| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Darfur
3. Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on the situation in Darfur. [57928]
8. Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Darfur; and if he will make a statement. [57934]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw):
The security situation in Darfur remains serious, with 3.5 million people still requiring humanitarian assistance. The United Kingdom has led the international response and we are among the largest providers of aid. I delivered a strong message to the peace talks that I attended in Abuja last month. We recently announced a further £20 million for the African Union mission in Sudan, and we are now pushing for its early replacement by a stronger United Nations force. We were instrumental in securing the
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1283
investigation by the International Criminal Court, and in New York we are proposing names for United Nations sanctions.
Mrs. Dorries: Given that the African Union is determined to persist with its mission in Darfur rather than hand over control to the United Nations as many in the international community had hoped, and given that every month thousands of people are still dying as a result of disease and violence, does the Minister think that £20 million is enough additional support for the African Union? Are those sufficient resources for it to continue its mandate, or does it need more to fulfil it?
Mr. Straw: It is sufficient for the time being. The African Union's decision was a curate's egg, but we judged it to be more, rather than less, helpful in moving the African Union towards acceptance of a United Nations mandate, as it has reaffirmed its support for the principle of transition to the UN, welcomed the Security Council launch of contingency planning, commissioned AU-UN work on the transition, and called for an end to incitement by the Sudanese Government of demonstrations against the United Nations. It is a controversial issue—it is controversial within the new Sudanese Government—but the presence of a United Nations force is the best prospect for properly securing peace in Darfur, and we are concentrating all our efforts on securing that end.
Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown take the view that to be effective any UN force must include American and European troops on the ground? How realistic is that view, and is he aware that the Sudanese Government are boasting that they have seen off the UN? If the Sudanese will not co-operate, has not the time come to ask the International Criminal Court to unveil the results of its war crimes indictments?
Mr. Straw: I am aware that there is anxiety in the UN secretariat about logistical support that the United States and the UK could provide but which few other countries could provide. On the other hand, we must ensure that any troops who are posted are acceptable and know the situation, so detailed discussions are under way in the secretariat with the UN peacekeeping directorate and the African Union. A way through can be found, but the crucial thing is to put those blue-helmeted troops on the ground in Darfur in greater numbers. The present situation is absurd, as troops are not doing a great deal in the south of Sudan. The principle has been accepted in a place where they are not particularly needed, but they cannot transfer to the west of the country where they are needed. The Sudanese Government are resistant to the idea of foreign troops—we all accept that—but we have sought to persuade them to understand and appreciate that the only real hope of peace in Darfur is an effective international peacekeeping force alongside a more effective peace-making process in Abuja.
Sandra Gidley (Romsey)
(LD): The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Salah Abdallah Gosh, Sudan's director of national security, was issued a visa, ostensibly for medical purposes. That gentleman has
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1284
been implicated by a United Nations panel in relation to war crimes. What measures are being taken by the Government to ensure that all international bodies are given the support necessary to end killings in Darfur and bring the perpetrators to justice?
Mr. Straw: I cannot comment on the particular case that the hon. Lady raises. I am happy to write to her about that and place a copy in the Library of the House. On backing for the International Criminal Court generally, it was as a result of British diplomacy that we got the Security Council resolution—the first work of the ICC in respect of Sudan—and we have actively backed all its work subsequently to identify the perpetrators and to bring them to justice.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): The situation in Darfur is grave, but it has been grave for many months. We must find a way of bringing many more troops into the area. There are those who say that the only way to step up troop numbers and to get the UN fully engaged is through NATO being engaged. Is that a realistic proposition, and if not, what is the answer?
Mr. Straw: I know that my hon. Friend has been to Darfur recently and has great expertise on the situation. The point is the same as that raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) a moment ago. There is a great deal of talk about the high level of expertise in NATO member states, including particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. That has to be balanced against the acceptability of such expertise in Darfur. All I can say is that discussions about that are continuing.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): At the Labour party conference in 2001, the Prime Minister described Africa as
Since then the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and Sudan has got distinctly worse. Some estimates put the number of displaced people at 3 million, and those who are starving and homeless at another 3 million, with 200,000 refugees crossing the border into Chad. Now we hear that Libya is supporting the Government of Sudan in effectively vetoing any further engagement by NATO troops. What more can the international community do, or is it content to walk by on the other side of the road and watch one of the worst human crises in the 21st century evolve?
Mr. Straw:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. We must stay heavily engaged there. We are doing a great deal. We cannot take over the government of Sudan. In the end, we need the acquiescence of the Government of Sudan for any troops that go into that country. Although I note what the hon. Gentleman says about Libya and some other north African states not being desperately constructive, the other side of that is that under the very sound leadership of President Obasanjo, the former chairman of the African Union, to whom I spoke about the matter less than a week ago, and many of his colleagues, the African Union has shifted. It has finally understood that it must take responsibility for the scandalous situation which, as the
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1285
hon. Gentleman said, has displaced 3.5 million people in the heart of Africa. All of us have to stay engaged and increase our activity there.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the International Monetary Fund has just concluded an agreement with the Sudanese Government for an IMF-monitored economic growth policy? Could the implementation of that policy be used as a pressure mechanism to impress on the Sudanese Government the urgent need for the civil war to be brought to a close and, more immediately, for human rights abuses to be brought to an end?
Mr. Straw: I do not have all the details of the International Monetary Fund arrangement, but it is worth bearing in mind that two peace processes have taken place in Sudan. The north-south peace process led to a Government of national unity, so progress has been made and the situation is far better than it was a few years ago, and I believe that the IMF arrangements were made in respect of that process. The IMF always imposes conditions, which are principally economic, but I shall follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion and write to him.
European Constitution
4. Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the future of the European constitution. [57929]
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Last June, the European Council agreed to undertake a period of reflection on the draft constitutional treaty. I regularly discuss questions related to the future of Europe with our European Union counterparts, and recent discussions have focused primarily on the policy priorities for the European Union, such as economic reform and energy security.
Ann Winterton: Will the Minister confirm that all EU treaties fall outwith the royal prerogative, and that they, including any future regurgitated constitutional treaty, can be ratified only by an Act of Parliament and that in those matters Parliament remains supreme?
Mr. Alexander: We have had a number of European treaties, so the process by which they are ratified is fairly standard. However, the particular set of circumstances in relation to the draft constitutional treaty meant that a clear undertaking was given that included in the ratification process for the draft constitutional treaty not only ratification by parliamentary means, but a vote of the people of the United Kingdom.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Will the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will not go down the route suggested by the French Government, by which parts I and II of constitution would be ratified and the commitment to hold a referendum would be evaded?
Mr. Alexander:
I have seen some of the speculation to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It is clear from our discussions with our European partners in recent weeks
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1286
and months both that it is necessary to continue the period of reflection and that it is appropriate for the focus in the coming European Council to be on not only those institutional questions, but, as we have long argued, jobs and growth for the European Union.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): Does the Minister recall the European Court of Justice case last September that required member states to impose criminal sanctions in support of EU directives, even if those member states vote against those EU directives? Since 21 of the 25 member states opposed that case, what is he doing to reverse that extension of EU power, or is he happy to see criminal laws changed by the EU through majority voting in defiance of the wishes of Parliament and the Government?
Mr. Alexander: On the right hon. Gentleman's view about the European Court of Justice, I accept that if we are part of the European Union, there should be a means by which the rules are enforced within the European Union. However, we have made our views clear in relation to the particular case to which he has referred, and I will make sure that a letter is sent to him confirming the position.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): A period of reflection is wise on a constitution that the Foreign Secretary has frequently described as being in limbo somewhere between heaven and hell. It is also correct that issues on which member states agree can be advanced as part of the overall reform agenda, which Britain has been proud of leading in Europe in the past nine years. Will the Minister give an assurance that we will move forward on those issues where reform is possible?
Mr. Alexander: Given a previous appearance at Foreign Office questions, I will resist the temptation further to elaborate on the Catholic theology of limbo. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it was more incongruous that I was asked the question or that I, as a Scottish Presbyterian, endeavoured to answer it. We have long argued that there should be a sensible set of rules to reflect a European Union of 25 member states—it will soon be 27 member states—which is why we supported the draft constitutional treaty. However, that matter is clearly delineated from the commitment that we made at the time of the draft constitutional treaty, which stated that if the draft constitutional treaty is to be ratified in the United Kingdom, it will depend on a referendum involving the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): The Minister knows that it is not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who is concerned about the European Court of Justice. The current holder of the EU presidency, Chancellor Schuessel, has said that the ECJ has systematically expanded European competencies in the past few years, even in areas in which there is no Community law. Does the Minister agree with Chancellor Schuessel, and will the matter be on the agenda at next week's summit?
Mr. Alexander:
First, on the agenda for next week's summit, the principal focus will be on jobs and growth
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1287
in the European Union. There will also be an update on the work on energy security. Recently, the European Commission published a Green Paper following our Hampton Court summit. So, there will be a heavy agenda at the coming European Council later this month.
On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about the European Court of Justice, we have made clear our opposition to certain rulings of the European Court of Justice in the past, but we accept the principle that there needs to be a means by which the rules and laws in the European Union are enforced.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |