The secrecy of European arms sales, a practice justified in the name of national security

The major arms-producing powers in Europe limit the information they make public to their citizens, delay the submission of reports on arms sales to other countries, or hinder transparency citing national security concerns. These are the conclusions of a report released at the end of June by the Asser Institute and the University of Amsterdam, which compares the legal frameworks of eight European countries — Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden — that together account for one-third of global arms exports, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

“We are facing a transparency deficit,” says León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, coordinator of the study, who argues that opacity is the general rule in the legislations analyzed for the report, despite the fact that these countries have signed international treaties requiring them to share such information.

The Asser Institute researcher points out that the report’s findings serve as a wake-up call in light of the rearmament strategy announced at the NATO summit in The Hague, and the impact these weapons have on conflicts beyond Europe’s borders. “The most affected are the victims of violence caused by arms exported irresponsibly, negligently, or illegally,” adds Castellanos-Jankiewicz. According to this researcher, the lack of transparency in this trade may hinder the work of justice.

Amid the growing militarization, the experts consulted warn that producer countries are likely to favor discretion and be less willing to submit to controls.

State secrets

“Access to information for arms sales in France is very difficult to obtain in practice, as it is significantly restricted by the government,” notes the report on Europe’s leading arms exporter, which was propelled to second place globally following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. The document cites the “confidentiality” of these transactions and the primacy of national security interests as the main reasons for this difficulty, along with the use of the act of government doctrine, which exempts certain government decisions from judicial oversight.

According to the report, the French government also uses commercial and defense secrets to sidestep its transparency obligations. “The confidentiality of this information is often justified as crucial to maintain good relations within the international community,” it explains.

The greatest obstacle to transparency in Spain — which accounts for 3% of global arms exports and ranks ninth worldwide — stems from its Official Secrets Act, a pre-constitutional law dating back to 1968. Greenpeace initiated legal proceedings in 2020, denouncing the sale of Alakran mortars to Saudi Arabia and their use in bombings over Yemen in 2015, arguing that the sales violated international law and Spanish legislation, which prohibits arms deals with countries at war.

“If this activity is not controlled and reported, exports to countries that use these weapons to violate human rights are permitted,” says Lorena Ruiz-Huerta, legal director of Greenpeace. The Spanish Supreme Court rejected the appeal to demand more information from the Spanish government, arguing that the public interest is not “sufficiently justified” and that revealing this information puts “the security and defense of the state” at risk, among other reasons.

The Spanish Constitutional Court rejected an appeal filed by Greenpeace, which has taken the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, although a ruling is still pending. Ruiz-Huerta points out that access to information in this area in Spain is “very limited,” but acknowledges that it “has improved” due to pressure from civil society.

The Spanish government submits a semiannual report to Congress, although Ruiz-Huerta argues that the information is “inaccurate” and is typically presented after transactions have already been finalized, making it impossible to stop them.

A difficult balance

Germany, the world’s fifth-largest arms exporter, by contrast, has made efforts to improve access to information and has taken a more restrictive approach to arms exports over the past decade. In 2019, the company Heckler & Koch was fined $4.2 million for the illegal export of thousands of weapons to Mexico, some of which were linked to the case of the 43 missing students from Ayotzinapa. Rulings like this would not be possible without traceability in arms exports.

Siemon T. Wezeman, a senior arms researcher at SIPRI who was not involved in the report, explains that government reluctance is often justified by national security concerns, especially in the context of ongoing conflicts. “The key is balance, because sometimes these arguments are also used to hide things from the public or to keep them out of public debate,” he notes.

Wezeman argues that while European countries continue to report their arms transfers to the U.N. and the EU, it is also true that sensitive information is often left out of the public versions — particularly since the invasion of Ukraine. “Arms imports and exports remain opaque in Europe, but compared to other parts of the world, they are exceptionally transparent,” he says.

Gray areas

Other transactions may be technically legal but still controversial in the eyes of the public — such as deals with Israel, the expert notes. “There can be these gray areas,” Wezeman notes. In these cases, a government authorizes the purchase or sale transactions but avoids providing details about them because it knows it could attract criticism, he explains.

Recently, a court in the United Kingdom — the world’s seventh-largest arms exporter — rejected an appeal from several NGOs seeking to halt the export of components used in manufacturing F-35 fighter jets for Israel, citing abuses committed in Gaza. The court ruled that the exports were “legal.” “[This] is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts,” the judges added in their ruling.

Sometimes, Wezeman says, it’s the companies themselves who push for information to be kept secret so as not to hinder ongoing negotiations or bidding processes, or because they don’t want sensitive data about their businesses revealed. “Once contracts are signed, many companies are happy to share that data because they feel it reflects well on them,” he says.

Castellanos-Jankiewicz points out that the arms industry has historically taken advantage of its closeness to the state, either because in many countries arms manufacturers are or were state-owned companies or because they are directly linked to national interests. “I don’t believe in the narrative of a grand conspiracy within the arms industry,” he says. “But there are, without a doubt, individuals who take advantage of the system and how it works.”

In light of NATO’s announced rearmament, Wezeman hopes that parliaments will serve as a counterweight, either by establishing minimum transparency requirements or, at least, by discussing how the funds injected into military budgets will be spent. “War is good business for many companies,” he says.

The SIPRI expert estimates that global arms exports represent around $150 billion annually. “If you compare them to car manufacturers, arms companies are small,” he says. The automotive market is expected to reach $975 billion in 2023, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition