§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
9.54 pm§ Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)I had no idea, when I put my name into the ballot for an Adjournment debate, that the theme of the Government's policy in Rwanda would become so tragically relevant after the events of the past weekend in Kibeho camp. It was because I feared such an event that I put my name in. It was an event that could have been anticipated. I shall ask a great many questions during the debate. I realise that the Minister will not be able to answer them all, but I hope that—perhaps by letter afterwards—I will get a reply to the questions that I raise.
Let me deal with the events of the weekend. It will never be clear how many people were slaughtered, but it was clearly thousands. One can only deplore the attempt by the Government of Rwanda to minimise and disguise that death toll. The international community now has to demand that those responsible for the carnage are brought to trial as rapidly as possible. It is clear that the slaughter was conducted by the army of Rwanda and that the army officers responsible must be punished. The silence of the Vice-President of Rwanda, General Kagame, who is also the Defence Minister, is disturbing. He is also seen as the major power within the country.
I met General Kagame when he visited London a few months ago. Perhaps the Minister did as well. At that time, General Kagame was seeking the assistance of the international community in setting up a judicial system to bring the Hutu perpetrators of genocide to trial. He quite correctly said that, unless the people of Rwanda could see the perpetrators of genocide brought to justice within Rwanda, the country would never be able to come to terms with itself. At that time, he was talking about the Hutu killers, but he now has to ensure that the Tutsi perpetrators of the latest massacre are brought to justice. I understand fully the difficulties of the Government of Rwanda in dealing with armed militia within the camp, but the test of that Government will be how they deal with their own offenders.
Overwhelmingly, the blame for the situation in Rwanda must lie with the leaders of Rwanda itself, and they must shoulder that responsibility, but there is a wider responsibility in a world in which that desperately poor and overcrowded country is not helped to join in the prosperity and development that should be part of the lives of its people.
We must also face up to the fact that European colonialism, which used the tribes of Africa for its own selfish reasons, has left a legacy of infinitely worsened community relations. The legacy—in this case, of Belgium and France—is grim. Every involvement that they have with Rwanda and Burundi is tarnished, and there is a need for us to increase our leadership at the Security Council. I can understand why we argued at the beginning that it was not an area of our concern or a traditional sphere of influence for us, but unless some countries with unblemished hands take a lead, the situation will become worse.
I want to make it clear that I sought this debate not because of humanitarian aid. I do not wish to attack the Government for failing to supply aid, water, food or 956 shelter. That is clearly not true. The British contribution has been good. It was slow, but it has been good and of high quality. That is not the point of the debate. I am concerned not with the performance of the British Overseas Development Administration but with that of the Foreign Office. There is a major distinction. While talking about aid, I want to pay tribute, as I am sure that the Minister would, to the immense contribution made by our aid agencies, for the immensely skilled and courageous work that they are doing in bringing food, water and shelter to the victims of those horrors.
There seems to be an inability, because of lack of political will, for the United Nations, and that means overwhelmingly the permanent members of the Security Council, to take the actions that are necessary to avoid those catastrophes. Undoubtedly, the horrors of Rwanda could have been prevented or at least diminished. There are further horrors around the corner either in Rwanda or Burundi, of that I am convinced. Shall we act to stop those horrors?
It is interesting—that is a neutral word—that the Aid Commissioner in Brussels, Emma Bonino, is recommending with her colleagues the cutting off of non-humanitarian aid to Rwanda. In the papers this morning, the recommendation that was said to be emerging was that humanitarian aid would be cut. It is no better that humanitarian aid is not being cut. The implications of that recommendation—
§ It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
§ Mr. WorthingtonThe recommendation that there should be a cutting of non-humanitarian aid is simply calamitous. I hope that the Minister will clarify what is happening.
Non-humanitarian aid can be used for things such as setting up the judicial system, schools and clinics or remedying the appalling lack of infrastructure. Non-humanitarian aid is a sign of medium and long-term political will by the rest of the international community. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the British response to the EC Commission's recommendation will be hostile. I noted today in a press release put out by the noble Baroness Chalker the statement that the United Kingdom has fulfilled all its pledges to help Rwanda towards rehabilitation and reconstruction.
The United Kingdom and European Union would not be fulfilling their pledges towards rehabilitation and reconstruction were the recommendation of the EC Commission to be accepted. I strongly recommend to Commissioner Bonino and all her colleagues that she would be better occupied in finding out why there has been a lack of political commitment to solving the problems of Rwanda than in tampering with aid. I strongly suggest that she should look at the role of France and Belgium in that respect and find out what can be done to obtain a consistent European contribution to the solution of the problems of Rwanda.
It is transparently clear that the need to establish a judicial system is paramount, but only yesterday we had an announcement from New York about the appointment of 12 judges to start the work of the genocide trials. That is welcome, but there has also been talk about the need for 600 magistrates to tackle the problems of Rwanda.
957 The situation in Kigame prison is totally untenable. The prison was built to hold 2,000 people, but now has more than 8,000 people in it without anyone being charged or any dates in prospect for action. When we neglect that situation, we promote the sort of slaughter that we saw at the weekend. That is the sin of neglect.
Why is it that stimulators and perpetrators of genocide, such as the director of Radio Mille Collines and other prominent supporters of the previous Government, are allowed to live in luxury and walk the streets of other African countries such as Kenya and Cameroon? In February, the programme director of Radio Mille Collines gave an interview in Cameroon on French television. For 24 hours a day, that radio station repeatedly incited murders of Tutsis and drew up an endless list of wanted opponents. Why are such people allowed to wander free? One year after the genocide, not one single person among the politicians who masterminded it has been brought to justice.
What will the Government do to expedite the work of the genocide tribunal? Is it really realistic to ask the remarkable Judge Goldstone, whom I have met—his contribution to the development of South Africa has been astonishing—to supervise the genocide tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda? There is a lack of credibility about that.
On the issue of slowness of action, when the Hutu militias set themselves up in the camp to terrorise people, why was it not possible to stop them becoming established and preventing an orderly return to Rwanda? When more than 60 countries were asked to contribute forces to the policing of camps, why was the only offer from Zaire, whose forces, to put it mildly, are not known for their reliability? The reason why other troops were not offered was the chaos of the United Nations.
Concerns exist about the role of President Mobutu. In February, "Africa Confidential" reported that he accompanied the widow of the former President of Rwanda to China on an arms buying spree. Is that true? UN Security Council resolution 918 imposes an arms embargo in the region, but it is simply being ignored. Will the Government confirm that that is so? If the permanent five on the Security Council had made a commitment and given support, the situation could have been stabilised, and intimidation stopped. We now have an incomparably worse position because of the failure to take simple action to prevent military organisation in those camps. The military training camps are being fed by our aid.
I want to hear what the Government's policy is in Rwanda in the medium and long term, as against simply giving aid. We must face up to the scale of the disruption in central Africa. Perhaps 2 million recent Rwandan refugees are in neighbouring countries such as Zaire, Tanzania and Burundi. Imagine the tension among local people living next to camps of hundreds of thousands of people who receive guaranteed food when they have nothing. Those are desperately poor countries with their own problems. There is no way that they can cope without the help of the prosperous world. We cannot go on ignoring that. If we perpetuate that sin of neglect, it will cost us more and more.
958 A huge regional problem affects Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania and Zaire. Last year, those nations and the northern powers such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Germany agreed about the need for a regional conference to attempt to tackle those hideous problems, but what has happened? In November, our representative at the UN Security Council, Mr. Gomersall, said that the proposed regional conference could play an important role, and that he hoped that all concerned would work to ensure that it was held as soon as possible. Six months later, I am not aware of any progress being made towards the holding of that conference.
We need real commitment to solve Rwanda's problems. It was gratifying that, in January, the donors pledged nearly $600 million, but what has happened to those pledges? What money have we and others committed and actually delivered? The UN underperforms because we allow it to do so and because of our lack of commitment.
That takes me back to the initial response to the Rwandan debacle. I remember the sense of shame when, following the death of Belgium paratroopers, UNAMIR—the United Nations Mission in Rwanda—forces were reduced to 270. Following the genocide, it was decided to increase forces to 5,000, but it took month after month after month for them to get there.
In November, Oxfam was begging for the commitment of the 5,000 troops promised. They were desperately needed, but a lack of political will existed among the UN's permanent members, including Britain. The permanent five ruled out sending their own troops; I do not necessarily quarrel with that. However, when the African nations offered their forces, none of the permanent five was willing to provide them with the logistical support and equipment that they needed to get there and to be established there. By then, however, there were already 20,000 militia in the camps, who were basically running them.
I should like the Government to explain their attitude to the deployment of our forces in Rwanda. We took the attitude to start with that we should not put in our own forces. Mysteriously, a group of British soldiers, engineers I believe, then went to Rwanda on a three-month contract. Their work was superb. They were put there because commercial interests had not turned up; the firm engaged to do the logistical support was not yet ready. The troops were then withdrawn. In Rwanda, there is a desperate need for buildings at the prison, for schools and for offices. A contingent of engineers could transform large parts of Kigali quite quickly, but we seem unwilling to send such people. I should like the Government to explain their medium and long-term contribution to Rwanda and their position—not what their aid is.
Will the Minister explain Britain's diplomatic contribution? I gather from a press release today from the Minister for Overseas Development that there has been a decision that we shall reinforce our diplomatic presence in Kigali and in Bujumbura. I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. It seems strange that we should have had a short-term contract for a chargé d'affaires in Kigali which runs out at the end of April and that we should then decide to have another extension of the contract. That is short-termism when Rwanda's problems are clearly long term; it sends exactly the wrong kind of message and increases the insecurity there.
959 I am conscious that I have asked the Minister many questions about the situation in Rwanda. It is a rare privilege to have 20 minutes of the Minister's time in which to ask questions on behalf of millions of people in Britain who are utterly puzzled about Britain's stance on African disasters such as the one in Rwanda. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry)The hon. Gentleman must be thanked for his perspicacity in applying for this debate. It is a timely opportunity for me to explain what we have been, are and will be doing to help to alleviate the pain and suffering of Rwanda. Sometimes it seems as if the horrors of Rwanda have never been off our television screens. It is, in fact, just over a year since the deaths of the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi at Kigali airport which sparked the massacres, the killings and the genocide that followed. It is important always to remember that every person killed is an individual with a name and a family—part of God's creation.
Last weekend saw a tragic reminder of those events, with the deaths in the camps for the internally displaced in south-west Rwanda. There is still some confusion over the exact cause of these events. As The Times stated on Monday:
Britain's reaction to the weekend's massacre … has been a measured one. Baroness Chalker … was correct to emphasise the wider context of events and the fact that Kibeho had been in the grip of Hutu extremists".We had little experience or involvement in Rwanda before April 1994. It was a Belgian colony prior to independence in 1962. Since last April, the United Kingdom has made an important and valued contribution to international efforts to alleviate the serious humanitarian problems among the refugees in Zaire, Burundi and Tanzania as well as those displaced within Rwanda itself.We were among the first into Mwanza in Tanzania providing a vital air bridge into Rwanda, among the first into Goma with water facilities and airport handling services to help get vital supplies moving, and among the first in Rwanda itself as soon as Kigali airport reopened to help relief to get to the people of Rwanda. There was nothing slow about the reaction of the United Kingdom. It was always, throughout this process, in the forefront, seeking to help.
Six hundred and fifty British Army peacekeepers spent three valued months last year with the UN peacekeeping forces and were widely and justly praised for their work in Rwanda, their professionalism in rebuilding damaged infrastructure and for ensuring the delivery of vitally needed emergency and medical assistance. Before anyone even considers criticising the UK peacekeeping commitment to the United Nations, it is perhaps worth recalling that, at this very moment, UK peacekeepers are serving with UN forces throughout the world. Indeed, there are more UK peacekeepers committed to the UN than there are from practically any other country.
We have committed more than £90 million in just over 12 months towards alleviating the terrible human costs of the Rwanda crises. In people and in money, we have 960 made, and continue to make, a full contribution to the international effort, which was fairly acknowledged by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who observed:
Britain has already done much, and more than most".Humanitarian aid and help to the people of Rwanda must continue. The international community, with Britain continuing to play a full part, will provide help for those refugees in need, wherever they may be.Following last weekend's tragedy, we have been in constant touch with our non-governmental organisation partners—Save the Children, Feed the Children and others which are doing vital work on the ground. We have made it clear that we shall continue to provide the money so that they may continue their life-saving activities. Baroness Chalker and I will meet British NGOs tomorrow to discuss that further.
Andy Bearpark, the head of the ODA's emergency aid department, will visit Rwanda next week with Edward Clay, our high commissioner in Kampala, who is also accredited as ambassador in Kigali. They will assess the needs at first hand, and they will have clear messages to deliver to the Rwandan Government from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We also plan to reinforce our diplomatic presence in Rwanda and Burundi to ensure that our views are conveyed to best effect.
Since the start of this year, the emphasis has rightly been on helping the new multi-party and broad-based Government in Kigali to create conditions conducive to the safe return of refugees to their homes in Rwanda. That is not an easy task. Their country was devastated; the infrastructure severely damaged; and human and physical resources decimated. In January, the international community, including Britain, expressed its support for Rwandan rehabilitation plans at a pledging conference held in Geneva. Almost $580 million was pledged for an immediate one-year programme.
British assistance was specifically offered as quick disbursing aid to help meet immediate needs. The Rwandan Government, including the Prime Minister and the Vice-President during their visits to London, have expressed their appreciation for our contribution. We met in full what we pledged at that conference.
Unfortunately, the Rwandan Government, under pressure to rebuild, have shown frustration at what they see as the international community's slowness in bringing those guilty of genocide to trial. In their view, the international community continues to feed those responsible for the genocide in the refugee camps just beyond their borders, while doing little to separate the former Rwandan army and militia. We cannot and do not condone their decision to close their border with Zaire, which prevents humanitarian assistance getting to the innocent, the young and the infirm. We condemn the indiscriminate firing into crowds of stampeding and frightened people at Kibeho.
But we understand the frustrations of the Rwandan Government. We share their desire to deal with the perpetrators of genocide and to sort out the innocent from the guilty and the armed militia within their borders. That is why we were in the forefront of support for United Nations Security Council resolutions establishing an international war crimes tribunal for Rwanda and calling for all countries to co-operate in tracking down and bringing to justice those implicated in genocide. We have 961 provided money and material support to the international tribunal's work, and offered help to rebuild the shattered judicial system in Rwanda.
The Rwandan Government know our commitment and our concern, and they must avoid intemperate action. The reconstruction programme has only just begun. It will take time. Precipitate and impatient military action will lose them international good will. It risks making them, in the eyes of the world, no better than their predecessors.
We welcome the apology made on Monday to all the people of Rwanda by the Prime Minister of Rwanda. We hope that level-headed members within the coalition Government, itself comprising more Hutus than Tutsis even now, will ensure that progress is resumed. We hope that they will control any who may be intent on vengeful actions, which will get them nowhere.
In Rwanda the need is to continue to press ahead with the agreed international strategy for reconciliation, including the provision of security in the refugee camps outside Rwanda, the rehabilitation of the Rwandan infrastructure, support for the Rwandan judiciary and consolidating the work of the war crimes tribunal, for which Britain has pledged £200,000, part of which will be used to second three British police officers early next month. The United Nations General Assembly will elect the tribunal's judges next week.
§ Mr. WorthingtonI hope that, among the interesting things that the Minister is saying, he will comment on what the European Commission is reported to have done today, in recommending the suspension of much non-humanitarian aid. Does he oppose or support that move? It seems to me to send exactly the wrong message.
§ Mr. BaldryI have every intention of dealing with that point. I hope that, by the time I finish speaking, I shall have responded reasonably comprehensively to all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, including that one, which is of course important.
We work to ensure that the arms embargo is effective and that no weapons get through to the extremists in the camps. We expect the Government of Rwanda to address the concerns and fears of those innocent refugees in the camps outside Rwanda—fears that will have been widened by the events last weekend. The Government of Rwanda must continue to work to create conditions conducive to the secure return of refugees, and must resolve urgently the problems over land and property tenure.
The Government there also have to address the problems of the expanding prison population. It is imperative that the international community continue to help them to strengthen the legal process. The Rwandans also need to free women, children, elderly people and those against whom their case may be slight. The consequence of failure to bring about effective national reconciliation will be further civil unrest and loss of life within Rwanda.
We continue to work with and within the international community to find lasting solutions to the problems in Rwanda. But the international community cannot dictate, cannot impose solutions. We can help. We can provide resources and expertise. We can train and advise. We can monitor. There is too great a readiness on the part of some 962 commentators simply to blame "the west" or "the international community". Rwanda is first and foremost the responsibility of the people of Rwanda.
The regional Governments of the countries that border Rwanda—Zaire, Tanzania, Uganda and Burundi—which are already bearing the impact of the huge number of refugees seeking sanctuary within their borders, also have an important part to play. We shall encourage those regional leaders to play a constructive role. We believe that the Organisation of African Unity and democratic African leaders can have a positive influence on the outcome of what are fundamentally African problems. They have a clear interest in helping to bring about greater regional stability and security.
Against that background, and with the experience of conflict in Rwanda and elsewhere in Africa in mind, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary launched his initiative on conflict prevention and peacekeeping in Africa at last year's United Nations General Assembly. It is designed to help Africans to help themselves, by setting up a system of support structures, running from early warning and preventive action through to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions on the ground, should preventive diplomacy fail.
The proposals contain three elements: the development of an early warning system to give notice of impending crises; an institutional framework for preventive diplomacy; and the enhancement of African peacekeeping capabilities through, for example, the establishment of UN peacekeeping skills centres and UN logistics bases in Africa.
We are already putting some of those ideas into action, through, for example, providing specialised training for African troops about to deploy on UN peacekeeping missions. We will be doing more this year to develop the practical capabilities of African peacekeepers through training and exchange.
Our aim is to encourage Africans themselves to take the lead, with the international community providing support. Africans have already shown a determination to develop capacity in conflict resolution and peacekeeping with the creation of the OAU's conflict resolution mechanism. We must support and enhance these measures to ensure that in future Africans are better equipped to respond appropriately to problems on their continent.
Whenever a tragedy such as this occurs, there is a tendency to blame the UN. Such a rush to judgment is rarely justified. The UN is only the sum of its parts—the member states—and its failings are, more often than not, their failings. But one must also take into account the burden that the UN has had to carry in the past five years, with an exponential demand in not only the number but the complexity of the problems that it now has to deal with.
The very intractability of many of these problems, most of them within states rather than between them, has underlined the need for more emphasis on preventing them from reaching boiling point. The UN has recognised this need. In his 1992 report "An Agenda For Peace", the Secretary-General identified the need for the UN to develop its capacity to spot and head off crises before they developed. Since then, the UN's preventive diplomacy capacities have been built up.
963 We have all been deeply saddened by the news of the tragic events at Kibeho in recent days. They represent a setback to the process of reconstruction and national reconciliation to which we are all committed. They come in the wake of increasing concerns about the deterioration of the situation inside Rwanda and in the region more generally.
The position of the European Union is clear. Yesterday, the presidency, on behalf of the European Union, issued a clear statement. It said:
The European Union utterly condemns the violence which led to several thousand civilian deaths in the Kibeho camp during Rwandan army operations to close down the camp on 22 April. The Union urges the Rwandan authorities to launch an inquiry without delay in order to identify those responsible for the massacre and to take all the necessary sanctions speedily.Events of this gravity can only make it more difficult for refugees and displaced persons to return, this being an essential prerequisite for national reconciliation and a lasting solution to the Rwandan problem.The European Union would point out that its development aid for Rwanda is conditional on respect for human rights and progress towards national reconciliation.It emphasizes that international aid to the local population must be allowed to proceed unhindered. It therefore calls on the Rwandan authorities to make it easier for the international and non-governmental organizations to carry out their task of relieving suffering.So we are all agreed on the need for humanitarian aid. The Commission's proposal today, which is of course subject to consultation with member states, including 964 Britain, appears to cover longer-term development assistance. Obviously, we will study that, but our position on the need for rehabilitation is clear. It is vital that it proceeds to ensure the stability of Rwanda.We must not allow the latest events to derail the process to promote peace and reconciliation. We have fulfilled all our pledges to help Rwanda towards rehabilitation and reconstruction, and we shall be working with our partners in the international donor community to ensure that others do so, too. We need to continue to work with the Rwandan Government to remind them of their own responsibilities to work towards the achievement of lasting peace and ensure that they send the right signals to the innocent Hutu refugees that they may return home safely.
As I say, to that end, we shall be reinforcing our diplomatic presence in Kigali. We shall also continue to support the NGOs, many of them British, and UN agencies which are providing life-saving humanitarian assistance throughout the region, particularly for those internally displaced people currently on the move within Rwanda. We will continue to provide funds to support their programme.
In short, we will do all that we can to support the international effort to reduce suffering in Rwanda and to help bring that troubled country to a longer and more peaceful future.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.