Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 318)
THURSDAY 29 MARCH 2007
HIS EXCELLENCY DR ODED ERAN AND MRS TALYA LADOR-FRESHER
Q300 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Question five opens up two distinct aspects. One is how does Israel
see the European Union as an actor politically? Is it only seen
as a member of the Quartet? Apart from the Quartet, other countries
and the US have bilateral dealings. Secondly, do some European
countries play their role more through bilateral procedures, Britain,
France, Germany and so on?
His Excellency Dr Eran: I hope that being candid
will not harm my ability to perform in Brussels. Israeli/European
relations have gone through different stages. The Jewish European
experience is a very rich one on the one hand and also very difficult.
In 2,000 years we have had a very interesting dialogue which is
rich with cross-fertilization. We also had Pogroms and violence
against the Jewish community in Europe culminating in the Holocaust
of course but also in modern history Israel was deserted at two
existential junctures in 1967 and 1973 by European countries.
That left a scar on the minds of Israelis. However, in recent
years I have seen a very important improvement in the bilateral
relations between the EU and Israel and the growing confidence
of Israel in the EU in the context of the peace process. You are
now seeing Europeans in Rafah on the border with Gaza and Egypt.
You now see Europeans, not as the EU, but as Europeans in Lebanon.
There is a more intensive, more open dialogue between the Israeli
political leadership and that of Europe. All sides to the conflict
in the Middle East accept the leading role of the United States.
This is also acceptable in Brussels to the extent that there is
now a process. Everyone is involved but obviously one can see
that the EU is taking a role. There are many reasons for it. The
European political aspect started to develop long after 1967 and
1973 wars and even after 1978-9. This was when the peace with
Egypt was reached in which the US took their leading role and
the efforts to which I have alluded in 1999/2000. The Quartet
is a very important mechanism in my view and it allows a greater
coordination which is very important. It is very important not
to send to the parties in the Middle East different messages and
create different expectations. I would say that when there is
a more comprehensive process than we see today, there will be
a need for a clearer division of labour between Europe and the
US. In a very crude way, I would say that there is the political
side of the negotiations but there is also another aspect, which
to a large extent was neglected in Camp David and continues to
be neglected, and that is the non-political issue. Let us say
that there is an agreed solution to the Palestinian refugees,
and obviously no matter what the solution is, all of them with
no exception will have to be absorbed somewhere.
Q301 Lord Lea of Crondall:
That particular characterisation, your Excellency, is exactly
what some people, particularly in the community, are known to
think is asymmetrical. They do not like the idea that America
is there to run the politics and Europe is there to run something
else. Given what they see as the asymmetry of the political process,
therefore, that the Americans are taking the lead in the Quartet
on the political process, they say why does the European Union
not occasionally—Mr Solana, et cetera—go some inches
ahead of the Americans, why not?
His Excellency Dr Eran: Most of them go to Washington
when they have a problem rather than to Brussels, that is the
reality, we may not like it but this is the situation. I have
to admit here, as an observer in Brussels, the fact that many
of the foreign ministers wish to go separately to the Middle East
does not help to create the perception of a unified European position.
Recently I saw a very interesting development, and from my point
of view very positive, when Solana went to Damascus and was speaking
on behalf of the EU, and hopefully the 27 foreign ministers will
allow Solana to continue the dialogue with Damascus rather than
trying to do it themselves. We do have a situation in Jerusalem
where you have in the morning one foreign minister, in the afternoon
another foreign minister and then the following morning you have
Mr Solana, so one can assume that it does not help the posture
of the EU as a unified force. I hope I have been sufficiently
diplomatic.
Q302 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
Were you quite comfortable with Mr Solana volunteering to give
back the Golan Heights which is largely considered part of Damascus?
His Excellency Dr Eran: He did not formulate
it exactly as you put it! I spoke to him and others who went earlier
to Damascus, especially after the war in Lebanon last summer,
and I said, "You cannot deliver and promise land". I
think that Dr Solana does understand the difference between saying,
"That is the right of Damascus", and saying, "I
will make Israel deliver the Golan Heights". By the way,
if I may, I want to add a sentence on the issue of the negotiations
with the Syrians because there was a lot of commotion in the international
press. Even if we assume that the Syrians are genuine in their
wish to negotiate a settlement with Israel, and it is not a ploy
to try and rehabilitate their stature or perceptions in the international
community, I would still say that Israel should not negotiate
right now with the Syrians and I put my finger at the present.
I had long arguments with the then Prime Minister Barak on this
issue when suddenly in November 1999, once the negotiations with
the Palestinians had started, he turned to negotiate with the
Syrians. I strongly argued with him on this issue and I maintain
the same position now. Let us say if we start negotiations with
Syria they will take, in my view, at least a year. Although the
issues are different—there are no refugees, there is no
Jerusalem, only the issue of territory and normalisation—it
will take a year. Every prime minister since the late Prime Minister
Rabin said that the results of these negotiations will go to a
referendum, that is another year. Removing the settlers from the
Golan Heights, given the not so positive experience with those
from Gaza, will take another two years, so four years. The Israeli
public opinion, Israeli body politic cannot sustain two sets of
negotiations, one with Syria and one with the Palestinians. In
my view, the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and we should direct all our efforts to solve this issue
and then solve the issue with Syria and, therefore, we should
delay for the time being the discussions or the negotiations with
Syria.
Q303 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Your Excellency, the focus of the Committee is at two levels,
the macro-level, the role which the European Union can play on
the major issues, and also, of course, those instruments which
the EU can deploy effectively in hoping to bring the peace process
forward. One point on the macro one, do you accept that there
are downsides also to relying only or mainly on the US because
it depends, therefore, on perceptions within the US? For example,
there was a fall effectively in opposition to the Clinton pressure,
the Bush Administration diverted its attention from that for four
years or more and, as we move into the US presidential campaign,
presumably the pressure will lessen. Now that Israel has a warmer
link with the EU the days of the Venice Declaration are in the
past. Does Israel see that the EU can play a larger role?
His Excellency Dr Eran: As I said, there is
a marked difference in the Israeli attitude to the EU and I also
believe in the EU attitude towards Israel. There is now, what
I called elsewhere, a civilised dialogue between the two, meaning
the differences, which are major issues, are still there but they
can be discussed. By the way, these differences may also appear
with the United States once we go into meaningful, serious negotiations
with the Palestinians. The answer in short: yes, I do see a more
meaningful role for the EU. That will require obviously an internal
improvement in the way the EU performs and, as we all know, there
is still a long way to go on this issue. The failure of the constitution
did not help, because one of the major issues in the constitution
was the creation of a foreign minister in the EU. I am not going
into the debate, by the way, I am just making an observation whether
Europe should have a constitution or not. I want to submit to
you, your Lordship, that you cannot have two drivers in this case,
you need to have a clear division of labour. If the US, for whatever
reason, abandons or wishes to abandon the traditional role we
had this would create a different situation but this conflict
is too delicate, too complicated. Therefore, I emphasise the importance
of the Quartet because this is the mechanism whereby the two can
co-ordinate and create an understanding of who does what at what
point in time and therefore this is a very important mechanism.
Beyond the Quartet meetings and deliberations I know there is
more than that in the co-ordination between Solana and the Administration
which I think is very useful and very important.
Q304 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
If there is a division of labour then what part is devolved to
the EU?
His Excellency Dr Eran: First of all, this would
have to be decided, as I said, between the US and the EU. Secondly,
we need to see how the process, once it is there, is evolving.
Thirdly, there are various issues, as I said. I understand that
the non-political issues are not as juicy or glamorous as the
political issue, but I submit to you that they are no less important
in the solution of this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, maybe more.
From my experience as a negotiator, I can tell you that both sides
will go to war over a well of water as if we were in the first
century AD, not the 21st century AD and, therefore, the solution
to this particular issue is no less important than deciding where
exactly the border will pass.
Q305 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
When he came to see us the Egyptian Ambassador described the EU
as a chequebook in terms of we were financing what was going on
there, and maybe we did not have much political influence.
His Excellency Dr Eran: I beg to differ with
him, I strongly differ with him. I think the EU as is now known,
and I gave two great examples, has a presence on the border. The
TIM mechanism, by the way, is almost purely European in its creation
and the way it functions. The presence in Lebanon, which is a
very important one, is not directly connected with the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but it is a sign of the growing Israeli confidence in
Europe, and once again I go back to the Quartet, so I beg to differ
with the Egyptian Ambassador, with all due respect.
Q306 Lord Janner of Braunstone:
First, thank you very much for inviting me to join the Committee.
I have been heavily involved in these issues for a very long time.
I would like to ask the Ambassador, first of all, whether there
is any hope at all of any advance towards peace with Hamas as
part of the Palestinian Government? I ask this with a very good
friend of mine who is a leader of Fatah who is back into their
government. You said you cannot have two drivers, which I am sure
is correct, but there is a great Arab saying that with one hand
we alone cannot clap and if you have got a government in Palestine
where there are two lots of people who do not agree, one of whom
will not even admit the existence of the State of Israel, do you
see any hope of peace in the near future or even in the distance?
His Excellency Dr Eran: Lord Janner, I do see
hope. I am telling you from my own experience that if you look
at the developments ever since 1967 and 1973, they are all leading
me to the conclusion that peace will prevail in our region. It
took Arafat 24 years; the PLO had been created in 1964, until
in 1988 Arafat accepted Security Council Resolution 242, 24 years,
but he did accept the resolution. It took another five years before
we got to the Oslo agreements but we did reach mutual recognition.
Q307 Lord Janner of Braunstone:
Then what did you do?
His Excellency Dr Eran: Then there was a serious
decline, but the fact is that we are still speaking to the Palestinians.
You can throw at me all the list of the bad things that happened
from terror to violence to withholding taxes to settlements, everything,
but we are speaking. I think the fact that you have the moderate
Arab camp actively involved, which was not the case seven years
ago, in Camp David, is a very positive element. The Israeli public
opinion went through a tremendous change in attitudes toward the
solution—what was totally unacceptable 10 years ago is now
acceptable. I think that the changes will occur on the Palestinian
side, they will not take 24 years to happen and, therefore, what
we need to do is to keep the line that was applied, or the policy
which was applied by the international community, which I think
brought small, not sufficient, but some changes. In the platform
that I cited there is a reference to previous agreements, I cannot
deny that, it is not drafted in the way you and I would draft
it, but it is there. There is a beginning of movement and eventually
they will get there, we just need to continue to exert the pressure
to do that without, I repeat, punishing innocent people. Therefore,
I maintain that there will be peace in our time between us and
the Palestinians, and normalisation with the Arab world. If you
had told my late parents that I would be the second Israeli Ambassador
to Jordan they would have sent you to a psychiatrist, but I was.
Q308 Chairman:
I think I can assume from that you would feel partial re-engagement
with the Government, an element of which the European Union is
now exploring, might be a useful way of encouraging moderation?
His Excellency Dr Eran: The Israeli Government
took a different position, as you know.
Q309 Chairman:
I am aware of that.
His Excellency Dr Eran: Now I am being paid
to make the Israeli position clear! I think that every avenue
should be used in order to tell the Hamas part of the Government
that they ought to accept what the Fatah Government part has already
accepted in the past.
Q310 Lord Crickhowell:
Could I come back to what the EU should be doing, the EU instruments.
When we were in Brussels last week I think there was total agreement
with those we talked to in the various EU institutions about the
lead role of the United States. It was felt that in the Quartet
in the whole process of drafting and so on, perhaps there was
a part the EU could play in shifting the position in the United
States, but I do not think there is any disagreement that it is
in the Quartet and that role is best played. I turn then to the
other things that the EU might be doing. Clearly, the EU played
a useful role in the election process by supervising it in Palestine.
Is a focus on the reform of the Palestinian institutions and capacity-building
of the Palestinian Administration enough to make a real difference
in the prospects for peace? What do you think are the weaknesses
of EU assistance in this area? What progress is there, for example,
in the security sector? Having concentrated and said the real
role of the EU is probably with the instruments, would you like
to comment on what perhaps the EU might be doing more or better
with the use of the instruments?
His Excellency Dr Eran: Here is the dilemma:
on the one hand, it is clear that every peace process and every
agreement between us and the Palestinians and its implementation
will depend to a large extent on the performance of the two governments.
In this case, we speak about the Palestinian Government and, therefore,
the building of healthy governance on the Palestinian side is
important, but that clashes right now with the formation of this
government. Therefore, what should the EU do? Reform only the
ministries which are under the control of Fatah ministers and
abandon the other ministries, because they are under the control
of Hamas ministers? Therefore, I suggest that the efforts should
be delayed. I think the ground should be laid for that in preparation
for the day when there is a government which meets the benchmarks
required by the international community. There could be a discussion
with the presidency, those who will discuss things with Salam
Fayyad, will discuss them with him, but I think that the whole
question is, if you want to be credible you ought to maintain
a very clear line on the issue of not dealing with Hamas people
and you cannot have it both ways because otherwise this policy
is going to fail very clearly. You cannot draw the line if tomorrow
morning there is a Hamas minister coming and you say to him, "I
will discuss only the reforms with you but, God forbid, I will
not discuss any of the peace process issues with you", it
will not work, in my view. It will totally erase any credibility
from that position and, therefore, assuming we accept that only
pressure will bring change in the attitude of the government,
then we have to maintain it.
Q311 Lord Crickhowell:
You interestingly addressed an issue which I probed quite hard
about in Brussels. Having served in an administration that believed
in collective responsibility, it is quite difficult to envisage
a situation where you agree to talk to one lot of ministers but
will not have anything to do with another lot of ministers. There
are those probably in the Commission, particularly, who think
that is the line which should be taken; there are others we detected
in Brussels who think one should begin at least to move to talk
to the administration as a whole. You are arguing, I think, that,
no, the pressure has got to be maintained by being absolutely
firm, you cannot talk to them as if they are a collective administration,
you are not prepared to have anything to do with the Hamas group
which will not acknowledge the three principles, that is where
you stand.
His Excellency Dr Eran: I maintain that, I repeat
myself, once you have holes in the policy, the policy will collapse
eventually and you will not get the desired result. This is the
position the Israeli Government took but I realise when, for example,
Salam Fayyad, the minister of finance, comes to town he will be
met. We also drew the line ourselves because the Israeli Government
will meet those who met the Fatah ministers in Ramallah but will
not meet those who met the Prime Minister who is from Hamas. We
also drew a certain line between Hamas and non-Hamas members of
the Government, but it is not the meetings that I am referring
to, I am speaking about the policy and how do you deal with the
question you raised, which is an important issue, the reforms
in the Palestinian Government and how do you deal with the security
issue, which brings me to another mission of the EU, the EU COPPS.
The EU COPPS was created when there was a Fatah Government and
we went along with it. There was a need for us to go because we
needed to grant the immunities and to allow duty-free entry of
the vehicles in the service of the EU COPPS, so we went along
with this but now the question is, what exactly is the mission
or with whom is it implemented? Is the EU going to co-operate
and work with security forces which belong to Hamas? I think it
is inconceivable.
Q312 Lord Crickhowell:
You say, "We believe in democracy", but as soon as the
vote goes against the way you would like it to go, you are not
going to have any real ongoing discussions to make democracy work.
His Excellency Dr Eran: Because democracy is
not the only value you are looking for when you are dealing with
the peace process, democracy is not sufficient, as we see elsewhere.
You need to meet other criteria and if you do not meet them it
will be very difficult for the international community to co-operate.
Q313 Chairman:
Perhaps I could raise the question with you, your Excellency,
on the question of the Euro-Med partnership and how that has been
helpful, in particular whether Israel's engagement with the European
Union through the association agreement and the European Neighbourhood
Policy has proved of value and how far has it affected the approaches
to the Middle East peace process. You have alluded to this already,
but is there anything else that you feel it would be useful to
say?
His Excellency Dr Eran: I would like to dwell
on this issue, with your permission, because I think it is very
important and related to the role of the EU in the peace process.
The Barcelona Process was born in 1995 as part of the euphoria
we all went through in the post-Oslo era and it was a very useful
mechanism or initiative. To this very day some of this significance
is still there. That is the only forum of which I can think that
Israeli ministers and officials sit around the same table with
those from Syria and Lebanon, with whom we certainly do not have
any diplomatic relations. Therefore, even if that is the only
purpose it serves, it serves a very important purpose. It went
even further than that in trying to create some sort of economic
relations between all of the Mediterranean countries, which is
a process still going on and this is very important. However,
I have two important reservations. First, it became too politicised
and it has been very difficult to leave aside the politics and
concentrate only on the co-operation issues. Secondly, a policy
which treats such a large group of countries on the same basis
is bound not to fail, but to be less attractive to those involved
in it. Therefore, in Israel we found the ENP, the European Neighbourhood
Policy, a very important addition and especially the willingness
of the EU to adopt the principle of differentiality, which we
think is a very important element. It allows the EU and Morocco,
for example, to develop their bilateral relations in a way which
befits the wishes and capabilities of Morocco which have very
little to do with those of Lebanon, or Egypt for that matter.
It allows for more than one speed in the way the EU handles its
relations with its neighbours. It is not a substitute for Barcelona,
it is a complementary addition. Israel looks at the Barcelona
Process as a very important vehicle and a very important policy.
In my view, it has to be invigorated, and it can be, and there
should be an attempt to eliminate some of the politicising of
the mechanism. Therefore, in my view, both the Barcelona Process
and the ENP are very important tools of the EU to strengthen the
relations. Indirectly, the fact that we do meet together does
help to increase the idea of normalisation and the acceptance
of every side of the conflict and, therefore, I repeat, these
are very important instruments.
Q314 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Your Excellency, you have said that people ought to be careful
to keep their eye on the ball of the central issue in the Middle
East peace process, which is Israel-Palestine. However, we have
taken evidence from a wide range of people now, we are halfway
through our inquiry, and more and more people are finding inescapable
that wider issues in the Middle East impinge in various ways on
this, the new Arab Quartet includes the Gulf Co-Operation Council,
for example, and the geography of the Gulf and the perceptions
from there will be influenced by a number of other considerations.
Would you, your Excellency, perhaps comment on the different ways
in which the wider geography and the wider perceptions from different
geographical backgrounds are going to affect how the EU sees what
it might call the Middle East peace process?
His Excellency Dr Eran: I was in Qatar last
week and my distinct impression was that the number one issue
on their agenda is the threats by Iran. You sense it in the air,
you read it in the newspapers, you listen to the conversation
and obviously this is a number one issue. It brought them also
to be more active in the peace process between Israel and the
Palestinians This they do in order to create a unified camp in
an attempt to remove the one issue which is creates a domestic
problem for them in the absence of a solution, so I think this
is a very important factor. Beyond that, you have now a situation
where some—I am not so sure I accept their view—are
maintaining that a nuclear Iran would have a devastating effect
on the prospects of a successful peace process because the argument
is that Iran will prevent any agreement just by threat. Already
now you have the long arm of Iran in the form of Hezbollah in
Lebanon and the indirect support they give to Hamas and they obviously
are involved elsewhere in the region. The negative influence of
Iran and other fundamentalist forces in the region are having
a serious impact. There is one issue which is you do have then
increasing economic gaps, increasing poverty and increasing unemployment
as serious issues which have an effect on the stability of regimes
in the region. These issues are not lost on the minds of those
who are dealing with them in Brussels. The EU, more than any other
international factor, because of geography, is paying attention
to these issues, certainly more than the United States.
Q315 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Is the lesson that a lot of people will be drawing—and the
one you have implied but not stated because it is a paradox—that
you think the Gulf people, for example, will put more pressure
on Israel as well as other friends to get a solution to Israel-Palestine
in order that Iran can be isolated, but it will mean that the
Gulf, for example, will put more pressure on Israel? Is that not
an inference?
His Excellency Dr Eran: It is and, therefore,
we were very careful not to respond totally negatively to the
initiative. If you read the speeches made by the Israeli Prime
Minister, he made a very important speech at the memorial for
Ben-Gurion and then there was a government resolution on this
issue, trying not to totally reject the Arab initiative, which
in its origin was a Saudi initiative, and to point to some of
the positive elements in it because we understand the sensitive
situation in the Middle East. We cannot, on the other hand, close
our eyes to the serious differences we have with some of the elements,
but we wanted to encourage indirect dialogue between us and the
moderate Gulf countries. It is a very difficult operation. I know
that there is talk about meeting with the Arab Quartet and the
international Quartet but it has to be crafted very carefully
so both sides do not get disappointed. We need, once again, to
orchestrate it and structure it in such a way which will not be
counter-productive and damaging. Obviously there is a very interesting
process going on and we do realise the stakes in the region. Once
again, in this respect as well, the EU can be very helpful. I
was a witness to a conversation where our Prime Minister asked
Dr Solana to try and bring the meeting, which we are now talking
about, so things are obviously moving and one has to encourage
them on the one hand, but make sure that they do not fail on the
other hand.
Q316 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Your Excellency, you have said that the Israel-Palestine dimension
is the key matter and we should focus almost exclusively on that.
There are others who look more broadly and say there is a sufficient
nexus between the different parts of the area, that there should,
at least, be some recognition of that in terms of seeking tradeoffs
on a more comprehensive basis bringing in Iraq and Iran. Do you
reject that entirely?
His Excellency Dr Eran: Not at all. I think
that, in principle, there is no reason to exclude Iran and Iraq.
The problem we have with Iran is that the current policies are
irreconcilable with what we want to achieve. Iran is a very important
element in regional stability and in regional development but,
once again, how can you co-operate with a government which adopts
policies that are totally destructive to what we want to achieve.
Here is, by the way, another example: from the beginning Israel
supported the efforts of the EU 3 and the diplomatic efforts to
reach a solution to the crisis on the nuclear programme of Iran,
we continue to do that and we believe that what you see now is
the beginning of the impact of the sanctions. I submit to you
that we have not exhausted even 50% of potential sanctions so
obviously that is the way to continue.
Q317 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
Surely, at the end of the day Iraq is key to whether Iran behaves
in a more responsible way because that is where they have a clear
vested interest as to whether they want complete chaos in their
neighbouring country or not? You have described the negative forces
and I imagine that includes Iran and Syria. I would suggest to
you that the ability of Iran and Syria to be negative is far greater
than the ability of—I do not know—the Gulf Co-Operation
Council in Jordan to be positive, which presupposes there is such
a thing as Arab unity which I have never observed anywhere and
neither have you. I strongly disagree with your chronology, I
do not think that the first thing which is likely to happen or
should happen is an agreement between Israel and Palestine, I
think you have to square the negative operators, who are Iran
and Syria because, let us face it, part of that deal of squaring
them would be to do something about Hezbollah in Lebanon which
is a serious threat to Israel today. If you could get them to
lead on a Palestinian Government then I suspect they would be
much more effective than these so-called Arab unity people who
come from the Gulf and with whom most of them have nothing in
common whatsoever.
His Excellency Dr Eran: It is a very interesting
debate. First of all, I would not lump the negative potential
of Syria with that of Iran because I think that Syria does create
a serious problem by hosting all the Palestinian rejectionist
factions in Damascus by aiding and assisting Hezbollah and Hamas,
but it is easier to change the policy of Damascus than that of
Iran. After all, Syria is an Arab and a Sunni state, not that
religion is so strong in Syria but it is a Sunni state. It is
susceptible to Arab pressures and to international pressures,
and I think that they are in a totally different situation from
Iran and they can be won over, but that would not change the nuclear
programme of Iran. Even if tomorrow morning you somehow separated
Syria from Iran it would not affect Iranian determination to pursue
the nuclear option. Therefore, I am not against the efforts to
separate Syria from Iran and I think that they should continue,
provided we do it in a sophisticated way, and it can be done.
Also I do not think the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
has anything to do with Iraq, or with Iran for that matter. They
will not have any impact on the situation in Iraq. The situation
in Iraq has a bearing on—
Q318 Lord Hamilton of Epsom:
But Iraq is bringing them together?
His Excellency Dr Eran: Yes, Iraq does, I am
not so sure to what extent. All of the Arab countries, one after
the other, are concerned about the consequences of Iraq for several
reasons, and several good reasons, because if it continues to
be destabilised, as it is, it will obviously turn into a source
of troubles elsewhere in the region. Secondly, the territorial
integrity of Iraq is also very important in its impact on future
development in the region. Therefore, the maintenance of Iraq
as one political unit is of paramount importance to stability
in the region, no matter how difficult it would be to maintain
that. In my view, if it does not happen it will open a big Pandora's
box not a small one, a big one. So there is an indirect influence
of what happens in Iraq on other developments in the immediate
region, I do not think it matters in North Africa, for example,
but it does matter in the immediate vicinity. The failure to maintain
one Iraq may unleash forces which really will throw the region
into serious turmoil in the Gulf and elsewhere. Iran is a serious
threat of a different nature, of course, and there is a big debate
whether the policies that all of us are pursuing are aimed at
the end of the nuclear programme or are we also looking at regime
change in Iran, and are the two necessarily connected and linked?
This is a very important issue. Obviously there are two timetables
involved because if we do not know when the regime change is going
to occur we cannot wait for that because the nuclear clock is
ticking, and ticking very quickly, and so these are issues that
we need to grapple with and are very important.
Chairman: Your Excellency, thank you
very much indeed. You really have given us a great deal this morning
and we feel we have kept you here longer than we normally would
because we have benefited so much from your wisdom and experience.
Certainly, what we have learnt this morning and taken as evidence
will be of great value to us in preparing our report and I hope
you feel it has been worthwhile to have come over from Brussels
for this meeting. We are also grateful to Mrs Lador-Fresher for
all the work she did to make this morning possible, but we are
particularly grateful to you, your Excellency, for having come
and spoken to us in this way.
|
