Mr Jim Murphy, Mr Nick Latta and Mr Martin Shearman

23 JANUARY 2008

  Q1Chairman:   Minister, I think we would like to pass on to the next set of questions now. As you know, you appeared before the full Select Committee to answer some questions on the European Council last December, but there is a number of them directly referring to the foreign policy and defence aspects which we would like to put to you, as we have done in the past. I wonder whether I could begin? In your evidence to the Select Committee you commented that the discussion on globalisation had been a significant topic at the European Council. In the conclusions to the December Council there is in the annexe a reference to the European Union sharing in the "responsibility for global security and stability" and I was wondering if you could say something about how that could actually be implemented and which of the instruments of the ESDP would be relevant for that?

Mr Murphy: In terms of the annexe and globalisation, there are all sorts of different levels of this, of course, and we spoke about it in the Commons earlier in the week during the debate, the second reading of the European Union Amendment Bill. Just the pace of global change economically, politically and culturally probably most historians would remark that it is unsurpassed at any other time in our history. There is a broad realisation that the European Union is a phenomenal vehicle to influence, not stop but influence the nature of political, economic and cultural globalisation. So in respect of the ESDP it is about conflict prevention where we can. It is about, where there is conflict, ensuring EU coordination with NATO. It is not a new conversation, I know, but it is one in which there is an increased realisation of the importance of it, notwithstanding the continuing difficulties, and that the ESDP missions are properly funded and resourced and that there is proper coordination with all other sorts of international agencies. Those are the sorts of responsibilities the European Union has taken and should continue to do so.

  Q2  Lord Boyce: Minister, one of the Conclusions invited Member States to contribute to discussion on the European Security Strategy. Perhaps you could say something about how our Government is going to contribute to that? How do we evaluate the strategy and what sort of suggestions do you think we can put forward in response to that request? Do you think if there is a good response from all Member States we will see a revised strategy as an outcome of the discussion?

  Mr Murphy: President Sarkozy, of course, has spoken about this and his ambition for this to be an important part of the hopefully soon-to-be-ended process of rotating presidencies. I think it is important because there are weaknesses in the current strategy and that argument is well rehearsed about the importance of climate change on stability, for example. Climate change is not captured by the current strategy, nor is inequality. Somebody will say—not your Lordship's Committee, of course—"Why are you talking about inequality when we are talking about security strategies?" but the fact is that all sorts of things and all sorts of organisations, reactionary, dangerous organisations, grow from the swamp of poverty. So those sorts of things have to be captured in a new refreshed strategy. The weakness of the current strategy, if I may be allowed to say this, is that it has the tone, I think the observation is, of post-coldwarism about it which, notwithstanding it is something we have previously spoken about, would not be appropriate. In advance of that the expectation, of course, is that the plan will be to publish our own UK security strategy and having done that there would then be the opportunity to influence the European one. That would be our approach.

  Q3  Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Could I just add a supplementary to that? Would you expect that the broad thrust of the revised Security Strategy, which the French Presidency has said it wishes to promulgate towards the end of this year, will continue to be what was in the previous one, known as "effective multilateralism?"

  Mr Murphy: Yes, but with additional priorities, the types of things I have already alluded to.

  Q4  Chairman: But some of those were incorporated into the Reform Treaty, were they not? I know we are not taking questions on it, but there were modifications to the Reform Treaty to extend from the Petersberg task to some of the other tasks which were in the initial European Security Strategy?

  Mr Murphy: Not only specifics, for example the issue of inequality in the Security Strategy is not inside the Reform Treaty, but there are important movements in the right direction. I think its effective multilateralism, without giving anything away, would be an important component of the UK's refreshed security strategy as well, as your Lordships would expect.

  Q5  Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Could I go on to the next question, Minister, which is about Africa. We were given a very useful briefing just ahead of the EU/Africa summit by Lord Malloch-Brown and subsequent to the summit we had a written report from the Ministry and DfID, so that was very helpful, and in particular on issues of human rights and good governance it seems that most of the concerns which we as a committee expressed in advance were more or less met at the summit in what I suppose is best described as a "goal-less draw", because whereas Mr Mugabe got to go there he did get to hear a number of views on these subjects, and others too. I wonder whether you could assess the summit from that point of view, human rights and good governance, with a little bit more time to look at it and also how you think those sorts of issues will be followed up in the future in this new partnership and how it will impact on places where, alas, it is quite clear they are having no impact at all at the moment, such as Zimbabwe?

  Mr Murphy: Firstly, I think there is the importance that the event took place at all. I think it is significant. We can all reflect upon the nature of other nations' diplomatic efforts in different parts of Africa and particularly China. In the environment where China is, understandably, very, very active indeed it is important that the European Union, with the types of values that we seek to embody, human rights and other important issues, is present and an active player. So I think that is important, the event being in place at all in the first place. In terms of Mugabe, maybe it would be helpful to say—your Lordships may already be aware of this—other Member States, not just the United Kingdom, did express very publicly their abhorrence at the kind of vile regime in Zimbabwe, including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, which helped. Not in the Zimbabwe media, of course, but it helped ensure that this was not seen by others as an old colonial UK legacy responsibility matter in the way in which Mugabe had sought to do so. On human rights, there is a number of issues, but it may be helpful if I follow this up in correspondence, if your Lordships wish. There is a number of areas of agreed work including human rights and transparency in governance over a three year period. The event took place and that in itself is important, but much more substantive in the medium term is that these eight areas of work are then implemented. Although the Prime Minister did not attend, for a very good reason, there is a real desire throughout the Government to make sure that those commitments are then followed in concrete action, and we will be monitoring that very, very closely.

  Q6  Lord Swinfen: Minister, you have mentioned China and its increasing influence in Africa. What is it doing to improve human rights in Africa?

  Mr Murphy: I am not party to the bilateral conversations between Chinese diplomats and African diplomats, but it could do more.

  Q7  Lord Swinfen: Is it doing anything, do you think?

  Mr Murphy: I think I would have to rest with the answer that first of all, I do not know every twist and turn of Chinese diplomacy. It is not doing anywhere near enough. Whether China will claim it is doing anything, I am not sure, but certainly there is an observation that where a government in Africa feels that the European Union is being too prescriptive on human rights on occasion China has been willing to fill that diplomatic void vacated by the European Union. That is a delicate way of putting it on the basis that I am not party to all of the discussions, but certainly nowhere near enough is the answer.

  Q8  Lord Anderson of Swansea: Back to Africa, clearly the Portuguese presidency were determined to crown their six months with a long-delayed meeting on Africa. The background was the Beijing summit of African and Chinese leaders. You began by saying, I think, that the importance of the meeting, one significance, was that it took place at all. Then, to be fair, you went on to talk about eight three-year programmes. Do you have any confidence, given the way the AU has developed, that these three-year programmes will really bear any fruit, or was the significance only the fact that it took place?

  Mr Murphy: As your Lordship fairly acknowledged, my response was that there was a number of reasons why the summit was important. Of course, there will be another summit in 2010, which will be an opportunity—it is not the first opportunity, but it will be a public responsibility for all of those involved to have shown demonstrable delivery on these eight areas of work over the three years. The additional matter is that from talking to those who attended there is a different tone towards the summit from the last gathering, the last agreements, and it was not the European Union dictating to the African Union or to African nations. Personally, I think that is a good thing. It is a partnership rather than a lecture. On that basis, that it is a partnership, there is a greater degree of confidence that some of the agreements entered into in partnership will be delivered.

  Q9  Lord Hamilton of Epsom: If it is a partnership, I think you mean a partnership with South Africa, and they have completely failed to date (despite something like two million Zimbabwean refugees flooding into South Africa, which already has an unemployment problem) to grapple with this problem at all? We seem to put all our faith in him, frankly, when he has delivered almost nothing to date.

  Mr Murphy: Discuss! I should declare an interest. I lived in South Africa for my teenage years, although the accent does not give it away! I was also the President of the National Union of Students here in the UK and I think I worked out that there was not much possibility of being elected in South Africa, being a Glaswegian! Anyway, I am declaring the interest. Of course, Lord Malloch-Brown deals with the detail of this and your Lordships will have an opportunity to discuss it more with him, but South Africa has defied any predictor of its demise since the day of the end of apartheid. We were told it would never work economically, politically or diplomatically and for all sorts of other issues, cultural, tribal, South Africa was bound to fail. Each year we are told that. I am not belittling, of course, the difficulties in terms of everything that is going on. In terms of its relationship with Zimbabwe, South Africa of course has most to gain and most to lose from a solution in Zimbabwe. The elections in Zimbabwe are due in March. I said that we wished to keep out of the Serbian elections on 3 February and it would be a phenomenal mistake for the UK to offer even an implied view about those elections, but it is clear that the current basket-case that is Zimbabwe's economy is unsustainable. South Africa knows it has the most to gain and the most to lose from the continuation of what is going on at the moment and allowing that to happen.

  Q10  Lord Swinfen: I want to talk about the European Neighbourhood Policy, about which Lord Grenfell has recently written to you. How does the Government think that the EU should take the policy forward and on which countries does it think the EU should concentrate?

  Mr Murphy: Relatively briefly, because I know your Lordships wish to make progress towards Iran, first of there are two principles. The Neighbourhood Policy cannot be and should never be an alternative to membership. On occasion that has not been clear enough from all the European capitals. It cannot be an alternative to membership. The second thing is that we have to avoid the temptation, which is there for obvious reasons, of competition between resources, attention and effort on, if you like, the Neighbourhood Policy for the east and the Neighbourhood Policy for the south, which is an internal friction within the system. Thirdly, what we would now wish to see is those detailed bilateral Neighbourhood Policy agreements and action plans and getting them implemented. In terms of countries, I think the Ukraine is of important strategic interest, and personally I think it is important that we focus particularly on the Ukraine.

  Q11  Lord Swinfen: Particularly for energy.

  Mr Murphy: Particularly for democracy, energy relations with Russia and all sorts of others. The Ukraine, as your Lordship knows, is going through a period of democratic transition and it is important that the European Union is there as supportive as we can be to support the democratically elected government which is now in place. So there is a whole series of reasons why the Ukraine is of strategic importance to the European Union.

  Chairman: Lord Selkirk, that to some extent covers it, but perhaps you would like just to continue on the Ukraine for a moment?

  Q12  Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Yes. We are obviously interested in the likely effects of the developing relationship with Ukraine. First of all, what the effects are likely to be on Ukraine and secondly what the effects are likely to be on Russia?

  Mr Murphy: On Ukraine, the UK does not wish to close the door of eventual European Union membership to the Ukraine, and we have said that clearly. Again, if we go back to the point about whether it is one voice speaking on behalf of 27 or 27 voices, if it is 27 voices there certainly would be a difference in emphasis and nuance on that, but we are working with European partners who think that in time the Ukraine's destiny is within the European Union. In terms of Russia's attitude, we all know this dreadful phrase "Russia's near abroad". It is a phrase that frankly seven months ago I did not think I would ever utter, but in terms of the diplomacy of Russia's near abroad, the Ukraine and Georgia again in particular Russia sees as being of important national strategic interest in terms of her sphere of influence. Georgia, of course, slightly aside from the question, has had her elections and the referendum and Russia's response has been unenthusiastic but relatively measured. I just wish to put that on record.

  Q13  Lord Anderson of Swansea: Minister, the European Union's relations with Iran tell us much about power relations within the Union with the EU3 and also about the interrelations with the United States of America on Iranian policy. The main development since last we met has been the National Intelligence estimate of the United States. Is it the view of the European Union that this means for the US the military option is off the table?

  Mr Murphy: I think President Bush has said that all options remain on the table. It may not be verbatim, but that is the tone of his response. I think your Lordships may find it helpful if I updated your Lordships in general terms about a gathering of the EU3 plus three (ourselves, Germany, France, the US, Russia and China) in Berlin yesterday which David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, attended. The very good news is that in principle there is agreement for a further in principle UN Security Council resolution on Iran. I think that is a really substantial step forward.

  Q14  Lord Anderson of Swansea: Are you able to say a little more? Presumably that will mean a package of enhanced sanctions in respect of Iran? Are you able to particularise on that?

  Mr Murphy: There will be a point in the process where I think it will be helpful to particularise on it, but at this current stage, now that we have the EU3 plus three agreement, there is now an issue about gathering wider Security Council endorsement of a resolution in terms of the package, but certainly without going into any detail sanctions would of course be part of that. I am happy if your Lordships will be comfortable that at the appropriate time we will share the information.

  Q15  Lord Anderson of Swansea: Thank you. With the Chairman's indulgence, one related matter: clearly for the last three years the UK, France and Germany have worked on behalf of the Union as an EU3. There has been some resentment of this directoire (or whatever one calls it) and one has also had the problems over the invitations to London by the Prime Minister excluding the smaller countries. What can you tell us about the current state of the other countries about the EU3 generally and any new power developments within the Union?

  Mr Murphy: I suspect there will be some who would wish to have an EU27 plus three. We cannot work in that way, but the EU3 is clear, notwithstanding any friction—which I think actually is overstated on occasion in the media—that there is an acceptance across the European Union, the three European states operating on behalf of the 27. When I was asked at Lord Grenfell's committee last week, I made it clear there (although this may not now be as necessary) that in the absence of a new UN resolution the European Union was willing to take collective sanctioning measures on its own. We will have to see how successful we now are in the detail of that UN resolution. That may no longer be necessary.

  Q16  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Minister, that EU position which Lord Grenfell has been discussing with you is very much focused on the nuclear power as it relates to Iran. What about Iranian attitudes to Iraq? Do the EU speak with one voice in trying to discourage Iran's well-documented interference in the internal affairs of Iraq—and "interference" is the mildest word I can think of to describe Iranian activities in Iraq? Does the European Union gather around on that issue or are the well-known positions of the past still very much a factor of the present?

  Mr Murphy: The fact is that in the conversations about Iraq time and different personalities have led to a diminishing friction over the events of the recent past. The French Government is an important component of that changed dynamic, of course. I attended a meeting of the General Affairs Council of the European Union before Christmas where Iraqi ministers including the Iraqi Foreign Minister attended. It is difficult to overstate the determination to leave the past in the past. France in particular, and the minister who was there would have been Minister Jouyet, who spoke passionately about these issues, says it is finished and to leave the past where it is, and about unanimity about supporting Iraq in the process it is now involved in. So it is a very, very strong position.

  Q17  Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Minister, I have had disagreements with Members of this Committee about whether Iran holds a veto on Arab-Israeli negotiations. I am convinced that it does because it controls Hezbollah and if any deal was done on the Arab-Israeli side which excluded Iran they could just get Hezbollah to start mortaring Northern Israel, which would break everything up. The EU have gone much further in talking to Iran than the Americans have and I think that may be unpleasant but is a necessity. Should we not make more of this? I think American foreign policy is completely mistaken in trying to make Iran a pariah state. I think we have got to talk to them. I do not think they are very nice people, but I think they are absolutely critical to the future of the whole region.

  Mr Murphy: Do they operate a veto? Of course not, diplomatically. We all know that in terms of diplomacy of the Middle East Iran does not have a veto. Do they have the potential to wreck or assist the process? The sad assessment is that I think they do, through the funding of different organisations. But it is important for us to be able to talk to those with whom we do not agree. That fact is that, for example, in the Annapolis Conference it was very important for us to have the Syrian attendance. I am not a supporter of the regime or some of the characters, but it is important that they are party to the conversation.

  Q18  Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Can I follow up that point, because I very strongly agree with the view that the United States ought to be talking to Iran. Surely there will never be a better moment for the United States to agree without conditions to start a dialogue with Iran than the moment when the Security Council unanimously adopts a new punitive sanctions regime? Are we going to do anything to ensure that that opportunity is taken?

  Mr Murphy: I am in a difficult position, as your Lordships will appreciate, neither being a spokesman for the Iranian Government nor the US Government. All I would say is that it is important for us to be able to talk to people we do not agree with.

  Q19  Lord Truscott: Minister, on Iran how would you rate present cooperation with the Russian Federation, particularly on the Bushehr nuclear plant and the issue of nuclear non-proliferation?

  Mr Murphy: Generally I think Russia is very engaged in this, which is reflected in their willingness in principle and actually in some detail—the detail will emerge over the next short period—as to the detail about the new proposed UN Security Council resolution, so I think they are seized of it, they are engaged in it and they have a decent bilateral relationship with Iran, which is important, and they are in a position to offer, if one likes, part of the package of incentives. The incentives would be WTO plus longer term incentives in terms of Iran. In the short-term, in terms of their civil nuclear capacity, Russia is in a position to provide technology and support for legal Iranian action on its nuclear effort. So I think Russia is engaged diplomatically and bilaterally in a helpful way.