Baroness Helic – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Helic on 2015-11-17.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 4 November (HL2982), what were the reasons for the decision not to appoint a new Middle East Quartet Representative, and what differences exist between the mandate of the Middle East Quartet Representative and the new Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The reasons for the decision not to appoint a new Middle East Quartet Representative are a matter for the Quartet Principals (UN Secretary General, US Secretary of State, Foreign Minister of Russia and High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy).
The “Office of the Quartet Representative” (OQR) has been renamed the “Office of the Quartet” (OQ). It will be led by two highly-regarded individuals: Kito de Boer, who joined in January 2015, will serve as Head of Mission and Sandra Wijnberg, who joined in July 2014, will serve as Deputy Head of Mission.
The Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet (OQ) is charged with delivering the OQ’s mandate. The mandate remains unchanged, and was set out in a June 2015 statement by the Quartet Principals. It is to “focus on economic and institutional development in the Palestinian Territory, addressing issues related to strengthening investment in the Palestinian private sector, rule of law, and movement and access. The OQ shall work in coordination and complementarity (sic) with bilateral and multilateral partners that implement technical assistance programs in the Palestinian Territory. As such, OQ will play an important role in advancing tangible steps on the ground to advance the Palestinian economy, and preserve the possibility of a two state solution.”
