Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 367)
TUESDAY 3 JUNE 2003
PROFESSOR PAUL
WILKINSON AND
MS JANE
CORBIN
Q360 Sir John Stanley: The last question
I would like to put to both of you is, in the way ahead as far
as the British Government's involvement is concerned clearly we
are the minority partner as far as the occupying powers are concerned
and it is self-evident that the United States has far and away
the bigger clout, however, I think we in this Committee are inclined
to believe that the British Government has a significant role
to play. I would like to ask you whether you have any degree of
confidence looking ahead in this extremely difficult evolutionary
stage that we are now in in trying to achieve the ultimate of
a unitary Iraqi government which is a representative body and
which commands the confidence of the people of Iraq, do you believe
that the British Government is so far positioning itself to be
able to exercise a material influence on the American Government
in trying to assist that evolutionary process or are we just going
to be very much bit players in this very, very important situation?
Mr Keane: I think the British
Government is somewhat preoccupied at the moment, that is all
understandable and part of the democratic process. Has the current
debate over the justification for war distracted from prioritising
the re-building of Iraq? I would say that it has, yes. In that
context when all of your energies are focused on dealing with
what happened beforehand then it is hard to see how the urgent
task of re-building Iraq has been given the kind of priority that
it needs politically. That is only one reason for that.
Ms Corbin: There is no doubt that
the Americans are leading the efforts there, and I think they
have made that quite clear. In Baghdad there is very little sign
of any British presence or active participation day-to-day in
events there. I think the British role is very much restricted
to the South, that was the intention, that was the plan and that
has been stuck to. I think that British will have influence in
the South and I think it will be pretty much restricted to that.
I think we will all watch with interest the outcome of the Iraq
Survey Group, which is a joint body between Britain and America
which will be looking at human rights abuses and the whole issue
of the weapons of mass destruction. Britain will play a part in
that but again, my observation is that is very much an American-dominated
organisation, although of course its findings will be of interest
on both sides of the Atlantic.
Mr Keane: All of that being said
if it does go badly wrong and the year does turn in to a yawning
vacuum in which all kinds of groups emerge and start fighting
with each other Britain will take a lot of the blame in the eyes
of the Iraqi people.
Q361 Sir John Stanley: Ms Corbin,
do you judge the decision by the US Government to establish the
new US survey group as being effectively a vote of no confidence
in those who have been looking for weapons of mass destruction
up until now?
Ms Corbin: I think that the priority
for the troops was to fight the battle. I do not think they were
equipped to really search all of those sites with the necessary
experts or the numbers of people. I think an organisation much
more similar to the UN, with a large number of experts able to
spend several months there is what is needed. I think they were
overwhelmed, particularly with the looting, that became their
priority. They were war fighting. We are now in a different phase.
Q362 Mr Chidgey: I would like to
ask a supplementary to one of Sir John's question a moment ago,
when we was asking you about awareness of the occupying powers,
of their responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and you
mentioned specifically that it was clear that British troops were
aware of their responsibilities to prisoners of war and British
officers were aware of their responsibilities to re-connect the
water supply. I would just like to take it a stage further, under
the Geneva Convention the occupying powers do have a responsibility:
"Pillaging is formally forbidden". It also sets out
the requirements for the protection of cultural property in the
event of an armed conflict. We have already debated the issues
of the looting that took place, and I mentioned earlier the destruction
of the ancient sites. I wanted to ask you whether you had seen
any awareness amongst the occupying forces, particularly our own,
of those wider responsibilities beyond the immediate ones that
were clearly hitting them in the face?
Ms Corbin: In Basra there was
an appreciation that the security situation was something that
was very much for the army to tackle as soon as possible. As I
say it was expressed to me within 48 hours of arriving, there
were fears the situation was getting away from them, then they
did manage to reassert control, this is in Basra, and the looting
was prevented with in about five or six days to a week. My indication
was they were very much aware this was something that what was
job of an occupying power to sort out. Of course it took some
time.
Q363 Mr Chidgey: The issue was resources
to do it.
Ms Corbin: The issue was resources,
there were 8,000 troops in a city of nearly two million people.
That is as far as the British were involved. That was a very real
concern.
Mr Keane: The American troops
on the ground expressed on many occasions to me after about a
week when they could see how serious things were, what a dire
state the hospitals were in, a willingness to go out there and
do it. On a number of occasions their commanders did send troops
to guard hospitals. Yes they were infinitely better resourced
but they were still in no position to move through that you city
and impose the kind of law and order that was needed.
Q364 Mr Chidgey: It is rather different
from showing a willingness to try to resolve the situation, general
concern you would expect from anybody, to recognising a responsibility
to that. That is the distinction, responsibility to the occupying
powers?
Mr Keane: We saw this during the
Kosovo conflict, there is a deep awareness of the responsibilities
that exist not only under the Geneva Convention but under international
customary law. They are well aware of their responsibilities.
To take it from that, does the American, major or colonel have
the wherewithal to ensure the security of Baghdad in those crucial
five or six days after the city fell? The answer was no. That
is a political matter.
Mr Chidgey: As Mr Rumsfeld said: "Stuff
happens".
Q365 Chairman: I would like to conclude
by doing a tour of the regional effects of the conflict. Some
claim that there was a positive effect on Israel and Palestine
because Israel no longer felt threatened and that had a positive
effect on the Middle East Peace Process. Do you accept that?
Mr Keane: I am not sure I do.
Ms Corbin: I think that the effect
on the Israel-Palestinian situation has more to do with the willingness
of the Bush administration to now engage with the Peace Process,
I think from that point of view that is a positive effect because
I think that the war on terror against al-Qaeda, followed by the
war against Iraq and all of the sensitivities that were aroused
about that in the Middle East and in the Muslim community generally
did very much push the Bush administration, which had been disengaged
from the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, back on track and
a feeling they had to get to grips with it. That is the effect
more than what Israel's view was vis-a-vis Iraq. That has been
positive. It is early days and we await the outcome and there
are lots of pitfalls on the way. Personally I think there are
problems with the Road Map. Doing a quick tour of the other areas,
the effect on Syria and Iran has also been salutary in that they
have received a very strong message from America, in the case
of Syria, do not harbour remnants of the regime and if there are
weapons of mass destruction do not allow them across your borders.
That message came across loud and clear. Similar messages have
been received by the Iranians and we have seen a rise in levels
of rhetoric between America and Iran as a result of that. Jordan
could be said to have backed the right horse this time, in the
first Gulf War they backed the wrong horse in backing Saddam Hussein.
King Abdulla has suffered a lot of public disquiet, riots and
demonstrations on the streets of Jordan for the stance that he
has taken because there has long been natural sympathies between
the Iraqis and the Jordanians. I detected a real ambivalence in
the Middle East on this whole question of Iraq, at street level
people were angry at American intervention, angry that their rulers
had not stood up against it. In the middle-classes, many of whom
were business people who understood what the regime had done and
knew about human rights abuses and had lost family members there
was a feeling they wanted him out but they did not want to say
so openly. There is a real ambivalence there. Mixed messages coming
from the regime. The big question has to be Saudi Arabia now.
Q366 Chairman: Can you comment on
Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Ms Corbin: With Saudi we have
had the withdrawal now or the declared withdrawal of US troops
and I think it is quite interesting that the so-called hawks in
the administration have now admitted that was always intended
to be a by-product of tackling Saddam Hussein, with him out of
the way they would be able to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia
as the oil fields would no longer be under threat. It is interesting
that is now out in the open. It will give the Saudis pause for
reflection on their diminished role post the Iraqi conflict because
of the oil reserves in the area. Now, of course, Iraq with the
second biggest reserves is effectively in the American sphere
of interest and influence. That is bound to give Saudi pause for
thought. Lastly, Egypt, to my mind they stayed on the sidelines
this time, Hosni Mubarak did say that war in Iraq would create
another 100 bin Ladens, beyond that we did not hear very much
from Egypt. I think they played a quiet role deliberately. That
is the view that I take on Egypt. That is the sort of brief overview
of the region. The big question is whether this makes the whole
region any more stable or safe, it is far too early to tell.
Q367 Chairman: It is to early to
tell but can you tell us?
Mr Keane: I believe it is in a
state of fascinating flux at the moment. I think the security
of the region is dependent on a number of things, the Middle East
Peace Process, as Jane has pointed out, the Road Map, that is
a discussion for another day, it is hugely problematic in terms
of how it will be made to stick on the Palestinian side in particular.
If there is progress and a real sign that America continues to
be engaged, that this is not just seen as a spasm of generosity
post the Iraq war then there can be positive effects right across
the Middle East. Secondly, and I think critically, if what emerges
in Iraq over the next year is something that approaches a genuine
representative government that speaks to the will of the Iraqi
people then I think much of the kind of propaganda, much of the
argument which I heard on the streets in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt
day after day can be countered and something more helpful will
emerge. There is the third question that leads into the previous
set of questions, that is about terrorism and the effect of all
of this on terrorism. Has it created 100 more bin Ladens? We simply
do not know. What it has done in the short term is created a greater
constituency of support or comfort, not necessarily people who
will carry out terrorist acts themselves, but the kind of people
who for a long period in Northern Ireland became sympathisers,
people who were willing to look the other way, who were willing
to carry a bag here and carry a bag there, that is definitely
going to be a short-term by-product of the war.
Ms Corbin: I would just add, the
democracy angle is the most important. If democracy can arise
in Iraq and there can be a government of the people by the people
for the people it will send a powerful message to the other governments
in the area which are in the vast majority not democratic and
that can only be a force for good. That is the single most important
thing we should hope will come out of this conflict when all of
the arguments about cause and effect, what happened and what the
reasons were are exhausted. If a democratic functioning Iraq can
emerge then it is an outcome to be wished for that will have great
repercussions in the area.
Mr Keane: Let us not assume, as
Algeria showed us, if we have genuine democracy across the Middle
East the kind of governments that come to power will be ones that
we will like but rather than get engaged in the business of trying
to subvert them and fight them through different ways I think
one clear message of all of this is that ways need to be found
of doing business and dealing with these governments.
Chairman: That is a very helpful element
on which to end and a real challenge for us. I wish you could
both come back at six monthly intervals to look at your predictions
and to comment as you go along. On behalf of the Committee your
contribution to us has been extremely valuable, I have had comments
from colleagues already. We are most grateful to you both. Thank
you very much.
| 
