Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-29)
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR STEPHEN
WRIGHT, CMG, MR
PETER RICKETTS
AND MR
RICHARD WILKINSON
TUESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2001
Chairman
20. But the words "viable Palestine state"
never escaped from our Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary.
Mr Chidgey
21. I asked about the United Kingdom's role
and whether you felt the UK should be prepared to take part in
an observer mission in Palestine or a peace-keeping mission.
(Mr Straw) If there is a role for us. We have always
been active. Certainly if there were an agreement for us to provide
observers, I am sure we would do so. As to providing peace-keeping
forces, that is a much bigger question and I doubt whether that
question will arise for us, not least because of our history in
the area. If it did we would consider it.
22. Just addressing the wider grievances than
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle Eastthe
disparity of wealth, poverty, whatever.
(Mr Straw) There are bigger issues about the economies
of the countries in the Middle East and trying to enhance their
prosperity. We have to do all we can to support states which are
in difficulties. That is part of the discussion which we had with
the King of Jordan when he was here. We have to reduce the pall
which Iraq throws over the rest of the area. That is why at the
UN General Assembly I spent a lot of my time in discussions about
whether we could achieve a better sanctions regime than the one
we have now and a much more sharply focused one.
23. Does that extend to Egypt, poverty and educating
the poor?
(Mr Straw) Each country is different. We have very
good relations with President Mubarak and I have good relations
with Mr Maher, the Foreign Minister. Egypt, as it happens, is
in receipt of a very significant amount of aid from the United
States, very large sums of aid, and we will continue to do all
we can to improve prosperity in Egypt with other projects to assist
them in the development of educational projects and so on.
Andrew Mackinlay
24. Can you give us an overview on where we
are with civil rights in countries on which prior to 11 September
we might have been taking, diplomatically and publicly, a stringent
viewChina and Russia in relation to Chechnya. I think implicit
in that question is what is the current remit to the extent that
al-Qaeda or others have been supporting Chechnya rebels. There
is a change of view, we have to deal with the world as it is,
so can you take us through that?
(Mr Straw) If you are saying should we have one definition
of terrorism rather than two or three, my answer is yes. I personally
take a pretty robust view about terrorism because although in
any one situation the arguments being made in favour of armed
conflict within a given state may be plausible, it is hard to
point to a dispute in which terrorists are operating where the
net result of that dispute is not a much greater degree of unhappiness
and killing and suffering. We cannot go on, in my view, therefore
tolerating the territorial terrorism that we have seen in the
past. On Chechnya, we understand the position that the Russian
Government has taken. At the same time we have said to them and
will continue to say to them that they must act with the same
discretion and regard for human rights that we ourselves had to
observe in relatively similar situations of terrorism. That does
not mean that you can deal with every situation with kid gloves
but it does not mean you go in for gratuitous violence. All the
international conventions recognise that the degree to which you
are permitted to use force depends on the threat but also it does
not permit gratuitous violence or death and we should not entertain
that. As far as China is concerned, discussions with China continue
and in all the discussions I have ever had with the Chinese interlocutorand
that goes back to when I was Home Secretarythe issue of
human rights was raised and there was gradually a sense that China
recognises that it is in its own interests to improve its respect
for human rights within its own country.
25. The Security Council Resolution, which requires
countries within their domestic situation to do everything to
home down on terrorism and terrorist activities, what is your
reading of how it is going with countries that either have a reputation
or are expected to be a bit weak, particularly in relation to
controlling not just the money but also the disposal or the marketing
of weapons, both small arms and, indeed, perhaps even nuclear
materials or whatever?
(Mr Straw) The UN Resolution set down an agenda in
terms of action against terrorism. You may know that Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, who is our Permanent Representative to the United
Nations, was made Chairman of the Security Council Committee Against
Terrorism and that was a very great personal compliment to him.
It is very unusual, I am told, for any Permanent Member of the
Security Council to have their Permanent Representative made a
Chairman of the Security Council Committee, but he is doing considerable
work there in checking on what individual countries are doing,
what measures are needed. You will know that we here in this country
were taking measures before the House of Commons yesterday and
I am delighted that my successor and colleague David Blunkett
put up a robust argument in favour of those proposals and as far
as I know they were carried and they build on the Terrorism Act
2000 I introduced when I was Home Secretary. The necessity of
these proposals, as I recognise them to be, is accepted by the
House and by the other players. The Chancellor has been taking
the lead in terms of cutting back on the use of the financial
systems to sponsor or support terrorism and we have been working
alongside the US on measures to block bank accounts better to
track the use of funds and so on. A great deal of work is going
on. You may want a memorandum on this.
26. I was rather asking what is your perception
of what is going on elsewhere? Are we on target? Can we expect
some embarrassment when we have to make some crunch decisions
where you have not complied with the spirit of the letter?
(Mr Straw) Some countries are on target, some are
not and that is true inside the European Union. There are some
abstruse arguments taking place among Member States about particular
aspects of the measures. I think they will be resolved, issues
about for example the fast track warrants and so on as to what
kind of crimes should be associated with these warrants. Some
people argue they should only be "terrorist" crimes
whilst others, including the United Kingdom, are arguing that
since most of the crimes which terrorists commit are not terrorist
specific crimes, they are crimes like murder, causing explosions,
theft, drugs, and they ought to be available for the wider range
of crimes. Mr Chairman, I omitted in answer to a question from
Mr Chidgey to say something about the European Union in relation
to the Middle East peace process and I apologise for that. Just
to say that we are heavily involved in the discussion inside the
General Affairs Council of the European Union on the Middle East.
We had a further very detailed discussion at the GAC yesterday
which I attended before I went to Barcelona. I am clear and we
are clear that here is an area where the EU can be most influential
by working alongside the United States, not deciding to engage
in separate initiatives in terms of the peace process but by co-operating
with the United States as well as making a very distinctive contribution
which we do in the EU for example by our very significant support
to the Palestinian Authority.
27. I was thinking of the former Soviet Union
countries. When it broke up there was really no audit of what
war materials were in these countries and also what nuclear materials
could be available. That has always been my anxiety and I think
a lot of people's. It was almost an anarchical situation. I am
not talking about the Russian Federation but everything else.
Are we getting on top of that?
(Mr Wright) We are in touch with the Russian authorities
about the risks here. We discuss and have discussed for some time
pre-11 September with the Russian authorities about the risks
of terrorism in the WMD field. We discuss with them (within the
limits of state security that they impose and we impose) the safety
of nuclear materials in Russia and the United States, I believe,
does similarly. So we have been conscious of these issues for
quite some time. I think since 11 September those discussions
and the degree of frankness has somewhat improved because there
is no doubt about the political commitment of the Russian Government
to combatting these threats, as we are committed. So there is
a certain enhancement of political commitment but the problems
are inherently very difficult to get at because they are acute
problems of analysis and intelligence about the degree of the
threat.
Chairman
28. As you know, we in the Foreign Affairs Committee
have looked in the last Parliament at intervention for humanitarian
purposes which is where the Chinese had a particular view of national
sovereignty, Tibet and so on. Is it your view that the China's
willingness to join the coalition against terrorism on this occasion
was because their own terrorist problem suggests there is a shift
in their attitude to such intervention for humanitarian purposes?
(Mr Straw) I understand what you are saying. I am
afraid you will have to ask them as to whether their very welcome
support of the coalition against terrorism will lead to a change
in their attitude towards Tibet. That is not an issue I could
conceivably speculate on. So far as I am concerned however, we
are very pleased with the support which they have offered and
it has been vocal and was volunteered at an early stage.
29. The fight against terrorism is clearly not
restricted to Afghanistan. We know that elsewhere the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine assassinated a democratically
elected Cabinet Minister, we know that HAMAS and Hizbollah have
been responsible for a number of outrages against civilians. Is
it your view that the chapter stops in Afghanistan or will a second
chapter start against those countries which harbour terrorists?
(Mr Straw) I do not think we should see it in that
sequential way. There has long been concern about countries which
either knowingly or negligently allow terrorists to operate in
their territory. If you are talking to me about HAMAS and Hizbollah
and Islamic Jihad, I proscribed those organisations when I was
Home Secretary and took a very robust view about their activities.
I banned the military wings. We have to take a lot of action against
such groups and we have to begin to engage in intensive dialogue
with the countries which are harbouring, sheltering or just being
negligent about the behaviour of these groups but continue that
engagement. When the Prime Minister was in Syria I know these
matters were raised there. When I was in Iran very publicly I
raised these matters as well as privately because I was thanked
for the fact that I had banned the MEK terrorist organisation
(which is an Iranian terrorist organisation which appears to be
backed in part by the Iraqis) and so grateful were the Iranian
people for the banning of MEK I am told that the British Embassy
in Tehran received over 40,000 individual letters of thanks for
this action. When I was asked about this publicly I said we are
grateful for this but you also need to know that I banned, amongst
others, HAMAS, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and therefore we have
to have a dialogue about these organisations as well and the degree
to which they are supported, and one of them in particular, is
supported by Iran. The fight against terrorism has to go on because
the world is not a safe place as long as terrorists can operate
and although sometimes terrorists confine themselves to one area,
they seek support, they seek money, they seek arms and they seek
to trade in drugs way outside that area as well.
Chairman: Secretary of State, the campaign against
terrorism will continue and I trust that this, the first of your
dialogues with the Select Committee, will continue. May I thank
you warmly on behalf of the Committee.
|