| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton): Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that the arms embargo will not be lifted while British troops are out on this mission? Will he also give a guarantee that the defence exports part of his Department will not be busy trying to make arms sales while another part is looking after the security of British troops?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important subject--the question of arms control. The Dayton agreement foresees that one of the conditions for lasting peace will be a better balance between the armaments possessed by the different warring factions. It is clearly preferable for that balance to be achieved through the disarmament of the Croats and Serbs to a level close to that of the Bosnian Muslims; if, however, we fail to make progress in disarming those factions, the Dayton agreement envisages the possibility of training and weapons being provided for the Bosnian Muslims.
There will be a conference on arms control in Bonn shortly before Christmas, and I think it extremely important for the international community to use all its resolve and muscle to ensure that we adopt the former
rather than the latter route. Particularly with our troops on the ground, we want a reduction rather than an increase in the number of arms in theatre.
Mr. Matthew Banks (Southport):
My right hon. Friend may recall that, several years ago, before he became Secretary of State for Defence, I pointed out in the House on a number of occasions that British troops were being sent to Bosnia to police a United Nations--as it then was--ceasefire, and not to take part in guerrilla warfare.
As each Parliament goes by, even the youngest among us recognise that the House contains fewer and fewer right hon. and hon. Members who have any experience of service life, let alone active service. Given that a safe area is safe only if it is militarily safe--and given that the provision of aid, and other matters raised by some hon. Members earlier, may well be laudable aims--will my right hon. Friend not lose sight of the important fact that there is a long way to go before we attain a proper peace?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, through the rules of engagement, service men on the ground will be empowered to defend themselves adequately if they come under attack in the days and months ahead, as they may well do?
Mr. Portillo:
The present situation is different, in that we now have a peace agreement to which the three parties have signed up, and we are going there to implement the peace agreement into which they have entered. The implication of that is that we shall use persuasion to ensure that they meet their obligations; but, if persuasion does not succeed, we shall use force. Certainly, if we come under attack ourselves, we shall respond robustly.
Of course, the rules of engagement cover self-defence, as they always have, but now they also cover the ability to implement the peace agreement to which those people have signed up. I very much hope that persuasion will be enough, but we are sending the weaponry that is necessary to give persuasion the best possible chance, and, if persuasion fails, to ensure that other methods succeed.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
Although I have not conducted any sort of survey among Scottish soldiers destined for Bosnia, I am confident that our service men and service women would much prefer the heavy equipment that they will need to be carried in ships flying the red duster, rather than flags of convenience.
Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will do all he can to hire British ships to carry that equipment, even though our merchant fleet has shrunk to a ghost of what it was? Surely that equipment is better carried in our ships than in ships hired on what he calls the "open market". Pehaps he should give less emphasis to the "open market", and show much more confidence in the red duster.
Mr. Portillo:
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on a strong point. We are not deploying in a war situation or in an emergency, and we are not requisitioning
I am pleased to say that much of British shipping is busy. It has contracts, and it is working. Those ships' owners do not want to be disturbed by British Government demands. We will take the shipping that is available. That will undoubtedly include some British shipping, but what our forces want is their equipment to be delivered to the right place at the right time, which we will do in the most effective manner possible.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles):
The Secretary of State talked about NATO forces' role in implementing the success of the agreement's civilian aspects. Will he acknowledge that that includes the right of return of refugees, as well as the free and fair elections that he mentioned? Is it not essential to NATO's credibility that neither of those be thwarted by force over the next 12 months?
Mr. Portillo:
Yes. The right of return for refugees is an important part of the Dayton agreement. Naturally, I have been concerned, as others will have been, at the stories, especially those about Sarajevo, implying that tens of thousands of people will feel it necessary to leave their homes as a result of the peace agreement. The point of that agreement is that people living anywhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina should be able to do so in security.
The point about Sarajevo is that that city should be able to return to its famed previous position as a multi-ethnic city at peace with itself. These are the implementation force's objectives: to ensure that, in the next 12 months, people feel that degree of security and that, where they have left their homes, they felt secure enough to return to them.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
Sometimes it is wise to take 12 months at a time, and, although we are all aware of the problems that are faced with paramilitary forces and with the need to control any action or excess that is engaged in by those forces, we also need to realise the possibilities that exist in relation to civil society. Many people in Bosnia have always opposed the violence, intimidation and action that have taken place. The hope is in that civil society being built up and that, in those circumstances, troops go on to be in safer situations and can begin to be withdrawn.
Mr. Portillo:
Of course, I try to keep my eyes well open to the realities and to see more than 12 months ahead, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that today the House is concentrating on an operation that has been designated by NATO, and that has a life of 12 months. He is absolutely right, of course, in saying that the success of that mission and of peace depends on the building of institutions in Bosnia-Herzegovina that attract the trust of the people and that eventually make them desire peace more than war.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given your secretary notice of exactly where it refers to--column 794-95 of yesterday's Hansard, when, at the end of the debate, I raised the question whether the use of the words
Madam Speaker:
I looked at the exchange this morning, and I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not accept the interpretation that he has placed on it. I believe that Madam Deputy Speaker dealt with it very well last night. The House does not go in for inquests about what happened the night before. It was dealt with at the time, and we must now move on.
Mr. Bermingham:
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I do not normally take further points of order, but, as it is close to Christmas, I will take this one.
Mr. Bermingham:
I am grateful, Madam Speaker. Am I now to understand that I can use any quotation--from the Bible or from Shakespeare, for example--to call anybody anything, and that it will be permitted?
Madam Speaker:
Not at all. As the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members know, it very much depends on
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
The quality of mercy is not strained.
4.18 pm
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".--
[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 794.]
was the equivalent of calling a person a liar. I raised it in respect of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I raise it again with you. Are those words interpretable as calling someone a liar, and, as such, should they require an apology to the House and to the hon. Member concerned?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |