The
Chairman: That is not a bad assessment of what was
happening, but the focus here is on the five. I believe that the ESC
said to take into account the other six, but without having too much of
an in-depth discussion on them, because otherwise we will go off the
track in respect of the task that we are
set.
Mr.
Francois: I know when to take a hint. I will ask the
Minister one question about the middle east, two about Georgia and then
I will
conclude.
The
Chairman: Perfectly in
order.
Mr.
Francois: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. I will press
on as succinctly as I can. I think that, between us, we have managed to
work that one
out. I
am sure that all hon. Members wish to see, if at all possible, a
lasting peace settlement in the middle east. Can the Minister confirm
how often the EU special representative has met Tony Blair, in his
capacity as the special representative of the Quartet, to contribute to
that process? She may need to seek inspiration for her answer, but I
would be grateful for
it. The
EU special representative, Mr. Morel, who also represents
the EU in central Asia, is tasked, as we see on page 105 of the bundle,
with helping to resolve the conflict in Georgia, based on EU Council
conclusions of 15 September 2008. Needless to say, he has not been
able substantially to change Russian behaviour in Georgia, for the
simple reason that the EUSR can be only as strong as the agreed policy.
The agreed EU policy on Georgia remains somewhat weak, particularly as
the EU has agreed to restart its partnership talks without getting a
firm commitment to honour the ceasefire agreement in return. Does the
Minister now believe that we should have insisted on Russia meeting the
ceasefire commitments in full before we allowed it something of a
diplomatic win by restarting the EU’s strategic partnership
talks? Does this not show clearly that, for the EU to be taken more
seriously in matters of foreign policy, greater political will is
required, rather than the further institutional aggrandisement in, for
example, the treaty of
Lisbon? In
conclusion, the five mandates cover important areas and add coherence
to the EU’s policy objectives in the regions concerned. I have
outlined some concerns that we have, particularly given the confusion
surrounding the role of the EU special representative in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. We hope that the situation will be resolved as soon as it
practically can be so that the EU can contribute to maintaining
stability in the region. Having put those concerns on the record,
Opposition Members will support the extent of the mandates for a
further year. I hope that, in so far as time allows, the Minister will
respond to the specific questions that I have raised in my speech.
Finally, I thank you, Mr. Hancock, for your
forbearance.
The
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Francois. As always, I
am grateful for your customary courtesy to the Chair and for your
understanding on these matters.
6
pm
Harry
Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Hancock, for your
generosity about the questions that you allowed me to ask. I also thank
the Minister for her replies, which were helpful. I raised several
issues through those questions. I could delve into every one of them in
a great deal more detail in relation to the EU’s role, but I
want to pick up on only two
issues. I
support EU special representatives where they are needed. They can play
a good role. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on
Tibet and we have long made representations and argued that there
should be an EU special representative for Tibet, covering the relevant
issues and meeting the Dalai Lama, his representatives and the
Government in exile. I shall not dwell on that matter, because it is
not covered in the bundle, but I wanted to make the point in the
context of supporting EU special representatives and recognising the
importance of their
role. As
I said, I want to pick up on two issues. One is the middle east, which
was raised from the Back Benches by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. The
EU special representative in that area could play an important role, as
could our colleague, Tony Blair from the Quartet, but it seems to be a
condition on them that they will not speak directly to Hamas
representatives. I assume that that is the condition on the EU special
representative, and it shackles him. The Minister said that he would be
involved in indirect talks in Egypt and perhaps in Syria and would
speak to Hamas second hand. That is not good enough, especially for an
EU special representative in that area, covering that mandate. Hamas
has legitimacy.
It was elected as the Government and needs to be talked to. It was
pointed out to me in relation to the conflict in Gaza that Hamas or its
representatives are involved in virtually every aspect of the
Administration, from parking fines upwards. It needs to
be— The
Chairman: Order. Can we get back to where we
were?
Harry
Cohen: Yes, Mr. Hancock. I think that it is
important for the special representative to speak to Hamas and to have
clearer recommendations in relation not just to Gaza, but to the west
bank, the settlements and the wall that is redrawing it without proper
negotiations and leaving continuing conflict for the future. We need to
know what the EU special representative is saying about that. I will
not go further into that, although there are many other points that I
could make. It is a serious
matter. These
are all serious matters, but the other one that I want to mention is
Afghanistan. The figures in the report that I cited in a question show
that western Governments, including the EU, took their eye off the ball
when they went to war in Iraq. The aid did not go in and the rebuilding
of the country did not take place as it should have, and we are paying
a heavy price for that now, with the insurgency, the loss of lives and
British troops dying there. That is a catastrophe. We are now coming
back to Afghanistan, but very late, and there remains a great gap
between pledges and getting on and doing things. That worries me
enormously. The EU special representative must have a stronger role in
demanding development and bringing the issue into the open. Special
representatives should say when pledges are not being met and which
countries are failing in their jobs. I could give examples, but I will
not. There
must be an emphasis on local spending. Sometimes the aid is spent in
America, Britain or other EU countries when it should be spent in the
relevant country. There must be local employment and local contracts to
make the process work. The EU special representative has an important
role in getting that emphasis
right. I
have tried to be brief, but I wanted to raise those two issues of
paramount
importance. 6.6
pm Mr.
William Cash (Stone) (Con): I ought to make it clear that
were we to have a vote, I would vote against the proposals. As I
indicated earlier, the process of enlargement has not only run into the
sand, but will cause immense difficulty in Europe, even from the point
of view of those who are in favour of the integration process. It does
not matter how much one wishes these countries well. In the current
economic crisis, how we can satisfactorily resolve the tensions in each
of the member states—let alone in pre-accession
countries—is an extremely difficult and vexing question. Only
today, a new iron curtain was referred to in relation to central and
eastern
Europe. By
adopting joint action plans by majority vote and giving these super
powers to the High Representative, who is not accountable to us at all,
the EU is effectively handing over foreign policy decisions that
properly belong to this country to Europe, over which we have no
control. With great respect to the Minister, who has
put forward the best case that she can, she is a bit player in this.
That is not merely because of her role in the Foreign Office, but
because the decisions have nothing to do with anything that we can
decide. We may have comments to make, and we may prefer decisions to be
taken differently, but there is damn all that we can do about
it. Kelvin
Hopkins: I use the term European Union rather than Europe
when speaking about these matters, because it is important to establish
that the European Union is a political institution that covers part of
Europe, but not all of it. It is not the geographical entity that I
know and love called
Europe.
Mr.
Cash: I endorse that view. I do not want to enlarge on my
views about Europe as opposed to the institutions, other than to say
that I agree with the hon.
Gentleman. We
want peace and stability in Europe. As I shall point out in Westminster
Hall this week, my concern is the ineffectiveness of the European Union
in bringing forward policies that work. One has only to look at the
landscape of Europe today to see that it is just institutional rubble.
It is not working, and it is about time that the people of this country
had the opportunity to make a decision about these questions. That is
why I would like a referendum on the European Union, irrespective of
the outcome of the Irish vote. I think that we should have a
post-ratification referendum in this country. Other countries should
also be able to have
them.
Mr.
Clappison: What significance does my hon. Friend see in
the proposals in the Lisbon treaty—which would bind us, if it
were adopted—for the position of High Representative to be
merged with that of European Union Foreign Affairs Commissioner? That
is extremely relevant to these proposals, because EU special
representatives will be answerable to that person. What significance
does he see in that, given that the High Representative and the Foreign
Affairs Commissioner would be one person and a member of the Commission
at the same
time?
Mr.
Cash: That sort of double-hatting arrangement would merely
make the emasculation of foreign policy making that much worse. It
neuters our decision making and involvement in the process of foreign
policy making. I am afraid that in the historical context of the past
250 years, what is happening in Europe in regard to the enlargement
strategy, which I understand is being put on hold to some
extent—the Minister was not very specific in her answer when I
put the question to her earlier—means that we are heading into a
vacuum. If there is one part of the European geographical area where it
is extremely unwise to create a vacuum, it is the Balkans, as we have
discovered over a long
period. As
I have said, I certainly wish those countries well. Co-operation in
Europe is a good idea, and it is extremely helpful for us to be
involved in helping those countries, but that must occur against a
background of what is realistic. The legal framework in which
everything is being done through the joint action plan is completely
emasculating us. We are being totally neutered in relation to any
decision that we want to take. As the hon.
Member for Luton, North said in an intervention, each of those countries
has a classified security arrangement effectively preventing us from
knowing what is going on or asking any sensible questions of the
Minister, who cannot answer them because they concern what is known as
EU classified information. The situation is absolutely
dreadful. I
have spoken about the crisis in Georgia in previous debates. I have
deeply criticised the Georgian Government for how they behaved. Maybe
the Russians did not behave all that well, but there are suggestions
that the Georgians may have been involved in war crimes. I find that
extremely worrying. It has also been suggested that people from our
side streamed over to Georgia to give it support without having had the
opportunity to look into the reality of what was going on at the time.
Knee-jerk reactions in such situations are inappropriate and
dangerous. With
regard to the middle east, I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member
for Rayleigh—he is now in the shadow Cabinet, for which I offer
him my first public congratulations—raised the question of the
role of Mr. Blair. I saw Mr. Blair on
television—I cannot remember whether it was this morning or last
night—and it was completely ridiculous. He has just been to Gaza
for the first time since his appointment. One can say only that
Mr. Bowen of the BBC summed it up pretty well by saying that
the situation is dire and that no ceasefire is holding. He said that
the situation looked about as bleak as it has been for more than 100
years, which is a pretty serious indictment from somebody of his
experience. Yet
what is the role of the European representative in all that? Ask me
another, Mr. Hancock. I have not the faintest idea, and I do
not suppose that people either care or notice. It is a sad situation. I
say that with a heavy heart, because I believe that it is incredibly
important that we try to resolve international problems. However,
international problems cannot be solved by multiplying the difficulties
by producing systems of representatives with autonomy given to them by
joint action plans over which we have no control through the majority
voting system and increased powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Hertsmere has said, which are created in relation to the role of the
special representative. Although the Lisbon treaty is not in operation,
people are behaving as though it were. That is the problem, and there
are many other issues as well.
The fact that
Sir Emyr Jones Parry has been vetoed, if that is the right word, on
Bosnia, and the fact that we are not going to get a representative in
there, are yet more indications of the problems that we face. We are
effectively neutered and emasculated by the arrangements. The Minister
may give me a cynical look when I say that, but influence and power are
not the same thing. When a person does not have influence and power,
they cannot make decisions. Therefore, the whole apparatus of the
Foreign Office is involved in an extremely miniscule process that is of
very little
value. I
have already mentioned EULEX and Kosovo, and my hon. Friend the Member
for Rayleigh has referred to the scaling down of the EULEX mission. I
am deeply worried that there is no legitimacy for the funds that are
being spent. If the international court decides
that the recognition of Kosovo has breached international law, we would
not only have made the situation much worse, but we would have been
spending money on an illegal basis in the
interim. I
am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Uganda. The group
is deeply worried about the situation in Darfur in Sudan, which is
north of the area with which we are directly concerned. In southern
Sudan, there are serious and worsening problems, and I have not the
faintest idea what the EU will do or say that will be of any relevance
or use
whatever. I
say this with a heavy heart: it worries me to see an enlargement
strategy that is doomed to failure and that is already failing. It is
monstrous to support a policy that will weaken the EU as it stands.
Certainly, it will emasculate us and eliminate our ability to play any
serious role on a unilateral or bilateral basis. As I have said, the
fact that there has been such a problem in Macedonia in the past year
merely reinforces my concern about the elections that are about to take
place. I am sorry to be so pessimistic, but it is important to put
those views on the record. My party and the Government are making a
serious mistake in endorsing the European
representatives.
Mr.
Francois: My hon. Friend places me in a slightly invidious
position. On the one hand, he kindly complimented me on my recent
promotion to the shadow Cabinet, for which I am grateful. On the other
hand, he talked about those who travelled to Georgia shortly after the
Russian invasion, but I was one of those people. He puts me
between a rock and a hard place. I thank him for the compliment, but I
will have to continue to disagree with him on where the balance of
fault lay regarding Russia and Georgia. No doubt we will continue to
debate the matter amicably in
future. Mr.
Cash: We certainly will continue to debate that amicably.
As my hon. Friend knows, I do not believe that it is right for us in
this Parliament, when we feel strongly and when we have reasons and
evidence to do so, to decline to speak our minds. I wish my Front-Bench
colleague and my party well in disentangling the mess that the EU has
got itself into, on which I hope to enlarge this week in Westminster
Hall. 6.19
pm Kelvin
Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Hancock. I am sure that the
Committee has appreciated your light touch and good-humoured guidance,
if I may put it like that. I apologise for having left for a few
minutes during the speech by the hon. Member for Rayleigh, but I am
sure it was a good
speech. I
will narrow my speech to what the Committee is really concerned about,
which is the role of the special representatives. I fear that, over
time, we will see institutional creep, as we have done in so many
respects in the European Union. I have asked my right hon. Friend the
Minister a number of questions about the role of the special
representatives, and about how they operate. For example, I am
concerned about whether they are representatives in what I call soft
diplomacy or hard diplomacy. When America speaks to countries behind
the scenes, it is very much involved in hard diplomacy.
The United Nations, on the other hand, represents a vast range of views
and it cannot speak with the same authority. None the less, it can
still bring to diplomacy, helpful advice and that kind of thing. I am
still unclear as to what the EU special representatives are
about. We
are a strong nation with a strong foreign policy. From time to time, we
might argue about that foreign policy. None the less, we have a strong
position on all sorts of issues. Sometimes we get it wrong, such as
when we leapt in with both feet over Georgia. I am concerned that these
representatives may be dragging us along with policies that we are not
terribly happy with or holding us back from taking diplomatic action
that we think should be taken. Neither scenario is
satisfactory.
Although we
can all co-operate, negotiate and sometimes work together, it is
important for each country to be clear about where it stands on
international issues. Sometimes there can be a range of views. When
there is a range of views, we cannot have one representative pretending
that there is one view. From time to time—even with the issues
that we have discussed today—it is at least possible, if not
probable, that there are shades of difference between the different
European nations, and those shades of difference are important. For
example, a modestly endowed Czech might be quiet and not throw his
weight about because his is a small country in need of assistance from
the west. A German representative, on the other hand, who has a
powerful position within the European Union, might take a very
different line.
I mentioned
the strong and serious disagreement within the European Union over the
Iraq war. We have to recognise such differences, deal with them as
intelligent nations and be aware that we are an association of
independent democratic nations and not a confederation or a European
state. As such, we should be confident about saying what we think as a
nation, respect what other countries think and try to work together
where we can on the basis of mutual agreement and interest.
We must guard
against institutional creep. This system has been in place for 10
years. We thought that it was worth while to debate what the
representatives do and how they operate. Perhaps we should put up a
marker to say that we do not want to see institutional creep. We want
the representatives perhaps to play a diplomatic role, but they must
ensure that they put forward the range of views of the European member
states.
| 
