Bosnia (Hansard, 14 July 1993)

§ 6. Mr. Raynsford
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Serb and Croat aggression in Bosnia is not rewarded by territorial acquisition.

§ Mr. Hurd
A solution dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims would not be accepted by the international community. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg continue the search for an equitable negotiated settlement based on the concept of one Bosnia. Mr. Stoltenberg briefed the United Nations Security Council yesterday. This would have to involve Serb and Croat withdrawal from the present positions taken by force. Sanctions will continue to be enforced against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions set by the Security Council are met. We believe that the time has come for the European Community, perhaps on Monday, to consider economic measures against Croatia so long as Croatia, too, is engaged in activities contrary to internationally established principles.

§ Mr. Raynsford
Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that that answer essentially reiterates the policy that he and the Government have pursued during the past year and more? That policy has failed to stop the aggression by the Serbs and Croats and the sickening slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Sarajevo and countless other Bosnian towns.
When will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the lesson of history is that aggressors are not stopped by fine words and declarations, but only by the prospect of superior military force? Does he also recognise that until the United Nations acts firmly and concertedly to stop the aggression there will not be an end to the sickening killing?

§ Mr. Hurd
The difficulties of following that advice may be seen in Somalia today, and the situation in Somalia is 972 easy compared with the problems of Bosnia. That is why I repeat that no Government with whom we have been in contact—in fact, no Government at all—have proposed, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an international expeditionary force be sent to impose a solution to the civil war in Bosnia and then stay there to enforce that solution for one, two, five or 10 years. Many half-measures have been suggested, and we have analysed them.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have not managed to stop the fighting with the present policies. What we can do is provide a framework of ideas for a negotiated settlement, put economic and financial pressures on those stimulating the fighting—I mentioned that in relation to Croatia—and help to keep people alive.

§ Mr. Fry
Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not enough to say that the UN and this country will not condone the Croat and Serb invasions of parts of Bosnia? That cannot be done without making it clear that the only way to enforce any settlement is to ensure that there can be a degree of resettlement of the people who have been subject to ethnic cleansing. That will not be decided by a few words. There will be a need for an international force to ensure that resettlement can take place. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to take that up with the UN as soon—I hope that it will be soon—as some kind of settlement is agreed among the three parties?

§ Mr. Hurd
My hon. Friend is right. Once there is a negotiated settlement, which cannot be dictated by Serbs and Croats, the question of saving people and establishing them in new homes or their old homes arises immediately. There will have to be a big international effort. The Heads of Government said at their meeting in Tokyo that that cannot be undertaken at the dictate of Serbs and Croats. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg are not seeking to press the Bosnia Muslims into accepting a particular settlement. They are saying that it is worth while from everybody's point of view that the discussions in Geneva should continue to see whether such a settlement can emerge based on one Bosnia, either a confederation or a federation.

Dr. John Cunningham
Few people, apart from the right hon. Gentleman, are in any doubt that the outcome in Bosnia is being dictated by Serbian and Croatian aggression. All the evidence points to that inescapable conclusion, and the deplorable statement from Washington in May this year was almost an invitation to that end.
Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped issuing threadbare threats of tougher measures which never emerge? The use of air power is never ruled out, but it is never ruled in. That is in stark contrast with Iraq, where the war is over but missiles have been used in furtherance of United Nations resolutions. The war is continuing in Bosnia, but no action, even limited action, is taken.
There are options between the present position and the all-out expeditionary force to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but no action is being taken. The outcome is a deplorable defeat for the EC and for the United Nations.

§ Mr. Hurd
The right hon. Gentleman is a firm disciple of the "something must be done" school. I listened with growing bafflement to the rigmarole of the Leader of the 973 Opposition elaborating on this theme in answer to the Prime Minister on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman is rightly against lifting the arms embargo. He talks about air power, but I do not know what he means; it has never been spelt out. What does he think will be achieved? The position is clear: NATO and the Security Council have agreed that if UNPROFOR troops, and our troops, are attacked from the air, NATO can defend them. That is perfectly clear and has been made perfectly clear to everyone. The right hon. Gentleman must get out of the habit of supposing in a vague and unformulated way that the half-measures that he is advocating will produce results which could be produced only by something so drastic that not even he would propose it.