Examination of Witnesses (Questions 235
- 239)
FRIDAY 23 MARCH 2007
MR ROBERT COOPER AND MR CHRISTIAN JOURET
Q235 Chairman:
Perhaps we could begin formally. Could I say how grateful we are
to both of you, Mr Cooper, and Mr Jouret, for having received
us this morning. As I think you know, the Committee is carrying
out an inquiry into the European Union and the Middle East. We
have taken quite a lot of evidence in London from people from
different backgrounds. We were here yesterday and saw people both
in the Commission and in the Parliament and we are here in the
Council this morning. I think you have seen some of the issues
which we would like to raise with you and I would like to start,
if I might, and ask you what is your assessment of the European
Union's policy on the Middle East peace process really from the
1990s and how would you describe the current approach of the Union?
Mr Cooper: Personally I go back to the 1980s
with the Venice Declaration and it seems to me that one of the
merits of the EU's approach is that it has been consistent, starting
with essentially its belief that the solution lies in a two-state
solution, and that dates back to the Venice Declaration. I think
the Venice Declaration did not specifically mention states but
it referred to self-determination and the implication of that
was clear. Although policy-making in the European Union can be
a bit laborious it has the merit that when you have made the policy
you tend to stick to it for quite a long time, and that has been
the case here. Essentially the policy is encapsulated in the phrase
"two-state solution". We support people who will work
for two states and that is reflected in the so-called Quartet
principles, with recognition of Israel being a vital element in
all of this. It is reflected also in some of the things that we
try to do on the ground in the Middle East, with more or less
success depending on the circumstances. A large part of the Commission's
spending is aimed at capacity building, specifically the kind
of capacities you need to run a state, and they will have told
you more about that. We ourselves in the Council have tried to
do some of this on the security side as well and you could also
say that the assistance with the crossing point at Rafa is another
part of the picture. States have boundaries and they have borders
and they have to have entry points, so that has been the approach
consistently over the years. Christian might like to add something.
Mr Jouret: First of all, I am sorry but my English
is not very good at all so just a few words in English. Of course
I agree completely with what Robert has said. It has been a consistent
line since the Venice Declaration and that is why today we are
repeating that we stick to the vision of President Bush, but it
was our vision three decades ago, and more so in the last 15 years
ago. About the current approach of the EU vis-a"-vis the
Middle East peace process, I do not know if we can speak today
about a peace process but at least there is an evolution, there
is a development and there is a new Government in the Palestinian
Territories. I think that we are more pragmatic than before and
when I say pragmatic I mean we have progressed towards a certain
recognition of this Government, or at least we believe in the
process. We still do not know if we are going to recognise fully
this Government but we believe in the process, and this is something
essential and this is the difference to what we thought last year,
so nothing has been decided so far but we believe in the process.
We strongly believe that Hamas is not going to disappear off the
Palestinian landscape overnight so we need a transformation. In
a way we need a sort of "corruption"—if I can
use that word in English—through the political progress.
Hamas has to adapt itself to the political process.
Mr Cooper: Perhaps I could just say one word
that I should have said at the beginning and that is to say the
other thing to underline is the extreme interest in this and the
very high political priority that has been attached to the Middle
East for all the time I can remember, beginning with the Venice
Declaration. If one looks at the number of ministerial hours devoted
to discussion of this subject, it probably exceeds I should have
thought anything else over time, although that does not necessarily
bring results.
Q236 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Could I just take up two points there. One, I was very interested
by what you said about Venice because I start there too, as you
do, but it has another characteristic of Venice which is it is
one of the very few occasions on which the European Community
took a position that was in advance of the US administration and
the US administration subsequently has invented it as their position.
That seems to me to have some considerable relevance for the situation
we are in now. The second point is that all the time in our inquiry
it seems to me we come up against one word in the conditions that
are applied to dealing with the Palestinian Authority Government
which gets continually misused and misunderstood and that is the
word "recognition", because in the technical, diplomatic
sense recognition is something that states do of other states,
but the Palestinian Authority is not a state and it therefore
neither has to be recognised nor does it recognise. And at the
same time in the sense we are talking about, the European Union
and its Member States recognise states not governments. So it
seems to me that that is an element of massive confusion. Is there
any way in which this can be sorted out a little bit or presented
a little bit less crudely than it is at the moment?
Mr Cooper: I think you are right that this is
an area of great ambiguity and I think it is a mistake that this
word has been used because I do not think that we are talking
about recognition in the formal diplomatic sense. I am sure even
the Israelis understand that that is what will come at the end
of the process, not at the beginning of it. What we are talking
about is people accepting that there is going to be a state called
Israel. You can argue that this is already implicit in the Government
platform at the moment.
Chairman: Perhaps I could ask Lord Hannay
if he would like to continue.
Q237 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
The Quartet and its operations of course is not a masterpiece
of transparency so outsiders like ourselves and other parliaments
and so on do not get a strong feel for how the European Union
operates in the political process. Has it been a successful, serious
dialogue with the other three partners and, if not, is that because
they have not been prepared to shift their position or listen
to what the European Union has to say or is this something that
is improving now and can we have confidence in the solidity of
the Quartet as the basic method by which we get into a peace process?
Mr Cooper: I think my answer to the last question
would be yes, with a bit of hesitation because things are not
foreseeable. It is partly my experience in the Balkans that has
led me to believe that it is extremely difficult to get two parties
to a quarrel to solve it on their own and you need to bring together
as much as you can in the way of international pressure and support.
You could say that what is missing from the Quartet are the neighbours.
In some respects the UN has been a kind of place-holder for the
neighbours in the Quartet, but at the next meeting of the Quartet
planned in Cairo there will be a meeting with some of the important
neighbours as well. I think that solving these long-standing problems
requires the biggest international coalition that you can put
together. Like many of these things the Quartet's birth was partly
accidental and it has carried on that way but, yes, I think this
is now the principal forum for the international community in
some senses expressing itself. Perhaps I could just make one comment
on Lord Hannay's earlier remark about the Venice Declaration being
in advance of the US position and the US finally having caught
up. That sort of thing still happens today but it happens in a
rather less visible way. One sees it for example some of the language
that the Quartet has used regarding the so-called Quartet principles.
You will find that the EU has used language instead of talking
about conditionality we have talked about "reflecting"
the Quartet principles, which has become a little bit more subtle,
and that has eventually been adopted by the Quartet. There are
still, as always within any group like this, divergences and we
pull each other in different directions, but that involves the
European Union sometimes pulling the USA into a position that
we would consider to be more flexible and more realistic.
Q238 Lord Lea of Crondall:
I think one of the inferences drawn from your exchange there with
Lord Hannay is that the EU can in principle somehow be in advance
of the United States but this is often presented as "what
happens if the EU disagrees with the United States?" The
architecture of the Quartet has the United States and the EU in
some senses equal partners but it is widely put to us that the
special relationship between Israel and the United States means
that there is an asymmetry both in terms of perceived attitudes
toward Palestine and Israel but also, more important almost, the
EU is not a state, it does not have a military capability, et
cetera, and therefore how can we be equal, symmetrical partners
in the Quartet? Could you comment on that?
Mr Cooper: That is a question that goes beyond
this. No, we are not equal partners with the United States. Nobody
is equal to the United States at the moment.
Mr Jouret: The United Nations is not a state
either.
Mr Cooper: I would only say that we come closer
to being equal to the United States when we manage to get our
act together and work together in Europe than we do if individual
Member States do it.
Mr Jouret: The Quartet has a cousin now, the
Arab Quartet, and now we have to find a way to make them play
together, and this is our objective. It is unlikely that a meeting
of the two Quartets will take place in the near future but this
is one of our requests; we want to deal with Arab partners, and
they are more organised today than they were in the past. The
second thing on the Quartet, as Robert said, we are not equal
partners within the Quartet. I must say I was there when the Quartet
was created in 2002. My personal feeling, because there is no
birth certificate of the Quartet—it was endorsed by Kofi
Annan 2002—is that the Quartet was borne out of 9/11, it
is a direct product of 9/11. I have a little story but I do not
know if this is the place to tell you that story. At that point
I participated many times in Quartet meetings and I find a huge
difference between the first meetings of the Quartet and now.
During the first meetings of the Quartet—I mean 2002, 2003
and 2004—there was always a sort of permanent disagreement
between the Europeans and the Americans within the Quartet. The
Russians at that time were a completely silent partner and the
United Nations was always trying to find a common position to
build a bridge between the European position and the American
position. Today this is no longer the situation. We are with the
Americans, we are closer than we used to be in the past, we have
more common positions and it is easier to work. The transatlantic
relationship is better today within the Quartet than it used to
be in the past.
Q239 Lord Chidgey:
I just want to pick up a point that you made, Robert, in answer
to Lord Hannay how quite often it is the case that the EU is ahead
of the US in its thinking and the US is eventually in due course
brought on board. I think I have put it rather crudely but basically
I mean leading the intellectual process in a way. I just wanted
to comment because in the course of our inquiry we have taken
evidence from a lot of witnesses—experts, academics, diplomats—and
the message we keep getting, which obviously needs to be challenged,
is that in their eyes almost the only game in town is the US when
it comes to controlling the aspirations and development of relations
with Israel within the peace process and it is only when we come
to Brussels that we see another side of the coin, which is actually
quite gratifying and encouraging. My question is: why is it that
we do not have in the Maghreb or on the Arab street or on any
other street an understanding of the importance of the role that
the EU is playing, because let us face it, you have to influence
the populations of these regions to get to the solution, not just
diplomacy behind closed doors, so where is it disconnecting?
Mr Cooper: I not sure I am well able to answer
that. Maybe Christian will have something to say. Just to continue
what I am saying, the Quartet is a machinery for mutual influence.
Somewhere over the last period the European Union concluded, perhaps
after the period that Christian described, that there was no solution
without the USA, and that is certainly right—
|
