Question and Answer Session
Dr John Chipman
Let me group the many themes on the table under three headings. Franco Frattini raised the issue about the possible contribution that Europeans can make to stability in this region. There has been a long‑standing debate on the economic relations between the EU and the GCC, and there is also the issue of the way in which European countries can contribute military assistance to the area. We in Europe live [in an] era of apparently declining military budgets, and some of you may want to query what that implies in terms of the sustainability of security commitments to this region.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Yemen was eloquent in his remarks explaining the need for a very balanced relationship between his country and an international community that wanted to assist. For example, sometimes there were concerns that the Friends of Yemen that began in London with the very best intentions did not always adequately fit the needs of Yemen. Their push for accelerated political reform made it difficult for the government to adapt as necessary. We need to have an open and frank debate about the best way for the Friends of Yemen and others [to] properly engage with the country and tease out specific ways in which multilateral and bilateral assistance can be managed.
General Mattis in his remarks emphasised the role of military forces in providing a general public good. Sometimes when speaking about the military in this region, one thinks only about dramatic military interventions or the beginnings of wars, but in pointing out the international, collaborative efforts against piracy in the region, [he] reminds us that military cooperation can, when properly managed, be a general public good, to which all need to contribute.
Dr Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, Professor of Political Science, UAE University
General Mattis, I have a question that is in everybody’s minds in this region, especially the GCC. If the sanction fails and the dialogue does not yield any result, what is plan B for Washington? At the moment the message coming from Washington is confusing. Hilary Clinton was very conciliatory in her remarks, but we also know that Washington itself is in an ugly moment vis-à-vis Iran. Which is the real America?
Christian Schmidt, Parliamentary State Secretary for Defence, Germany
In relation to military cooperation at the military level in the region, we heard from His Majesty, Abdullah of Jordan this morning that the military cooperation is bilateral and the GCC, which is a body that takes responsibility for development around the Persian Gulf as a whole, would be very interested in hearing about improvements in regional cooperation at the military level.
Vice Admiral R K Dhowan, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, India
While there has been clarity and unanimity about the requirement for peace and stability in the region, … there have been mixed views with regard to the regional security framework. Keeping in mind the disparity in military capability of the countries in the region, what should the architecture of the regional security framework be, the role of the indigenous players and those who have vital interests in the region?
Participant
Minister Frattini, could you please tell us about Italy’s role in the security of the Gulf. We know that Italy is the NATO contact for Qatar. What does that mean exactly?
Particpant
It seems as though there is a consensus being built here, which is somewhat different to what we have been hearing in the past. It is that setting up security, fighting extremism or combating ideology is through the building of institutions. American scholars have said that the cost of one US soldier in Iraq is similar to the cost of establishing more than 23 schools in Afghanistan. There seems to be a consensus that the role of the armed forces in Afghanistan and other countries as well should be minimised, while the role of intellectuals and institutions should be maximised. At the moment, hard power is still being used in the fight against extremism. Is this going to change and if so, when?
Rear Admiral (Retd) Robert James, Director, Enterprise Asset Management Inc.
The panel has talked about how outside powers have probably caused conflicts in the region. Would you please be more specific – which powers and specifically how are they causing problems?
Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour, Director, Diplomacy and International Organisations, School of InternationalRelations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iran
It seems to me that the only outside security power in the region is the United States, who are resistant to allowing any other power [to] play a role, so who are these outside powers? Secondly, how do people in the region perceive the historic role of outside powers, because I think this is important when talking about security and institutions?
General James Mattis
In relation to plan B, I think we have to be careful about abandoning plan A before we have exhausted it. If we decide we have to shift to plan B early, I think we have failed to give diplomacy, sanctions and economic efforts every chance. Clearly I wear a uniform; I am an American naval officer and the military owes its government options, but those of us who have been working on this for years have all seen enough of wars in this part of the world.
The idea that we would have to focus early on a plan B would actually undercut the commitment to plan A, which is to solve this using all diplomatic and economic means. I say this without any naivety; I recognise the role of military force, but at the same time I am nowhere near pessimistic yet. I use the word ‘yet’ and clearly we will have to be able to work with our partners in the region, to take advice from them and ensure we understand the issue from all angles. At this point and for the immediate future we will act along the lines articulated by our Secretary of State last night in very positive and open terms.
In relation to the role of the armed forces, I would like to point out that once we are engaged in a fight our role is to develop the best possible peace. Taking Afghanistan as an example, we buy time and put up protection, so that things like education and government services can then operate against the pressures brought to bear by the extremists, who want no education for the children, no progress by a secular government and who have completely lost track of what is important in this world. I do not think we are reducing the role of the military. Throughout history we simply buy the best possible conditions for a better peace. In a counterinsurgent war the prize is the people, hearts and minds, and so we have to do that in a way that is consistent with the enemy, who in this case fights with innocent people on the battlefield, so that puts us much more into a protective or policing role, but the role of the military remains to provide the security.
We are eager to support international efforts in our security architecture permitting us to work in league with our friends in this part of the world. For example, there are now 47 nations united with troops on the ground in Afghanistan. No nation on its own can provide security either for itself or other nations; we are going to have to work together. This alliance is the largest in modern history and that shows the degree of international collaboration between our militaries at this time.
Dr Abu Bakr Al Qirbi
I have very little to say about these questions. Let me however take the last question about the role of outside powers in regional conflicts. I do not think there is any naivety in this room. Let me first reassure some of you that the intervention of outside powers is not always negative. It is positive in some aspects and that is why it is welcome. It does, however, have negative aspects as well.
On the disparity of capabilities in the countries in the region, I think this is why it is important to focus on national security before we think about regional security. Unless you build up your national security, I do not think you can contribute to regional security. For example, Yemen’s partners are trying to build up that country’s capabilities to counter terrorism, piracy and drugs and arms smuggling. Building Yemen’s national security will eventually have a reflection on regional security. Finally, military action is not and never has been the solution and it therefore has to run in parallel with political solutions.
Dr John Chipman
Minister Qirbi, can I just press you on two points, because it would be really useful to have your clarification. I have heard from some friends in Yemen quite considerable disenchantment with the Friends of Yemen process. While it began with extremely good intentions, the proposals coming out of the Friends of Yemen process are not really helpful in the immediate and short term. I have heard that on many occasions the Yemeni political establishment has been upset by some of the ideas coming from it. Would that be a way you would characterise the Friends of Yemen process? What reforms would you like to see in the Friends of Yemen process to ensure that engagement is genuinely constructive, as I think was the original aim?
Second, there has been a great deal of talk for many years about the way the GCC as a body can relate more effectively to the country of Yemen. You have observer status in some GCC meetings and there is a process of rapprochement between Yemen and the GCC, but I sense there is sometimes a concern that Yemen’s relations with the countries of the GCC is resolutely bilateral and that they are very specific and different. Would that be a characterisation you would accept, and what is Yemen doing to work with the GCC as a body rather than its separate constituents?
Dr Abu Bakr Al Qirbi
Regarding the Friends of Yemen, people are sceptical, because they are impatient to see the impact of the Friends of Yemen. This is why we are looking forward to the Riyadh meeting, to come up with some substantial and substantive solutions to the issues that will be presented by Yemen to the group, Friends of Yemen. Because I think we have to work on two tracks in the future regarding challenges faced in Yemen. One is really a very fast track, which will help Yemen overcome the poverty, the unemployment, challenges of human security, which I alluded to. This fast track I think will have to depend on two things: one is the movement of the labour force, because this will have the quickest impact on Yemen’s economy; the other is really to look at specific areas in the infrastructure of Yemen, which need to be supported in order for it to initiate the process of economic growth and economic development. Then, the long‑term process which is obviously part of the Yemen five-year development plan.
In this regard, I hope that the group of Friends, when they meet in Riyadh, they will address the issue of the implementation, because in 2006, when we had the Donors Conference in London, over $5 billion were committed for development in Yemen. Fortunately, only about 20% of it was spent, and we do not want to share the blame. I think the blame is on both sides: on the donors and on Yemen. But what we need to do is look: why is this? How can we improve it? Where is the bureaucracy? Where is the qualified personnel who are executing it on our side, for example? This is, I think, our hope now as far as Friends of Yemen.
As far as the GCC countries and its relations with Yemen, I think some of the things that you have alluded to are really history now. I think we have made tremendous progress in the relations between Yemen and the GCC. I think this is reflected in two [developments]: one is that the GCC countries are now encouraging and there is a lot of investments, most predominantly from Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Secondly, our participation in many of the ministerial councils and GCC organisations. Thirdly, I think the commitment of GCC countries, and we have heard it today, and in many other meetings, where GCC countries now feel that they must shoulder greater responsibility towards development in Yemen.
Franco Frattini, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Italy
First, on the point made by the German Minister of Defence. Yes, it is true that many western countries and European countries show good bilateral cooperation in the field of security with many countries in the region. It is also true that we should move from bilateral cooperation examples to European cooperation examples, with the countries in the region. What are the main conditions for that to happen? First of all, you all know that under the newly adopted, and it entered into force a year ago, Lisbon Treaty, we in Europe are strengthening European, and foreign, … defence and security policy. This is the proper framework where Europe, I think, can properly balance hard power and soft power. Europe can better cooperate, for example, with the countries of the region and establish a regional cooperation in fields like promoting training experiences or, for example, exchanges of technologies. In these two fields, what we need is to have a stronger European security and defence policy, if you want to be as Europeans, a real, global player. This is a challenge for Europe; this is a very important task we have now, to implement properly and rapidly the Lisbon Treaty. You know that among European states, there is an ongoing debate on what to do as Europe, as global player in the field of security; our part – what I will be saying on NATO, North Atlantic alliance cooperation – but as Europe. Is it possible to have a good example? Yes we do. We have examples in areas like Afghanistan, where Europe is fortunately well engaged, on the ground to cooperate, to provide contributions to security.
But this is not enough. You know that among neighbour states, Italy is one country, for example, promoting, strengthening our military cooperation amongst European member states. We have even been talking about thinking for the mid- to long-term experience to have, one day, a European army. This is a very ambitious goal, not for tomorrow, but that would mean Europe wants to be engaged in security as a whole; it should strengthen its security and defence policy.
On NATO, it is a different story. You know that very recently at the Lisbon Summit, European and NATO leaders, all the NATO members, discussed about how to strengthen the new partnerships between NATO and regional groups. Particularly, I would like to stress, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, which includes some Gulf states. That comes to the Italian role that Italy will be playing next year, being the contact country for NATO with Qatar. We will be implementing in full by promoting a closer cooperation to exploit its potential, I mean the potential of Istanbul Initiative, which sees NATO engage at the highest level. At the NATO Summit, the leaders said new partnerships are an added value, and I agree when talking about terrorism; when talking about piracy; why not, when talking about cybercrimes and all the kinds of organised crimes. NATO should engage the new partnership exercises in a better way.
What is Italy doing is another question for the region, apart from our excellent economic cooperation? We are fully engaged to support Yemen, for example. We have been cooperating by offering training for Yemen’s coastguard; we have quite good experience and we have been helping Yemen in providing high technologies for monitoring and patrolling by satellite – highly sophisticated devices – the Gulf, in order to prevent and fight the enormous flows of people coming from the Horn and infiltrating Yemen, with some risks. You know that many, many Somalis, refugees, live in Yemen, and so this is an example. The other example: our participation … in piracy patrolling initiatives. Well, this is not enough. We are engaged in bilateral cooperation, again, but we are promoting, I would say, a better atmosphere, not in defence and security, but to make it possible finally to finalise the agreement between EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council which has been under negotiation, I would say, for too many years. The time has come to come to an end and to get it finalised.
Third and final question: some of you raised the costs of military intervention. Yes, I agree, it is a very heavy price we have been paying. We have to combat extremists. What is the future? The future is promoting rebuilding, and in some cases building, institutions and encouraging and promoting culture and education. I think these two pillars for helping a state which is getting out of a crisis situation is the best possible investment we can do, by putting money at disposal for the young generations and for the future generations and leaving forever, I would say very frankly, some paternalistic approaches of the past, considering our culture as the best possible one in the world. I like very much my culture, my religion, Lisbon Treaty, Europe, but it is not something we can impose. Our role should be helping, encouraging and fully respecting the ownership of each and every state.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you very much. We have time for three or four remarks before coming to the end.
Dr Ebtesam Bin Howaiden Al Kitbi, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, UAE University; IISS Member
I have two questions. First one for General Mattis: what do you think are the ramifications for actors of a nuclear Iran, and if we consider the option B would be military attack, what are the ramifications of attacking Iran? The third question: what is the greater risk, a nuclear Iran or an attack on Iran?
My second question to Mr Al Qirbi. I do not know, is the conflict of the South Yemen and Houthis, you consider it reflects a weakness of the state or an influence or interference from outside powers?
Jean-Claude Mallet, State Advisor, State Council, France
Thank you. My question is really for General Mattis. We have not talked much about Iraq this morning. I would like to ask you a question in relation to the subject of this session. The American military and administration in the past seven years have interpreted the counter-insurgency in various ways. What is today, in your assessment, the role of foreign military presence in this counter-insurgency? Is it an explanation? Is it not an explanation? Is it outside of the landscape? Is it still there? That is true for Iraq and I think it is probably true for other theatres under your command. So, the question is really, does foreign military uniform troops on the ground trigger violence, and how can we solve this question in the present theatres? Thank you.
Major General (Retd) Mahmoud Irdaisat, Director, National Centre for Strategic Studies, King Abdullah Academy for Defence Studies, Royal Jordanian National Defence College
Thank you. My question is to Minister Frattini and General Mattis. Yes, we are talking about regional conflicts, but we are concentrating mainly on Yemen, on Iran: they deserve the concentration. But as was said by King Abdullah this morning, the oldest conflict in this region is the Arab-Israeli conflict. I agree with General Mattis that we are all together for comprehensive security for the region. But I would like to ask why we are not together when it comes to this core issue: when Europe and Arab powers are asked to sit back and watch, why the occupied should negotiate with the occupier by his own, and nobody is to interfere with outsiders? Are we not all together with this, as far as we are talking about regional security and a world-comprehensive security? Thank you very much.
Baria Alamuddin, Foreign Editor, Al Hayat
Yes, I have two questions, one to General Mattis. General, I wonder if you can give us an idea about the readiness of your troops in case peaceful Israel decides to attack Iran? I say this with sarcasm, of course. I wonder if you can give us an idea, because there are some press reports that suggest that Israel might just do that, if the negotiations do not go anywhere.
My second question is for Minister Frattini. Foreign Minister, do you think finally Europe can get together and get its act together and really have a substantial role in the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis? As we have seen, our good friends the Americans are unable to do anything so far. Thank you.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you, why do we not take a couple of minutes each, this time beginning with Franco Frattini, then Minister Al Qirbi, and then end with General Mattis.
Franco Frattini, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Italy
Well, questions on Middle East peace process. Yes, I agree, there are no good alternatives to negotiations and to lasting peace. What is the key principle is that international community, the Quartet, our American friends, Europe, should consider the Arab peace initiative as still the basis on which we should get an agreement through negotiations. You know how important, because some of you said, ‘Is there a true engagement of Arab states and countries in this region?’ I think there is; the Arab League has been following very closely and it is fully engaged to promote and to encourage initiatives in full respect for the interests of Palestinians, and rightly so. You know what is the follow-up committee, what the chair from Qatari’s Prime Minister is doing about that: following and giving a further chance to peace by taking more time before drawing the final conclusions. You know what are the efforts of each and every state in the region, and I think this represents a true commitment from the Arab side.
From the European side it is through – we would have liked at the very beginning of this new exercise, to see Europe even more engaged, even more present. But that said, we commend so much the efforts undertaken from President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator Mitchell, on the area, and we are closely supporting. You know that Europe took some important strategic decisions. We took the decision under the Swedish presidency, a year ago in December – Carl Bildt is not here – but under the Swedish presidency, we were able to get [it] unanimously, because the foreign policy decisions are taken unanimously in Europe. We took the decision, representing the strategic European position [on] which we rely. As far as I understand, both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, liked that general position, which will remain the European point of view.
So, in conclusion, I think yes: Europe is engaged. Well, we have not the ambition to do what America could not do yet, but we want to help America in getting important results, and the efforts undertaken on the ground from some very important partners like Egypt on the Palestinian reconciliation, which is one of the keys to succeed.
We cannot imagine to leave the Gaza issue outside of the comprehensive agreement, because otherwise we would have Palestinian viable state and an entity which would not represent a true state, and I mean Gaza. So, this is the wrong approach. So, that said, Europe will be trying to be even more proactive, and this is exactly what we should do: things to strengthening our foreign policy.
Dr Abu Bakr Al Qirbi, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yemen
Thank you, regarding the question about the conflict in the south, I think the last ten days of the Gulf Cup in Yemen, in Aden and in Abyan - … both southern governments - have clearly demonstrated that Yemen is not weak. I think you have seen that government is in control and is able to control the country. But we are not an iron-clad regime; people have to express their views and demonstrate if they want to. The noises made by a small group of separatists who are remnants of the 1994 separation group, most of them are scattered outside of the country and not in the country, and we realise that this is a problem faced not only by Yemen, but by many other countries: Spain and others in Europe and southeast Asia. Separatist movements are always there because they are short-sighted, they do not realise the advantage of a unified country, and they look after their self‑interests. But I can assure you, Yemen’s government is not weak.
Dr John Chipman
And just Ms Al Kitbi’s question about the role of outside powers in any of these three conflicts to which people refer in Yemen. Would you like to say anything on that point: the role of outside powers, the Houthis, or al-Qaeda in the south of Yemen?
Dr Abu Bakr Al Qirbi
Another Manama conference.
Dr John Chipman
People might start to ask you the question tomorrow! But, General Mattis?
General James Mattis, Commander, US Central Command
Thank you. I think I will defer my questions to the next Manama conference as well! The first several questions about nuclear-armed Iran: I think the United Nations, the region, has made very clear they do not want this to arise. It is that simple. It is how do we get to that position. The ramifications, to be blunt about it, if it turns into an attack, I would quote His Majesty, the King of Jordan this morning, when he said it would be an absolute disaster. That is what I think would be the ramifications of it. Yearning, I am very eager to see our diplomats do what they must do in order to avoid one more conflict in this region, because when you asked what is worse, a nuclear‑armed Iran or another war, in the short-term, obviously a war immediately is always the worst thing. We always try to delay, to put that off, to resolve some other way. But in the longer term, in private meetings, in public discourse, I have had explained to me very bluntly here in the region the concerns of very responsible leaders who have had to deal with this and have watched this unfold, and they are very, very sober and very grim with me. I think I would only share their view, that we have got to find a solution. There has got to be a solution, and hopefully one short of any kind of conflict.
The question about foreign military troops, uniformed troops actually triggering violence. I think it comes down to two points. The role of those troops must be framed by very sound policy, and sound policy means that we have got to work together and listen to each other, and more importantly, be willing to be persuaded by each other, when someone who is a long‑term friend gives advice. The second point is the conduct of the troops. If you lack either one of those - if you do not have sound policy, or you do not have proper conduct of the troops on the ground - then it can trigger violence. You have to have both to prevent those troops from triggering violence; you must have a sound policy and they must conduct themselves consistent with the highest moral and ethical standards. But lacking either one of them, I would say, could trigger violence. In Afghanistan, I have had people tell me, ‘We love it when the ISAF troops come, but do not come if you are just going to leave, and leave us vulnerable to the enemy. If you stay, you are welcome and we want you. But do not come in and walk out and leave us to the tender mercies of the enemy’. So, I think that pretty much sums it up. There are also times when because of complex factors, I have had a gentleman tell me once, ‘In my heart I want you gone, in my head, I know we need you’. A very interesting point. So, I think it comes down to sound policy and the conduct of the troops.
The core issue of Palestine-Israel: I did not bring it up because it underlies everything that I deal with, frankly, in my daily job in this region. I would say that President Obama has been as blunt as anyone can be in his support for the two-state solution, and his sense of urgency working on this from his first day in office shows his commitment. He is not a demonstrative man in terms of making impassioned speeches; he is much more comfortable in focusing on a mission and working it day after day in practical ways that carry it forward. I will tell you too that there is a penalty, a security penalty if the Middle East peace process stagnates, and nobody is more aware of that than those of us who wear uniforms in this room. But at the same time, I am heartened any time I hear, for example, Minister Frattini saying that Europe wants to be more involved. There are times when America wants as much involvement as possible, and I cannot be more blunt about this. We cannot constantly berate the American president for what he is doing or not doing, whilst others sit on the sidelines. This is a problem that requires all of us to work together, and good ideas do not come just from the country with the most aircraft carriers.
As far as the readiness of our troops in the event of a trigger event, I would just tell you that our troops are ready; they are 100% ready. We work closely with our partners in the region on very mature responses if we have to have them, have to use them. But my mission remains to prevent war, to set the conditions for the diplomats so that we do not have to resort to something like that, but rest assured the troops, the ships, the squadrons, they are prepared for any eventuality.
Dr John Chipman
Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for your remarks and for your responses to the questions and points that have been put forward. From the floor, we have had a very spirited and complete dialogue this morning. I want to thank Minister Frattini, Minister Al Qirbi, and General Mattis for their remarks in the exchanges.
