Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 339)
THURSDAY 8 JUNE 2006
RT HON
HILARY BENN
MP, MR JIM
DRUMMOND AND
MR PHIL
EVANS
Q320 Mr Davies:
The Hamas situation is very well aired in the press and I think
we all know the facts there. The other cases are much less clear
which is why I am taking the opportunity to ask you these questions.
You had a very high degree of solidarity among donors in the case
of Ethiopia. In the case of Uganda, it is not so clear. In fact,
some donors have continued to drop out of support; other donors
have not made clear on what conditions and what terms they would
resume it, so the Government in Uganda is not getting, it seems
to me, a coherent message on this occasion, is that right?
Hilary Benn: From memory, it was
not as universal as was the case with Ethiopia, that is right.
Q321 Mr Davies:
But you agree it is very desirable there should be joint action
in these cases, particularly joint action, one hopes, among the
EU, and if you cannot achieve that, the effectiveness of these
kinds of sanctions is greatly reduced?
Hilary Benn: Clearly, the more
donors who take a view and act accordingly the more effect you
think it might have, but I have to say, in the case of Ethiopia,
I could not say that it has resulted in the Government doing something
differently. Even though it has not done something differently,
it does mean that the international community has sent a very
strong message about what we regard as acceptable conduct, and
I think that is worthwhile in itself.
Q322 Mr Davies:
Yes, certainly. Can you assure the Committee that when you are
considering triggering sanctions like this the procedure you always
adopt is to try to get some equivalent supporting action from
others and, if possible, a common front?
Hilary Benn: We certainly will
talk to other donors because the conversation clearly goes, "What
are you going to do in response to this?" and the donors
talk to each other and in the end either there is a collective
decision taken or one takes a decision and then others think,
"Well, now what are we now going to do?" It works in
different ways in different circumstances, but the thing that
I am ultimately responsible for is what we are going to do and
in the end other governments are responsible for what they are
going to do, but we would certainly encourage people to try and
march in step. That assumes that they have the same analysis as
us about what is going on.
Q323 Mr Davies:
Have you considered with your EU colleagues establishing some
kind of agreed procedure or protocol as to how you might respond
in situations like this so as to generate a common response, if
possible?
Hilary Benn: No.
Q324 Mr Davies:
Will you consider that?
Hilary Benn: Can I reflect on
that?
Q325 Mr Davies:
I would be very pleased if you would.
Hilary Benn: Genuinely.
Q326 Mr Davies:
To move back to conflict, one thing that concerns me slightly
about the stories coming through today is—let me use your
word—the "separateness" of the response by yourselves
and the MoD. I would have thought there was a very high degree
of cohesion and co-ordination now. In relation to Sierra Leone,
you said this afternoon—maybe it was just an excessive and
very charming modesty on your part—"Oh, the re-establishment
of order in Sierra Leone was nothing to do with us. That was my
colleagues in the MoD." I would rather have hoped you would
have been alongside those colleagues in the MoD right from the
beginning and you would have had a plan for introducing the necessary
DFID initiatives alongside and simultaneously as far as possible
with a common objective. That was not the story that came out
this afternoon. Perhaps you would like to correct that?
Hilary Benn: You are very generous.
I think I was referring to the fighting bit.
Q327 Mr Davies:
We do not expect you to do the fighting.
Hilary Benn: I know you do not.
Q328 Mr Davies:
In so far as successful stabilisation requires a military contribution
and an aid and development contribution, and you supply the latter,
simply to say "the whole credit goes to the MoD" was
a rather strange thing to say. You did say that, Secretary of
State, unless there is something wrong with my ears.
Hilary Benn: I am sure, Mr Davies,
there is nothing wrong with your ears. If I expressed myself badly,
I apologise. I was referring to the fighting. I was talking about
the establishment of security and order.
Q329 Mr Davies:
In fact, you had a joint plan of campaign. The DFID role was established
in the beginning and you began to deliver your contribution as
soon as you could once the military had established some kind
of security, is that right or not?
Hilary Benn: I was not around
at the time because we are talking, I think, about 2000, but what
I can say is that in Sierra Leone I think it would be hard to
find a better example of more joined-up activity between the different
bits of government. I cannot speak for 2000 because, as I say,
I was not in post at the time, but that has been a very strong
feature of what we have done in Sierra Leone.
Q330 Mr Davies:
I was myself very positively impressed by the degree of joined-up
action in Iraq between the MoD and DFID when I visited Iraq last
year. Let us not take it that necessarily exists everywhere else.
On that subject, in the DRC what was quite notable is that you
are now the biggest donors, I understand it. You have given the
figures of £60 million up to £70 million and I think
that is something that there would be widespread support for,
but we have not made any military contribution, as far as I know,
to MONUC. We do not have any operational troops there, we may
have one or two advisers or liaison officers. We are not even,
unlike, say, the Germans, supplying a force to help stability
temporarily in the elections next month. Why is there that lack
of any contribution by the MoD in this case? Are you in favour
of that or did you try to urge your colleagues in the MoD to make
their own contribution?
Hilary Benn: The straight answer
to the question is because British forces, as you know, Mr Davies,
are rather busy in one or two other places[14].
Q331 Mr Davies:
You accepted from the outset there was no point in asking for
a military contribution, or you made a case for a military contribution
by this country but accepted the arguments against on the grounds
of overstretch?
Hilary Benn: No, I am realistic
enough to recognise that our forces are already heavily committed
in a number of places and, therefore, we make a contribution to
MONUC through our assessed contribution through the United Nations
but not in the form of people on the ground.
Mr Davies: You never thought there would
be any merit in such a contribution? You never attempted to persuade
your colleagues in the MoD to make a contribution?
Chairman: I am going to have to contain
you, Mr Davies.
Mr Davies: I think we must have clear
answers, sir.
Q332 Chairman:
I know, but four members of the Committee went to the DRC and
had the opportunity to ask these questions.
Hilary Benn: Did I have a conversation
with the MoD about "Could you make a contribution to the
forces in the MONUC or the European presence to support the elections?"
The answer is no, I did not. That is a straight answer to a straight
question.
Q333 Ann McKechin:
Secretary of State, I am always surprised in a way about the different
approaches in terms of the timing and sequencing of elections
in post-conflict countries. If we look at somewhere like Bosnia,
we have taken a great deal of time to try and build up structures
in government, particularly justice networks and civil society,
before we have tried to approach the issue of elections. In comparison,
we have somewhere like the DRC which we all admit has been a very
fragile state. It has been a failed state for many years, but
yet we are rapidly moving towards full-scale elections later this
year. Is there any particular policy which DFID is trying to follow
in terms of providing advice about the timing and sequencing of
elections, or do you think this reliance on elections as one of
the key elements early on in the post-conflict situation, is necessarily
always the best option?
Hilary Benn: I think the first
thing I would say is we do not determine the answer to that question,
after all, it is the federal process in the country itself which
will ultimately decide when and how elections are going to feature.
In the case of the DRC, the transitional government has been in
being now for, I think, almost three years. I would not regard
that as particularly swift, but the fact is they have allowed
time to try and get institutions in place, to get the constitution
through and to agree on the framework. The elections are a little
bit later than people had thought might otherwise be the case
and in the DRC when they first announced that there was going
to be a bit of a delay, there was a bit of a public reaction.
I would say in the case of the DRC, they probably got it about
right. In the case of Afghanistan, I think it has been very important
you have an elected government. I would say in the case of Iraq,
it is particularly important to have an elected government. If
the argument is put that you should wait a bit longer, I do not
think that I agree with that, first, and, secondly, it is for
the people, hopefully, who are making the peace to determine how,
as part of that peace, elections are going to figure in the process.
Q334 Ann McKechin:
We took a very different approach on Bosnia, where we still do
not have full elections and where we do not have a government
fully taking control after a very long period of time, and it
just strikes me that we, as an international community, because
obviously we make policy and aid commitments conditional on the
issue of governance, that is clearly important, but certainly
the international community took a much more hands-on approach
in Bosnia in terms of moving through to a transitional phrase
which we have not done in other areas. I am wondering why; was
it a question of resources, was it a question of what would fit
or a question of the fact that we could not offer the same level
of resources as we did in Bosnia or a level of engagement in other
countries?
Hilary Benn: To be honest, I do
not know a lot about the circumstances in relation to Bosnia.
Jim Drummond might want to say something about that.
Mr Drummond: I am not a great
expert on Bosnia either, but what happened there was the peace
agreement froze the country into a number of entities for a while
and it imposed an international government on top of those entities.
They have had frequent elections in Bosnia in recent years, but
it has not been for a full, autonomous government. Some people
might think they have had excessive numbers of elections in Bosnia
in recent years.
Hilary Benn: All I would say is
different countries, different circumstances; the Kimberley Process
is going to lead. I do not think it is a huge problem. I do not
think we have a fixed view about it is has got to be then as opposed
to later.
Mr Drummond: We certainly do not
walk away thinking elections fix the problem.
Q335 John Battle:
It is a comment really. Sometimes I think we treat elections as
the answer to the problem rather than the start of the problem.
Another thing that I felt in the DRC—and I am not too worried
about the elections being delayed—was all the questions
were about how the voters would line up, whether they get the
right stand, be in the right place, fill in the paper properly
and we were talking about the processes of people voting. I think
what we were not talking about was what are elections about, which
are also about politicians, their accountability, their transparency
and so I think we have turned the elections business into a technical
business that organises voters. Perhaps what we need to be doing
much more of—and I say this as someone who has not done
enough of it—is we, as MPs and parliamentarians, perhaps
ought to be working more with our counterparts and not treating
it as a separate science, because otherwise we are asking the
people to vote right and then missing out on the real bit, the
performance of politicians. It may be worth us sitting around
the table as politicians, dare I say, and comparing notes about
how we fill in our expense forms, how accountable we are here,
how we work on select committees and things in Parliament, how
we work cross-party occasionally, because some colleagues in other
countries have no experience of that at all. It is a big piece
of the jigsaw about democracy that we are not passing across.
Hilary Benn: I would simply say
it is one thing to have the institutions, the mechanism; it is
a whole other thing to have the culture that comes with it and
that takes a long time, as our experience as a country demonstrates.
Q336 Richard Burden:
There was no lead donor in the DRC when we were there. Some people
said, "Well, just the scale of the country means that it
is difficult to have one lead donor", but everybody that
we came across that was involved in any capacity with any donor
country or any institutional donor country, was saying, "There
needs to be more co-ordination", and lack of co-ordination
is a real problem. Interestingly, they were sometimes saying that
in forums where they were all there in the same room and we asked
them the question, "Why is it not happening? If you are all
here and you are all in the same room, why are you not co-ordinating
and why are you not deciding who does what?" I do not feel
we got a complete answer as to why it is not happening. Do you
know why it is not happening?
Hilary Benn: I do not think that
is unique to the DRC, to be honest. If we had a pound for every
time people talk about co-ordination we would have a much bigger
aid budget. It is the doing that really counts. I think CIAT[15]
has done a pretty good job in trying to stand alongside, nurture
and cajole the transitional process forward, and I do think that
has been a reasonably co-ordinated effort. When it comes to co-ordinating
donor programmes we have a long way to go. One of the things that
I now want us to do alongside other donors in the DRC as we come
to the period after the elections is where might we be able to
pool our effort. I was talking to the team about that this morning
and asking that very question, "Where might we be able to
have more donor co-ordination in the DRC?" They said, "We
are talking with other donors in a number of areas", but
it still seems to me like the beginning of a process. If we could
agree that we are going to come together and work on education
in particular, say something like free primary education, going
back to the point about the election dividend, answering the question,
"What changed as a result of 23 million of us registering
to vote?", it would be great if we could make that happen.
I wish I knew. I think because the circumstances have been rather
difficult it is not a kind of normal development country. There
are relatively few donors, although you might argue that should
make it easier for people to come together, and people, as ever,
end up doing very different things. I do think it will be a priority
after the election is out of the way, particularly with the pressure
to demonstrate delivery for donors to get their act together better
than they have in the past.
Q337 Richard Burden:
You say that is an initiative that you are exploring; take the
example of the DRC, who do you think should be taking the initiative
to try to bring that co-ordination together? Does it fall to us?
Should the UN be kicked into doing it?
Hilary Benn: In relation to the
humanitarian effort, obviously it is the UN's responsibility to
lead. Traditionally a country will chair the donor group and will
try and bring people together, and in some countries they have
greater success in doing it than others. To be honest, at the
moment I am not entirely sure who is chairing the donor group
in the DRC, and I will have to check, but that is the way it tends
to work. Even if you are chairing the group, it does not mean
you can drag everybody else along and make them do what you think
is the right thing because it depends on where it is people are
prepared to go.
Mr Evans: If you talked to our
colleagues in Kinshasa about this, which I am sure you did, they
would have suggested that part of the solution may lie with the
EU because of the role the EU is already playing in developing
the strategic reform agenda and the political processes. I think
we would claim some credit in trying to push forward better donor
co-ordination in the DCR, although I recognise there is an awful
lot still to be done. We would see a role for the EU in legitimately
taking some leadership in trying to do this.
Q338 Chairman:
That may be a problem. The United States may be a little bit of
a problem.
Mr Evans: Donor co-ordination
is a problem everywhere, but even more importantly so in a place
as complicated as the DRC.
Q339 John Battle:
Can I ask about something that we have not done. We have elections
and, again, it is a bit like crime and the causes of crime, what
about the grievances that cause the problem in the first place?
I worry more about this, the carpet theory of history, if you
press down the problem here and do not deal with it, it comes
up further down the room. Also, I was quite impressed by the way
that DFID worked on defence matters with MONUC and we got good
stories back on that, but I am worried about addressing the real
causes of conflict, the real grievances that people might have
and how much you can get into that so we do not end up with situations
tipping back into conflict and violence a few years down the road.
What strategies are in place? What thought and foresight are given
to that in the Department?
Hilary Benn: Going back to the
conflict analysis, understanding what is going on, why this happened
and what incentive people have for it to continue is vital to
us doing the right. In the end, I would say it is for the parties
to the conflict to try and sort out those grievances and for us
to try and support a global process as a way of doing that as
opposed to people continuing to fight each other. In the end in
the DRC that is what happened when the transitional government
came into being. Only they can sort that out. We have to make
sure that we back that process and do not do things in the course
of that which unintentionally add to those problems. That is why
conflict analysis is quite helpful in going through the checklist
and making sure that you are doing sensible things and not things
which make it worse.
14 Ev 124 Back
15
International Committee Accompanying the Transition (CIAT). Back
| 
