Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
10 JANUARY 2007
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Mr Anthony Smith and Mr David
Quarrey
Q40 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Darfur
is a matter of enormous concern to a lot of people. You say there
is consensus in the EU on it. Should we not be thinking about
serious financial inducements for the African Union troops to
go in there? Presumably, if the Nigerians felt that the total
cost was going to be borne by the EU of sending troops there,
then they would be more enthusiastic to do it.
Mr Hoon: I think that is where we work as part
of the United Nations. It seems to me that we can play a significant
role in improving capacity. The question of funding, of providing
financial support for other countries, is largely a question for
the United Nations, but, in any event, we end up helping with
the bill through our contributions to the United Nations, so I
do not think identifying the EU in this area is necessarily helpful.
The EU has assisted financially in the past; it is simply a question
of finding the right way forward for the future.
Q41 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: We do
know that the United Nations is the most grossly inefficient organisation
and reacts extremely slowly. Surely on a non-bilateral basis the
EU could achieve more.
Mr Hoon: I do not accept the premise of the
argument.
Q42 Lord Crickhowell: There is a
very difficult, rapidly changing and dangerous situation in Somalia.
Is there a European position? Is it likely to develop? What is
the relationship of Europe to the developing situation in Somalia?
Mr Hoon: I am sure there is a European position.
I do not know what it is.
Mr Quarrey: I am not an expert on Somalia but
there is an EU presence.
Lord Crickhowell: There is a presence
but it is very limited.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: It is described
as "a programme".
Q43 Lord Crickhowell: A programme.
Mr Hoon: I see no helpful pieces of paper arriving.
Q44 Lord Crickhowell: You are really
saying that Europe is staying pretty carefully out of it.
Mr Hoon: Heads down in the row behind me.
Q45 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Minister,
questions, if I may, on Croatia and then Serbia/Kosovo. I recognise,
of course, in the accession conference of December 21 three new
chapters were opened in respect of Croatia, but there is a feel
abroad that Croatia is, dare I say, the innocent victim of absorption
capacity and the hurdles are being raised somewhat higher in respect
of Croatia. Is this a view we share?
Mr Hoon: No, it is not. There is little doubt
that Croatia has made remarkable progress in recent years and
continues to do so and I think will be a member of the European
Union reasonably quickly—without putting a precise timetable
on it. Of course Croatia gets very strong support from a number
of Member States, not least Germany, so I do not believe that
Croatia's ambitions have suffered. There are a number of key dossiers
where Croatia has to make progress.
Q46 Lord Anderson: As for Bulgaria
and Romania.
Mr Hoon: We set that out very clearly in the
decision to admit Romania and Bulgaria. I am confident that Croatia
will become a member of the EU, but they, like any candidate country,
have to satisfy the terms of the negotiations in order to achieve
the level required.
Q47 Chairman: Minister, perhaps you
would say something about Macedonia, which was granted some status
but seems to have moved rather slowly since the decision was made.
Mr Hoon: I hope I am not disagreeing too often
with Members of the Committee but I was in Macedonia in November
and, having been there on a number of previous occasions, I was
enormously impressed by the political determination of the Government
to make progress as well as some real signs on the ground of tremendous
economic success. I think Macedonia is a real success story.
Q48 Chairman: I am sorry, I meant
in terms of its candidacy.
Mr Hoon: The decision you refer to is an indication
of very significant progress. I think Macedonia has probably moved
ahead of the Western Balkans pack, if I may put it in that way.
Q49 Lord Anderson of Swansea: The
Copenhagen criteria in respect of the European Union and the political
conditions in respect of NATO are broadly similar. The Riga NATO
Summit accepted Serbia in the membership action plan although
Mladic has not been arrested, yet the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement in respect of Serbia has been suspended since, I think,
May. Is there a contradiction here?
Mr Hoon: I do not believe there is. I have represented
the British Government, together with the Prime Minister, at Riga.
We looked at the various issues affecting Serbia. We judged that
it was helpful for Serbia at this stage that they should be given
the encouragement of a membership action plan as far as NATO is
concerned. The arrest of Mladic has never been a condition. The
condition has been that Serbia should cooperate fully with ICTY
and that continues to be the position. I spoke to the Serbian
President both before and after the decision taken by NATO. I
was very pleased to see that he acknowledged, in his public response
to our decision on the membership action plan, the continuing
importance of Serbia cooperating with ICTY. Clearly we want to
see that cooperation develop and continue.
Q50 Lord Anderson of Swansea: The
fact is the same in respect of ICTY if it is deemed that Serbia
has sufficiently cooperated with ICTY in terms of NATO yet not
in terms of the EU. It is said that Solana wishes, after the elections
in Serbia in January, to lift that embargo or that suspension
of the SAA. Would the British Government view that with approval?
Mr Hoon: I have learned in politics never to
anticipate decisions, at least not in public.
Q51 Chairman: The December European
Council concluded that the security situation in Bosnia had evolved
enough to permit the Council to decide in principle on a transition
of the EU-led ESDP mission to Bosnia. I wonder whether you could
say how far you see that happening and when you expect the Council
to come to a decision on that matter.
Mr Smith: The process is that the decision to
draw down EUFOR was taken, subject to confirmation of that decision
next month, and we obviously support that decision. At present
the view is that the presence of EUFOR has played a crucial part
in stabilising the country, but at the moment it is not really
needed at the levels it currently has and it can be reconfigured
to operate in a different way with much smaller numbers. The local
security forces are able to take over, along with EU help and
police monitoring, many of the functions to support public order,
so we very much hope that the decision will be confirmed when
it is reviewed next month. There clearly is a lot of work still
to be done on political reform within Bosnia following the elections
in October last year, but EUFOR itself is not considered at this
point to be crucial to that set of political reforms.
Q52 Chairman: Even if there were
more difficulties in Republica Srpska perhaps after discussions
in Kosovo?
Mr Hoon: Well, we have always kept under very
close review the level of our military presence. We have sufficient
troops in the region to be able to respond to any sudden deterioration
in the security situation. I am probably risking something by
saying I do not anticipate such a response but nevertheless it
is something that we keep under constant review.
Q53 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Clearly
we face very shortly the Ahtisaari recommendations in respect
of the future of Kosovo, and they are certain to mean an increase
in EU engagement and a corresponding decrease in UN and US engagement,
and that is going to be very expensive. Minister, can you say
whether the EU is prepared in budgetary terms for what must be
a pretty considerable additional burden as we seek to assist the
new Kosovo?
Mr Hoon: It is important that we go on—this
is not something that is sudden and different—supporting
the development of effective administration in Kosovo. One of
the things that I suspect was somewhat overlooked when troops
first went into Kosovo was that there was a complete absence of
any kind of administrative structure at all and that had to be
built over a number of years. A lot of progress has been made
but there are still some significant gaps, notably in the judicial
area where long-term training and assistance is necessary. That
funding will have to go on in order to ensure that Kosovo does
not return to the state that it was in before.
Q54 Lord Anderson of Swansea: And
it will mean substantial additional EU funding replacing in part
from what comes from other sources such as the US?
Mr Hoon: I am not sure that it necessarily will
involve significant additional funding but it will involve the
EU in continuing to provide the kind of assistance that it has
done in the past.
Q55 Lord Tomlinson: Concerning Afghanistan,
we have been hearing about the steps that are being taken in relation
to the poppy harvest, and yet the only thing that seems to be
consistent is the growth in the size of the poppy harvest, so
could you bring us up to date with Government thinking on how
we are going to crack this problem?
Mr Hoon: Firstly as far as the counter-narcotics
programme is concerned, we have to go on continuing to support
the Afghan police efforts. We do so in a practical way, both in
terms of training, expertise on the ground, and also financial
support for alternative livelihoods. I am equally disappointed
that we have not made more progress but this is part of the longer
term reconstruction of Afghanistan. I do not think we could expect
this to produce the kind of results in the short term that perhaps
the media in particular are looking for. We have got to go on
looking at the wider picture of Afghanistan in order to see the
problem of poppy-growing as an aspect of the need to rebuild administrative
capacity and ensure that the government in Kabul's writ reaches
right across the country. That is precisely why we have moved
British and international forces into the South. It is part of
the plan that we outlined not very long after we first went into
Afghanistan. We always acknowledged that that would be more difficult
in security terms and that those engaged in the production and
manufacture of heroin would resist that presence in the way that
they are doing.
Q56 Lord Tomlinson: In that gloomy
situation, have the Government considered and if they have, have
they taken any view on the sort of work that has been produced
by the Senlis Council? It has been working in Afghanistan for
some time, it is a well-known international charity, and they
are proposing that in the light of the global shortage of opiates
for medical use that there should be a system of licensing of
crops, of purchasing crops under licence and directly supplying
the proven shortage that there is of opiates in the European and
other markets. Have you looked at that evidence and have you taken
any view on that evidence?
Mr Hoon: I know that that has been looked at.
Q57 Lord Tomlinson: Even The Economist
is coming round to supporting it this week.
Mr Hoon: There is no doubt that there are ways
in which the legitimate requirement for opiates can be satisfied
by Afghanistan. I would place just one reservation which is of
course that the legitimate requirement is also met from other
countries so it is not entirely a solution to the problem in Afghanistan.
If that requirement were met entirely from Afghanistan, that would
displace purchases from elsewhere where indeed other countries
also have a similar sort of problem, so I think it is important
to get a balance here.
Q58 Lord Tomlinson: The one point
I would like, are the Government seriously looking at the proposal?
Mr Hoon: Yes.
Q59Lord Tomlinson: And are they going to take
a view about it because everything they have looked at for the
last three years has failed?
Mr Hoon: What I am trying to do is to emphasise
that this can only be part—
| 
