Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR SEBASTIAN
WOOD AND
MR DENIS
KEEFE
13 JUNE 2006
Q260 Chairman: Human Rights Watch
probably.
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I think
it was, and it was not quite clear to me because they seemed to
be saying this is insufficiently effective and I almost got the
impression they were saying "so don't do it", but I
am pretty confident that if we were not doing anything they would
be urging us to do something. I think there is always a difficult
balance to strike in these quite delicate areas, but I can assure
you that if we thought it was a complete waste of time we would
probably stop doing it.
Q261 Chairman: Do you think there
is a case for doing more public action on this rather than behind-the-scenes
action?
Margaret Beckett: Of course there
is a case, there is always a case. Whether it would be more beneficial
is quite another matter and, as I said to Ken Purchase—and
I have felt perhaps that I should stop saying this because I have
said it on a number of occasions in my political life and I am
not sure it has always helped me and perhaps now I should stop
saying it—it has always been my view that you try to do
what is most effective, and if that disappoints people who wish
to see you do the thing in a different way but you think you are
actually getting a better result, then you should bite the bullet
and put up with it.
Chairman: We are going to move on to
Tibet. Richard?
Q262 Richard Younger-Ross: It is
said that the Chinese are subsuming the Tibetan culture and the
Tibetan culture is becoming merely a tourist attraction rather
than a way of life. Could you explain your concerns about the
human rights abuses in Tibet and whether you believe that the
Chinese are still intent on bringing more Han Chinese into the
country so that the Tibet-ness of Tibet is eventually eliminated
altogether?
Margaret Beckett: We do have concerns,
as you would expect, about the position in Tibet and we raise
those concerns regularly with the Chinese Government and will
continue to look for opportunities to do so. As I said before,
one of the things that we are trying to do in terms of positive
engagement on the ground is encouraging some project work to directly
improve the situation of some of the Tibetan people. We are also
seeking to use what I think is a degree of goodwill and mutual
confidence that we are gradually building up with the Chinese
Government to encourage political dialogue and try to encourage
from all quarters an approach of trying to identify a greater
degree of common ground so that there can be a more peaceful approach
and peaceful settlement in the area of Tibet. I appreciate that
is perhaps quite a tall order but that is certainly our approach.
I know there has been the involvement of the Han Chinese in Tibet
but I am not sighted on what we think the pace of that is now
or is likely to be. Is that one for you, Denis?
Mr Keefe: It is certainly something
that is continuing and of course the Chinese Government's perspective
on it is that they are promoting the economic development of Tibet
by doing things like building a railway to Tibet and investing
there. Equally it is true, quite clearly, that it does have social
effects and I think it is important to go on expressing, as we
do through the dialogue and through other contacts, our concerns
about the things that are happening in Tibet that we do not like
the look of. It is not a straightforward issue in the sense that
it is entirely cultural or entirely social. It is very much bound
up with the economics of Tibet.
Q263 Richard Younger-Ross: The economics
is used as the reason for the improvements. The side effects of
that I think are fairly clear and you have referred to them. One
of the side effects which has not been referred to very much in
the past is the environmental damage and the potential environmental
threat that the development of Tibet may pose, which is a very
fragile environment. From your previous post you will be well
aware of a number of these issues. What concerns do you have or
does your Department have on water extraction and economic development
and do you believe that poses a real risk to the seven major river
sources in South East Asia?
Margaret Beckett: There is obviously
a considerable concern about environmental damage, not just in
Tibet but across that whole part of the world. I think one thing
that I perhaps ought to say, and the Committee perhaps picked
up when you were involved in your discussions, is that in recent
years in particular the Chinese government has shown a very welcome
and indeed a more thorough recognition of some of these dangers
and the importance of some of these issues than perhaps many others
in the developing world. I take a small amount of credit for my
previous Department because, for example, Defra has now embarked
on the second phase of its work with the Chinese Department of
Agriculture assessing, for example, the most likely impacts of
climate change on Chinese agriculture. The reason that the Chinese
Government has become engaged in this work is because of their
own recognition of how substantial these issues are for the whole
length and breadth of China, and that includes in Tibet. This
may be an area where there are more fragile eco-systems but there
is a great concern across China. One of the things that I think
is a huge challenge and a recognised challenge for the Chinese
Government is how to get sustainable development and not just
development. Of course, the other great challenge and great difficulty
for them, which everybody has to do everything they can to help
support and work with the Government of China, is it is one thing
to get that recognition, as I think increasingly they have at
central level but, China being such a vast place, to follow it
through locally is not always so easy. So I think there is a real
recognition of those challenges and of those potential dangers.
From my perspective, as someone who has been engaged on environmental
issues for the last five years, China is ahead of the game when
it comes to a lot of other states who could have similar problems
but are not yet recognising them. I am very impressed by what
I have seen of the Chinese Government's record and their aspirations
in this respect.
Q264 Mr Keetch: There is a long way
to go in Tibet.
Margaret Beckett: A very long
way to go across China, a long way with pollution problems, a
long way with biodiversity problems of course, but recognising
the problem is the first and most important step.
Q265 Chairman: Thank you very much.
We are going to move on to some questions on Chinese foreign policy.
Can I begin by asking you about China's role in the United Nations
system. Do you see the economic strength of China being reflected
now in a much more assertive role within the UN system?
Margaret Beckett: Perhaps not
fully. I think I would say that China tends to be a quiet and
sometimes a silent power house rather than a vocal one at present.
I think China's economic importance is increasingly recognised,
and of course China is a powerful player and fully understands
and recognises that. I think, however, based on quite a short
direct experience of this, that China is not yet using her economic
power as fully as she could. Whether the Committee would wish
to see her use it more fully is another matter.
Q266 Chairman: You see it more as
protecting its interests in the world rather than asserting itself
in a global way?
Margaret Beckett: I think China
is extremely conscious that although they are a major economic
power and will become more so in the future, they are also still
in many ways a developing country and they retain what one might
consider to be quite an admirable fellow feeling for and supportive
attitude towards the developing countries as a whole. There are
many international fora in which China is part of that, in environment,
for example, it is the G77 and China, and there are many ways
in which China retains those links and retains some of that perspective
and perhaps in that sense is more inclined to see herself as one
of the players who has considerable weight among this group rather
than saying, "Okay, we have developed so much, we are leaving
you lot behind, and we must speak out just for ourselves."
Q267 Chairman: China has got permanent
membership of the Security Council—
Margaret Beckett: Indeed.
Chairman: And in that position has a
rather important role over some of the international crises that
we are dealing with it at the moment. I will bring Mr Mackinlay
in on this.
Q268 Andrew Mackinlay: Really I will
just mention the word Iran. If you could give us your view on
what you understand to be the People's Republic of China's policy
as regards Iran. It clearly has had some recent summitry anyway
but it did not seem to me that they had as much interest in seeing
a non-nuclear weaponised Iran as we do, and although there is
not conflict there does seem to be a slightly different read on
how we could and should approach this. In a way I suppose: discuss,
if you would not mind?
Margaret Beckett: I know you will
understand and I think the Committee will understand if I approach
this at this moment in time with considerable caution because
it was only yesterday that the meeting took place in Iran where
proposals were put before the Government of Iran and they still
have to consider them. What I would say is that there is actually
a very strong coherence of understanding about the benefits of
dealing with the issues which arise in Iran through diplomatic
means and of the potential disadvantages of all of that going
wrong. It is understandable that it should be so but when we met
in New York at the beginning of May and there was not an immediate
statement, I think some people assumed that there was a greater
divergence of view than in fact there was. There is a very considerable
amount of common ground, agreement, understanding and basic concern
among the participants in that dialogue, the P5 and Germany. That
is the first thing I would say. Second, coming from that common
analysis and concern, there is a passionate desire to find a way
out of this through diplomatic means and a way out which can be
to everybody's benefit. The reason that we did not make any statements
in New York was because people wanted to do more work on being
able to put something of greater substance to the Iranian Government
and that work has proceeded in the interim and that then led to
the discussions that we had in Vienna. In Vienna, again there
was acceptance from all of the countries there that we should
be offering to the Iranian people and the Iranian Government something
which was mutually beneficial, that we should make plain our shared
concern and our shared wish to resolve this problem as an international
community but our shared understanding that the concerns of the
IAEA Board were concerns that everyone shared. I do not really
want to go any further than that but it was a deliberate choice
and decision that we made—and I chaired the meeting, as
you perhaps know—a united statement that I as the chair
read out. It was a very short statement that we would not explain
the content to anybody before it had been shared with the Government
of Iran and we had given them a breathing space to think about
it, to consider it, and to think about their response, and that
we would do everything that we could to avoid jeopardising the
prospects of agreement because of that absolutely shared basis
of concern and interest.
Chairman: I am now going to switch to
some other difficult international issues. Sir John Stanley?
Q269 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
on this visit, as on previous visits to China, the Committee was
left in no doubt whatever of the unwavering, unshakeable, iron
determination of the People's Republic to reacquire Taiwan. Indeed,
that appeared to be the highest foreign policy priority of the
PRC. Can you tell us what steps the British Government will take
to ensure that the People's Republic are in no doubt that an exercising
of a military option to reacquire Taiwan would have unacceptable
consequences for China?
Margaret Beckett: As you know,
we ourselves do not recognise the Government of Taiwan but we
have always taken every opportunity we can to encourage any difficulties
and divisions that arise to be approached in and settled in a
peaceful manner. We have always, whenever we have had any bilateral
discussions with China in which these issues have come up, taken
the opportunity to deliver constructive messages and tried to
encourage greater confidence-building and greater recognition
I believe that when the Committee was in Taiwan you were given
information about the nature and depth of the business links and
so on that exist between Taiwan and mainland China. That is certainly
something (a) we would encourage and (b) we would encourage the
recognition of how much mutual interest/shared interest there
is and how essential it is that this is an issue that is dealt
with peacefully and if difficulties arise those difficulties are
resolved peacefully.
Q270 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
would you agree that with the very, very clear, indeed overwhelming
evidence of ever-increasing Chinese military capability, it is
becoming more imperative that our country, I am sure in conjunction
with the United States, takes very positive steps to reinforce
the message which you have just conveyed to the Committee that
this issue has to be resolved peacefully and that China must not
think it can exercise a military option without unacceptable cost
to itself?
Margaret Beckett: I think that
the Government of China understands very well that military options
tend to involve costs and that a peaceful resolution of problems
and difficulties and misunderstandings is something which is always
to be desired and to be sought. I take your point about sometimes
changing dispositions of the military in China but, as I say,
the notion of peaceful involvement and of continued engagement
is something which we have always pushed, will always push, and
which we believe is understood.
Q271 Sir John Stanley: Can I turn
to an adjacent difficult area but one where our interests and
hopefully the interests of the PRC are very much aligned, which
is the Korean Peninsula. I do of course appreciate fully that
we are not a member of the Six Party talks but we do share the
concern of at least five out of the six parties that the DPRK
should not go down the route of building a nuclear WMD capability.
Can you tell us what steps the British Government will be doing
to try to see whether we can get a very proactive role played
by the PRC in trying to persuade Chairman Kim Jong-il and the
DPRK that they must abandon any ambitions to have nuclear weapons?
Margaret Beckett: Again, with
regard to our own involvement with the DPRK this is something
where we try to carry out practical projects and activity on the
ground which we think can be beneficial to the people of that
country but also, as you say, although we are not one of the six
parties we do do everything we can to try to encourage the DPRK
back to the table and we do, as I think do all other players,
encourage the People's Republic of China to do what they can to
help to bring Korea back to the table. Of course, one of the examples
which we would tend to urge in this sphere is the example of Libya
where actually they have stepped back from a role that they played
some years ago, have disarmed, are beginning to demilitarise,
and are seeing economic and social reward in that regard. So I
think that is one of the important things, that we do encourage
recognition of that in Korea and we encourage the Chinese Government
to remind Korea that actually others have travelled that road
before and to better effect.
Q272 Mr Keetch: On economic reform
in North Korea, clearly there is a role for Britain and many other
countries to support economic development and I know that in the
past the Foreign Office has sponsored some work by the University
of Warwick, for example, on an educational programme between 1999
and 2002 to provide assistance in terms of changes in agriculture
or whatever. Do you think there is a role there for Britain, if
not to be one of the big players on the nuclear issue certainly
to be encouraging the North Koreans to have economic and maybe
political reform to try and ease what is undoubtedly a massive
humanitarian problem on the ground in North Korea?
Margaret Beckett: We do that to
a certain extent although, because of the concerns about the DPRK's
nuclear programme, we have, I am afraid, suspended active trade
promotion and technical assistance now, but we do continue to
try to develop some of these projects. For example, we fund English
language training and university and some other grass roots projects
and so on, and we also encourage our other international partners,
particularly South Korea as well as China, to use their own economic
links with North Korea to try to foster this kind of engagement,
but it is rather difficult at the present time.
Q273 Mr Purchase: Could we talk about
the role of the WTO and the Chinese counterfeiting industry at
two levels; the massive increase in Chinese exports which are
now valued at something like £760 billion per annum, the
third biggest exporter in the world, but some of it based upon
these very cheap counterfeits that the Chinese seem to excel at?
What can we do? Other countries are already considering tariff
barriers against the interests of world trade development, but
what can we do against this flood of amazingly cheap imports?
Margaret Beckett: There are two
slightly different issues there, if I may say so. On the one hand
there is the issue of the WTO trade expansion, foreign trade rules
and so on, and on the other there is this very difficult issue
of IPR and counterfeiting. It goes back, I think, to something
I said earlier in response to a question at this end of the table.
It is clear that China takes the concerns about this issue of
counterfeiting, IPR and so on a great deal more seriously than
people have sometimes argued that it did in the past and is showing
every sign of recognising the mutual value of abiding by WTO rules
and getting the right kind of governance in place for a country
that continues to want substantial investment. I think the willingness
is increasingly there but the practicalities remain quite difficult,
especially, as I said earlier on, at local level. I think it is
just something that we have to encourage and try to work with
and assist China in tackling, and also perhaps it is incumbent
on all China's trading partners to look at whether there is more
that we can do at the receiving end.
Q274 Mr Purchase: Can I just put
to you very briefly that often the development costs involved,
maybe in pharmaceuticals but sometimes in scientific development
too, are huge and can only be recovered by sales over a very long
period of time? This appears to me extremely damaging. Have you
anything in mind immediately to deal with or tackle this particular
problem, because it is surely going to lead to disinvestment in
intellectual property and real development?
Margaret Beckett: I do not have
any magic wand, I have to confess. As I say, it is my perception
that this is something that is improving. When you think of the
huge investment that China is making in science, engineering,
the bases for invention and innovation, it seems to me self-evident
that it is going to become increasingly in China's own interests
to see these agreements and understandings observed and that will
make a difference, but I am not saying that it will be easy for
the Chinese Government to tackle this if only they have the will.
It is not easy; it is not easy at all. I do not claim that I have
the answer at this moment in time but I do think there is a greater
recognition of the mutual benefits of observing and developing
some of these rules and that recognition is strengthened in China
itself. I do not know if there is anything Mr Wood can add to
that.
Mr Wood: Within the scope of our
fairly modest resources we do have some functional projects running
with the Chinese to help to codify standards and build a raised
consciousness of the need for intellectual property protection.
The problem that we identify the Chinese have is really a problem
of law enforcement and implementation. They have the political
will, they have set the right legal and regulatory frameworks,
or are trying to do so, and increasingly the intellectual property
infringement problems they have affect Chinese companies and interests.
The Chinese want to tackle this themselves and in a modest way
we are trying to help them and things are moving in the right
direction, as the Foreign Secretary says.
Mr Keefe: The progress the Chinese
have made in their own internal systems for dealing with intellectual
property issues are increasingly being exploited by Chinese companies
themselves who can see that their own interests are damaged. It
is very interesting that that is how it is developing.
Q275 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Do you think
that China's voracious appetite for raw materials—oil, minerals
and so on—is now having a seriously distorting effect on
the struggle for human rights in the world in that China seems
to want to do business with any regime, however autocratic, in
order to secure its supply of raw materials, not just in the developing
world but also in big countries like Iran which we discussed earlier?
Surely the one big factor is that, bluntly, Iran can provide a
lot of things that China wants so China is not going to make life
very difficult for the Iranian Government? Is this now having
a very detrimental effect all round the world?
Margaret Beckett: But, as I said
a moment ago in answer to Mr Mackinlay's question, China does
not only share concern about the potentially damaging effect of
not being able to reach agreement with Iran about a future plan
but also in sharing that concern is prepared to engage in a discussion
that we had in Vienna, so it is not a lost cause, if I can put
it like that. Secondly, while I take your point completely, it
is inevitable perhaps that there will be this creative tension
for an economy that is growing and needs to grow, as China's is,
to be looking short term to how they obtain resources, and it
is important for part of our dialogue with them to encourage them
to think about what is sustainable in the longer term and what
is the nature of the relationships that they will need to build
across a wider world community. Of course, as I am sure the committee
is very well aware, an extremely long-standing principle of the
Chinese regime, and I suppose we are going back decades if not
more, is a sort of non-intervention in other countries' affairs.
That has always been their principle and so it is not altogether
surprising that it is not changing as they are looking to answer
these wider difficulties and to obtain resources. Obviously, again,
in terms of our dialogue and our engagement with China, we do
try to encourage on the one hand the notion that it is not just
a matter of signing a contract in the short term—how can
you sustainably and reliably build up relationships across the
world and give reasonably convincing access to resources over
the long term—but also what does that mean in terms of overall
relationships between different countries and different societies,
and to encourage them, whether it is with Burma (and, as I say,
we have dealt in a sense with the issue of Iran) or others of
those with whom China trades, to recognise that we see it as very
much in their long term interests to take account of some of these
issues and concerns and, if they wish to hold by the principle
of non-interference that is one thing but they must recognise
some of the problems. If we take a different example, there are
countries with whom China has continued to maintain a relationship,
for example, Zimbabwe, where the difficulties that are taking
place in Zimbabwe will have an effect on their capacity to be
a reliable partner in the future, and these things do work together.
It is not just a matter of it not being of importance to a trading
partner.
Q276 Chairman: Can we move back and
follow up a question you answered from Sir John Stanley earlier?
The whole East Asia region has historically come under a kind
of American security arrangement and the rise of China potentially
poses a challenge to that. What threat would instability in that
region cause to our national interests in the UK and is there
anything we can do to assist the development of greater stability
of the structures and relationships in that region?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, I think
there is. One of the impacts of globalisation about which we all
talk so much nowadays is that your problem is my problem and so
great instability in any part of the world is a threat to other
parts of the world; I do not think there is any question about
that. Is there anything we can do to assist? Yes, I think there
is. In all of these areas we have relationships of varying strength
and experience. One of the things that we try to do is build good
relationships, obviously, with all those with whom we interact
but also encourage them to build relationships with each other.
As you may have noticed, in recent years we, the UK (and we have
encouraged this in the EU) have set up strategic dialogues with
a number of emergent major players in the world scene in order
precisely to encourage that kind of recognition of mutual concern,
mutual dangers and difficulties and exploration between people
who might otherwise be at odds with and stand aloof from each
other of how they can build better relationships. I have viewed
the strategic dialogues being set up. I have not actually set
up any of them yet myself but my understanding is that that is
the thinking behind some of those approaches, instead of waiting
until something goes wrong, precisely to try and head off at the
pass what are clearly potential areas of difficulty.
Q277 Mr Keetch: Can I talk specifically,
Foreign Secretary, about Sino-American relations because they
are obviously vital not just for the region, frankly, but also
for the entire globe? They have changed slightly over the years.
When the current administration took over they started referring
to China as a strategic competitor rather than a strategic partner
and certainly I suppose the crash of the American EP-3 spy plane
in April 2001 did not help those relations, but largely since
9/11 the United States obviously understand the focus on the so-called
war against terrorism. China has been supportive of that and has
been broadly co-operative in it. Could you say a word on that
and could you also say a word on whether you think there is any
role for Britain to play here, rather than being, as I say, a
strategic competitor, to try and encourage the view in the United
States that China could be an incredibly invaluable partner for
them, not least, it must be said, of course, because of the huge
potential business opportunities that an emerging China would
provide for the United States?
Margaret Beckett: I do not think
there is any doubt that there is tremendous potential for good
relationships between China and the US, and indeed that is recognised
on both sides. I cannot remember—when was Bob Zoellick's
speech?
Q278 Mr Keetch: September 2005; I
was going to come to that.
Margaret Beckett: I thought his
speech was an important signal, which was warm towards China and
was in a sense encouraging China, I felt. This goes back to the
question the Chairman asked me, if I recall correctly, about the
role China plays in the UN and encouraging China to take that
greater responsibility to which its growing power gives it access
and to play to some degree a greater role on the world stage,
and I think that is fully recognised. However, the other thing
that is happening, and it is a matter for the American administration
but I think domestically in the United States, as elsewhere in
the world, is recognition that China's existing and potential
economic power is leading to anxiety about competitiveness and
there is a terrible danger as I would see it of it helping to
fuel the drive towards protectionism. One of the reasons why I
am extremely anxious about the prospects for the Doha Round is
that failure of the Doha Round could open up a kind of domino
effect, a flood back into protectionism which I do not believe
would be in the interests of this country or the wider world.
Q279 Mr Purchase: My next question
is still on Sino-American relations but thinking of the effect
on Britain. You will know that in the post-war period the growth
of the German economy and the subsequent massive under-valuation
of the German mark led to serious problems in Britain of under-investment
and the rest is history. A very similar situation appears to be
developing in China with the growth of the economy and the under-valuation
of the currency and America becoming very concerned about, as
we have already mentioned, intellectual property but on top of
that oil markets and commodities. Do we have the same concerns
in Britain that the Americans have about these matters related
to the growth and valuation of currencies?
Margaret Beckett: It would probably
be right to say that we have the same concerns in the sense that
we recognise the dangers that America sees, but we hope and believe
that we can work co-operatively with China to avoid them. It is
not in China's interests to destabilise the world economy any
more than it is in anybody else's. The yuan has been revalued
recently, has it not, which I recall from some years ago there
was discussion about. The Chinese were very reluctant for a long
time to see any such moves but they have begun to contemplate
it so I think there is a growing recognition of mutual interests
there and a growing understanding of looking at the effects of
what seems to be helpful in the short term on one's longer term
trading and business relationships.
|
