Plenary session 5

 

 

 

 

 

Speakers detailed a number of ways in which European and Gulf countries could cooperate more closely with each other so as to mitigate the region’s pressing security problems. Several institutional efforts were already under way, and could be pushed forward. It was vital, all believed, to work together towards a solution to Middle East peace, to the tensions in Iraq and Lebanon, and to Iran’s nuclear aspirations. The speeches sparked a lively discussion.

 

Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, Diplomatic Adviser to Jacques Chirac, President of France, emphasised his country’s preference for dialogue and cooperation. ‘Recent experience makes us aware of the limitations of unilateral military solutions’, he said. Dialogue offered ‘the only worthwhile way of providing long-term guarantees of peace, security, and human and economic progress’. Europe’s own experience was instructive: the European Union was proof that regional integration between countries that had previously been enemies was the key to success. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) represented a precursor to greater integration.

 

There were two ways in which Europe could help the GCC to develop further. The first was the free-trade agreement between the EU and GCC, under discussion for the past 16 years. Negotiations had progressed with the GCC’s introduction of a customs union in 2003, and had taken a further step forward with Saudi Arabia’s admission to the World Trade Organisation in 2005. The second was a French initiative to develop a common agenda with GCC countries in areas such as counter-terrorism, crisis management and maritime security.

 

He stressed the need for dialogue to resolve four pressing issues: Israel–Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. It was more necessary than ever to forge a political process between Israel and Palestine ‘unless we wish to see the radicals in both camps determine the region’s future’. The 2002 plan of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia ‘remains a valid basis for reflection and action’. In Lebanon, dialogue must be inclusive; it must bring justice, with an international tribunal so that political murders would no longer be committed with impunity; and it must allow Lebanon to be independent and protected from external interference. For Iraq, only region-wide dialogue could calm resentments. On Iran’s nuclear programme, Gourdault-Montagne noted that a process was under way in the UN Security Council and appealed to Iran’s leaders to ‘grasp, while there is time, the opportunity offered to them to integrate their country fully into the international community on an issue which affects first and foremost Iran’s neighbours’.

 

Adam Ingram, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, United Kingdom, focused his remarks on terrorism. He recalled an attack on a wedding in Jordan in November 2005, after which the groom had said of the bombers: ‘They are the enemy of humanity. They are not real Islam.’ Ingram stated there was no clash of civilisations, and no holy war. ‘To claim there is, is to underestimate the strength of the values we all share. Values that are grounded in our shared humanity, not restricted to one faith, country or creed.’

Terrorist attacks had made the lives of Muslims worse. ‘That is why Muslims are themselves the most powerful opponents of terrorism conducted in the guise of Islamic purism. It is why genuine partnerships between Muslim and non-Muslim communities and governments are the best means of avoiding the schism the terrorists seek to create.’ It was necessary to improve consultation between the UN, NATO and the EU. In the Gulf, too, there was scope for greater multilateral cooperation, particularly in areas such as counter-terrorism and maritime security. 

 

The region’s challenges were interrelated, Ingram said, with Israel–Palestine being the core issue, in which Europe was playing an important role – as it was in Iraq. European countries were providing the majority of troops for the expanded UNIFIL mission in Lebanon. ‘We need to unite the international community, including all moderate Arab and Muslim voices, behind a push for peace between Israel and Palestine, in Lebanon, and also in Iraq. We shouldn’t fool ourselves that a peaceful Middle East would be a panacea for global terrorism, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.’

 

Christian Schmidt, Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Defence, Germany, asserted that the Gulf and Europe had much in common. Both the EU and the GCC were aimed at the economic integration of their member states, as well as cultivating social and cultural relationships, and cooperation on foreign and security policy issues. They had common interests – furthering the Middle East peace process, ensuring regional stability in the region, countering terrorism and securing energy supplies.

 

During its tenure of the EU presidency in the first half of 2007, Germany would place special emphasis on the Middle East, seeking to strengthen the role of the Quartet (made up of the US, the UN, the EU and Russia). Berlin was concerned about the volatile situation in Lebanon, where the only acceptable course of action was for all parties to seek a non-violent political solution to their differences: Syria in particular needed to meet its responsibilities. Iraq’s stability was central to the security interests of the countries in the region, and required a process of national conciliation. Regarding Iran, Schmidt expressed disappointment that Tehran had not accepted the international offer made in June 2006, which provided for far-reaching cooperation. The door was still open for talks.

 

There was clearly a need for enhanced political dialogue between Europe and the Gulf, both bilaterally and multilaterally. Schmidt called for the rapid conclusion of negotiations on the EU–GCC free-trade agreement, for the development of bilateral relations between EU and GCC members, and for an EU–GCC strategic partnership. This would involve cooperation on human rights, the rule of law, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, migration, economic reform, social development and cultural issues. ‘In working together I think we have a chance of bringing about a solution to our common central security questions to the benefit of all.’

 

The speeches provoked pointed questions about Europe’s role in resolving conflicts. Robert Hunter, Senior Adviser to the RAND Corporation and former US Ambassador to NATO, challenged the EU to step ‘up to the mark’ in solving regional problems, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq. The EU, he said, should ‘pick up at least a large part of the non-military function in Iraq and all the civilian non-
military function in Afghanistan, with [the appointment of] a supremo and a real commitment of money and effort’. Dr Toby Dodge, IISS Consulting Senior Fellow for the Middle East, welcomed France’s call for a multilateral approach, and asked how France proposed to ‘multilateralise’ the Iraqi crisis further. Roy MacLaren, Chairman of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, raised the issue of caveats that some European NATO members place on the operations of their troops in Afghanistan. Norine MacDonald, President of the Senlis Council, Afghanistan, asked Ingram to what he attributed the return of the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

 

Schmidt concurred that a comprehensive rather than a purely military approach was needed in Afghanistan. It was not so much a question of the number of troops as of the philosophy behind operations. European nations had made an effective contribution in the Balkans. Gourdault-Montagne stated that the recent NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, had made clear that reaching a solution in Afghanistan was no longer a matter of adding troops, but of a balance between military tasks, and social and economic goals. The NATO Secretary General had, therefore, been mandated to set up a contact group. The EU could take a greater role, for example in the training of the police. On differing commitments, France had not contributed a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) because it had bad experiences of such methods in Algeria. But it had promised to use its troops in Kabul to come to the rescue of PRTs if necessary. On Iraq, France believed a more multilateral approach could be taken once the sovereignty of the Iraqi government was clearly established, though the timing of a US troop withdrawal was a matter for Washington to determine.

 

Ingram noted that progress had been made at the NATO summit. Events in Afghanistan underlined the need for NATO, the EU and the UN to be better coordinated. ‘There has to be that overarching delivery there of what we are seeking to do.’ On EU capabilities, the mission in Bosnia had been successful. On the resurgent Taliban, Ingram said: ‘What we have to do is to engage militarily and defeat them when they appear and we have to win the hearts and minds in the communities.’ Reconstruction could only be achieved in a relatively calm environment, and was under way. ‘We do anticipate a greater reaction from the Taliban sometime next year. We’ll wait and see how that manifests itself.’ On caveats, while the International Security Assistance Force was delivering in a very substantial way across the country, ‘certain issues have got to be addressed and dealt with’.

 

Dr Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at the Nixon Center, Washington DC, asked at what point Europe, in the absence of any shift in Iran’s position on its nuclear programme, would impose sanctions that the US had had in place since 1995. Mark Fitzpatrick, IISS Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation, asked Gourdault-Montagne whether he saw recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium as part of the solution to the current stand-off.

 

 Schmidt answered that it was necessary to maintain a unified, comprehensive and coherent international position on Iran, which should include its neighbours. A dialogue should be kept open if there was to be a possibility that it could help to settle problems. Gourdault-Montagne asserted that the aim of a UN resolution on sanctions on Iran’s nuclear programme (passed later in December) must be to encourage Tehran to come back to the negotiating table, so that sanctions could be progressive and proportionate, as well as reversible if Iran moved to suspend enrichment. The unity of the international community was vital: a unanimous UN decision would confer legitimacy.

 

Waleed Al Banawi, Vice Chairman, Banawi Industrial Group, Saudi Arabia, asked about France’s role in Lebanon today and its commitment to resolving the conflict between the factions. Dr John Chipman, Director-General and Chief Executive, IISS, asked for France’s views on the benefit that the United States could draw from a security dialogue with Syria, given its long and distinctive relationship with Damascus. Baroness Symons, a former British Foreign Office minister, stressed the need, in resolving the Israel–Palestine issue, of talking with all parties. She asked what conditions should be imposed on holding discussions with parties such as Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah.

 

 Gourdault-Montagne said Lebanon should not be a proxy battlefield for major powers; nor should it be exploited by its neighbour. A national consensus taking Hizbullah into account was necessary, as it was both a militia and a party representing about 40% of the population. Hizbullah had participated in the electoral process, but UN resolutions had stressed that militias were not acceptable. ‘So what we are pushing is a dialogue amongst the Lebanese to settle this matter and to make Hizbullah become a party which fully exercises its rights as a political party.’ Syria and Lebanon must have a strategic relationship as neighbours, but Syria’s occupation of Lebanon had been unacceptable. While it had withdrawn, further action was needed to prove Syria’s willingness to help Lebanon to recover its full integrity, sovereignty and independence by applying UN resolutions. On Israel and Palestine, Ingram said experience in Northern Ireland had shown that engagement with enemies – people who had tried to kill the British cabinet – was very difficult, but ‘we had to talk to them at some stage’. There had to be preliminary points of contact before a formal dialogue could be undertaken.

 

Dr Dana Allin, IISS Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Affairs, posed a question to Gourdault-Montagne. He noted that it had been a ‘recurring theme’ for France to express concern about the unrivalled exercise of American power. Almost four years after the invasion of Iraq, it was, however, American weakness rather than American power that gave cause for concern. ‘I wonder if there might be reflections in France, which is of course America’s original and oldest ally, that it might be in French and European interests to help support and really invigorate American power.’

 

Gourdault-Montagne replied that while there had been confrontation between France and the US over the war in Iraq, it was necessary to work together. ‘The aims we are pursuing are always stability and peace. We can have different analyses, we can have different views but we exchange them. We re-established the dialogue between France and the United States which is, I think, helpful to the rest of the international community.’