Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
THURSDAY 4 MAY 2000
MR PETER
HAIN MP, MR
PAUL HARE
AND MR
IAN BAILEY
60. Have any been approved since October 12th?
(Mr Hain) Not to my knowledge, no. No, is the answer.
61. Stringent individual examinations which
are not a freeze or embargo, formal or otherwise, but nothing
has actually been granted?
(Mr Hain) No. There is no European Union embargo,
you will appreciate, nor any United Nations embargo.
62. Do we have any understanding or belief that
in fact our European partners have, since the coup of last October,
granted licences?
(Mr Hain) I am not aware of that information. If we
have any information on that I will happily write to you about
it.
63. Again would it not be a rather important
thing to do? May I say, as our report suggested, that we really
did welcome the powerful initiative the Government took to create
the European code of conduct and that is why we come to it time
and time again because we think it is such an important breakthrough,
that again we could use the processes and the concept of the code
of conduct to establish a European Union approach to an issue
like sales to Pakistan in the light of this coup. Why are we not
utilising these opportunities? The DMA say that they think they
are going to be undercut by European partners selling to Pakistan.
(Mr Hain) I think that might have been a desirable
objective but there is no consensus within the European Union
for an embargo.
64. Have they been following informal stringent
individual licence applications?
(Mr Hain) I cannot speak for them individually.
Mr Khabra
65. In view of the official foreign policy at
the moment is it not right that there should be an embargo on
the supply of arms to a country which is well known in the international
community to be engaged in promoting terrorism and the weapons
which are being used are being used for what I term foreign aggression?
Moreover, the country's record on human rights is appalling. At
the same time there is no possibility of any circumstances in
which that country can sustain democracy. It has been known for
many years that that country has, after independence in 1947,
not been able to sustain democracy at all. With all these things
put together in my view it is the duty of the Foreign Office to
consider imposing an embargo on the supply of arms to a country
such as Pakistan.
(Mr Hain) Mr Khabra, I appreciate your strong feelings
in the matter and I would simply remind you that Britain more
than any other country went right out in front in condemning the
coup in Pakistan, has been very firm on saying that there is no
such thing as a good coup, and was able to get the support of
the Commonwealth for that position and the suspension of Pakistan
from the Councils of the Commonwealth in Durban in mid November,
at the Heads of Commonwealth Governments Conference. Our position
on what has happened in Pakistan is quite clear. The fact that
there are all these pending applications, some 85 single licences
and 15 open individual licences, is I think evidence of our continued
concern about the very problem to which you refer, that anything
we did supply, if we did, could be used for terrorist purposes
in Kashmir or elsewhere. It is a very dangerous place. I think
President Clinton described South Asia as one of the most dangerous
places in the world at the present time.
Chairman
66. The DMA pointed out to us that non-offensive
material such as naval safety equipment has been held up in the
moratorium. How would naval safety equipment be a contribution
to the problems in Kashmir?
(Mr Hain) There is not a moratorium, nor is there
an embargo. Can I just make that clear. Pakistan has a coastline
and has legitimate defence interests of principally a naval kind.
As you quite rightly say, that equipment could not conceivably
be used in Kashmir but what we do not want to do is to make a
decision and then you will quite properly haul me up to your Committee
and say, "This is contradictory to a decision you made elsewhere",
which is why we are considering it extremely carefully.
Dr Godman
67. But if we are talking about equipment which
is concerned with maritime or naval safety, are we not talking
about life rafts and survival suits and the like? It looks, does
it not, petty-minded to ban the export of such, dare I call it,
innocuous equipment?
(Mr Hain) Dr Godman, rather in respect of my last
remark, any decision we make has got to be consistent across the
board. I think you would chide me for being inconsistent, not
an accusation I accept, of course, in the case of Hawk spares
to Zimbabwe, but any decision we make in respect to Pakistan,
which is a very difficult problem, has got to be consistent across
the board because we not only run the risk of your Committee pointing
out that we are not being consistent; we also run the risk of
judicial action if there were to be inconsistency and that is
why notwithstanding the fact that this equipment could be of a
safety kind, we are considering things very seriously. The intentions
of this new regime are still not clear both in respect of aggression
in the region in respect of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
in respect of supplying the Taliban for example with equipment
of a lethal or semi-lethal kind, and we are talking about very
serious and dangerous situation, and I think premature decisions
would be open to criticism.
68. I readily accept your concern about this,
but our letter from the DMA ends with the words, "What is
needed is proper, effective and positive decision making by HMG,
especially in `difficult' cases, rather than prevarication and
indecision." You do not accept my criticism but do you accept
that that is a fair criticism of what has gone on in relation
to Pakistan?
(Mr Hain) I do not accept that we are prevaricating
or transfixed by indecision. I am simply saying that the situation
is so fraught and so fluid that the intentions of the regime are
changing and they are not clear. The Kashmir situation is of particular
concern, that no premature decisions would be made and I am sorry
to say—I recognise their own commercial interests, but the
Defence Manufacturers' Association will simply have to accept
that.
69. As someone who is deeply concerned with
matters relating to maritime safety I am concerned about this
kind of ban on naval safety equipment. It would help me if you
could define (perhaps not today) what is meant by "naval
safety equipment" because if we are talking about the kind
of safety equipment we see on all kinds of ships, fishing vessels,
merchant ships and naval ships, then I think that kind of ban
is perhaps unnecessary and could cause problems to seafarers.
(Mr Hain) First of all, there is not a ban and, secondly,
if the situation was absolutely transparently clear in respect
of naval safety of the kind you describe I do not think there
would be a problem with this. I acknowledge your concern in this
matter.
Mr O'Neill
70. I realise there is a problem about the lack
of definition in the approach that you have taken and frankly
I can accept that it is different from the Congo and it is different
from Zimbabwe, if only because of the nuclear dimension which
is at the back of any potential worsening of the situation. Frankly
I think that you are entitled to be inconsistent here, if I can
put it that way. I do think that this action would be more effective
if it had a European dimension to it. I wonder if you could perhaps
talk us through why there has not been European co-operation on
this issue? Has it been because of the ill-defined character of
the approach the Government is taking currently towards arms licences?
(Mr Hain) No, Mr O'Neill, I think there is wide respect
across the European Union for the fact that our policy is the
most transparent and at least as tough as any other Member State.
We are a major defence contractor, unlike a lot of the other European
Member States, and therefore, in a sense,we grapple with these
issues rather more than many others do. I do not think that there
is that feeling at all.
71. If I can put it in a slightly different
way. I realise that a number of our European partners are not
major arms contractors or arms exporters but France is. It appears
that they are the country which is wanting to do business with
Pakistan according to the DMA and they are wanting to sell Mirage
planes to them. Do you not think that a more joined up European
approach could well prevent this provocative sales approach if
it is true by the French?
(Mr Hain) I think ideally in all circumstances a more
joined up European approach in terms of re-enforcing the code
would be a good thing in general terms. I do not really want to
comment in detail on individual situations of the kind you have
described.
72. It is rather a large individual situation
with respect.
(Mr Hain) It is.
73. This is a 16 ton gorilla in the garden issue.
It is one that will not go away unless we take a more effective
means in trying to address it.
(Mr Hain) I hear what you say and I think that in
ideal circumstances that would be desirable.
Mr O'Neill: We hear what you are not saying
as well.
Chairman
74. Do we currently discourage marketing of
defence goods to Pakistan?
(Mr Hain) I think we do, yes, indeed. Do we? They
say not. You might have caught me out on that one, I am not sure.
75. Can we just check?
(Mr Hain) Chairman, perhaps if I give a more considered
and ministerial response.
76. Right.
(Mr Hain) We are not actively promoting or seeking
to market defence equipment in Pakistan at the present time. As
I say, we are considering any applications we receive, of which
a number have stacked up.
Ann Clwyd
77. Is there a DESO office in Pakistan?
(Mr Hain) No, there is a Defence Attaché but
not a DESO office.
Mr Rowe
78. Can I just ask, if in fact the effect of
this meticulous examination of all these export licence applications
is total refusal, would you like to speculate on what might get
through?
(Mr Hain) No.
Mr Khabra
79. Would the Minister not agree with me that
things have changed considerably since the collapse of the Soviet
system when the two super powers were in competition to have influence
in that area by supplying arms to one side Pakistan, America was
supplying arms, and on the other side Soviet Russia was supplying
arms to India. The situation has completely changed now. There
is an explosive situation when both the countries are now nuclear
powers and the risk is greater to the peace of the world. In a
situation like that is it not possible for the Western powers,
including the UK, to review their own decision on policy matters
and not to supply any arms into that area at all to any country?
(Mr Hain) No, I do not think so, Mr Khabra. In our
bilateral relations with India we have been pressing them to sign
up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, to comply with the Non
Proliferation Treaty and so on, I know this is slightly outside
the ambit of this Committee and I will not stray too far on it.
In all of our bilateral contacts with the Indians on the one hand
we have stressed the importance of India not being in an aggressive
situation but India does have legitimate defence needs. It is
the largest democracy in the world. I think to simply place an
embargo upon it would not be reasonable and I do not think would
be influential. In respect of Pakistan, when the Chief of Defence
Staff visited Pakistan in early January this year carrying a brief
from the Foreign Secretary and me he made it very clear to General
Musharraf that aggression in Kashmir, that any militaristic activity
in the region, that any relationships with neighbouring states
or others that breached Proliferation Treaty requirements would
be viewed very seriously, that we were totally opposed to that.
I think, in all possible ways, we have used our diplomatic contacts
to make that clear. I think the policy we have adopted which is
the one I have described is most effective.
|
