment; general military aircraft components. Armenia: Given the OSCE embargo of 1992 why was a SIEL for equipment employing cryptography and an OIEL for cryptographic software issued? 1

2 Azerbaijan: Given the OSCE embargo of 1992 why were OIELs for cryptographic software and imaging cameras, submersible equipment and underwater electronic imaging systems issued? Bahrain: Given the recent unrest and human rights violations by the security forces in Bahrain, why were SIELs granted for assault rifles, components for assault rifles, components for military communications equipment, military communications equipment, software for military communications equipment and technology for military communications equipment issued? Brazil: Why was an OIEL for components for sporting guns and unfinished products for sporting guns refused? Burma: Given the ban on the provision of all arms and related material to Burma under CFSP 2006/318 the Committees request further information on the OIEL for cryptographic software issued to Burma during this period. China: Given the Madrid European Council arms embargo to China why were SIELs for components for air-to-air missiles and weapon sights approved? The Committees wish to know why two SIELs for semiconductor wafers with epitaxial layers were revoked. Congo, Democratic Republic of: Given that the Democratic Republic of Congo is one of the FCO s countries of concern, as listed in the FCO s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report, the Committees wish to know why an OIEL for cryptographic software was granted. Cyprus: Why were OITCLs for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for body armour, military helmets, rifles and small arms ammunition refused? Czech Republic: Why was an OIEL for components for sporting guns and unfinished products for sporting guns refused? Djibouti: Given the human rights record of the Government of Djibouti, why was an OIEL granted for components for military support aircraft, military aircraft ground equipment and technology for military support aircraft; and OIELs granted for allwheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection, assault rifles and small arms ammunition; and OITCLs granted for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for rifles, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition and weapon sights? Egypt: Given that the Government previously revoked arms exports licences to Egypt why were SIELs for components for machine guns, components for pistols, components for projectile launchers, components for weapon control equipment and training small arms ammunition issued during this period? Additionally, why was one SIEL for components for pistols granted and another SIEL for components for pistols refused? Given that the stated destinations included Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Oman and Sri Lanka why were OITCLs approved for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components 2

3 for rifles, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, weapon night sights and weapon sights?. Further, why were OITCLs for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for body armour, rifles and small arms ammunition approved in some cases and refused in others? Germany: Why was an incorporated SIEL for components for military support aircraft revoked and why was an incorporated SIEL for components for military communications equipment refused? Hong Kong: Given the human rights record of the Government of China, how were concerns about diversion under Criteria 7 and then by extension, Criteria 2 -- of the Consolidated Criteria allayed with regard to the SIELs granted for anti-riot/ballistic shields, components for assault rifles, components for bombs, components for exploding grenade ammunition, components for grenade launchers, components for machine guns, components for mortar bombs, components for rifles, components for small arms ammunition, equipment for the use of machine guns, gun silencers, machine guns, rifles, small arms ammunition, teargas/irritant ammunition and weapon sights? India: Why was an OITCL destined to Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Russia, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates for, assault rifles, body armour, civil body armour, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for machine guns, components for pistols, components for rifles, components for sniper rifles, machine guns, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, weapon night sights and weapon sights, refused? Indonesia: The Committees wish to know why a SIEL for weapon sights was refused when a SIEL for weapon night sights was approved? Iraq: Given that UNSCR 1546 (2004) continues the embargo on arms and related material against Iraq the Committees wish to know why the SIELs approved for allwheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection (2 licences), body armour and components for body armour. Israel: The Committees wish to know why a SIEL for components for military helicopters was approved while a SIEL for components for combat helicopters was refused. Jordan: Given the recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Jordan the Committees wish to know why the following SIELs were granted: body armour, components for assault rifles, components for grenade launchers, components for military combat vehicle; components for military support vehicles, components for pistols, components for rifles, equipment for the use of grenade launchers, equipment for the use of weapon night sights, grenade launchers, gun silencers, rifles, tanks, weapon night sights and weapon sights rather than refused under the terms of Criteria 2. Given that the stated destinations included Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Oman and Sri Lanka why were OITCLs approved for assault rifles, body armour, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for rifles, rifles, small arms ammunition and weapon sights? 3

4 Kuwait: Given the recent unrest in the country the Committees wish to know why SIELs for weapon night sights and weapon sights were approved, rather than refused under Criteria 2 of the Consolidated Criteria. Libya: Given that Libya is an FCO Country of Concern and subject to arms trade sanctions, the Committees wish to know why the SIEL that was approved for allwheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection. Oman: Given unrest in Oman during 2011 the Committees wish to know why: SIELs for acoustic devices for riot control, assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for hand grenades, components for military combat vehicles, components for military helicopters, components for pistols, components for rifles, components for sniper rifles, components for tanks, crowd control ammunition, hand grenades, military communications equipment, military helmets, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, training tear gas/irritant ammunition, wall/door breaching projectiles/ammunition and weapon sights; Mil and other SIELs for assault rifles, body armour, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for military communications equipment, components for pistols, components for rifles, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition and weapon sights; and SITCLs for anti-armour ammunition, assault rifles, small arms ammunition, tear gas/irritant ammunition and weapon sights were approved. Given that the stated destinations included Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman and Sri Lanka why were OITCLs approved for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for rifles, military helmets, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, weapon night sights and weapons sights? Pakistan: Given that Pakistan is listed as a Country of Concern in the FCO s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report why were SIELs for anti-armour ammunition, anti-riot/ballistic shields, body armour and components for body armour approved. Further, given that the destination was stated as the United States of America why was an OITCL for assault rifles, components for assault rifles, components for pistols, grenade launchers, targeting equipment, weapon night sights and weapon sights refused? Russia: Given that Russia is listed as a Country of Concern in the FCO s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report why were SIELs for body armour, small arms ammunition and weapon sights approved? Serbia: Why was an OIEL for components for sporting guns and unfinished products for sporting guns refused? Seychelles: Why were OITCLs for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for body armour, military helmets, rifles and small arms ammunition approved for three applications but refused for the same items in another application? Sri Lanka: Given that Sri Lanka is listed as a country of concern, in the FCO s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report, the Committees wish to know why SIELs 4

5 for acoustic devices for riot control, body armour, combat shotguns, rifles, small arms ammunition and weapon sights were approved; why OIELs for assault rifles, body armour, components for assault rifles, military helmets, and small arms ammunition were approved; and why OITCLs for acoustic devices for riot control, assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for rifles, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, weapon night sights and weapon sights were issued? Sudan: Given the current tension on the border between Sudan and South Sudan and the sanctions imposed by EU Common Positions 1994/165/CFSP and 2005/411/CFSP, why was a SIEL for weapon sight mounts issued rather than refused under Criteria 2 of the Consolidated Criteria? Sudan, South: Given the current tension on the border between Sudan and South Sudan and the sanctions imposed by EU Common Positions 1994/165/CFSP and 2005/411/CFSP, why was were SIELs for all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection, body armour, components for body armour and military helmets issued rather than refused under Criteria 2 of the Consolidated Criteria? Syria: Given the current unrest and human rights violations by the security forces in Syria and as Syria is an FCO County of Concern the Committees wish to know what were the chemicals approved in the SIEL for chemicals used for industrial/commercial purposes and why a SITCL, with a destination listed as Jordan, for all-wheel drive vehicles with ballistic protection was issued. Taiwan: The Committees wish to know why an OIEL for components for sporting guns and unfinished products for sporting guns was refused. Thailand: The Committees wish to know why an OIEL for components for military communications equipment and military communications equipment was refused. Vietnam: Given that Vietnam is listed as a country of concern, in the FCO s 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report, the Committees wish to have more information on why SIELs for components for military communications equipment, military communications equipment, weapon night sights and weapon sights were approved. The Committees on Arms Export Controls 21 September

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

1 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Editat de Ministerul Afacerilor Externe Departamentul ++++ pentru Controlul Exporturilor ANCEX Mai 2015 Quarterly report October December 2016 Department for Export Controls