Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
BILL RAMMELL
MP AND DR
JOHN JENKINS
4 MARCH 2009
Q100 Sir Menzies Campbell: Is
that a yes?
Bill Rammell: I have said what
I said. Whatever view you took of Lebanon 2006, this is not Lebanon
2006. If you look at our actions, we were immediate in calling
for an urgent, sustainable ceasefire. The European Union statement
that called for a ceasefire, which was delivered on 27 December,
was immediately followed up by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime
Minister. In all the dialogue that took place—the Foreign
Secretary and the Prime Minister were calling their counterparts
daily over the Christmas break—we made it very clear that
the fighting had to stop.
Q101 Sir Menzies Campbell: How
disappointed was the British Government when the Americans, as
permanent members of the Security Council, took part in the negotiations
with regard to a text for the Security Council resolution and
then declined to support it?
Bill Rammell: I will not duck
the question. We would have wished for the United States to support
that resolution. Again, if you want to contrast our actions, we
led the way at the Security Council. The Foreign Secretary and
officials expended considerable effort and political capital trying
to get resolution 1860 passed. Up until the last moment, we thought
that the US was going to support the resolution. We wanted the
US to support the resolution, but it did not.. Nevertheless, it
is worth noting that even with that abstention, Dr Rice's explanatory
statement made it clear that she supported the broad thrust of
the resolution. If you want to talk about relative progress, I
can tell you that in previous situations and circumstances we
might have been facing a veto, but we did not on that occasion.
Q102 Sir Menzies Campbell: It
would have been a curious veto if the United States had taken
part in the negotiations over the text of the resolution and then
vetoed it. Would it be fair to say that the greater the efforts
the British Government expended in framing the resolution and
helping to get it through, the greater the disappointment that
the United States was not able to support it? Be frank, Minister,
you are among friends.
Bill Rammell: Absolutely. I have
been very clear that we wished that the United States had supported
the resolution, and I am disappointed that they did not. Nevertheless,
if you read what they actually said you will see that it was not
a statement of outright opposition. I am not saying anything that
was not reported in the press. It was a dialogue between the Israeli
Government and the US Administration that led to that outcome.
Nevertheless, the fact that we expended such effort and capital
to get the resolution passed—I am not saying that we would
not have got a ceasefire without it—meant that we probably
achieved a ceasefire sooner than would otherwise have been the
case.
Dr Jenkins: I was there in New
York when we were drafting the resolution, and the negotiation
over the text was a fascinating experience. Since then that text
has been quoted back to me by Americans and Israelis as a locus
for ceasefire and anti-smuggling efforts and efforts to get the
crossings open. Members of the Israeli Government have said to
me, "1860 states this," and I have said to them that
they did not want the resolution passed at the time. It has become
that sort of a text, and since then it has become the thing on
which we rely for dealing with all those issues, as a point of
international law.
Q103 Sir Menzies Campbell: That
is very comforting, but it is, after all, a resolution of the
Security Council, so it would be a little difficult to ignore.
Dr Jenkins: But it is good that
it has been accepted by everyone as the locus.
Q104 Sir Menzies Campbell: There
have been enormous human losses and physical destruction, which
Mr Blair appears to have been genuinely affected by, if we understand
the reports of his recent visit correctly. There is new anxiety
about the money needed to provide the necessary rehabilitation
and even about the extent to which the materials that are required
for reconstruction are being allowed free passage. Apart from
the consequences of the military action, is it the view of the
British Government that anything material has changed in the Israel-Palestine
problem? Will it be more easily settled or less easily settled,
or is it about the same?
Bill Rammell: On the question
whether we would have wished these events to happen, the answer
is an emphatic no. On many levels it has undoubtedly made the
challenge of securing progress towards peace in the Middle East
more difficult. However, there is a sense that it has sharpened
perspectives on the absolute necessity of moving towards a peaceful
outcome. There has been a recognition—the Foreign Secretary
made this clear in the comments he made over Christmas—that
we all bear a responsibility for the fact that insufficient international
attention was paid to the issue in the six to nine months leading
up to Christmas. That is emphatically not the case now. The level
and scale of the conflict, the tragic loss of life and the impact
that that has had on the region and the wider world has reinforced
a political commitment that we have to do something. The impetus
that the new Obama Administration has given to the issue, for
example, indicates a recognition that this cannot be allowed to
happen again.
Q105 Sir Menzies Campbell: If
I may just finish on that point, are you saying that the experience
of those events has created a generally prevalent attitude that
it must not be allowed to happen again?
Bill Rammell: I would not say
that that attitude is uniform across the board, but there is the
beginning of a critical mass of opinion internationally that recognises
that that is what we need to do.
Q106 Sandra Osborne: May I ask
about conflict resolution? You have already made it clear that
the Foreign Secretary and his counterparts in other countries
were in contact with Israel to urge it not to attack Gaza. Did
that include the United States?
Bill Rammell: In terms of our
dialogue?
Sandra Osborne: Yes, in terms of putting
pressure on Israel not to attack Gaza. Did that include the United
States?
Bill Rammell: I would have to
come back to you about the run-up to the conflict, but there was
a clear-cut message from the United States after 27 December that
we needed to get to a ceasefire urgently.[2]
Q107 Sandra Osborne: In February
last year, the Foreign Office brought out new strategic objectives
on early warnings and early action to provide conflict resolution
to prevent conflicts. Obviously the action of the Government would
have been consistent with that. What is your assessment of the
conflict resolution efforts from the UN, the EU and other international
organisations in reaction to the Gaza conflict?
Bill Rammell: Post the conflict?
Sandra Osborne: Yes.
Bill Rammell: Post the conflict,
there has been a real energy. The Secretary-General and the United
Nations have taken a strong stand. On the European Union, during
Monday's conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, there was a commitment
of about $4.5 billion for reconstruction in Gaza and the broader
Palestinian areas, which was very constructive. A consistency
of approach connects the various multilateral organisations, which
puts us in a better position than we were in before.
Q108 Sandra Osborne: Can the Foreign
Office learn any lessons from what happened before the conflict?
You have talked about applying pressure, but could other things
have been done to try to prevent it?
Bill Rammell: The lesson is for
us and for everyone internationally. As I said earlier, we acknowledge
that in the nine months running up to the conflict, there was
insufficient focus on the rocket attacks on Israel and on the
incursions by the Israeli Defence Forces. Because those things
were relatively low scale, there was a view that the situation
was containable. With hindsight, that was clearly the wrong view.
There should have been greater collective international attention
and urgency given to tackling the issue.
Sandra Osborne: Thank you.
Chairman: We shall now turn to the question
of violations of the rules of armed conflict.
Q109 Mr Keetch: Thank you, Chairman.
Before I move on, may I follow on from a point made by Sir Menzies?
Does the Minister subscribe to the view held by many that Israel
took this action when it did because it knew that it would not
be able to do so under an Obama presidency? Israel therefore had
to get it out of the way on George Bush's watch.
Bill Rammell: I am not sure that
I can speculate accurately on the motivations of the Israeli Government,
and I am not sure that it would be helpful to do so. I have been
clear, as have the Foreign Secretary and the Government, that
this action was wrong and counter-productive.
If we want a reality check, we must take
it into account that this was not an Israeli Government initiative
that was carried out without broad popular support. It did have
broad popular support. It was built on the foundation of the vast
majority of Israelis saying that the level of rocket attacks on
a sustained basis was unacceptable and that something had to be
done. I do not use that to justify what was done, but that was
a fundamental problem that had to be addressed.
Q110 Mr Keetch: May I turn to
the laws of war? Those of us who have been involved in defence
and foreign affairs are aware that there are principles on how
you should act in warfare. The most obscene act of war was the
Holocaust committed against the Jewish people by the Nazi regime
in Germany. Yet there have been many accusations that during the
recent conflict in Gaza, Israel broke some of those articles of
war. We have heard, for example, about the use of white phosphorus
and the possible use of DIME—dense inert metal explosive—munitions.
Amnesty International has accused Israel of targeting civilian
targets around Hamas institutions, although those civilian targets
may have been placed there deliberately. We heard from Professor
Scobbie that Israel's targeting of police officers, who are technically
civilians, was a probable breach. The UN Secretary-General has
described Israel's action as disproportionate. Our Foreign Secretary
has indicated that he probably agrees with that description. Is
it time for some kind of international investigation? Would there
be any purpose in such an investigation? Would it produce any
good? The Israelis say that they will look at it themselves, but
I must say that many people would be rather suspicious of one
side of the conflict, however well intentioned, investigating
its own people for breaches of such important international effect.
Bill Rammell: First, the Foreign
Secretary did not "probably" describe the Israeli actions
as disproportionate; he did describe them as disproportionate,
as did I and others. It is clear that there have been serious
allegations not just against the Israeli Government but against
Hamas as well; it is important that that point is not lost in
the debate. There has been no response by Hamas to those allegations.
On the Israeli side, it is welcome that there is a commitment
to investigate. Secondly, a range of international actions have
been undertaken, including the Secretary-General's board of inquiry,
which we are supporting. We are also supporting an International
Committee of the Red Cross investigation. However, there is a
difficulty. I read Professor Scobbie's evidence to your Committee,
in which he set out some of the difficulties, particularly the
fact that judgments of legality require detailed knowledge of
the facts. Therefore, detailed co-operation by the Israeli Government
would be required. It is right that that should happen and we
should push for it, but I do not think that we should be unrealistic
in our expectations of what the outcome will be. I want a positive
outcome, but more than anything I want genuine progress in the
broader peace process and negotiations. That can help us to take
that forward.
Q111 Mr Keetch: I agree that Hamas
undoubtedly breached some laws as well, but do you agree that
there is a difference? Hamas is a body that the British Government
do not recognise. It might be described as an irregular force.
There is a difference between that force breaching the rules of
war and the disciplined, professional army of a democratic country
such as Israel, which itself was so recently subject to such grievous
violation of those laws, doing so. That that nation, of all nations,
should do what it did, or what it is alleged to have done, is
different. Although it is true that Hamas may have breached the
law, for the disciplined, professional armed forces of the state
of Israel to do so was frankly appalling.
Bill Rammell: I am very clear
that any violation of international humanitarian law is wrong
and must be investigated; nevertheless, I agree with the underlying
thrust of your argument. Israel is a democracy that commits to
high standards. We and the Israeli people rightly expect higher
standards from their democratically elected Government than you
would expect from a terrorist organisation.
Q112 Mr Keetch: And indeed the
international community should expect higher standards as well.
Bill Rammell: Yes, absolutely.
Q113 Mr Keetch: We as a Committee
have considered Guantanamo Bay, rendition and all sorts of other
issues. We have found that some of the laws of war that we talk
about, such as the Geneva convention, although they work well
where the conflict is state versus state, do not always work so
well in the context of a state versus an irregular body. We have
discussed in this Committee the possibility that we need to review
some of the international laws of war to recognise that conflicts
now exist between states and bodies that are irregular forces.
Do you agree that perhaps it is time to look at those laws again?
Bill Rammell: There may be a case
for doing that, but I do not want to underestimate in any way,
shape or form the difficulty of establishing consensus internationally
to move forward on that front.
Mr Keetch: I agree with you on that,
at least.
Q114 Mr Illsley: Following on
from that last point, we might not have to wait too long for the
decision to be made. The Palestinian Authority issued a declaration
of competence in the International Criminal Court with a request
that the ICC investigates breaches of international law in the
Gaza conflict. So de facto the ICC is now considering whether
the Palestinian Authority will be declared a state. In evidence
to the Committee, Professor Scobbie said that he found that odd,
because the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was the legal
entity, not the Palestinian Authority. Which body do the British
Government regard as the legal entity in that regard—the
PLO or the Palestinian Authority?
Bill Rammell: The PLO—that
is my understanding. There is a broader problem with the ICC in
respect of the allegations. Israel is not a party to the ICC.
The only circumstance in which the ICC can address matters is
a direction and reference from the Security Council. It is almost
certain that at least two permanent members would veto such a
reference.
We must ask ourselves a question. Historically,
the US has been opposed to the ICC. While many welcome changes
are coming through, I do not detect that there is a change on
that front under the Obama Administration. Given that we want
the new US Administration to invest immense political capital
in the Middle East peace process, we must ask ourselves whether
we want that issue to take up all the time and effort of the US
Administration in its early phase.
Q115 Mr Illsley: I do not disagree
with any of what you said. There is a pretty good chance that
nothing will get before the court, but what happens if the ICC
makes a declaration about which is the legal entity and says that
it is the Palestinian Authority? That will throw a spanner in
everyone's works.
Bill Rammell: I am not sure that
it is helpful to get drawn into hypotheticals.
Q116 Sir Menzies Campbell: Has
the Foreign Office taken legal advice on the implications of the
declaration of competence made by the Palestinian Authority?
Bill Rammell: I do not believe
we have, but it is something that I shall look at following the
discussion.[3]
Chairman: We now turn to the British
Government's policy on arms exports.
Q117 Mr Pope: Amnesty International
said that serious violations of human rights were carried out
by the IDF. It expressed concern, in particular, about the use
of unmanned aerial vehicles and the damage that they have caused
to the civilian population in Gaza. Engines for the unmanned aerial
vehicles are made in Lichfield and are exported to the Government
of Israel. It is not entirely clear to me or, indeed, to Amnesty
whether it has been proven that the vehicles that carried out
the attacks had British engines but, if they did, would you consider
that a failure of our arms export policy—as many people
would?
Bill Rammell: I will come on to
address that directly. If I can, Chairman, I shall write to you
following the meeting because the specific instance to which Mr
Pope referred was dealt with by my colleague, Ian Pearson, at
the Committee on Arms Export Controls—the Quadripartite
Committee, as was. The technology produced there is for onward
export. It is not actually used within Israel. I wish to address
the underlying thrust of what is being put forward. The Amnesty
report is helpful in establishing a context. It demonstrates that
we are not a major arms exporter to Israel. I accept the trends
that it outlines: 95% of Israeli defence imports come from the
United States. If you add in the gifted elements it is about 99%.
The other 1% comes from the European Union and the big three providers
are Germany, France and Romania; Britain is in the middle of the
pack. We regularly, according to our consolidated criteria, refuse
applications to Israel. In the last five years, between nine and
26 applications were turned down each year. I know that is the
case because they have come across my desk. I have recommended
refusal. Those figures would be supplemented by applications that
do not come forward. Companies know that there is a very tight
regime. We are not a big exporter to Israel. Nevertheless, we
want to ensure that the way that the criteria work does not facilitate
internal repression and external aggression. Therefore two things
flow from the recent conflict. First, contracts[4]
can be revoked if information comes to light which casts doubt
on the original approval. At the moment there are reviews of a
number of extant licences that Ministers will be looking at. Secondly,
we have made it abundantly clear that we will take account of
IDF actions during Operation Cast Lead in determining future applications.
We have also said that it has not been clear what equipment was
used by the IDF in Gaza. We have therefore been undertaking our
own assessment based upon a variety of sources. The Amnesty report
is a helpful contributor to that. When that process is complete
we will make the information available to Parliament.[5]
Q118 Mr Pope: The offer of a letter
from the Minister is very helpful. It is a complex area. I should
certainly be interested to read the Government's view. The Minister
is right to say that the UK is not a major arms exporter to Israel.
The figures I have, suggest that over the last three years the
figure is about €10 million. Having said that—and I
am sure of this because I have a lot of correspondence from my
constituents—in a conflict in which hundreds of innocent
children were killed, the idea that some of that damage may have
been inflicted by British-made equipment fills people with revulsion.
Can the Minister commit to a review of British policy on arms
exports to Israel? I think that there is an argument at the very
least that there should be an arms embargo from the UK to Israel
in the light of operation Cast Lead. Will he give the Committee
an assurance at least to review the policy?
Bill Rammell: I am not committing
to an embargo. However, on a case-by-case basis there will be
a review in a sense. I have already said that contracts[6]
can be revoked if new information comes to light that undermines
the previous decision. There is a review of a number of extant
licences. That means that if a licence has already been granted
and we get new evidence, for example, of what took place in Cast
Lead, we review and look at the granting of those licences. In
addition, we categorically take into account what has happened
during Cast Lead for future applications. Undoubtedly that will
be the case. It is certainly true that we have not just sat back
and done nothing about this. We have wanted to know because there
are all sorts of reports. In a conflict situation, particularly
one such as this, it is often very difficult to pin down exactly
what has happened. That is why we have conducted and are conducting
a thorough review of exactly what we know about what weapons were
used and in what circumstances. Once we have completed that process
we will make it available to Parliament.
Q119 Chairman: Minister, given
that it has been the policy of successive British Governments
not to sell offensive weapons into areas of conflict or potential
conflict, can you tell the Committee whether the Government's
review will extend to contractual agreements between British companies
and American companies to supply components of offensive weapons
to American companies which end up being on-sold as completed
weapons systems to the Israelis?
Bill Rammell: Your Committee is
well aware of the decision on incorporation that was taken in
2002. That ensures that the same criteria are addressed regarding
the risk of the components being used for internal repression
or external aggression. That will continue to be the case. Speaking
specifically of equipment that may or may not have been used in
the recent conflict, first, the licences can be revoked and a
number of cases are being reviewed and, secondly, we will in all
our assessment of export applications undoubtedly take account
of what we know happened during Operation Cast Lead.
Chairman: We are now going to focus on
the situation in Gaza.
2 Ev 51 Back
3
Ev 51 Back
4
Note by FCO: The Minister incorrectly used the term "contracts",
when in fact he meant "licences". Contracts are between
the company supplying the goods and the purchaser, and where needed
the company gets a licence from BERR to enable them to fulfil
the contract. HMG through the licensing process can therefore
revoke licences but not contracts. Back
5
Ev 52 Back
6
Note by FCO: The Minister incorrectly used the term "contracts",
when in fact he meant "licences". Back
| 
