§ 4.33 p.m.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about Bosnia.
"In response to the continued Bosnian Serb shelling of Gorazde and the horrifying civilian casualties which resulted, the United Nations Secretary-General wrote on 18th April to the Secretary-General of NATO, asking Dr. Woerner to obtain as soon as possible a decision of the North Atlantic Council to authorise the use of air strikes at UN request to protect the safe areas as provided for in UNSCR 836.
"In spite of attempts by UNPROFOR and others to achieve a ceasefire, the shelling of Gorazde continued unabated. The North Atlantic Council met on 20th April and decided that military advice should be sought urgently on the UN Secretary-General's request and that they should reconvene on 22nd April to take the necessary decisions. Meanwhile further consultations took place between the UN and NATO and between Member States of the two organisations. Senior Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence officials were in Washington to discuss additional proposals put forward by the United States. Russia was kept informed of developments.
"The United Nations Security Council met early on 22nd April and passed Security Council Resolution 913, which called on the Bosnian Serbs and the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to conclude an immediate ceasefire agreement under the auspices of UNPROFOR, condemned the Bosnian Serb shelling of Gorazde and demanded the withdrawal of Bosnian Serb forces to a distance to be agreed by UNPROFOR. The resolution also called for an end to provocative action by all parties in and around the safe areas, and demanded the immediate release of all UN personnel and unimpeded freedom of movement for UNPROFOR.
"When the North Atlantic Council met on 22nd April, it authorised Commander-in-Chief (Southern Command), Admiral Smith, to conduct air strikes against Bosnian Serb heavy artillery and other military targets within a radius of 20 kilometres from the centre of Gorazde unless: (a) Bosnian Serb attacks on Gorazde ceased immediately; (b) Bosnian Serb forces pulled back 3 kilometres from the centre of Gorazde by one minute past midnight on 24th April; and (c) UN forces were free to enter Gorazde and medical evacuations were permitted.
"In a further set of decisions, the NAC established a 'military exclusion zone for 20 kilometres around Gorazde, from which all heavy weapons must be withdrawn by 0001 GMT on 27th April, or be subject to NATO air strikes'.
"The North Atlantic Council also decided that if there were an attack by heavy weapons against Bihac, 404 Srebrenica, Tuzla or Zepa, from any range, or if in the judgment of NATO and UN military commanders there were any threatening movement or concentration of heavy weaponry within 20 kilometres of those areas, they would immediately be designated, individually or collectively, as military exclusion zones along the lines of that in Gorazde. If any Bosnian Serb heavy weapons were found within designated military exclusion zones around the safe areas after 0001 GMT on 27th April, then they and Bosnian Serb military support facilities would be subject to air strikes. It was agreed that any such attacks would be carried out using the agreed co-ordination procedures with UNPROFOR. So this is a dual key arrangement between the UN and NATO. Either can propose air strikes; both have to agree.
"On 23rd April the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in the former Yugoslavia reached an agreement with the Bosnian Serb military and civilian authorities, in which a ceasefire was declared around Gorazde with effect from midday on 23rd April.
"It was also agreed that UNPROFOR would deploy a battalion to Gorazde to monitor the ceasefire; Bosnian Serb heavy weapons would be withdrawn outside a 20 kilometre radius from the centre of Gorazde by midnight on 26th April at the latest; evacuations would be allowed to proceed; all UN and humanitarian personnel should have complete freedom of movement; and that negotiations on disengagement should start immediately.
"I understand that the Bosnian Serbs are now complying with the terms of this agreement. UNPROFOR deployed a company of Ukrainians, together with a Nordic medical team and 15 military observers to Gorazde shortly before midnight on 23rd April. A further UNPROFOR convoy, comprising a British company from the 1st Duke of Wellington Regiment and Russian, Egyptian and further Ukrainian elements arrived in Gorazde on the morning of 24th April. The evacuation of the wounded is proceeding, supported by British and French helicopters. We have agreed to a request from UNHCR to take 50 of the wounded, and are working closely with UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration on arrangements. NATO and UNPROFOR remain in close contact. Sarajevo and most of the rest of Bosnia remain relatively calm.
"Air strikes are not an end in themselves. We hope that they will not be necessary. If in the judgment of NATO and the UN they are necessary, then no one should doubt that they will be undertaken. The first and urgent objective is a lasting ceasefire, first at Gorazde and then more widely in Bosnia. This should in turn lead to a resumption of the peace process. A negotiated settlement remains the only way to a lasting peace, including a substantial Bosnian Serb withdrawal from territory that they now occupy. European Union Foreign Ministers on 18th April and the North Atlantic Council on 22nd April reaffirmed their support for that process, welcoming close co-ordination between the 405 European Union, Russia and the US, with the aim of bringing our diplomatic initiatives more closely together.
"I am meeting Secretary of State Christopher and French Foreign Minister Juppé today on these matters and they will be a theme of the Anglo-German Summit on Wednesday."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ 4.40 p.m.
§ Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I welcome the Statement as a rather clearer strategy on ending the fighting and bringing about a cease-fire than we have had for some months. I welcome particularly the decision to include all the safe areas in the ultimatum to the Serbs rather than to concentrate on Gorazde alone, thus allowing the Serbs cynically to transfer their activities elsewhere and to start shelling another safe haven as happened after their withdrawal from Sarajevo.
Our concern however on these Benches is that that strategy should be adhered to, and that the Serb forces that have shelled the hospital in Gorazde and terrorised thousands of civilians should understand that a failure to respond to the demands of the United Nations and NATO will result in air strikes. In particular, I should be grateful for assurances that the disagreements between NATO and the United Nations, only too apparent over the weekend, are now a thing of the past. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that there will be no repetition of the disputes between Mr. Akashi in Bosnia, Mr. Woerner in Brussels and Admiral Leighton Smith the NATO southern commander?
We also welcome the fact that the Russians are now to be kept informed about NATO decisions after the serious failure in communications two weeks ago. Does the Minister accept that statements made by the Russian Foreign Minister, after his visit to Belgrade, by Mr. Vitali Churkin, the Russian envoy in Bosnia, and by the Russian ambassador to the United Nations in the past few days have been helpful and indicate that the Russian Government wish now to take firm action against the Serbs if they do not respond to the new ultimatum?
Since time is now short for the Serbs to respond, will the Minister give the House some indication of what progress has been made by the Serb forces to withdraw by the deadline of tomorrow midnight? Will she also indicate by what means the monitoring of Serb movements in Bihac, Srebrenica, Tuzla and Zepa will be undertaken? While I very much welcome the deployment of additional troops, including British troops, to monitor the cease-fire in Gorazde, I am sure that the Minister will agree that there must be adequate troops on the grounds to monitor the progress that is being made in the other safe havens. Is she completely satisfied that there are adequate troops on the ground to ensure that that takes place effectively?
It would also be most helpful if the Minister would comment on newspaper reports which claim that, even if the Serbs refrain from encroaching upon the other safe havens, they intend to try to capture other territory along the Sava River and in Brcko? Have plans been made to deal with that eventuality?
406 I understand that while medical evacuations from Gorazde are now taking place, medical and humanitarian aid staff have not been able to do that unimpeded and have suffered from various degrees of Serb harassment and that the Serbs are burning down property as they withdraw. Will the. Minister confirm that if that continues, action will be taken against Serb forces?
Finally, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary will today be meeting Mr. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State, and the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Juppé. But will the Minister put a little more flesh on the Statement that it is intended to bring more closely together diplomatic initiatives taken by Russia, the European Union, and the United States? We have seen three separate and undesirably unco-ordinated initiatives going on for far too long, involving the Russian envoy Mr. Churkin, the United States envoy Mr. Charles Redmond and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr. Stoltenberg. It is the lack of any clear political strategy and a failure to co-ordinate attempts to achieve a lasting negotiated settlement that have led to the position in Gorazde today. Are new objectives now being set on the longer-term political strategy, and, if so, what are they?
We on this side of the House accept that air strikes are not an end in themselves. However, if the latest UN resolutions are ignored by the Serbs, and there is no military response from NATO, what hope is there that we shall get the cease-fire that is so desperately needed and which must be the basis upon which further progress towards long-term peace is made.
§ Lord Bonham-CarterMy Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on the situation in Bosnia made by her right honourable friend in another place. I should like also to associate myself with many of the things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and, in particular, with the point she made that whatever one may think about the effectiveness of air strikes, if one is going to issue ultimata, those ultimata must be carried out. Far too often we have made threats which have not been fulfilled. That leads to a loss of credibility by the UN, the European Union and NATO.
Secondly, I should like also to associate myself with what the noble Baroness said about the importance to which I have drawn attention on a number of occasions of getting the Russians on board. Their role in this whole matter, and in dealing with the Serbs, is crucial. Unless we take them along with us, we are unlikely to be successful.
There are a number of questions that I should like to put to the Minister that were not covered by her Statement. For example, what has happened about the release of UN personnel in response to UN Security Council Resolution 913 of 22nd April? Have all UN personnel who were kidnapped or taken hostage by the Bosnian Serbs been released? Secondly, what progress is being made in supplying General Rose with the troops for which he asked? The progress was deeply disappointing when we were told about it last week. It seems to me to be impossible for him to carry out the 407 duties and obligations placed upon him unless he is given the troops which he says are required. The other point raised last week was that those troops are required in order to make safe areas safe, because unless they can be protected, to call them safe areas, is nonsense. It is the kind of rhetoric contained in the Government Statement last week which was deplored, but in which they may themselves be indulging.
Thirdly, have the Russians agreed that it is legitimate to protect safe areas by UNPROFOR troops if those safe areas are attacked? That is a crucial question. I saw in the newspapers—I do not know whether it is true—that the Russians had some reservations about that. I regard it as a central issue. If we are to have safe areas, there must be troops to defend them. If we have troops to defend them, those troops must be allowed to protect them properly and by force.
I note that the Foreign Secretary is going to meet the US Secretary of State later this afternoon. While recognising the substantial contribution that the US made in brokering a peace between Croatia and Bosnia, a whole series of statements have been issued from the White House and elsewhere which have been, to say the least, confused if not positively contradictory. That does not help the peace process.
Finally, I must refer to what seems to me to be the central weakness in our operations in Bosnia. It is referred to in the Statement as "dual key". It seems to me that that dual key is what makes it so easy for the Serbs to run rings around what we do. I suggest that the Minister look at the dates which the Statement records to see what the situation is. On 18th April the UN Secretary-General asked the Secretary-General of NATO to authorise air strikes; on 20th April the NATO Council meets and decides that it must obtain military advice; on 22nd April the UN Security Council meets; on 22nd April the NATO Council meets and authorises the use of air strikes and an exclusion zone with an ultimatum to 24th April, and a further ultimatum to 27th April. That is a long time; it is more than a week. Surely in military affairs one cannot spend a week considering things before one takes action. If the UN and NATO are to prove effective in dealing with problems of this kind, the decision-making process must be abbreviated, the relations between the UN and NATO must be made clearer and the commanders on the ground must be given more discretion.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for their comments. The noble Baroness said that the situation was clearer, which we have wanted for a long time. Last week I was becoming increasingly anxious that the clarity was not there.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that it may have taken time to achieve full UN and NATO agreement on all aspects of dealing with this matter, but I believe that it is right and worth while. At the same time, we have persuaded the Bosnian Serbs to withdraw from Gorazde and have put in place the measures that 408 will be taken if they do not agree with the demands to which I referred in repeating my right honourable friend's Statement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me about what she perceived as disagreements between the UN and NATO. As was made clear in the Statement, NATO is acting in support of UN Security Council resolutions. The importance of the dual key, which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, criticised, is that it enables the UN, which has the mandate for the ground operations, to assess any request in the context of that mandate and also of its peace efforts and the safety of all UN personnel on the ground.
As regards verification of compliance with the agreement and the UN and NATO decision, that must be a joint effort between the UN and NATO, with ground observation backed up by air reconnaissance. I believe that the action of the Serbs in withdrawing their forces results from the fact that they are no longer under any illusion that there will be air strikes if they fail to comply. I believe it right that the authorisation of those air strikes is and must remain a matter for agreement by the United Nations Secretary General's special representatives and the commanders on the ground. That decision was clearly set out in both NAC decisions of 22nd April, discussion also having taken place at the United Nations Security Council.
The noble Baroness asked me about avoiding disagreements between the Russians and others. We realised that the roles played by Mr. Kozyrev and Mr. Churkin, first, in achieving the Croat-Bosnian peace and recently in persuading the Serbs that no longer will the international community accept the activity of the Bosnian Serbs against the Moslems of Gorazde and other safe areas are important. I believe too that it is right that we now have the power to deal with all six so-called safe areas, as the noble Baroness welcomed. The monitoring that she asked me about will be done by EC monitors in the area and also by UN monitors.
The noble Baroness referred to a newspaper report that the Serbs are trying to gather strength to take action further up the river. That is being investigated at this very moment. I have seen the reports only in newspapers and have no collateral on a Foreign Office basis. It is true that some of the Serbs as they withdrew burned property, but they have been further warned about such action.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord went on to ask me about the peace process and the reinforcement of forces. The restrictions on movements of UNPROFOR troops and UN military observers have been lifted overall. As regards reinforcements, your Lordships will remember that the United Kingdom operated a lobby on other member states to provide the additional troops. That is how the UN has come to receive from member states firm offers of more than 7,700 additional troops. The deployment of some 5,700 of those troops is proceeding. I mentioned Ukrainian and Russian troops, but there are also additional British, French and Spanish troops in those contingents. The deployment of further troops, in addition to the 5,800 authorised by Security Council Resolution No. 908, will depend on the passing of a further resolution. That in turn will depend on the 409 readiness of all members of the Security Council to make available the necessary resources. That has not yet happened.
I say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord that as regards bringing together all those who are seeking to achieve peace, the United States and Russia are playing a valuable role and are keeping in close touch with the European Union and the UN. We believe that the progress that has been made in recent days and during the weekend is good. UNPROFOR and the US and Russian envoys are working on the wider Bosnia ceasefire agreement in Sarajevo and Pale. There is a great deal going on. We are at one with the Russians in seeking to stop the action and they are being fully involved in the process, as I have described.
§ 4.57 p.m.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to say when General Sir Michael Rose will receive the 8,000 men for whom he asked quite a time ago? In answering the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, I did not understand my noble friend to say when that figure will be attained and whether it will be attained, as General Rose has indicated it should be, almost immediately. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer that question.
I hope too that she will also be able to answer the question which I put to her last week. When she talks about air strikes, does she mean serious air attacks by a significant number of aircraft and not the inadequate attacks by a couple of aircraft, which apparently are all that have been used and which were quite ineffective?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend did not follow my explanation about the additional troops. As a result of British efforts at the United Nations, the UN received firm offers of more than 7,700 troops. It has been possible to deploy only 5,800, as authorised by Security Council Resolution No. 908, because it depends on the readiness of all members of the Security Council to make the necessary resources available. More than 5,800 troops are not covered by the financial consideration. Therefore, General Rose will be short of troops by some 2,200. As the peace spreads it may be necessary to help further. We are working on the matter at this very moment and I can assure my noble friend that Britain has done all that was asked of her.
As regards air strikes and the way in which they differ from close air support operations, which were the two aircraft to which my noble friend referred, close air support is authorised in defence of UNPROFOR. It is limited to targets which are directly attacking and threatening UNPROFOR. However, the NATO decisions of 22nd April allow for a widespread use of air power in defence of the safe areas. That involves a much wider range of targets and consequently a much wider range of aircraft.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, will the noble Baroness say whether the constant reference to the Bosnian Serbs is correct because surely there is no question but that Milosevic and his dream of the greater Serbia is behind the whole of the Serb effort and that 410 without greater Serbia, the whole thing would fail? Are we keeping up pressure both in the form of economic sanctions and the blockade, which is absolutely necessary if they are to come to the negotiating table? Does the noble Baroness agree that the real opponent of peace is the greater Serbia, the dream of Milosevic?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that yes, economic sanctions and pressures on Serbia are continuing. I note carefully what he said about the greater Serbian dream of Mr. Milosevic and others in Serbia. I think that it would be fair to say that that has been taken forward by the Bosnian Serbs with even greater ferocity than the Serbs first envisaged. But I do not differ from the noble Lord as regards the overall danger. There are those in Serbia who still wish to see a greater Serbia and who will not yet have given up that view. Indeed, the Russians have been most helpful in making the point to Mr. Milosevic and to others. Certainly, the discussions taking place in Sarajevo and Pale concern not only the Bosnian Serbs but also the ambitions of many Serbs.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, is not the. reality of the situation that the Bosnian Serbs are playing cat and mouse with the United Nations; that they will continue to play cat and mouse with the United Nations unless there is massive destruction of their armaments, rather along the lines of the old concept of Article 16 of the League of Nations—masive military engagement? Not only will they continue to play cat and mouse, but they have no intention whatever of ceding a yard or—I suppose one should say—a metre of the land which they have gained and which they are set to gain by force if they can. Is that not the reality of the situation? If it is the reality, surely the only answer is massive air strikes which cripple their tanks, their heavy weapons, their air-to-surface missiles and their communications?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I believe that my noble friend advocates a much greater course of military action by NATO and by UNPROFOR than is advocated by the parties which have given support to the UNPROFOR Security Council resolutions and the North Atlantic Council meetings. The reason for that is that they believe that the massive action advocated by my noble friend would lead to a spread of the warfare in the area and not to a cessation of it.
In the discussions which are taking place in Sarajevo and Pale and in future discussions, there will be measures to deal with the great amount of weaponry which exists, as there have been already in relation to the Croats and the Moslems in Bosnia. However, I do not believe that there would be anything to stop the Russians then withdrawing their tacit agreement to the moves that have been made if all-out massive air strikes were started. I know that it would not only stop all humanitarian action, but I believe that it could lead also to a much more disastrous situation than that with which we have to deal at present. We must be careful.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, perhaps I may support the noble Baroness in her answer to the noble Lords, Lord 411 Campbell of Alloway and Lord Bonham-Carter. I believe that I am right in thinking that the countries of the advanced world are trying together to do something utterly new, which amounts in shorthand to no less than forging the future of the United Nations. To try to do that in terms of hasty or over-weighty reactions would be a very great mistake.
I should like to ask two factual questions so that we may better understand what is going on there. In the past week, has there been any military production facility inside Gorazde? If so, has it been in working order? What other soldiers, if any, besides those of UNPROFOR, are inside Gorazde? If there are any, are they armed or have they turned in their arms to UNPROFOR?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his first comment. We are indeed pursuing a difficult path, but we are pursuing it with the outcome as advocated by the North Atlantic Council in a far better way than might have been imagined just a week ago.
As regards the military production of armaments within Gorazde, I cannot give him a detailed answer. There is a munitions factory at the centre or Gorazde, but the last I heard, it was not in production. The noble Lord asked whether there are soldiers other than UNPROFOR soldiers in Gorazde. As far as we know, there are no Bosnian Serb or Serb soldiers in Gorazde. There are some Bosnian moslems. Some of them will have turned in their weapons, but one can never be sure that they have all done so. I cannot give the noble Lord a complete answer, but all those matters to which he has alluded are well within the consciousness of the commander of the UNPROFOR troops in Gorazde.
§ Lord Craig of RadleyMy Lords, I wonder whether we can be told what lessons the Government have learned from this weekend's apparent disagreements over command and control of this potential operation. It seems to me absolutely essential, when operations are mounted, that there is a single and unique command in control. I find that the dual-key concept is highly unsatisfactory when people are being placed in a war situation. Is it clear that those who hold those two keys have available to them all the intelligence and information about Bosnian Serb positions and so on which are essential in order to arrive at a view as to how to make an attack?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord. Either the NATO or United Nations commander can initiate the request for action. Both are being given all available intelligence. But the agreement must have the authority of the NATO southern commander before any wish by the UN can be implemented. It has been decided that that is the only way that we can move forward satisfactorily—in other words, either can initiate but both must agree—because for NATO to act without the full support of the UN commander on the ground would not be successful; and there can be no question of success being able to be achieved solely by the UN commander on the ground. I 412 hope that we shall see more understanding of what General Sir Michael Rose and Admiral Smith are seeking to achieve. They certainly have full contact with Mr. Akashi. I believe that we can begin to put behind us some of the misunderstandings, some of which have been on the part of the press rather than on the part of those on the ground.
§ The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, will my noble friend tell us something about the role of Mr. Akashi? He has the benefit of being Japanese and is therefore as neutral as anybody can be, whereas we in the West are thought to be on one side or another.
Secondly, will she say something more about the clarity that has now been achieved with regard to the two keys policy? As has already been said, two keys means two keys. Is it not the case also that when people advocate massive intervention, they are ignoring the lessons to be learned from the last war when Serb and Croat partisans and Chetniks managed to hold down six German divisions for four years?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's great experience in such matters. I am also especially aware of the experience that many noble Lords will have had as very young men at the time of the last war. There is no doubt that it is for the Serbs to take the action which I outlined when repeating the Statement. Certainly I do not believe that the Serbs are under any illusion: if they fail to comply there will be air strikes. It was Mr. Akashi who made that absolutely clear to all parties. Moreover, Mr. Akashi has taken part in all the discussions within Sarajevo and Pale and has also been working very closely with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, Mr. Stoltenberg, Mr. Redmond of the United States, Mr. Churkin of the Russians and the military commanders.
I understand the anxiety felt by many noble Lords about the dual key solution. However, we have always known, as I said when repeating the Statement, that air strikes alone could not achieve the cessation of the civil war. That is why we have most carefully gone about ensuring that, if action needs to be taken, it is co-ordinated action between the UNPROFOR commander with men on the ground and the NATO commander, with the full support of the United Nations, which is given by Resolution 836.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, did the Government refrain from asking the Security Council to authorise the full complement of troops requested by General Rose because they feared that other members of the Security Council would not agree? If so, which were they? Secondly, can the Minister say a little more about the warning that was given to the Serbs not to destroy civilian property during the withdrawal and what penalties they will suffer if they do so? Thirdly, can the Minister say what has happened about the artillery surrounding Sarajevo which was recently retaken by the Serbs after having been in UN custody?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, no. The answer to his second question is that the Bosnian Serb commanders have had made absolutely clear to them, as 413 I outlined when repeating the Statement, the way in which the whole matter would be tackled and by what time and on what date. I do not think that I need repeat it. The noble Lord's third question was about the artillery taken by the Bosnian Serbs from a French UNPROFOR group, which was outnumbered by more than five to one when it happened. That artillery has been returned to the supervision of UNPROFOR troops.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, I have one further question for the Minister. Does the noble Baroness agree that the worst possible command is a two-key command? If there is consultation among three, one might at least arrive at a decision.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, a few moments ago in answer to another question I said that I understood the anxiety felt by many noble Lords in the matter. However, when we have UNPROFOR forces on the ground in many different places, including the other safe areas, and when we are to increase those UNPROFOR officers on the ground, I believe that it is absolutely vital that not only should we be in contact with the UNPROFOR commanders but that they also must be in contact with the NATO commanders. That means having agreement for the protection of those troops. Should air strikes have to go ahead, one would need to consider the withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops to safe areas. The protection of our troops must still be very much in the forefront of our minds. That is why we have a dual key arrangement.
§ Lord SwinfenMy Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether heavy weapons that have now been taken into custody by United Nations troops are being disabled, so that it does not matter if they are taken back by the Serbs'? Alternatively, is there some legal problem involved in disablement?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, so far as I know, there is no legal problem about disabling the weaponry. That is certainly a point which has been made absolutely clear. When some of the original weaponry was taken, including the guns taken by the Serbs from the French contingent, they were not disabled. However, I hope that all equipment will now be disabled.