Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 25 OCTOBER 2000
RT HON
ROBIN COOK
MP AND MR
ALAN GOULTY
Chairman
1. Foreign Secretary, after the very high hopes
of a settlement in the Middle East alas we have seen everything
unravelling. You and Mr Hain have been extremely active, both
at the United Nations and in your recent visit to the area, to
Israel, the Occupied Territories and a numbering of neighbouring
countries. It would be helpful for the Committee if you would
just give a very brief indication of where you think we are at
the moment and where we go from here?
(Mr Cook) I will be frank with the Committee
that at the present moment I think we have real difficulty on
the peace process and a real challenge in the Middle East. As
you have rightly said, the week before last I spent three days
in the region in the course of which I visited Israel, the Palestinian
authority, Egypt, Jordan and Syria and I visited the leaders of
the Israel and the Palestinian authority twice in the same period.
First of all, there is deep concern in the countries of the Arab
world about the situation in the Palestinian authority, deep concern
both at the violence itself and also concern about the implications
within their own countries as they are radicalised by what they
see happening in Palestine. I think against that background the
outcome of the Arab Summit in Cairo was a very creditable success
for the voices of moderation that prevented a more confrontational
outcome at that summit. We should not underrate the extent to
which there is powerful solidarity across the Arab world, particularly
in the streets of the Arab capitals, for the Palestinians. Within
the two parties to the peace process in Israel and Gaza, I think
the biggest single problem, obstacle, we now have is a very strong
feeling among the peoples on both sides of frustration, hostility,
enmity borne of the violence of the last four weeks. On the Palestinian
side there have now been over 100 fatalities, of whom probably
about 20 are children are under 16. The fatalities, which is what
the press tend to focus on, understandably, do tend to misstate
the degree of casualties. There are also 3,000 wounded, of whom
400 will probably not walk again and dozens are blinded. The scale
of the casualties is high. On the Israeli side there is immense
public and private sympathy for the families of those who have
lost lives in the incident and particular outrage at the brutal
and savage murder of the two Israeli soldiers who were caught
in Ramallah. Against that background of the bitterness on both
sides, it is difficult for the leaders to make the compromises,
concessions, that are going to be essential if one is going to
get any kind of agreement on the peace process. I very much commend
President Clinton on his tireless and determined efforts to try
to find a way forward. At Sharm el Sheikh an agreement was brokered
which it was hoped could bring an end to violence, possibly not
in advance of the Cairo Summit but thereafter. I think we are
all deeply disturbed that the violence has continued and there
were another 17 fatalities over the weekend. The first step, and
I said this in the region and I repeat it now, must be an end
to the bloodshed. There can be no return to serious, meaningful
negotiations until there is the end of that bloodshed. If we can
secure an end to the violence, and there is some evidence that
it is slackening but I do not want to predict too easy and too
ready an outcome on that, then it will be important to get both
sides back to discuss the substantive issues of the peace process.
I understand that President Clinton has been sounding out both
sides to see whether they will come to Washington for a further
round of negotiations on the substance. I hope that can prove
possible because the two are intimately linked. We cannot start
substantive negotiations without an end to the bloodshed. I do
not think we are likely to have a sustained end to the bloodshed
unless there is a perspective leading towards agreement on the
peace process. What is desperately disappointing from the events
of the past month is that at Camp David quite substantial progress
was made. Big problems remained but, as one Arab leader expressed
it to me after Camp David, what separated the two sides was not
an ocean but a river and it should have been possible to bridge
that river. I hope, despite all events in the last month, it will
prove possible for us to get back to where we were at the end
of Camp David and see if we can bridge that remaining gap.
2. Foreign Secretary, you have mentioned the
new initiative of President Clinton, what role do you see yourself
and Monsieur Vedrine, your French opposite number, on behalf of
the EU playing in support of that particular initiative or any
other initiative designed to ensure peace and stability?
(Mr Cook) We see a very strong role in that. For instance,
if I can take the visit I paid to the region. Wherever I went
our presence and the gesture, the symbol, of British engagement
was warmly welcomed. One of the reasons we were able to bring
the two sides together at Sharm el Sheikh was precisely because
of the combined weight of international opinion being brought
to bear in a concentrated fashion in those three days: Kofi Annan,
the American intervention, myself, Javier Solana, who was there
at the same time, the Norwegian Foreign Minister who was around
at the time and I think the expression by each of us of the same
message was effective in bringing the two sides back to the negotiating
table at Sharm el Sheikh. Sharm el Sheikh represented one very
significant development in the process and that was Javier Solana
was present as the representative of the European Union at that
Summit. I have earlier today seen King Abdullah of Jordan who
did say that Javier Solana's contribution at Sharm el Sheikh had
been magnificent. I think we have now achieved a position in which
the European Union has a clear locus in the talks and can
continue to make its contribution.
Dr Starkey
3. Can I just pursue that point. We recently
met with Monsieur Vedrine in Paris when the Committee was there.
He said that one of the problems with the European Union in relation
to the Middle East was that though there was a measure of agreement
between Britain and France, when it came to the other Members
of the European Union there was slightly less agreement, they
watered it down a bit and you finished up with a position which
was essentially "Europe is extremely worried" and not
any more than that. Do you actually think that the European Union
is going to be able to continue to play a positive and forceful
role or might there be a role for Britain and France, for example,
to act in concert as two European powers with historic roles in
that region?
(Mr Cook) There obviously is a role for us as Member
States in our own right. Indeed, I went to the region ten days
ago as the British Foreign Secretary, although also Foreign Secretary
for a country which is a leading power in Europe, and I went straight
from the region to Biarritz where at the Friday night dinner I
reported to all my colleagues on my meeting with an exchange of
views. I have to say that around the table nobody dissented from
my analysis and everybody shared the same deep concern and anxiety
for the future. I did not detect in what was quite a full discussion
any disagreement among my colleagues. I think the European Union
has a particular contribution to make in that realistically if
you are going to have negotiations of the Sharm el Sheikh type
you cannot have 15 Foreign Ministers turn up and join in but you
can have Javier Solana, or representatives of the Presidency there,
speaking on behalf of the European Union. I do think it is very
important that we preserve that distinctive contribution that
the European Union can make, not least because we will be one
of the largest contributors to any peace settlement as a European
Union. That said, obviously Britain and France are major partners
within the European Union, we have very well developed international
networks of missions, particularly strong in the Middle East.
It is not in any way inconsistent saying that we take a united
position. We are saying that colleagues will sometimes turn to
Britain and France to show leadership on this question.
4. Can I pursue the particular practical way
in which the EU Member States individually might be able to help.
You mentioned that whilst the violence is continuing, clearly
that is continuing to poison public opinion in both communities.
The EU Consuls-General in East Jerusalem, has there been any consideration
to getting them to rather more actively monitor human rights abuses
in the Occupied Territories? The UN Security Council Resolution,
for example, drew attention to the need for Israel and the Palestinian
authority obviously to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
There is ample evidence that the Israeli Government is not. Might
not the presence of the EU Consuls-General out and about in the
Occupied Territories actually by their very presence inhibit some
of the worst abuses? I am mindful of the fact that in 1990 I think
one of your predecessors, Mr Waldegrave, actually reasserted the
importance of the Consuls-General's role in interventions and
monitoring of violations of international human law and reasserting
in that case his right to do so against criticisms from the Israeli
authorities. Are our Consular-Generals and other EU Consuls-General
actually taking practical steps to try and help by their presence
to calm crowds?
(Mr Cook) Certainly I can assure you that our Consul-General
in Jerusalem has been extremely active in this past month and
has produced a flow of reporting on the violence, on the casualties,
on the incidents so far as we can acquire information. He does
get out and about and visit the Occupied Territories. His office
is within East Jerusalem. It is deliberately not in the other
part of Jerusalem. He travels regularly throughout the region.
He has good support staff who have good intelligence. On those
three days he travelled backwards and forward to Gaza with me
twice, once at 2am in the morning. Just to enter one note of reserve
into what we propose. As the Head of the Foreign Office I have
to be careful to what extent I ask my staff to put themselves
in places of danger. Where incidents have occurred there have
been lots of danger to innocent people standing by. Consistent
with that, I do expect him to be out and about, I do expect a
flow of information and he meets that.
5. Might it be possible by giving greater publicity
to his reports to have a rather more salutary and inhibiting effect
on the Israel authorities?
(Mr Cook) I am not sure, Phyllis, that the problem
of the last four weeks has been an absence of information. The
press have covered these events very well and have been present
at most of the major incidents. There is no absence of information
of what has been happening, I do not think that is the problem.
6. The source of information adds to its authority
and if the information is coming from the Consuls-General of the
European Union, separately or in concert, it would refute the
attempts to distort it?
(Mr Cook) Certainly I would not rule out the European
Heads of Missions making a report collectively. Indeed, one of
the issues on which as a matter of routine they report collectively
is the development of settlements because the European Union requires
them to maintain a settlement watch. If it was appropriate or
helpful then we could consider issuing a report in the area which
you are describing. I think we have also got to reflect on the
role that will now be fulfilled by the forthcoming Commission
of Inquiry which will be looking into all these matters and we
will not wish to compete with that.
Sir David Madel
7. If you have more negotiations in Washington
between leaders of Israel and Palestine the risk is they get out
of touch with local opinion. Now Henry Kissinger brokered the
deals in the 1970s by shuttling between the countries. He did
it in the Middle East, not Camp David. Have we got to the stage
now where that is the route to go to try and get the sides together?
(Mr Cook) It is a matter of judgment and I do not
think anybody would rule out any way of proceeding if it offered
a better prospect of success. I am not entirely sure though that
there may not be advantages in the senior leadership negotiating
on neutral territory away from the immediate hurricane centre
of the violence that is going on at the present time. The atmosphere
both in Jerusalem and Gaza city is extremely pressured at the
present time. Whilst a shuttle type diplomacy, of the kind many
of us were carrying out last week, can play its role in bringing
them together, ultimately the two have to meet to reach an agreement
and I am not sure that it would be possible to bring them together
to meet either in Jerusalem or in Gaza city.
8. The Arab Summit suggested a United Nations'
emergency force for the area. What is the British Government's
view on that?
(Mr Cook) I have to say I would be deeply sceptical
as to whether it was a practical proposition certainly in the
near future. First of all you would have to get the agreement
of Israel for it to be a feasible option, and I doubt that that
would be forthcoming. Secondly, this is not an area in which you
have a clearly defined front line in which you can interpose your
international force to keep the two sides separate. The agreements
which have been reached so far on territories A and B are a patchwork
and, as the incidents of the last four weeks have demonstrated,
contain a number of quite isolated Israeli outposts. Providing
an international presence to all of those would be logistically
extremely demanding and we have not yet got, nor are we seeking,
the political agreement.
9. Have the schools in the Occupied Territories,
in Palestine, all been shut?
(Mr Cook) I would need notice of that. Remember that
many of the schools in the Gaza area are still run by UNRWA and
I see no reason why they should have been shut. There may be other
cases where frankly it has not been possible to sustain an education.
Have there been any shut by political fear?
(Mr Goulty) I do not think so but we would need to
check that.
(Mr Cook) Put it this way, Sir David, we are not aware
of any policy decision to shut them.
10. We will continue with our aid to the Palestine
authority which I think was £25 million last year?
(Mr Cook) Yes.
11. We are going to continue that to try and
improve the terribly low standard of living in Gaza?
(Mr Cook) There are two or three different areas of
financial help. First of all, we are providing assistance to the
Palestinian authority in order to develop its capacity for administration.
It is accepted on both sides that a likely outcome of the peace
process will be a Palestinian state. It is very important that
the Palestinian authority develops an administrative capacity
to run such a state. We have been very active in that and, indeed,
Britain can justifiably say it is in the lead on that area, including
the Foreign Office where we help to train diplomats for the Palestinian
authority. Secondly we have very substantial contributions to
UNRWA where we are one of the major donors. That will have to
continue in respect of the Palestinian authority because with
the advent of the Palestinian state the UNRWA activities of education
and health will pass to the Palestinian authority. It is very
important that some outside external funding does pass with the
responsibility. Thirdly, we did make very substantial pledges
of our contribution to support the peace process with regeneration
within the Palestinian area two years ago and we stand by those
pledges, although we are deeply depressed that there is not an
immediate prospect of us having a peace settlement in which we
can invest.
Mr Rowlands
12. There have been deeper discussions of forming
a national emergency government within Israel embracing Mr Sharon
and the Likud. Whilst this might seem necessary for domestic Israeli
stability, will it not make it politically almost totally impossible
for the peace process?
(Mr Cook) We are in open session. I can only repeat
to the Committee what must be the position of any Foreign Secretary
which is that it is for the people of Israel to decide who they
are going to have in their Government. As I said when I was in
Jerusalem, I would hope those who join the Government will be
people who are supportive of Mr Barak's courageous and strong
efforts to secure a peace settlement.
Dr Godman
13. Sir John Stanley, Ernie Ross and I visited
the region two years ago, something like that. I have to say—Sir
John may have a different view from me—I was shocked when
we confronted Israeli authorities and Palestinian authorities
over the treatment meted out to prisoners in both authorities.
For example, the Israelis have a term which was upheld by their
supreme court, that "moderate physical pressure" could
be used upon prisoners. I think I have got that phrase right.
When they described what they meant by "moderate physical
pressure" I was appalled at this, and said so. They hit back
and talked about Northern Ireland and some of the things we were
alleged to have done. It seems to me, and I know things are entirely
different in Jerusalem and elsewhere from Derry, Drumcree and
Belfast, but the crowd control techniques operated by the Israelis
and the Palestinian security forces seem hopelessly over the top.
I know the towns are utterly different, the narrow streets, and
it may be very difficult to see a more effective and less brutal
form of dealing with crowds on both sides but I think there are
serious problems there. When you talk about the assistance given
to the Palestinians in helping them to create what we hope will
be a Palestinian state, what assistance, what training, are we
giving to their security and police forces because they seem to
be, putting it mildly, poorly equipped to deal with eruptions
of mob violence?
(Mr Cook) We do provide security advice to the Palestinian
authority and, indeed, we have a permanent security adviser attached
to the Palestinian authority. I think that if we are looking at
events of the last four weeks we have to look at the crowd control
on both sides. I would not disagree with your observation that
their response to the development of crowds, and even when they
became hostile mobs, was not of the kind that we ourselves would
have practised in Northern Ireland.
Ms Abbott
14. I apologise that I missed your earlier remarks
and you may have covered this. It is about the status of Jerusalem.
(Mr Cook) Pardon?
15. It is about the status of Jerusalem. As
it happens I was in Jerusalem about three weeks ago before all
of this blew up and even then it was clear that was a sticking
point for both sides. To what extent is the setting up of Jerusalem
as some kind of international city a way forward in this dispute?
(Mr Cook) After Camp David there were a number of
very creative and imaginative proposals put forward as to how
we would handle the question of sovereignty of the holy sites,
particularly Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall. At various points
it was suggested that sovereignty might be vested in the United
Nations' Security Council on one proposal, might be vested in
the deity so you did not have a temporal sovereignty authority
on the holy areas. None of those reached the point of agreement
but it is a sign of what progress we had made in the discussions
at Camp David and thereafter that creative ideas such as this
were even under discussion. Unfortunately all of that has been
drowned with the violence in the past four weeks and it will be
more difficult to resolve this than it was beforehand because
to make any of these creative ideas work there has to be a degree
of trust on both sides that the temporal authorities will respect
whatever conventions are required as to the vesting of the sovereignty.
I hope that we can resolve it because, frankly, there is no alternative
to the peace process for the security of either side. I would
agree with you that this is one of the most difficult issues to
be resolved.
Dr Starkey
16. In relation to Jerusalem, of course, there
is also the Armenian Christian community who are not very pleased
to discover that it has been suggested that they might go under
Israeli sovereignty since they are subject to the same expropriation
of church land that the muslim community are complaining about
in East Jerusalem. Can I take up the report in The Guardian
about the possibility that British equipment may have been used
by the Israeli Government in helicopter attacks on Palestinian
civilians. It is mentioned that the Government is investigating
that. Have we any indication as to when the Government is likely
to complete its investigation into the possible use of British
arms and equipment by Israeli security forces in the Occupied
Territories? Are there any further arms sales to Israel that are
under consideration at present?
(Mr Cook) I would need to investigate the latter point
before seeking to answer but any decision we took on the licence
would be consistent with our criteria that it might not be used
for internal repression. So certainly in the current context we
would not be contemplating licensing equipment that would be used
in the way that you described. I am told that we actually do have
no evidence that equipment produced in the UK has been used in
these incidents and I am also sure that we will not institute
an inquiry. The Guardian is not always right.
Dr Starkey: Indeed, I know The Guardian
is not always right.
Ms Abbott: The definition of internal repression.
Dr Starkey
17. It is not internal, of course. It is in
territories which are occupied.
(Mr Cook) All right.
18. Apart from what they use against the Israeli—
(Mr Cook) No. That is a perfectly legitimate point
but also, by the same token, our criteria would not provide weapons
for external aggression.
19. Which does this fall under?
(Mr Cook) I was just going to ask you that question.
Whichever category you put it under, I do not see us licensing
equipment which might be used in these circumstances.
|
