Caroline
Flint: As I stated in that letter to the Committee, the
selection process is complex and our initial expectation was that it
might be completed by 1 March. However, that process has not yet
concluded. I indicated in that letter that the timetable might slip,
and it has. There is no confirmed EU nominee at present. With regard to
Sir Emyr Jones Parry, I am not sure that I should speculate on that
point while discussions are ongoing. Sir Emyr has existing commitments
to the Welsh Assembly, which are now being taken into account. We did
put forward a strong candidate because Sir Emyr is a strong candidate,
and he is aware that the selection process will need to address his
existing
commitments.
Mr.
Francois: Reuters has recently reported that the Republic
Srpska and Russia have stated that they would not accept an EU special
representative from Britain in that role. Is the Minister aware of
either Russia or Republic Srpska notifying the UK, or indeed the EU,
that they did not wish to see a British higher representative in Bosnia
and Hertzegovina?
Caroline
Flint: That has not been brought to my attention. We are
going through the process in the right manner. We felt that it was
important to have strong candidates and that is why we put forward Sir
Emyr. Ultimately, whoever is the final candidate, it is important that
they are a strong candidate who can work within that country with all
parties.
Harry
Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): What is the pay of the
special representatives, and do they have any special tax arrangements?
For example, are they exempt from tax in this country or any other EU
country? Do they have any pension arrangements? What are the
arrangements for them in the
role?
Caroline
Flint: I will seek the detail. However, because I checked
it before this debate, I can say that in a number of cases where people
are double-hatting in a role, they will receive only one
salary.
The
Chairman: In that case, before we end question time, I
hope that somebody from the Minister’s party can get that
information for the benefit of the
Committee.
Harry
Cohen: I am grateful for that point, Mr.
Chairman. In comparison with our colleague Tony Blair, a special
representative in relation to the Quartet in the middle east, are the
special representatives’ pay and conditions better, worse or the
same?
The
Chairman: To be fair, I do not know whether the Minister
is in a position to know exactly what Tony Blair gets for that. I
understood that he was not being
paid.
Caroline
Flint: You are absolutely right, Mr. Hancock. I
do not have the full breakdown. I am not sure whether I am meant to be
answering as a manager or a shop steward on behalf of those
individuals. I will try to find out some more details for my hon.
Friend during the course of this debate. The budget for each of the
mandates varies. It will include the office, of course, as well as
other aspects. The total sum allocated to the EU special
representatives for 2008 was €19.9 million, and the sum for 2009
is €16.62 million. That may seem rather a lot—it is
rather a lot to all our ears—but it has actually
decreased.
The
Chairman: I think that Mr. Cohen would make an
excellent shop steward, but I do not think that he would include
Mr. Blair as one of the members for whom he would like to
fight.
Mr.
Cash: Will the Minister bring us up to date on the
reference of Kosovo to the International Court of Justice with respect
to its status in international law? If it turns out in the judgment
that Kosovo is not to be regarded as a separate entity in international
law, all these matters fail, do they
not?
Caroline
Flint: We believe that Kosovo’s independence is
consistent with international law and with United Nations Security
Council resolution 1244. Kosovo has been recognised by 55 countries,
including a majority of nine of 15 Security Council
members. On
the referral of Kosovo to the ICJ and whether that will undermine its
independence, we believe that Kosovo is in a strong position with the
court, the arguments for independence are compelling and the matter
before the court will have to proceed. Although that is happening and
there are clearly differences of opinion between Serbia and Kosovo, I
welcome the support that has been given to the roll-out of EULEX in
Kosovo.
Mr.
Cash: Can the Minister give some indication when the
matter is likely to be adjudicated and
resolved?
Caroline
Flint: I cannot. That is a matter for the courts. I am
afraid I do not have details of their timetable.
Kelvin
Hopkins: In the conclusion of our report to the Committee,
which is on page 8 of the bundle, it says, among other
things:
“All in
all, the EUSRs’ mandates are a vivid illustration of the ways in
which the breadth and depth of the EU’s Common Foreign and
Security Policy has developed in the decades since its
inception.” Some
of us on the Committee were concerned about the drive towards
effectively giving the European Union a single foreign policy position
when in fact some of us still believe that we are an association of
independent countries that might have different views. Would my hon.
Friend care to comment on
that?
Caroline
Flint: The EUSRs do a solid job of supporting the Council,
but I do not think that they detract in any way from what individual
countries do. They carry out mandates that are agreed within Council.
To that end, they do a good job. They give an additional EU presence
and voice on the ground, but I do not think that they act in opposition
to what individual countries do. We have often found it useful to be in
a united place within countries, when our embassies have worked
alongside those individuals. In Macedonia, Georgia and Kosovo, and for
that matter the middle east, there are some good examples of solid
work. This is not new: the conditions for representatives and their
mandates go back a long way—before this Government—and
they have proved to be one contribution to how we deliver peace and
security, and to how we enable a number of countries to improve their
human rights, their ability to run their economy and everything else
that helps to make a democratic
country. Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): If I heard the Member
for Luton, North correctly, he said in his opening remarks that the
special representatives were established under article 18 of the 1997
Amsterdam treaty. They therefore came into being under this Government.
What can we find out about the special representatives? Who do they
report back to? I am particularly interested in the middle east special
representatives. We apparently have no shortage of special
representatives in the middle east, but I wish to know what is achieved
by the EU special representatives there. Is article 11 of the reporting
arrangements—on page 147 of the papers—the extent of the
EUSRs’ reporting back? How can we as Members find out what has
been done in our name by the EUSR in the middle
east?
Caroline
Flint: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The EUSRs were set
up under the 1997 Amsterdam treaty, but the working terms of the common
foreign and security policy go back beyond that. The special
representatives were seen as a way of expressing those early
commitments and providing some practical
input. On
the mandate and guidance, and therefore the accountability, the special
representatives are appointed by the Council through a joint action and
a mandate is normally for 12 months, renewable after review and
evaluation. That review and evaluation comes back into the Council.
That is one way, also under scrutiny here, in which we lodge the
renewal of the individual mandates with the Houses of Parliament. So,
there are different ways to assess special representatives’
input and what they are doing, and at various Council meetings that I
have attended as Minister we have discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina and
other matters.
The special
representatives technically report to Mr. Solana, but they
also report to the Political and Security Committee and often brief the
Council, so there are opportunities for them to report back at a number
of different levels, and be
scrutinised.
Mr.
Clappison: But how can I, as an individual Member of
Parliament, find out what the special representative has been
doing?
Caroline
Flint: The hon. Gentleman could have debates like this, or
use other means within the House, for example securing an Adjournment
debate or tabling a question. Should he so wish he could also go
through various EU organisations. There are different, but not
necessarily a shortage of, opportunities to find
out.
Kelvin
Hopkins: On some of these areas, notably Kosovo, there are
seriously different views among EU member states. In particular, Spain
is very unhappy about Kosovo being regarded as an independent country
because it is concerned about its own unity; others feel similarly. How
does the representative deal with the opposing views among member
states about areas where they are supposed to represent
us?
Caroline
Flint: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not
always easy to find a common position. When the EU has been able to
unite, even though there might be disagreements on certain aspects,
that has been fruitful. For example, I think that the whole of the EU
agrees that we should support development in Kosovo, including the
extension of the EUSR mandate and the deployment of EULEX, which is
very much supported even though some countries have different opinions
on the independence of Kosovo. Sometimes it is about finding common
ground, particularly when the peace and stability of a region might be
affected by the EU not taking
action.
Mr.
Francois: Staying with Bosnia and Herzogovina, it has been
reported that an Austrian diplomat, Valentin Inszko, has been chosen by
EU Ministers as the new EU special representative. If that is correct
and he is also to become the international representative—the
High Representative—he needs to be approved by the peace
implementation council, as the Minister will know. Is this appointment
by the Council of Ministers correct? If it is, what timetable does she
expect for consideration by the PIC? When would she realistically
expect a new High Representative to be in place, given that the
situation in Bosnia and Herzogovina does not allow for a vacuum in this
important post? That is why, for the avoidance of doubt, I continue to
press her on it.
Caroline
Flint: There is no confirmed EU nominee. The hon.
Gentleman is right to point out, as I think I did earlier, that it is
not just the EU that decides this matter. I hope that it can be
resolved as soon as possible. The fact that the Foreign Secretary wrote
to all heads of member states last year raising the issue of the
fragility of the situation in Bosnia and Herzogovina indicates that we
want to resolve this matter quickly. I understand that it was a
surprise that Mr. Lajcák was to stand down from this
position. We are trying to expedite matters but
different parties have roles to play. I agree with him that it should be
resolved as soon as possible, and I hope that my sentiments go back to
those in charge of
this.
Mr.
Francois: The Minister is right that Mr.
Lajcák decided to resign to take up a post as, I think, the
Slovakian Foreign Minister. Given the sensitivities in the area, is the
Minister able to say anything better than “as soon as
possible”, which could be quite a long time? For instance, does
she feel that this appointment could be made by Easter? Putting some
firmness behind the timetable might provide reassurance to those
operating on the ground. Can the Minister provide anything more
specific than “as soon as
possible”?
Caroline
Flint: I cannot give a firm date, but I hope that the
matter can be resolved by Easter. As I said in a letter to the Chair of
the European Scrutiny Committee, I will keep the Committee informed of
the progress on this
appointment.
Harry
Cohen: In relation to the great lakes, particularly the
Congo, does the special representative act as an early warning system
if there is foreign intervention by other African countries? Has he
acted in that way? How have the Government responded when that has been
pointed
out?
Caroline
Flint: Mr. van de Geer’s mandate as
special representative focuses on stabilisation, consolidation of the
democratic process in Burundi, constructive co-operation with Uganda
and Rwanda in regional matters as well as a contribution to the
post-transition phase in the DRC, especially on security sector reform.
I understand that Mr. van de Geer has played a full role in
the international effort to resolve conflict in this area. The EU was a
sponsor of the important conference on peace and security in the Kivu
region in eastern DRC in January of last year. The special
representative sought to ensure the continued participation of the CNDP
political-military organisation in the peace process which followed the
conference. He also built relations with Nkunda, negotiated with him
and oversaw efforts by diplomats in Goma to raise awareness of the
process among militia members. He has clearly been involved with key
players. That is part of the role of the special representatives; to be
able to network and work with key players in the country and the region
to try to resolve some of these conflicts.
Harry
Cohen: Keeping foreign forces out and being in touch with
them is important and that is welcome, but there are what could be
described as refugees in the Congo. The former Government in
Rwanda—who were murderers when in Government—are there
and form a dangerous, destabilising force. What recommendations has the
special representative made to the Government and the EU on how these
people should be dealt with? Should they be given some sort of refugee
status? What is Mr. van de Geer’s
recommendation?
Caroline
Flint: I shall seek to find some more detail on that
matter during the course of our debate. If I am unable to do so,
however, I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the
issue.
The EU and
Mr. van de Geer have tackled some of the violence-related
issues that have created refugees, particularly sexual and gender-based
violence, which is part of the conflict. Furthermore, the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office has recently taken more of an interest in how
countries’ natural resources can become the source of conflict
and misuse, and Mr. van de Geer has looked at that issue as
well.
Mr.
Cash: I return to Macedonia, where presidential and local
elections are being conducted against the background of the previous
elections of 2008, which were marred by violence, intimidation and
electoral malpractice. The explanatory memorandum states that the new
elections will take place in March 2009, and goes on to
note: “If
elections are conducted well, we will review the need for a continuing
EUSR
presence.” What
will be the position if the elections are badly
conducted?
Caroline
Flint: I am sure that we all hope that that will not be
the case. When I visited Macedonia before Christmas, I met
representatives from some of its key political parties, which are based
on ethnic representation. The case was made that, at the last
elections, rather than reporting problems with, or concerns about, the
way in which the elections were being conducted through the proper
channels, some individuals took actions into their own hands, which led
to violence in communities and on the streets. Such a situation is, of
course, unacceptable. We all have problems from time to time with
elections—even in this country—but there are proper
channels through which to process
complaints. In
response to the hon. Gentleman’s question, member states agreed
to renew the current EUSR mandate until September 2009, partly to
synchronise with the recent incumbent’s retirement. Further
renewal depends on Macedonia’s progress in the coming months. If
democratic and non-violent elections, which are clearly a key aspect of
whether a country is making progress, are not forthcoming—it is
my heartfelt wish that that will not be the case, and my visit to
Macedonia certainly reassured me of that—that will, of course,
be taken into account in relation to the mandate’s renewal, and
that may well be the
case.
| 
