A report with a difference

The Standing Committee on Foreign and European Affairs together with its EU Scrutiny working groups must be the most productive committee in the Maltese Parliament - at least at present.

Nevertheless the committee lacks the human and financial resources to be able to produce a comprehensive study such as the 237-page report on Global Security: the Middle East, which the House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee has just produced. The report - the first in a new series of global security matters - was intended to give the committee an opportunity to scrutinise the work and effectiveness of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in one region at a time. Given that the Middle East is, and will continue to be, of critical importance to British foreign policy, the committee held discussions with a range of key interlocutors in various Middle Eastern states in March, travelling in two groups, and thus giving itself the opportunity to cover a larger range of countries in a limited time.

The evidence taken for this report was received before the change of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in June.

Confidentiality

Apart from the considerable oral evidence gathered, the committee also took evidence from independent experts while receiving various written submissions. Given some leakages of evidence gathered that instantly appeared in the national press, the committee has since revised its policy on publication of evidence and henceforth it intends to publish on its own Website all evidence, other than that marked private or confidential, shortly after receipt.

Although the committee is chaired by a Labour (government) MP, Mike Gapes - an old friend of mine, since we served for a number of years as international secretaries of our respective political parties during the same period - it did not think twice about rapping the Foreign Office.

In fact one of its summary conclusions was that the FCO's failure to provide them with a timely response to basic administrative questions has (in their opinion) hampered their ability to scrutinise the Government's approach towards the Middle East. They further concluded that the FCO needs to reconsider its approach towards confidentiality of documents while recommending that when parts of a document can be released without classification, a crude blanket approach should not be applied to that document. While concluding that the FCO should continue to have a Departmental objective on relations with the Islamic world, the committee felt that sufficient weight should however be given to the impact of British policy in Iraq, Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territories since they were concerned that the damage done to the government's reputation in the Arab and Islamic world may affect its ability to influence the political situation in the Middle East. They recommended that in response to this report, the government should set out what action it is taking to improve its influence and reputation in the Arab and Islamic world.

They also recommended that the government should publish a public strategy paper on its relationship with the Middle East that should set measurable targets for progress and consider the political situation in different countries. They believe that such an approach will help ensure that the government continues with a holistic approach to the region, improve the public's confidence in the Government's approach to the Middle East, and increase the opportunity for effective scrutiny of its engagement in this area of multiple crises.

Recommendations

One might ask why I chose to classify such a report as 'daring' and 'challenging'.

The report's conclusions and recommendations make it clear what led me to make such a statement. Here are some of them:

The decision not to speak to Hamas following the Mecca agreement has been counter-productive.

The unwillingness of the EU to modify the financial boycott of the Palestinian Authority following the Mecca agreement was very damaging.

The international community failed to prepare and implement rapid economic solutions to reward those elements within the national unity government that respected the three Quartet principles.

While concluding that the actions of both Hamas and Fatah militia forces in the Gaza Strip were deplorable and should be condemned by all, they however felt that the escalation of violence in June should not have come as a surprise to the UK government or any of its international partners.

The decision to boycott Hamas despite the Mecca agreement and the continued suspension of aid to the national unity government meant that this government was highly likely to collapse.

While the international community was not the root cause of the intra-Palestinian violence, it failed to take the necessary steps to reduce the risk of such violence occurring.

Given the failure of the boycott to deliver results, they recommend that the Government should urgently consider ways of engaging politically with moderate elements within Hamas as a way of encouraging it to meet the three Quartet principles.

Any attempts to pursue a 'West Bank first' policy would risk further jeopardising the peace process.

The Government should continue to press Israel to ensure full humanitarian access to Gaza.

They recommend that Tony Blair, as Quartet representative, should engage with Hamas in order to facilitate reconciliation among Palestinians.

They further recommend that his mandate should be broadened to include explicitly working with Israel, the Palestinians and regional states to advance peace negotiations.

The Roadmap for Peace has largely become an irrelevance in the dynamic of the Arab-Israeli conflict due to the Quartet's unwillingness to challenge robustly both sides's failure to meet their obligations - thus undermining its usefulness as a vehicle for peace.

While the process of the Roadmap has failed, its objectives must remain the basis for a solution to this conflict.

The Arab Initiative for Peace is a positive proposal that deserves serious consideration by all parties.

While the Government's focus on developing an economic roadmap for peace in the Middle East is to be warmly welcomed, the expansion of Israeli roadblocks and the growth of illegal settlements in the West Bank have had a very damaging impact on the economic situation in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The government's decision not to call for a mutual and immediate cessation of hostilities early on in the Lebanon war has done significant damage to the UK's reputation in much of the world.

War in Lebanon

Although they accept that Israel has an inalienable right to defend itself from terrorist threats, they conclude that elements of Israel's military action in Lebanon were indiscriminate and disproportionate. In particular, the numerous attacks on UN observers and the dropping of over three and a half million cluster bombs (90 per cent of the total) in the 72 hours after the Security Council passed Resolution 1701 were not acceptable.

Both arms-smuggling to Hezbollah and Israeli over flights into sovereign Lebanese territory threaten to undermine and embarrass the government of Lebanon, as well as the UNIFIL forces operating in the south.

While the government should continue to refuse to engage with the military wing of Hezbollah they recommend that it should engage directly with moderate Hezbollah Parliamentarians. In their view, the EU ban on ministerial contact with Syria is not helpful in the context of engaging constructively with the Syrian government. They recommend that the Government should resume such contacts without delay.

Although they concluded that it is too early to provide a definitive assessment of the US 'surge' in Iraq in their opinion it does not look likely to succeed. Any intervention into Iraq by neighbour countries would have an immensely damaging impact on regional security.

They conclude that the Iraq refugee crisis requires urgent attention.

On Iran they are of the opinion that it is vital that the UK and the international community should engage constructively and coherently with this country on the difficult issues at stake.

One can argue ad nauseam about the merits or demerits of these recommendations, but particularly after having also diligently gone over the verbatim text of the oral evidence given to the committee one cannot but commend it for its thoroughness and sense of professionalism which should be the envy of Foreign Affairs Committees elsewhere. Malta included.

Mr Brincat is Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs & IT and a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign and European Affairs of the House of Representatives

leo.brincat@gov.mt