| Previous Section | Home Page |
Ms Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West) : Shame.
Ms Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : Shame.
The Prime Minister : I am sorry that the hon. Ladies think that an outdated directive which is no longer accurate scientifically is appropriate to remain in law. It explains a great deal about the Opposition.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does the Prime Minister think that when he agrees any matter of principle at the European Council it is essential that this House has an appropriate debate? Can he tell the House whether we had a debate on the home and justice matters that he
Column 697
agreed? Even if a convention is to be presented to the House at some due date, will that not mean that the royal prerogative used by the Government will replace the prerogative of an Act of Parliament?The Prime Minister : I cannot conceive that any other nation state in the European Community spends remotely as much time, energy and effort on debating European matters, both before and after decisions, than this House. It is entirely proper that we should do so, but the concept that the Government should enable debate in the House on each and every issue, whether large or small, would effectively render any Government in power in no position to take decisions on behalf of the House or the country.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are on target to complete the negotiations with nations belonging to the European Free Trade Association on enlarging the Community according to the timetable set out at the special European Council in October?
The Prime Minister : Yes, we have reaffirmed that target for negotiating the entry of EFTA states. It is a very tough target and, although we have re-endorsed it, I cannot say that I would be surprised if we slipped a little. But at the moment the intention is to meet the target set out, so that providing that those countries get internal consent from their Parliaments and where appropriate from the referenda that they must have, they will be able to enter the Community and be full members by 1995.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : The Prime Minister referred to the French Prime Minister's stability pact. Is there not a danger that the Paris 39 conference next year will complicate European Union relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe? Surely a plethora of organisations already exists, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council structures. Is it not ridiculous to establish another organisation, which does not seem to have a clear role or purpose that is distinctive from that of the others? Does he agree that it would be far better to take judicious decisions, for example, about human rights before one recognised Croatia? Does he accept that it is deplorable that there was no reference in the communique on the former Yugoslavia to putting pressure on the Croatian Government through economic sanctions?
The Prime Minister : On the latter question, the Community's views on each of the warring parties in Bosnia have frequently been stated at face-to-face meetings and I have no doubt that that will happen again on 22 December. No one involved in the present conflict in Bosnia can escape some share of the blame for what has occurred there in recent years.
On the stability pact, I can entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on some matters. The focus of the ideas in the pact will be on six central and east European states and on three Baltic states. I can agree with the hon. Gentleman on the need to involve the CSCE, and all the states participating in it will be invited to the conference to launch the stability pact. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that they all have a direct interest in that. Those countries not immediately involved in the pact will be observers, and representatives of other international organisations, such as NATO and the United Nations, will also be invited.
Column 698
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will my right hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on getting, as he put it, "the rubbish" out of the Delors document and on converting it into a highly acceptable blueprint for the future of Europe, along the lines for which he and his colleagues have been working so long--notably, the reduction of burdens on industry, which will enable unemployment in this country to continue to fall and that fall to spread to European countries where unemployment is, sadly, still rising?
The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend ; she is entirely right. We agreed strongly with much in the prescription for the action plan, not least because much of it was based on the contribution made by Community member states. We made our contribution, a significant part of which appears to be reflected in the White Paper. As I said earlier, we objected to certain elements of the White Paper and they are no longer in it. The action plan, which is a framework of policies for member states to pursue, is intended to deliver growth and jobs. I emphasise that it is for member states to pursue because that is an important point for the House. Some specific accompanying measures at Community level--deregulation, subsidiarity, and largely privately financed networks--will march alongside national measures. We also propose to monitor what happens to see the impact on employment prospects over a period of years.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South) : In his meeting with President Yeltsin, did the Prime Minister make it clear that Russia will not have a right of veto over the future security arrangements of the countries of central and eastern Europe?
The Prime Minister : I do not think that President Yeltsin has entertained the ambition that he should have such a veto. President Yeltsin and I discussed the internal affairs within Russia, the prospects for the election, and the co-operation agreement which President Yeltsin seeks to negotiate with the European Union. We did not discuss the countries to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Does the Prime Minister agree that this afternoon's statement has illustrated to all fair-minded Members of Parliament in this Chamber the value of the United Kingdom being at the centre of European matters? Should not the few doubting Thomases who were not in favour of the Maastricht treaty now feel ashamed of themselves because their number is diminishing outside the House?
The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend has a golden tongue.
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate) : The Prime Minister referred to the European Free Trade Area countries as being "winners" following a successful round of GATT negotiations. Does he agree that there will be sizeable losers, not least the signatories of the Lome convention, particularly sub-Saharan Africa? As, by 2002, the winnings are estimated to be approaching £120 billion, will he guarantee that he will argue, within the European Union, that a sizeable percentage of those enormous profits will be set aside to help countries that are currently in no position to help themselves?
Column 699
The Prime Minister : The hon. Lady is quite right to the extent that some of the provisions will hurt individual countries. Some of them will not be amenable to this country, the United States, Japan or Germany. All countries will find that some issues do not help them. However, because of the substantial anticipated growth in world trade-- [Interruption.] It cannot be real until it has happened. Of course it is anticipated, but it is almost certain. The overall impact of the substantial anticipated growth in world trade is that nearly every country, including most sub-Saharan countries, will gain.
The Lome convention provides special arrangements for a number of countries. Many of those are complex and, in the negotiations, there has been careful examination of relatively poor countries that do not have the political clout to protect themselves sufficiently to ensure that they are not unduly damaged. If it turned out that those countries were being damaged, particularly sub-Saharan Africa where we have a long-standing historical role, we would certainly seek to do what we could to protect them.
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved, at this first European Council since the signature of the Maastricht treaty, the rejection of centralised borrowing by the Commission and strengthened subsidiarity considerably, does that signal that, at future Council meetings, we can look forward to more decentralisation and strengthening of nation states' co-operation within Europe?
The Prime Minister : I certainly expect more subsidiarity items to be agreed. Whether they will be agreed by next June or by next December, I cannot be certain, but more items under the subsidiarity principle will be remitted for national Governments to determine, which implies that there will be further repeals of Community legislation.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Last Thursday, the Leader of the House, when he stood in for the Prime Minister at Question Time, suggested that transparency and openness would be on the agenda at the Heads of Government meeting. In a democracy, is it not a fairly basic premise that people should know how their representatives vote? Was that matter discussed at that meeting? Will the Prime Minister ensure that information is supplied to the House on the way that our Ministers vote in Europe?
The Prime Minister : The United Kingdom was in the lead in discussing transparency and openness at the European Council. However, it is a principle that did not meet with universal favour among our colleagues. British Ministers are always available at the Dispatch Box to be questioned on how they voted on any issue.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly desirable that, in the deliberations on the financing of infrastructure and the trans-European networks, the maximum possible role is given to public and private sector co-operation? Does he further agree that that is a far more prudent course than the unhealthy and incredible obsession with borrowing exhibited in certain quarters, including by the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier about the trans-European networks, some
Column 700
areas of public expenditure have long been agreed. The figures come from memory, but I believe that there is about 5 billion ecu in the structural and cohesion funds and about 7 billion ecu in the European investment fund. We are now looking for more from the latter fund. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that that is where the maximum amount of money should come from, but I also want the House to appreciate that there is some money in the structural and cohesion funds, which is effectively public money that will help to fund various items.Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : It is said that the airbus project is an obstacle to GATT. What assurances can the Prime Minister give to me and to the 2,000 of my constituents at Broughton who make the wings of the airbus that he and the Government will fight our corner? Is he aware that British Aerospace is largely reliant on a successful airbus project? Will he assure us that he is fighting his corner and that President Clinton's election promises made in Seattle last year to Boeing airbus workers will not tip the scales in this important matter?
The Prime Minister : I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the importance of this matter. Of course, we do not negotiate directly in the GATT round--the European Community is collectively represented by a negotiator, Sir Leon Brittan. Both the United States and the negotiator are aware of our special interests. We have made it clear to the Commission, and hence to Sir Leon as negotiator, that it is essential that aero engines and indirect support are covered, as in the current Chairman's text.
Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : I give a warm welcome to the first 17 directives that are to be reviewed or abandoned. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is just a foretaste of things to come? In particular, can he say whether the TUPE regulations are included, as the press led us to believe over the weekend? I very much hope that we are witnessing a change in attitude by the Commission and that, having introduced this list, it will take a positive rather than negative look at future lists put forward by this Government or, indeed, that put forward by the Germans, to which my right hon. Friend referred. Should not that attitude also apply in future to any proposed directives?
The Prime Minister : I confirm that the acquired rights directive is among those to be repealed or examined. That incorporates the TUPE regulations to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Is the Prime Minister aware, in respect of his meeting with Mr. Reynolds, that the feeling remains that if the opportunity for peace is lost now it may be lost for a long time to come? Bearing in mind the vile murders over the weekend to which reference has already been made, as well as the ethnic cleansing of Catholic people last week, is it not all the more necessary to go the extra mile in seeking agreement with the Irish Republic? We all recognise of course that any such agreement, which is highly desirable, will not necessarily end terrorist killings on both sides.
The Prime Minister : It is important to try to take the opportunity to make the progress that it is possible to make at the moment. It is important that we reach a balanced agreement--one that can be seen to be fair by all the communities in Northern Ireland. That is not easy to
Column 701
obtain ; achieving a balanced agreement with the maximum chance of stopping violence is what is taking so long. I do not know how much longer it will take. We will not unduly delay, but it is worth while taking extra trouble to see if we can find a solution. I cannot promise that we will be able to do so.If we cannot because genuine points of difference cannot be reconciled, we shall have to come to the House and say that it was not possible to reach agreement. I hope that that will not be the case. We are working hard to see whether agreement can be reached. If it is, we shall announce it as speedily as possible.
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : It is not clear now, bearing in mind comments made earlier from Conservative Benches, that one of the most significant aspects of the European Council was the beginning of the reversal of the European Commission's endless regulations and unnecessary interferences in matters that could be handled better at national level? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the important role that he played in that process. Is it not in stark contrast to that of Opposition parties, who want to pass more of Britain's sovereignty to Brussels?
The Prime Minister : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Some matters are more appropriately handled at national rather than pan- national level. The essence of subsidiarity is that such matters should be done at a national level. There will always be areas where it is most appropriate for us to deal with matters collectively, and they will continue to be dealt with that way. However, I hope that we shall over time examine all existing legislation and determine which of it, in an excess of enthusiasm over the past 10 years or so, has gone to the European level but would have been better left at national level.
Column 702
ESTIMATES DAY
[1st Allotted Day]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993-94
Class II, Vote 2
Peacekeeping Operations
[Relevant documents : The Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1992-93 on The Expanding Role of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy (House of Commons Paper No. 235) and the Government Observations thereon (Cm 238) are relevant.
The Fourth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1992-93 on United Kingdom Peacekeeping and Intervention Forces (House of Commons Paper No. 369) and the Sixth Special Report from the Committee of Session 1992-93, containing the Government's Observationsthereon (House of Commons Paper No. 988) are also relevant.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £98,121,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc. to certain international organisations, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.-- [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
4.31 pm
Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the vital questions of peacekeeping, the United Nations' contributions to peacekeeping efforts around the globe, the third report from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, "The Expanding Ro le of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy", the Government's recent reply to that report, and the Government's reply to the recent request from the United Nation's Secretary-General for follow-up comments on peacekeeping operations--all of which documents are available.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report published last June was a substantial piece of work and it is appropriate to offer words of thanks to those who contributed to it, in addition to the hard-working Committee. I refer in particular to Mr. David Travers of the university of Lancaster, specialist adviser to the Committee. The study of the United Nation's expanding role involved extensive travel, although not exactly to holiday spots. Members of the Committee visited Cambodia, Croatia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Nairobi and Somalia, as well as the United Nations. I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for arranging for posts to give members of the Committee strong support. I mention in particular Sir David Hannay at the United Nations, Mr. Burns in Cambodia, Mr. Sparrow in Croatia, and Foreign Office officials who accompanied some visits where there was no diplomatic representation--such as Mr. George Busby, who travelled from Belgrade to accompany the Macedonia and Kosovo group, Mr. McCrudden from the post in Nairobi, and Mr. Geoff Cole, who travelled specially from London to join the Somalia group.
Column 703
There was a considerable amount of support and help for the Committee, and I am grateful for that. The report was written and prepared while enormous changes were going on in the material that we were studying and in the nature of the United Nations operations around the planet.In May the Foreign Secretary stated that the United Nations had operations in four of six continents. At the beginning of 1992--some 23 months ago-- there were 10,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the globe. At the beginning of this year, that figure was 60,000--a vast increase. Indeed, if the Mozambique deployments during this year develop as it was thought that they would, the figure would rise to 100,000 peacekeeping troops deployed around the globe and administered and directed from the United Nations in New York and Geneva.
The cost of those operations in 1992 was $3 billion, of which the United Kingdom contributed $90 million. The figure has risen rapidly during this year, with the latest figure showing that the United Kingdom contributed $60 million in the first three months of 1993 alone. I imagine that our contribution for the whole year will be far in excess of any that we have made in the past.
While the Committee was writing the report, huge changes were occurring. Since then, even more rapid and striking changes have occurred in peacekeeping operations and in world opinion about those operations. I think in particular of the virtual flip in opinion in the United States about the new world order and about the role of the United Nations. I am afraid that that change has occurred since June and has been driven primarily by deep disappointment and bitterness over events in Mogadishu.
The change has been driven in particular by the vivid photographs of the corpses of AmeMore than any other communication, those horrific photographs have had the effect of turning opinion in the United States--and possibly elsewhere--against the high hopes of the United Nations of managing a new world order, and against a great deal of the work of the United Nations. The photographs also turned opinion against the idea of America playing a forward role as the world's policeman here, there and everywhere.
The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Ghali, has gone on record as saying that the United Nations is giving up on the idea of peace enforcement--perhaps as a result of that incident. It is not giving up on peacekeeping, of course, but it is giving up the idea of military enforcement to bring about peace in the world's trouble spots. That has occurred in the past in the Korean war and to a considerable extent when Saddam Hussein was pushed back out of Kuwait. The Secretary-General's comments came after the production of the report and to that extent events have overtaken us.
Meanwhile, since we visited the former Yugoslavia as part of the production of the report, there has been the grim recognition that the partition of Bosnia is inevitable. I think that it might have been more realistic to realise earlier that that was coming, and to raise hopes of keeping an independent Bosnia less high. Many lives have been lost in pursuing that unattainable objective.
Meanwhile, again, Mr. Arkan terrorises Kosovo. Preventative deployments have taken place in Macedonia
Column 704
and that is a good thing. Sanctions against Serbia are still in place, but they do not seem to be working effectively. As the House has heard, others are pressing for sanctions against Croatia, and that has also happened since the Committee produced the report. Also, Mr. Jan Eliason--who the Committee met when he was head of the department of humanitarian affairs--has resigned amid some doubts about the effectiveness of those new arrangements at the United Nations. The United Nations has sent a mission to Georgia, and there has been an international peacekeeping effort of a kind which, I confess, I know little about. The United Nations has also been involved in Haiti, where frigates--including one from this country--have been deployed. In the middle east, the PLO- Israeli deal is now threatened by extremists, while elsewhere in the middle east, Saddam Hussein continues to assert his claim to Kuwait, to question the implementation of United Nations resolutions and to attack the marsh Arabs. Indeed, he may have been implicated in using chemical weapons yet again.Although there may be many other developments, the final development that has occurred in respect of United Nations peacekeeping and its financing is the fact that the United Kingdom has unfortunately been pushed off the United Nations Budgetary Committee. When the Minister replies, I would like to know how serious that is. We tend to be pushed off every three years and then get back on again. However, this is a bad time not to be as near as we can to the centre of the administration of United Nations finances.
All these developments have produced a change of mood since the summer and earlier in the year when it was thought that the United Nations would be the answer to every prayer. We have now gone to the opposite extreme : from excess euphoria, we have bounced over to excess gloom. It seems that the United Nations cannot achieve many of the things that people hoped it could after the end of the cold war. I believe that the gloom is overdone. When Dr. Boutros Ghali paid me the honour of asking my opinion on the matter, I told him that, despite all the criticism and the change of opinion in America, I thought that the gloom was overdone and that the United Nations remained a very powerful instrument which, reformed in the right way, can deliver a major contribution to world stability and the ending of violence and fragmentation around the globe.
That was the spirit in which we wrote our report. On that basis, we set out a range of proposals for reforming the United Nations and its administration and methods for tackling international crises and for intervening. In our very long report, we argued that the United Nations cannot do everything. That was obvious. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) put it very graphically--and we used his words in paragraph 263 of the report--the United Nations cannot
"wipe the tear from every eye."
When deciding where it should intervene and where it should move on from humanitarian intervention to more heavyweight intervention, it is necessary to have criteria to decide upon what principles it should work. We set out some of those criteria in paragraph 267. We argued that they were the kind of questions that policy makers and national governments should ask before they decide to support a resolution to intervene in a particular trouble spot.
Column 705
The Government have produced a reply to our lengthy report which is, if I may say so, a little diffuse and not made easier to comment on by the fact that there are no numbered paragraphs. However, from reading the report, I feel that the Government are not so enthusiastic about those criteria as the Committee was. At least the Government agree that there must be a mandate specified from the outset before intervention. That is very important indeed. We argue that one must go further than that and ensure that countries which commit themselves and their policies and resources must be aware from the start that the most timid initial humanitarian intervention can lead to a much more complicated military involvement. That is the point at which people who have committed themselves at the start must stay committed and not turn their backs and walk out leaving the United Nations floundering.It appears from the Government's response to our report and their response direct to the Secretary-General that they agree with our Committee that better command and control procedures at the United Nations are badly needed. They agree with our suggestions, and the suggestions of others, that a proper planning and operations staff at the United Nations is required. They agree with our thoughts about better communication and information flows for the United Nations. When the United Nations tries to command and control a force in the field, in a sense it operates blind because it does not have its own intelligence networks. We must consider what nation states can do, without undermining the national interests concerned, to provide better information and intelligence flows. I detected from the Government's reply that they recognise that that problem can be met. The Government also agree with the Committee that one should be sympathetic to the idea of stand-by forces for the United Nations. There is a sharp distinction between stand-by forces and standing forces. Stand-by forces would enable the United Nations to know what capabilities are available for certain needs and requirements around the world. The United Nations would be able to have an effective list of what was available.
The Committee turned down very strongly the different idea of having standing forces waiting about to be deployed by the United Nations in certain missions. We believe that that idea was not sensible because missions vary vastly and one never knows exactly what kind of troops are required. The same argument applies to the idea of earmarking particular forces for United Nations work. In their reply, the Government do not appear to agree with our argument about sanctions. We argued that really limited sanctions tend to become more and more limited and are finally eroded to the point of uselessness. We believe that if sanctions are to be effective, they must be applied with vigour in a full-blown way from the start. We made that point in paragraph 130.
It is a pity that there is reluctance to recognise that point. It would be very valuable to have sanctions working effectively on Serbia at the moment --although I am not sure whether it should be part of a deal in exchange for land. If they were working really effectively, they would at least create conditions in which the Bosnian Muslims do not feel that they are being asked to accede to a totally unjust peace. That is what they feel now as they know that
Column 706
the sanctions are not working thoroughly and that both their opponents, Serbs and Croats, have access to more arms than they do. We should now re-examine the sanctions procedures. We should argue that very much tougher sanctions should be maintained at all times, and particularly now with regard to Serbia.All in all, the aim of the report was, as we state in paragraph 263, to describe
"a range of practical ways in which the work of the United Nations could be made more effective, which we call upon the United Kingdom Government to support--especially ways of extending the diplomatic and other preventive work of the Organisation, its Secretary-General and the other UN agencies."
Obviously what we said was not comprehensive. There are United Nations missions and activities around the world which we did not get near and some of those may turn into demands for heavier commitments of resources before very long.
We are at a critical moment. There is a tug of war between the belief that the United Nations can solve all the post-cold war problems as they grow and the belief that the United Nations had lost credibility in various areas, including in Yugoslavia and particularly in Somalia. The Americans say that they are going to pull out on 31 March whatever happens--and heaven knows what will happen after that. There could be some very dark developments in some of these areas.
There are regions of success. Namibia prospers as a result of United Nations efforts. The United Nations is withdrawing in Cambodia and it looks at the moment, although this may be a dangerous prediction, as though a more peaceful order will prevail. However, there is nothing but defeat and setbacks in other areas.
With those mixed feelings, with some caution about over enthusiasm and hope that the United Nations can be reformed, we set the report before the House. I hope that it will be valuable and useful to hon. Members as we contemplate this vast business of peacekeeping, with all its expenses and frustrations, which lies before us in ever growing quantity.
4.48 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : I congratulate the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his Committee on a most comprehensive report on an extremely important and difficult subject. Over the next few years, the report will be regarded as absloutely essential to how the United Nations develops.
I also thank the Government for choosing this aspect of the Foreign Office estimates to be discussed. The debate enables hon. Members to examine many of our international commitments. We do not normally have such an opportunity. Also, the debate allows us further to re-examine the role of the United Nations in this post-cold war era, with the background of the Select Committee's valuable report. The debate also encourages interested hon. Members to come to the House on a Monday, when there is only a one- line Whip and when there will probably be only one vote, to advance their interests in respect of many countries. The Government participate in a very wide range of peacekeeping activities within the United Nations.
I must admit that, not being an expert or an accountant, I lost my way somewhat when I examined the estimates. I thank the Foreign Office officials for their generous help in
Column 707
filling in the gaps--literally. Some sections of the estimates, particularly those dealing with international organisations and peacekeeping forces, are not clear to the lay person. Perhaps the Government could do a better job in presenting funding figures in the same currency, providing more comprehensive explanations of expenditure, and advising when assessments correspond with projections.Our present commitments are comprehensive and world wide, but they are also different and reflect different involvements. As the right hon. Member for Guildford said, one cannot anticipate problems or what one needs to do to try to resolve them. One of the biggest issues that we fact--it is mentioned in the report--is when and where the United Nations could and should be involved. When does it have, as the French call it, le droit d'ingerence, or the right to interfere?
In his "Agenda for Peace", Dr. Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General, suggested that it was time for the United Nations to consider fighting natural disasters as well as man-made ones. However, the continual question is whether an ostensibly global organisation should infringe the national sovereignty of affected nations when their own Governments do not meet their needs. That question is much easier to answer when it is applied to natural disasters or humanitarian crises, but it is much more difficult to resolve, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, when sanctions and military force need to be deployed.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggested some guidelines that should be drawn up for humanitarian assistance, but the Government pointed out-- yet again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman--in a most inadequate response to the Committee that such guidelines would erode the flexibility of the United Nations to respond to emergencies. However, it is obvious that the present system is not working. Some guidance is necessary, but only to reassure a Government or areas that come under scrutiny or need action that they are not being picked out for special treatment and that nations are responding objectively.
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the universal declaration of human rights gives the basis for such an alteration in guidelines? It is a later document than the charter and it emphasises that individuals and communities have rights under whatever nation state. That should be the starting point of the guidelines.
Mr. Rogers : I accept that that point could be considered, but the Select Committee and the Government, in fairness to them, realise the enormous difficulty in drawing up guidelines. Bearing in mind the report to which the right hon. Member for Guildford referred, one could make a very strong case for interference by the United Nations in the affairs of this country, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether Parliament would agree to that. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) should bear that point in mind when it comes to interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. After all, the United Nations was founded on the
Column 708
principle that member states are sovereign, that their boundaries are inviolate and that it would be wrong to interfere in the affairs of a member state.When discussing the United Nations and peacekeeping, it would be wrong to ignore or overstate the part played by non-governmental organisations. The commitment, dedication and humanitarian work of NGOs is unquestioned, but a lack of both funds and Government support often prevents them from fulfilling or completing their tasks. In a written answer on 16 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that the Government do not earmark money for British-based NGOs and that money is neither given directly to NGOs nor specifically to United Nations programmes for the funding of NGOs. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that is still the Government's policy. I am sure that other hon. Members agree that the ability of NGOs to act swiftly in providing humanitarian aid is not only crucial in relieving suffering but could obviate the need for more formal United Nations intervention, even of a non-military kind.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : I am sorry, but I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's question. On occasions, money is made available to NGOs to spend in countries of concern. That happens quite frequently. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is seeking an answer to a different question. I did not quite follow the line of his question--I apologise.
Mr. Rogers : On 16 July 1992, a written question was answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He said :
"We shall continue to consider on their merits requests from British non- governmental organisations to fund specific projects ... We do not earmark for non-governmental organisations any specific part of our contribution to the United Nations programme."--[ Official Report, 16 July 1992 ; Vol. 211, c. 968 .]
The Government should re-examine that policy and perhaps set aside a small amount for NGOs to ensure that relief operations can begin in the interval between the emergence of humanitarian crises and the decision of member states to send in a United Nations mission.
Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : If the hon. Gentleman analysed the facts, he would agree that the Governmnent have consistently used NGOs more and more each year, as they are very relevant to certain countries and certain conditions. If the hon. Gentleman analysed the Foreign Office estimates, he would find that non-governmental organisations have had more and more money each year to carry out the work that we all agree is necessary.
Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman may be right--I confessed that I had difficulty in wading through the estimates. However, I looked for that specific matter, and it is in a special section. If the hon. Gentleman examines it, he will see that money is not specifically earmarked on a year -by-year basis for NGOs, but that is not to say that money is not given on specific request.
As we know, the end of the cold war brought about a completely different international situation. There was a period where there were clearly defined roles and interests, but now there is a great deal of uncertainty. We also know that the United Nations has never functioned as originally intended because of the bipolarity in the exercise of the veto when interests were threatened. The Security Council
Column 709
of the United Nations was able to make firm decision on only a few occasions--for example, with regard to Palestine, Korea, the Congo, South Africa and the Falklands.The passage of resolution 678 in 1990 with regard to the cold war led everyone to hope, as the right hon. Member for Guildford said, that the United Nations could fulfil the constructive role envisaged by its founders and perhaps positively create a new world order. Unfortunately, since then- -partly because of the accelerated break-up of totalitarian regions--the number and complexity of conflicts has meant that the United Nations has been asked to fulfil tasks that, for many reasons, it is unable to do. Of the 27 peacekeeping operations undertaken since 1948, 13 are still under way and eight have been launched in only the past two years.
I am sure that we can recall all the relative optimism when it was agreed that the United Nations should be used to resolve the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, last year, the right hon. Member for Guildford told the House :
"The Select Committee took the view that our hopes must rest on the United Nations as an effective force. It may have to remain in Yugoslavia for some time."--[ Official Report, 5 March 1992 ; Vol. 205, c. 464.]
That comment expressed hope, but it also realistically anticipated despair- -an anticipation which has been fulfilled. One cannot see a resolution to the problems in the former Yugoslavia--but that is true in almost all instances. Most of the problems in which the United Nations has become involved have remained unresolved. In Bosnia, peacekeeping forces have an inadequate mandate and are too small to be effective.
In Cambodia, the elections were monitored and the United Nations will now withdraw, but the UN was still unable to cope when one side did not accept the result. At present, the difficulties between the Khmer Rouge and the elected Government are still on the table. In Somalia, a massive force is unable to resolve the problems because of the lack of administrative and government structures and a mandate that is not clear. In Western Sahara and Angola, the same inabilities persist.
An analysis of those relative failures shows that there is a common theme in all the situations. The Security Council of the United Nations was not able to act decisively and quickly, its mandates were inadequate, its resources were inadequate, and the problems and political aims were not clearly identified. Those shortcomings raised the whole question of the future of the United Nations, its role and its effectiveness.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, some people now question and criticise the United Nations as an institution. Some talk about using other institutions and structures to resolve conflict and, indeed, creating new structures to achieve that objective. Fortunately, a vast majority of politicians and countries realise that there is no real alternative to the United Nations. What is also evident from analysing the issues that have been resolved by the United Nations is that regional organisations have not been able, for various reasons, to do much about the problems either.
Neither the European Community nor the Conference on Security and Co- operation in Europe is able to stop the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia. In Angola, Somalia, Mozambique and the Sudan, the Organisation of African
| Next Section
| Home Page |