| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Secretary of State cite to the House the specific legal authority under the charter of the United Nations or the constitution of NATO that would allow armed forces to enter a sovereign state--Yugoslavia--if that state were to object? If that were to take place, would the Government believe that Yugoslavia had, under article 51 of the UN charter, the right of self defence? If British troops are injured or captured in those circumstances--without a state of war--would they be protected by the Geneva convention? Finally, will he tell the House whether Parliament will be given an opportunity to give its judgment before British forces are committed?
Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend misunderstands what I have announced. When he reads my statement later on, he will see that I have announced the sensible precaution, a contingency measure, of putting in place some of the equipment that might be used were a decision to be taken to go ahead with a deployment. The discussions currently taking place with the representatives of the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the representatives of the Kosovo Albanians will determine whether there will be any agreement. I have already made it clear that I will expect to keep Parliament informed of any decision that is taken about using the troops who are to have their equipment sent en route, as I have announced.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Those are entirely sensible precautions if we are to put ourselves in the position of being able to make a contribution to a negotiated settlement. If anyone doubts the need for a negotiated settlement, perhaps the scenes of today's mass burial in Kosovo will remove those doubts.
The Secretary of State tells us that the decision to deploy will depend on a satisfactory conclusion to the talks in Rambouillet. May I press him a little further? Must not it also depend on sufficient pledges from other NATO nations to provide a credible total force, and a pledge from the United States of America to provide a substantial contingent of ground forces? Are the units to which he has referred fully manned? If not, how is the shortfall to be made up?
Mr. Robertson:
Let me underline yet again that I am talking about sensible precautions, contingencies--no more, no less. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that we should be aware of what we are doing, and that that can, in many ways, assist the seriousness of negotiations. We shall of course be going to the area with forces of other NATO nations. I have discussed that matter with Defence Ministers, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have discussed it with his colleagues. The matter has been dealt with at Heads of Government level, too. We want the maximum number to commit forces in advance, should there be a settlement, as we all hope.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to pinpoint why we are even talking about this tonight. The scenes on television today, and the atrocities that have occurred before and during the past few weeks, have moved people across the world. That is why the talks are going on, and why, in many ways, it is remarkable that both parties are sitting down together in that chateau near Paris. It is why we must all hope that the talks are successful.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although this deployment may be only precautionary, it obviously sends a formidable and powerful message, which will not escape those negotiating in Paris? Will he quantify what he already knows that our allies are moving? Does he intend to beef up air assets available to the deployment, should it go ahead? Will he confirm that, in the weeks to come, he and his colleagues will be doing a good deal of work to secure a complete legal basis and rules of engagement for such a deployment, were it to take place?
Mr. Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority. He will know that none of this announcement has been made without deep thought and genuine concern for the individuals who might be involved. At the moment, we are only moving heavy equipment, which must get on the high seas if it has even the slightest chance of reaching the theatre in order for a decision then to be taken one way or another.
I am not in a position to quantify what our allies will be doing. NATO's force generation conference has not yet taken place, but I know from discussions last weekend with fellow Defence Ministers that they, too, see the merit of this contingency deployment, and are already putting in place their own contingency plans in order to be able to ensure that when--or if--an agreement is reached, we have a sensible basis on which to move forward.
Perhaps the House does not need to be reminded, but there are already RAF personnel and air and ground crews at Gioia del Colle air base in Italy as part of the actord--activation order--which hangs over the scene as yet another sensible precaution. A large force of American aeroplanes is involved in that force, with RAF and other allies, and is a vital part of the threat of force that backs up the diplomacy which has got the parties together.
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South):
I hope that the Secretary of State has been persuading his fellow NATO parliamentarians and members of Governments to replicate what he is doing by making statements to their legislatures. His decision is not only prudent, but commands the support of the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament. It is critically important to the future of NATO and of any European dimension to security that there is not just a presence, but a formidable one, alongside British troops. Both organisations would be fatally weakened if some countries chose to send only token forces. That is an important point.
Secondly, has the Secretary of State looked at his diary for next week? I hope that he has and that he realises that he will appear before the Select Committee on Defence. While our colleagues are enjoying their well-earned break, he will be explaining these events in rather more detail than he has been able to do this evening. On behalf of the other 10 members of the Committee, I can tell him
that we are looking forward immensely to abandoning our visits to the Caribbean and the south of France so that we can listen to him explain in great detail what he has in mind for British forces.
Mr. Robertson:
I remind my hon. Friend that there may be recesses for Members, but there are no recesses for Ministers. I look forward to meeting all the members of the Defence Committee next Wednesday when I shall give evidence before them, and to having the opportunity to deal with matters in detail.
The procedures of other nations are a matter for them. Some have elaborate procedures in their Parliament and that is their tradition. This is our tradition, and I am responsible for generating forces from this country. Of course, we are on test. This is a European crisis and we look to Europeans to live up to the challenge put before us. Therefore, I hope that all our NATO allies in Europe will contribute if it is necessary to send in a force to supervise an agreement.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Does not the crisis demonstrate the paramount need for the Royal Air Force to have at its disposition heavy lift cargo aircraft that can take the heaviest equipment such as the Challenger tank, a number of Warriors or several helicopters straight into theatre within three hours of take-off in the United Kingdom? That deficiency was highlighted in the strategic defence review and has not yet been rectified. Is it not about time that the RAF bought some C17s?
Mr. Robertson:
I would hate this statement to become an auction on which aeroplanes we might eventually buy. The SDR identified the need for strategic heavy lift. That was one of the review's central features and one of the major deficiencies that we inherited from the previous Government. It is only eight months since the SDR was endorsed by Parliament and we are still involved in the process. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the sensible precautions that we are taking mean that we shall have the right forces with the right training and the right equipment in the right place so that we can make a decision, if one is required.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
Will my right hon. Friend remind the Foreign Secretary that he will meet the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs next Wednesday, when most colleagues will be working hard in their constituencies, and that he can, if necessary, make a statement? Will he acknowledge the enormous importance, practically and symbolically, of the fact that NATO and Russia are working together, and does he agree that they should stick together throughout the process and translate the political unity of the Contact Group into a military unity? Will he make it absolutely clear that no British troops will be deployed in Kosovo until there is a political deal, and then only to reinforce that deal?
Mr. Robertson:
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is currently engaged in the detailed and momentous discussions at Rambouillet and will be concentrating on those at the moment, but I know that, when he meets the Foreign Affairs Committee, he will give its members the proper attention.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |