House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Apr 1999 (pt 10)

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.

As I said, we must have clarity. First and foremost, we must be clear as to what NATO's objectives now are. On 23 March the Prime Minister said that, to avoid NATO action,

"Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October--end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels he agreed, and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons he brought into Kosovo early last year. He must agree to the proposals set out in the Rambouillet accords, including a NATO-led ground force.--[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 162-63.]

We must be clear as to the extent to which those remain NATO's objectives.

I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon about the need for a total withdrawal of Serb forces. That differs from those original objectives, but, in my judgment, that difference is entirely justified. I welcome, too, what the right hon. Gentleman said about the status of Kosovo after the cessation of the fighting. However, he fell far short of answering the questions put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member

19 Apr 1999 : Column 585

for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). We need to know to what extent what the Foreign Secretary told us this afternoon about that post-fighting status of Kosovo has been agreed with the other 18 members of the NATO alliance and with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and the United Nations. My right hon. and learned Friend asked some reasonable questions and they deserve to be answered. We should be told, too, how what the Foreign Secretary told us this afternoon is to be squared with the arguments deployed by President Clinton yesterday in his article in The Sunday Times, in which he put the case against independence for Kosovo after the fighting is over.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. and learned Friend is making a most important point. Will he seek an answer from the Foreign Secretary to the fundamental question of whether there is not a real danger that, if we enable the Kosovar Albanians to return to their homes and then frustrate their political aspirations thereafter, we shall incur their long-term odium, which might perpetuate conflict in the region?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's question is a valid one and is implied in the point that I have just made.

We need to know more about the nature of the force that would ultimately monitor and police the situation in Kosovo. The Prime Minister has said that any force would need to be NATO-led, but the NATO statement of 12 April said merely that Milosevic must accept the

"stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence",

"that a future peacekeeping force for Kosovo may not be under NATO's direct control."

That is a matter of the greatest importance. Does the British Government agree with the French Defence Minister's statement? Is it now the case, as the Prime Minister appeared to suggest yesterday, that the removal of Milosevic is now an explicit objective of NATO policy? There are also questions about how the objectives are to be achieved.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): Following on from that last point, could that not be the kernel of a peace settlement, given that, at Rambouillet, the Serbs were prepared to accept autonomy, but not a NATO-led peacekeeping force? Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we should be prepared to compromise on that point and have a peacekeeping force that is, at least in part of Kosovo, led by neutral nations? Is that a point worth considering?

Mr. Howard: Things have moved on since Rambouillet and I share the view that the Government have expressed, that, for example, partition of Kosovo would not be a satisfactory outcome. The Prime Minister was absolutely unequivocal in the answer he gave in the House to that question only a few days ago, and I agree with his views on that point.

19 Apr 1999 : Column 586

We need answers to questions about how the objectives which the Government have set themselves are to be achieved. The fact that there has been a substantial reinforcement of NATO's air strike capability must be taken as an indication that the original assessment of what was likely to happen was too optimistic. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will comment on that when he winds up the debate.

I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring clarity to the crucial question of ground forces, where there is much scope for confusion. I suspect that there would be widespread support for the intervention of ground troops to keep a peace that had already been agreed, but both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly ruled out the use of ground troops to fight their way in to impose a settlement. Yet, even in that respect, the reasoning is not as clear as it should be. It is one thing to reject that option, as the Prime Minister did, because of the scale of the force that would be needed and the very high risk of substantial casualties. However, it is quite another to suggest that the reason why ground troops are not being used is, in the words of the US Defence Secretary last week, that

"There was not a consensus in the NATO alliance to do anything but an air campaign",

or, in the words of the Foreign Secretary yesterday, that

"it would take months to assemble"

the necessary number of ground troops, and we

"don't have two or three months to wait."

Yesterday, the Secretary-General of NATO gave a fourth different justification when he said:

"At this point we think the air campaign is enough. The military authorities who are leading the campaign think that it is enough. Therefore we are not going to change the policy now. But if the moment comes and it is necessary I am sure that the countries which belong to NATO will be ready to do it."

We must have clarity.

We must also be told more about the concept of intervention in what the Foreign Secretary calls a "permissive environment". That did not feature in the Government's original objectives. Are any preparations now under way to assemble a larger force? Would not such preparations need to be made now if the force were to be used any time this year? I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us more about that tonight.

Mr. Dalyell: As to clarity, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of contemplating introducing ground troops? The port of Thessalonika has denied access, as has the port of Piraeus following the statements by the mayor of Athens on this subject; there is complete opposition from Macedonia; and the Hungarians, for their own reasons involving Hungarian minorities in Yugoslavia, are not willing to contemplate such a move. How will one get a ground army into Yugoslavia without crossing mountains that are 6,000 ft high using the incredibly useless infrastructure of Albania? How will that operation be achieved?

Mr. Howard: I do not underestimate the difficulties involved. I have said clearly that ground troops could be employed in a variety of different circumstances. I think it is simplistic of the hon. Gentleman to refer to that remark and then pose a series of questions about the deployment of troops in only one set of circumstances.

19 Apr 1999 : Column 587

I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us more this evening about how the Government--

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) rose--

Mr. Howard: I have taken many interventions, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I continue.

I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us more about how the Government now view the role of the KLA. The United States Defence Secretary was reported as saying that, as a result of the bombing campaign, the military balance would shift

"decisively in favour of the KLA."

He said that, over time, the KLA would be in a position to defeat Milosevic's army. Do the British Government share that view and do they seek to facilitate that development?

As to the length of the campaign, it is, alas, the case that the prediction made by the Defence Secretary on 25 March, when he said,

"As the situation improves, we will look to reduce numbers."--[Official Report, 25 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 617],

has not been borne out by events. The United States Administration have accepted that the campaign will be very lengthy. Do the Government agree? I believe the British people are both realistic about the possible time scale of the campaign and resolute about the need to see it through. However, the Government should be open and honest about their expectations.

There has been some confusion about the diplomatic dimension of recent events. I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us a little more about the German peace initiative. What consultation took place with other Governments before that initiative was announced? Was the Foreign Secretary consulted? He did not mention the initiative in his speech. What is the current status of that initiative? How do things stand with Russia? Does the Foreign Secretary plan to meet Mr. Chernomyrdin, who has been appointed Russia's peace envoy?

Above all, what more is planned to help the refugees and those countries that are at present receiving them? Are the Government satisfied with the current level of effort demonstrated by the international community? What can be done to reinforce that effort? What more can be done to help Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister particularly about the continuing pressure on Macedonia and he was assured that we were doing all that we could. Since then, there has been a further influx of refugees across the border. The Macedonian Interior Minister has predicted: