The government modifies the law 185 of 1990 on theimport-export of armaments and, in fact, proposes to put in the hands of politics, and no more than an independent agency, decisions concerning the criteria for the arms trade. The intention, made explicit for some time now and already materialized with the reform proposal, last week, of the agency in charge of controls, the Unit for the authorization of military materials (Uama), is now black on white and was approved during Thursday evening’s Council of Ministers.
Thus the old is dusted off Inter-ministerial committee for the exchange of military materials for defence (Cisd) abolished in 1993, three years after the entry into force of law 185. The aim, at the time, was to make the apolitical decision making, with specialized officials who, on the other hand, evaluate compliance with the regulations in force for the individual authorization requests. With the changes proposed by the government, however, the decision is effectively back in the hands of the majority: the committee will in fact be chaired by the Prime Minister and made up of the ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Interior, Defence, Economy and Made in Italy . It will be them, in case of approval of the bill, to formulate the general addresses for the application of law 185 and exchange policies in the defense sector. The goal, they say, is to speed up the processes and prevent authorization requests from getting lost in bureaucratic technicalities, as well as conferring a clear political responsibility to the decisions made. Responsibility that, in reality, was already there, given that the task of Uama was precisely that of responding to these guidelines on import-export by limiting itself to guaranteeing compliance with the laws in force.
In fact, he does not agree with this reading Francesco Vignarcacampaign coordinator of Italian Peace and Disarmament Network: “This hypothesis of the government is worrying because it goes to materialize changes to law 185 that have been feared for some time, but not in the right direction, i.e. that of greater controls and alignment with the common European position and the Arms Trade Treaty of 2013but they go precisely towards one liberalization. The reasons given are completely laughable. For example, it is said that the defense sector is fundamental for the Italian economy, when instead it has a turnover less than 1% of GDP, or saying that permissions need to be speeded up. No, the authorizations must be issued in the right terms and by making all the necessary assessments, it is not a question of speed. Furthermore military exports are growing in recent years, therefore it is not clear what kind of complaints the industries that see more and more authorizations recognized can make, taking into account that the only block established on bombsSaudi Arabia and garlic Emirati it’s over. Also, information is circulating that the 70% of turnover of the arms industry derives from exports, which would mean around 12 billion out of the 17 total, but in reality the data tell us that it is around 3 billion. They are all motivations that simply seek to reintroduce this committee that was there at the beginning of law 185/1990 just to avoid that there is someone who really checks what are the connections with the established criteria for exports”.
Thus the Uama will no longer be called upon to specifically evaluate the individual authorizations and their compliance with the laws in force, but simply to issue the due documentations e oversee administrative enforcement of the measures. Responsibility therefore passes from the plenipotentiary minister who leads the Uama directly to the executive. “The idea that this change could lead to a speeding up of procedures makes me laugh – replies Vignarca – At the moment there is an official, namely the head of the Uama agency, who evaluates case by case on the basis of the laws, while the new committee would be chaired by the Presidency of the Council. How many times can it ever be reunited? And how valid will an approval be considered if, if anything, the situations in a given country were to change, as we have seen in all these years? Let’s take the example of Niger. A month ago the committee would have given the go-ahead for exports because it was a partner country in which we also have military missions, but what do we do after the coup, do we reconvene the committee? It makes more sense that there is a national authority that decides quickly to have greater consistency in the assessments”.
Furthermore, the request of the Italian Peace and Disarmament Network is that by amending law 185 of 1990, the rules established by the international treaties on the subject to which, precisely due to the previous existence of an ad hoc law, Italy has not fully aligned itself: “If they ratify the law, I expect that the changes will also concern alignment with the already ratified International Arms Trade Treaty from Italy. On that occasion the Parliament said that it should not be implemented because the criteria were already contained in the law. However, if this is touched, the modifications cannot be limited only to the establishment of old committees and changes in procedures, but also include the criteria of the treaty which are more stringent than those of 185. For example, the treaty says that one cannot export when there is a risk that these weapons will be used to commit human rights violationswhile law 185 limits itself to asking for it when there are confirmed cases“.