| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.43 pm
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is the first time that I have said anything about Kosovo, and I do so having spent a great deal of time--as have many colleagues from both sides of the House--talking to constituents on the subject, and listening to unprompted conversations.
I shall not take the House through the horror stories that have befallen the Kosovar Albanians, indulge in rhetoric about fascism or point out similarities with Hitler, not because many of those arguments are not well founded but because they have been made, far more fluently than I could make them.
I shall not speak about the tragedy of errors leading to civilian casualties in Serbia, but I do argue, as did the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that it is essential that NATO is clear and honest about whatever has happened--I understand that it made some statements this afternoon--because if there is a feeling, as there has been in the past few days, that the truth is not being told, the media strategy of NATO is seen to move closer to that of the Serbians, and that is obviously unacceptable. Involving Alastair Campbell in NATO's media campaign does nothing to enhance its credibility.
I wholly support the need for our involvement in Kosovo. I go further than I know that some of my hon. Friends do. I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said last week that there was a humanitarian aspect that we could not ignore. In the modern world, with modern communications, we should not stand aside and watch atrocities take place, but I accept that there is hypocrisy. We can all point to examples where we have not become involved. However, that does not necessarily mean never becoming involved. I agree with those who think that we let things go on for too long in Bosnia. I tried from behind the scenes, but failed, to alter the stance of the then Government.
I do not doubt the Prime Minister's desire to achieve a satisfactory conclusion but I have serious doubts about the way he has gone about it. Before any involvement should take place, it is essential to examine all the eventualities. There should be an objective, an exit strategy and the forces to achieve the objective. It is becoming clear that the Government and the United States Government did none of these things adequately.
I do not doubt also that the Government are wholehearted in their desires, but they have been half-hearted in the execution of their strategy to achieve those desires. At the outset, both the Government and President Clinton said that there would be no ground troops. I believe that that was said on the basis of what they thought public opinion would accept. I believe also that Governments should lead public opinion, not follow it. The announcement from day one that there would be no ground troops gave a clear message to Milosevic to hurry up with his programme of ethnic cleansing before things became too difficult.
Mr. Savidge:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice:
No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should have learned by now that virtually no one gives way when speeches are restricted to 10 minutes.
I have little doubt that Milosevic's plans had been made. The atrocities had started before the air attacks. I have little doubt also that the speed of the expulsions and atrocities, with the resulting chaos in the border countries, is a result of our bombardment. It is entirely right, of course, to say that the crime of ethnic cleansing is the same whether it takes place quickly or slowly. However, the problem of resolving the refugee situation, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described, has been exacerbated because of the speed of the expulsions. As I have said, I believe that that has been the result of the bombing campaign, which is a bombing campaign on its own. It is not that we should not have done it, but we should not have pretended that we could get away with only a bombing campaign.
Shortly before the Easter recess the Secretary of State for Defence said that he could not give details of any of our tactics. That is right. We all understand that. However, why did the Government do so in spades with regard to ground troops? The Serbian Government know full well of all the difficulties that would face us. They know also of the reluctance that we would face in committing ground troops. However, for all the reasons that have been described, ruling out the use of ground troops from day one was a clear message to the Serbs to get on with their evil plans. Their use should have been left as an option and preparations should have been set in train. A month has elapsed during which preparations could have been well advanced. It may be that they are now advanced, and I am not necessarily asking to be assured or otherwise, but I think that it is an important point.
Ministers keep telling us that their military advisers say that air strikes alone will be sufficient. If they are saying that, they seem to be the only people who take that view. Even now, after four weeks, there is little sign of any step down by Milosevic. I do not believe that there will be, at least until Kosovo is cleared of Albanians. When that is the position, he may make some overtures.
So what now? In my view Rambouillet is entirely dead. Whatever the Prime Minister thinks, bearing in mind what he said last week, if he really wants the Albanians to return to Kosovo, I cannot conceive that they will do so now if Kosovo remains in any way Serbian. So the rest of the world, and in the context of the debate, the Government, must decide what the options are. There seem to be three. The first is to stop the bombing on some pretext once Milosevic has achieved his aims. That is not a real option and it would achieve nothing. Almost certainly it could lead to the end of NATO.
The second option is partition. I was astonished that the Prime Minister ruled it out so categorically last week, not because I like it--I do not--but because it may be the only option that can be achieved. It may not be sustainable, given the need for military force to maintain it, but it was unwise to rule it out at this stage.
The third option is some form of independent Kosovo, which, again, is by no means perfect. Kosovo's size and it remaining independent are problems, and this option ignores the importance of Kosovo to Serbia and the historic sense of linkage, which is the cause of so much of the conflict.
In the immediate future, we have only one real option--to win. Whatever the niceties of a declaration of war may be, they are technicalities which the ordinary men and women we represent do not understand. However, they understand that, if we start something such as this, we must commit all the forces necessary to achieve the victory that we set out to achieve.
We now read that President Clinton wants Milosevic himself to fall and, unsurprisingly, our Prime Minister appears to have followed suit. Is that one of our new objectives or not? That is yet another example of change; the crucial point is that the confusion over objectives and ground troops gives comfort to our opponents and creates uncertainty among our supporters. The Foreign Secretary said today that our objectives remain as they were, but he then said that Rambouillet was clearly not enough. At the outset, he and the Prime Minister were saying that the Rambouillet framework was our objective.
Frequently the Government have made specific statements--on ground troops, partition and many other subjects--and boxed themselves completely into a corner. This is not a reflection on the Government, but the reality is that we will almost certainly have to follow suit if the American Government decide that they will put ground troops in or will accept partition. Our Government will have to swallow their words.
No one can have failed to be moved by the sights that we have seen and the stories that we have heard. No words can adequately describe Milosevic and his morality, but simply removing him alone from power would not negate the actions of hundreds or thousands Serbian soldiers, police and militia. How many years will have to elapse before there is again any sense of trust between the Albanians and Serbians?
Our service men deserve our support, and they have it. They also deserve clarity of political purpose and the resources to enable them to fulfil their role. They have not had that. Ruling out the use of ground troops was a massive error of judgment. Launching air attacks in a low-key way--today, the Foreign Secretary said that their scale has more than doubled--did not convince Milosevic that we were serious about our purpose. If the attacks are
beginning to work, as the Foreign Secretary has led us to believe, it is too late. The expulsions are almost complete and the acceptable outcomes--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North):
The crisis in Kosovo raises a number of profound questions. We have had a good debate in the House this evening and heard a variety of views on this difficult and controversial issue. One profound question raised by the crisis is, what circumstances in the modern world justify military action?
There may be a variety of answers to that question. One is that there are no such circumstances--the pacifist position; I have reason to respect it, but that is not my own position. A predominant view is that the national interest determines military action. Many Members of the House would take that view. The national interest can include many factors, from the defence of the realm and of these shores to economic or commercial interests--not least oil, in the modern world.
I want to challenge the view that a narrow definition of national interest is helpful in determining Britain's role in the world. We live in a new world. Following the end of the cold war, we cannot be relaxed about nuclear weaponry and many nuclear-armed nations have planet-destroying capability.
Nevertheless, many of the conflicts that we now face are of a different order. We live in a world where geopolitical disputes have always occurred, often ethnic in origin and atrocious in execution. Rwanda is a major example from Africa, and former Yugoslavia is a key example close by in Europe. We live in a world where sophisticated international media bring atrocities, through our television screens and printed media, into our living rooms to shock us as we eat our television suppers.
We also live in a world where, not least because of the media, a humanitarian response is developing among the public, summed up in the phrase, "Something must be done". While many use that phrase pejoratively, it is an expression of civil decency. That opinion is belittled by some military experts and patronised by some conventional politicians, but it is the majority view of our constituents. It is a view that overrides the conventional definition of national interest, but it is right that in Kosovo something must be done.
Politically, this issue is confusing. We have seen that in the House today, with many of us on the left appearing more enthusiastic about intervention than those on the right. This new world involves new and confusing politics, not least for the left. We now talk about Kosovo, but not long ago we talked about Bosnia. As a new Member in the previous Parliament in 1992, I was shocked by what I took to be the majority view of both sides of the House that we should be extremely cautious about intervention. The view was that, at best, we should go easy and, at worst, do nothing. The Foreign Office was led by the key appeasers.
I grew up in post-war Britain, and found it difficult to understand the appeasement of Nazi Germany that had taken place in the 1930s. It was only when I heard debates about Bosnia in this House in the early 1990s that I started to understand the appeasement of the 1930s. In a
parliamentary Session in the early 1990s, I visited Sarajevo--not at the height of the conflict, but nevertheless when the city was being shelled. I was there for just two or three days. Talking to people in Bosnia and Sarajevo helped me to understand what it was like to live in that civilised, cosmopolitan city surrounded by mountains from which Serb soldiers could look down the rifle sights of their sophisticated weaponry and decide which old lady, child or woman to kill that day.
In Bosnia, ethnic cleansing gave us a vile new vocabulary to add to the lexicon of international relations. The situation in Kosovo bears comparison, but is a more extreme case. However, no one could foresee or predict the scale of the tragedy of recent weeks. No one in the House would argue about that.
I strongly support the Government's commitment to NATO action. I am aware of the complexity and difficulties, not least for our armed services, but I can think of no other policy of this Government that I support so wholeheartedly. It is difficult, because in recent years the public have come to expect short wars. They have been seduced by smart weapons and quick results. We are seeing things rather differently now. Old-fashioned weather--the wrong kind--is supposedly inhibiting high-tech weaponry. We are seeing slow progress, mistakes and terrible casualties. We are also seeing the difficulties of waging military action in the media spotlight. We must be sophisticated about that, not least in terms of our own actions and words. How do free democracies fight a war in public against a tyranny that censors its media, locks up its opponents and assassinates a key newspaper editor? I would be the first to defend those in the House who speak against the war, but they have a duty to think how their words will be replayed in Belgrade and about the comfort that they will bring to the perpetrators of aggression and atrocity.
I am no military expert--and, a few weeks into a war, I will not pretend to be one--but I believe that the use of ground troops will be necessary. We need an army in Kosovo. Milosevic must have no veto over that decision. I suspect, although I am no expert, that Kosovo should become a UN protectorate. I suspect that, one day, it may have to become an independent nation.
We must put more energy into the International War Crimes Tribunal. I do not minimise the difficulty of arresting Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic but had they been tried by now, things may have been rather different. Although we are aware of extravagant language, it is a decent use of English to say that Dr. Karadzic and President Milosevic are war criminals and should be tried.
Former Yugoslavia must somehow summon up the energy soon--like the rest of us--to enter the new millennium. It does so in the worst possible circumstances. For Europe, the 20th century was stained in its midst by Nazi genocide. Despite the caution of my colleagues, it is appropriate to say that the century is ending with genocide in Bosnia--we remember Srebrenica particularly--and genocide and the ethnic killing of young and old in Kosovo.
8.53 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |