Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-26)
Mr Jim Murphy, Mr Martin Shearman and Mr Alan Parfitt
25 JULY 2007
Q20 Lord Swinfen: Is the EU prepared
to put money up front?
Mr Murphy: The EU is prepared to help bring
about the investment, but in terms of the intention of the EU
it is also about them seeing a return for that investment. In
the EU it is an investment of political and diplomatic will. Much
of this is brought about, quite rightly, by private companies
in terms of the investment.
Chairman: We are under some pressure of time,
because I know you would like to be away about five o'clock, so
I am going to miss the next question and ask Lord Crickhowell
if he would like to ask you a question. Perhaps you might be able
to send us a written answer, if you would be very kind.
Q21 Lord Crickhowell: How far does
the EU strategy on Central Asia allow for the fact that many of
the Central Asian countries, despite having Russian rule for a
large part of the last hundred years, and so on, are very, very
different in character, politically, economically and socially?
Is Europe recognising that? We talk about these great areas on
the map, Central Asia, as if they were all the same. How far is
it recognised that we have got to actually have different policies
for different states?
Mr Murphy: I think this reflects back on the
conversation we had a little earlier in terms of the continent
of Africa. Within the EU approach, the UK with others insisted
that we did have a sensible tailored approach to different states
in that part of the world. It will be a surprise to many, as my
noble Lord referred to, after 80 years or so of Soviet rule to
discover the sheer diversity in terms of culture and national
characteristics that exists in that region. In terms of what we
are doing, we are developing, where we can, a different approach
to different nations. I already alluded to Turkmenistan, but if
you look at the difference between Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, in Uzbekistan we still have the EU visa restrictions
and we still have the restrictions on farm sales connected with
the failing to make progress on human rights, whereas in Kazakhstanback
to this issue of reward, this issue of positive encouragementbecause
the market has been opened up there has been a strategic decision
taken to have a different level of engagement as a signal to others
that if they make the reforms which are necessary then it will
lead to a change attitude from the European Union. So that is
a process which should continue.
Q22 Lord Lea of Crondall: Coming
on to Kosovo, Minister, there was a UN Security Council resolution
introduced last week and there are two levels, I suppose, to the
EU immediate prospects there. One is to do with the timing of
the civilian EU mission, but could you put this into the context
of the fact that it is a very sensitive time and the EU has got
so many manifold interests and we want to give Belgrade some encouragement
as well as a big stick if they do not cooperate? Could you put
all that together?
Mr Murphy: I can try in the time that is available!
In all of this we are absolutely clear what the end point is and
it is independence for Kosovo. That is where we will end up. I
say that first because I do not want in any way for it to be implied
that the UK is in any way reneging on its responsibility, and
we see it as a responsibility to the people of Kosovo. I met with
President Ahtisaari earlier this week and went through with him
again the detail of his plan and we remain very strongly of the
view that his plan, because of the sheer work that he put in and
the effort he made to try and find common purpose and common cause,
should be the basis of the eventual settlement in Kosovo. In terms
of the specific issue of the resolution of the United Nations,
we intended to table with others a resolution which was relatively
minimal in its demands and its specific content, but it was clear
that that resolution was not going to proceed and as a consequence
it has not been put. What we have now is, taking up the suggestion,
I think originally by President Sarkozy, one more round of talks
with the contact group. We are committed to doing that, but once
that is concluded we then, as the international community, know
we get to a really difficult decision which we cannot and should
not avoid, because of our previous commitments and because of
the situation on the ground in Kosovo. We have no intention of
reneging on our responsibility, so it is pretty clear what are
the options that are available to us, but our determination is
still to give a resolution through the United Nations. At the
end of whatever process we go through, we are clear that Kosovo
and independence for Kosovo is the end point and not something
which is continuously delayed. We are fast approaching a period
where we do have to make the decisions.
Q23 Lord Lea of Crondall: Is it that
Belgrade can play it by whatever the Russians are saying?
Mr Murphy: I am not party to the bilateral conversation
between the Russians and Serbia, but there is a sense that President
Ahtisaari's plan had an inbuilt reassurance for Kosovo and the
Serbs in terms of protections of freedoms, substantial devolution
and those sorts of protection. Our view is that while, of course,
these highly sensitive issues, Russia's concerns have been met.
Russia's legitimate public concerns have been met by President
Ahtisaari's proposals and there is now no policy basis for us
not to make progress. In terms of the specific status, in terms
of the EU support on the ground, I think I am right in saying
that 120 days after status has been agreed then there has to be
an effective EU commitment on the ground. There is already an
EU team in place now doing the preparatory work, which is another
signal to the people of Kosovo that we are not reneging on our
responsibility. I hope that puts some of the specifics together.
Q24 Lord Anderson of Swansea: So
you agree that at some stage the moment of truth must come? President
Sarkozy wanted a postponement of six months. It is said now that
the US and the Kosovo President have come to a deal, in recognition
of the US moving to their view, that they will postpone UDI, but
Serbia has made its position clear, Russia has made its position
clear, there will be no compromise, and within a short period
of time, surely, the problem must be faced with all the consequences
which Serbia has threatened?
Mr Murphy: The problem does have to be faced
and the problem will be faced, but the end point is independence
for Kosovo.
Q25 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I do
not want to criticise at all the decision which has been taken
recently to postpone, as President Sarkozy has proposed. I think
there is probably a lot of good sense in that but, Minister, could
you perhaps reflect when the end of the 120 day period comes that
it is sometimes better to force a country into casting a veto
than to allow it to get away without ever having to veto, which
is what the Russians have been allowed to do this time, because
basically what we have done is to accept that because they told
us privately they would veto it they do not have to sit there
in the Council and reject what you yourself have rightly said,
in my view, is a perfectly good set of proposals which take proper
account of the Serbian minority, and so on. Next time round, I
would have thought the balance of advantage may be rather different
and flinching from putting a matter to a vote and compelling a
country to veto is the best way of enabling them to get away with
it with rather less cost than they would otherwise have to pay.
Mr Murphy: Without speculating in an unhelpful
way, it is the case that we have committed to this one last round
of talks. We come very shortly to a crucial international decision
and without criticising the United Nations at all as an institution,
it is the case that the people of Kosovo have been given a commitment
by the international community and it is our intention, the UK
and others, to help them achieve that. In terms of how we achieve
it, we have not given up hope that there may be a UN route because
there is not a substantial legitimate public rationale for rejecting
in any substantial way President Ahtisaari's proposals. I made
that clear to him again earlier this week, and we remain committed
to doing that.
Q26 Chairman: I wonder if I could
ask a final question, given the time constraints, and that is
on the European Neighbourhood Policy. The June 2007 European Council
invited the future presidency to take forward the work on the
strengthening of the ENP. What progress do you feel has been made
in the last year on the neighbourhood policy and what are the
main areas in which the British Government would like to see further
improvements?
Mr Murphy: There has been progress in the past
year, and the German Presidency gave this some particular profile.
There has been progress on Ukraine, on trade and with Lebanon
and Egypt. The progress over the next period is primarily around
the first high level conference which will take place, which will
involve the EU Member States and those in the neighbourhood, both
to the east and to the south. We see that as a really important
gathering, the EU Member States, those in the EU's eastern neighbourhood
and those in the EU's southern neighbourhood, a gathering of those
governments and NGOs as well. The issues we expect to come out
of thatand again it is about specificswill be about
governance, energy and the issue of economic liberalisation. But
again it comes back to the point which has permeated much of our
conversation today, which is about developing specific agreements
with specific nations within different parts of our eastern and
southern neighbourhood.
Chairman: Thank you. Indeed, the neighbourhood
action plans, which are developed with partners, are important.
We have just completed a report on the European Union and the
Middle East Peace Process, which will be coming to you but which
does in fact particularly talk about the way in which the neighbourhood
action plan with Israel is something which is quite important
in our relationship with Israel and indeed on possible leverage
as far as our relationship with Israel in that situation. I would
like, Minister, because I know your time is very constrained,
to say how grateful we are. We had a question about strengthening
the Mediterranean dimension of the ENP, which I know the Portuguese
presidency is quite interested in and perhaps it might be possible
for us to have a written answer on that. I would like to thank
you very much indeed. It is a bit hard of you, because quite a
lot of the things we have been talking about were things which
really were developed and carried forward under your predecessor,
but you seem, in the relatively short time that you have been
occupying your position, to have learnt a great deal about what
is happening. We certainly look forward to seeing you again and
to talking to you on specific things. We have just started an
inquiry into relationships between the European Union and Russia,
and indeed last week we had Sir Mark Lyall Grant and two of his
colleagues talking to us about the beginning of that inquiry.
We will towards the end of it, because Russia comes within your
remit as well, hope that we will have a chance to see you about
that, but in the meantime I know that you have young children
and as the Scottish school holidays began three weeks ago you
really would like to get back! We hope you have a very happy holiday
with them and we look forward to seeing you again in the autumn.
Thank you very much indeed.
|