| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): I am delighted that the Minister is a multilateralist. Can he explain how he reconciles that with his continuing membership of the definitely unilateralist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
Mr. Hain: I wondered when that would come up, but I am happy to respond. I remain a rank and file member of CND, which has played an honourable role in the cause of nuclear disarmament. The fact that the policy in the manifesto on which the Government were elected is not unilateralist is not the point, and I shall not apologise for that membership, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman. Without being diverted too far down that track, I say to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that there was a cold war during the seaside days to which he referred and people were unable to engage multilaterally--for example, in the way that Presidents Clinton and Putin did only a few days ago.
We stand up for Britain not through isolation, but through global engagement. Globalisation requires effective action in response to humanitarian crises. The Government believe that it is their duty to do what they can to deter aggression and defend our values by whatever means will make a difference, whether that is military muscle, constructive engagement or creative diplomacy. Our policy is based on four principles: force should always be the last resort; the immediate responsibility for halting violence rests with the state in which it occurs; when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, the international community should act; and any use of force must be collective, proportionate, likely to achieve its objective and carried out in accordance with international law.
Our intervention in Sierra Leone is an example of that approach. We have intervened to protect British nationals, to promote international peace and security, to support and improve a rules-based international order based on the UN and to act as a force for good in the world by defending democratic values and human rights. Sierra Leone clearly shows, too, that our country has global interests and values and a capability to make a positive impact across the world. As even Washington has told us, no other country has the rapid-reaction capability that enabled us to deploy forces so effectively and efficiently into such a remote and difficult African country within 48 hours.
We in Britain, however, cannot exercise our strategic responsibilities on our own. We could not have had the impact that we have had across the world without the
security that we enjoy at home, which NATO provides. But NATO has changed. NATO is not a cold war relic; it is one of our main tools for the provision of security and stability throughout Europe--through dialogue with Russia, through its partnership activities with 27 countries, and with its open-door policy.The biggest change is the extension of NATO's active role in responding rapidly and effectively to crises. At last year's summit in Washington, the Government helped to secure changes in NATO's strategic concept to make crisis management one of the alliance's core tasks. In implementing the changes, Britain is ahead of most of our allies, owing to the very successful strategic defence review that we have implemented.
The NATO-led forces in Bosnia and Kosovo clearly show the advantages of effective, well-co-ordinated allied action.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh): Does the Minister agree that lessons can be learned from our engagement in Kosovo? Does he share my distaste at the fact that Amnesty International has accused this Parliament, through its Government, of committing war crimes? Has he had a chance to read the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, which asks the Government to explain the reasons for the decisions to bomb the television station and the Chinese embassy?
As the Minister will recall, the Committee asked the Government for the right to discuss the issues with the intelligence services. We were not given that opportunity, and consequently we could not get to the bottom of the reasons. Will the Minister make a commitment on behalf of the Government? Can we remove the slur cast by the accusation of war crimes as a result of more information from the Government?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the hard work done by the hon. Gentleman on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the tough questioning to which he occasionally subjects me. I respect that.
There were no British war crimes. We will of course respond in detail to the questions and arguments posed by the Committee.
We are also helping to create a European security and defence capability, which will enable the European Union to respond better to the post-conflict needs of places such as Kosovo. That will neither undermine our United Nations role nor replace NATO's crisis management role; it will complement both.
Rather than creating divisions in the Atlantic alliance, this will strengthen the European contribution to NATO. American experts and politicians of all colours have called on us to build a stronger Europe for a stronger NATO, and we are doing just that, in a way that has ensured the provision of full transparency in respect of the United States Administration.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): As the Minister will know, the Assembly of the Western European Union is currently meeting in Paris. Can the Minister tell us anything about the British Government's attitude to the question of how the European defence and security system, transferred to the European Union, will retain a degree of parliamentary accountability to countries that are not members of the European Union? As I am sure
the Minister will appreciate, those countries are extremely exercised about the fact that they are about to be left out in the cold. They are, after all, as much a part of Europe as are EU countries. We must not have a two-class Europe in regard to defence matters, any more than we should have one in regard to any other matters.
Mr. Hain: I agree that we do not want a two-class Europe, but we do want a coherent defence capability, and--the hon. Gentleman nods in agreement--the European Union is clearly the most effective vehicle. I am sure that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be resolved, especially the concern of the people of the countries concerned to know what their Governments are doing.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I realise that there can be no instant response to the question that I am about to ask. However, the Minister will know of one way of dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In matters such as this, NATO should always have the first option--the right of first refusal. What consideration have the Government given to that? It would take account not only of the American anxieties that have been expressed, but of the concerns felt by members of NATO that are not also members of the European Union.
Mr. Hain: There will always be discussion about that. What we did not want was any discrimination against members of NATO, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will sympathise with that.
Ultimately, conflicts need to be resolved at an international rather than a regional or national level. We want a strong, efficient, responsive United Nations that can build consensus among its members, and can deal decisively with crises. We have been leading the way to help reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council, which does need modernising. As a permanent Security Council member, we support the UN's efforts across the globe to settle disputes, prevent conflicts and keep the peace.
We have actively backed the proposals of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, for international intervention for humanitarian purposes. He has called for the Security Council to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights should not be allowed. As he has said, no legal principle--not even national sovereignty--can ever shield crimes against humanity.
Last year, nearly 15,000 British soldiers and police took part in UN-led or UN-authorised missions, from Kosovo to Georgia. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the UN setting out the assets that we could make available for peacekeeping purposes, including rapid reaction forces. We are also engaged in important discussions about how the UN can develop its own rapid reaction capability.
We have taken the initiative in improving the way in which the UN runs its peacekeeping operations, and in formulating a set of guidelines for humanitarian action by the Security Council. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. As the Sierra Leone experience demonstrates, big improvements in UN peacekeeping operations are needed. We need better, tighter command and control structures, and better equipped and trained contributing forces.
Those problems underline the importance, in Africa especially, of having a regional socket into which the international community can plug. There must be an African ownership of peace agreements--whether in Sierra Leone or the Congo--for international deployment to be effective. That is why we are working with countries such as Nigeria in the west African regional group ECOWAS--the economic community of West African states--and with South Africa in the southern African development community, to enhance their defence and conflict prevention capabilities.
The United Nations also has a key role to play in meeting one of the most sinister threats facing us today--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have helped to achieve a number of important goals recently. We are taking a leading role in negotiations for a compliance protocol for the biological weapons convention, and to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is properly implemented. Where international regimes have not stopped proliferation, we are working with our allies to resist that, and to tackle the underlying causes of tension. We drafted and co-sponsored a December 1999 UN Security Council resolution establishing the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission on Iraq. We led the way to achieve an unprecedented agreement with the new agenda coalition of non-nuclear states, enabling us and the four other nuclear weapons states to pledge, at the non- proliferation treaty review conference that took place recently in New York, to work for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. We are serious about that commitment, and want to see early progress. Our hard work also confirmed the non-proliferation treaty as the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |