CROWD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - Omega Research Foundation

guarantees are forthcoming both from the manufacturers and the government agencies deploying these weapons
about their alleged safety.. The European Parliament may wish to request the Commission to report on the existing
liaison arrangements for the second generation of non-lethal weapons to enter European Union from the USA and call
for an independent report on their alleged safety as well as their intended and unforseen social and political effects.
[13] The ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) SIrUS principles ( which suggests that because of their
technical characteristics and human targeting mechanisms, certain weapons should be banned because they are
intrinsically inhumane or capable of causing unnecessary suffering) should be adopted
[14] The decision making process for procuring any new crowd control technologies could be subject to more formal
controls so that common parameters are examined when deciding on innovations regarding crowd control weapons.
The Committee may wish to consider requesting STOA to formally examine what might be involved in setting up the
bureaucratic procedures to achieve such an objective, along the lines of the current environmental impact assessment
regimes. In practical terms that would mean having formal, independent Social Impact Assessment of new police
technologies before they are deployed.
[15] Other alternatives options to Darth Vader like riot squads to policing protest should not be seen in purely
technological terms. Some effective options might be counter-intuitive, such as the Korean police decision to use more
highly educated female officers without riot gear to more peacefully police public demonstrations. Members of the
Committee may wish to invite the South Korean officials involved in this decision to discuss their thinking and its
apparent success. There may be opportunities to emulate this successful change of tactics in Europe.
[16] Crowd control options using biometric based or face recognition systems could play a powerful role in preventing
public disorder occurring at fixed locations such as enclosed sports stadia, where there are inevitably considerable
public safety considerations. A series of pilot projects be explored with member states who have had experience of
crowd behaviour problems in recent years and that any plans to extend these pilot schemes be made in conjunction
with supporters clubs, the police and with government on the basis of the practical experience of how effectively the
systems worked in practice.
[17] The status quo option would be to attempt to assess the risks posed by the new emergent bio technologies only
after they had been actually weaponised.
[18] Given that the EC has already agreed to ban any weapons which directly work on the basis of targeting or
otherwise interfering with the operation of the human brain, a new STOA study should be commissioned on the
potential malign implications of human genetic modification research and related genome projects on human control
weapons of the future.
[19] The EU Status Quo on exports of crowd control weapons could be maintained, i.e. that following the voluntary
EU Code of Conduct on Arms, weapons should not be exported to countries where they can be used for internal
repression or contribute to external aggression. However, EU member states have inconsistent policies in regard to
controlling the export of certain crowd control technologies. If this situation continues this option will mean that
European companies and governments will continue colluding with human rights violations in States that have very
poor human rights records. It would be hypocritical for the European Union to define )areas of freedom, justice and
security( inside its territories, whilst undermining the same rights of freedom, justice and security because of
inappropriate and ineffective export controls and procedures on the supply, licencing and brokerage of crowd control
weapons and munitions to other countries.
[20] Effective limits should be set on the exports or licensed production of any crowd control technology, ancillary
equipment and training, which is not seen as acceptable for use within the EU. This option begs the case for banning
electroshock weapons in this context which would mean no manufacture, no imports, no exports, no licensed
production, no use.
[21] STOA should consider commissioning a new study on the extent to which European companies have profited
from the transfer of technologies of political control and their role in perpetrating human rights violations. The purpose
of this study would be to present new policies to plug the loopholes in current export controls and hence recommend
effective mechanisms for implementing the agreed EU common criteria. Member States should be requested to disaggregate
export licences and trade data so that proper scrutiny becomes possible.
Acknowledgements
xi