The Arms industry dominates EU Defence Policy
Wilbert van der Zeijden - Transnational Institute | 20.07.2005 09:29 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Technology
The European Union Defence policy is increasingly influenced by the interests of the arms industry. The arms industry was deeply involved in the drafting of the European Convention and is also over-represented in many influential advisory committees on an EU level. This way, the interests of the arms industry have taken a central role in the determination of EU policy, as is shown in the report released today “The emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex – Arms industry lobbying in Brussels”, by Frank Slijper in cooperation with the Transnational Institute.
Press release Transnational Institute (TNI) & Campagne Tegen Wapenhandel (CtW)
The Arms industry dominates EU Defence Policy
A TNI/CtW Report on how the EU allows defence industry lobbying to determine policies on security, defence and arms trade
Amsterdam, July, 2005 – The European Union Defence policy is increasingly influenced by the interests of the arms industry. The arms industry was deeply involved in the drafting of the European Convention and is also over-represented in many influential advisory committees on an EU level. This way, the interests of the arms industry have taken a central role in the determination of EU policy, as is shown in the report released today “The emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex – Arms industry lobbying in Brussels”, by Frank Slijper in cooperation with the Transnational Institute.
For the past several years, dozens of CEO’s and other top level personalities from the arms industry have participated in advisory committees on military research, naval industry and military space and aviation programmes. “If the EU really wants to alter the negative image of an undemocratic institution dominated by corporate agendas, it should – right now – end the backroom policy making processes”, says Frank Slijper. “It is ludicrous how in this crucial policy area, the industry is allowed to become so central in policy making processes.”
At a time when the EU is taking on a new military posture and assuming new military tasks, the involvement of the arms industry for Brussels policy making is growing rapidly. The number of arms industry instigated lunches and conferences is indicative and alarming. These are the ideal occasions for EU policy brokers, top level military officials and CEO’s from the defence industry to strategise on new, and always industry friendly policies. Yet, outside the small circle of lobby-watchers, little is known about the intense relations between those who profit from the policies and those who make them. This Report, “The Emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex – Arms industry lobbying in Brussels”, is a useful guide to those who want to know more about how policy is made in small circles in Brussels. It is also a structured and thorough analysis of how the Eurocrats gave a central role to the industry rather than to democratic institutions in shaping and determining EU defence and security policies.
For more information, please contact
Wilbert van der Zeijden:
wilbert@tni.org
A PDF version of the report is available on line on the Transnational Institute website:
http://www.tni.org/reports/militarism/eumilitary.pdf
A printed copy can be sent on request: tni@tni.org
The Arms industry dominates EU Defence Policy
A TNI/CtW Report on how the EU allows defence industry lobbying to determine policies on security, defence and arms trade
Amsterdam, July, 2005 – The European Union Defence policy is increasingly influenced by the interests of the arms industry. The arms industry was deeply involved in the drafting of the European Convention and is also over-represented in many influential advisory committees on an EU level. This way, the interests of the arms industry have taken a central role in the determination of EU policy, as is shown in the report released today “The emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex – Arms industry lobbying in Brussels”, by Frank Slijper in cooperation with the Transnational Institute.
For the past several years, dozens of CEO’s and other top level personalities from the arms industry have participated in advisory committees on military research, naval industry and military space and aviation programmes. “If the EU really wants to alter the negative image of an undemocratic institution dominated by corporate agendas, it should – right now – end the backroom policy making processes”, says Frank Slijper. “It is ludicrous how in this crucial policy area, the industry is allowed to become so central in policy making processes.”
At a time when the EU is taking on a new military posture and assuming new military tasks, the involvement of the arms industry for Brussels policy making is growing rapidly. The number of arms industry instigated lunches and conferences is indicative and alarming. These are the ideal occasions for EU policy brokers, top level military officials and CEO’s from the defence industry to strategise on new, and always industry friendly policies. Yet, outside the small circle of lobby-watchers, little is known about the intense relations between those who profit from the policies and those who make them. This Report, “The Emerging EU Military-Industrial Complex – Arms industry lobbying in Brussels”, is a useful guide to those who want to know more about how policy is made in small circles in Brussels. It is also a structured and thorough analysis of how the Eurocrats gave a central role to the industry rather than to democratic institutions in shaping and determining EU defence and security policies.
For more information, please contact
Wilbert van der Zeijden:
wilbert@tni.org A PDF version of the report is available on line on the Transnational Institute website:
http://www.tni.org/reports/militarism/eumilitary.pdf A printed copy can be sent on request:
tni@tni.org
Wilbert van der Zeijden - Transnational Institute
e-mail:
wilbert@tni.org
Homepage:
http://www.tni.org/reports/militarism/eumilitary.pdf
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
In what way ?
20.07.2005 09:35
In what way was the Arms Industry involved ? To the best of my knowledge there was no involvement by ant industry. Also could you please define "over-represented", is that one person, ten, a hundred ?
curious
Good questions
20.07.2005 10:19
Wilbert van der Zeijden
e-mail:
wilbert@tni.org
Homepage:
http://www.tni.org/militarism
I did
20.07.2005 10:47
curious
curious indeed
20.07.2005 11:45
Also: Are you one of the indymedia moderators or something? I'm asking because in both cases it took the system quite a long time to publish my postings, only to appear with a comment by you immediately. It's OK if that's the case of course, just curious.
Anyway... content:
As the report tries to explain, the policy making process with regard to those parts of the constitution that are about the EDA and other defence/security related policies, involved a number of advisory bodies. In those, representatives of the industry, the Military and EU politicians and policy makers were asked to give participate. Participation by MEP's (if any) was limited to those invited by the advisory bodies. Those MEPs were not 'representing' the parliament, ince they were not selected BY the parliament to represent it. The chosen MEPs are all known for their pro-defence spending position.
In the end, what happens is that advice is asked (only) of people who have an interest in high defence and security expenditure. To no surprise, their advice is favourable to higher expenditre and less regulation of arms trade.
Next to that, the report tries to give a factual overview of who is who in lobby-land in Brussels. And it concludes saying that it is alarming to see that the people contracting the lobby groups are the same or close to those in the advisory or decision making positions. In a few cases, the report briefly highlights the role of a specific person to show the many involvements of this person in different capacities.
As to "over representation": I agree that this is debatable. It's a relative. What the report mentiones, is that there's no representation of - for example - civil society groups. Would it have been more accurate you think to say other groups were underrepresented? Anyway, if you claim to ask expert for advice, but you only ask one side of the spectrum to do so, you can both say one side is over represented and the other side(s) under represented, I would think.
Regards,
Wilbert
Wilbert