---

Chinese People's Liberation Army

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton, and to have the opportunity to raise this important issue in Westminster Hall. On 4 June 1989, the tanks of the People's Liberation Army rolled into Tiananmen square. The massacre that followed, according to official Chinese figures, resulted in 241 dead and some 7,000 injured. However, the BBC and students say that there were in the region of some 3,000 dead. At the time, the west was shocked; indeed, Lord Kinnock said that it was a crime against humanity. Ever since, there have been serious question marks against China and its human rights record. Today, China supports arms sales to the Zimbabwe regime of Robert Mugabe, and there was recently an attempt to move arms on to the African continent. It is involved in supplying Iran—up to $7 billion-worth of arms in 2004. More recently, close to the time of the Olympics, we saw a brutal suppression of the peoples of Tibet, and continued persecution of Christians and Muslims in the country. What did the European Union and the United Kingdom do at the time of Tiananmen Square, and what have they done subsequently? At the time, EU member states got together and passed the Madrid declaration of 1989. The declaration has some important points, which I would like to place on the record. It involved a breaking of diplomatic relations and, effectively, a stronger form of trade sanctions. Included in the declaration was a clear and separate measure, which referred to"““interruption by the Member States of the Community””—" the European Community—"““of military co-operation and an embargo on trade and arms with China.””" It could not be said clearer than that. In addition to that, continued resolutions of the European Council—as recently as 2006—has kept in place those measures. At the conclusion of the EU Council meeting in December 2006, the council reaffirmed its willingness to continue working towards lifting the arms embargo on the basis of the European Council conclusions of December 2004. However, the council continues to have serious concerns about the human rights situation in China and deeply regrets that there has been little progress in a number of areas. I spoke to an official from the European Commission a couple of hours ago. He agrees that the measure is still in place. He said:"““The measure of interruption of military co-operation and the embargo on sale of arms are part of the same thing. It remains resolutely in place.””" For some reason, the United Kingdom has chosen unilaterally to break the embargo. In August, a member of the People's Liberation Army passed out of Sandhurst. That is the same People's Liberation Army that was involved in the massacre at Tiananmen square, and has been involved in suppressing the Tibetan movement. The embargo was apparently broken in response to parliamentary questions without the knowledge of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office. According to written answers, the MOD officials did not even consult UKRep in Brussels or the Foreign Office. Apparently, the embargo was broken as part of the wider Whitehall initiative to encourage better relations with China. In order to break the embargo and to allow members of the People's Liberation Army to attend Sandhurst, a safeguard was put in place which said that the training will be kept under review"““and these limited engagements will stop if there is firm evidence that any skills or knowledge we provide have been misused.””—[Official Report, 17 September 2008; Vol. 479, c. 2250W.]" How they will find the individual officer cadets from Sandhurst in the huge People's Liberation Army, in a huge country that is not renowned for its freedom of information and freedom of movement is beyond me. After a series of parliamentary questions about what the bilateral programme was, I finally received an answer. The programme will include"““senior leadership engagement, high-level command and staff training…disaster management training, peace and support operations.”” —[Official Report, 23 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 474W.]" The total amount of funding allocated in support of the programme for financial year 2008-09 is £465,000. I cannot understand what the Chinese People's Liberation Army is going to teach us—or what we are going to teach them—on command and staff training. Perhaps we will teach it how to invade an island off its coast that it wants back. When we talk about ““junior leadership training”” or ““peace and support operations””, perhaps we will be assisting it in dealing with its troublesome groups in Tibet that it finds so easy to put down. I found that objectionable. At the bottom of that answer, the Minister says:"““I am withholding a copy of the bilateral programme agreement as its release would, or would be likely, to prejudice international relations.””—[Official Report, 23 October 2008; Vol. 481, c. 474W.]" First, we have a right to know what has been signed, especially when it is in contravention of the EU arms embargo. Secondly, we have to ask, ““Whose relations could be under threat?”” We do not have to look far to realise that our relations with the United States, our closest military ally and trading partner when it comes to military and aerospace equipment, will come under stress. In a number of speeches dating back to 2005, the Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military Affairs, John Hillen, cautioned that any action by the EU to lift its embargo on arms to China would"““raise a major obstacle to future US defense cooperation with Europe…I think we can count on it: should the EU lift its embargo, the US Congress will legislate.””" I know from representing many thousands of workers in British Aerospace, from travelling to Washington and from my previous life in the aerospace industry that the United States is serious about the steps that it would take should Britain, or the European Union, decide to engage in arms sales and military co-operation that would threaten the important relationship of trust between the United Kingdom and the United States. I have to ask why the Government are following such a line. What are they playing at? We have established through written answers that officials in the MOD did not check with the Ministers. Having spoken to a number of previous Secretaries of State for Defence, they find such an answer to be rather odd because in their experience any agreement to send personnel to military training establishments in the UK with the remotest hint of controversy would usually go via a Minister for approval. I find it incredible that the MOD did not check, or engage in discussions, with the Foreign Office—the very body of this Government that is charged with representing us in Europe and at European Council discussions. What we have done is dangerous because a number of countries in Europe have less moral regard and would be very keen to sell arms to China. Therefore, it weakens our case in the European Council that we should not engage in arms sales to China. I suspect that the Government have been caught with their pants down. Effectively, they were not aware of the details of the Madrid declaration and were happy to play around at the edges. However, that is a dangerous game to play. It is a very silly game to play if we think that we can tinker at the edges with a country such as China. As we speak, it has intelligence operatives in this country trying to spy on our defence industry. On a number of occasions, it has successfully penetrated the US military programme. Why will the Minister not publish the bilateral agreement and place it in the library? Why is it that no one in his Ministry knew what was going on at the time and left it to officials? Perhaps he can tell us why he thinks that it is better to upset some of our US allies on this issue? We have a long history of trust in the intelligence and defence communities in the US. At this very moment, US officials are trying to agree a trade treaty to allow British defence firms better and preferential access to the US market at the cost of our European allies. Why pursue this silly measure that will only antagonise our relationship and do no good at all?