Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
6 DECEMBER 2004
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR DAVID
FROST AND
MR TIM
BARROW
Q60 Mr Mackay: Foreign Secretary, I think
we would all want to commend what you have been doing with our
relationships on the Ukraine since the flawed elections and for
my part I think you have played a difficult hand absolutely dead
right.
Mr Straw: Thank you very much.
Q61 Mr Mackay: Let us hope that the second
elections are not flawed, but they are fraught with danger, I
am sure you would agree. I have just one concern and want one
reassurance from you. We are obviously all delighted that there
is a coalition of the willing but that must always be secondary
to our policy of pursuing democracy, freedom and human rights.
In a different context I have reservations about Kazakhstan, but
that is for another day, and the fact that it is a member of the
coalition of the willing and we take a tough enough line. There
are, I believe, about 1,600 Ukrainian troops in Iraq, who are
obviously very useful to us and our American allies. Can I have
an absolute assurance from you that if things again go wrong in
the Ukraine you, and hopefully our American allies, will be as
robust as you have always been and it will be very secondary but
they have been a coalition of the willing under President Kuchma.
Mr Straw: There is no suggestion
either by the US that I have ever seen or by ourselves that the
fact that the Ukraine is making a valuable contribution to the
coalition in Iraq should have held us back in respect of our view
about these elections. I may say that this, of course, is a troop
contribution agreed under the Government of President Kuchma.
The issue for us in these elections, as for the whole of the EU
and I believe the US too, is the process. We will respect any
fair outcome. We are not trying to tell the Ukrainian people what
to do. We are trying to ensure that they are able to determine
themselves who should be the new president of that government.
It is perfectly plain from all the evidence, and increasing evidence,
that the elections were indeed flawed.
Mr Mackay: Absolutely.
Q62 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
going back to the Balkans, would you agree that though the results
of international intervention around the world have been mixed
as far as the Balkans are concerned, it has been (in my view certainly)
a pretty well unqualified success, and if you ask yourself what
would have happened to the Kosovo Albanians if we had not intervened
in that country and what would have happened in terms of bloodshed
in Bosnia and Herzegovina if we had not brought that civil war
to an end, and if we had not gone in in the nick of time with
additional NATO deployments in Macedonia when things looked dangerous
there, I think most people would conclude that it was very fortunate
that the international community intervened. The question I want
to put to you is whether, at the forthcoming European Council,
you are going to be beating the drum a bit for the Balkans in
terms of the necessity for continuing international and EU commitments,
and do you fear, as I do, that there is some degree of complacency
creeping in as far as the Balkans is concerned? Obviously, everybody's
mind is focused on Iraq and possibly to a lesser extent into Afghanistan
where the bloodshed is taking place. Happily, there is not bloodshed
taking place in the Balkans, but we have got a relatively tinder-box
situation still in Kosovo and we have still got a potentially
difficult and conceivably even dangerous situation in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, so is it the British Government's view that we have
to keep the international community and the EU seriously focused
on making a commitment both financially and in terms of military
and civilian resources, particularly in Kosovo and particularly
in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Mr Straw: It is, and actually,
Sir John, I do not perceive any complacency at all on this. The
Balkans is the area where there has been a longer engagement of
a European foreign policy and security policy than any other area
in the world, for the most obvious reasons, that the conflict
happened at an earlier stage and that the Maastricht Treaty was
coming into force as the early stages of the conflict were being
played out. I think everybody in Europe has realised that what
happened in the early to mid 1990s was absolutely shameful, including
the fact that the conflicts were exacerbated by different European
countries taking explicitly different positions with disastrous
results. There is therefore a very strong sense of not only the
collective but also the individual responsibility of the European
Union and its Member States respectively not to allow that ever
to happen again and to work in concert. Javier Solana and his
people have been at their most operational and effective up to
now in respect of the Balkans. What happened is good. I entirely
agree with you that, but for the engagement of the UN and the
US, which has been critical, and NATO and the EU, that set of
territories would have degenerated into further bloodshed and
conflict with repercussions beyond the boundaries of the western
Balkans. Just to underline the point about the EU's commitment,
on 2 December, four days ago, as you will be aware, the EU military
mission took over from NATO's SFor[8]in
Bosnia, so we are deepening our engagement.
Q63 Mr Pope: I would like to ask a couple
of questions about Iraq, Foreign Secretary. It seems to me that
things are getting worse rather than better. It has been a very
difficult weekend in Iraq, with dozens of people killed in separate
terrorist incidents. Surely you must have hoped that after Falluja
there would be a period of comparative quiet as we work towards
the January elections. How confident are you that those elections
are going to be able to take place at all, if they do take place,
in any atmosphere of stability and security?
Mr Straw: I think they have to
take place, is the answer. That is currently the decision of the
United Nations Security Council, which is quite explicit, in Resolution
1546. That is the first point. The second point is that though
the security situation is serious in some parts of Iraq, and very
serious in particular parts, it is benign in many other parts
of Iraq. There is inevitably a very public focus on the security
situation because one area of instability and insecurity is within
Baghdad, the capital. One of the things that helped us with Afghanistan
was that Kabul was always about the most stable and secure area
and it was the capital. That is not the case in Iraq and therefore,
as well as the reality being different, the perceptions are different.
You will have heard this morning the indication of General Abizaid,
who is the senior US general, that the US are intending to increase
troop numbers to 150,000 to make good the current deficiencies
in the Iraqi national forces, so the Americans are also seized
of this issue. I discussed it at some length yesterday on the
telephone with Secretary Powell. I discussed it last week with
Barham Salih, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the week before that
with Foreign Minister Zebawi, and before that with Prime Minister
Allawi. You may have seen what President Ghazi said on the television,
I think today or maybe last night, where he was committing himself
to the elections at the end of January. The environment is difficult
but it is the judgment of the Iraqi interim government as well
as the international community that worse than going ahead with
the elections is postponing them. We need to be clear that the
administrative arrangements are proceeding smoothly. This is not
a "third world" country. This is a country with quite
an extensive system of public administration. The foundation in
any event for the electoral system has been there for some years
because it is the food rationing system. You have got the Independent
Elections Commission in Iraq using 542 offices, principally of
the food rationing system, as the base for electoral registration.
As of last week, when I did a press conference with Barham Salih,
186 political entities, which include both individuals and political
parties, had registered with the Independent Elections Commission,
and all that is on track. What is not is the security situation.
Why is it not? Because some rather determined terrorist insurgents
are determined to try to prevent the Iraqis from exercising a
very basic human right: the right to vote their own government,
and that is profoundly offensive to Iraqis above all, as well
as to the international community. These terrorists are killing
Iraqis, fellow Muslims, in far greater numbers than they are killing
even American or other coalition forces, and that is why they
have to be dealt with.
Q64 Mr Pope: That is interesting. Certainly
when I was in Iraq a few months ago one of the things that struck
me was the great hunger of Iraqis for the democratic process.
Mr Straw: They are fed up, to
put it at its mildest, with tyranny and violence being the answer
to political problems. They do not like it, but some people have
a vested interest in it, such as remnants of the former regime
and extremists and some outsiders who are trying to prevent this
happening.
Q65 Mr Pope: Can I ask you about the
European Union and Iraq? The EU has obviously done a number of
things. There has been a programme of about
300 million for reconstruction and humanitarian work.
There has been some debt relief. There has been work on trade
co-operation. Are you happy with the EU? Has it done enough or
could it be doing quite a bit more?
Mr Straw: I am. I think it is
very well known that the EU was more or less split down the middle
about the wisdom or otherwise of the original military action,
and there was no foreign policy; there simply could not be. That
meant that the EU was not directly involved in military action
in the early stages. The main diplomatic focus has been the UN
but it agreed on an Action Plan in respect of Iraq in June of
this year. There have been two exploratory missions to Iraq and
the outcome of this was that on 5 November a package of assistance
was presented to Prime Minister Allawi. This included support
for the elections,
30 million for the Independent Elections Commission
of Iraq and the secondment of three mission election experts to
support the IECI[9]and
the UN, a commitment to start negotiations on a new EU/Iraq political
and trading relationship, including the restoration of GSP[10]and
support for police training in the rule of law and governance
and EU humanitarian assistance to Iraq continues. Politically
there is now in any event a more positive approach and that was
well illustrated by the summit that was held a couple of weeks
ago between President Chirac and our Prime Minister and relevant
ministers.
Q66 Mr Pope: How would you categorise
EU/US relations now? Has the re-election of President Bush just
meant that critics, such as President Chirac, have decided to
draw a line under it, Bush is going to be there for another four
years and they need to have a proper relationship with the US?
Is there now some sense that we can put all this behind us, draw
a line under it and move forward together between the EU and the
US?
Mr Straw: I think so. Inevitably,
before any election, particularly an election of such significance
as the US President, there will be all sorts of people taking
all sorts of positions and maybe taking bets they later regret.
Anyway, the result of an election with such a decisive conclusion
is that people are now settled and they know that if they want
relations with the US they will have to have them with the Bush
administration. I am surprised to see I have got the same tie
on as Mr Pope.
Mr Pope: You have a fine taste in ties.
Q67 Ms Stuart: It is the Irish Presidency
tie.
Mr Straw: I have to say it is
the best tie any Presidency has provided.
Q68 Mr Pope: You are also in the presence
of the only two Labour MPs who backed Bush.
Mr Straw: In terms of relations
all the indications are that all the Member States want good relations
with the American Government; they always have done, but a number
of events, the passage of time since the Iraq major conflict,
which is now well over 18 months, plus a conclusive result in
the presidential elections, have made a difference.
Q69 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
can I come back to Iraq and the forthcoming election? I can fully
understand all the arguments against postponement in that it could
be seen as a victory for the terrorists, etc, but I am sure you
will agree that it is very important that the degree of turnout
and participation and the way in which the election is conducted
hopefully is as free as possible from intimidation and all those
are such that genuine democratic validity is conferred on the
result and on the constituent assembly. You referred to the American
general's very sobering comments yesterday, which I do not think
came as a great surprise, namely, that the Iraqi security forces—and
I mean no criticism of them—simply have not had the training
to deal with these very sophisticated terrorists acting with utter
ruthlessness, and therefore the security job is going to fall
onto the Americans and, of course, ourselves and the other members
of the coalition of the willing. I thought one of the most sobering
figures which was reported yesterday was that of the 135,000 members
on the payroll of the Iraqi police approximately 50,000 now are
staying at home as a result of intimidation. If those are the
levels of intimidation that have been achieved one wonders how
many of the civilian population are going to be intimidated against
participating in the elections. Is it not clear that we are not
just going to be able to rely on the Americans for putting more
forces in? There are going to have to be additional contributions
from other members of the coalition of the willing, perhaps including
ourselves, and if it is just going to be increasing the Americans
to 150,000 surely that is not going to be sufficient to provide
the degree of security necessary for these elections to be held
properly the length and breadth of Iraq at the end of January?
Mr Straw: The security situation
can and does change day by day and week by week. There is no doubt
that the effect of the Falluja operation has been to weaken the
insurgency but it has obviously not eliminated it and time will
tell what its longer term consequences have been. As far as troop
numbers are concerned the increase to 150,000 is quite substantial.
I have not got the figures in my head. I think that is an increase
of about 15,000.
Q70 Chairman: From 135,000.
Mr Straw: Yes, which is substantial.
Sir John, you will be aware as far as British troop numbers are
concerned that these are kept under review and announcements are
made from time to time by the Secretary for Defence, Geoff Hoon.
I am sorry: I cannot add any more to that.
Q71 Chairman: Turning to the Middle East,
with clearly the new opportunities with the new US administration's,
apparently greater engagement, the Palestinian elections, to what
extent will the European Union be assisting in the preparations
for these elections in January?
Mr Straw: They are assisting a
great deal. The EU is, through the good offices of Javier Solana
and Mark Otte, who is the EU's Special Representative in the Middle
East, is actively involved, to a degree more actively involved
now than it has been in the recent past when the politics were
to a considerable extent on hold. They are involved, we are involved
actively and everybody wants to see these elections take place
in a benign environment. There are municipal elections on 23 December
and then the presidential elections take place on 9 January. When
I was in the area two weeks ago I discussed with both the Israelis
and the Palestinians what security co-operation they would be
ensuring to create this benign environment. The Israelis undertook
quite publicly that they would follow broadly the same arrangements
as were laid down in a 1995 original agreement which was the basis
for their co-operation for the 1996 presidential elections. That
essentially means lifting as many closures and blocks within the
West Bank and Gaza as possible and separately co-operating with
the Palestinian Authority in respect of the running of the elections
in east Jerusalem. What happened in 1996 as I understand it was
that there was a house-to-house canvass by students and then principally
a postal ballot, for reasons which will be readily understood,
because the issue of the status of east Jerusalem remains questioned
by Israel in a way that the territorial status of the West Bank
and Gaza does not.
Q72 Chairman: So you are satisfied with
the degree of co-operation?
Mr Straw: Yes. The EU supported
the Central Elections Commission—I visited the Central Elections
Commission—and supported the voter registration process,
and six million euros go into that. There are five EU-supported
electoral consultants currently working with the Central Elections
Commission. We are providing four million euros for the CEC preparations
for the presidential elections and we are planning to send an
election observation mission comprising an expert team of 20 and
they have 150 observers.
Q73 Sir John Stanley: What is the British
Government's view, no doubt alongside the EU, if the Road Map
is implemented, as to how much of the currently occupied West
Bank should be withdrawn from being occupied by Israeli settlements?
Mr Straw: If the Road Map is implemented,
Sir John, that will be resolved within the Road Map in the final
status negotiations.
Q74 Sir John Stanley: Yes, of course,
I understand that, but does the British Government have a view
as to how much of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank should
be given up by the Israeli Government and you gave the Sharon
proposal a very rose-tinted view in your statement last week when
you talked about withdrawal from the north West Bank. As you know,
Foreign Secretary, we are talking about just four very small settlements
representing less than one per cent of the total number of settlers
on the West Bank. Is the British Government happy if that is the
totality of the withdrawal from the West Bank?
Mr Straw: No. I gave a warm welcome
to what the Sharon Government has proposed, which is withdrawal
from Gaza completely. I have not got the text in front of me but
I have always been clear that we were talking about the withdrawal
of four settlements in the northern part of the West Bank. I am
as certain as I can be that that is what I said.
Q75 Sir John Stanley: You said "withdrawal
from the north West Bank".
Mr Straw: I think I said four
settlements. Anyway, I do not think we are arguing about anything.
Q76 Sir John Stanley: It is quite important
to give the correct impression though.
Mr Straw: Yes. I have said time
and again that this withdrawal, the one announced, is a necessary
condition to the creation of a separate Palestinian state but
by no means sufficient. I certainly do not accept the view that
this is the end of the matter, certainly not. There would have
to be withdrawal from a substantial part of the West Bank within
its 1967 borders.
Q77 Sir John Stanley: Could you just
clarify that? It is very important wording, this. Just so that
we understand, when you talk about withdrawal from a substantial
part of the West Bank are you talking about a substantial part
of the currently-occupied-with-settlements West Bank or a substantial
part of the totality of the geographical area?
Mr Straw: The totality within
the 1967 boundaries; that is obvious. I cannot answer your question
about what would be acceptable to us except to say that what is
acceptable to us is what would be acceptable to both the parties
in terms of final status negotiation. I am not making a trite
point here. Our position is that we want to see the parties sitting
round the table coming to a negotiation. It can only be sorted
out in the end by negotiation which is supported internationally,
but by negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Both sides know that things have moved on since 1967. They have
also moved since Oslo; everybody understands that. They also know
that they have to come to an agreement. In any final status negotiations
there is going to be a trade. There are a number of things on
the table. There is the issue of the unlawful settlements which
are within the 1967 borders of the West Bank. There is the issue
of the status of Jerusalem. There is the issue of the right of
return of refugees and there are other matters. All these will
be on the table and there is going to have to be a negotiation
about those. With luck and good preparation there will be an agreement
about final status, based broadly on the 1967 boundaries, as the
Road Map makes clear, and the Road Map also makes clear that this
is a subject for final negotiations. If I were suddenly to launch
myself forth and say, "This is how they should reach a final
negotiation", that would be insulting to both the key parties
and inconsistent with the Road Map.
Q78 Ms Stuart: Can I move to Neighbourhood
Policy? There was a document presented to the Council in May 2004
and I just wonder what your assessment is in terms of any progress
in EU relations with countries who have no immediate prospect,
or who will probably never have a prospect, of EU membership.
Very specifically, is the UK Government concerned that there does
not appear to be anybody charged with human rights in Javier Solana's
office, and therefore is sufficient attention being paid to human
rights?
Mr Barrow: On the European Neighbourhood
Policy, as you know, the next stage is the drawing up of the Action
Plan to which we referred earlier in the conversation about Belarus.
Those Action Plans may go to the Commission next week and then
to the Council the week after, so there has been progress. There
has been a lot of detailed negotiation by the Commission with
the countries concerned and the Action Plans are based upon the
fundamental of conditionality for continued enhancement and progress
in relations. Part of this aspect is human rights. I have not
looked at the particular organogram of Mr Solana's office but
on human rights it is always raised in the context of discussions
with third countries. As you know, it is one of the key issues
which cut across our policies and I do not think there is any
deficiency of interest being taken in that.
Q79 Ms Stuart: So we are quite satisfied
that the issue of human rights in that policy is sufficiently
covered?
Mr Barrow: I am never going to
say anything is sufficient; I am greedy, but I do not think human
rights are being ignored in that policy.
8 Stabilisation Force Back
9
Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq Back
10
Generalised System of Preferences Back
| 
