Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
THURSDAY 4 MAY 2000
MR PETER
HAIN MP, MR
PAUL HARE
AND MR
IAN BAILEY
40. But in the end who makes the decision?
(Mr Hain) The DTI is the issuing authority and so
therefore—
41. Advice will be received from different Departments
but at the end it is the DTI that decides?
(Mr Hain) Indeed[2].
42. And if I can be clear about it, you have
a situation here where I do not think there is any doubt that
this in foreign policy terms is a breach of an agreement we had
with the European Union about arms policy. It is very difficult
to see what foreign policy objective can be served by aiding Hawks
to fly in the Congo. In the end it was commercial considerations
that was taken by a commercial department.
(Mr Hain) These decisions are taken on a variety of
criteria which are all laid out in our very tough 1997 critieria.
You take into account defence considerations, industry and trade
considerations, foreign policy considerations and any development
considerations and you weigh those in the balance and come to
a decision.
43. In the end it is the Secretary of State?
(Mr Hain) We try to get a concerted decision on the
basis of consensus. There is not only one interest in this, the
foreign policy one. From my point of view as a Foreign Office
Minister that is the most important matter and therefore, not
disregarding other matters, I make my own recommendations on policy
against that background, but other Ministers in other departments
have other interests, quite properly, within government to pursue.
Dr Godman
44. What status does a European Union Declaration
have? I am asking this question obviously in relation to the Declaration
of the 18 June last year. It obviously has not got the power of
a Directive. It is not akin to a regulation. Is it a statement
of honour that a Member State will abide by a communal obligation?
Is it that level of status?
(Mr Hain) Yes, it is, a Council of Ministers decision
which we all seek to comply with. I might add, Dr Godman, that
nobody in Europe that I am aware of, none of our European partners,
has actually objected to this decision. We have not had any protests
from Member States that I am aware of. NGOs of course have quite
properly exercised their views on the matter. It is not a legally
binding decision but it is one which we would normally expect
to consider.
Chairman
45. Solemn and binding but not legally binding?
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
Dr Godman
46. But your officials have no information concerning
other breaches of this declaration by Member States of the European
Union?
(Mr Hain) In respect of the Congo specifically. I
do not have any information to hand on that. If we did have any
in the Department I will happily supply the Committee with it.
Chairman
47. May I therefore turn to the status of yesterday's
statement in the context of the European Union? This is a national
decision to impose a military embargo on arms and military equipment
in view of the present spread of violence and an urgent review
of all existing licences. The Foreign Secretary yesterday in column
157 of Hansard said this about the European Union context,
in answer to my question: "I assure my hon. Friend, who has
raised an important matter, that we will draw the attention of
all our European Union partners to the decision that I announced
today. Under the EU code of conduct, we would expect to be consulted
by any partner country that is contemplating a sale to Zimbabwe,
although I am not aware of any country that is doing so."
This statement yesterday is a part of the whole of the European
code of conduct process? I thought that for it to be a part of
the European code of conduct process it would have to be a collective
decision to impose such embargoes.
(Mr Hain) No. I think that the point here is that
if we felt for example that another Member State was wishing to
supply the spares for these Hawks—there are other routes
for them, by the way; it is not simply British ones and it is
quite possible that the Zimbabweans can get these spares through
other routes. It does not change the nature of our decision. All
the Foreign Secretary was seeking to register is that we would
expect anybody who might be considering that to consult with us
as is provided for under the EU code of conduct[3].
48. You believe that the European Union code
of conduct as it were bites when any nation state makes a national
decision about whether it intends to sell military equipment of
the kind described yesterday by the Foreign Secretary that he
was going to refuse in future, that the moment any nation state
party to the European Union code of conduct says that, the process
of consultation and denial as it were would automatically take
place?
(Mr Hain) Perhaps I can clarify the situation this
way, that the code of conduct covers minimum standards across
the board in respect of all countries and minimum standards in
respect of the criteria. Each Member State might have, and in
this case we do have now, a tougher policy in respect of any individual
country concerned. Therefore what the Foreign Secretary was signalling
was that this tougher policy has been announced and we would hope
that our European partners would therefore consult with us if
they were—
49. "We would hope that they would consult"
is rather different from the language within the code of conduct
where there is, I think, a clear obligation to consult?
(Mr Hain) It is an obligation.
50. And then the denial process takes place.
Is this decision by the Government yesterday, welcome as it is,
part of the process and will that process take place so that any
other Member State in the European Union who wishes to sell any
kind of equipment described in the Foreign Secretary's statement
yesterday will actually go through the code of conduct process
and consult with us on the denial and so on, and that will take
place?
(Mr Hain) What I was saying in respect of what I hope
was a diplomatic way of signalling to our European partners is
that there is an obligation under the code on them to consult
us on this particular decision3. I emphasise however that there
is no European Union embargo on supply of arms in this situation.
It is an agreement as of 1999.
51. The Foreign Secretary said he was going
to be talking about these issues to his colleagues.
(Mr Hain) This weekend.
52. Will he be seeking to get a collective agreement
of the kind that he announced yesterday in relation to sales of
arms?
(Mr Hain) I do not want to anticipate the discussions
but he is intending to report our decision and obviously to consult
with his ministerial colleagues.
53. Would you consider it not only desirable
but hopefully a common viewpoint, given the standard collective
feeling he has got so far from the European Union, that they would
agree to join with us in this collective embargo?
(Mr Hain) If I may, Chairman, I respect your reasons
for probing on this but I will leave it at that. He is intending
to consult with his foreign minister colleagues to explain the
reason for our decision.
Ann Clwyd
54. Could I ask you whether you are yet in a
position to answer a question I asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday
in column 156 of Hansard about the spares for Hawk aircraft
sold to Kenya and the report in the Harare Financial Gazette
that the spare parts are being re-exported to Zimbabwe? Do you
have any information on that? Was any assurance sought from Kenya
when the sales of spares for Hawks were made to Kenya and, if
it is found to be the case, will we be exporting any more spare
parts for Hawks to Kenya?
(Mr Hain) We have checked this in every possible way
including in Kenya and we have not been able to corroborate this
report at all. Obviously, were it to be found to be true, it would
be a matter of very clear concern. We would have to take the appropriate
steps. We have not been able to corroborate it at all. It does
not mean to say it is not true but we have taken every step in
the time available to check it.
55. Has the Kenyan Government been asked directly?
(Mr Hain) Our post in Nairobi has explored every possible
avenue, both diplomatically and commercially. So far in the time
available we have not been able to get any collateral for this.
Chairman
56. We have had an exhaustive discussion on
Zimbabwe. The second area left over from our last report was the
situation of arms licensing to Pakistan on which we will raise
similar issues to the ones we have just been discussing. After
the 12 October coup as we understand it no licences have been
issued to Pakistan, that something like 85 standard licences are
outstanding as of 17 March, 41 of them were made before October
1999. A sort of informal embargo has been in place for over six
months. In a sense, reversing our line of inquiry, we have received
representations from the Defence Manufacturers' Association saying
that this kind of limbo land, this in-between informal embargo
but not a declared one, in the absence of an agreement with European
Union partners on the position, has led to prevarication and indecision
on the licences and they say the status of the whole thing needs
clarifying. How would you respond to that criticism?
(Mr Hain) I am not sure, Chairman, whether you are
encouraging us to respond to their requests in contradiction to
your previous line of questioning. To be absolutely frank with
you and with them, the situation in Pakistan is very fluid. There
is no formal arms embargo and there is no de facto or informal
one either. Each application is considered very strictly according
to the criteria which we have established. In particular for the
fact that the equipment involved might be used for external aggression
and the situation in Kashmir, as everybody will be aware, is extremely
fragile and fraught and changes almost on a weekly basis. I accept
that it is frustrating for suppliers and those who wish to supply
the equipment involved, but I do not think it would be responsible
for us prematurely to make a decision when the situation is so
fluid, especially over such a tinderbox as Kashmir in a situation
where there are pretty heavy arms in the region.
57. As I understand it the informal embargo,
because we have never declared it,—
(Mr Hain) There is no embargo.
58. This informal freeze is perhaps the word
being used.
(Mr Hain) No. There is no freeze, either formal or
informal. It is a very careful consideration—
59. It is a stringent examination of individual
licences?
(Mr Hain) Indeed.
2 The memorandum to the Trade and Industry Committee
in 1998 clarifies that discussions continue between Departments
until a particular outcome is agreed. Back
3
Note by witness: We will submit a note to the Committees
clarifying these answers: Ev, p 18, Appendix 4. Back
| 
