This piece was first published as an Opinion article on EUobserver, ‘How the EU is deregulating arms-control to be like any other industry‘
For most citizens, terms like “simplification” and “harmonisation” sound positive. However, within the Brussels’ EU “bubble,” they are used as a Trojan horse for massive deregulation. Specifically, a new legislative package—the Defence Readiness Omnibus—threatens to overhaul how weapons are produced and sold, creating a dangerous precedent for global security.
As “Trilogue” negotiations begin under the Cyprus EU Presidency, the stakes could not be higher. Under the guise of “completing the internal market” for defence and facilitating joint projects, these proposals risk dismantling the very export controls designed to keep European weaponry out of the world’s most volatile conflict zones. By doing so, the EU is effectively proposing to treat lethal technology no differently than bananas or chocolate.
Making the exception the norm
The heart of the proposal lies in making General Transfer Licences (GTLs) the standard practice in many cases. GTLs allow for the unlimited transfer of military goods over several years, causing member states to lose visibility regarding the final destination of weapons, particularly concerning spare-parts, components and intangible technologies.
Furthermore, the proposal seeks to broaden the list of exemptions for prior authorisations. By allowing arms transfers without licenses for EU bodies, cross-border partnerships, or unspecified “crisis situations” worldwide, among others, the legislation effectively blurs the line between intra-EU transfers and global exports.
Combined, these measures threaten to leave almost nothing left to control.
From EU to “European” partnerships
While the Commission’s initial proposal remained vague regarding “cross-border partnerships”, the European Parliament is pushing to extend these eased rules to “European” partnerships, potentially including non-EU countries such as Turkey, Ukraine or even Israel (already part of many European and EU programmes).
The danger lies in the fact that third countries are not bound by the EU Common Position on arms exports, a legally binding framework designed to prevent EU military products from reaching human rights violators or war zones. Extending the scope of this deregulation beyond EU borders will thus significantly increase the risk of funnelling European technology into the hands of ‘war mongers’ and dictatorships.
Private companies as judge and jury
The ‘Transfers Omnibus’ proposes shifting the burden of compliance from states to the arms industry itself. By allowing “certified companies” to self-regulate their transfers, the EU is making arms dealers both judge and jury and reflects the over-influence the arms lobby had on these proposals.
In a world where corporate responsibility is already undermined, we are witnessing a reversal of democratic accountability: instead of manufacturers being accountable to the state, national legislators are becoming increasingly beholden to the interests of arms dealers.
The accountability gap
The process behind this policy is as worrying as its content. Involved European Parliament committees decided that this major policy shift did not require a full plenary vote before entering negotiations. This has effectively stifled democratic debate on a matter of life and death.
Even more worrying is that the Commission is attempting to grant itself extensive powers through “delegated acts.” These are intended for non-essential technical adjustments, yet the Commission wants to use them to redefine at its discretion key elements of national export controls—an area where it has no competence- such as the definition of sensitive components.
Dismantling national vetting without safeguards
The very logic of European arms control rests on national permit systems for arms exports. This allows individual Member States to conduct risk assessments based on their international obligations and is vital when views diverge on exports to sensitive destinations like Saudi Arabia or Israel.
While national systems are not flawless, dismantling them entirely to give “carte blanche” to the European Commission is not the solution. Unlike Member States, the Commission is not strictly bound by the Common Position or the Arms Trade Treaty. Instead, it maintains a symbiotic relationship with the arms industry, prioritising commercial interests over ethical vetting.
Taken together, the Omnibus proposals promote the “de minimis” principle without explicitly naming it. This principle allows a country performing final assembly to override the export restrictions of the country that provided sub-components below a certain threshold. Member States with strict ethical standards may soon see their technology used in conflicts they explicitly sought to avoid.
A Contradiction of Values
The commercial interests of the military industry—the ‘stakeholders’ frequently cited by the Commission—must not override the fundamental interests of peace and human rights.
Europe does not need a “ready for war” deregulation package that fuels global instability. It needs a framework that honours the EU Common position and International law such as the Arms Trade Treaty and the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, in order to ensure that our “strategic autonomy” does not become synonymous with widespread irresponsibility.
European weaponry is already surfacing in conflicts and serious human rights violations around the world, from Egypt or Sudan to South-East Asia. The cost of this “simplification” will not be measured in economic growth, but in the human suffering caused by European weapons in tomorrow’s conflict zones.
Author: Laëtitia Sédou