§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
§ 1.8 am
§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)I welcome this brief but timely debate on the swiftly flowing events and spiral of violence in Bosnia. The House will look forward to learning from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State the Government's latest estimation of the problems and future plans and, above all, the safety of our 2,400 troops there.
I am not of the school of thought which considers that the western response to the horrendous happenings in the former Yugoslavia has been indifferent and inadequate. Frankly, I am at the other end of the spectrum from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who is strong on describing the horrors but weak on telling the country precisely what should be done. We have yet to learn from him how many brigades of British troops at present in Germany should be tipped into the cauldron. I tend to think of the 70 potential flashpoints in the world and the 25 substantial conflicts. I recall and regret the reduction of our British contingent with the United Nations in Cyprus—where we have historical ties and direct responsibilities—in order to make way for further roles.
The conflict in Bosnia has lasted for 10 months, it has claimed 18,000 lives and we are told that 100,000 people are missing. That conflict results from centuries-old ethnic feuds which are bound to continue. Essentially, there is a bitter and bloody civil war which the United Nations can seek to damp down but which in reality it is incapable of controlling. We should concentrate on making sure that the flames do not spread to neighbouring homes—one thinks particularly of Macedonia.
I have sought this debate to raise two specific military matters, which I have brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend beforehand, and I hope that he will concentrate his reply on them. First, there is the danger of blurring a United Nations peacekeeping role with that of a conventional military response. Secondly, there is the possibility of the United Nations calling on the United Kingdom to assume a more direct role in Bosnia which could include separating the warring factions and, no doubt, trying to control their heavy weapons.
I have taken the opportunity presented by no fewer than three Adjournment debates over the years to give the House my views on United Nations peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping has become an essential part of the work done by the United Nations for international harmony and, above all, security. My right hon. Friend will know that while I fully supported the dispatch of medical personnel, engineers and signallers to the United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia, I had reservations about the dispatch of the Cheshire Regiment—a fine professional unit with an outstanding commanding officer—and the role that has been allocated to it. After all, the carrying of humanitarian aid is normally left to United Nations agencies and civilian transport. That said, the Cheshires have done a magnificent job. The Times, in an editorial on 26 January with which I largely disagreed, said: 300
Britain has responded to Bosnia's suffering by sending in troops whose logistical skills and determination have set them in a class of their own.I certainly share those sentiments.The Cheshires may have saved the lives of thousands of men, women and children this winter, mainly Muslims, but the risks that they run hour by hour are very great: If, God forbid, 20 of these fine soldiers should be killed by random shelling in the interfactional fighting, or perhaps by mines, it is not hard to imagine the response of the British people. Frankly, they would want them to be withdrawn. The Government know only too well how easy it is to commit troops and how difficult it is subsequently to withdraw them. I should make my own position perfectly clear: at this stage our troops should not be withdrawn, but I expect the moment to come before long if the fighting continues to intensify—and the Cheshires should not be replaced at the end of their six months period of duty.
Following an increase in the number and seriousness of the attacks on our forces, the Secretary of State for Defence announced further deployment on 14 January. He told the House that the additional forces
will be available to provide additional protection to British forces while they are involved in humanitarian operations."—[Official Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1057.]The use of the word "while" worries me. The brief from the Conservative research department—having worked there for five years, I know that such briefs should be taken like tablets of stone—said:The provision of artillery in particular will enable British forces to respond to the kind of attacks faced at Tomislavgrad.I detect that Ministers have wisely shifted their stance in recent weeks, but I emphasise that our humanitarian relief effort in Bosnia, under United Nations auspices, relies on the support of all parties to the civil war. it would be a disaster to seek to get relief convoys through with artillery and air support. That would change the entire nature of the operation.I understand that the Secretary General of the United Nations has made known his views on the subject. It is good sense to have the additional forces available to cover a withdrawal of British forces if needed, but it is nonsense to believe that the additional forces could support the relief effort. The House would welcome a clear assurance from the Minister on that. It might become a crucial issue for the Government, and we must know their intentions when the lives of British soldiers are involved.
Secondly, last Wednesday The Daily Telegraph reported:
United States pressure for greater military involvement in Bosnia Hercegovina is developing into a key test of Anglo-American relations in the Clinton era. There is concern in Whitehall that President Clinton will press for a substantial contingent of British ground forces to become involved in separating the warring sides.The report rings true, and the issue presents real difficulties for the Cabinet. There have indeed been calls from across the pond for Britain to take a European lead in resolving the Balkan crisis, and of course the Conservative side of the House in particular is anxious that Britain should continue to be seen as a reliable ally of the United States. We are aware, too, that pressure for Britain to give up its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council would be increased by a clear refusal to take a more active role in the former Yugoslavia—but the arguments on the other side are stronger.301 I quote from the Foreign Secretary's thoughtful and distinguished speech at Chatham house last week:
We must make it clear that however good the institutions, however robust our decision, it is impossible to guarantee order and good government everywhere … Where we act, our action must be proportionate. For example, to impose and guarantee order in the former Yugoslavia would take huge forces and huge risks over an indefinite period—which no democracy could justify to its people. British troops there have a humanitarian, not an enforcing role".My right hon. Friend will know of the disquiet on the Conservative Benches, especially among those of his colleagues with knowledge and interest in defence matters, about the lack of clear political and strategic objectives in the former Yugoslavia. Escorting food convoys can be understood, although the risks are understood as well, but a wider role in such a hopelessly confused and complex political situation would not be understood. The difficulties of military action, especially involving armoured vehicles in such a heavily wooded and mountainous country, require little imagination. There are already sizeable armies there, and new and more sophisticated weapons, including missiles, arrive every day. It is a perfect setting for guerrilla activity—a form of fighting at which the Yugoslavs excel.Colonel Michael Dewar, deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has estimated that effective military intervention in Bosnia, including the defeat of the Serb militias and military occupation, would require something like half a million men, and it is almost certain that regular Serbian forces would become involved. Every city, town and village in Bosnia would require a garrison. More important, they would require a garrison for the foreseeable future. There is no clear or possible cut-off date.
My view, and that of many supporters of the Government, is that military intervention is not the answer and should be discounted. It could even be counterproductive and suck other countries into the conflict. For example, Russia might be sucked in on behalf of the Serbs. We would be wise to understand that, however horrific and intolerable the situation there is, when the inhabitants of any country are determined to fight each other and bring about mass rape, starvation, ethnic cleansing, misery and ruin, there are real limits to what can be performed by the United Nations on behalf of us all and of the civilisation that we hold so dear.
§ Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North)I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me the opportunity to participate briefly in this debate, which he will be aware, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is the subject of great concern to many of my hon. Friends and to hon. Members in all parts of the House who share our worry about the dangers of greater British military involvement in Bosnia and in the former Yugoslavia.
I was one of an all-party group which visited Bosnia just before Christmas. With my hon. Friends and hon. Members from the Liberal and Labour parties, I saw something of the complexities of the conflict in Bosnia and visited positions in and around Sarajevo. The problem at present is that the western response to the crisis is being substantially dicated by the emotional attitude of the press and other media in this country and, to a greater degree, in the United States and in Germany. It has largely dictated our response so far. We must be wary of allowing 302 ourselves to be pushed by the Americans or by the Germans into military intervention in the Bosnian civil war, which could easily escalate into a general Balkan war, with incalculable consequences for this country and for the whole of Europe.
Two issues concern me. The first is the no-fly zone. I am glad that the threat of Britain's being pushed into enforcement of the no-fly zone appears for the moment to have receded; nevertheless, it is still there, and it would be military folly and extremely unwise politically for us to be pushed into any attempt to enforce the no-fly zones in Bosnia Herzegovina.
The other question that we are likely very soon to face because of substantial American pressure, particularly if there is a negotiated settlement as a result of the initiatives of Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, is United Kingdom participation in a peacekeeping force. Even on that issue, many of my hon. Friends would feel extremely concerned about the United Kingdom putting troops into a peace-keeping force unless there had been a clear settlement, which had been adhered to by all the parties in the conflict for a considerable time.
Will my hon. Friend be extremely careful about giving any commitment of British forces in a peacekeeping role unless it is absolutely clear that there is a workable, negotiated peace settlement which can stick? Otherwise, we shall find that we are embroiling British troops in a Balkan quagmire, with terrible consequences for this country and the whole of Europe.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on securing this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to be able to respond to the points that he has raised. I also appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), who speaks with much knowledge on the subject.
The House knows that Britain has been at the forefront of international efforts to restore peace in Bosnia and to bring relief to the suffering civilian populations. The first priority in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia must be a lasting political settlement which respects the legitimate concerns of all the people involved. The international conference on the former Yugoslavia in Geneva, under the chairmanship of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance, is working hard to resolve each of the different aspects of the crisis. We and our European partners have given those negotiations our active support, both by diplomatic persuasion and by exerting political and ecomomic pressure, notably through United Nations sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro.
We have never had any illusions that the talks would be simple or quick. The issues to be resolved are extraordinarily complex and sensitive, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, sooner or later there must be a negotiated settlement. The only question is whether it comes now or following further suffering.
For the time being, in spite of the pressures which President Milosevic has apparently exerted—not before time—on the Bosnian Serb leader, neither the Bosnian Serbs nor the Muslims have accepted the comprehensive 303 proposals which Lord Owen and Mr. Vance have put forward for a peace settlement. The Bosnian Croats alone have done so.
Although all three factions have agreed to the proposed constitutional arrangements, the division of territory on the map presented by the co-chairmen remains a point of contention between the Serbs and Muslims. The co-chairmen have asked the United Nations Security Council to support the proposals and to encourage, and if necessary bring pressure to bear on, the parties to negotiate seriously on the basis of them. We must hope that the talks continue and achieve a successful outcome, as the plan—with whatever refinement is necessary—represents the only real chance for peace.
In the meantime, the position on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina is, of course, a matter of serious concern. The military position remains unpredictable, as fighting continues along the Posavina corridor, where the Bosnian Serb army and the Muslims battle to control what is a vital supply route for the Serbs. Fighting has also continued in and around the areas of Bratanac in eastern Bosnia. In central Bosnia, there is continuing tension between the Croats and Muslims, despite the recent signing of a ceasefire.
While we are doing all we can to promote a political settlement, the Government have also had as a high priority the provision of aid to alleviate the appalling suffering which the conflict has caused. I shall speak in a moment about our battalion group. On the civil side, Britain has contributed more than £70 million to date, which includes, for example, a £3 million programme to provide winter shelter in central Bosnia to house up to 20,000 displaced people, £2.75 million-worth of medical supplies, and 60 civilian drivers and support staff, who have now run about 150 convoys carrying over 10,000 tonnes of relief supplies. We are also maintaining heat and power supply for a million people in central Bosnia by ensuring that coal mines and power stations continue to operate.
Turning to the military involvement in humanitarian relief, 4,545 tonnes of aid have been flown into Sarajevo by the RAF Hercules since the humanitarian airlift began last July; and the British infantry battalion group, which has been deployed since November, has now escorted a total of some 15,121 tonnes of aid.
The Government naturally understand and share the concerns of the House about the safety of our infantry battalion group. The battalion is deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina for a purely humanitarian purpose—helping, as part of the United Nations protection force, to provide protective support for relief convoys operating under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The aim is to proceed by negotiation and with the co-operation of the Yugoslav parties. That picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North—that it is not our business to take on one side or another in some form of battle. Our troops are not there to take sides in the conflict or to fight the convoys through, against opposition.
As yet, the fighting has not significantly affected the battalion group's task, although it has caused some disruption to the convoys. But the risks to our troops, and 304 to all involved on the ground, are clear. The tragic killing of Lance Corporal Edwards on 13 January brings them home all too sharply.
I can assure the House that the safety of the British contingent and of others on the ground is kept under continuous review. The Government remain committed to sustaining our participation in the humanitarian effort as long as conditions on the ground permit, but not at unacceptable risk to our people.
It is against that background that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence informed the House on 14 January, we have deployed to the Adriatic, as a precautionary measure, a carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal, with a number of capabilities embarked, including fixed wing Sea Harrier aircraft and light artillery. The purpose, as my right hon. and learned Friend explained, is to have them available for deployment ashore should the need arise, either to provide additional protection for our personnel or to assist with a withdrawal of United Nations personnel if it were to come to that.
The Government will not allow any blurring of the distinction between a humanitarian effort and the use of force. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said on 14 January, there is no suggestion on the part of the Government that it would be appropriate or sensible to contemplate a humanitarian operation that could take place only through the use of force. What we have in mind is that there may be occasions when the availability of additional protection will enable individual convoys to proceed safely. But if it became clear that the convoys could proceed only with the constant use of force, that would be totally incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations task in Bosnia.
The Government remain clear that military intervention does not offer a solution to the problems of Bosnia. It would make an already serious situation worse and would compromise the humanitarian relief operations on which hundreds of thousands of lives now depend. Massive military intervention might suppress the conflict for a time but, in the absence of a negotiated settlement, the withdrawal of the intervening force would be the signal for a resumption of fighting. I can assure the House that the Government have no intention of being drawn into a peacemaking role of that kind.
We of course recognise that there will be a role for peacekeeping forces in Bosnia as and when the international conference in Geneva has achieved a negotiated settlement, to help the settlement stick, on the basis of a ceasefire and the co-operation of the parties. There is no reason, however, at this stage to think of changing the role of United Kingdom forces, as the likelihood is that they will be required for some time. Further contributions will therefore be mainly a matter for others.
I can assure the House that the Government are in no danger of losing sight of the distinction between a humanitarian and an interventionist role in Bosnia. The Government will continue to play their part in helping the international community to work with the parties to try to find peaceful solutions to the political problems that are the root cause of the fighting.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.