Russia: a new confrontation? - Defence Committee Contents


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.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 10 July 2009