Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - The Middle East: The Road to Peace

Statement

Witness: Tony Blair, Envoy on the Middle East; Former British Prime Minister

Chaired By: Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. KERRY: The hearing will come to order.

It's a great pleasure for me today to be able to welcome a tremendous friend of the United States of America, and I'm pleased to say someone who, in these -- (audio break) -- and who I can happily call a good friend. And we're delighted to have Prime Minister Blair here with us.

Since ending his decade of service as Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair has continued to lead on global challenges, from development in Africa to interfaith tolerance to climate change. And at a moment when many people might have been content simply to leave public office and rest on their laurels, Tony Blair left office and volunteered for another tough assignment. He's here today as the Middle East Quartet representative to discuss the prospects for peace.

As all the members of the committee know, this week and this month are critical for the administration's Mideast policymaking. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will all be here visiting Washington. They will also visit with the committee as well as the administration. And we expect that, in the wake of those meetings, the administration and the quartet will be releasing more details about their plans for peacemaking.

And in early June, President Obama will travel to Egypt to deliver his much-anticipated speech about America's relations with the region and the wider Muslim world.

We all understand that peace will not come easily to the Middle East or even quickly. But I share Mr. Blair's optimism that this moment presents an opportunity that we can't afford to miss. If we are to avoid perpetual conflict and radicalization, more missed opportunities and countless lives lost, then we have to pursue peace now and with urgency.

One particularly promising diplomatic opening is Saudi King Abdullah's Arab peace initiative, which never received the focus that many think it deserved when it was proposed in 2002. Every Arab country has now agreed to the basic formulation of land for peace, recognition of the state of Israel, and normalization of relations. The Arab initiative must now grow into a dynamic, evolving Arab engagement with Israel and with the Palestinians.

The simple reality is the regional dynamics of the Middle East have shifted, and today most Arab governments are more concerned about Iran than they are about Israel. Our challenge is to translate these changed dynamics into a regional road map that assigns all of the key players to take a series of concrete interim series of steps on the road to peace.

We know that among the reasons Camp David failed was the lack of a buy-in from Arab states, whose support would have given Israel the broader peace that it sought, and also give Palestinians the necessary cover to make difficult decisions. That's a shortfall that we now have an opportunity to address by developing a regional road map that fleshes out the promise of the Arab peace initiative.

A key aspect of this -- and I emphasize this; I've had a number of conversations with Prime Minister Blair, with other leaders in the region -- a key aspect of steps forward is the empowering of those Palestinians who are committed to peace. It's not enough to talk about giving Israel a legitimate partner for peace. We have to work to support and empower that partner to be able to deliver for its people, to build capacity and to gain legitimacy.

We've seen real progress in increasing Palestinian capacity and economic development, and this is progress we need to build on. In Jenin, thanks in part to Prime Minister Blair's efforts, we've seen the site of some of the worst violence of the second intifada become a place where Palestinians police the streets and economic growth is a reality for many.

General Dayton's efforts to train Palestinian security forces have also been encouraging. During the invasion of Gaza, Palestinian security forces largely succeeded in maintaining calm in the West Bank amidst widespread expectations of civil unrest.

But make no mistake, as I'm confident Prime Minister Blair will share with us today, much work remains to be done. In Gaza, where Tony Blair visited in March, we need to ensure that we deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid and reconstruction assistance without, obviously, empowering Hamas in the process. Having courted destruction, Hamas and Iran cannot be allowed to take credit for the rebuilding, just as Hezbollah did in the wake of the Lebanon war in 2006.

As Prime Minister Blair has said, economic and humanitarian progress will not be enough. There is no substitute for political progress toward a two-state solution. That is today, has been for these past years, and remains American policy. And I'm confident that the president will be firm on this point when the region's leaders meet later this month.

The president has picked an ideal envoy in Senator George Mitchell, who worked closely with then-Prime Minister Blair to achieve the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. So this is a team with a proven track record.

We'll also need help from Israel. Nothing will do more to make clear our seriousness about turning the page than demonstrating, with actions rather than words, that we are serious about Israel freezing settlement activity in the West Bank.

As recently as 2007 at the Annapolis conference, Israel recommitted to implementing its obligations under the road map, which include freezing all settlement activity. We will defend Israel's security unflinchingly, but the fact is, Israelis themselves decided that the settlements make it more difficult to protect the security of their citizens. They're not just fragmenting the Palestinian state. They fragment what the Israeli Defense Forces have to defend.

None of us can afford to continue on the present course, and nothing drove home to me more the human toll of continued conflict over 26 years of visits to the region than a recent day I spent visiting the southern Israeli village of Sderot and the Gazan town of Izbet Abed Rabo.

In Sderot, which has been the target of thousands of rockets over the last eight years, security officials told me that from the moment they know a rocket has been fired from Gaza, people have just 15 seconds to find safety. Children in the second grade have spent literally every day of their lives never more than 15 seconds from danger.

In Izbet Abed Rabo in Gaza, I saw little Palestinian girls playing in rubble where, just months ago, buildings stood. I saw the ruins of the American school in Gaza, but I also saw a glimmer of hope in the faces of average Palestinians who manage and are determined to carry on with their daily lives.

As I said in Gaza, and I said it in Sderot also, if terrorists in Quincy, Massachusetts were launching rockets into Boston, we would have had to have put a stop to it long before the Israelis chose to put a stop to it in Gaza.

But on both sides, I was inspired by the determination of all who live with the daily reality of this conflict. And if kids on both sides can hope for themselves, if they can persevere for a better future, then we have an obligation to help them get there.

Senator Lugar.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I join you in welcoming our very special friend, Mr. Tony Blair, to our committee. It's an honor to have the prime minister with us. In his position as quartet representative, he is specifically charged with revitalizing the Palestinian economy, organizing international assistance, promoting the quartet objectives. We appreciate the experience and insight he brings to this issue and his willingness to testify before us today.

The United States has a strong national security interest in helping to achieve a resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Beyond the humanitarian imperative of achieving peace -- (inaudible) -- the settlement (would ?) strengthen American credibility in the area and would hinder terrorist propaganda and open new possibilities for cooperation with states in the region on an array of issues. It would also diminish the influence of Iran, which is exploiting the conflict for its own purposes.

President Obama has stated clearly that a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Palestinians is in the national interest of the United States. He says he wants results, not just a process. He's assigned a new special envoy, our friend Senator George Mitchell, to engage in the detailed diplomacy required of such an effort.

When we met with Senator Mitchell recently, he spoke with energy and pragmatism about the task at hand. We also heard from King Abdullah of Jordan three weeks ago, who communicated his support of leaders of the Arab states for, quote, "decisive action," end of quote, toward a settlement.

In addition, there is substantial support within Israeli and Palestinian societies for a resolution of the conflict. A recent poll published by OneVoice found that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis want a two-state solution.

Yet we know the history of peace negotiations has been extremely difficult and frequently unproductive. Too often, momentum has been stymied by disagreement on minute negotiating positions or rhetorical diversions that are nearly inconsequential to the type of bold, comprehensive approach that would be necessary for a settlement. Further, despite substantial support for peace within their respective societies, both the Israelis and the Palestinians are politically divided, and their governments lack clear mandates to accept major sacrifices in the interest of peace.

A peace settlement would require Israeli and Palestinian leaders with thin majorities to get beyond calculations designed to protect their own political interests.

In this context, generating meaningful progress toward a settlement will require the international community, led by the United States, to be very active and very creative in engaging the parties and providing incentives. It's essential the administration and Congress be united in our commitment to pursuing peace in the Middle East. We may not agree precisely on tactics with serious divisions within our government to be exploited by those who have other agendas.

I'm hopeful that our government and our partners overseas will work to build international momentum for a settlement, and I am hopeful we will be bold in proposing options. Both Israel and the Palestinians urgently need international support to fortify their ability and willingness to embrace the very difficult choices that will be necessary. We look forward with anticipation to our dialogue with Prime Minister Blair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you very much, Senator Lugar. Mr. Prime Minister, again, thank you so much for being here. I promised you this would be a lot easier than questions in Parliament, and it will be. We're -- we're really happy you could take time to be here. This committee obviously is deeply interested in the issues you're going to talk about today so we look forward to your testimony.

MR. BLAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and everyone. Thank you so much for making me feel welcome here today and -- and a very great honor and privilege to -- to come before this most distinguished committee. And as you know, I've submitted a -- a short written statement and I'll -- I'll -- I'll speak and give an outline of how I see the situation and, first of all, just to say that I entirely agree with -- with Senator Kerry that this is a moment of opportunity, and President Obama has made it very clear that this is a strategic priority for the United States to advance towards a negotiated two-state solution.

This is an issue that Secretary of State Clinton is very familiar with and understands and -- and knows deeply, and the appointment of Senator Mitchell, who was my old collaborator from the peace negotiations in Northern Ireland, is, again, someone for whom I have the highest respect and highest regard for his ability, and -- and General Jones, of course, is somebody I worked with specifically in and around the Jenin area in the northern part of the West Bank territory just a few months back. So I think most people feel from the outside that this is an administration that is well equipped as any possibly could be to take this -- this issue forward, and also what Senator Lugar was saying a moment or two ago about the -- quoting the opinion poll -- the opinion both on the Palestinian and Israeli side.

There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind, as indeed the poll indicates, that if people thought it was possible to get a two- state solution then certainly that is their desired outcome, and I think the question really is very simple. Most people want the two- state solution. There's virtually a consensus across the international community. There are majorities (in favor ?) in principle in Israel and in the Palestine territory.

The question is how do we do it -- how do we take this extraordinary complex set of challenges and turn that opportunity into a credible negotiation for the two-state solution, and I suppose the -- the main thing that I would say to you today is that there are, of course, issues that have to be resolved in that negotiation for a final settlement, and those issues are very well known to people -- over territory including (barriers of land swaps ?), Jewishhood, and refugees, security, water -- many other issues. My basic view is that those issues, although immensely challenging, are resolvable.

People can see the way through to resolving them, and over the years many possible options have been canvassed as to how they're resolved. The point that I would like to make to you today, however, is this -- that what is important is to pay attention not merely to the issues that will occur and have to be resolved in any final settlement negotiation but also pay attention crucially to what actually happens on the ground. And that's why I asked for these visual aids, the maps, which will be very familiar to you but I'd like to point out certain things about them.

And the first thing to be -- to be clear is when we actually see the territory that comprises what would be both the Israeli and the Palestinian state, it is a small bit of territory in a very large region, and it's a territory in which when you -- you analyze the about 1.5 million people maybe who live in Gaza, two and -- roughly 2.5 (million) that live in the West Bank, the just over 7 million that live in the Israeli territory, you see that small bit of territory and those numbers of people and you realize there is no real alternative but for both to have the opportunity of statehood in order for them to live peacefully together, and there is no way if there is not peace between people living in that close proximity on that small part of land. If it's not peace it is conflict.

And so the question is how, as I say, do we get there and the on- the-ground reality that I think is important works in two ways. For the Israelis, their on-the-ground reality is very simple. They have a major security issue. If there are terrorists, as there are in Gaza who are firing rockets into Israel, and as Senator Kerry was saying in -- (inaudible) -- there are people there who live in daily fear of their lives, that is obviously an immensely serious security challenge for the Israelis, and that is why the -- the situation in Gaza has been so difficult and (so fraud ?) after the illegal coup by Hamas there.

But just take it to the West Bank and see the close proximity of the West Bank to the major centers of population in Tel Aviv and obviously, of course, the shared space of Jerusalem. And you see that without proper security for the Israelis, a Palestinian state becomes, for them, a possible threat rather than a possible opportunity.

So my basic view is that for Israel to be able to accept the Palestinian state they need to know -- not just the territory, not just what -- what this map would look like and what it's called -- they need to know what is happening inside that territory. Is that Palestinian state a stable and secure neighbor and partner for enduring peace? That is, if you like, the Israeli on-the-ground reality concern. Now, for the Palestinians, they have a different concern but it is equally intimately related to what happens in reality on the ground. For the Palestinians, as you see from this second map here, they have a certain amount of the territory which are major urban centers.

These are the darker areas here. And then, of course, they have a large part of the West Bank that is what we call Area C, which is under administrative control of the Israelis but it's about 60 percent of the territory. And throughout the part of the West Bank there are settlements, or outposts, and, of course, because of the security threat that Israel perceives, there are also major restrictions on access and movement for the Palestinians.

So the Palestinian concern is really this. If they manage to negotiate their way towards a two-state solution, will their state be one in which they can genuinely take control of their territory and run it as an independent viable state? Will, in other words, the existence of -- of settlements or outposts in its territory prevent the state being viable or will the existence of Israeli forces on the West Bank prevent it from being independent? So these are the two realities and my view, therefore, is -- is this -- that if we are to succeed in achieving this two-state solution, it's true that we have to negotiate these difficult and complex issues, if you like, from the -- the top down.

But we also have to deal with the on-the-ground problems from the bottom up. So what I see is a simultaneous process where we try and negotiate from the top down with a credible political negotiation but at the same time we make the changes necessary to meet the Israeli security concern and the Palestinian concern as to whether they will get the freedom to run their own territory. Now, what does that therefore mean? And has been rightly pointed out, my office works specifically on economic development on the Palestinian side -- (inaudible) -- capacity building for them.

What this means, first of all, obviously is -- is a -- is a proper political negotiation with the declared and clear and credible objective of ending up with two states -- a state of Israel, a state of Palestine. Secondly, however, we need economic development that really starts to change the perception of the Palestinians that they are going to have the run of their territory on the West Bank and they'll be able to make a -- an economic future for themselves with rising living standards and prosperity.

So we are working on a series of measures: industrial parks -- both up in the north there of the Palestinian territory on the West Bank, down in the south near Hebron, in and around Jericho in the Jordan Valley; and also there are housing projects near Ramallah.

Tourism is a major area of potential activity for the Palestinians. The numbers of tourists, actually, in Bethlehem in the last year have tripled. Hotel occupancy when I first went to Bethlehem was about 10 percent 18 months ago. It's now around about 70 to 80 percent. I mean, there are some signs of change and improvement, but basically, this is an area where there should be fantastic opportunities for the tourist industry to develop.

Then, of course, as part of the economic development, you need -- as well as the major economic projects, you need the gradual step-by- step lifting of the access and movement restrictions. Some of those around Nablus and around Hebron have been eased in recent times, but we need to go much further so that the Palestinian industry is able to move around the territory -- import and export its goods.

And then of course, we have the issues to do with Area C that I say is 60 percent of the territory and where the Palestinians at the moment find it very difficult to develop their land properly.

So alongside the political negotiation should come the measures that help the Palestinians gain control of their own territory. However, that has to come alongside the measures to improve the Palestinian security capacity and their capacity -- showing and demonstrating their capability to run their state properly.

Here is where the work that General Dayton has done to support Prime Minister Fayyad has been immensely important. And there are forces that have been trained in Jordan that have come back and are now working in the Palestinian territory and that is changing significantly and dramatically the capacity of the Palestinians to run their own security affairs.

However, security isn't just about force, it's about courts and prisons and the judicial system and prosecution. And there's a whole series of proposals there that the European Union has put together on the rule of law, which again, we can support. And in combination with the measures that General Dayton is taking -- and course, under leadership of Prime Minister Fayyad -- you can start to see how over time we can create a viable Palestinian security capability. If that happens and as that happens, then the Israeli security concern is diminished.

Now, one final point I would make by way of introduction, all of this has largely been focused on the West Bank and that's for very obvious reasons. But one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that for the Palestinians, the only state that is acceptable is a state that comprises West Bank and Gaza. And we know what the problem has been in Gaza with the takeover by Hamas.

Nonetheless, I believe it is important -- particularly after the recent operation and conflict in Gaza -- that we demonstrate that we are doing everything we can to meet the genuine humanitarian concerns of the people in Gaza; that we are, for example, allowing their housing and infrastructure to be repaired and that we are showing to the people in Gaza -- not all of whom, by any means, are supporters of Hamas -- that there is a prospect, that there is some hope. That potentially, if we can get things really moving on this part of the West Bank, then the pressure will come from within Gaza to join the train of moderation, if you'd like, and modernization that we hope the West Bank can become, and make sure that we have one unified process of peace leading to that two-state solution.

But it's important, in my view, that we have a strategy towards Gaza that helps the people and isolates the extremists and not the other way around.

So then in summary it is, what I would say by way of an opening statement, I think this is -- as you rightly pointed out, Mr. Chairman -- a moment opportunity. I think it's a moment of decision. I think in some senses it's a moment in truth, actually, as to whether we all of us -- the international community, Palestinians, Israelis -- are prepared to do what is necessary to realize the objective we say is our stated objective for the future.

I believe it is possible. I don't suppose you mentioning my -- that in my old times during question time period in the House Commons, I don't suppose you could do that for 10 years and survive it without being an optimist. So I am by nature an optimist --

SEN. KERRY: Either that or an masochist. (Laughter.)

MR. BLAIR: (Laughs.) Yeah -- well, and sometimes the two actually go in combination. (Laughter.)

But it does occasionally challenge even my deeply ingrained optimism -- this situation. But on the other hand, to return to what the chairman said -- Senator Kerry said right at the very outset: There isn't, in my view, anything more important in terms of the wider security of this region in the world than making sure we have progress on this issue. And that's why however challenging it may be, the challenge and overcoming it is worth it.

SEN. KERRY: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you. That's a terrific opening statement. And we will place your full comments in the record, as if read in full.

If I could just pick up where you just left off and ask you if you might broaden that a little bit.

One of the things I've found in the recent journeys to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, et cetera, is the degree to which the extremism -- the radicalization and religious extremism that we see translated into violence in some many places -- finds a sort of organizing principle around this dilemma of Israel-Palestine.

I wonder if you'd share -- I mean, it seems that Yemen, which is now becoming a site of increased al Qaeda activity, the problems of Somalia and so forth -- this is just a repeated refrain that I pick up everywhere. And I wonder if you share that sense of the conglomerate of this impact and sort of what you see the implications of it?

MR. BLAIR: I mean, for myself, I entirely share that perspective. I think -- here's the important thing -- the Israel- Palestine conflict did not create the extremism we see. It's not the author of it.

And let's also be clear that we can resolve the Israel-Palestine question and this extremism will still exist. That is true. However, if defeating this extremism is about mounting an alliance of sensible, modern, moderate people who believe in peaceful coexistence -- if that is at the heart of it -- then resolving this issue is a major, major part of empowering that alliance and allowing it to fulfill its objective.

And therefore, my view would be that if you can resolve this question -- if we can resolve this question -- actually, if we can even put it, right at this moment, on a path credibly to resolution, then I think it would do just an extraordinary amount to heal some of the problems of that region in the wider world and it would take out from the grasp of the extremists a major weapon that they use -- or a major recruiting instrument that they use.

Now, all of that has to be -- and it's important to say this, because Israelis sometimes wonder, then in our desperation to make this thing work we then sacrifice their security. I think -- certainly I, and I'm sure members here, come to this from a very fixed position which is that Israel's security is also our security and that we do not take risks with it.

I think I would like to turn that on its head and say that actually, the long-term security not just for ourselves, but of the state of Israel, lies in the resolution of this issue on fair, just and secure terms.

SEN. KERRY: And it is apparent, also, to many of the people who have been following this issue for a log time that the window of opportunity for a two-state solution is, in the judgment of many people, closing.

Demographics, the problem of how you maintain a Jewish state with increasing population of citizens who might have a different point of view and vote differently -- all of these larger issues, together with the impatience and the aspirations that have not been met on all sides is increasingly hardening.

I wonder if you'd comment on that.

MR. BLAIR: I mean, you've also got to be cautious about saying this is the last moment, and you know, this is the final push and so on and so forth, because sometimes those phrases are too easy to use and can be overworked. But I mean, I agree.

In essence, think that -- what's the reality? The reality is we have a new administration that has come in from the outset and said, this is a priority for us. You have the Arab Peace Initiative, which signals that the Arab world is prepared to recognize Israel and to be part of this process. You have unified international community position.

Now, I think with all those things in place, if we cannot move this forward now, I think the risk is there will be many people within Israel and within the Palestinian territories who will conclude it can't be moved forward. That, I think, is the risk.

And then you know, as I always say to people, the alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution, but then there's going to be a big fight. So I mean, as I say, I hesitate often about saying this is the final opportunity, but I think I would say up until the end of this year, there is a critical window of opportunity and it would be sensible for us to pass through it.

SEN. KERRY: Now, speaking to that window of opportunity, you alluded -- didn't allude -- you mentioned in your comments about the legitimacy of the expectations and fears on both sides.

And I wonder if you could set out to us your judgment about what steps on each side that could be taken without an agreement, without even a process, as confidence building steps that could help set the stage for the process. What do you see as the most important measures both sides could take in order to move the other side to have a sense of confidence about possibilities of the future?

MR. BLAIR: I think President Obama said recently in his discussions with King Abdullah of Jordan that he would be looking for gestures and actions consistent with finding a way through to peace that should be taken by the parties. Well what would those be? I think they're actually fairly easy to describe in a way -- I mean, they may be tougher to do but they're easy to describe. I mean, one thing that is very obvious is for the Palestinians that security capacity that they have been building up, they've got to continue to build up, they've got to take the decisions to start implementing the rule of law changes that are necessary to give Israel confidence a Palestinian state will be properly run.

I think our big benefit there is that Prime Minister Fayyad and President Abbas are determined to do this. And they are being supported by the international community in achieving it.

I think for Israel the confidence building measures it can take also again reasonably clear. First of all, it's important that settlement activity does not put at risk the concept and viability of the Palestinian state. It's important just to describe what the issue is for many Palestinians here. Their worry is that what happens is that in and around the West Bank you get obviously settlements that now come out a fair way into the Palestinian territory, past the 67 borders. And, you know, those are of significance, that it's absolutely true. But you also get settlements along the Jordan Valley obviously in and around this area down in Hebron.

And just to give you -- and as I saw myself in and around Bethlehem just recently -- and the concern of the Palestinians is this. That what will happen is that even though there is a political process going on things happen on the ground that contradict that political process. That's their worry. And I saw for myself when I was down in Hebron a short time ago which I think this area's sea business is also very important. There were the Palestinians in a village that -- they found it very difficult to get permits because it's under Israeli-administered control to develop their own land. And yet up in the hills they could see settlements and outposts who were obviously going to pose a real threat to a Palestinian state as they saw it.

Now that is where if that activity continues and intensifies, it becomes very difficult for the Palestinians to gain confidence. So that's something that Israel can do.

The second thing is that what I found in the work that I've done and the last few months obviously there has been an unsettled situation in Israeli politics -- you know, there's been a transition here, the Palestinian unity talks have been going on, it's not surprising it's been hard to get things done. But now we have a settled Israeli government, the new administration has got its feet under the table here and you have Prime Minister Fayyad in position.

There are steps that could be taken on the economic side that are not hugely complicated but would make a big difference. Access and movement restrictions that can allow the flow of traffic to happen far more easily and greater trade. These industrial parks, not merely accepted but driven forward with some, you know, real passion and determination.

If you take down in the Dead Sea area down here, the Palestinians at the moment a lot of the time find it hard to get access to the Dead Sea. But actually this is -- as it is on the Jordan side -- on this side you've got obviously major tourist development around the Dead Sea -- if we were to get major tourist developments also down here on the Palestinian side, which is actually part of the Bethlehem governed, it would make a huge difference. You bring jobs, you bring hope and you bring something else. The Palestinians would think well if we're being allowed to develop this area, maybe it's credible to think that sometime this could form part of the state.

So what I would say is that there are a clutch of measures on both sides that could be taken in advance of a political negotiation that would build credibility.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you very much. Senator Lugar.

SEN. LUGAR: Prime Minister Blair, we're lead to believe by press accounts -- we won't know for certain -- as distinguished Israeli leaders arrive that they perceive that Iran is the major thing they want to talk about and resolution of that situation. They don't object to talking about what we're talking about today, but you have the impression that this is far from the same level and furthermore, given the timelines we've been talking about today, the situation with regard to Iran does not necessarily have the same sort of time line attached to it, unless precipitous military action were to be taken by somebody in the world, an event then creates a very different kind of Middle East both for United States, for Great Britain, for Arab countries, for everybody.

And the reason I raise this subject is that I know that our administration leadership is wrestling with appropriate responses that show our support of Israel but likewise indicate that military responses would have dramatic and perhaps catastrophic results for many countries that may be involved in that situation. Now if this were simply something that's likely to go away rapidly, that would be one thing. But it may not. So in the backdrop even if we get into a diplomatic Round Two or Three with Iran and the Israelis and others, the fallout back home and in the settlement I'm talking about here continues to be substantial.

Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't progress, but let's take this one element of what you've just suggested. The settlements, large settlements, of Israelis in parts of what could be Palestinian territory. In the past, Israeli governments have found it very difficult to bring about movement, even change of opinion of many of the settlers. As a matter of fact, controversies have occurred with some Israelis that thought they ought to have the right for more settlements rather than fewer. That -- as a matter of fact, people coming from abroad when they wish to come to Israel need some room and there still is this kind of feeling which permeates evangelical fervor and all of this.

But how as a practical matter -- you just described the negotiation in which you're involved is a settlement issue to be resolved. Does the Israeli government finally have to say first of all no more settlements, and secondly those of you who are there now we'll help you offer rehab funds, but you've got to move. You physically have to leave. Now I'll bet that would call for a different kind of government I think than the coalition that is there now, and it's not really clear how soon such a government might be formed, but as a practical matter until it is, it's very likely that this feeling just had of some on the mountaintops and some in the valleys with regard to rights and so forth going to persist.

And this is, I suppose sort of gets to the fundamental question, and the United States has felt for a long time that two state settlement is the best idea. And we could be faulted for the timing of our enthusiasms, enterprises, perhaps the Annapolis Conference was too late in the administration, perhaps other times were too early, but clearly the Obama Administration sort of starts out at the beginning, sort of four years ahead, a strong feeling about this. And yet as a practical matter, the settlements have to happen at some point quite apart from the security that you've described, some economic rehabilitation, maybe as you say, some tourism might be helpful.

Gaza has to come into some relationship with the rest of the Palestinians. And this is not only daunting but for practical politicians, it might very well join our Israeli friends who are about to come and say this is way on down the line, and in the fullness of time. But for you and for the chairman it says, well we have the months of this year and maybe you could give yourself a little leeway a few months in the next year, but this is not even in sight despite the idealism of King Abdullah, Arab countries who said we really need to see this happen, we've got to live here, too.

Trying to sort this out in a way that I'm more optimistic.

MR. BLAIR: (Laughs.) Right. First of all, I think Senator that the, I mean I'm not suggesting by the end of this year you can solve this problem. What I am suggesting is that by the end of the year we've got to be on a path that credibly could lead to it being resolved.

And I'll come to the question of Iran in a moment, but in respect of settlements, I mean, the very reason why the road map talks about a freeze on settlements, the very reason that people come back to this continually, it's just for one basic, simple reason -- that in the short term, people want nothing to happen that prejudices or contradicts the very process of peace that we're trying to achieve.

Now, I think it is possible that we can find a short-term way of ensuring that that doesn't happen, but obviously that's one challenge. I think, then, medium term and longer term, obviously, as it becomes clearer what the shape of the Palestinian state will be, then, frankly, we are in a position where we can take a more definitive approach on some of these questions, because there will be areas that it's clear will be part of a land-swap deal, and there are areas that it'll be clear that the settlements will have to move.

And I think at that point it is far easier for both sides to start, if you like, (climatizing ?) their people to the compromises and changes that are going to be necessary. But I think, in the short term, and certainly for the -- (audio break) -- state being viable.

So, for example, you will have heard a lot of the controversy recently over -- (inaudible) -- the E1 settlement or the E1 -- rather, the E1 strip of land and the concern of the Palestinians it was settlement activity there. I mean, I think that is an important question. So there are very specific practical issues that arise. House demolitions will be another; land appropriations another. So I think there are specific things that we can talk about in the short term in advance of that longer-term question.

I think, in respect of the issue to do with Iran, what I would say is this, that the threat posed by Iran is real; there's no doubt about that. And it is a real threat, not just to Israel but to the wider region. Where I disagree with people is to say, therefore, let us focus on that and not focus on the Palestinian question, because, in my view, what is necessary, if we are to have our best chance, hopefully, of persuading Iran that they cannot continue on their present path, then we need the most support, the broadest alliance possible, in order to do that.

So I would say that is where the issue of how we build a credible negotiation to a two-state solution is actually an important part of dealing with that issue, not a separate issue altogether. And I think, you know, that is the linkage that many people in the region understand.

And so I hope that what we're able to do is to demonstrate, in reasonably short time, that we are indeed united with a common determination to find a way to the two-state solution. Yes, it may take time. Yes, it is true we have to build it from the bottom up, as well as negotiate it from the top down, but we are determined to do it.

And that determination and the demonstration of that determination is, in my view, a very important signal to those that might want to use this dispute for their own end in stirring up trouble within the Palestinian Authority elsewhere in the region.

SEN. LUGAR: Mr. Prime Minister, what do you say to those who say to the United States, "All well and good for you to be talking about the two parties negotiating in step by step, but, in fact, this is not going to happen unless, through very strong diplomacy, the United States imposes a solution"? That would be welcomed by three-quarters of both groups who would say, essentially, "Thank goodness the job got done," quite apart from the rest Arab world.

From our standpoint, we would say, "Well, that's not the best idea. The people ought to be working it out. They ought to be negotiating." But they would say, "We've been there, done that, and this is not in the cards."

What do you say about this strong imposition?

MR. BLAIR: One of the things I learned by the Northern Ireland process was this, because people often used to say to me, "(Just go ?) put it down and tell them that's what's happening." And I used to say, "I'm afraid it doesn't work quite like that."

So I think, particularly when we are at the beginning, if you like, of a new relationship between a new administration and new Israeli government, Palestinian Authority, I think what is important is to try and find an agreed way forward, and that is the first step for us to investigate.

And I think the important thing will be that there is both a commitment to the two-state solution in principle, and then, underneath that commitment, on the politics, on the economics, on the security, underneath those headlines, there are credible demonstrations on the ground of our determination to get to that two- state solution. Now, that is where at least I would start.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you, Senator Lugar.

Senator Boxer.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blair, your work, not only in this critical issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also your work on global warming, is so important. I really want to thank you very much for your dedication on these two critical issues, because this portfolio you carry is really extraordinary.

And many of us on this committee, working with our chairman's incredible leadership, I might say, on both of these issues, so hopefully we'll figure it out, because in many ways humankind, you know, is looking to us, and this is our moment.

So I really appreciate your optimism on this, because we must be optimistic. We can solve these problems, and we have to. We don't have a choice. We have to, because there's a window on both these issues, and the window is closing.

Mr. Blair, in a speech you delivered last April to the Atlantic Council, you talked about the threat that the West faces from Islamic extremism. Specifically, this is what you said. Quote: "Out in the Middle East, it is there in the activities of Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Palestine. It is played out in the street of Arab opinion every day. In the Middle East, the ideology that drives extremism is not abating. An alarming number of people buy the view that Islam is under attack from the West. The leaders to support are those like Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, who are perceived to take on the West. And there is a contrast between governments and their people," unquote.

So I just have a couple of questions to ask you that I'm taking from that speech, because I think it will help us. So it's been a little more than a year after that speech. Is your opinion still the same? And to quote you again, is the quote, "ideology that drives extremism," unquote, abating at all in your opinion?

And last, how (should ?) the new U.S. administration proceed, particularly as President Obama prepares to deliver a major speech in Egypt early next month?

MR. BLAIR: Thank you, Senator.

And I think I would say my opinion is still the same. I would say that -- I can almost answer the last two questions together in the sense that I would say that the abatement of that extremism could happen. With the advent of President Obama, what he's set out for people and the engagement he's offered to the Muslim world, I think it's created a lot of interest and expectation amongst our friends. It's created concern amongst our enemies, which is the right balance. And it's probably making some people in the middle ground think.

So I think this -- that's why I say I think this is a moment of opportunity. The tough thing is this, though, that in the end, as, actually, with so many issues, what the president requires are people that are willing, when he reaches his hand out to them, to reach back and not merely to take his hand and say, "Well, that's really good of you."

So what we need, if we do get this process going, we also need countries out in the region to be reacting to this overture, to be reacting to the progress, and to be giving as well as merely receiving.

SEN. BOXER: If I could follow up with that, since you opened the door to other countries, I want to ask you about Iran -- it's a tough issue -- and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have here an Associated Press article that I'd ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to place in the record.

SEN. KERRY: Without objection.

SEN. BOXER: And it's entitled "Iran, Syria defend Palestinian militancy." I don't know if you've seen it, but I'll get it to you.

The article talks about a recent trip to Syria made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And according to the article, Ahmadinejad met with the chief of Hamas and other Palestinian radical groups based in the country and, quote, "affirmed Iran's support for the Palestinian people and their resistance," unquote.

He also praised Iran's alliance -- and this is troubling to me -- with Syrian President Assad, saying that, quote, "The two countries' alliance was achieving," quote, "'victories' in preventing the big powers'" -- and we know who that is -- "offensive" -- and we know who that is -- "to dominate the region."

Now, I view that as obviously -- (inaudible) -- and I worry about that kind of language. So what steps can the U.S. take to curtail Iran's involvement with Hamas, particularly as the Obama administration looks to isolate Hamas? And what support do you think is Iran providing to Hamas in terms of weapons?

MR. BLAIR: First of all, the strategy of engaging with Iran I think is an entirely sensible strategy. And we are saying to Iran, "If you want to take your place as a proud and ancient civilization, as a country that is a powerful country; if you want to take your place in the community of nations, the door is open to you." And that's important to say and to mean, incidentally.

The message to Iran, however, I think is equally important and has to be very clear. It cannot have nuclear weapons capability. It must stop supporting terrorism. I think it's important for the Iranian regime to know that we are -- our engagement is genuine, and the clarity of our message is genuine as well. And that is -- and I think the right balance. And the way of reducing their influence within the region is to show precisely that we want peace. It's to take away -- and this is the importance of moving forward with the Palestinian issue -- is to take away a cause that they abuse, frankly, in order to gain support for their ends.

And the Iranian relationship with Hamas -- I mean, I think it's fairly clear -- they both fund and they arm them, as they do other groups within the region. My response to that, however, is that the best way of pushing them back is to show, in this case the Palestinian people, there is a moderate and modern way forward where we live together in peace.

So I think that is why this next period of time is very important, because these issues do interrelate in a very profound way. So equally, as I would say to people, you cannot say let's concentrate on Iran and forget about Palestine. I would say it's equally true, you shouldn't concentrate on Palestine and forget about Iran. To me this is one picture with many different parts of that picture, and I think one of the benefits of the approach we've got at the moment is that we see it as one.

And I think for people within the world of Islam who are trying to make the right type of change -- they want to be able to stand up and say, "We're in alliance with America to achieve an end that's just and is peaceful." Now, of course that's going to be done on the right terms, but that's where they want to be because they know in the end this extremism can only be defeated by them and not by us actually, or not defeated in its final analysis. I mean, I think this extremism -- sometimes I think it's more like, you know, maybe revolutionary communism in the sense that it doesn't necessarily have one command and control center and all the rest of it, but it's an ideology and it gets adherents, and it's very adept, for example, at using the Internet as a means of communication to pull people in. We've got to be providing, therefore, this strong momentum towards peaceful coexistence on the basis of just and evenhanded treatment of people that discomforts those extremists and helps defeat them within the culture of their own politics and their own countries.

SEN. BOXER: Thank you, Mr. Blair. I know we all wish you well and hope for some really great breakthroughs despite all the problems that you come up against.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Appreciate it.

Senator Corker.

SEN. CORKER: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for being back here again. I think you're one of those people that show us what great benefit those who leave public office can offer, and certainly you continue to do that on many, many fronts. And again, thank you for being here today.

I was out for an energy markup and understood there was some questions about the settlement issue, and I think you may have mentioned that that's something that we need to after some basic general understandings are agreed to. But I guess I -- that issue to me seems like one that as it continues on a daily basis indicates that there's not a seriousness towards working towards a two-state solution. It just seems to me to be a constant stick in the eye, if you will. And I'm just wondering if I'm seeing that in the wrong way. Certainly on my last visit there it seemed to be that that was the case. We have a prime minister today that does not even acknowledge a two-state solution, and so it seems to me that that is very much a centerpiece, and I'm just -- certainly you're the person that's so involved in these negotiations and on the ground. Just as an educational piece to me, I'd like to understand how that can be left aside when it's such an irritant on a daily basis, and certainly would love any comments you might have about the current prime minister's position on a two-state solution and how we actually see that going forward we can discuss that in a meaningful way when we have a leader who isn't even acknowledging that.

MR. BLAIR: Thank you. First of all I think the settlement question has to be dealt with immediately as well as in the longer term, but I think the most -- the single thing that is most important immediately is that actions are not taken that prejudice the final outcome of the negotiated solution. So I think there's a short-term question; then there's a longer-term question, which is once we know what the outlines of a Palestinian state would be, obviously that then has profound implications for what happens to the settlements.

Now, I think in respect to the Israeli prime minister -- I've sat and talked with this -- about this with him over a prolonged period of time, and even so I think it's for him to make his statement and position clear rather than me. But let me try and give you the optimist's view of where Prime Minister Netanyahu is.

There are those in Israel who are against the concept of a Palestinian state. Now, I happen to think they're a pretty small minority, actually, but there are people who would argue that. I think and believe that the Israeli prime minister's position is different. It is that he wants to be sure that that Palestinian state is consistent with his perception of Israel's security requirements. Now, I think if he is in that position, which is what I would call building the state from the bottom up as well as negotiating it from the top down -- if he is in that position, we can work with that. But the test will be whether the actions then over the coming months are consistent with that view. So I hope very much that when he comes here that it is clear he's prepared to work towards the same end as the rest of us, and that we are able together with him to work out a way both of ensuring that as the politics move forward, so there is the economic development and there is the security building -- the capacity building on the Palestinian side that allows the Palestinians to believe he's serious about allowing them statehood and allows the Israelis to believe that the Palestinians are serious about running an efficient and well-ordered state.

Now, that's -- you know, I think -- which is the right view of the prime minister's views I think will become apparent in the months to come. I hope I'm right.

SEN. CORKER: Is there any sense that a cessation, a stopping of settlements for some period of time while they -- (inaudible) -- continue to prejudice the issues of boundaries and all those kind of things as settlements continue. Any discussion about just stopping as is for some period of time?

MR. BLAIR: Yes, of course. And that's exactly the issues that the road map examined. And you've come back to the same thing, which is to make sure that there is not activity in respective settlements that then makes a Palestinian state either untenable or unviable.

But also -- and this is the other problem -- if you get settlement expansion at the same time as you're negotiating over a two-state solution, the Palestinians then feel -- "Look, you're -- we're being made fools of here. You're saying you want a two-state solution but you're taking actions that are inconsistent with it." That's why the issue is important.

Now, as I say, I think and hope there are ways that we can ensure that nothing happens that prejudices the final outcome of the settlement and the negotiation around the two-state solution. I hope we can find those ways of doing that over the next few weeks, but undoubtedly -- yeah, of course, the settlement issue will be very important.

SEN. CORKER: So, since you're discussing this ground-up, top- down, simultaneous way of looking at this, you know, one of the major glaring problems from an economic standpoint seems to me the separation from Gaza and the West Bank, and it seems to me that for that truly to be a state that today is disconnected -- I mean, what is the best on-the-ground solution for cross-country transit in that regard that doesn't create security issues for Israel? I mean, what are some of those ground-up solutions?

MR. BLAIR: Well, I think -- you know, as you can see from the map, the distance is reasonably short between the West Bank and Gaza at the moment, but you can also see why Israel would be deeply concerned unless it was clear that both parts of the Palestinian state were going to be secure and properly run.

Now, the reality is at the moment -- and we know in respect to Gaza, we have a situation where following the takeover by Hamas there has been conflict and miserable time for the people there and a miserable time for the people in places like Sederot, who felt the impact of the rockets being fired from Gaza. So what I would say to you is that in the short and medium term, what is important is that we try and improve the lives of people in Gaza and we try and show to the people there that actually there is a way forward that will include them, but that way forward will only happen in the end of people are prepared to commit to a peaceful road to a two-state solution. So that's the -- you know, that's the difficulty that we have. But in any event, we are in a far better position to show that to them if on the West Bank we're making real tangible progress and improving the lives of people.

SEN. CORKER: Any -- I know you've laid out I think in the next five or six weeks there's some tangible things that are going to occur on your end. Can you give us any sense of the speed at which you think things will be coming together, your thought about how quickly and how things are going to move along into the future as it relates to coming to an overall settlement?

MR. BLAIR: I think it's possible -- I mean, certainly if we're talking about the things that would help on the Palestinian side. I think it is possible to see reasonably quickly changes that can be made in access and movement. There have been some easings of some of the restrictions, but there could be more done that allow people better access. I mean, I was pointing out earlier that the access down there by the -- to the Dead Sea, for example, access for people to actually get across and utilize their land in the Jordan Valley; some of the access for goods to get out in and around Bethlehem. You know, there are changes that could be made that would make a difference. We could get some of the blockages cleared on some of the major economic projects and have them agreed and underway. And of course if we got commitments on issues like settlements -- not to do anything that prejudices the final outcome -- then that again helps build confidence.

I think for the Palestinian side, it's fairly obvious, again, what they can do for the Israelis. What they can do is to make it clear that the process of reform in their security forces and the rule of law is going to continue, it's going to intensify, that they will deal with what the Israeli problem is on the Palestinian side. We've got to be honest about this. The Israeli problem is they worry that if they get out of the West Bank, they will have a situation where there's a takeover by extremists.

So the Palestinians -- we've got to acknowledge this is going to take place over time, and we've got to create the circumstances in which the Palestinians are also showing the Israelis that they are serious about getting that security capability so that in the end -- to put it in the -- to put it in crude terms, and I mean nothing other than just this simple analogy by what I'm about to say -- the Israelis need to know the West Bank will be run as, for example, Jordan runs its security, rather unlike Gaza. It's as simple as that, and that's what they need to know.

SEN. CORKER: Mr. Prime Minister, my time is up. I do want to say, with Senator Mitchell and yourself involved in creating a solution to this, I think we all are hopeful because you're two of the most well qualified people to do this that exist in the world. I wish you luck. I -- the geography is such that and the tensions are such that it no doubt is going to take herculean efforts for all involved. And again, I'm thankful that you're involved in this and appreciate you being here today.

SEN. KERRY: Thanks, Senator Corker.

Senator Feingold.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Blair, for testifying on this important issue.

Last time this committee met to discuss the Middle East peace process in September of last year, I expressed regret that the previous administration did not engage on this issue earlier. We did see some positive movement towards the end of the second term which I was pleased about, but it obviously was not enough.

Working to solve conflicts and achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East is essential not only to the security of the Israelis and the Palestinians but of course for the region as a whole. It is also in the national security interest of the United States, and there is a growing sense of urgency expressed most recently by King Abdullah of Jordan and Lieutenant General Dayton, among others, that now more than ever renewed American leadership is needed to reinvigorate the peace process. I'm pleased that President Obama has recognized this urgency and made it a top priority since day two of his administration, and certainly join in the comments about naming George Mitchell the special envoy to the Middle East. And I hope as we hear from you today that we can work together collectively to overcome the many obstacles that exist and encourage the compromises that will need to be made in order to facilitate a comprehensive two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Mr. Blair, as I mentioned in my opening comments, there is an increasing sense of urgency on the issue, and many see the window of opportunity to reach a comprehensive peace and a two-state solution getting smaller. You mentioned the window in your opening remarks as well. I expect this urgency will continue to grow particularly over the next few weeks as President Obama meets with the region's leaders and prepares to give his address to the Muslim world in Egypt. What steps can and should be swiftly taken once the quartet's new strategic framework is released to capitalize on the existing energy and goodwill, and how soon do you think a combination of high expectations and diminishing patience will begin to work against us?

MR. BLAIR: Thank you, Senator. I think first of all, if we just go back for a moment to what happened in the year 2000, because I think it's very crucial to understanding what both the challenges as well as the opportunities are now. What happened essentially was once the peace negotiations failed between then-Prime Minister Barak, President Clinton and Yasser Arafat -- once those negotiations failed and then the intifada began in the year 2000, really for a long period of time it was almost impossible to see how you could make progress. And then the disengagement from Gaza happened. It happened unilaterally, but to be fair to the Israelis, they took their settlers out of Gaza, and then they felt they got a security problem in return.

I think, however, when the Annapolis process began again, if it had been -- had more time, it actually could have borne a lot more fruit. And to be fair, also within that process, both sides did get down and negotiate some of the really tricky questions.

I think, however, what we now know partly as a result of the past few years and as a result of the previous attempts to find peace is, as you say, this opportunity that we have now is very directly linked to whether we can show the two peoples, if you like -- the Israelis and the Palestinians -- that even though there has been all this history of past failure, nonetheless it's possible to perceive of future success. And what I would say -- sometimes people say to me, "What's different? I mean, how come you've had all this failure and now you're going to succeed?"

Now, I could say, as Senator Mitchell and I found in Northern Ireland, that actually we had decades of failed peace processes there, and then one succeeds. But I think now you can actually identify the objective factors that should lead us to be able to resolve this.

One, truthfully the Arab world has decided that it wants this issue resolved. It really does. Secondly, there is an administration that, as you rightly point out, at the outset is saying, "We are taking this issue seriously. We want to push it to resolution." Thirdly, we have different Palestinian leadership. And fourthly, I think we have a better understand of what I would call the relationship between the reality on the ground and the political negotiation.

And so I think over these next few months, the really critical thing is to reinvigorate the credibility of the whole path to peace, and the way to doing that is to have a strong, credible political negotiation backed up by changes in the reality. And those changes which are there on the West Bank, in the way we treat Gaza, in the building of Palestinian security capacity -- they're not impossible either to define or to do. So that's where I think we are now.

And as you rightly imply, this is the moment when doing this right at the outset of the new administration with a new set of attitudes, if you like, emerging in that region, this is the moment when we've got an opportunity to do it. And the fact we have been unable to do it up to now should not, in my view, disillusion us or deter us from doing it in the future.

SEN. FEINGOLD: I very much appreciate that response. And let me go on and say here in Congress there's been a lot of discussion recently about how and whether the U.S. should engage with and provide aid to any possible Palestinian unity government, particularly, of course, if it were to include members of Hamas, provided, of course, that they agree to the quartet's conditions to disavow violence, recognize Israel, and accept prior agreements.

What is your assessment, first on what you think the likelihood is that a Palestinian unity government could actually form, and second, whether or not you think the quartet should encourage or support the creation of such a government?

MR. BLAIR: This is obviously a key question in this whole business. And I think Egypt is to be congratulated in the efforts its made and the enormous hard work it's put in to try and find a basis for Palestinian unity.

I think what I would say is that one of the things I learned through my time in politics is that the only unity that works is a unity of genuine agreement. You know, in other words, I think a Palestinian unity government is in principle a desirable objective for sure. Unity on the Palestinian side is a desirable objective for sure. It makes it easier to resolve this whole process. But it has to be a genuine unity. And the reason why the quartet principles are there is not because we want to put obstacles in the way of Hamas or anyone else joining the process but because they do define the parameters of unity for us to be able to get a solution to this issue.

And there's the similarity again with, for example, the Mitchell principles in the context of Northern Ireland, where if people wanted to join the peace process, they had to sign up to the principles, and that was the gateway that they came into the process by.

So my view is that there will continue to be attempts to get a unity government, but I do believe that that unity government will only work if there is a genuine political unity that is inspiring it and lies at its base. If there isn't -- if we simply push the parties together without a proper genuine unity, I think we may find our path to peace more difficult rather than less difficult.

SEN. FEINGOLD: You said that the quartet will be releasing a new strategic framework for the peace process. As I mentioned earlier, achieving a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to the security of not just the two parties but the region as a whole. So I'd like to know what's being done to ensure that the regional dimension of this process is being adequately discussed.

Is the quartet working with the Arab League in developing this framework, considering any aspects of the Arab Peace Initiative, and how do you view the role of the U.S. in the quartet as partners with other key actors in helping to resolve the broader Arab-Israeli conflict?

MR. BLAIR: I think for all of us that see this as an issue that concerns the whole of the region, the regional dimension is obviously of fundamental importance and significance. So I think the idea will be to take the Arab Peace Initiative, the outcome of the various discussions that will take place here and elsewhere over these next few weeks and try -- and obviously this is where the role of America will be central -- try to outline a way forward. I think people will want -- after there's been a whole set of discussions and negotiations and interaction, they will then want to know, well, okay -- and it amounts to what is the way forward. And I think that's why what President Obama said a short time ago is absolutely right -- we will want to see after that gestures and actions consistent with the two- state solution.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you very much, Mr. Blair.

MR. BLAIR: Thank you.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.

Senator Risch.

SEN. RISCH: Mr. Blair, we had the fortune, some of us, of traveling last month to Israel and meeting with Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak and others in the government. Admittedly, they were only on their second day on the job and had just come off of a campaign. We all know what that does to someone. But in any event, they were -- and I understand you've talked a little bit about this while we were gone -- but they were uniformly focused on the Iran problem, and one has to understand where they're coming from on it because they can't be wrong. There's no room for error there. They have got to be right on that.

This is a -- the problem we've been talking about here, the Palestinian problem is certainly an issue for them, but it's been going on for a long time. They were in -- in my view in talking with them -- in an emergency view of the Iranian problem. How do you get them to shift from that to talking about the Palestinian problem when they are so focused on an issue that they believe their very existence turns on the outcome of, and particularly when they believe it to be as imminent and as close as it is?

MR. BLAIR: It's perfectly natural, especially given the language used by the president of Iran. It's perfectly natural for Israel to be focused on this issue. I mean, if we were, any of us politicians, within the Israeli system, we'd be focused on it. And actually, incidentally, I think all of us should be focused on it.

The question is -- to my mind is, what is the best way to deal with that? Is it to see that in isolation from these other questions within the region or as part of, as I say, one picture? And my view is that when it comes to pushing back Iranian influence that's used for ends that undermine the stability of the region, we are in a stronger position to do that -- a far stronger position if actually we're making progress on the Israel-Palestine question.

And so in a sense -- because I often have this discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak and others within the Israeli system often as well -- what I say to them is, "I'm not asking you to take your focus from Iran, but I am asking you to see the Palestinian question as bearing on that as well. And so it's not a question of looking at these things as if they're completely separate and different issues. And when we are trying to mobilize moderate and modern-minded opinion within that region, a resolution or a credible path to resolution of Israel-Palestine is an important part of doing that.

Look, I spend obviously a lot of time talking to people on the ground, in Israel but also in the Palestinian territories, and in the wider region too, for that matter. And the claim of Iran -- this is the claim that -- I don't just mean the leadership of the Iranian regime, but people who support their basic world view -- their claim is that we are essentially people who want to do down their fellow Muslims, and the proof of that is that the Palestinians, who should have a state, can't get statehood. And when we are faced with that argument, which we are, obviously one very important part of undercutting their attempt to rally support behind that view is to say, "No, we're evenhanded. We believe in the state of Israel that's confident of its security, but we are prepared, if the Palestinians are able and willing to take the right measures, to ensure that Palestinians also get the justice and dignity of statehood."

So that's why I say to people you can't separate these questions out. In my view it's a mistake and actually a very fundamental one to do so; that if we want to make progress also on the Iranian question and take that to a peaceful resolution, then progress in the Israel- Palestine question is an important part of doing that. And maybe more important than taking my word for it is to take the word of virtually every moderate and modern-minded, sensible leader in the region, who would say the same to you, I think.

SEN. RISCH: And I agree with that. The other leaders -- we met with Mr. Mubarak and -- President Mubarak and also with King Abdullah, and they did have that same position. But have to tell you that the fortitude I saw in Israel on that position was very, very strong, and I wish you luck in that regard.

Let me just briefly talk about the unity issue. One gets a sense that the gap between the leadership in the West Bank versus the leadership, if you would call it such, in Gaza grows instead of comes closer together. How do you deal with that? How do you -- if you're going to cut a deal -- and we all want to see the deal cut -- surely you can argue that you have a leadership in the West Bank to deal with, but what do you do in Gaza? I mean, who can guarantee that if you shake hands and you make a deal, that the deal can be implemented? That seems to me to be an incredible challenge.

MR. BLAIR: Absolutely the right question to ask. I don't think we can be sure, right now, as we speak, of what the attitude of people in Gaza would be in the future if we were able to restore credibility to the peace process in the Middle East. But one thing I'm sure of is that it's worth us trying to find out. In other words, it is worth us pushing this process forward on sensible and right terms, but precisely in order to give the people in Gaza a clear and visible objective that we set before them and say, "This is what we're trying to do and why we're trying to do it."

Now, I don't know how then the reaction will be between the local people and Hamas, and that is obviously -- as I say, as we speak now we can't be sure of this. But one thing I am absolutely sure of is that Hamas have a military grip on Gaza, but I don't know that they have a grip on the minds of the people in the same way. And therefore my view would be that we should move forward in the way that I'm describing; we should be doing all we can to help the people in Gaza without assisting Hamas. And then there is going to come -- I mean, let's be clear: There will come a moment of reckoning because there can only be on Palestinian state -- West Bank and Gaza -- and we need that state as a state, as a whole, to be secure and stably run. And plainly at the moment you can't say that those people in Gaza who will not even recognize the existence of Israel can produce a stable partnership for peace.

So there will come a moment of reckoning on this. That's for sure.

My point is very simple. We are in a better position to secure the right outcome at that moment, and peacefully, if we show there is a genuine, credible vision for a Two-state solution; and, what's more, we're making progress in getting there.

SEN. RISCH: Well, I wish you well, in that regard, and I hope your optimism plays out. But, you know, we want a -- we Americans love elections, and we had an election over there and it didn't come out exactly the way we wanted it. And so the people there have not shown, what I would call, "a real good vision" in that regard.

So, I hope that when we get to the point that you're talking about, that their vision is a little better that what's it's been in the past.

Thank you very much, Mr. Blair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you, Senator Risch.

Senator Cardin.

SEN. CARDIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, Mr. Blair, I want to thank you very much not only for being here, but for your extraordinary international leadership on this issue. And I think there is some reason for optimism -- with a new administration in Washington, a new administration in Israel. There is opportunity for new starts. And there seems to be more international support for moving forward with a process consistent with the Roadmap than we've seen of late, and moderate Arab states seem to be more interested today. So, I think there is reason to believe that you can proceed.

And I think you've also outlined probably the only way you can do that, with Hamas currently in control of Gaza. The good news is that we've seen the maturity -- maturing of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank; and that if we can move forward with progress on the West Bank and provide hope for the people of Gaza, then clearly you've made it, your point -- we can't deal with Hamas unless there were to disavow their current position. And I think the experiences in Northern Ireland underscore that point. So, I think you've outlined perhaps the only way we can proceed. And I think there is reason to believe that we can overcome some of these obstacles.

I want to put another part of the equation here. We haven't talked too much about the Golan and Syria. Some of us have been to Syria. I think were all somewhat surprised to learn about how much progress had been made between Israel and Syria, through Turkey, prior to Gaza problems. And there's been genuine agreement that if progress was made on that front, it would somewhat negate some of the influence of Iran, and perhaps be an encouragement towards the Palestinians moving forward with peace.

I just want to get your observations as to how helpful it would be, and whether it is realistic to expect, that progress can be restarted between Syria and Israel.

MR. BLAIR: First of all, I'm all in favor of trying. I mean, I don't -- I think there's no harm, and, indeed, a lot of good in pursuing the Syrian track along with the Palestinian track -- not in substitution for it, I would say very clearly.

I think Syria is going to have to make a choice, though, in the end, as to whether it wants to be part of a successful peace process in the whole of the region. And, you know, for them I think the Golan Heights issue could be resolved. But, it won't be resolved unless it's absolutely clear that it's part of an enduring and lasting peace.

And, you know, you have the leader of Hamas in Damascus. You have Corporal Shalit still -- (inaudible) -- he's still in captivity, which you would think that some pressure could be brought to bear, and brought to bear very clearly, in order to get his release since it's such a hindrance to finding a way forward, as well as obviously inhumane.

I guess, what I would really say is, yes, I think the Syrian track is worth pursuing. Yes, we should pursue it. I believe that the Palestinian track, moving forward, is probably the most important thing in that track also -- showing signs of success.

And, I think, you know, one thing (that) would be a reflection -- just not merely from this time, doing this, but the time when I was prime minister of the U.K. and the Senate was talking about the elections that happened, the Palestinian side. And, actually, I think there were many reasons why those elections turned out in the way that they did, and so on. And I, you know, I believe that although we must take account of them, obviously, and recognize the outcome of those elections, nonetheless I still believe that if people in that region saw a genuine hope of a way forward, then the traction that those people who are extreme would have would greatly diminish.

And also, if there were political progress -- and this is something we found in the Northern Ireland peace process, one of the things that's going to have to happen, and this is a difficult thing to say but I think it's very important in this, is this concept of violent resistance has got to be consigned to the history books. Because it's not merely that targeting innocent Israeli civilians through acts of terrorism is wrong, it's also totally counterproductive to the prospects for peace and for the prospects of Palestinian dignity, statehood and advance.

So, one thing that has to happen is that this argument -- not just within the Palestinian context but within the wider regional context, this includes some of the statements that emanate from Syria -- there's got to be an understand that that whole concept of resistance, based on terrorism, holds the process back. It doesn't advance anybody anything.

And, you know, when we finally got to the point in Northern Ireland, when the Republican movement (went out ?) -- and throwing aside all its history, and what it felt, and how, you know, this had all come about, but simply said, okay, we are now going to commit fully to peaceful negotiation -- then that was what, in the end, did the deal, because then there could be no reason why there shouldn't be power-sharing, which is the equivalent, in a sense, of statehood.

I mean, truthfully, if in Gaza people said, "Violent resistance, we are now -- that's out. What we're going to do is we're going to use this political process and we're going to make that as our means of advancing our cause," you would be concluding the negotiations for a state, in my view, within a pretty short space of time.

Now, obviously, we're not in that situation. We're in the opposite, for the moment. But, that's why I think that -- one clue is that, what countries like Syria can do in this situation, and their good will, will be demonstrated by whether they're prepared to move away from that concept that has really done so much damage to the process of peace within the region.

Now, I'm afraid the recent comments by President Ahmadinejad, there in -- when he visited Damascus, aren't helpful in that regard. But, at some point people have got to understand, because I think our position -- I mean, "ours" in the international community, and I think this is the position of America too, is really pretty clear: We're prepared to move heaven and earth to get the Two-state solution, but we will not expect Israel to take risks with its security.

So, everyone can work that out. You know, if we're going to make progress we've got to do so with those -- that determination, sitting alongside the fact that nobody here in America -- and actually, nobody, when I think about it, in the broader international community, is going to support anything other than a peaceful, nonviolent negotiation to a Two-state solution that protects Israel's security, as well as offers the Palestinians statehood.

SEN. CARDIN: Well, I think you've given the right definition of what is meant by normalization of relations. I mean, if you're going to have peace, you're going to have peace, and that includes the whole aspects. When King Abdullah was here he talked openly about that being the expectation that needs to be met. And it's not only normalization of the relations between neighbors, it's also denouncing extremism, as far as the use of force.

The reason I mentioned Syria is that we shouldn't be surprised with statements made by the Iranian leaders. They're very interested in keeping Syria as an ally. But, if Syria were to make -- look, Syria is doing a lot of bad things. We know that. We know that they're -- we go into this with our, knowing full well that we have a state that has sponsored and facilitated terrorism, and has aspirations which are inconsistent with stability in the region. But, if Syria made progress with Israel, and we were really able to get that type of normalization between Israel and Syria, then you're breaking the alliance between Syria and Iraq, which is another part of the equation here -- to try to isolate the extremism of Iraq from its neighbors.

And that would have, I think, a very positive aspect about one of the major concerns that Mr. Netanyahu has. I'm just saying, I think these all sort of fit together. I agree with you completely, one should not be at the exclusion of the other, and I think there's a different set of challenges with Syria, but we do need to address the issue of Iran that has been very much on the mind of Mr. Netanyahu.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you very much, Senator Cardin -- appreciate the questions.

Senator Shaheen.

SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Blair. We're delighted to have you here.

I would like to follow up a little bit on the discussion you had with Senator Risch, about the connection between Iran and progress on the Palestinian issue. And in the conversations that you've had with Israeli leaders -- whether it's Prime Minister Netanyahu or Minister Barak, was it your assessment that they appreciated the analysis that you were making, and agreed that there might be an opportunity to make some progress on the Iranian front by addressing the Palestinian issue?

MR. BLAIR: Look, their view is very simple. In a sense, I think it's really this, which is, look, whatever happens the Iranian question has to be confronted. And I think that they do understand, however, the argument that we would put, which is if you are to mobilize the majority across the region -- in favor of a sensible engagement, of a peaceful coexistence within the region, then the Palestinian issue has a role to play.

I think what they -- I think their fear, actually -- I mean, it's not for me, again, to put words in their mouth, but I think their fear would more be if we said, look, the Palestinian -- If we went to the opposite extreme -- in other words, said the Palestinian issue is what we are concerned about, but Iran we put to one side, my view is that, as I say, that both have to be dealt with but I do believe we are in a far strong position to resolve the Iranian question successfully by diplomacy, even by taking steps of pressure if it is clear that, on this issue -- that is, the Palestinian issue, that there's such resonance right across the Arab and Muslim world it's being properly addressed.

SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you.

I was in the Middle East for the Palestinian elections in 2006. And certainly many of the Palestinians that we talked to, as part of that mission, indicated their support for Hamas was based not on support for terrorists organizations but on concern that the corruption that they had seen from the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, the ability of the PA to deliver services was not there, and that Hamas they viewed as an alternative that might better be able to deliver social services throughout the West Bank and Gaza and restore order that seemed to be lacking in many areas under the Palestinian Authority.

So, I guess my question is, given what we've seen on the West Bank -- and I know that there has been some progress recently with respect to supporting President Abbas and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, what more should the Quartet, what more should we be doing to provide support for a legitimate Palestinian government on the West Bank that would give encouragement to all Palestinians that this is -- and to Israelis, that this is a government, a leadership that they can count on?

MR. BLAIR: First of all, I entirely agree with you, Senator, about the elections. I think it's -- there were many reasons for the outcome of those elections and they don't lead me to change my view that if we made substantial progress we could mobilize major support amongst the Palestinians.

And also, you're absolutely right to point out the huge impact of Prime Minister Fayyad and his reform program. I mean, one of the things we did when we held the conference in Paris in December, 2007 is that we didn't just raise a substantial sum of money for the Palestinians, we also, for the first time, that money was marked against a reform and development plan, that was a serious plan, drawn up by serious people. And that also makes a big difference.

And what Prime Minister Fayyad personally has done, with the support of President Abbas, is to make changes in Palestinian security capacity that now mean, actually, in substantial parts around the area -- there up and around Jenin, and down in Nablus, down in Hebron, there is a lot more work now being done by the Palestinian forces; and they are then cooperating with their Israeli counterparts in trying to iron to some of the difficulties that there are between them.

So, you know, this is -- this could be done. But, the thing that's going to make the difference is that we take these concrete practical measures on the ground. And, you know, I have done this now for 18 months, and we have produced a package of measures that I have no doubt, if we took and we did, they'd make a difference to the psychology of the average Palestinian living on the West Bank.

Unfortunately, for the moment that's just, you know, talk about the West Bank rather than Gaza. But, there's no doubt in my mind that implementation of these measures would make a significant difference.

And what we need from the Israeli government, therefore, is something really very simple. We need what Prime Minister Netanyahu has been saying, about an economic peace, to be taken at its face value, to be worked on and delivered. Now, it's not a substitute for the political negotiation, of course, but it's still important.

So, sometimes people say to me, well, you've got to tell the Israelis, you know, "we don't want to hear this about an economic peace." And I say, no, actually we do want an economic peace, but we want a political peace as well. But, if you can get genuine economic change going on in the West Bank, it will make a difference for sure.

SEN. SHAHEEN: Let me also ask you: One of the things that I have -- has been pointed out to me recently is that there is interest on the part of some of the younger leadership, among the Palestinians, in taking action if they don't see some change in President Abbas' administration, and see things differently.

Do you think that's real? Is there a real potential that some of the younger leaders on the West Bank could actually provide an ultimatum, or make it clear that they are going to make some changes if they don't see a change in the leadership there?

MR. BLAIR: Well, I think it's important that the new generation of leadership is brought on in time. And that's why one of the things that President Abbas is addressing, quite rightly, is the issues -- the one with Abu -- (inaudible) --, and others, the issue of Fatah reform, and that's important. You know, the only leadership that's going to work in the end is the leadership that's committed to statehood.

And, you know, what I always say to the Palestinians that I talk to about this, is to say, you know, we need, if we get this process going again, properly and credibly, we need to shift your mentality from that of resistance, which is one type of mentality, to governance, which is another type of mentality. Now, we've got to make it real for you, but if we do, then that's where this younger generation should be concentrating -- on actually how they're going to run a Palestinian state.

SEN. SHAHEEN: Thank you.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you, Senator Shaheen.

Senator Kaufman.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Thank you.

Thank you for what you're doing. I've been sitting here for two hours listening to a tour de force. I mean, and it really is quite incredible, the grasp you have of this; and, I think, how many of what you say the members agree with.

And, of course, when you look at this problem -- and it's so incredibly intractable and so incredibly difficult, but I have a real advantage: My mother was Irish and my father is Jewish. So, I follow both of these issues quite closely, and I don't think many people really understand how difficult the Irish problem was. And I think we have assembled here, kind of, the "dream team," having you and George Mitchell both to come back to solve "the intractable one." So, I feel good about that.

I just want to ask you, how is coordinating things with Senator Mitchell? How is that going? How is that working?

MR. BLAIR: One of the great benefits of having Senator Mitchell on this task is, first of all, that he's, in my view, a very clever, as well as principled leader in the political field; and the other is that we worked very closely over the Northern Ireland deal. And actually he and I have just been talking this morning -- I mean, we keep in close contact with each other, we'd been talking this morning about how we worked together to push this forward.

And I think, you know, there's a great degree of agreement on the different elements -- the political, the economic, the security, how we should make progress here. And -- (inaudible) -- two things, at least, and possibly three after the Northern Ireland experience. And, you know, there are many, many differences -- let me put that on the table, of course there are, but one is that -- (inaudible) -- determine focus. And that's why which President Obama has done in the new administration is so important.

Secondly, and that's why I have my maps there -- you need to focus on detail. The detail matters. I mean, people sometimes say to me, ("What is he doing ?), knowing about this checkpoint or that checkpoint?" And I say to them, I used to know the most intimate details about bits of the security apparatus alongside the border in Ireland, because they had an impact on whether you could get a deal or not. So, detail matters.

And I guess the final reflection is that, you know, you see with Dr. Paisley sitting down with Martin McGuinness it is possible for your enemy to become your friend -- or at least your partner (laughs).

And I think that however difficult it is, you know, it's not simply optimism that fuels my search for something that works here. It's also that I don't see the alternative The alternative is conflict. So, however much we have to try, and long we have to try, and how many times we have to try and retry, we've got no choice if we're to act responsibly towards the challenges we face in this region and the wider world.

SEN. KAUFMAN: In your response to Senator Risch's -- (inaudible) -- you talked about the "day of reckoning," when we actually get to a Two-state solution. Is any progress being made, in terms of getting the two sides and the Palestinians together, and any kind of developments that -- or anything optimistic?

MR. BLAIR: Well, the Egyptians have done an heroic task on this. And I think they have isolated the key questions and got to grips with them.

But, as I was saying in answer to a question earlier, ultimately, to agree you've got to agree. And you've got to agree on the objective -- the Two-state solution; and you've got to agree on the means of getting there -- politics, not violence.

So, that I think is at the heart of where thing -- this kind of thing comes to. And I think, you know, people want there to be unity on the Palestinian side but, as I was saying earlier, it must be unity that's real.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Can you tell a little about the Russians' role in the Quartet?

MR. BLAIR: I have to say that Russia has been actually very supportive of what we've done. And I have found them, during the course of this process -- as members of the Quartet, supportive of both what we are trying to do, and the wider process. So, I can't say I have any complaints at all. On the contrary.

SEN. KAUFMAN: What's the role of the EU in terms of building institutions in the Palestinian state -- I mean, the Palestinian areas?

MR. BLAIR: The European Union, for example, has just put together a comprehensive set of proposals. I mean, these are proposals that the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Fayyad -- these are, this is his desire, his wish, it's his plan, his program that we have put forward, proposals that can support that.

And I think the Europeans have an important role to play, not merely in terms of financing the Palestinian Authority, but also in capacity-building and institution-building, since these institutions are so crucial to statehood.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you very much, Senator Kaufman. I couldn't agree with you more. I think we've been treated this afternoon to a terrific opportunity to be able to look inside quite a few years of the highest level of leaderships' struggles with this particular issue.

And it's a rare insight and an important one for the committee. And I'm -- we're very grateful to you, Mr. Prime Minister, for helping us to establish this benchmark as we go into these next weeks and months of meetings and, hopefully, negotiations.

I do want to ask you -- I know you have a 4:30, and we promised to get you out of here, there's a topic I want to get to -- that I want to get your quick comments on, if we can.

Before I do, if I could just say to you that we've dwelt quite significantly, and I think appropriately, on the steps on both sides that could be taken, particularly the settlements issue. And I raised it in my opening, and I concur with you completely it would just have a dramatic, enormous impact on raising the other issues to a new moral plane and to really, I think leveraging Israeli's larger interests in an important way, and our larger interests.

At the same time there are -- and there's one other component of it, and that is the freedom of movement, the improvement of day-to-day life for Palestinians. I was struck five years ago when I was in Ramallah and meeting with President Abbas, literally the morning he was elected, and he turned to me plaintively -- and I've said this story many times but I think it's important to underscore it, that, you know, he knew what we wanted him to do, which was to disarm Hamas.

And he looked at me and he said, "Senator, you tell me how I'm supposed to do that. I don't have any police. I don't have any radios. I don't have any cars. I don't have any people that are trained." And then he went on to explain to me how Hamas had a greater ability to deliver services in the streets in Ramallah than he did -- with money coming from charities and from outside; and the ability to pay off a suicide bomber's family, and so forth. And it just sort of hit me that -- you know, more than ever before, the level of "Politics 101" being practiced, and his inability to practice it.

Now, admittedly there were issue of some -- you know, questions of the abilities, and corruption, and other questions within Fatah, but I think that, as you've said, Mr. Fayyad has brought a whole new moment, an era, to the accountability in finances of the Authority. And many people on the other side, as well as in other Arab countries, have enormous respect for him, as you know.

So, that helps to contribute to this new moment, but what I was going to say is, the Arab world has got to also engage in these major steps. It's not just Israel's role to, sort of, change the dynamic. And there are so many things that they could do, as you know.

And I'm going to have the privilege of being in Jordan in a couple days at the World Economic Forum. I intend to try to lay out some of those things, because they've got to show their good faith here. And that involves travel, visas, flights, visits, economic assistance, ceasing to do certain things that we know they are doing. It's just a clear, bold list. And I think it's very important for us to be even-handed in, sort of, laying that out, and I'm sure you would agree with that.

You have been enormously engaged also on the issue of global climate change. And we had an important meeting here, which you led, with corporate leaders -- the C.E.O.s of GE, Jeff Immelt; John Chambers of Cisco; Florida Power & Light; DuPont, Dow Chemical. I mean, it's an extraordinary array of companies who are looking for a response. And a lot of Americans aren't aware of, sort of, the corporate desire to have this market signal sent, and for us to begin to move on global climate change.

And since we have the -- Great Britain has been a leader, they have a superb wind project that is being undertaken now; the EU has set a very high goal for reductions in emissions, and I wonder if you would underscore to us, to Americans today, and to the committee, the national -- the global security implications of this issue; and what your belief is about Copenhagen, and its importance; and American leadership with respect to it?

MR. BLAIR: Thank you.

And, first of all, I agree entirely with the concluding remarks you made on the Israel-Palestine question.

In respect of global climate change, this is a huge issue for not just the long-term future of our environment but for our security, our stability, for reasons of long-term energy policy. And people are anxious, desperate even, to see that U.S. leadership out there showing the way forward.

There is a tremendous commitment now from within Europe. I believe there is a sincere desire on the part of the leadership of China to play its proper part in reaching a global agreement. And what I would say is that, provided we can show that we are setting the world on a new path towards a low-carbon economy, there are massive business operations and job opportunities in this also.

I mean, we now employ in the U.K. far more people in the new environmental technologies than we do in coal, steel and shipbuilding, and some of the traditional staple industries that the U.K. put together and doubled. So, it is possible for this to be a situation of which we make progress on our economy, whilst changing the nature of that economy so as to make it compatible and sustainable in terms of our environmental responsibility.

And it's urgent. I mean, look, I'm not a scientist and I'm not an expert, but I think in any other walk of life, if you have that degree of scientific consensus about a problem, you would, as a political leader, feel a great responsibility to achieve a solution.

So, that's the point we're at. And I think if it -- you know, there are two things that are necessary now: One is to take this issue, as it were, out of the realms of a campaign and put in the realms of practical -- severely practical policymaking, so that we get severely practical solutions to these questions.

And secondly, for American leadership to lead us to an agreement, at the end of the year in Copenhagen, that would demonstrate not only a combined collective commitment but also be a major step forward for the credibility and multilateral change.

SEN. KERRY: And, just very quickly, Mr. Prime Minister, could you say something about what is at stake, in terms of real, sort of, security implications -- failed states, refugees, the kinds of challenges that we'd really face, based on what the science is telling is happening now?

MR. BLAIR: I think it's very clear -- and this is one of the reasons, incidentally, why some of the developing countries, not least China now, take this issue so seriously -- I mean, the impact, if we do not deal with this issue and the science turns out to be correct, the impact will be devastating, in terms of the dislocation of people, in terms of draughts, serious land erosion, in terms of how people feel capable of meeting the challenges of an environment that will be changing, very fast indeed, around them.

And I think that there are, you know, fundamental reasons -- to do with our future security, as well as issues to do with the environment, which make this issue absolutely a top priority for us; urgent. And at the end of the year we'll have a chance to demonstrate whether we -- where there's the will, there's also the way, and that's what we must do, for sure.

SEN. KERRY: Well, we thank you.

Senator Risch, did you have any final comments?

SEN. RISCH: (Off mike.) -- (inaudible) --

SEN. KERRY: Again, Mr. Prime Minister, we really are grateful to you. This has been unbelievably helpful. And I think you spoke with great candor, and obviously with a lot of expertise, on some very tough questions.

And it's been -- it's a good, it's a good baseline to have established, as we enter into this new period. I can't think of anybody who could have brought us a better set of explanation on that. So, thank you so much for arranging your schedule to be able to be here today. We're very grateful to you and we look forward to continuing to meet with you in the days ahead.

MR. BLAIR: Thank you.

SEN. KERRY: Thank you.

We stand adjourned. Thank you.

(Sounds gavel.)

END.

Source