House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Nov 1993

Column 171

are going to declare our independence." What would we say about that? Would we not deploy British troops in the Province to deal with such a situation? I rather fancy that we would.

In fact, Croatia's independence was wrongly recognised, after some time, in January 1992. The British Government acceded to pressure from Helmut Kohl, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned, and gave way. It is interesting to note the date--January 1992--because in September 1991 HVO forces and regular forces from Croatia were active inside Bosnia-Herzegovina. At that time, Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised by the international community as part of the Yugoslav federation. How do I know that? Because, with colleagues of all parties, on 2 May I visited the site of Bosanski Brod in northern Bosnia and saw two bodies being exhumed from a mass grave in an area which had Utashe symbols written on the walls of the town, indicating the presence of extreme right-wing Croatian forces at a time when Bosnia was recognised by the international community as part of Yugoslavia.

The media have a lot to answer for in regard to the impression that has been given in this country of events in Yugoslavia. That includes the BBC, unfortunately. I have great admiration for the BBC World Service, but on2 September, with colleagues from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I was in Bosnia and I heard on BBC radio that the Geneva peace talks had broken down. Quoting Sarajevo radio, the BBC said, "Serbian troops are now massing for an attack on Gorazde and the town is coming under shellfire."

With the help of the Bosnian Serbs and the United Nations, we were able to cross from the Serbian lines to the Muslim lines and enter the town of Gorazde. There was no fighting around Gorazde and a shell had not been fired in the area for more than six days, according to the United Nations commander in the area. We need carefully to consider whom we are supporting in the conflict and make sure that we do not put all the blame on one side of the argument.

Looking at the Muslim situation in Bosnia, one sees that there are at least some glimmers of hope. Mr. Fikret Abdic, who leads the Muslims in the area around Bihac, has signed a declaration and accord in line with the Owen- Stoltenberg plan for the western autonomous province in Bosnia, the area around Bihac. He has come under attack from Izetbegovic and the fundamentalists.

Again, we come back to the old problem of Islamic fundamentalism. There is the danger of such a state existing in the heart of Europe, in Yugoslavia. Fundamentalist forces are fighting inside Bosnia. If the Secretary of State for Defence consulted some of the British commanders in Bosnia, they would confirm that the Bosnian seventh brigade is made up almost entirely of fundamentalist extremists from Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. That issue needs to be explored.

If we are to have peace in the Balkans, we need to formulate a package to cover the whole of Yugoslavia and that package must contain a provision for strict adherence to human rights by all parties. After the break-up of the Yugoslav federation, the first ethnic cleansing took place in Croatia where Serbians are now regarded as third-class

Column 172

citizens. Unlike some people, I am glad that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Government have been cautious and have not responded to the calls for air strikes. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) recalled what had happened in Somalia, where air strikes enhanced the warlords. In spite of the faults in their policy on Croatia, I believe that the Government's cautious approach has been correct.

I hope that the Government will show real muscle in their discussions with the European Community and will insist to Helmut Kohl that a common European policy means a common European foreign policy, not a German foreign policy imposed on the rest of the European Union.

1.51 pm

Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : Anyone who, like me, has sat through today's debate and listened to almost every speech cannot but believe that the level of expertise we have heard bears out the importance and the range of responsibilities borne by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his staff. The Opposition spokesman said that the Gracious Speech appeared to have come off the same disc as last year. The Queen's Speech has in fact changed, but the importance of foreign affairs for this country's economy and security can never be underestimated.

I, too, wish to thank Ministers, but I should also like to thank the Foreign Office staff, the diplomatic corps, the people who administer the aid programmes, and those who run the British Council and the BBC World Service because they also play a major part in ensuring that Britain's role is understood throughout the world. I shall make just two points. I do not intend to range around the world, mentioning all the areas in which I take an interest because that would take the rest of the day. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that Britain punches above its weight. I am anxious, however, that we do not become anorexic : I want us to put on weight in terms of influence, for all the historic reasons that I do not need to recite. I am worried that the constant pressure on the Foreign Office budget makes it ever more difficult for us to play the role for which we are uniquely--historically and traditionally--equipped. I hope that that fact will be recognised in the Budget on 30 November.

We have heard about Britain's influence and our role in the various difficult situations described today, but we must remember that the costs are minimal. The costs of the Foreign Office's diplomatic budget is less than 1 per cent. of public expenditure, but elsewhere billions of pounds are spent, often trying to put right the very things that go wrong if we pursue false economy and fail to prevent them happening instead of putting them right.

The Foreign Secretary properly mentioned the increasing role of the Foreign Office and its officers abroad in the commercial world, including Asia and India. Sadly, Britain is now slipping to sixth or seventh in terms of investment in Vietnam just as that country emerges from its dark days. Taiwan is now the No. 1 investor. We say that we want to play a constructive role in strengthening the capacity of the United Nations. That is very important ; the Select Committee considered that as a specific role. In that aspect, too, there is the problem of false economy, because the cost of repair is always greater than the cost of prevention. If we are to take a full part in

Column 173

"Agenda for Peace", we must ensure that all members of the United Nations contribute and ensure that it has a proper income to do that job. One cannot prevent many of the problems that we have heard about today without the highest quality of diplomatic and military intelligence.

I hope that all my hon. Friends in the Government will consider the 54 recommendations that we have made for the future of the UN. We want action, not just words as I am afraid has been far too much the case--although I am not criticising the Government. When things go wrong, when things are underfunded, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) suggested the operation in Angola was, what is the consequence in dreadful human terms? Since the renewed fighting 500,000 people have been killed and a further 3 million have been displaced. In money terms, we have another appeal for $226 million for emergency relief. If we had done the job right in the first place, if the UN had had the right people, the right authority and the right amount of cash, that situation might not now confront us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West mentioned very movingly the situation in Iraq. Others have mentioned Bosnia. These are examples of precisely the same problem. It is, therefore, a false economy not to have the right intelligence and the right amount of money to begin solving the problem rather than picking up the pieces.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) mentioned the subject of aid. One solution that was not mentioned to the problem of the increasing share of aid which goes to multilateral organisations was to increase the budget. I should like us to renew the growth in the aid programme during the welcome expansion of our economy, because that is the simplest way of putting right the imbalance.

Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I am concerned about not just the redirection of aid to multi-lateral organisations--many of which do a better job sometimes than bilateral organisations because of the major structural changes that are necessary-- but the amount of aid that is having to be given for emergencies. In 1984- 85, at the height of the Ethiopian crisis, we were putting £45 million into emergency aid. This year's figure is £134 million. Emergencies have arisen and we need to help. That is squeezing the bilateral programme, which is the transfer of real resources to prevent such emergencies and build up the standard of living of many countries, especially in sub- Saharan Africa. In that one regard, in terms of the debt situation, I commend the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all those who vigorously pursued the implementation of the enhanced Trinidad terms. No one could have argued more strongly than the Prime Minister or my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in international forums this year. Debt is a drain on the resources of the least developed countries which cannot continue if we want to bring them back into the family of nations and into the genuine world of international development.

The Commonwealth has not been mentioned today, but it was mentioned in the Gracious Speech. I am a great supporter of and believer in the Commonwealth. It is a unique organisation and it is now seeking a new role, developing new contacts and seeing where it can function

Column 174

in the next millenium. One of the ways in which it has gone forward is in the promotion of democracy within and outside the Commonwealth.

In the previous Session of Parliament I was lucky enough to bring in a Bill which became the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993. That Act enables local authorities in this country to transfer skills and technology to any local authority anywhere else in the world, subject to certain conditions. It works successfully in terms of the know-how fund because money is specifically allocated for that type of transfer, something which is valuable in central and eastern Europe. I also want that to be developed in countries where the needs are even greater, especially in Africa.

I want my right hon. Friends to consider a suggestion for the agenda of the next series of Commonwealth meetings. There are biennial meetings of Heads of State, and the parliamentary link--the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association--is a good system. I should like to think that we shall start to discuss, in this House and in other forums within the Commonwealth, the creation of a local government forum. It would act as a broker between local authorities within the Commonwealth and the wealthier Commonwealth countries--such as Australia, Canada and ourselves--to transfer the very necessary resources which create the roots for democracy.

I commiserate with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who has not been chosen to speak, as I have often been in the same position. Often I have sat through a debate only to have to rush through my speech at the end. Will the usual channels consider whether future debates on foreign affairs could be more specific? It would be far better to have a half-day debate on one subject instead of a general debate in which hon. Members incoherently discuss subjects which range all over the world. That would be fairer to hon. Members who are interested in one country.

I have only sat through the entire debate because I have tremendous respect for my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, especially the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The role of the Foreign Office and its importance to this country are underestimated, and I recognise the links with the Secretary of State for Defence. So much of our humanitarian work is undertaken by his officials and by his, and our, troops. I therefore welcome the fact that he is to reply to the debate.

2.1 pm

Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : This has been a good debate. It is a pity that it has been foreshortened and I regret that some hon. Members who have sat through it have been unable to speak. However, the debate on the Queen's Speech lasts for several days and I hope that they may yet catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The quality of the debate has been superb. Every participant has brought his or her own insight. Members of the House are a unique repository of knowledge and they added to the quality of the debate. At the beginning of the Gracious Speech we see that,

"The Government attach the highest importance to national security."

An admirable statement, but one which, frankly, lacks credibility. The Government's actions do not match those fine words.

Throughout the defence community, uniformed officers and civilians are in deep dismay. From the very top to the

Column 175

very bottom, from the highest air chief marshal, to the most humble private, there is a strongly held belief that the Government are not serious about our security. I do not believe that any Government of any party have been weaker on security since the end of world war two. One has to return to the 1930s to find a Government who have placed such a low priority on the defence of our realm and on our national security. I shall return to that subject.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : I think that you ought to end it there

Dr. Clark : No, I shall come back to it.

Our present security needs are diTART 1 and 2 agreements gave us hope, but they did more than that--they added to our security. It is vital that START 1 and 2 are ratified and acted upon.

During the past six weeks, the Secretary of State and I have both visited Russia, and I am sure that we both spoke to Russian officials. I am certain that he is as worried as I am about the stability of that region. I was greatly concerned to learn that not one nuclear weapon in the former Soviet Union has been destroyed. Given the highly unstable nature of politics in that region, that represents a great potential danger to world security. The Secretary of State and the House know that by 1997, 4,000 nuclear weapons are due to be destroyed under START 1, but no progress has yet been made. Some weapons were collected, but they are stored in highly unstable conditions. The Government's much-vaunted programme of assistance has only just begun, with the delivery of equipment to Russia--but they have ruled out any further action.

Two years ago, we called for extra assistance to the former Soviet Union for that specific purpose but nothing happened. Other countries reacted more swiftly. Britain plans to spend only £30 million over the years, whereas President Clinton plans to spend at least £1,000 million on Russia alone and additional sums will go to the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. That matter is of vital urgency and our Government should react more speedily.

The second comment on defence in the Gracious Speech refers to NATO, and rightly so. My right hon. Friends and I have always recognised that NATO is the key to our collective security. In fact, a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, was the driving force behind the establishment of NATO in the late 1940s. It was through NATO that we were successful in winning the cold war.

That era is over and NATO must dramatically change. Some right hon. and hon. Members suggested how that change might be brought about. Progress was made at the London, Rome and Oslo summits, but more fundamental change is needed. The question of admitting the democracies of the former Warsaw pact countries cannot be postponed indefinitely. Some day, we will have to grasp that nettle. One welcome change announced at Oslo allowed NATO to act out of area. Its first activity was in Bosnia. I pay tribute to not only our troops--superb as always--but the French, Spanish, Canadian, Norwegian, Dutch, Kenyan and Nigerian troops, all of whom are doing an admirable

Column 176

job. I get sick of people knocking the United Nations. It does not have the apparatus to do the job. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) made that point when he spoke about intelligence gathering and communications, which are vitally needed. Those troops, of whatever nationality, are serving in Bosnia to ensure that humanitarian aid gets through, and it is not their fault if it does not.

Having said that, I was concerned by the Foreign Secretary's announcement earlier today, in which I thought that he was signalling to the world that we are contemplating withdrawing British troops from Bosnia. If that is the case, I should regret it. Our view is that British troops should remain there as long as their mission is attainable and the United Nations believe that is possible. The signal that the Foreign Secretary gave today was not particularly helpful at this moment.

We must continue trying to get aid through. We may have to change the rules of engagement to do so, but we cannot stand by and allow tens of thousands of innocent people on all sides to perish. Food is there--on the coast, in Croatia. Some of it is rotting because it cannot be sent through. We must continue our efforts to get it through.

A further worry is the attitude of the Government to any post-peace settlement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said earlier, if a peace agreement is signed by all three sides--two of the sides have signed and a settlement should be reached soon--we shall need to have 50,000 troops available and to be able to put them in quickly, within days if possible. We cannot have a repeat of Vietnam, where troops were dribbled in.

With that prospect in view, as the Secretary of State for Defence knows, the Secretary-General of the United Nations unofficially asked NATO to put together a coalition. At the end of September, he wrote to the Government asking how many troops we would contribute to the post-settlement group that will ensure that the settlement is kept. Sadly, the Government have not even responded to that letter. Why not? The Secretary of State must know, as I know, that NATO is deeply concerned about the Government's attitude to the matter. How can NATO make any plans when it does not know where the troops will come from?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, numbers are critical. We shall have to contribute British troops. I am sure that the Secretary of State has in mind where the troops could come from. He might have to draw them from the rapid reaction corps in central Germany. If there is a peace accord, we believe that British troops must play their part in ensuring that it is operable, in bringing some peace and in easing the suffering in Bosnia.

Another part of the Gracious Speech refers to the comprehensive test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty, but perhaps we should first consider our own independent nuclear deterrent. I had hope earlier this week. Stories emanating from the Ministry of Defence made me believe that the Secretary of State had finally seen the light and was going to fall in line with what the Labour party has been suggesting for a number of years-- that the number of warheads on the new Trident system should not exceed the number on Polaris. We did not believe that it made sense to increase the number of warheads from 192 to 512. When the rest of the world was reducing warheads under START, the British Government would be increasing them. That

Column 177

simply did not make sense and it endangered the non-proliferation treaty, which comes up for review in 1995.

I was delighted when I heard the stories. I welcomed them and said that the Government were doing something right--only for my hopes to be dashed the following day, when I discovered that, far from reducing the number of warheads to 192, the Government intended to double the number from 48 per vessel under Polaris to 96 per vessel under Trident.

Does not the Secretary of State understand that that is the wrong message to send to the world? We should not double our nuclear capability at this time. We should at most be keeping it at the level that we had under the Polaris system. By such means, we could at least show the rest of the world that we are prepared to make sacrifices to try to ensure permanent continuation of the non-proliferation treaty.

I am pleased that the Government have finally come round to the suggestion that we should be in favour of a comprehensive test ban treaty. However, they have been laggards and I believe that the Government have said it out of convenience and not out of conviction. Nevertheless, they should start saying it loudly, because, with the other available means, we no longer need to do any nuclear testing. I began by accusing the Government of being weak on defence. Obviously, with the end of the cold war, there is scope for us to reduce the amount that we spend on defence, like virtually every other country in the west and in the rest of world. However, one cannot expect our troops and armed forces to perform all their past functions if the men, the women and the money available to spend are reduced in future. We need to assess the threats that face Britain and our security and reshape our forces accordingly. We need a full defence review. Such a review is supported by almost all the military, by almost all political parties and by a considerable number of the Secretary of State's Back Benchers. That is the way to ensure that morale in the armed forces is kept high and it is the best guarantee of the protection of the security of Britain and Britain's interest. 2.15 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : The House always enjoys the attempts of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to present the Labour party as the champion of defence and the armed forces. It was perhaps significant that in searching for supporting evidence for his claim, the hon. Gentleman had to go back as far as the days of Ernie Bevin for his only hard material. The reality of the Labour Government 1974-79 was that they cheated our armed forces so badly and provided such miserable incomes for the soldiers, sailors and airmen that there was a huge exodus of service men from which we still suffer a crucial shortage and that period is known as the black hole--one that the armed forces have suffered ever since.

I always listen to the hon. Gentleman with great hope but little satisfaction, hoping that I shall hear an alternative Labour defence policy. Originally, I thought that it was the House only that was deprived of an alternative defence policy until I read with some interest a recent interview that

Column 178

the hon. Gentleman gave to the New Statesman and Society --presumably a friendly journal--on 12 November. It reads : "Fifteen months into his job as Labour defence spokesperson, David Clark gets annoyed at the suggestion that he has been keeping a low profile."

He goes on to assure the interviewer, as he has assured the House today, that the Labour party believes that there is scope for further cuts in defence spending, a subject to which he has no doubt given a good deal of thought. No doubt he knows the sort of areas where he would like to reduce defence expenditure.

Dr. David Clark indicated assent .

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman nods, but it does not seem to be the case. When asked that question in the article, he is described thus :

"Clark is vague, however, as to where the cuts should fall". He says :

"Just now, I simply don't know."

That is a clear statement of Labour policy and one which will be of benefit to the armed forces in their search to understand the Labour party's view.

Today, in reference to nuclear policy the hon. Gentleman said that we must send a proper message. He accused the Government of sending the wrong message on nuclear policy, presumably implying that the Labour party would send the right one. The matter of Trident is dealt with in the same article. The hon. Gentleman told the interviewer : "I wouldn't scrap it."

That is clear enough and is a considerable improvement on past Labour party policy. The article continues :

" I'm not saying that we'll use Trident,' he says somewhat excitedly. I don't think we would. We just need it there as a standing reminder.' "

That is sending the real message to a potential threat to this country.

Mr. David Clark : It is a deterrent.

Mr. Rifkind : On the contrary. If the hon. Gentleman believes that a proper definition of a deterrent is to say in advance that in no circumstances will one use it, it is highly unlikely to deter. Dr. Clark indicated dissent.

Mr. Rifkind : It is no use the hon. Gentleman implying that he did not say that ; that is exactly what he said. His words were : "I don't think we would"

use it. The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting contribution to defence debates. There has been a debate for some time about the principle of no first use of nuclear weapons. The hon. Gentleman believes in no first use and no last use. Nevertheless, he seeks to maintain that that is a credible defence policy.

Mr. Corbyn : Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Rifkind : I am happy to give way to the real voice of the Labour party.

Mr. Corbyn : What the Secretary of State is saying is all very interesting. There are only 10 minutes left for his speech Perhaps he will tell us exactly what is the purpose of the Trident submarine and against whom the 192 or 512

Column 179

nuclear warheads are targeted. Does he not think that in the modern world the best thing would be to abolish Trident and nuclear weapons altogether?

Mr. Rifkind : I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, we live in a nuclear world and even in 10 years' time, when the two super-powers have, we hope, made massive reductions in their nuclear weapons, they will still have more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads. That figure does not include other nuclear powers. My statement earlier this week revealed that Trident will have an explosive yield comparable to Polaris. The precise number of warheads is only one factor to take into account. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what is relevant is the total destructive force of the system. I have made clear what that will be in practice. The article about the hon. Member for South Shields in the New Statesman concludes :

"Clark's credulousness is of little concern to the Labour leadership, which sees foreign affairs and defence essentially as a matter of party management."

What a vote of no confidence that is in the hon. Gentleman and in what he seeks to do.

I now turn to some of the more constructive and interesting contributions in the debate. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir. D. Steel) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) properly referred to the disturbing evidence coming from North Korea. North Korea remains the world's last Stalinist state. It is a powerfully armed country which represents a potential threat to the security of its region. We are all clearly concerned about the possible development of nuclear weapons in that country. I believe that it is right that the response to that threat should come from the international community and not from any individual country. It is highly relevant to the discussions that will take place on the continuation of the non-proliferation treaty and to the importance of ensuring proper verification procedures.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), in a characteristically thoughtful and highly relevant speech, properly warned us of the growing importance of China in world affairs. He properly referred to the fact that China has been one of the relatively few countries recently to increase its defence expenditure. There is substantial expansion of the Chinese navy and we are all conscious of the fact that not only is China the world's largest country in terms of population, but it has permanent membership of the Security Council. It has played a relatively modest part in global affairs over the years. It has been essentially a regional power and has not shown much interest in matters beyond its own immediate region. However, it is reasonable to assume that as the Chinese economy develops, possibly dramatically, and as its military power also increases, China is likely to play a more global role, which will have profound implications for the whole world. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked for an assurance about the Hawks going to Indonesia and he expressed concern about that matter. When I was in Jakarta earlier this year, I discussed that very question with my Indonesian counterparts. They have given a clear assurance that the purpose of the Hawks is to ensure the

Column 180

external defence of Indonesia and that they will not be used for internal purposes. We attach importance to that assurance as one that can be seen to be reliable.

There is some difficulty in understanding the Labour party's policy on arms sales. We regularly hear ritual speeches from the hon. Member for South Shields and his hon. Friends about the unattractiveness and unacceptability of arms exports. Yet when we try to pin the hon. Gentleman down, his policy appears to be little different from that of the Government. The question of arms sales was raised in the article from which I have quoted. The hon. Member for South Shields is quoted as finding it worrying that Britain is the second largest arms exporter. He then goes on to say, with regard to various countries to whom we sell arms :

"Sales to allies : no problem. Sales to friendly Governments, such as Saudi Arabia : all right. As for British Aerospace's proposed sale of Hawk ground -attack planes to Indonesia Clark is in favour. South-east Asia needs a stronger security system, he says, and Indonesia must be part of it."

Once one has gone through that list, there are hardly any countries left to which the United Kingdom does sell arms. The hon. Gentleman knows that the United Kingdom has strict rules about those matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred to the circumstances of the debate about the Western European Union and NATO. He is correct to emphasise that the WEU must be seen as a complement to NATO and not an alternative. NATO remains the absolute foundation of our collective defence. At one stage last year, we were concerned about what appeared to be a rather inconsequential debate about the precise relationship between the two organisations, and the absurdity of both WEU and NATO assets being used in the Adriatic at the same time, which resulted in a considerable over-supply of naval assets and made little contribution to the problems in that region.

The WEU may have a useful contribution to make in circumstances where the United States does not wish to be involved, or cannot be involved for some reason, or where the European countries of the alliance wish to work closely together.

As for the reserves, my hon. Friend made some interesting suggestions about the Household division. It is important that we should have the most flexible approach to the use of the reserves. They are less expensive than regulars and are keen to be used. There was considerable frustration during the Gulf war when, unlike the reserves from the United States, Australia and other countries, our reserves--apart from a number of individuals--were not used in any effective fashion. The recently published Government proposals indicate our desire to see a much more flexible approach, and we have suggested the possibility of a pilot scheme whereby a unit from the reserves might be made available for one of our UN commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) referred to the situation in Russia, an issue to which not enough attention has been given. In recent months,we have seen a development of Russian policy to what it has chosen to call the "near abroad", and that is a significant term for the former republics of the Soviet Union which are now independent sovereign states.

When I was in Moscow earlier this year, I was concerned that even among the Russians close to President Yeltsin--those who would consider themselves strong

Column 181

reformers and not reactionaries like Rutskoi or Khasbulatov--there was an inability to accept that Ukraine and other former republics are now sovereign independent states, with the same absolute right to independence as any other country in Europe. There was a tendency to assume that somehow Ukraine, the Baltic republics, Belarus or other states of the region should have some relationship with Russia that recognises particular Russian interests of a kind that could have significant implications.

There cannot be a new Monroe doctrine for Russia in the present circumstances. It is important that in the current debate about the possible enlargement of NATO we do not make the mistake of allowing some division of Europe--however unintentional--to separate the Poles, the Czechs and the Hungarians on the one hand from the Ukrainians or the Baltic republics on the other. We have an interest in the security of all those countries, and it is highly satisfactory that the recent United States proposals entitled "Partnership for Peace" offer a relationship with NATO that would be available not just to Hungary, Poland and the Czechs-- important as that is--but to countries of the former Soviet Union, although the nature of each country's individual relationships might vary depending on circumstances. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) for the remarkable way in which, for some time, she has championed the interests of the marsh Arabs. She has once again enlightened not only the House but the nation as a whole on the proper basis for concern about what is happening in that region. We would view with the gravest concern any evidence revealed to the United Nations-- which is studying the situation in southern Iraq--that might give it reason to believe that chemical weapons might have been used in that part of the country. Clearly, the use of such weapons is contrary to Iraq's international obligations ; moreover, it gives rise to a particular sense of abhorrence which is felt not only by all hon. Members but by the international community as a whole. I have no doubt that if Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein wish to make progress in being readmitted to the international family of nations, any evidence of use of chemical weapons will render that impossible.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Monday next.

Column 182

Reserve Forces

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Michael Brown.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister is suffering from a severe earache and is partially deaf, so I shall try to improve on my customary whisper.

In the modern world, there are only two ways in which a country can provide modern armed forces with up-to-date equipment within limited resources. One is by keeping conscription going, as our continental partners have ; the other is to do what all our major

English-speaking allies do--that is, have a reserve army broadly comparable in size to its regular army.

For that reason, I find it incredible that we can even contemplate further cuts in our Territorial Army, which is already so far out of line with comparable countries in being barely half the strength of its regular counterparts.

It is not part of my brief today to argue that our present TA is in good shape. I believe that we have badly designed units, under a regular command structure which, in many cases, is very unresponsive to their needs. Their problems are compounded by a failure to use them properly in the Gulf.

It is deeply sad to note that, even before "Options for Change", Britain had a 30 per cent. wastage level. In Australia, the figure is only 21 per cent., and in some states in the USA, in the National Guard it is as low as 16 per cent. The reason is, of course, that the National Guard and the Australian reserve army are taken seriously in peacetime and during intermediate conflicts.

In the Gulf war, the National Guard sent 60 battalion or greater-sized formed units into action. In a recent article, Brigadier Hammerbeck, commander of our own 4th Army brigade, said : "From the US Army, we got the National Guard 142nd Artillery Brigade. By God they were good It was a sight I shall remember the rest of my days Talking to an Iraqi artillery commander after the war he told me that 90 per cent. of his crews had been killed or wounded in the initial bombardment."

I wonder if a British TA could have achieved the same--herded, as they now are, into an arbitrary number of five drill halls per unit, besieged with paperwork and frequently commanded by regular formation commanders who have never done a single posting in a TA unit. I believe that some of them might have been able to do it, but they were not given the chance to try. We did not call out any TA units for the Gulf ; we simply called on a relatively small number of individual volunteers.

This is reflected in our day-to-day approach as well. Whereas the National Guard and the Australian reserve army are called out regularly in a range of peacetime activities, from disaster relief to drug interdiction, nothing like that scale happens here. I was pleased, however, to note an allusion to that in the consultation document.

The main purpose of our reserve forces must be to fight in wars and lesser conflicts. We can see what the TA used to be able to do. Two of the three Greenjacket battalions in the heroic defence of Calais, which saved tens of thousands of British service men, were territorial.

The little sapper unit that went back and destroyed all the oil installations from Brest to Spitzbergen was a Kentish Territorial Army unit. The last time that we sent

Next Section

Home Page