Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
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
Q280 Mr Jenkin: I am grateful for
the elimination of that answer, but I take it as an assurance
that we will not compromise on the territorial integrity of Georgia
in any resolution in order to try to get Russia's support for
extension of the mandate.
Caroline Flint: Yes.
Q281 Mr Jenkin: Of course, the EU
mission is a poor substitute for the OSCE because it operates
only on one side of the border.
Caroline Flint: Yes.
Q282 Mr Jenkin: Will there be any
change in that?
Caroline Flint: I think that also
addresses the point about how the nature of different organisations
and their memberships can add value in various ways.
Q283 Mr Jenkins: I want to take the
Minister back to the action taken by Russia step by step. If you
had a number of citizens across the border who were ethnically
British and held British passports, and they suddenly came under
attack or were shelled by a surrounding country and you had the
troops on this side to stop it, would you press the button and
send the troops across to do that?
Caroline Flint: I do not think
it is a comparable situation. We live in a world where there are
rules of engagement and binding agreements that should underpin
our actions. In this regard we feel that Russia did not abide
by that. That is not to undermine individuals' families and the
threat to their lives, but I would hope that first and foremost
we would be clear that where we took action it was in line with
our international obligations. It is difficult to draw a comparison
with British people living somewhere. Conflict resolution in this
part of the world has been going on for many years to try to keep
things at bay.
Q284 Mr Jenkins: So, you would let
people die?
Caroline Flint: Russia itself
has agreed that conflict should be resolved without the use of
force and that has been part of many years of discussion in relation
to Russia's relationship with Georgia. There must be a peaceful
resolution to it, and Russia has said that. As to the circumstances
in August last year there are also concerns about the action taken
by Georgia. The Government has acknowledged that. It is easy to
turn round and say that two wrongs make a right.
Q285 Chairman: All of this must be
put in the context that both sides accused each other of shelling
their own nationals. It will be interesting to see the international
report that comes out.
Caroline Flint: The Foreign Secretary
has said that Georgia's actions were reckless but they did not
justify the disproportionate response of Russia. The independent
inquiry is looking into the actions taken by both sides, particularly
the atrocities committed against civilians.
Q286 Chairman: I draw attention to
the fact that it is 11 o'clock. Minister, I do not want you to
go but we have asked a lot of questions about Georgia. Perhaps
we should allow you to go. We know that Baroness Taylor will be
able to answer all the questions.
Caroline Flint: Mr McKenzie Smith
and Mr Pickard will ably support as well.
Q287 Mr Jenkins: Minister, before
you go perhaps I may ask: if the amount of force used by Russia
was disproportionate—I do not say it was or was not—in
the opinion of the British Government what would have been a proportionate?
Caroline Flint: I think it would
have been to go to the United Nations to try to stop the violence
as soon as possible. That should have been the reaction.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: I think
a proportionate response is not to do things that escalate the
situation.
Chairman: Minister, thank you for your
help this morning.
Q288 Mr Havard: I want to be clear
about the various monitoring missions and organisations. There
are three on the ground in what was or is Georgia. As I understand
it, UNOMIG operates in Abkhazia and two operate in South Ossetia.
One crosses the border and one does not; the OSCE does and the
EU one does not. I do not want to see it ossifying over the years
into the situation we have seen in Cyprus. There is however confusion
on the ground because they have three different mandates. As I
understand it, the mandate of the UN mission ends on 15 June;
the OSCE's mandate ends on 30 June and the EU mission is scheduled
to end in September. Therefore, a revision of these must take
place. As I understood from what was said earlier, as far as South
Ossetia is concerned, the OSCE mission will continue and the hope
is that it will be able to operate on both sides of the line of
control and the EU mission will also continue in some fashion.
Based on my conversation with the Georgian president, clearly
the importance of Abkhazia to Georgia is different from South
Ossetia. That would be true of the Russians to whom I have also
spoken. What is the future for the Abkhazia mission? We have had
some description of South Ossetia, but what will happen with the
UNOMIG mission, or what will take its place?
Mr McKenzie Smith: Your description
of the three different missions is absolutely accurate. We succeeded
in extending the mandate of UNOMIG, which is a long-standing UN
mission, at the end of last year until June. That was a good outcome
because up to the end of last year it looked as if we would not
be able to agree on the extension of its mandate at all. If that
mission had been wound up it would have been a difficult outcome
for all concerned. Running up to 15 June we face negotiations
principally with the Russians as a permanent member of the Security
Council like ourselves on maintaining that mandate. We see a case
not only for maintaining that mandate but building on it. The
situation has changed fundamentally. There remains an important
role for the UN to play in Abkhazia. As yet there is no perception
that the Russians agree with that. You will have seen that yourselves
in Moscow. Interestingly, that position is not exactly the same
as the Abkhaz position. The Abkhaz are interested in maintaining
that mission on a long-term basis. They believe that it provides
them with stability and a much needed window on the outside world
that they do not get from the bilateral relationship.
Q289 Mr Havard: Perhaps it protects
them from Prime Minister Putin?
Mr McKenzie Smith: Conceivably.
We shall be working hard over the next few weeks—the discussions
have already started—to make sure that we secure agreement
in the Security Council, if we can, to maintain the UNOMIG mandate
and where possible build on the platform we have in Abkhazia.
We would very much want that mission to be maintained. As I said
in response to Mr Jenkin earlier, the onus here rests with the
Russians. There is broad agreement in the Security Council, minus
Russia, that that mission should continue, so we shall continue
to press the Russians to come on board with the majority view
of the international community that we need a continuing UN mission
in Abkhazia.
Q290 Mr Havard: I ask the question
because it seems to me that there is a significant difference
between South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the sense that the former
is rather like home rule for Powys; frankly, it is really not
of great significance in terms of its strategic position or anything
else, whereas Abkhazia is of a different order. If they are to
run in parallel what complications does that create in terms of
getting an agreement with what are now two independent states
as far as Russia is concerned: Russia itself and Georgia? What
is the maintenance of Georgia to be in future in terms of those
two separate negotiations, or do they have to be done together
at the same time? I am sure I am asking a question that is impossible
to answer in the sense that it is subject to negotiation, but
it is of significance in the sense that a lot of attention is
on South Ossetia and less on Abkhazia and in terms of future conflict
my suggestion is that that is where there is potential.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Abkhazia
is very important for Georgia economically in terms of tourism.
Q291 Chairman: and the Russians "naval-ly"!
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Yes.
Chairman: Because of these unanswerable
questions and the fact that this morning we have already discussed
the idea of the European security architecture in the context
of all this illegality and the difficulty of negotiations with
Russia I move on to Linda Gilroy.
Q292 Linda Gilroy: We discussed earlier
the security architecture. I heard it said that there were expectations
we would hear more about the Russian proposals. Have they yet
put anything into the public domain?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: The
things that have been put into the public domain are very vague.
There is a suggestion that the principles which underpin some
of the existing agreements should be there, but there is very
little that is clear about what is being proposed. We are clear
that anything that is put on the table we shall look at and will
be willing to discuss, but not in the context of undermining the
international institutions already there, that is, OSCE and NATO.
That is one of the pointers that will lead to some significant
discussions. So far we have heard a great deal about the fact
there will be proposals but we do not have any real detail on
what those will involve.
Q293 Linda Gilroy: As far as the
international institutions, NATO and OSCE, are concerned the idea
of European security architecture could be seen to undermine that.
Some commentators have been saying that Russia's approach is to
try to weaken and gradually exclude the United States from European
security.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: We
are very clear that the Transatlantic Dimension is extremely important
for NATO and OSCE. It is not something on which we shall turn
our backs and we do not expect other NATO allies to turn their
backs on it. We are not looking to detach Atlantic allies from
any future agreements we would want to enter into. We have one
or two issues about this. In part it is about throwing out existing
arrangements which we are not prepared to do. It is also about
what Caroline Flint said earlier: we do not want to talk just
about security but also human rights, economic development and
issues of that kind. There is also a very significant point of
principle. If we are to talk to the Russians about a new European
security architecture based on certain principles we will have
a difficulty whilst Russia is so clearly in breach of those principles
on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. That is something that the Russians
must realise when they want to enter into those discussions, but
those issues of concern will still be on the table.
Q294 Linda Gilroy: Some of the people
from whom we have taken evidence have suggested that Russia is
very good at tossing ideas into the arena but not having any clear
idea of how to back them up. Certainly, some of the people with
whom we were able to speak when we were there said that this was
on the table and it was now for others to come up with ideas.
Do you have the sense that we might reach a point where the discussions—the
Parliamentary Assembly is due to meet in early July—do not
progress at all and there might not be any proposals forthcoming
from the Russians?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: I think
there will be proposals at some stage; how specific they are is
another matter. Whether they will deliberately or otherwise contain
certain elements that people cannot sign up will be up to the
Russians. Basically, they know our approach and the importance
we attach to the Alliances we have and the principles that underlie
them. Therefore, we await the next stage because that is not for
us but those who want to put forward new ideas.
Q295 Linda Gilroy: We also keep talking
about Russia as if it is one entity. I was somewhat taken aback—I
should not have been from what I knew—by the extent to which
there is an oligarchy now ruling Russia. Do you have any sense
that there will be any opportunity for civil society and other
players in Russia to contribute towards the debate about security
architecture, in the way that would be the case if this was being
initiated from Western Europe, the United Kingdom or another state
with long-standing roles in the security arena?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Clearly,
there are individuals within Russia who are commentators and members
of think tanks and have their own ideas. To what extent those
ideas get much visibility among a wider group or population as
a whole, or to what extent the population as a whole would be
interested in those ideas, is difficult to assess. I do not believe
there is the same openness or dialogue you would expect here on
similar issues. I simply do not think that is the case. We must
also remember that no country has complete control of everything.
There are internal tensions that can build up in any country on
any issues. Sometimes internal management issues can cut across
how individual countries present certain aspects of their policy
and that factor can apply in Russia as it does elsewhere on other
occasions.
Q296 Linda Gilroy: Some commentators
also say that that was a key factor in relation to Russia's disproportionate
reaction to the circumstances in Georgia, that they were playing
to a home audience and perhaps did not think sufficiently far
ahead as to what the repercussions could be. Do you see that as
a possibility?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: We
can analyse, possibly over-analyse, and who knows what is exactly
in the minds of those who have made those decisions, but if you
are making decisions of that kind there can be unintended consequences
internally and externally in the long term, so it is a judgment
for others to make.
Q297 Chairman: Given how Russia behaved
in Georgia and its recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in
breach of the United Nations resolution that it had itself signed
in April of last year, would you describe their presentation of
the European security architecture as ironic or cynical?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: I do
not know when they first started the plan of the European security
architecture. I have not been a follower of Russia for the same
number of years as my colleagues round this table. Until we see
the detail we do not know how cynical it is.
Q298 Chairman: We know there is no
detail.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: Exactly,
so until we see it we will not know how cynical it is. I think
the Russians have a very basic problem in terms of how the rest
of the world will press them and can take them seriously unless
they take steps on South Ossetia and Abkhazia that create a more
stable situation there and stand by the agreements. We can only
operate successfully in an international field, if people take
seriously the agreements into which they enter. The fact that
55 out of 56 of the countries of the OSCE condemned the action
and that only Nicaragua has only acknowledged South Ossetia and
Abkhazia shows the weight of international opinion against them.
I think that is a very good sign and it should have some resonance
on the Russian side; they should realise that, but whether it
will alter their behaviour or make them more reasonable on this
particular issue, or in terms of putting forward proposals, I
do not think we can judge. I do not believe the signs are particularly
hopeful but the fact there is a united international community
is extremely important.
Q299 Mr Jenkin: Does Javier Solana
articulate the same sentiments as you in terms of upholding NATO
and refusing to allow for example, any partnership agreement with
the EU to undermine NATO?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: As
far as I know, but I have not heard him comment on those issues.
I think if you asked him whether I agreed with him he would probably
be a bit puzzled as well. Maybe Foreign Office colleagues have
monitored that.
| 
