Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-73)
10 JANUARY 2007
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Mr Anthony Smith and Mr David
Quarrey
Q60 Lord Tomlinson: I understand that.
Mr Hoon: —It is not an entire solution
to the problem.
Q61 Lord Crickhowell: Can I pursue
the issue because one gets the impression, certainly when it is
raised in this House in debates and so on, that for all the consideration
it has as a solution been dismissed and that the general view
is that we have got to go on wiping out the poppy crop. If you
were a poppy grower in Pakistan you might think that was a pretty
bad approach because your income was going to be removed. I cannot
think of a way more guaranteed to drive local people into the
arms of the Taliban than to wipe out a large source of income.
The other obstacle put in the way of the scheme advocated by Lord
Tomlinson is, "Oh well, if you do have this licence scheme
probably all the control of it and so on will get into the hands
of the warlords and others connected with the Taliban and not
much of the advantage will actually go to the poppy-growers,"
but I would not have thought that that was entirely true and I
cannot believe that it really makes sense when there are no easy,
alternative crops to be quickly introduced to pursue a policy
that seems to be designed to wipe out the main income of people
uncommitted and to drive them into the hands of the people we
want to defeat. Ought not this alternative therefore to be taken
much more seriously than it appears to have been?
Mr Hoon: It is taken seriously for the reasons
that I think Lord Tomlinson outlined. I do not believe that it
is a complete answer to the problem. It is also important to recognise
in Southern Afghanistan in particular that this is not about governance
from Kabul as against the Taliban. This is about largely a group
of determined we would call them criminals in the United Kingdom
who are heavily armed, who have tremendous military resources,
who will resist any kind of authority because it interferes with
their criminal activities. The Taliban are part of that but it
is not either/or. Indeed, I would place the emphasis on the criminality
ahead of any ideological commitment to the Taliban. The truth
is that people in the South resisted the Taliban because they
also were a form of authority and what we have to deal with here
are people of a criminal kind who have enormous resources available
to them to resist British troops, Afghan troops, indeed any kind
of authority. Trying to find a way through that, I agree that
providing a legitimate opportunity for people to sell opium may
well be part of the solution but it is by no means all of the
solution.
Q62 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: The commitment
of European nations to fight in Afghanistan seems to be, to put
it mildly, rather patchy in terms of many nations do not seem
to really want to get involved in fighting in the most serious
areas such as Helmand Province. What ramifications has this got
for future European defence identity and having a European army
which we know is one of the ambitions of some people in Europe?
Mr Hoon: Obviously the UK Government would prefer
for all military commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere to be
without caveats, but I think it is important to acknowledge and
recognise, particularly if I may say so Lord Hamilton as a representative
of a political party that has argued that all decisions on military
commitments should be taken after a vote in Parliament, that these
caveats are the consequences of constitutional arrangements in
countries like Germany. The constitutional requirement in Germany
is that there should be approval by the Bundestag. The Bundestag
imposed certain restrictions on the deployment of German forces
and the caveats are a consequence of that. As I say, the UK Government
does not operate in that way, but there are a number of political
parties represented in Parliament who have argued that we should
and this is a consequence of that. The real question is whether
we would prefer Germany not to deploy any troops at all to Afghanistan,
which might otherwise have been the position, I am afraid my answer
to that is not, but we would certainly like to see the caveats
lifted.
Q63 Lord Chidgey: Just quickly returning
to the implications for Afghanistan of wiping out the poppy harvests,
for understandable reasons, can you tell us if there have been
any discussions with our EU partners on a reaction to the proposal
to basically destroy the poppy fields with weedkiller, Agent Orange,
call it what you will, by the US as a means to accelerate the
drug eradication programme?
Mr Hoon: I think there is general agreement
that aerial spraying is not appropriate and that the way in which
to deal with the crop is on the ground, and that I think is the
broad approach that is now being adopted.
Q64 Lord Chidgey: Will that broad
approach now be carried through not to destroy them by aerial
spraying?
Mr Hoon: Certainly that is my understanding
of what has been agreed.
Q65 Lord Chidgey: Minister, you mentioned
earlier that this is a long-term problem in Afghanistan and absolutely
that is the case. Can you give us any feedback on how the EU is
looking at the economic development of Afghanistan at a time when
we are moving from income from poppy fields on to a more soundly
based Western-style economy? Can you tell us whether or not there
have been any lessons learned from the way that development aid
and infrastructure development in war-torn countries tended, in
a way, to be diverted to using Western resources to help achieve
those goals rather than actually investing resources in developing
skills and in economy of the country concerned. The parallel of
course is American contractors—bless them—in Iraq
using ex-patriate labour rather than indigenous Iraqis to help
develop the country. Can you tell us whether this has been taken
into account in the Government's view with the EU of how Afghanistan
might develop?
Mr Hoon: There is little doubt that the one
aspect of Afghanistan that has been remarkably successful in recent
years has been the improvement in its economy. Without going into
detail, the way in which the economy in Afghanistan has grown,
and I used some figures yesterday and I cannot remember them about
recent growth rates, and they are very, very encouraging. The
aid that has been provided appears to have been used successfully
to build the kind of skills and capacity that Lord Chidgey has
indicated, so that part of it is a success story. Indeed, going
back to the debate about what is happening in places like Helmand,
unfortunately, it overlooks the fact that in the North and indeed
in the West of Afghanistan problems that people equally said could
not be resolved have been resolved and the authority of the Government
in Kabul runs there, and indeed tax receipts are flowing back
to Kabul and allowing Afghans themselves to decide on how to spend
their own money in developing their own economy, so there is some
real success there which sometimes is overlooked in the inevitable
attention given to the South.
Q66 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Can we turn to the question of Iran, Minister. I suppose one
could say that Jack Straw held the record for visits to Iran as
British Foreign Secretary, together of course with his counterparts
in France and Germany, and the efforts that have been made to
try to negotiate with Iran over their nuclear capacity have certainly
stalled. I suppose that is the kindest way of putting it in some
respects. Whenever I travel to the Middle East, which is fairly
frequently these days, I find the Arab countries of the Middle
East every bit as concerned about Iran and in fact in some ways
more concerned about Iran than they are about Iraq. I think they
see Iraq as something that eventually will come right one way
or another, but they are seriously worried about Iran's nuclear
capacity, very particularly the Gulf States. It is the first topic
on their agenda. I wonder whether you could in bringing us up-to-date—and
I see you pulled a sceptical eyebrow when I said that perhaps
this negotiation has stalled—with where you think we are
on this discussion, which I think most of us have supported but
about which there are some quite serious worries now.
Mr Hoon: I agree, I referred earlier to perhaps
a change of emphasis in the Arab world. From my regular visits
there in previous years, concern about Iran was somewhere on the
agenda but low down, and I agree entirely that it has now become
a very important issue for quite a number of Arab States, going
beyond I think as well the Gulf States who always historically
had some legal jurisdictional disputes with Iran, so it has become
a significant issue. The reason I was slightly sceptical about
the use of the word "stalled" was that of course the
international community adopted the Security Council Resolution
1737 by consensus. It sent a clear message that the international
community is united and determined to see Iran meet its obligations,
and I think our view is that we want to see what response we will
get from Iran now that that agreement has been reached and the
Resolution passed. So I think the ball is firmly in Iran's court
at this stage.
Q67 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
So in a sense we have migrated European policy into a UN arena
and there is now a UN consensus around that.
Mr Hoon: And if I may say so, that was always
the way in which we approached the negotiations, although the
EU-3 played a significant part that was always both on behalf
of the EU and indeed respecting the views of the wider international
community. I would have preferred to see Iran respond beforehand
but given that Iran has not done so, sadly, the resolution is
the logical conclusion of that process given the failure of Iran
to co-operate.
Q68 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Iran is a very big, important country in the region. It is
quite distinct from the Arab nations. It is a country that is
very populous, with a well-trained army, a very distinct view
of itself and a very long history. Some people might say that
the idea that Iran would have to go cap-in-hand to other countries
for enriched uranium was always one that was bound to fail, given
that sort of approach, but the IAEA's proposal that they hold
a bank on behalf of the countries who may be wanting enriched
uranium for the purposes of energy production is one that I think
has caused a lot of political interest, not just here but in other
countries as well. We have got Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Morocco
and Tunisia all talking about wanting enriched uranium for energy
production in the future. What is the EU's view on the IAEA proposal
that this bank of enriched uranium should be held?
Mr Hoon: The EU's view is set out in the UN
Resolution and I think at this stage it does not help to try and
depart from the terms of the Resolution. The Resolution sets out
very specific, targeted sanctions against Iran that will be implemented,
and I do not think it is helpful at this stage for the EU, or
indeed any other country, to depart from what is a very clear
and agreed international position.
Q69 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
I absolutely understand that in terms of Iran particularly
but the question was slightly different insofar as we are talking
about here the IAEA specific proposal that as a sort of double
track there is this bank of enriched uranium held and that countries
that want to pursue a nuclear energy policy are able to go to
that internationally held authority's bank of uranium, and this
would apply equally to countries such as Saudi Arabia and the
Emirates who have also said that they want to pursue that in the
future.
Mr Hoon: In a broader sense obviously the EU
is looking at that and it will be something that we will consider
in due course. I simply do not want any suggestion that we are
any way departing—and when I say "we" I mean the
EU—from the terms of the Resolution. It is very, very important
that that agreed international position, which after all took
some doing, is not qualified in any way. David, I do not know
if you want to add.
Mr Quarrey: The IAEA had its report in 2005
and some Member States have put in proposals and EU experts through
the first quarter and the first half of this year will be looking
at that with a view to the EU forming a position on it, so there
are proposals from Member States rather than the IAEA itself which
set out the general concept. I think the other important thing
to remember is that the EU's offer which was put forward in July
last year gave Iran everything it needed for a civil nuclear industry.
So the lack of access to domestic production of enriched uranium
is no justification for the course of action it has or has not
taken since then because the proposal gave them everything they
needed.
Q70 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
I do not think there is any argument over where we stand on
Iran. The UN is absolutely clear. The question I am asking is
there is the day after tomorrow to consider in terms of other
countries who want to go the same way, who are watching very anxiously
what happens, and we have to find a long-term solution to this.
Are these proposals about holding a bank of fuel which could be
drawn down upon by countries that you feel the EU is likely to
rally around because I think a lot of people think they are rather
sensible proposals?
Mr Hoon: There are a number of ideas around
and certainly the EU will be considering them. I think the idea
is to give a response next spring/early summer.
Q71 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
This coming spring, spring 2007?
Mr Hoon: Yes.
Chairman: Those of my colleagues who
were not here at the beginning will not know that we are releasing
the Minister at noon but Lord Hamilton you have a question very
quickly.
Q72 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I thought
that weapons-grade uranium was part of a waste product of enriched
uranium produced in a civil power system, so you do not necessarily
rule out the making of nuclear weapons merely by issuing enriched
uranium for use in power stations, do you?
Mr Hoon: I think that is one aspect of why it
is necessary for us to look very carefully at these ideas in order
that we do not run that risk. David is more knowledgeable about
these things.
Mr Quarrey: It depends on what happens to the
spent fuel and what sort of monitoring processes there were.
Q73 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: We create
our weapons-grade uranium out of spent nuclear fuel, do we not?
Mr Quarrey: Indeed.
Chairman: Minister, can I thank you and
your officials for having really given us such a full set of answers.
We have not quite completed the questions we would have liked
to have asked you but we have really much appreciated the time
you have given and your very helpful answers. We look forward
to staying in touch with you both by correspondence and indeed
hope we will see you again before too long when we are pursuing
these matters again.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lord Chairman, can
we have a written reply to the two questions?
Chairman: There are two questions, one
on battle groups and one on the Moldova and Ukrainian border.
Lord Tomlinson: One is a factual one
and one is about the border between Moldova and the Ukraine.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
