EU Assistance in Export Control of Dual-Use Goods 3th Experts Meeting 2009 Frankfurt, Germany. EU Outreach: Results, Risks and Challenges

Transcription

1 Eschborn, December 2009 EU Assistance in Export Control of Dual-Use Goods 3th Experts Meeting 2009 Frankfurt, Germany EU Outreach: Results, Risks and Challenges Good morning honoured guests and previous speakers, I am pleased that beside our president, Dr. Wallraff, Mr. Brauner, Director-General from the German Ministry for Economics and Technology, Dr. Strub from the Office of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and last but not least from Sweden, Ambassador Ekmann Duse, Director of the Swedish Agency for Non Proliferation and Export Controls (ISP) have found the time to come to this meeting. Good morning dear colleagues and friends. I would like to follow my previous speakers and to welcome you to our experts meeting in Frankfurt. Background: The fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is indispensable for international peace and security. This internationally recognised aim cannot be achieved by one person or by a few, it is a joint task for all responsibly acting individuals and states. The purpose of the meeting is to explore a number of current issues related to the EU outreach program on dual use export control. The aims are: First - to inform you about the latest international outreach developments in the international forums. Second - to report on the latest activities in our partner countries. There will be several presentations this afternoon about the aims and challenges in our partner countries Their - to exchange views and experiences on the program work. This is mainly the topic of your workshop tomorrow morning. - and - Fourth - to identify necessary changes and improvements. In other words to identify at the end of this meeting what our next steps will be

2 - 2 - To those who have only heard of the Outreach program up to now, but haven t had an overview of the contents and aims or a chance to participate in one of the activities I would like to communicate the state of affairs and some of the results already achieved, before I mention some aspects of the challenges and risks arising from Outreach, Status quo : Developing EU Export Control assistance United Nations SC Resolution 1540 calls upon all member states to take appropriate and effective measures against the threat of WMD and their delivery systems to promote international peace and security and invites member states to render assistance to other states in implementing the domestic legal and administrative provisions. In 2003, in line with and prior to the adoption of 1540, the European Council along with the Commission adopted the EU security strategy to fight the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction identifying a number of major threats for the next decade. This strategy sets out a detailed framework and states the EU s commitment to strengthen export control policies and practices within its borders and beyond, in co-ordination with partners. In addition the establishment of the Instrument for Stability (IfS) with its focus on capacity building to address global and transregional threats acknowledges that there are some areas where European action can both complement and add value over and above the efforts of individual Member States. One area where this is particularly true is third country export control assistance for dual use items. From my point of view there are at least two inter-linked elements, a) re-enforcing export control in an enlarged Europe, b) a programme of 3rd country assistance. The reinforcement and revision of the dual-use regulation has lead to EC- Reg. 428/09 and the Commission is aiming in 2010 particularly at the development of internal EU best practices and an EU technical training programme on export controls of dual-use goods as well. This project will be focused on the practical problems associated with implementing licensing and related procedures in the EU-MS. You can call this way Inreach if you want and I m convinced that this is the perfect starting point for interaction with the outreach programs as well. Geographic scope of the programme The WMD strategy is not particularly specific on the geographical priorities for the EU s nonproliferation efforts other than stating that the Proliferation of WMD is a global threat, which requires a global approach.the EU has progressively expanded the geographic scope of activities since Three so called Pilot Projects were funded under a European Parliament initiative, the first contained a field validation exercise, the second and third were

3 - 3 - dedicated to expanding and developing this work. In parallel with these, a three year export control project with the Russian Federation was launched (in 2006) under the Commission s Technical Assistance to Commonwealth of Independent States, the so called TACIS programme. Today co-operation is underway with a range of different partners including China, Ukraine, UAE, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania, Moldova, Morocco, Tunisia, Georgia, Malaysia and Thailand, as well as so called ad hoc missions with Pakistan, Jordan and probably Armenia / Azerbaijan next year. Noting the geographic expansion of the assistance programme, there are some criteria for prioritising beneficiary countries that build on established practice in related areas. The policy framework for deciding on the current and future recipient countries for export control assistance is now based on the following factors: First factor - relevance to the EU s foreign policy and the WMD-strategy in general (for example as a candidate for future enlargement, in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, in other policies such as the Barcelona Process or through significance as a trade partner etc.). Second factor - the need for technical assistance, e.g. request to 1540 Committee and - most important factor the willingness to accept assistance and to cooperate on non-proliferation issues. Third factor the Industrial structure and relevance in terms of (horizontal) proliferation - and last but not least - the fours factor - the question if there exists an EU comparative advantage over other donors (a comparative advantage could work on different levels; it could, for example, relate to the political acceptance of the EU but it might also be specific to certain elements of assistance). Coordination with other donors, activities and organisations There is a pressing need to prioritise given the growing demand for export control assistance, e.g. in the context of UNSCR 1540 requirements but also the demands of EU foreign policy as well as in the context of the international export control regimes and for a. This prioritisation presupposes of course coordination with other donors. This has begun in particular with the US EXBS and DOE programmes but covers coordination or at least information exchange with the 1540 Committee, through reports in the regimes plenary, of course with the acting EU-Presidency, and with NGO s like SIPRI, the Flemish Peace Research Institute. The current program relies heavily on EU-MS like e.g. the UK, Austria, Polen, or Sweden. Given the complexity of launching and running an export control assistance programme, requiring co-ordination within EU institutions, amongst Member States, and with other donors/international actors as well as the recipient governments, a professional and sophisticated organisation is required. Today the program can offer the expertise of more than 90 experts most of them present here today from 21 member

4 - 4 - countries. I would like to use this opportunity to sincerely thank all experts for their very strong support and cooperation. Without you these program wouldn t have been possible. One of the main advantages of this EU program is the joint ownership. You, the experts offer unique cultural, social and legal competencies which has a direct impact on the program work. Structure / Tools / Pillars for EU outreach programme The export control assistance program tackles now the following pillars: legal licensing customs awareness raising / outreach to industry sanctions / interagency cooperation These 5 pillars are mutually dependent and support one another. Nevertheless, in some countries only particular aspects are addressed. We will pick up on these aspects in the country officers speeches this afternoon and in the workshops tomorrow. You can see the number of activities carried out under the respective outreach pillars. Up to now the main focus is on legal and licensing. The tools we typically use are: Initial Visits, Needs analysis and training needs assessment Seminars, Study tours Train the trainer concepts in partner countries and EU-MS Risks and Challenges: Dear guests, outreach means establishing contacts, and getting to know and understand the other. Developing, maintaining and disseminating a basic understanding of export control, which is generally accepted, and building a common ground through EU-Outreach is the only chance on the way to a secure Europe in a better world. What are the risks and / or challenges of this task? Dear experts, first I would like to emphasise that in my opinion one can hardly distinguish between risks and challenges. For one person it is a risk, for the other it is a challenge. What they have in common is that the presence of a risk as well as the failure arising from a challenge might pose a danger to the success of the program. The difference is that risks should be minimised, but challenges might stimulate the program. Anyway - iin each case I think that the following challenges or risks have to be considered

5 Challenge: Political support Sufficient political support is central to the success of the Programm. Our experience shows that contacts at the political level are crucial for initiating and supporting project work, particularly in countries facing an uncertain or difficult political situation. Program targets need to correspond with the political situation in the receiving country. Consequently, the definition of objectives needs to account for the fact that export controls are an inherently sovereign responsibility and thus not only an administrative but also a political task. EU Harmonisation in the field of export controls focuses on the adoption of uniform rules and regulations. This does not necessarily include the political decisions involved in the actual licensing process. Technical co-operation does not aim at influencing politics or political decisions in the target countries. The fact that politics substantially influence the licensing process but that the opposite is not necessarily true, has to be kept in mind at all times. The linkage between politics and technical assistance is crucial not least for the evaluation of success. 2. Challenge: The resource problem Given the EU s strong preference for an approach which is based on developing cooperation among Peers, the assistance programme depends on Member State expertise. The outreach program can not be effective without appropriate awareness and action at the level of the Member States. For the EUs export control assistance programme to be fully effective it needs the explicit support of all competent Member State ministries. This means that the ministries responsible for licensing and enforcement officials must acknowledge that active participation of their staff in EU third country assistance is indispensable. Human resources in national administrations are normally decided on the basis of national requirements where outreach and assistance are not always high priorities and sometimes not even acknowledged as legitimate tasks. Weak export control goals in other countries can undermine national control systems. It should also be noted that assistance not only contributes to the EUs security goals but that it increases the participating staff s knowledge, develops their skills and increases their effective network to the benefit of their home departments. When we talk later about expanding the scope of the current program this presupposes inter alia the willingness of all EU Member States to support these activities further more. From my point of view there are obvious difficulties in using privat contractors. Such an approach would include the potential to undermine the relationship with the beneficiary by compromising the peer approach which has become one of the successes and a trademark of the EU outreach programme. The actors in the project on the receiving end as well as for the implementing agent - are officials. From my point of view neither

6 - 6 - consulting nor seminars can be carried out by private entities, for reasons of technical knowledge, confidentiality of the issues at stake, topicality of subject-matters and networks. 3. Challenge: Intercultural competence In relation to third parties EU-Outreach is supposed to support the process of positive change. Change, however is not always welcome and a culture clash should be avoided. As a starting point it is important to recall that in providing technical assistance the activities of donors aim at supporting changes that lie within the sovereignty of partner countries. The over-all targets therefore are not technocratic solutions. But the so called tailor made - processes require that there be clarity on both sides not only on the aims but particularly on the underlying values and interests. This goes beyond mere translation issues; projects need to be structured in a co-operative manner, perceiving recipients as peers. Therefore, Outreach activities imply an intercultural dialogue on the basis of thorough knowledge of the fundamental principles governing the receiving country s system and aim at dialogue in partnership. Ready-made products are counterproductive and lead to failure. Partners and their concerns have to be taken seriously and their needs have to be responded to in order for them to really accept the project as a recipient. Sustainable results can only be achieved when processes have been triggered successfully and are steered purposefully instead of just selling a product. When dealing with political systems this task is particularly difficult. The internal correlation of systems is not always transparent or recordable. Political deliberations, internal rules, a variety of interest groups, power gaps and conflicting interests can influence the work. Therefore, outreach work is sometimes difficult to calculate. Plans have to be adapted to changing influences and this needs time. Partners might lose interest in the project work and reject the results accordingly. External interventions without successful and participative learning on the part of the partner country has no effect. All these aspects have to be included in the project timetable. Projects with a duration of two or three years can only achieve milestones in this process. 4. Challenge: Significant preparation / thorough analysis : Dear guests - in my opinion, a greater challenge is not only to look at the partner country and to assess the risks beyond their own sphere of influence, but always to take a glance inwards to see if what is conveyed and how it is conveyed, as well as what is done makes sense, is consistent and is acceptable to the partner. In international relationships everybody has to always measure themselves against the standards they set for third parties. The famous words Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law, is valid for EU-Outreach in the field of export control, as well. Before taking a decision everybody should verify whether the result would be acceptable if all

7 - 7 - followed their own guiding principle. Thus, the EU Outreach indirectly functions as Inreach, as we can only disseminate the common behaviour patterns and export control systems that we are willing to use and to follow ourselves. At the same time it is important to avoid unclear messages when introducing the variety of implementation of EU law in European Member States. 5. Challenge: change-management : Introducing an effective export control system in target countries requires a comprehensive process of change. An improvement of existing systems requires more than just the adoption or amendment of new rules of procedure. Apart from political will to define and implement political objectives fundamental change on the administrative level is needed. The need for change can encompass the basic understanding of roles, be it that of state actors or codes of conduct, forms of interaction or the need for qualification and training. This presumes e.g: that the relevant institutions exist and that their respective roles also that of the exporting industry - are known and accepted in order to be reliable. If there are no equivalent institutions to start the dialogue with, the program needs to be restructured in order to facilitate the necessary capacity building. Readiness to change is the main prerequisite of change-management processes. Readiness to change needs to be established on a longterm basis. Often outreach activities are directly focused on the differences of other systems concluding that these have to be adapted to the standards of the EC-Regulation. But changes are often unwanted and will be rejected as an attack on one s own competence and practices. The reproach of arrogance can easily be brought forward and the consequences could negatively affect the program. Political will and the willingness to accept and implement proposed changes is crucial for the success of the program. 6. Challenge: Situation in the partner country: Last but not least when I m talking about challenges and risks a program providing technical assistance to administrations in third countries need stable political situations and structures to ensure success. Frequent government restructuring, lack of clear delineation of duties and responsibilities between federal agencies and corruption can be elements that substantially influence the implementation of technical assistance work. The role and perception of industry is a central factor as well. When industry representatives remain unconvinced of the benefits of an efficient export control system, or are deterred by heavy procedures, delays and bureaucratic hurdles there is very little chance that newlyimplemented measures can take hold and succeed. As such, program measures need to aim at the inclusion of all stakeholders into assistance measures. And - it has to be seen that in some recipient countries even small, short-term action can be very efficient whereas long-

8 - 8 - term progress might require entirely different preparation and tools. Outreach activities face a lot more challenges. A multitude of circumstances can hamper effective management and implementation of export controls - I have mentioned only a few - and I m convinced that everyone of you can add some personal challenges. Measuring Performance / Evaluation Having presented to you all the challenges and risks that we have to take into account in our common outreach work, the question may arise: is it possible to measure our performance? Some of you may even think that it is more important than ever considering all these challenges - to closely observe all activities. Dear guests - I can assure you that we are doing exactly that and are investing a lot of work in our evaluation. While it is may be too early to make conclusive statements on the outcomes of the program it is not too early to observe trends. It is difficult to compare the individual country programmes as they are each tailored to the specific requirements of each country and range from the creation of an export control system to targeting specific needs. That said work in South Eastern Europe and Morocco has progressed smoothly, while the co-operation with Ukraine, Georgia and China has gone very well. Cooperation with UAE, Malaysia and Tunisia has met difficulties in getting off the ground. Many of these problems appear to be related to factors beyond the control of those running the programme. You will get much more details in the country report this afternoon. Given the developing nature of the programme, evaluation and feedback are necessary to fine tune project activities. We conducted a survey this summer in the middle of our programm to help us assess the current work. Two questionnaires were drafted: One addressing the EU-experts and the other the partner countries. Quantitative indicators such as the number of events or participants are - from my point of view - not really adequate measures of performance. As I said the preparation phase and analysis have to be strictly needs-driven and therefore the criteria for evaluation should be result-based rather that based on expenses. Again program planning and implementation can not be seen as a linear course of action. For evaluation a set of process based qualitative indicators could form a basis, such as the function/ role of participants in developing/strengthening a country s export control system. These need to be adapted to the situation in a partner country and factor in questions such as what external assistance can realistically achieve, and which obstacles need to be addressed internally. According to our experience evaluation can best be based on a mix of theses soft factors and so called hard factors. Hard factors are mainly linked with the content of laws and regulations, what kind of licensing procedures, enforcement measures and sanction are in place, how the communication with exporting industry and the interaction between the different agency involved is organized, etc. The discussion about evaluation reminds me of an old German poem, where a man spend a lot of time in teaching

9 - 9 - a fish how to sing and after he was successful he killed the fish because he was not able to fly. In some countries we have to be satisfied with what we have reached even if we had good reasons to expect more. Future: At the end a short look into the future. Of cause we are more than interested in prolonging our work. I m convinced that with your help and the help from AidCo we will find a way. But a successful export control assistance programme will depend on maximising the synergies between related activities as well. Whilst the current EU outreach programme of assistance is focused exclusively on the dual use area it would be foolish not to acknowledge that in many countries there is no separate organisation for dual use goods and that the individuals trained in this area are often also responsible for a range of sensitive goods including conventional weapons. Therefore you might know - we are in discussion with commission and council to assist the upcoming presidencies concerning their outreach activities in COARM to maximise the synergies between assistance for dual-use goods and conventional arms. At the very end I would like to express my gratitude again to all of you, representatives and experts of the EU Member States and I address this equally to all previous speakers and the organisations they represent, thanking them for their kind support and frankness. I am looking forward to working with all of you in the future as well as to the interesting discussions today and tomorrow. Thank you for you attention