Bosnia (Hansard, 9 July 1996)

§ 2. Mr. Campbell-Savours
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit Bosnia to discuss the deployment of British forces. [34898]

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo)
I shall be visiting British forces in Bosnia in September.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
Why is it not part of IFOR's mandate to apprehend war criminals and to bring them to the tribunal in the Hague? Why cannot changes be made to secure that objective in IFOR's mandate—or are we, as usual, simply ducking the issue?

§ Mr. Portillo
The primary role of the implementation force is the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement and, in particular, the separation of forces, the returning of forces to barracks and getting the weapons of the warring factions into compounds. The forces will hand over to justice those indicted war criminals with whom they come into contact, but it is not a part of their primary objective to conduct a manhunt for the indicted war criminals. Those are matters for the international tribunal that is conducting the indictment, and it will issue the warrants for the arrest of the indicted war criminals.

§ Mr. Colvin
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is in Britain's national interest to continue to play our part in the United Nations and NATO operations in Bosnia? Will he also confirm that, if the reported proposed cuts in the defence budget of some £400 million proceed, we shall not be able to do so? Is he aware of the vast support among Conservative Members—also, I dare say, from a number of Opposition Members—for the defence budget 159 to be not only maintained at its present level of 2.8 per cent. of gross domestic product, but restored to last year's level of 3 per cent?

§ Mr. Portillo
It is extremely important to retain strong national defences and to make the appropriate commitment to our defence budget. We have given undertakings to provide stability following a period of great change that our forces undertook with great distinction. My hon. Friend must not become carried away with what he reads in the newspapers.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell
As the full horror of the consequences of the fall of Srebrenica is revealed to us, is it not offensive that Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic continue to be at liberty? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the question whether or not they should be taken into custody is one of timing and not principle? Does he accept that there is a connection between that and an early decision on whether there should be a follow-on force to the implementation force as a demonstration of our commitment to ensure that all who are guilty of war crimes will ultimately be brought to justice?

§ Mr. Portillo
I agree that the continued liberty of those two men is offensive, and there can be no ultimate solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina unless they are brought to justice. I certainly agree that they will, in time, be brought to justice and there is no issue of principle whatsoever in the matter. I am not so sure that I agree that a decision about a follow-on force needs to be taken yet, and a little patience on that question is appropriate. Whatever it may decide on that issue, the international community is committed to the Dayton peace agreement and to a strategy to make sure that the agreement is successful in the long term.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
If my right hon. Friend believes—as he says he does—that those two men should be brought to justice, does he agree that it makes a mockery of the whole process that, although IFOR has a large force in Bosnia, they remain at large? Should they not be taken to The Hague and put on trial? Would that not do more than any other single factor to bring this appalling and terrible tragedy to a more satisfactory conclusion?

§ Mr. Portillo
That is a judgment for the international community. It is a difficult one, and there are other factors. The international community's top priority at the moment in Bosnia is the holding of free and fair elections to produce a Government that is democratic and representative of the wishes of the people. My hon. Friend must remember that many other hard-liners stand behind Karadzic and Mladic, and the removal of those individuals will not necessarily deal with the whole problem. My hon. Friend must bear those factors in mind when he considers the way in which the international community addresses the problems.

§ Dr. Reid
Whatever reservations on specific issues have been raised, I am sure that the whole House agrees that our troops and IFOR have played a vital role in the transition from war to peace. Surely it is now right to give serious consideration to a follow-on force. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made it plain that the Opposition believe that British troops should play some part in that force. Does the Secretary of State 160 agree that it is important that that force should be composed of significant numbers of all our allies? Will he therefore illustrate to the House for operational and political reasons that he will urge all our allies to play a part in that force when and if it is established?

§ Mr. Portillo
I have argued not that it is too early to consider the matter but that it is too early to reach conclusions or make announcements about them. If there were to be a follow-on force, it would be essential that it should be a NATO force, that the NATO allies should be involved—and involved in the same way as each other. If there were to be ground forces, they would have to come from all the nations. The hon. Gentleman is pushing against an open door. It is understood that, whatever NATO decides to do in Bosnia, NATO will do together.