Examination of Witnesses(Questions 100-110)
WEDNESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2002
RT HON
MR GEOFF
HOON MP, AIR
MARSHAL ROB
WRIGHT AFC AND
MR EDWARD
OAKDEN
100. One of the issues that the spokesman mentioned
on 13 November this year was that Ukraine had asked the UN Security
Council to investigate the allegations, and it was blocked by
the United States.
(Mr Hoon) As I say, since I was involved in this when
I went to Ukraine. I saw the president; I had meetings with my
defence minister counterpart. What we were offered—there
was-follow-up by officials—was access to the factory where
radars are produced and access to information about any possible
sale to Iraq. Those investigations are continuing.
101. The British have a lot of problems. For
example, the Ukrainians wish the Security Council to look at it.
There could be problems.
(Mr Hoon) The reality is that the two countries that
are most obviously concerned are the United States and the United
Kingdom. I took a strong line in Ukraine because if Iraq were
to benefit from an enhanced radar system it would be the Armed
Forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, flying dangerous
missions over the no-fly zones, that would be most clearly threatened.
That is why it is right that the investigation was conducted by
the two countries most concerned.
102. Are you aware that Ukraine has asked the
UN Security Council to look at the issue? The article just mentions
a spokesman's comments.
(Mr Hoon) I think there has been some discussion at
the UN. I do not think that I find that all that relevant or helpful
to what I think is necessary, which is for us to be able to get
to the bottom of whether or not the radars were transferred to
Iraq.
Chairman
103. There are all sorts of allegations against
Bulgaria, Croatia and Serbia.
(Mr Hoon) I am certainly aware of those allegations.
I made my remarks in relation to Ukraine very carefully because
what is important is that, when allegations arise, the country
in question takes strong action to deal with them and that there
is no suggestion that the state itself is in any way involved
in the sale. Certainly so far as Bulgaria is concerned, it is
fair to say that we were very pleased by the very prompt response
that the Bulgarian government took in order to deal with this
matter.
104. Just a couple more questions. One is could
you drop us a note on any bilateral meetings you have had—and
I know far more interesting things take you away outside but give
us an indication of life at a summit meeting.
(Mr Hoon) I am certainly willing to tell you what
meetings I have had.
105. That is what I asked. Secondly, to save
some time, could you let us know in a lot more detail what happened
by way of the Mediterranean Dialogue and the enhancements thereof.
That would be really helpful. Two more questions. One would be
a very easy question to avoid but as somebody who has been committed
to NATO for as long as I have been in Parliament and seen endless
crises—and NATO's demise has been regularly predicted but
it has always managed to hang on and come back, often reinvigorated—my
anxiety now is that one of the main problems for the future of
a vibrant NATO comes not from Russia or traditional sources but
indifference on the part of the United States. Did you have any
impression, Secretary of State, that the United States does not
continue to wish to invest its intellectual and political effort,
resources, manpower and equipment into NATO now that the traditional
threats have long since disappeared?
(Mr Hoon) No I did not and indeed I think the present
Administration is absolutely committed to NATO, to making it a
success, and to ensuring that it performs and develops to meet
the current threat. Where I think in the longer term there is
a concern is if Canada and the European members of NATO fail to
provide the kind of capability improvements that we have been
discussing, because I can foresee a situation in which the American
people ask questions about the taxes that they are paying to provide
military capabilities that are not only protecting the United
States but are also protecting European nations, which is why
we put so much emphasis on Europe improving its military capabilities
as a means of demonstrating to the people of the United States
our determination to make the Alliance successful.
106. It is not that Gerald is paranoid about
Europe, he may be but I am not, but I am really anxious, as he
is and many are, because there are countries in Europe who would
be delighted to see NATO go under so that the vacuum could be
filled by some form of European entity. Do you get the impression
from the heads of state in government who are gathered at Prague
that they see the future of European security still much more
in terms of NATO and the US commitment than any other, from my
point of view, spurious and undesirable alternatives?
(Mr Hoon) I would not agree with your premise. Indeed,
I do not think there are any European nations who are not committed
to NATO and I believe that there is a recognition that European
nations need to do more and need to do it better.
Chairman: I hope you are right. I am partly
reassured but not completely by your answer. Frank to ask the
last question.
Mr Roy
107. Secretary of State, Macedonia—the
UK-led Operation Essential Harvest was a huge success and similarly
Operation Amber Fox has done as well and it was due to finish
on 15 December but obviously Prague has agreed to extend that.
How long is that operation going to be extended?
(Mr Hoon) The agreement is to extend it to February
but clearly we need to look at the continuing military need for
an operation in Macedonia and who should undertake it, but the
extension gives us some time in which to reflect on those two
issues.
108. And what would be the state of play that
would actually see a withdrawal come in a few months' time? What
would be the ideal scenario?
(Mr Hoon) An assessment of the security situation
on the ground in Macedonia. Whether that requires forces to be
in Macedonia or whether they could be based elsewhere, ultimately
it is about where we are in terms of the security of Macedonia.
Mr Howarth
109. What does that mean?
(Mr Hoon) The reason I put it in this way is because
I think it is important not to assume that simply because we deploy
force somewhere that we always have to carry on doing that. Our
approach is that we need to look hard at the military justification
for that requirement. If there is a case for continuing then clearly
we have to find the ways of achieving that. If there is not then
there is the answer.
110. Would you confirm that it is your view
that whoever takes on that role they should be doing it for the
right reasons and, for example, there should not be an EU force
put in there on the basis that that gives the EU force an opportunity,
if the EU force is ready to do it perhaps but not otherwise?
(Mr Hoon) What I am saying is there needs to be a
justification for having a force there on the ground whoever does
it.
Chairman: May I thank you all for coming.
May I on behalf, I am sure, of the Committee ask you, Secretary
of State, if you have any opportunity, to convey this Committee's
deep gratitude to those almost 20,000 members of our Armed Forces
who are currently doing a magnificent job up and down the country
on behalf of our constituents in relation to the fire fighters'
dispute. Thank you very much for your presence here.
| 
