18 minute read
Round table interview with Patrick Bellouard, Paris, Hans-Christoph Atzpodien, Berlin, and Trevor Taylor, London Germany – a touchstone for the arms export policy of the European Union
44 A conversation between Dr Hans-Christoph Atzpodien, Managing Director of the Federation of German Security and Defence Industries e.V. (BDSV), Berlin; Patrick Bellouard, Engineer General (ret), President of EuroDéfense France, Paris, and Prof Trevor Taylor, Professorial Research Fellow in Defence Management at RUSI, London.
The discussion was led by Hartmut Bühl and Nannette Cazaubon, Brussels/Paris
Hartmut Bühl: Welcome to this round table discussion on European arms policy and in particular Germany’s arms export policy. In conferences, participants regularly complain to me about Germany’s arms and export policies. They tell me that it lacks coherence and reliability. The German government regularly engages in huge arms cooperation projects without giving its partners any assurances that they will be authorised to export. Mr Bellouard, what are your thoughts on this?
Patrick Bellouard: A country’s policy on arms exports is a tool of its foreign policy and its sovereignty. The Common Foreign
Photo: p rivate
Patrick Bellouard and Security Policy (CFSP) of the European Union (EU) was introduced by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and reinforced by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, that clarified the role of the High Representative of the Union for CFSP. However, policy discussions take place within the intergovernmental framework and it is a real challenge to obtain a consensus between the 28 EU Member States on critical issues. Although there has certainly been huge progress over the last ten years, there is still a long way to go before CFSP is a reality. Member States will continue for some time yet to have their own foreign and export policy, as we can see in the Yemen conflict.
Nannette Cazaubon: But this situation should not prevent Member States from engaging in arms cooperation projects, as cooperation is the only solution to reach their objective of EU strategic autonomy? Patrick Bellouard: Yes, European cooperation on defence is clearly vital for the future of European defence and security. The level of European cooperation on arms is still very low (stable at 20 % of total defence investment expenditures of EU Members States during the last 30 years) and the Member States must increase this level of cooperation if they want to reach their objective of EU strategic autonomy. However,
nations that wish to cooperate on huge projects must reach agreement on future exports from these projects and make real commitments on this before the project is launched.
Photo: © Anke Illing
Hans-Christoph Atzpodien
Hartmut Bühl: I agree with you that export regulations are national prerogatives but that they should not hinder collaborative projects. Let me ask you, Dr Atzpodien, the Managing Director of the German BDSV: is it fair to accuse Germany of pursuing an export policy that is not reliable and coherent with European ambitions on arms cooperation? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: First of all, it is a matter of fact that Germany does not regard arms exports as an integral part of its security strategy and foreign policy. Moreover, we need to bear in mind that the major German defence contractors are privately owned, with no government involvement. I do not agree with blanket criticism of Germany for its policy of arms exports. I think we simply have to acknowledge that so far there have been significant political differences between Germany and its closest European neighbours and allies like France and Great Britain. This makes it more difficult for these countries to enter into viable European cooperation projects with Germany than it would be with if there were a more harmonized export policy vision. Nannette Cazaubon: Professor Taylor, would you like to respond directly to Dr. Atzpodien? Trevor Taylor: Collaborative projects are primarily a joint effort to develop and produce systems that would not be affordable on a national basis and decisions about exports should also be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. The experience with Germany and Saudi Arabia underlines that the private and in some ways informal arrangements to deal with the export of European products are no longer satisfactory. The civil war in Yemen has presented all the suppliers to Saudi Arabia with some difficult challenges but unilateralism is simply bad for European cooperation. Hartmut Bühl: Professor, let us stay with the United Kingdom: in your experience, are the British more flexible on arms exports than Germany? What are the rules and principles in the UK? Trevor Taylor: The guidance and rules on exports are broadly the same in the UK as in other states accepting the Common Position which really addresses factors to be taken into account rather than hurdles that must be cleared for an export to be allowed. There are debates in the UK about the exports to be permitted, but in many ways the underlying issue is whether export licensing should be based on some simple ethical position (most obviously the precautionary principle of “first do no harm”) or on calculations of the short and medium term consequences of a licence rejection. In a realistic perspective, these would include the increased prospect of Russian and Chinese sales to Saudi Arabia and enhanced efforts to develop national arms industries. Nannette Cazaubon: Is there a common view on human rights, in your opinion, corresponding to the values of the European Union? Trevor Taylor: On human rights, of course the UK government and society have a serious commitment to their promotion but we should recognise that in many areas the specific nature of such rights, while pretty settled in Europe, is a contested area on the global scale and that the real battle is how best to promote acceptance of our views on human rights by governments with little respect for such ideas. Nannette Cazaubon: Gentlemen, may I make the transition to a very practical issue and ask Mr Bellouard about his long experience of being the Director of OCCAR*, managing the A400M programme, not only for EU but also for third countries. What lessons can you share with us from OCCAR that would be useful for the EU? Patrick Bellouard: Although many lessons could be learnt from the A400M programme in general, I do not consider that significant lessons can be learnt about the export of the A400M “ Collaborative projects are primarily a joint effort to develop and produce systems that would not be affordable on a national basis.” Trevor Taylor Photo: p rivate
46 European cooperation in armaments would in principle reduce the need to export but we must remember that one goal of collaboration is to enhance or sustain national defence industrial capabilities to develop, produce and support equipment. Sustaining such a range of capabilities needs a constant drumbeat of work which usually means that exports are particularly valued once the national needs of the collaborators have been met and before a successor project is ready to launch. The case of Typhoon illustrates this. Even US defence businesses, despite the scale of their national market, are now feeling more pressures to sell overseas. Nannette Cazaubon: Dr Atzpodien, you have vast experience with cooperation on naval armaments. Did you ever have problems with your partners because of Germany’s export restrictions? Would you like to see wide-ranging EU regulations for arms exports? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: On my experience in naval cooperation, I have to say that Germany is not the only country with certain political restrictions; in my experience this is also true for other countries like Scandinavian countries. Therefore, it is of paramount importance for any supra-national arms cooperation that the countries involved reach a clear agreement to handle their arms export policies for the respective products in a harmonised or at least a coordinated way. aircraft. Only two export contracts have been signed, one with South Africa, which South Africa subsequently cancelled in 2011, mainly for technical reasons, and one to Malaysia (for four aircraft). There was a full consensus among the A400M partners on these contracts and I have not heard of any political difficulty concerning the implementation of the Malaysian contract. Hartmut Bühl: Does this mean that A400M partners will not find it difficult to make future export decisions and, in the long term, to implement those export contracts many years after their signature? Patrick Bellouard: Of course not! There are examples of cooperative projects for which a nation later decided to stop the implementation of previously agreed export contracts by blocking the delivery of subsystems. The German Leopard 2 tank photo: 7th Army Training Command, CC BY 2.0, flickr com
Hartmut Bühl: Could EU regulations solve that issue? Patrick Bellouard: EU Member States do not seem prepared to accept any EU involvement in exports beyond the current EU regulation on dual use trade controls, adopted in 2009 and currently being revised in discussions between the Council and the Parliament. This EU regulation simply reflects commitments agreed upon in key multilateral export control regimes. However, progress could be made in two fields: • firstly, a culture of exports, where Member States must recognise that the EU defence industry cannot survive without exports, especially for as long as some EU Nations spend a significant part of their defence budget on contracts with US industry; • secondly, European cooperation on arms, which remains very low. A significant increase in EU cooperation would reduce the industry’s dependence on exports and therefore reduce the political difficulties in this area. • Hartmut Bühl: Professor Taylor, wold you like to comment on what has just been said from the other side of the channel? Trevor Taylor: Yes, I would like to comment on this. Increased Nannette Cazaubon: But what are the requirements for that to happen? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: Well, in the first place, it requires a decision by each government involved. I doubt whether this can simply be replaced by an EU regulation. The experience with the Council Common Position of 8 th December 2008 shows that its wording can accommodate very different export policy approaches. The reason for these differing interpretations is the simple fact that arms exports are a matter of national sovereignty, which in most cases tends to prevail in export policy decisions.
Hartmut Bühl: Professor Taylor, there are obviously limits on the extent of European arms cooperation for European defence. But shouldn’t the EU have binding rules at least for arms cooperation with third countries? Trevor Taylor: The EU may be able to devise and enforce rules where EU funding is involved but even here there is the issue of how to treat foreign owned businesses in Europe that have owners outside the EU, but which fund and develop intellectual property within the EU. General Dynamics and Raytheon, for
example, are in this position. Where no EU money is involved, individual EU states should surely be free to arrange projects as they see fit with partners inside and outside Europe. Hartmut Bühl: Indeed, it was the USA I had in mind. But after Brexit, won’t there likely be a new deal? Mr Bellouard, would you like to comment? Patrick Bellouard: Firstly, nobody knows today if Brexit will be implemented or not, and there is a high probability that the UK will once again seek and be granted an extension. If Brexit is indeed implemented, the UK will be treated as a third country, like Norway for example. That should not prevent the UK from cooperating with EU partners on arms, and I certainly hope it will continue to do so. However, British industry will no longer be eligible for EU funds: you cannot be in and out of the EU at the same time. Hartmut Bühl: But what is this due to? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: It is due to an administrative habit to link even routine approvals, on which everybody could firmly rely in the past, to the government’s geopolitical thinking. This means that even for smaller parts designated for existing European programmes, everyday export approvals can be reversed by the administration for no visible reason. This practice has damaged Germany’s reputation for reliability vis-à-vis its European partners more than some of the more prominent cases of open political disagreement.
Hartmut Bühl: That is why your partners have had, in one way or another, doubts about the well-known German quality and reliability. Have you encountered significant and insoluble problems? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: Absolutely! The famous “German free” advertisement on a product shown at a defence exhibition has been quoted frequently – but it is no myth! This also has a bearing on quality, because delivery reliability in the politically sensitive defence business is as important as technological quality. At both levels – political and technological – the main contractor must be able to rely on the delivery of a part in order to perform on time and on budget. Hartmut Bühl: Mr Bellouard, some years ago, when I did an interview for this magazine with you as Director of OCCAR in Bonn, you pleaded for big projects between EU Member States to be able to compete with the US and to avoid export problems. Today there are two huge French-German projects for a future combat aircraft and a combat tank. Do you have doubts regarding your German partners? Patrick Bellouard: I have no doubt that the political authorities in both Germany and French have fully understood the imporNannette Cazaubon: I think this is the time to come back to the core question of reliability in arms cooperation. Professor Taylor, what are the essentials for such cooperation? Trevor Taylor: Further to my previous comment, collaborative projects (which often have an active life of 40 years or more before the disposal phase) should only be undertaken with partners with a high probability of pursuing a foreign and security policy compatible with that of other partners, but there will be always an element of risk. The major arms developing nations should perhaps have a private but serious conversation on the consequences that have stemmed from very restrictive arms export stances. Do they too often actually promote the proliferation of defence industrial capabilities? Nannette Cazaubon: Thank you Professor, I think we need a German comment on this: Dr Atzpodien, German industry is involved in huge bilateral and multilateral arms projects in Europe. What is your opinion on confidence, credibility and the other criteria Professor Taylor mentioned? Are these the essentials? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: As mentioned before, national policies for arms exports need to be harmonised as much as possible in order to make supra-national projects successful. This, however, has to include more than just a broad political alignment. Just as an example: in recent years hurdles have been faced during the process of defining German arms export policies. These have resulted in a substantial lack of trust in the consistency of German arms export decisions as they are not that politically visible. The future MALE RRPAS system is a cooperation project between France, Germany and Italy photo: European Defence Agency
48 tance of these cooperative projects for the future of European defence and security. But I have doubts concerning the effective and efficient implementation of these projects. Difficulties can come from both partners and success will require a real trust and a common resolve at all levels, government, administration and industry. Nannette Cazaubon: Are there ways of reducing these risks? Patrick Bellouard: Yes, I think that there are, which is why I propose to use the OCCAR organisation for the management of these projects. OCCAR has proven its efficiency, it would avoid issues of leadership between France and Germany, and it would help build trust between all partners. In addition, I am convinced that these programmes will not survive as projects between France and Germany alone. It will be crucial to include other European partners as early as possible. Hartmut Bühl: With what objectives? Patrick Bellouard: The objective would be, without introducing new specifications and delays to the project, to reduce the budget for each partner and to increase the project’s “European qualification”.
Nannette Cazaubon: Dr Atzpodien, I am sure you will want to comment… Hans-Christoph Atzpodien:This is definitely is a good vision, which has been on the European political agenda for many years. In the meantime, pressure has clearly been mounting to seriously reduce the diversity of Europe’s arms programmes. Nevertheless, I am convinced that true sharing of equipment among European nations will only work if the countries concerned demonstrate strong political will and everything that Europe does is truly embedded within NATO.
Hartmut Bühl: Gentlemen, this leads me to another field of arms cooperation. The European Defence Agency (EDA) is making considerable efforts to create “capabilities” and is initiating cooperative arms projects. Germany and France are active participants in these projects. What are their other objectives apart from the product? Are Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) a factor in such collaborative efforts? I would imagine that the BDSV is exerting influence in favour of SME’s, the backbone of German industry. What are France’s objectives? Hans-Christoph Atzpodien: Of course, SMEs are the backbone of Germany’s and probably also France’s defence industry. However, SMEs alone will not be able to succeed in organising and implementing major arms programmes on a European scale. This also requires strong so-called “systems-houses”, which already integrate SMEs into their value chains to a large extent. But perhaps I should turn to Mr Bellouard to give us France’s position. Patrick Bellouard: Thank you Dr. Atzpodien. Although the landscape of French and German SMEs is somewhat different (German SMEs are generally stronger), there is not a big differ- ence between the French and German approaches to the arms industry. Both nations need, as you have mentioned, strong “maîtres d’oeuvre” (systems integrators) as they are called, supported by established SME value chains. It is the task of these systems integrators to provide the armed forces with the weapons systems they need. For me, the main obstacle to cooperation is not the different industrial organisations, it is the lack of political will of the partners to reach consensus on the military requirements. One of the missions of the EDA is precisely to harmonise and prioritise the military needs. I consider that this important task is absolutely critical to the future success of the European Defence Fund.
Nannette Cazaubon: Thank you all for your openness. I think the time has come to sum up. May I ask you, Professor Taylor, to try and summarise, or at least to provide an answer to the title of our discussion, “Germany – a touchstone for the arms policy of the European Union?” Trevor Taylor: I judge that Germany and Europe would have been better off if Berlin had looked for a cooperative response to the war in Yemen, bearing in mind that defence exports to Saudi Arabia have been a source of major public debate also in France, the UK and of course the US. In the bigger picture, specialised military equipment is the simple if difficult part of the problem. The more complicated issues concern the export of dual-use technology valuable for both civil, internal and military applications. Much electronic technology can enhance the capabilities of oppressive governments to monitor their citizens. How is that sector to be controlled? Do we also need to think about controls over people, if human rights are to be a major factor in where we chose to work? It is notable that Saudi Arabia, partly as a response to the threat of embargoes, is developing its own Saudi Arabia Military Industries with a German Chief Executive recruited from Rheinmetall…
Hartmut Bühl: Nannette, gentlemen, my gratitude for this insightful round table discussion. There are no simple solutions but there are national and industrial interests. We have learned that arms projects are based on national needs. Projects can become collaborative when there is the necessary political will and industrial strategy to bring them to fruition. These projects certainly need the prospect of export opportunities, realising that export decisions are national ones and will ultimately be taken for business reasons. We have heard that German industry is a competent and reliable partner, but that Germany’s policy on arms exports is still a very sensitive issue for German society, due evidently to Germany’s history. I personally think that the fact that Germany upholds its constitution, entailing an extensive interpretation of human rights with due regard for Germany’s history, should not be held against it.
The leading magazine for Europe’s security and defence community
The magazine is the first winner of the European award for “Citizenship, security and defence” 2011
Please find the subscription order form: www.magazine-the-european.com/subscription/ or by E-Mail: subscription@magazine-the-european.com
MEDIA AND CONTENT SALES Andy Stirnal Phone: +49(0)176 66 86 15 43 · E-Mail: mediasales@magazine-the-european.com
3 issues for one year, including postage and delivery: Subscription EU: 42,–International subscription: 66,–
