Examination of Witness (Questions 49-60)
MR ADAM
LEACH
30 APRIL 2008
Q49 Chairman: We do want to hear from
you and we have a little over 20 minutes. For the record, could
you introduce yourself?
Mr Leach: Good morning and thank
you very much for inviting us to come and give evidence. My name
is Adam Leach and I am the director for our work in the Middle
East, Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia.
Q50 Chairman: You will have heard
the brief exchange I had with John Ging on your own report where
you were highlighting the restrictions by Israel on what they
describe as humanitarian goods and services. Mr Ging said he was
not aware of the details on the list or exactly what is meant.
I think your report mentioned 18 items. Are they clear and specific
and, if that is the case, I am surprised Mr Ging did not know
what they were?
Mr Leach: We secured this information
from the International Crisis Group, as we made clear in the report,
in March. Our concern is there is such a list because we think
that the construction of a list like that is problematic because
of the multiple nature of the use of different goods. The restrictions,
which I think is the bigger issue in general, is the real problem.
Making a list of any kind for humanitarian goods is problematic,
particularly if there is then no means for assessing the impact
of your actions.
Q51 Chairman: Is the list of 18 items
public knowledge, what those items are, or just that there is
a list?
Mr Leach: So far as we understand
we were told about the list by the International Crisis Group.
Q52 Chairman: You do not know what
is on it?
Mr Leach: We do not, no.
Q53 Chairman: You mentioned cement
and motors.
Mr Leach: Because those are the
sorts of things where we have faced restrictions.
Q54 Hugh Bayley: What should the
UK Government and the Quartet be doing to improve the conditions
in Gaza?
Mr Leach: Before I answer this
question I would like, as a general point, to concur with almost
everything that John Ging said. Much of our data and experience
of the situation resonates with what he said, and indeed much
of our data comes from their experience and obviously our own.
Just to amplify what he said about the number of children being
killed, more children have been killed in the first three months
of this year than there were in the entire period of last year.
I think anybody who heard the man—and it was not entirely
clear whether it was a man or woman—weeping at the loss
of his infant children on Monday evening would notice what a ghastly
situation this is and it is important to frame anything I say
in those terms. We are extremely concerned that the Quartet is
not using its full power to get the crossings open and that is
what the main emphasis must be. John was clear about the importance
of the Karni crossing. The Karni crossing was constructed for
the purposes of the supply of goods in a way that satisfied Israeli
conditions and it has not been used. The other crossings are inadequate.
The timings and opening of them are unpredictable and hence the
problems. The crossings are absolutely fundamental. Stopping of
settlement expansion is crucial. Something like 84% of the number
of housing tenders that have been submitted this year have been
approved so presumably the settlements will continue. The UK Government
and the international community need to see that does not happen
and to stop it. The existing agreements about movement and access
need to be enforced. It is vital that there is an inclusive approach
to the negotiations. We have made the point that we believe, as
Oxfam, that Hamas should be included in the negotiations and I
stress that we make that point, as others do and as John Ging
himself did, because Hamas has control over the civilian population
and therefore has a responsibility and, as such, under international
law should be included in the discussions. We think there should
be some reference to international law. The almost complete absence
of reference to international humanitarian law by the Quartet—and
I hope that the meeting on Friday will be different—really
begs the question what kind of reality is being created if there
is no reference to law. These are structural impediments at the
moment which need to be acted on immediately. There are practical
things that could be done as well and perhaps I could come on
to them.
Q55 Richard Burden: In 2006 the EU
created the Temporary International Mechanism to try and find
ways of channeling assistance to the Palestinian people whilst
bypassing the PA. There is now a new mechanism following the dismissal
of the Hamas Government and other developments. Can you give us
your assessment about how that new mechanism is working and whether
it is providing the flexibility and effectiveness that it was
created to provide?
Mr Leach: Fundamentally something
is always better than nothing in circumstances like this. We welcome
the return to direct budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority.
However—and it is a big however—this is not the real
issue. The real issues are the points that I just made about opening
the crossings and getting some kind of economic activity going
again in Gaza. The problems about the new aid mechanism is there
is a real risk that it is simply a response to throw money at
a problem but not to deal with the underlying issues. There is
a tragic irony that the situation at the moment is that people
are staying at home because they fear that if they go to work
they will not get their salaries, whereas when there was a financial
boycott they would be going to work without salaries. The problem
about the new mechanism is that we are very concerned that it
will simply continue to politicise the situation. It is money
to the PA and there is no guarantee that money goes through to
workers in Gaza. We are also concerned that the mechanisms are
not sufficiently impartial and that some municipalities governed
by Hamas are fearful they will not get money under that mechanism
so there seems to be unevenness in the application of the mechanism.
Q56 Sir Robert Smith: One of the
big barriers to normality and development is the restrictions
on movement and access. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs has highlighted that this problem is getting worse not
better. What should the government do in order to encourage progress
on actually implementing the agreement on movement and access?
Mr Leach: As has already been
noted this morning, there are now more obstacles in the West Bank
than before and that sheer fact needs attention drawn to it and
needs to be protested and done so rigorously. Secondly, I think
that the recent announcements by Defence Minister, Ehud Barak
have proved false and again this should be known. Of the 61 restrictions
that he announced as having been removed, UN OCHA say only five
were significant and 11 never existed. Further research by the
World Bank demonstrates that Palestinians could not even reach
some of the ones that were said to have been removed. All these
were insignificant. These announcements are not true and I think
it is very important that this kind of information, if that is
what you can call it, is vigorously challenged and action taken
accordingly. The recognition that the number of settlements is
growing has already been made. The barrier is now two-thirds built
and the restrictions are accelerating and this is in the face
of agreements. Again I want to make the point that we have to
ask ourselves what kind of reality is being created if agreements
are flagrantly breached.
Q57 Chairman: We are having this
follow-up inquiry 15 months after we published our last report
and the situation clearly has got worse. Hamas has taken over
Gaza. There are further restrictions in the West Bank. You could
argue, on the other hand, we had Annapolis, we had the Bethlehem
conference but it does not seem to be progressing to anything
like peace. What kind of peace process is there is the question
to be asked. Jimmy Carter says there has been little progress
since Annapolis. Has there been any progress?
Mr Leach: Our view is that we
are as sensitive as we possibly can be to the difficulties of
this situation. We are told repeatedly by the Department for International
Development and by contacts in the Foreign Office that the Israelis
have to be kept in the room at all costs. Our concern is that
there is no progress and what is the point of keeping interlocutors
in the room if they actually do not do anything about what is
required, moreover, quite the contrary, only make the situation
worse. With respect to the quality of the peace process—and
I repeat the point that I make these remarks not from a political
point of view but because the humanitarian situation and lack
of development are fundamental impediments to the peace process—that
the approach to the peace process must be inclusive because of
the responsibilities of the parties involved. We think that in
addition to opening the crossings and putting the full effort,
energy and power of the international community—after all
if the Quartet cannot open crossings what hope is there for a
peace process—it is very important that all measures are
taken, for example through Egypt, to seek to bring an end to the
violence on the ground. I am talking about within the Palestinian
communities as well as towards Israel. Also, secondly, that there
are indications that there will be recognition of the Unity Government
so that there is more effort to bring the factions together and
not to keep them apart. We think that the fortunes of the peace
process, so-called, over the last 18 months to two years have
been disastrous because of measures which have effectively divided
the Palestinians and therefore made it harder. We are aware that
a lot of the diplomatic effort currently is going into recognising
the differences on the Israeli side and we think that equal amounts
of effort should be put into bringing the Palestinian factions
together too.
Q58 Chairman: You made no bones about
the inclusion of Hamas for legal as well as practical political
reasons in any degree of talks. The last time there was a government
of national unity, as far as one can tell, the international community
did nothing about it and did not respond to it so it does not
give a big incentive for another one to happen. In practical terms,
if it is at all possible to engage Hamas what do you think would
emerge from that? What would Hamas actually bring to the table?
Mr Leach: That is a question for
Hamas and people much better qualified than us to say. The point
is that if the international community puts so much effort into
deciding that it will not speak to Hamas as a critical player
this misses the point; it is indulgent and selfish. The question
really is will bringing them to the table to help to increase
the chances of peace, the absence of which is clearly devastating
so many lives and undermining the possibilities of peace. It feels
like a completely circular and diabolical relationship.
Q59 Ann McKechin: What are the views
of the neighbouring countries in the Middle East, which were raised
by colleague Marsha Singh earlier on, and their contribution to
the aid efforts? You would have thought that the countries in
the region would be the best people to try and broker some kind
of agreement between Hamas and Fatah for example. Are there any
efforts or talks currently going on within the region and within
the neighbouring countries or are they simply feeling that there
is nothing they can do in the current circumstances?
Mr Leach: I am only going to give
you an answer which is anecdotal and impressionistic. That is
a question which is properly addressed to the Quartet's special
representative and to others not to Oxfam. We hope so. We know
that Egypt has been involved and we know that there were talks
in Yemen. They did not seem to be very profitable but we think
that efforts to include the regional powers are very, very important.
Clearly this is a regional problem but I would also add that we
see this as an international and a global problem and the international
community has fundamental responsibilities, as high contracting
parties to the Geneva Conventions by agreements that have been
made with the Israelis and with the Palestinians and agreements
amongst themselves, to act. Therefore, I think it is spurious
to seek to pass this one onto the regional powers alone. It is
very important that the international community exercises its
responsibilities in this circumstance.
Q60 Chairman: Is Oxfam GB talking
to the British government? What do you think the British government
should or could do, and what would you like it to do, that might
make a material and positive contribution to the peace process?
Mr Leach: In addition to the main
points about pushing for the opening of the crossings explicitly
and for the other points that I made about the inclusive process
and scrutinising breaches of agreements, I think there are some
practical and immediate things that can be done. Challenging the
definition of humanitarian goods is vital. Challenging notions
of dual-use for so many people who are so clearly prejudiced by
the absence of basic necessities, and acting in accordance with
the known humanitarian impacts of policies in line with Israeli
assertions is important. We understand that a Department for International
Development assessment has been made of the humanitarian impacts
and that could be shared and could provide the basis for assessing
the humanitarian impacts of Israeli policy. As we said in our
submission, we are very disturbed about the notion of any suggestion
that the objective of Israeli policy was to ensure no development,
no prosperity and no humanitarian crisis because they do not have
any mechanisms for checking whether they have any impact on the
humanitarian situation so I think challenging the inconsistencies
and following through on that is very important. Support for the
numerous plans that have been proposed could also be offered.
I think it is very important that any economic measures that are
proposed, as the last discussion illustrated, do not hinder or
deflect from the real activities so measures suggested by the
Quartet's special envoy should not be allowed to deflect from
the real issues. The simple answer to this is that the solutions
are not complex. This is a matter for political will and a matter
of choice and it is now time that those choices are made. We believe
that the UK Government has an important role to play in insisting
those choices are made.
Chairman: We think so too otherwise we
would not be doing this report. Thank you for your written submission
which was detailed and helpful. I am sorry we have slightly compressed
the time but I still think we dealt with the main topics.
| 
