Examination of Witnesses (Quesitons 1-19)
HE Mr Wolfgang Friedrich Ischinger and Mr Michael
Siebert
30 JANUARY 2007
Q1Chairman: Ambassador, first, may I begin by
saying how very welcome you are here. It is a great pleasure that
you are able to come and also your Political Affairs Counsellor
Mr Siebert. We are grateful to you for giving us the time. We
know how very busy you are at the moment. I should let you know
that this session is being broadcast on the website. You will
receive a transcript very shortly after the meeting so that you
can see that what you have said has been correctly recorded. Please
feel free to make the necessary amendments. If I may, I would
like to begin the proceedings by inviting you to make an opening
statement.
Mr Ischinger: Thank you very much my Lord Chairman
and members of the Committee. Let me begin by saying how happy
I am to be here. I am delighted to have this opportunity to meet
with you and the members of the Committee. We in Berlin were extremely
appreciative of your decision last autumn to travel to Berlin
and meet with your German counterparts. Perhaps I may make one
or two very brief remarks. It is obvious that Germany assumes
the Presidency of the EU at a difficult moment. There is no doubt
about it, we have been in some sort of crisis in the European
Union. As a matter of fact, it is almost a paradoxical situation
because, as conditions in the European Union for our Presidency
are not exactly the brightest possible ones, conditions in Germany
for taking the challenge of the Presidency are rather good. In
our country, as members of this Committee will be aware, we had
our elections a year and a half ago. We seem to have relative
stability within our government. There is an increased sense of
self confidence and optimism in Germany across the board. We understand
that there are very high expectations from all over the European
Union regarding this Presidency. We are interested in meeting
the challenge and we do believe we are in a relatively good position
to tackle these challenges at the beginning of 2007. The second
point I want to make, my Lord Chairman, is that, as we tackle
these challenges, it is very important for me to make it very
clear that the United Kingdom is for us an indispensable key partner.
In most areas—maybe not in all areas but in most areas—we
agree a lot more than we disagree. I am sure we will be touching
upon some of these areas, including climate and energy and a number
of other foreign policy areas. May I conclude on the foreign policy
point because, given my own professional background, that is the
area I believe I know most about. I have grown to be convinced
over the last decades that without the active, proactive leadership
and involvement of the United Kingdom, for example, in the development
of a European foreign policy we would not have been able to make
the progress that has been made—still incomplete, but extremely
important—and we are looking forward to working with our
British colleagues at all levels as we deal with these issues
in the remaining five months. My Lord Chairman, members of the
Committee, these are the points I wanted to make. Thank you for
offering me the opportunity to do so. I look forward to our discussion.
Q2 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. That is a very well taken comment that you have made.
We are interested to know how this "trio" system of
consultation on the rolling programme of Presidencies is working
out. Do you have any indication that this is now firmly in place
and that at the end of your Presidency France will enter the trio?
Mr Ischinger: Thank you, my Lord Chairman, for
this question. I think I should start my response by pointing
out that, certainly in our view, the rotating Presidency, in and
of itself, is an outdated mechanism that is not really adequate
any more and has not been for quite some time for the management
of a Community of 20 plus and probably soon 30 members. Having
said that, we have all observed with the rolling Presidency that
if each Presidency handles only their own business we do have
a certain lack of continuity quite often. In order to counter
that, a decision was made to enter into this experience and that
is why we have been working quite actively for a while with our
successors, Portugal and Slovenia. We have had altogether eight
preliminary meetings at working level and more senior levels.
We have had a top level meeting at prime minister level 10 days
ago. We do expect to continue this. Let me give you one example
that shows how concrete it is. There is a rather ambitious plan,
developed by the Portuguese, to prepare a European-African summit
meeting, but the Portuguese have told us that if they start work
at the beginning of their Presidency on a European-African summit
they would never have enough time to have the summit during their
Presidency, which is why we have agreed to help prepare the ground
for such a summit during our Presidency, working hand in hand
with our Portuguese partners. That is just one example. As far
as I understand it, this is not a "rolling constellation";
in other words, France will not join the present trio right at
the end of the German Presidency. Up until July 2008, the summer
of next year, the trio members will be the same: Germany, Portugal
and Slovenia. We will stay together for our period and then the
next trio would follow, comprised of France, the Czech Republic
and Sweden. That is the idea—admittedly, also, probably
not a perfect one but hopefully a useful one. If I may add a footnote,
we should not confuse the trio idea with the EU troika of foreign
affairs, which continues to work independently of this. It is
very important to make that distinction.
Q3 Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.
Could we come now onto the question of the Constitution, which
is a very important element of the Presidency. The common wisdom
is that you are aiming to be able to present some kind of a timetable
by the end of the Presidency and, as we are all aware, your Chancellor
has proposed and is already engaged on consultations with the
Member States—which will be of a somewhat confidential nature,
I understand, which seems to be appropriate at this stage. Could
you enlighten us a bit, Ambassador, on what the expectations are
as to how that will proceed?
Mr Ischinger: Thank you, my Lord Chairman. Maybe
I should start with a word about procedural aspects. The objective,
in terms of procedure, is a decision to be adopted by the European
Council at the end of June, at the end of the German Presidency—hopefully
a decision which would confirm the European Union's resolve to
continue the reform process of the EU. We, the Presidency, will
present a report about the consultations—about which I will
say a word in just a second—which have started just a few
days ago. It is then up to the European Council in June to agree
with proposals, which we hope to be able to present at that time,
about procedural aspects, time frame aspects and the substantive
process. On the time frame, I will be very frank with you: as
far as the German Presidency is concerned, we have a relatively
ambitious objective. We believe it would be extremely useful to
have a solution to our crisis, to have a proposal that can be
adopted and ratified by member countries before the next election
to the European Parliament in 2009. If one adopts that as a guiding
principle, this would mean that we would need, in terms of timetable,
to agree a text, if possible, by the end of this year and certainly
no later than a year from now because, under normal circumstances,
experience shows that ratification processes under whichever government's
rules will take, give or take a little, at least a year. If we
want to get something done before the European Parliament elections
in 2009, this is a rather tight and ambitious timetable. May I
add a few words on the substance. As the Presidency, we do understand
very well that we have to be serious about playing the role of
an honest broker—and we will, and that is what we are doing.
We have these individual meetings with envoys, representatives
of each and every single prime minister or head of government
or head of state, and we have already started the bilateral process
with the UK just a few days ago. As far as Germany is concerned,
as a member, of course, it is probably needless to say before
this Committee that in our view it would be desirable to maintain
the maximum possible portion of the substance of the treaty which
failed in France and in the Netherlands. But I do understand that
that is not everyone's view and we will, again, be honest brokers
and listen to what all the members are going to be telling us
about what they believe should be a line of compromise or agreement.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Q4 Lord Maclennan of Rogart: As a
member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, I am conscious
that the text of the draft constitutional treaty was in part the
result of trade-offs, some of which would be quite difficult to
reopen, but the document as a whole does contain a great part
which is consolidation of existing Union law and other parts which
are capable of being implemented without treaty amendment. Would
you be willing to expand on your view that there should be any
text, when there are such different parts of the constitutional
treaty being considered? Could we not give this process a momentum
by reaching agreement on some of those matters which are less
controversial and re-engage the disaffected public which thinks
we are incapable of reform. Is any of that within the thinking
of the Presidency?
Mr Ischinger: It seems to be that one of the
most complex, complicated issues here is really to avoid a degree
of cherry picking. Because of the fact which has just been mentioned
that this text was arrived at through quite a bit of trade-off
and it was complicated, as we all know, to achieve this text,
I hope it will be understood if I do not really wish to go into
speculation at this point about the precise form or shape that
we might which to propose at the end of this consultation period
with regard to the best possible label and form of the product
or products which may come out at the end. I think it is too early
at this moment for me or for anyone in the German Government to
speculate. We have not at this moment completed a first round
of listening to all the members in a confidential but open exchange.
May I add a word, because there has been criticism in Germany
and elsewhere about this procedure? It is very much our view that,
given the circumstances, the initial phase here can only be one
where a confidential exchange of views between prime ministers
and their representatives takes place. If we start with an open-market
discussion, we are afraid we will not get very far.
Q5 Chairman: Before we move on to
enlargement, could I put one more question on the Constitution,
particularly the process. We have taken note of the meeting that
has taken place in Madrid of the 18 countries that have ratified
the Constitution either by referendum or by parliamentary vote.
I have a feeling that not all countries are terribly happy with
this process on the grounds that there is always the danger you
are setting up two camps. I think it is your foreign minister,
Mr Steinmeier, who has emphasised the need for flexibility in
the discussions if in fact you are eventually going to reach a
compromise—and it is inevitably going to be a compromise.
I understand the Spanish and the Luxembourg governments agreed
to cancel their plans for a further meeting of the Madrid type.
Do you see a danger that there might be two camps developing,
which will simply make it even more difficult to agree even on
a timetable, let alone the substance of the problem?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, the worst thing
that could develop here in our view is in fact the development
of two of those camps who would not really speak to one another
but would broadcast to one another. As the honest broker, as which
we are trying to define ourselves, we did not expect such a meeting—which
was not invented by us, as you know—to produce very helpful
results. You may have noticed that we were represented by what
we thought was a level which would send exactly the right signal;
namely, by a locally present diplomat as an observer. I hope I
do not need to comment any further.
Chairman: I think that in itself is an eloquent
enough message.
Q6 Lord Marlesford: Could I suggest
to you that in order to get ratification of any future agreement
is as much as anything else, a presentational problem—by
which I mean presentation to the peoples of Europe—in view
of the experience of dealing with the Constitution so far. Because
the Constitution as a whole, in spite of the ratification by countries
which did not require no referendum, is now widely seen as a confirmation
of the permanence of a Europe structure of which people are suspicious.
On the other hand, reform of the EU is something to which people
might be more open. Although you may not like the phrase "cherry
picking", to put forward specific proposals for reform might
have a better chance of getting ultimate acceptance than to rehash
or redress the Constitution.
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, Lord Marlesford
is making a point with which, speaking personally, I agree, at
least in one way, very much. I do believe that if we want to make
real progress in a way that is acceptable to all member countries
of the European Union, finding the right packaging, finding the
right label is important. I do not want to sound superficial:
it is not only about packaging and labels, it is also about substance,
but packaging and labelling and presentation in our public enterprise
here is very important and I do agree that this can and probably
will make a huge difference. I can only say at this point that
we are giving quite a bit of thought to questions related to the
question: "Whatever result in terms of substance we can agree
upon, how can it best then be presented?" in order not only
to be ratified everywhere but also in order for it to be helpful
in creating the new impulse of a new and forward-looking, more
optimistic and less crisis-ridden European Union.
Q7 Lord Harrison: Ambassador, do
you regard as unfair the European Voice characterisation
of Chancellor Merkel's position as "No treaty, no enlargement"?
What will the Presidency do to manage that difficult interrelationship
between the necessary institutional change required, in part by
the Nice Treaty, and increasing enlargement?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, Lord Harrison's
question is of course one that I was really expecting. Let me
start by saying that we have been up until the present, certainly,
not very different from the United Kingdom in favour of enlargement.
The German Government, even though there was some doubt about
the wisdom of it, did confirm its commitment to the opening negotiations
with Turkey which were started in October 2005. Just to make sure
I am not misunderstood here, we regard the enlargement story as
one of the brightest chapters of what the EU has achieved so far.
Having said that, it is my view, speaking personally—and
I think it is a view shared by many—that whether we like
it or not the situation in some member countries is today very
different from the situation here in London. There are member
countries that have said rather flatly that they see no possibility
for ratification of yet another enlargement round. In other words,
conditions for enlargement in the future are not good. That is
my second point of departure. That is one of the reasons why Chancellor
Merkel has made the point. She has made a political point and
not a legal point. She has made a political point meaning that,
if we want to successfully continue the enlargement process, we
must make sure that we have better roots, that we must reform
our system. That applies to such issues as the size of the Commission;
as everybody knows, it applies to decision-making; it applies
to the need to have better foreign policy representation and many
other areas. That is why we are convinced that, as we move along
in the enlargement process, changes are required. By the way,
just to finish on that, one institutional change is actually required
automatically if we have one more new member. If I recall correctly,
according to the Treaty of Nice we would have to change the number
of commissioners after the 27th member, so enlargement does require
institutional change. We believe we should be rather ambitious
about the institutional changes in order to make this body capable
of running smoothly and that is where we see the link between
enlargement and the constitutional process. But it should not
be treated as a legalistic linkage.
Q8 Lord Harrison: You are saying
that European Voice, broadly speaking, have got
it right.
Mr Ischinger: Yes.
Q9 Lord Harrison: In the light of
that, how do you expect to advance? Secondly do you have sympathy
for some of those other countries—and I can think of a very
small country Moldova, which recently has had a very strong connection
with Romania, Romania comes into the European Union and some of
those links are fractured. They are, in a sense, an innocent party.
Those who are waiting to come into the European Union are shunned,
to some degree, by having this approach of: "You will have
to wait because we require the institutional changes."
Mr Ischinger: At the moment we have on our list
of candidate countries Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia. My Government
believes that the countries of the Balkans should be part of the
continuing enlargement process. We have always said, and I would
like to confirm it, that that should apply in principle to Serbia,
if they can meet our standards, as well as to any other country
of the region that is not yet a member—and I would not want
to single out any of these countries—but, once again, let
me say that, whether one likes it or not, the ability of the European
Union to successfully conclude a next enlargement round is in
our view limited. There are a number of countries—and I
do not want to name names here, I am sure they are all known to
the members of this Committee—where the political forces
are such that we need to change the circumstances and the conditions
of the enlargement in order to have any chance of opening a debate
on such a next enlargement round. This is, in my view, a realistic
assessment of what unfortunately no longer is a totally positive
welcoming reaction in quite a number of countries of the past,
the most recent enlargement decisions, and of the ongoing process.
Q10 Chairman: Ambassador, before
we leave enlargement, I have two very quick questions. One relates
to Turkey. Would the Presidency be in favour of a move by the
Commission to open maybe one chapter fairly quickly, possibly
Enterprise and Industry, with the prospect of more to come? Secondly,
could I just ask you to comment briefly on what you feel the prospects
are for Kosovo now. We understand that Martti Ahtisaari will be
making his formal declaration on Friday now that the elections
in Serbia are over, although there is still no government formed.
What do you feel the prospects are now?
Mr Ischinger: Thank you, my Lord Chairman. On
Turkey, we do expect that during our Presidency, during the next
five months, there will be hopefully opportunities to open new
chapters. There is in the work schedule a so-called accession
conference at senior level, at the foreign minister level. I am
not in a position now to tell you exactly which week or which
month, following recommendations by the Commission, the opening
of chapters might take place, but we certainly expect the possibility
of one or more and maybe up to there or four chapters to be opened
during our Presidency. There is nothing that I could see that
precludes that if the conditions are met. We will know, if not
earlier, by the so-called accession conference, probably in June.
On Kosovo, this is an important week for Kosovo because it is
the week when, after a long preparatory stage, former President
Ahtisaari of Finland, as members are aware, will work to present
his proposal to the parties and at some later stage to the Security
Council, et cetera. We have, like the United Kingdom, worked very
closely with Ahtisaari and his team and we expect to be fully
supportive of his efforts. We expect the European Union to continue
to fully endorse his efforts. I am a bit sceptical, speaking personally,
about how quickly results may be forthcoming. We do know about
the obvious reluctance in Belgrade to deal with the Ahtisaari
proposal; we are all aware of question marks, to put it diplomatically,
about this in Moscow. So there are a number of open questions
which would lead us to believe that we should not be surprised
if this process will take maybe months and not days to be completed.
Q11 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. I am going to skip the Berlin Declaration issue. The Sherpas
are working hard at it, so I am not sure that we need to this
afternoon. I would like to come on to the question of the transatlantic
economic partnership and ask Lord Powell if he would address this.
Q12 Lord Powell of Bayswater: Ambassador,
you will not be surprised to find me asking this particular question.
We welcome very much Chancellor Merkel's suggestion to reduce
barriers to trade across the Atlantic and move towards a common
transatlantic market. What have been the initial reactions of
the United States? Historically there has not been great enthusiasm
for this sort of proposal. With a Democrati-controlled Congress,
one might expect even less enthusiasm. I wonder what your particular
experience of Washington tells you about that. Secondly, I wonder
what practical progress the German Presidency hope to make over
the next six months. Will this just be a proposal launched at
the US/EU summit? Or will you have some more detailed proposals
to bring forward for work on both sides?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, I am grateful
for Lord Powell's question because this is in fact an issue that
is very close to Chancellor Merkel's heart. She has raised it
herself recently when she was in Washington and I can report that
the reaction by President Bush and his relevant advisors has been
and continues to be positive. Let me just make one thing clear,
because there have been, in Germany and elsewhere, some misunderstandings
about the objective here. Our idea is not to replace the Doha
negotiations or make the Doha negotiations less important. Our
idea is about something that would be attempted on top of or in
addition to the trade task. The objective here is to look at opportunities
for harmonisation in such areas as regulations; for example, auditing
rules for companies, accounting rules for companies listed on
European and US stock markets, rules which are today, as is well
known, very different, requiring enormous additional cost, protection
of intellectual property rights, et cetera. These are the areas
we have identified. We have had a visit to Berlin by Hank Paulson,
the Secretary of the Treasury, whose reaction also encourages
us to continue to drive this issue forward. What can we expect
concretely, was the other portion of the question. I think the
best we can hope to achieve is to set in motion a meaningful process.
It would be expecting too much if we thought that during our Presidency
we could nail something down in terms of concrete arrangement
or understanding between Washington and the European Union. After
many words have been spoken about these questions and after the
problem has been so often and so well identified and raised at
earlier summits also, it is our ambition to set in motion hopefully
something that will be seen as a meaningful process, hopefully
also with some kind of timetable, and we do hope that there will
not be any opposition to it on Capitol Hill. That is something
that we still need to hear about as we move into the next phase.
Q13 Lord Powell of Bayswater: Thank
you for those very precise answers. Can you just add a couple
of words about what you think Chancellor Merkel's final vision
is, not for the German Presidency but when she talks about a common
transatlantic market. Where do you think she hopes to arrive?
Mr Ischinger: I think the philosophy behind
it is eminently political; it is not just technical with a view
to make it possible for companies to spend less money on their
accounting bills. That is also relevant but I think it is an eminently
political idea; namely, to make sure that it is understood, in
a period where the transatlantic relationship has been slightly
challenged or even more than just slightly challenged, to demonstrate
to our voters on both sides of the Atlantic that we in the European
Union are not only trying to enhance our relationship with Russia,
as we try to negotiate a new partnership and cooperation agreement,
and with a number of other partners near and far but that we mean
what we say when we say that the transatlantic relationship is
for the European Union and remains for the foreseeable future
the central partnership strategically, economically and politically
as well. I think that is the underlying philosophy.
Q14 Chairman: Ambassador, you mentioned
Doha and I have one question on that. Some quite encouraging noises
came out of Davos, suggesting that the major countries involved
had found a new negotiating strategy and that there was some hope
that they might now be able to make some progress. But, as all
of them understand, a Democrat Congress in the United States is
not going to look very kindly on too many new concessions being
made. We know where the Democrats are coming from on trade. With
your great experience of Washington, would you say the chances
of President Bush being able to persuade them to renew of the
fast-track procedure for him to be able to go ahead with Doha
is a possibility?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, I do understand,
having spent the last five years in Washington, that there are
forces at play here that may not please those of us too much who
are in favour of free trade or rather quick Doha success. Having
said that, we are very hopeful, I am very hopeful, that the President
would obtain continued fast-track authority, and that the Congress
with its current majority would understand that the Doha round
does contain very important elements which, as far as I understand
it, have always been very close to the heart of the leadership
of the Democratic Party in the United States. I give you one example.
The Doha round has been labelled and defined as a development
round. There are very important aspects of the Doha round essential
to trade with the developing countries. We do hope that that aspect
of it—the fact that it would be lost if Doha were not a
success and if continued fast-track authority were not to be granted—and
other elements will lead the US Congress to continued support,
majority support, of the ongoing effort.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I would like to move on to the Middle East Quartet. Two of our
colleagues here have considerable experience of the Middle East,
Lady Symons and Lord Wright. I am sorry, I am afraid we have to
take a break for a vote.
The Committee suspended from 17.09 pm
to 17.16 pm for a division in the House.
Chairman: My apologies for that interruption.
I will ask Lord Wright to pick up the questioning.
Q15 Lord Wright of Richmond: Ambassador,
I wonder if I could ask two questions about your expectations
of what Lord Powell referred to as "practical progress"
in the Quartet process. The first, of which I think we have given
you notice, is how far do you expect to be able to achieve, if
it is not already achieved, a united stance on the part of the
EU towards the way in which the Quartet process ought to go? The
second, if I could ask you, particularly with your long experience
in the United States, is do you have any realistic expectations
that the United States will seriously want to address the Quartet
process again, given the fact that the President failed to mention
anything to do with the Middle East (Arab/Israel) in his State
of the Union address?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, I will treat
Lord Wright's question as procedural and substantive. If I may,
I will start with the procedural aspects. With regard to this
issue, we have pursued our discussions with the Americans in very,
very close consultation with our colleagues in the UK Government.
Procedurally, there is some good news. Chancellor Merkel was able
to obtain from President Bush at least a procedural commitment
to send Secretary Rice to the region and to have a meeting of
the Quartet. The trip to the region has happened. The meeting
of the Quartet is scheduled for this coming Friday in Washington.
There will be a meeting of Secretary Rice, German Foreign Minister
Steinmeier, EU High Representative Solana, and a member of the
Commission will also participate on behalf of the EU, and then
of course also the United Nations and Russia will be represented
at that level. I think it is, by the way, the first time that
the new Secretary General of the United Nations will be directly
personally involved in a meeting related to the Middle East. The
expectation, as far as we are concerned, is that, as a follow
up to the meeting of the Quartet, there would be a trilateral
meeting, organised by the Americans, between the US Government
and the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership. If all goes well,
that should occur by the middle of February, in the next two to
three weeks. We strongly believe that, in terms of procedure,
the only way forward is the Quartet. We do not believe that individual
efforts by member countries or small groups of member countries
are a useful alternative. I think there is a growing consensus
in the European Union that it is the best way forward, the best
hope that we have, if we work through the Quartet. How optimistic
are we with regard to US willingness to be more actively committed?
So far, over these last several weeks, we have been impressed
by the American willingness to listen to these European concerns—and
I feel the German Presidency was not the only member of the EU
that has raised these concerns in Washington—and we hope
that this will be the beginning of a more meaningful process that
could, if all goes well, lead to a re-energised or revitalised
process that deserves to be called a peace process -something
which we have not had over the last number of years. But I do
admit also, speaking as frankly as I can here, that conditions
in the region, if one listens to the daily news, are not necessarily
ideal for kick-starting the process which we would all like to
see taken forward. We are reasonably optimistic about the willingness
and ability of the British Government to work in good faith with
us on the Quartet and on the American initiative to meet with
the parties.
Q16 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Ambassador, I have a couple of questions really arising from
what you have just said, if I may. You said that conditions in
the region are not necessarily ideal and I put it to you that
conditions in the region have never really been worse. Today I
was meeting Israelis and Palestinians separately and that message
came from both sides: that the situation on the ground is dire
and that it is very difficult to see how any progress can be made
in the circumstances. I wonder too, given what you have said about
a united European stance being the only way forward—and
that very much reflects what Chancellor Merkel said in her recent
speech about the pre-requisite being a united EU stance—do
you really think that that is the pre-requisite, when in fact
there is a significant undertone of Israeli mistrust of the European
Union: a trust in where America stands but a mistrust in where
the European Union stands over the peace process?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, I would like,
if I may, to respond to the question posed by Lady Symons in the
following way. It is true, I am sure we all agree, that conditions
are rather miserable but, if they are rather miserable, in a way
that makes our attempt to renegotiate or revitalise the peace
process even more urgent. It is not tolerable from the European
point of view that poverty in the Palestinian territories, according
to the UN figures, has decreased by 20 or 30 per cent. I could
list a number of other elements that, in our view, should lead
us to an effort, even if the odds are not very good that we will
succeed. With respect to the Israeli position, my impression has
been that while in the past there was always a certain problem
between the European Union as a whole and the Israeli Government,
we have had over the last several months very trusting and very
positive exchanges with the Government of Israel, including last
summer, of course, on the question of how we could contribute
to terminating the conflict and maintaining a rather uncertain
peace in the Lebanon crisis. Our recent experience with Israel,
and the willingness of Israel to listen to the European Union,
has not been negative at all.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I think we must move on because we are getting fairly short of
time. I would like to invite Lord Sewel and Lord Geddes to ask
one question each on climate change and energy.
Q17 Lord Sewel: Ambassador, I will
pick one on the possibility of the global convention. We have
had the very welcome, recent statement by Chancellor Merkel saying
that she hopes that the Presidency would lay the foundations for
a global climate convention during its period and very rightly
exercising the need to engage with the United States. Since then
we have come to the President's State of the Union address which
contains some quite new things in some ways. What do you think
the prospects are now and how far do you think you will get in
your Presidency?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, the questions
relating to climate change and energy have taken increasingly
centre stage in our shared agendas, certainly in our EU agenda
and also in the G8 agenda. Indeed, as Chancellor Merkel pointed
out on different occasions, but most recently in Davos, it is
our view that in both Presidencies we should do our best and make
the best possible contribution to creating a situation that would
lead to a positive scenario for the post-2012 regime that needs
to be elaborated. As a matter of fact, when one thinks of post-2012
one tends to think that is five years away, that is not so urgent,
but the initial conference to prepare for the post-2012 regime
starts in December 2007 in Bali, Asia. That is why our timetable
is and, if I may just list that, our first EU summit is in March
which will not deal with constitutional issues but economic, energy
and climate change issues, in the first week of March; the EU-US
summit at the end of April; the G8 summit at the beginning of
June and then the conference in Bali at the end of the year. We
think these are important milestone meetings to prepare for this.
We have been very strongly encouraged by, how shall I put it,
the new language coming from Washington. While obviously Washington
is not now saying that they will after all join the Kyoto Agreement,
we do believe that the new willingness to consider energy saving
and climate change issues in a different light offers a new opportunity
for transatlantic co-operation in these areas. Clearly, and I
know this is a shared conviction in Berlin and here in London,
without some degree of active US involvement we will not make
the progress that we need to make, or should make, especially
also with respect to those countries which have not yet joined
the process at all, like China, India and others outside of the
Western World. Yes, we are encouraged and I should add as a footnote,
I have not had time to check with my experts in Berlin, but speaking
very personally I thought it was good that the new Secretary General
of the United Nations launched an idea earlier today or yesterday
to call a summit during the General Assembly this coming September,
a summit meeting specifically devoted to the question of cutting
greenhouse gases and climate change questions. That would be a
summit, as I understand it, intended to create additional momentum
at the top international level in addition to the G8 summit earlier
to prepare the ground for the Bali opening conference at the end
of the year.
Q18 Lord Geddes: Ambassador, Chancellor
Merkel, having called for a reliable energy relationship between
the EU and Russia, how will the German Presidency take this forward?
In the opinion of your country, is President Putin's promised
reduction in the use of transit countries to improve the EU's
energy security an adequate response?
Mr Ischinger: My Lord Chairman, let me respond
to Lord Geddes' question by stating that we believe from the Presidency's
point of view that negotiating the new partnership and co-operation
agreement with Russia is an important job for the EU and that
energy should play a key role in this. We have all been informed
that Russia is not about to sign on to the energy charter, which
we would have liked Russia to sign, but if we have an opportunity
to work with Russia on a new text for a partnership and co-operation
agreement, it is not impossible to imagine, in our view, that
some of the elements, at least those which both the EU and Russia
agree, could be incorporated into such an agreement, so it is
not impossible to imagine that some of our energy-related interests
with Russia can be met by this agreement. Chancellor Merkel personally
made it very clear in her discussions with the Russian leadership
that we must find new ways to communicate and avoid the kinds
of anxieties and concerns which obviously were the fallout of
events that we have all been reading about and clearly we have
not been happy ourselves with the development of these issues.
At the same time, let me also stress that from a German point
of view there is little, if any, alternative for us to create
a framework which would tie Russia into Western Europe on energy
issues in a way that would hopefully persuade Russia not ever
to try to use the energy supply leverage vis-a"-vis Western
Europe. That is why it has been thought that engaging Russia not
only in the upstream activities but also in downstream activities,
literally in gas stations and the supply of energy in our countries,
is not a bad idea. In the absence of better ways forward we do
believe that should be an important element of how we deal with
Russia in an era of increased international competition for the
available energy sources but it is also one of the reasons why
the German Presidency intends to drive forward our efforts to
work with other oil and gas producing countries such as Kazakhstan.
The President of Kazakhstan is in Berlin today to meet with Chancellor
Merkel and we are hopeful that the relationship between the EU
and Kazakhstan can be enhanced as part of our efforts to create
something which might then be called the "Central Asia Strategy
of the European Union" embracing the region as such and,
in particular, an important oil producing country like Kazakhstan
as an additional, hopefully reliable, and long-term supplier to
the EU as a whole.
Lord Geddes: Thank you. That was a very
full answer.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I am afraid that we are fast running out of time and there is
only time for two quick questions and I am sorry I have to exercise
my authority as Chairman to be a bit brutal on this. I think one
of the questions that we do need to look at is the European Neighbourhood
Policy very briefly and then it would be interesting to hear from
the Ambassador on what he feels about the Common Agricultural
Policy health check. There were some other questions that we put
in the submission to you of topics we wanted to discuss with you,
so perhaps in the fullness of time, it does not need to be done
immediately, you could possibly write to us with some of the answers
to these questions.
Q19Lord Wright of Richmond: Lord Chairman, could
I intervene very quickly and say there is a question about Prüm,
clearly we will not have time to cover it. My Sub-Committee on
Home Affairs is about to do a very short inquiry into Prüm
and it would be extremely helpful, if you were prepared, Ambassador,
to send in a written reply to the question.
Mr Ischinger: Absolutely, yes.
Chairman: Yes, that would be fine. I
am sorry we cannot do it today.
|
