| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: First, in respect of China, I cannot speak for the Chinese Government but we hope that they will support the resolution.
Secondly, in respect of the Cologne European Union summit, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there was discussion of the fact that we need a substantial commitment to regeneration and reconstruction in the Balkans. I agree entirely with his remarks about Europe's common foreign and security policy, enlargement and defence capability. One reason for our desire to engage in the debate about a common defence policy is that it had been intended that Europe would have a common defence and security policy in any event. We faced a choice between engaging with that debate and shaping it in a way
that was fully consistent with NATO, and opting out once again. I am afraid that the latter option is the view of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
I think that opting out would be foolish, but I agree that the debate does imply changes of policy in member states. There is no question of abolishing the British Army in favour of a European army. That has always been an absurd scare. However, if Europe is to develop a proper and serious defence capability, we must examine the strategic capability of European defence and the European defence industry to see what changes are necessary. Kosovo has brought that lesson home to us in a very stark way.
Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli):
Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House who will be responsible for the civil administration in Kosovo? Will it be the United Nations? Also, what does he envisage to be the likely legal status of Kosovo? Will it be an international protectorate under the United Nations, or an independent state, or will it still be subject, however nominally, to Serb sovereignty?
The Prime Minister:
As I said, the civil administration will be guaranteed by the international community, and discussions will be held about Kosovo's eventual status. However, even if the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is respected, there is no question of the Serb authorities being able to govern the lives of people in Kosovo, as the question from my right hon. Friend implied. That is precisely why all the Serb forces, police and paramilitaries must leave the region and why a proper civil administration must be established there. It is also why we want Kosovo eventually to be returned to the democratic will of its people.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling):
May I return to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister did not answer? Why has one of the key provisions in the Rambouillet accords--that after three years there should be an international meeting to determine the final status of Kosovo--been dropped from the agreement reached with Milosevic?
The Prime Minister:
That is not right: the resolution specifically states that full account must be taken of the Rambouillet accords. However, part of the reason why that provision has been overtaken by events is that people will now have to discuss what Kosovo's future will be. That discussion, of course, will take full account of the wishes of the people of Kosovo. Independence for Kosovo was not part of the Rambouillet accords, although the idea of having a later conference to determine the matter was. However, under the resolution that is being passed, a discussion of Kosovo's proper status in the future will continue over the next period of time.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that even today when Milosevic is defeated, refugees crossing the border into Macedonia are being asked by the Serb authorities to renounce their citizenship before they are allowed to proceed? Will he reconfirm his resolve that Milosevic, as an indicted war criminal, must sooner or later stand trial before the International War
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the Serbs continue to act as she says toward people who are fleeing from Kosovo. The indictment of Milosevic stands. Another indicted war criminal was picked up yesterday by British forces--those people are slowly but surely being picked up--and those not yet picked up are having to live perpetually in hiding. I agree that there must be no hiding place for indicted war criminals.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle):
Is not the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) right to say that it is not over until it is over on the ground in Kosovo? Is not the reality that NATO forces will face years of vicious guerrilla warfare and a situation not dissimilar to that faced by the German army there between 1941 and 1945?
The Prime Minister:
No, I do not believe that. It is right to say that it is not over until it is over on the ground, but the agreement that we have made and that must be implemented is that all Milosevic's forces and paramilitaries must go. I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman has described will in fact happen. If Milosevic fails to abide by the agreement, military action will follow, and he knows it. The alternative espoused by the hon. Gentleman would have been infinitely worse, allowing ethnic cleansing to continue unimpeded so that hundreds of thousands of people would have been driven from their homes or butchered. That is not acceptable.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only reason for shame would have been to have taken no action alongside our allies against terrible crimes and atrocities against humanity? That would have been a stain on our country's reputation for years to come. The appeasers have been proved totally wrong, and it would do no harm if they offered some self-criticism. If Pinter is ashamed to be British, as has been reported, the remedy surely lies in his own hands.
The Prime Minister:
I agree with my hon. Friend's general remarks. It is too early to talk about the situation being over, but if we succeed in having the UN resolution implemented, that will have happened only because we were prepared to use force. That is axiomatic.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
May I ask the Prime Minister about the indictment of Mr. Milosevic? Now that Mr. Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he expects Mr. Milosevic to be brought before the tribunal? Am I right to think that it is not contemplated that NATO will effect an arrest, at least in the short term? Am I further right in thinking that the UN resolution makes no provision for an arrest?
Am I right to suppose that it is intended that the people of Serbia should depose Mr. Milosevic and then deliver him up? If that is so, is it not likely that Mr. Milosevic will cling all the more vigorously to power? What will
happen if, in order to effect a peaceful transfer of power, the people of Serbia agree to let Milosevic live in peace in Serbia? Would we seek to reverse that decision?
The Prime Minister:
There are those who say that we should never have acted. There are others who say that we should have gone all the way and removed Milosevic, but it was not possible to have that as a war aim. The UN resolution makes it quite clear that the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal stands; the tribunal does the indicting, and all member states are obliged to give it whatever support and help they can. I cannot comment on how matters will proceed except to say that we shall proceed as we have on other indicted war criminals. It is far better to have reached our present position than to have done nothing at all about Milosevic.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
Switching to the European Union, the Prime Minister made passing reference in his statement to enlargement. Given the obdurate refusal of a number of member states to agree to the reform of the common agricultural policy, how hopeful is my right hon. Friend that we can stick to the timetable for enlargement, or, is it not the case that we are now facing the threat of a two-class membership of the EU?
The Prime Minister:
Without provoking shrieks and shouts from Opposition Members I can say that we should be able to get reform of the CAP in part due to the fact that much of it will be done by qualified majority voting; otherwise, there would have been a danger that much of the reform could simply be stalled. We would have preferred more radical agricultural reform, but as a result of the reforms that we agreed at Berlin, the British consumer will be saved about £1 billion a year. The agricultural reform process is absolutely necessary for enlargement, so we will push it as hard as we can. I hope by that to avoid what would be a significant problem for us, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East):
Does it remain the policy of the Government and their allies that the KLA terrorist organisation must be wholly disarmed? Will the Prime Minister say how on earth he intends that that should be done? As for the right hon. Gentleman's rather unusual reference to the success of the single currency, will he make it abundantly clear--true or false--that if the Labour party is successful at the next election, there will be a referendum on a single currency shortly after the election?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |