Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): Will the Prime Minister tell the House when the draft UN resolution will be published? To whom will the international force be accountable--the Security Council or NATO? Have the Russians and the Chinese agreed to support the resolution before the bombing stops? Is the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia endorsed in the resolution? Has the Kosovo Liberation Army agreed to disarm and to be decommissioned? Does the UN resolution require the removal of Milosevic?

Is it not clear that had the matter been taken to the UN with the support of Russia and China weeks or months ago, this solution could have been made possible without the destruction of Yugoslavia, the use of depleted uranium weapons, the pollution of the Danube and indeed the destabilisation of the area? History may not view a NATO that tore up the UN charter in quite the way that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues appear to.

The Prime Minister: The terms of the Security Council resolution are circulating now. I do not know what proper arrangements I should make for its being made available, but whatever I am able to do I will do. Obviously, we want the resolution to be passed as soon as possible. The Russian position on the resolution and the bombing has always been clear, but so has our position: that we must be sure of the verifiable withdrawal of Milosevic's troops before the bombing can be stopped.

8 Jun 1999 : Column 471

On the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the current proposition is precisely what was available at Rambouillet and could have been accepted 10 weeks ago. The KLA's agreeing to disarm was also in the Rambouillet agreement. From discussions that I have had with KLA people, I believe that they will abide by what the international community has decreed, but they will of course also want to know that the Serb troops really are out of Kosovo. That is hardly surprising.

No, the removal of Milosevic is not required. We have made it clear that that is not a war aim, but I have also made it clear--and I am sure that this will be the position of the international community--that Serbia cannot be part of international reconstruction and regeneration until he goes and there is a democratic Serbia, because otherwise, for one thing, any money that went in there would simply add to his very large personal wealth rather than going to his people.

The solution was not available weeks ago. If my right hon. Friend is saying that if only we had picked up the phone and called the Russians and the Chinese everyone would have come together and made an agreement and we would not have needed to do all this, I really must ask him to reflect on that and on the lessons of what has happened. We tried for months and months. There were 72 UN resolutions against Milosevic. He will not accept any resolution from anyone unless he knows that the alternative is force. I am afraid to say that that is obvious to most reasonable people at the conclusion of these events.

My right hon. Friend is entirely entitled to take the view that he does, but the choice was either to allow ethnic cleansing to continue unchecked or to do our best to stop it. I do not feel any sense of triumph at what we have achieved, because I know how many people have died and how many lives have been made miserable, but I honestly believe that if we had allowed ethnic cleansing to continue unchecked the consequences would have been far more devastating for people in Kosovo, for Balkan stability, for the world as a whole and the values of civilisation.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): In which policy areas would the Prime Minister keep the veto?

The Prime Minister: Taxation, for example, and defence, but not in--

Mr. Forth: Is that all?

The Prime Minister: Immigration is another example. There are lots of areas in which I would keep the veto, but I would not take the view of today's Conservative party--a view that it never took in government--which opposes qualified majority voting in any circumstances. That really is not sensible. We could not have got the beef ban lifted on that basis. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, however hostile his party is to Europe today, not to ignore the possibility that it might be in government once more. It should start at some point to get back to a sensible position on Europe.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): On European Union issues, will my right hon. Friend

8 Jun 1999 : Column 472

circulate in the Official Report a list of the matters to which the Leader of the Opposition has objected this afternoon that would be made inevitable by the Single European Act, which his party guillotined through the House of Commons?

On Kosovo, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Serbs' wrigglings, evasions and attempts--still, at this point--to get out of the agreement come after their Government and their Parliament have assented to it and there have been weeks of bombing and months of negotiation? That being so, can my right hon. Friend speculate on where we would be today if we had adopted not his resolute approach but the view of the appeasers, from whom we have heard this afternoon, that we should have appealed to the better nature of that indicted war criminal?

The Prime Minister: On Kosovo, I agree that it is obvious that Milosevic will evade his responsibilities, even now, if he thinks that our will has weakened. That is why it is important that NATO makes it clear that it stands ready to take action should he try to do so at any point.

In respect of Europe, I think that the speech that the Leader of the Opposition made in Budapest a couple of weeks ago was an important speech on behalf of the Conservative party. It revealed that the Conservatives would renegotiate the terms of entry into the European Union. I asked them earlier but they could not name one Government who agreed with that. I do not believe that they could name one Conservative party, apart from this one, that agrees with that. It would not merely be a policy of complete futility but the most extraordinarily inept way to conduct our foreign policy. It is surely sensible that at long last we understand that we are part of Europe and we should make it work in Britain's interests.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Where do matters now stand on the withholding tax?

The Prime Minister: Exactly where I said they stood in the House the week before Whitsun. We will not agree to any tax being imposed on Britain from Brussels and we will not agree to any measures that damage the City of London. What is more, we will succeed in obtaining our objective.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Does the Prime Minister have any hard evidence that the KLA would be any more willing to surrender its arms than the IRA?

The Prime Minister: There have been statements from KLA leaders in the past few days saying that they will abide by the will of the international community. Of course, one of the reasons why we have to have a substantial international force in Kosovo is to ensure that that happens. However, given what the Kosovar Albanians have been through, it is hardly surprising if people there are resisting by force. It is necessary that we, through the international military presence, ensure that we can bring about a proper civil administration in Kosovo so that the rule of law is once again upheld and people are not terrorised on the basis of their ethnic background. In other words, those things that have characterised Milosevic's rule in Kosovo must be brought to an end.

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton): Does the Prime Minister believe that the present British troop commitment in the

8 Jun 1999 : Column 473

Kosovo area can be sustained in the long term without the raising of more infantry battalions and, especially, engineer regiments? Do we have an Army big enough for all that we are asking it to do?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We are sure that we can make the commitment necessary in Kosovo--we would not have made it otherwise--and at the conclusion of the strategic defence review we will be in an even better position to do so.

Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that not one European Union Government would support the Conservative party's proposals to renegotiate European Union treaties suggests that that policy is tantamount to a call to withdraw from the European Union? Is not that the reason why respected former Conservative Members of Parliament, such as Nicholas Scott and Sir Julian Critchley--[Laughter.]--have today written to national newspapers to say that they cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative on Thursday?

The Prime Minister: It is a measure of the new extremism in the Conservative party today that people such as Ian Gilmour, Nicholas Scott and Julian Critchley are derided when their names are mentioned. [Interruption.] I say to those Conservative Members who are shouting and bawling and parading their anti-Europeanism that one day they will regret it.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton): The fact that the NATO objectives during the conflict appear to be enshrined in the UN resolution is a cause of great satisfaction and justifies the cross-party support that the Prime Minister has had during this campaign. Does he expect China to support the resolution when it goes before the UN?

At the Cologne summit, was there any discussion about how funds will go into Kosovo? Does not the European Union need to do more than it has in the past and make a more cohesive effort to ensure that Kosovo can restore its economy and the fabric of its society, as well as its democracy? The responsibility of the European Union to accelerate the process of enlargement will also require increased funds. Is that fully understood? The welcome attempt by Europe to play a greater defence role within NATO requires real leadership if the public are fully to understand that such great progress in politics will not come cheaply.

Next Section

IndexHome Page