Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
FRIDAY 23 MARCH 2007
MR ROBERT COOPER AND MR CHRISTIAN JOURET
Q240 Lord Chidgey:
That is completely right.
Mr Cooper: And there is no solution without
Israel and actually over this period EU relations with Israel
have improved quite markedly as well. Why is there so little perception
of the European Union being involved? We are not so easy to see.
The US is very big and very visible and it has one President and
one flag. The European Union has a large number of Member States
who really do operate in convoy in some way on this, but it makes
much less impact clearly. I think there has been a change with
the creation of the post of High Representative where there is
at least one permanent, visible figure who is extremely well-known
in the Middle East, certainly in political circles, and I guess
to a certain extent on the street, but he cannot match the clarity
of power that the US President and Secretary of State have.
Mr Jouret: One thing about the EU being in advance
in comparison with the Americans, I think we must recall that
we have put on the table three main ideas in advance of anybody
else. First, self-determination for the Palestinians, that was
Venice; then the state; and then something probably more important,
a viable state. We have invented that and we have put in the adjective
"viable" and it is essential. Having a state means nothing
if the state is not a viable or independent or even sovereign
state, and this is very important, and everything today turns
around these three principles. I was thinking when you said there
is no solution without the Americans, that is for sure, this is
our idea today and it is a deeply-rooted idea, but there is no
solution without the Europeans as well. Europe is very much appreciated
in Arab countries. There is always disappointment and every day
we have leaders but also people in the street too telling us,
"Please do better, try to take more decisions because we
believe in you, we are neighbours close to each other", you
know, that kind of language.
Mr Cooper: Perhaps in this context it is worth
remarking that the platform of the Palestinian Government refers
in two or three places to the European Union. I do not know whether
that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Mr Jouret: The kiss of death!
Mr Cooper: And it may well have been that they
were doing this to get at the USA, but at any rate there is some
element of recognition of European involvement there.
Q241 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
Going back to not being equal with the United States, the United
States is the only superpower and that is self-evident, but surely
there is a difference between what the Quartet is and what the
Quartet does, and there is a desperate need here, I would have
thought, for an honest broker, which slightly rules out the United
States because I think we have got to talk more than just about
the Palestinians and Israelis; we have got to talk about the Arab
world. Recent actions of the United States have actually made
it quite difficult for them in the rest of the Arab world. Surely
the EU is much better placed to talk to all the parties than the
US is, and should we not be playing a bigger role in all of that?
Just adding on to that, one of the ambassadors we were talking
to said that the EU has now assumed the role of the cheque book.
I am certainly getting the rather strong impression that we immediately
ladle out enormous funds to Palestinians and people and we do
not get an awful lot of influence in return for the money that
we are paying out.
Mr Cooper: On the last question, to be honest,
I am a bit sceptical generally about whether money buys you influence
anyway and I have been very struck by the difference in impact
it made when (I do not know if the term EU COPPS is familiar to
the Committee) EU COPPS began. By the way, perhaps because it
is a House of Lords Committee I might underline that this was,
I thought, a very imaginative initiative by the British Government
which launched this as a British initiative and paid for it to
begin with but in a European framework, and then it formed a kind
of centre of gravity around which various other Europeans were
able to join in. I think it is a very successful example and one
that we would like to see repeated in other places because it
enabled the thing to happen quickly and rather efficiently and
it was done in a way that enabled others to join in and produce
quite a lot of value-added. What I wanted to say was I was quite
struck by the impact it made when initially it was only a dozen
people or so who began being active on the ground as opposed simply
to giving money. The money just disappears and nobody notices
it—sometimes at any rate. As for the question of an honest
broker, I think in a way the Quartet represents a team of brokers.
The UN has always been present as a broker in some way. The United
States are clearly the people who have the confidence of Israel,
insofar as anybody has the confidence of Israel. On the European
side, we have long-standing relationships both with Israel and
with the Palestinians and with other Arab countries. It is for
others to judge how deeply we are trusted on both sides, but now
we see a further broker appearing in Mecca, which is to be welcomed
because I do not think that the problem is going to be solved
just by one set or by one mediator. That is why on the whole I
think the Quartet is a good idea and if it is linked to the Arabs
so much the better.
Q242 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
On that last point actually, you said a moment or two ago that
at the next meeting in Cairo there was going to be a meeting with
the Arab Quartet. Is that something that the EU is pressing for
or that the whole of the original Quartet is pressing for, ie
are the Americans enthusiastic about linking up in this way?
Mr Jouret: Enthusiastic is not the word!
Q243 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
No, I did not think it would be.
Mr Jouret: This idea of having a meeting between
the two Quartets is probably one of our ideas. Javier Solana mentioned
several times during his last trip last week in the region (and
he will tell you that probably later on) the idea of including
not only the Americans but including the Saudis. I believe today
that it is probably a bit early to have a meeting of the two Quartets
for maybe two reasons. First, the Arab Quartet is more of a label
for the moment, it has no real activity, they do not really meet.
The Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Emirates of course have
contact behind this Arab Quartet with more Arab countries but
those Arab countries do not want to appear publicly. They are
ready to finance several things like Kuwait for example, but they
do not want to be an official part of the Arab Quartet so they
are not well-prepared for the moment, but something is moving
in the Arab world and we have to use that new tool. Yes, to answer
your question, we would like to have a meeting. First we requested
a meeting in Egypt, that was our idea, and, secondly, we would
like to have a meeting with the Arab Quartet, and that will probably
come later.
Q244 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
I am sorry, I am not quite sure whether you are saying you want
it Quartet to Quartet or you want it EU to Arab Quartet.
Mr Jouret: No, Quartet to Quartet.
Q245 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Right. Where is the Arab League in that?
Mr Jouret: The Arab League is not involved in
that.
Q246 Lord Lea of Crondall:
On the Quartet one cannot help thinking about the metaphor of
a musical quartet where one has a first violin, a second violin,
a viola and a cello and yet together they make up a wonderful
string quartet as in Beethoven or whatever. Should we think of
this as not everybody agreeing with each other but playing complementary
instruments? In the Arab Quartet there are Shia, Sunni and all
the rest of it. How would you characterise the nature of these
Quartets in that sense?
Mr Cooper: It is true without going too far
into the metaphor that in the Quartet they are often playing slightly
different tunes at the same time.
Mr Jouret: Like in Europe!
Mr Cooper: First of all, one should not take
that metaphor too far. As Christian said, for the Arab Quartet
it is not clear that there is a real existence in the way that
there is in the Quartet proper but the real point is that there
are some very important players on the Arab side, notably Egypt
and Saudi Arabia and of course Jordan, who is the immediate neighbour
and is automatically concerned by whatever happens, but the Saudis
in particular have played a very important role recently. I do
think that involving the neighbours and the regional parties is
the thing that has been missing from the Quartet, so finding some
stronger linkage to the Arabs, who must be a part of the solution.
There is the Saudi Beirut initiative for example and that also
is one element of the solution, so I think that it is very good
that they are involved and have become closer.
Q247 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Can I ask one question on that, who are their point people? Are
they using their ministers or are they using people like Mark
Arch, who I think is absolutely fantastic at what he does? Are
they doing it government-to-government and are they doing it through
those sorts of people?
Mr Jouret: You mean the Arab Quartet?
Q248 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Yes, the Arabs?
Mr Jouret: I do not know if they meet as our
Quartet meet. Usually it is at the level of foreign ministers
but it is not a regular structure.
Q249 Chairman:
How far do you feel the European Union has a balanced approach
with regards to the different parties to the conflict? Do you
feel that the European Union should perhaps take a stronger stance
on key issues? We have touched on this already but there might
be something that you would want to add.
Mr Cooper: I would say, yes, almost by definition
we have a balanced approach. That is what everybody always says
about their approach. You find out afterwards whether it was really
true or not! It is a little bit in the nature of the European
Union though because we are 27 Member States, and different Member
States have different angles, that we are more likely than anybody
else in the world to have a balanced approach. It is quite unlikely
to find the European Union rushing widely off in any direction.
Maybe that is a fault.
Q250 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
If I could just pick up from that. In the evidence we have taken
we had a rather interesting occasion in which we asked the same
question to the Egyptian ambassador in London and then to the
Syrian ambassador in London and the Syrian ambassador gave us
an absolutely classical reply that, "We want the EU to do
more because we want them to be on our side." Down the decades
it was the perfectly obvious answer which to me seems to be a
recipe for futility.
Mr Cooper: Yes.
Q251 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
And the Egyptian ambassador replied to a question of, "Do
you understand that if the EU becomes more involved, particularly
in the final status issues, they are bound to take a position
with which you will sometimes disagree and which will not be very
palatable to you, because otherwise we will have no viability
with the Israeli side, and in any case that is the way peace deals
are cut?" "Yes, we do understand that and we still want
the EU to be a party." Could you comment on how if this famous
phrase "political horizons" is to assume a somewhat
more concrete shape the EU might start to identify elements of
the final status negotiations? Is it ready to step on to that
territory?
Mr Cooper: I think the answer to the second
question is yes. The question is whether the parties are ready
to do that. At the moment this is a question which Javier himself
will be much better equipped to answer, but my feeling is the
moment that conditions on the ground are ready we have a pretty
clear idea about where the settlement will be, as I think many
people do actually. But, yes, we would be ready to move on to
final status.
Mr Jouret: Just one thing which is obvious for
everyone: everything is on the table and we know what the end
game is and what will be the final status for the Palestinian
Territories. With the Clinton parameters, with Camp David, with
the Taba Agreement, everything is there and there is no need to
reinvent the wheel, we have everything.
Q252 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
Could we just briefly talk about Iraq because Baker-Hamilton said
that Syria and Iran should be involved and initially President
Bush ruled that out and said no they are pariah states. That is
now changing and so the only format it seems to me where all these
people might meet is on Iraq. Is the EU linking in with that?
Are they sitting at the same table, because unless we actually
talk to Iran and Syria we are going to get nowhere on this. They
have got to be part of any settlement and agreement, have they
not, of the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis?
Mr Cooper: Syria clearly is a part of that.
I am not so sure about Iran. I think we would see it as undesirable.
Iran has not played a constructive role at all. In fact, Iran
is about the only country in the region that rejects a two-state
solution. So clearly they are a player but they are one that we
would rather not have involved.
Q253 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
Can I just come back on that. If they go on supplying Hezbollah
in the Lebanon then they are going to be able to disrupt anything,
so can we rule them out?
Mr Cooper: No, they have a capacity to make
trouble, that is absolutely right.
Q254 Lord Tomlinson:
If I could move on to the next question; with the state of play
and relations between the Quartet and the Palestinian Unity Government
we are continuing to bypass the Government and channel aid through
the Temporary International Mechanism. Is there not a risk that
this will further weaken the Palestinian administration and are
we in danger of moving towards a failed state in Palestine and,
if so, what if anything do you think the EU can do to reverse
that trend?
Mr Cooper: The Palestinian administration is
indeed in extremely poor shape and, yes, there is a risk of a
failed state before you get to a state. We broadly have welcomed
the formation of the Government for National Unity and, as Christian
said earlier, we are not yet doing business with it as such but
it itself is in a process and I think we are in a process as well
which is going to evolve over the next month also. I agree with
you that we need to ask the question about all of the things we
do about delivery of aid, about whether this strengthens or weakens
the prospect of a state, but at the same time we need not just
a state but we need a state which is committed to a two-state
solution, committed to non-violent means of pursuing that, and
so we do not want to abandon the principles immediately. As usual
in diplomacy there is a balancing act going on.
Q255 Lord Tomlinson:
But in the way that you seem to be suggesting that you are nuancing
the Quartet principles, do you think that is in any way increasing
the likelihood that the Temporary International Mechanism will
no longer be needed as the main mechanism for aid to the Palestinians?
Mr Cooper: The most desirable state would be
to have a Palestinian Authority that functioned well, that we
were doing business with on a normal basis and we could channel
our aid through that, and that is where we would like to be. Perhaps
the other thing that is worth saying is that the role that we
may play in the weakness of the Palestinian administration is
a very minor one. What creates the terrible conditions in the
West Bank and Gaza are the roadblocks and the failure of the Israelis
to hand over the money that they have collected in customs dues.
Those are really the big things. We attempt to move those things
forward from time to time without very much success, but those
are the things that are creating the possibility of a failed state
there, and I think that actually all people in the region, including
Israel, who have an interest in order and peace in the region,
ought to be alarmed at the prospect of chaos in the Territories.
Q256 Lord Crickhowell:
Moving on to the fifth question I really want to take it in two
parts and we are onto process again. Have up to this point any
of the EU's policies or activities had the effect of increasing
the divide, the factionalism and the rivalries in Palestine between
Fatah and Hamas? Have we by our approach so far actually made
things worse?
Mr Cooper: Certainly not intentionally, not
knowingly. I am tempted to say one answer to the question is we
might have done that by encouraging elections and by monitoring
them.
Q257 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Exactly.
Mr Cooper: But I still think in spite of the
messy way that things have proceeded that elections were right,
that some kind of political renewal was needed and is needed in
Fatah still, and the only way you get that is through elections
and through a political process. Elections were remarkably well
conducted. I also think that we need to take account of that fact
in our dealings with the National Unity Government.
Q258 Lord Crickhowell:
That takes me to my second question on the next stage of the process.
We had the elections and we may not have entirely liked the result
but there it is, we are living with it, and talking to the Commission
yesterday we were presented with three scenarios—full engagement,
because the three principles have been accepted; selective engagement,
which as I understood it meant talking to Fatah ministers but
not Hamas ministers; and then if the actions are all too dangerous
and difficult no contact at all with the ministers. At the end
of our meeting I said it does seem to be a pretty dangerous process.
I admit I come from something rather different which is a government
that believed in collective administration but they have formed
a government and you are only talking to some ministers, you might
persuade Hamas that this is rather a good idea to move on but
you might have the opposite effect which is actually to create
a friction. How do you see that developing?
Mr Cooper: Here perhaps I should say that I
speak rather on a personal basis because these are questions which
are new and are under discussion and we have not yet had a discussion
at the level of the Council since the formation of the National
Unity Government. There will be a discussion at the Gymnich meeting
in about 10 days' time and there will be some sorting out then.
I think that the options are actually much greater than three
because of course you have different ways of doing business and
there are different levels you can approach people on and people
have different degrees of recognition that you can give. Personally,
I think we should be a little bit careful about saying we are
prepared to do business with one half of the Government and not
the other because we have, after all, been urging the Palestinians
to form a National Unity Government and, again personally, I think
that is probably a condition of the peace settlement in the end.
First, the Palestinians need to get their act together and then
they need to negotiate with Israel. Our only reservation is that
we need the Palestinians to get their act together in a way that
enables a negotiation with Israel rather than one which closes
it off, and that is why we are in this delicate balancing act
that we are at the moment.
Q259 Lord Tomlinson:
Can I just pursue with one small supplementary that question because
it strikes me from the discussion that we have had so far that
while there is a willingness to speak and to channel aid through
some ministries, those that are led by Fatah ministers or independents,
that those that are led by Fatah ministers are led by ministers
from a party that is perceived as being corrupt and that we therefore
seem to be willing to deal with the corrupt part of the administration.
Mr Cooper: As far as finance is concerned, the
central figure is Fayyad who is seen as being probably not the
single incorrupt man in this organisation but he certainly has
a very good reputation. I think perhaps the other point I would
make is I actually do not think that aid is really the central
issue in this. I think that it is really about political recognition
in the non-formal diplomatic sense. I do not have the impression
that there is really a big shortage of money in this area. If
the Government of National Unity works the Saudis are said to
have offered large sums of money. At the Rafah crossing point
we regularly find people with suitcases full of money. The aid
is a part of the story and but it is not the central part of the
story and the real question is about political recognition.
| 
