RESTRICTED
Argument
7.
As Mr Davies pointed out in his earlier submission, the arguments for and against approving such a sale are finely balanced. We would not permit the export of this equipment where the end user was to be the Taiwan navy. We have however approved the sale of other, less high-profile equipment to the Taiwan coastguard. We have approved the sale of unarmed land-based vehicles to the police for internal security purposes; and we recently approved a request by Westland Helicopters to promote an unarmed version of the Lynx Helicopter to the Taiwan police. There is no sharp dividing line between coastal policing and coastal defence. But we should be clear that unarmed fast patrol boats in the 100 tonne class, while clearly suitable for marine policing duties, are of neglible military significance. We should make it a condition of our approval that no armament would be fitted, and that end user certificates would be required stating that the boats would be solely for the use of a civilian agency.
8. We could not be sure that this sale would escape protest by the Chinese. Peking's annoyance may at any warship sales to Taiwan spill over into paramilitary sales such as this. Apparent willingness by other countries with less to lose to take risks does
not necessarily mean that we should follow suit. But the order is potentially a substantial one; if we refuse to approve it, we shall have to explain to our own shipyards why they are prevented from bidding for a contract such as this while their competitors elsewhere in the EC are permitted to pursue much larger, much higher profile, overtly military sales. And unlike the French, we should be able to argue, if challenged by the Chinese, that these boats (which would be unarmed) are clearly intended for marine police work by a non-military agency and do not in any material way enhance Taiwan's military capability.
DA Warren