CROWD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - Omega Research Foundation

NEW BIO-WEAPONS FOR CROWD CONTROL
[26] 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. However, evidence emerged during the
course of this study indicating that advances in neuroscience modelling of receptor sites in the human
brain, coupled with new knowledge of the human genetic code (emerging from both the Human
Genome Project and the Human Diversity Project), is already opening a path for malign use of the
biological sciences for targeted human control. Whilst the research is still embryonic, there is a risk of
behaviour modification, race specific crowd control weapons and area denial technologies emerging
with profound implications which need to be further assessed in terms of both current capabilities and
what the results of thee projects might mean in terms of the state of the art, which is rapidly changing.
[27] 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 4 , 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.
EXPORTS OF CROWD CONTROL WEAPONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS
[28] 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.
[29] There should be severe restrictions on the creation, deployment, use and export of weapons which
cause inhumane treatment, superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. There is a good case
presented in this study for banning electroshock weapons in this context which would mean no
manufacture, no imports, no exports, no licensed production, no use.
[30] Using the same principled approach, 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. Clearly, it is hypocritical for European states to export crowd control
weapons abroad that had been deemed too hazardous for use on Europeans.
[31] STOA should consider commissioning a new study on the available evidence revealing the extent
to which European companies have profited from the transfer of technologies of political control, which
have then been used to perpetrate human rights violations. The purpose of this study would be to
present new policies to plug the loopholes in current arms control policies and hence recommend
effective mechanisms for implementing the agreed EU common criteria. 5
[32] Member States should be requested to dis-aggregate export licences and trade data so that proper
scrutiny becomes possible. Common agreement on dis-aggregation of all data relating to the export of
crowd control weapons would be an appropriate step in the right direction. Given the EU commitment to
the CWC, it would also help members to fulfill their legal responsibilities under this treaty not to
proliferate chemical weapons.
xvi