Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 359)
WEDNESDAY 18 APRIL 2007
DR KIM HOWELLS, MR DAVID QUARREY AND MR MICHAEL ANDERSON
Q340 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Just to characterise it this way, you are saying that the US is
in the lead, the rest of the Quartet are happy that the US is
in the lead, the Arab League is happy that the US is in the lead
and the idea that somehow the Arabs are wanting the EU to play
a more prominent role, which is code for saying having its own
agenda which does not necessarily have to be the same as the American
agenda, that is not the position that we are now advocating.
Dr Howells: From talking to Aba Moussa, for
example, and others, it is quite clear that they want coherence,
they want to know what the position is, I do not think they want
to see Europe intervening in some way that is going to disrupt
this applecart that I have just tried to describe, but they are
savvy enough to know that there are differences in approach.
Q341 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Can you give us an example of a difference of approach?
Dr Howells: I will ask David to because he occasionally
dons his watching anorak and he knows this stuff backwards, but
there are differences in approach between, say, Spain and most
of the members of the EU at the moment and some other countries
too.
Mr Quarrey: Just on the Quartet point, first
of all, if you look back, My Lord Chairman, over the last year
the EU has within the Quartet encouraged more regular meetings
of the Quartet and we have achieved that. The EU has encouraged
the idea of meetings between the Quartet and regional parties,
that is now effectively Quartet policy. The EU has also championed
the Temporary International Mechanism as a vehicle for maintaining
humanitarian and other support to the Palestinians, that is a
continuing part of Quartet policy, so it would be unfair to say
that the EU merely signs up to whatever line the US wants to take
in the Quartet. On the second point about divisions within the
EU or differences within the EU, yes there are differences as
we, for example, discuss the possible conclusion from next week's
General Affairs Council, there are differences of emphasis, for
example, about whether the EU should advocate moving very quickly
to an international conference. Some Member States see that as
a point of principle, that we should have an international conference,
but we and a number of other Member States think the point of
principle is to find a successful peace process and a conference
is a tool to achieve that; at the moment it is probably not a
very effective tool and so there is a difference there. There
is a difference of emphasis, perhaps, on the pace at which or
the point at which the EU should signal that it will resume direct
budgetary support to the Palestinian Authority—our position
is that there is both a political aspect to that, we need to judge
the PA government by its words and actions—and there is
concern about whether that money will be well spent, and Michael's
point about accountability and transparency. Others feel that
it is more important for the EU just to say we support the principles,
but as the Minister said these are debates within a pretty coherent
overall framework, I do not think they are fundamental points
of difference about the objectives that the EU wants to see or
the point that we will only get there if the EU can work with
the US and Israel as well as with the Palestinians.
Chairman: Thank you. We are running a
bit behind schedule going through our questions, but perhaps we
can move a bit faster on some of them. Lord Swinfen, again your
question has to some extent been taken already but you may wish
to come in.
Q342 Lord Swinfen:
Thank you, My Lord Chairman. Dr Howells, do you think that the
EU strategy which involves a mix of persuasion, incentives and
conditionality, has been effective in influencing the parties
to the conflict. Also, do you think that the EU should take a
firmer stance on the issues of fulfilment of international commitments
and respect for international law?
Dr Howells: That is a very important question
because it involves what Israel does in response. I am absolutely
confident that the EU will continue to maintain pressure on both
parties, including through the Quartet, to implement their commitments
under the Roadmap and other agreements including, for example,
the 2005 agreement on movement and access which is a very important
feature of this. The EU continues to press the Israelis on issues
like settlements and the route that the security barrier takes
and so on, and on issues relating to Jerusalem, and it has called
on Israel to ensure that its actions are not disproportionate
or in contradiction to international humanitarian law. We are
also clear with the Palestinians about the need to deliver security,
both for their own people and for Israel, and to respect the Quartet's
three principles, so the EU's determination to hold both sides
to their commitments has been very important I believe in ensuring
that the EU's voice on the MEPP is understood and respected, but
we need to ensure that we, as other international partners, are
indeed seen to be even-handed. It is a very important feature.
The EU has gone through periods where it has enjoyed low standing
in and influence over Israel because we were seen not to be understanding
both sides of the issue, I will state that as baldly as that.
It has been one of Javier Solana's achievements to build a relationship
of trust with the Israelis; it is one of our objectives that the
EU should have an increasingly normal relationship with Israel
for its own sake so that our voice is respected by the Israelis
as I believe it is by the Palestinians.
Q343 Lord Swinfen:
The EU of course can put pressure on the Palestinians by withdrawing
aid, but what pressure can they put on the Israelis?
Dr Howells: We have to be very tough diplomatically
with the Israelis. I have stood up many times in the House and
condemned the route that the barrier has taken in some places,
having seen it for myself, and we have made it very clear that
we disapprove fundamentally of illegal settlement-building and
expansion. The international community can go a long way in making
its views known like that; they do not make those views known
well enough or forcefully enough, so there is a lot more that
can be done and Israel is very sensitive to those kinds of judgments
that other countries make on these kinds of unilateral acts.
Q344 Lord Swinfen:
You have not said what physical pressure we can put on Israel
that has worked so far.
Dr Howells: I am a firm believer that this whole
area suffers enough pressures and threats of boycotts and God
knows what else at the moment, I do not think that is going to
help really. We have to try to work very hard diplomatically to
try to get some sense of people wanting to talk to each other
and of real negotiations and discussions taking place rather than
the threats, I do not see that at all.
Q345 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Minister, we can show whether we are even-handed in perhaps two
tests relating to two states of mind. One clearly is Israel allowing
the expansion of settlements, which clearly would be more and
more of a problem the more those settlements are expanding; secondly,
in looking at other matters within the Palestinian Parliament
such as the issue of their textbooks in relation to the Middle
East and how they are educating the new generation—we have
just had evidence from a body called Palestine Media Watch which,
looking at textbooks even published at the end of last year by
the PA Ministry of Higher Education, finds that the Palestinian
textbooks make no attempt to educate for peace and co-existence
and instead repeatedly rejected Israel's right to exist, glorifying
terror and teaching youngsters to hate Israel. Can you indicate
(1) in respect of the expanded settlements and (2) in respect
of areas like educating the new generation of Palestinians, what
we are doing?
Dr Howells: My Lord Chairman, as Lord Anderson
has hinted we have been taking action on this. The EU de-marched
the Israeli government last week on the question of settlements
and we have made our views, as I have tried to explain to Lord
Swinfen, very, very clear on this, it is extremely important.
Wherever I go in the Middle East the question of illegal settlements
or the route of the barrier is thrown up constantly and there
is a demand for even-handed treatment on issues like this and
we will continue to make them, there is no room there for backing
off such an issue, we have to be very, very clear about it to
the Israelis, that we disapprove fundamentally. It is very interesting,
of course, that during the course of what some people have called
the unilateralist phase of Israeli policy, Gaza for example was
an area where they were very firm with the settlers, they said
you get east or north of that border or else you are on your own,
they sent troops in there and it was a very, very difficult situation
for them, so they are susceptible to that kind of pressure.
Q346 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
The West Bank is more sensitive than Gaza.
Dr Howells: It certainly is more sensitive and
I am not saying it is anything like as easy as Gaza either. The
Israelis felt there was nothing in Gaza for them except death
and the activities of snipers and bombers so they were quite glad
to get out. On the question of education, on the other side, I
could not agree more that this is very disappointing. It is much
worse actually than you describe, My Lord Chairman, because there
is also a cult of death there which is promoting the notion that
these suicide bombers—very young some of them, many of them
female—are dying for the great Palestinian cause. This dreadful
kind of destructive jihadism is something that we would certainly
have expected someone as civilised as President Abbas to take
much stronger action against.
Q347 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Are we funding it?
Mr Anderson: We and the European Commission
closely monitor the curriculum and the textbooks and we have standards;
if the textbooks go beyond a certain point then we would cease
to co-operate with those schools which have extreme textbooks,
through the TIM. If I may say by way of comparison, it is not
unusual that donors find the textbooks that are being used are
inconsistent with the political values which they would like to
see. We have the same problem with Pakistan, India and elsewhere
and there is a tension to be struck between freedom of speech
and giving support. If I may say, many of the Christian schools
in the United States have textbooks which say that Israel has
a biblical right to exist and absorb Palestinian land, so it is
not the case that the Palestinians have a monopoly on extremist
views in textbooks.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: But they do
not call for the destruction of the people of Palestine.
Chairman: Because of where we are on
the time, Minister, and I know you have very little flexibility
beyond midday I wonder if we could perhaps postpone the questions
on funding the Temporary International Mechanism and put those
to Mr Anderson if you have to leave before we have got to the
end of the questions and move on, as we have taken the question
on Syria already, to a question from Lord Boyce on Iran.
Q348 Lord Boyce:
Minister, we have not talked about Iran and I wonder if you would
like to say whether you think that there is in theory a constructive
role that Iran could play in the process, but that in practice
how likely is it that that role could be executed while we have
the dispute about nuclear?
Dr Howells: Iran could play a very constructive
role and when we come to look at the way in which power has shifted
in the Middle East, Iran is one of the new powerful nations, there
is no question about it, and we know that they play a very active
role through Lebanon and through Damascus in Palestine as well.
It is a complicated role, it is not an easy one to understand,
because of course the differences between Shia jihadists and Sunni
jihadists have properly to be understood and it is not easy to
understand and it is certainly far more difficult to come to conclusions
about how solutions could be reached. After the events of last
week and the week before, of the hostages being taken from the
Gulf, what struck me about it was I drew some very simple conclusions
from this. I thought to myself our sailors and marines were out
there on a UN mandate to try to stop smuggling which is having
a dreadful effect on the people, not just of Iraq but especially
the people of Iraq, and that if Iran was absolutely serious about
wanting to have as a neighbour a stable, prosperous Iraq—which
it could be quite easily, it could be become one of the richest
countries on earth—why do they not see it as being in their
interests to work with us to stop this smuggling; whatever the
co-ordinates were why would they do such a thing? That is the
difficult one to understand about Iran. It is very difficult to
understand who runs it and it is very difficult to understand
who makes the decisions about local actions. It is even more difficult
to try to understand the relationship between the Pakistani government
and the inter-services intelligence agency and the way in which
they view the Taleban. It is very difficult thing to understand.
Is it the theocracy, is it the revolutionary guards, is it President
Ahmadinejad's government that is calling the tune? I am not sure
that any of us are entirely clear about who is calling the tune
as far as the support for the rejectionists in Damascus is concerned,
as far as Palestine is concerned. It is a lot clearer in Lebanon
because there there is a clear Shia link via Syria which supports
a movement that ultimately wants to see the destruction of Israel.
Q349 Lord Boyce:
There is no file lurking around and waiting to be opened if we
can get some dialogue going with whoever it is you think one should
have dialogue with within the Iranian government?
Dr Howells: There has been dialogue of course,
we have had some pretty intense dialogue over the past fortnight
and we have got a very good ambassador and a very good team in
Teheran. My Lord Triesman performed heroically, as did the Foreign
Secretary herself, who I thought performed brilliantly, so there
is room for discussions. I want to repeat, My Lord Chairman, I
do not see Iran as being like North Korea. This nuclear enrichment
issue is a very, very serious one and if you were to ask me do
I make a judgment now on whether they want a bomb, yes, I think
they want a bomb but they are not the North Koreans, they have
a very different history, they behave very differently and that
kind of Persian nationalism is something that we have to take
very, very seriously, it is very different from the attitude of
their neighbours on many issues.
Q350 Lord Boyce:
If I may press this, if we had some dialogue going, what constructive
role would we be in apart from actually detuning the rhetoric
which obviously would be important? What is there that they could
actually do if we had this dialogue going which would actually
help the process?
Dr Howells: Discussions could certainly take
some of the heat out of the hottest points in the Middle East
and they include south Lebanon and the Palestinian rejectionists,
there is no question about that. Internationally and certainly
within the EU there is an understanding that the Iranians at some
stage are going to have to discuss things far more seriously than
they have at the moment because they are desperately short of
investment capital. They are going to be producing less oil next
year than they have produced this year, and that is a very serious
issue for them. It is a pretty ramshackle hydrocarbon industry
that they have got there but they have got some very big reserves
and they know they have got customers for it. There are probably
some very clever and influential people within Iran who care a
great deal about that, they are very concerned about that, so
there are levers that can be pulled. As long as they speak in
the way that they do publicly about Israel, for example, it is
very, very difficult to see how you could have a constructive
discussion.
Mr Quarrey: One of the fundamental points about
Iran is that they are one of the handful of states that refuse
to accept the basic premise of a two-state solution and a fundamental
approach to the peaceful settlement that the vast majority of
the international community thinks is the only way forward. We
were talking earlier about the Arab Peace Initiative and the comprehensive
peace will require very difficult decisions from states like Saudi
Arabia about recognition of Israel as part of the process of achieving
peace. As long as Iran remains in a position which encourages
rejection of the very concept of Israel, then that makes it even
harder for those, as we would see it, responsible Middle Eastern
states to get into a process which could lead to a comprehensive
peace. As well as obviously being a strategic threat to Israel
they make life very difficult for the key Arab states as well
so we need them to move away from their fundamental opposition
to the principle.
Q351 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Do you not think, given the evidence which seems very strong now,
that the Arab countries are extremely averse to giving Iran a
direct say in the Middle East Peace Process and given Israel's
extreme dislike of giving Iran a say in the Middle East Peace
Process, we ought to be a little bit careful about simply saying
that because Iran is a very important country and because it could
have a negative influence, therefore it has to be involved in
the steps that we are now trying to take to revive the Middle
East Peace Process. Do you not think some care has to be taken
over that?
Dr Howells: Absolutely, that is a very well-made
warning actually and we have to see much clearer signs that Iran
is serious, as David has just told us, about modifying its position
on this. There is, as you will know better than I do, Lord Hannay,
a powerful distaste, especially in the government, for the policies
that the Iranian government is following. That does not mean of
course, as you know better than all of us, that they will necessarily
break ranks and condemn Iran for those policies, that is a different
matter altogether but it is well-made warning.
Q352 Lord Lea of Crondall:
While Dr Howells is still here I would like to direct attention
to question 12. You said earlier, Minister, that you thought that
the initiative of the Mecca talks and the Riyadh talks was very,
very interesting. Would you say that parallel to what we discussed
a few minutes ago about the bilateral Israel-Palestine which Condoleezza
Rice clearly has got a major role in, there is scope now there
is an "Arab Quartet"—we have it in inverted commas
here—that there is some sort of symmetry. Would you comment
on the degree to which there may be use thinking about a dialogue
between the Arab Quartet and what you might call the Western or
other Quartet? I used a musical analogy when we were in Brussels
saying that that would make an octet and how would that play a
tune which would sound harmonious, but semi-seriously would there
be value at some stage in getting the two Quartets together?
Dr Howells: Yes, Secretary Rice, for example,
is meeting regularly with the Arab Quartet and of course King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia played a key role in the Mecca agreement
which secured the National Unity Government and helped, at least
temporarily, to end intra-Palestinian violence which is another
important thing that we have not had a chance to talk about. I
know that the Arab League summit in Riyadh agreed not only to
provide some funding, which is very welcome, of $55 million a
month and we would like to see that happen, but to re-endorse
the 2002 Arab Peace initiative and to establish a follow-up committee.
I believe, David, the follow-up committee is beginning today.
Mr Quarrey: Yes, in Cairo.
Dr Howells: It is taking shape, therefore, as
you described, my Lord. Solana and the German Presidency of the
EU, Member States including the United Kingdom, are certainly
in close contact with regional states about the MEPP. Secretary
Rice, as I say, discusses our activity in the region constantly
with Solana and with EU ministers, including the Foreign Secretary,
so there is a framework emerging which is a very useful one.
Q353 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed, Minister. I do know that you have
some rather serious constraints on your time. We are extremely
grateful that you have been able to give us so much time this
morning. There may be a couple of questions that we might want
to send to you, if your office could send us a written answer,
on what specifically could be done about Lebanon. If we could
get in touch with your office and get a reply in writing it would
be very helpful for our final conclusions, but if you would allow
us to maintain our session with Mr Anderson on a couple of the
technical financing matters we would appreciate that as well;
I gather he would be able to stay a little longer. Thank you very
much indeed for giving us so much time, it will be extremely useful
to us when we come to prepare our final report.
Dr Howells: Thank you very much.
Chairman: Mr Anderson, can I say that
we are very pleased that you are able to be with us. We obviously
are concentrating more on the European Union role in this field
than our colleagues in the House of Commons did when they did
their very important recent report dealing with aspects which
touched more directly with your department. I would like to take
just a couple of questions, the first one from Lord Anderson on
Palestine Finance Minister, Fayyad.
Q354 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Mr Anderson, we had the recent Oxfam report on the real distress
among the people who live in the Palestine Authority, we had the
pressures from Mr Fayyad, the internationally respected finance
minister of the Authority for the EU and other international donors
to provide close to €1 billion in financial support in 2007.
The question is, in your judgment how should the European Union
respond? What sort of conditions in your judgment should be the
priority, conditions for example in terms of transparency, because
we know the poor track record of the PA in respect of corruption
in the past, although there are new mechanisms in place. What
sort of conditions should there be in terms of how the money is
actually spent, and I refer again to questions like the textbooks
which we had earlier. What are the key conditions which in your
judgment are a pre-requisite to responding favourably to the finance
minister's request?
Mr Anderson: I preface my comments with some
comments that may be of use to this Committee regarding the effectiveness
of the European Commission and the European Union more generally
with its funding. It is worth noting that the European Commission
is often criticised, often intensely, by us and others for being
slow, ineffective, not accountable or transparent in its use of
funding. The Temporary International Mechanism is really quite
a different example of the Commission acting in a way which was
innovative, highly flexible, extraordinarily quick. And putting
in place mechanisms including these five checks that are done
on every individual payment. They are mechanisms of transparency
and accountability which are really unparalleled in the aid world
as far as I am aware. And I have a personal concern that that
sort of achievement by the European Commission in particular is
not on your list more broadly: and I think it is something that
the Commission deserves to be recognised for. With that in mind
we are pleased that the European Union has been put in the lead
by Salam Fayyad and others to respond to the very intense fiscal
constraints that he is under. The EU is looking at how to respond
to this request that Salam Fayyad has made and of course we know
that the European Commission has very limited funds. In our view
it is of the utmost importance that the very rigorous measures
for monitoring the expenditure are maintained. And, as I mentioned,
the World Bank and the EC (and us and others) do monitor things
like textbooks. There is a lot of spot-checking that is done,
a lot of what we call clear financial plumbing around the TIM
and the mechanisms. We are urging the EU to agree to an extension
of the TIM, we are taking it up with them next Monday.
Q355 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
For six months or a year?
Mr Anderson: In the first instance, because
it is temporary, there is a very strong feeling within the Union
that it should be temporary and a feeling that it should be replaced
by a more durable mechanism. We would be looking to end of June
but it is likely to be extended again, depending on developments.
The EC will have some ability to respond to the need that Salam
Fayyad has identified. There are, however, two things I would
say. One is that leaving aside the corruption issue, the fiscal
position of the Palestinian Authority is untenable: there are
simply far too many people on the payroll and Salam Fayyad and
others are aware of this. They realise that they need to move
on it but they also recognise that taking people off the payroll
may have security implications in terms of stability: people who
are people of violence may return to the street and so it has
to be handled very delicately. The second issue is that the main
fiscal problem that the PA currently has is caused principally
by the withholding of revenues by Israel and we regularly urge
Israel to resume payment of those revenues as that is the easiest
way in which to solve the problem. In that regard we are working
closely with the EU to urge Israel to resume its payments.
Q356 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed, it was particularly useful what you
had to say about the TIM. When we were in Brussels we saw people
from the Commission who were involved and were briefed on the
TIM and I am sure this is something we will want to come back
to in our report, but your evidence was particularly important.
We have already talked to a certain extent about the renewal of
capacity-building efforts and I was interested to see a recent
report that there had been an agreement reached between five European
countries and the Commission to give a specific number of millions
of euros for administrative reforms to the Palestinian Presidency,
so there is a move back to moving directly to governmental institutions
as far as this is concerned. I wonder whether you could tell us
something about this and whether it could then be generalised
into other ministries as well as the Presidency.
Mr Anderson: The Presidency of course is not
controlled by Hamas and so it is much easier for the EC and other
donors to work directly with the Presidency. That agreement, which
was recently announced, has been in negotiation for many months
and it is politically sensitive for a number of reasons but we
are very pleased that it was announced. We see it as the kind
of thing which we can continue to do, not only with the Presidency
but with the other institutions—the Central Elections Commission,
the judiciary, the Palestinian Monetary Authority—all of
which are places where the European Union is involved in providing
support. A great deal of capacity-building can happen, therefore,
but in terms of the future of capacity-building we have been supportive
of the Commission's plans to put in place an international mechanism
to support Palestinians as an integrated approach to building
governance, capacity-building, particularly to build accountability
and transparency which Lord Anderson raised as a concern and is
something in which the European Commission has a particularly
strong role to play. The position at the moment is that the proposal
has not achieved universal support in the European Union and the
feeling within the Union at the moment is that we must wait for
political developments to proceed and see what is the nature of
the National Unity Government—is it going to move to comply
with the principles—before there is a move forward in the
international mechanisms for Palestinians. We are waiting for
some further movement on the political track, therefore, before
that will be selected.
Q357 Chairman:
Mr Anderson, this is a question which we have not given you notice
of but which I wonder as you are here we might pursue. We did
have evidence earlier from Dr Youngs about the problem about the
coherence between aid which was provided by the Commission and
by Member States and I wonder whether you would like to comment
on what can be done if one goes back to having more assistance
to ministries in a Palestinian administration to ensure that those
problems do not appear again.
Mr Anderson: The UK Government, the European
Commission and all the EU Member States have signed up to the
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of 2005 which is a set
of standards on how aid should be co-ordinated and harmonised.
We are, frankly, frustrated with the lack of progress in harmonising
aid to the Palestinians compared to many of the programmes and
many of the countries where the UK provides assistance. Progress
on harmonising and co-ordinating aid has been slow and we are
working very hard indeed with the Commission to try to ensure
that aid is more co-ordinated; it is very important for the effectiveness
of aid that it is so. Frankly, most of the donors have domestic
political incentives to have their own flagged programmes and
those are the incentives which we are working against. The Commission
has taken a strong leading role in trying to encourage more harmonised
aid, hence their proposal for international mechanisms to support
the Palestinians. We are very pleased with the kind of leadership
that the Commission has shown in this regard and indeed Solana
has emphasised several times. We are very pleased with the leadership
that they have shown in supporting other Member States to honour
that Declaration.
Q358 Lord Lea of Crondall:
Are we not as schizophrenic as everybody else? We want flagged
programmes right over Africa and everywhere. We want Hilary Benn
on the television to be cutting the ribbon if it is our money
going to that hospital or that road or something. You are implying
a critique of some other European countries wanting flagged programmes
but what about our own programmes?
Mr Anderson: The UK Government has a policy
on most of its aid programmes to not flag any of it.
Q359 Lord Lea of Crondall:
So we are better than other people, are we, on this?
Mr Anderson: In the first DFID White Paper it
was stated as a policy that we would not flag our aid. We were
recently evaluated by the OECD to be among the best donors around
the world at not flagging our aid and for being co-ordinated with
others. In the Palestinian area more than 90% of our aid is spent
in co-ordinated ways rather than through flags.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I would
endorse that entirely and when I was minister it was one of my
frustrations that we could not flag more because obviously there
are national advantages to doing that. The point of principle
is entirely right and it is one that is pretty well recognised.
|
