| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
United Nations
5. Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the United Nations. [855]
Mr. Rifkind: The United Nations will remain the principal mechanism for the resolution of threats to international peace and security, and the forum for addressing a wide range of global problems.
Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that NATO has been much more effective than the shambolic United Nations in the former Yugoslavia? Does he also agree that if the UN is to play any meaningful role in the world in future it must undergo a fundamental root-and-branch reform as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Rifkind: NATO, of course, has operated in Bosnia at the request of the United Nations because the UN does not have the kind of military capability that is available to the Atlantic alliance. I agree that the United Nations financial arrangements need to be reformed. There is much waste and extravagance and the UN must be funded in a form that ensures that member states do not fall into arrears, because that has been undermining the UN's capacity to carry out its proper role.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am sure that, like others, the Secretary of State was much encouraged by the vigorous rejection of isolationism by President Clinton this morning. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the future effectiveness of the United Nations will depend on the whole-hearted commitment of the United States to that organisation? Will he take every opportunity to press that point on his counterpart in the American Government?
Mr. Rifkind: The United States Government, and President Clinton in particular, need no such reminding. The problem with United Nations funding in respect of the US contribution arises because of the behaviour of Congress, which up to now has declined to authorise the appropriate funding despite the urging of the Administration. That is where representations and pressure need to be directed.
Mr. Churchill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the effectiveness of the United Nations depends more on the United States' active involvement than on that of any other Government? Will he warmly congratulate the President of the United States on his fine address today to both Houses of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster? Above all, will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate him on his categorical condemnation
of the forces of appeasement and isolationism, and wish him well in his battle with those elements in Congress that support such policies?
Mr. Rifkind: I unreservedly pay tribute to President Clinton for his fine address this morning. The United States and the United Kingdom work well together and enable the great democratic forces to be as successful as they have been in recent times. The way in which the President emphasised the close bonds between the United States and the United Kingdom was very much in tune with the way that this country sees the transatlantic alliance.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Foreign Secretary has gone some way towards dispelling the myths of the isolationists on both sides of the Atlantic. Is he prepared to pay tribute to the quiet work of the United Nations through, for example, UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Those organisations have carried out valuable work over many years. Are the cuts in funding to United Nations agencies which were announced in yesterday's Budget in the interests of today's rhetoric by the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Rifkind: Of course I pay tribute to the work done by UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The hon. Gentleman mentioned reductions that were announced yesterday. Most of them are possible because of the reduction in the forecast of what our contributions to the various multilateral organisations ought to be; therefore, I do not think that the programmes to which he refers will suffer in any way as a result of the announcements.
Iraq
6. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [857]
Mr. Hanley: The situation in Iraq remains poor for ordinary people. This is the direct result of the regime's failure to implement UN resolution 986, which would permit the sale of oil in return for humanitarian goods, or to meet its other UN obligations.
Mr. Robathan: The House will note that this matter is to be discussed in an Adjournment debate later today. Has Iraq the ability to be a prosperous country and has it good natural resources? How much is the present regime spending on armaments and internal repression? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no move by the Government to relax sanctions because, far from encouraging democracy, liberty or prosperity in Iraq, that would be an endorsement of Saddam Hussein's evil regime?
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question because it helps to expose the true nature of the Iraqi regime. It is within Saddam Hussein's power to sell up to $1 billion-worth of oil every three months to provide humanitarian aid and medical supplies for his people. The relaxation of the import embargo depends on Saddam's complying with all relevant resolutions, but many matters remain cause for concern: Kuwaiti detainees, who are still unaccounted for; the human rights record, which is appalling; the internal economic blockade on Kurds and Shi'as; the mutilation of army deserters. Iraq is also
involved in state-sponsored terrorism and has failed to account for more than 600 missing Kuwaiti and third-country nationals.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister's description of the situation being "poor for ordinary people" just does not do justice to the appalling nature of the position. The Foreign Office has a full briefing of my visit to the children's hospital in Baghdad--two years ago, admittedly--when I saw rows of infants expiring, and the same was found at Um-Kasr. In its preparation for tonight's Adjournment debate on sanctions on Iraq, will the Foreign Office at least read carefully the letter that the Foreign Secretary has had from a much more recent visitor, Riad El-Taher, in which he describes the position and outlines Iraq's difficulty in complying with a United Nations resolution that is impossible for the people to accept, regardless of whether they support Saddam?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman's views on Iraq, on Saddam Hussein and on his regime are known to the House and, no doubt, we will hear more of them tonight. All I can say, however, is that we are conscious of the suffering of ordinary people in Iraq. Saddam, not the UN, is responsible for that suffering. Food and medicines are not subject to sanctions and, therefore, we ask again for Saddam Hussein to adopt United Nations resolution 986 and to allow Iraq to export some oil in return for humanitarian goods. He can do so. It is not impossible for him to do so. He could receive at least $2.5 billion net in the next 12 months, after charges for the resolution. He does not do so. I urge the hon. Gentleman to spend some of his time urging Saddam to help his people.
French Nuclear Tests
7. Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government received on nuclear testing by France during the recent Commonwealth summit in New Zealand. [858]
Mr. Rifkind: The Government not only received but made representations during the recent Commonwealth summit.
Mr. Hall: What vital national interest is served by the Government's change in policy from not condemning the French nuclear tests to supporting them? Given the Foreign Secretary's warm welcome of President Clinton's address this morning, how did French nuclear tests help to lift the nuclear cloud that threatens our children's bright future?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman represented a party that had genuinely changed its view on nuclear weapons, he would understand that all the nuclear powers are committed to working towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, but it is not unreasonable to be sympathetic to the problems faced by our French allies as they bring their testing procedure to a conclusion. As in nuclear power, we understand that these are complex and sensitive issues, and we will not run to criticise a good ally that is committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty but believes that this is a necessary prelude to the completion of negotiations.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend emphasise yet again that the commitment of the
French to signing the nuclear test ban treaty in the spring is of the greatest importance and needs to be emphasised absolutely for the people who are critical of it?
Mr. Rifkind: That is the strategic objective. It is likely that the French nuclear tests will be finished in a couple of months from now and then the concentration will be on the global negotiations, to which France is as committed as any other country. It is difficult to understand why the Labour party seems to relish attacking a nuclear power when it simultaneously tries to persuade the British public that it supports the British nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Jack Thompson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, in July this year, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe met in Toronto. One of the topics that was debated was French nuclear testing. He will also be aware that the only people who voted against the resolution to condemn the nuclear testing were the French, obviously, and the British Conservatives. Does he believe that the British Conservatives and the French are the only ones who are in step and that the rest of the world is out of step?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that it is the British Government's responsibility to come to a decision that is consistent with our national interest, not simply to join a pack hounding a good friend and ally regardless of our own beliefs on the issues at stake.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |