Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-419)
Rt Hon Caroline Flint, Ms Katherine Fox and Mr Adam
Bye
16 OCTOBER 2008
Q400 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Minister,
we took some very useful evidence from your predecessor on this
and on some of the things that have happened since 2003 which
need to be looked at, some of which you mentioned yourself, things
like the responsibility to protect the push for a resumption of
multilateral nuclear disarmament and negotiations. I do not want
to visit that again, but I wonder if you could give us any idea
what areas in the seven rounds of informal discussions you say
have taken place have really come up between the Member States
and have they been giving some thoughts to the interface of Europe's
security policy with NATO and the way NATO is reviewing its own
role in the future likely to come to a head at the time of the
first NATO summit after the election in the United States?
Caroline Flint: I think there is a consensus
that the Strategy remains valid and it just needs reviewing. In
looking at the experience of the last five years in terms of ESDP
missions I think there will be thought given to how that sits
alongside our work with NATO as well. I do think it is important
to recognise that this document cannot and does not intend to
try to provide for a complete analysis of, for example, various
partnerships with different countries outside the EU as well as
within, but also in terms of a more detailed assessment of our
relationships with other international organisations such as NATO
as well. Its worth is that it provides, as I say, a mission statement
from which more detailed projects of work and collaborations should
follow. As a guiding tool that we can use to go forward I think
it has been useful and the question is: how will the review and
the addition to it update and take us into the next five or ten
years ahead or whatever it may be.
Q401 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: The
first part of the question was whether there had been any differences
of approach in the discussions that the 27 have had on this in
the seven rounds of discussions. I just wonder whether you could
give us any feel for that at all.
Caroline Flint: I think Member States
agree that the review needs to reflect our common assessment of,
for example, EU-Russian relations and that is probably the part
of the review that has been most scrutinised by Member States.
This Committee will know probably more than I about the different
relationships between the EU and Member States towards Russia.
Mr Solana, I understand, will only start drafting the Russian
text after Member States have examined the audit of EU-Russian
relations and see how much progress the Geneva talks on Georgia
make and obviously we are getting some feedback from those talks
that have begun. I think that will help him reflect on what Member
States will say and how it will contribute to the review.
Q402 Lord Crickhowell: Following
on from Lord Hannay's question can I pursue a little further this
NATO issue which really has emerged as a pretty central one since
we prepared our report on Europe and Russia. Here we are in what
Russia regards as their near abroad but it is also Europe's near
abroad. We know that some members of the European Union are keener
on the NATO role than perhaps others. We know it is an issue about
which Russia feels extremely strongly and which was emphasised
particularly in the President's Evian speech on 8 October. We
talked about it a bit at our debate on Friday when it came up
and I referred to the very interesting and important article by
Kissinger and Schultz in the Washington Post in which they say,
with great respect, to press on enforcing the NATO boundaries
right up to the Russian frontier in a way that may only provoke
Russia but it is very hard to see how NATO would actually intervene
in a situation like we have had in Georgia. It is a pretty central
issue so far as the relationships of Europe and Russia are concerned
and it would be very interesting to know how you see that argument
developing among the European members.
Caroline Flint: The UK's position is
that we basically recognise that sovereign states should be able
to seek to join NATO and certainly in terms of Georgia and Ukraine
that is something we have supported. I did read the debate that
took place in the House of Lords last week and I think part of
it is appreciating and understanding—my colleague Lord Malloch-Brown
made this point in his response—the insecurities that might
exist on the Russian side but at the same time how actually we
can work in partnership together and reassure them that our role
in NATO and applicant countries wishing to join NATO should not
be seen as a threat. We have much in common with Russia both in
terms of trade and on other issues as well and I would hope that
with the talks that are taking place and are due to take place
over the months ahead we can get onto a better footing, but our
position is that southern states should be allowed to put themselves
forward as candidates to be members of NATO.
Q403 Lord Swinfen: I am just wondering
what would have happened if Georgia had succeeded in joining NATO
before the Russians rolled in. What do you think would have happened?
Caroline Flint: I do not really want
to speculate on that if you do not mind. On a general level in
terms for of countries seeking to join NATO part of it is obviously
the hurdles they have to take to get there and alongside that
is this wider discussion which I referred to earlier about how
do we at the same time as recognising that we have within our
own rights to support NATO and candidate countries coming into
it, that we need to work to reassure the Russians that they should
not see this as a threat to themselves. As we carry on this discussion
and as long as I am part of this discussion that would be part
of the UK Government's role and my role as a minister to seek
to allay some of the concerns that clearly are there and, again
reading the debate, the historical context of where we have got
to today and how Russia sees itself. Likewise in terms of the
suggestions the President has made about proposals for security
we have not seen much detailed sight of those as yet but again
we can have an open discussion about those issues as well.
Q404 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Minister,
welcome; I am sure we will have the same happy relationship with
you as we had with your predecessor. You mentioned partnerships
of the European Union, the most important partnership is obviously
that with the United States. I am wondering to what extent the
recent turbulence we have had in the financial markets which has
led to a European Union initiative rather than an initiative from
the US, together with factors such as the policy vacuum prior
to the US presidential elections which will continue for some
while afterwards, will lead to perhaps a new assertiveness or
a new self-confidence or a re-balancing of the relationship between
the European Union and the United States which might be reflected
in the document.
Caroline Flint: I think it will be interesting
come 4 November what the outcome is; I think there are some opportunities
there not only in terms of our partnerships and relationships
but actually some of the issues around climate change as well.
I think there will be an opportunity to think about that and that
is one of the reasons why it is very important, I have to say,
that we believe that the European Union should continue to work
on the climate change package because we think puts us in a strong
position for working with the United States and the new administration
down the road. In terms of the detail of the document, I will
have to write to the Committee about how much reference there
will be to the United States, but I think by itself in expressing
and reflecting on the missions that have been undertaken under
the auspices of the EU self-evidently says there is a role for
the EU to take more of a role for being a good neighbour but a
one voice neighbour within Europe to deal with potential conflict,
and by that token take more responsibility for those areas in
a way that maybe in the past we have not had the capacity or the
one voice to do it. I think one aspect of this is how it can be
a European one voice in some of these difficulties even given,
understandably, historical relationships with some individual
Member States and countries outside the EU.
Q405 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Remembering
that at the NATO Council, had the US view prevailed, Georgia would
have been on its way to a membership action plan, whatever value
that might have been to the alliance. The question really is,
given these factors do you see perhaps written into the document
or at least in practice a greater readiness of Europe to have
a more independent relationship? We have questions later on the
Medvedev speech against a unipolar position, but do you think
there will be a more independent view by Europe in certain sectors?
Caroline Flint: I believe that the review
will underline the importance of an EU-US strategic partnership;
I think that is clear, however, within that context the role of
the European Union to take effective action which I think has
been welcomed by the US in terms of the approach to the situation
in Georgia earlier this summer. I do not think it is necessarily
an either/or. My understanding is that the US would welcome and
have maybe been pushing for some time that as part of the partnership
with the EU that we could be able to take a more considered and
productive role in some of these issues. As I say, I think the
review will continue to underline the strategic importance of
the partnership between the EU and the US whilst also recognising
the developments that have happened in the last five years that
enables the EU to play more of a role.
Q406 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: When
we come to revise the European Strategy do you think that special
reference should be made to Russia and the clear threat of Russian
expansionism which has now emerged with Georgia and of course
the threat would extend to large areas of the Ukraine and indeed
rationally to the Russian minorities and the Baltic States as
well. I think there is a tendency that we have a rather clear
threat but when looking for European unity we end up with incredibly
bland statements that are almost meaningless. Do you think that
the fact that the Germans do not really agree with anybody else
on this destroys any chance of saying anything of significance
vis-a"-vis Russia in this revised strategy?
Caroline Flint: My perception is that
actually on the issues that have arisen over the summer President
Sarkozy's efforts but also the agreement on the first of September,
the resolution that was passed, despite individual Member States
and their relationships with Russia, did actually unite under
a one voice. I think to a measured but actually decisive response
in terms of moving forward, discussions about the EU-Russia partnership
were put on hold, President Sarkozy created his six point plan
and key to all that as well was that it could not just be business
as usual; whatever the analysis of how things happened in the
summer our Russian colleagues overstepped the mark and were not
behaving, I think it was felt, in line with their responsibilities
and also agreements that they had signed up to. Having said that
I think the response has been a good one in the sense that it
has indicated that we just could not ignore that but it also set
in play, I believe, a number of steps where we can enable Russia
to not isolate itself but come back in. I do not underestimate
that that is not an easy task but I think actually it was a good
response really and did demonstrate the European Union on a very
difficult and sensitive issue acting appropriately but also decisively
as well.
Q407 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Do you
think that the revision of the Strategy should actually include
some specific reference to Russia and to possible plans for expansion
and how we react to them?
Caroline Flint: I think what the review
will have to take into account are issues around what has happened
and how this impacts on, for example, our Eastern Neighbourhood
Policy and support. I think that will be looked at and taken into
account in terms of what has happened. Obviously we have this
audit happening of the relations with Russia and I think, as I
said earlier, Mr Solana has indicated that he wants to look at
some of those discussions of what is said and see how we might
incorporate that in the review. It has raised a whole number of
issues about the neighbourhood policies of the EU, particularly
in the eastern part of Europe and I am sure that will be reflected;
clearly that has a relationship to Russia as well.
Q408 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To follow
up on that, presumably we are not just sitting back and saying
to Solana: "We're frightfully glad that you're the man who's
re-writing this, get on and do it"; presumably we are inputting
our views as to what should be in it.
Caroline Flint: I think we are having
those discussions but, as I said before, part of this document
is not necessarily to try to produce a blue print in all the areas
of detailed policy in terms of our relationship. It is to provide
a mission statement as such in terms which guide the more detailed
work that happens. There is the run-up to the next EU-Russian
summit which takes place on 14 November and we will need to think
about how that will be reflected in the Strategy. I am sure that,
as a Member State, collectively with others, our views on that
will be taken forward to Mr Solana to think about in terms of
his final document to be produced at the end of the year.
Q409 Lord Anderson of Swansea: You
have mentioned, Minister, the EU-Russia summit which is only four
weeks away. Is it the Foreign Office assumption that after the
strong response to the invasion of Georgia it will, in your phrase,
be "business as usual" in respect of the PCA and other
arrangements with Russia when we come to the meeting on 14 November?
Caroline Flint: I might ask my colleague
Katherine to come in on this but all I would just say is that
we had the start of the Geneva talks happen just yesterday—we
are getting some read-out from that—and clearly, as we get
to 14 November, I think we will be analysing and checking along
the way about how productive those talks are going to be. There
are some very important issues to resolve. Whilst the Russians
have withdrawn from the buffer areas, there are a number of issues
around displacement of people, property and so forth that still
need to be resolved.
Q410 Lord Anderson of Swansea: And
refugees.
Caroline Flint: Yes, refugees as well.
Having made my first trip as Europe Minister to Cyprus last week
(which I know Lord Hannay has had an interest in), one can only
think about how these situations can, if not addressed early on,
last for many, many, many decades and test us all.
Ms Fox: In terms of the re-start of the
negotiations with the successor to the Partnership and Co-operation
Agreement the European Council taking place yesterday and today,
the conclusions from that will be key. We are anticipating and
are looking for a continued postponement of the PCA negotiations
so that we can see where the Geneva talks go, but we do not think
that that means that the summit should not take place because,
as the Foreign Secretary set out in his speech in Kiev, we need
a policy of hard-headed engagement towards Russia. Isolating Russia
is in nobody's interest; we need to be bringing them back into
the international community and living up to their obligations
and their responsibilities internationally. Part of that will
be the agenda for the EU-Russia summit that is taking place in
November. We hope it will be a pared down summit looking far more
at substance and engaging closely with Russia, but we still think
that the summit should be going ahead.
Q411 Lord Anderson of Swansea: On
this speech of President Medvedev which Lord Crickhowell has already
mentioned, the immediate response of President Sarkozy who was
there was very enthusiastic. Was President Sarkozy speaking on
behalf of his partners in that enthusiastic response? How seriously
do we take the proposals for a European security treaty which
has been raised in the past by the Russians? Is it more than just
a recognition by Russia that their one aim of being top-dog in
the OSCE is no longer possible? How seriously do we view it? Or
do we say, effectively, show us the beef and let us work incrementally
in our relations? Do we share President Sarkozy's apparently enthusiastic
response? What is our view on the way in which this proposal should
be incorporated, if at all, into the deliberations on the new
Security Strategy?
Caroline Flint: I think, as I said earlier,
we have not been fully sighted on the proposals and we are looking
forward to some discussions around them. I would just say a couple
of things, first of all we need to have more details on what the
Russians are proposing; we have limited information. Secondly,
we do have tried and tested structures in the form of NATO, the
EU and the OSCE that do need to evolve as times change but what
we would not want to see happen is a sort of debate happening
that should undermine them. I think that is important in all of
this. What is the purpose, what are we trying to achieve here?
Rather than necessarily getting involved in another structure
we would have to have a very close look at what that meant but
also that it did not jeopardise existing institutions and what
they would currently offer. The test in terms of how we work with
countries such as Afghanistan at the moment is actually what gets
delivered on the ground and how various organisations contribute
to that, so it is right for the focus of the review to be on making
our security policy more effective and looking at our partner
organisations and how we work with them.
Q412 Lord Anderson of Swansea: What
weight should be given to the Medvedev proposal in the evolution
of the Strategy?
Caroline Flint: I think we are open-minded
about people's contributions. Russia is an important partner for
us on many different levels; we seek to work with them and do
so. Nobody has the source of all truth and we are open to proposals
but as yet we have not really seen the details of them. Until
we do we will have to think about that and then I might be able
to answer whether we would agree with Mr Sarkozy's comment or
not.
Q413 Lord Boyce: Minister, you may
have touched on this answer already in an answer to an earlier
question about enlargement. How will the review of the European
Strategy take into account the EU's desire to strengthen its relations
with its eastern neighbours particularly Ukraine, Georgia and
Moldova?
Caroline Flint: I think the events in
Georgia do indicate that the EU should step up its support in
the region. It needs to send a strong political message that we
support European aspirations of the region and in doing so strengthen
the EU support for the long term processes that many countries
in this area want to engage with us on. Coming into the job I
am learning more about our European Neighbourhood Policy, particularly
in terms of the Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy
(I think the Committee prefers "Network" to be used)
for reinvigorating support for the East as an important tool for
those of us in the EU. It adds weight in many respects and maybe
a sense of momentum about how we take stock of our engagement
and what it produces and the fragility of some of the countries
and the journey they are on. Again I think this just focuses people's
minds and attention on making the various different partnerships
and engagements in that part of the Continent more effective.
Q414 Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Just
following on from that, the 2003 Strategy put a lot of emphasis—correctly
in my view—on the importance of enlargement of the EU for
its security, that enlargement was in itself a contribution to
strengthening security. This was of course a Europe of 15 before
it had become 27. Is it going to be reflected further in this
review that further enlargement remains a crucial part of Europe's
security and that obviously has implications for countries of
the West Balkans but it also has implications in the case of Turkey,
and it could have implications—certainly I would hope—if
one day the European Union does give Ukraine a membership perspective.
It is surely very important that the review should continue to
put enlargement up there as a major security issue—not just
in its own right but as a security issue—given that it has
become rather controversial within the EU.
Caroline Flint: I would agree that enlargement
is one of our most powerful tools in terms of democratic reform,
opportunities for prosperity and trade, but also security as well
in which I think trade and democracy play an important part in
delivering that too. Again I think enlargement is very important
to be reflected about how it does increase across the EU our stability
for the future and helps us respond as well effectively to some
of the challenges that we face which will continue in different
forms to be with us in the future. I think the review will reflect
that.
Q415 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Does
the Government therefore rule out at any stage, at any point in
the future, the membership of Russia in the EU?
Caroline Flint: I think that is an issue
where Russia might have to decide what it wanted to do, but importantly
EU membership is open to countries to come forward with as far
as I understand. In the last week I have spent some time in different
countries in that part of the world and talking to my colleagues
who deal with Russia and the Western Balkans as well and clearly
we have a number of countries who are on a journey and for some
it is a long journey. I think it would be unwise to speculate
about that because I think in the meantime we have to focus on
our current relationships and engagements and make those work.
Part of that is about is engaging on common issues of security
but trade and inter-partnership on some of the common challenges
we face. Who knows what may lie down the road? It is an interesting
discussion but I think there is probably enough to focus on with
the present structures and relationships and where we are, to
get that right first.
Q416 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: I would
argue that it is slightly more than an interesting discussion
because you could argue that we actually add to the paranoia of
the Russians by excluding them either from the EU or from NATO
for the indefinite future and saying that they are totally unsuitable.
It just feeds the paranoia that they are being surrounded by people
who are their enemies.
Caroline Flint: I think part of the discussions
over the weeks and months ahead—I am not saying that will
be the end of the discussion by any stretch—are about trying
to give some reassurance. I think in some areas part of that is
about, as I said, not just security issues but our trade engagement
and involvement as well with Russia which in some respects getting
that right can actually just assist how a country feels about
itself and its close connection to us and other members of the
European Union. I agree, these things are very important but I
would just say that I think we have enough to deal with at the
moment in terms of where we are in terms of our present relationship
and how we get that right, but importantly the other side of this—the
incident in Georgia has made this very clear—is that Russia
is an important country, it is an important partner on a lot of
different international platforms and as a country has responsibilities
and has responsibilities to support the agreements that it signed
up to. In that respect we want a good engagement but one that
recognises that and as one voice in Europe are prepared to stand
firm when we feel that that is not being applied to.
Q417 Lord Crickhowell: Minister,
can we turn to energy security? Recent events have clearly strengthened
the view that we put forward in our report about the importance
of energy security for Europe. As you have told us, you read the
debate on Friday and you will see that some of us actually welcome
what we detect is the strengthening of the British Government's
position since some of the earlier statements about matters such
as the Nabucco pipeline. However, clearly it is going to be a
very difficult issue for Europe because whilst it is clear that
Russia takes more notice of Europe when Europe acts together,
there are different approaches. The Germans particularly, with
their pipeline connections and so on, may well take a rather different
view; France has its nuclear. It is going to be quite difficult
to get the kind of unity we need to produce an effective energy
security strategy. Perhaps you could enlarge a little on the current
British position and how you see the particular debate going in
the coming weeks.
Caroline Flint: The Security Strategy
is right to highlight energy dependence as a special concern for
Europe and energy supplies for our consumers across Europe are
important but also how do we make sure what type of fuel, what
type of energy and also how secure it is. That is why the EU as
one of the largest importers of energy has to look at this issue
and the Committee will be aware that there has been some discussion
at the European Council on climate change; there will be some
discussions as we move towards the end of the year. The UK Government
view is that this a really important debate, that regardless of
the situation we are facing in terms of the financial challenges
across Europe it is something we need to keep focussed on because
it will always be a problem if we do not attend to it now. As
far as our concerns in terms of the Strategy we would like to
see the delivery of an improved security supply for the EU, the
achievement of a fully liberalised and complete internal market
for energy because we think that such a market would help to mitigate
many of the energy security risks faced by the EU both in the
short term and long term. The third energy package is a major
step forward to achieving that sort of market and of course the
2020 market which is the subject of much debate at the moment
we believe will further help to diversify the resources and reduce
dependence. So we are working on this. The EU's negotiating mandate
for the post-Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia
has now been agreed among Member States but the Committee will
be aware that although talks started on 4 July they have been
suspended due to the situation and action in Georgia. The EU has
made clear that energy aspects should reflect the key principles
of the Energy Charter and part of that will have to be our discussions
with our colleagues in Russia about supply and what have you.
I recognise that there are a number of EU members who rely pretty
much totally on their supply from Russia and again we need to
engage with them. On the other side of it, I think there is an
opportunity, I would hope, for some constructive discussions with
Russia as well about its own energy and how it is provided and
what their plans are for the future and whether there is down
the road some opportunity for cooperation and discussions. All
countries in Europe in its widest sense face difficulties in terms
of planning their resources for the future in relation to both
prices, supply security but also importantly the impact of climate
change on our country.
Q418 Lord Crickhowell: Minister,
I agree with you that it is not an entirely one sided debate.
Russia needs its market; it may well need investment and skills
but it does not seem to be going about it in a sensible way to
encourage investment and skills at the moment. It also surely
will need to take a pretty tough line with Gazprom and the Russian
approach which basically says that they want to have it all their
way. If we are going to have an effective partnership we are going
to have to say to Gazprom, "You're going to have to obey
the rules that apply to trade in Europe just as European countries
do". We have taken a pretty tough line in another area with
Microsoft; we are going to have to take a pretty tough line with
Gazprom as well. Do you agree that in seeking security there has
to be some give and some fairly firm lines taken on issues of
that kind?
Caroline Flint: I would agree with you.
Ms Fox: Yes, we do agree with that. I
think the first of September Extraordinary European Council was
particular key in that and I know the Committee has been following
energy closely with its report on EU-Russia. I think at the European
Council the support for Nabucco, and the focus on the internal
market showed that the European Union is alert to and has perhaps
almost woken up to the importance of energy security. Its external
relations with Russia will be a key part of that although some
of that is reassurance to the Russians that pipelines such as
Nabucco are not intended to displace our current energy relationship
with Russia but to enhance where we get the supply from. I think
the Government would agree with the situation as you describe
it.
Q419 Lord Crickhowell: We emphasise
the difficulties of getting an agreement within Europe on the
proposals put forward by the Commission. Do you detect a significant,
helpful shift perhaps since recent events in European countries'
approach or is it still going to be a considerable struggle to
get any kind of agreement on the energy policy? There are different
views in Europe. As I said, Germany's position is very much out
on its own.
Caroline Flint: There are different views
and I am sure the Committee will get some feedback from the discussions
of the Council yesterday. I think part of the work that is going
on in terms of the Energy Charter is to see how we can make a
much more open and transparent market and in relation to Russia
how that will be backed up by some legally binding dispute resolution
mechanisms as well which I think goes to your point earlier about
what we would expect in terms of engagement. I am sure when the
second Strategic Energy Review comes forward later this year I
hope it will reflect some of these difficult issues. As I said
before, we are very much pressing that the package around climate
change really needs to be supported to take forward because this
is about recognising that we need to think about, despite the
differences at the present time, how investing and making some
changes now will actually have some economic dividends for countries
down the road. If not, it is going to become increasingly more
difficult and more expensive for countries if they do not start
changing they way they both source fuel and energy but also supply
it too.
| 
