Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 167)
THURSDAY 15 MARCH 2007
HIS EXCELLENCY MR GEHAD REFAAT MADI AND DR MAHMOUD
AFIFI
Q160 Lord Crickhowell:
You have laid great emphasis on the opportunity provided by the
changing situation in Palestine with the agreement yesterday.
Do you think that is the area, perhaps, where the honest broking
role might change the approach that is being followed up now or
are there other areas that you think Europe might seize on?
Ambassador Madi: This is one of the areas as
well, because, at the end of the day, our concern, and the European
concern as well, is the Palestinian people. It is the Palestinian
people. They are suffering hard, and they have suffered and continue
to suffer from the boycott after the coming into power of the
Hamas government. Now we have a different government. We will
have a different government. This is one element. The other element
is the role of the EU within the Quartet. It has to be emphasised.
It has to use its power and influence as the European Union. This
is the most powerful block of states right now in the world and
we are looking at it as such. We expect some movement in this
direction, logical approach, impartiality in addressing the situation.
We are not talking about taking the Palestinian side but about
impartiality, looking at the situation from a different angle.
This is why I call the European role one of an honest broker whom
we trust.
Q161 Lord Lea of Crondall:
I think the Ambassador is suggesting in both his answers a degree
of symmetry or possible symmetry between the EU and the US which
may not be possible. The case for asymmetry is that the US is
a state, a powerful state; the EU is not a state. To turn the
question the other way around, we are talking about the role of
the EU in the Quartet, for example. The US role in the Quartet,
one might say, is combined with the US having a unilateral or
bilateral relationship with Israel and so there are inevitably
degrees of asymmetry. Could you give us some justification for
feeling that the asymmetry between the US and the EU and the constitution
of the EU (Britain, France, Germany, et cetera) limits the degree
of symmetry of us having a role which is somehow balancing the
role of the US, if that is what you are implying, when of course
in the Quartet we also have the US interest right alongside us?
Ambassador Madi: I think it depends on how one
looks at the EU system of procedures and role. At the end of the
day, the EU Commission is reflecting the will of all Member States.
It does not have a unilateral position in itself. Solana has not
had a Solana position but rather an EU combined position. At the
same time, the EU Presidency is participating in the meetings
of the Quartet. This is also an additional factor, which is also
reflecting the will and wishes of all members. It is not that
anyone would seek a friction between US and Europe. Not at all—because
we cannot work within such friction. We want a complementary role.
Not a division of labour per se, but the United States
is doing this, the EU is doing that, and maybe Russia and the
UN also, as members of the Quartet, would have a different job
in facilitating the process. The Quartet is a Quartet. It is not
a one-state forum in this respect and I think all other parties
should have their say as well. For that reason maybe we also have
called several times to include some Arab states in the meeting
of the Quartet which should take place some time.
Q162 Lord Swinfen:
Your Excellency, you have already said that the Palestinians suffered
because of the international boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian
authority. I wondered if you would like to enlarge on that at
all. Also, would your country support the EU engaging with the
Palestinian National Unity Government once that is properly formed?
Ambassador Madi: We all know how much the Palestinians
have suffered during the boycott. The least is the wage bill which
the Palestinian authority could not pay. This wage bill is, I
think, for over 160,000 employees who are responsible for over
one million people, and this is the only source of life for them.
The idea in its generality is to gain the Palestinian street to
a peaceful solution rather than cornering them and pushing them
further to be radicalised. This is the most important aspect.
Since Oslo, we were talking about peace dividend, and this is
one of the main aspects in order to encourage the Palestinian
people to support a progressive approach to achieve peace. They
have suffered, they continue to suffer. Accordingly, as we see
the Mecca Agreement and the conclusion of the Palestinian National
Unity as a new chapter, and we have to deal with this new chapter
as it stands, we would encourage all parties, not only Europeans
but even Americans and Israelis, to deal with this government.
Again, I would say, in black and white: I am not calling for the
EU or other countries to deal directly with Hamas. They do not
need to do that: they have Abu Mazen as the President; they have
the main three portfolios which have been encouraged by the Europeans
not to be among Hamas, and they are not particularly the finance
portfolio. This would have to be received by the international
community with more flexibility in its approach. If we are all
concerned about the internal situation in the Palestinian territories
and we want to maximise the gains for a peaceful solution, I think
everyone should be with the new government. Maybe with different
levels—but, at the end of the day, who is negotiating, it
is Abu Mazen. Hamas is a faction. Perhaps I may add that, at the
end of the day, governments come and go, but the Presidency and
Abu Mazen is there, and he is the key. They have recognised Israel.
They have done all this in 1988 and they are continuing to do
this. He is the negotiating party.
Q163 Lord Boyce:
Ambassador, I wonder if you could say something about the EU relations
with Egypt itself and also expand to say something about the Euro-Mediterranean
Partnership. Is there an ambience there which helps in the Middle
East Peace Process?
Ambassador Madi: As you know, we have excellent
relations with the EU. We have no problems whatsoever. Sometimes
we disagree—on certain tactics, not strategies—but
most of the time we agree. We have concluded the neighbourhood
policy, the Action Plan, on 6 March, and it has been signed in
Brussels, and we are seeing eye-to-eye on most of the issues which
we are dealing with. I am sure that everyone also would remember
that the Europeans wanted to play a political role and, after
Oslo, they had the experience of Oslo and how to further pursue
a certain political role. This is why Barcelona was established
in a way or another, in order to have a European-Mediterranean
forum where all parties to the peace process are involved in it
and they worked for it tirelessly. Yet I would say that Euro-Med
did not satisfy, at the end of the day, the political requirement
or the political aspiration that we have hoped for with the involvement
of the Europeans in this forum. Lately we have seen that the Europeans
are very much hesitant during those meetings of Euro-Med in addressing
political issues. In fact, it was to our surprise that this forum
was established for cooperation in all fields—not only in
economic, social or human rights but, above all, in the political
field. We want a more proactive European role and I think—and
I hope I am right—the Europeans right now are very much
willing to maximise their role. There may be some limitation,
but, on our side, on our part, we have to encourage them, we are
encouraging them. It is not wishful thinking on our part because
it is an ownership now for all of us. It is not the issue of Palestinian,
Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. I think the process is an ownership
by all those people, particularly Europe.
Q164 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
We have rather covered question 7. I think your words, your Excellency,
were that the EU was assigned the role of the cheque book. I think
many of us in this Committee would agree with that, that we seem
to be the paymaster and are not getting very much return for our
money. The way of course to turn money into influence is to threaten
to withdraw it. That concentrates minds. Is that a role the EU
should be playing? You also went on to say that you saw the EU
as an honest broker. There are people who say that individual
countries within the EU might be able to do more with their bilateral
relationships with the players in this whole peace process than
they can collectively. Do you think there is anything to be said
for that?
Ambassador Madi: First of all, I hope my intervention
about the EU role is not to be understood that the EU should withdraw
its assistance if it is not playing a political role. It should
not. I would say also that an economic role is one of the most
important roles in this respect because, at the end of the day,
we are talking about peace dividend and peace dividend is being
established by economic progress, by an economic role, in order
to convince the people in the street that there is a light at
the end of the tunnel, that their life is going to be transformed
into a better life, rather than being confined to the corner and
having no hope. In fact, some of the time or most of the time
during the last few years, we have seen Palestinians not even
thinking of today. They have no present to live or a safe future
to think about for themselves and their families. The economic
side is most important, but the issue of complaining about the
cheque book, of being the holder of the cheque book, was a European
complaint, and we would understand that, accordingly, Europe wanted
to play a more political proactive role, and we would encourage
this, as, again, in our relationship with Europe, we look at Europe
as an honest broker, at the end of the day. The second part of
the question, I am sorry—
Q165 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
It is whether the EU countries can operate better individual,
in bilateral relationships with countries in the region.
Ambassador Madi: The ultimate goal we would
like to see is a unified European role on major issues. But, individual
countries still can play a very important role bilaterally with
the Palestinians. For example, the UK is training some of the
Palestinian police forces. This is a very good programme and it
is working. It is working and it is working very well. Other countries
may do something else with regard to education, health and so
on and so forth, but, on major issues, like final stage negotiations,
like the end game, I think we wish to see a unified position,
otherwise it will not work.
Q166 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Could we turn to the Rafah border issue, Ambassador. The EU has
provided some assistance on the Egyptian/Palestinian border at
Rafah. Is this more than a kind of token operation? Doest it have
any real capacity to provide greater assurance to all the parties,
including Israel, that that border is not being abused in one
way or another by things crossing it (whether weapons or illicit
money or drugs or anything else) or is it just a token operation?
Ambassador Madi: We look at it as one of the
most important role played by the Europeans so far. Why? For many
years we were asking for a European presence in the Palestinian-occupied
territories, presence in the form of monitoring the situation.
I have to go back every time to how we look at the European role
as an honest broker, because, this is why we are in favour of
a European presence on the ground. Israel was always shunning
this approach but, finally, we have a European role now in the
Rafah crossing, doing a very good job. We hope that this role
can be expanded further and the Europeans can play more of a role
inside the Palestinian territories, whether in the monitoring
or any assignment which would be accorded to the Europeans in
the future. We hope this will be understandable. I think Israel
now, throughout this experience, has some trust in the European
role, because it was always against such a role for many years.
On the other hand, with the border crossing at Rafah, no one can
enter into Israel proper without checking by the Israelis. It
is not the crossing itself when it comes to smuggling weapons
or drugs and so on. Those are being more or less smuggled through
the tunnels—which is a very difficult issue, in fact—and
on our side of the border we are doing our utmost efforts to prevent
this. But, with any border, we have to bear this in mind: any
border has two sides, not only one, and they have to be manned
properly.
Q167 Chairman:
Your Excellency, I would on behalf of the Committee really want
to thank you very much indeed for giving up the time to come and
talk to us this morning and to answer our questions. I hope you
have not found it too unpleasant an experience. We are very grateful
both to you and Dr Afif for having joined us today and we look
forward to being able to keep in touch with the Embassy one way
or another in future. Again, our very many thanks. You have certainly
helped us in filling out the picture before we come to preparing
our report, which we will of course let you see. Thank you very
much indeed for having been with us.
Ambassador Madi: Thank you, my Lord Chairman.
It was my pleasure. I hope I have satisfied the Committee with
my answers. To the best of my ability I did so. Thank you very
much.
|
