Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-396)
Mr Jim Murphy and Ms Jennifer Cole
3 JULY 2008
Q380 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Not
one suit fits all, because I think Sweden has nought per cent
dependency on Russia.
Mr Murphy: According to the table—and
it may, of course, be from your Lordships' report; I should have
acknowledged that. Actually, no. It may not be reliable of course
because the source is Eurostat 2004; it does not say "House
of Lords" so perhaps your Lordships report is more accurate,
but this paper says that we are at 5.2 per cent in the UK, with
only Denmark being in a different position, being a net exporter
of course. Based on this information, we are the lowest importer.
Q381 Lord Crickhowell: It is oil
though, not gas. That is the difference.
Mr Murphy: Yes. So if it is simply aspirational,
that is a step backwards from the PCA that we currently have at
the moment. I think that is a failure if it is just aspirational.
Q382 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Can we turn to another partner pinpointed in the Strategy as one
of the most important partners for the EU, that is, the United
States. The United States, of course, have a Security Strategy,
and we were wondering how far in the United States' analysis of
the global threats and challenges, and indeed their prescriptions
for how you deal with them, there are real similarities between
their analysis and prescriptions and the EU's.
Mr Murphy: I have reflected already that
the UK and French position on this shows remarkable synergy. Tomorrow
evening I am going to the States to discuss European policy among
other issues in Washington and New York, and some of the issues
we have spoken about already, so I will get a greater sense of
current thinking and future thinking on US policy. The 2006 Strategy
I think starts with a presidential statement which says "America
is at war" and then goes on to focus on the external challenges
much more than the internal challenge. It is not my job to criticise
America but it is certainly a very strong external-facing posture
in the US position.
Q383 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
When you are with your colleagues in the United States this week—I
hope this is a fair question—how far are you going to have
in your mind the EU strategy when you are talking to them about
these issues? You are going as the EU Minister but you are a UK
Minister. How much will that really focus in your discussions
with them?
Mr Murphy: I am certainly going as the
Europe Minister but it is the Europe Minister in the UK Government
rather than in any way representative of the EU. The conversations
on the Security Strategy will be about our firm commitments on
our own Security Strategy and the ways in which we wish we would
seek to influence the European Security Strategy. So it is both
actually.
Q384 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Chairman, can we perhaps ask the Minister if he would be kind
enough on his return from the United States to drop us a note?
He has talked about this reflecting historically, but perhaps,
to bring it up to date, how far your discussions have reflected
real similarities in the analysis of the threats and also the
sort of prescriptions for dealing with them. I think that would
help to bring us a bit more up to date and, as you are going,
it is a jolly good opportunity.
Mr Murphy: I will happily do so.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Thank
you.
Q385 Chairman: One of the important
things is that the original Strategy was written in 2003, which
was a period in which the European Union Member States had differing
approaches to the policies of the United States, and there was
an attempt to bring the European Union together. We have now moved
into a very different period and particularly, given the changes
which have perhaps occurred in France and to some extent in Germany,
would it not be possible in the revised Strategy to take perhaps
a more positive line in terms of the relationship with the United
States?
Mr Murphy: I think there is a very strong
opportunity for a better conversation about this post 2003. In
fact, the EU-US summit declaration of last month talked of—and
your Lordships will be aware of this—"the transatlantic
unity of purpose"; that is the phrase that is used in the
context of global threats and challenges. So it is transatlantic
unity of purpose, which I am not sure would have been a declaration
five years ago. I know it would not have been.
Q386 Chairman: So that is the sort
of language which one might begin to feel now coming into the
revised Security Strategy?
Mr Murphy: It certainly reflects our
ambitions and I think reflects the renewed French ambitions and
the German ambitions and the Central and Eastern European states.
While it may not be that phraseology, certainly that should be
the type of vocabulary we would expect to see.
Q387 Lord Hannay: If I could just
follow that up, perhaps you may find it easier to answer this
question after you have been to Washington, which you are about
to do. Over past years there has always been a lot of criticism
of the fact that the methods of dealings between the United States
and the EU are not really terribly effective, and that these summit
meetings that take place twice a year are extraordinarily wooden
and pre-programmed and not really very satisfying for either side.
I wonder whether, when we move into what will undoubtedly, for
better or for worse, be a new era in the transatlantic relationship
after the election in November, you think that the present mechanisms
for co-operation between the two sides of the Atlantic are really
up to the job or whether one should be thinking about making them
a little bit more intimate, a little bit more intensive than they
are now.
Mr Murphy: I think on specific issues
there is a strong argument for making ... Whether it is more regular
I am not so certain but certainly more substantial. It is a reflection
of Europe as it is today rather than Europe as it was five or
six years ago. I mentioned three European capitals. Largely, the
UK has stayed in a very similar posture, but there have been changes,
is the way I would put it, in posture in Paris and Berlin, which
from a UK perspective the transatlantic relationship is a very
good thing. Your Lordships' view will be similar to that of Her
Majesty's Government that the renewed French commitment to NATO
is a fundamental component of that improved relationship.
Q388 Lord Chidgey: Minister, can
we now move on to somewhere further afield in terms of working
with partners. Should the importance of working with Africa, including
the African Union and individual African countries, be given greater
prominence in the Strategy? That is the formal question. What
progress has been made in EU efforts to build up African peace
and security institutions and peacekeeping capabilities? Of course,
it is an incredibly topical question to ask in the sense of our
European Security Strategy given the current events in key countries
in southern Africa, so I would be very grateful if you could give
us your views on that.
Mr Murphy: I think the 2007 EU-Africa
Strategy avoided most of the pitfalls of previous European African
documents, which gave the impression of "We have decided
and this is what is going to happen. The Europeans have decided
this is what is going to happen" in previous bilateral documents
of whatever nature, be it development or whatever else, but the
new Security Strategy, the refreshed Security Strategy I think
has to better capture our support for African peacekeeping capacity,
and turn a very welcome set of political statements into supporting
on the ground capacity to deliver, and that is what the Security
Strategy should capture. The EU has been doing good work in Darfur
and also Burundi. There is some more work being done in Somalia.
I think that is the main part of it. There are other aspects but
that is the main part.
Q389 Lord Chidgey: That is very helpful.
Can I just ask a supplementary, chairman? In your note—obviously
this letter has captured our imagination.
Mr Murphy: I need to write shorter letters!
Q390 Lord Chidgey: In relation to
your answer, you make the point that the EU now contributes over
55 per cent of total global aid flows, and it is in the context
of our relations with countries in Africa, particularly the African
Union and other institutions, that my question relates. What I
am interested in is how much we are able as part of the Strategy
from the EU umbrella to help strengthen the democratic institutions,
the securing of sound and robust democratic processes, strengthening
parliaments perhaps rather than the executives to address the
issue that you mentioned yourself earlier about conflicts being
often at the root of instability in our own EU Security Strategy.
Mr Murphy: It is an important part of
the work and it is part of the work that is contained within the
strand ... One of the reasons I am going to Washington is to launch
a document on modern public diplomacy in a global world, launching
in Washington and London, and part of that document is about developing
democratic capacity, but not just democratic capacity through
traditional government to government bilateralism; much more government
to NGO bilateralism and multilateralism, UK NGO to overseas NGO
bilateralism, people to people multilateralism, so all of that
is certainly reflective of contemporary UK diplomatic thinking.
It is important to see how far we can get a European context on
that as well. I should have just said your Lordships may find
it informative, if the Committee is not already aware of it: the
EU has provided over €300 million for African peacekeeping,
including support to the African Standby Force, with the intention
of commitment up to another €300 million of practical support
and capacity support for that important work as well. It is not
directly related to Lord Chidgey's question but that is an important
additional piece of information.
Q391 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: This
question is really about the usefulness of the Strategy to us.
Is it a tool for strategic policy-making within government departments,
especially the Foreign and Commonwealth office? Do you have any
ambitions to bring the Strategy to the attention of the public
and, if so, how would you do that?
Mr Murphy: There are two questions. The
first one is about the influence on governments. I hope your Lordships
do not find this to be an inappropriate way to answer this, but
the first point is that we would not sign up to something as a
Security Strategy that did not reflect our thinking. I would at
least partially turn it round the other way and say this is a
document that we will hope to influence to maximum effect rather
than have it influence us, because we would only sign up to that
with which we agree. What we are looking to do, and your Lordships
will be able to judge whether it is successful or not, is to have
the European Security Strategy as far as possible very strongly
mirror the Foreign Office four strategic priorities. If we can
do that, I think we will have achieved what we have sought to
achieve. It would be arrogant to say that is all it should cover
but it certainly should cover those four. The second question
was how you popularise, if that is what you wish to, the Strategy
of the EU. In the lengthy debates we have had on Europe's structures
we have on numerous occasions said it is not a well-crafted ministerial
speech or a well-crafted, thoughtful document. It is about delivery.
I think we could work harder, not in a spin sense; I do not mean
a spin sense. When the European Union is doing remarkable work—and
it is remarkable work; regardless of our views on Europe, it is
remarkable work in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Palestine and wherever
else—we should do more to highlight it. We rightly are fantastically
proud of our own forces and our own civilian commitment in these
missions, but I think we should be a little more open about the
fact that we are only actually able to bring democracy and stability
to these countries, or minimise conflict, because we are part
of a greater organisation, this great democratic force. That is
the way of doing it. It is about emphasising the delivery. If
we can say it is actually through co-operation with the other
26 countries of the European Union that we are able to do this,
I think that is the way to do it.
Q392 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: How
would you do that? What medium would you use?
Mr Murphy: It would be crass to try and
put it in leaflets and that sort of thing. It is largely about
the tone that is set when we are talking about these issues in
Parliament and in the media. As I say, the context would be that
we rightly celebrate without qualification the phenomenal bravery
of our forces and the remarkable professionalism of our civilians
on the ground, but just saying that, despite our contribution,
it is a joint contribution. That is the way of doing it, I believe.
That is a steadier, more patient way of doing it, and not a big
bang, but I think that repeated message would gradually improve
people's perceptions about European capacity in this area. It
will not deal with Euro- scepticism more generally but in this
area I think it would give legitimacy to Europe's function.
Q393 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I think
it would affect Euro-scepticism; if you can prove that something
positive is happening and something is being improved in some
country where a mission is being sent, I would have thought that
would help.
Mr Murphy: I think it would on those
who are willing to be persuaded. My difficulty is I have now become
good friends with the Honourable Member for Stone, who I have
spent more time with than almost any other human being recently,
so when I talk about Euro-scepticism, I mean the Honourable Member
for Stone rather than those who wish to be persuaded. I think
middle of the road, open-minded people on Europe—this is
not an implicit criticism of the Honourable Member for Stone but
nevertheless, if the cap fits, perhaps you should wear it. The
type of people you are reflecting on can be persuaded of Europe's
role in the world through this type of work. It is a great celebration
of the democratisation power of Europe across the globe. Perhaps
I should reflect more about how we can practically do that. We
should be doing it with the existing Strategy, of course.
Q394 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Popularising
does not mean that one can reasonably expect an editorial in the
News of the World on the Strategy. However, it can mean
heightened interest by non-governmental organisations. One beneficial
reason for our own analysis has been that a number of groups have
written in, for example, the Quaker Council for European Affairs
has just submitted evidence. Could not the FCO organise a conference
of those who may have such an interest, various people in civil
society who can give their own views? That is something which
perhaps might have been done this time and should certainly be
considered in response to the document which will evolve. Is it
too late to try that?
Mr Murphy: Lord Anderson, I apologise
to your Lordships if the invitations were not wide enough but
we have just come to the end of a process of perhaps eight seminars
that Her Majesty's Government have been organising in the context
of global Europe, and one of those seminars, for example, was
on the role of faith in modern Europe, to which we invited faith
groups and those who are involved on a day-to-day basis, regardless
of which faith. One of the Muslim representatives said ... her
basic message was "I am proud to be British because this
is the best country in Europe to be a Muslim in and I'm ashamed
to be European," and it was because of Bosnia.
Q395 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Discuss!
Mr Murphy: This is work that we are doing.
Five or six of the other seminars involved UK NGOs from a remarkable
diversity of backgrounds: sporting NGOs, trade unions, a whole
series of other NGOs. We have said that we should do this again
because we found it a very good exercise.
Q396 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Of
the eight seminars, none dealt specifically with the Security
Strategy?
Mr Murphy: Yes. I should have added that.
There was not one specifically on the Security Strategy. That
is right.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I think that, in a sense, on a number of documents, obviously,
the Government does go in for consultation. To some extent, by
taking evidence in various ways, we are having some sort consultation,
but perhaps when one is reviewing a Security Strategy like this
it is the sort of thing the Government perhaps ought to consider
whether it should not perhaps have some wider consultation. In
a sense, the process of review is quite a good opportunity to
bring it to the attention of people. It certainly brought the
document to the attention of this Committee in a way perhaps we
were not necessarily so fully aware of it previously. Thank you
very much indeed for your evidence.
| 
