| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.6 pm
Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate and articulating so much knowledge about a very complicated subject. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who, I am sure, understands the subject far better than I do.
Without delaying the House for too long, I want to join other Members in trying to encourage the Minister to slow down. We have heard a lot about big-tent politics in the past few days, and if there is one part of the world where we need big-tent politics, it is the Balkans. It is absolutely crucial that we do not assume that, as a Library paper said recently, the only main players are those that were there in 1994—America, the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. The picture is much bigger than that. Sadly, so much blood was shed to get to the position where we are now, both before NATO got involved and subsequently. We must not forget the desperate situation in Kosovo before the NATO troops were there. I pay tribute from the Conservative Back Benches to the former Prime Minister for the work that he did to help to secure peace in Kosovo.
We must not do anything that jeopardises the extraordinarily delicate situation in the Balkans. If we push ahead, perhaps for the sake of our American colleagues and their political situation, and ignore that delicate situation, we will imperil not only the people of the Balkans but, again, our own troops. That part of the world has a very delicate history. We should not forge ahead with an outcome that the majority of people in Serbia and in Kosovo are not on board with, so that they feel that it is being imposed on them by the Contact group, and nor should we ignore the views of the other countries involved, including Greece and Albania.
I am not a great lover of the European Union, but it has its uses. If we can create peace in Europe, especially in the Balkans where it has been so difficult to achieve over the centuries, by encouraging these countries to join the EU—to see the bigger picture and be part of the European movement—that is one aspect of the EU that I am sure that British taxpayers would be happy to pay for.
As I said, I do not want to detain the House. The Minister has heard the message this evening that we should not push forward too fast. If more hon. Members were present, I am sure that he would have heard the same sentiments from them. Eight years is a short time in the history of the Balkans. We have a golden opportunity, for which British and NATO soldiers have paid with their lives, to have lasting peace in that part of the world. I urge the Minister—or whoever will be in post—the new Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister to say, when they visit their American counterparts, “Slow down. Give these people a chance to be involved. Don’t exclude them or impose anything on them.” Excluding them or imposing a solution could put the rest of Europe in jeopardy.
7.10 pm
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate and for his interest in Kosovo—he has great expertise in that important subject. May I join him in praising our armed forces in the Balkans? The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) drew our attention to the bloodshed that has occurred there. I saw that, and the bravery of our troops in action, at first hand in Bosnia in 1993.
I also witnessed something about which the hon. Member for The Wrekin was calm and restrained: the bloodthirsty jihadists who flocked into Bosnia to murder and kill in the name of some perverted translation of religion. We are keenly aware of the danger of slipping back into a bloodbath, which is why we must get matters right.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I have been accused of many things, but never of reading the tea leaves wrongly.
Andrew Mackinlay: The froth on the beer, then.
Dr. Howells: And certainly not the froth on the beer.
I always reflect carefully on my hon. Friend’s words and observations. He is a skilled member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I greatly respect his opinion on such matters.
I also share your confusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the status of the debate. When the hon. Member for The Wrekin rose to speak, I wondered whether it was the last timetabled debate of the Blair era or the first of the Brown era.
Andrew Mackinlay: The first of the new era.
Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is probably right and it is a great honour to participate in it.
There have been many international challenges in my time in Parliament. I clearly remember the difficult days of 1998 and 1999 in Kosovo. In June 1999, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1244, which, by providing for a UN mission and a NATO military presence, drew the war in Kosovo to a close. We have come a long way since then. In many ways and for most people, Kosovo today is a much better place than it was in 1999. However, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said, the position remains fragile and we must be aware of that.
Although resolution 1244 tackled the immediate post-conflict challenges, it left the key issue of status unresolved. In November 2005, Ambassador Kai Eide reported to the UN Security Council that the status quo was unsustainable and that the time had come to find a solution to the Kosovo status issue.
Earlier this year, after 14 months of intensive negotiations between the parties, and, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead reminded us, almost eight years on from 1999, UN special envoy Ahtisaari concluded:
“The current uncertainty has become a major obstacle to Kosovo’s democratic development, accountability, economic recovery and inter-ethnic reconciliation.”
I firmly agree with that analysis. Persisting with the status quo in Kosovo is certainly no recipe for stability, and nothing that I have heard tonight seeks to claim that. Nor is it a recipe for reconciliation between Kosovo’s Albanian and Serb communities, or for much-needed economic regeneration. Nor is it morally right. It would consign the 2 million people in Kosovo to continuing political and economic stagnation.
President Ahtisaari negotiated tirelessly, holding 15 rounds of direct talks between Belgrade and Pristina while experts from the special envoy’s office met the parties separately on no fewer than 26 occasions. He also took sensitive account of the situation in Serbia, and twice accepted delays to his timetable to accommodate political developments in Belgrade. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock was right to draw attention to the fact that the situation in Belgrade is constantly shifting; I have drawn a lot of encouragement from that.
President Ahtisaari submitted his proposals, which he described as independence for Kosovo,
“supervised by the international community”,
to the UN Security Council on 26 March. I believe that his proposals strike the right balance for Kosovo and the region. They recognise the aspirations of the majority of Kosovo’s population while providing extensive reassurance and protection to non-Albanian communities, particularly the Kosovo Serbs. The settlement provides for assured minority participation in central Government and for far-reaching decentralisation, including through the creation of new Serb-majority municipalities. It provides for continued links and funding between Serbia and Serb municipalities in Kosovo, and it would also create protection zones around more than 40 key Serb cultural and religious sites in Kosovo, as mentioned by the hon. Member for The Wrekin.
I recognise that the Ahtisaari plan will be challenging to implement, and I warmly welcome the Kosovo Assembly’s prompt undertaking to implement it in its entirety. That will require real commitment from Kosovo’s leadership and support from the wider public. It will also require the Kosovo Serb leadership to recognise the opportunities that the settlement presents for its communities, and to begin to engage with that. It will also require a sustained commitment from the international community. Substantial planning is already under way for that international presence.
I want to address some of the issues relating to that which were raised by the hon. Members for The Wrekin and for Hemel Hempstead. On implementation of the Ahtisaari proposals, it is envisaged that NATO will continue to provide the international military presence in Kosovo. Separately, there will be a robust international civilian presence. A European security and defence policy mission will be responsible for working with the Kosovo institutions related to policing and the rule of law, and an international civilian office will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the settlement. I understand perfectly the point raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that the response from EU members
to that proposal will range from enthusiasm to hostility. There is no question about that. The hon. Gentleman described a need for big-tent politics, and we have to understand the need for that in Kosovo, just as we do in the EU. It was a good description.
Two teams—an EU planning team and an international civilian office preparation team—are in place in Kosovo, carrying out the necessary planning and preparation for the arrival of the international civilian presence. Those institutions will take over from the UN mission in Kosovo during a 120-day transition period. NATO and KFOR—the Kosovo peace implementation force—remain strongly focused on planning, too. During that period, the Kosovo Government will continue to carry out their responsibilities, including the day-to-day running of government, as well as the passing of legislation to facilitate the new arrangements for the territory. There is no question of a vacuum in Kosovo under the Ahtisaari proposals.
While Kosovo is a sensitive issue for some EU member states, the EU as a whole has consistently given clear messages in support of Ahtisaari and his efforts. On 18 June, the General Affairs and External Relations Council,
“confirmed its support to UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari and reiterated its view that his comprehensive proposal...provides the basis for the settlement of the Kosovo issue”.
“underlined the necessity of rapidly finding a solution to the Kosovo status issue.”
The Ahtisaari proposals are now in New York, and the UK remains committed to achieving a Security Council resolution, even if that is not an easy task.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked what would happen if Russia rejected the proposal. I certainly do not want to engage in a hypothetical discussion of what might happen—we could do that until this time next week. Russia may not come along with a plan. At this moment, however, we are focused on achieving a resolution in New York. There is no realistic alternative to supervised independence. Drift is emphatically not a safe option, although I am grateful to him for raising the model, as he put it, of Hong Kong-plus. The Ahtisaari proposal, as I shall try to explain, is a better model.
Mark Pritchard: Does the Minister agree, however, that the alternative is perhaps to split the Ahtisaari plan into two, so that the status settlement runs alongside delivery on other key issues, such as more protection for minorities—clearly, mostly Serbs?
Dr. Howells: Such a split would lose the careful balance that, we believe, runs through the Ahtisaari proposals. It would simply not work on the ground. Two thirds of the Ahtisaari proposals set out safeguards and benefits for the Kosovo Serbs. It would be difficult to convince the Kosovo Albanians to implement those elements of the proposals if the issue of status were left unresolved.
In addition, I firmly believe that NATO and the EU would not be prepared to invest the necessary resources in trying to implement an unworkable arrangement.
Both those international bodies stand ready to implement the Ahtisaari settlement. We need a sustainable outcome that will generate stability. Proposals for, say, a phased settlement will lead to the opposite unless it is clear that the end destination is supervised independence, as recommended by Ahtisaari. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the special envoy concluded, and all observers of the status process agreed, that over the course of the negotiations the positions of the parties on the crucial issue of status diverged. We should not be under any illusion that further negotiations would lead to a negotiated outcome.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead drew attention to the fact that, in terms of the history of the Balkans, eight years is not a long time. As someone who has always been passionately interested in history, I suppose that, relatively, it is not a long time. But for the minorities within the former Yugoslavia who have been suffering, it is a long time. They are looking forward to giving their children the opportunity of a better education and a better life within their country, instead of having to move away from the western Balkans, as so many have done, to find work, the dignity of a paid job and some semblance of a sustainable future.
Mike Penning: My background is that of a military historian, and the history of the Balkans is especially long and detailed. The Minister referred to drift, which is an important issue. Some parts of the world do not have railway stations, but the train goes through at a speed at which people can get on it without it stopping. If the process goes forward too fast, the other parties will not be able to join it. Rather than drift, the pace must not be that of a race: the other participants must be able to get involved rather than being left behind.
Dr. Howells: It is a good analogy, but I would rather see the train stop—
Mike Penning: It might never start again.
Dr. Howells: That is true, although I am confident that it would. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Security Council now needs to face up to its responsibilities. It will be a tough period and require tough decisions, but it has no choice but to make them. The time has come to do that.
I do not deny that there will be serious differences of opinion. The hon. Member for The Wrekin warned us of some of the possible consequences of that. There will particularly be disagreements with Russia, but all sides accept the need for a solution that will enhance regional stability. The UK remains convinced of the need to find a way forward. It is our clear preference to secure a Security Council resolution paving the way for the implementation of the Ahtisaari proposals. We will continue to work with Russia and other Contact group members to adopt such a resolution. I made a point of asking the powers that be in the Foreign Office what part Russia plays in the Contact group, and I was told that it is a vigorous part. The Russians are strong and vigorous interlocutors and they take a particular view of the situation. That dialogue has been very important, and it continues. The decisions will not be made in a vacuum, but in the light of a real dialogue.
Mark Pritchard: Is the position of the UK Government exactly the same in relation to the timing of any new UN resolution coming forward or not?
Dr. Howells: Yes. We want to see a UN resolution come forward, and we want to see it sooner rather than later. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the dates of the Security Council deliberation on the subject, but I will try to find out for him when it might be timetabled. We are determined that the time has come for the Security Council to make this decision and we will discuss that with Russia, which is an extremely important player, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—among others—described.
In the interests of showing that no stone has been left unturned in the search for a solution, I welcome the idea from President Sarkozy for a further period for a final round of talks between the parties. But it must be clear that if they fail to agree, we must move forward on the basis of Ahtisaari’s proposals.
We can either bring the process to completion or consign it to the “too difficult” tray. For the reasons that the hon. Members for The Wrekin and for Hemel Hempstead have given, that would be a very risky move. It would remind me too much of the mistakes that were made early on, when Yugoslavia broke up. The latter course carries real risks for the stability of the region. The situation will not stand still. The lesson from the 1990s in the Balkans is that drift leads to instability. The choice is to tackle Kosovo in a smooth
and orderly way on the basis of a UN process endorsed by the Security Council, or to find ourselves reacting to future events in a way that could involve far greater challenges.
What of Serbia in all this? It is important to say something about it. I want to be clear that bringing the Kosovo status process through to completion is not and should not be seen as punishing Serbia. We understand the strong emotions that this issue can arouse, but this process is about putting in place the right outcome—the only realistic outcome from our point of view—for Kosovo. I want to see both countries and both Kosovo Serb and Kosovo Albanian communities prospering and moving forward towards EU and NATO membership, if that is what they want.
There has been some progress by Serbia in recent weeks. The chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia told the UN Security Council on 18 June that the Serb authorities had
“expressed a clear commitment to provide all necessary assistance to locate and arrest the remaining fugitives”.
That has started to deliver results, with the arrest of two fugitive indictees in recent weeks. Against that background, the European Commission restarted—
The motion having been made at Seven o’clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, p ursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |