United Nations

HC Deb 04 December 1992 vol 215 cc499-564 9.35 am

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

I beg to move, That this House pays tribute to the work of the United Nations and its agencies; congratulates the Government on the success of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31st January; welcomes the Report of the Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, that flowed from it; considers that a speedy return by the United Kingdom to UNESCO is in the national interest; and seeks further action from the Government to improve the ability of the United Nations to secure justice and human rights and to maintain international peace and security. I believe that this is the first time that the House has had an opportunity to debate the United Nations for many a year. By chance, we have chosen a particularly topical occasion. We heard with relief this morning the news of the release of the three British service men serving with the United Nations force in Cambodia. We learnt of the resolution of the Security Council in New York to authorise the dispatch of 28,000 American service men to that troubled, blighted country of Somalia. I hope that it will be not a one-nation force but multinational and will come under the full command and control of the United Nations.

Rather more disconcertingly, we heard from Serbia that British soldiers have been attacked from both sides. I hope that I will have a chance to say more about the former Yugoslavia in due course.

I will not speak too long. A former Speaker once said that speeches, to be immortal, do not need to be eternal.That is wise advice for us practitioners on the Back Benches, particularly as I spoke after a 53-minute speech by a Labour Member last week.

I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on the Government Front Bench. He and I have already had two chews at this subject. I was lucky enough last Thursday to initiate an Adjournment debate on UN peacekeeping. Last Friday we debated the middle east, on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has come to have a second bite today.

My right hon. and hon. Friends will not be surprised if I take out one or two hobby horses and ride them around the paddock. For heaven's sake, if, after 18 years' membership of the House, one secures the first motion for debate on a Friday, one is a fool if one does not do so.

The background to the United Nations is the failure of the League of Nations to stand up to the aggression that broke out in Europe in the 1930s and which led to the second world war. We must never forget that failure to resist aggression. It was very much in my mind when we debated what to do about Kuwait and whether we should take on the military might of that ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein. The United Nations was conceived during the war. It was set up to take account of the political situation in the world in 1945.

I approach the subject of the United Nations with considerable humility. Recently I became chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group. Members of that group have spent much of their lives seeking to improve the performance and practices of the United Nations. When Lord Gladwyn sent me his £2 subscription the other day, I looked him up and found that, when I had a satchel on my back and was wearing shorts, he was acting Secretary-General of the United Nations. He then went on to be a very distinguished ambassador in New York.

I have placed on the Order Paper the words congratulates the Government on the success of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31st January". My advice to Back Benchers is that we should all resist congratulating Governments. If there is one thing worse than an obstreperous and bullying Whip—we do not have one here today—it is a smug Whip who is being congratulated. Members on both sides of the House should be able to unite on that point. "Congratulates" seemed to me, however, to be the appropriate word to use.

I believe that the United Kingdom is in a special and privileged position within the United Nations. Therefore, it behoves us to give a lead to that body. There was no better way of doing that than calling the special summit. The Prime Minister reported back to us on 3 February of this year and told us: I called the meeting in New York during our chairmanship of the Security Council so that the Council could meet at the highest level to reaffirm and develop its commitment to peacekeeping and peacemaking. The timing was particularly apt following the appointment of a new Secretary-General and with Russia taking the seat in the Security Council formerly held by the Soviet Union. The meeting was successful …This was the first time in the 47 years of its history that the UN had met at the top level. For the first time ever, the Heads of State and Government of the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain sat around the same table and pledged themselves, with the other members of the Council, to collective security, to international law and to our commitments under the United Nations charter."—[Official Report,3 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 21.] The new Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace" flowed from that meeting.

I understand that the British Government did not initially support the election of Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali—perhaps for good reasons—but I believe that he will be a very capable and interesting Secretary-General. He has had great diplomatic and ministerial experience in Egypt. He is a Coptic Christian. His wife is Jewish. He played a big part in the peace talks between Egypt and Israel.

I warmly welcome "An Agenda for Peace"—I know that it is the bedside reading of my colleagues on these Benches. In 50 pages it makes, in very readable language, a number of sensible proposals. The Secretary-General not only produced this admirable report; he has also carried out a considerable measure of reform within the United Nations. There have been new appointments and a slimming down of the bureaucracy, which every hon. Member will welcome.

From this distance I am not sure whether I know enough about what more should be done in New York, but I am advised by those who know something about it that there are still too many committees, still too much international bureaucracy, and still too much waste. We have to accept that 166 individual sovereign countries, will rightly, ask that some of their diplomats should serve in New York, but when it comes to selection for promotion I should like greater emphasis to be placed on merit. That should be the key factor. The bureaucracy in New York has to deal on a day-to-day basis with the sophistication of the British Foreign Office, or the Quai d'Orsay, or the German equivalent. The United Nations bureaucracy is not yet up to the required standard.

The Secretary-General also drew attention to a major problem: the mismatch between the aims and wishes of the Security Council—and, I believe, of the General Assembly—and the financial reality. An unplumbed, salt-estranging sea lies between the two. The situation is frightening. The Secretary-General wrote recently: As of September 1992"— only a few weeks ago— only 52 Member States had paid in full their dues to the regular budget of the United Nations. Unpaid assessed contributions total $908.5 million. Unpaid contributions towards peace-keeping operations stood at $844.4 million. At the end of August 1992, I was able to pay the salaries of the regular staff of this Organization only through borrowing from peace-keeping funds with available cash. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the Government have a superb record in paying their membership dues on time.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

What about the United States?

Mr. Townsend

The hon. Gentleman leads me into my next point. I am ashamed to find that a number of allies have not yet paid their dues. In July of this year, the United States of America owed the peacekeeping budget $277 milllion, Russia $202 million, Germany $73 million, Japan—recently I welcomed the Japanese contribution to the peacekeeping force in Cambodia—$48 million and France $47 million. When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the ambassadors of those countries, in particular Ambassador Ray Sykes, who is a great success in London, I hope that he will have a private word with them about countries that demand more peacekeeping by the United Nations but cannot get round to signing and posting a cheque.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

I do not argue with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument; I agree entirely with him. Simply for the record, however, may I say that the information that has been given to me is that the United States is by far the largest defaulter, as he said. It owes about $295 million to the United Nations regular budget and $145 million to the separate peacekeeping account. That amounts to $440 million, rather than the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted. They are only figures, and I am absolutely sure that the principle is right, but my figure is almost double that which the hon. Gentleman gave.

Mr. Townsend

I shall leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to deal with that point. I am clutching a paper that the General Assembly produced in July 1992, which shows that at that stage the United States owed $277 million.

There was, naturally, some talk at the special summit about who should be permanent members of the Security Council. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he feels that such a discussion is a distraction, that there is plenty of work to be done, and that the Security Council is working well. Those are admirable sentiments and there is much foundation to them, but the House should be aware that countries such as Germany, Japan, Brazil, India and Egypt think that they should have, if not a place in the sun, then a seat on the Security Council. It will not be easy for the United Kingdom permanently to defend the fact that, because the United Nations was set up at the end of the war, the United Kingdom, which has a comparatively low per capita income compared with that of other countries and a comparatively small defence force, should still maintain a permanent seat. At the end of the war the Royal Navy had about 600 surface ships but now has about 40 destroyers and frigates.

I hope that the Government will continue to do all they can to maintain our seat on the Security Council—they would be foolish not to—but we must be aware of which way the wind is blowing. We must justify our position with considerable activity.

I want to turn to an issue that is to the fore of the work of the United Nations—the sovereignty argument. In the hot summer of 1990, I had the pleasure of attending a conference in the beautiful surroundings of Ditchley park. The subject was the United Nations and its future. There was a long and excellent debate on the sovereignty question. I saw, in full array, the formidable legal might of the Foreign Office defending the unique concept of sovereignty. The advice of those learned gentlemen was that, once one moves that basic principle, one is in dangerous uncharted seas. When I said that perhaps there was something to be said for a change, they said, "No wonder this chap is still a Back Bencher. Has not he thought of Northern Ireland? What happens if the General Assembly reacts to a development in Northern Ireland and wants to send a peacekeeping force there?" The overwhelming view was that we should not change the status quo.

I remember arguing in 1990 the specific case of a United Nations convoy that had been trying to get food to a Palestinian refugee camp in southern Lebanon but was held up by a bloody-minded militia group. I remember thinking at the time, when women and children were starving in the mud, despair and squalor of those Palestinian camps, "Surely to God the United Nations, in the name of humanity, can force its way through that militia road block."

When the plight of the Kurds first broke on our television screens, the Government thought that nothing should be done. That was an understandable attitude. Public pressure mounted and, as we know, a successful operation was carried out—against, I believe, the wishes of the Secretary-General at that time and of many members of the General Assembly. It was a watershed and the situation has changed notably since then. I welcome that, but we should be cautious.

I attach to that what I call the United Nations imperial role. I am afraid that I must criticise the Foreign Secretary rather severely for using the word "Imperial" in a key speech on this subject which got the debate off on the wrong foot. The concept that the Foreign Secretary advanced, however, is extremely important, and I support it.

In a few weeks' time, the military position in Somalia will be transformed. Any baron who stands up to a force of United States Marines rather than bury his weapon in the sand needs his head examined. Peace will prevail in Somalia before long, but the problem is that government has broken down. The schools do not function, the sewage plants have been damaged, and there is no health service, no work and no jobs. The country needs government. A new team of civil service must be trained. The schools must start working again, teachers must be imported, and the infrastructure must be rebuilt. I unhesitatingly say that that role must be performed by the United Nations. We must establish a new system of trusteeship, and I understand that we shall have to give it another name. We shall not have district commissioners or district officers, but my colleagues will agree that the principle is important: the United Nations should have the capacity to run, for perhaps five or 10 years, an independent sovereign country and bring it back to such a state that it can become independent, sovereign and have its own elected Parliament.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I accept my hon. Friend's general proposition that there can be no lasting solution to Somalia's problems without the restoration of a proper administration, but that does not mean that one must go down precisely the detailed road that he suggests. Under the effective system of protectorates, a nation would take on activities that he suggests on the United Nation's behalf.

Mr. Towsend

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are a number of ways of proceeding. He and I agree that the United Nations should be given powers to take over the administration of an independent country and bring it back to such a state that it can stand on its own feet and be independent and sovereign.

Mr. Rogers

Surely the hon. Gentleman will refute the proposition that we should return to the old concept of protectorates, with certain countries having economic and political control over particular areas. That was one of the disastrous measures taken between the two world wars which has led to so many problems since.

Mr. Townsend

I shall leave it to the hon. Gentleman to answer the point when he makes his speech.

I want to come to the need for Britain to rejoin UNESCO, about which I have taken up much of the House's time in Adjournment debates. I have a sore head on it, and I do not mind telling my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister that I believe that we have behaved disgracefully and that the sooner we rejoin the better. Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation issued a lot of highly misleading propaganda about UNESCO. I am not an idealist about UNESCO. Many years ago, I had an Adjournment debate on the famous world information order, which has been disastrous; the organisation has been a shambles for many years. But if we wish to remain on the Security Council, the universality rule is fundamental. In its 1985 report, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded: A breach by the United Kingdom of the principle of universality in the UN and its Agencies could have long-term, and damaging, consequences for those organisations, and not merely for UNESCO alone. When we were a member of UNESCO, we did better than most from it. We were one of the founder members and the conference that established it was held across Parliament square at the Institution of Civil Engineers. From the outset, Britain was on the inside track getting the goodies. British publishing houses and British consultants did well out of UNESCO. Since we left UNESCO, France has very sensibly been pushing the French language at our expense and at that of the English language. Our English-speaking friends in the Commonwealth do not understand why we do not stand up for British interests and for their interests. In any one year we earned more money from UNESCO than we put into it.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I have been around this course already. He will say that we cannot afford the £9 million which is at stake, but I can happily name some aspects of Government expenditure on which we should not be spending £9 million but on which we are spending that sum. If it comes to the crunch, I should deny a famous cavalry regiment of the Rhine Army—or what is left of it—two tanks so that we could get back into UNESCO and also help our balance of payments. I believe that the so-called cultural establishment is overwhelmingly in favour of our return. We are missing a trick.

The other day I wrote to one of my right hon. and learned Friend's colleagues in the Foreign Office. It got my goat when I had it explained to me that we could best influence the important reforms that have been taking place in UNESCO by standing back and scolding from the touchlines. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how, with regard to the European Community, I and colleagues argue that we need to be on the field representing Britain and putting forward a British view instead of being told what to do. However, when it comes to UNESCO, we are told how much better we shall do by not having a shirt on our back and not being on the field. That is nonsense, and I should welcome our return. We left UNESCO on Ronald Reagan's coat tails, and it would be a shame if we returned on Clinton's coat tails. Let us go in with him, or before him.

Time is running out, but I wish to alight briefly on one or two trouble spots and the first must be Bosnia. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am extremely cautious, although some of my colleagues will argue in the opposite vein. I read that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has said that there is danger in going in half-cocked; he wants a far greater commitment from us and the United Nations. I am on the opposite side of the argument. There have been civil wars, disputes and feuds in that part of the world for hundreds of years. There is a possible analogy with Ireland.

The problems are deep seated, and my advice to the Government and, indeed, to the United Nations is to understand the strict limits and not to become party to a dispute. If we start bombing the Serbian artillery positions—and, God knows, the Serbs have behaved badly enough—we will put at risk the lives of the 3,000 British service men in that country and will have to withdraw the humanitarian aid on which we are concentrating. It should be a United Nations operation. We should concentrate on the humanitarian work and recognise the limits of the United Nations activity in this day and age.

I know that some colleagues will have a different view, but I did not welcome the dispatch of the Cheshires. It is a famous, down-to-earth, professional regiment, conducting itself with great ability and having considerable success. However, it has been placed in a very dangerous position and given an almost impossible task. It is sitting in white boxes, without artillery support or air cover, and we learn from the newspapers today that it has come under fire from both sides. I look forward to the day when my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us that the Cheshires have been withdrawn and that we are supporting the United Nations in that bitterly divided country with signallers, medical orderlies and truck drivers but without deploying a British infantry battalion.

It will be no surprise to the House if I deal now with the middle east, which was the subject of the debate initiated last Friday by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I pay tribute to President Bush and Secretary of State Baker for getting the peace talks going. They have lasted a year. The problem is not a matter only for the American Administration under Bush or Clinton. There are vital United Nations resolutions on the books and the point of the Kuwaiti operation was to pay respect to those resolutions—we cannot pick and choose dishes from the menu. The United Nations passed resolution 242—a British-sponsored resolution—which deals with land for peace. It is essential that at some stage—I am not saying now—the United Nations becomes involved in the peacemaking process in the middle east.

The phrase "self-determination" is in the United Nations charter, which is a splendid document. I ask my colleagues please not to say, "What does that matter in such a situation?" When the self-determination of 1,800 Falkland Islanders who had decided to live 8,000 miles away was at stake, we took military action and lost about 250 lives in the process. We thought that the Falkland Islanders were entitled to self-determination and not to be ruled by the Argentine army but to choose their own political leaders. I say without hesitation that the Palestinians are also entitled not to be ruled by an army of occupation and a brigadier but, in due course, to elect their own leaders.

I deal briefly with Cyprus. My colleagues know that over the years I have taken up a great deal of the House's time in talking about Cyprus. I started my life there as a young soldier and guarded the last colonial governor of Cyprus. I was very nearly killed by EOKA, so I have no illusions about that tragic and bitterly divided island. As I recently told my right hon. and learned Friend, the watering down of the British contingent to the United Nations' peacekeeping force there was an error of judgment and was ill received in the south. It gives an unhappy example which others will follow.

I want to deal with the peace process rather than the peace force in Cyprus. To all intents and purposes, the talks have broken down and a good early-day motion deals with that. In this case, the Secretary-General has allocated blame to an unusual extent

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Townsend

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) will contribute to the discussion—he and I hold opposing views.

The Berlin wall has come down; other walls have come down in Europe. It is intolerable that a Commonwealth country—a European country—is divided down the middle by a so-called green line. I do not believe that the United Kingdom, as a guarantor power, can sit idly by and wash its hands, saying that it is all too difficult and leaving it to the United States or someone else.

Finally, I deal with the Atlantic coast of the Arab world—the western Sahara. The leader of the Polisario met many of us in London only a few days ago. The Secretary-General of the United Nations faces the appallingly difficult issue of who should vote in the forthcoming referendum. The Polisario says that the register should be confined to the census produced by the Spanish authorities, but, since then, Morocco has come up with a much longer list of names. In deciding who should vote, the Secretary-General largely decides the outcome of the referendum. I am waiting to hear the Government's view and what we can do to help.

Mr. Corbyn

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a serious problem in that, while the United Nations representative was preparing for the referendum, the Moroccan army moved large numbers of people into the area to inflate the register and that that caused last year's referendum to be postponed?

Mr. Townsend

I do not think that the Moroccan Government have clean hands in the matter. But, having criticised the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for speaking for too long last week, I must bring my brief thoughts rapidly to a conclusion.

I mentioned the fact that I guarded Sir Hugh Foot in Cyprus. In his book "A Start in Freedom", Sir Hugh wrote some appropriate words about the United Nations: I have always believed that the forces of conciliation are potentially stronger than those of conflict. The trouble is that the forces of hatred and conflict are so well organised and well led while the forces of conciliation are ill organised or ill led, or not organised or led at all. Now in the United Nations we have a permanent organisation for promoting international understanding and co-operation. It is this new initiative which gives us new hope in a divided world. When the cold war ended, there was a great wave of optimism. There was a new spirit at the United Nations. President Bush made his speech about the new world order that would unfold before us like a map. Then disillusion set in. As we read our newspapers today, watch television and hear of the ruin and misery, death and destruction in Bosnia, where European civilisation is clearly withdrawing rather than advancing, we share that sentiment.

Inevitably, we must look to the United Nations to organise and prepare itself, and to adopt better procedures for setting up peacekeeping forces to deal with the new world in which we live towards the end of the century. It has been said that the United Nations was created not to take mankind to heaven but to stop it from descending into hell. I believe that there is a real danger that we shall go the wrong way unless the United Nations can assume a greater importance in world affairs. Of course, I look to the British Government to give a lead to the United Nations, and I hope that mankind will move onwards to new sunlit uplands.

10.12 am

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)—although he sits on the other side of the House, he is my hon. Friend on this issue—on securing the debate and on getting it off to such an informed, useful and helpful start. There was almost nothing in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I disagreed—except that I differ slightly, in detail rather than in principle, on his perception of how to resolve the Somalian problem.

I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives the Opposition to discuss the United Nations, and I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said, and will flesh out some of what we should like to see as part of the role of the United Nations.

It is specifically written into the Labour party's constitution that we not only support the formation, the work and the activities of the United Nations, but we are committed to its expansion and support. In a personal capacity, I am the chairman of the Labour council on the middle east—just as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath is chairman of the Conservative council on the middle east. Item 2 of the Labour council's constitution is the aim to resolve the conflict in the middle east through the resolutions and the work of the United Nations, so I welcome the opportunity to speak on that subject.

Following the collapse of the old war—the conflict between the two great powerful nation states, the United States and the Soviet Union—many people had hoped that a new world order might emerge. However, although we played a major part in establishing the United Nations 47 years ago, we seem to have said little about how we believe that that organisation should move forward in the new world order.

Many of us were worried about a range of issues throughout the world, especially in the middle east. We were faced with the dilemma caused by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the question whether we should stop and consider all the other major breaches of international law taking place in that area. We all agreed that it would not help international law or the processes of the United Nations if we did not immediately condemn the Iraqi invasion and, as part of those processes, see whether a force could be assembled that might relieve Kuwait and ensure that a new world order could emerge out of the old power structures that had supported the various dictators and repressive regimes that had existed hitherto.

Everyone in the House knows that many of the problems with which the United Nations has had to grapple over the years, some of which the hon. Member for Bexleyheath mentioned—Cyprus, for example—could have been resolved many years ago had it not been for the determination of the United States to keep a base in Turkey from which it could continue to threaten the Soviet Union. Unless we admit that, we shall not be able to convince the parts of the world that have suffered either directly or indirectly from dictatorship that we are determined to create a new world order. There is no doubt that had Turkey not been on the borders of the Soviet Union, and therefore not been suitable for use by the United States as a base for its forward ballistic missiles, the people of the north and the south of Cyprus might well have been convinced that their future lay together.

It also has to be said at the outset that although we in this country have not considered the new world order in any depth, many countries in what is called the underdeveloped world, or the south, have been concerned about how that new order might emerge. When I was talking about the United Nations during the emergency debate on 25 September, I said that I had been to a conference in Tunis. organised by the Tunisian Government, on that very subject. I was invited to attend the conference on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party, and I thought that it would be quite easy to find material—I could ring up Walworth road, our party headquarters, and ask the people there to supply me with the most recent Labour party statement on the new world order. But when I phoned I discovered that we had not said very much—in fact, I must be honest and admit that, although many statements had been made which we could use as part of our vision of the United Nations role in the new world order, the Labour party had said nothing specific on the subject.

I then said, "The Government must have said something. After all, the whole thrust of the debate here over many months was that the end of the cold war and the way in which we dealt with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was to be the basis of a new world order." I went to the excellent Library and asked the staff to give me all the most recent Government statements—statements by any Minister would do—on the new world order and how Britain saw it developing. I told them that the only problem was that I was going to the conference the following week, so I would need the material in three or four days—and I waited to see what I would be given. Three days later, the Library said, "Sorry, there is nothing that we can give you. The British Government have said nothing about a new world order either here or in the United Nations." I asked whether the Library had anything at all. The best that it could come up with was an article in The Economist and an article by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in New Statesman and Society. With those articles in my hand, I wondered what I should be able to say.

The foreign affairs section of the Library looked at what had been said in the build-up to the Iran-Iraq war and subsequently. With their usual ability, Library staff trawled through various documents from various countries and came up with something that I was able to use.

At the conference in Tunisia, I was able to speak with almost total abandon and lack of concern, knowing that no one in the British Government had said anything about the new world order. The conference was an enlightening experience. I discovered that I was almost the only representative from the European Community. There were some experts from the United States who were there in an advisory capacity rather than as speakers on behalf of their Government. The concept of the new world order has not been dealt with in any shape or form, so I welcome the motion of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath. It gives us the opportunity to discover how the Government perceive the new world order.

Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I am a firm supporter of the United Nations. I was especially pleased by the appointment of Dr. Boutros Ghali to the secretary-generalship of the United Nations. I welcome his initiative to try to streamline the organisation.

As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said, the United Nations has constantly been impeded by the determination of each nation state to ensure that it has a diplomat or a representative sitting on each body of the United Nations, sometimes for no reason other than to ensure that the particular body does nothing. That may seem strange, but there is clear evidence for anyone who cares to study the workings of the United Nations and its committees that specific placements have been made, especially by the more powerful western Governments, at various levels of the United Nations with the sole purpose of ensuring that the committee either functions less efficiently or, in some cases, does not function at all. That happens when a particular Government do not agree with an aim or objective of an area of work of the United Nations.

I welcome the Heads of Government meeting on 31 January. If nothing else comes out of the British presidency of the Community, the Prime Minister can fall back on that meeting and, in Edinburgh, he may claim it as one of his successes.

The Secretary-General has brought forward "An Agenda for Peace" which I am sure all hon. Members welcome. The agenda fleshes out a new role for the United Nations and it gives specific definitions. Those of us who work with the United Nations have to deal with its resolutions and agendas. We know that the most important aspect of the work of the United Nations is not the resolutions themselves, but their implications and the language in which they are expressed.

I was impressed by the way in which the Secretary-General sought to spell out in language that was easily understood what the new agenda would mean and what the problems were. As a result, we can see how the United Nations will deal with problems and how it will move forward.

One important aim is that the UN will seek to identify at the earliest stage situations that may produce conflict. It can then try to use diplomacy to remove the source of danger before violence results. There are five aims in all, written in easily understood language. There will be less ambiguity in United Nations documentation, as long as Governments do not seek to change the language of the agenda.

As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath knows, we have had 40 years of deciding whether resolution 242 should contain the word "the" before the words "occupied territories". The French believe that the word "the" should be included, whereas the British interpretation is different. The argument over whether the word "the" should be included has been an excuse for many Governments who have failed to move forward with that resolution.

Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I am a little concerned that in the multilateral talks, resolution 242 and resolution 338 are being regarded as background noise rather than as the basis on which the middle east conflict will be resolved. I hope that the Minister will clarify where the Government stand on the issue.

I read an interesting speech made recently by the Foreign Secretary to the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He had fun with his audience on the question whether the word "the" should be included when referring to the occupied territories. It is important that a message goes out today from this Chamber to those who are participating in the multilateral part of the middle east peace process that Parliament is committed to ensuring that the middle east peace process is resolved on the basis of resolution 242 and resolution 338, which refer to land for peace.

I very much welcome the Security Council resolution on Somalia. In our debate on Somalia a few weeks ago, made the point that I saw Somalia as an area in which a UN peacekeeping force with effective military power could make a difference. There is an absolute difference between Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The aid agencies on the ground must be concerned that if more military firepower arrives in the area, their activities may be curtailed. In Somalia, many people have guns, but do not have the training or ability to use them other than menacingly. A professional army with a clear direction can make a substantial difference to aid. I welcome the Security Council's unanimous decision to accept the initiative by the United States Government and to dispatch a far more powerful military force to Somalia to establish a secure relief effort.

I also welcome the fact that the operation, on a day-to-day basis, will be under the direct control of the United States. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath spoke about the failure of the United States to make its financial contributions to the UN. It seems that rather than making contributions in terms of dollars, the United States, as a quid pro quo, is committing manpower and equipment to the many conflicts in which the UN is involved. It is using that to offset the imbalance in its financial contribution to the organisation and to the peacekeeping operation. I welcome the fact that the force in Somalia will be the main responsibility of the United States. The Minister made clear our support yesterday for the Security Council resolution. I hope that he will say today that, if necessary, there will be an input from the British Government to the peacekeeping effort in Somalia.

If a professional force entered Somalia, it would quickly convince the warlords, gangs and thugs that it would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen so far, where humanitarian aid has been pilfered at road blocks and, in some cases, has been stolen from the supply stores in the dockyards.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

With regard to our involvement with the military force in Somalia, the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there is already talk of the Government sending troops to provide logistic support. Does he share the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the fact that we are sending logistic support simply because we are incapable of sending infantry battalions because of the overstretch resulting from "Options for Change"?

Mr. Ross

I do not want to delay the debate, because other hon. Members wish to speak and there are other motions on the Order Paper. However, I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will deal with that point later.

Rather than keeping our Trident submarines, it would clearly be preferable to have the men and women and the military equipment on the ground to assist the United Nations peacekeeping forces. No matter how many Trident submarines we threaten Somalia with, the Somalis probably would not understand what we are talking about. However, an infantry battalion, logistic support or military air power would certainly impress the people in Somalia.

With regard to Somalia, I disagree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath on only one point. Peace can be established very quickly in Somalia. Somalia is run on the clan system and many of the elders are still in the country. When the Soviet Union and the United States were competing super-powers, they gave weapons to different clans. Many other countries were also involved, but the Soviet Union and the United States were the main protagonists. They were fighting over the bases and the other facilities in that country.

The old family clan tradition in Somalia broke down very quickly because if one group in a clan had more firepower, it was able to challenge the leader. I do not suggest that the elders or leaders are the most capable people, but at least they are the basis upon which, once peace has been re-established, we could begin to deal with the horrendous medical problems and the starvation and so rebuild the infrastructure.

I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath about the length of time that we will have to be in Somalia. It may be possible to rebuild Somalia reasonably quickly if we can use the elders and leaders, many of whom are still in Somalia.

Mr. Corbyn

Does my hon. Friend accept that the United Nations and western Europe did not recognise the serious food problems in Somalia, and the country descended into the present chaos where gun law rules because of the lack of support much earlier on?

Mr. Ross

My hon. Friend is correct. I went to Ethiopia in 1981 with the former Member for Oldham, Central and Royton, Mr. James Lamond, and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It was obvious to us that feeding that country was a massive problem and we realised that there would be drought and starvation in the next few years. When we returned, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish wrote some first-class articles, one of which appeared in The Guardian, stating that Ethiopia was liable to sink into despair very quickly. Little or no attention was paid to that warning.

The reason for that lack of response was easy to understand. At that time, Ethiopia was considered to be under the power and influence of the Soviet Union. It was, therefore, much more important to bring down the Government, to attack the infrastructure and to support the various factions in Ethiopia that argued against the Government of Mengistu. Whether or not it was right to support democracy, it was not right to bring Ethiopia to the point that we needed Bob Geldof to rescue that country in later years.

That is the lesson to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is drawing our attention. We must be honest with ourselves. If we are to convince the third world that there will really be a new world order, we must admit that we have been actively involved in supporting oppressive regimes for all the wrong reasons. Even at a casual glance, it is clear that the United States and the Soviet Union were competing for control of Somalia. They did not care too much about who they were affecting and the long-term problems that they were going to create for that country.

As I have said, I have only a minor difference with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath in respect of Somalia. A military force could quickly establish peace and ensure that the aid is released, start to rebuild the infrastructure and then use the system of clan elders in the area to rebuild democracy and some form of government in the country.

Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I welcome the determination of western Governments and the United Nations to declare an air exclusion zone in the north of Iraq. Many Opposition Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, disagreed with the attitude of many hon. Members in respect of the invasion of Iraq. As I have said, if we are to build a new world order, it must be built on the basis of international law. When international law is broken, we cannot say that we will not deal with that breach of international law because someone else is breaking international law at the same time. That is unacceptable.

I have spent much time supporting many organisations, particularly the Palestinians, and I know that many of my colleagues were surprised when I supported so forcefully United Nations intervention against Iraq. However, I did that on a simple concept. Iraq broke international law when it invaded Kuwait. It does not matter about the rights or wrongs of any other international conflict elsewhere in the world. That was not important. Iraq's breach of international law was a threat to international law and it had to be dealt with.

As I have argued that international law should be the basis on which to resolve conflicts through the United Nations, I was pleased that on that occasion, the world was prepared to do something meaningful. We all supported that. However, once that action was concluded, there were on-going responsibilities and many people had not thought about those responsibilities. The responsibilities were not only to the Kurds in the north but to the Shias in the south.

The air exclusion zone in the north of Iraq was set up speedily, but we assured Iraq that we did not seek to break up the country and that we would recognise it as a country once democracy was restored—whenever that is. It is for the Iraqi people to decide on the internal arrangements between the Sunni Muslims, the Shias and the Kurds. We were not prepared to allow one group to cleanse ethnically a part of the country of another group. The air exclusion zone has proved to be a success and is another building block, showing our determination to move towards a new world order.

The air exclusion zone in the south came rather late. It is difficult to know why some things become obvious and acceptable earlier than others. To those of us who knew anything about Saddam Hussein, it seemed obvious that unless force was shown to him, and in some cases used against him, he would continue to attack the Shias in the south, just as he had attacked the Kurds in the north and people in other parts of Iraq not covered by air exclusion zones. I welcome both zones.

I hope that all hon. Members will encourage the Iraqi opposition groups and members of the Iraqi Kurdish Parliament who will be in London during the next few weeks to meet the Foreign Office. I also hope that they will encourage all the other people who are concerned about democracy in Iraq and will assure them of our support.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath mentioned Bosnia, which is a more difficult problem. The House has debated the subject many times, so I shall not stay on it too long. Our approach to Bosnia has been correct and has been one of moving forward slowly.

Almost every male adult in the former Yugoslavia has been trained to carry weapons more professionally than the people of Somalia, who have just had guns stuck in their hands and been told that they are in one gang or another. As part of the Yugoslays' determination not to be invaded by the Soviet Union they had a patchwork of resistance organisations and weapons throughout the country and all males were trained to use the weapons in time of need.

People who suggest that we could simply go in and quickly quell the various factions in any part of the former Yugoslavia are being taught one or two lessons. The Serbs have demonstrated that they can look after themselves and the Croats have also demonstrated that, even with less military hardware and firepower than the Serbs, they can put up stiff resistance in support of their local communities.

Clearly, Bosnia is a different proposition from Somalia, but, as has been said time and again, there are things that we could have done but have not. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda will remind us that the agreed sanctions should be enforced more powerfully. The exclusion zone is being broken regularly. We must make it clear to the Government in Belgrade and to the Bosnian Serbs that that will not be tolerated. If they refuse to listen to us, we shall have to consider what actions to take to ensure that the air exclusion zone works. More than anything, we must ensure that sanctions work and become more effective, as that is the best hope for peace in the area.

Also, we must never miss the opportunity to restate our determination to ensure that the various groups in Bosnia have a right to a say in the final determination of the Bosnia Herzegovina problem, and must encourage the Muslim community to realise that we are just as concerned about its right to a say in the future of the country.

The decision taken by the Heads of Government of 50 Muslim states in Jeddah yesterday was helpful. It is one more weapon in the armoury of those who are committed to peace in Bosnia, to remind the Serbs that those 50 Governments gave us until 15 January 1993 to do something more effective to protect the Muslims and to ensure that the attacks on them cease. We can use that weapon to show the Serbian Government we are determined and it gives us a time scale within which we can tell the various forces in Bosnia Herzegovina that we are determined to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion.

The debate has been useful, if only to allow us to tell the United Nations that we are committed to the proposals in the Secretary-General's agenda for change. We understand that some of those proposals mean that we might have to give up some powers. On occasion, we may well be outvoted, as other countries may disagree with our view of how to resolve a problem. We may have to accept that, although we think that we have the answer, the collective wisdom of the General Assembly may decide otherwise. We shall have to accept the decisions taken in that body and learn to live with them.

I know that that is difficult, especially at this period in Parliament's history when we are having to deal with sharing power with another organisation just across the channel. It is difficult for the House to accept decisions made elsewhere, but, if there is to be a new world order, the more powerful nations must accept that they will not always win. If we are to share power and influence, on occasion we shall have to listen more closely to other parts of the continent or the United Nations. We might be called on to commit a larger financial contribution, or to provide military forces or logistics to ensure that a conflict can be resolved, although we might not be allowed to determine how it is to be resolved.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath drew attention to areas in which the United Nations has played a role and clearly one of those is in human rights. The United Nations seems to me to be the only body which can be the world protector of human rights. Far too often, nation states are based on the rights of those in a particular group or area, and usually on a state's economic problems or aims, rather than on concern for the rights of individuals.

I also congratulate the United Nations on the speed with which it has moved in certain parts of the world, for example, when trying to resolve the Cambodian crisis. A full member of the Security Council has allowed its client state or group to prevent the implementation of United Nations resolutions in Cambodia. It is clear that if China, which is a full member of the council, were to tell the Khmer Rouge that it has to abide by the resolutions and participate in the peace process, it would be required to do so. No one is in any doubt about that fact of life. The fact that the Khmer Rouge was able to retain members of a United Nations logistics force for two or three days—I join the hon. Member for Bexleyheath in welcoming their release—does not reflect the true problem.

The problem is that the Khmer Rouge has decided, unilaterally, not to abide by the agreements hammered out through the United Nations peace process. It is determined to hold out for more power, which will prevent real peace coming to Cambodia. It is clear that China could resolve that matter quickly. We need to ensure that the Security Council regularly reminds China of its responsibilities as a full member of that council. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will say something about Cambodia and the efforts that we are making to ensure that the peace process can move forward as quickly as possible.

The debate has provided the House with a useful opportunity to talk about the United Nations. I hope that it will spark off a series of debates in the Chamber and in Parliaments across the world so that we can achieve a greater understanding of the original concepts behind the United Nations and how they might be developed in the 1990s and beyond.

The end of the cold war was a spur for the new world order. However, I believe that the explosion at Chernobyl was far more significant, because it demonstrated to the world that even the so-called peaceful use of nuclear facilities in the Soviet Union could not protect the population of that country or those in many other parts of the world. I am not sure whether all the sheep and lambs in Wales and Scotland are now edible. The fact that the explosion at Chernobyl affected the food cycle in such far-away countries put paid to the concept that power was the basis on which one can run the world.

The accident at Chernobyl hastened the break-up of the monolithic state of the Soviet Union, but it also helped to refocus the minds of all politicians and ordinary people on the need to establish a world organisation that could arbitrate on and determine peace and human rights. That accident made everyone realise that no one country could deal with such a problem and that a responsible world organisation should be established. It is no good saying that because someone is our enemy, we will not help him, especially when—through no one's fault—a civil nuclear power accident in that person's country puts his people, our own and so many others at risk. Chernobyl demonstrated the need for concerted world action to deal with major problems.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath on his foresight in tabling the motion. It has allowed us to deal, if only briefly, with the problems facing the United Nations as it progresses and develops. It has also given us the opportunity to say that we are absolutely committed to "An Agenda for Peace" launched by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali. We will play our full part in ensuring that, in time, that agenda becomes this Parliament's agenda and that of the world.

10.53 am

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, has just complained that the United Nations is facing a crisis of too much credibility. There is some truth in that, because enormous extra burdens have been placed upon that organisation now that it is, at last, beginning to fulfil the role for which it was established 47 years ago.

It is timely to debate the United Nations and the problems that confront it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing that subject for today's debate and on proposing his motion so lucidly. I also congratulate him on his election as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the United Nations. The knowledge and passion that he displayed in his speech today shows that he is well qualified not only to initiate this debate but to chair that important parliamentary group.

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and to the House for my forthcoming early departure from the Chamber. I will be unable to wait for the winding-up speeches because I need to go to my constituency to face my business men and to explain to them that the green shoots of the economic recovery are there, but, rather like my winter wheat, still below the surface, just awaiting the right economic climate to break through and produce results.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)-he is not here; obviously he has departed for Hansardto read his very long speech. I apologise again, because I see that the hon. Gentleman is still in the Chamber. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman on his world tour, because I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak and is important therefore to be reasonably brief.

I agreed with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said, but I part company with him on the question of additional forces in Bosnia Herzegovina. We must be extremely careful about the way in which force is deployed there. I agree that we must give protection to the delivery of humanitarian aid, but it would be extremely dangerous to embark upon a straightforward military operation on the ground. None the less, I have advocated on many occasions that certain key targets should be taken out through air strikes to make it clear to Serbia that we do not wish the hostilities to be prolonged, or to encounter the danger of them spreading next door to Kosovo or Macedonia. If that were to happen, the UN would be involved in far greater and more dangerous activities, and ones which we all wish to avoid.

In facing up to Serbia, we must acknowledge that that country has, at wartime-use rates, some two years of ammunition, weapons and equipment with which to fight a war. One must be extremely careful, therefore, about the escalation of military activity in that country.

Only a few years ago it seemed credible that the UN would play the central role in the new world order that optimists assumed would flow from the collapse of communism. The cold war paralysis was gone and it was believed that the UN would be able to act as a police force, social work department and development agency on a world scale. I am afraid that it just has not worked out like that. Alas, with the passing of the cohesion of totalitarianism, we now have the chaos of tribalism and the breakdown of established order through the settling of old scores.

Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, in "An Agenda for Peace", has said that the foundation stone of the UN's work must be the member state. He said: Respect for its fundamental sovereignty and integrity are crucial to any common international progress…if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation that followed. Cohesion would go and peace, security and economic well-being—the objectives of the UN—would be ever more difficult to achieve.

We have seen that happen in eastern Europe and most notably in Yugoslavia. However, we have not seen it happen in China. That country is home to one quarter of the world's population, and we must say to those in Hong Kong who press for ever faster progress towards democracy that the stability of China is extremely important to the world today.

Imagine what chaos the world would be in if China were to fall apart. In the present situation, a quarter of the world's population lives in a country which still has cohesion. I do not accept that type of cohesion, but for the time being I hope that China remains as it is.

It is as well to remind ourselves, as we consider the challenges facing the United Nations, what the UN is and what it is not. It is a voluntary association of states dedicated, through signing the UN charter, to the maintenance of international peace and security and the solution of economic, social and political problems through international co-operation.

The UN is not a world government, and although there has been a suggestion in the debate about the possibility of the UN fulfilling a role in Somalia—perhaps by trusteeship or the provision of a protectorate—that should be done on only a temporary basis to establish some degree of stability and enable that country to accept its own responsibilities in due course. So the UN is not, and can never be, a world government. It has no right to intervene in the essential domestic affairs of a nation state.

If the UN did not exist, we should almost certainly have to invent it. It succeeded the League of Nations and inherited many of its institutions and procedures. The name "United Nations" was first used in the Washington declaration of January 1942 to describe the 26 countries that were then allied together to fight the axis powers. The UN charter was drawn up by 50 nations in San Francisco in 1945, and following its ratification, came into being on 24 October of that year; and 24 October is still celebrated as United Nations Day.

The UN has as its emblem the pale blue flag that we all know. I suggest that its vehicles deployed in activities around the world, such as in Yugoslavia and soon in Somalia and elsewhere, should be painted pale blue to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that they are UN vehicles. Painting them white with "UN" printed on the side is inadequate, particularly in areas such as Yugoslavia where there will soon be a great deal of snow on the ground. UN vehicles must stand out clearly so that people who may fire on them are well aware of what they are doing.

The original membership of the United Nations was 51 countries. It is now 178. It is significant that only just over half of those member states are democracies in the accepted sense. Only half of them are capable of fulfilling the sort of objectives for which the United Nations stands. Since the creation of the organisation in 1945, there have been more than 100 major conflicts around the world, leaving 20 million people dead. The United Nations was rendered powerless to deal with many of those crises because of the vetoes, 279 of them, cast in the Security Council. Those vetoes were based on the east-west divide of that period. Since the end of the cold war since 31 May 1990, there have been no more vetoes, and demands on the United Nations have soared.

The original promise of the United Nations can now be fulfilled, but how is it to be achieved? I suggest that it can be done in four ways: first, through protective diplomacy; secondly, through peacemaking; thirdly, through peacekeeping; and, fourthly, through the new concept put forward by Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali of post-conflict peacebuilding. He defines all four in "An Agenda for Peace." Preventive diplomacy seeks to resolve disputes before violence breaks out. Peacekeeping and peacemaking are required to halt conflicts and preserve peace once it has been attained; if successful, they can strengthen the opportunity for post-conflict peacebuilding, which can prevent the recurrence of violence among nations and peoples. It is all set out clearly. We must now find ways to apply those definitions.

Taken together, there is no doubt that, with the backing of all United Nations members, those four areas of action could fulfil the aims of the charter. By "backing", I mean the means and resources, for we have plenty of politicians and diplomats. The United Nations needs money and materials. The Secretary-General is the first to acknowledge that the organisation is not financially or structurally able to cope with the problems that it now faces.

It has been pointed out in the debate that far too many countries are in arrears with their subscriptions, and the United States is no exception. We must pay our bills to the United Nations on time. A number of proposals about finance appear in Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali's "An Agenda for Peace." For example, he refers to the possibility of charging interest on assessed contributions not paid on time. Indeed, I should like that applied to people in this country who do not pay their bills on time. I hope that a measure to that effect, similar to a private Member's Bill put forward some time ago, will be proposed again.

There is the possibility of suspending the financial regulations of the United Nations to permit the retention of budgetary surpluses, should there be any. There is also the possibility of increasing the working capital fund to $250 million and endorsing the principle that the level of the fund should be about 25 per cent. of the annual assessment under the regular budget.

We might establish a temporary peacekeeping reserve fund of £50 million. The Secretary-General would like the United Nations to be able to borrow commercially, and he has suggested a humanitarian revolving fund of £50 million and the establishment of a United Nations peace endowment fund with an initial target of $1 billion—a lot of money, to be provided, presumably, by direct contributions from member states.

Two other interesting suggestions for raising the money have been made. One is a levy on arms sales and the other a levy on airline tickets, remembering that no business has a greater interest in preserving world peace than civil aviation. A levy on tickets might be a significant way to raise United Nations funds.

There is also talk of a standing force of troops. I regard that as not only impractical but far too costly. But there is no reason why the logistics—equipment, trucks, wireless sets and so on—should not be stored around the world in places where they could be quickly available for use.

The essential point is that member states must be willing and able rapidly to deploy peacekeeping troops in international emergencies. I question whether the United Kingdom, under the "Options for Change", will be able to do that. As I said, providing logistics for Somalia quickly is one thing. I do not believe that we could mobilise even a battalion-strength force to send to Somalia if we had to do so. The number of personnel deployed around the world in blue helmets has increased from 11,000 a couple of years ago to 50,000 today. That deployment is often delayed because authorisation is dependent on approval for financing.

I will comment on only three current United Nations operations, the first being in Somalia, where preventive diplomacy has failed miserably. About 350,000 people there have died of starvation and a further 250,000 could be dead by the new year if humanitarian aid does not get through. About 1 million people have fled that country and 2 million—a third of those who are left—are at risk of being shot or starving to death. The United Nations admits that four fifths of the food and medicine aid that it is sending does not reach the starving and needy.

The token United Nations military contingent is useless and the UN relief organisations are not much better. They were criticised by Mr. Sahnoun, the Algerian who was sent there by the United Nations to oversee matters. For criticising, he has been given the sack. I think that he was absolutely right and that, now that further action is being taken, he should be reinstated as soon as possible.

If only force will save Somalian lives, it should be used. Therefore, the House welcomes the United Nations Security Council resolution. It is right to shoot in order to feed. I hope that the force will be truly multinational.

The second trouble spot that I wish to mention is Angola and the elections which took place at the end of September under UN supervision. I did not witness those elections, although I was invited to do so, but I have spoken to several hon. Members who were there. There is no doubt that the 6,000 polling stations set up around the country worked well. The organisation and turnout to vote were good.

However, in communicating the tabulated results from those polling stations, through the municipal headquarters, then via the provisional headquarters and the Ministry of Security to the national electoral council, much went wrong. In short, some 500,000 votes went missing, largely from rural areas where UNITA is strongest. The UN should investigate that matter. I believe that the African subcommittee of the United States Congress Foreign Relations Committee has already requested that the UN investigate the matter. When UNITA representatives went to Luanda to negotiate over the removal of some of the electoral irregularities which they say and many others acknowledge took place, several were murdered.

UNITA has already said that it accepts the election results. It is often misreported that it was against the results. However, in the presidential contest than. took place at the same time, no candidate achieved the 50 per cent. plus one vote required to be elected. Under the constitutional rules, there must be a re-run of the presidential contest within 30 days. That simply has not happened and the UN should carry out an investigation as soon as possible and ensure that a re-run takes place without irregularities.

Mr. Corbyn

If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the election results, which have been authenticated and verified, he will see that it is clear who won and who lost. Obviously, the second round of the presidential election should take place without delay, but it is impossible to have an election if the UNITA forces have once again restarted a civil war.

Mr. Colvin

I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no doubt that, if a re-run of the presidential election is to take place, there must be a ceasefire. That is agreed by the parties concerned, but it needs proper United Nations supervision. Moreover, it must be ensured that, when the voting is finished, the ballot papers and election results reach where they are supposed to be finally announced. That did not happen before.

The third trouble spot that I wish to mention is the western Sahara, which has already been mentioned by other hon. Members. The United Nations peace plan, which started with the official ceasefire between Moroccan troops and the Polisario on 6 September 1991 under Security Council resolution 690, established the United Nations mission to oversee a referendum in western Sahara about its future and whether it had independence. That was agreed by both Morocco and the Polisario.

There is now evidence that Morocco is sabotaging the peace process. There have been more than 100 violations of the ceasefire, and there is evidence of the gerrymandering of the referendum result by the transplantation of large numbers of Moroccan people into the western Sa hara—some 100,000 in all. When one acknowledges that, in 1974 when the last population census took place under the Spanish regime, there were only 74,000 people in the western Sahara, one sees what difference it will make to the referendum's outcome if so many Moroccans are moved in. Why are there only 400 United Nations observers in the western Sahara at present, when everyone acknowledges that at least 2,900 observers are required to do the job properly?

Those are just three examples of serious trouble spots and of the current United Nations peacekeeping actions, which illustrate the difficulties that that organisation faces. The United Nations has been the focal point of world concern in the past year as those and other problems escalate. There are great hopes that, under the new Secretary-General, reforms will be introduced at the United Nations to enable us to capitalise on the new world order and not be beaten by it.

However, the whole is only as strong as the sum of its parts, and the House will agree that Britain will continue to play more than its part to ensure that the United Nations can and will fulfil the aims and objectives that we need to achieve for a better world for this and future generations.

11.16 am

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for the characteristically elegant and thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate.

The hon. Gentleman complained that there had been a speech lasting 53 minutes last Friday, but he cannot possibly have been referring to me, because I took only 52 minutes to introduce that debate. He must have been referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

I share the hon. Gentleman's vehemence about UNESCO. As he said, UNESCO was started not far from here, in the Institution of Civil Engineers. As he well put it, we could have renewed our subscription for the cost of two tanks and should frankly never have left in the first place.

I also share the hon. Gentleman's sense of caution about what is happening in Bosnia. We would do well to remember that Tito's deterrent was not nuclear weapons or even tank regiments. It was training his people in the techniques of guerrilla warfare. That was what deterred Stalin. It is the idea of holding those people down—people who had occupied 37 German divisions from 1943–44 that makes one shudder. To think that one would come out unscathed from that is tempting providence.

I also share a sense of caution about Somalia. We all heard this morning that the Americans plan to be in and out before 20 January. Does it really work like that? From Northern Ireland to Afghanistan, people have found that it is much easier to put in armies than to take them out. The experience is in, in and in—deeper into the mire. Because of the appalling pictures that one sees of terrible cruelty and starvation, I do not jump to the conclusion that it should not be done, but I should be much happier if their entry were under full United Nations control rather than seen as an American-led operation. Indeed, it should not be a non-United Nations coalition.

Has the Foreign Office given any thought to peacekeeping training? Those of us who did national service must realise that people who have normal training in the forces are not well trained as peacekeepers. As a national service man, I would not have been much good as a peacekeeper. It is an art in itself.

Is the Foreign Office in contact with the Bradford university school of peace studies at which much serious work is being done on the theory and practice of peacekeeping? I understand that a major study by Betts Featherstone, Dr. Nick Lewer and Dr. Tom Woodhouse is to come out in January.

Any of us who have had the good fortune to go on parliamentary delegations to the United Nations and, in my case, to be welcomed most hospitably by Sir Anthony and Lady Parsons and Brian Urquhart, know that financing the United Nations constitutes a perpetual problem. The United Nations must be properly resourced because we cannot expect to conduct unpaid peacekeeping operations. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath gave a figure of $844 million. Those of us who expect the United Nations to help in various parts of the world must understand that our countries have to cough up.

What is the policy of the United Nations and Britain on what is happening in the Sudan? It seems to be an especially pathetic position. I should be interested in any information that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), could give on that matter.

There is a new drive in the world to export arms, simply because of the dearth of domestic orders. As the home market for arms slumps in many countries, the drive to keep jobs becomes more frantic. That is why last Friday in the House some of us argued for a United Nations conference to cope with what can be described only as an arms bazaar. We believe that there should be at least a United Nations register of arms sales. I should be grateful if we could be told of any Foreign Office thinking on that issue.

That brings me to the issue of nuclear arms and the non-proliferation treaty. I have the good fortune of being able to ask the Prime Minister an oral question on 15 December. It is a closed question on the nuclear proliferation treaty. As is my wont, I wrote to Downing street as soon as I knew of my luck in the ballot and offered the Prime Minister an explanation on the exact background to the issue. The issue was summed up in the Observerlast Sunday. What is the reaction of the Foreign Office to the statement that the revelations, together with documents showing Ministerial knowledge of the supply of nuclear equipment to Baghdad, raise for the first time Britain's flouting of international law, not just the Government's own guidelines"? The report in theObservercontinues: John Gordon, until 1988 head of the Foreign Office's Nuclear Energy Department, says he is prepared to give evidence to the inquiry under Lord Justice Scott…Matrix Churchill's deep involvement was known to MI6, which alerted other Government departments. Despite these warnings, export licences were still being granted for machine tools with potential nuclear use up to the eve of the Kuwait invasion in August 1990…Mr. Gordon, who has been shown copies of some of the secret Foreign Office documents on the Matrix Churchill case, believes Britain may have breached Article I of the 1968 treaty, which forbids signatories from doing anything 'to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons'. Is this so? In the minute, Stephen Lillie, a Middle East Department official, noted that the Baghdad company that wanted the Matrix Churchil lathes was involved in 'Iraqi attempts to obtain equipment for the development of gas centrifuge technology for uranium enrichment'. Is that so?

On 18 December1979 at 5.12 in the morning in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate I raised in detail the case of Dr. Ali Qadar Khan and the thefts of knowledge about centrifuge technology from the Urenco establishment at Almelo in Holland. Since then, I have had a deep interest in the subject.

I ask the Minister whether the article in The Observer,under the byline of Martin Bailey, John McGhie and Peter Beaumont is accurate. I do not know whether it is accurate, and I ask that as a genuine question which must be answered. The question is critical, as it relates to whether the United Nations sanctions are being flouted and busted to such an extent. If the Minister does not answer today, I fear that I will go on and on at it, and I will hope to ask a direct question of the Prime Minister during Question Time on 15 December.

I move on to the problem of Iran. To many of us it seems that the United States is in danger of frightening Gulf neighbours by expressing concern about Iran armaments. Western powers and their news media state that Iran is seeking military dominance in the region through the purchase of advanced weapons. That is the view, rightly or wrongly, of President Rafsanjani. He argues that there is an attempt to raise alarm in regional countries so that the west can sell new weapons.

Part of the argument for calling some sort of United Nations conference on arms control is that one hopes that Iran will be high in the in-tray of President-elect Clinton. The issue is whether President Rafsanjani will try to turn militant Islam into a substitute for the cold war threat from the Soviet Union. It would be tragic if that happened. We should restore civilised relations between the most powerful nations and one of the world's oldest nations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, knows that both in Committee and in the House I have gone on—he would say, "banged on"—about Libya. Last Friday I was fortunate enough to come top of the ballot and I chose for debate the reassessment of our relations with the Arab world. No attempt was made to answer a number of the serious questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant)—who has been to Libya several times—and me. Therefore, I do not apologise for returning to the subject, because the United Nations is involved in the issue of sanctions on Libya—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's points are relevant to this debate.

Mr. Dalyell

Yes, they are directly relevant to the United Nations, as they relate to United Nations sanctions. At the United Nations on, I think, 15 December the issue of sanctions against Libya will come up again.

In a question on 22 October 1992, I asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek amendment to the rules on international extradition regulations, with a view to clarifying the legal position of Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing. He replied: The legal position is not in doubt. By its resolution 748, the Security Council of the United Nations decided that the Libyan Government must surrender the accused for trial, either in Scotland or in the United States. Under the United Nations charter this obligation prevails over any other obligation which Libya might have under any other international agreement."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 371] What is the position of the law of individual states? This is the sovereignty issue which was raised by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath. Are we sure that United Nations law takes precedence over Arab law? In the Government's view, does United Nations law automatically take precedence over international law? This was the Ditchley problem. Those of us who have had the good fortune to benefit from the Ditchley case from time to time during our public lives know that it is a serious matter. I can understand the hon. Member for Bexleyheath saying that he was brow-beaten by Foreign Office lawyers. What is current thinking on the question of the precedence of international law and United Nations law over national law?

I shall slide away from Libya by repeating a question that I asked last week concerning Father Patrick Keegan. I shall give the reference to shorten the argument. Father Keegan is the Lockerbie priest, and he was returning from the United States. He said: The cat does not want to catch the mouse because the mouse would not just squeal but scream and implicate Syria, Iran and Bush and Thatcher."—[Official Report,27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1099.] I should like some comment on Father Keegan's view.

On several occasions the United Nations has allowed itself to be manipulated by the the United States and the west. That is far from healthy for the international organisation. In November 1990, Mr. Speaker Weatherill chose me to lead a parliamentary delegation to Zaire because of my interest in rain forests. The delegation went to see the Foreign Minister of Zaire in Kinshasa. At that moment the Security Council was making decisions on the Gulf. We asked the Foreign Minister, naturally enough, why a rotating member of the council, Zaire, should have chosen to support the western position rather than supporting a position that did not recommend military force. It transpired that Zaire's position did not rest on any judgment on the merits or otherwise of the decisions being taken on the Gulf. It was felt that by obliging the Americans during a day-long meeting with Secretary Baker, aid—it had been understandably denied by the Americans to Zaire because of that country's appalling human rights record—would be restored if, as a quid pro quo, Zaire supported the position of the United States in the Security Council. In one form or another, that could have been said of the Ivory Coast and possibly of several other states. There is a real problem of manipulation by the west of the United Nations, which will bring the UN into disrepute.

I return to the Iraqi sanctions. This is not a matter of hindsight. To protect myself, I shall quote The Scotsman of 11 November 1992. The article reads: Back in early 1990, Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow was accusing officials and Ministers of turning a 'Nelson's eye' to the sale to Iraq of materials capable of being used for weapons, including the so-called 'super gun'. Last Friday, Idealt with the views of the British Afro-Asian Solidarity Group on Iraq sanctions. I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that both its submission and that of Christian Aid is in order. That is because we are talking about sanctions.

One of my constituents, Hazim Mahboba of 45 Echline drive, South Queensferry, came to see me at my surgery, he comes from Najaf and he is a Shia. He urged that urgent action should be taken—not quite along the lines advocated by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson)— Using the Iraqi frozen assets, which are the property of the Iraqi people, to provide food and medical supplies for the suffering Iraqi people, especially the Shias of the south of Iraq and Kurds in the north. To ensure that the sanctions imposed on Iraq are aimed at the Saddam regime and do not cause further suffering to the Iraqi people. To ensure that UN Resolution 688 which deals with safeguarding the safety of the civilian population from the human rights atrocities of the regime is fully implemented. I shall quote also Riad El-Taher, who is an Iraqi who was born in Basra. He writes about the effect of sanctions. Again, he takes a rather different view from the one held by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West. He writes: Similarly, the port of Um Qasr is being brought back to use. this is another example where the people of Iraq cannot understand the attitude of the United Nations' Security Council. When they allowed the importation of food (not that Iraq has any foreign currency to buy any!) they stipulated that Iraqi ports such as Um Qasr must not be used. Iraq can only import through another country, such as Jordan. They ask, why? They can find no logical answer. It seems to them yet another example of the American and British Governments' desire to humiliate the people of Iraq and make them incur unnecessary costs. One aspect of war damage that was not reported on was the deliberate destruction by British and American bombing of civilian food stores such as grain silos and cold storage units. I saw two of those. At Bab Al-Zubair in Basra and Al-Taji near Baghdad. Most of the people I talked to find it difficult to understand the reason for the targeting of these obvious civilian installations. The destruction of almost 75 per cent. of grain silos rules out operational errors. It appears to be deliberate. At least, that is what the local people believe. Even today, American and British war planes based in Turkey regularly break the sound barrier over the northern city of Mosul, terrifying the population. They also drop flares and other incendiary devices on crops. Farmers watch as their meagre crops are burned, again unable to comprehend the reason for it. We must be extremely careful about how United Nations sanctions and United Nations policy is working out with the new generation in Iraq. If we are not careful, we shall breed a generation that is extremely bitter against the West. Is that really what we want?

I ask the Foreign Office yet again the questions that are set out in column 1133 in Hansardlast Friday, especially those that relate to arms dealings that are alleged by Box Productions to have been conducted by Mark Thatcher.

Last Friday, the Minister said that he would not reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. That is a matter between my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office. I asked seven extremely careful questions. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen the allegations. I do not know the rights and wrongs of them, but there must be some answer. My first question was as follows: First, are the Government aware that an executive of the defence company, United Scientific, introduced Mark Thatcher to the arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian in the autumn of 1910 as part of its efforts to win a contract to sell night vision devices, ultimately to be used by Iraq?"—[Official Report,27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1103.] There followed six other questions.

That coincides with the issue of whether the British Government secretly connived with defence contractors to run a coach and horses through their own arms embargo and United Nations policy.

The delicacy of United Nations policy obviously bothered The Sunday Timesleader writer of 15 November: The export licences were secretly granted in February 1988, the DTI warning that 'there seems to be considerable merit in keeping as quiet as possible about this politically sensitive issue' and the Foreign Office observing that 'if it becomes public knowledge that the tools are to be used to make munitions, deliveries would have to stop at once.' Clearly, ministers had embarked on a policy they were ashamed to defend in public. This is apparently flouting United Nations policy.

I ask another direct question. Under the byline of Tim Kelsey, The Independent asserted: The British Embassy in Baghdad knew that British-made machine tools were being used by the Iraqis for the manufacture of weapons. Did they? A British technician who worked on the Iraqi weapons programme for one of its international subcontractors said yesterday that he kept diplomats in the Iraqi capital informed. Another source said that diplomats were under 'no illusions' that 'civilian machine tools' were being used in the weapons programme. Is that so?

I take the view—a number of my colleagues think differently—that the present Prime Minister did not know about those matters, for a combination of two reasons. It was put acidly by someone who knows the Foreign Office well that perhaps they were very busy trying to teach the right hon. Gentleman where Africa was. I believe that he is far quicker on the uptake than that, but I think that there is the basis of fact in suggestions that relations between him and the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) when he was in the Foreign Office were not the happiest.

That was outlined in The Independentof 24 November, by Jonathan Foster: Jealousy and resentment of John Major led to important papers about arms exports to Iraq being kept from him as Foreign Secretary in 1989, political and civil service sources have claimed. William Waldegrave, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, felt 'passed over' when Mr. Major was appointed. 'The relationship between them was extremely chilly,' a Foreign Office insider said. 'Nothing hostile was exchanged in a form of words, but William Waldegrave looked down his nose at John Major. Instead of consultation between junior minister and Secretary of State, matters were referred up only on a need-to-know basis. Mr. Major's term of office ran from July to October 1989. During that period, Mr. Waldegrave became alarmed by an increasing volume of evidence about Iraqi arms procurement in Britain."'

Mrs. Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to link his attack on the British Government's conduct in the Iran-Iraq war with the United Nations, but I suggest that that link is wholly spurious. There was no unilateral United Nations arms embargo against Iran or Iraq during that eight-year period. The hon. Gentleman is indulging himself, and that is unwarranted and at the expense of others who hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I will be the judge of that. The hon. Gentleman is getting very near the mark, but he keeps returning to United Nations sanctions—and, bearing that in mind, so far he has just remained in order.

Mr. Dalyell

I would say rather sharply to the hon. Lady that the House was told that the whole Gulf operation was justified by United Nations resolutions. Her point of order reveals that in the minds of many, it was an American-British operation. Therein lies a lot of the trouble.

Mr. Rogers

I find the remarks of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) rather disturbing. There was a United Nations embargo on arms imports into the middle east. Lord Howe, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, has repeatedly asserted that the British Government were sticking to the guidelines laid down by the United Nations and reinforced by the Government. There was an embargo, and the Government's criminality in putting arms and the potential for making them into the area needs to be examined—and the Scott inquiry will do that.

Mr. Dalyell

Out of deference to the House, I will not pursue Jonathan Foster's argument, but that matter must be investigated. I was being a bit defensive of the present Prime Minister, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a bit generous being defensive of the Prime Minister, because on 2 December, in reply to a written question of mine that asked whether the briefing material relating to United Kingdom exports to Iraq, prepared for the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister in September 1989 still exists", the Prime Minister replied: Yes. The brief referred to British media interest in Iraqi procurement activities in the United Kingdom, naming Learfan and Matrix Churchill as examples. No further details were given and there was no other reference to United Kingdom defence exports to Iraq."—[Official Report,2 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 220] So he knew that much.

The Prime Minister wrote to me on 23 November, and the last paragraph of his letter stated At the beginning of August 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait, I did see a copy of a minute about the implications of the invasion for trade with Iraq. That minute referred to Matrix Churchill as one company with potential exports that would need to be prevented. On Tuesday 17 November The Daily Telegraph,which is not exactly a Labour paper, ran a long and detailed article by Sean O'Neill under the headline The stories Major missed on his way to see Aziz. Whatever the situation in relation to the Prime Minister, it is clear that his predecessor, Lord Howe—who left the Foreign Office on 24 July 1989, when the present Prime Minister was appointed—was, indeed, informed.

I have the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), who is the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union parliamentary group, to refer to his correspondence in relation to sanctions. On 18 February 1988 my hon. Friend wrote to the then Foreign Secretary: I enclose herewith correspondence which has been passed to me by our union"— that is, the AEU— regarding the growing problems of the machine tool industry relative to Iran and Iraq. I should be most grateful to receive your observations". There has come into the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley a document identified as 000046 and dated 29 February 1988, headed MP's letter: machine tools for Iraq. It states: Ken Eastham MP wrote to the Secretary of State on 18 February enclosing a letter from D. K. Todd, District Secretary of the AEU, concerning the export of machine tools to Iraq. I submit a draft reply. That document was signed

A.J.H. Cowell, Middle East Department. It continues: The AEU's concern seems to have been prompted by an article in the Daily Telegraph which gave the misleading impression that a complete embargo on this equipment has been approved. In fact, in the second half of 1987, the IDC agreed a series of licence applications for the export of machine tools to Iraq worth over £44 million. The IDC was satisfied that the lathes and tools were civilian items for general industrial purposes, as the companies had claimed. Since the licences were approved we have received information from secret sources that the two Iraqi consignees, Hutteen General Establishment for Mechanical Industries and Nassir General Establishment for Mechanical Industries, intend to use the equipment to set up a munitions manufacturing facility. We have also received a letter from an employee of Matrix Churchill of Coventry, an affiliate of the T I Matrix, Brechin, referred to in Mr. Todd's letter, concerning that machine tools for manufacturing shell cases are being supplied to Iraq. It was decided last month, given the companies contractual position, and the industrial consequences should the licences be revoked, that existing licences should be allowed to stand. Further licences should, however only be granted after careful scrutiny and once we are satisfied that their export would not contravene the guidelines. He did know.

There has also come into my hands from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley document 00048: Thank you for your letter of 18 February enclosing a letter from D. K. Todd, District Secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, concerning the export of machine tools to Iraq. As you may be aware, the Government operate special guidelines on the export of licensable goods to Iran and Iraq, which reflect our stance of strict impartiality, and our commitment to preventing any escalation of the conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict we have prohibited the sale of any lethal equipment to Iran and Iraq. In 1985, this policy was tightened and refined into the current Ministerial guidelines which were announced in the House in October 1985. Essentially, we prohibit the sale of any defence related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. This policy is enforced by a strict export licence regime and all applications are rigorously scrutinised. It is possible that industrial machinery which could be used for the manufacture of military equipment would fall within these guidelines. However, contrary to the report in the Daily Telegraph of I February, there is a complete embargo on such goods. Each export application is assessed against the guidelines on a case by case basis and we have no plans to change this policy. The Foreign Secretary knew.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley has another document, 00050, which he has given to me. It says: I attach the draft reply which was submitted for the Secretary of State's signature"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. While he has been strictly in order, in one sense, there is so much repetition and quotation in his speech that I hope he will now consider making a speech with fewer quotations.

Mr. Dalyell

I shall bring them to an end very briefly, but I have to be extremely careful about fact in such delicate issues. My point is that Mr. Culshaw said: On reflection it seems better for Mr. Mellor to reply to this letter. The Secretary of State has commented —that means that he knew— only that he is not sure which side our correspondent wishes us to take on this issue. It may therefore be best just to restate our standard policy, although Mr. Mellor might consider the possibility of including the points in the last paragraph of MED's submission. The official position was very different. On 9 March 1988, reprinted in The Sunday Timesof 22 November, the official position of the Foreign Office junior Minister—because the Foreign Secretary was not going to touch it—was that The Government operates special guidelines on the export of licensable goods to Iran and Iraq, which reflect our stance of strict impartiality [in the Iran-Iraq war], and our commitment to preventing any escalation of the conflict. Since the beginning of the conflict we have prohibited the sale of any lethal equipment to Iran and Iraq. The policy was tightened and refined in the current ministerial guidelines. We prohibit the sale of defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to exacerbate or prolong the conflict. This policy is enforced by a strict export licence regime and all applications are rigorously scrutinised. I would just say, because of your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on 6 September there was a letter from the then Minister of State, Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West—printed inThe IndependentOn 12 November—to Lord Trefgarne which tells a very different story. This is the difficulty with the whole question of sanctions: that Ministers say one thing to Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and others when they know that there is another whole policy on arms exports. I might just mention the various statements of Alan Clark, who is no longer with us. There are dual standards.

Although I said earlier in my speech that, maybe, the present Prime Minister did not understand or was not fully briefed in his short time at the Foreign Office on the intricacies of all these matters, his successor was a very different kettle of fish. Few men have come to the office of Foreign Secretary with a greater knowledge of world affairs than the present Foreign Secretary. He is a man who is very clever and very quick on the uptake.

I cannot believe that Foreign Office officials would have dared, in these matters, not to brief this incoming Foreign Secretary.

Therefore, I ask, in relation to United Nations sanctions, what was the role of the present Foreign Secretary who chaired the Cabinet committee in July 1990 which questioned the efficacy of the guidelines. Again—this is a matter of public knowledge— Highly-placed United Nations sources told The Independent…that Matrix Churchill computerised numerical controlled (CNC) machine tools were used to make components for gas centrifuges and calutron electro-magnetic isotope separation equipment used in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. I do not make too much of it, but for 27 years I have been the weekly columnist of the New Scientistand understand a great deal about these matters. I raised them in December 1979. They are of lasting interest to me. Then I read that The CNC equipment was found by UN inspectors making searches of Iraq's nuclear development installations in Iraq. The components have been destroyed, but the Matrix Churchill machine tools have been sealed and logged by officials.

Mr. Rogers

I do not want to prolong my right hon. Friend's speech because I understand that he is coming to the end of it. However, I want to reinforce what he has said and to bow to his extremely well-founded scientific knowledge. Does he not also find it strange that the ignorance that seems to be professed by the Government at present, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or anyone else, is confounded by the fact that the schedule that was given to the Trade and Industry Select Committee contained many of the items that my hon. Friend has just mentioned and that there was also a schedule of many other pieces of equipment that were enhancers, as well as actual pieces of military equipment, that were exported to Iraq?

Mr. Dalyell

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It may help the House, and certainly the hon. Gentleman, if I draw his attention to page 365 of "Erskine May", which says: A Member is not permitted to read his speech, but he may refresh his memory by reference to notes. A Member may read extracts from documents, but such extracts and quotations should be reasonably short. The hon. Gentleman has been going beyond that, and I hope that he will bear it in mind.

Mr. Dalyell

I shall end, therefore, with one short quotation. Hon. Members may recollect the Foreign Secretary's statement on nuclear trigger devices. The subject was at the top of his mind; this was not an ill-considered, off-the-cuff remark. He turned round to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) remembers the occasion; I certainly do because I was one of the uncalled by Mr. Speaker Weatherill—and said: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear." [Official Report,29 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 673.] I do not want to be thrown out of the House because I know that that is what happens when one uses the word "lie", but when a man as well informed as the Foreign Secretary tells the shadow Foreign Secretary that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear it calls for some explanation—and certainly long before Lord Justice Scott reports to the House, by which time the Foreign Secretary may have ceased to be Foreign Secretary, may be greatly honoured and perhaps moved to another place.

I think, if not in the wind-up, at least very soon, against the detailed background that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed me to give this morning, an explanation must be given of how the Foreign Secretary could give his considered opinion that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear. I think that that is misleading the House of Commons.

12.3 pm

Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove)

I shall be fairly brief as I am aware that a considerable number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall endeavour to ensure that my remarks have some proximity to the motion.

Dag Hammerskjold said that The United Nations was not set up to get us into heaven but to save us from hell. It is inevitably a fallible human organisation. Our expectations of it must, therefore, be low.

I welcome the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said earlier, it is the first debate on the range of the United Nations' functions for many years. In fact, a dip intoHansardfailed to reveal when the last debate was held. I congratulate him on drawing the subject to our attention, which gives me the opportunity to say how much many hon. Members appreciate the work that he does in association with the United Nations.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey andWaterside (Mr. Colvin), I must apologise for being unable to stay long in the Chamber due to other commitments.

A few years ago, I was a United Nations sceptic, but I am not now. I am encouraged by the effort with which it seeks to address a wide range of issues, a number of which have been referred to, so I shall not repeat them. It must consider issues such as population growth, environmental protection, human rights and health and the regulation of essential international accords—a roll call of numerous worthy objectives.

In a nutshell, the United Nations's charter governs the conduct of international behaviour between sovereign states. If it did not do so, what else could fill the gap? The world needs a talking shop. It must retain communications between states in a formal, procedural manner. It must have an opportunity to vent violent pressures, and the General Assembly is the only place for universal international talks. If nations are not talking, we may be warring.

The world needs an international policeman ensuring that international laws and standards are not based on might and a code of international morality that does not undermine the legitimate sovereignty of Governments—a point to which I shall return in a moment.

The United Nations was established after the second world war with the primary objective to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. One could argue that it has failed miserably in that objective. It ran into the cold war, and there has been repeated regional or local warfare ever since. But there has been no world war. Is that because the United Nations or of the nuclear deterrent? Certainly at moments of great international crisis the role of the United Nations has been important. The Cuban missile crisis and the middle east conflict in 1973 showed that the United Nations can work as a positive power to reduce international tension. It has been successful in mobilising world opinion against aggressors, as it did over Afghanistan.

In its first 40 years, the United Nations was involved in eight peacekeeping operations. Since 1988, there have been at least 10 others, including Cambodia and now the former Yugoslavia. In addition, other nations have been sanctioned to take action on the United Nations's behalf, as in Korea and Kuwait.

As the cold war has rolled back and the threat fof nuclear warfare between the two super-powers has receded, so the importance of the United Nations for dealing with localised conflict has grown. The old conflict between the allied powers of the Soviet Union and those of the United States led to some international discipline. So it follows as that role changes with the breakdown of the super-power groupings there is an increasing need for localised discipline to be imposed by nations acting in concert.

I want briefly to praise the work of the troops that perform the peacekeeping functions of the United Nations because little has been said yet on this. It is important to place that on record. They are people who go into action, often without arms and under threat of their lives. Fortunately, the six observers who were detained in Cambodia have just been released, but they demonstrate only too clearly the risks that are run by many on behalf of world peace.

I want to return to the point about national sovereignty and whether it is appropriate for an international force to override the legitimate Government of a country. What is a legitimate Government of a nation? Are Governments legitimate only because they are elected, or because they are carrying out the functions of government?

It is difficult for the United Nations to be called in to support a corrupt regime against its own people. Yet that regime might be the legitimate Government of the country concerned. Is it legitimate and proper for the United Nations to prevent risings by oppressed minorities when human rights are threatened? Is it correct that law and order should be restored by the United Nations when it has broken down within the boundaries of one country and when the Government of that country do not seek outside help?

It will never be easy to address such issues. They must be judged item by item as they arise. It is perhaps wrong to set down in advance too many criteria for judging whether it is appropriate for the United Nations to be involved. It is certainly true that the United Nations must act as a doctor, saving life after an accident rather than as a law enforcer seeking to prevent the incident.

I shall suggest criteria that it might be appropriate to consider. All, or certainly most, of these criteria should apply before it is proper for the United Nations to become involved in the affairs of a nation. The first criterion is that there should be extreme violence, not isolated terrorist acts. Secondly, there should be a breakdown of law and order. Thirdly, world or regional peace should be threatened. Fourthly, there should be extensive suffering of the civilian population. Unless those criteria apply, I do not believe that the United Nations should take action.

Mr. Rogers

Does the hon. Gentleman say that all those criteria should apply at any one time?

Mr. Thomason

Certainly most of them should apply. I have already said that each case should be considered on its merits. It is wrong to lay down hard and fast rules in isolation from individual cases.

Hon. Members have already referred to the United Nations costly operations and its difficulties in dealing with its duties without proper funding. I shall not repeat what has been said, but much criticism has correctly been levelled at the United States. However, the United States contributes—or at least is due to contribute, although it does not always do so—30.7 per cent. of the United Nations budget. We must bear in mind the considerable burden that falls upon that one country.

Mr. Corbyn

It does not pay it.

Mr. Thomason

The United States funds the United Nations substantially, but the funding is often rather late. The critical problem is the United Nations cash flow. The figures cited earlier reveal that more than 80 per cent. of the current year's subscriptions as at July were unpaid. That represents the accumulated total, including arrears of previous years' subscriptions. In addition, there are peacekeeping costs.

Mr. Corbyn

The hon. Gentleman is doing a good job of defending the indefensible. Should not the United States simply pay up? As it wishes to play a major role in the United Nations, the least that it can do is to pay its subscriptions.

Mr. Thomason

I have made it clear that I believe that the United States should pay, and it is rightly criticised for not paying its contribution, but some provisos should be added to that argument. I am interested to note that in the past few hours the United States has announced that it will send 28,000 troops to Somalia. It is not clear whether they will be paid for by United States taxpayers or whether a contribution will be made from the United Nations budget. If the former, by contra-entry, as it were, the United States may make a substantial financial contribution to the peacekeeping budget.

There is no doubt that to function properly and effectively the United Nations must be properly funded. It is disgraceful that it is left in its present condition, not knowing whether it can pay its salaries month by month. I make it absolutely clear that the United Nations needs the financial as well as the moral support of the nations of the world. The United Kingdom has been in the forefront of ensuring that the contribution is made. So have other European countries—at least, with regard to the subscriptions. The criticisms of nations such as Germany and Japan relate not to the payment of subscriptions—they often pay up well—but to their contributions to the peacekeeping role over which they have been laggardly in doing their duty.

The United Nations structure needs to be reformed. I shall not repeat what was said earlier about the work of the present Secretary-General in introducing much-needed initiatives in that process. He has not yet been able to go far enough, and I hope that so far we are seeing only a start.

Duplication between agencies must be avoided, and the management structure must be reviewed to show a clear chain of command. Inter-agency in-fighting must be reduced, and staff must be chosen according to merit rather than nationality. The credibility of the organisation needs to be enhanced, to general good will.

Only the United Nations can provide action in the wide spheres that require a complex and important organisation. The International Maritime Organisation, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation are important bodies whose work must be acknowledged. So is the World Health Organisation, which has achieved the eradication of smallpox, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Commissioner on Narcotic Drugs, the World bank, the Universal Postal Union, and the International Telecommunication Union. They are all essential parts of the work of an important international body.

I must emphasise the importance that the United Nations now gives to the environment. The United Nations initiated the Rio summit, and has addressed vital issues—but the pace is slow. Our initiatives in this country have not been reflected across the world. The issues must be addressed with greater urgency.

The United Nations charter governs the conduct of international behaviour between sovereign states. To succeed, therefore, the organisation must be effective and efficient, and must raise its profile so as to command respect. It must deal with current international issues such as the environment, but it must not become involved in issues that are irrelevant to international action. It must direct and initiate action to help the helpless, but it must not simply provide food for the starving people of a nation while thereby allowing that nation's Government to be free to buy arms and equip troops. Food must be given to those who need it, not to remove pressure from a Government to allow it to equip troops who then steal that food because of their power.

The United Nations must avoid becoming a permanent policeman. I noted what was said earlier about the organisation becoming locked in to certain areas of difficulty in the world. It must be an agent for peaceful settlement and then withdraw. Its affairs must be managed with transparent accountancy.

Above all, the United Nations must help all the nations of the world appreciate the difficulties of international operations. Patience is needed where time is short. Achievement is measured by the shuffle, not the stride, and success is often merely survival.

12.17 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I shall emulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) by making my comments as brief as possible, and to the point.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing the United Nations as the subject of the debate. That is especially appropriate in view of yesterday's announcement on Somalia by the Security Council.

I welcome the general tone of the debate and the attitude of the Government these days to the role of the United Nations. Not long ago one could have been forgiven for thinking that there was sheer hostility in the Conservative party towards the role, functions and work of the United Nations. That is not true under the present Prime Minister, but it was under the previous Prime Minister in her more strident mode.

It is a depressing fact that, as those hon. Members who have been lucky enough to be called so far have said, the end of the cold war has led to an upsurge in regional conflict. The existence of two military super-powers naturally provided a stalemate, but a stalemate is not a solution to problems. All it does is to keep the lid firmly pressed down on them. It was a dangerous stalemate because it was brought about by the possession of vast quantities of nuclear weapons on each side. That was clearly unsatisfactory. Whatever price we are now paying for the end of the cold war, it is, to echo the words used by others, a price well worth paying on this occasion. However, we must accept that there is a price to pay.

The break-up of the Soviet Union and its empire has posed enormous problems, specifically for Europe. Yugoslavia is the most bloody at present, but there could be more and far worse to follow in eastern Europe. I am worried about the 14 newly independent former Soviet republics in whose territories there are 25 million ethnic Russians. The thought of Russia intervening militarily in any of the republics is a frightening prospect. We need to be aware of that possibility, and we need to ensure that the United Nations is able to deal with any problems in the area.

There is great economic suffering in Russia and I want to use this debate to mention that fact. We read so much about the suffering of the Russian people and others in eastern Europe. I do not believe that the west is doing enough. It is no good wringing our hands and saying that we hope that things will work out well for people there. Of course we have the problems of recession in this country, but, even with the Conservative Government's economic policies, our problems are probably temporary.

The problems of the former Soviet people are long-term problems which can be solved only by a massive transformation of their economies. That will require an equally massive transfer of wealth from the west to the east, such as the Americans gave to war-ravaged Europe after the second world war by means of the Marshall plan. We need a latter-day Marshall plan. Our failure to transfer resources to eastern Europe could result in a tragedy of historic proportions.

The end of the cold war has highlighted the work and role of the United Nations in a changed world. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the United Nations is the hope for the future because of all its international roles. At the moment, its peacekeeping role is the most significant. As a result of the way in which the world has changed in recent years, the peacekeeping role of the United Nations is now putting enormous demands on that organisation. The United Nations has done as much peacekeeping in the past four years as it had done in the previous 40 years. That is the scale of peacekeeping facing the United Nations.

Conservative and Opposition Members have said that peacekeeping is an expensive function. It cost $233 million five years ago. It is estimated that it cost $421 million last year, and that the figure for this year will be $3 billion. The United Nations budget is roughly $2 billion a year for all its functions, including peacekeeping. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about costs and contributions and about the fact that we should ensure that this country and the United States pay their full subscriptions on time. It is important that subscriptions are paid on time. The United States, Russia, Germany and France are well behind with their contributions. Although it is good to know that the British Government have paid their annual subscription, I understand that about $500,000 is still owed by the Government as a contribution towards peacekeeping.

The United Nations is undertaking 12 peacekeeping operations around the world. To ensure that adequate support can be given to those operations, it is necessary greatly to expand the United Kingdom budget. These are difficult times in which to talk about giving more money to international organisations, but the price of failure is so great that we cannot simply ignore the need to put more resources at the disposal of the United Nations. We must take a long-term view. We must not merely look at our own short-term economic problems when there are so many long-term problems facing the world which require action now if they are not to develop into tragedies.

The Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, has called for a standing UN peacekeeping unit. That is an excellent idea, but it has not met with a favourable response from other countries, especially the United States. I welcome the announcement that many extra troops are to be sent to Somalia, but I make the point that the United States is very reluctant to put its own troops under the military control of the United Nations. As long as the United States refuses to do that, the finger of suspicion can always be pointed at it, even when it is acting in the best interests of the world.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to the United States. He knows that it has been the convention over the years that the super-powers should not take part in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United States has been discouraged from joining in.

Mr. Banks

I take that point. However, in view of the problems we now face which require such large numbers of troops armed with sophisticated weaponry, only countries such as the United States can fulfil the needs.

I remain one of the great critics of American foreign policy, but it is necessary that the finger of suspicion does not point unfairly at the United States when it is acting in the best interests of the rest of the world. I cannot see what the United States will gain nationally out of sending 30,000, or 60,000, troops to Somalia. Indeed, the United States Administration may become the target of strong criticism internally as soon as American soldiers start coming back in body bags. I understand that. The American Administration might be better protected and less misunderstood if they were more prepared for their military forces to be placed under United Nations control when they intervene in countries with the sanction of the Security Council.

I believe that there should be a United Nations army under the control of the Security Council. I believe that Britain should pledge its full defence resources to the United Nations and should put them at the disposal of the United Nations. One of the great benefits of the peace dividend is that we could say that the United Nations should be able to call on this country whenever it needs to, so that our military could intervene in areas where it was considered necessary for it to do so by the Security Council.

I believe that the UN should have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. I know that there are Conservative and Labour Members who disagree. In a world that purports to be civilized—I do not believe that we can call ourselves civilised, but I hope that we are moving towards a more civilised world—we cannot allow the political leaders of a country to massacre their own people while we stand aside and claim that that is a matter of the internal affairs of another country. I cannot see how the people who are being massacred will be grateful for that legal advice.

On the basis of unanimity within the Security Council, the United Nations should have the power and be prepared to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries. I know that there are dangers in that respect, but there are even greater dangers for the people who are on the receiving end of the barbaric actions of a number of political leaders around the world.

It was right for the United States to be prepared to send troops to Somalia. I hope that the British Government will provide military support. Why should gangsters in Somalia prevent humanitarian aid reaching the Somali people? It is right that there should be intervention. Why should Serb thugs in Bosnia be able to do what they are doing?

It is now time for the United Nations to intervene militarily in the former Yugoslavia if only to stop that conflict stretching into Kosovo and Macedonia and then involving Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and even Italy. There are dangers; but the greater danger is that of doing nothing at all.

Although I will not adopt the "action man" mode of the leader of the Liberal Democrats and want to send large numbers of troops in without thinking about it, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has a point. However, it is very easy for politicians within the comforts of the Palace of Westminster to decide to send troops abroad to intervene in trouble spots; we do not run the risks. In those circumstances, troops should be volunteers. I do not know how that fits in with the fact that ours is a professional army, but we should send troops on a voluntary basis rather than on the basis of, "Pick up your pack and off you go, laddie." It would be wrong for politicians to adopt that attitude.

Military intervention rarely provides a long-term solution. We must look to the United Nations political role to solve those problems. We must make people sit around tables and ensure that they stay there until they find solutions to their problems. Naturally, economic sanctions must be imposed, and perhaps with greater enthusiasm than they have been imposed. As has been said, arms control is also essential. We must cut off the causes of regional conflicts rather than deal with the symptoms.

I am clear in my mind. I have not changed my position with regard to the United Nations. I have always believed in the role and function of the United Nations. It holds the key to the very future of world peace, and it deserves our unstinting support.

12.31 pm

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. However, I add my apology to the apologies of several others as I will not be present for the winding-up speeches, because my wife had a baby yesterday and I must pick her up from hospital. However, I will read the winding-up speeches with some interest.

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is now the third Conservative Member to preface his remarks by saying that he will have to leave the Chamber early. I am aware that there is no coercion on hon. Members to stay. However, it is most discourteous. If it is simply a Government trick to scupper the debate on colliery closures, that is appalling. Conservative Members come into the Chamber, make their speeches and then walk out without any courtesy to the Minister or anyone else who has to wrap up the debate.

Mr. Brazier

I have taken a considerable interest in this subject and three of my letters on the subject have been published in the press. Although my wife had a baby yesterday, I have come to the House today to speak on the subject because I feel exceptionally strongly about it. I will read the record carefully to see what the Front-Bench spokesmen have to say. However, it is not unreasonable that I should want to return home, especially as I have to pick up my wife from the hospital.

Mr. Rogers

I sincerely apologise to the hon. Gentleman. As the father of four children, I appreciate the calls of the family. If I had known the facts, I would not have attacked the hon. Gentleman in that way. However, I deprecate the actions of other Conservative Members. I am aware of the strong commitment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and I apologise unreservedly to him.

Mr. Brazier

I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's apology.

Mr. Thomason

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Brazier

Several hon. Members are waiting to speak and I have very little time left. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Thomason

I thank my hon. Friend. It is interesting that quite a few Conservative Members wish to participate in the debate. This is an important issue on which many of us spent a considerable time preparing papers because we are interested in the subject, but there are large empty spaces on the Opposition Benches. It ill-behoves Opposition Members to make such points when hon. Members have taken time to be here.

Mr. Brazier

I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks, but it is time that we returned to the subject of debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing a good topic and on his excellent speech. Before I continue to the main burden of my speech, on the UN policy in the Balkans, I must endorse his argument that there can only be a long-term solution to the problems of Somalia with the restoration of an Administration there. I do not want to discuss how that can be achieved, but unless an Administration is restored, the chaos will return as soon as the troops leave.

The international community—in particular the United Nations and the European Community—is pressing all parties in the Balkans, particularly the Serbs, to establish a peace based on the internationally recognised borders of Bosnia. In principle, that aim is commendable, because we should uphold international law and because if we give way on the principle of borders, there are frightening precedents for other parts of eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet republics. I am sure that my central message will be unwelcome in some parts of the House, and it runs contrary to Government and United Nations policy. Nevertheless, I think that that aim is unattainable. If we choose to use Bosnia as the test case for that valuable principle we shall test it to destruction. Furthermore, I do not want the lives of British service men—perhaps substantial numbers of them—to be lost in an exercise in trying to make water run up hill. I welcome the recent comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which gave the strongest possible hint that all military advice is that the aim is unattainable.

The burden of my speech is to establish that fact. I shall briefly consider a more attainable objective and mention the implications for our defence policies of trying to assist the United Nations in such areas.

Why is the aim unattainable? If we look back as far as we like in Balkan history we find that there have been wars there. Today, the focus is on Serbian aggression, but in world war two the Serbs suffered horribly at the hands of the Ustachi Croatians and their Bosnian Hanjar supporters and one sixth of the occupying Wehrmacht was made up of Muslims.

It is important to look further back in history to the five centuries of extremely bloody Turkish rule in Serbia. The spiritual mother of the Serbian nation is a lady who lost nine sons fighting the Turkish occupying forces.

Mr. Rogers

rose——

Mr. Brazier

I shall not give way again because some of my hon. Friends want to speak and I must make progress.

Turkish rule is significant because against the background of that terrible historical heritage, the worries of the Serbians and their Greek allies are constantly fuelled by recent examples of brutality by Muslim regimes against Christian minorities, to which all too often they see the western powers and the United Nations casting a blind eye. One example is the Azerbaijani treatment of Armenian minorities and another, is the Syrians' treatment of Lebanese Christians. An example that is even closer to home is the near silence on the treatment of Christian minorities in mainland Turkey. A Greek Member of the European Parliament reminded us of that in a pamphlet which we all received last week. Those considerations make the Serbs determined not to be ruled by an Islamic Government.

I do not for one second seek to justify the hideous atrocities committed by the Serbian guerrilla forces in Bosnia—I think that they have been largely committed by such forces rather than by the Serbian regular army. I simply want to explain why they are fighting and their motivation for doing so.

Mr. Ernie Ross

Does that make it okay then?

Mr. Brazier

No, not at all.

A number of options have been put forward for restoring Bosnia to its original borders. I should like to eliminate two of them. The stronger of the two options is that we should deploy ground troops in an offensive. I have already said why I believe that the Serbians are fighting and it is interesting to consider how they would be likely to fight.

When the Germans rolled into Yugoslavia on the heels of the Italians in the second world war, there was, contrary to popular belief, little initial fighting. Wehrmacht casualties ran to a few hundred only. Once the Germans had established themselves, however, the guerrilla war began. I believe that if the United Nations were to deploy a fighting force in Serbia, which had nothing to do with delivering humanitarian aid, exactly the same thing would happen. Initially they would not oppose it, but, subsequently, a guerrilla war would begin and, as in so many other places—Palestine, Cyprus and Afghanistan—the Serbians would make extensive use of children and the elderly, the most vulnerable, in propagating that war. Eight-year-old children would shoot at British and other United Nations soldiers. Women and children would be pushed to the front of crowds to act as a screen for terrorists.

Once we saw our soldiers being killed and the world media began to cry out at the killing of civilians, which would be unavoidable when trying to hold down a hostile population, the inevitable result would be the withdrawal of those United Nations forces. After that the fighting would begin afresh with renewed vigour.

The other option for re-establishing Bosnian control of the original Bosnian state is the so-called air option. If the first option is unwise, the second one does not exist. It is ludicrous to draw a parallel with the Gulf war. Then, air crews were flying over vast empty spaces that were home to no one. There was no forestation and air power could be used without the slightest hesitation. Are we really going to bomb Serbian gun positions in the middle of villages and bomb their ammunition dumps, which would be located in the middle of their concentration camps?

If we conducted sporadic bombing in Serbia itself against selected targets, all the evidence from past wars suggests that that would stiffen morale and deepen hatred. Surely no one is suggesting that we should initiate a Dresden on Belgrade.

The truth is that there is no limited air option. There is no way in which we can put. Bosnia back together again by following an acceptable policy with acceptable casualties. What, then, should we try to do to overcome the plight of the wretched Bosnians?

We must recognise that the border must change—there is no other option. The Serbs have already said and the Croats, too, I believe, that they would be happy to give up some of the ground that they have captured in exchange for a negotiated settlement involving a genuine border change. In effect, Serbia would be given a substantial chunk of Bosnia and Croatia would be given a smaller chunk. The Bosnians would be left with a smaller, viable "place in the sun", to coin the famous phrase. I believe that such a solution could be negotiated. We have had suggestions from the Serbians in Bosnia that they would be willing to consider and negotiate that option.

Even that might prove unattainable without the use of force. The longer we wait before entering negotiations based on a border change—the longer we try to uphold a good principle of international law in the face of an impossible example, with a state that has existed for only 18 months and which was created against the wishes of the two minorities who together form a majority of the country—the more we undermine the possibility of success. I believe that we should go for it now.

What would be the implications for our defence policy if we were willing to intervene on behalf of the UN in a really active military fashion in Bosnia or a similar type of situation? I accept that matters could become so bad that it might be necessary to intervene, but I would be willing to contemplate intervention in only one event, and that would be after a serious attempt had been made to negotiate fresh boundaries for a much smaller Bosnia in which the Bosnian Muslims were left to live in peace.

Only if that proved impossible—the signs do not suggest that it would be impossible—might it be necessary to try to establish the sort of enclave that we have for the Kurds on the basis of a much smaller and defendable patch. But we must be clear that the consequences for our defence policy would be absolutely profound if Britain were willing in principle to intervene in that type of way there or anywhere in eastern Europe.

Mr. Ernie Ross

The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to leave the matter there. He refers to our taking action. Is he aware that it is not for Britain to decide what shall happen in Bosnia? The purpose of the UN having a new agenda is to make it acceptable to minorities, particularly minorities in parts of the world which have felt that only the big powers, the majorities, have taken action against them. It is for them—not just the Serbs but the Muslims and Croats—to decide whether they want to divide up their country. It is not for us to tell them how to divide it up.

Mr. Brazier

The hon. Gentleman missed the point I was making, which was that the UN and EC line at every peace negotiation has been based on the objective of making all parties agree to restoring Bosnia to its original or perhaps I should say "nominal", boundaries. That has been the pre-condition at every conference, including the recent one in London, and my basic message is that that demand is unattainable and that until the UN moves away from it, there can be no prospect of a successful peace conference. The British Government and the UN should be aiming for a conference designed to negotiate a realistic border change, and the Serbs have said that in such circumstances they would be willing to give up some of the ground they have captured.

I am anxious to consider the implications for British defence policy should Britain, either in Bosnia or some other eastern European situation, agree to play a significant military role, similar to that which we played in the Gulf, as part of a United Nations force that was doing real fighting and was not engaged in a purely peacekeeping operation.

Our armed forces, and particularly the Army, are moving from being very small to even smaller. Indeed, after "Options for Change", our Army will be only slightly larger than that of Holland or Belgium. It is desperately overstretched and we could not realistically expect such a tiny force—we are catering for only 100,000—to take on a commitment of that size, over and above all its other commitments.

The funding is also in the process of being squeezed, even more so than manpower, from 5.2 per cent. of GDP in the mid-1980s to a projected 3.2 per cent. in the mid-1990s, a squeeze of 40 per cent. For us to become involved in the type of campaign in prospect in, say, Bosnia, would involve us in vast quantities of new and expensive equipment, of which helicopter gunships are an example.

It would be unwise for the United Nations to become involved in trying to enforce in a military fashion its present objective, which I believe to be unattainable. Moreover, if we were to contemplate military intervention in defence of a much more limited objective of providing an enclave for the Bosnians—it is the only circumstance under which I might be willing to contemplate military intervention—it would require a total reappraisal of our defence policy and "Options for Change", with enormous resource implications.

I am genuinely sorry that I shall not be present to hear the wind up of this debate by my hon. Friend the Minister, but I shall read the record with considerable interest. In summary, I firmly believe that the United Nations' present objective in the Balkans is unattainable and I am horrified at the idea of pouring away the blood of our own service men and women in trying to attain it. An attainable objective could and should be formulated at a conference, without pre-conditions. It should be based on substantial changes in borders which, after all, are of only 18 months' standing as internally recognised boundaries.

Finally, we should be clear about the fact that if, under any circumstances, we plan to become involved in a United Nations war-fighting role as distinct from small-scale peacekeeping operations, the implications for resourcing our armed forces will be profound.

12.51 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on the United Nations role. It is high time that we did so and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on getting the debate and on his consistent interest in UN matters. It underlines a problem in the House—we seldom get round to debating matters to do with the United Nations or have Government time set aside during which the Foreign Secretary can report on Britain's contributions to the UN and its agencies. It is an extremely important issue and we do not spend enough time discussing it.

I strongly support the view that Britain should renew its membership of UNESCO. To have left that organisation was appalling and a kick in the face of a valuable part of the UN's operations. It was also a signal to the rest of the world that we did not care about cultural and scientific aspects of UN operations or about the rest of the world. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, because I think that one of UNESCO's most important contributions was its attempt at setting up a world information agency. It was trying to ensure that the pro-western bias in the world's media-gathering agencies was at least in part redressed.

The new UN Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali, has produced a report on how he sees the UN and its agencies developing. It is important that he has done that and useful that he has set out his objectives. Although I do not agree with all the objectives or with several decisions that he has already taken, at least he has attempted to set out the scenario by which the UN can develop.

There are fundamental structural problems within the United Nations. It was born at the end of the second world war and the victors of that war played a large part in its establishment. They set up the concept of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and gave permanent members of the Security Council powers of veto, essentially to keep the Soviet Union and the United States in place in the United Nations. Since then, we have been bedevilled by the Security Council's power and the limited powers of the General Assembly.

It cannot be right that the Security Council's five permanent members—Britain, France, Russia, the United States and China—should still be the same permanent members after all this time. Why cannot there automatically be a place on the Security Council for at least one representative of each continent? Why does no third world country have a permanent place on the Security Council? Why are not economically powerful countries such as Japan permanently represented? No African or Latin American countries are permanently represented. India, with the second largest population in the world, is not represented. There are many arguments about it.

Unless the issue of the structure of the United Nations is properly dealt with, and real democracy is developed in it, the process that we have seen in the past four years of growing United States interest and control over United Nations decisions will eventually lead to the disintegration of the United Nations. Third world countries will increasingly band together through the movement for non-alignment, the Group of Seven or whatever, depending on the area involved. It is all very well for western triumphalism to be in charge and in the ascendancy of the United Nations at present, but, unless the issues are seriously addressed, the United Nations simply will not survive. I say that not as one who wants to see the United Nations fail—I do not—but as one who wants to see it succeed. Unless the United Nations is prepared to change and recognise the reality of the world, it will start to decline.

The Rio summit should have been a great triumph for the United Nations. But it was not a great triumph because of all the caveats that were pushed into the final communiqués on environmental considerations, especially by the United States. Unless one of the world's largest industrial economies, the United States, is prepared to agree to the wishes of the rest of the world to protect the environment, the species and the regeneration of natural environments, the whole concept and consequences of the Rio summit will be called seriously into question.

There is a great deal of concern about the restructuring of the United Nations in favour of its economic role. After all, the United Nations economic role is one of its key roles. That role is being taken away from the redistributive agencies of the United Nations and handed over effectively to the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. I say that because I know that most of the debate today has been dominated, understandably, by the issue of United Nations peacekeeping operations and the dangers of wars, including civil wars, in various parts of the world. I understand that, but the majority of the world's population do not have secure employment, secure housing, available education, available health care or decent food supplies. A quarter of the world's population is malnourished. More than 500 million people in the world regularly face starvation. Life expectancy in most of the world is rather less than 50. We are looking at a world that is deeply and grossly divided and becoming more deeply and grossly divided.

The United Nations and its attempts at fair trade through the UN Conference on Trade and Development in the past, its distribution of food through the World Food Programme and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, and its attempts to examine the enormous power that multinational corporations hold in the world, must be applauded. In that sense I deeply regret the decision taken by Boutros Boutros Ghali immediately after the Rio summit to close down the United Nations office which dealt with transnational corporations.

A very good article has been published in the July issue of Third World Resurgence,which is produced by the Third World Network in Penang, Malaysia. The article is entitled UN restructuring against South's interests". The reality is that the restructuring of the United Nations is done very much according to the image and the wishes of the United States. That image seems to be that the only thing that matters in the world's economy is the power of multinational capital and the freedom of multinational capital to trade. Much less interest is taken in the needs of third world agriculture or the redistribution of power and wealth around the world.

I refer to the point I made earlier. Unless the issues are taken seriously by all member states of the United Nations, and we recognise the need for democracy within the United Nations and for contributions to be made to it, I do not think that the United Nations will last much longer. The tensions within the organisation will become far too great. Boutros Boutros Ghali expressed it well. Thinking back to the period when the great powers of the world spent a long time ignoring the United Nations in the 1960s, 1970s and the early 1980s, Boutros Boutros Ghali now sees that the rest of the world has a surfeit of interest in the United Nations. We saw that surfeit of interest in the procedures leading up to and surrounding the Gulf war.

I have never been an apologist for Saddam Hussein. I was calling for an arms embargo on Iraq in 1986, a long time before the British Government recognised the dangers there, so I do not need to apologise about that. I thought that the Gulf war was immoral. The consequences of that conflict, which was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, but not under its day-to-day command or control, included the death of at least 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a profit to the 13ritish Government from the income received from the war. The Government conveniently forget about the money that they lost in export credit guarantees from sales to Iraq in the past. The war also brought instability in Kuwait, poverty in Iraq, and instability in the south where the Shias live and in the north where the Kurds live.

Perhaps we should have taken more notice of what the Kurds said about their right to self-determination in the late 1970s and early 1980s, rather than taking an interest far too late in what they were saying. Instead, this country and others were more interested in building up the power of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Ernie Ross

I agree with my hon. Friend, but what would he have done about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? We all know that Saddam Hussein was maltreating citizens. I agree that we should not have been selling arms to Hussein, irrespective of whether he intended to invade Kuwait. But once Hussein was in Kuwait, it was clear that he was attempting to destroy the Kuwaiti nation, so how else could we have dealt with that problem?

Mr. Corbyn

We could have dealt with it in a number of ways. First, we should not have been supporting Iraq by selling arms to it, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war. Secondly, much closer observation should have been taken of Saddam Hussein's intentions in the lead-up to the invasion of Kuwait, particularly the United States intelligence information that was made available to all parties. Thirdly, the sanctions were having some effect. Fourthly, President Gorbachev had broken an agreement that Iraq was, in principle, prepared to withdraw from Kuwait at that stage. However, the United States war machine was so large and was very much in place by then, so there was no question of President Bush being prepared to allow an opportunity for other action to be taken. The subject of my speech is not solely the Gulf war, but its consequences have been absolutely horrific and it is hard to find any benefits from it at present.

On the issue of peace around the world in a more global sense, the United Nations sponsored the non-proliferation treaty. The British Government say that they support the United Nations and that a cornerstone of their policies is their support for the United Nations. In that case, why are the Government ordering and building a fourth Trident submarine? They are, apparently, prepared to consider further nuclear weapons in future. The Trident submarine programme is the most massive proliferation of nuclear firepower in any world state at present. If all the warheads are put in place it will increase Britain's nuclear firepower by 400 per cent. over the existing Polaris fleet The programme is nonsense, a waste of money and deeply immoral. I say that as one who is not prepared to countenance the holding or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances. We should pay some heed to the non-proliferation treaty, which was sponsored by the United Nations.

The United Nations is attempting to have an effect in some regions of the world. However, in some cases, what is happening is not what we are led to believe is happening. We know of the past horrors of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the hundreds of thousands of skulls found in chambers—the charnel houses of the dead of Cambodia. Everyone recognises the evilness of that regime. The degree of genocide in Cambodia was on a par with the genocide of the Nazis against the Jewish people, gipsies and others in Germany, both pre-war and during the war. I accept that, but the reality in Cambodia at present is that the United States strategy has always been to get rid of the Han Sen regime in order to destroy the Vietnamese influence on Cambodia. At the same time, the United Nations presence in Cambodia is working alongside the Khmer Rouge and the remains of the former Pol Pot army.

Pol Pot is there. His influence is powerful. The regime has control over large areas of Cambodia. I draw the attention of the House to an article by John Pilger that appeared in last week's New Statesman and SocietyOne passage states: The United Nations is normalising the unthinkable in Cambodia. He quotes a conversation that he had with the United Nation's Australian commander, Lt. General John Sanderson. This is John Pilger: I referred to the 'genocide' committed by the Khmer Rouge. 'Genocide is your term!' he came back. I reminded him that actually, no, it wasn't. In 1979, the United Nations Human Rights Commission described Pol Pot's crimes as 'the worst to have occurred anywhere in the world since Nazism'; and in 1985, the United Nations special rapporteur on genocide ruled that what the Khmer Rouge had done was 'genocide…even under the most restricted definition.' That is what is going on in Cambodia at present.

The United Nations promised development aid to Cambodia of £880 million. That was pledged at the Tokyo conference. Hardly any of that money has found its way into Cambodia.

There are enormous armies in Cambodia and the army of the Pol Pot regime is settling down alongside them. I fear that in the long run we shall see a return for Pol Pot by some back-door method with the connivance of the United Nations. A seat was kept throughout at the United Nations, with the support of the British Government, for the remains of the Khmer Rouge regime.

In an Adjournment debate last year I talked about the situation in the western Sahara. The rights of the Polisario and the rights of the people of the western Sahara to self-determination are understood and generally recognised by the United Nations. Like all conflicts, however, nothing is simple. The conflict in the western Sahara interests the people who are there, but interest does riot extend beyond that. There is, of course, interest in the minerals that are there and the fish in the sea. Interest extends to the Spanish colonialists of the past.

In supporting the Polisario movement, the people of the western Sahara have amply demonstrated over many years their deep commitment to their own self-determination and independence. That must be well understood. It is in that setting that the behaviour of the Moroccan forces in the past must be examined, along with the role of the United Nations now.

The United Nations was due to broker a referendum in the western Sahara. Some United Nations officials were suspended during the preparation of the electoral roll because they were passing on to the Moroccan Government information that should not have been made able to them. They were showing partiality, and they were disciplined. The referendum should have been held about a year ago, but there has been delay. Moroccan forces have moved civilians and further Moroccan armed forces into the area that is claimed by the Democratic Republic of the Sahrawi People. By moving in these people the Moroccans have produced a deadlock when it comes to determining who will vote in any referendum. We know that determining who is to be on the electoral roll can be the deciding factor in who wins the referendum.

I do not want to see the present situation in the western Sahara continue for any longer. Can it be right that the vast majority of the population of the western Sahara have been forced to move out of their own homes, areas and villages to live in refugee camps in Algeria. It is not right. I think that everybody recognises that. It is essential that something is done about it. It is all very well passing United Nations resolutions on the subject, but if, at the same time, we maintain normal relations with Morocco—normal trade, military relations and all the rest of it—that country will not feel in the least inclined to carry out the wishes of the United Nations and hold a plebiscite, which I believe would lead to a peaceful settlement once and for all. It is clear that the people of the western Sahara wish to have the opportunity that is provided by self-determination, which will bring an end to an appalling conflict. That is the only part of Africa where the Organisation of African Unity supports the declaration of an independent state within existing political borders. African borders are fraught with difficulty, and the OAU's support for the Sahrawi case is interesting.

I want to make brief mention of the terrible conflict in Liberia, which is in part a matter of United Nations interest, in that the Security Council has discussed it. The article in last Sunday's edition of the Observer was chilling in its horror. It told of the children who have been dragged into the war by all sides, all factions. Five-year-old children have been handed knives and guns and taught how to kill. The long-term psychological damage done to those children and the chaos in that country ought to concern everyone deeply.

In that civil war, the supposed peacekeeping force organised by the west African states is overwhelmingly dominated by Nigeria. That force has air supplies and air cover and has taken to shelling the positions of the army led by Charles Taylor. That has become a civil war, and the forces of the west African states—with the military support and intelligence of the United States—have in effect become a war against the forces of Charles Taylor.

My purpose in raising that issue is to point out that unless a brokered ceasefire can take effect and there is a genuine halt to the fighting and support for the refugees in Liberia, many more will die than the 20,000 already killed in that civil war. Another potential Somalia or Beirut is developing in west Africa.

Many do not accept that the west African peacekeeping forces are particularly even-handed or interested in securing the peace. It has, with the support of other states within the region, become a civil war. The United Nations must take that situation seriously and try to broker an urgent ceasefire. Otherwise, the killing will continue.

There are many other places in the world where issues of war and peace are not yet resolved, and where there is a need for peacekeeping forces and to recognise the rights of people to live in peace. That is an important and major role for the United Nations.

I remind the House that the absence of fighting or belligerence in a conflict does not mean that people are living at peace. It cannot be right that we know that the behaviour of the majority of industrialised nations is ruining our environment and potentially ending life on this planet. We know also that the world economic system does not redstribute wealth from the richest nations to the poorest but sucks yet more wealth from the poorest and hands it to the banking systems of the richest. One thinks of the debt crisis, the power of multinational capital, unfair trading arrangements, and the low prices paid for commodities.

It cannot be right that millions of children are growing up in slums on the outskirts of capital cities. It cannot be right that life expectancy in so many countries is less than 50. It cannot be right that millions are dying of starvation while we are getting rid of surplus food to maintain high prices.

The United Nations can provide the framework and the solutions to those problems, but if the United Nations becomes solely the plaything of the powerful, rich, industrial nations of the north, that might satisfy the egos of those nations initially and give them a feeling of well being and self-satisfaction, but in the not-too-distant future it will lead to the United Nation's demise, as the poorest nations grow angrier and angrier at experts arriving from the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to tell them how to run their economies. They know full well that advice will be "Cut your public spending, and close your hospitals and schools", to repay a debt that is unfair and non-repayable. Unless we take those issues seriously, we shall not be doing any favours to ourselves, the world or our own futures.

1.14 pm

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)

It is classical to start by congratulating the movers of motions on their success in obtaining them and by thanking them for their speeches in support of them. This morning, we have been privileged to hear some fine speeches and some profound truths expressed. I should like to say how much I honoured and valued the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) that began the debate this morning. It was, however, no less than I expected, because the fine standard of his debates on international issues, particularly on the United Nations, is an example to the rest of the House. We are fortunate to have the benefit of his knowledge, and I was glad to be present today to hear him.

I particularly welcomed my hon. Friend's comments on the value of UNESCO. I do not share his warm glow about some of UNESCO's earlier actions, but, like him, I believe that the time has come for Britain to rejoin. We do ourselves and UNESCO no favours by staying out.

I thank my hon. Friend warmly for drawing the House's attention to the report of Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali entitled "An Agenda for Peace," consequential upon the Security Council summit meeting of 31 January. It is an important document which we need to study carefully.

I have just become a member of the executive council of UNICEF, and I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the fine work of UNICEF in so many areas of the world.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

On UNESCO, is not the only remaining issue of any substance of the nine points of dissatisfaction that were raised by Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, in his notice of withdrawal in 1984 the decentralisation of personnel from their headquarters? Is not the fact that the United Kingdom—and probably the United States of Americ—will rejoin UNESCO in this parliamentary Session to be welcomed?

Miss Nicholson

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. As a signatory to two letters to The Times from the parliamentary group seeking the United Kingdom's rejoining of UNESCO, I support what he has said and I am confident that the Government will have heard and taken note of it.

I do not wish to sound a jarring note too early in the debate, but I have been saddened by one speech. I raised a point of order when your predecessor, Madam Deputy Speaker, was in the Chair and I wish to put down a marker. I did not raise it for a frivolous reason. An hon. Member opposite, who is not here—he has barely been here since, and I do not name him—used his speech to read out extract upon extract, letter upon letter and statement upon statement attacking the Government on an issue unrelated to the United Nations. He cobbled together some tenuous link with the debate by continually dropping in the name "United Nations". I pointed out that in the Iran-Iraq war the United Nations had passed no motion saying that there should be an arms embargo on Iran and Iraq by members of the United Nations. He claimed that I was wrong. I understand that I am correct in saying that the United Nations attempted to pass such a motion but did not manage to do so.

I believe, therefore, that the entirety of the hon. Gentleman's over-lengthy and, frankly, boring speech was an irrational attempt to attack the Government. 11 was against the spirit of the debate, the spirit of the House and the spirit of the mover of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath. I am sad that he did that. Of course the United Nations issued guidelines, but so did the Government, which were drafted in 1984 and passed by the House in 1985, but that subject is a topic for a different debate. I am sad that so much time has been misused this morning.

I deal again with the United Nations, as is proper for everyone else who speaks in the debate. I pay tribute to the relative success of the United Nations work in Somalia. I say only "relative" success because what is happening is a tragedy and it is difficult to use the word "success" in that framework. However, the work done by UNICEF and other United Nations agencies has been remarkable and I am sure that it will continue.

Despite the many criticisms made of the interventions by the United Nations and other bodies such as the Government in the former Yugoslavia, I know that the United Nations has brought hope to many troubled victims there and I entirely support its work.

I turn now to a part of the world in which I believe that the United Nations has failed drastically, dramatically and without good cause—Iraq, south and north. Sadly, I lay special blame at the door of Dr. Boutros Ghali for his signing of the recent United Nations draft memorandum of understanding between the regime of Iraq—which is defined in the memorandum as a Government—and the United Nations. I am aware that the memorandum of understanding was considered by many to be better than nothing and I am also aware that the negotiations were undertaken by James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF, whose good will and energy in bringing aid to children in Iraq and many other countries is unceasing and must be honoured and praised by all. However, what the United Nations did was wrong.

I know from experience the miseries and deprivation in the south of Iraq. I have not yet visited the north, but hope to do so—I have a number of outstanding invitations. I well know—and have told the House on many occasions—what a wretched business it is now to live in the south of Iraq especially, being what is familiarly known as a marsh Arab, a member of the Ma'dan. I have seen the victims and have discussed the tragedies and traumas at length with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. There is much torture and many deaths and imprisonments underground year after year. That is the stuff of my daily work and thinking, and I know that what is happening is unacceptable to all right-thinking people's wishes.

In addition, I have much evidence of the victims' experiences and of the tragedies now occurring. Only yesterday I received a fax about the Third River project which states that water in 46 villages in the Messan marshes has dried up. Those villages were in the middle of water, but there is now an acute shortage of it. The population of 40,000 people has started to dig wells to get water for daily use. This is a marsh area it is not an area such as the Norfolk broads but is about half the size of Switzerland and always has deep water. It has now dried out and the surface of the reed bed of the marshes is cracked.

My corresponent, who is the local rapporteur for human rights in Iraq in the south of Iran, tells me that the villagers are in a very bad way because their ability to keep hunting and fishing and to retain the water buffalo depends on marsh water. The fax states that the Iraqi regime has started to cut the date palms to deprive the people wholly of their ability to feed themselves. It is a tragedy of enormous magnitude. I have the names of the villages and the numbers of people, and I am certain that the facts are correct.

A couple of weeks ago I learned of a new report to be submitted to the United Nations by its special rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, Mr. Max van den Stoel. I have the document here, and I would gladly share it with the rest of the House. Reading out the full report would indeed add to the tragic thoughts of everyone in the Chamber, but it would not add to my speech, as I know that hon. Members understand what I am saying.

Max van den Stoel, formerly the Netherlands ambassador and now special United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, has written a report to the United Nations which makes devastating reading. He criticises the United Nations for failing to act effectively in the south and the north of Iraq, but most of his criticism, properly, is directed at the regime of Saddam Hussein and its complete destruction of any pretence of the practice of human rights in Iraq. I have the dossier here to show my colleagues.

What has been the United Nations reaction to the tragedies that Max van den Stoel and others, including myself, have been bringing to its notice for months? The reaction has been the drawing up of the final memorandum of understanding, signed by Mr. Nizar Hamdoon—who signs himself ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, permanent representative of Iraq to the United Nations—and by Jan Eliasson, the undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs. Yet this is no humanitarian report. I shall tell the House just a few points which I have culled from it. I must stress that they show my own perspective on it.

First, the memorandum of understanding recognises the sovereignty of Iraq. Yet the concept underlying all the United Nations resolutions on Iraq has been that the Security Council has already taken away Iraq's legal authority. If the Security Council has essentially overridden Iraq's sovereignty on humanitarian matters, through a combination of the sanctions resolution and the humanitarian assistance resolution—known so well to us as resolution 688—what is the point of the debate over the memorandum of understanding?

Iraq has long since lost any moral authority that the regime may ever have possessed. The games involving the memorandum of understanding cost valuable months, and took away the United Nations initiatives, playing into the hands of the Iraqi regime. Furthermore, the memorandum recognises the sovereignty of the Iraqi regime, which is unacceptable and unthinkable. It also took months to achieve, despite the earlier UN statement that if the memorandum of understanding on humanitarian supplies was to achieve anything supplies had to be in place before the winter set in. Supplies were not in place. The memorandum has only just been signed, and it is based on a plan that does not even exist, and which has to be agreed by the Iraqi regime. Indeed, paragraph 6 says that the Iraqi regime will co-operate with the United Nations. When has Iraq ever done that? How can that be proved, how can it be made to happen? The idea is nonsense.

The joint co-ordination committee, the body behind the memorandum of understanding, grants Iraq two more vetoes, one over implementing the programme—we must remember that that programme does not yet exist—and another over attempting to resolve any difficulties that may arise in practice". The whole memorandum defies logic and understanding for those of us who care for the oppressed people of Iraq. Furthermore, it allows only a small number of UN guards to be available. The number is ridiculous. There is none for the south, and there are only eight for Baghdad. One can tell that even to keep United Nations property safe in Baghdad would require at least 30 guards—to protect UN buildings, vehicles, stocks and so on. Over and above that, the United Nations guards' actions and their communications network will be funnelled through the Iraqi regime.

The present memorandum of understanding is an admission of failure on the part of the UN and especially on the part of Mr. Eliasson's office. In the light of that so-called "agreement", we should ask ourselves two questions. First, is Iraq to be trusted with such an agreement? Millions of lives hang in the balance. Secondly, what contingency plans have been prepared for the possibility of the Iraqis failing to live up to expectations?

A couple of weeks after the memorandum of understanding was signed, we heard that trucks were going into the north. We were told that we should not be too fussed about the memorandum of understanding because it was going to be effective. I leave aside the fact that no aid was to be given to the south, that there were no guards in the south and that the south was not even mentioned in the memorandum of understanding. What has happened? The convoy of trucks to the north was fire-bombed by the Iraqi regime and the supplies went up in flames. That is the United Nations memorandum of understanding in practice. I believe that the United Nations has failed Iraq and that we should do all that we can through our membership of the Security Council and of the various committees of the United Nations to bring about a greater political will among all countries in the United Nations to achieve something more effective.

I am glad that, on 19 November, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Shias in Iraq which was sponsored by Anthony Simpson, the British MEP for Northamptonshire and South Leicestershire. I will not read it out, but it is here for all to see. I am also glad that members of Congress are at last trying to achieve something. I am in correspondence and telephone contact with Senator Edward Kennedy.

The British Government have been wonderfully supportive of the efforts of those of us who have been trying to help Iraq. I have here a recent letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in which he gives his support and says: We will keep a close watch on developments in southern Iraq…If necessary, we will go back to the Security Council to consider what further action we might take to help protect the population of southern Iraq against systematic repression in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 688. The time has come. I urge the Minister today to consider carefully taking that action now.

1.32 pm

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth)

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on having made an elegant and witty speech. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is no longer here. I was bewildered—I am sure that it was entirely my fault—by his point about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister being unaware of where Africa was when he was Foreign Secretary. The hon. Member for Linlithgow must be unaware that my right hon. Friend lived and worked in Nigeria for many years.

It is timely to talk about the United Nations and about its future role. We are in a new epoch in the history of the United Nations and Britain will play its part in the future destiny of the United Nations as we have done in its past. The 20th century has seen some of the most dramatic power struggles in world history. There was first the carnage of the first world war and then the genocide of the second world war. There was the ending of the great colonial powers, such as Britain. There were the steps into the atomic age and the emergence of two super-powers, with the race for supremacy. There was the formation of two ideological and military armed camps which faced each other through the cold war. There was the rise and fall of communism. We now stand on the brink of ever-increasing numbers of regional conflicts.

The United Nations in the cold war was largely ineffectual, as the two super-powers were mostly at odds and, to a large extent, dictated international policy on the basis of brinkmanship. The role of others on the world stage seemed to be merely as advisers, camp followers and supporters, with the so-called "non-aligned" movement being anything but that.

In recent times, the United Nations has played a stronger and more vital role around the globe. It was instrumental in ending the Iran-Iraq war with the deployment of the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observation Group—UNIMOG; it played a similar role in the Afghanistan conflict and it has played a peacekeeping role in Cyprus, Angola and Kashmir. However, despite the good intentions, in situations like the Lebanon and Somalia, it has made very little headway.

However, for the first time in its history, the United Nations should now be well placed to establish itself as a primary agent for peace as a consequence of the ending of the cold war. Some would say that the United Nations is now under greater strain than at any time since the end of the second world war.

Change begets conflict and the world has changed rapidly over the past five years and the first point that I want to consider is whether the United Nations has changed fast enough to keep up. I welcome the appointment of such a distinguished person as Dr. Boutros Ghali as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations from the African continent. He has stressed his concern about north-south relations showing a sensitivity to development issues as well as to political and security matters.

Although I have some sympathy with Dr. Boutros Ghali's statement that if there is no development without democracy, there is no democracy without development, I have been somewhat taken aback recently by the fact that, bearing in mind all the problems that we face, Dr. Boutros Ghali surprised us with his ethnic comments.

It is a cardinal rule of the United Nations that ethnicity should never enter the argument. Dr. Boutros Ghali seems to be trying to set himself up as a champion of the third world. However, what is now required is statesmanship and not an attempt to transform the paralysis that permeated the United Nations during the cold war into a further period of impotence through a new north-south standoff.

It is entirely possible that Dr. Boutros Ghali's error of judgment rose because he had been accused of pushing African interests to one side during his leadership. That criticism obviously hurt and his rebuke to the Security Council over its concern for the war of the rich in Yugoslavia rather than about that of the poor in Somalia was perhaps hasty. No one concerned with the United Nations should make such distinctions and allow the world to be polarised once more.

However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he said: The Secretary-General finds the queue outside the door growing all the time. I was not surprised he feels occasional exasperation, but we are on his side and we will work with him. We must at all costs avoid a collision of cultures between the member states that speak for the advanced world and those that represent the third world. We must prevent the United Nations from plunging deeper into a growing identity crisis that threatens to paralyse its efforts

Under the United Nations charter, the Secretary-General is something more, but not very much more, than a servant of the Security Council. He can draw situations to the attention of the Council, make recommendations to it and has the duty of interpreting its decisions—often to the displeasure of some of its members. However, no previous Secretary-General has reprimanded the Security Council as Dr. Boutros Ghali did recently.

The root problem, which is more fundamental than the style of the Secretary-General, is his belief that the Security Council is out of tune with the needs of the people represented at the United Nations and that the east-west split of the cold war risks being replaced by the north-south split of the new world order.

The difficulties between the Secretary-General and the Security Council are symptomatic of the great changes that the organisation has undergone since the end of the cold war. While the cold war lasted with the Security Council deadlocked between the super-powers, both sides wooed the countries of the third world. The General Assembly was still of some importance, though in prolonged decline.

The Secretary-General was of considerable importance as a mediator between east and west. In future, we must not get into another adversarial position where the Secretary-General is the mediator between the north and the south. At the recent Security Council summit 15 heads of state set out a timetable assignment for the new Secretary-General. What is he to implement in the current world context?

The collapse of the eastern bloc and the disintegration of the communist Soviet empire, welcome as it is, has only made the world a more volatile and dangerous place. The rising tide of nationalism in the old USSR and the inevitable fall-out after the suppression of many years of freedom, has had a knock-on effect around the world as countries are torn apart by ethnic and religious differences. We are also faced with escalating civil wars in the countries that are least able to cope with them, such as the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.

Among the liberal democracies there is an increasing belief that models of sovereignty need to be altered when the internal affairs of one state can so easily affect those of another. The spread of conflict and nationalism in eastern Europe, the international drugs trade and the vexed issues of refugees and migrants provide examples. Those are matters of national self-interest. Additional to that self-interest, the concept of humanitarianism establishes a moral identity with citizens of other states, as recently demonstrated in Iraq after the Gulf war.

In April 1991, Security Council resolution 688 insisted on immediate access by international organisations to those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq". Although that was not systematically pursued, it was followed by the safe havens project for the Kurds. In September 1992, the French proposed a new international code of conduct, allowing minorities to request humanitarian assistance from outside powers during a crisis. That followed the December 1991 resolution which allowed the United Nations to intervene in a member state to provide humanitarian assistance, given the consent of the state concerned. That was an effective compromise between western demands for respectable interventionism and softer definitions of sovereignty, and third world fears of military action against dictatorships under the guise of humanitarianism.

I am conscious of the time and so will conclude by saying a few words on Britain's continued role as a permanent member of the Security Council. Britain is not merely another member of the European Community. Britain and its people have historically and uniquely fashioned the world that we know today. British institutions—our concept of the rule of law, of democracy, of commercial practice, human rights and value systems—are the norms recognised by the majority of the world's population. The English language is spoken by more than 1.5 billion people in the Commonwealth and is the glue that keeps people of different ethnic and national groups together.

Britain's continued role in the European Community should be seen as an augmentation of its existing world position, as a force for good, given its historic experience in world affairs. Finally, neither gun boats, armed capability or sheer population size should now be the criteria for membership of the Security Council. In the new partnership for change that I mentioned earlier and in the changing circumstances of the United Nations and its future role in the world, it is vital not only that Britain remains a permanent member of the Security Council in its own right, but that it is recognised by other nations as being an arbiter and a moral force for good.

1.37 pm

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

The debate has been extremely interesting and I am glad that we were able to squeeze in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva). I shall certainly not comment on his speech, but I shall read it with interest in Hansard

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on obtaining the debate. His profound interest in issues as large as the United Nations is an example to us all. Often in our domestic politics, as well as in our general approach, we seem to get bogged down on specifics and do not have the breadth of approach that the hon. Gentleman has shown. I do not say that condescendingly and I sincerely thank him for the opportunity to debate this subject, although I do not think that my wife in Wales, who was flooded out this week, will appreciate the fact that I have had to stay here on a Friday.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) could not get into the debate. I think that she is the only hon. Member who has sat from beginning to end who could not speak. I remarked on the fact that some people were unable to speak and I am sincere about that. If hon. Members cannot stay for the whole debate perhaps they ought not to speak in the beginning.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath rightly emphasised the role of the UNESCO and that subject was taken up. I entirely support the proposal that the British Government. should take us back into it.

I was disturbed by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that we might want to set up protectorates and that the rich and more powerful countries might want to adopt weaker ones. Judging from experience, both before and alter the war, the protectorate system is not one which we should seek to emulate at this stage in the 20th century.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath questioned whether sufficient support has been given to the Cheshire Regiment since it was sent to Yugoslavia. I entirely agree that it is no good sending troops, especially infantry, into situations where they do not have proper cover. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I say that as a former infantry man. Failure to provide such support could be criminal. I pray that our young lads—they are all young lads in the Cheshire Regiment—will not be exposed to far greater weaponry than their own.

It is all right to talk about not wanting to escalate the problems in former Yugoslavia, but we do not want troops—Croat or British—to be slaughtered because they do not have sufficient weaponry and arms capability to respond. For that reason, I urge the Minister of State to take up this matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. When that Minister of State and I previously discussed Bosnia he refused to accept that it might be a good idea to supply some air cover for our troops. There will be much blood on the hands of the Government if they do not back up our troops, after putting them into such a dangerous situation.

If we take it as a matter of policy that combatant troops will be sent to Yugoslavia, the delivery of humanitarian aid might go out the door. However, if troops are sent in to carry out a humanitarian function, they must be protected.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

I have a rhetorical question for the hon. Gentleman. What if we do not give full support to our troops and if we do not encourage the United Nations to put forward a resolution for the protection of forces on the ground? Surely that would be at great cost to the entire Balkan region, which is something we would find hard to bear.

Mr. Rogers

I agree with the hon. Lady and I believe that we are on the same side of the fence on this.

I also agree with what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said about watering down our commitment to Cyprus. Cyprus represents an intractable problem. President Bush may say that United States troops will be in and out of Somalia by 20 January, when he leaves office. Troops went into Cyprus and may stay there for ever, exactly the same as in Northern Ireland and so many other places. It is easy enough to commit young people of whatever nationality to a certain place to deal with a difficult situation, but I firmly believe that the first option that one must then consider is how to get those troops out. We saw how difficult the Americans found it to get out of Vietnam even with all the resources available to them.

The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoke about the difficulty of sending British troops to Yugoslavia in response to demands from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but in particular from the leader of the Liberal party. I notice that no member of that party attended this important debate. Today's attendance has not been as good as it should have been, but dozens of hon. Members have listened to parts of the debate; not one member of the Liberal party has done so.

I should have thought that today was an admirable opportunity for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to put forward a constructive argument to back up his Action Man plans for our young soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman says we should send troops here and there; that is his knee-jerk response to all the problems in the world. However, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, as a result of "Options for Change" we do not have the troops to do that. Even if we wanted to send far more troops to Yugoslavia, we have not got the resources to do that. As a result of "Options for Change", the size of our infantry battalions has been cut dramatically in the past year. Such cuts provide a classic example of the fact that we no longer have the means to meet the aims that we support.

Lady Olga Maitland

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not talking about just British troops being sent to Bosnia and the Balkans, but all the world joining in a United Nations response?

Mr. Rogers

I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes, and we can discuss that in due course. First we must consider what happens when we ask others to come in. There is the problem, if the super-powers are excluded—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath pointed out that it was traditional to exclude them—and they do not contribute troops, which countries provide them? Then we must go on to consider the logistics and back-up support. It is all very well, in many situations, to say that we will provide the logistics and others can provide the men, but eventually the point is reached when we run out of logistics—[Interruption.] It is not a never-ending resource, and, having spent five years shadowing the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I assure the House that our logistics are even more run down than our manpower numbers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke about the provision of aid to Russia and eastern Europe and suggested that we needed a latter-day Marshall plan. That might be a good idea. We have a substantial interest in helping the emerging democracies of eastern Europe. We applaud the collapse of corrupt communist Governments, but we must now support the emerging democracies and be more positive in our attitude to them. As I say, most of those on these Benches come from a Christian Socialist tradition and are committed to extending our international role.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a Christian Socialist?

Mr. Rogers

I do not intend to criticise the views of any of my hon. Friends in relation to the way in which they come to the concept of socialism. That is up to them, so long as they do not become communists. I hope that the Minister can be sure that some of his more right-wing hon. Friends, who are well known to us, do not slip that little bit further into the fascism that we see raising its head in central Europe. I leave it there, accepting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his own problems.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who spoke and then had to leave, attempted an analysis of, and drew up a list of criteria for, the ways in which people should interfere in other's affairs and how the United Nations should enter situations. When I asked how he would select those situations and arrive at the balance of which he spoke, he failed dismally to answer. As I say, he has retreated the field, though probably not for that reason.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove also attempted an analysis of sovereignty and rather lectured us on how the concept of sovereignty had altered in recent years. He went on to suggest when and how we might interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. We must also consider when to keep out of events as regimes oppress and murder their populations, because they have been elected to office, or maybe simply because somehow they have got into power. We see that happening in East Timor, where we are doing nothing to help the people who are being slaughtered by a so-called legitimate Government.

Mr. Corbyn

rose——

Mr. Rogers

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. Time is very short.

The hon. Member for Canterbury said that while he did not justify the actions of the Serbs, he understood them, and he revealed his position when he added that we had to remember that many Muslims had served in the Wehrmacht. Whether he regarded that as justification for the Serbs now killing the Muslims I do not know. I thought of intervening to tell him that many Germans served in the Wehrmacht and that that was not a good reason for killing Germans today.

If we adopt such attitudes, we shall never resolve any issues. Yugoslavia represents an intractable problem and we appreciate how people's fears go back over the years and raise issues of revenge for tribal, family and nationalistic indignities, cruelties and so on. Not to acknowledge that there is substantial fault on the Serbian side in the conflict is to miss what is happening.

I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for drawing attention to the Kurdish problem years before many hon. Members did so. I was pleased to join him a couple of years later, when we were the only two hon. Members battling away about the export of arms to Saddam Hussein. As Opposition defence spokesman, I challenged the Government about exporting arms to Iraq and the Minister of State told me that it was a vile calumny and an obnoxious statement. We have now been proved to be right and the Scott inquiry will prove that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

indicated dissent.

Mr. Rogers

It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He simply has to look at schedule 2 of the submission to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to see a list of arms and weapon-enhancing equipment. I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept evidence submitted by his own Government to a Select Committee. It is not stuff that was brought up in the newspapers or which we have dragged up, but information supplied by the Government. If he does not believe that the equipment on that list enhances the weapons and capabilities of Saddam Hussein——

Mr. Douglas Hogg

The hon. Gentleman must not elide between weapons and machinery—they are different.

Mr. Rogers

I am not talking about the export of machinery or Matrix Churchill which, in some ways, is irrelevant. I am talking about weapons that were exported, such a mortar-locating laser equipment. It was not much fun for our troops sitting at the end of guns, firing at the Iraqis, when they knew that the Iraqis could identify their positions because of the equipment that we had exported to them. I challenge the Ministers to go to the Library and look at the four-page list submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry of arms and equipment exported to Iraq by the Government.

Saddam Hussein was a butcher with whom we should never have become involved, however much we may have wanted to use him to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The Government made a bad mistake, which rebounded on us. Were it not for the overwhelming weaponry of the United States, we would have landed up in a bad position.

Iraq is an example of the implementation of the United Nations role because of the breakdown in the cold war, which prevented the veto of certain action. As my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, the United Nations should be involved in many other areas, outside purely peacekeeping roles. The problems of the population explosion, environmental pollution, AIDS and the huge drugs markets that are eroding the basis of our democratic societies and confounding our young people must all be tackled on an international scale. A properly serviced and funded United Nations could be an admirable vehicle for that.

The United Nations should be able to take up many issues in a better way. It is all right to talk about intergovernmental co-operation, but, unless a comprehensive approach is taken to many of those problems, bilateral or even multi-governmental relationships will not work. Nowadays, we seem to be swamped by non-governmental agencies, which are probably creating their own problems.

The United Nations as it exists today is only a framework. It needs to be fleshed out and given more muscle. The Labour party has consistently supported the United Nations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said, it is part of our constitution. Perhaps when we were in government there were occasions when we did not do all that we should have done. We are prepared at this stage to accept those criticisms. I only hope that when we get back into government in a few years' time we will fund the United Nations and support it to a greater extent than the present Government are.

We are a global society, and we have seen the development of communications and general relationships. We simply cannot live on our solitary islands, throw shields around ourselves, and say that we are not influenced by what happens in every other part of the world. All people are human, irrespective of whether they are Yugoslav souls, or little black Somalia souls dying, or children dying from a bomb, a shell, starvation or disease. Whether people are black, white, yellow or blue, they are still humans. People who have never had an opportunity to live a full and proper life are just as precious to us as anyone else.

The argument that we must take care of one problem because it is nearer to us in Europe is not a good one. That is why I am pleased that more resources will be put into Somalia. I applaud the fact that the United States will send in sufficient troops to structure the aid development of Somalia. However, I do not think that development will be completed by 20 January.

There is a possibility of developing and training a cadre of people. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath said that we should adopt the more positive aspects of United Nations training and funding, not take a negative approach and say that we will go in and commit resources when a big problem is highlighted on our televisions and when the public conscience is stretched to such a point that we must do something. I hope that we will increase the number of missions in the southern part of the former Yugoslavia, from Kosovo down into what is called Macedonia—one must be careful how one uses that word these days—to anticipate the problems that we know will arise if we are not extremely careful.

Many hon. Members have raised the issue of finance. It is true that the United States has fallen badly behind—by almost $400 million. It is misleading for people to say that they cannot afford peacekeeping forces. Peacekeeping is probably one of the cheapest options open to the United Nations. The cost of one-and-a-half days of the Gulf war woud have paid for all the United Nations peacekeeping operations worldwide for one year. It is much cheaper to keep the peace than to allow problems to develop into a war. The role of the United Nations needs to be developed. We have a strong and positive commitment to the United Nations.

I pay tribute to people such as Brian Urquhart, who published a pamphlet entitled The United Nations in 1992: problems and opportunities". We should all read that pamphlet. I have certainly done so. The pamphlet raises many of the issues that I have outlined today.

Labour Members have been consistent in their views, not only as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West but throughout the Labour party. At our party conference my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, said: Right at the heart of our policies should be strong and consistent support for the United Nations. I have always believed this is the best means of principled and collective international action. I want to see the powers of the United Nations strengthened, and I want to see it broaden its agenda to tackle the economic and social issues which call out for a global approach just as desperately as do the environment, poverty and peace-keeping. That is the commitment of the Labour party to the United Nations. As soon as we, the Opposition, are in government in the next couple of years, we shall be implementing the poicy that has been outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend.

2.5 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

Every Member who has contributed to the debate has prefaced his or her remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on selecting the United Nations as a subject for debate. I join in congratulating my hon. Friend. The elegance and lucidity of his speech, delivered largely without notes, impressed all those present.

It is right that we should be debating the United Nations, both for a particular reason and a general reason. The particular reason is that we have seen the deployment of United Kingdom troops in what was Yugoslavia, and last night there was an important resolution by the Security Council on Somalia. The more general reason is that over the past two years or so we have seen an enormous expansion in the prestige, responsibility and authority of the United Nations. We need, therefore, to ask ourselves both general and particular questions about the United Nations activities.

I speak of the enhancement of the authority of the United Nations. There are probably at least three reasons for that. First, there was the success of the Security Council with regard to the middle eastern war two years ago. Secondly, the former Soviet Union collapsed and we are now able to work harmoniously within the permanent five. That is an important contribution to the proper workings of the Security Council. Lastly, I believe that there is an ever-increasing desire, manifested in this place not least, to see the humanitarian and political problems of the world addressed in a collective way.

The increased activity of the United Nations can be demonstrated by some basic figures. There are now about 52,000 United Nations personnel deployed in peacekeeping roles whereas early in 1992 there were only 11,500. To take another measure, in 1987 there were 49 meetings of the Security Council, 43 consultations of the whole and 14 resolutions of the Security Council. In the first seven months of 1992 there were 46 resolutions, 81 meetings and 19 consultations of the whole. We can see a substantial expansion in the operations of the United Nations.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a range of questions. I shall not respond to them, but I shall give him the credit and courtesy of explaining why I shall not, as I regard the hon. Gentleman as a friend of mine. First, I think that he was abusing the motion to pursue issues which, in my judgment, were of little relevance to what the House was discussing.

Secondly, and in any event, it was a very curious ordering of priorities. We were debating matters of major international significance, but, frankly, the hon. Gentleman was not. Thirdly, there are practical difficulties associated with responding to him, and he may care to keep these points in mind.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked many immensely detailed, complicated questions—perhaps 20 or so. I could not even to begin to respond to them and leave any time to deal with the main debate. In any event, I would not do so, because I do not have any personal knowledge of any of the detailed issues. Consequently, I would have to rely on ad hoc notes from the Box, which is not a sensible way to deal with detailed questions of that kind.

I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow—I regard him as a friend—that he is wasting his time and that of the House in dealing with such issues in the way that he chooses.

Mr. Dalyell

rose——

Mr. Hogg

I have been critical of the hon. Gentleman, so I will give way.

Mr. Dalyell

It was my intention to call the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to account, and I have just one further question. The Foreign Secretary said that we do not supply arms to Iraq".—[Official Report, 29 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 673.] How is it suggested that the House should pursue that crucially important matter? It is a matter of truth to Parliament.

Mr. Hogg

One way is to give notice of that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he will give the hon. Gentleman a fair and robust answer. There is no point to hopping up in the middle of a debate, dragging out a quotation of which no one has received previous notice, and expecting anything like a full answer. It is absurd. The hon. Gentleman does neither his reputation nor the time of the House any good.

Mr. Rogers

rose——

Mr. Hogg

No, I will press on.

Mr. Rogers

Will the Minister not give way?

Mr. Hogg

No, I will press on. I am quite firm about that, Madam Speaker. I am going to get on with it.

Many tributes have been paid to the United Nations Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali—and quite right too. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions, and I believe that he will prove an important and innovating Secretary-General.

Dr. Boutros Ghali has already presided over a number of important initiatives. Last night's decision of the Security Council to deploy American troops in Somalia owes a great deal to his own initiative. Moreover, the Government welcome the Secretary-General's response in his report, "An Agenda for Peace", to the request made to him in the early part of this year by the Security Council meeting at Heads of Government level. That meeting was instigated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was the first to convene a meeting of that kind and who asked the Secretary-General to advise us all how the United Nations could develop its policy of peacekeeping, peacemaking and preventive diplomacy.

The suggestions in that report are of considerable interest and importance, and we propose to address them as constructively as possible. One can see certain ways in which they have already been acted upon. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened the London conference on the former Yugoslavia, working closely with the United Nations. That was one instance of two important, international organisations working together.

The House will know also of the United Nations deployment in Macedonia, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe deployment in Kosovo, and the European Community monitoring mission in the former Yugoslavia. They are all examples of preventive, pre-emptive diplomacy, and show that we are reacting responsibly to a number of the Secretary-General's proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath mentioned the important issue of reform of the Security Council, as did the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), to whom I apologise for not hearing all his speech but I was having a morsel of food——

Mr. Dalyell

A morsel?

Mr. Hogg

It was only a morsel and it was quickly eaten; none the less, I apologise.

Both hon. Members, and others, dealt with reform of the Security Council. The Government are not seeking to change the composition of the Security Council, not least because it would require a change in the charter, which we do not want at the moment. I should be surprised—I speak now as a national politician rather than as a world statesman—if it were in the interests of France or the United Kingdom to promote such change. It is probably not in the interests of anybody else either, because for about the first time since the war the Security Council is working harmoniously together and the five permanent members have been constructive about the way in which the council has been using its power. We should not interrupt that which is going well. Moreover, there are many postulants, and whereas a Security Council of 15 may work extremely well I am far from sure that that would be true of a Security Council of 25 or 30.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath is right to say that the members of the Security Council have obligations. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will feel that the Government are conscious of the obligations that they owe as a permanent member. It was with that consideration in mind, at least in part, that we deployed about 2,000 men to what was Yugoslavia, making us the second largest troop contributor to the region. It is why we have a large military presence in Cyprus and why we deployed military personnel to Cambodia. To answer the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross),we do not plan to put troops into Somalia.

We have obligations in addition to the military ones that I have just described. We must keep our colleagues in the European Community closely informed. We must inform them of what is going on, must take and represent their views as appropriate and must be very sensitive to the aspirations and desires of other members of the European Community to have their interests fully reflected by us. We shall certainly do that.

Much of the debate has rightly focused on Bosnia. I echo and endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath said. He told us to be cautious; I agree. He said that we should concentrate on humanitarian work; I agree. He said that we should not take sides; I agree. I shall come to the question of the Cheshires in a moment, because I believe that that is the only source of disagreement between us.

It might be helpful to outline our policy in broad terms. It is a twofold policy: first, to do all that we can to promote a peace settlement by defining what seem to us to be the guiding principles and by excluding the things that are not acceptable. I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), to whom I always listen with much attention, but I am bound to say that I wholly disagree with what he said about Bosnia. We will not allow Bosnia to be partitioned and we will not allow its frontiers to be disturbed by force. If we allowed that to happen, there would be anarchy in central and eastern Europe, so to those principles we will hold.

Lady Olga Maitland

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a political solution for Bosnia is the only answer at the end of the day, and that Milosevic's supporters must be made fully aware that if they continue to support him they will have to bear the consequences of any continuation of his expansionist programme?

Mr. Hogg

The present policies of the Serbian Government, which reinforce the warlike efforts of the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia, will bring disaster on themselves and on the adjoining countries.

The second part of our policy is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid. That is why we thought it right and proper to deploy the Cheshire Regiment. I accept that that is a risky business, and that there are real hazards involved, but I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath that I believe the deployment of the Cheshire Regiment and the other members of UNPROFOR 2 has made a great contribution to the rest of the world's ability to deliver aid. I hope that we shall be able to continue that policy with the support of the House.

I say to the House—or rather, I say to this country, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the House is greatly impressed by the courage and skill shown by the United Kingdom service men now in Bosnia and the rest of the former Yugoslavia. By that I mean the Cheshire Regiment, the field ambulance units in UNPROFOR 1 in Croatia, the RAF units flying sorties day on day into Sarajevo, and the RAF personnel who support them. What they are doing is worth doing, and the House thanks them for it.

Several specific points have been raised in that connection, including the no-fly zone for the Serbs. I should be very surprised if the Security Council felt it appropriate to allow grave breaches of the no-fly resolution to pass unpunished. Furthermore, if the Serbs used force in Kosovo that would introduce a new dimension to policy making; it would be gravely contrary to the interests of Serbia to embark on such an exploit.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, West that the proper enforcement of the sanctions regime is the key to our policy. That is right. The House may not fully understand the success of the sanctions regime now in place. For example, industrial output in Serbia has fallen by 75 per cent. since December 1989, and trade is down by between 50 and 70 per cent. However, I concede that oil and petroleum products are crossing the frontiers into Bosnia in very much larger quantities than we would wish. It is possible that to some extent supplies may have been released by Milosevic from military stores. Nevertheless, supplies are getting across, and that is not good enough.

That is why resolution 787, which prohibits transhipment across Serbia of certain strategic products, was passed, about 14 days ago. As the House knows well, we have already put in place what are laughingly, or friendlily, called the SAMs—sanctions assistance missions. We are in the business of tightening sanctions enforcement and making sanctions bite. That is the policy of the Government, which we shall drive forward.

The hon. Member for Dundee, West also asked another question about Bosnia. The Muslim peoples are right to be concerned about what is happening in Bosnia. It is a crime. It is the worst tragedy in Europe since the end of the second world war. We are extraordinarily sensitive to the plight of the Bosnians in Bosnia. That is why I have to say, as robustly as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, that I cannot support his policy on partition and the forcible changing of frontiers. That is not our view of what is right. We believe that we need to achieve a settlement that respects people's religious, ethnic and civil rights within the frontiers of existing Bosnia.

Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance have come forward with a range of constitutional proposals which we back. We will not allow that country to be fragmented, occupied by others, eaten up by aggressors or partitioned. Anybody who supposes that the western world will accept that is making a grave error.

The question of the budget was rightly fixed on by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and by others as being of great concern to us. There has been a dispute about figures. I am always cautious when I come to figures because I normally get them wrong. I am especially cautious when the hon. Member for Linlithgow is in the House. I believe that the arrears at the moment are of the order—weasel words if I ever heard them—of $1.25 billion.

It is true that the United States is the largest debtor. The second largest debtor is the Russian Federation. We are deeply concerned about that. It is for that reason, at least in part, that we welcome the Secretary-General's decision to establish the international advisory group to advise on United Nations funding. The House will know that Sir David Scholey is the United Kingdom representative on that body.

There are some encouraging signs. President Bush has made it plain that he plans to pay off the outstanding arrears within a five-year term. Congress has appropriated $376 million for peacekeeping operations in 1993. The United States recently paid $229 million to the regular budget and $100 million to the peacekeeping amounts. There may be further payments. I understand that the Russian Government intend to pay off $130 million of arrears by 31 March 1993. Although the point was not raised, it is worth saying that we strongly support the peacekeeping reserve fund and we shall find ways, if we can, to fund that.

The hon. Member for Dundee, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath raised the important subject of the middle east which was also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Politicians, especially before elections, always talk about unique opportunities, so we should always be cautious about uttering or believing such a phrase. However, I actually believe that there is an opportunity to be grasped. If we do not secure peace within the foreseeable future, there is likely to be war in the middle east within a decade.

All one can do at this stage is state principles. There are three principles worth stating. First, I believe that the security of Israel is of paramount importance and must be assured. Any scheme that does not provide for that will not be acceptable. Secondly and closely related to the first principle, the Palestinians are a people with a right to self-determination and with a right to land to make a reality of that self-determination. The hon. Member for Dundee, West is right; negotiations must proceed on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338 because that is the only sensible way in which they can go forward.

Thirdly, it would be a mistake for the Government of Israel to suppose that they can achieve a free-standing peace with any Arab state. In the end, the thing must be comprehensive, by which I mean separate peace with the an Arab states and an acceptable arrangement with the Palestinian people. One cannot get one without the other.

The process has gone on for 13 months and it has been a grind. People have despaired from time to time. I say to those who are participating in the negotiations that they must grind on. The thing is worth the doing. I very much hope that everyone party to it will keep that fact well in mind and show the kind of flexibility and compromise that is necessary if we are to bring the thing to a necessary conclusion.

This has been an extremely instructive and helpful debate and there has been an extraordinary amount of consensus on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that the Security Council and the United Nations will be at the core of British foreign policy in future. I am glad to think that the House will rally behind that proposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House pays tribute to the work of the United Nations and its agencies; congratulates the Government on the success of the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31st January; welcomes the Report of the Secretary-General Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace, that flowed from it; considers that a speedy return by the United Kingdom to UNESCO is in the national interest; and seeks further action from the Government to improve the ability of the United Nations to secure justice and human rights and to maintain international peace and security.