Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-207)
MR DOUGLAS
ALEXANDER MP, MR
ANTHONY SMITH
AND MR
SIMON MANLEY
3 MAY 2006
Q200 Chairman: We have about 10 minutes
left and there are three areas that I want to touch on. You have
touched on it already when you talked about the discussion about
the external action service and developments, but can I put it
to you that, in the absence of the constitution, with this arrangement
whereby Mr Solana is in this strange position as being responsible
to the Council of Ministers that putatively we would have had
a different role if things had been different, is the effectiveness
of the European Union and its external policy generally weakened
or hampered by the current institutional arrangements?
Mr Alexander: There is no question
of Javier Solana becoming, whoever is successful as high representative,
a new foreign minister without addressing that issue of the draft
constitutional treaty. In terms of the effectiveness of the European
Union projecting itself and its values internationally, I would
probably cite the most salient example, which is that of Iran.
If you look at the E3 process over recent months, initiated with
the full support of other European countries, it seems to me a
very good example of where there has been, notwithstanding the
present arrangements within the European Union, a very effective
European dimension to one of the biggest single strategic challenges
that we face.
Q201 Chairman: The EU policy is coming
to a failure, really, with regard to Iran, despite all the great
efforts and the fact that you are working together with the French
and German Governments; ultimately, it has not succeeded.
Mr Alexander: I have to say it
is the first time it has been suggested to me that it is the fault
of the European Union.
Q202 Chairman: I did not say that.
I am not saying it is the fault of the European Union, I am saying
that despite all the prodigious efforts that went in it has not
succeeded.
Mr Alexander: I would not recognise
that characterisation of the E3 process. I think if you look at
the fact that since its initiation not just the British Foreign
Office but, also, the German and French foreign ministries, not
just the United States but, also, Russia and China, have come
behind that diplomatic effort, it is evidence of the fact that
others recognise the importance of the process. Of course that
process is not concluded, of course there is a long way still
to go but, nonetheless, I think it is an important contribution
to a very difficult international issue. As I say, the fact that
political directors, or P5+1, now are meeting in Paris today (they
started meeting yesterday and they will continue to meet tomorrow)
and there will be further discussions at ministerial level in
New York next week evidences the fact that not just the United
Kingdom but other countries recognise the E3 process as an important
part of a continuing, developing issue in the international community.
Q203 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
I want to turn to a specific EU issue in connection with the occupied
territories of Gaza and the West Bank. As you are aware, the White
Paper said that during the UK Presidency the main objective for
the European Union in the Middle East peace process was to support
the work of James Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for Disengagement
for the Quartet. A number of us, Minister, had an opportunity
of having direct discussions with members of the Wolfensohn team
when we were in Israel and the occupied territories at the end
of last year, and if there is going to be, ultimately, a viable
Palestinian State, which is the objective of the Government and
the EU, and I think there are grounds for huge doubts as to whether
that is going to be achieved, but if it is going to be achievable
at all it will require an efficient and easily usable crossing
for Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank. As you will know,
that was an issue which was a matter of very, very detailed consideration
by the Wolfensohn team. Predictably, I have to say, the Israelis
were putting a great deal of difficulties in the way; they were
making the suggestion that the transit between Gaza and the West
Bank should perhaps only be by rail and they have even come up
with a fantastical proposal that Palestinians should not be allowed
to go on the surface at all but they should be only allowed to
proceed by tunnel between Gaza and the West Bank. Can you assure
us that the British Government and the EU have as a very high
priority the policy of ensuring that the communication link between
Gaza and the West Bank is going to be by road and that the Palestinians,
to create the viable Palestinian State, must have ease of access,
freedom of access, along that road, particularly given the fact
that it is now Israeli government policy to hermetically seal
off Israel from the occupied territories and are no longer going
to be allowing Palestinians even to work in the State of Israel.
Mr Alexander: Let me make clear,
first of all, that given my European responsibilities this is
a matter that is covered within the Office by my colleague Kim
Howells as Minister for the Middle East, primarily, and, also,
of course, by the Foreign Secretary. So it would not be for me
in any way to alter the British Government's position. Of course,
we have been very supportive both of the Quartet and, indeed,
of James Wolfensohn's work and have valued the contribution he
has made in recent months. In terms of our position in relation
to the barrier, in terms of your description of hermetically sealing
areas, the position is long-standing and clear and we have made
representations directly to the Israeli Government on that matter.
Equally, it is clear that we continue to believe that via the
road map procedure the aspiration should be a viable Palestinian
State, alongside a secure and safe Israel. Beyond that, it would
really be a matter better directed to the Foreign Secretary or,
indeed, my colleague Kim Howells, the Minister with direct responsibility
for the Middle East.
Q204 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
I fully appreciate the departmental problems and that Ministers
have specific issues, but you are here to represent the whole
of your department. I fully understand you cannot address my specific
question and we will be grateful for a full written note from
you on the specific issue of British Government policy towards
establishing a viable and easily accessed road link between Gaza
and the occupied territories.[6]
Mr Alexander: It would be even
more appropriate if I get such a letter from Kim Howells, the
Minister with responsibility.
Q205 Chairman: Can you also update
us now on where we are with regard to assistance to the Palestinian
people, given the EU decisions about Hamas, and how we can avoid
mass starvation or deprivation in the Palestinian territories
whilst, at the same time, not supporting Hamas?
Mr Alexander: Again, our position
remains that as set out in terms of the three key criteria set
down by the Quartet: the adherence to prior international obligations;
the renunciation of violence and the recognition of the State
of Israel. It was the case that either at the end of last year
or at the beginning of this year, during the period that the administration
was being formed, there was additional support provided by the
European Union, 7 if I recollect correctly, agreed with the General
Affairs Council, to support the Palestinian Authority, but we
are very clear that the onus of responsibility now rests with
the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas leadership to reach their
own judgment in terms of those criteria that are set down. That
being said, I understand that there will continue to be discussions
within the Union and, principally, amongst foreign ministers on
this issue of the need for potential humanitarian support notwithstanding
the fact that we do not want in any way to remove the onus of
responsibility from Hamas leadership to reach what we believe
is the necessary judgment to adhere to those international norms
and those international standards.
Q206 Chairman: Do you not accept
that there is a potential problem, in that the difficulties that
will be caused to the Palestinian people will, instead of being
blamed upon Hamas itself, be blamed upon the international community
and may actually reinforce Hamas's hold and its political support
within the Palestinian territories when, in fact, only 44% of
people voted for it?
Mr Alexander: Yes, and we have
been very clear and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary has been very
clear, at the time of the elections in the Palestinian Authority,
to make clear that our motivation was in no way to suggest that,
as the Foreign Secretary said: the "wrong" decision
had been reached. It is not for us to make those decisions; the
right democratic way for those decisions to be reached is for
a fair and free choice to be exercised by the Palestinian people.
7 The UK made a £5 million contribution
to the World Bank Trust fund to help stabilise the Fatah-led interim
Palestinian Authority's finances. Of the €120 million Commissioner
Ferrero-Waldner announced on 27 February for the interim (Fatah-led)
Palestinian Authority , €40 million was for essential public
utilities, €64 million for health and education services
channelled through the UN relief and works agency (UNWRA) and
€17.5 million as budget support for the World Bank administered
Trust.
That being said, and accepting, as I say, that since
then funding has been provided from the European Union in support
of the Palestinian Authority, now that you have a Hamas-led government
we are equally clear that the obligations set down on that Palestinian
Authority by the Quartet continue to have to be answered, and
in that sense, with respect, we have already made sure that there
was transitional assistance provided immediately after the election.
So I hope that we have answered the charge that you put to me.
On the other hand, the question has still to be answered by the
Hamas leadership of the Palestinian Authority as to whether they
accept their responsibilities and the responsibilities contingent
on being a democratic government.
Chairman: I am conscious of time and
there were a number of other areas we wanted to ask but you have
to get away, I know that. Can I just touch on two or three areas
and ask, perhaps, if you could send us a note on them. Firstly,
the current position with regard to the neighbourhood policy and,
specifically, Ukraine, in light of the political changes there.
Secondly, the security of energy supply within the European Union,
and what the British Government's position is on that, including
the German-Russian pipeline issue. Thirdly, on the point we have
just been touching on, we also visited Rafah when we were there
in November/December and saw the Italian-led EU operation there,
which was doing an excellent job, and I would be grateful—8
Andrew Mackinlay: And Belarus.
Q207 Chairman:— for your update
on the position with regard to where Rafah is in this current
situation between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas. My colleague has mentioned
Belarus as well. I am very sorry we have not had time to go through
all those matters, and I am sure we will see you again at some
point in the future. Thank you very much.
Mr Alexander: Thank you very much.
8 Ev 62
6 Ev 60 Back
|
