§ 5. Mr. DouglasTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to recognise further states as a consequence of developments in the Union of Sovereign States and Yugoslavia.
§ Mr. HurdOn 16 December we and our Community partners set out guidelines to inform our decisions on the recognition of new states in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We have not yet taken decisions on the recognition of the republics of the Soviet Union—apart from the Baltic states—as they are still discussing among themselves their future relations.
The Foreign Ministers agreed to recognise Yugoslav republics who meet certain conditions. The arbitration commission of the conference on Yugoslavia, chaired by 261 Lord Carrington, will advise whether republics meet those conditions. A final decision on implementation will be taken on 15 January, after advice from the arbitration commission.
§ Mr. DouglasDoes the Foreign Secretary accept that there should be general acceptance of the criteria laid down by the European Community on recognition, but that there might be some stricture about the speed of recognition, especially for Yugoslavia? Delay might give a spurious temptation to the so-called Yugoslavian army to exercise certain initiatives that could be detrimental to the freedom of other republics. Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to human rights, to the rights of ethnic minorities, and——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Brief questions, please.
§ Mr. DouglasI understand, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Foreign Secretary keep the House informed and perhaps make a statement when the House returns after the recess?
§ Mr. HurdI am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remark. As I have made clear, for some time the question of recognising Yugoslav republics, especially Croatia and Slovenia, has not been a matter of principle—clearly they will not be willing to go back into any entity called Yugoslavia. Recognition has been a matter of timing and judgment—a phrase that I have often used before.
The hon. Gentleman thinks that the timing is a bit slow; others may feel that it is a bit fast. That is a matter of judgment, and on 16 December it was a matter of compromise.
§ Mr. WellsIs it not like throwing petrol on a bonfire to promise to recognise Croatia and Slovenia? Does my right hon. Friend know about Lord Carrington's advice that such recognition would encourage Herzegovina to claim independence too, and thus excite the Serbs to fight?
§ Mr. HurdLord Carrington's view has been that premature recognition would be a mistake, and Mr. Cyrus Vance—the Secretary-General's representative—has made the same point. I have been in touch with Lord Carrington since the EC decision. He is very much in action, and so is Mr. Cyrus Vance. They will both work hard and urgently to carry to a successful conclusion, if they can, the two processes of which they are in charge—the peace conference at The Hague and the prospects for a UN peacekeeping force.
§ Mr. ReesIs the Secretary of State aware that those of us who recall the area 40 years ago believe that the German-led policy is the height of folly? The Germans should recall their experiences in the area, when the fighting tied down seven German divisions. Can we be sure that if this goes wrong and there is military involvement —as there might well be—we will not be involved on the coat-tails of the Germans?
§ Mr. HurdOne thing is certain: there is no question of German military involvement in any of the republics of Yugoslavia.
§ Mr. FavellIt has been suggested in several media reports today that if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were free to pursue an independent foreign policy, he would not now consider recognising Slovenia and Croatia. Is that correct?
§ Mr. HurdFor us, as for the Community, it would have been a matter of timing. There is a tradition of the main states of western Europe splitting in rivalry on Balkan questions. There is quite a history of individual countries backing a particular group, taking a particular line, and it all ending up on the battlefield. I do not believe that the history of that tradition is a good one. It is better to thrash out such differences round a table rather than—eventually —on the battlefield.
§ Mr. KaufmanWhen the deadline for judging whether the republics should be recognised arrives in January, will the 12 Foreign Ministers meet again to decide collectively whether the criteria have been met and whether all of them will recognise or not recognise the republics? If not, and if there are to be individual assessments of the criteria, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that if Germany decides that the criteria have been met and recognises the republics but Britain decides that the criteria have not been met, the United Kingdom will reserve the right not to recognise the republics?
§ Mr. HurdThe decision asks for advice from the Arbitration Commission and from Mr. Badinter. If that advice suggests that the republics which have applied meet the conditions set out in the decision of 16 December, there will be recognition by all 12 Governments. If the Arbitration Commission expresses a negative view about any one of the republics, there is no collective decision to implement, and countries will be able to make their own assessment.
§ Mr. CormackDoes my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have watched the terrible destruction in Croatia are disturbed by the amount of killing time between now and 15 January? Does he also agree that one state which does not meet the generally accepted criteria for recognition is the federal state of Yugoslavia, which has lost control of its own army?
§ Mr. HurdI know my hon. Friend's view and I believe that he had an Adjournment debate on the subject last week. He must not create the impression that recognition will stop the killing. The main hopes for stopping the killing are, first, the peace conference and, secondly, the prospect—ot yet a certainty—of United Nations peace keeping. I very much welcome the fact that the Security Council authorised the dispatch of a preliminary team. I hope that Mr. Vance, with whom we have been in touch in the past 24 hours, will feel able in the light of his further explorations to suggest to the Security Council that a peace-keeping force should be sent. The Foreign Ministers, on 16 December, warmly endorsed that effort.
§ 6. Mr. GallowayTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Yugoslavia on the situation of the Albanian population in that country; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggWe strongly condemn Serbian abuse of human rights in the Kosovo. It is clear that any lasting solution for Yugoslavia must incorporate guarantees for minority communities such as the Kosovo Albanians.
§ Mr. GallowayThe Albanians in Yugoslavia are not a minority population, but the third largest national group in the country; there are more than 3 million of them, but 263 their national rights have long been abolished by the Yugoslavian Government. The Minister must know that if Croatia and Slovenia are allowed to become internationally recognised next month, the Albanian population—and Albania itself, just across the border—will not sit quietly while the brutal reign of terror imposed by the Serbian authorities in the Kosovo continues. More than 600,000 people have passed through the rough hands of the Serbian authorities since the Parliament was abolished, and have been arrested and interrogated. Some 90,000 have been dismissed from their jobs for political reasons and thousands have been imprisoned for long sentences. Scores have been killed or are missing. What can the British Government do, both bilaterally and in the European Community, to ensure that the national rights of the Albanians and of the other nations in Yugoslavia are fully taken into account in the whole bloody mess?
§ Mr. HoggThe safeguarding of national and minority rights is one of the most important issues which need to be addressed in the quest for an overall settlement. The Albanians are in a huge majority in the Kosovo—well over 90 per cent. of the total population. There is also a substantial minority of Albanians in Macedonia. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the draft treaty that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington has prepared identifies a range of safeguards which should be extended to the ethnic minorities in Yugoslavia. The Serbian Government must recognise that they should extend to the Albanians exactly the rights and privileges that they seek to secure on behalf of the Serbs in, for example, Croatia.
§ Mrs. CurrieDoes my hon. and learned Friend recognise that, whatever the concern in this country about the mess in Yugoslavia, there would be even more concern if we started sending in British troops, whether as part of a peace-keeping force or anything else? Will he ensure that, before any consideration is given to such a development, we are quite clear in Britain how long such troops would stay, what exactly they would be setting out to achieve, and how they would cope with the aftermath? The last thing I would want to have to sell to my constituents is the idea that they should go into that bloody mess and be shot at by the bandits on both sides.
§ Mr. HoggMy hon. Friend makes a serious point. with which I largely agree. It is very important that a peace-keeping force should not be sent to Yugoslavia until there is a peace to keep, and until it is clear that all the warring parties both invite and allow that peace-keeping force to operate. At the same time, the United Nations is clearly contemplating the circumstances in which a peace-keeping force might be sent and I can well conceive of circumstances in which, in order to underpin a peace, a peace-keeping force should be in place. Nevertheless, there are perils associated with the matter, and my hon. Friend has identified a number of them.