| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
United Nations (Reform)
11. Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for reform of the United Nations. [12353]
Mr. Rifkind: Britain has been at the forefront of recent efforts to reform the United Nations, producing initiatives on restructuring and improvement in many areas and on tackling the organisation's serious financial crisis.
Ms Corston: What are the Government doing to improve and extend the capacity for preventative diplomacy in the United Nations? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that swift action must be taken immediately to prevent the escalation of killings in Burundi and ensure that those responsible for violence and massacre are brought to account?
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Lady that preventive diplomacy must become a more frequent aspect of the UN's activities. With regard to Burundi, the United Kingdom is at present chairing the Security Council and we have invited the Secretary-General to develop further his ideas for anticipating problems that might arise, so that any steps that could responsibly be taken at this stage to minimise the risk of collapse within that country can be taken now, rather than allowing the UN simply to react to events as they occur.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britain's initiative a few years ago in calling a special meeting of the Security Council to examine the reform of the UN was one of the best things that had happened for some time in the area? Is he also aware that the planning of peacekeeping operations is remarkably amateurish and inefficient? What new proposals is Britain putting forward on that front? Does my right hon. and learned Friend support the Canadian proposal for a small standby force to be available to the Secretary-General?
Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has been at the forefront in making practical suggestions for improving the UN's ability to deal with the huge increase in peacekeeping activities that has occurred since the end of the cold war. I am not persuaded by the Canadian proposal, or by proposals from other quarters, for a permanent standing force, because one never knows in advance what particular military skills are appropriate to an emergency. In Angola and Rwanda, for example, the logistical, engineering and military capabilities of the United Kingdom were required, while an infantry or combat role may be required in other areas. It is better for countries to advise the Secretary-General of the kind of help that they are prepared to give and then to respond quickly if the Secretary-General requires their assistance.
Russian Federation
12. Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Russian Foreign Minister to discuss security problems within the Russian Federation. [12354]
Mr. Rifkind: I last met the Russian Foreign Minister at the peace implementation conference in London on 8 and 9 December.
Mr. Jones: Would the Secretary of State care to define what constitutes the legitimate use of force in order to retain the integrity of the Russian empire? Does the indiscriminate bombing of cities and villages form a part of that legitimate use of force?
Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom certainly does not support that use of force, and we hope that the Russian Government will seek to resolve their internal problems by a peaceful dialogue and that those concerned with political reform will bring the conflict to an end. That would be far more likely to achieve a lasting solution than a purely military approach.
International Economy
13. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities for improving Britain's position in the international economy. [12355]
Mr. Hanley: It is a key Foreign and Commonwealth Office long-term objective to promote and protect British economic interests overseas.
Mr. Michie: Does the Minister agree that the proposed Helms-Burton legislation in the United States Congress is totally unacceptable? Will it not have an adverse effect on the British economy on a world scale? Will it not also be an unjustifiable attack on free trade if British companies which want to trade with Cuba are penalised? If the boot were on the other foot, the United States would never tolerate such interference. What are the Government doing about it?
Mr. Hanley: The Government encourage free trade, but there are certain circumstances in which it is right that it should be restricted to encourage reform. The hon. Gentleman's comments will, I am sure, be heard by the Americans.
Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we strengthen our business ties not only with EU countries, but with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States? Does he agree that that is important because we have not only a common language, but common business practices and a common English legal heritage?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course we concentrate on our key markets, but not exclusively so. Commercial work by the FCO now involves some 35 per cent. of all our front-line overseas staff. There are 218 commercial posts in 140 markets, and
14 new commercial posts were opened last year, with an extra 100 staff slots for commercial work overseas. I might add that the United Kingdom is succeeding so well that it now attracts 40 per cent. of all inward investment from the United States and Japan. We must be doing something very right.
Ms Quin: Has not the Foreign Office dismally failed to protect the most useful parts of its budget in the recent budgetary settlement? The valuable work in boosting Britain abroad is being undermined by savage cuts in the British Council and the BBC World Service and we have even seen the withdrawal of funding from the Council of Europe's Youth Foundation. Was the failure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to protect all that valuable work the result of right-wing dogma or simply incompetence?
Mr. Hanley: No Government are exempt from their duty to make sure that the national economy of the United Kingdom is improving and ever improving.
Middle East Peace Process
14. Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Prime Minister of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [12356]
Mr. Rifkind: I met Shimon Peres on 1 February. We discussed the excellent state of our relations with Israel, the welcome continuation of progress towards peace in the middle east, the on-going talks between Israel and Syria and the implementation of the interim agreement.
Mr. Luff: When my right hon. and learned Friend met the Prime Minister, did he discuss with him the excellent state of relations between Israel and Jordan? Does he agree that Syria needs to learn from the experience of Israel that peace is about more than merely the absence of war?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I think that is, indeed, the case. Part of the negotiations that are taking place between Israel and Syria are about what the future relations, including economic relations, between Syria and Israel might be in the event of a comprehensive peace in the region. That would offer great prospects for developing the economies of both countries.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not one of the most encouraging prospects that of using in other parts of the middle east Israeli expertise in matters such as greening the desert? Will the Foreign Secretary do all that he can to ensure that doors are opened for the interchange of such expertise across the region?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that that objective is already fully understood and agreed between Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians. That is one of the most encouraging developments of recent times. Clearly, if the same principles could apply to the other countries in the region with regard to their relationship with Israel, the economic prospects for the region as a whole would be substantially enhanced.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that some of us heard a memorable address by Mr. Peres in the Palace last week, in which he was positive about the developments? He reaffirmed that Jerusalem was an open city for all faiths, but he also reaffirmed that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Will the Foreign Secretary respond to the earlier question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? Why has the British Council closed its facility in Jerusalem?
Mr. Rifkind: The future of the library in Jerusalem is an internal matter for the British Council. It is not a ministerial decision, nor should it have been. The Government's policy on Jerusalem is that we are entering a sensitive phase with regard to the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The British Government, along with many other western Governments, are not considering any change of their policy with regard to Jerusalem because we believe that changes in whatever direction would be unhelpful when these most difficult negotiations are about to begin.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |