| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.53 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on raising these issues, and on the way in which she presented her case. Although the House's attendance is somewhat limited at this late hour, I have no doubt that every hon. Member in the Chamber has been impressed with the way in which she has expressed and dealt with some extremely detailed and important issues. I therefore congratulate her doubly on her speech.
I shall make a few opening comments about the nature of the association agreement and the processes that relate to my hon. Friend's final point. I shall then attempt to deal with some of the technical issues relating to countries of origin before moving onto the peace process and Britain's presidency of the European Union. I hope to do all that in the few minutes that I have to speak.
The EU-Israel association agreement was signed in November 1995. It was ratified by Israel and most EU member states early in the process. The United
Kingdom completed its ratification on 8 April this year, after the debate in Committee on 19 February to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to draw attention to one extremely important point: the reason why virtually all right hon. and hon. Members considered it sensible for the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement was that there had been progress in relation to Hebron. As a result, all parties were agreed that the House should give the association agreement a fair wind. My hon. Friend was right to say that, at the time, our attitude to ratification was coloured by our attitude to the progress in the middle east peace process.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that two EU member states--France and Belgium--have not completed their domestic processes of ratification. We expect both countries to have done so in the first half of 1998, although the procedures relate to parliamentary processes in those countries. It is possible that the processes will not have been completed during the United Kingdom presidency, but that depends on the two countries concerned.
My hon. Friend then asked about the attitude of the Council of Ministers to the association agreement and its final ratification. Progress on the middle east peace process would certainly help discussions in the Council of Ministers. It would greatly improve the atmosphere and prove beneficial to Israel.
It may be useful if, before turning to the technical issues, I set out the Government's views on where we are on the peace process, and how we would like it to progress. My hon. Friend is right to say that, post-Oslo, the Palestinians have gained little economic reward from the peace process--indeed, quite the opposite. The figure she quoted in terms of the reduction in living standards for Palestinians may be conservative. Some would suggest that the figure may be as high as 40 per cent.
I realise that political and economic processes do not work together in a simple causal relationship, but if we are to show that peace works, we also have to show that it produces economic rewards. It is abundantly clear that the Palestinians should have more than their fair share of those rewards, simply because of their circumstances and the differential in incomes in the middle east.
My hon. Friend was also right to say that the process is currently stalled. We have taken an active role in trying to encourage the restart of the process. Earlier this year, we were concerned when it appeared that the peace process was no longer engaged, and there was no prospect of progress. We have encouraged the United States to become actively involved and we very much welcome the steps that Secretary of State Albright has taken to try to bring the parties together and get the process going.
It is always worth reminding ourselves that the peace process is the only show in town--the only way in which we shall make progress, and the only way in which Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region will have the opportunity to live together in peace, security and justice. The peace process is important to us all, regardless of the way in which we approach the issues, and from whatever standpoint we come.
We have been pressing the Israeli Government to ensure that the offer on the table will re-create some confidence in the peace process. We have suggested the
need for progress and action in the following areas. We believe that there is a need for what Secretary of State Albright has called "time out", and that no action should be taken that determines or predetermines the final status negotiations.
Our view on settlements comes into that process. We are clear that the settlements are illegal, and are an attempt to pre-empt final status negotiations. We have also said that there should be further substantial redeployment. The figures will be subject to negotiation, but the redeployment must be real, qualitative and quantitative. It has to ensure that it rebuilds confidence in the process.
We also believe that there need to be further confidence-building measures, and we have constantly drawn attention to the need to make progress on the proposals for the airport and the port--both of which will feed strongly into the economic issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West referred. We also believe that there is a need to ensure free and safe passage so that the situations that my hon. Friend described do not happen and the peace process and the political and economic issues are not undermined. We have made it clear to the Israeli Government that there should not be action that squeezes the Palestinians and their civic society out of Jerusalem, because that would also pre-empt the final status negotiations.
We have made that position clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister delivered that message to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and it has been delivered by other European Union leaders. We hope to see progress in the current round of negotiations.
As I am sure some of my hon. Friends will know, President Arafat is in London tomorrow. We hope that he will be engaging in a successful negotiation through Secretary of State Albright, and that we will be able to make the progress to which I referred. It is important--we recognise this--that, in the context of the peace process, there is a commitment to security on both sides. We need peace; we need security. Both sides have obligations. We are stressing the need for those obligations to be carried out.
The United Kingdom will assume the European Union presidency within two weeks. We are determined to be active in that presidency in our role in the middle east. We feel that we can play an important part by ensuring that the European voice is heard and that our aspirations and concerns are expressed in the peace process.
We are also determined to act as complementary support and help to the United States in the peace process, because--I repeat the point that I made earlier--we all have a reason to ensure that the process is successful. Over the next six months of our presidency, we are determined to play an active and constructive role. Hopefully, we can move on some of the peace-related issues, so that we can move towards the justice with peace and security to which my hon. Friend referred.
I should like to take this opportunity to deal with some of the more detailed issues to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. She talked about the question of orange juice and Israel's breach of country-of-origin rules. I reassure her that the Council of Ministers is very aware of the issue, very concerned about it, and wants appropriate action to be taken. It is clearly unacceptable that Israel--or any country--is in breach of an agreement with the European Union.
It is clear from the available evidence that there has been a breach, and that action needs to be taken. The Commission is following up the matter with Israel, and we hope that they will reach a proper solution in the near future. That solution must be a recognition that "country of origin" means exactly that, and that the rules are clear and cannot be bent. The rules must be honoured, because they are part of an agreement between Israel and the European Union.
My hon. Friend also asked whether it was possible for Israel to redefine its borders under international law, as part of the EU association agreement. I hope that I made the point earlier that our position on that is clear--indeed, it was shared by the previous Government--and we regard the settlements as illegal.
The final boundaries and the final status issues have to be negotiated between the parties, but we do not recognise the settlements under international law, and we have said so on many occasions. The trade association agreement cannot redefine Israel's boundaries, and all the issues must be resolved through the final status negotiations. The position is clear under international law, to us and to other countries, and we will continue to restate our position on the settlements as part of the overall process.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of human rights as part of the broader association agreement. Whenever I visit any country in the middle east, or in any other part of the world, I take the opportunity to raise human rights issues. Human rights are universal: they are not a la carte, and we cannot choose which countries we want to enforce human rights. We must consider each and every country in relation to a universal respect for human
rights. That is true for Israel, for the Palestine National Authority and for other countries. I can give my hon. Friend the clear reassurance that we will continue to raise human rights issues on every visit to the region.
My hon. Friend rightly raised specific issues, but the important issue for us all is to make progress in the middle east peace process. I do not believe that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, wishes to see the process stalled, because, if that happens, the risks are obvious and substantial. We all know that we face a difficult and delicate situation. My plea to all those involved is to make progress, through any necessary concessions, and to recognise the needs of all the parties directly involved in the negotiation. No one can seek to stop the world, get off and freeze the process, because that will not work.
We need to negotiate on the basis that the way to bring a lasting peace to the middle east is to recognise the genuine needs of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. If we can do that, the prize is substantial. It is a sad reflection that a region so rich in people and natural resources, and with a culture that is so diverse and yet so important to the history of the world, under-performs both economically and politically.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |