Kosovo

HC Deb 18 January 1999 vol 323 cc565-78 3.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on recent tragic events in Kosovo.

On Saturday we received reports of a massacre at Racak, south of Pristina. General Drewienkiewicz, the leader of the British team in the Kosovo verification mission, visited the site on Saturday, and I spoke to him that afternoon. General Drewienkiewicz reported that the bodies he saw had mostly been shot in the head or neck in what looked like an execution. Those who had been killed appeared to be of all ages, including grey-haired old men. None of the bodies he saw were wearing uniform. He saw no evidence of fighting, such as spent shell cases.

It is simply not credible that those who were killed were the casualties of a military conflict. The eye-witness accounts of international observers make it only too clear that they were murdered. In any common-sense understanding of the term, this was a war crime. The past decade of ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia is all too full of such atrocities. Nevertheless, however hardened we are by familiarity to such scenes, every hon. Member must have been shocked and repelled by the cold and calculated character of this massacre. Several thousand civilians have since been reported to have fled the area. We once again face a potential humanitarian crisis as the result of Serb repression within Kosovo.

Yesterday I spoke with the German, French and Italian Foreign Ministers. I obtained their agreement that our four ambassadors in Belgrade should formally lodge a joint demarche demanding that the officers of the army and police units in Racak last Friday must immediately be removed from duty while these murders are investigated. We also insisted that the International War Crimes Tribunal must be allowed to carry out an investigation in Kosovo.

Last Wednesday I visited the tribunal in The Hague and met Judge Arbour, the chief prosecutor. Both she and Judge MacDonald, the president of the tribunal, expressed warm appreciation of the strong support that the Government have provided to the tribunal in terms of funds, personnel and political commitment. At the time, I repeated our support for the demand of the tribunal for access to Kosovo. Earlier this afternoon, Judge Arbour attempted to cross the border into Kosovo, but was turned back by Serb border forces. Later today, the Security Council will meet in emergency session to consider the events in Kosovo. The British representative will demand that the Security Council makes clear its support for the tribunal—which was set up on the authority of the United Nations—and insists that the tribunal must be allowed access to Kosovo.

If we are to establish peace and stability in Kosovo, it is vital that we escape from the relentless cycle of ethnic atrocity followed by reprisal. Those individuals who are responsible for such murders must personally be brought to justice. That would be the most fitting response to this atrocity, but it would also send a strong message to all officers serving in Kosovo that they will be held to account for any offence that they commit against humanitarian law.

I salute the courage and the commitment of the members of the Kosovo verification mission. They operate in circumstances of real risk, as was demonstrated when a British member of the team was shot at and injured last week. I am pleased to tell the House that he is making a good recovery.

The Kosovo verification mission has made a real contribution to stability in Kosovo, in particular by brokering local ceasefires and negotiating refugee returns. The public attacks on it in Belgrade this weekend seem to forget that only last week the verification mission was instrumental in securing the release of eight Serb hostages. However, the verification mission can succeed only on the basis of the co-operation to which President Milosevic committed Belgrade in the Holbrooke package. We therefore deplore the fact that yesterday Serb security forces entered Racak against representations by the verification mission, and opened fire on the village despite the presence in it of verifiers. We have already protested in Belgrade about that event, and tomorrow Generals Clark and Naumann will be demanding full co-operation with the verification mission.

Those who led the massacre in Racak must bear full responsibility for their actions. Nevertheless, all those who have contributed to the political stalemate in Kosovo must bear their share of responsibility for creating the climate in which the ceasefire has crumbled. The Holbrooke package at the end of last year provided Kosovo with the prospect of real autonomy, including control of its local police force and free and fair elections supervised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It offered Serbia the opportunity to withdraw from an armed conflict that undermines its economy and isolates it in the world.

A detailed paper has since been produced by the special representatives of the United States and the European Union. It proposes a three-year period in which Kosovo can develop its own autonomous assembly and democratic local communes. That interim period would be followed by a review of the final status of Kosovo. I deeply regret that, three months further on, meaningful talks on that paper have not begun. The fault for that lies on both sides. Despite intensive pressure and repeated mediation, it still has not been possible to get agreement even on the composition of the Kosovo negotiating team. The main obstacle has been the refusal of the Kosovo Liberation Army to take part in any team that includes Dr. Rugova, the elected leader of the Kosovo Albanians.

Over the weekend, I discussed with Madeleine Albright and other colleagues within the Contact Group how we can restore momentum to the political process. We are proposing an early meeting of the Contact Group at the level of political directors, which the United Kingdom will chair.

We have also agreed on the key messages to both sides in this conflict. President Milosevic must be clear that military action last autumn was suspended only because of his agreement to cease fire, to withdraw part of his military units in Kosovo, and to return the rest to barracks. The North Atlantic Council met yesterday and agreed that General Clark and General Naumann, NATO's two most senior generals, should visit Belgrade with a clear message that President Milosevic must comply in full with the agreements he made.

On its part, the Kosovo Liberation Army has committed more breaches of the ceasefire, and until this weekend was responsible for more deaths than the security forces. It must stop undermining the ceasefire and blocking political dialogue. Neighbouring countries, in particular Albania, must be more resolute in halting the flow of weapons, which fuels the conflict.

Neither side can win this war. The Kosovo Liberation Army cannot defeat the Yugoslav Army, and instead of liberating the people of Kosovo can only prolong their suffering. Belgrade cannot end the conflict by atrocities such as we saw this weekend, which will only drive more young men into the ranks of the KLA and swell the ranks of those who demand independence.

The only way in which stability can be restored in Kosovo is through political dialogue. I urge both sides now to get down to meaningful negotiations on the basis of the Contact Group proposals. That is the best way in which the Kosovo Albanians can honour those who died in this appalling massacre, and in which Belgrade can show real regret at the actions of its security forces. That is also the only way in which we will prevent such atrocities recurring.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The whole House will share the shock and outrage that he expressed at the appalling massacre that took place at Racak on Friday, and will join in his condemnation. It was impossible to witness those scenes on television without being both deeply moved and deeply angered.

We also share the Foreign Secretary's desire for the International War Crimes Tribunal to be allowed to investigate this war crime and to bring to justice those responsible. Can he tell us a little more about how he proposes to achieve that objective? In November, the Minister of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) that he would ensure that the United Nations Security Council would take further action to implement resolution 1207. What actions have been taken, and what action is now proposed, to ensure full compliance with that resolution? Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the economic sanctions agreed by the Contact Group last year are still in place? Is there any prospect of persuading other countries, including Russia, to join in imposing them?

I pay tribute, as did the Foreign Secretary, to the courage and commitment of the OSCE verification force. Can he comment on reports that, on Saturday, the OSCE assured the villagers of Racak that its teams would stay in order to deter the Serbs from attacking the survivors of the massacre, but that they were subsequently forced to leave by Serbian forces?

Was it not clear even before this activity that the October agreement had been breached? The violence had not ended, the military and interior police had not been withdrawn, full protection for civilians had not been secured and moves towards democratic autonomy had not taken place. What is the status of the agreement now, and what more can the Foreign Secretary tell us about the future of the OSCE representatives? How is their safety to be secured?

In October, the Foreign Secretary gave assurances that the verification force would be backed by NATO aircraft, and that together they would be able to monitor every movement of the security forces. Has that surveillance been carried out? Today's statement from NATO says that the activation orders for air operations remain in place. In October, the Foreign Secretary said: The only way to ensure that Milosevic keeps his promises is to keep the credible threat of force hanging over him. In November, he said: We will react to any substantial breach of the ceasefire by Belgrade by reactivating the order to our military commanders to commence military action. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where matters stand now? Has that threat been lifted, or is it still in place? If it is still in place, what prospect is there of its being implemented?

Mr. Cook

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for endorsing the concern that is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House about this terrible atrocity. He is right: we have experienced great difficulty in securing compliance from both sides with the Holbrooke package. The Kosovo Liberation Army has repeatedly broken the ceasefire, and, last month, seized a number of Serb hostages. On the other side, we have achieved an outcome that is unsatisfactory from our point of view, in that there are far more Serb military units out of barracks than there should be. The agreement provides for three companies to be out of barracks in Kosovo; at the last count, there were 12.

We maintain exactly the surveillance that I promised the House last November—although, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, the extent to which NATO aircraft can fly and observe depends in part on the weather and whether it is possible to observe what is happening on the ground. The Kosovo verification mission has given us instant, rapid, accurate information about the situation on the ground. It took us several months to discover the full details of the tragedy at Srebrenica, but within 12 hours we were able to establish the facts of what had happened at Racak. That has greatly helped us to produce a swift and robust international response. We will, of course, continue to monitor the safety of those verifiers—we have a particular duty to the British members of the verifier teams—to ensure that their safety is not put at unacceptable risk.

What happened at Racak yesterday is that verifiers were deployed. They acted properly and reasonably on the assurances that they had been given by Belgrade that Belgrade would co-operate with them in assuring the villagers that they would stay. I regret to inform the House that the local commanders flagrantly refused to co-operate, refused the representations by General Drewienkiewicz that they should not enter the village in force, proceeded to do so and then proceeded to shell the village. In those circumstances, I believe that General Drewienkiewicz was entirely correct to order the verifiers to leave. The fault lies with Belgrade for its failure to comply and to co-operate with the verification mission. That will be a central part of the discussions that Generals Clark and Naumann will have tomorrow in Belgrade.

Finally, I repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and to President Milosevic—that the actiration order or the actord remains in being. The outcome of the decision in November is that it will require one political decision by the North Atlantic Council to trigger that actord. In the meantime, it remains in being and the planes remain on 96 hours' notice.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

The activation of the NATO bombing is unlikely to make any serious contribution to a solution because no military solution will do that. Is there not the prospect, alas, of even further atrocities from both sides? Expressions of horror, however justified, and demands that something must be done do not amount to a strategy.

If, as my right hon. Friend has said, the strategy is to ensure the autonomy of the province within Serbia, that will surely imply pressure on both sides to the conflict. Is he prepared to commit, with our allies, the necessary personnel and pressure on both sides to ensure that?

Mr. Cook

I can assure my hon. Friend that pressure has been applied to both sides throughout. Part of the complexity, though, of applying pressure to the Kosovo Albanian side is that there are different perspectives from the elected leadership of the Kosovo Albanians around Dr. Rugova and from members of the KLA, who do not regard Dr. Rugova as someone from whom they will accept leadership or as a representative of their people. That makes it difficult to build a meaningful negotiating team from the Kosovar Albanian side.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point: any military action needs to be tied to a clear political settlement and a strategy to achieve that political settlement. A political settlement is on offer. It would enable Belgrade to withdraw from the conflict without further cost, loss of life or continued isolation in the world community. It would also enable the Kosovar Albanians themselves to proceed to govern their own affairs, including their internal security.

That is a prize for both sides. It is deeply frustrating for the international community that, despite vigorous pressure on both sides, we have yet to secure a single negotiating session between teams representing both of them.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

The atrocity is appalling, even by the standards that we have come to expect in the Balkans.

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm reports that there is continuing military action against the village of Racak by tanks and artillery of the Belgrade Government? If that is so, is it not a clear breach of the Geneva convention?

Does not the refusal of entry to the prosecutor simply pile provocation on outrage? Does the Foreign Secretary share the view that the continuing failure to allow access would rightly be seen as complicity by the Belgrade Government in the massacre and would undermine any moral authority that Belgrade might have to govern Kosovo?

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that, although NATO will not become the air force of the KLA, all of NATO's assets are available to protect the innocent citizens of Kosovo if they are subjected to deliberate aggression by the Serbian Government, and that United Kingdom forces are ready to play their part?

Mr. Cook

First, I entirely endorse the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments on the appalling character of the atrocity. I have heard of reports of military action today not around Racak itself, but around the neighbouring villages. I am not currently in a position entirely to confirm those reports, but I have to warn the House that they sound plausible. Regardless, we already know that there were vigorous actions by the Serb security forces on Friday and again—despite representations from the Kosovo verification mission—on Sunday. Therefore, already actions have twice occurred that are wholly unacceptable and are plainly in breach of the agreements that President Milosevic gave both to NATO and to the OSCE.

British forces are already playing a part in making those agreements a reality. We contribute aircraft to the air verification mission and the second largest national ground contingent to the Kosovo verification mission. General Drewienkiewicz is the chief of operations there, and our people are playing a key part in ensuring that the operation is successfully mounted. We also make a major contribution to the extraction force organised among European countries across the border in Macedonia, should we have to get the verifiers out.

In all those regards, Britain is playing a major part. We stand ready, of course, to consider what may be sensible in the future. However, any further military commitment in Kosovo must clearly depend on a political settlement between the two main parties. We cannot commit additional resources without knowing that both sides are committed to an outcome.

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

As my right hon. Friend said, in all the time that we have been talking and using diplomatic methods, we have achieved very little. The peace talks have not yet even started, and I doubt that they will start. There would be very little agreement between the two sides, as there is very little agreement between them on anything. We have been patient long enough. Sooner or later, troops will have to go in. In my view, it should be sooner rather than later.

Mr. Cook

The position that the Government took—with much support in the House—was that, in the right circumstances, we would be willing to consider ground troops as part of the package that was brokered last autumn. Other countries within NATO said publicly that they were not prepared to make such a commitment. I do not think that the House would expect us to commit British troops in isolation from action by our major allies.

Currently, after the experience of the past three months—and as I just said to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—I should be very hesitant about committing ground troops in Kosovo unless there was a clear commitment by both sides to a political track. If we were to commit forces in the current situation, there is a danger that we would end up being the people keeping apart two sides, both of which seem intent on carrying out war and undermining the ceasefire. Those are not circumstances in which peacekeeping can operate. We shall first have to see some evidence of good will, good faith and a strong commitment to a political negotiation.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) studies with care the detailed paper prepared by the Contact Group, she will note that it contains much common ground for both sides. I commend Christopher Hill on the way in which he has patiently taken account of the views of both sides. Most of the argument rests on what will happen after the three-year interim period. I tell both sides, particularly the Kosovar side: for heaven's sake, let us not make what happens three years from now prevent us from getting on with seizing agreement that can secure stability in the short term and lead to the basis for peace in the long term.

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that perhaps the time has come—as it did earlier, in the Bosnia conflict—when we have a difficult decision to make, which is either we stay all the way out or we get all the way in? We either say to ourselves, "That is a far away country of which we know little and care less—let them kill each other to the last drop of blood", or, with the French and our other allies, seriously prepare an active intervention force.

Mr. Cook

No one could possibly accuse the Government of treating Kosovo as a far away country of which we know little; on the contrary, we are more committed than any other European country. Kosovo is part of the European continent. Europe itself cannot have any pride or any rest while there is such instability and such atrocity immediately over the borders of the European Union.

However, I advise the hon. Gentleman not to be too glib in demanding an expeditionary force. What is the expeditionary force to do? Is it supposed to take on the KLA as well as the Serb security forces? In the present circumstances, it would have to be prepared to do that. The only casualty that the verification mission has sustained so far was from a shot by the KLA. We would have to consider with great care the commitments that we had from both sides and the political process that we were seeking to support by our presence on the ground.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the balanced way in which he presented the background against which the hideous massacre occurred. I ask him to resist those who believe that there is an easy way out through the invasion of Serbia by Britain—the United States would not send troops. There is no provision which says that Britain, the European Union or NATO is the policeman of the world. Hideous atrocities occur in many countries: there is injustice to Palestinians and to Kurds; there are injustices all over the world. Success will come through negotiated settlements. I detected from his answer that my right hon. Friend believes that that might form the basis of a durable solution.

Mr. Cook

1 entirely agree that there are no easy answers. If there were, we should be making rapid progress to implement them. I also agree that it is important to focus on getting momentum behind the political track and trying to achieve agreement between both sides, but I am conscious that only the credible threat of military force, if necessary, is likely to engage both sides in dialogue. We need to get that balance right.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

Will the right hon. Gentleman use as support the resolution that was passed in Vienna on Friday by the 55 nations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe? It was jointly sponsored by the Russians and the Americans and called on all parties in Kosovo to co-operate with the International War Crimes Tribunal to investigate possible crimes against humanity. It says: Those who refuse to co-operate with international efforts should face consequences and be held accountable for their acts. It goes on: We call upon the leadership of the OSCE … to take appropriate measures to provide protection and security for mission personnel. The Russians were even willing to add: One of these measures is the extraction force deployed in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. There was unanimous agreement that the whole of Europe should act positively to bring pressure to bear on Serbia. Even the French agreed.

Mr. Cook

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. The OSCE can take some satisfaction from the way in which it has risen to this difficult and complex task. I pay particular tribute to my opposite numbers, the Foreign Ministers of Poland and Norway, who have presided over the OSCE during this period. I should like to reinforce strongly one point that the right hon. Gentleman made: individuals have to be held to account for their responsibility for the crimes that they commit. We have to escape from the idea that because the victims belong to a different ethnic group such actions are not crimes and their perpetrators will be immune from prosecution. The only way to escape from that vicious cycle is to make it clear that we shall hold individually responsible those who commit war crimes. All those serving in Kosovo are on notice that they will be held individually to account for their actions.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Is it not clear that, as in Bosnia, the Serbians involved will not hesitate to commit atrocities—as over the weekend—against civilians, quite regardless of international protests and the International War Crimes Tribunal? Has not the time come to stop giving warnings to Belgrade and instead to act along military lines and bomb Serbian military installations? I ask my right hon. Friend a question that is bound to be asked by Muslims in Europe and elsewhere—are the lives of Muslims worth less than those of other people?

Mr. Cook

I would certainly rebut totally any suggestion that we hold the lives of Kosovar Albanians or Muslims any more lightly than the lives of anyone else. The purpose of my statement today was to underline the enormous gravity that we attach to this terrible atrocity. I sense from the House that that sense of shock and revulsion at what has happened is shared by everybody within the House. As I have said, the actord remains in place, and it requires only one political decision to trigger it. Generals Clark and Naumann will be spelling that out to President Milosevic tomorrow, when they demand full compliance.

I repeat that it is vital that we find and bring to justice the individuals who carried out this war crime. Bombing other Serb installations would not be the appropriate or right way of getting hold of those who committed this crime. Belgrade has an opportunity to distance itself from the crime by co-operating and bringing to justice those who committed it. If they refuse to do so tomorrow, they will become complicit in the crime.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)

I, too, express my admiration for the astonishing bravery of the verification force, which is carrying out an extremely difficult task under hazardous conditions. May I warn the Foreign Secretary that as the weather improves, so the fighting will intensify—as it always does in the Balkans—that substantial arms are flowing to the KLA and that the Serbs have no intention of backing down? Is it not clear, therefore, that we should now consider with our partners and colleagues whether the verifiers should be armed to look after themselves in self-defence? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Generals Clark and Naumann will not be putting forward sanctions against the Serbs tomorrow that they will not willingly undertake when the circumstances require it?

Mr. Cook

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that anything referred to tomorrow carries with it the authority of the North Atlantic Council and the commitment to see it through. I endorse and second the hon. Gentleman's praise for the courage of the verification mission. It takes an enormous commitment to go unarmed, and in lightly clad vehicles, into such hazardous situations.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the danger of tension rising as the weather improves. That is precisely why, back in November, we were anxious to make as rapid progress as possible on the political track so that, by the time the spring thaws came round, we could have changed the political facts on the ground. That is exactly why I am so worried that we have not been able to get meaningful negotiations under way, and why we will be meeting this week—and, perhaps, again next week—to see what momentum we can put into that political track to provide a clear perspective and the hope that by the spring there will be an alternative to military conflict in Kosovo.

Finally, although we must maintain careful scrutiny of the safety of the verifiers, we would be extremely reluctant to go down the path of arming individual verifiers, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Let us remember that Racak was brought under mortar and heavy machine gun fire yesterday, which obliged the verifiers to leave. Light sidearms would be of no use in those circumstances, and might well only attract attack.

Mr. John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead)

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I pay tribute to the verification mission. He indicated that the way forward is a political settlement, based on autonomy for Kosovo. Does he recall that, under the 1974 constitution, the Kosovar Albanians had their own national assembly, national bank and supreme court, had equal representation on the Yugoslavian presidency and in the assembly and had equal status with Serbia and the other republics in economic decision making? Does he share my view that nothing less than what they had under that 1974 constitution would be acceptable to them now? If such autonomy was on offer, could it be guaranteed by an unarmed verification mission, given the fact that Milosevic was the person who stripped the Kosovars of that autonomy?

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the root of the conflict and of the tragedy at the weekend was in the decision taken by President Milosevic to remove the autonomy that Kosovo had previously enjoyed. Any outcome of the political process must at least restore to Kosovo the same degree of autonomy that it has enjoyed historically. It is not a simple matter of turning back the clock, because the period to which my hon. Friend referred was the period in which Yugoslavia existed, so Kosovo enjoyed its autonomy within a much wider state than the present small bounds of Serbia. That is why, ultimately, if we want to secure a democratic and self-governing Kosovo, we must also ensure that it exists within a democratic Serbia that respects freedom of expression and human rights.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)

We are all aware of the sanctions and threats that have been used against Belgrade. As the Foreign Secretary said that responsibility for the breakdown of the ceasefire could be placed equally with the Yugoslav forces and the KLA, what sanctions and threats could be used against the KLA?

Mr. Cook

We have vigorously denounced the KLA in just about every international forum. We have also, through Security Council resolutions, called on states neighbouring Kosovo and on others in Europe to act to try to cut off the flow of both funds and weapons to the KLA. We are actively reviewing what more we can do to apply pressure to the choke points in the supply of weapons to the KLA. We are not dealing with a state or, indeed, an organisation with any clear political leadership or representation, so it is much more difficult to apply effective pressure, especially when the KLA refuses to take part in negotiations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I thank my right hon. Friend for the tone and caution of his statement. If there is to be a 96-hour warning period before military action—if that happens, heaven help us—will there be an opportunity for a serious discussion in the House of Commons on a matter that has great long-term consequences? What is the attitude of the west towards the further break-up of the Yugoslav state? What is our policy on that?

Mr. Cook

First, I want to clarify one point because I would not want the House to be under any misapprehension: the 96 hours to which I referred is the period of notice in which planes are on standby; it is not necessarily the same as a 96-hour warning period. I have reported to the House repeatedly on the situation in Kosovo and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia, and I can give my hon. Friend an undertaking that we will certainly continue to do that before events achieve any worse momentum than at present.

My hon. Friend asked about a break-up. The position taken by the international community in all its different manifestations—including the European Union, the Contact Group and the Security Council—is that we do not support independence for Kosovo. That is partly because the countries in the neighbourhood would strongly resent and resist any attempt to establish an independent Kosovo because of the destabilising effect on themselves—and we should always remember that the agenda of the KLA is not independence for Kosovo, but a Greater Albania. It would also have an effect in Bosnia about which all hon. Members should be concerned: it would be very difficult to resist the demand of Republika Srpska for independence if Kosovo were to succeed in achieving it.

For all those reasons, we have resisted the calls for independence for Kosovo, but the persistent non-compliance by President Milosevic, and atrocities such as those that happened this weekend at Racak, make it extremely difficult for us to convince the people of Kosovo that they have a future short of independence.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary's last remark—and I recognise the importance of the statement that he has made in the vexatious circumstances following the gruesome massacre in Racak—I hope that he will not preclude any ultimate political outcome. Although the interim period is for three years, the right hon. Gentleman has not defined or clarified in any meaningful sense the objective that the Government are working to achieve at the end of that period. Could it not be that, eventually; self-determination will prove to be the only durable settlement?

Mr. Cook

The Christopher Hill paper contains provision for a review at the end of that three-year period. However, the contention over how strong that review should be is at the heart of the disagreement between Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanians about the Hill paper. It will be difficult to find an outcome in which both sides can agree to common words in the review at the end of the three-year interim period, yet I believe that the immediate way forward for the Kosovar Albanians is to engage in the process of creating autonomous, self-governing and democratic institutions during that period. It is very frustrating that, so far, we have been unable to construct an Albanian negotiating team that is willing even to discuss that.

Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling)

Will my right hon. Friend continue to take the strongest possible action to ensure that President Milosevic is aware of our horror at what has happened and our determination to act when necessary?

I was in Kosovo a few weeks before Christmas with UNICEF. Although we are talking today about the horror that occurred at Racak, the horror in Kosovo has been going on for months. Many people there feel that the Serbian Government's aim is to cleanse Kosovo of the ethnic Albanians.

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the widespread suffering and hardship experienced in Kosovo as a result of the repression organised by Belgrade. Among the most distressing features of the security force's actions last autumn were the destruction of the harvest. in the fields and the shooting of farm animals in their barns. There is no doubt that the intention was to make it more difficult for the Kosovar Albanians to get through the winter.

We remain strongly committed to humanitarian relief and, as a nation, we are doing as much as any other to support such work in Kosovo. Events such as those of last weekend make it much more difficult to get on top of the problem. We believe that at least 5,500 additional refugees were created in the region by those events.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who reminded the House that horrible atrocities are being perpetrated in a number of countries and that Britain cannot become the world's policeman? Are we not faced with just another example of Britain committing our overstretched armed forces to a mission that lacks a clear and long-term military objective? What would the Foreign Secretary tell the wife, mother or family of a member of the British verification team if that member were seized by a kidnapping group, given that he would not have had any kind of weapon with which to defend himself?

Mr. Cook

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of Britain being the world's policeman, but we are proud of the way in which we play our part and make a major contribution to the world community. We participate in events in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia and in Kosovo as a member of the North Atlantic alliance and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We cannot expect to retain our position as a permanent member of that council—and the respect that goes with it—and as a major member of the North Atlantic alliance if we are not willing to take part in actions when mounting such actions is deemed necessary.

In respect of the hon. Gentleman's question about the Kosovo verification mission, it is not for me to answer on my own—it is also for the mission's members. In a spirit of humility, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the various statements that they have made over the weekend, in which they have made it clear that they are determined to get on with the job, that they are sorry to have pulled out of Racak and that they are proud of what they are doing. I think that we should be proud of them.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North)

Is it not extraordinary and tragic that a 20th century that was scarred by Nazi genocide is ending not only with the recent genocide in Bosnia, but with the current atrocities in Kosovo? Despite the complexities, which we understand, is there not one common factor—Milosevic himself, who, time and again, has shown himself to be the puppet master of evil in the former Yugoslavia? Why do we treat him as a statesman and not name him as a war criminal? Would the Government support efforts by the International War Crimes Tribunal to try Milosevic for his crimes, for which he is responsible?

Mr. Cook

It is for the prosecutor of the International War Crimes Tribunal to decide whether to indict any citizen or politician in the former Yugoslavia, and that is a matter that that body must address. If any member of the regime in Belgrade or elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia were to be indicted, we would, as we do on all other occasions, support the tribunal's right to make that indictment and support the case for a trial.

However, the important aspect of my hon. Friend's question is not simply the issue of the personal responsibility of President Milosevic, but the backward-looking and poisonous ethnic hatred that makes up the politics of so much of the regime in Belgrade. That is why, as part of our response to the problems of Kosovo and Bosnia, we have persistently said that there must be freedom of expression, a free media and genuine and meaningful democracy in Serbia as a condition of Serbia taking its place in the modern world and the modern Europe.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

In endorsing every word of the question asked by the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he and his advisers believe that President Milosevic either authorised, or at least approved after the event, the massacre that has just taken place? If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that President Milosevic backs those terrible murders, what does he think the motivation is? Could it be to terrorise the local population, to drive them out of Kosovo, or even to test NATO so that Milosevic can see how many murders NATO is prepared to put up with before taking action, as it eventually and belatedly did in Bosnia?

Mr. Cook

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)—the indictment of an alleged war criminal is not a matter for me or for the Government, but one for the prosecutor of the International War Crimes Tribunal. It is for her to decide whether there is a case to answer. I have no evidence of the sort the hon. Gentleman seeks. The important point is that Belgrade now has an opportunity to respond in a positive way to international representations. If Belgrade did not order the massacre, if it is not complicit in the massacre and if it shares our concern about the number of civilian deaths, Belgrade can now prove that by allowing the International War Crimes Tribunal to carry out a thorough investigation.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is not the bottom line the fact that the KLA, in pursuing its objective of a Greater Albania, is making decision taking in NATO extremely difficult? If, at the end of all this, NATO cannot take any military action in Kosovo, the KLA will be solely to blame because it will have prevented such action.

Mr. Cook

As I have said on more than one occasion this afternoon, there is fault on both sides and the KLA must accept its responsibility for the present situation because of its repeated breaches of the ceasefire. At the same time, we cannot escape the clear and stark conclusion that primary responsibility for the massacres that occurred this weekend lies with the security forces that were in the village at the time.

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk)

The Foreign Secretary has spelt out the options and difficulties facing him and other members of NATO, and the House understands those. However, if there is, as appears likely, another example of a massacre initiated by the Serbs, what deterrent value will the threat of air strikes against Serbia have?. I might be misinterpreting the Foreign Secretary, but it seems to me that he is ambivalent about whether air strikes would achieve their objective. Many hon. Members are concerned that, ultimately, we will keep threatening military action and the Serbs will not be impressed. That will have an immediate impact upon the independence and the lives of the British people who constitute the verification force.

This may be an unfair question to ask the Foreign Secretary, but I suspect that it is much in the minds of the families of those who are serving in the verification force. What guarantee do we have that the British and French-led extraction force will achieve its objective of entering Kosovo and removing members of the verification force if the situation gets completely out of hand?

Mr. Cook

The extraction force is there specifically with that mission in mind. It is training for that mission and preparing plans for it. I cannot give a guarantee that any military action of that character will be 100 per cent. successful—and the hon. Gentleman would not believe me if I attempted to do so. However, that is the extraction force's mission, and we believe that we have provided a significant contribution that will assist the force in carrying out that mission.

However, our first task is to try to prevent circumstances arising in which that contingency plan will be necessary. That is precisely why the two most senior generals in NATO will be in Belgrade tomorrow giving a firm message to President Milosevic. The hon. Gentleman and President Milosevic should be in no doubt about our commitment to ensuring that we both defend our people who are part of the Kosovo verification mission and insist upon President Milosevic's compliance with the undertakings that he gave to Richard Holbrooke.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter)

Would not the Foreign Secretary's claim that he wants those responsible for war crimes to be brought to book carry a little more weight if he were willing to encourage proactively the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague to indict President Milosevic, who many believe is the biggest war criminal of all? After all, he gives the orders. Are not the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and some Labour Members absolutely correct to assert that we now face a desperate and unenviable choice: either withdraw completely, wash our hands of the problem and witness a blood bath or perhaps a wider Balkans war; or be willing to commit ground forces?

Mr. Cook

I have repeatedly made it clear—and not only today—that President Milosevic plainly carries political responsibility for much of what has happened throughout the former Yugoslavia over the past decade. It is not for me to judge whether that makes him criminally culpable—nor am I in the right locus to do so. That is a matter for the International War Crimes Tribunal and for the prosecutors to decide.

The tribunal is in no doubt about the very strong support that it receives from the British Government, and it said so to me when I visited it in The Hague last Wednesday. During that visit, I released another £120,000 to assist the tribunal with translating documents from Serb or Croat in order to allow it to continue its work. This Government, more than any other, are supporting the tribunal with personnel, funding, witness support schemes and an additional court room. We shall continue to give vigorous support to the tribunal's very important work.