Global Security: Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories - Foreign Affairs Committee Contents


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


 
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 26 July 2009