Bosnia (Hansard, 14 December 1994)

§ 15. Mr. Bayley
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Bosnia.

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
I refer to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). [Interruption.] With respect, I have already answered Question 15. [Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I understood that the Minister was responding to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr.Dalyell) on Question 14.

§ Mr. Hogg
I understood that Question 15 had been called and, in response to that, I was referring to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given to the question posed by the hon. Member for Greenwich.

§ Mr. Galloway
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
I take points of order at the end of Question Time and after statements.

§ Mr. Bayley
I, too, should like to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He asked the Foreign Secretary about the statement made by Lord Owen on the "Walden" programme last weekend that the contact group plan would mean virtual independence for the Bosnian Serbs. I ask two very direct, brief questions: do the Government agree with Lord Owen's statement; and, if not, will they appoint a peace mediator who understands the Contact group plan?

§ Mr. Hogg
The position, which was reaffirmed in the Essen declaration, is that the Bosnian Serbs have to accept the Contact group plan—the map—and that must be the basis of the settlement.
The question that then arises is what should be the relationship between the federation—the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims on the one hand, and the Bosnian Serbs on the other? There must be a relationship between the two within the external frontiers of Bosnia. That is a matter for discussion and negotiation between the parties. I believe that there will be a very loose association between the two.
The question remains as to the relationship between the Bosnian Croats and Croatia, and the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the federation has already agreed that there should be confederal rights—whatever that means—between Bosnian Croats and Croatia, and parallel rights between Bosnian Serbs and Serbia.

§ Sir Michael Marshall
Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity of explaining the position on crimes against humanity in Bosnia and former Yugoslavia? Does he believe that what is happening in the United Nations represents useful progress and will the process have a deterrent effect?

§ Mr. Hogg
My hon. Friend will know that proceedings are currently afoot in Germany against one named alleged war criminal. Evidence is being gathered against other named criminals, but the problem is that they are not within the easy reach of the tribunal.

§ Mr. Robin Cook
Before putting my question, I must say that the Minister would command more respect in the House if he replied to the questions that are put to him by all hon. Members.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), the Minister said something different from the Foreign Secretary's statement last week. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred specifically to a confederal arrangement between the Bosnian Croats and Croatia and implied that in the current peace plan equal, parallel arrangements are available for Bosnian Serbs.
Is the Minister saying that the proposal in the current peace plan offers confederal rights to the Bosnian Serbs with Serbia? If so, where does that leave the future of the Muslim community in Bosnia?

§ Mr. Hogg
I used the words that I intended to use. The federation has agreed to confederal rights between the Bosnian Croats and Croatia. That phrase has not been used in respect of the relationship between the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia. There must be some relationship between the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia, and that has been agreed by the Bosnian Government.
921 The phrases "special rights" or "parallel rights" have been used to describe the relationship between Bosnian Serbs and Serbia, which is clearly different from "confederal rights". But it indicates a kind of relationship between Bosnian Serbs and Serbia that falls short of confederal rights. All of that must be negotiated within the external frontiers of Bosnia, as I have said already. The purpose of the negotiations is to preserve one entity— Bosnia.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if Secretary of State Perry's offer of American troops being committed to ground duties in Bosnia is taken up, it would be appropriate for members of UNPROFOR that have provided generously to the defence of that country to review their commitments? Would not that allow us to withdraw some of our troops?

§ Mr. Hogg
We are extremely grateful to the United States Government for what has been offered, but it is important to remind the House that what has been offered is the provision of troops within the context of NATO to assist the withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops, should that become necessary. I very much hope that it will be possible to keep UNPROFOR troops in Bosnia through the winter, because what they have been doing has been of enormous value and deserves the utmost praise.

§ Mr. Macdonald
Will the Minister address himself to the remarks made by Lord Owen last week, which he and the Foreign Secretary have refused to address up to now? Will he correct his reference to the confederal links between Croatia and Bosnia, because the link is not with the Bosnian Croats but with the whole of the Bosnian republic and all the peoples of Bosnia and Croatia? That is an important distinction to make.

§ Mr. Hogg
The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is right and I am grateful for his clarification. On the former part of his question, the nature of the relationship between the federation—if I may use that word for these purposes—and the Bosnian Serbs within the external frontiers of Bosnia will inevitably be a matter for negotiation. I suspect that the relationship between the federation and the Bosnian Serbs will be very loose, but it is impossible at this stage—after all, negotiations have not even begun—to determine what the outcome of negotiations will be. That being so, it seems to be idle to speculate about the outcome.

§ Lady Olga Maitland
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that President Milosevic in Belgrade is the key to peace in Bosnia? Does he accept that Milosevic has aided and abetted Karadzic in the gruesome war, but that only Milosevic can influence the Bosnian Serbs into accepting the peace plan?

§ Mr. Hogg
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the role of President Milosevic is central, and he is better placed than anybody to induce the Pale Serbs to accept the Contact group plan—the map—and to enter into the 922 negotiations to which I have referred. It is because of that that the Security Council has been willing to relax the effect of some of the sanctions.

Mr. John D. Taylor
Since Bosnia is clearly a failed entity that should never have been recognised as an independent sovereign united state, when will the Government extend to the Serbs who live there the right of self-determination?

§ Mr. Hogg
But that is to argue that existing frontiers can be disregarded and that international law can be flouted by armed aggression. If one were to follow what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, one would begin to see the entirety of the former Soviet Union, and probably much of central and eastern Europe, dissolve into conflict. That is not something that he or I want, and it is important to go on asserting that existing frontiers must be respected unless altered with the genuine consent of all relevant parties.