Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 139)
WEDNESDAY 12 JANUARY 2005
12 JANUARY 2005 RT
HON JACK
STRAW MP, MR
EDWARD OAKDEN
CMG AND DR
DAVID LANDSMAN
Q120 Mr Davies: So it is not based
at all, in your view, on substance? In other words, there is not
a danger that there would be any significant increase in arms
sales?
Mr Straw: I understand their starting
point and it is hardly a secret that whilst there is lots of suspicion
about the UK's motives in relation to Third Countries, there is
suspicion in the United States in many ways across parties about
the motives of some other countries inside the European Union,
so I understand their concerns. It is the case that the level
of information about the nature of the arms embargo and how it
operates was lower than I had anticipated. There was genuine concern
about whether a lifting of the embargo would, first of all, lead
to a significant increase in arms sales by European countries
to China and it is for that reason that we got unanimous agreement
by the European Council at the Summit last month to those words
that there should not be any "quantitative or qualitative"
increase. There has also been concern about whether the lifting
of the embargo of itself could exacerbate tension across the strait
between China and Taiwan. Now, to some extent those concerns have
now lessened in any event as a result of the elections held in
Taiwan on 8th December which led to the election of a President
who is less exercised about relations with China than his predecessor.[4]
Q121 John Barrett: If I can move
on to Libya, in a way it is linked, because their arms embargo
was lifted, to our discussions about whether to lift China's arms
embargo or not. You mentioned in your previous answer that the
EU Code of Conduct in fact restricts a number of weapons systems
and equipment which may have been exported to places like Libya
or China, but it is up to the individual EU States to interpret
that EU Code of Conduct. Do you think that under the UK Presidency
this is something which should be addressed because if, for instance,
there is an EU-wide arms embargo in place, it could be that if
the administration of that arms embargo was dealt with at an EU
level, there would be consistencies throughout the EU, but when
the arms embargo is lifted and we are then relying on the EU Code
of Conduct, it is then up to Member States to look after this?
Mr Straw: First of all, by definition,
if there is an embargo then the answer in every case, provided
the application comes within the terms of the embargo, is no,
so there is obvious consistency. If you go back to the China arms
embargo, there is quite a lot of room for interpretation about
the scope. As it happens, the UK interpreted the China arms embargo
in a narrower way than some other Member States. The second thing
is, for the avoidance of doubt, you could have a system of arms
exports run by the Commission and turn that into a competence
of the European Union. I am, and so is the British Government,
wholly opposed to that because it runs straight into the rights
of individual nation states within the EU to run their own defence
policy and defence forces, and their arms industries are a very
important part of that nexus. On your key point, Mr Barrett, about
consistency, because the criteria are open to interpretation,
there is an issue of consistency. I have to say that the advice
I receive and what I have observed is that all Member States,
particularly the large arms exporters, seek to take their responsibilities
under the criteria seriously. There may be suspicions about one
or other Member States across the water, but I have seen no evidence
of Member States treating the Code in a cavalier way. However,
there has been this issue of transparency. We have not had enough
information about how it has been applied. That is why improving
the transparency of the system by using the revisions to the Code
in the toolbox are very important generally as well as in relation
to China.
Q122 John Barrett: The arms embargo
to Libya has been lifted, and in many walks of life the future
performance of any administration is often such that you have
a good idea as to how it is likely to go, based on what they have
done in the past. Libya has a bad track record for passing on
arms to other sub-Saharan countries, eg the DRC and Sudan. Now
that the embargo has been lifted, what concerns do you have that
when they are modernizing their equipment their old equipment
will not be passed on to some of these countries?
Mr Straw: Libya did have a bad
track record, but on 19 December last year there was this dramatic
historical announcement—
Q123 Donald Anderson: December 2003?
Mr Straw: Of course, yes. There
was a dramatic announcement on behalf of the leader acknowledging
Libya's previous bad record, giving a full disclosure of what
they had been doing and turning over a new leaf in the most dramatic
way. It was a very, very courageous decision and they have co-operated
fully with the international community and particularly with the
US and the UK and the IAEA in fulfilling their obligations. Do
you want to add anything to that?
Mr Oakden: Two things if I may.
Firstly, there is a continuing dialogue with Libya, with ourselves
and the Americans about particularly the implementation of the
WMD side but also other aspects too. And we have said in addition
that bilaterally we want to work with Libya to help it develop
its legitimate defence needs, such as border security and so forth.
If you put that together with the EU Code of Conduct, they result
in our developing a dialogue with Libya, which other EU Member
States would have as well, to ensure that precisely the concerns
that you have mentioned do not happen.
Q124 Mr Davies: Foreign Secretary,
can I come on to the matter of the ITAR waiver. The US Congress's
apparent wish to resile from the promise we received from the
administration on this is a considerable blow in the face, is
it not? It is something which our record of dealing with America
on defence exports or defence generally, which has always been
a very fine record and conducted in very good faith from our point
of view, in no way merits.
Mr Straw: I agree with you. We
were greatly disappointed that the Congress deleted the provisions
for an ITAR exemption from the Defence Authorisation Act. We welcome
the fact that language was included in support of the expeditious
processing of export licence applications and we were discussing
the way forward with the US administration. It has been a constant
source of discussion between the Prime Minister and President
Bush, Secretary Powell and myself and our officials. It is disappointing.
The administration did its best. On these issues it is for the
Executive to propose and for Congress to dispose and they came
to a different view. It is disappointing, particularly given what
a close and reliable ally we have been for the United States through
thick and thin.
Q125 Mr Davies: Do you think this
prospect being held out of providing us with a promise of more
expeditious processing as an alternative to the ITAR waiver actually
does amount to an effective substitute for an ITAR waiver or was
it just a meaningless sop to us?
Mr Straw: No, it is something,
but it is in no sense an effective alternative to it.
Q126 Mr Davies: A reversal like this
is something of a challenge to British diplomacy. Can you tell
us what sort of instruments you have been trying to use to try
to reverse this decision?
Mr Straw: There is not an issue
about the position of the US administration; they are on the same
page as we are. We are dealing with Congress. Without going into
detail, let me say that there are particular members of Congress
who are in powerful positions and who have a different view from
both that of the UK Government and also the United States Government.
As you are aware, Congress works in a slightly different way from
the way in which the British Parliament operates. Here we simply
make a good argument and, in regards to the party, if it is a
good argument it is accepted.
Q127 Mr Davies: I am well aware of
that, but this is the second occasion this morning we have come
up against a situation where what you are telling the Committee
is that members of the US Congress had misapprehensions about
the workings of our export controls system and therefore their
concerns are unreasonable in relation to that. That is a challenge
to British diplomacy. We have a very expensive embassy in Washington.
We have a very expensive diplomatic service. The idea that the
US Congress should be making decisions on the basis of misapprehension
of the facts, in other words a failure of information, is a very
serious one.
Mr Straw: I do not wish to endorse
particular adjectives you have adopted. There are plenty of occasions,
if I may say so, where members of the British Parliament may come
to an unreasonable misapprehension about the position of US Congress
and administration. I constantly find myself trying to put the
record straight on behalf of the US administration. So these things
happen. Mr Oakden is writing me a note.
Q128 Chairman: I am not sure we are
going to get much further on that.
Mr Straw: Mr Oakden's writing
is very neat but sometimes a little bit difficult to follow. Anyway,
what he is saying is that protectionism is a real point and that
is a key element of it. You would have to talk to the members
of Congress themselves. They will say they are not under any misapprehension
of the facts. They simply come to a different conclusion about
the US's national self-interests.
Q129 Mr Davies: The other day I put
to one of the industry representatives who came before this Committee
the idea that there might possibly be an element of quid pro
quo here, an element of leverage we could use and that was
to link in some way the ITAR waiver to the US Congress's strong
view that we should not go along with a proposal to abolish the
arms embargo for China. Is there a prospect for using this linkage
effectively with the US Congress, indicating subtly, no doubt,
that if the ITAR waiver, which we were promised, is withdrawn
by the Congress then we might feel much less inclined to use our
influence with our colleagues in the EU to prevent the arms embargo
with China being removed? He gave me the answer that that was
above his pay grade. I do not imagine it is above your pay grade.
Perhaps I can put the idea to you and see what your reaction to
that suggestion is.
Mr Straw: There may be those in
the US who say that the two are linked. I have to say, however,
that opposition in some quarters in the US Congress to the ITAR
waiver predates any suggestion of a lifting of the China arms
embargo and moreover, as I have explained, on the basis of the
decisions made at the European Council this December, there is
no reason for there to be anxieties in the US system. Our embassies
around the world, including in Washington, are efficient and effective.
We are also going through an exercise to cut their costs. I have
to say that in my view in Sir David Manning we have one of the
best ambassadors of any country around the world and he has very,
very good access to the administration. That is not the issue.
It is about members of legislative assemblies, including in this
Parliament, having strong opinions.
Q130 Mr Davies: What about the linkage?
Mr Straw: That is my answer to
the linkage. I do not think there is one, although it may be presented
in that way. We are working very closely with British industry
and with the administration and members of both Houses of Congress
to try and find a way forward. I have had frustrating conversations
with some members of Congress and I have also had very good conversations
with other members of Congress who are going way beyond the call
of duty to support the British Government's position and British
industry.
Q131 Donald Anderson: You should
not have written off a change in the Congress because there are
influential senators, who you will know, who have sought ways
and means of circumventing the House opposition.
Mr Straw: No, of course. I have
not written it off at all.
Q132 Mr Colman: I would like to take
you back to the international arms trade treaty. You mentioned
that you were personally committed to this going ahead. Could
you share with the Committee perhaps what you are personally committing
to do in your leadership role this year?
Mr Straw: Let me put flesh on
the bones of the proposal. I am very happy to receive ideas either
formally or informally from this Committee and from NGOs with
whom I have had discussions. In a speech which I intend to make
next month I will set out my thoughts about the overall architecture
of this and part of that is that it should have standards which
apply to all arms transfers. There have been some suggestions
it should simply be a small arms treaty and whilst it is true
that small arms are a major part of the problem in places like
Africa, they are not the whole of the problem. If you have a cut-off
you then have got problems. It should take account of the need
to avoid arms being used for, among other things, internal repression,
international aggression, civil war, breaching international humanitarian
law and being used by terrorists. There is then the issue of how
it would work. I have already said that we would draw on the experience
of the EU arms embargo (a) because it has worked and (b) because
that is the best way in my judgement to do it.
Q133 Mr Colman: You mean arms embargo
or the Code of Conduct?
Mr Straw: The Code of Conduct.
That is the best way of getting a consensus inside the European
Union. We are working particularly with Finland which has also
been actively supportive of this and I have had a number of informal
conversations with Erkki Tuomioja who is the foreign minister
of Finland. There will be further discussions in other international
fora to try and build up a consensus so that it will reach a state
where we can put it forward more formally.
Q134 Mr Colman: I understand you
were in a meeting with UK-based NGOs on December 16. How would
you wish them to campaign on this in the current year? "We
have to make poverty history" is one of the slogans of 2005.
Is there a slogan? Is there a campaign? Is there part of their
briefing you wish to share with us?
Mr Straw: I have not got a slogan
for it. I am always slightly allergic to slogans if they are a
substitute for careful thought. I have good discussions with the
NGOs. We have got to campaign for this very widely. It is not
an issue in this country, nor is it an issue between parties so
far as I know in the UK. We have got to build up support for it
in the European Union. We have got to seek to get the United States
on board. We have got to get former CIS countries on board who
are major arms exporters, one in particular. There will come a
moment when I believe there will be a sufficient international
consensus that we can move forward with formal proposals.
Q135 Mr Bercow: Foreign Secretary,
I look forward to hearing your speech on the subject of arms control
with eager anticipation. Perhaps we can just have an advance glimpse
of your thinking. Would you agree that any arms trade treaty which
allowed the continuing supply of arms to the Government of Sudan
whilst deliberately and calculatedly denying them to rebel forces
really would be nonsense?
Mr Straw: There has just been
the signature of a peace deal in Sudan, this was over the weekend,
on the north-south access, with the deal being signed by Dr Garang
and Vice President Taha. I am not going to anticipate decisions
which I think we ought, or the international community ought,
to be making in respect of the Sudan. What I would say, however,
is that so far as the situation in Darfur is concerned, recently
there have been more transgressions in ceasefires by the rebels,
according to the UN Secretary General Special Representative,
than there have been by the Government. I think the implication
of your question was that it is the Government which is in the
wrong and the rebels which may be entirely in the right. That
is not the case. The Government of Sudan has a prime responsibility
for security because it is the Government and a point I keep making
to Government ministers and to the President is that it is unwise
for them to seek to be compared with the rebels in that sense
because they are the Government, but there is wrong on both sides.
We have been very careful about arms embargoes and arms supplies.
In terms of if there were a treaty in force and how that would
apply in respect of the Sudan, frankly, it is too hypothetical,
Mr Bercow, because we are not going to get a treaty in force for
some time. I hope and pray that we are able to resolve politically
the conflict in Darfur well before that.
Q136 Mr Bercow: I understand that
it is hypothetical but it is such a practical example of where
progress has to be achieved for the text to be meaningful that
I hope it will at least be in the forefront of your mind as discussions
proceed.
Mr Straw: Indeed. Getting a text
and getting it agreed and implemented will be really important.
It will not mean then that there will be a bonfire of all the
weapons that are around Africa for example, but establishing much,
much better standards and universal standards of control over
the supply of arms and ensuring, too, that as a result of that
there is much more intensive focus on the unofficial criminal
arms dealers who make millions and millions of dollars trading
in arms across Africa, that will be very important.
Q137 Mike Gapes: Foreign Secretary,
we have already touched on the review of the EU Code of Conduct.
Do you expect the revised Code of Conduct to be agreed under the
British presidency in the second half of the year? What are the
aims of our Government with regard to that Code of Conduct and
any review? Will it be likely that we will have fewer national
undercuts by this country and by other countries of any agreements
than there have been in the past? We had that evidence from Save
the World who were saying that there have been 25% undercuts by
EU states. You yourself gave evidence to us about five undercuts
in 2003 by our Government. What are we doing to get out of this?
Mr Straw: First of all, as I indicated
to Mr Evans, I think it is more likely to be agreed in this presidency
than any other, but who can say. Where we have got to so far is
that there has been an increase in the scope of the Code so that
its criteria cover all applications for brokering, trans-shipment
and intangible technology transfer licences, as well as physical
exports, as at the moment. An obligation on Member States to refuse
export licences if they consider that there is a clear risk that
the items covered by the licence will be used to commit serious
violations of international humanitarian law is a proposal that
has been suggested by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
I think it is a good idea. There is an obligation on Member States
to take particular account of the final use of any products which
they know are being exported for the purposes of licence production
in third countries and an obligation on Member States to produce
a national annual report. I think those are all good moves. Will
it lead to fewer undercuts? I am not certain, Mr Gapes, but I
think over time it will do, because the more transparency we have
the more there is shared information about not only why countries
are refusing applications but also which applications they are
agreeing. Then over time there will be greater consistency. I
have to say that this is an inter-governmental Code because defence
is a competence of sovereign Member States of the EU and although
it is in force and people take their obligations seriously, because
it is us and it is not the competence of the Commission and it
should not be, there are bound to be some areas where, with the
best will in the world, two Member States on the same information
will come to different decisions. This happens with ministers.
You get very, very finely balanced arguments. Sometimes I will
say we should refuse an application and then there will be more
information and I will say we should accept it or vice versa.
There can be some inconsistency.
Q138 Mike Gapes: In this process
of the review have you taken account of these national variations
in legislation or interpretation?
Mr Oakden: We have taken account
of them, which is why we are doing it at European level. That
is the best way to address them.
Q139 Mike Gapes: Has there been a
move towards greater convergence of approach? We were told by
industry representatives that there are quite different interpretations
of the Code in different EU states and that this could aid the
proliferation of weapons in certain areas.
Mr Straw: There may be, which
is why we need more information about that and changing the Code
is not going to get more information.
4 The Foreign Secretary was referring to Legislative-not
Presidential-elections in Taiwan in December 2004 in which the
opposition "pan-blue" alliance won an absolute majority,
a result not predicted by the polls. Back
| 
