Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 309)
TUESDAY 29 APRIL 2003
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR PETER
RICKETTS CMG AND
MR EDWARD
OAKDEN CMG
300. Can you tell me a bit more about the role
you foresee, and the reasons you have for thinking they might,
that Saudi Arabia and Egypt might play in this. You mentioned
yesterday the role the Egyptian Security Minister or Intelligence
Chief had played in getting Arafat to agree.
(Mr Straw) Yes.
301. Do you see the need for Saudi Arabia and
Egypt, and maybe other Arab leaders, to fulfil what they said
at the summit last year which was in exchange for a Palestinian
State they would have normal relations with Israel?
(Mr Straw) I think amongst the leading Arab States
there is a very clear understanding that the current situation
between Israel and the Occupied Territories is terrible for the
whole of the region and it helps to drag down the whole of the
region. They want to see in exchange for a viable, separate, dignified
state of Palestine the delivery of security to Israel, and that
requires in turn that there is proper recognition by the Arab
and Islamic states of the State of Israel and its right to exist.
The two countries you mention have been playing a constructive
role. As far as Syria is concerned, there is an important agenda
with Syria. Syria is very influential on Hamas. Hamas were not
constructive in the Cairo talks that took place earlier this year
under the chairmanship of Omar Suleiman, head of Egyptian intelligence.
I hope very much, not least through recent experiences, that there
is an acceptance by Syria that they have to act in a different
way and to end support for terrorism and to recognise that now
they have a more benign neighbour to their east they have opportunities
themselves to act more responsibly.
302. So you are pretty optimistic or reasonably
optimistic about the role that Egypt and Saudi Arabia might play.
Can I ask you one more question about Syria because during the
whole of the Oslo process and Camp David process the Israeli negotiators,
whom I have met and spoken to, said that while the issues with
the Palestinians were extremely complicated, they were now living
with each other since the Oslo process started whereas issues
with Syria were relatively simple—they were not even talking
to each other, and you are saying that even as recently as last
year this was so. It seems from the draft of the road map that
we have all seen that peace with Syria is an integral part of
this and also to Lebanon and Syria as well. I wonder what makes
you say you think Syria has realised that it needs—
(Mr Straw) I hope so.
303. I wonder if you could go a bit further.
Are there things that make you think that they are willing to
be a part of this? Because I can see how between Saudi Arabia
and Egypt and particularly the United States, to use my phrase,
you could twist the arms of the Palestinian and Israeli governments
to reach an agreement, I am just wondering if that is going to
work with Syria? Is it vital that that component is in place as
well or could you have a deal between Israel and the Palestinians
and leave Syria to a later stage?
(Mr Ricketts) I think they have got to be part of
an overall agreement. You could approach it in different phases
but there will not be a complete peace until Syria is part of
the peace as well.
304. Do you think they realise this and are
they willing to—
(Mr Straw) I think they are coming to that realisation
is the answer. There has always been a Syrian track of the peace
process and I think they recognise that.
305. But it has never really gone anywhere,
has it, whereas the Palestinian track from time to time has achieved
quite a lot?
(Mr Straw) If you are going to have a secure State
of Israel and a state of Palestine you have to have a normalisation
of Syria and Syria with Israel.
John Maples: I suggest to you arm twisting is
going to be involved even if you want to call it something else.
Mr Hamilton
306. Foreign Secretary, on 4 March last when
I put to you my fears about the impending war in Iraq and the
possibility of Saddam firing weapons into Israel you were quite
dismissive of that happening, and thank goodness you were right.
Now we have got rid of the Saddam regime there is a clear opportunity
and a path to peace and we have got the road map which we hope
will bring us to that peace in two years' time but of course,
as we were told in the United States when we visited two or three
weeks ago, the road map is not a document for negotiation, it
is not a treaty; it is a plan for action and achievement of peace
and security in the region. The problem then is if it is a plan
that the United States and Quartet have agreed then it is not
open to negotiation. We were told however by Dan Gillerman, the
United Nations Ambassador from Israel, that there are certain
things which they are not happy about within that road map. How
are we going to get over that problem that certainly Israel—and
maybe even the Palestinians but I think they have been much clearer
they would support the road map—has certain criticisms of
that road map and would want to amend it before they even agreed
to go down the road.
(Mr Straw) You get over these things
by a process of discussion. Of course Israel is entitled to comment
on the road map, as other parties are entitled to do, and they
have a profound interest in it and the processes which could lead
to the establishment of a viable Palestinian State. However, you
are right to say it is a document from the Quartet, it is not
a document from the two key parties. If you are asking me am I
confident that if and when we get to the final status for Israel
and Palestine it will be exactly on the steps set out in the road
map? No, I doubt it. Will it require those steps to be made as
part of the process? Yes.
Mr Illsley
307. Two very quick questions, Foreign Secretary.
The first one bearing in mind that UNMOVIC were not designed to
be detectives but could not find weapons of mass destruction in
the face of non-co-operation, and bearing in mind that we are
now in control of the country and we are still having difficulty
finding any weapons of mass destruction, is there an argument
to say now that the use of weapons inspectors is a failed method
of policing proliferation? Is there an argument to say that now
and in the future we are looking at regime change as a first option
rather than inspectors and then regime change?
(Mr Straw) No, I do not think that at
all. I think inspectors have an important role to play but it
is by no means an exclusive role. You need other tools. Inspectors
can play a really important role where you have got consent by
the governments concerned as, for example, you had most famously
in South Africa, or alternatively a wide range of regimes to which
we are party and other countries are party having inspection regimes
is an important way of ensuring that there is compliance or establishing
non-compliance. So it is an important part, to use the current
phrase, of the toolbox but not the only one.
308. Finally, given the time restrains, Condoleezza
Rice has said that France has got to be punished for its role
in UN negotiations. Colin Powell has also said that France will
have serious measures taken against it. Do we subscribe to that
or do we think the United States being a little bit too forthright
in that situation?
(Mr Straw) With respect, I have seen these stories
but I do not recall having seen direct quotations from either
Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell to that effect, but do not let
me argue with you. We want constructive relations with our partners
in France and part of the way we achieve those is by overcoming
some of the difficulties which have been there in terms of a difference
of perspectives which has arisen in the last nine months.
Chairman
309. Foreign Secretary, we will negotiate about
our five minutes at the highest level afterwards. May I thank
you and your colleagues. The debate will continue.
(Mr Straw) Thank you very much.
| 
