Further memorandum submitted by the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office
THE FUTURE
OF SANCTIONSI
hope that the Committee found useful the oral evidence provided
by FCO and DFID officials on Tuesday.I promised to write with
an answer to Tess Kingham's question about the extent to which
DFID is consulted on licence applications for the supply of dual-use
goods to countries subject to sanctions. I understand, however,
that Ms Kingham is really interested in the degree of DFID involvement
in decision-making on all dual-use licence applications, not just
those to countries subject to sanctions. This strays outside my
direct responsibility, but I have consulted colleagues within
the FCO and in DFID and the DTI on this reply.I attach a list
of countries for which DFID see all Export Licence Applications
(including applications for Dual-Use goods), except for those
goods in Annex A. DFID's interest in Export Licence Applications
is broadly two-fold. Their main interest is that the proposed
purchase does not seriously hamper the sustainable development
of the recipient country, taking into account its public finances,
balance of payments, external debt, economic and social development
and any IMF/World Bank sponsored economic reform programmes. Secondly
that the equipment is not used for purposes of internal repression
or external aggression. Where DFID has concerns about an application
they raise them with the FCO.Iraq is a special case, because the
sale and supply of dual-use goods is covered by the UN sanctions
regime. The export of some dual-use goods, eg medicines, veterinary
products and fertilisers is allowed under agreed humanitarian
exemptions if approval has been received from the UN Sanctions
Committee. UK applications for the export or supply of such goods
are circulated by the DTI for advice to the FCO, MOD, the Department
of Health (medical goods) or MAFF (agricultural goods). They are
not circulated to DFID since the presumption is that all applications
for medicines and essential agricultural supplies will be approved
unless there is strong reason to believe they will be diverted
for military use. The Department of Health and MAFF respectively
provide the technical expertise on the legitimate medical use
or agricultural use of such products.I hope this explanation is
helpful. I also enclose copies of two documents that I promised
to make available to the Committee: the note of the President
of the Security Council, dated 29 January 1999, on the work of
the Sanctions Committees; and the terms of reference of the expert
panels which have been established (under Security Council resolution
1237—copy also enclosed) to identify ways to tighten sanctions
against UNITA.
A R Brenton
Director, Global Issues
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
