| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Former Yugoslavia
18. Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are taking place with other Foreign Ministers over the future position of the implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. [30861]
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain in constant contact with other Governments on this and other Bosnia-related subjects.
Mr. Winnick: The implementation force is clearly performing a very important task in the former Yugoslavia. As it is now quite clear that virtually every male who was captured after the fall of Srebrenica was put to death, the need to ensure that the most notorious war criminals are apprehended and brought to justice before the war crimes tribunal is all the greater. Should not the President of Serbia be told in clear terms that he has a duty to the international community to hand over to IFOR the two leading criminals among the Bosnian Serbs?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste for Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic, and I agree that it is important that they be brought to justice before the international war crimes tribunal, but it is not in IFOR's mandate to make such arrests or to seek Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic. Its job is to ensure that the Dayton peace agreement is taken forward. The hon. Gentleman must not underestimate the difficulty of apprehending Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic, and any military operation that was mounted to do so would undoubtedly involve substantial loss of international life.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should put all possible pressure on the President of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic, to intervene to try to get to Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic. I am afraid that the President of Serbia does not have total control over the Bosnian Serbs--[Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but that is
a fact of life. It is regrettable, but true. We shall continue to put pressure on Mr. Milosevic until we attain the outcome that we desire.
Mr. Colvin:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the 20 December deadline for withdrawal of the implementation force is to be met, the elections that are currently scheduled for 14 September must be free and fair? Does he think that they will be, when 80 per cent. of the population of Bosnia are living elsewhere thanks to ethnic cleansing or the implementation of the Dayton agreement? Does he think that they will be, when 1 million Bosnians now live overseas and the register for the elections and the census on which it is based are dated 1991? Does my hon. Friend think that, in those circumstances, the elections will be free and fair? Will he, for an alternative, look at the experience of the Republic of South Africa? Many of its citizens were living where they should not have been at the time of the elections, and use of a sophisticated administrative device ensured that a large percentage of the population voted. Those elections were seen by the free world as fair and free.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor:
I agree that the elections must be free and fair, but it would be unrealistic for any of us to expect them to be perfect. It is the task of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and others involved in trying to organise the elections to ensure that they reach a satisfactory electoral conclusion.
IFOR will be kept at full strength until after the elections and will be fully operational until 20 December. It is premature for us to plan further at present, but emphasis is placed on the fact that free and fair elections should be held, and all the international community's efforts are currently directed to that end.
19. Mr. Alan W. Williams:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda of the summit to be held in Florence on 21 and 22 June. [30862]
Mr. Rifkind:
The agenda for the Florence European Council is not yet decided, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on 21 May, if we have not reached agreement on a framework for lifting the ban on beef, that subject is bound to dominate the agenda.
Mr. Williams:
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will accept that many hon. Members, including many Conservative Members, are concerned about the deep damage that is being caused to our relations with our European partners by the policy of non-co-operation. Will he make every effort to ensure that a compromise is reached before the Florence summit so that the agenda can be followed and we abandon this unwise policy?
Mr. Rifkind:
We are all anxious to find an acceptable solution, but it must be on the basis outlined by the Prime Minister: agreement on a framework strategy for the phased lifting of the ban.
EU Intergovernmental Conference
20. Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the Government's objectives for the European Union intergovernmental conference. [30863]
Mr. Rifkind: Our objectives were set out in the recent White Paper "A Partnership of Nations".
Mr. Hall: Has the Foreign Secretary taken time to read the pamphlet produced by the Confederation of British Industry entitled "Building a Better Europe" which was published last week? It called for a pragmatic and case-by-case assessment of the case for extending qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference. Does not the sensible approach taken by the business community expose the Government's short-sighted and dogmatic approach in refusing to consider a further extension of qualified majority voting?
Mr. Rifkind: Our view of qualified majority voting is influenced by the fact that it already exists in relation to a large area of policy, including the single market and the common agricultural policy. We have yet to hear a convincing case--I do not believe that there is one--for further extension of QMV.
Mr. Field: I understand from my Member of the European Parliament that the maritime regions are to be considered by the intergovernmental conference, which will be of considerable interest to areas such as the Scottish islands, the Isle of Wight and the Azores. When will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to make an announcement about the peripheral regions' place in the timetable for the intergovernmental conference?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not clear about the background to my hon. Friend's question. The purpose of the intergovernmental conference is to consider the possibility of treaty amendments. I have not yet heard of any proposals that would be specifically relevant to maritime areas. Of course, if others make such proposals, we shall consider them on their merits.
UNESCO
21. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to rejoin UNESCO. [30864]
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have no immediate plans to rejoin UNESCO. This issue is being kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.
Mr. MacShane: Everybody will agree that, in the 1980s, UNESCO was a ratbag, financially corrupt organisation run by an authoritarian megalomaniac--a bit like the Conservative party. Now it is run by a lean, mean executive called Major--Senor Major--
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has to put a question and I have not yet heard a question from him.
Mr. MacShane: May I ask the Minister, given that UNESCO today is run by a lean, mean executive called
Major, who works with the private sector and does excellent work, whether Britain will abandon its petty, petulant refusal to play a part and rejoin UNESCO now?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall resist being tempted down that unfortunate path. We keep our rejoining UNESCO under constant review, but at the moment we are not satisfied that the management and administration of that organisation is good value for money for those who fund it. Nor are we satisfied that our membership would be good value for money, given that it would cost £11 million out of a limited budget, which is already fully pressed.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when we were a member of UNESCO, we gained more money each year than we paid in? The sum that he mentioned should be seen in that context. Is he also aware that it is hard to find an educational or cultural institution in this country that does not think it is a gross mistake not to be a member of UNESCO? Will my hon. Friend please ensure that he does nothing to erect further fences that would prevent our speedy return?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If my hon. Friend can give me figures that will assure me that we would get more than £11 million back if we put it in, I shall review the position. I think that it is unlikely.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: If there was a logic to the original decision to withdraw from UNESCO, surely the decision not to rejoin smacks of pettiness. Does the Minister understand that there is wide respect now for UNESCO's work and the way in which it conducts its affairs? Will he also recognise the increasing concern among other United Nations agencies that British withdrawal from UNESCO may parallel withdrawal from other organisations in the future? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to ensure that the world understands that there will be no withdrawals from other agencies?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The world is probably more concerned about the fact that the United States does not back UNESCO than the fact that the United Kingdom does not. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we have no plans to withdraw from other organisations. However, we are keeping a close eye on, and conducting a review of, the efficiency and value of some operations
of the United Nations. I cannot, as yet, give the hon. Gentleman any details of the results that might arise from that examination.
Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at UNESCO's palatial headquarters in Paris, where 2,000 people work, most of the experienced middle management were sacked and replaced by a lot of left-wing trendies, and long-haired men and short-haired women who wore sandals in the office? [Interruption.] There were too many of them in the office and not enough out in the field. Is my hon. Friend also aware that in matters of cultural relations overseas, many of us would much rather support the Government's policy of continuing to fund the excellent work of the British Council and the BBC's overseas service?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His description of those who work at UNESCO matches our view of the Opposition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |