Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-194)
31 MARCH 2004
RT HON
GEOFFREY HOON
MP AND SIR
KEVIN TEBBIT
Q180 Mike Gapes: May I ask you about
strategic deterrence, Trident and missile defence? First of all
a point of clarification. The wording of the strategic defence
review says that our aim is a safer world in which there is no
place for nuclear weapons. But the wording of the White Paper
in paragraph 3.11 says that our aim is a safer world in which
there is no requirement for nuclear weapons. Is there a difference
between those two? Is there a reason why the wording has changed?
Mr Hoon: I have not thought of
one.
Q181 Mike Gapes: It just struck me that
the wording had changed. If there is no reason, then perhaps you
can reassure me in writing.[2]
Mr Hoon: I cannot think of any
underlying policy difference we were intending to make.
Sir Kevin Tebbit: The conditions
for complete and general global nuclear disarmament are not yet
met. That is what the Secretary of State usually gets me to say.
Q182 Mike Gapes: We have in-service Tridents
from 1998 and we have an understanding that it is intended to
remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years. The White Paper
says that decisions on Trident's replacement are not needed this
Parliament, but are likely to be required in the next one and
that a "range of options" is being kept open until that
decision point. Could you say something about what those options
are and when the decision is likely to be taken on which of those
options, if any?
Mr Hoon: No.
Q183 Mike Gapes: You do not know what
the options are?
Mr Hoon: Yes, I do.
Q184 Mike Gapes: You do know what the
options are. At this point is there anything you would like to
say about what those options are?
Mr Hoon: No.
Q185 Mike Gapes: We are not going to
get very far on that, are we? May I ask whether you have any indication
as to whether this might be an international option or a European
option rather than a national option?
Mr Hoon: I do not think that we
need discuss anything other than a national option.
Sir Kevin Tebbit: I was just reflecting
to myself that there are obligations which would preclude technology
transfer of that kind anyway.
Q186 Mike Gapes: Do you mean the agreement
with the United States?
Mr Hoon: The non-proliferation
treaty.
Sir Kevin Tebbit: The non-proliferation
treaty.
Q187 Chairman: I hope the cameras are
picking up your extreme discomfort over the last few minutes.
They certainly ought to reflect it.
Mr Hoon: I am trying to decide
whether the European Convention on Human Rights applies to people
who have been here for two hours and fifty minutes.
Q188 Mike Gapes: In terms of missile
defence, the White Paper lists missile defence technology as a
growing area of interest and states that "active missile
defence could provide an option for meeting the threat from weapons
of mass destruction and its means of delivery". It also makes
clear that work is continuing on protection for deployed forces
from ballistic missile threats and the NATO feasibility study
is expected soon. When might the UK or deployed UK forces benefit
from the protection of an active missile defence system?
Mr Hoon: We have absolutely no
timescale for that. There is work under way, we are discussing
that with partners, clearly there is a threat to deployed forces
and we will need to consider how soon that threat would emerge
and how long we would have to get such a system in place if by
then we still needed it. There is still fairly basic thinking
going on about what kind of system will be required and in what
timescale.
Q189 Mike Gapes: Clearly the issue of
ballistic and cruise missile technology and the proliferation
of missiles is a matter of serious concern. What steps are you
taking to protect deployed UK forces, in the Middle East, for
example, or in Afghanistan or wherever else our forces might be
deployed, from those technologies and the weapons they might deliver?
Mr Hoon: We would still, for the
moment at any rate, if we were talking about longer range strategic
missiles . . . I am not sure I anticipate any particular threats
to our forces in Afghanistan at the present time.
Q190 Mike Gapes: But there are potential
proliferators with long-range missiles. We know the North Koreans
have them, we know the Iranians have missiles of some length,
we know that Libya was trying to develop such a programme and
of course there was the Iraqi's programme.
Mr Hoon: I was about to make the
point that the action we may take may be more in the political
than in the military field and dealing with proliferation in the
way we did as far as Libya was concerned was an outstanding success
and reduced the risk of what you are describing.
Q191 Mike Gapes: The Americans have got
their programme to move towards their own deployment at some point.
Are we closely engaged with them on that? They were talking at
one point about systems based upon ships, the Aegis class
and various other developments. Are we looking closely at that
at the moment?
Mr Hoon: The US is developing
what they describe as a test-bed. The Committee will be aware
of the decisions the UK have taken to make Fylingdales available
for assisting in that process. It obviously gives us some insight
into American thinking.
Q192 Mike Gapes: You do not expect any
imminent developments?
Mr Hoon: This is a test-bed, it
is a process by which the Americans are satisfying themselves
that their theoretical judgment about making missile defence work
in practice is justified. We believe that it was right we should
play a part in assisting that testing process and it has not gone
further than that at this stage.
Q193 Rachel Squire: My question concerns
the role of international organisations, particularly the UN,
which is another area where we could spend two hours fifty-five
minutes alone. The Defence White Paper says we support efforts
to improve the UN's performance in peace support operations. However,
we need to be realistic about the limitations of the UN and the
difficulties of translating broad consensus on goals into specific
actions, particularly where proactive military intervention is
concerned, like the rapid operational readiness that we recently
saw with our forces in Kosovo for instance. There appears to be
a bit of a difference between the MoD's view on the role of the
UN and the Foreign Office view, which seems to place the UN at
the heart of an effective system of multilateral co-operation
and says that the UK priority will be to improve the Council's
ability to act promptly and effectively to maintain international
peace and security". Do you agree or is that just a difference
in words?
Mr Hoon: I do not think there
is any discrepancy between the two departments. What the Foreign
Office are emphasising is likely is the legal responsibility that
the UN has, its political primacy in discussing the appropriate
international response to a crisis. What we are saying is that
we would certainly like to see its ability to manage those crises
in terms of the supervision of armed forces, for example, enhanced.
I do not think anyone, even in New York in the United Nations,
believes that the mechanisms in New York for doing that today
are as good as they should be. That is why, on a number of operations—Afghanistan
is perhaps the best illustration—what we have is an overall
UN responsibility, political supervision if you like, as a result
of the UN mandate, but the actual delivery on the ground of military
effect has been left in the hands of the willing coalition. That
seems to me, certainly for the moment, unless there is some significant
change in the way in which the UN operates, to be a highly desirable
outcome, because it leaves those who are responsible for directing
forces to do that in difficult environments and avoids—something
I discussed with UN officials and they would agree with—the
UN trying to second-guess those decisions at a great distance
without necessarily having the operational mechanisms to do it
properly.
Q194 Rachel Squire: So you see the UN's
role as continuing to be one where it decides whether or not it
gives its stamp of approval.
Mr Hoon: That is enormously important.
The UN is a forum for a discussion about the appropriate response
that the international community should make. Thereafter it is
much better that the UN invites willing states, which is precisely
what happened in the conversations I had with Kofi Annan about
Sierra Leone for example. He wanted capable western forces available
in Sierra Leone to support what was a failing UN military operation
and we were able to do that.
Chairman: Spot on. Brilliant. I must
say, Mr Hoon, had you given a two-sentence introduction we would
have been away at a quarter to six. However, it was a perfectly
acceptable initiative to have a long introduction and I thought
the session was most interesting. I thank you both for coming.
2 Ev 83 Back
| 
