House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Dec 1992

Column 548

I turn now to a part of the world in which I believe that the United Nations has failed drastically, dramatically and without good cause--Iraq, south and north. Sadly, I lay special blame at the door of Dr. Boutros Ghali for his signing of the recent United Nations draft memorandum of understanding between the regime of Iraq--which is defined in the memorandum as a Government--and the United Nations. I am aware that the memorandum of understanding was considered by many to be better than nothing and I am also aware that the negotiations were undertaken by James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF, whose good will and energy in bringing aid to children in Iraq and many other countries is unceasing and must be honoured and praised by all. However, what the United Nations did was wrong.

I know from experience the miseries and deprivation in the south of Iraq. I have not yet visited the north, but hope to do so--I have a number of outstanding invitations. I well know--and have told the House on many occasions--what a wretched business it is now to live in the south of Iraq especially, being what is familiarly known as a marsh Arab, a member of the Ma'dan. I have seen the victims and have discussed the tragedies and traumas at length with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. There is much torture and many deaths and imprisonments underground year after year. That is the stuff of my daily work and thinking, and I know that what is happening is unacceptable to all right-thinking people's wishes. In addition, I have much evidence of the victims' experiences and of the tragedies now occurring. Only yesterday I received a fax about the Third River project which states that water in 46 villages in the Messan marshes has dried up. Those villages were in the middle of water, but there is now an acute shortage of it. The population of 40,000 people has started to dig wells to get water for daily use. This is a marsh area : it is not an area such as the Norfolk broads but is about half the size of Switzerland and always has deep water. It has now dried out and the surface of the reed bed of the marshes is cracked.

My corresponent, who is the local rapporteur for human rights in Iraq in the south of Iran, tells me that the villagers are in a very bad way because their ability to keep hunting and fishing and to retain the water buffalo depends on marsh water. The fax states that the Iraqi regime has started to cut the date palms to deprive the people wholly of their ability to feed themselves. It is a tragedy of enormous magnitude. I have the names of the villages and the numbers of people, and I am certain that the facts are correct.

A couple of weeks ago I learned of a new report to be submitted to the United Nations by its special rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, Mr. Max van den Stoel. I have the document here, and I would gladly share it with the rest of the House. Reading out the full report would indeed add to the tragic thoughts of everyone in the Chamber, but it would not add to my speech, as I know that hon. Members understand what I am saying.

Max van den Stoel, formerly the Netherlands ambassador and now special United Nations rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, has written a report to the United Nations which makes devastating reading. He criticises the United Nations for failing to act effectively in the south

Column 549

and the north of Iraq, but most of his criticism, properly, is directed at the regime of Saddam Hussein and its complete destruction of any pretence of the practice of human rights in Iraq. I have the dossier here to show my colleagues.

What has been the United Nations reaction to the tragedies that Max van den Stoel and others, including myself, have been bringing to its notice for months? The reaction has been the drawing up of the final memorandum of understanding, signed by Mr. Nizar Hamdoon--who signs himself ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, permanent representative of Iraq to the United Nations--and by Jan Eliasson, the under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs. Yet this is no humanitarian report. I shall tell the House just a few points which I have culled from it. I must stress that they show my own perspective on it.

First, the memorandum of understanding recognises the sovereignty of Iraq. Yet the concept underlying all the United Nations resolutions on Iraq has been that the Security Council has already taken away Iraq's legal authority. If the Security Council has essentially overridden Iraq's sovereignty on humanitarian matters, through a combination of the sanctions resolution and the humanitarian assistance resolution--known so well to us as resolution 688--what is the point of the debate over the memorandum of understanding?

Iraq has long since lost any moral authority that the regime may ever have possessed. The games involving the memorandum of understanding cost valuable months, and took away the United Nations initiatives, playing into the hands of the Iraqi regime. Furthermore, the memorandum recognises the sovereignty of the Iraqi regime, which is unacceptable and unthinkable. It also took months to achieve, despite the earlier UN statement that if the memorandum of understanding on humanitarian supplies was to achieve anything supplies had to be in place before the winter set in. Supplies were not in place. The memorandum has only just been signed, and it is based on a plan that does not even exist, and which has to be agreed by the Iraqi regime. Indeed, paragraph 6 says that the Iraqi regime will co- operate with the United Nations. When has Iraq ever done that? How can that be proved, how can it be made to happen? The idea is nonsense.

The joint co-ordination committee, the body behind the memorandum of understanding, grants Iraq two more vetoes, one over implementing the programme--we must remember that that programme does not yet exist--and another over attempting to resolve

"any difficulties that may arise in practice".

The whole memorandum defies logic and understanding for those of us who care for the oppressed people of Iraq. Furthermore, it allows only a small number of UN guards to be available. The number is ridiculous. There is none for the south, and there are only eight for Baghdad. One can tell that even to keep United Nations property safe in Baghdad would require at least 30 guards--to protect UN buildings, vehicles, stocks and so on. Over and above that, the United Nations guards' actions and their communications network will be funnelled through the Iraqi regime.

The present memorandum of understanding is an admission of failure on the part of the UN and especially on the part of Mr. Eliasson's office. In the light of that

Column 550

so-called "agreement", we should ask ourselves two questions. First, is Iraq to be trusted with such an agreement? Millions of lives hang in the balance. Secondly, what contingency plans have been prepared for the possibility of the Iraqis failing to live up to expectations?

A couple of weeks after the memorandum of understanding was signed, we heard that trucks were going into the north. We were told that we should not be too fussed about the memorandum of understanding because it was going to be effective. I leave aside the fact that no aid was to be given to the south, that there were no guards in the south and that the south was not even mentioned in the memorandum of understanding. What has happened? The convoy of trucks to the north was fire-bombed by the Iraqi regime and the supplies went up in flames. That is the United Nations memorandum of understanding in practice. I believe that the United Nations has failed Iraq and that we should do all that we can through our membership of the Security Council and of the various committees of the United Nations to bring about a greater political will among all countries in the United Nations to achieve something more effective.

I am glad that, on 19 November, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Shias in Iraq which was sponsored by Anthony Simpson, the British MEP for Northamptonshire and South Leicestershire. I will not read it out, but it is here for all to see. I am also glad that members of Congress are at last trying to achieve something. I am in correspondence and telephone contact with Senator Edward Kennedy.

The British Government have been wonderfully supportive of the efforts of those of us who have been trying to help Iraq. I have here a recent letter from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in which he gives his support and says :

"We will keep a close watch on developments in southern Iraq If necessary, we will go back to the Security Council to consider what further action we might take to help protect the population of southern Iraq against systematic repression in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 688."

The time has come. I urge the Minister today to consider carefully taking that action now.

1.32 pm

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva (Brentford and Isleworth) : I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on having made an elegant and witty speech. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is no longer here. I was bewildered--I am sure that it was entirely my fault-- by his point about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister being unaware of where Africa was when he was Foreign Secretary. The hon. Member for Linlithgow must be unaware that my right hon. Friend lived and worked in Nigeria for many years.

It is timely to talk about the United Nations and about its future role. We are in a new epoch in the history of the United Nations and Britain will play its part in the future destiny of the United Nations as we have done in its past. The 20th century has seen some of the most dramatic power struggles in world history. There was first the carnage of the first world war and then the genocide of the second world war. There was the ending of the great colonial powers, such as Britain. There were the steps into the atomic age and the emergence of two super-powers, with the race for supremacy. There was the formation of two ideological and military armed camps which faced

Column 551

each other through the cold war. There was the rise and fall of communism. We now stand on the brink of ever- increasing numbers of regional conflicts.

The United Nations in the cold war was largely ineffectual, as the two super-powers were mostly at odds and, to a large extent, dictated international policy on the basis of brinkmanship. The role of others on the world stage seemed to be merely as advisers, camp followers and supporters, with the so-called "non-aligned" movement being anything but that.

In recent times, the United Nations has played a stronger and more vital role around the globe. It was instrumental in ending the Iran-Iraq war with the deployment of the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observation Group-- UNIMOG ; it played a similar role in the Afghanistan conflict and it has played a peacekeeping role in Cyprus, Angola and Kashmir. However, despite the good intentions, in situations like the Lebanon and Somalia, it has made very little headway.

However, for the first time in its history, the United Nations should now be well placed to establish itself as a primary agent for peace as a consequence of the ending of the cold war. Some would say that the United Nations is now under greater strain than at any time since the end of the second world war.

Change begets conflict and the world has changed rapidly over the past five years and the first point that I want to consider is whether the United Nations has changed fast enough to keep up. I welcome the appointment of such a distinguished person as Dr. Boutros Ghali as the first Secretary- General of the United Nations from the African continent. He has stressed his concern about north-south relations showing a sensitivity to development issues as well as to political and security matters.

Although I have some sympathy with Dr. Boutros Ghali's statement that if there is no development without democracy, there is no democracy without development, I have been somewhat taken aback recently by the fact that, bearing in mind all the problems that we face, Dr. Boutros Ghali surprised us with his ethnic comments. It is a cardinal rule of the United Nations that ethnicity should never enter the argument. Dr. Boutros Ghali seems to be trying to set himself up as a champion of the third world. However, what is now required is statesmanship and not an attempt to transform the paralysis that permeated the United Nations during the cold war into a further period of impotence through a new north-south standoff. It is entirely possible that Dr. Boutros Ghali's error of judgment rose because he had been accused of pushing African interests to one side during his leadership. That criticism obviously hurt and his rebuke to the Security Council over its concern for the war of the rich in Yugoslavia rather than about that of the poor in Somalia was perhaps hasty. No one concerned with the United Nations should make such distinctions and allow the world to be polarised once more. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he said :

"The Secretary-General finds the queue outside the door growing all the time. I was not surprised he feels occasional exasperation, but we are on his side and we will work with him."

Column 552

We must at all costs avoid a collision of cultures between the member states that speak for the advanced world and those that represent the third world. We must prevent the United Nations from plunging deeper into a growing identity crisis that threatens to paralyse its efforts

Under the United Nations charter, the Secretary-General is something more, but not very much more, than a servant of the Security Council. He can draw situations to the attention of the Council, make recommendations to it and has the duty of interpreting its decisions--often to the displeasure of some of its members. However, no previous Secretary-General has reprimanded the Security Council as Dr. Boutros Ghali did recently.

The root problem, which is more fundamental than the style of the Secretary -General, is his belief that the Security Council is out of tune with the needs of the people represented at the United Nations and that the east- west split of the cold war risks being replaced by the north-south split of the new world order.

The difficulties between the Secretary-General and the Security Council are symptomatic of the great changes that the organisation has undergone since the end of the cold war. While the cold war lasted with the Security Council deadlocked between the super-powers, both sides wooed the countries of the third world. The General Assembly was still of some importance, though in prolonged decline. The Secretary-General was of considerable importance as a mediator between east and west. In future, we must not get into another adversarial position where the Secretary-General is the mediator between the north and the south. At the recent Security Council summit 15 heads of state set out a timetable assignment for the new Secretary-General. What is he to implement in the current world context?

The collapse of the eastern bloc and the disintegration of the communist Soviet empire, welcome as it is, has only made the world a more volatile and dangerous place. The rising tide of nationalism in the old USSR and the inevitable fall-out after the suppression of many years of freedom, has had a knock-on effect around the world as countries are torn apart by ethnic and religious differences. We are also faced with escalating civil wars in the countries that are least able to cope with them, such as the Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. Among the liberal democracies there is an increasing belief that models of sovereignty need to be altered when the internal affairs of one state can so easily affect those of another. The spread of conflict and nationalism in eastern Europe, the international drugs trade and the vexed issues of refugees and migrants provide examples. Those are matters of national self-interest. Additional to that self-interest, the concept of humanitarianism establishes a moral identity with citizens of other states, as recently demonstrated in Iraq after the Gulf war.

In April 1991, Security Council resolution 688 insisted on "immediate access by international organisations".

to those in need of assistance

"in all parts of Iraq".

Although that was not systematically pursued, it was followed by the safe havens project for the Kurds. In September 1992, the French proposed a new international code of conduct, allowing minorities to request humanitarian assistance from outside powers during a crisis. That followed the December 1991 resolution which

Column 553

allowed the United Nations to intervene in a member state to provide humanitarian assistance, given the consent of the state concerned. That was an effective compromise between western demands for respectable interventionism and softer definitions of sovereignty, and third world fears of military action against dictatorships under the guise of humanitarianism.

I am conscious of the time and so will conclude by saying a few words on Britain's continued role as a permanent member of the Security Council. Britain is not merely another member of the European Community. Britain and its people have historically and uniquely fashioned the world that we know today. British institutions--our concept of the rule of law, of democracy, of commercial practice, human rights and value systems--are the norms recognised by the majority of the world's population. The English language is spoken by more than 1.5 billion people in the Commonwealth and is the glue that keeps people of different ethnic and national groups together.

Britain's continued role in the European Community should be seen as an augmentation of its existing world position, as a force for good, given its historic experience in world affairs. Finally, neither gun boats, armed capability or sheer population size should now be the criteria for membership of the Security Council. In the new partnership for change that I mentioned earlier and in the changing circumstances of the United Nations and its future role in the world, it is vital not only that Britain remains a permanent member of the Security Council in its own right, but that it is recognised by other nations as being an arbiter and a moral force for good.

1.37 pm

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : The debate has been extremely interesting and I am glad that we were able to squeeze in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva). I shall certainly not comment on his speech, but I shall read it with interest in Hansard.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on obtaining the debate. His profound interest in issues as large as the United Nations is an example to us all. Often in our domestic politics, as well as in our general approach, we seem to get bogged down on specifics and do not have the breadth of approach that the hon. Gentleman has shown. I do not say that condescendingly and I sincerely thank him for the opportunity to debate this subject, although I do not think that my wife in Wales, who was flooded out this week, will appreciate the fact that I have had to stay here on a Friday.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) could not get into the debate. I think that she is the only hon. Member who has sat from beginning to end who could not speak. I remarked on the fact that some people were unable to speak and I am sincere about that. If hon. Members cannot stay for the whole debate perhaps they ought not to speak in the beginning.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath rightly emphasised the role of the UNESCO and that subject was taken up. I entirely support the proposal that the British Government should take us back into it.

Column 554

I was disturbed by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that we might want to set up protectorates and that the rich and more powerful countries might want to adopt weaker ones. Judging from experience, both before and after the war, the protectorate system is not one which we should seek to emulate at this stage in the 20th century.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath questioned whether sufficient support has been given to the Cheshire Regiment since it was sent to Yugoslavia. I entirely agree that it is no good sending troops, especially infantry, into situations where they do not have proper cover. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I say that as a former infantry man. Failure to provide such support could be criminal. I pray that our young lads--they are all young lads in the Cheshire Regiment--will not be exposed to far greater weaponry than their own. It is all right to talk about not wanting to escalate the problems in former Yugoslavia, but we do not want troops--Croat or British- -to be slaughtered because they do not have sufficient weaponry and arms capability to respond. For that reason, I urge the Minister of State to take up this matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. When that Minister of State and I previously discussed Bosnia he refused to accept that it might be a good idea to supply some air cover for our troops. There will be much blood on the hands of the Government if they do not back up our troops, after putting them into such a dangerous situation. If we take it as a matter of policy that combatant troops will be sent to Yugoslavia, the delivery of humanitarian aid might go out the door. However, if troops are sent in to carry out a humanitarian function, they must be protected.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : I have a rhetorical question for the hon. Gentleman. What if we do not give full support to our troops and if we do not encourage the United Nations to put forward a resolution for the protection of forces on the ground? Surely that would be at great cost to the entire Balkan region, which is something we would find hard to bear.

Mr. Rogers : I agree with the hon. Lady and I believe that we are on the same side of the fence on this.

I also agree with what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath said about watering down our commitment to Cyprus. Cyprus represents an intractable problem. President Bush may say that United States troops will be in and out of Somalia by 20 January, when he leaves office. Troops went into Cyprus and may stay there for ever, exactly the same as in Northern Ireland and so many other places. It is easy enough to commit young people of whatever nationality to a certain place to deal with a difficult situation, but I firmly believe that the first option that one must then consider is how to get those troops out. We saw how difficult the Americans found it to get out of Vietnam even with all the resources available to them.

The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) spoke about the difficulty of sending British troops to Yugoslavia in response to demands from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but in particular from the leader of the Liberal party. I notice that no member of that party attended this important debate. Today's attendance

Column 555

has not been as good as it should have been, but dozens of hon. Members have listened to parts of the debate ; not one member of the Liberal party has done so.

I should have thought that today was an admirable opportunity for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to put forward a constructive argument to back up his Action Man plans for our young soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman says we should send troops here and there ; that is his knee-jerk response to all the problems in the world. However, as the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside has said, as a result of "Options for Change" we do not have the troops to do that. Even if we wanted to send far more troops to Yugoslavia, we have not got the resources to do that. As a result of "Options for Change", the size of our infantry battalions has been cut dramatically in the past year. Such cuts provide a classic example of the fact that we no longer have the means to meet the aims that we support.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not talking about just British troops being sent to Bosnia and the Balkans, but all the world joining in a United Nations response?

Mr. Rogers : I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes, and we can discuss that in due course. First we must consider what happens when we ask others to come in. There is the problem, if the super-powers are excluded--the hon. Member for Bexleyheath pointed out that it was traditional to exclude them--and they do not contribute troops, which countries provide them? Then we must go on to consider the logistics and back-up support. It is all very well, in many situations, to say that we will provide the logistics and others can provide the men, but eventually the point is reached when we run out of logistics-- [Interruption.] It is not a never-ending resource, and, having spent five years shadowing the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I assure the House that our logistics are even more run down than our manpower numbers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke about the provision of aid to Russia and eastern Europe and suggested that we needed a latter-day Marshall plan. That might be a good idea. We have a substantial interest in helping the emerging democracies of eastern Europe. We applaud the collapse of corrupt communist Governments, but we must now support the emerging democracies and be more positive in our attitude to them. As I say, most of those on these Benches come from a Christian Socialist tradition and are committed to extending our international role.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his hon. Friend the Memberfor Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is a Christian Socialist?

Mr. Rogers : I do not intend to criticise the views of any of my hon. Friends in relation to the way in which they come to the concept of socialism. That is up to them, so long as they do not become communists. I hope that the Minister can be sure that some of his more right-wing hon. Friends, who are well known to us, do not slip that little bit further into the fascism that we see raising its head in central Europe. I leave it there, accepting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his own problems.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), who spoke and then had to leave, attempted an analysis of,

Column 556

and drew up a list of criteria for, the ways in which people should interfere in other's affairs and how the United Nations should enter situations. When I asked how he would select those situations and arrive at the balance of which he spoke, he failed dismally to answer. As I say, he has retreated the field, though probably not for that reason.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove also attempted an analysis of sovereignty and rather lectured us on how the concept of sovereignty had altered in recent years. He went on to suggest when and how we might interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. We must also consider when to keep out of events as regimes oppress and murder their populations, because they have been elected to office, or maybe simply because somehow they have got into power. We see that happening in East Timor, where we are doing nothing to help the people who are being slaughtered by a so-called legitimate Government.

Mr. Corbyn rose --

Mr. Rogers : I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. Time is very short.

The hon. Member for Canterbury said that while he did not justify the actions of the Serbs, he understood them, and he revealed his position when he added that we had to remember that many Muslims had served in the Wehrmacht. Whether he regarded that as justification for the Serbs now killing the Muslims I do not know. I thought of intervening to tell him that many Germans served in the Wehrmacht and that that was not a good reason for killing Germans today. If we adopt such attitudes, we shall never resolve any issues. Yugoslavia represents an intractable problem and we appreciate how people's fears go back over the years and raise issues of revenge for tribal, family and nationalistic indignities, cruelties and so on. Not to acknowledge that there is substantial fault on the Serbian side in the conflict is to miss what is happening.

I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for drawing attention to the Kurdish problem years before many hon. Members did so. I was pleased to join him a couple of years later, when we were the only two hon. Members battling away about the export of arms to Saddam Hussein. As Opposition defence spokesman, I challenged the Government about exporting arms to Iraq and the Minister of State told me that it was a vile calumny and an obnoxious statement. We have now been proved to be right and the Scott inquiry will prove that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg indicated dissent.

Mr. Rogers : It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He simply has to look at schedule 2 of the submission to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to see a list of arms and weapon-enhancing equipment. I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept evidence submitted by his own Government to a Select Committee. It is not stuff that was brought up in the newspapers or which we have dragged up, but information supplied by the Government. If he does not believe that the equipment on that list enhances the weapons and capabilities of Saddam Hussein--

Mr. Douglas Hogg : The hon. Gentleman must not elide between weapons and machinery--they are different.

Column 557

Mr. Rogers : I am not talking about the export of machinery or Matrix Churchill which, in some ways, is irrelevant. I am talking about weapons that were exported, such a mortar-locating laser equipment. It was not much fun for our troops sitting at the end of guns, firing at the Iraqis, when they knew that the Iraqis could identify their positions because of the equipment that we had exported to them. I challenge the Ministers to go to the Library and look at the four-page list submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry of arms and equipment exported to Iraq by the Government.

Saddam Hussein was a butcher with whom we should never have become involved, however much we may have wanted to use him to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. The Government made a bad mistake, which rebounded on us. Were it not for the overwhelming weaponry of the United States, we would have landed up in a bad position. Iraq is an example of the implementation of the United Nations role because of the breakdown in the cold war, which prevented the veto of certain action. As my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, the United Nations should be involved in many other areas, outside purely peacekeeping roles. The problems of the population explosion, environmental pollution, AIDS and the huge drugs markets that are eroding the basis of our democratic societies and confounding our young people must all be tackled on an international scale. A properly serviced and funded United Nations could be an admirable vehicle for that.

The United Nations should be able to take up many issues in a better way. It is all right to talk about intergovernmental co-operation, but, unless a comprehensive approach is taken to many of those problems, bilateral or even multi-governmental relationships will not work. Nowadays, we seem to be swamped by non-governmental agencies, which are probably creating their own problems. The United Nations as it exists today is only a framework. It needs to be fleshed out and given more muscle. The Labour party has consistently supported the United Nations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said, it is part of our constitution. Perhaps when we were in government there were occasions when we did not do all that we should have done. We are prepared at this stage to accept those criticisms. I only hope that when we get back into government in a few years' time we will fund the United Nations and support it to a greater extent than the present Government are.

We are a global society, and we have seen the development of communications and general relationships. We simply cannot live on our solitary islands, throw shields around ourselves, and say that we are not influenced by what happens in every other part of the world. All people are human, irrespective of whether they are Yugoslav souls, or little black Somalia souls dying, or children dying from a bomb, a shell, starvation or disease. Whether people are black, white, yellow or blue, they are still humans. People who have never had an opportunity to live a full and proper life are just as precious to us as anyone else.

The argument that we must take care of one problem because it is nearer to us in Europe is not a good one. That is why I am pleased that more resources will be put into Somalia. I applaud the fact that the United States will send

Column 558

in sufficient troops to structure the aid development of Somalia. However, I do not think that development will be completed by 20 January.

There is a possibility of developing and training a cadre of people. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath said that we should adopt the more positive aspects of United Nations training and funding, not take a negative approach and say that we will go in and commit resources when a big problem is highlighted on our televisions and when the public conscience is stretched to such a point that we must do something. I hope that we will increase the number of missions in the southern part of the former Yugoslavia, from Kosovo down into what is called Macedonia--one must be careful how one uses that word these days--to anticipate the problems that we know will arise if we are not extremely careful.

Many hon. Members have raised the issue of finance. It is true that the United States has fallen badly behind--by almost $400 million. It is misleading for people to say that they cannot afford peacekeeping forces. Peacekeeping is probably one of the cheapest options open to the United Nations. The cost of one-and-a-half days of the Gulf war woud have paid for all the United Nations peacekeeping operations worldwide for one year. It is much cheaper to keep the peace than to allow problems to develop into a war. The role of the United Nations needs to be developed. We have a strong and positive commitment to the United Nations.

I pay tribute to people such as Brian Urquhart, who published a pamphlet entitled

"The United Nations in 1992 : problems and opportunities". We should all read that pamphlet. I have certainly done so. The pamphlet raises many of the issues that I have outlined today. Labour Members have been consistent in their views, not only as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West but throughout the Labour party. At our party conference my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, said :

"Right at the heart of our policies should be strong and consistent support for the United Nations. I have always believed this is the best means of principled and collective international action. I want to see the powers of the United Nations strengthened, and I want to see it broaden its agenda to tackle the economic and social issues which call out for a global approach just as desperately as do the environment, poverty and peace-keeping."

That is the commitment of the Labour party to the United Nations. As soon as we, the Opposition, are in government in the next couple of years, we shall be implementing the poicy that has been outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend.

2.5 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : Every Member who has contributed to the debate has prefaced his or her remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on selecting the United Nations as a subject for debate. I join in congratulating my hon. Friend. The elegance and lucidity of his speech, delivered largely without notes, impressed all those present.

It is right that we should be debating the United Nations, both for a particular reason and a general reason.

Column 559

The particular reason is that we have seen the deployment of United Kingdom troops in what was Yugoslavia, and last night there was an important resolution by the Security Council on Somalia. The more general reason is that over the past two years or so we have seen an enormous expansion in the prestige, responsibility and authority of the United Nations. We need, therefore, to ask ourselves both general and particular questions about the United Nations activities. I speak of the enhancement of the authority of the United Nations. There are probably at least three reasons for that. First, there was the success of the Security Council with regard to the middle eastern war two years ago. Secondly, the former Soviet Union collapsed and we are now able to work harmoniously within the permanent five. That is an important contribution to the proper workings of the Security Council. Lastly, I believe that there is an ever- increasing desire, manifested in this place not least, to see the humanitarian and political problems of the world addressed in a collective way. The increased activity of the United Nations can be demonstrated by some basic figures. There are now about 52,000 United Nations personnel deployed in peace-keeping roles whereas early in 1992 there were only 11,500. To take another measure, in 1987 there were 49 meetings of the Security Council, 43 consultations of the whole and 14 resolutions of the Security Council. In the first seven months of 1992 there were 46 resolutions, 81 meetings and 19 consultations of the whole. We can see a substantial expansion in the operations of the United Nations.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a range of questions. I shall not respond to them, but I shall give him the credit and courtesy of explaining why I shall not, as I regard the hon. Gentleman as a friend of mine. First, I think that he was abusing the motion to pursue issues which, in my judgment, were of little relevance to what the House was discussing.

Secondly, and in any event, it was a very curious ordering of priorities. We were debating matters of major international significance, but, frankly, the hon. Gentleman was not. Thirdly, there are practical difficulties associated with responding to him, and he may care to keep these points in mind.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked many immensely detailed, complicated questions--perhaps 20 or so. I could not even to begin to respond to them and leave any time to deal with the main debate. In any event, I would not do so, because I do not have any personal knowledge of any of the detailed issues. Consequently, I would have to rely on ad hoc notes from the Box, which is not a sensible way to deal with detailed questions of that kind.

I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow--I regard him as a friend--that he is wasting his time and that of the House in dealing with such issues in the way that he chooses.

Mr. Dalyell rose--

Mr. Hogg : I have been critical of the hon. Gentleman, so I will give way.

Mr. Dalyell : It was my intention to call the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to account, and I have just one further question. The Foreign Secretary said that

Column 560

"we do not supply arms to Iraq".--[ Official Report, 29 March 1990 ; Vol. 170, c. 673.]

How is it suggested that the House should pursue that crucially important matter? It is a matter of truth to Parliament.

Mr. Hogg : One way is to give notice of that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he will give the hon. Gentleman a fair and robust answer. There is no point to hopping up in the middle of a debate, dragging out a quotation of which no one has received previous notice, and expecting anything like a full answer. It is absurd. The hon. Gentleman does neither his reputation nor the time of the House any good.

Mr. Rogers rose--

Mr. Hogg : No, I will press on.

Mr. Rogers : Will the Minister not give way?

Mr. Hogg : No, I will press on. I am quite firm about that, Madam Speaker. I am going to get on with it.

Many tributes have been paid to the United Nations

Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Ghali--and quite right too. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions, and I believe that he will prove an important and innovating Secretary-General. Dr. Boutros Ghali has already presided over a number of important initiatives. Last night's decision of the Security Council to deploy American troops in Somalia owes a great deal to his own initiative. Moreover, the Government welcome the Secretary-General's response in his report, "An Agenda for Peace", to the request made to him in the early part of this year by the Security Council meeting at Heads of Government level. That meeting was instigated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was the first to convene a meeting of that kind and who asked the Secretary-General to advise us all how the United Nations could develop its policy of peacekeeping, peacemaking and preventive diplomacy.

The suggestions in that report are of considerable interest and importance, and we propose to address them as constructively as possible. One can see certain ways in which they have already been acted upon. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened the London conference on the former Yugoslavia, working closely with the United Nations. That was one instance of two important, international organisations working together.

The House will know also of the United Nations deployment in Macedonia, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe deployment in Kosovo, and the European Community monitoring mission in the former Yugoslavia. They are all examples of preventive, pre-emptive diplomacy, and show that we are reacting responsibly to a number of the Secretary-General's proposals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath mentioned the important issue of reform of the Security Council, as did the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), to whom I apologise for not hearing all his speech but I was having a morsel of food--

Next Section

Home Page