Examination of Witness (Question 160-179)
BILL RAMMELL
MP, MS JO
ADAMSON AND
MR ANDREW
MASSEY
22 APRIL 2009
Q160 Malcolm Bruce: Minister, the
UK Government has argued strongly the case for an international
arms treaty, although there have obviously been hiccups along
the way. My understanding is that the General Assembly has set
up a series of meetings, six one-week meetings starting in March,
with the next one in July. Can you give us an indication of what
has happened in those meetings and what the preparations are for
the next one?
Bill Rammell: You know that we
have led the way in calling for an arms trade treaty, and if we
can get it, and get it in the way we want, that can be a significant
step forward for populations of peoples whose lives are terrorised
and made unstable by the trade in such weapons. Through the European
Union we are funding a series of regional seminars in West Africa,
starting in April, to build support for the arms trade treaty.
We have had the first meeting of what is called the Open-Ended
Working Group, and the second one will take place in July.
Q161 Malcolm Bruce: Are those meetings
in Africa a UK-Government initiative?
Bill Rammell: European Union.
Q162 Malcolm Bruce: They are separate
from the OEWG but feeding into it?
Bill Rammell: That is right. We
are working through the Open-Ended Working Group and bilaterally
with countries across the world to try and garner support for
the ATT. We launched this process back in September. We then had
an event back in October or November where we brought the Diplomatic
Corps together at the Foreign Office to seek additionally, on
top of what we were doing in different countries, to try and get
the message across.
Q163 Malcolm Bruce: NGOs and many
others, obviously as a principle would support what the Government
is trying to achieve, and I do not think there is any disagreement
on that front; but they are a little sceptical as to what will
be determined in the end, given the number of countries that are
reluctant to get involved or not support it. The suggestion is
that the treaty might include the Conventional Weaponry for UN
Register of Conventional Arms and small arms and light weapons,
and this is regarded as a rather low threshold; so from the UK
Government's point of view would you support this seven-plus-one
treaty, or do you have a higher aspiration? I am not asking you
to reveal your negotiating hand, but it is important to indicate
how high you are aiming, and your view of the danger of getting
to what might be regarded as the lowest common denominator.
Bill Rammell: I think that is
an absolutely legitimate concern, and I understand where it is
coming from. The reality that the Government politics and certainly
international negotiations are the art of the possible and you
have to pursue this with partners, but we most certainly do not
want a weak treaty and will do everything in our power—and
I do have a difficulty without revealing a negotiating hand—to
ensure we set the threshold as high as possible. If, at the end
of the day, we get a weak treaty that does not make a material
difference, I would regard that as a failure.
Q164 Malcolm Bruce: It is worse than
that, is it not, because it provides cover for continuing trade?
Bill Rammell: Yes.
Q165 Malcolm Bruce: In December 2008—and
the date is important of course—at the UN Assembly meeting
the US voted against and 19 countries abstained. Obviously, there
has been a change of administration in the US, and some of the
rhetoric has also changed, but perhaps you are in a better position
than I am to say whether you feel there is a substantively different
approach coming from the United States? Obviously, voting against
the working group is a pretty destructive position. Have they
shown any indication of being prepared to engage, or any change
of tone, and what effect might that have on the other 19 who were
reluctant?
Bill Rammell: I think I would
say it is work in progress. If you go to the first meeting of
the Open-Ended Working Group the US delegate was far more constructive
than had previously been the case—and this was a delegate
under the Obama administration compared to the Bush administration.
Whereas previously the response—and we were talking about
this yesterday—had been, "no, no, no", the response
instead was, "let us be realistic; what is achievable; how
can we do this?" That is just a straw in the wind, as it
were, but I do regard that in tonal terms as a constructive change.
The Foreign Secretary discussed it with Secretary of State Clinton.
We are pursuing this at official level and I will be in Washington
the week after next to discuss it with my counterpart. This is
going to be a tough challenge, but we do have a significant degree
of support. The merits of the case are extremely strong. When
I hosted the event back in November at the Foreign Office what
was interesting was that on the platform I was not only joined
by NGOs but I was joined by representatives of British arms export
manufacturers, who can actually see that if we get this right
it not only stops the illegitimate arms trade but it provides
a proper platform for legitimate arms trade. We have a very strong
argument to make, and I am hopeful that we can make progress.
Q166 Malcolm Bruce: Are the United
States likely to be engaged on anything more than seven-plus-one,
the point being that you can use all kinds of other equipment,
which is not within the seven-plus-one but nevertheless is potentially
very destructive? I appreciate that you are in a negotiating position,
but at the moment they are not prepared to engage in any treaty.
Is it possible to have a treaty that has real reach without the
United States; and is there not the danger that if the United
States engage, they drag the bar down rather than raise it up?
Bill Rammell: I will bring Jo
in, but I would just say that the response from the US delegate
at the Open-Ended Working Group I regard as constructive.
Q167 Malcolm Bruce: So they are attending
the Working Group, even though they voted against it being set
up?
Bill Rammell: Yes, and I welcome
that fact. As I say, the tone of the comments was not "no,
no, no," it was, "let us be realistic; what can we achieve?"
Ms Adamson: I was at the meeting
in New York and the delegate saved his intervention until the
last day, and the fact of engaging had many delegates round the
room saying, "Wow, that is a real change." The very
fact of engagement is a big shift, but what you are finding in
Washington is that the new administration has got a big agenda;
it has got CTBT, FMCT and all the other things to work through
its position on, so the fact that we do not yet have a very worked-through
position back from the US is more indicative of other things that
they are juggling with and getting officials into state departments.
I personally was really struck by the change in tone from the
delegate at that meeting, but you are right that we have now got
to dig below what would be beyond engagement.
Q168 Malcolm Bruce: If the United
States is engaging, that is obviously good news. Are there any
other states that would be a cause for concern? In other words,
if we solve one problem does that just bring us into conflict
elsewhere?
Bill Rammell: The answer to that
is "yes".
Q169 Malcolm Bruce: Obviously, we
know who they are but—
Bill Rammell: But I am not sure
that parading a list of those we need to do work with helps us.
Q170 Malcolm Bruce: Is there any
positive change in other areas?
Ms Adamson: If the Americans are
interested, that changes the dynamics a little bit anyway, certainly
among the P5, I would say.
Q171 Malcolm Bruce: Russia and China
we are talking about.
Ms Adamson: We have been banging
our heads against the wall last year, but if you have this opening
with the US being more positive and engaging, and thinking how
we can make a treaty happen, rather than never, then the others
look more interested automatically.
Bill Rammell: Just one more positive
straw in the wind with respect to the United States is the Arms
Trafficking Treaty, in respect of guns to drug cartels, which
President Obama has proposed. There is not an exact read-across,
but it shows an openness to these international legal instruments
that was not there in the past.
Q172 Mike Gapes: Can I begin with
President Obama's recent speech in Prague about a nuclear-free
world and a complete marked shift of approach to the Bush administration:
what is our Government's assessment of that speech, and particularly
on the question of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which
was briefly mentioned by Jo?
Bill Rammell: I think it is very
encouraging. I think both the re-commitment to the start to the
process, the reductions in the huge arsenals from both the United
States and Russia, is a very positive step, and there is a willingness
to look seriously at a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty on the
part of the US. I said before to you that we have led the way
in terms of nuclear disarmament—a 50% reduction over a decade.
Bluntly, we need others to go further, and the indications from
the Obama administration are very positive.
Q173 Mike Gapes: As you know, we
have the non-proliferation review conference next year. The European
Union had a meeting in December about what are called "new
lines of action to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".
I understand that the Government is supposed to bring forward
proposals on the follow-up to that meeting. What action are we
planning to take to ensure that our country meets the target of
achieving the objectives of the new EU lines of action by 2010?
Bill Rammell: We are currently
working towards the creation of our national implementation plan
in relation to the new lines of action, and that plan is due this
summer, so we can hit the 2010—
Q174 Mr Borrow: When you say "summer"
does that mean July or October?
Ms Adamson: We have said we should
try and have something towards the end of June. We have got together
with officials from other Government departments and worked on
the plan. Given that our own target is June, it is not late summer,
it is more before summer!
Bill Rammell: To add to that—and
again I would say it, would I not—we would regard it as
part of the leading pack on implementation on these issues. The
whole point of the new lines of action is to ensure that every
European Union state is up to that standard. That is why, in addition
to the six-monthly strategy progress report, we have asked for
a frank analysis of EU achievements against the new lines of action,
so we can look at what progress is being made throughout Europe.
Q175 Mike Gapes: Are the French on
board with us on this, as the other nuclear weapon state within
the EU?
Bill Rammell: That is certainly
my understanding.
Ms Adamson: There was a seminar
in Brussels last month, and the French were pretty active participants
at the seminar. They have done quite a lot of internal reviews
of their entire WMD structures across government, so they had
quite an impressive plan, saying, "We have already done the
following"—so my sense was "yes".
Q176 Peter Luff: There is always
the difficult question of dual use. Can we look at the European
situation. Ian Pearson told us that there was a commission proposed
on dual use being considered by the Council working group. Where
have those decisions got to?
Bill Rammell: This is the re-cast
or amendment of the EU Dual Use Regulation. That has now been
completed. The re-cast will go to the Council of Ministers on
5 May. There is then a publication period and it will come in
to force 90 days after that publication.
Q177 Peter Luff: So you know what
change will come out of it. In particular is the UK going to be
able to implement new brokering and transit controls to comply
with UN Security Council Resolution 1540?
Bill Rammell: Yes, it is proposed
to extend the coverage of the regulation to transit trans-shipment,
which effectively gives customs officers the additional powers
to open consignments to ensure that they are actually what they
say they are.
Q178 Peter Luff: Are there any implications
for domestic legislation here?
Bill Rammell: It is an EU regulation,
and in terms of best practice we are at the leading edge of this
anyway.
Q179 Peter Luff: I am going to ask
you now two mutually contradictory questions, I appreciate. There
are two quite separate concerns about dual use. The first is what
we hear from the NGOs and indeed from defence manufacturers about
levels of compliance in the dual use sector. They point to, "A
sector of what should be a regulated industry operating wholly
or outside the regulatory regime, which is clearly unacceptable."
What do you feel about that?
Bill Rammell: I do not think that
is the case, but, look, there is a balance to be struck between
the regulation you put in place and the way that that not only
deals with a problem but then impacts upon legitimate trade. I
think we have got the balance right, but it is something that
we keep constantly under review, and there is a whole series of
areas—for example, as the Export Control Act has been reviewed,
where we have looked at it and received representations, and made
changes to the processes.
| 
