Bosnia

HL Deb 06 May 1993 vol 545 cc810-8

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the answer to a Private Notice Question which is being asked in another place on the latest situation in Bosnia. The Statement is as follows:

"I regret that my right honourable 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 honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I will make a Statement on Bosnia.

"The policy of the Government remains as set out by my right honourable 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 today 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 also 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 clear that they do not rule out other options. We shall continue consultations with our partners and allies on such measures."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.43 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that Statement. Does she agree that there should be no immediate action against the Bosnian Serbs despite last night's deplorable decision to reject the Vance-Owen peace plan by the so-called Serb parliament in Bosnia? Does she also agree that military action should not take place, at least until Mr. Milosevic's position, which appears to have changed dramatically, becomes clearer?

Can the Minister indicate when the Government will next discuss the matter with President Clinton? Can she assure the House that the Government will call for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the latest situation?

While precipitate action must be avoided, does the Minister agree that the threat of military action must be maintained? Can she tell the House whether the UN will be putting pressure immediately on President Milosevic to secure an end to Serbia's supply of arms and equipment to the Bosnian Serbs?

Finally, can the Minister tell the House whether the UN is taking any steps to secure the creation of negotiated safe havens in Bosnia and whether the UN will deploy monitors along the Serb-Bosnian border to ensure that any pledges that may be made by Serbia to stop supplying arms and equipment to the Bosnian Serbs are honoured?

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend in another place. The Statement referred to a "twin track policy". It appears that one of those tracks has run into the ground. We have to respond to that. I suggest that we respond by reaffirming and reinforcing the other track; namely, by increasing the pressure that we can impose by means of sanctions and other methods on the Bosnian Serbs; by urging Mr. Milosevic to close the borders between his part of Serbia and Bosnia; and, as I have suggested in the past, by making clear that Zepa and Gorazde are UN protected areas and the UN forces are prepared to enforce them as protected areas.

I believe that the time has come when safe havens have to be established for Bosnian Moslems. I very much hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that that is done. Is the noble Baroness able to give the House some assurance that the Government have that policy in mind?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for their comments. First, let me say to the noble Baroness that it would be wrong to take immediate, hasty action. Despite our deep regret at the Bosnian Serb Assembly's irresponsible rejection of the peace plan in Pale last night—that is a serious setback, particularly considering what went on in Athens over the weekend—I believe that we should not take precipitate action. We certainly do not accept the Bosnian Serb Assembly's word as final.

As for the next steps, I wholeheartedly agree with both the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that we have to intensify the pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to sign the peace plan. The only alternative would be further conflict and further great suffering.

It is interesting to note that President Milosevic was at the Bosnian Serb Assembly meeting throughout and spoke twice in support of the Vance-Owen peace plan. We call upon President Milosevic to use his influence on the Bosnian Serbs to make them accept that peace plan and co-operate fully in its implementation. That action is going on at the present time.

We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that we should pressure Milosevic to cut off supplies of arms and non-humanitarian supplies to Bosnian Serbs. I can assure your Lordships that sanctions are already being intensified. We do not rule out stronger measures and further action will be considered.

In respect of action in New York, we are consulting with others today to agree on the next steps. We welcome the agreement to deploy Canadian United Nations troops in Srebrenica, but the question of further safe areas has yet to be fully addressed. I understand the pressure for that for Zepa and Gorazde but it would require an alteration of the UN mandate. Therefore, in co-operation with our partners, we must determine the position on the basis of the specific proposals that will emerge in New York. Certainly we understand that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wants international presence in Zepa and Gorazde but does not believe that it can be done by military enforcement, which would be something absolutely different. I believe that the very threat of military action is what forced President Milosevic to take the steps that he took in Pale. We have to hold that option open however unsavoury it most certainly is.

I can assure your Lordships that no stone will be left unturned. Certainly I believe that the pressure of increased sanctions and the additional numbers of monitors deployed to bring that into operation will be effective.

I was also asked by the noble Baroness about monitors on the Serb-Bosnian border. That is something which is being looked at but it will only be possible in the light of a signature. It is part of the implementation of the Vance-Owen peace plan because the Serb-Bosnian border is the worst possible area.

3.50 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that while we are in considerable agreement with the action being taken to deal with the immediate problems, the immediate problems are at an early stage and are only a small part of the total problem? The total problem of what will ultimately he done in the settlement is the real issue that we must confront.

Does the noble Baroness agree—it would of course have to be arranged through the normal channels—that your Lordships' House is singularly well placed to hold a debate on the longer-term issues, in which we could hope that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, whose contribution we must all greatly admire, could take part and lead us in the discussion of what ought to be done in the future?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I sympathise with what the noble Baroness says, that we should undertake consideration in this House. But that is a matter for the authorities. Perhaps I may underline and repeat what she said in paying tribute to the work which the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has undertaken in, first, working out the Vance-Owen peace plan and then working to see that it was almost agreed, as it was hoped it would be after the Athens conference at the weekend. This House has a wonderful record of being able to delve into longer-term matters. It is the longer term not only of Bosnia Herzegovina, but of the whole of the Balkan region, which concerns us all in the longer term. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House has heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend a short question? In this terrifying turmoil, is she satisfied that there are in place—I do not ask for details—satisfactory contingency plans to safeguard our forces?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I believe that there are adequate plans not only for our own forces but also for our own civilians in the area. We have worked these out in conjunction with the United Nations and the other troop contributors to the United Nations.

Lord Monson

My Lords, while the Bosnian-Serb leadership is stalling and playing for time, their extremely well-armed forces have initiated new attacks upon isolated, mainly Moslem, towns in eastern Bosnia, whose inhabitants face annihilation, as they are rapidly running out of ammunition. Bosnia-Herzegovina is a member state of the United Nations and is recognised by at least 65 countries, including every member state of the EC. Does the noble Baroness agree that at the end of the Edinburgh Summit last December a document was issued entitled, Conclusions of the Presidency? In that document, paragraph 16 Part D, it is declared unambiguously that the European Council accepts the right of countries to acquire the means to defend themselves. Can the noble Baroness say why the European Community has reneged on that declaration less than five months from the date of the Edinburgh Summit?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I do not have to hand the reference that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted. However, I believe that that declaration was a declaration in respect of the defence of a nation against outside nations. I realise that the situation within the whole Balkan area is extremely complex. But one has not only Bosnian Serb fighters fighting Bosnian Moslem people but Bosnian Croat fighters fighting Bosnian Moslem people and at times the Bosnian Serbs fighting the Bosnian Croats within the area. Any introduction of further arms within that civil war situation was not what was referred to by my colleagues and other members of the European Community at the Edinburgh Summit.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that at this point in time it is essential to bring sanctions to the highest pitch of effectiveness? In an earlier reply the Minister said that further and stronger measures were under consideration by the Government. Can she tell the House what those are?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the tougher sanctions that were called for in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 820 are now in force. We have been working to ensure that they are rigorously enforced. There is a virtual blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. Whether that could be policed by people at the borders has been a question which has been considered but not yet decided.

We have tripled our contributions to the sanctions assistance monitors and we are encouraging everyone else to do likewise. We are also establishing Western European Union patrols on the Danube and tightening controls on the Serbian financial movements. I realise that none of that will bring Serbia, or indeed the Bosnian Serbs, to their senses at once. But it is certainly having a salutary effect on the Serbs, which is why President Molosovic spent the entire time at the Pale meeting of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, so called.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether help is reaching Bosnian Serbs from the Ukraine?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I believe my noble friend is right. However, I do not have evidence that I can give in support of that comment at the moment. I will see whether I can find it and let him have it in writing.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Bosnian Serbs have good reason, in view of the past history of successful prevarication, to believe that they have further time to conquer more of their objectives? If we are not to supply arms to the people trying to defend themselves—with which I agree—then we must logically accept the position that we have to protect those people against the better-armed Serbs.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a strong feeling regarding the protection of the people in Bosnia. He will know from my visits that I could not want to do anything other than stop the fighting and protect the people.

He is absolutely right, as I have rejected in this House before today, that we should not allow the lifting of the ban on arms to any group in Bosnia. I hope that the pressure being put on the Bosnian Serbs by people locally—by that I mean the Serbs themselves—will prevail. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, it is a time to ensure that the pressure on the Serb nation is not let up, so that they can exert their own pressures and we do not have to go down the route of force. I would remind the House that, if force were used in defence of any persons, all humanitarian supplies would have to cease before that could happen.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, it is worth while remembering that it was the Emperor Valentian who allowed the Serbs into Bosnia. The first Roman legion was moved in 83 AD from Chester to Moesia because there was trouble in the Balkans. The problem has been going on for many years. Moslems are the descendants of the Bogomil heretics or aparatchiks of the Ottoman Empire.

Surely we must say to ourselves that we will do something about it—and the logic of that, as my noble friend said, is that we hope we do not have to use force because of sanctions. Sanctions are a substitute for force. Either we must say to ourselves—as said Bismarck—that the Balkans are not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier and consequently we shall keep well out of it, or we say, "Up with this we will not put", and we have got to do something about it. Both choices are horrendously nasty. We are in danger of going down the road of waffling on about sanctions. Everybody knows that they have never worked, be it against Mussolini or Rhodesia or wherever it may be. Rhodesia even expanded its economy under sanctions.

We are in danger of going down a waffle road. We have to make up our minds. Do we do something about it, which means the western world saying that we will put troops in and deal with it like the Punjab in 1848, or do we say that we will keep right out of it and let them sort themselves out because it is something too complicated, too nasty and too horrendous? After all, we do that in Somalia and other parts of the world, but there are television cameras in the Balkans.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, one has only to realise how much life has actually changed within Serbia to have to contradict my noble friend Lord Onslow. Sanctions may not have worked in other parts of the world with which we are not concerned today but there is no doubt that they are really beginning to work in Serbia. So let us hope that that force is a force to persuade the Serbs to put the right pressure on the Bosnian Moslems as they certainly sought to do in Pale.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

Bosnian Serbs.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend.

My noble friend went on to make a number of other comments. I would say to him that we certainly have not waffled. We have sent through my own ODA convoys nearly 24,500 tonnes of goods; through the Royal Air Force, more than 6,700 tonnes of goods; and through other donors and through the air drop, many further thousands of tonnes of goods. We have done as much as any nation has to try to bring about peace without action by ourselves and by outside nations. If this does not work, we have not closed off any opportunities. But we shall continue to enforce those sanctions most thoroughly and hope that we do not have to resort to anything further.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the euphemism "military intervention" means killing people? Is she aware that Winston Churchill's dictum that "jaw, jaw is better than war, war" is not without support on this side of the House?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I have used that very same dictum on many occasions but it may be that no one among the Bosnian Serbs is listening any longer, which makes it very difficult to go on just talking.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree in retrospect that perhaps it was a mistake, just at the time when negotiations were still going on about the signing of the Vance-Owen treaty, for Mr. Warren Christopher to come over to Europe threatening military action? I should have thought that was counter-productive. Will the noble Baroness also confirm the Government's view that air strikes would not be effective and might kill innocent civilians? Will she further confirm that the Government still do not believe that there should be intervention by the ground forces of this country or, for that matter, any other country since that would kill very many more people than are being killed at the present time or have been killed up to date? Finally, will she confirm that, irrespective of what the United States, the United Nations or anyone else says, this is still a civil war?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, to take the noble Lord's last point first, indeed it is a civil war, but it is a civil war of the most alarming proportions with a very grave danger of spilling over into other territory, which was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, some moments ago. I do not think that Mr. Warren Christopher came to this country or any other European Country uttering threats, as the noble Lord put it, but I do believe that there is a strong body of opinion in the United States, if not in Europe as a whole—it does exist in parts here—that the talking has gone on long enough. We understand full well from our past experience that air strikes have not in recent times been effective without people on the ground but we are not considering air strikes at this moment. We are seeking not only to tighten the noose of sanctions but also, through further discussion—even through President Milosevic's efforts—to bring about an end to this bloody conflict before it gets any worse.

Lord Monson

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that when people speak of civil war it is not, as the press try to make out, a civil war between different religious groups? Does she agree that the Bosnian cabinet contains a non-Moslem majority? There are nine Moslems, six Serbs and five Croats. Therefore, it is quite wrong to suggest that this is a war of Moslem versus Orthodox versus Catholic. It is far more complex than that.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the noble Lord is indeed right. It is extremely complex. But we have to realise that the self-appointed Bosnian Serb assembly separated themselves off only in April or May last year from the President Izetbegovic group because they claimed to represent part of Bosnia-Herzegovina not represented by a man who was a Moslem leader. But, indeed, the conflicts are not simply between religious groups. They are very often between inter-married families which have a total mixture of religious groups. That is one of the reasons why this is such a complex situation and why it is difficult to find a peaceful solution.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there are many people who do not bear positions of such responsibility as do my noble friend and her colleagues? Ministers may have to take horrendous decisions in this whole matter. Would she care to remind my noble friend Lord Onslow that the world has moved on since 86AD—

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, 83AD.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon—and the world in which we lived in the Punjab in 1846.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, 1848.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, it must be the wish of noble Lords on all sides of the House and people elsewhere that if it is possible to achieve any sense and logical thinking in that trouble torn country by relatively peaceful means, that is to be applauded. But if this is a situation "up with which we cannot put", and that is plainly obvious, and the ultimate has to be referred to and action taken thereon, my noble friend and her colleagues will be entitled to receive maximum support from all sides of both Houses of Parliament because we shall feel confident that whatever action is taken, even if it is the ultimate action, it will be because it is absolutely necessary and will not be taken lightly or hurriedly.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very supportive remarks. I think I made clear at the time of repeating a Statement last month in your Lordships' House how much time we have spent on detailed examination of all the peaceful ways to bring this situation to an end and that we have obviously looked at other options. Time has indeed moved on. I shall make no further comment on what was said by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I can tell my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that we will not leave a stone unturned in trying to find a peaceful way to resolve these matters. In a world where weapons impose the most terrible inheritance for future generations, let alone those who suffer in this generation, we have to try and bring about peace and prevent war. That is what this is.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, perhaps I may come back very briefly. We must face the fact that if we decide to use air power we have to follow it up with troops on the ground. We have to face the option: are we prepared to use troops on the ground to impose peace? We do not have any other option. If we start bombing bridges the logical answer is "private so and so" from all our local areas. That is the answer. We have to face up to that and face it realistically.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, if my noble friend reads my previous answers to questions on this subject he will find that I have covered all these matters in detail. I do not intend to dwell upon them now because we are taking the time of the House on a very important Bill. I simply say to the House that the Government will discuss very thoroughly any moves. We are not afraid to take action if that is the right thing to do, but we will not be pushed into action which in future times we might well regret.