| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to the United States. He knows that it has been the convention over the years that the super-powers should not take part in United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United States has been discouraged from joining in.
Column 535
Mr. Banks : I take that point. However, in view of the problems we now face which require such large numbers of troops armed with sophisticated weaponry, only countries such as the United States can fulfil the needs.
I remain one of the great critics of American foreign policy, but it is necessary that the finger of suspicion does not point unfairly at the United States when it is acting in the best interests of the rest of the world. I cannot see what the United States will gain nationally out of sending 30,000, or 60,000, troops to Somalia. Indeed, the United States Administration may become the target of strong criticism internally as soon as American soldiers start coming back in body bags. I understand that. The American Administration might be better protected and less misunderstood if they were more prepared for their military forces to be placed under United Nations control when they intervene in countries with the sanction of the Security Council.
I believe that there should be a United Nations army under the control of the Security Council. I believe that Britain should pledge its full defence resources to the United Nations and should put them at the disposal of the United Nations. One of the great benefits of the peace dividend is that we could say that the United Nations should be able to call on this country whenever it needs to, so that our military could intervene in areas where it was considered necessary for it to do so by the Security Council.
I believe that the UN should have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. I know that there are Conservative and Labour Members who disagree. In a world that purports to be civilised--I do not believe that we can call ourselves civilised, but I hope that we are moving towards a more civilised world--we cannot allow the political leaders of a country to massacre their own people while we stand aside and claim that that is a matter of the internal affairs of another country. I cannot see how the people who are being massacred will be grateful for that legal advice.
On the basis of unanimity within the Security Council, the United Nations should have the power and be prepared to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries. I know that there are dangers in that respect, but there are even greater dangers for the people who are on the receiving end of the barbaric actions of a number of political leaders around the world.
It was right for the United States to be prepared to send troops to Somalia. I hope that the British Government will provide military support. Why should gangsters in Somalia prevent humanitarian aid reaching the Somali people? It is right that there should be intervention. Why should Serb thugs in Bosnia be able to do what they are doing?
It is now time for the United Nations to intervene militarily in the former Yugoslavia if only to stop that conflict stretching into Kosovo and Macedonia and then involving Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and even Italy. There are dangers ; but the greater danger is that of doing nothing at all.
Although I will not adopt the "action man" mode of the leader of the Liberal Democrats and want to send large numbers of troops in without thinking about it, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has a point. However, it is very easy for politicians within the comforts of the Palace of Westminster to decide to send troops abroad to intervene in trouble spots ; we do not run the
Column 536
risks. In those circumstances, troops should be volunteers. I do not know how that fits in with the fact that ours is a professional army, but we should send troops on a voluntary basis rather than on the basis of, "Pick up your pack and off you go, laddie." It would be wrong for politicians to adopt that attitude.Military intervention rarely provides a long-term solution. We must look to the United Nations political role to solve those problems. We must make people sit around tables and ensure that they stay there until they find solutions to their problems. Naturally, economic sanctions must be imposed, and perhaps with greater enthusiasm than they have been imposed. As has been said, arms control is also essential. We must cut off the causes of regional conflicts rather than deal with the symptoms.
I am clear in my mind. I have not changed my position with regard to the United Nations. I have always believed in the role and function of the United Nations. It holds the key to the very future of world peace, and it deserves our unstinting support.
12.31 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. However, I add my apology to the apologies of several others as I will not be present for the winding-up speeches, because my wife had a baby yesterday and I must pick her up from hospital. However, I will read the winding-up speeches with some interest.
Mr. Rogers : The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is now the third Conservative Member to preface his remarks by saying that he will have to leave the Chamber early. I am aware that there is no coercion on hon. Members to stay. However, it is most discourteous. If it is simply a Government trick to scupper the debate on colliery closures, that is appalling. Conservative Members come into the Chamber, make their speeches and then walk out without any courtesy to the Minister or anyone else who has to wrap up the debate.
Mr. Brazier : I have taken a considerable interest in this subject and three of my letters on the subject have been published in the press. Although my wife had a baby yesterday, I have come to the House today to speak on the subject because I feel exceptionally strongly about it. I will read the record carefully to see what the Front-Bench spokesmen have to say. However, it is not unreasonable that I should want to return home, especially as I have to pick up my wife from the hospital.
Mr. Rogers : I sincerely apologise to the hon. Gentleman. As the father of four children, I appreciate the calls of the family. If I had known the facts, I would not have attacked the hon. Gentleman in that way. However, I deprecate the actions of other Conservative Members. I am aware of the strong commitment of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and I apologise unreservedly to him.
Mr. Brazier : I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's apology.
Mr. Thomason : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Column 537
Mr. Brazier : Several hon. Members are waiting to speak and I have very little time left. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Thomason : I thank my hon. Friend. It is interesting that quite a few Conservative Members wish to participate in the debate. This is an important issue on which many of us spent a considerable time preparing papers because we are interested in the subject, but there are large empty spaces on the Opposition Benches. It ill-behoves Opposition Members to make such points when hon. Members have taken time to be here.
Mr. Brazier : I thoroughly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks, but it is time that we returned to the subject of debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on choosing a good topic and on his excellent speech. Before I continue to the main burden of my speech, on the UN policy in the Balkans, I must endorse his argument that there can only be a long-term solution to the problems of Somalia with the restoration of an Administration there. I do not want to discuss how that can be achieved, but unless an Administration is restored, the chaos will return as soon as the troops leave.
The international community--in particular the United Nations and the European Comunity--is pressing all parties in the Balkans, particularly the Serbs, to establish a peace based on the internationally recognised borders of Bosnia. In principle, that aim is commendable, because we should uphold international law and because if we give way on the principle of borders, there are frightening precedents for other parts of eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet republics. I am sure that my central message will be unwelcome in some parts of the House, and it runs contrary to Government and United Nations policy. Nevertheless, I think that that aim is unattainable. If we choose to use Bosnia as the test case for that valuable principle we shall test it to destruction. Furthermore, I do not want the lives of British service men--perhaps substantial numbers of them--to be lost in an exercise in trying to make water run up hill. I welcome the recent comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, which gave the strongest possible hint that all military advice is that the aim is unattainable.
The burden of my speech is to establish that fact. I shall briefly consider a more attainable objective and mention the implications for our defence policies of trying to assist the United Nations in such areas.
Why is the aim unattainable? If we look back as far as we like in Balkan history we find that there have been wars there. Today, the focus is on Serbian aggression, but in world war two the Serbs suffered horribly at the hands of the Ustachi Croatians and their Bosnian Hanjar supporters and one sixth of the occupying Wehrmacht was made up of Muslims.
It is important to look further back in history to the five centuries of extremely bloody Turkish rule in Serbia. The spiritual mother of the Serbian nation is a lady who lost nine sons fighting the Turkish occupying forces.
Mr. Rogers rose--
Mr. Brazier : I shall not give way again because some of my hon. Friends want to speak and I must make progress.
Column 538
Turkish rule is significant because against the background of that terrible historical heritage, the worries of the Serbians and their Greek allies are constantly fuelled by recent examples of brutality by Muslim regimes against Christian minorities, to which all too often they see the western powers and the United Nations casting a blind eye. One example is the Azerbaijani treatment of Armenian minorities and another, is the Syrians' treatment of Lebanese Christians. An example that is even closer to home is the near silence on the treatment of Christian minorities in mainland Turkey. A Greek Member of the European Parliament reminded us of that in a pamphlet which we all received last week. Those considerations make the Serbs determined not to be ruled by an Islamic Government. I do not for one second seek to justify the hideous atrocities committed by the Serbian guerrilla forces in Bosnia--I think that they have been largely committed by such forces rather than by the Serbian regular army. I simply want to explain why they are fighting and their motivation for doing so.Mr. Ernie Ross : Does that make it okay then?
A number of options have been put forward for restoring Bosnia to its original borders. I should like to eliminate two of them. The stronger of the two options is that we should deploy ground troops in an offensive. I have already said why I believe that the Serbians are fighting and it is interesting to consider how they would be likely to fight.
When the Germans rolled into Yugoslavia on the heels of the Italians in the second world war, there was, contrary to popular belief, little initial fighting. Wehrmacht casualties ran to a few hundred only. Once the Germans had established themselves, however, the guerrilla war began. I believe that if the United Nations were to deploy a fighting force in Serbia, which had nothing to do with delivering humanitarian aid, exactly the same thing would happen. Initially they would not oppose it, but, subsequently, a guerrilla war would begin and, as in so many other places--Palestine, Cyprus and Afghanistan--the Serbians would make extensive use of children and the elderly, the most vulnerable, in propagating that war. Eight-year- old children would shoot at British and other United Nations soldiers. Women and children would be pushed to the front of crowds to act as a screen for terrorists.
Once we saw our soldiers being killed and the world media began to cry out at the killing of civilians, which would be unavoidable when trying to hold down a hostile population, the inevitable result would be the withdrawal of those United Nations forces. After that the fighting would begin afresh with renewed vigour.
The other option for re-establishing Bosnian control of the original Bosnian state is the so-called air option. If the first option is unwise, the second one does not exist. It is ludicrous to draw a parallel with the Gulf war. Then, air crews were flying over vast empty spaces that were home to no one. There was no forestation and air power could be used without the slightest hesitation. Are we really going to bomb Serbian gun positions in the middle of villages and bomb their ammunition dumps, which would be located in the middle of their concentration camps?
Column 539
If we conducted sporadic bombing in Serbia itself against selected targets, all the evidence from past wars suggests that that would stiffen morale and deepen hatred. Surely no one is suggesting that we should initiate a Dresden on Belgrade.The truth is that there is no limited air option. There is no way in which we can put Bosnia back together again by following an acceptable policy with acceptable casualties. What, then, should we try to do to overcome the plight of the wretched Bosnians? We must recognise that the border must change--there is no other option. The Serbs have already said and the Croats, too, I believe, that they would be happy to give up some of the ground that they have captured in exchange for a negotiated settlement involving a genuine border change. In effect, Serbia would be given a substantial chunk of Bosnia and Croatia would be given a smaller chunk. The Bosnians would be left with a smaller, viable "place in the sun", to coin the famous phrase. I believe that such a solution could be negotiated. We have had suggestions from the Serbians in Bosnia that they would be willing to consider and negotiate that option.
Even that might prove unattainable without the use of force. The longer we wait before entering negotiations based on a border change--the longer we try to uphold a good principle of international law in the face of an impossible example, with a state that has existed for only 18 months and which was created against the wishes of the two minorities who together form a majority of the country--the more we undermine the possibility of success. I believe that we should go for it now.
What would be the implications for our defence policy if we were willing to intervene on behalf of the UN in a really active military fashion in Bosnia or a similar type of situation ? I accept that matters could become so bad that it might be necessary to intervene, but I would be willing to contemplate intervention in only one event, and that would be after a serious attempt had been made to negotiate fresh boundaries for a much smaller Bosnia in which the Bosnian Muslims were left to live in peace.
Only if that proved impossible--the signs do not suggest that it would be impossible--might it be necessary to try to establish the sort of enclave that we have for the Kurds on the basis of a much smaller and defendable patch. But we must be clear that the consequences for our defence policy would be absolutely profound if Britain were willing in principle to intervene in that type of way there or anywhere in eastern Europe.
Mr. Ernie Ross : The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to leave the matter there. He refers to our taking action. Is he aware that it is not for Britain to decide what shall happen in Bosnia ? The purpose of the UN having a new agenda is to make it acceptable to minorities, particularly minorities in parts of the world which have felt that only the big powers, the majorities, have taken action against them. It is for them--not just the Serbs but the Muslims and Croats--to decide whether they want to divide up their country. It is not for us to tell them how to divide it up.
Mr. Brazier : The hon. Gentleman missed the point I was making, which was that the UN and EC line at every peace negotiation has been based on the objective of making all parties agree to restoring Bosnia to its original or perhaps I should say "nominal", boundaries. That has
Column 540
been the pre-condition at every conference, including the recent one in London, and my basic message is that that demand is unattainable and that until the UN moves away from it, there can be no prospect of a successful peace conference. The British Government and the UN should be aiming for a conference designed to negotiate a realistic border change, and the Serbs have said that in such circumstances they would be willing to give up some of the ground they have captured.I am anxious to consider the implications for British defence policy should Britain, either in Bosnia or some other eastern European situation, agree to play a significant military role, similar to that which we played in the Gulf, as part of a United Nations force that was doing real fighting and was not engaged in a purely peacekeeping operation.
Our armed forces, and particularly the Army, are moving from being very small to even smaller. Indeed, after "Options for Change", our Army will be only slightly larger than that of Holland or Belgium. It is desperately overstretched and we could not realistically expect such a tiny force--we are catering for only 100,000--to take on a commitment of that size, over and above all its other commitments. The funding is also in the process of being squeezed, even more so than manpower, from 5.2 per cent. of GDP in the mid-1980s to a projected 3.2 per cent. in the mid-1990s, a squeeze of 40 per cent. For us to become involved in the type of campaign in prospect in, say, Bosnia, would involve us in vast quantities of new and expensive equipment, of which helicopter gunships are an example.
It would be unwise for the United Nations to become involved in trying to enforce in a military fashion its present objective, which I believe to be unattainable. Moreover, if we were to contemplate military intervention in defence of a much more limited objective of providing an enclave for the Bosnians--it is the only circumstance under which I might be willing to contemplate military
intervention--it would require a total reappraisal of our defence policy and "Options for Change", with enormous resource implications.
I am genuinely sorry that I shall not be present to hear the wind up of this debate by my hon. Friend the Minister, but I shall read the record with considerable interest. In summary, I firmly believe that the United Nations' present objective in the Balkans is unattainable and I am horrified at the idea of pouring away the blood of our own service men and women in trying to attain it. An attainable objective could and should be formulated at a conference, without pre-conditions. It should be based on substantial changes in borders which, after all, are of only 18 months' standing as internally recognised boundaries.
Finally, we should be clear about the fact that if, under any circumstances, we plan to become involved in a United Nations war-fighting role as distinct from small-scale peacekeeping operations, the implications for resourcing our armed forces will be profound.
12.51 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on the United Nations role. It is high time that we did so and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on getting the debate and on his consistent interest in UN matters. It
Column 541
underlines a problem in the House--we seldom get round to debating matters to do with the United Nations or have Government time set aside during which the Foreign Secretary can report on Britain's contributions to the UN and its agencies. It is an extremely important issue and we do not spend enough time discussing it. I strongly support the view that Britain should renew its membership of UNESCO. To have left that organisation was appalling and a kick in the face of a valuable part of the UN's operations. It was also a signal to the rest of the world that we did not care about cultural and scientific aspects of UN operations or about the rest of the world. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, because I think that one of UNESCO's most important contributions was its attempt at setting up a world information agency. It was trying to ensure that the pro-western bias in the world's media- gathering agencies was at least in part redressed.The new UN Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali, has produced a report on how he sees the UN and its agencies developing. It is important that he has done that and useful that he has set out his objectives. Although I do not agree with all the objectives or with several decisions that he has already taken, at least he has attempted to set out the scenario by which the UN can develop. There are fundamental structural problems within the United Nations. It was born at the end of the second world war and the victors of that war played a large part in its establishment. They set up the concept of the General Assembly and the Security Council, and gave permanent members of the Security Council powers of veto, essentially to keep the Soviet Union and the United States in place in the United Nations. Since then, we have been bedevilled by the Security Council's power and the limited powers of the General Assembly.
It cannot be right that the Security Council's five permanent members-- Britain, France, Russia, the United States and China--should still be the same permanent members after all this time. Why cannot there automatically be a place on the Security Council for at least one representative of each continent? Why does no third world country have a permanent place on the Security Council? Why are not economically powerful countries such as Japan permanently represented? No African or Latin American countries are permanently represented. India, with the second largest population in the world, is not represented. There are many arguments about it.
Unless the issue of the structure of the United Nations is properly dealt with, and real democracy is developed in it, the process that we have seen in the past four years of growing United States interest and control over United Nations decisions will eventually lead to the disintegration of the United Nations. Third world countries will increasingly band together through the movement for non-alignment, the Group of Seven or whatever, depending on the area involved. It is all very well for western triumphalism to be in charge and in the ascendancy of the United Nations at present, but, unless the issues are seriously addressed, the United Nations simply will not survive. I say that not as one who wants to see the United Nations fail--I do not--but as one who
Column 542
wants to see it succeed. Unless the United Nations is prepared to change and recognise the reality of the world, it will start to decline.The Rio summit should have been a great triumph for the United Nations. But it was not a great triumph because of all the caveats that were pushed into the final communique s on environmental considerations, especially by the United States. Unless one of the world's largest industrial economies, the United States, is prepared to agree to the wishes of the rest of the world to protect the environment, the species and the regeneration of natural environments, the whole concept and consequences of the Rio summit will be called seriously into question.
There is a great deal of concern about the restructuring of the United Nations in favour of its economic role. After all, the United Nations economic role is one of its key roles. That role is being taken away from the redistributive agencies of the United Nations and handed over effectively to the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. I say that because I know that most of the debate today has been dominated, understandably, by the issue of United Nations peacekeeping operations and the dangers of wars, including civil wars, in various parts of the world. I understand that, but the majority of the world's population do not have secure employment, secure housing, available education, available health care or decent food supplies. A quarter of the world's population is malnourished. More than 500 million people in the world regularly face starvation. Life expectancy in most of the world is rather less than 50. We are looking at a world that is deeply and grossly divided and becoming more deeply and grossly divided.
The United Nations and its attempts at fair trade through the UN Conference on Trade and Development in the past, its distribution of food through the World Food Programme and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, and its attempts to examine the enormous power that multinational corporations hold in the world, must be applauded. In that sense I deeply regret the decision taken by Boutros Boutros Ghali immediately after the Rio summit to close down the United Nations office which dealt with transnational corporations. A very good article has been published in the July issue of Third World Resurgence , which is produced by the Third World Network in Penang, Malaysia. The article is entitled
"UN restructuring against South's interests".
The reality is that the restructuring of the United Nations is done very much according to the image and the wishes of the United States. That image seems to be that the only thing that matters in the world's economy is the power of multinational capital and the freedom of multinational capital to trade. Much less interest is taken in the needs of third world agriculture or the redistribution of power and wealth around the world.
I refer to the point I made earlier. Unless the issues are taken seriously by all member states of the United Nations, and we recognise the need for democracy within the United Nations and for contributions to be made to it, I do not think that the United Nations will last much longer. The tensions within the organisation will become far too great. Boutros Boutros Ghali expressed it well. Thinking back to the period when the great powers of the world spent a long time ignoring the United Nations in the 1960s, 1970s and the early 1980s, Boutros Boutros Ghali
Column 543
now sees that the rest of the world has a surfeit of interest in the United Nations. We saw that surfeit of interest in the procedures leading up to and surrounding the Gulf war.I have never been an apologist for Saddam Hussein. I was calling for an arms embargo on Iraq in 1986, a long time before the British Government recognised the dangers there, so I do not need to apologise about that. I thought that the Gulf war was immoral. The consequences of that conflict, which was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, but not under its day-to-day command or control, included the death of at least 250,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a profit to the British Government from the income received from the war. The Government conveniently forget about the money that they lost in export credit guarantees from sales to Iraq in the past. The war also brought instability in Kuwait, poverty in Iraq, and instability in the south where the Shias live and in the north where the Kurds live.
Perhaps we should have taken more notice of what the Kurds said about their right to self-determination in the late 1970s and early 1980s, rather than taking an interest far too late in what they were saying. Instead, this country and others were more interested in building up the power of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Ernie Ross : I agree with my hon. Friend, but what would he have done about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? We all know that Saddam Hussein was maltreating citizens. I agree that we should not have been selling arms to Hussein, irrespective of whether he intended to invade Kuwait. But once Hussein was in Kuwait, it was clear that he was attempting to destroy the Kuwaiti nation, so how else could we have dealt with that problem?
Mr. Corbyn : We could have dealt with it in a number of ways. First, we should not have been supporting Iraq by selling arms to it, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war. Secondly, much closer observation should have been taken of Saddam Hussein's intentions in the lead-up to the invasion of Kuwait, particularly the United States intelligence information that was made available to all parties. Thirdly, the sanctions were having some effect. Fourthly, President Gorbachev had broken an agreement that Iraq was, in principle, prepared to withdraw from Kuwait at that stage. However, the United States war machine was so large and was very much in place by then, so there was no question of President Bush being prepared to allow an opportunity for other action to be taken. The subject of my speech is not solely the Gulf war, but its consequences have been absolutely horrific and it is hard to find any benefits from it at present. On the issue of peace around the world in a more global sense, the United Nations sponsored the non-proliferation treaty. The British Government say that they support the United Nations and that a cornerstone of their policies is their support for the United Nations. In that case, why are the Government ordering and building a fourth Trident submarine? They are, apparently, prepared to consider further nuclear weapons in future. The Trident submarine programme is the most massive proliferation of nuclear firepower in any world state at present. If all the warheads are put in place it will increase Britain's nuclear firepower by 400 per cent. over the existing Polaris fleet. The programme is nonsense, a waste of money and deeply immoral. I say that as one who is not prepared to countenance the holding or use of nuclear weapons in any
Column 544
circumstances. We should pay some heed to the non-proliferation treaty, which was sponsored by the United Nations.The United Nations is attempting to have an effect in some regions of the world. However, in some cases, what is happening is not what we are led to believe is happening. We know of the past horrors of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the hundreds of thousands of skulls found in chambers--the charnel houses of the dead of Cambodia. Everyone recognises the evilness of that regime. The degree of genocide in Cambodia was on a par with the genocide of the Nazis against the Jewish people, gipsies and others in Germany, both pre-war and during the war. I accept that, but the reality in Cambodia at present is that the United States strategy has always been to get rid of the Han Sen regime in order to destroy the Vietnamese influence on Cambodia. At the same time, the United Nations presence in Cambodia is working alongside the Khmer Rouge and the remains of the former Pol Pot army.
Pol Pot is there. His influence is powerful. The regime has control over large areas of Cambodia. I draw the attention of the House to an article by John Pilger that appeared in last week's New Statesman and Society. One passage states :
"The United Nations is normalising the unthinkable in Cambodia." He quotes a conversation that he had with the United Nation's Australian commander, Lt. General John Sanderson. This is John Pilger :
"I referred to the genocide' committed by the Khmer Rouge. Genocide is your term!' he came back. I reminded him that actually, no, it wasn't. In 1979, the United Nations Human Rights Commission described Pol Pot's crimes as the worst to have occurred anywhere in the world since Nazism'; and in 1985, the United Nations special rapporteur on genocide ruled that what the Khmer Rouge had done was genocide. . .even under the most restricted definition.' " That is what is going on in Cambodia at present.
The United Nations promised development aid to Cambodia of £880 million. That was pledged at the Tokyo conference. Hardly any of that money has found its way into Cambodia.
There are enormous armies in Cambodia and the army of the Pol Pot regime is settling down alongside them. I fear that in the long run we shall see a return for Pol Pot by some back-door method with the connivance of the United Nations. A seat was kept throughout at the United Nations, with the support of the British Government, for the remains of the Khmer Rouge regime.
In an Adjournment debate last year I talked about the situation in the western Sahara. The rights of the Polisario and the rights of the people of the western Sahara to self-determination are understood and generally recognised by the United Nations. Like all conflicts, however, nothing is simple. The conflict in the western Sahara interests the people who are there, but interest does not extend beyond that. There is, of course, interest in the minerals that are there and the fish in the sea. Interest extends to the Spanish colonialists of the past.
In supporting the Polisario movement, the people of the western Sahara have amply demonstrated over many years their deep commitment to their own self- determination and independence. That must be well understood. It is in that setting that the behaviour of the Moroccan forces in the past must be examined, along with the role of the United Nations now.
Column 545
The United Nations was due to broker a referendum in the western Sahara. Some United Nations officials were suspended during the preparation of the electoral roll because they were passing on to the Moroccan Government information that should not have been made able to them. They were showing partiality, and they were disciplined. The referendum should have been held about a year ago, but there has been delay. Moroccan forces have moved civilians and further Moroccan armed forces into the area that is claimed by the Democratic Republic of the Sahrawi People. By moving in these people the Moroccans have produced a deadlock when it comes to determining who will vote in any referendum. We know that determining who is to be on the electoral roll can be the deciding factor in who wins the referendum. I do not want to see the present situation in the western Sahara continue for any longer. Can it be right that the vast majority of the population of the western Sahara have been forced to move out of their own homes, areas and villages to live in refugee camps in Algeria. It is not right. I think that everybody recognises that. It is essential that something is done about it. It is all very well passing United Nations resolutions on the subject, but if, at the same time, we maintain normal relations with Morocco--normal trade, military relations and all the rest of it--that country will not feel in the least inclined to carry out the wishes of the United Nations and hold a plebiscite, which I believe would lead to a peaceful settlement once and for all. It is clear that the people of the western Sahara wish to have the opportunity that is provided by self-determination, which will bring an end to an appalling conflict. That is the only part of Africa where the Organisation of African Unity supports the declaration of an independent state within existing political borders. African borders are fraught with difficulty, and the OAU's support for the Sahrawi case is interesting.I want to make brief mention of the terrible conflict in Liberia, which is in part a matter of United Nations interest, in that the Security Council has discussed it. The article in last Sunday's edition of the Observer was chilling in its horror. It told of the children who have been dragged into the war by all sides, all factions. Five-year-old children have been handed knives and guns and taught how to kill. The long-term psychological damage done to those children and the chaos in that country ought to concern everyone deeply.
In that civil war, the supposed peacekeeping force organised by the west African states is overwhelmingly dominated by Nigeria. That force has air supplies and air cover and has taken to shelling the positions of the army led by Charles Taylor. That has become a civil war, and the forces of the west African states--with the military support and intelligence of the United States--have in effect become a war against the forces of Charles Taylor.
My purpose in raising that issue is to point out that unless a brokered ceasefire can take effect and there is a genuine halt to the fighting and support for the refugees in Liberia, many more will die than the 20,000 already killed in that civil war. Another potential Somalia or Beirut is developing in west Africa.
Many do not accept that the west African peacekeeping forces are particularly even-handed or interested in securing the peace. It has, with the support of other states
Column 546
within the region, become a civil war. The United Nations must take that situation seriously and try to broker an urgent ceasefire. Otherwise, the killing will continue.There are many other places in the world where issues of war and peace are not yet resolved, and where there is a need for peacekeeping forces and to recognise the rights of people to live in peace. That is an important and major role for the United Nations. I remind the House that the absence of fighting or belligerence in a conflict does not mean that people are living at peace. It cannot be right that we know that the behaviour of the majority of industrialised nations is ruining our environment and potentially ending life on this planet. We know also that the world economic system does not redstribute wealth from the richest nations to the poorest but sucks yet more wealth from the poorest and hands it to the banking systems of the richest. One thinks of the debt crisis, the power of multinational capital, unfair trading arrangements, and the low prices paid for commodities.
It cannot be right that millions of children are growing up in slums on the outskirts of capital cities. It cannot be right that life expectancy in so many countries is less than 50. It cannot be right that millions are dying of starvation while we are getting rid of surplus food to maintain high prices.
The United Nations can provide the framework and the solutions to those problems, but if the United Nations becomes solely the plaything of the powerful, rich, industrial nations of the north, that might satisfy the egos of those nations initially and give them a feeling of well being and self-satisfaction, but in the not-too-distant future it will lead to the United Nation's demise, as the poorest nations grow angrier and angrier at experts arriving from the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to tell them how to run their economies. They know full well that advice will be "Cut your public spending, and close your hospitals and schools", to repay a debt that is unfair and non-repayable. Unless we take those issues seriously, we shall not be doing any favours to ourselves, the world or our own futures.
1.14 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : It is classical to start by congratulating the movers of motions on their success in obtaining them and by thanking them for their speeches in support of them. This morning, we have been privileged to hear some fine speeches and some profound truths expressed. I should like to say how much I honoured and valued the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) that began the debate this morning. It was, however, no less than I expected, because the fine standard of his debates on international issues, particularly on the United Nations, is an example to the rest of the House. We are fortunate to have the benefit of his knowledge, and I was glad to be present today to hear him.
I particularly welcomed my hon. Friend's comments on the value of UNESCO. I do not share his warm glow about some of UNESCO's earlier actions, but, like him, I believe that the time has come for Britain to rejoin. We do ourselves and UNESCO no favours by staying out. I thank my hon. Friend warmly for drawing the House's attention to the report of Dr. Boutros Boutros
Column 547
Ghali entitled "An Agenda for Peace," consequential upon the Security Council summit meeting of 31 January. It is an important document which we need to study carefully.I have just become a member of the executive council of UNICEF, and I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the fine work of UNICEF in so many areas of the world.
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : On UNESCO, is not the only remaining issue of any substance of the nine points of
dissatisfaction that were raised by Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, in his notice of withdrawal in 1984 the decentralisation of personnel from their headquarters? Is not the fact that the United Kingdom--and probably the United States of America--will rejoin UNESCO in this parliamentary Session to be welcomed?
Miss Nicholson : I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. As a signatory to two letters to The Times from the parliamentary group seeking the United Kingdom's rejoining of UNESCO, I support what he has said and I am confident that the Government will have heard and taken note of it.
I do not wish to sound a jarring note too early in the debate, but I have been saddened by one speech. I raised a point of order when your predecessor, Madam Deputy Speaker, was in the Chair and I wish to put down a marker. I did not raise it for a frivolous reason. An hon. Member opposite, who is not here--he has barely been here since, and I do not name him--used his speech to read out extract upon extract, letter upon letter and statement upon statement attacking the Government on an issue unrelated to the United Nations. He cobbled together some tenuous link with the debate by continually dropping in the name "United Nations". I pointed out that in the Iran-Iraq war the United Nations had passed no motion saying that there should be an arms embargo on Iran and Iraq by members of the United Nations. He claimed that I was wrong. I understand that I am correct in saying that the United Nations attempted to pass such a motion but did not manage to do so.
I believe, therefore, that the entirety of the hon. Gentleman's over- lengthy and, frankly, boring speech was an irrational attempt to attack the Government. It was against the spirit of the debate, the spirit of the House and the spirit of the mover of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath. I am sad that he did that. Of course the United Nations issued guidelines, but so did the Government, which were drafted in 1984 and passed by the House in 1985, but that subject is a topic for a different debate. I am sad that so much time has been misused this morning.
I deal again with the United Nations, as is proper for everyone else who speaks in the debate. I pay tribute to the relative success of the United Nations work in Somalia. I say only "relative" success because what is happening is a tragedy and it is difficult to use the word "success" in that framework. However, the work done by UNICEF and other United Nations agencies has been remarkable and I am sure that it will continue.
Despite the many criticisms made of the interventions by the United Nations and other bodies such as the Government in the former Yugoslavia, I know that the United Nations has brought hope to many troubled victims there and I entirely support its work.
| Next Section
| Home Page |