Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
21 APRIL 2009 RT
HON BARONESS
TAYLOR OF
BOLTON, GROUP
CAPTAIN MALCOLM
CRAYFORD, MS
GLORIA CRAIG,
RT HON
CAROLINE FLINT
MP, MR NICK
PICKARD AND
MR JUSTIN
MCKENZIE
SMITH
Q260 Chairman: The RAF took to the
air 28 times during that time to deter Russian aircraft from entering
UK airspace.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: I do
not know about deterring them from entering UK airspace. If they
are in international airspace that is legitimate. I do not believe
we have any evidence that they have entered UK airspace. We scramble
aircraft when there are unidentified missions including ones of
this kind. That is not over UK airspace but international airspace.
Q261 Mr Holloway: Group Captain,
you said that these aircraft crossed busy commercial areas. What
level of awareness do the crews of these aircraft have about civil
aviation movements?
Group Captain Crayford: I cannot
answer for what equipment is on board the Russian military aircraft,
but in terms of putting a Quick Reaction Alert fighter, a Tornado
or Typhoon, alongside as they approach UK airspace we would always
be in contact with them.
Q262 Mr Holloway: But are they an
accidental threat and they do not know what else is out there?
Group Captain Crayford: I assume
they have radar sensors on board that can tell them what other
movements are going on around them, but it is not similar to what
we would have on, say, civil aircraft.
Q263 Chairman: Why do you assume
that?
Group Captain Crayford: Most military
aircraft do not have compatible equipment (Traffic Collision Alert
System) to comply with the civilian requirements for separation.
Q264 Robert Key: To go back to the
events in Georgia in August last year, eventually there was a
ceasefire agreement. Why was that agreement brokered by the EU
and not NATO?
Caroline Flint: I think that at
the time President Sarkozy sought to get the backing of the EU
to an agreement and simultaneously NATO suspended the NATO-Russia
Council, so a number of organisations took action. All members
of the OSCE but Russia condemned the action. I do not think it
was seen necessarily as wrong. A number of organisations felt
that action should be taken. Obviously, for the EU and countries
that want to work more closely with it security in Europe is important.
Mr Pickard: As the Minister has
said, both organisations took action. The French were president
of the EU at the time and I believe that President Sarkozy took
a personal interest in ensuring that the ceasefire took place.
He had personal and political involvement in the diplomacy required
on behalf of the EU.
Q265 Robert Key: Minister, it has
been put to us in evidence that the events in Georgia caught NATO
completely unprepared. Is that true?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: You
could say that if NATO had been the body to take the lead at that
time it could have been seen potentially as more likely to escalate
the situation or make it more difficult. Some people might have
put that kind of interpretation on the activity. I am not saying
that it would have been justified but it could have been interpreted
in that way. I think there was a feeling of that kind at the time.
Q266 Robert Key: When aircraft from
Russia overflew Tbilisi on the same day that Condoleezza Rice
was there, the Georgians say that the response from the United
States was extremely weak: just six days later there was a note
of disapproval which gave the wrong signal. Do you think the international
community bears some responsibility for the conflict in Georgia?
Caroline Flint: I believe that
the international community did as much as it could at the time
in response to the conflict. There is an independent inquiry going
on into the circumstances around the hostilities, tensions and
the consequences of that in terms of the displacement of people
and those directed affected by it. But in many respects these
are difficult areas and the international community did come together.
It was the EU and the OSCE that brokered the ceasefire. I think
their ability to step in demonstrated the worth of those organisations.
Insofar as where we are now clearly it is not over, but there
is a level of engagement. Despite some recent worrying concerns
about violence and escalation in troops things have held pretty
well considering the hostilities and damage done last August.
Mr Pickard: Another important
part of that ceasefire was the monitoring mission that the EU
put in place. That was a civilian monitoring mission and I do
not believe it would have been possible for NATO to provide that
mission, not least because Russia would not have accepted that
given the antagonism it feels towards NATO. I think it was a demonstration
of the value of the European security and defence policy that
the EU was able to provide that mission and was the right organisation
at the right time.
Q267 Robert Key: Minister, with respect
you have not answered my question. What you have described is
the reaction of the international community once the events had
happened. What I asked was whether the international community
was responsible, by neglect, for not reading the signs and giving
Russia the opportunity to move in quickly. Should not NATO, the
EU and rest of the international community including the UN have
read the signs and prevented this happening in the first place?
Caroline Flint: I do not think
that in terms of the build up and what took place in those days
we could necessarily have done anything more than we did.
Q268 Mr Jenkin: Minister, were you
not aware that the OSCE was persistently warning before the invasion
that such an incident was becoming increasingly likely?
Caroline Flint: I think people
were aware of the danger of the situation, but I do not think
that what happened in terms of the actions taken on both sides,
which are being investigated, was necessarily something that we
would have been prepared for. There was a shock and that was why
there was unity at the way that Russia took action and the level
of force used in that situation last August. That was why there
was such unity in the response to the actions taken by Russia.
Q269 Mr Jenkin: Would you confirm
that the British Government and the Americans were completely
aware that the Russians had built up a military capability on
their side of the rocky tunnel and had regularly exercised their
forces for just such an eventuality?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: We
were aware that there were a number of unresolved conflicts, which
used to be called frozen conflicts. What I believe was unreasonable
was the event that took place.
Q270 Mr Jenkin: Nobody disputes that.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: I want
to put it in context. The events that took place were not of the
kind one would expect from a country that signs up to international
law and different ways of operating. We said earlier that we had
been operating on the basis that Russia was a partner and had
a certain kind of relationship with us, the EU and NATO. A partner
in that way does not try to resolve a situation in the way the
Russians did. That is the issue, not a lack of awareness of the
problem and a dispute which had existed for the best part of 20
years certainly in those two areas. Everybody was aware that there
were problems in this area. It was the scale and nature of what
happened that took people by surprise.
Q271 Mr Jenkin: Despite the military
capability that had been built up in order to deliver that?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Yes.
Group Captain Crayford: We were
well aware that the Russian 58th Army had just finished its exercises
in July in the North Caucasus, as they do every year, but I do
not think that anyone could have foreseen that President Saakashvilli
would launch an attack on Tskhinvali. In the preceding months
we had monitored increasing Russian provocation, such as the downing
of a Georgian UAV by Russian aircraft over Abkhazia. The US, French,
Germans and the former Minister for Europe visited Georgia in
the preceding months. We were well aware of the indicators and
warnings. What we could not have anticipated was the disproportionate
reaction on the Russian side after President Saakashvilli launched
the attack.
Q272 Mr Jenkin: So, it is your view
that this was provoked by President Saakashvilli?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: There
was an element of provocation.
Q273 Mr Jenkin: But this is Georgian
sovereign territory and internationally recognised. I rather sense
that a lot of people are more comfortable putting some of the
blame on President Saakashvilli because we were so unprepared
for this event.
Caroline Flint: I do not think
it is about apportioning blame. For some years there has been
international concern in many different fora about conflicts in
this part of the world and the potential for those to escalate.
Many people have been involved in supporting conflict resolution
in different ways. I think that part of the job of the independent
investigation that is under way is to look at what happened and
what actions were taken by both Georgia and also Russia and to
answer some of the questions that you and other colleagues put
about the level of force mounted by Russia in this conflict. In
addition to the numbers, I understand that the level of weaponry
used—which is why we talk about the disproportionate response—was
something for which people were not prepared. Everyone is aware
of the fragility of the conflict there, but I do not believe people
were ready for Russia's actions. There has also been a lot of
debate about whether or not measures could have been taken by
both sides, including Georgia, so that this did not become the
crisis that we saw on our television screens in terms of displaced
people and those who died and were injured as a result of it.
Q274 Mr Jenkin: Perhaps I may add
another possible element of provocation that came from we, Europeans.
What did Russia do? They recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia
as independent countries without a UN mandate. Was that not what
we did in Kosovo? Did not the recognition of Kosovo, without a
UN mandate create a pretext, if rather a false one? It was a bit
of a trap to fall into, was it not?
Caroline Flint: That point of
view has been raised. I disagree with it in the sense that in
relation to Kosovo, we are talking about a situation where for
many years there have been different attempts to look at how there
could be a way forward, but those attempts in that part of the
Balkans did not succeed. As to Kosovo, there is an awareness that
in terms of stability and peace in the region this would ultimately
be the best way forward. There is a huge number of countries,
including many members of the European Union, that now recognise
Kosovo and we are embarked on a process of continuing to seek
peaceful resolution to that part of the western Balkans. It is
a different situation from that in South Ossetia and Abkhazia
and alongside that following the actions taken and recognition
violence ensued, whereas Kosovo was a means further to entrench
peace and stability in the western Balkans.
Q275 Mr Jenkin: The one organisation
that is distinguished by having warned about this, the OSCE, has
a monitoring mission that has been operating since 1993 but its
mandate expires in June. It is the only monitoring mission that
operates on both sides of the administrative line of control.
What are we going to do to extend their mandate?
Caroline Flint: Obviously, we
want to see the mandates of both the OSCE and the EU renewed.
I think that a proposal for the OSCE mission has been circulated
and we are working with our partners including Russia to get support
for that. I think it will be a test of Russia's willingness to
engage, linked to the ceasefire agreement and the Geneva talks,
to ensure that that happens.
Mr McKenzie Smith: Over the past
three or four months there has been a concerted effort to try
to get agreement on extension of the mandate of the OSCE monitoring
mission, which I agree is extremely important. The first effort
was led by Finland as Chairman of the OSCE. Right up to the end
of its tenure on 31 December it tried to reach agreement with
the Russians on extending that mandate. The baton has been passed
to Greece which we believe has come up with a workable proposal
that would go some way to meet the interests of the various parties
concerned but crucially will maintain a presence both in Georgia
proper and the separatist territory and South Ossetia as well.
Russia is holding out on agreement to that proposal and if it
means what it says about working with the international community
to resolve this crisis the onus is on them to come on board with
that proposal. I make one clarification. Reference was made to
operating on both sides of the administrative boundary line. There
have been considerable problems in OSCE monitors accessing South
Ossetia. I picked up a news report from colleagues earlier that
two OSCE monitors have been detained over the past 24 hours.
Q276 Mr Jenkin: By the Russians?
Mr McKenzie Smith: By the South
Ossetia militia. Russia has fundamental responsibility for security
within the separatist territories and for access to those territories.
We have been calling on the Russian authorities to allow safe
access to those territories by the OSCE.
Q277 Mr Jenkin: Will the resolution
to extend the mandate of OSCE specifically restate the territorial
integrity of Georgia?
Mr McKenzie Smith: Yes. The proposal
is for a single mission to Georgia with two offices, one operating
in Georgia proper and one operating in Tskhinvali in South Ossetia,
but under the umbrella of a single mission, ie a mission to Georgia.
Q278 Chairman: May I suggest that
you delete from your vocabulary "Georgia proper" in
that context?
Mr McKenzie Smith: Or "rest
of Georgia", yes.
Q279 Mr Jenkin: Presumably, it would
be better to force Russia to veto the renewal of the OSCE mandate
than compromise on the territorial integrity of Georgia which
includes South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Can you confirm, Minister,
that under no circumstances will the Government compromise on
that question?
Caroline Flint: We are not compromising
on that, but we are also in the business of trying to reduce potential
conflict. Members of the Committee may be aware that in recent
times we have been concerned by the increasing potential for more
hostility including greater numbers of Russian troops in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia. We recognise the integrity of Georgia, but
we are also trying to manage the situation to prevent more people
being killed or injured as result of the continuing conflict.
| 
