Nederlandse nachtzichtapparatuur wel, Britse niet naar China Dutch night vision equipment to China, British exports refused

(English text below)
10 februari 2005

Handleiding met productspecificaties DEP

LS,

In het Britse Lagerhuis vond vorige week een debat plaats over de weigering van de regering een vergunning te verstrekken aan een Brits bedrijf voor de export van nachtzichtapparatuur aan de politie van Shanghai. De regering vreest gebruik voor "repressive night raids on civilians" en meent dat de apparatuur onder het EU-wapenembargo valt (zie hieronder artikel en link naar debat).In de discussie in het Lagerhuis is gerefereerd aan het feit dat ondermeer de Nederlandse autoriteiten wel exportvergunningen verstrekken voor vergelijkbare apparatuur voor China. De Britse minsiter van Handel Nigel Griffiths heeft verklaard te zullen onderoeken of en waarom Nederland vergelijkbaar materiaal wel exporteert. Het gaat hier om het in Roden gevestigde Delft Electronic Products (DEP - tot gisteren een dochter van Delft Instruments). DEP heeft levert al jaren nachtkijkerdelen aan Beijing en heeft daar bovendien een joint venture onder de naam North Night Vision Technology. DEP exporteert naar China (delen van) zowel de productieapparatuur als de nachtzichtapparatuur zelf, waaronder grote hoeveelheden met de kwalificatie "militair". In ons boek "Explosieve Materie - Nederlandse wapenhande blootgelegd", vindt u op pp. 110-112 een paragraaf over deze Nederlandse-Chinese nachtzichthandel (boek is op aanvraag beschikbaar). Belangrijke vraag is nu hoe het Nederlandse beleid op dit punt zich verhoudt tot het Britse. Bovendien doet dit niet alleen de vraag rijzen hoe harmonieus de EU gedragscode voor wapenexporten wordt geinterpreteerd en uitgevoerd, maar ook het EU wapenembargo tegen China. Vreest Nederland gebruik van nachtzichtapparatuur voor repressie niet? En kan de politie van Shanghai nu alsnog bij DEP, dan wel diens Chinese joint venture terecht voor de benodigde nachtkijkers? The Government tonight defended its decision to ban a British firm from selling night vision equipment to a Chinese police force.

met vriendelijke groeten, Frank Slijper, Campagne tegen Wapenhandel

MINISTER DEFENDS BAN ON NIGHT VISION SALE TO CHINA

Joe Churcher, Chief Parliamentary Reporter, The Press Association Limited February 3, 2005

The Government tonight defended its decision to ban a British firm from selling night vision equipment to a Chinese police force.

Trade Minister Nigel Griffiths said the high-tech monocular could be used for "internal repression" - for example in darkness raids on civilians. But he promised to investigate claims that the French and Dutch governments were allowing similar equipment to be exported to the country. Tory MP Sir John Stanley had attacked the DTI for refusing an export licence to Pyser SGI, a firm in his Tonbridge and Malling constituency. The company had won an order from the Shanghai Police for the equipment after getting permission to show it at a trade fair in China. But they were shocked, he told the House, when that order was blocked by the refusal of an export licence.
He said the decision seemed ridiculous given that the Shanghai force wanted the kit for anti-drugs operations - something their officers had been trained in in the UK by the Metropolitan Police.
It was also patently unfair that the company's French and Dutch rivals had been granted permission by their governments to sell the same type of equipment.
Not only that, but two of those firms had set up deals to manufacture it under licence in China.
China is subject to an EU arms embargo set up in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
He said: "In my view this export licence decision is political correctness gone absolutely mad.
"It defies common sense and practicality on the ground and it is directly contrary to British economic and employment interests. "This decision should now be reversed."
Mr Griffiths told him the Government was proud of its tough export controls and defended the decision.
Even had the equipment not fallen foul of the arms embargo as a "dual use" item - it would have been refused as a possible tool of "internal repression".
He ridiculed a letter from the firm which said they were "unable to fathom" how it was "conceivable, practical or technically possible" to put their products to such a use.
"Of course they can be used legitimately but they can also be used to significantly enhance the capabilities of internal security forces to conduct repressive night raids on civilians.
"It is frankly disingenuous of anyone to claim otherwise in the business."
Training a force was entirely different to supplying it with such materials, he insisted.
Other EU nations would have been made aware of the refusal, he said, under a scheme designed to ensure Union-wide export criteria were applied consistently.
"If you have further evidence about the specific identical equipment having been supplied to the end user in China that shall certainly be investigated."