HL Deb 10 July 1997 vol 581 cc744-51

4.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"At about 0800 this morning, British troops serving with the NATO-led stabilisation force in Bosnia took action to detain two individuals against whom the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia—the ICTY—had served sealed indictments.

"One was Simo Drljaca, the former police chief of the municipality of Prijedor; a town near Banja Luka in Bosnia Herzegovina. The other was Milan Kovacevic, director of the Prijedor hospital.

"The two individuals had been indicted by ICTY for complicity in genocide, for acts against the Bosnian Moslem and Croat people, in the municipality of Prijedor, between 29th April 1992 and 31st December 1992. Drljaca was in 1992 the Deputy Minister of the Interior of Republica Srpska; thereafter the Chief of Police in Prijedor. Kovacevic was formerly President of the Executive Board of the municipality of Prijedor.

"The first indictee, Drljaca was challenged by SFOR personnel. He immediately drew a pistol and shot, and wounded, one of our soldiers. The other soldiers then returned fire in self-defence. Drljaca was fatally wounded. Two other people who were with Drljaca were detained. They have been transferred to The Hague. Three handguns were recovered at the scene.

"Drljaca and the wounded soldier were transferred by helicopter to Tuzla military hospital. The British soldier was wounded in the leg, but is not seriously injured.

"Milan Kovacevic was detained at the hospital and has now been arrested by the ICTY and transferred to The Hague.

"These detentions took place in accordance with the stabilisation force's mandate from the North Atlantic Council, as the NATO Secretary-General Solana has made clear. The action had the specific authority of the Secretary-General, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, and the North Atlantic Council. SFOR troops have instructions to detain indictees if they come across them in the course of their normal duties, and providing the tactical situation permits. The SFOR mandate has not changed. The injury to our soldier, and the death of Drljaca, illustrates the grave risks involved in such operations and the courage and selflessness of those who serve us.

"I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating and commending the courage and professionalism of the British forces involved. I am very proud of their performance, which was up to the highest military standards.

"The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they believe all of those indicted for war crimes should face trial at the International Tribunal at the Hague. I strongly held that view personally when I was an Opposition spokesman, and I repeated my personal commitment—and that of this Government—at the press conference I held in Sarajevo in May.

"With the Chief of the Defence Staff I went to Pale on the same visit and told the Bosnian Serb member of the Bosnia Herzegovina Presidency, President Krajisnik, of our serious interest in indicted war criminals and we formed the clear impression that the Republika Srpska authorities intended to do little to discharge their solemn obligations.

"They were not then, and have not since been, left in any doubt about the resolve of Britain and our allies to bring to justice those accused of such terrible acts. We will take action as and when it is practical and sensible to do so. Thousands of British troops have now served in Bosnia in United Nations and NATO-led operations. They have served to bring peace and stability to a small country whose people have suffered unimaginable horrors. Our troops, like those who acted this morning, serve with skill, professionalism and with a genuine commitment to restore a semblance of normality and unity to Bosnia Herzegovina.

"We owe them, and their families, a huge debt and today is a good day to make that very clear".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.48 p.m.

Earl Howe

My Lords, from these Benches may I express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement on this serious development in Bosnia. I suspect that many of us will have experienced a certain sense of frustration in recent months that indicted war criminals were at large and living freely in Bosnia Herzegovina and that there was apparently little that our security forces could do about this proactively unless, as the Statement says, they came across the indictees during the course of their normal duties. Apart from the injury to the British soldier, this is indeed a welcome turn of events.

Does the Minister accept that British service personnel are working under very difficult conditions in Bosnia and today's action highlights this fact? We should like to join him in wishing a speedy recovery to the wounded man.

Will the Minister also note that our troops have the support and the thanks of all sides of the House for the duties they perform to uphold the peace in the former Yugoslavia and to enforce the Dayton peace agreement. We certainly join with the Minister in congratulating our troops on what they have accomplished. These developments focus our minds on the ever-approaching deadline for SFOR's departure and the scant time that there is left to achieve all that needs to be achieved if a durable peace is to be secured in that troubled region. In the absence of a durable settlement in Bosnia, does not this incident underline the need to extend the existing deadline for SFOR? What can the Minister tell us about the discussions within NATO on that subject? When does he expect a decision to be taken?

I turn to the section of the Statement which refers to SFOR's mandate. Will the Minister accept the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for the SFOR mandate to detain and transfer to the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia those people who have been indicted for war crimes? The Minister has said that the SFOR mandate has not been changed. However, will he tell the House whether there has been a change in the way in which the mandate has been implemented?

We are pleased to note from the Statement that Kovacevic was arrested. The Statement is a little unclear as to who detained him, but it is good to note that he is in custody. Can the Minister say what pressure is being applied to the authorities locally to apprehend war criminals as they are expected to do under the Dayton Agreement? It is a little dismaying to hear from the Statement that the authorities are not taking those obligations as seriously as they should.

At the risk of bombarding the Minister with questions, not all of which, I realise, he will have time to answer, can he tell the House how many other indictments are outstanding at present? Ever present in our minds, of course, must be the safety of British troops. It seems to me that there is a distinct danger from these detentions that local people will view our troops in a new and perhaps slightly less benign light from this point on. What steps will the Government take to ensure against possible retaliation against British forces in the area?

Finally, I believe that there is a general lesson to be drawn from these incidents. As the Statement acknowledges, no one should imagine that peacekeeping is easy or risk free. I hope that the Minister will agree that this incident underlines the dangers of peacekeeping and the necessity of having well trained, well equipped and highly motivated professional troops to carry out those duties.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. There are many questions that it is not appropriate to put in a delicate operation of this kind at present. We wish to assure the noble Lord that we support the action. We acknowledge the acute difficulties under which British troops operate in fulfilling the mandate; and we fully support the principle that all war criminals should be apprehended in the course of returning this divided area to a full civil society.

As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, peacekeeping is a difficult process. It is deeply regrettable that British soldiers should suffer casualties even if, frankly, it appears on this occasion a minor casualty. But we have gone into Bosnia to attempt to resolve the conflict and to restore and rebuild a peaceful society in that area. This is a long-term process. We, on these Benches, supported the sending of a substantial British force at an early stage. We support equally the maintenance of that force until we are confident that the situation has again become stabilised. We accept that the apprehension of other war criminals must continue to be part of SFOR's mandate.

We welcome the British contribution to SFOR. We hope that its mandate will not be ended prematurely. I wish the Minister to know that there are many questions we would like to pose but we shall refrain from so doing.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord for their discretion in the questions that they have put to me this afternoon. It is a great reassurance to Defence Ministers to have the expressions of support from both parties on the other side of the House. I will see that they are conveyed not only to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence but that they are also conveyed to the commander of British Forces in Bosnia.

They are operating in quite appallingly difficult conditions. I know that they will be grateful for the support and thanks of everyone in this House.

The noble Earl asked me when a decision would be taken as to whether it would be necessary to extend the existing deadline for the SFOR presence in Bosnia. The answer I have to give him is that I am afraid it is too early to say. At present we are concentrating on what we need to do in the immediate future.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me whether or not the mandate was being changed in the way in which it was being implemented. I have no knowledge of any change in the way in which the mandate is being implemented.

As regards pressure on the authorities out there, we try to make it as unrelenting as possible. But, frankly, their performance, to put it mildly, has been disappointing—and one could use much stronger language than that. Those authorities voluntarily accepted their responsibilities under the Dayton agreements and they have been seriously negligent in fulfilling them, or even in attempting to fulfil them.

In answer to the question regarding the number of indictments, my information is that up to now 75 have been issued. I am quite sure that the noble Earl is right that there is a possibility that the local populations may develop a less benign attitude, to use his phrase, towards British troops in the immediate future, and there is also a possibility of retaliation on our forces out there. I can assure him that the British commanders on the ground are well aware of that possibility and will of course be taking the necessary precautions. He is absolutely right that peacekeeping is an extremely dangerous matter unless one has well trained troops and very good equipment; and I am glad to say that thanks to the efforts of the previous Government and of this Government that is the position in which our forces find themselves in Bosnia.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we need to try to apprehend all the war criminals because I do not think that we shall bring peace and stability to that wretched part of the world until we have succeeded in doing so.

4.58 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a short question for clarification, but only if the noble Lord finds it convenient to answer. The power to arrest, to detain, indicted war criminals if one comes across them could have two meanings. Is it the power to do so if by chance one comes across them; or is it the power to seek them out to try and find them and then, coming across them, to arrest them? I am indebted to the noble Lord's statement that they must all be arrested and brought to trial. The question is marginally relevant to that consideration.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand the position, it is the responsibility of the forces that are holding the warrants to arrest people when they come across them in the course of their normal duties.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I am sure that all those of us who support the Government would wish to put on record our wholehearted endorsement of what the Secretary of State said on our behalf. We have nothing but the utmost admiration for the calibre and professionalism of our servicemen in this extremely difficult and sensitive area.

In the light of that situation, does my noble friend accept that the Government and indeed the services will have all possible support and good will in any action they find necessary to ensure that those responsible for the most appalling crimes against humanity should be brought to justice? Of course we understand that the local authorities have theoretically accepted responsibility but are doing precious little. In that situation, if it becomes necessary for us to become proactive, there will be good will from these Benches.

Perhaps I may also ask my noble friend to accept that, at a time when we are making human rights central to our foreign policy and when we are engaged in strengthening and extending NATO, the credibility of both those policies is related to the effectiveness with which we pursue our objective within Bosnia.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, not for the first time, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I believe it will be helpful to him if I emphasise once again that this was a NATO operation and to that extent NATO deserves the credit for it. Earlier today in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence detailed some of the appalling atrocities which took place in the areas for which these men held responsibility. I will neither shock the sensibilities of this House nor detain it by repeating them, but they are to be seen in the record of the proceedings of the other place.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is true that one of the problems is that Karadzic, for instance, one of the chief criminals, is to be found not in our sector but in, I believe, the French sector? Does that cause problems? Presumably it is the country in whose sector these people are that would be expected by NATO to make the arrest. Is that one of the difficulties?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question, for the simple reason that I do not know exactly where the gentleman concerned is, and nor am I privy to the contents of warrants that may have been issued other than those in the hands of our forces.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, I am afraid I was not here when the Minister opened the Statement, but did he not say that the local authorities were bound by the Dayton agreement? They were not represented at Dayton. Surely they were represented by Mr. Milosevic, which is another story altogether?

Are we being even-handed in this matter as between Serbs, Moslems and Croats? The Croat leader, Mr. Tudjman, was at Dayton. There have been many suspicions that the Americans have been heavily biased in favour of the Moslems.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I have to repeat what I said in my previous answer. I am not privy to the contents of the other warrants that have been issued. All I know about are the warrants that have been in the hands of Her Majesty's Forces. Obviously there are people who have been engaged in extremely unpleasant activities on behalf of each of the ethnic groups to be found in that part of the world. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the noble Earl.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, first, can my noble friend confirm or deny a report in the Evening Standard today that a person not guilty of any war crime was killed during that operation? It is important that we have that information.

Secondly, can I go further than the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, on the question of how far this writ will run? Is it not a fact that there are indicted war criminals in Croatia, in Moslem Bosnia and in Greater Serbia itself? It is important that we know whether it is the policy of NATO to go into all these areas, including Serbia, to arrest indicted war criminals.

Further, may I ask the Minister what a "blind" indictment is, which we heard about on the one o'clock news? A blind indictment, as I understand it, is an indictment that nobody, including the person indicted, knows anything about.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I think he is referring to a "sealed" indictment. A sealed indictment is precisely as he describes it: it does not name publicly the person to whom it is attached. Its purpose is very simple: it is not to give them warning that someone is going to try to arrest them. As I understand it, a very small number of such indictments have been issued at the moment.

As far as my noble friend's other comments are concerned, he is absolutely right. There are people in Greater Serbia, as well as in parts of Bosnia, whom we should all like to see standing trial for these matters in front of the International Court of Justice as soon as possible.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the Minister a little further. He said that the Bosnian authorities were bound by the Dayton agreement. But they were not represented at Dayton. Surely it was Milosevic, the Prime Minister of Serbia, who was at Dayton, not Karadzic.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right; but I was also trying to make the point that the local authorities have a clear responsibility for trying to assist the forces of law and order in arresting war criminals or suspected war criminals. I regret to say that they have been very delinquent in their responsibilities in these matters. On his past visits to the area my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has done his best to influence them and so far, to his regret and ours, has failed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this matter but I am concerned about the sealed indictment. Can the Minister explain it a little further? If it is a sealed indictment, the person indicted does not know anything about it and therefore does not know that when someone comes to arrest him he should give himself up or even give himself up before someone comes to arrest him. It may be that I am being a little naive but I do not understand what this term "sealed indictment" means. If the Minister could explain it, I should be most obliged.

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, if I understand it correctly, obviously the person named in the sealed indictment knows when it is handed to him that he is named in it. On the other hand, we do not publish these things in the newspapers so that he and his cronies know in advance that he is likely to be arrested.

I regret that I did not answer an earlier point made by my noble friend. I have no knowledge of anyone else having been killed in this operation.