Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
MR BEN
BRADSHAW, MR
CHRISTOPHER PRENTICE,
MR EDWARD
CHAPLIN AND
MR WILLIAM
EHRMAN
TUESDAY 23 APRIL 2002
200. In order to move it forward, and I would
agree with you entirely this could and should be the basis for
a settlement, would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to take
a rather more active role, not just support a conference but actively
seek to bring one about? Would you be prepared to have an emissary
from this country go and talk to both sides to try and bring them
forward to a conference, and would you be prepared, would Her
Majesty's Government be prepared, to host such a conference?
(Mr Bradshaw) I think I am right in saying that we
have already said we would be willing to do anything we felt was
helpful if there was enough international consensus to do it.
That would include hosting a conference. In terms of sending an
emissary, the same applies. If we made a judgment that the time
was right and we could do something no one else had managed to
do, we would do so. But at the moment most of our hopes and efforts
are still invested in the diplomatic efforts of Colin Powell and
his deputy, Bill Burns, who is still in the region, and the prospect
Colin Powell will return, because I think everybody recognises
that without serious and sustained American engagement in the
Middle East we are not going to get the necessary steps we would
all like to see.
201. I made the suggestion in the House a couple
of weeks ago that perhaps John Major could be used, and the Prime
Minister did not turn that down but said he would consider it.
I have had indications from various quarters in the Middle East
that might be a very acceptable proposal. Is it something you
would be prepared to discuss further with the Foreign Secretary
after this meeting?
(Mr Bradshaw) I would certainly be prepared to take
your proposal away and give it further consideration, Sir Patrick.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you.
Mr Hamilton
202. Minister, I am glad obviously you made
the comments you made in the House about supporting Crown Prince
Abdullah's plans, especially the point you made in your opening
comments, but would you not agree and would the Government not
agree that it is not sufficient simply to have a territorial division
and a two-state plan which gave adequate territory, contiguous
territory obviously, to the Palestinians but that we need to invest
considerably not just in the infrastructure and in a judicial
and legal system but in the democratic framework of civil society
and the possibilities for economic development so that the problems
of poverty in the Palestinian territories can also be overcome?
Surely, would you not agree, those problems of poverty are a contributory
factor perhaps in part to some of the terrorist activity?
(Mr Bradshaw) I would certainly agree with the main
thrust of your point, that a great deal of investment is going
to be needed in a future Palestinian state. One of the tragedies
of the events of the last few weeks is that tens of millions of
pounds-worth of damage has been done to the Palestinian Authority
infrastructure, much of it funded originally by the European Union,
which, as members I am sure know, is the major single contributor
and has been to the Palestinian Authority since the Oslo and Madrid
Accords. You are right to say that poverty has got significantly
worse in the Palestinian Authority over the last 18 months, and
that a programme of reconstruction and supporting good governance
and infrastructure investment is going to be absolutely essential,
but I would add this caveat, the European Union is not about to
throw a lot of money into the Palestinian Authority unless we
can be absolutely sure it is not going to be destroyed again.
203. The thrust of what I am trying to say is,
of course, the political and geographical settlement has to come
first but that you simply cannot leave it at that.
(Mr Bradshaw) Absolutely.
204. The proposal, the suggestions, I have made
must follow on, you cannot have one without the other, in other
words.
(Mr Bradshaw) Absolutely. There is a meeting of the
international community in Oslo tomorrow over two days discussing
what immediate humanitarian relief can be given to the Palestinian
Authority areas. You are absolutely right, after a political settlement
there is going to be the need for a massive amount of investment
in the new Palestinian state. You were also right to point out,
and the Government has on many occasions, that the war against
terrorism, which your Chairman referred to earlier, is not just
about military solutions, it is also about tackling injustices
and poverty and those things which breed fanaticism which feeds
terrorism.
205. Could I ask finally what part the British
Government can play? Would we play a part in such a reconstruction
through the European Union once there is a political settlement,
or is there anything specific we can do about, for example, teaching
good governance or exporting some of the things that we are very
proud of which might help the Palestinians establish a viable
state?
(Mr Bradshaw) Any of you who have visited the occupied
territories will be well aware of the very good work the British
Government already does, both bilaterally through the British
Council and also through the European Union in a number of the
areas you have already mentioned. I think we would have to wait
and see, to be perfectly honest, what the essential need was when
we get, as I hope we do, to the formation of a Palestinian state.
I do not think there is any doubt that just as in the past Britain
has been one of the major, if not the major, contributors within
the European Union—if you combine the money given to the
Palestinian Authority and UNRWA, which deals with all the Palestinian
refugees in a number of countries in the region—we would
continue with that level of commitment. Indeed, we are increasing
it at the moment, we are increasing both our contribution to UNRWA
and to the Palestinian Authority.
(Mr Prentice) DFID have for many years been running
a large programme on institution building in the Palestinian Authority,
and we have run programmes also to help their Negotiation Affairs
Department to make them professional in their preparations for
the peace negotiations, and those programmes I know will be continued
and indeed strengthened in the next period. On an earlier point,
the Foreign Secretary said in his speech in the debate that the
international community would need to set up a large trust fund
in order to support the implementation of any final status settlement,
and this covers a great range of issues which will be needed then.
Mr Illsley
206. Minister, can I bring you back to something
you touched on very briefly, which was Colin Powell's visit to
the Middle East, which has been described by some of the Palestinian
negotiators as a failure in that he has left the situation much
worse than when he arrived there? Is that the sense that the British
Government holds of the visit, that it was a failure, or is there
any aspect of the visit which could be regarded as successful?
(Mr Bradshaw) I do not think it was a failure and
I do not think it is true to say he left the region much worse
than when he arrived. If you cast your mind back to the situation
when he arrived, it was a lot worse than it is now. Although I
think it is true to say Colin Powell's visit did not achieve everything
that we all hoped it would, it achieved a lot more than your question
suggested in that most fair-minded observers accept that worse
things would have happened had he not gone. If you remember, before
he arrived Israel was talking quite openly of its operation in
the occupied territories lasting months, and the signs are that
the withdrawal is happening, albeit not as quickly as the international
community demands. As I said, possible worse and more calamitous
action has been avoided. The most important thing to remember
is that a year ago the United States was not engaged in the Middle
East peace process to the extent that it is now. President Bush
came into office following President Clinton who had expended
a great deal of time and energy on this issue ultimately without
the success we had all hoped for. That has all changed now. It
has changed as a result of 11 September, it has changed as a result
of a number of things, but, most importantly, President Bush's
statement Thursday fortnight ago marked I think a crossing of
the rubicon in terms of American engagement, and I think America
now understands there must be a political process if we are to
get the necessary steps towards a political solution, and I think
we should all welcome that. As I said, Colin Powell has indicated
he will go back.
207. I do not disagree with that. As you said
earlier, American involvement is going to be crucial to this.
Given that Sharon is making statements and his head of military
intelligence is making statements that they will go back into
the occupied territories should they need to, to fight terrorism,
that there is still a stand-off in relation to the Church of the
Nativity, is there not a sense coming through that the Israelis
are less prepared to listen to the Americans these days, and perhaps
that American influence we have seen and relied upon in the past
is not counted on as well as it has been in the past?
(Mr Bradshaw) It may be helpful to members if I say
in the last half hour we have heard the Israelis and the Palestinians
are now talking about a solution to the stand-off in Bethlehem,
which is a positive sign. I am not really in a position to judge
whether the Israelis are listening more or less to the Americans
than they have traditionally, I think those are questions which
you would better ask the Israelis, but there are certainly signs
American influence is important, and I have already suggested
a number of ways in which Colin Powell's visit made a difference.
I think the fact that the Israelis agreed to co-operate with the
fact-finding mission as well was partly a result of the fact America
had expressed its clear support in a United Nations Resolution
for that. We obviously hope Israel takes notice of what its friends
and particularly its most powerful friend and ally says to it,
but I think to completely write off the ability of America to
influence what the Israeli Government does at this stage would
be wrong.
208. You have just said that America has made
a clear statement, but there has been some criticism of America
and, as you just pointed out, there was a lack of engagement a
year ago, and Condoleeza Rice was talking about America butting
out of the Middle East situation altogether. Paul Wolfowitz has
made speeches recently congratulating Sharon on his stand. Yet
Powell is in the Middle East trying to take a more conciliatory
line. Is the American involvement clear enough? Is their standpoint
on this issue clear enough? A question I want to ask in relation
to our Government, how much influence does our Government have
on this American influence? Are we able to make representations
which are heard and listened to in Washington?
(Mr Bradshaw) Yes, I think we are. Although I think
sometimes British influence in the world and with the United States
can be exaggerated, I think we do have a certain amount of influence,
and of course we use it. I do not think it is accidental, for
example, that back in the autumn, after 11 September, our Prime
Minister embarked on a whirl-wind diplomatic tour of the Middle
East, he then went to the United States and, shortly after that,
President Bush made his historic speech to the United Nations,
which was historic, when he became the first American President
to use the term "Palestine". It is all very well people
wondering or criticising whether the United States is really engaged,
the fact is the United States is engaged, and, not only that,
the United States Government under this President has used unprecedented
language, has supported an unprecedented United Nations Resolution,
the most recent resolution a couple of months ago, calling for
a two-state solution; the first time that was explicitly stated
clearly in a unanimous Security Council Resolution supported by
the United States. I think the objective observer would see all
of this and think that they are saying things they have not said
before, these are going to be very difficult to go back on, how
you get there is another matter, but I am absolutely satisfied
that the commitment is there and that America realises that it
is in her interests that she should be engaged and that we should
at long last get a solution to this terrible problem.
Andrew Mackinlay
209. I have three questions. One thing I would
like you to cover is what has been the response from Israel to
United Kingdom representations or protestations about the lack
of access for the UN relief works agency, international press
and others to Jenin? Perhaps you might want to pause for breath
and then go on and respond to my next question. It seems to me
that when bad things happen in the former Yugoslavia everyone
is agreed, it is acknowledged there are things which have been
disproportionate and prima facie are war crimes, but when
it comes to what happens in Palestine, everyone can agree there
have been bad things happening, that it is disproportionate, but
nobody talks in terms of war crimes. It seems to me we have to
have regard for the very fragile things we are trying to build
up internationally as regards rule of law and that response should
be proportionate to when there are attacks and so on. What is
Her Majesty's Government's view as to what happened at Jenin?
Was it proportionate or disproportionate? Secondly, do we consider
prima facie there were war crimes committed there?
(Mr Bradshaw) I hope Mr Mackinlay will forgive me
if I forget part of that question, please come back if I do. To
attempt to answer the first bit, we are not satisfied with the
responses which Israel has given us to the various representations
we have made in recent weeks, whether on access for humanitarian
organisations, for the media, for our own diplomatic staff—for
quite a long period of time there were British citizens trapped
in Bethlehem and Ramallah, and although there is evidence that
some representations made some difference, it is often quite difficult
to actually quantify whether they have. I think certainly the
frustration felt by our diplomats on the ground was made very
clear to me and to the Foreign Secretary at the time and has been
since. So, no, we are extremely unhappy about the way Israel has
responded to our representations. On the second question about
possible war crimes in Jenin and consistency with the Balkans,
all I can say on this is that our Defence Attache's official report,
which I quoted in the debate in Parliament last week, said quite
clearly that he had discovered strong evidence of, I think the
words were, "excessive and disproportionate force" having
been used in Jenin. It was a direct result of those concerns that
the Foreign Secretary took this issue up and managed to get this
unanimous United Nations Resolution endorsing a fact-finding mission.
Now it will be up to the fact-finding mission to establish the
facts, that is why they have been appointed, and the facts are
of course bitterly disputed by the Israeli side. I think it makes
sense and it was a very sensible thing to do given the situation,
with one side saying there had been a terrible massacre and the
other side saying this had all been part of the necessary security
operation, that the facts should be established. I think the process
will then flow from that. In comparison with what happened in
the former Yugoslavia, Mr Mackinlay will recall that when we were
in Opposition there were a lot of things going on and there was
very little response, and it sometimes takes a while for the international
community to take real cognizance of the situation. The definitions
of war crimes are quite clear but I think it will be up to the
United Nations fact-finding mission to determine what they think
happened, and it is then under international law the responsibility
of, in this case, Israel to properly investigate and to take action
against any people who might have committed such war crimes. Israel,
as a democracy which prides itself on the rule of law, would be
expected to do that.
210. Can I refer to the Foreign Secretary's
willingness to take part in the monitoring process, if we ever
got to that stage? I do not know if implicit in that is that there
will be some of our armed forces committed. I know that Secretary
of State Hoon has indicated on the floor of the House—he
has not used these terms but he has basically said—we are
at the bone with our armed forces, we are at over-stretch and
beyond. Do you envisage that even if we got to the stage where
there was a pause and some need to separate the parties and monitor
them, we have the armed forces we can realistically commit to
this?
(Mr Bradshaw) The monitoring body we are talking about
is a body of people who I believe would not be armed forces, who
would simply monitor a ceasefire. This is not a new suggestion,
although I think it was the first time we suggested it in public
when the Prime Minister was in Crawford. One of the problems we
have had since the outbreak of the Intifada is the claim and counter-claim
from each side about what is going on in the security field, who
is doing what, who is under arrest. There are constant claims
by the Israelis that people they think should be in prison and
the Palestinian Authority say are in prison are then in fact discovered
not to have been in custody, and this has contributed, we believe,
hugely to the level of distrust between the two sides. So we feel
that a monitoring body could make a very constructive contribution
to rebuilding trust, and actually ascertaining what the security
situation is on the ground.
Chairman
211. Has the Israeli Government accepted now
the case for such an international force?
(Mr Prentice) No. I think there is evidence of continued
reluctance on the part of the Israeli Government about what they
would see as the internationalisation of this conflict and dispute.
Mr Mackinlay
212. My next question is about Chairman Arafat
and there are two aspects of the question I want to ask. One,
presumably his capacity to lead and to administer the Authority
is more or less non-existent, is it not? I do not know what representations
you have made about this but even putting aside the most recent
traumatic events, his inability to have access and inability to
cross the Authority, basically it cannot be anything other than
house arrest, what is your assessment as to his capacity to call
the shots in the Palestinian Authority? Are we deluding ourselves
that he is a man with whom we, the Israelis and the international
community, can do business? Can the poor man deliver? What is
your assessment of his authority, quite apart from the fact he
has been disabled by the most recent traumatic events, which I
would also like you to comment upon, because it seems to me this
is something which is intolerable?
(Mr Bradshaw) We think Mr Arafat could have delivered
more in the past which he did not deliver. However, the current
situation of him holed-up in a couple of rooms in Ramallah does
not make it exactly easy for him to deliver very much. We think
his control of the Palestinian Authority is pretty comprehensive.
213. You do? You do think that he can deliver
in negotiations? Even today, if there were to be meaningful negotiations,
you think he could bind and deliver?
(Mr Bradshaw) One of the paradoxes of the current
situation is that the Israeli actions have made President Arafat
more popular than he has been for a very long time and his support
among the Palestinian people is probably at a higher level now
than for some years.
Mr Olner
214. So is Sharon's!
(Mr Bradshaw) Yes. He is now in a better position
to deliver politically. The problem in the past, and this has
frustrated the Israeli side, is that they felt, and I think sometimes
rightly, he could have delivered more on security and done more
to stop the violence. However, we have never accepted this argument
that it is possible for President Arafat to stop every single
suicide bombing or every single action by one of the rejectionist
groups; that is simply not possible for him. But we do feel strongly
that he has not had a consistently good record of delivering and
of leadership, and that has been part of the problem. We could
spend a lot of time wishing we did not have the leaders we currently
have on both sides, but I do not think that is going to get us
very far, we have to deal with the people we have got, and we
know who they are, and not give up hope on them.
Mr Chidgey
215. Minister, in the opening response that
you gave, you talked very passionately, I think, about the need
to bring humanitarian aid into Jenin and elsewhere, and the consequences
of the destruction of vital infrastructure which had been funded
to the tune of tens of millions of pounds by the EU and others,
but then you also said, quite understandably, that the EU was
not about to fund the replacement of those projects. So again
to use that expression, we have a dichotomy in the sense that
there is a vital need to establish the basic fabric of civilisation
and the basic requirements of human aid, and yet we do not have
anybody, as far as I am aware, offering to put up the money to
do that. So my question therefore centres on asking you whether
the Government is having discussions, either directly with the
Israeli Government or with America, about Israel accepting the
responsibility for reparations, accepting the responsibility to
take an active part in restoring the infrastructure which they
destroyed through their incursions. The second part of my question
is to ask if the British Government has reflected on the fact
that Israel receives by far the greatest amounts of American aid—I
think it is about a third of the total American aid programme.
Has any thought been given to persuading the Americans that perhaps
that aid might be diverted to restoring the infrastructure which
was destroyed in these incursions?
(Mr Bradshaw) May I say, the United States is certainly
thinking very carefully and realistically about the level to which
it is going to have to help the Palestinians, not just on humanitarian
aid but on reconstruction. It is not true to say that the money
is not there. I think the Foreign Secretary made this quite clear
in his speech last week that we in the European Union, indeed
the whole international community, are ready with humanitarian
aid. That is not the problem. The problem is getting access.
216. May I just say for a moment, I think you
also said that we were not prepared to fund it just to see it
destroyed again?
(Mr Bradshaw) There is a slight difference between
the immediate humanitarian relief where people are starving, and
money for reconstruction in the longer term after a political
settlement. What we have said is that we are not prepared, and
I think rightly—and we have said this quite clearly to the
Israelis—to spend tens of millions of pounds again on buildings
and infrastructure and good governance and things to help the
Palestinian Authority rebuild itself, only to see that wrecked.
As to your question about reparation, the European Union has made
absolutely clear that it reserves the right to claim compensation
from the Israelis for the damage done to EU-funded projects in
the last few months.
217. Has there been any discussion? Picking
up the last part of my question, has the Government discussed
with the Americans this question I put? Here is a huge amount
of aid going into Israel. If there is a reluctance to pay reparation,
should not some of it be diverted?
(Mr Bradshaw) I think, with respect, Mr Chairman,
what America does with its money is up to America. I am not aware
of any specific discussions.
218. Have you had any discussions?
(Mr Bradshaw) I am not aware of any discussions between
Britain and America as to how America should spend its aid budget.
There have not been any. Christopher Prentice wants to add something
here.
(Mr Prentice) One of the consistent demands made of
Israel in the last period has been that they should resume payment
of the customs revenues which are owed to the Palestinian Authority,
which they have been withholding now for 18 months or more—perhaps
actually longer than that. This amounts now to a very large sum
which is owed by Israel under its international agreement, under
the Paris Protocol.
Sir Patrick Cormack
219. Could you put a figure on it?
(Mr Prentice) That would be one way in which Israel
could immediately contribute to the restoration of the Palestinian
Authority's viability.
|
