Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 137)
THURSDAY 4 MAY 2000
MR PETER
HAIN MP, MR
PAUL HARE
AND MR
IAN BAILEY
120. We accept the invitation, you have whetted
our appetites.
(Mr Hain) Sorry to interrupt, Chairman, but perhaps
I could say if you look at the Code under criterion two, when
we define internal repression, it includes inter alia torture
and other cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment,
summary or arbitrary executions, disappearances, arbitrary detentions
and other major violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms
as set out in the relevant international human rights instruments",
so it is a pretty tight criterion.
121. What I am saying is that we would say no
to all those sales in a state whose human rights were obviously
a matter of great concern but we would still sell quite considerable
sophisticated equipment to the navy or the air force of that country.
(Mr Hain) Yes, on a case by case basis.
122. That is where I think the public has problems
with the message we would be delivering. The sales would be confusing
the message because it would seem to be a kind of endorsement
of the country despite our criticisms of the abuses within the
country.
(Mr Hain) No. At the risk of running into difficult
territory, let us take Indonesia. In Indonesia's transition from
dictatorship, which by the way the previous government sold just
about everything in sight to, which we did not, to democratic
regime, the world's fourth biggest country, we needed to be engaged
with that government to try to help strengthen and deepen the
democratic culture which is itself very problematic. One of those
instruments of diplomatic engagement is to supply equipment for
defence purposes, especially when you have an army waiting in
the wings, and sometimes not just in the wings, and if it were
denied could be projected to the Indonesian public as being legitimate
defence needs of a naval kind, for instance, then I think our
position, our influence, in assisting that progression towards
a much more democratic regime, which we played a key part as the
Labour Government in achieving, would be jeopardised. It is those
judgments that are involved. On the other hand, if we found that
new licences which were being issued for use in Aceh, as was drawn
to our attention, or Jakarta or anywhere else where there are
peaceful protestors then I think we would have to put a stop to
it.
Ann Clwyd
123. Since you raised the question of Indonesia
again—
(Mr Hain) I said I was taking a risk.
124. Conversely, the United States, of course,
still has an embargo on arms sales to Indonesia precisely for
some of the reasons you have talked about as being reasons that
we might not want to sell to a particular country. That is there
are refugees, 90,000 of them in West Timor, who have not returned
to East Timor—not all of them will want to but some of them
will want to do so—and by the activities of the militia
in those camps in West Timor they are not free entirely to do
so. Secondly, because the investigation of human rights abuses
in Indonesia has not been fully set up. For those reasons the
United States has kept its embargo on. I would imagine that the
United States, seeing the potential of Indonesia, in the future
might use any of the arguments that you have used for Britain
agreeing to raise the embargo and continuing to sell to Indonesia.
There are inconsistencies across the board.
(Mr Hain) I do not accept that there are inconsistencies
in our policy. You might say our policy is different from the
US, which it self-evidently is, and the US Government can speak
for itself. If the Committee feels that our policy is worse than
the US then no doubt it will say so but I do not accept that,
however, because anything we do sell to Indonesia is governed
by these strict criteria which are more transparently stricter
than almost anybody else in the world, including the US. We could
go into a discussion about Indonesia, which I am happy to do,
but there have been other developments which we want to encourage.
There is a Human Rights Minister now being appointed and they
have got their first ever civilian Defence Minister. These are
things that we take into account when we make decisions about
the risks involved which you quite rightly are pointing to, not
least in East and West Timor.
125. Can I follow on on Morocco because I do
not think we fully investigated that. Morocco has a pretty bad
human rights record in the Western Sahara and it is actually blocking
UN attempts to give the Western Saharans the referendum to which
they are entitled. I would have thought that if we are supplying—I
do not know what we are supplying to Morocco in total—arms
or crowd control equipment, the indications are that is going
to be used in the Western Sahara. Secondly, Morocco has very close
links with Iraq. I wonder whether you are entirely convinced that
there is no re-exporting of any of the goods that we sell to Morocco
to Iraq, given the close association between the two countries?
(Mr Hain) Obviously if there was any evidence of that,
which certainly I have not seen, it would be a matter of very
great concern because you and I share the same policy stance on
the brutal regime in Iraq. We have had no evidence of the equipment
which we have supplied to the Moroccans being misused in the Western
Sahara, again, if we did, that would change our policy. Morocco
has got a human rights' record which is very good compared with
other states in the region, not where it should be, especially
in Western Sahara, I fully accept. The dismissal of the Interior
Minister in recent months, for example, is a good sign in that
respect, as has been the advance of women's rights. So these matters
are all quite complicated.
Dr Godman
126. Very, very quickly: has the Government
sanctioned the supply of small arms and other, what I might call,
police equipment to the infant police force, the new police force
in Kosovo?
(Mr Hain) I would have to take advice on that? Does
anybody know the answer to that?
127. Can you write to us on that?
(Mr Hain) I will happily supply it to you in writing,
yes[4].
Chairman
128. We leapt geographically. In the remaining
minutes I would like to spend a bit of time raising two policy
issues, which, of course, we will also expect you to be replying
to when you give us a substantive reply to the report. The first
is you know the strength of feeling of the Joint Committees, and
it was expressed in numerous points in our report that the nation
expects legislation on Scott.
(Mr Hain) Yes, so do I.
129. Good. That expectation will not be hopefully
disappointed?
(Mr Hain) Of course the Department of Trade and Industry
is in the lead on this matter.
130. Yes.
(Mr Hain) The Government is committed to this legislation.
We attach great importance to it. We want to see it sooner rather
than later.
131. It would be a matter of legislative honour
to do it in this Parliament considering the stance the Labour
Party took in opposition on these issues.
(Mr Hain) I am sure the business managers will bear
that comment in mind, Chairman.
132. The second area where the legislation is
of great significance, of course we know it is in draft and we
know there is an active discussion going on in the Department
and we thought we would put our ha'p'ence worth in at this moment
in time, that is on the issue of brokering. We have read the White
Paper but we have received quite a lot of submissions informally
and formally suggesting that we should go one further than the
proposed introduction of brokering in relation to legislation
in relation to areas where there are UN embargoes or European
Union embargoes in force. In the White Paper—this is the
case the Government made in the White Paper, I hope it is not
cast in stone and it is fluid and flexible—they did not
want to go further than what has been proposed because "It
is right in principle that UK controls on trafficking and brokering
should be more limited than on actual exports from the UK as those
involved in such activities will also be required to comply with
the export control laws of the exporting country." So the
case which has been made in the White Paper for going a bit further
of not having a licensing policy of one kind or another except
in the context of where the embargoes are in place is that the
broker operating in other countries would be subject to the export
controls of those other countries. The whole history of brokering
is that it occurs where there are very weak regimes of control.
The brokers find these weak points in the international system,
to operate out of. That in fact is how it works. To argue, as
the White Paper says, that we should not have a stricter regime
because there would be export control arrangements in other countries
is, I think, a rather poor and weak argument. Certainly we have
had a lot of representations on this point. Would you think on
reflection the White Paper case still stands?
(Mr Hain) You have made a very powerful point and
certainly I would want to reflect on it very seriously. Obviously
we are carefully considering all the submissions that have come
in on the White Paper before the legislation is finalised and
the progress is made to bring it into the House, as both you and
I agree should happen sooner rather than later. If the Committee
were to decide to give a firm view on this matter to those involved,
of course the DTI in particular, I think that would be welcome.
133. Two issues on brokering that people feel
there should be some system of registration and some system of
licensing, more so than the White Paper proposes. Do I take it
that on these two policy issues there is a genuine fluidity in
inter-departmental and Government thinking?
(Mr Hain) The purpose of the White Paper obviously
was to set out a series of principles but also rather than rush
into legislation to make sure we got the policy right. All these
matters are being considered at the present time. If I may say
so, I am in the camp of wanting more and greater control on traffickers
and brokers as possible, as great as possible. There are judicial
and practical problems about implementing that which everybody
understands and those are the issues we are grappling with.
134. As a result of the consultation process
have you had any people supporting anything other than a rather
more stringent regime?
(Mr Hain) No, I am not saying that, I am just saying
I would like the most stringent possible.
135. That has been the burden of most of the
representations you have received, has it not, on the White Paper?
(Mr Hain) I think there have been lots of submissions
which have argued that. I cannot say offhand whether they have
been most or not. As I say, any additional comments which this
Committee will want to make or any individuals want to make who
are informed about this matter will be very welcome.
136. Have you come across any compelling arguments
against this rather move forward position?
(Mr Hain) I think you are drawing me down, tempting
as it may be to be drawn down a path which I cannot be drawn down
at the moment because the Government is reviewing this. We are
finalising where we stand on this. Your comments will be very
timely.
137. I think most colleagues feel that we ought
to look very seriously at the representations that we have all
received, and we could look for a more stringent system. Unless
colleagues have anything else, may I publicly thank you very much
for your patience, Minister. The type of scrutiny we get involved
in is a matter of detail and we welcome the fact that you have
endeavoured to reply to our questions and you have felt that all
officials and yourself should actively take part. We are just
after the facts and information, that is our function and our
role.
(Mr Hain) I appreciate that, Chairman. Certainly I
value the exchanges which we have had today.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
4 Ev, p 21, A8. Back
|
