Q: Historically, it was the British and the French that drew the map of the Middle East under the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. Today, it is being said with unease by some that the British are now cooperating with the U.S. to draw a different map of the Middle East, especially when joining forces to create a regime change in Iraq, with the spill-over effects this may cause in the region. What do you have to say to those with such concerns for the future of the region?

A: Britain’s top priority is the elimination of Saddam’s program of weapons of mass destruction. That’s our objective and it has been made clear by the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. We hope that we’ve been helpful in persuading others to work with us through the United Nations. Our objective is for the process of disarmament through the U.N. to be a success. We’ve said of course that we think the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam Hussein as the leader of their country. If it were to be the case that there was a change of government and there was a better government, we think that is something that would contribute positively to the region, but that is not our objective and I can quote our Prime Minister on that. The objective is the elimination of the program of weapons of mass destruction.

Q: With the upcoming elections in Israel and a win being predicted for another rightist government under Likud leadership, how do you see the prospects for a solution to the Palestinian question and do you think one can be reached with a rightist government in power?

A: I think we have to be optimistic, we have to keep trying, whichever government there may be in Israel and whatever the outcome of the Palestinian elections which are still scheduled for January, I believe. Britain, of course, supports the efforts to develop the road map of the quartet. We are very strongly committed to coming up with a realistic road map that can then be a basis for agreement between the Israeli government, whatever it is, and the Palestinians. We believe the road map must also include a provision for progress with Syria and with Lebanon. That is an important element in a comprehensive settlement that should not be forgotten. The British Prime Minister again has spoken of the importance of trying to re-launch permanent status negotiations before the end of this year. He did say when it was less clear what the political situation in Israel was going to be that it remains a commitment to try, as Britain, to contribute to international efforts to move the process forward in a significant way.

Q: Regarding the Wazzani issue, there are three tracks being followed to resolve the dispute over water rights. There is the United States, the United Nations, and that of the E.U. Where or with whom does the U.K. stand on this issue and how do you see this problem being resolved?

A: I think it is important that Lebanon has communicated information on the Wazzani project to the United Nations, to the U.S. and to the E.U. Clearly, this is a shared resource. The spring rises in Lebanon and flows into Israel. The political situation between Lebanon and Israel is sensitive and it is important to try to manage the use of this shared resource. We don’t think that threats of military action are appropriate in this case. There can be a mechanism for managing the shared resource in a peaceful and diplomatic way. My understanding is that Lebanon has made a firm commitment to work with the United Nations and friendly countries to manage the resource and to take account, for example, of variations in flows between seasons and between years. I believe that the latest public statements by the Israeli government give some cause to hope that they too see the necessity of finding a peaceful means of managing the situation. That is certainly what the British government supports.

Q: It was recently announced that Britain would be one of the participants in the Paris II donor meeting. Is there a concern that the loans may only serve to postpone Lebanon’s economic predicament, or are you optimistic that the necessary reforms will take place with this push by the donor countries?

A: Paris II is an important event but is not in itself the solution to a problem that will have to be tackled over time through a continuing process. It’s important that the government in Lebanon has recognized that the debt contracted over a number of years now represents a problem for the economy as a whole. It is important the government has recognized that the budget deficit has to be reduced and indeed over time eliminated so that there is no need for further recourse to debt finance. The exact plan is something which is under active negotiation, in particular, with the IMF. I think that the role of the IMF, not just in Paris II, but in the whole process of managing the debt problems of Lebanon will be very important and it will certainly be a significant influence for the British government in our approach to the conference.

Q: Can you discuss British-Lebanese trade relations or those within the framework of the Euro-Med Agreement, in terms of any areas where there is potential for mutual growth, and conditions that can be addressed to attract large British and European firms to set up offices in the country?

A: There is always more to do. I think the E.U.-Lebanon Association Agreement is very significant. It creates new opportunities for Lebanese exporters to the European Union immediately. Over time, the aim is to develop a vast free trade area between the E.U, itself expanding, and the Mediterranean basin. In the short run, we have some initiatives that we hope will be productive.

 

In particular, there is an important delegation from the Lebanese Industrialists Federation visiting Britain later in November. We hope that delegation will be led by Minister George Frem. The particular focus of that mission is recycling. There are advantages, both economic and environmental for Lebanon in developing its recycling capacity. There is an ongoing initiative to interest Lebanese exporters of agricultural products in the British market and we hope there might be profitable links developed with British producers of suitable packaging for what is a very demanding market in Europe for agricultural output, and we have the prospect of a visit by the Lord Mayor of London, who is the representative of the financial services community in the city of London early in the New Year. He will be very interested to engage with the banks and other financial businesses in Lebanon. There are of course two significant British investments in the banking sector. One is HSBC which has been here for many years, formerly under the title of the British Bank of the Middle East – they are now part of a much bigger operation, and Standard Chartered who bought a Lebanese bank in 1998, I believe.

Q: Last year, the British Embassy initiated a rehabilitation program for prisoners at Khiam, but this effort was stopped. Can you tell me a little bit more about that experience and would you still be interested in developing such a program?

A: Let’s talk about Khiam first and then the wider issue of British development aid. The Khiam program is tiny and is actually a program to donate some equipment to one of the Lebanese organizations engaged in the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners and their families who suffered as a result of the terrible conditions in Khiam, which we repeatedly condemned. The donation remains in place. The people of Kfarshouba sadly decided they did not want a visit from a British Embassy representative at the time when the center there was being inaugurated. I respect their wish not to receive a visit. I regret it because I believe that talking to people even when you have differing opinions is a good thing. On the precise subject of the Khiam detention center, Britain and the people of Kfarshouba will I suspect have the same opinion – we are very strong in our condemnation of the conditions that prevailed there.
For the wider program of British aid to Lebanon, the policy is that where you have a country that is classed as upper-middle income, relatively prosperous, $4,500 per head GDP, Britain’s approach is to contribute through multilateral institutions and organizations, so the bulk of our development assistance to Lebanon comes in the form of our contribution to the program of organizations like the World Bank and the European Union.
We do have a modest additional fund which we use to assist with social and humanitarian projects. We have, for instance, supported some de-mining work in Lebanon, we have supported a fishing cooperative and a bee-keeping cooperative inside Lebanon, where we’re trying to work with the UNDP in that case to develop economic activity in an area that was previously under Israeli occupation. We’ve funded a sanitation scheme in Akkar in order to avoid a threat to the health of the population of the village of Mish Mish and we’ve worked with the disabled community in Lebanon to try and develop and apply legislation on access ramps for disabled people.
I don’t want to exaggerate what we do; the sums involved are as I say, very modest, but we hope that we can be helpful and a force for good. We hope that we can make a little difference.

Q: In this area, it is felt that certain acts under the French and English mandates have negatively affected the well-being of some countries in the region. Do you feel that there are grounds for the peoples of these countries to receive an apology for acts such as the Balfour declaration?

A: I think the history of any country is one where you have events which you’re proud of and events you regret. There are things which all of us perhaps would have done differently if we in the 21st century were now in the position of our forebears in the 20th, 19th, 18th or the 17th centuries.
The Balfour Declaration set in effect, conflicting objectives. The element that tends to be forgotten is the commitment that there would be no prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing population. The difficulty of reconciling that with the commitment to look with favor on the establishment of a Jewish national home was one that quickly became apparent under the mandate and has been absolutely apparent ever since the issue was remitted to the U.N. in 1948 and since.
I think that what we can and should do is look forward to try and manage the results of these historical situations. We can’t change history but we can try to develop a peaceful settlement and we want to do so urgently.
President Bush has talked of a two-state solution within three years, Prime Minister Blair has talked about relaunching permanent status negotiations by the end of the year. We have had a very significant initiative by the Arab states which endorsed Crown Prince Abdullah’s proposal at the Arab Summit in Beirut. Sadly, events in the immediate aftermath in the Occupied Territories have tended to overshadow it but it is a very significant development and one which we strongly support and hope that we can build on as we work with others to find a solution to this difficult issue.