Transcripts For CSPAN British Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing 20150314

Deployment program to get the numbers back for the Third Marine Expeditionary force to what they should be. Second, the reposture of forces. Relieving some of the pressure and oak at our and rebuilding forces in guam. And the forces in australia. Several pieces. Guam australia, and forces going to japan, and some forces going to hawaii. We are Getting Started with that this year. In the budget 2016 theres a Training Range in guam that is a precondition to bring forces. We will bring 5000 forces to guam, eventually. We are rotating the spring another force of 1000 in australia with plans to bring it up to 2500. In terms of issues you should be concerned about, one is the progress for the replacement facility in japan. That will be critical. We have to have deficit does the facility to leave our current air station and to make the redeployment to guam. To properly support the marines in the area. The other piece is lift. We will better support the Combatant Commanders daytoday requirements. In other words, moving to guam and ulster earlier we get better coverage in the pacific daytoday, but in the contingency we have to aggregate those forces for the, for example, the korean peninsula. One thing we are working on is the additional list that would be required to move marines around. And enabling capability, amphibious lift, and other forms of lift to move marines for training and contingency purposes. And the Training Facilities and life support that will be on guam over time. We are further, i have touched on this off and on for 10 years, senator, we are finally starting to pour concrete and actually move forward. I feel much better about it that i have in recent years. I want to talk about in terms of the arctic. The dod 13 page arctic strategy. And you look at what the russians are doing in the arctic , it is impressive. Impressive, but disturbing. So im sure you gentlemen are somewhat familiar. General dempsey mentioned in testimony with the secretary of defense last week that the russians are looking at four arctic combat or gates as our u. S. Army is thinking of pulling them out of the army. I think that would give Vladimir Putin a lot of joy. Theyre building 13 new airfields, longrange air patrols with bombers off of the coast of alaska, again. They have incredibly six new icebreakers, five new to add to their fleet of 40. The United States is thinking about an additional one to our fleet of 5. Does it concern you when we talk about keeping ceilings open . There will be an important ceiling developing in the Northwest Arctic passage. Has the navy given any thought to this in terms of adding icebreakers to the navys shipping fleet if we are going to be remotely competitive with the russians in the arctic. They have stood up a new arctic command and are all in in the arctic. 13 pages of paper it is not 13 pages of paper, it is concrete ships, airfields. We are thinking of removing forces from alaska. We are number five or six the world in terms of icebreakers. It seems ludicrous that the navy should be concerned about the situation. The purview of the icebreakers is the department of homeland security. The coast guard. If we clip that we will be clobbering our strategy. Right now it resides with the department of homeland security. Am i concerned . Yes. For us to take up combat ships we have to work in conjunction with that and make sure we can get there. We have to look at the hardening of our haulers, and it is not just surface ships. It is the aircraft and undersea domain. Earlier i mentioned i have directed the increase in our exercise capacity and our activity. We are spending a little more, it is modest right now, in exercising with the norwegians, scandinavian countries, and canada to get used to operating up there. Senator sullivan as the art as the ice melts secretary mabus. I stopped at the university of fairbanks. It is not just platforms are capability, it is what we are facing. We not only have less ice but it is freezing in different ways. As we send up submarines, they do not have a lot of clearance above or below. The ice is forming in different ways that are beginning to be a hazard to navigation. As it was said, we are upping our exercises. We are upping our research into the area. We are moving in terms of hardening holes hardening hu lls and training capabilities. We have a Training Facility in kodiak focused on cold weather combat. Every seal goes through it. We are concerned about it. We are trying to move on it. But, again, it is one of these things, that in this budget situation, you have to make very hard choices. We do not have the capability that we would like to have in the arctic. I would like to think the witnesses for their excellent testimony and services. The hearing is adjourned. This sunday on q and a dr. Adrian the director of the Georgetown Medical center watchdog project. On our pharmaceutical companies lobbying congress and what medications to prescribe. The promotion of a drug starts seven to 10 years before a drug comes on the market. While it is illegal for a company to market the drug before it is approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. Drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions, or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug. And then blanketed medical journals, meetings, and other venues with these messages meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug. And also to repair the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern and pacific on cspans q a. The Gridiron Club is hosting its annual dinner tonight in washington dc. The white tie event includes journalists from the d. C. Area and invited guests from the state and federal government. The guest list includes Governor Scott walker and president obama will also attend to give remarks. He last spoke at the dinner and 2013. Here is more on the event and its history. Clarence page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune and the president of the Gridiron Club. Lets talk about the club. Who are the members, what is the mission, and how do you become a member . Clarence page it was started in 1885 by newspaper reporters in washington. I like to think they started the club because of the proper societies of washington would not let them join their clubs. It started with three reporters from philadelphia, as i understand. Ever since then, at that time the access has been limited to 50 people. There are what are called the associate members who are perhaps not full journalists or retired members who still maintain what we call and associated membership. And then there are people who are in formally called ringers who are not journalists but have good voices and make us sound good. This has gone on for many years. 130 years now. We are keeping it alive. It only recently opened up to nonnewspaper people. The late great hymn russert was her first nonnewspaper journalist. The great nbc anchor. We have opened up to the internet. We have John Dickerson from slate who is also from cbs news. Things, we try once in a while to move up into modern times. The gridiron is at its charming best when we can stick with the old white tie tradition. We are the only office that still holds to a great old white tie tradition. When did the club begin to accept women . Clarence page in the 70s, before my time, but behind the rest of society. We found a press Organizations National press clubs, etc. , and the industry itself did not open up to women and minorities until the 1960s. The Gridiron Club owners institutions opened up to africanamericans before it opened up to women. As i understand the story, it was kay graham, the publisher of the washington post, who decided at the urging of other women to boycott the Gridiron Club until they opened their membership to women. That sent a shockwave through the organization. The oldtimers tell me that there was no event and gridiron history that caused more eternal internal division and discussion. They relented, and women have not only done well in the gridiron, but also been president. They are wonderful members like everyone else. Even us old stodgy male conservative throwbacks to earlier times come up to the 21st century every now and then. Wear to the name gridiron come from . Clarence page the name comes from the motto of the club. Gridiron singes but does not burn. That is satirical humor to the political figures that we harpoon. The gridiron is an important symbol. In 1892 was when washington was electrified. A big gridiron symbol was electrified, very dramatically, and was turned on during the annual dinner. The speech in the dark is delivered at the beginning of the dinner, and the gridiron is turned on and gives not only a dramatic affect, but it is amusing because even at the very beginning, a lot of people are hearing about a gridiron dinner and expected to find football stars. Sometimes they are there as guests, but it has nothing to do with the club. If you leave journalism are you still a member of the Gridiron Club . Clarence page if you leave journalism no. You have to stay in the confines of journalism professionally. There is so much new media coming along, satellite operations, Digital Media and journalists are involved in those now. The question is who and what is a journalist. That is a subject of growing debate in the general society and the Gridiron Club itself. We do stick to that, though. However journalist is defined the member must be a fulltime active working journalist. As a journalist and organization you fight for access and openness, yet this is closed to cameras . Clarence page life is full of contradictions. Having cameras in the gridiron is a continuing debate. It is something let me say the most practical reason for not having cameras is because it was and is a very intimate gathering of newsmakers, journalists, families, etc. A night to let ones hair down, so to speak. The initial resistance to cameras was do we want our newspapers our home audiences or offices to cs gallivanting around in dresses and costumes . Singing funny songs . Usually off keep it still spirited. But still spirited. We wouldnt want that public image getting out out of context. Would it be counterproductive. Also, would it inhibit what goes on in the room. That is a continuing debate. Over time we developed a system whereby the speeches are on the record. In other words they are publicly released. For a long time it was through our press releases, or just people in the room taking notes. We have now opened up to print full coverage. Working with the White House Correspondent association and the white house itself. 2012 was the first time we let a print journalist in to give a full report. It has been expanded to the wires. This year, we have five reporters. They must be press only, even if they happen to be a tv producer, they cannot shoot video. Not even a cell phone camera. No tweeting, no instagram which many of our members think is a kind of laxative. We try to keep out video and audio. The question is, these are public speakers public figures speaking. We have a spokesperson for the republican partys and the democratic party. This is the public record, the argument goes. And the folks should be publicly accountable. We think it is efficient to hold them accountable through print media. Since theyre just telling jokes, they are not official policy announcements. We think that is a good argument for the exception whereby one does not necessarily have to have full coverage. Someday, i suppose the Gridiron Club may open up like other organizations and have full video coverage. That may be an inevitability and our society. But, i think it will lose something. And this is a general agreement that it will lose Something Special if that happens. Will we be any different than the White House Correspondent association . We will be different in terms of our rituals and program and white tie, but the atmosphere that allows people to feel more relaxed to be able to develop more of a rp in a town that has so much rancor and political bickering etc. That will be lost. Are there rules for membership for those who are part of the gridiron . How many members do you have . Act of members, 50. The associate members number about 60, in that neighborhood, and the requirement for membership basically is that of being a working journalist in american media. If it is not open to overseas media or overseasbased media. It is not open to people who are ancillary and by that i mean, not directly reporting. In this diddled jewel age, who is not directly reporting, that gets a little fuzzy, that our rules are pretty specific about it. Lets talk about the dinner itself. Who gets invited . This is the word time that the president has been in attendance, how were you able to get him . Who the members want to invite, we have an auction list which, which is major newsmakers look at private, celebrities etc. , who a lot of people want to invite, so that we dont have a members on the same person. We do a ceremony where you put big numbers out of the hat which gives you the right to choose ahead of other people who you want to invite. It takes little while, but it does work well for us, and there are others who are not on the list, but if you want to invite them, each member of the club guest to invite a certain number. Me as president , i have an unlimited amount of people i can invite. That is the one benefit of being president besides being the center of attention for whole evening, whether i want to be or not. He, or someday she is the center. This is inevitable. The president there, through formal invitations the controlling if necessary, the people who know the president gets to them, putting in the good work for you, etc. Since grover cleveland, who was in office when the club was founded, nobody could convince him to come, he did not get along that well at the media. Every president since then has come to the gridiron as an honored guest, has spoken, the president , we give the president the last word. No matter how much lampooning goes on, the president gets the last word. That is a very important attraction. And it is viewed as an important enough. Some of them have come every year. Richard nixon didnt come every year. But, especially at the end, jimmy carter. Ronald reagan was here every year and he loved it. His wife performed famously, a one year singing secondhand close, to the tune of secondhand rose and turned her image around. Everyone agrees that america appreciated her a lot more afterwards and that was one case where those did leak out somehow. Through the white house, that was delighted to have that kind put out before the public. Clarence tate, the president of the Gridiron Club this year, thank you for your insight. Thank you for filling in. Tonights dinner is close to cameras but we will have live Coverage Later today at five eastern here on cspan as guests began to arrive. We plan to bring you as much of that up until our program, the communicators. Our guest is minion cliburn who talks about the commissions newly adapted Net Neutrality rules. Next, a hearing with the British Foreign secretary Philip Hammond who was before the British Foreign Affairs Committee to discuss a range of topics including the Ukraine Russia conflict isis, and negotiations over Irans Nuclear program. From london, this is just under an hour and a half. Can i welcome members of the public to the sitting of the committee and what i suspect will be the last opportunity to question the foreign secretary and his team on world events. The secretary didnt welcome. Good to see you. Welcome. Come. Good to see you here today. Thank you. Foreign secretary, this Committee Published a report a couple weeks ago on the finance performance and administration of the Foreign Office. We rather felt the Foreign Office was at a bit of a crossroads. In our judgment, it had done a good job over the last five years but it is spread rather thinly. The choice now is whether or not we maintain that spread or deepen it which requires extra resources, or we narrow the band width of the Foreign Office and tailor our aspirations accordingly. Which direction do you think we ought to be going . It is certainly the key decision, threat versus debt and this is not a new discussion in the Foreign Office. I asked the league nonexecutive to conduct a review of the network shift policy that was introduced and changing the allocation of resources and opening some new posts. And i, in the course of doing that piece of work, i discovered that actually this debate has been going on in the Foreign Office not just during the course of this parliament but for many years about the tension between breadth coverage and depth intensity of resources. Clearly and by the way, that review suggested that the network shift decisions that have been taken had been broadly the right decisions and it had broadly satisfactory outcomes. I think when we know what our resource envelope for the next parliament is after the next Spending Review i think this is a discussion that the Foreign Office needs to hold once again. Between breadth of coverage footprint and depth of coverage and also around the balance between the resource thats devoted to the core bilateral and multilateral relationships and what i call the thematic resource that is focused around the, if you like, diplomatic themes within the Foreign Office in london. When i came to this debate, it started with a slight prejudice that perhaps we were thinning ourselves too thinly and we needed to put a little more depth in some places. I think the evidence suggests that actually weve been quite successful in most places managing to maintain a high proportion of output even where we have taken out resources in the interest of broadening the footprint. I think the jury is out. I think its the right question to ask. I dont think from my perspective ive got a definitive answer yet. I dont know whether either of my colleagues has any more to add to that. As you say, a lot will depend on the resources that we have to deploy in the next par element. I dont know if you can say more than that. Clearly if there were a substantial reduction in resources i think the option of just thinning out the current footprint of overseas posts would be challenging. I think if we were talking about a substantial reduction in resources we would have to look to footprint. Given the Foreign Offices had quite a pounding here in the last five years, i hope we wont come to a reduction in resources. Have any preliminary conversations taken place with the treasury on any of these aspects . No. The discussion on the next Spending Review clearly will be a discussion for the next parliament and theres been no discussion about that as yet. If you had to pick a reform that youd like to if you you know, commence in the Foreign Office, whats the area youd most like to pick on . Well, as i said and youll appreciate that ive been there a relatively short time and we have had quite a lot of other things going on but if i were looking to start a big new piece of sort of inward facing work it would be around the balance between the resource thats invested in bilateral relationships and the resource thats invested in subject matter expertise. That sort of crosscutting versus vertical agendas. And i slightly have the perception that the department in the past has had too much of its resource in the crosscutting thematic areas. That balance has been redressed somewhat over the course of the last five years. But im not sure that weve got that exactly right yet. We may need to put more of our resource into what i regard as the jewel in the crown which is the bilateral and multilateral relationships which the Foreign Office manages. As far as the present membership is concerned wed probably agree with you. Can i bring the subject to defense spending. You said on the andrew marl program on the weekend that you remain committed to the 2 figure. Is that the governments position . Well, as you know, what i said i think on the andrew marl show, to get him in the record, the Prime Minister led the charge at the nato summit in newport along with president obama urging our nato partners to sign up to the commitment, the target of 2 of gdp. We are one of the very few nato countries, certainly one of only two large nato countries that are currently spending 2 of our gdp on defense. Now, i cant second guess the outcome of either the strategic defense and security review or of the next Spending Review. But clearly we have we have signed up to that target at newport and not only passively signed up to it, we actively sought the adherence to the target of all our other nato partners. So it would be pretty inconsistent if a future government had a figure below 2 . Well were clearly committed to maintaining Strong Defense maintaining britains armed forces, and as again i said on the andrew marl show on sunday during my nearly three years as defense secretary, the Prime Minister was absolutely consistent in making clear to me that he had no appetite for any further cuts in the size of our regular armed forces. The cuts that we had to decide upon in 2010 because of the black hole in the Defense Budget that we inherited were extremely painful, and weve been very clear and consistently clear that he wasnt prepared to see any further cuts. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman, foreign secretary. I want to move you on to the ukraine crisis. General sir Richard Scherr reef command of europe on the record saying were going to be absent in the why has not the uk been more directly in negotiation with resoling that crisis . First of all, i dont accept the arguments that are being made. General sir Richard Scherr reef said several things starting the day he retired from office. I never heard him say anything in office. Hes been quite vocal since he left office. Im not sure hes approved to comment on this. This is a diplomatic discussion thats been going on. We agreed amongst ourselves last summer the best way of trying to explore the opportunities for a peaceful solution to the ukraine crisis was an approach thread by chancellor merkel simply because she is of all the european leaders the one who has the closest thing to a working relationship with Vladimir Putin. The discussion took place at the normandy celebrations and for no other reason became known as the normandy event. We were not included. The americans were not included. Our view always was that the russians wouldnt have agreed to have the conversation if we and all the americans had been included. And we think our german and french colleagues have done a good job in very difficult circumstances in trying to take forward a negotiated diplomatic solution. Meanwhile, we have played a very significant role in, if you like playing the bad cop role. Weve focused on stiffening the resolve of the European Union on sanctions, using the resources of our own intelligence agencies to identify targets for sanctions, and weve played a very large role in that process within the European Union, using our diplomacy to encourage our partners in europe to maintain robust on sanctions and to make the argument for sanctions, and using our relationship with the United States to make sure that the European Union and the u. S. Sanctions regime remain well alone nape ear not exactly synchronized but they are wail lined and the u. S. Is looking now, i believe at making some adjustments to their regime so that we are more clearly in lock step. And that requirement will continue making sure that while the minsk forces is taken forward and we all wish it well, the resolve of the eu to maintain the pressure on russia is strong and unbroken over the coming months. And thats the role weve assigned to ourselves. And just on the good cop bad cop, did you as bad cop have any relevant conversations with both france and germany about the second minsk agreement before a deal was reached, or did you find out about the deal after it was agreed . Well, we had continuous conversations with french and german colleagues including meetings, but i have regular telephone conversations with both my french and my german colleagues at official level, particularly political director level, in close and regular contacts, on this and a range of other issues. Talking to them about the iran negotiations the minsk process, and many other you know, the isil challenges, many other things besides. So we have very close working relationships. I met all European Union colleagues in riga on friday and saturday then we had a quad meeting in paris on saturday afternoon, which we discussed again all of these issues. By the way, i was in kiev on thursday discussing with president poroshenko, and the Prime Minister, where we are at in the minsk process and how we can be helpful to ukraine in discharging its obligations over the next weeks and months. Channels of communications were open all the way through. Channels of communication were open at my level, at the Prime Ministers level and at the senior official levels. You mentioned the sanctions regime and our role in that. Do you think you have enough support within the eu to secure an early extension of the existing tier three sanctions, and, b, commitment to immediate expansion if sanctions if violence reignites . On the latter point, i think there is a very clear acceptance across the European Union ranging from enthusiastic in the case of the hawks to reluctant but understanding in the case of the dots if there is a significant breach of ceasefire or major assault, for example the European Union would have to respond and respond immediately with a significantly increased regime of sanctions. Beyond that if we look at the scenario where the mincing process rumbles on more or less, albeit there have already been significant breaches of it from the russian separatist side, but if it more or less rambles on there is i think a broad acceptance that the logic of minsk is that the sanctions regime would need to be extended to the end of the year because it is only at the end of the year that well reach the point where russia has to comply with the most onerous requirements on it, handing back to ukraine of control of the border between ukraine and russia. The timing of extension of the existing sanctions for that period is going to be a subject of discussion within the European Union, and there is certainly some appetite for waiting to see what the level of compliance with the obligations the minsk agreement is. Im sure it will be discussed a at the European Conference march 19th and 20th opportunities then and at subsequent european councils. A decision doesnt need to be made on extension of sanctions until the end of june, early july. And you mentioned a moment ago the alignment between the United States and europe on the existing sanctions. What discussions have you had with the government the United States, about coordinating a potential expansion of sanctions . You say if things ramble on. We have had such discussions. If we decide to extend to expand the range of sanctions, we would be the eu would expect to agree broad shape of the package with the United States. There might still for various specific reasons be differences at the margin between the two packages, but we would expect them to be broadly aligned. We would certainly expect to act in tandem to make maximum impact. My final question, on the supply of equipment the Prime Minister has said that the uk is not at the stage of supplying lethal equipment to the ukraine but did not rule it out completely. At what point would the uk consider supplying lethal equipment to the Ukrainian Government, do you think . Well, to answer your question precisely, i think we would consider it again but not necessarily do it if the circumstances on the ground materially changed, if we found the Ukrainian Army was crumbling crumbling, for example, or if we saw clear evidence that the Ukrainian Army was being was under sustained attack and was not holding the line because of inadequacy of equipment and weapons, then we would certainly want to consider again the Prime Minister has made clear we want to keep our options open here, but we dont believe there is a military solution to this conflict and were very wary of giving the misimpression that we perhaps do think that if we were to focus on supplying lethal equipment to the ukrainians. But equally we cant afford to see the Ukrainian Armed forces crumble. Mr. John stanley. Foreign Secretary Committee on arms export control, which, of course, the Foreign Affairs committee is part, in the latest information which you per sfrooef thereceived from the business secretary a couple months ago on the arms export high senses to russia in other words, the existing export licenses that were in place so, that there were actually a total of 248 export licenses to russia and the value of those, not only the standard individual licenses, doesnt include the open individual licenses, was 169 million pounds, why is the British Government still in this situation with the russians engaging in sequential territorial annexation quite apart from the human rights dimension in russia, still carrying out a still very expansive arms export trade to russia . Im not sure that im going to be able to answer technically the question why those licenses still extend. They are of course to the extent that they relate to export of military or dualuse goods to military end users, they will be superseded by the sanctions, the arms embargo. So the answer to your question, but i dont have it written down here ill have to write to the committee. The answer to your question may well be a technical one, that it isnt necessary to cancel the licenses because theyve actually been superseded by the embargo. But if i may ill unless miraculously the answer to that question should come to me during the course of this hearing, in which case ill inform the committee. If not, i will write. All i can hold out to you is you say superseded by the embargo. This is information provided by the business secretary on 15th of december last year, the 21st of january. So either youre saying that the business secretarys information is wildly out of date or possibly youre not fully informed as to the scale of extent licenses to russia. Im simply making the point that it may be that the extant licenses simply sit there effectively extant, but ineffective because no goods can be exported due to the embargo, which, as it were a superior instrument to the licenses. But i believe that we may be able to find the answer to this question during the course of this hearing and ill ill wait for the answer. Break in if i may. The extensive correspondence weve had on extant licenses they are lie senses which are still up and running and they do not include licenses which are either suspended or have been revoked. And that is i understand that. And i dont think it would be necessary i think it would be in fact i sam certain it would be the case that if you were an exporter of an item for which you held a relevant license, that that item was now subject to an embargo notwithstanding your license, you would not be able to export that item. Ill await your letter, foreign secretary. Is it still the governments policy to stop exports of equipment to russia only that which might be used in ukraine . Can you be more specific about equipment . Do you mean military i mean the totality of arms export, previous statements made by ministers is that the arms block export to russia is in relation to dualuse goods which might be used in youk ukraine. No. In order a very specific geographical limitation applying to that policy. The ban the eu embargo is a ban on the export of dualuse goods for military end users and for military end use in russia. Thank you. Can i turn now to the issue of exports to ukraine . Mmhmm. You said in answer to mr. Harveys previous question that the government policy is to export only nonlethal equipment. That being the case, when the government gave export license approval in december last year, recently to the 75 saxon armored personnel carriers was not the government fully aware that they were going to be armed once they got to ukraine . No. We had no knowledge of the intention, which has been announced, but i understand not carried out, to fit light machine guns on these vehicles. But since we have become aware of that, weve reviewed the license in respect to these vehicles against the consolidated criteria and have concluded that there are no grounds to revoke the license on the basis of that information. Foreign secretary youll be aware that mr. Alexander chech november nov, has quoted these saxons arrived without any armament. We will mount arms. We should provide cover for the National Guard or other units to which they would be supplied. Surely the British Government was aware that that was the intention of the Ukrainian Defense ministry. No. The government was not aware when the original license was granted. Were clearly aware now because the ukrainians have said publicly that they intend to mount weapons on these vehicles. But this would be no different from supplying land rovers and then discovering that they intended to mount machine guns on the roofs of the land rovers. The assessment was made that supplying the vehicles would not increase the offensive capacity of the Ukrainian Army nor would it alter the balance of military force in the conflict in eastern ukraine. That is the relevant criteria against which we have to judge this export. So the position is that the sed and will be permitted to go ahead. But the crucial point, former secretary, in terms of the governments policy, mounting weapons on them turns them from being nonlethal to being lethal. No. I think sorry. If i might just continue. Is it not a matter of genuine concern to you and should it not be that the Foreign Office and the British Government are clearly so ill informed about the intentions of the Ukrainian Government that they were apparently in december of last year apparently wholly oblivious as to what was the clear intention of the Ukrainian Government in respect to the saxons to turn them into lethal with respect, we only know it was the clear intention of the Ukrainian Government because theyve now told us that its their clear intention, and we are now apprised of all the facts. They didnt make this clear at the time when they originally contracted to make this purchase of vehicles. And the i dont need to tell you as chairman of the committee on arms exports that the point at which the assessment is made of the capability of the equipment is the point of export. And we judge that the applying the consolidated criteria to this second basm of 55 vehicles does not change the decision, that they are still eligible for export licensing, none of the consolidated criteria is engaged on the basis that the vehicles carry no armaments. Mr. Gates. Foreign secretary, just before your Foreign Affairs Council Meeting i was in riga as well at the parliamentary meeting. And we had a lot of discussion there about the concept of hybrid warfare. Can i take you to your remarks yesterday where you said, there is a hard red line protecting the Baltic States . And you also said, any russian incursion would entitle the baltic countries to seek to invoke article 5 of the washington treaty. And you were asked which is what are. And you said and mr. Putin knows that very well. Can i put it to you that article 5 of the nato treaty is not necessarily clear in the sense that it refers to an armed attack against one or more of the allies . If you are damaging the electricity grid, if you are undermining the infrastructure of a country if you are using special forces in covert activities but not openly attacking, is it not hard to determine at which point there is an armed attack on a nato power . Yes, it is. And thats a subject of as you well know of a lot of discussion on both side of the atlantic about how hybrid attacks are to be treated and, indeed attributed because it isnt always that straightforward to be clear about the attribution of such attacks. And i think our position is that we are not clear that being completely unambiguous about this is necessarily helpful. A degree of ambiguity can be strategically advantageous. Were also clear as the committee will know, that the response in any case to any attack to be lawful in International Law has to be proportionate and therefore this might go as much to the nature of the response that would be made to a hybrid attack if it were attributed to a particular state as to tre should be a response. And i think, you know theres a really very interesting intellectual debate about when and whether it would be appropriate to respond i can net kinetically to a nonkinetic attack. Thats not just a question of International Law but a question of reality public opinion. I think this is a very interesting and realt we need to have. Is there a consensus amongst as to when article 5 would be triggered . Or is there an ongoing intellectual debate as you put it . Well im sorry to answer the question. I suspect rather technically. But i think any member state can seek to invoke article 5, and article 5 is only considered invoked if all Member States by consensus agree that theember states seeking to invoke is under armed attack. I think thats the correct that is the position under the washington treaty. So consensus is required for there to be deemed to be an armed attack on a member state. Can i put it to you for a country like latvia or estonia with a substantial russianspeaking minority amongst its population, right on the front line with russia, facing a president who has shown that he is actually prepared to admit that he planned the annexation of the territory of ukraine and who has said that the collapse the ending of the soviet union was the greatest disaster of the 20th century, that there is understandably deep concern about not having clarity from United States United Kingdom, france, and the other big nato partners about under what circumstances article 5 would be invoked . No im not sure thats right. I was with you until the last ten seconds. Of course we understand the concern that there is in the Baltic States and nato members and the uk has been leading among them, have sought to reassure our baltic partners, for example, by offering strike aircraft for the Baltic Air Policing commission by taking part in military exercises in baltic countries and poland. And we will continue to do so. But i think the interest of the baltic countries are best served by a degree of strategic ambiguity around the asymmetric warfare question and by a very clear and unambiguous distinction between nato countries and nonnato countries. And one of the challenges i think we face around the management of the ukraine crisis isnato countries. And one of the challenges i think we face around the management of the ukraine crisis is that ukraine is not a nato country and while we want to show clear support for the ukrainians in their struggle to defend their sovereignty, we must be always cheer that there is an air gap between the kind of support that we can offer to ukraine as a nonnato country and the kind of support that we would and should offer to a nato member if it faced the similar kind of challenge. Were coming up to general election, and after march the 30th the house of commons is dissolved. And there is a convention about parliamentary approval for military action, sh which has seemed to develop over recent years with regard to syria with regard to iraq. With if a crisis develops in the period after march the 30th and before a new government is formed whenever that is, it could be several months, how are we going to hand that will situation if there is a case of clear interception of United Kingdom alongside nato partners or even unilaterally in terms of defense interests . Well the convention thats grown up and established de facto by the last government and weve confirmed thatwy acknowledge it is that where it is possible in terms of time and in time of the need for secrecy to consult parliament, parliament will be consulted. Where parliament is not sitting it clearly will not be possible to consult parliament and in no circumstances would bit right to postpone military intervention that was required for the safety and security of britain or the alliance because we were unable to consult parliament because it was dissolved at the time. So in compliance with that convention, my understanding is that it would require the government to bring that issue to parliament as soon as the new parliament was formed for what would be retrospective endorsement. Would there be any plan to consult with the opposition . I mean that depend on the circumstances. But when matters of great importance and certainly a matter of intervention but of great importance, where the circumstances allow even while parliament was sitting, to engage with the opposition on council terms. Well, hopefully it wont be necessary. Given the way russia is behaving with regard to breaching the helsinki agreements and other International Agreements they signed up to . It is more difficult but weve made a clear decision that our approach would be to engage with russia where our Vital National interest requires us to engage on a casebycase basis, and many of the examples youve given are such cases where our National Interest requires us to engage. And the russians have given clear signals that they want to compartmentalize and treat the dispute that we have over their behavior in ukraine as separate from the not necessarily terribly deep relations we have over things like syria on the one hand and the actual quite sensible working relationship we have, for example, in the iran nuclear negotiations. And i think it suits both side to maintain practical working relationships where it suits both sides. Do you think its a fair summary to say the militants or iranian aligned shia militias are one of the main forces in the country territory . Particularly trying to recapture okay. I think iranian aligned or prod broadly iranian sympathetic militias have been for a long time probably one of the most if not the most significant forces in iraq. And thats part of the problem that the government of iraq has. And i think there is in evidence some of military action thats been going around tikrit a little bit more than the iranianaligned militias. We are seeing Iranian Forces engaged in the conflict around tikrit playing a direct role. Iranian regular forces. Thats another step. And of course while one can understand that the government of iraq facing the challenges that it does with the Iraqi Security forces is anxious to make some progress in recovering control of territory is tempted to welcome any assistance, we have always been clear that iraq will only be a successful state if it manages to twopoint a form of governance that embraces all three of the main communities kurds shia, and sunni in iraq ap to the extent that the Iraqi Government appears to be allowing itself and its authority to become dependent on interventions by Iranian Regular forces that is likely to make that much more challenging, much more difficult. Theres nothing new, is there. Nothing new on the shia militias. Iraq secs have been fairly close over a long period of time. Yes there is nothing new about the presence of the shia militias and the role of the shia militias has been established for many years. Do you foresee it as a problem in the longer term . It is potentially a problem, and in an ideal world the government would be raising sunni forces to balance the shia militias and integrating them together in a new Iraqi Security forces. But we dont live in an ideal world and the reality is probably going to be less perfect than that. But the government will have to show that it is not beholden to direction from tehran enforced by the power of the shia militia, because if it cant show that it will not gain the trust of the sunni population who are present in large part in the areas which are occupied currently by isil and will have to be part of the process of evicting isil from that territory. Relationships between the krg and baghdad seem to be a fit bit fragile again. What do you think is the reason for that . The oil crisis prince pli. And i think last autumn major progress was made but a deal was done that was predicated on 100 oil, and when oil is the currency of deals, suddenly the value of the currency is virtually halved you get a problem, and there isnt enough to go around to do what everybody thought. If the kurds deliver the oil that they said they were going to deliver to the baghdad government, their own budget will take a massive hit because the residual oil that theyre able to sell is worth half what it was. Equally, if the baghdad government doesnt get the oil it was promised from kurdistan the hit to its budget from the Falling Oil Price will be amplified by the reduction in supplies from kurdistan. So im afraid that is at the root of the problem. Im visiting both iraq and kurdistan in the next couple of weeks and i will have discussions with both side as to where they are on their private discussion about how to try and solve this problem. Is the fco on the ground in iraq trying to mend fences . Beefed up the representation in irbil . We have a good representation in irbil, and i monitor that regularly and i hear good things about the role that our people on the ground in irbil are playing, and i have been able to crosscheck that with members of the krg administration, that they are getting the access to and input from our mission in irbil that they seek and they tell me theyre very satisfied. There was a lot of publicity over the continuing subject for documentaries on television. I was very unclear when i was asking questions about the plight of these people. What we did to try and protect them what we are doing now to try and protect them and, in fact all the religious minorities of iraq who are under threat. I think in the case of the uzidis, going back to when they were trapped on mt. Sinjar, we were involved with the United States and others in airdrops of food and emergency supplies to them and supporting kr gforces in trying to secure an escape route from the mountain for them, and it became clear over time that the overwhelming majority of those that wanted to get off the mountain had been able to do so. And i think in the north certainly our engagement with krg forces, the leverage that that engagement gives us the anyway quite generous instinct of the krg forces towards minority communities in the north, is the best the best support to offer to those minority communities. But of course it remains the case that those who belong to religious minorities in areas controlled by isil can expect a horrendous fate to await them. And as the Iraqi Government eventually rolls back isil control, i have no doubt we will uncover atrocities that we are not currently aware of and im afraid thats a horror that awaits us in the future. We also know that the position of uzidi women and the fact that many of them have been sold into slavery. Weve had accounts from some who have managed to escape talking about the horrors of their existence under isil. Are we actually doing anything on the ground to try and rescue some of those women . I dont think there are any we dont have people on the ground in any numbers. We have trainers supporting and technical advisers supporting krg forces, but we do not have significant boots on the ground. Neither do any of our western allies. Not least because neither the kurds or the iraqis want outside forces on the ground. So we are independent on what in this case is Peshmerga Kurdish forces can do. And of course they are seeking as a matter of urgent priority to eliminate isilcontrolled territory, but im not aware of any sort of specific rescue missions or raids being planned. It is a Systemic Program to roll back isil control and retake territory that has been lost to isil. A ghastly spectacle, were doing what we can to provide other countries with Counseling Services for women who have been brutalized in the form that you describe, and it is happening on a horrendous scale, as you say. And there will be a lot more to be done but the issue is access. I know the pyd were act itchi along with the peshmerga in taking part in some of those rescues. Also helped the peshmerga in various situations. But still prescribed organization in this country. Is that still our view and if so, why . Would you like to answer that . At the risk of sountding bureaucratic, we dont go into cities cant get into sort of who is being considered and who isnt being considered for prescription. They nonetheless continue to have a difficult relationship no higher with turkey. And so its its not an entirely sort of straightforward thing. Its also a matter for the home secretary, of course. Yes. Ive heard the answer from the home secretary. I was hoping your answer might be different. The iraqi didnt attend januarys antiisil conference in london. This caused considerable hurt to them apparently and also annoyance. Were you aware that they would not be part of the iraqi allegation and if so did the fx co have any responsibility to persuade the iraqis to take a more inclusive approach . Well, we did clearly we couldnt invite them in their own right. It was a conference of nations and we did encourage the iraqis to include kurdish elements in their delegation, and we will continue to encourage them to take an inclusive approach. Thank you. Foreign secretary, on that inclusive approach point and around your operation thats currently ongoing tikrit, would you say that thats for the coalition, certainly a test to see the intentions of both the actors like iran of course the militias themselves as to how they win the peace in tikrit when they eventually drive isil out and it would actually signal to the coalition as to the intent from baghdad a to how they are going to behave towards both in the first place the sunni population but then of course with kurdistan as well . I think thats right. It will be a test case and its very important that its handled correctly. And one of the messages i would be wanting to reinforce with Prime Minister al abadi when i go to baghdad shortly is precisely that that but is there is always the danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And the engagement of Iranian Regular forces in the battle for decree is a further complexity in this question. Foreign secretary, because you will you youve had to cut your stay here for perfectly understandable reasons and tipped off the vote coming as well, it would be great if colleagues could truncate their questions and perhaps their answers could be to focused . Could i turn to syria . Prime minister said at the Liaison Committee last month that it was the policy of the government to hold up the moderate opposition in practical terms. Are we actually dealing with the same people . I think for most of us its confusing as to where we are today. Its a large number of often very small groups. Many of them had areas to make sure that there are Proper Services and policing and rescue services on. We expect to make our main impact through a commitment to engage in the u. S. Led training and equipping program for the moderate opposition. Youll remember that the u. S. Congress last autumn allocated 500 million as an initial trench of funding. It has been quite slow not least because of the difficulty of setting out mechanisms to vet candidates for training. In the short term rngs is it policy to work so closely with opposition when you consider the main opposition to the west is now isil. And actually not the sad. Well, its inconvenient. But weve got to fight both enemies. Theres a moral reason why we should do that. Hes bombing them on a regular basis. His conduct is completely inexcusable and it would be wrong of us to align ourselves. Its a practical reason, as well. Asaad and his brutality is what gave birth to isil. It was anyceps that we were aligning ourselves with the regime which kills the attempts, particularly in iraq, to win over moderate sunni opinion to the government of iraq and the Coalition Effort to roll isil back. Were dealing with bad and worse, but im not quite sure which one was which, but we have to tackle both. What would it be worth with the violence thats going on. How the kurds meant to perceive if we dont give them some recognition from what theyre trying to achieve. The kurds have the potential to be an important part in the moderate opposition in fiekting against the machine and against isil. Historically, they have occupied, i think its probably fair to say a somewhat ambiguous relationship with regime, where the regime left them alone and they left the regime alone. And i hope that were moving into a phase to play a more engaged part and help deliberate syria as well as defending it against isil. On a completely sprat subject, if i may, you would be aware that yesterday was commonwealth day, indeed. Indeed. Isnt there a reason why the Commonwealth Office was not able to fly the flag of the commonwealth for that important occasion. We are often asked to fly flags by various organizations and to support various causes. And while its a little bit like wearing the emblems while any request may be sensible and worthy of support looked at in the roubd across the entire range of requests to provide some support. We do not fly flags of other organizations or to commemorate other events. But that of course, is a new rule that the government brought in to fly the flags of the overseas territories and, indeed, the formations of the United Kingdom. So why not the commonwealth in e . It is, afterall, the foreign common welt office. And, if i may say, isnt it also the case that we fly the flag of the European Union . If weve got to be consistent, shouldnt we instruct to not fly the flag of the eu if they cant fly the commonwealth flag . On that last question the position is that outside of british European Missions to fly the emblem alongside the union flag where there is a case in doing so. They have to make a Business Case for flying that eu emblem. Last question, briefly