Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-47)
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, LORD TRIESMAN,
MS JESSICA
IRVINE AND
MR JAMES
THORNTON
8 NOVEMBER 2005
Q40 Mr Davies: That was true until
August; it has not been true in the last two months, has it?
Hilary Benn: There have been the
three particular incidents that I referred to: the attack on the
IDP camp, which was extremely worrying because that was the first
for some time; the attack on Sheriya that the SLA was themselves
responsible for, and of course then the five AU peacekeepers who
were killed. That is right, that is why we are all of us concerned
about the recent increase in violence that has taken place.
Q41 Mr Davies: I am afraid I draw
the conclusion from this exchange that you are inclined to put
a lot of emphasis on the apparently good news that comes out,
even if the news is more apparent than we realise in the case
of people being removed from their homes and therefore less violence
occurring in the home. I am afraid I am more struck by the lack
of progress, the fact that we appear in the last two months to
be going backwards. You have just been talking about strengthening
the AU capability on the ground, and we all support that. I can
tell you that when I was myself there on the ground in February
and March and talking to African Union commanders it was quite
clear to me that they did not have some of the essential tools
to do the job. It is misconceived, I think, to talk about the
numbers they would have; the fact is that how many thousand men
they have there they will not be effective or efficient unless
they have the tools to do the job. But if they are given the tools
a relatively small number can have substantial effect. They did
not have the armoured infantry vehicles, the warrior type vehicles,
the APCs we have talked about this afternoon; they did not have
any heavy-lift helicopters, Chinook helicopters at all, and they
clearly badly need them. It is absurd to think that you can intervene
across those distances and in those conditions by road; you can
only intervene quickly if you have the heavy-lift helicopters
and they do not have them. They still do not have them now, some
seven or eight months later. It was also clear to me that they
had no access whatever to satellite surveillance or to electronic
intelligence, which I would have thought were obvious pre-requirements
for that kind of intervention.
Chairman: Can you get to the question?
Q42 Mr Davies: The question is, Mr
Chairman, why is it only now that the government is focusing on
these shortcomings? They have been apparent to most of us who
have tried to familiarise ourselves with the situation on the
ground for quite a long time.
Hilary Benn: It is not the case,
Mr Davies, that the government is only now focusing on these shortcomings.
That is the first point, because we have been working with the
AU and others for a considerable period of time to try to ensure
that they have the capacity to do the job that they have been
given, and we have offered our support in extremely practical
ways, not least the provision of vehicles, so that they can get
around and do their job.
Q43 Mr Davies: The Canadians are
now providing some armoured vehicles, thank goodness. Are you
suggesting or proposing providing, for example, satellite surveillance
or electronic intelligence capabilities, which we have available
to us?
Hilary Benn: No, I am not proposing
that, and, yes, you are right that the Canadians have since June,
if not earlier, been willing to provide the armoured personnel
carriers.
Q44 Mr Davies: Why are you not proposing
those things, Mr Benn, if I may ask you?
Hilary Benn: It is not an issue
that was certainly raised with me in the conversation I had with
the AU; I do not know if it has been raised with David. Can I
just go back to the first point that you made because, with respect,
I would not accept that we are trying to be unduly optimistic,
I am trying to give the Committee an honest answer to the questions
that have been asked about the situation. It was the AU themselves
who said to me in June that there had been a significant reduction
in violence against civilians; that is what they said.
Q45 Mr Davies: In June that was true.
Hilary Benn: It was. So going
back to the original premise to your question, that we are being
optimistic about what happened, the fact is that there has been
a considerable reduction in violence, the fact is that there has
been a reduction in mortality in the camps because of the improved
humanitarian operation. I think it is fair to point that out because
otherwise people listening might draw the conclusion that nothing
had changed as a result of the international effort. I share the
concern that you expressed about what has happened in the last
month or so. Question: is this going to be a one-off increase,
are things going to settle down or not, or will it be a continuing
rise in violence? If it is a continuing rise in violence then
we are all of us going to have to think about what we are going
to do to do something about it. I am trying to give a balanced
picture. I think there has been some progress but there are some
other things that have not been dealt with.
Q46 Hugh Bayley: The UN World Summit
approved the Responsibility to Protect. Is that responsibility
obligatory on the UN Member States, or just advisory? And does
its existence now mean that Russia and China will feel obliged
to cease threatening to veto military intervention or to consider
seriously oil sanctions?
Lord Triesman: My understanding
is that it has become a charter obligation and it should be binding
on all Member States. [3]There
is obviously going to be some early testing out of how strongly
all Member States make use of the new provision but the intention
was—and Kofi Annan was explicit about it in the course of
the summit—that a number of key issues would have to be
revisited in the light of the new provision and to try to make
sure that it was used properly and used effectively as it was
intended to be used.
Q47 Hugh Bayley: Will our government
use Darfur as a test bed?
Lord Triesman: I do not whether
Hilary has a specific answer but I would certainly be willing,
from a foreign policy point of view, to look at that because it
was clear to me in New York that Darfur was one of the issues
that there was a good deal of resonance with the Secretary-General
and others and it may well be that discussion could be engaged
in. It is so new that no one has yet tried to use it, but it is
certainly a possibility.
Hilary Benn: I think what the
summit acknowledged by adopting that was that we have a responsibility
to do something, but as the discussion this afternoon has demonstrated
the question is: how you are going to do it, who is going to provide
the support, the funding, the material, the men and the equipment
on the ground and the humanitarian support, in order to make the
difference? The truth is that the world is feeling its way towards
a way of dealing with these situations, and Darfur is a very difficult
one, and there are others that we have discussed previously and
will no doubt do so again. So political will is one thing because
without political will it is not going to happen, but you have
to have the capacity and we do not yet have sufficient of the
right capacity to make a difference, and that is why we have to
ensure that we do build that over time including supporting, in
this case, Africa's efforts to provide some of that capacity,
without which I would not be able to sit here today and say there
have been less attacks on civilians during the course of the year
or there has been improved security from about February until
the recent increase in attacks.
Chairman: Secretary of State, Minister,
thank you very much. I think you will have gathered that the Committee
is concerned about two fundamental things. One is that we are
watching a very difficult situation and are alarmed that it might
deteriorate very rapidly and concerned that the international
community does not have the capacity to respond. Secondly, that
at some point or another we are to break the logjam and give people
the opportunity to return to their homes. I thank you and your
colleagues for coming here and giving us your time. I think I
can speak for the whole Committee—and, by the way, Mr Bercow
would have been here but his wife had a baby in the early hours
of the morning, and everything is fine but that is the reason
why he is not here. I can assure you that the Committee will continue
to watch the situation closely.
3 Note by witness: The primary responsibility
for the protection of vulnerable populations lies with that population's
government. But where that government is unwilling or unable to
exercise their responsibility, the international community should
act to prevent or stop the worst atrocities (genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity). The 2005 UN World
Summit endorsed this concept, and for the first time world leaders
agreed that they were prepared to take collective action. This
includes using political and diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and,
should peaceful means be inadequate, military action through the
Security Council. Endorsement of the responsibility to protect
does not amount to a legal obligation under the UN Charter to
act in a specific case. But it provides the international community
with another tool for tackling these gross human rights violations. Back
|
