Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR MARTIN
DINHAM, MR
DAVID HALLAM,
MR MICHAEL
ANDERSON AND
MR PETER
GOODERHAM
24 OCTOBER 2006
Q20 Richard Burden: I was referring
to aid to the government, your response.
Mr Dinham: What we have sought
to do is to provide our assistance both to meet the basic needs
of the people of the Palestinian Territories and also to support
those institutions that are independent of the government, such
as the Palestinian Monetary Authority and others, so that we can
provide some institutional strengthening. Indeed, the point of
working through the Temporary International Mechanism is so that
that does not undermine the workings of the government because
we are actually putting money through that to ensure that services
are still delivered through government systems, but without working
through the government itself.
Q21 Chairman: Can I come back to
the Temporary International Mechanism, which was set up, and you
explained the circumstances, after this election. You have also
stated that a significant part of the problem is Israel's withholding
of money. We may come back to that. The information we have, and
this particular information comes from Oxfam, is that as a consequence
of the withholding of that money, incomes have plummeted, hundreds
of thousands of people have been left effectively without an income,
rubbish is piling up on the streets, sewage is overflowing from
household cesspits, schools are running without budgets, and the
government employees are striking because they are not getting
paid. That actually puts a huge strain, it would seem to me, on
the Temporary International Mechanism. That is only talking generally.
If you go to Gaza, the situation, according to Oxfam, is that
there is now a one-month stock of food, all shipments are effectively
disrupted and fishing has been prevented by the Israelis, which
was a major source of income and employment. In that context,
the Temporary International Mechanism really is not reaching the
people who need it. Is that not the situation?
Mr Dinham: There are two matters.
One is that the Temporary International Mechanism is reaching
people in need. I do not think there is any question about that.
It has covered so far payments to approximately 100,000 people
and some of those are amongst the very poorest workers; others
are social hardship cases. So there is clear evidence that it
is reaching people, but it is, as was suggested, a temporary mechanism
and it is not satisfactory in a sense in itself as a response.
But it is not the Temporary International Mechanism or its weaknesses
that are the problem. The main cause of the problems to which
Oxfam refers is that the clearance revenues in a year, just to
get this in perspective, amount to something like three-quarters
of a billion dollars—a huge amount of money—which
is currently not being transferred to the government, so they
cannot pay salaries. That is the money they would use to pay salaries.
Q22 Chairman: Putting Mr Burden's
point a different way, is there not a huge irony that here we
have the Government of Israel sitting with a huge amount of Palestinian
Authority money and the taxpayers of the United Kingdom are diverting
money to deal with the poverty that that situation has created?
Where is the dialogue in that?
Mr Dinham: Those are the facts
that one cannot deny. That is the key problem. We have encouraged
and continue to encourage the transfer of those clearance revenues
to the Palestinian Authorities because that is to whom they belong.
That is a major issue. The second major issue is this question
of the considerable restrictions on movement and access. I was
in the Palestinian Territories, in the West Bank, two or three
weeks ago and went to one of the checkpoints where there are enormous
delays. I think those of you who were on the Committee two or
three years ago and visited would have seen the same thing, the
back-to-back problem at one of the checkpoints where it is taking
six, seven or eight hours for goods to be removed from one truck
through the checkpoint on to another truck and the difficulty
of labour moving around in the Territories. Those are the things
that are causing very serious damage to the economy. Similarly,
the closure of the border points at Rafah and Erez and Karni have
also been a serious problem in getting imports and exports through,
and indeed people through to work in Israel. Obviously we would
prefer to be putting our development assistance direct to the
government because that is what we stand for in DFID, strengthening
the institutions of government. That is what we do and that is
why we are in business. It is very much against the grain for
us to find ways of working around government but here we are faced
with the situation of a government which will not renounce violence
and will not recognise its neighbouring state and it becomes very
difficult to do our job through the government.
Mr Hallam: Can I just give you
a few points of information. We have been gathering some data
since our memorandum was produced on levels of aid. First of all,
and Martin has already mentioned this, the overall figure for
aid from the EU this year is going to be higher in 2006 than it
was in 2005. Secondly, the overall level of aid from the Arab
world is going to be higher in 2006 than in 2005. It is just not
the case that aid has been cut or that aid levels are lower or
that the lack of aid is the problem.
Chairman: The economy has collapsed.
Q23 John Battle: It is food aid?
Mr Hallam: This is an important
point to get across. Just in terms of the TIM, by the end of this
year, the TIM will have provided $200 million in assistance from
the EU directly to the Palestinian people. Most of this will have
gone into the pockets of Palestinians. That is in six months and
that is higher than the level of budgetary support in the whole
of 2005 from the EU. I want to support the point that Martin is
making that lack of aid is not the problem here. I can give one
more point of information. Again, since all our memoranda were
produced, the Gazan fishermen have been allowed to start fishing
offshore. That is a small update.
Joan Ruddock: This is not about equipment
but I just thought it might be appropriate if I came in here because
of the relationship with the tax revenues, which I was going to
ask about.
Q24 John Battle: In a sense, what
I want to ask you runs on because I and John Barrett were the
Committee members who were there last time in 2003. I have just
read through the report. We went not because we are the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee but because we are the International
Development Select Committee, and that is why it is a difficult
conversation, in one sense, because we are trying to address poverty
and alleviation of poverty. When we went, we found that there
were places in the Occupied Palestinian Territories where people
were poorer than in some sub-Saharan African countries. That was
true in 2003 in terms of access to food, water, education and
health care. We are now in the position where I think the situation
is worse. For whatever reasons politically, the situation is worse.
I just wonder if I could put it to you. Those factors may be 10
times worse now. I respond the way I do because if the economy
collapses, then the people will be on food aid, direct handouts;
that would be the only way people can survive or there will be
mass camps and poverty again. We saw the back-to-back situation
for the lorries, which is now worse than it was in 2003 when we
stood and watched it then. The combined effect of the Government
of Israel's policies and what we could at best describe as an
inadequate Temporary International Mechanism is actually now starting
to threaten the very viability of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
In recent weeks, we have gained the strong impression, and we
will see when we go, that the humanitarian situation is worsening.
It is almost impossible for the economy to function Gaza. I would
push this back to you and the Foreign Office and ask the question:
what assessment has the Government made of the possibility of
state collapse and the consequences for poor people and development
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and indeed for the whole
stability of the region? Have you anticipated that as a factor
because we cannot just look at it post hoc and then be
told that you are increasing the food aid package.
Mr Dinham: Yesterday I read your
report again of two and a half years ago. It is a very eerily
accurate analysis of the situation and what needs to be done.
As you say, it is very much worse now for the Palestinians on
the ground. The figure we have, which the World Bank has confirmed,
is that something like 70% of households are living below the
poverty line of $2 a day in this particular case.
Q25 John Battle: That is worse than
most of sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr Dinham: There is no question
that the economy is deteriorating. I think the World Bank is predicting
a 26% contraction of the economy this year. This is obviously
something which we take very seriously. The answer, in a sense,
is not for us, as David was implying, to channel in huge amounts
more of aid in these circumstances because I do not think that
is going to do the job. What is clear and what we say in our memorandum
is that there has to be a political process in place to deal with
this. There has to be a return of the two sides to the Roadmap
or something very like that for any of these economic issues to
be tackled. I think that is why with the Government, the EU, the
Americans and others there is a lot of activity on the political
issues to try to do what we can to encourage the two sides together.
Q26 John Battle: What is the fall-back
position?
Mr Dinham: The fall-back, in a
sense, is what we are doing at the moment. What we are trying
to do through our development assistance is to meet, as far as
we can, or help to meet, with other donors through increased aid,
the basic needs of people so that their hardship is alleviated.
We are seeking to do what we can to encourage more movement, more
access, and we are working with General Dayton, who is the US
security representative there, to try to make the agreement for
movement and access more of a reality. This was the agreement
which was reached in November of last year, which tries to find
ways of easing movement, particularly through the border points.
One of the ideas there is to focus in particular on Karni as a
key point to try to provide greater security and greater reassurance
so that that can be opened and there can be more traffic going
through and to work with those institutions that we can and to
continue on the political process of encouraging our two partners,
the Palestinian President and the Israelis, to find ways in which
they can move closer together.
Q27 Ann McKechin: From the point
of view of the British taxpayer, since we have started the Oslo
peace process, the UK Government has invested £370 million
in the infrastructure and institutions of the Palestinian Territories.
What we are witnessing at the moment with the civil servants who
have not been paid for over six months and the economy collapsing
is the fact that any value of that investment is rapidly disappearing,
and we are not likely to get any real return back from it, so
we are having to start from scratch again. Given your own country
assistance plan, do you consider that we need fundamentally to
review our position in two areas which I think have been of concern
about this investment? One is the international community's pressure
or lack of pressure on Israel to comply with its Geneva Convention
duties and actually provide humanitarian assistance. Second is
the issue of corruption, which very much afflicted the Fatah government
prior to the elections, and which may well have contributed to
the rise of Hamas. Apparently we did not see that coming, although
I have to say, from my experience two years ago, nothing surprises
me about Hamas (they were in effect taking over the social services
of that area) and that they should be the winners in the last
election. How are we assessing and how are we going to account
to the British taxpayer about how we intend to invest their money
in the future?
Mr Dinham: On the question of
corruption, certainly there was a strong perception by those amongst
the community and one of the reasons that was cited amongst the
community for Fatah's failure in the polls was to do with corruption,
and it is a very significant issue. I might ask David in a moment
about what we think about handling that issue or what we did towards
that. On the question of our challenges to Israel, I think that
we have at very many levels in our relationship with Israel called
upon them to exercise maximum restraint and to act within international
law in respect to the humanitarian provisions thereof. In terms
of what we can prepare ourselves to do next, I think that as soon
as there is a government with whom we can work in the Palestinian
Authority, with whom we can directly associate, obviously we would
want to work with them to strengthen the institutions of the Palestinian
state. That was what we were focusing on up to last year, both
in terms of public financial management, public administration,
civil service reform and increasing transparency and accountability,
while working again with our Foreign Office colleagues and others
in the international community on security sector reform as well.
That is actually the key to stability of the state. There are
many things that we could do, and we will want to do.
Q28 Ann McKechin: Can I press you
on this point about Israel and its obligations under the Geneva
Convention? In any other area of the world, what we would be demanding
before we as British taxpayers paid any money towards assistance
is that people who have a legal duty to provide assistance do
that first. Effectively, we have let them off the hook, which
in turn, you could argue, has been one of the major reasons why
people have not been so keen to negotiate and not so keen to listen
to the voice of the international community. We have not pressed
this point and insisted that that should be the first and foremost
priority here. I ask you again: if you are reassessing your country
assistance plan, which clearly you are going to have to do now,
is it not time for Israel to abide by the international convention
to which they signed up?
Mr Dinham: Can I ask Michael to
answer this question?
Mr Anderson: May I respond on
the point about the lost investment first? A great deal has actually
been achieved in the time since Oslo. There has been a lot of
quiet institution building with the police and the various bits
of the Palestinian Authority which endure. There were also returns
to investments in all of the years when those investments were
made in terms of the wellbeing of the Palestinian people, and
in terms of sustaining the momentum of the peace process. There
was a time when the budget support we had supplied was critical
to maintaining the Palestinian government at the time of financial
shortfall. So I think it is not the case that all that investment
has been lost. We are concerned about the decay of institutions.
We are very concerned about the decay of the institutions now
but preserving the value of that investment is something we are
anxiously looking at. I do not think it would be right to say
that all of it has been lost. On the Geneva Convention point,
it is a very difficult set of circumstances. We call publicly
and privately on Israel to comply with its Geneva Convention obligations.
We call on all parties to comply with their obligations, and these
are points which are made regularly. It is, however, the case
that in a number of places in the world DFID does have to work
in contexts where the humanitarian obligations are not fulfilled.
Darfur is another example of the kind of place where we recognise
that despite the political pressure we are able to bring, obligations
are not fulfilled. In our view, it is precisely at that point
that we need to help, to step in and fill the gap.
Q29 Ann McKechin: I might say, Mr
Anderson, that in that case what we did with a country like Sudan
is suspended the aid to the government. The international community,
not the UK Government directly, but including the United States,
are still providing aid to Israel. That is not quite the same
set of circumstances, is it?
Mr Anderson: Obviously the political
context in Israel and Palestine is quite different from Sudan.
This is Peter Gooderham's territory. The Government is doing everything
in its power to try to advance the peace process, and that is
something which is being taken up at official level. It is being
taken up by No 10 very actively and it is receiving a great deal
of attention, but the response in a place like Sudan is obviously
different.
Q30 Mr Singh: Just to change the
focus slightly, I am not sure what engagement DFID had with civil
society organisations in Palestine or the extent to which they
exist. If you did have an engagement, I am presuming that you
may see that within the whole context of your support for the
Palestinian Authority. Given that you are not giving that support
to the Palestinian Authority at the moment, are you engaging more
with civil society organisations to try to find different ways
and mechanisms to support the development of a civil society?
Mr Dinham: We have a lot of contact
with civil society organisations, both within the Palestinian
Territories and indeed with international NGOs who are engaged
in and interested in the Territories. We have a Palestine Platform
which is a gathering of interested international NGOs which meets
every quarter to discuss and exchange views on approaches that
we should take. We are currently funding civil society on the
governance side as well, to strengthen accountability and transparency
with the present PA. In terms of our decision as to where we channel
our funds, we looked at various ways in which we could channel
our resources and decided that, given that civil society does
not have the kind of stretch and range for providing service delivery
as the Palestinian Authority, although obviously the government
does and that is huge, we would opt for putting the resources
that we have through the Temporary International Mechanism because
that is using the mechanisms of government to get through to people
with the most need. We do see them as an important source of thinking
and of pressure and advocacy to improve the state of government.
Mr Hallam: I could add two points.
One is about now and one is about the future. Now there has been
obviously a lot of attention from all the donors on civil society.
There are something like 50 donors present in the Occupied Territories.
The US in particular has focused its funding on civil society.
In terms of funding now, my analysis in the country is that the
need and capacity of civil society to deliver basic services has
been met. What we do not particularly want to be doing is building
up a civil society to a point where they then take the place of
the Palestinian Authority of the future. Ultimately, the government
of the Palestinian Authority will be responsible for delivering
most of the services. What we want to do is get back to a point
where it can. That is what the conversation earlier was all about.
The other point was Martin's one on working with civil society.
Bearing in mind that the ultimate objective is to build up a Palestinian
state, then civil society is going to have to play an important
role in that. I think we are beginning to realise more clearly
the importance of that role in the governance field and in holding
the PA to better account. Maybe that will help to tackle some
of the issues that have been mentioned earlier about corruption
and perception of nepotism and so on if the government is held
better to account by civil society. We are doing a bit of work
now, particularly on monitoring how the institutions of the PA
are beginning to be affected by the prevailing situation. This
is an avenue that I hope we can explore further when we get back
on track with the PA.
Q31 Mr Singh: DFID did say in its
report that "an active and vocal civil society has not yet
translated into the emergence of a moderate, democratic and secular
political alternative to Hamas and Fatah". Are there any
signs of that? Are there any major Palestinian civil society organisations
that you work with or are you relying entirely, from what I am
gathering from you, on international NGOs?
Mr Hallam: We are working with
the Palestinian civil society but that statement is still true.
Peter may wish to comment further. There are basically two options:
Fatah or Hamas. There are then some other small groups of independents.
You have probably met some people like Hanan Ashwari who are very
vocal and providing a really important advocacy and holding to
account role but there is no third force in Palestinian politics.
We are way off that at the moment.
Q32 Chairman: As a supplementary
to that, is there not a danger, and I know you do not have the
hands-on information, that you have sidelined the government,
the Palestinian Authority, and you are trying to work with individual
NGOs? Indeed some people, partisan perhaps, have accused DFID
of putting money into NGOs that are too partisan. Is not the danger
that you just finish up spawning a whole load of other dissident
groups, if you are not careful, particularly groups that will
say, "You are not allowing our government to function, so
we will find another way of functioning"?
Mr Hallam: I agree that is a risk
and one that we need to be very careful about. Perhaps my best
response to you is to say that we work incredibly closely with
the British Consulate in Jerusalem on all issues that have a political
dimension and we make sure that we are hand-in-hand and take the
best account of their analysis.
Q33 Joan Ruddock: I wanted to come
in, Chairman, earlier when David Hallam was speaking about greater
and greater sums of money being supplied to the people of Palestine.
It seemed to me that it went against everything that DFID stands
for, that here we have an elected government, a democratic government
in the PA that, as Richard Burden said, was on ceasefire and remains
on ceasefire. They were elected, we know perfectly well, because
they posed as the anti-corruption party and there was plenty of
evidence that indeed, as DFID would wish to find in any country
of the world, they were a group of people who were not going to
be corrupt in government. On the one hand, we have this group
with whom we cannot deal. The Israeli Government does not accept,
as Ann McKechin raised, their responsibilities in respect of these
people. We have the Israeli Government withholding the tax revenues
that they have collected so that civil servants may not be paid.
If you do not pay people, they have nothing to eat. If you have
no social services, they have nowhere to go. We pride ourselves
then, it seems, on picking up the pieces and giving food aid.
I think that is absolutely against everything that DFID stands
for.
Mr Dinham: I agree that it is
an entirely unsatisfactory situation. This is the dilemma for
us, that the reasons that the international community has had
to increase its aid are those that you suggest. The dilemma for
us is: do we therefore say we do not provide any assistance? No,
we cannot because people are clearly suffering and suffering considerable
hardship. The decision that we have had to take is to address
the basic needs of those people to the best extent we can, not
only through the Temporary International Mechanism but through
our contributions to UNRWA where we are putting in £15 million
for refugee assistance as well. We would, with every sinew in
our bodies, much prefer to be operating through the government
to strengthen the institutions of the government so that it can
stand on its own feet, the economy can operate, the borders are
open and the checkpoints do not exist. That is not the situation
we are faced with and so we have this dreadful dilemma. We decided
that we need to do what we can and the international community
as a whole has decided that. The real answer to this is the political
process and to get movement on all these things that we have been
talking about. That requires us to work with all the sides, with
the Israeli side and with President Abbas, and to urge those countries
that have influence over the Hamas government to encourage them
to move as well.
Q34 Joan Ruddock: Why are we not
addressing our influence to Israel to pay the tax revenues?
Mr Dinham: We are raising those
issues with Israel on a regular basis.
Q35 Joan Ruddock: Why are we so powerful
in relation to the Palestinian Authority but seemingly have no
leverage over Israel?
Mr Gooderham: I think, with respect,
you are exaggerating our influence with the Palestinian Authority.
If I may recap, the situation we found ourselves in at the end
of March this year was that we had a Hamas government, a Hamas
Palestinian Authority, but we had President Abbas who is someone
who had also been democratically elected by the Palestinian people
last year and whose platform we fully support. We have been doing
what we can both before Hamas was elected and since to continue
to give whatever political and other support we can to him to
try to advance the peace process via the Roadmap. He himself was
clear from the outset that he was not happy with a government
that was not committed to the three principles of the Quartet.
It is very important to stress that. We are not going against
the grain here of the Palestinian President or those who support
him. The international community is at one in agreeing that this
is what we need to advance towards. He has been trying in recent
months to form a so-called government of national unity which
would have brought representatives from Hamas together with Fatah,
and maybe some independents as well, to form a new government,
a government that would have been committed to the three principles
and with which obviously the international community could readily
engage and work, and we very much wanted that to happen. We did
what we could, necessarily behind the scenes because clearly if
we are too active in this process, as I implied before, it is
all too likely to be counter-productive, but we have tried behind
the scenes to assist in that process. We got to a point in mid-June
when it looked as though things were beginning to happen and we
were beginning to see the evolution of a solution to this problem
when, unfortunately, the Hamas representatives in Damascus pulled
the plug and vetoed the efforts that were being made by other
representatives of Hamas inside the Palestinian Territories and
of course by President Abbas himself. We are now in a situation
where it appears that President Abbas has had to conclude that
efforts to form a government of national unity are not going to
succeed, that there is a block there on the part of Hamas. So
he is now reflecting on the next step. We are doing everything
we can to encourage him to act because I am sure we are all agreed
that the sooner we can get to a government that we can work with
the better.
Q36 Joan Ruddock: But, whether you
get a government that you can work with or not, the fact is at
this time and throughout this period there are tax revenues that
have been collected which you yourselves I think have said today
are in the region of $55-65 million per month. How does that compare
with the amount of money going through TIM per month to pay salaries?
Is it in any sense appropriate that the international community
should be picking up the whole salary bill for the Palestinian
Authority when the money is actually already provided for but
not being handed over? What steps are you taking to resolve that
position?
Mr Dinham: As a point of clarification,
and it is important to make it, we are not actually paying salaries
because we could not do that. We are paying allowances and we
are making part payments to hardship cases. To answer your point,
the amount that is not being transferred according to clearance
revenues is greatly in excess of the amount that is going through
the TIM.
Q37 Joan Ruddock: Precisely.
Mr Dinham: Over the period of
a year, it could be something like three quarters of a billion
dollars.
Q38 Joan Ruddock: So families are
going hungry as they are—and often we know the heads of
families are supporting quite large extended families—because
the tax revenues are not delivered?
Mr Dinham: Yes. What we have said
in our discussions with the Israelis is that the TIM exists as
a possible channel which they may be interested in using. We have
provided them with all the reassurances that we can that this
money is properly audited, that it is going directly to the beneficiaries
as intended, it is not going through the Hamas government. We
have spent an awful lot of time with the European Commission in
designing a process which we are satisfied with from a financial
management point of view. We have made those points to the Israelis
to see if they would be interested in channelling their money
through that. They have not so far but we are going to continue
to make those points.
Q39 John Barrett: Very much building
up on the points that Joan Ruddock made there, not only are people
going hungry, but children are dying, they have stunted growth,
a high percentage of children are anaemic, they have low birth
weights and there is high infant mortality, and yet the UN agency
UNICEF goes in there to deliver basic humanitarian assistance
through TIM and is finding that the Government of Israel is in
fact impeding its delivery process. Earlier on in the discussions
the problems in sub-Saharan Africa were mentioned. The Committee
has been to a number of areas with similar problems where the
government is helping facilitate the aid agencies. What we see
here today and from the evidence of UNICEF is that the Government
of Israel is impeding UNICEF's ability to provide humanitarian
assistance. Can I ask what the British Government is doing to
explore the problems that UNICEF are having and to find out a
way forward so that they can actually deliver these very basic
services?
Mr Dinham: I will answer part
of that and then pass it to David. What we are doing is supporting
the job being done by UN OCHA, which is the United Nations Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, whose responsibility
it is to both co-ordinate humanitarian assistance within the UN
system and also to co-ordinate information about movement and
access within the Territories. We are putting in two experts.
We will have two experts in there to support their role. There
have been cases, as you suggest, of convoys of assistance and
supplies being delayed or held up by checkpoints and in various
different ways. When that has happened, the UN has raised those
issues directly with the Israeli authorities. Often it is the
case that a lot of discretion is given to the soldiers on individual
checkpoints, and that discretion is used in different ways at
different times, as we have experienced ourselves when we have
been there. I think those of you who went on the previous visit
by the previous Committee may have done too.
Mr Hallam: You have already made
one of my points about the two experts provided to OCHA who, by
the way, I think are doing a really good and important job out
there. I hope that you will have a chance to meet OCHA when you
go the Occupied Territories next month. One of them is a movement
and access specialist. He is an ex-British artillery officer.
He then went to work in the humanitarian world. We have now seconded
him over to OCHA to help them specifically on movement and access
issues and to help them understand and to monitor that. Secondly,
UNRWA, which is a major provider of aid, particularly in Gaza
where they are particularly affected by closures, has obviously
had a lot of trouble over recent months. This situation has eased
but we have offered to them that if they can give us some specific
details on how their operations have been affected, then the British
Embassy in Tel Aviv will speak to the Israelis about that. We
are waiting for more information from UNRWA. Lastly, I would say
that I spent my first year in post anxiously avoiding contacts
with the Israeli military. It became clear to me that I cannot
do that. In order to do my job and to understand the context,
I need to get to know them, and so I recently went over to Beit
El and Ramallah and presented my credentials to the local IDF[4]
person there. That was a really useful thing to do. He gave me
lots of information and I have all the contact numbers for all
the people at the checkpoints in Gaza and the West Bank. Just
doing that proved a useful step.
4 Israeli Defence Force. Back
|
