§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Bosnia.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones)I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs cannot be here today to make a statement on Bosnia. In his absence in Hungary, and in the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Hogg), I will reply.
The policy of the Government remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in last Thursday's debate and in giving evidence yesterday to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. This is a twin-track policy. One track is our effort to secure agreement on the Vance-Owen peace plan and its implementation. The other track is intensification of the pressure on the Serbs should they remain intransigent.
A new and unwelcome development is the refusal of the Bosnian Serb assembly to ratify Dr. Karadzic's signature of the peace plan negotiated by Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. Their decision is irresponsible and will damage the cause of peace in Bosnia. It will also damage the interests of the Serbs.
Despite this, we continue to consider the Vance-Owen plan the best chance for a lasting peace in Bosnia. We call on all those with influence and, in particular, President Milosevic to redouble efforts to persuade the Bosnian Serbs that the only way forward to a better future is acceptance of this plan and full co-operation in its implementation.
We must continue to make it clear that the international community is prepared to intensify its pressure. Sanctions are already seriously damaging Serbia and will be made even more effective in the Adriatic, on the Danube, across the land borders and in relation to financial movements.
The Government have made it clear that we do not rule out other options. We shall continue consultations with our partners and allies on such measures.
§ Mr. RobertsonI am grateful to the Minister of State. The House understands the absence of the Foreign Secretary.
Is the Minister aware that the whole House will agree with him and with the widespread international condemnation of the decision early this morning by the self-appointed, self-styled Bosnian Serb assembly to repudiate its leader's signature on the Vance-Owen peace plan at the weekend? The Minister will also know that we agree that there will be unanimous rejection of the absurd delaying tactics—of holding a referendum on that decision.
Will the Government make it clear in the Security Council—I believe that it may soon be in session—that policy must now be firm and resolute in pursuit of the Vance-Owen peace plan, but that it must also he measured and not precipitate? In particular, will he recall that it was the clear threat of military force—in our view, by means of 286 air attack—combined with the sort of severe sanctions that should have been in place a year ago which led to the agreement last weekend; and that these threats must be kept in place?
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the decision early this morning was taken in the face of the direct advice of President Milosevic and other Bosnian Serb allies, and that the Security Council must immediately examine how this situation—of a serious split between Belgrade and the Bosnian Serbs—can be used for the future? Will he therefore agree that President Milosevic, who has been for so long a supplier of arms, finance and moral and political support to the Bosnian Serbs, must now make it clear that they have no alternative but to sign the Vance-Owen peace plan—or else he must join Russia and the rest of the world community in ensuring that their isolation is complete?
Does the Minister's statement that other options have not been ruled out mean that the British Government may not veto the lifting of the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia? Secondly, will he explain the statement by his fellow Minister of State on the BBC's "World at One" from Brussels about the new situation requiring an intensification of the blockade? Has not that already been done; should it not already have been done?
Thirdly, will the Minister ensure that the Security Council urgently examines ways in which the civilians in besieged Muslim towns can, through agreement and negotiation, be given whatever protection is possible? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman take this message from the House, both to the European Community and to the UN Security Council: that those who stand in the way of peace in this afflicted part of the world will never ever be forgiven?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he asked his question, and for his broad support for the Government's position. I agree that we should not regard the vote taken by the so-called Bosnian assembly, for a referendum, as in any way definitive; and that we should continue, as he has suggested, to exert all the pressure we can on Mr. Milosevic, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, to join us in bringing this pressure to bear—for instance, by closing Serbia's borders with Bosnia, by cutting off the supply of weapons and other goods and by exerting every possible pressure on the Bosnian Serbs.
The intensification of the blockade is indeed taking place. As the House knows, that requires a large measure of international co-operation. For instance, the Western European Union's decision to provide assistance for strengthening the blockade on the Danube is now being implemented, and the Government are increasing the number of people whom we are sending out to help support the blockade—in the form of customs officers, for instance.
Finally. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the whole House wants to send the Bosnian Serbs the message that the international community is united against the actions that they have taken, that they will receive no benefit from any conquests that they think they have made, and that the peaceful answer to this question must in the end take the form of a settlement negotiated around the table of the sort that Lord Owen and Mr. Cyrus Vance are seeking to produce.
§ Mr. David Howell (Guildford)Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a grave and dangerous moment, and that there must be no question of further major commitments of troops to the area unless and until a viable peace plan looks as though it will be agreed, or has been agreed, and the guns begin to fall silent?
Does he also accept, as I think he will, that the robust line taken by the western allies and the international community in recent days has had a direct deterrent effect on some of the participants in the bloodshed, particularly Mr. Milosevic, who sounds as though he is getting distinctly nervous, and that that deterrent effect must be kept in place by making it clear that we are prepared to consider the options that have been examined by the NATO planners, the Americans and ourselves, including the use of force, to coerce the people into understanding that, if they carry on with the bloodshed, they will receive worse even than they give?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI agree with both points that my right hon. Friend has made. His statement about no further commitment of troops is the firm policy of Her Majesty's Government, and we intend to stick to that policy. He is absolutely right in what he says about the pressure that the international community has already exerted on the Bosnian Serbs. That pressure should be sustained. I agree that the military options he is talking about must remain on the table: they will do so.
§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)Does the Minister agree that the sad decision of the Bosnian Serbs must not lead us to break off dialogue with them, but that that decision makes it necessary for us to consider direct intervention to protect the Muslim enclaves which are besieged? In particular, does he agree that, in Srebrenica, the agreements about water supply given to General Morillon have been declared null and void? Does he agree also that, at Tuzla, where 700,000 are without means of feeding themselves, it must be imperative to reopen the airport?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI cannot comment on the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has made, because I am not at present advised on them. Certainly we need to continue consultations with the United Nations. We very much welcome the decision of the High Commissioner for Refugees to set up safe areas in Zepa and Gorazde by agreement with the parties. I understand that they want an international presence and not military enforcement, and that they continue to focus their efforts on delivering aid to those towns.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. May I remind the House that this is a private notice question? I am looking for direct questions to the Minister on the comments that he made—not long statements, but direct questions.
§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the American authorities that our troops, not theirs, are at risk daily in Bosnia, and that lifting the arms embargo will mean the immediate withdrawal of those troops?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesMy right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had close consultations with the United States Secretary of State 288 over the weekend. I believe that all those matters were discussed. I think that the position taken by Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, the French Government, on these matters is well understood by all our allies, including the United States.
§ Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)If eventually the Vance-Owen agreement is signed, it will require the insertion of a large number of troops, 75,000 or so, and they will need to be there very quickly. If there are fewer, the operation will become unviable. What contingency plans have been undertaken? How many troops have we promised? If the Russians, the French and the Americans have promised, will we make a commitment, because much planning has to be done? Once the agreement is signed, the time for planning is over and the time to send troops to enforce the agreement has come.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesAs the House would expect, we have been and are making contingency plans but, of course, those will be relevant only if a real peace agreement is signed. As I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), we do not intend to commit British troops against the uncertain background which currently exists, and which might be exacerbated if wrong measures were taken.
§ Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West)In view of the serious situation, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever may happen to the Vance-Owen agreement, his prime objective in the coming weeks and days will he to make sure that British troops who are already there arc protected, in so far as that is possible? My right hon. Friend has said that no more troops will be sent unless the Government are satisfied that their safety is assured.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesYes, I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The protection and well-being of our troops are the highest priorities for this Administration.
§ Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)Only four days ago, along with three other hon. Members, I witnessed scenes so horrific that I trust that I shall never have to see them again. At Bosanskibrod, in the north of Bosnia-Herzegovina, we stood at the edge of a mass grave as the bodies of civilians, some of them aged 75 and female, were exhumed. They were probably all Serbs and probably all massacred by Croats.
Will the Minister bear that in mind as an illustration of the fact that atrocities are being committed by all sides? Will he also bear in mind the fact that, even as those bodies were being exhumed, that area was being handed back to the Croat military? That underlines the difficulties of implementing the plan, even if the Serbs agree.
Will the Government maintain the even-handed approach that they have sensibly deployed over the past few months, and resist any pressure from sections of the media to turn this into a holy war against the Serbs or the Serb nation, because that would result in an even greater holocaust than anything that we have seen so far?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for conveying to us the horror that he and, I am sure, all of us would have felt at that manifestation of what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. It makes the point that all of us—even the Government, who are pursuing, as 289 we see it, the right policy, albeit that is a difficult furrow to follow—must understand that hon. Members who seek to advance alternative policies on us do so with the utmost sincerity.
Because of the horror of what is happening, it is inevitable that hon. Members in all parts of the House will seek ways to bring a peaceful and just settlement to that unhappy part of the world. I take that to be not just the will of the House but the will of the international community.
§ Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel)My right hon. Friend spoke about tightening sanctions. Will he take full account of the special position of the neighbours of the former Yugoslavia, in particular Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania? Will he ask the Secretary of State to pass on our appreciation to those neighbours, because the cost of sanctions to those countries has been far in excess of anything that the rest of us can understand? Will he also urge those countries to use their good offices to press on the former Yugoslavia the fact that the closure of the Serbian border may be the best way forward?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesThe co-operation of neighbouring countries—my hon. Friend mentioned Bulgaria—is absolutely essential to the success of our policy. I certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)Will the Minister assure us that the options which he mentioned, and which the Government will always keep open, will exclude the further committal of troops—unless, as the Minister has already said, it is to implement a peace plan? Will he exclude air strikes from those options, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, would place our troops at risk not only from what is euphemistically called "friendly fire", if experience is anything to go by, but from retaliation? I am sure he accepts that the safety of our troops must be foremost.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept the latter part of his question. We have expressed in the House—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when the matter was last debated—our reservations about air strikes, but, as we seek to sustain the pressure, the House will accept that we would not want to rule out any option.
§ Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that it is our troops and the French troops who are at the sharp end? Will he take every opportunity to discourage those, both in the House and outside, who are constantly calling for more direct action for air strikes, which would inevitably bring down retribution on our troops? They would be the ones who would suffer, and many of those who are now talking loudly and clearly about what "we" will do really mean what "you" will do.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI very much agree with my hon. Friend and, as the House will be aware, were we to pursue that policy, there would have to be a serious doubt as to whether we could continue with the humanitarian efforts that we have been successfully engaged in for the past year. He is also right to say that the effort by the European Community has, on the ground, substantially meant a 290 troop commitment by the United Kingdom and the French republic. Naturally enough, both of us have as our prime concern the protection and safety of our troops.
§ Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)Is it not unacceptable that Bosnian Serbs are still mounting attacks on the civilian population of Zepa and elsewhere? Will the Minister make it clear that the other options that he is holding in reserve, for example air strikes, are directed not just at the Serbian regime in Belgrade but at the Bosnian Serbs? Will he also make it clear that, if they continue to defy the will of the international community, those options could be taken into play to force the Bosnian Serbs to accept the will of the United Nations?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI cannot add much to what I have already said. We do not discard any option, but it would not be helpful at this stage if I were to speculate in the way that the hon. Gentleman invites me to do.
§ Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)I recognise the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend understandably finds himself, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, I would be grateful if he would elucidate the answers that he has been giving, which, on occasion, seem to be contradictory.
He has said several times that all options remain open. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have constantly assured the House and the country that we shall not put in forces for any war purpose. They will be there only for humanitarian reasons or, in the event of a complete agreement about a peace treaty, to supervise, but not for warlike purposes.
Therefore, will my right hon. Friend make it plain, when he says that all options remain open, that that is not an option? Will he also make it plain that, if the Americans decide to bomb, we shall withdraw our humanitarian forces, because otherwise the fear that is already widely held—that we are being dragged, step by step, further into a bloody civil war—will remain?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity, if I have not been clear enough about it, to reiterate that the one option that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have ruled out is the commitment of combat British troops to war on the ground in Yugoslavia. That option is entirely ruled out, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have made that clear on a number of occasions.
As to the option of selective bombing, we again have expressed our reservations about that and not least among those reservations is that it would almost certainly bring the humanitarian effort to an end and place our troops on the ground in grave danger.
§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)Having seen, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell. North (Dr. Reid), the results of the massacre by Croats of Serbs and Muslims at Bosanskibrod in region 2 of the Vance-Owen plan, I plead with the Government not to regard that plan as sacrosanct. Not only in the region that we were unfortunate enough to see last Sunday but in region 10, which has been allocated to the Croats and the Muslims, bitter fighting is already taking place between the two. Is it not time for us to put equal pressure 291 on Croatia which, after all, was responsible for the aggression in Krajina on 22 January and is supporting the regime that committed atrocities around Vitez?
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI believe that the Vance-Owen plan is the best option that we have at the moment, and it is the one around which the international community has rallied. The hon. Gentleman referred to atrocities committed by Croatians. I do not believe that any ethnic group in Yugoslavia is free of guilt in those matters, but most right hon. and hon. Members are clear where the main burden of guilt lies.
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that the Bosnian Serbs will continue to procrastinate until they have won all the territory they want to gain, and that only at that stage will the assembly or any other body actually sign the Vance-Owen peace plan?
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in his place on the Front Bench, may I also ask the Minister whether he is concerned for the morale of British service personnel in Bosnia—particularly the Cheshire Regiment, many of whose families live in my constituency? They are deeply concerned that, in their humanitarian role in Bosnia, they are unable to do anything about the rape, killing, pillage and destruction that they see before their very eyes every day. They are powerless to stop the killing.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesThe hon. Member's point about the Bosnian Serbs seeking to gain advance by conquest is one that they will no doubt have in mind. The international community is absolutely determined that no territory gained by a conquest of that kind shall be accepted by the international community. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech, those so-called conquests by the Bosnian Serbs will prove to be empty conquests—I have no doubt about that.
292 As to the performance and morale of our own troops in the Cheshire Regiment, on the wireless this morning, Colonel Stewart said that morale was very high. That is not surprising, because, even though the Cheshires have to perform a frustrating and delicate task, they have the satisfaction of knowing that the substantial humanitarian aid that they have delivered over the past six months has certainly saved hundreds of thousands of lives in Yugoslavia.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)Since political pressure is likely to be far more effective than a more adventurous approach, perhaps the Minister would care to act on two suggestions. First, he should persuade his political associates not to embark on premature and whole-hearted approval of Croatia at this time, since that would send entirely the wrong signal to Belgrade. Secondly, he should persuade his colleagues in Western European Union to make public the evidence that they have possessed for months of the extensive breaches of sanctions. It is now obvious that political pressure would be best served if that evidence were made public and subject to open debate in Europe.
§ Mr. Garel-JonesI agree with the hon. Gentleman that political pressure is the route down which we must go. The sanctions regime has in some instances not proved to be wholly satisfactory. We have taken a number of measures to tighten sanctions, which are having a substantial effect now. From our experience, most of us believe that a sanctions policy that is as tight and strict as we can make it can be one important ingredient in the.armoury at our disposal in bringing pressure on Belgrade.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. We must now move on.