| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Bearing in mind the news this morning about what is happening in Burma, and given the record of oppression of minorities--including Christian minorities--by the State Law and Order Restoration Council and the Burmese Government, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the international community is as anxious to stamp out the type of corrupt extremism practised in a country such as Burma as it is in stamping out corruption in countries closer to home?
Mr. Rifkind: Burma is one of the most disturbing examples of the suppression of basic political liberties, which is happening at a time when there has been a significant increase in political liberty in so many other parts of the world, including Asia. There is a need for international interest in this matter, and to use whatever means are available that would have some prospect of helping the growth of democratic institutions.
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): Should the Danes revive their proposal for European sanctions in Burma until there is an improvement in human rights, will the Government--after the Foreign Secretary has expressed those sentiments--support them?
Mr. Rifkind: I should like to make two points. First, the level of European--including British--trade with Burma is insignificant; therefore, we should not kid ourselves that sanctions alone would have a significant impact. Secondly, the British Government's view is that economic sanctions can make sense only if they are endorsed by the United Nations. We do not believe that sanctions promoted by individual countries or groups of countries are likely to have an impact, which is precisely why we disagreed with the United States on sanctions against Iran. The Security Council gave its endorsement to such a policy in the case of Iran, which it did not in the case of Libya. Our view on sanctions against other countries is based on comparable considerations.
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Will the Foreign Secretary at least give us an assurance that, until there is a change of heart in Burma--including the promised dialogue with the opposition party and the lifting of restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi--there will be no further Government-sponsored trade missions to Burma?
Mr. Rifkind: We currently do not have such missions that I am aware of, and I do not think that it is at all likely that there will be a change in policy.
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton): Before the Foreign Secretary finishes the part of his speech dealing with Europe, will he consider much more fully the American desire to dash madly for NATO enlargement? Does he realise that, although it is correct that there is no way in which the Russians should be able to have a veto over any enlargement, it is necessary to ensure greater confidence
between Russia and the rest of Europe? There must also be some lateral thinking on issues of non-aggression, weapons control and even non-aggression pacts, rather than build up the obvious fear of every leader of any party in Russia about the enlargement of NATO, whether that fear is justified or not.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that the countries of central and eastern Europe believe that there has been a "mad dash" towards allowing their membership of NATO. We are normally criticised by them because they believe that the entire process goes too slowly. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that the issue of NATO enlargement should not be examined in isolation. If the policy is to be sensible, we must remember that European security is indivisible and that NATO enlargement should be part of a tripartite strategy.
I believe that NATO enlargement should go ahead, but it should be accompanied by a strategic relationship between NATO and Russia, very much for the type of reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned, and I believe that there must also be a coherent strategy for NATO's relations with those other countries that are not applying to join NATO--the most important being Ukraine--which also have very important security interests which we need to take into account.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
rose--
Mr. Rifkind:
I want to make progress, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Winterton:
My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned some of the problems that have occurred recently. Will he mention the grotesque, dramatic refugee problem that now confronts the world? I shall not now mention Zaire, Rwanda or Burundi and the tragedy of the refugees in that part of Africa. I shall mention a small country in the north of India, Bhutan, and its problems with Nepal. What are the British Government doing to solve the severe and growing refugee problem in Bhutan and Nepal?
Mr. Rifkind:
My hon. Friend is right: the movement of peoples, especially refugees, is a very serious problem in various parts of the world, and I am aware of the background to the problem in Bhutan. I do not claim that the United Kingdom can directly make a major impact on that problem--that is for the countries of the region to tackle--but my hon. Friend can assume that of course we will do our best, along with others, to help to solve that problem.
I have mentioned the way--
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey):
While we are on the subject of NATO enlargement, may I say how very much I agree with what my old and right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said on that subject? [Hon. Members: "Old?"] I meant a friend of long standing. He is much younger than I am, anyhow.
As a matter of wisdom, looking to the future, it would be very unhappy indeed if, at a time when Russia is going through what will be only a temporary phase of weakness, we were to give all the Russian leaders a feeling that we
are seeking to take advantage of that to create a position that will threaten their national future. It is very alarming if a succession of national leaders visit eastern Europe and promise individually that specific countries will be admitted to NATO by certain dates. Let us remember the pledge that we gave to Poland in 1939, which we were not effectively able to fulfil and for which the Poles have never really forgiven us, and for goodness sake do not let us make similar mistakes again.
Mr. Rifkind:
It is precisely for the reasons that my hon. Friend gives that the process of considering NATO enlargement has been taken forward very slowly, cautiously and carefully in the past few years. I do not believe that we shall rush into those matters. It is likely that a decision will be taken by the middle of next year to enter into negotiations with some of the applicant countries. I cannot predict how long those negotiations will last. I hope that they will not last too long, because I do not believe that the uncertainty is of benefit, but I assure my hon. Friend that it is precisely because NATO is not only a political club--it involves commitments to collective security--that we must address those issues, and do so sensibly.
I mentioned the way in which we have moved into a multi-polar world, and I said that the challenges that confront us are very different from those that confronted us a few years ago. That is especially true in Europe. Much of the political debate, in this country and elsewhere, is about the future institutional development of the European Union--issues of majority voting, and so on. We should remember that, important though those issues are, they are not necessarily the most important ones confronting Europe.
In the past few years, we have been presented with some extraordinary challenges which have not yet been properly addressed. We have a great debate about what degree of integration is sensible in western Europe. It is worth remembering that the experience of central and eastern Europe has been not integration, but disintegration.
The Soviet Union collapsed into 16 separate countries. Yugoslavia disintegrated into five new states. Czechoslovakia broke up into two countries, fortunately peacefully. Therefore we have an experience of unprecedented integration in western Europe, when the experience of eastern Europe has been disintegration. One of the great challenges for the whole of Europe is to find a way to bring together those two parts of our continent in a way that can produce harmony and stability.
Yes, we witnessed the end of the cold war--the cold war has been seen to be a temporary aberration of European history--but it has been replaced by a pretty hot peace. We have not yet had peace and stability throughout Europe. I believe that, during the entire cold war, not one NATO or Warsaw pact soldier lost his life in conflict between the two alliances--not a single person--yet, in the years since the end of the cold war, we have had the slaughter in Bosnia and the great loss of life in Chechnya, Armenia and other parts of Europe.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |