§ 6. Mr. ColvinTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extension of UNPROFOR's mandate in former Yugoslavia under United Nations Security Council resolution 807.
§ Mr. HurdWe support the extension until 31 March of the mandate of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia under Security Council resolution 807. We look forward to 927 the forthcoming report by the United Nations Secretary-General on further extending and strengthening the mandate.
§ Mr. ColvinDoes my right hon. Friend agree that if, under the renewed mandate, the United Nations or any member state decides to send further troops to former Yugoslavia, they should be deployed in Croatia to implement the Vance plan rather than being sent to Bosnia, where they could get bogged down in a difficult military situation from which it might be extremely difficult to extricate them? If they were sent to Croatia, they would reinforce the credibility of the United Nations and compel the Serbs to give up territory unlawfully seized from Croatia. That would greatly improve the chances of reaching a peaceful solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It cannot be done the other way around.
§ Mr. HurdMy hon. Friend is right. There are two processes in hand—one in Croatia, to which his question and my answer referred, and the other in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They have to go forward in parallel. The credibility of the United Nations in Croatia certainly needs to be restored, which is why the existing mandate is being prolonged only until the end of the month, so that the talks that I mentioned—not simply on renewing the mandate and the United Nations effort in Croatia in support of the Vance plan, but on strengthening them and making them more robust—may be pursued. At the same time, David Owen and Cyrus Vance are energetically trying to find an agreed settlement. They have made some progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but they are not there yet.
§ Mr. MullinIs it not a regrettable fact that the only thing that will stop the Serbs—[Interruption]—and the Croats—misbehaving in Bosnia is the fear of military force? I do not seek to pretend that there are simple solutions to the problem—everyone knows that there are not—but in what circumstances would the British Government support military intervention by the United Nations?
§ Mr. Hurdlf, as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question suggests, he is talking about military intervention to impose a settlement or solution that has not been agreed, the answer is: in no circumstances. I can think of no Government who propose that and no circumstances in which we would support it. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about peacekeeping—implementing and helping to make durable a solution that has been agreed—that is a different matter. I do not believe that trying to enforce a particular solution by military means, without agreement, is on.
§ Mr. CormackDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of the United Nations in Bosnia is considerably damaged by the spectacle of troops, including British troops, standing by while men and women are killed and ethnic cleansing is carried on in front of them?
§ Mr. HurdI am sure that my hon. Friend is not underestimating what our troops and civilian drivers are doing. Our troops have escorted 300 convoys carrying 21,000 tonnes of supplies of food and medicines. That is just about the only good news to have come out of Bosnia this year, and we are glad to be able to continue it. We wish to continue it as long as the need is there. I do not believe that that humanitarian effort could be continued—and it 928 could not succeed—if the mandate were changed to force our troops to take sides in the conflict. It is because, with great skill, they have fulfilled their existing mandate that it has been successful and many people of all three communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina who would otherwise have died are alive. We now need to aim at an agreement. David Owen and Cyrus Vance have made progress. The agreement would lead to a ceasfire, and then the question of implementing the ceasefire would have to be tackled.
§ Mr. WareingWas not the ceasefire in Krajina breached on 22 January by the aggresive action of the Croatians? If a ceasefire is to hold and a more permanent peace be brought about, is not one of the vital needs in the area that the Serb minority should feel that they are protected? Would it not therefore be right to press for UNPROFOR's presence to continue at least until the peace negotiations are completed, and to give full support? I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about intensifying and strengthening the UNPROFOR presence. It is undoubtedly needed in that area.
§ Mr. HurdThe hon. Gentleman has shifted us back to Croatia. UNPROFOR is needed on a more vigorous basis than before. It also needs to be accompanied by progress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, in carrying out the Vance plan. Not only the Government of Croatia but the Serbs living in Croatia have responsibility for making that possible.