Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-160)
BILL RAMMELL
MP AND DR
JOHN JENKINS
4 MARCH 2009
Q140 Chairman: Could you explain
a little more clearly—particularly for the public behind
you?
Dr Jenkins: I am sorry, I have
a sore throat. Fayad got the money back which, it was alleged,
Arafat had appropriated for his own ends from donors in the 1990s.
He got that money back when he was Finance Minister in around
2002-03. He put that money in the Palestinian Investment Fund,
which is an open, transparent and audited organisation. He also
set up a single Treasury account for the Palestinian authority,
which is open and audited. If you look at the webpage of the Palestinian
Ministry of Finance, you will see that it shows the most open
and transparent budgetary process, I think, in the whole of the
Middle East. Donors have absolute confidence in a Government headed
by Salaam Fayad to do that.
Q141 Chairman: Minister, my colleague
Greg Pope, when he asked his first question, rightly referred
to the policy of creating a viable Palestinian state. I have noticed
that in several public statements made by the British Government
and by spokesmen for the American Government in the past few weeks
the word "viable" has been dropped and that they have
referred simply to the creation of a Palestinian state. Is it
still the British Government's policy that there should be created
a viable Palestinian state?
Bill Rammell: Emphatically, yes.
If that has not been clear in any of the statements I or others
have made, it is because we have misspoken. It is absolutely our
intention that there should be a viable Palestinian state.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q142 Sandra Osborne: Minister,
you have expressed optimism about the priority that the new Obama
Administration have given to the issue, but do you expect the
US's approach to differ from that adopted under the Bush Administration,
and if so, in what way?
Bill Rammell: My God, I hope so—no,
I did not say that. I think that George W. Bush himself has acknowledged
that he did not come to the Middle East peace issue until the
back end of his presidency. Obama has made it clear that he wants
to prioritise this as an early issue, which I think is very welcome.
I speak as a friend of both the Palestinians and of the state
of Israel, but I think that sometimes you need a candid friend,
and in some sense America is the state of Israel's biggest friend.
Secretary of State Clinton's criticism of Israeli breaches of
the road map, which is on the wires today, is an encouraging sign
that there will be not only strong support of the state of Israel's
right to exist and not to be subjected to terrorist attacks, but
pressure for a response from the Israeli Government that would
allow us to move forward and see the kind of offer that is on
the table through the Arab peace initiative. We can all argue,
urge and ask Israel to do things, but having an American Administration
who are prepared candidly to push it to do that from the perspective
of a friend is encouraging.
Q143 Sandra Osborne: With regard
to the appointment of Mr Mitchell, how do you think his experience
in Northern Ireland, which is clearly positive, will inform his
actions?
Bill Rammell: I had better be
careful not to quote private conversations out of context, but
at one level Mr Mitchell's experience of the way you relate to
people who are entrenched in completely, fundamentally and diametrically
opposed views of history will clearly inform his perspective.
His view is that you can take the analogies of Northern Ireland
only so far and that there are differences in the circumstances
that we had better not run away from.
Q144 Mr Horam: Minister, what
do you think are the prospects for the formation of a Palestinian
national unity Government?
Bill Rammell: I referred earlier
to the meeting in Cairo last week, at which a statement was made,
facilitated by the Egyptians, of an intention to form a national
reconciliation Government by the end of March. To that end, five
dialogue committees will meet from 10 March, overseen by a steering
committee. They will try to form an interim Government to reform
the security services and the PLO, to prepare for elections and
to embed Palestinian reconciliation.
That is welcome and we support that process.
Its best chance is with the kind of vision that I set out earlier—an
interim, non-factional, technocratic Government, who relate to
the parties but have people somewhat above the political fray,
a bit like Prime Minister Fayad.
Dr Jenkins: One of the other things
you need for the Palestinian unity Government is Arab unity and
reconciliation. What we are seeing at the moment is interesting—the
moves to have some sort of reconciliation between the Saudis,
the Syrians and the Egyptians during the run-up to the Arab League
summit in Doha at the end of this month. If that can be achieved,
the chances of getting some sort of Palestinian unity Government
by the time of the Doha summit are increased, because that is
one of the reasons why we have not had one so far.
Q145 Mr Horam: Is there not a
problem over President Abbas's continued presidential mandate?
There is a query about that, and uncertainty about exactly when
elections might take place. How do you see your way? How do you
see the possibility of getting through this rather complicated
constitutional set-up?
Bill Rammell: I think you are
right, Mr Horam, it is a complicated situation, because of the
divided nature of the Palestinian people at the moment. We are
clear that President Abbas remains the internationally recognised
Palestinian President. That is not just a Western view—our
view, the US view or the European view—it is, importantly,
the view of the Arab League. Therefore, that view has our full
support. However, President Abbas has said that he wants to hold
elections this year. Again, we support that, but it reinforces
the need for that Government of reconciliation or national unity
to be established as quickly as possible. One of the key tasks
for them to take on is how to structure those elections.
Q146 Mr Horam: Is there not a
difficulty in that you would expect Hamas to do even better than
it has done previously?
Bill Rammell: There are clearly
risks. It is too early to form definitive judgments, but there
was always a risk if this conflict took place that it would reinforce
the position of those who take an extreme point of view. To be
honest, if there is real progress through reconstruction and with
aid, so that people can vote for statehood in that sense, there
is a strong prospect of the moderates, the centre ground, winning.
If there has not been that progress, there is always the chance
that people will vote for what they see as the resistance.
Mr Horam: Thank you.
Q147 Mr Hamilton: Just over three
weeks ago, Minister, there was an election in Israel, fairly conclusively
showing a drift to the right. Although Kadima got one more seat
than Likud in the Knesset, it looks fairly clear that Binyamin
Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is going to try to form a Government.
Traditionally—or at least in the past there has been some
evidence for this—right-wing Governments, ironically, have
had more success in achieving peace agreements in the region than
those of the left or centre. However, my question is, how do you
think, given what he has said in the past, Prime Minister Netanyahu
will approach a peace deal with the Palestinians—something
that might last and stop future conflicts such as Gaza?
Bill Rammell: Let me be clear
that—this is not a statement, but the right and responsible
thing to say and do—we shall work with whoever the Israeli
people elect as their Government. It is a democracy and it is
right that we respect them in that way. If it is a Government
led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, which looks likely to be the
case, we will have to judge him by his articulated intentions.
He has made it clear that all things being equal, he would prefer
to have a broad-based Government with Kadima, if not Labour, as
part of that. I take some encouragement from that in terms of
the outcomes that he is trying to achieve. It is also the case—perhaps
not initially, but in the longer term—that he is likely
to be committed to a two-state solution. If we look at what he
was saying three months ago, it was about an economic reconstruction
track and not a political one, but there has been movement beyond
that. We will work with whoever the Israeli people elect. I am
not unnecessarily pessimistic about any of the different possible
formations at the moment. If it is to be a Netanyahu Labour Government,
there are prospects for going forward.
Q148 Mr Hamilton: Is the window
for a two-state solution closing?
Bill Rammell: I know that some
people argue that it is. I think not, because it cannot. As someone
who is passionately committed to seeing an end to this conflict,
I cannot see how we can do that without a two-state solution.
That would mean first saying that, given the experience of the
last 60 years, there is not going to be a state of Israel. Secondly,
it would mean signing up to perpetual conflict and bloodshed if
we went down the road of a one-state solution.
Mr Hamilton: Thank you.
Q149 Mr Purchase: Can I follow
up on the question of the two-state solution? My understanding
is that Netanyahu does not support that. I wonder how much progress
could be made with a coalition Government of his stripe on the
basis of a two-state solution that he does not particularly support.
Bill Rammell: I have to choose
my words carefully. From all I hear, know and see, if it is a
Netanyahu-led Government, I think that there is a real chance
that we can be in discussions about a two-state solution before
too long. I am not naive and over-optimistic—there is still
a huge way to go—but I do not sense or see implacable opposition
to a two-state solution.
Mr Purchase: Thank you.
Q150 Mr Keetch: We must attempt
to try to encourage the Israeli side on that. We have said frequently
this afternoon that Israel is a democracy, and it has demonstrated
that by changing Prime Minister peacefully. That is truly the
definition of democracy. However, Israel's regard for some international
views is sceptical. The Security Council called for a ceasefire,
as we mentioned earlier, and the Israeli Government ignored that—admittedly,
so did Hamas. The Security Council said that the settlements have
no legal validity and the International Court of Justice called
for the halting of the security barrier back in 2004. There have
been all sorts of international calls for movement and for access
across the border to be improved, and it has not really happened.
Is there a way that we in Europe can encourage the Israelis to
do that with trade? You said earlier that you were against an
arms embargo, but there is an association agreement between the
EU and Israel that was established in 2000. We said from the EU's
point of view in June 2008 that we wanted to expand on that—upgrade
was the term used, I think. As of January 14, we have put on hold
any negotiations on that. Will that be upgraded again, or are
we going to wait and see what the new Government do before we
use that as a lever to encourage them a little?
Bill Rammell: I should place on
the record what happened with the upgrade, because we certainly
did not lead the charge on that. I found that ironic when, during
the height of the crisis, it was put to me that some other European
member states, which were more visible if not more effective in
calling for peace, did lead the charge.
Q151 Mr Keetch: I thought that
you might have wanted to put that on the record. I am happy to
have given you the opportunity.
Bill Rammell: We did not lead
the charge, but we agreed it on the understanding that first,
the upgrade was in the context of the Middle East peace process;
secondly, that we agreed to a similar upgrade for the Palestinians;
and thirdly, that we could use the increased dialogue, including
a human rights sub-committee, to address areas of concern, and
that is still open to us. The reality at the moment is that the
European Commission has temporarily halted negotiations—rightly
in my view—because it says that the priority is dealing
with the crisis in Gaza.
More broadly, many Israelis feel under
siege and the idea that blandishment and sanctions will get them
and their Government to do what we need, and what we think is
in their interests, is not necessarily the case. Therefore, engagement,
encouragement and the EU-Israel trade association agreement is
one way of doing that and can help us move forward.
Q152 Mr Keetch: Is that why the
noble Lord Mandelson has called for an increase in bilateral UK-Israeli
trade?
Bill Rammell: We have a trade
relationship with Israel and we want that to continue. It gives
us influence to make progress on the political front.[7]
Q153 Chairman: Minister, you express
considerable optimism about the two-state solution and you confirm
that the British Government's policy is emphatically for a viable
Palestinian state. I wonder how you set your optimism against
the reality on the ground, because the reality on the ground is
that a viable Palestinian state and the two-state solution have
become, year by year, more and more improbable. There is a process
of ever-extending settlements on the West Bank. As far as East
Jerusalem is concerned, it is now effectively being walled-off.
Palestinians in East Jerusalem are continuing to come under sustained
pressure to give up their homes, to exit, to have their homes
taken over and to diminish their presence in East Jerusalem. Those
are the unchanging realities on the ground: a consistent policy
of de facto annexation beyond the 1967 boundaries that has been
happening now for decades and has shown absolutely no signs whatever
of being brought to an end. Against that background, what is your
basis for optimism that the present Israeli Government will revert
to 1967 boundaries and will allow East Jerusalem to be the capital
of the new, viable Palestinian state?
Bill Rammell: I certainly do not
have unbridled optimism and, in saying that the two-state solution
is still the only game in town and that we can get there, I am
not setting out time scales or underestimating the difficulties.
I concur with the view that settlements on occupied land are illegal
under international law, and it is not just a legalistic point.
Politically—and this is much more important—the settlements
make getting to the two-state solution much more difficult. Despite
commitments given at Annapolis to freeze settlement activity,
there has been significant further expansion. It is a cause of
significant regret that the freeze has not taken place, and we
have said that to the Israeli Government, both publicly and privately.
When I was in the Occupied Territories,
just before Christmas, I visited Hebron and saw the impact of
the settlements, where rocks are thrown down on to alleyways of
shops where Palestinians are living and passing by—that
is a major, major impediment to driving the peace process forward.
In talking about the need for progress, the fact that we got the
offer from the Arab League is very welcome in terms of rearticulating
the Arab peace initiative. Once the new Government in Israel are
formed, there has to be a response on that issue and it will have
to include, at least initially, some kind of symbolic move on
the issue of settlements.
Q154 Chairman: But Minister, we have
had bits of symbolism before—we had that in Gaza, and we
had a limited one on the West Bank. Symbolism will not produce
a viable Palestinian state or a two-state solution where there
is a viable Palestinian state. It will basically require a substantial
withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries. What is the basis of your optimism
that the present Israeli Government are prepared to bring about
that withdrawal?
Bill Rammell: I think that if
that succeeds, the way that it will happen is step by step, with
confidence-building measures and a political process, where both
the Palestinian and Israeli people begin to conclude that they
have a greater vested interest in the peace process than not,
and they put pressure on their politicians—I think that
that is the way that it will go forward. What confidence do I
have that the Government that is about to be formed will embark
on that road? I cannot guarantee it, but the sense that I have,
from all that I see and hear, and from my direct conversations
with Israeli politicians and others in Israel, is that we have
a chance that the new Government will embrace that process. Can
I guarantee it? No, I cannot.
Q155 Chairman: I put it to you
that the overwhelming evidence in successive Israeli elections
is that the great majority of Israelis choose to vote for the
present policy of de facto annexation on the ground, and not for
a return to the 1967 boundaries.
Bill Rammell: I do not share that
view. Ultimately, neither of us knows why people, in the privacy
of the polling booth, vote the way that they do. I subscribe to
the view that the majority of people who vote for—for want
of a better phrase—the right in Israel are voting for negotiations
from a position of strength, rather than necessarily being implacably
opposed to compromise as a way forward.
Q156 Chairman: Perhaps we can
now turn to a political settlement issue on another part of the
Israeli state's border: the issue with Syria. With the welcome
signs of British and international recognition that there now
may be a more amenable Government in Syria—although there
must be concerns about whether there is still a secret programme
to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but let us put that on
one side at the moment—do you think that there is the possibility
of the Israeli Government being able to conclude a separate deal
with the Syrians on the Golan Heights and the Shebaa farms?
Bill Rammell: I think that there
is a chance. I would not say that there has been a change on the
part of Syria, but there has been an opening up and a willingness
to look at alternative routes. We have seen the dialogue that
has taken place with Israel, the rapprochement with Lebanon and
the reaching out through diplomatic channels, and we have encouraged
that and responded by building up our contacts with Syria over
the past two years, which culminated in the Foreign Secretary's
visit before Christmas.
First, that has given us a direct channel,
and secondly, we have used that channel to encourage Syria to
go down the road of weaning off its relationship with Iran and
its support of Hezbollah and others. I think that on the judgment
about where Syria will ultimately go, to some extent, the jury
is still out, but I think that there are some encouraging trends
and we want to help those forward. I think that there is a chance
that the Syrian track may offer some reasonable prospects in the
near future.
Dr Jenkins: May I add something?
I was struck by what President Bashar al-Assad of Syria said in
the last couple of days about his willingness to resume talks
with Israel. When the Gaza conflict started, he basically said
that that was off the agenda. In the last week, he has said that
it is back on. That is good.
With Syria, as with everything else connected
to the Middle East peace process, you have to construct a set
of powerful incentives, the withdrawal of which acts as a disincentive
to bad behaviour. You have to give people enough to do the deals.
Syria is clearly part of this debate. The way we look at it is
that you need to find a way to include a Syrian track to make
any sense of a comprehensive Middle East peace process. Israeli
Governments in the past have had a tendency to think of the Syrian
track and the Palestinian track as alternatives. We saw that in
the 1990s and before. That is not where we are, or where the United
States Administration are in their public statements or what I
understand to be their private views.
It is interesting that the Americans are
sending two of their senior officials, Jeff Feltman of the State
Department and Dan Shapiro of the National Security Council, to
Damascus this week on the back of Secretary Clinton's visit to
Israel and the Palestinian territories. That tells me that the
Americans are looking for ways to integrate those things. If deals
are done, they will be very hard-headed deals. You know as well
as I do that nobody does deals for sentimental reasons in the
Middle East. We have to get the incentives right. We are not there
yet, but that is what we are working on, what I think the Americans
are working on and what the Arabs are working on.
Q157 Sir Menzies Campbell: Very
quickly on that, is there any value in the assertion that in his
actions al-Assad now feels a little more independent of the old
guard who surrounded his father and lived on after the succession?
Perhaps even stronger than that, do the Syrians have a willingness
to separate themselves from Iran, with which they have been bracketed
from time to time in rather superficial analyses?
Bill Rammell: It may be the case
that there is a separation from the old guard. I do not think
that there has been a definitive judgment on detachment from Iran,
but there is a hankering to explore the alternatives, which we
should actively encourage.
Chairman: We will turn finally to two
other important countries in the region. First, Turkey.
Q158 Mr Hamilton: Traditionally,
or at least for a few years, Turkey has enjoyed a very good relationship
with Israel. There has been a lot of military co-operation as
well as business relations and other close relations. However,
the Gaza conflict has damaged that considerably. I understand
that Prime Minister Erdogan stormed out of a debate with President
Peres of Israel at the World Economic Forum in Davos at the end
of January. Have the Foreign Office or the Government assessed
the damage that the Gaza conflict has caused to the relationship
between Israel and Turkey? That is an important dynamic in the
region, is it not?
Bill Rammell: Prime Minister Erdogan
was outspoken in his criticism of Israel during the conflict.
He was not alone in that. Our assessment is that the relationship
between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests
and I expect it to recover. Increasingly, across a range of issues,
Turkey sees itself as an international player and facilitator.
It will therefore want to recover that relationship.
Mr Hamilton: So you are optimistic.
Chairman: Finally, we turn to Iran.
Q159 Sandra Osborne: Minister,
given the influence of Iran on Hamas, the view of the new Israeli
Government that Iran is the biggest security threat and the new
US Administration saying that they will be more open to contact
with Tehran, how would you characterise the relationship between
western policy on Iran and the Middle East peace process?
Bill Rammell: They are inextricably
linked. There is concern about the nuclear issue, but one of our
concerns about the role that Iran plays in the Middle East is
that it finances, trains and supports insurgent groups, terrorists,
Hamas, Hezbollah and others in a way that is deeply damaging to
the region and that, if you talk privately to leaders within the
region, they deeply resent and find unacceptable. We have to find
a way to move forward. The dialogue that President Obama has talked
about has been principally on the nuclear issue, within a context
of it being unacceptable for Iran to go down a route of nuclear
weaponisation. However, we also need channels where we can make
it very clear that the role that Iran plays in the region is deeply
unhelpful; working with other Arab states on that issue is a priority
for us.
Q160 Chairman: Minister, there
is one final question about Iran on an issue to which the Committee
referred in its report. As you will be aware, on 27 January the
European Council announced that the People's Mujahedeen Organisation
of Iran was going to be removed from its list of proscribed organisations—that
is, organisations that are considered to be terrorist organisations—following
a decision that had been made, of course, in the European Court.
That decision overturned previous British Government policy, which
had been adhered to limpet-like, I must say. Would you, Minister,
be prepared to acknowledge to the Committee that that was a significant
policy misjudgment of the British Government, arising from their
being too ready to dance to the tune of the Bush Administration
in the United States?
Bill Rammell: No, I do not. There
were historical concerns about the PMOI. I do not think that it
is clear that the PMOI has definitively turned its back on terrorism
and committed to democracy. Nevertheless, we rightly respect the
rule of law and operate by it. We adhered to the court decision
in this country on de-proscription, and when there was the Court
of First Instance decision in the European Union we led the way
within the EU saying that it was untenable in those circumstances
for the proscription to remain in place. I must say that that
was not an easy set of negotiations, but our view was very clear
that, given that Court of First Instance decision, the de-proscription
had to take place and I am very pleased that that was the eventual
outcome that we secured.
Chairman: Minister, we are most grateful
to you and to Dr Jenkins for this session. It has been very helpful.
We look forward to receiving the follow-up written material that
you have offered to the Committee. Thank you so much.
7 Ev 52 Back
| 
