| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I take to be his support for our position. It is important that we in this House take a united view and I am grateful for that.
I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points. It is certain that all our thoughts will be with armed forces and their families. Our armed forces are among the finest anywhere in the world and we can rightly be proud that, in a situation such as this, they are not only willing to take action, but capable of acting in such an effective manner. We have often had cause to be grateful to them.
Secondly, it is fair to say that we have always been in favour of taking action sooner rather than later, but we could not take action on a unilateral basis. We have to take action with other countries--in this instance, within NATO--and we have done that. The degree of unity not only within Europe, but within the whole of NATO, is extremely important to the success of the mission.
Thirdly, I have no doubt that the deployment can be sustained; nor do I doubt our ability to make good any threat of counter-attack should there be any question of retaliation against the peacekeeping forces elsewhere in the region. Milosevic should clearly understand that. The best insurance against the spread of the conflict is to take precisely the action that we are taking. We know from bitter experience that we cannot afford such instability on the borders of Europe.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Milosevic, but let me make one final point. It is important to realise that we have been able to build extremely strong support for this action within NATO. Thirteen nations, including the United Kingdom, have some 200 combat aircraft deployed to the region: the United States, the UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark and Norway have all committed aircraft, so this is a very united NATO action. If that unity is reflected across the Dispatch Box and within the House, that augurs well.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife):
This a bad business which could turn out to be a bloody one as well. None of us should underestimate the risk of casualties on either side. If air strikes prove to be necessary, those who advocate them and those who support them--as I do--might have to live with some extremely painful consequences.
Is it not true that it has become necessary to contemplate air strikes only because of the deliberate and brutal targeting of civilians by Serbian forces as they shell, loot and burn villages and make refugees of their inhabitants? Does the Prime Minister agree that if the immediate military aim is to inhibit and degrade the ability of Serbian forces to sustain and persist in their campaign of sickening and uninhibited violence, there must also be a political aim in addition to the strategic aims he outlined? May I suggest that that political aim should be to require the Milosevic Government to pay such a high price in military assets that they are persuaded--even compelled--to return to the conference table? Given that we should look ahead to the consequences of actions of this sort, does the Prime Minister accept that, if we have to embark on air strikes, that would be a step towards the creation of at least a de facto protectorate for Kosovo?
The Prime Minister:
I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the painful consequences of this action. As the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said yesterday, there are painful consequences involved in taking this action, but the consequences of not taking it are even more painful. That is the right and honest way to put it to people.
As I have said, the objective is to inhibit repression by Serbian forces. It remains our political aim to return to the negotiating table because there is no doubt that the Rambouillet accords offer the only proper and realistic possibility of a lasting political settlement. I pay tribute to the work of the British and French Foreign Secretaries in putting that agreement together.
Finally, as to air strikes, there is no plan to have a United Nations protectorate in the strict sense. However, we wanted to get ground forces into Kosovo in pursuit of
an agreement precisely to ensure that we could police that agreement properly and allow the constitutional settlement to take root. It is a tragedy that Milosevic has chosen not to take that chance. It is a double tragedy for him because the offer on the table was not a bad one from Serbia's point of view: it conceded many of the points that Serbia had made. By turning his back on that one opportunity to conclude an agreement, Milosevic has only himself to thank for the consequences.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
My right hon. Friend is right to make this grave eleventh-hour statement as a final warning to President Milosevic and to point out the high risks involved. Most hon. Members accept the need for air strikes, but with extreme reluctance because we surely cannot be confident that bombs will bring peace. This is a high-risk action.
Are there any circumstances in which Britain would be prepared to commit ground troops in answer to the "What then?" question? In what way can we seek, even now, to assist the refugees--either by reaching into Kosovo or by helping the neighbours of Kosovo, such as Macedonia, which has been, and will continue to be, harmed by the conflict on its borders?
The Prime Minister:
I think that everyone shares a sense of reluctance to commit our forces. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, that reluctance is overcome if circumstances dictate that it must be.
We proposed committing ground troops to pursue a peace agreement. However, there is a difficulty with committing ground troops in order to fight our way in: no one should underestimate the sheer scale of what is involved in that action. We would be talking about 100,000 ground troops, and possibly even more.
As to refugees, we are working carefully with humanitarian organisations and we will continue to support UNHCR and other bodies. There is no point is concealing the fact that, if we are forced to take this action, it will be difficult for people on the ground over the next few days. However, the alternative is to allow the Serbian forces to continue their brutal repression of the Kosovo people.
Sir Archie Hamilton (Epsom and Ewell):
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what his contingency plan is if the air strikes take place, yet Milosevic continues to defy NATO, does not withdraw his troops and the repression continues? What will the Prime Minister do then?
The Prime Minister:
It is for precisely that reason that we set our clear objective to curb Milosevic's ability, through his military capability, to engage in that repression. That is our objective, and we shall carry on until it is fulfilled.
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South):
First, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can count on the overwhelming support not only of the House but of the British public, particularly as he has put forward a convincing argument that the concept of a just war is not redundant. Secondly, I hope that he appreciates that now is not the time to rake over the coals and consider the mistakes of failed Government policies on Bosnia and Kosovo in the immediate past--or, indeed, the past decade.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend give reassurance to members of a Macedonian delegation who are here--as I was unable to do in a meeting between them and the Select Committee on Defence--that any attack on Macedonia in the present circumstances would be deemed to be an attack on NATO because Macedonia is housing NATO forces? They will clearly be concerned about the possible development of events in the next few days.
The Prime Minister:
On the latter point, I assure my hon. Friend that any attack on NATO forces in Macedonia would be regarded as an attack on NATO itself and would bring about swift and severe retaliation.
My hon. Friend's first point is absolutely right: we are acting to avert a humanitarian disaster. If we do not act and the repression continues, its consequences will also continue. It is a sobering thought that we now have in the European Union more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia, and if anything demonstrates how much our fate, even here, is tied in with the fate of the Balkans, it is that statistic.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle):
Is it not almost certain that air strikes alone will not achieve NATO's objectives, as General Sir Michael Rose repeated yet again on the "Today" programme this morning? May I remind the Prime Minister that when air strikes failed in Bosnia and the previous Conservative Government announced that they were sending one British infantry battalion there, I warned them that it was useless to send one battalion when four divisions would be needed on the ground to do the job, and that proved to be right?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |