The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
David Wilshire
†
Ainger,
Nick
(Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire)
(Lab)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Davey,
Mr. Edward
(Kingston and Surbiton)
(LD)
†
Evennett,
Mr. David
(Bexleyheath and Crayford)
(Con)
†
Francois,
Mr. Mark
(Rayleigh)
(Con)
†
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
†
Hands,
Mr. Greg
(Hammersmith and Fulham)
(Con)
†
Horam,
Mr. John
(Orpington)
(Con)
†
Hoyle,
Mr. Lindsay
(Chorley)
(Lab)
†
McKechin,
Ann
(Glasgow, North)
(Lab)
†
Milburn,
Mr. Alan
(Darlington)
(Lab)
†
Munn,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs)
†
Swinson,
Jo
(East Dunbartonshire)
(LD)
Celia Blacklock, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
The following also
attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(6):
Hill,
Keith
(Streatham)
(Lab)
Turner,
Mr. Neil
(Wigan)
(Lab)
Burt,
Alistair
(North-East Bedfordshire)
(Con)
McDonnell,
Dr. Alasdair
(Belfast, South)
(SDLP)
Cash,
Mr. William
(Stone)
(Con)
Grogan,
Mr. John
(Selby)
(Lab)
Slaughter,
Mr. Andy (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush)
(Lab)
European
Committee B
Tuesday 29
April
2008
[Mr.
David Wilshire
in the
Chair]
Western Balkans and EU-Serbia Co-operation
4.30
pm
The
Chairman:
Before we begin proceedings, since virtually
everybody who has come into the room has asked for guidance on what is
about the happen, it might be helpful if I explain what Standing Orders
say about these occasions. I should preface that by saying that I
personally am looking forward to a deeply informed debate, because I am
sure that everybody in the room has read all 849 pages of the main
document and asked for the 503 extra pages, and have studied them,
too.
Standing Orders
make it clear that a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make
a speech lasting up to five minutes—Standing Orders limit the
speech to exactly five minutes maximum. I gather that Mr.
Greg Hands has been nominated to speak by that Committee. He will be
followed by the Minister, who will make a statement. Mr.
Speaker “deprecates”—his
word—Minister’s speeches that last more than 10 minutes
on these occasions. Should there be Divisions in the House—I
gather that there may be—I shall adjourn the Committee for 15
minutes for one Division and a further 10 minutes if there are two. Any
time lost for Divisions will be added after 7 o’clock, which is
otherwise the end time.
Mr.
Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time,
Mr. Wilshire.
It might be
helpful for the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain both the
background to the documents and why the European Scrutiny Committee has
recommended them for debate today. The origin of today’s sitting
is unusual in many respects. First, this is one of the first meetings
of a European Committee to use the new procedures, which include my
introduction—I am one of the two nominated members of the ESC
attending today’s Committee. Secondly, the sitting has been
delayed. The heart of the documentation before us was first sent by the
ESC for debate on the 5 December 2007, which is almost five months ago.
There have been several postponements, which has been difficult at a
time when the situation in the western Balkans is changing on an almost
daily
basis.
Thirdly,
today’s meeting is unusual because of the sheer volume of
documentation in front of us, which has already been alluded to. I
believe that, all told, there are some 50 documents. That is partly due
to the relative complexity of the subject matter and partly to the
sheer number of countries involved—each has justified its own
European partnership agreement and progress report. The volume of
documents can also be put down to delays in considering the issues. It
seems that the European Scrutiny Committee is tagging new documents
to the debate every couple of weeks. I was originally asked in February
to perform this role, and in the intervening two-and-a-half months,
there has grown in the corner of my office an ever-accumulating pile of
documents relating to today’s much-postponed sitting. I look
forward to the Minister telling us more about how, even in the hours
before the meeting, new and relevant documents that we probably ought
to consider have emerged from today’s General Affairs and
External Relations Council meeting in Luxembourg. I look forward to an
explanation of what has been signed there and what effect it will
have.
The
overall background to the sitting is not ideal, but the ESC strongly
believes that it represents an excellent opportunity to debate the
western Balkans in general and the possible EU accession of the various
countries, particularly Serbia. At the 2003 Thessaloniki summit, the EU
said that it would fully and effectively support the European
perspective of the countries of the western Balkans, strengthening the
existing stabilisation and association process that was introduced in
1999, and introducing European partnerships, which are the implementing
device for the region. The December 2006 European Council confirmed
that
“the future of the
western Balkans lies in the European Union”.
I should explain that
my opening remarks will represent the opinions of the ESC—I
might make a speech and ask questions later in a personal capacity. By
way of background, the Committee, including myself, visited Macedonia
in November and met the Prime Minister, Nikola Gruevski, and various
senior parliamentarians. We have also met those responsible for
implementing the current six-month Slovenian
presidency.
The
documents before us include progress reports on the various countries.
The partnership documents are forward-looking, with well-defined short
and medium-term priorities for each country to focus on as it works to
meet EU standards. The progress reports are published annually and are
backward-looking, reviewing progress against the EU’s conditions
for membership—the Copenhagen criteria—and the priorities
set out in each country’s European partnership. Overall, the
Committee judged that the documents present a sobering picture,
describing many of the problems that continue to dog Bulgaria and
Romania in areas of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime.
Those concerns have been amplified by subsequent developments in Kosovo
and Serbia and by the EU’s response to them.
The
stabilisation and association agreement is a key step on the path to EU
membership. As with other such SAAs, the one proposed and signed with
Serbia will establish a far-reaching legal relationship with the EU. We
are concerned primarily that the agreement should not come into effect
until issues relating to war crimes and the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia are properly resolved. The Committee
accordingly felt that it would be right for the House to debate the
documents and question the Minister about those worrying developments,
particularly the extent to which a preoccupation with political
developments in Serbia is endangering the conditionality component of
the EU’s overall enlargement strategy. The document was signed
today. Considering that it is still officially under scrutiny, I look
forward to hearing an explanation. We have an incomplete picture. On
behalf of the Committee,
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about what
transpired today and the background to the signing of the
SAA.
4.37
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs (Meg Munn):
May I say what a pleasure it is to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Wilshire? I apologise for
the absence of my colleague, the Minister for Europe, who has indeed
been attending the General Affairs and External Relations Council in
Luxembourg.
Most
people from the early to mid-1980s would not recognise the Europe of
today. The continent has changed enormously, most obviously in central
and eastern Europe, and the repercussions affect us all, from the famed
Polish plumbers to the opening throughout the UK of shops and
restaurants offering eastern European cuisine. The European
Union’s policy of enlargement has helped us to move forward on
the basis of shared values that have overcome most of the ideological
divisions of the past. It has also played a central role in bringing
stability to Europe.
The end of the
cold war created new and difficult challenges. Who, for instance, could
have predicted the rise of nationalism that brought about the conflicts
in the Balkans in the 1990s? The western Balkan region is now entirely
surrounded by European Union member states, and what happens there will
have an impact on all EU countries. In 2003, at Thessaloniki, the EU
committed itself to bringing about a European future for the western
Balkans, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham said. We
strongly supported that commitment then, and we strongly support it
now.
The prospect
of joining the EU is vital to ensuring the realisation of reforms
central to the delivery of stability and good governance throughout the
Balkans. Both are necessary not just to the western Balkan countries
but to the EU as a whole. The EU enlargement process is rigorous and
designed to ensure that countries meet the conditions of membership
when they join. Every candidate and potential candidate must have shown
an irreversible commitment to fundamental reform of their economy and
their legal and political system. The EU has allocated €4
billion to the western Balkan region to help ensure that the
enlargement process genuinely delivers stronger institutions and better
governance. I shall comment on the situation in three countries in the
region: Kosovo, Serbia and
Bosnia.
Since
its declaration of independence on 17 February, Kosovo has made good
progress. It has been recognised by 41 states, including nearly three
quarters of the European Union and NATO, and all but one of the G8
countries. Countries recognising Kosovo account for about 68 per cent.
of the world’s GDP and 87 per cent. of the UN’s
peacekeeping budget. The majority of the UN Security Council membership
recognises Kosovo. Priority legislation on minority rights and the
protection of cultural heritage has been adopted. Most importantly, the
overall security situation in Kosovo and the region has remained
stable, despite tensions in the Kosovo Serb-majority north.
We will continue to work with
international agencies in Kosovo to encourage the continuation of that
stability. With stability comes a country in which the
rights of all communities are fully respected. We also urge everyone to
show restraint, and to refrain from violence or the incitement of
violence. We fully recognise how sensitive an issue Kosovo’s
independence is for Serbia. UK recognition of Kosovo is not about
punishing Serbia. It is about ensuring regional stability and resolving
this last outstanding issue from the break-up of the former
Yugoslavia.
We believe
that the whole region stands to benefit from a stable, prosperous
Serbia moving towards the EU. For its part, the EU has signalled its
strong commitment to Serbia. Today’s General Affairs and
External Relations Council agreed on the signature of Serbia’s
stabilisation and association agreement, but made it clear that
implementation and ratification of that agreement would depend on
Serbia’s full co-operation with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
Serbia
is now making the strategic choices that will affect its future. We
hope that the forthcoming parliamentary elections in May will see
Serbia continuing to demonstrate its commitment to a European future
and European values. We want Serbia, like neighbouring countries such
as Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, to become a prosperous and secure
member of the European Union. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the adoption
of key legislation on police reform took place on 16 April. That
legislation unblocks the way towards an EU stabilisation and
association agreement—a major stage on Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s path towards the EU. While the prospect of EU
integration has driven this and other reforms, there remain fundamental
challenges, not least of which is continuing nationalist rhetoric and
attempts to question the structures of the state. The international
community needs to show resolve in its commitment to Bosnia’s
political future on the basis of the Dayton peace
agreement.
In
conclusion, the path to European Union accession will remain
challenging but essential. It is vital that the countries of the region
continue to enact the necessary reforms that will ensure stability
after the conflicts of the 1990s. The UK will continue to offer these
countries support and advice through the EU, our embassies across the
region, and our bilateral programme funding. Keeping our commitment to
that enterprise is a vital part of helping to ensure the continued
stability of the region. It is also an important component of a
confident Europe—a Europe that is able to reach out and deal
with the challenges in the rest of the
world.
The
Chairman:
We have until 5.30 pm for questions. They should
be brief, and the Chair has discretion to allow more than one question,
provided that the supplementary questions are on the same subject. If
any hon. Member wishes to come back on something different, I am happy
to call them a second time after everybody who wants to ask questions
has had their first go. When asking questions, will hon. Members bear
in mind the fact that other people want to ask a list of questions
afterwards. Brevity would be enormously
helpful.
Mr.
Hands:
May I group two or three questions at the
beginning, Mr. Wilshire? I did not quite catch the reasons
for signing today when the document is still under scrutiny. Can I also
ask—
The
Chairman:
Order. We will deal with one brief question at a
time; I will let the hon. Gentleman come back on the next one, but he
should not group them.
Meg
Munn:
Perhaps I could set out in more detail what the
Minister for Europe has been doing. I know that he has written several
times to the Committee to update it on developments regarding
Serbia’s SAA, including just before today’s meeting. In
those letters, the Government made clear their view that
Serbia’s progress towards the EU is central to democracy and
stability in the region. The Government have also made it
clear—as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham suggested in
his opening statement—that we want to ensure full Serbian
co-operation with the international tribunal in The Hague. That remains
an essential part of the process, which must be in evidence before
further progress can take place. Balancing those considerations, the
Minister for Europe has made it clear that in the interests of sending
a clear signal of the EU’s commitment to Serbia’s
European future, we would be ready to sign Serbia’s SAA as long
as the conditionality in relation to the international tribunal in The
Hague remained firmly embedded in the accession
process.
Mr.
Hands:
To repeat the question about the status of the
scrutiny reserve on the document, why was it signed today, apparently
in flagrant disregard of the scrutiny
reserve?
Meg
Munn:
I am afraid that I do not have the specific details
on that. Perhaps I could try to get the answer to the scrutiny
question, but in relation to the process, the Minister for Europe has
made it clear that it is important to signal to Serbia that we see the
EU as a benefit for the region and for Serbia. We therefore wanted to
be part of the discussions taking place in the General Affairs and
External Relations Council today, and consider with other countries
whether that would be appropriate. However, our important condition in
relation to that, which the Committee has discussed previously, is that
we must make it clear that Serbia’s full co-operation with the
International Court in The Hague is an essential part of the
process.
Mr.
Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): May I, too, say that it is
a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Wilshire;
not least because we all know that you have a strong interest in
foreign affairs issues. Given the news today that the EU has decided
the sign the stabilisation and association agreement and the interim
agreement with Serbia, for the avoidance of doubt, I would like to ask
the Minister if the SAA that has been signed is the same version as
that in our bundle on pages 391 to 450, and if the IA is the same
version as that in our bundle on pages 459 to 487. If there are any
changes, what are
they?
Meg
Munn:
I can give the Committee an assurance that the SAA
is the same as the one in the bundle, but I am not so clear about
whether that is the case for the interim agreement. Perhaps we can come
back to that shortly.
Mr.
Francois:
Following on from that, the Council conclusions
that were agreed today are available. They state:
“The Council recalled
articles 2, 4 and 133 of the SAA and articles 1 and 54 of the Interim
Agreement and stated that full co-operation with the ICTY, including
all possible efforts to arrest and transfer indictees, is an essential
element of these
Agreements.”
Importantly,
they go on to
state:
“Accordingly,
Ministers agreed to submit the SAA to their parliaments for
ratification and the Community decided to implement the Interim
Agreement as soon as the Council decides that Serbia fully co-operates
with the
ICTY.”
Given
that that was agreed today, may I ask the Minister whether the
definition of
“fully
co-operates with the
ICTY”
includes the
understanding that the Serbs must produce Mladic and
Karadzic?
Meg
Munn:
If I may respond first to the hon.
Gentleman’s earlier question about the interim agreement, I
understand that both versions of the agreement are essentially the
same, but we will write with specific details to clarify the
position.
The hon.
Gentleman asked what full co-operation means. As far as we understand
it, the implication is that there should be oversight of that process.
As to whether that relates to the individuals about whom he asked, my
hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is in Luxemburg and I am here in
London so, again, we will write to the
Committee.
Mr.
Francois:
I thank the Minister for that reply, but
unfortunately I am in London not in Luxemburg, so I can only ask the
questions in London of the Minister who is present. We all understand
the history of this, and we know how important those two individuals
are. It would be helpful to have an answer to that question by the end
of the sitting this afternoon, not post facto by letter. The Minister
said earlier that the SAA was the same as a previous version, after
which she said that the IA was essentially the same as a previous
version, which is code for “It is different.” Will she
tell us how the IA is
different?
Meg
Munn:
I do not have that information in front of me, but I
shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it. As for co-operation with
the International Court of Justice on the specifics, it has just
happened and the detail has not been communicated to me. We shall
obviously make all possible effort to provide the information before
the end of the
sitting.
Mr.
Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): The Minister said that
security, stability and democracy were important to the Balkans, and we
all agree with that. What does she think about the deployment of a
further regiment from the UK forces to that area? How does that lie
with her opening
statement?
Meg
Munn:
My hon. Friend is referring to today’s
parliamentary statement about the deployment of the United Kingdom
Operational Reserve Force battalion. That has happened in response to
requests from NATO in relation to the situation in Kosovo. It is
important—as
it is for all states in respect of moving forward—that we deal
with the serious challenges that Kosovo faces in the rule of law,
combating corruption and the fight against organised crime. Against
that background, the United Kingdom has received a request from NATO
for the deployment of a UK battalion to Kosovo by the end of May. That
is part of our existing commitment. As he no doubt knows in great
detail, it is not a surprise in relation to that commitment. It is
important in fulfilling responsibilities that we have previously
agreed. Indeed, the deployment demonstrates our commitment to the
security of the region. It will provide NATO with extra flexibility in
maintaining peace and stability for all communities in
Kosovo.
Mr.
Hoyle:
I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree
that such action will result in an increase in the number of troops on
the ground, so there is a greater stability problem than we have seen
previously?
Meg
Munn:
I would not necessarily categorise what is happening
like that. Such a commitment was made so that troops would be in place
to tackle the issues. Indeed, not only has the United Kingdom done so,
but so have Italy and Germany. The point of such action is to ensure
that support is available at short notice precisely to keep on top of
the situation and to work towards the result that we all rightly want
to see. I am informed—magically—that the UK will indeed
replace a German battalion, so the numbers will remain the same. There
will be no increase. I hope that that information has been helpful to
my hon. Friend, as it has been to
me.
Jo
Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): May I say what a great
pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Wilshire? The media reports on today’s signing of the SAA note
that the Netherlands and Belgium have been standing firmest in
demanding Serbia’s full co-operation with the ICTY before moving
on accession. Surely, it is absolutely right that the EU is firm on
that condition. Can the Minister explain why the UK seems to have
softened its line, as was highlighted in the European Scrutiny
Committee report of 20 February? Why did the UK not stand alongside the
Netherlands and Belgium in making that
demand?
Meg
Munn:
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s
characterisation of a softening of the process. We are
seeing—as, indeed, we have seen in relation to a number of
countries that have sought to accede to the European Union—an
ongoing process and one that needs to be part of negotiation and
judgment as time goes on. The fundamental point is that the UK, along
with the rest of the European Union, is standing firm on the
requirement for full co-operation with the process in The Hague before
further steps can be taken, before the SAA is ratified and before
Serbia takes further steps.
Serbia’s progress report
indicated that things are developing well, and that, subject to those
important conditions, Serbia should be in a position to move down the
European route, should it choose to do so. That is a choice that Serbia
has to make, but it is important that the rest of the European Union
indicate
to Serbia that we want it to be part of the EU, because the benefits of
the EU are stability and the creation of a situation in an area
that—we all remember far too well—has recently suffered a
great deal of strife. We think that that is the right way
forward.
Jo
Swinson:
I agree with the Minister that Serbia’s
future should be in the EU and that we should make that clear, but that
does not detract from the need to set out clear conditions. How can the
Minister say that the UK Government’s line has not softened?
Previously they said that an SAA would not be signed until there was
full co-operation and the war criminals Mladic and Karadzic had been
handed over, yet today the UK Government signed an
SAA.
Meg
Munn:
As I have said, it is important that we signal to
Serbia that the European Union route is open to it. We have not changed
our position that it is a condition of their move towards joining the
EU and gaining accession status that there must be full
co-operation.
Ann
McKechin (Glasgow, North) (Lab): Following the acquittal
earlier this month of Ramush Haradinaj, the former Kosovan Prime
Minister, has the European Union had any discussions with The Hague
tribunal about the prosecution of cases, particularly the allegations
of intimidation of witnesses during that
trial?
Meg
Munn:
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I know
that she has recently visited the region. The intimidation of witnesses
is taken very seriously. If she will bear with me, hopefully I can
provide some more information. It is fundamentally important that the
process at The Hague is seen to be above that sort of behaviour and
that it helps us to move on to a proper process which is full and free,
and to people being confident in the justice processes that are taking
place
there.
Ann
McKechin:
Can my hon. Friend indicate whether there have
been any discussions between the European Union and the authorities in
Kosovo in relation to that, and in relation to securing any
undertakings by the new Kosovan authorities about their commitment to
co-operation with the
tribunal?
Meg
Munn:
UK Ministers will meet the chief prosecutor tomorrow
to discuss a range of issues, and I will certainly ensure that they
take up the issues that my hon. Friend raised. In relation to the
process with Kosovo, she will be aware that, as we have set out
generally for all those countries, tackling corruption, organised
crime, intimidation and the like is part of the process, and therefore
there will be discussion of those
issues.
Mr.
William Cash (Stone) (Con): Will the Minister be good
enough to explain what the legal basis is, both under European law and
under United Nations resolutions and law, for the recognition of
Kosovo? If she cannot give me the answer immediately, would she write
to me?
Meg
Munn:
In relation to Kosovo, UN Security Council
resolution 1244 authorises the UN Secretary-General, with the
assistance of relevant international organisations, to establish an
international civilian presence there. In relation to why the
recognition is there, that same process sets out the view that there
should be a negotiation, and that it should come to a final position on
that. The UK has taken the view that the final situation in relation to
Kosovo is entirely in line with resolution 1244. We have recognised
that and believe that this is an important process. It is legally
justified, through the implementation of the comprehensive settlement
process, as a last resort at the end of a final status process that has
exhausted all avenues in pursuit of a negotiated
solution.
Mr.
Cash:
Would the Minister, who has not really answered my
question, be good enough to write to me, as I asked her to do just now,
explaining how the European Union, which appears to have no legal basis
for these operations and for the recognition of Kosovo, is spending
millions of euros, for example, setting up EULEX—the European
Union rule of law mission in Kosovo—and all that goes with
that?
Meg
Munn:
It is not surprising that there should be a
difference of opinion between the hon. Gentleman on the one hand and
hon. Members on this side of the room and the Government on the other.
We believe, as I have set out, that this is legally justified. I am
happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, or ask my hon. Friend the
Minister for Europe to do so, and set that out in greater detail. I
have made it clear that it is justified, as is the international
presence, as I said earlier, but I am happy to put that in a
letter.
Alistair
Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): Do the Government
have a particular view on the impact of negotiations on
Macedonia’s accession of the long-running dispute with Greece,
which was recently seen in Greece’s veto of Macedonia’s
NATO application? What long-running impact do the Government think that
that will have on negotiations for Macedonia’s accession to the
EU?
Meg
Munn:
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important,
long-running issue but, nevertheless, we need to move forward on the
process with Macedonia. We hope to open negotiations by the end of
2008. That is an ambitious target, but the Commission’s October
progress report will provide an indication, based on reforms that have
been put in place, of whether it is realistic and, as with all the
countries that we are debating here, that is condition-based. The name
dispute is essentially a bilateral issue between Macedonia and Greece
and, therefore, has no bearing on Macedonia’s eligibility for
the opening of negotiations—hopefully later this year—on
accession to the
EU.
The
Chairman:
Before I call anybody for a second time, have I
missed
anybody?
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): Thank you very
much, Mr. Wilshire, for permitting me, an outsider, to
speak. I am a relative novice in these
matters, but I have deep concern about Serbia, having visited there
recently. It is fairly obvious to me, and probably to all hon. Members
that I have heard speaking in this sitting, that Serbia is in a
precarious, unstable state. Does the Minister think that it would be
helpful if, in the words of my learned friend the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire, Britain softened its attitude considerably towards the
parties in Serbia and towards the Serbian accession? If the
stabilisation and association agreement is fraught with too many
difficulties and demands in terms of the criminals, the radicals in
Serbia, who are hostile to Europe, will win. Would it not be better to
soften considerably some of the conditions and make it possible for the
progressive forces there—the pro-European forces—to
negotiate? It strikes me that it is not possible for them to surrender
the criminals as easily as we might like it to
be.
Meg
Munn:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful
contribution. The political situation in Serbia is central to the
economic and political progress of the whole western Balkans. Therefore
Serbia’s political health is crucial to regional stability. He
is right that Serbia is currently faced with a strategic choice about
its future. We know that the presidential elections that were held in
February confirmed Serbia’s European aspirations, and the
up-coming elections are another opportunity for Serbia to confirm them.
As he rightly said, that is why it has been important for the EU to
indicate to Serbia that there is a route and that we are willing to
work with it.
I part
from the hon. Gentleman slightly because, although there has been a
shift in the process, with the signing of the SAA ahead of the
confirmation of full co-operation, we are firmly committed to that
condition being part of the process to ratification of the SAA and to
opening up accession. He is right to say that there has been a shift,
but we are not looking to soften our position. Full co-operation has to
be part of the process, and there must be a strong signal from Serbia
that it accepts the norms and values of the EU and the processes that
have been put in place to address the dreadful situation that took
place in the
region.
Mr.
John Horam (Orpington) (Con): May I ask the Minister a
question about Albania? Page 48 of the progress report says, in
connection with fighting organised crime and
terrorism:
“Uneven
progress has been made in the fight against crime, a key European
Partnership priority. Organised crime remains a very serious problem in
Albania.”
Page 49
adds:
“However,
Albania is still a significant transit country and levels of sex
trafficking of women and children (mainly from the Roma community)
within the country have
risen.”
Will the Minister
assure me that proper standards will be insisted on in that area? There
is form here, because both Bulgaria and Romania gave assurances when
they came into the European Union, which have not been wholly
fulfilled.
Meg
Munn:
On that final point, hon. Members who are more
familiar with these processes than I am will know that the process for
accession to the EU has moved on and evolved. The methods that we used
in relation to Bulgaria and Romania are not the ones that
are taking place in relation to the countries that we are discussing. I
reassure the hon. Gentleman that no one is under any illusions about
the serious challenges that Albania faces on the rule of law, combating
corruption and the fight against organised
crime.
I
spent a great deal of time in my previous ministerial post working on
human trafficking issues, and I know that they are extremely concerning
not just to the hon. Gentleman but to Members on both sides of the
House. We know that European organised crime networks, like others,
have become global. Being where it is in Europe, Albania is far from
immune, but we believe that the Albanian Government are making progress
in tackling corruption and organised crime. They have passed
legislation through Parliament, but a lot of significant work remains
to be done. There is concern about the independence of the judiciary,
corruption and political influence over the courts. We will continue to
ensure that work on such matters is an important part of the accession
process. I take his point that we must address that as we go through
the early
stages.
Mr.
John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): On 15 June, I understand that
the new Kosovan constitution will come into effect—a further
important step in the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan. There is
increasing speculation that the United Nations may have a continuing
role after that date, even though it was originally envisaged that the
EU mission would take complete charge at about that time. What are the
British Government’s thoughts on whether the UN may have a
continuing role in
Kosovo?
Meg
Munn:
Certainly the situation in Kosovo continues to give
rise to concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley mentioned it. At
this stage, we need to ensure that the matter is kept under review and
that the concerns that both my hon. Friends have raised are part of the
decisions that we make as we go through the process. My hon. Friend the
Member for Selby makes an important point, and I will ensure that the
Committee is kept informed of decisions as and when they are
taken.
Mr.
Francois:
On page 398 of the bundle, article 2 of the SAA
with Serbia—the Minister has assured the Committee that that has
not changed—states that Serbia should ensure “full
cooperation with the” ICTY. Can she confirm whether that means
that Serbia would not benefit from the remainder of the agreement if
full co-operation were not forthcoming and, directly related to that,
who will judge what full co-operation entails and whether Serbia has
complied?
Meg
Munn:
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his close attention
to the document. In terms of where we are, it is clear that there has
been a signature today, and there will now be a process to
ratification. There must be full co-operation, and I have said on a
number of occasions that we want to ensure co-operation with the Court
and the tribunal in The Hague. The Council and the Commission will
regularly monitor whether Serbia continues fully to co-operate, and the
EU and its member states will assist Serbia in that respect. There will
be continuing oversight, so that we can all be assured that that is
happening before we move to the next stage of the
process.
Mr.
Francois:
I thank the Minister for her kind remarks. Two
months of debating the treaty of Lisbon taught me to read the small
print.
It is evident
from the Minister’s description to the Committee that
ratification by EU member states of the SAA with Serbia will depend on
full co-operation, although, without being uncharitable, the Committee
will have noted that she has been in some difficulty in being specific
about what full co-operation will entail. I appreciate that the
agreement was signed only today, but what is the Government’s
anticipated timetable for ratification of the SAA in this Parliament
and among other EU member states? For example, do they anticipate that
it might be ratified by the end of the
year?
Meg
Munn:
It is not a matter of being uncharitable. I thought
that I made it clear to the Committee that I was not in a position to
say what full co-operation means and that I would write about that. I
have put my cards on the
table.
On an
anticipated timetable, I would love to be able to respond to the hon.
Gentleman, but he knows, as I do, that the agreement has only just been
signed in Luxembourg, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister for
Europe is hotfooting it back, so we can have that conversation later
today.
Jo
Swinson:
On Bosnia, the report shows that progress since
2006 has been incredibly disappointing, and in many ways that country
has gone into reverse. The current UN High Representative Miroslav
Lajcak took over on 30 June 2007, so the reports from November do not
include much of his time. Does the Minister have any reason to hope
that he is putting Bosnia on to a surer footing than his predecessor,
Christian Schwarz-Schilling, did?
Meg
Munn:
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The high
representative has had some recent success in facilitating compromise
between the six main political parties on police reform, which has been
a key stumbling block in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s progress
towards the EU, but in recognition of the deteriorating political
situation and recent challenges to the Dayton peace agreement, the
February Peace Implementation Council agreed to maintain the high
representative’s office in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so he will
continue to work on those
issues.
Jo
Swinson:
Will the Minister clarify a point? Is she saying
that the extension will be later than June 2008, when the high
representative was due to finish? If so, what extension has been given,
and for how long is he due to be maintained in
Bosnia?
Meg
Munn:
The hon. Lady is asking me for very specific
details, which are not in front of me. I hope again that magical powers
will enable me to respond, and perhaps I can return to the matter a
little later. If the details do not appear during the Committee, I will
certainly write to hon. Members to clarify the
point.
Jo
Swinson:
Finally, I just wondered what the
Minister’s opinion was of the view that having a UN
high representative in Bosnia is creating a culture of dependency and
could be hindering the political process. Do the Government have a view
of what the right time would be for the UN high representative to
finish his
work?
Meg
Munn:
I believe in magic. The closure of the office will
now depend on the achievement of a number of clear objectives and
conditions, which will be set out. So there is not a date as such;
there is a need to fulfil objectives and conditions. Key among those is
the need for positive assessment of the political and security
situation by the Peace Implementation Council, based on full compliance
with the Dayton peace agreement.
Mr.
Hands:
Can the Minister tell us whether the stabilisation
and association agreement with Serbia and the interim accord are
already taking effect, or have they been
suspended?
Meg
Munn:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could specify in exactly
what respect he is asking me whether those agreements are already
taking effect. They have been signed today.
Mr.
Hands:
My questions are these. Does the SAA take immediate
effect? Does it depend on ratification? In particular, is the trade
element of it in effect as of today?
Meg
Munn:
It depends, as I understand it, on ratification, and
full co-operation with the Court in The Hague is important as part of
that. The SAA will not take effect until that ratification has
happened.
Mr.
Hands:
The Minister says that it depends on ratification
and co-operation with the Court. Presumably, therefore, she is saying
that the Serbian Foreign Ministry, which issued a press release just an
hour ago, is incorrect. The press release says
that
“ministers of EU
countries have decided to sign the SAA with Serbia as well as a
provisional document on the basis of which Serbia would be granted
access to almost 90 per cent. of the benefits based on the SAA even
before all EU members ratify the SAA with Serbia.”
So is the Minister is saying that that is
wrong?
Meg
Munn:
It is not my policy to comment on press releases
that I have not
seen.
Mr.
Hands:
Can the Minister state whether the situation as
described by the Serbians, who presumably we watch very closely in
these matters, is correct or
not?
Meg
Munn:
I have already set out for the Committee my
understanding of what has happened so far. The provisional documents do
not apply without full co-operation with the
ICTY.
Mr.
Hands:
So they do not take effect. I would like to ask the
Minister a further question. The Serbian Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremic,
told the BBC earlier
today:
“We
believe we are irreversibly on the road to EU
membership”.
Does the
Minister believe that that is
correct?
Meg
Munn:
The conditions that Serbia needs to fulfil to be on
that road to EU membership are very clear and we have spent a
considerable time discussing them. If Serbia is committing itself to
full co-operation to get on that road, we will all welcome
that.
Mr.
Cash:
Leaving aside the fact that the Minister has not
answered my question regarding the legal footing of the recognition of
Kosovo by the European Union, could she tell me whether I am right or
wrong if I say that, as well as China and Russia, another eight
countries on the United Nations Security Council are strongly opposed
to the recognition of Kosovo as an independent state and that the
position in the Security Council, certainly until recently, has been 10
countries against Kosovo’s independence and only five in favour?
Meg
Munn:
I would like to put on record that the hon.
Gentleman is wrong. I am informed that eight out of the 15 countries
have recognised Kosovo.
Jo
Swinson:
To follow up on the point raised by the hon.
Member for Selby, the idea that the UN may be maintaining its
recognition of Kosovo past the June deadline is, as has been pointed
out, certain to cause confusion. I appreciate the Minister’s
response that events will have to be monitored, but can she tell us
what the expected deployment date is for the EULEX mission? I
understand that it was due to take over from the UN in June, but that
has now been pushed back at least until August and there is some
speculation that it may be pushed back further. What is the
Government’s current expected date for the deployment of that
mission?
Meg
Munn:
The hon. Lady raises an important point in relation
to the situation in Kosovo and the deployment of the troops there. I do
not want to mislead the Committee on the dates for that, so I will
either come back to her shortly or put it in my correspondence to the
Committee.
Mr.
Francois:
It is a relatively new innovation for members of
the European Scrutiny Committee to take part in the debate. In terms of
holding the Minister to account, if this afternoon is anything to go
by, it is a welcome one. The Minister has been pressed several times
about what full co-operation really means and she has rather fudged it.
I want to put her on the spot. She said a few moments ago that she has
fully clarified the Government’s position. If so, why does she
then need to write post facto to tell us what it is? Does full
co-operation mean the production of Mladic and Karadzic? Yes or
no?
Meg
Munn:
I am very happy to repeat what I have already said.
What I have clarified is the UK Government’s position in
relation to Serbia not acceding to the European
Union ahead of demonstrating full co-operation with the Court in The
Hague. I said that I did not have the specifics as to what had been
discussed at today’s Council and whether it meant that, in the
very specific case the hon. Gentleman cites, there is a need to produce
the individuals concerned. Full co-operation means a committed and
sustained effort from the Serbian Government. It requires the 100 per
cent. political will of the Government and complete co-operation with
the ICTY prosecutor’s
office.
Mr.
Hands:
What recent reports have there been from the ICTY
that might give rise to the Government apparently believing that Serbia
is willing to co-operate with
it?
Meg
Munn:
I do not have an up-to-date issue from the Court on
that. The position on Serbia is that this is a matter for it. The hon.
Gentleman claims to know a little more than me. He has just read out a
press release in which Serbia has said that it is on the road to EU
accession. Well, if that is the case, it has to go forward with full
co-operation otherwise that could not happen. Our assessment is that it
has recently improved its co-operation. It has included the
establishment of a national security council and better access to
documents requested by the prosecutor’s office. A reward of
€1 million has been announced for information leading to the
capture of Mladic and to the arrest of General Tolimir and Vlastimir
Djordjevic in 2007.
We still
believe that further co-operation and improvements are needed. We know
that Mladic and Karadzic remain in hiding. Co-ordination by the Serbian
security services is required
to—[
Interruption.
]
Meg
Munn:
The hon. Gentleman clearly has the
information in front of him.
With your permission,
Mr. Wilshire, while I am on my feet, I should like to
respond to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire in relation to EULEX and its continued UNMIK mission; I
love these acronyms. The EU mission will take over in co-operation with
the UN and that is expected this summer after adoption of the Kosovo
constitution. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, these issues have to be
watched carefully. That is our expectation at this point in
time.
Mr.
Grogan:
Does my hon. Friend agree that both the Serbian
Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have shown some courage this
afternoon in signing this agreement? They have been called Judas in
their own country. They are worthy of our support in the run-up to the
crucial elections that are less than a month away. Equally, has not
Prime Minister Berisha of Albania behaved well in recent months by
lowering the temperature over Kosovo? Both he and Prime Minister Thaci
in Kosovo have rejected any ideas of a greater Albania. If the moderate
voices across all these countries can gain the ascendancy, is there not
great hope for the region?
Meg
Munn:
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important issue.
It is important that the voices of reason and those that promote
stability and look to be part of the EU—which has brought
unprecedented peace to the majority of our continent for the last 60
years—should be supported and
encouraged.
Mr.
Hands:
The reason I was reading with the Minister was that
she was reading the text of the letter sent by the Minister for Europe
to the Committee on 13 February 2008. An important point is what has
changed since that letter was written. On 13 February 2008, the
Government’s position was that they would not sign up to an SAA
until further co-operation with the ICTY had been displayed. What has
happened since that letter was written? I remind the Minister that the
same letter
says:
“The
Government’s position is that the political process must move
forward in a way that upholds ICTY conditionality and ensures that this
remains embedded in the accession
process.”
What
confidence does she have that in the six weeks since that letter,
Serbia has co-operated with the
ICTY?
Meg
Munn:
I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend the
Minister for Europe and I are entirely in agreement. Going into the
specific wording, it would be unusual in our party for one Minister to
say something completely different to the Minister with responsibility
for that area. I remain puzzled about why the hon. Gentleman again asks
a question that I have answered more than once. Our position remains
that full co-operation should be part of the process and that it must
be embedded in that process. What has happened today has not changed
that position. We are therefore clear that we can support this move
forward.
Perhaps
the hon. Gentleman should listen a bit more to the voices of reason
that we are hearing from a number of my hon. Friends who, like me, see
the benefit of Serbia moving towards the EU. As we have heard in
detail, there has been more co-operation in the past few months and we
want there to be even more. This process has got to be good for Serbia.
As I said earlier, Serbia is crucial to the whole of the region so this
is something that we should support, while remaining firm on the
position that the Minister for Europe has set out and that I have set
out several times
today.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chairman:
Order. We are virtually at the end of the
allotted time for questions. Standing Order No. 119 allows the Chair to
extend question time and I am minded to extend it for a further 15
minutes until 5.45 pm because people still want to ask
questions. However, that does not mean that the debating time is
extended.
Mr.
Hands:
In this week’s
The Economist, Olli
Rehn, the EU Enlargement Commissioner, is reporting as saying
that
“after a country has
a seat round the table, it is much harder to apply pressure to
it.”
Does the Minister
agree that it is vital in the case of all of these countries, but
particularly in the case of Serbia, that we remain firm in the
conditions that we set for membership, which include full co-operation
with the ITCY?
Meg
Munn:
I am very happy to confirm that the conditions
remain important. As I said earlier, the EU has reflected on the
accession process, which has now evolved so that there is a process
that takes place before the countries move to accession. By the time
countries going through the improved process reach the point of being
in the EU, they should be able to sit round the table having resolved
the issues that we are discussing. That process is ongoing with the
western Balkan
states.
Mr.
Hands:
The Minister already told us of her belief that the
Serb account of what happened today is incorrect. May I ask about the
Dutch account? The Dutch said earlier today that they would not agree
to the SAA unless the interim accord to implement the details was
“simultaneously suspended”—which is why I was
asking about the suspension earlier. According to the Dutch, the
spokesman for Maxime Verhagen
said:
“If
anything is signed today, it will have to mean that Serbia will not
enjoy any of the benefits of
the”
SAA. Is the agreement
suspended or
not?
Meg
Munn:
I believe that I answered that earlier—it
requires the full co-operation that we talked
about.
Ann
McKechin:
Can my hon. Friend advise me as to whether there
has been any discussion within the EU about easing the current visa
system for Serbian citizens? Only an estimated 3 per cent. of young
people within Serbia have the opportunity to travel to the European
Union, but such an experience would undoubtedly help in the accession
process and in changing views and attitudes within
Serbia.
Meg
Munn:
My hon. Friend knows that there is an important
issue here. One of the benefits for all member states coming into the
European Union is the common contact. Often it is the people-to-people
contacts that begin to make the real difference. People begin to
experience the benefits of being in contact with people more widely. We
are involved in that and there are initiatives being undertaken in
helping countries to work towards that visa-free travel to the Schengen
areas. There are some concrete initiatives under way that will make the
European perspective more tangible to people, as she outlined, and help
them to move closer to the European
Union.
Ann
McKechin:
Can the Minister clarify, in particular, whether
the United Kingdom Government would consider revising the current visa
procedures? The support for such a move includes people such as those
from the Atlantic Council of Serbia, who I met last week and who
benefit the campaign for accession to both the EU and NATO. Those
voices are friendly to the west and to Europe, and I hope that the UK
Government will consider their request
generously.
Meg
Munn:
I can tell my hon. Friend that the UK is considering
visa arrangements with countries in the region separately, case by
case. On the overall message of the Commission’s communication
on a European future for the whole region, we agree that that is an
important way forward. We welcome the concrete initiatives set out by
the Commission, which are a
practical way to make the European Union’s future more tangible.
As I said, we are considering the visa issues country by country and
case by
case.
Mr.
Cash:
Does the Minister deny that there is considerable
doubt in the minds of the UN mission in Serbia today as to whether it
will be possible for EULEX to inherit the facilities that the UN
currently has at its disposal? That is even without allowing for the
question of whether it is ultra vires for EULEX to be there. In other
words, there could be a bill of around €100 million, which would
have to be paid for by the European Union—again ultra
vires.
Meg
Munn:
It is not unusual for a Minister to disagree with
the hon. Gentleman about the legal basis for something. As I set out
earlier, the clear position is that the handover will be in
co-operation with the UN. That is expected in the
summer.
Mr.
Cash:
I can only say to the Minister that the information
on which I am relying is today’s report by the BBC
correspondent, Nick Thorpe, from Pristina. It seems clear that the
Minister has not been properly briefed. Does she agree or
not?
Meg
Munn:
I have to confess that I have not seen the BBC
correspondent’s report from Pristina. I have seen many other
reports, and I am responding in line with my
briefing.
Mr.
Francois:
Thank you, Mr. Wilshire, for using
the Standing Orders to allow us an extra 15 minutes of
questions.
I will
return to subject of Serbia when we come to the debate. However, on
Bosnia, we note that the Council conclusions expressed its readiness to
sign an SAA with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Technical
preparations to that effect are under way. Could the Minister give us
some feel for timings and, specifically, what the technical
preparations involve? To what extent is the UK involved in the process,
which is obviously
important?
Meg
Munn:
We certainly welcome the improved co-operation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is important to the ICTY and the arrest
of Tolimir in 2007. The chief prosecutor continues to consider that its
co-operation is satisfactory, and the European Commission assesses its
co-operation with ICTY as sufficient to allow for signature of its SAA.
We expect Bosnia’s SAA to be signed in May or June. I am
informed that the technical preparations relate mainly to things such
as the translation of
documents.
Mr.
Hands:
Can the Minister tell us whether it is possible for
Serbia to be a member of the EU while Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic
are at
large?
Meg
Munn:
I have said that we expect full co-operation with
the ICTY process, and that means 100 per cent. effort from
Serbia.
Mr.
Hands:
I was expecting the Minister to say that it would
be impossible. Surely, co-operation with the ICTY, which she said she
wants, simply cannot be the case if those men are still at
large.
Meg
Munn:
My understanding is that an assessment has to be
made of the effort and the processes that are in place to address such
issues. It surely cannot be the case that other matters cannot go ahead
if it is impossible to deliver the suspects. The issue is full
co-operation, and 100 per cent. effort to achieve
it.
Mr.
Hands:
Does the Minister share my concern that if the
Serbian Government were to read the transcript of this debate—I
am not suggesting for a moment that that is likely—they would
treat it as a potential green light, or a softening of the conditions?
A Minister is stating explicitly that the two most wanted war criminals
of the Bosnian war are still at large yet Serbia might be admitted to
the
EU.
Meg
Munn:
No, it is not at all a softening of the conditions.
I have said many times that we expect the Serbian Government’s
full co-operation. It is clear that the EU wants that. We have seen
some progress, but not yet 100 per cent., as we heard when the hon.
Gentleman helped me to read out the letter from the Minister for
Europe.
Ann
McKechin:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that in any other
case in which a country has been asked to co-operate fully with an
international tribunal, it has not necessarily meant that suspects are
actually delivered to the court? Obviously, that matter may be entirely
outwith the country’s
control.
Meg
Munn:
My hon. Friend is absolutely
right.
The
Chairman:
Order. We have been around this course quite a
lot. There is debating time during which people can make contributions.
I need to bring the questions to an end. I have power to allow extra
time, but I am afraid that I do not have power to allow a penalty
shoot-out, which is what this is coming to. I would be grateful for the
help of the Committee in making it possible for me to call the Minister
to wind up the debate not later than 6.45
pm.
Motion made, and
Question proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 14999/07,
15001/07, 14995/07, 14993/07, 14996/07, 14997/07, progress reports on
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and
Serbia, No. 15616/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Council Decisions on
the signing and on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement between the European Communities and its Member States and
the Republic of Serbia, No. 15690/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Council
Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement
on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and
the Republic of Serbia, and unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 15
February 2008, Interim Political Agreement on Co-operation between the
European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Serbia; and
supports the Government's position that European integration offers the
best prospects for regional stability in the Western Balkans and is
therefore in favour of a clear European perspective for the countries
of the Western Balkans.—[Meg
Munn.]
5.39
pm
Mr.
Francois:
May I take this opportunity to welcome the
Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to her
place? I understand why she is here in lieu of the Minister for Europe,
who is clearly involved in important business. I can only imagine the
delight expressed by the Minister when she realised, probably at short
notice, that she would have to attend the debate this
afternoon.
Tony
Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): She was
thrilled.
Mr.
Francois:
I have no reason whatever to doubt that, but I
should like to press the Minister on a few matters that we touched on
in questions.
I thank
the European Scrutiny Committee for bringing the documents to our
attention. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and
Fulham for outlining their importance, and for giving us a brief
synopsis of today’s announcement by the EU General Affairs and
External Relations Council. We obviously need to debate that alongside
the reports in the bundle. Little did we know when the Government
postponed the Committee from the original scheduled date of 25 March
that the new date would be so timely. The Foreign Office has not always
had such wonderful powers of prediction, but it managed to schedule the
debate on exactly the date that an agreement was
signed.
The
documents consist of various EU reports that are produced annually on
the progress of the Balkan EU candidate states towards meeting the
EU’s Copenhagen criteria and eventually EU membership. They
include important reports on EU-Serbia relations, as well as one on the
special circumstances prevalent in Kosovo. However, as a general
observation, the detail of the reports demonstrates that after a
considerable length of time, various problems from communism to civil
strife and corruption still plague a number of states that wish to join
the EU, and they would still have to make considerable progress before
accession to the EU could be fully permitted.
Against that background, and
subject to concerns that I shall outline later, we welcome
today’s news that the EU has signed a stabilisation and
association agreement with Serbia, and the fact that technical
preparations are under way to sign a similar agreement with Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Our first concern about the signing of the SAA with Serbia
relates to conditionality—it cropped up again and again in
questions—and the desire to ensure that although we should keep
the door open to Serbian entry to the EU, the SAA should not allow
Serbia to benefit from co-operation with the EU without fulfilling its
obligations to the ICTY.
The Minister was pressed on that
issue repeatedly, and fell back on the defence that her hon. Friend the
Minister for Europe was in Luxembourg, so she did not have the
information that he has at the venue, as it were. However, I offer her
the thought that in this age of global communications, and given the
fact that the Foreign Office can theoretically communicate with anybody
around the world, it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office for
the two Ministers to speak on the telephone, if only for five or 10
minutes. I am pretty sure that they must have
conferred.
Meg
Munn
indicated dissent.
Mr.
Francois:
The Minister shakes her head, but I would be
rather surprised if they did not confer. It would seem perfectly
natural for the Minister sent to debate and inform the House on such
important matters to confer with the Minister who taking part in
negotiations. I believe the Under-Secretary: if she tells me that she
did not speak to the Minister for Europe, I shall take her entirely at
her word, but I am surprised that the two Ministers did not confer. If
they had done so, she might have been able to answer some of the
Committee’s questions. If they did not do so, her position
remains, as I understand it, that she will write to all members of the
Committee to detail what full compliance means. Will she give the
Committee a guarantee that when she provides that reply in writing, she
will specify whether full conditionality includes the production of
Karadzic and Mladic? She will have some time to draft the letter, so
perhaps she will assure us that that point will be
included.
Meg
Munn:
I answered that point during questions. As is clear,
full production is not always possible. We have set out that there
should be 100 per cent. commitment to the process, which will be judged
by the process that I outlined.
Mr.
Francois:
Everyone will have heard that. Bluntly, she
ducked it.
This
Committee is quite timely given the importance of the Serbian elections
scheduled for the 11 May and the way in which they might dictate
Serbia’s reaction to the newly independent Kosovo. Public
sentiment in Belgrade towards Kosovo’s declaration of
independence, and growing international recognition of that
declaration, is mixed, as most of us expected. On the one hand, some
people would like to turn the page and start a new life for Serbia
while resolutely looking towards a European future. It is important to
acknowledge that those forces are definitely at work in Serbia.
Unfortunately, on the other hand, a substantial body of opinion in
Serbia would like to be closer to Russia than to the European Union.
Between those two positions lies Serbia’s uncertain future and
that of its near
neighbourhood.
It
is in our interests that Serbian moderates, favouring continuing
European integration, should prevail both in the coming weeks in the
debate on Serbia’s response to Kosovo’s independence and
in the May elections. The EU must send a clear and consistent message
that the door to EU membership remains open to Serbia, if it meets the
conditions set for it, particularly on co-operation with the ICTY. It
is hoped that Serbia will take that fully on board over the next few
weeks.
I
shall turn to Bosnia, whose bid to sign an SAA agreement has been
hampered for months while the country’s leaders have debated how
to reform the two ethnically based police forces. So far that has
proved impossible, as Bosnian Serbs continue to wish for more
autonomy, even threatening, in certain circumstances, outright
secession, and Bosniaks and Croats remain committed to a unified state.
That condition of partial stalemate is deeply concerning. Thirteen
years after the Dayton peace agreement was signed, Bosnia and
Herzegovina’s transition is at a crucial point. On the one hand,
the country’s institutions have demonstrated that they have the
ability to take the necessary decisions that have opened the way to
signing the SAA, but on the other hand we have seen how quickly
political crises can flare up and bring the machinery of government to
an effective standstill. The most recent example of a debilitating
crisis followed the resolution adopted by the Republika Srpska national
assembly claiming that the entity had a right to secede from Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
The
Opposition remain concerned about challenges to the Dayton peace
agreement and suggestions from some quarters that the future of Bosnia
as a unified state is called into question by Kosovo’s
independence. We welcome, therefore, the unanimous decision of the
Peace Implementation Council’s steering board that the office of
the higher representative will remain in place and continue to carry
out its mandate under the Dayton peace agreement until the necessary
objectives and conditions set out in the PIC steering board’s
declaration are met. We hope that the opportunity now open to Bosnia
and Herzegovina to sign an SAA will help to make progress on those
matters as
well.
The
Kosovan Government have made positive gestures towards non-Albanian
minorities and are committed to protecting their rights. Those
developments are welcome, and we look to the leadership in Pristina to
fulfil its obligations under the Ahtisaari plan. The
Government’s main challenge is to pass laws, set up functioning
institutions and co-ordinate economic development and aid. The other
main challenge—it is important to reiterate this—is to
reach out to the minority, non-Albanian population.
Another of our concerns with the
accession process is a theme that comes through in a number of
reports—namely, the lack of progress by quite a few of the
countries concerned, which is reiterated by the European Scrutiny
Committee in its conclusions on page 11 of the
bundle:
“Hanging
over everything is the continuing inability of the different ethnic
groups to resolve their differences and work together, both within a
more-or-less established polity (such as Macedonia) or, more
worryingly, and despite all the EU and wider international
community’s best endeavours, within the uncertain polities of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Kosovo.”
That is a stark
conclusion, but the report is not entirely without hope, as it also
details many instances of progress—for instance, in the field of
anti-corruption in Albania and public administration in Macedonia. It
is notable that those two states already benefit from SAA agreements,
and it is therefore hoped that an SAA with Serbia and, eventually, with
Bosnia will, providing conditions are met, allow progress to be
made.
The reports also
show in detail that progress towards better standards in government is
not limited to aspiring EU states; it is a problem with states that are
already in the EU, such as, to some extent, Romania and Bulgaria. At
least a couple of Members have made that point this afternoon. On that
point, the European Scrutiny Committee states:
“Overall the picture in
these documents is sobering, with many of the same problems that
continue to dog Bulgaria and
Rumania in the areas of judicial reform, corruption and organised crime
undercutting and hampering what little progress has been
made.”
It is therefore
incumbent on the EU to continue to argue internally for higher
standards in administration and, indeed, to set a good record in
administration itself. There were all sorts of problems with the
EU’s administration, but I shall not go down that route, much as
I should like to, because I am sure that you would call me quickly to
order, Mr. Wilshire.
If I heard my hon. Friend the
Member for Hammersmith and Fulham correctly, he mentioned comments to
that effect by Olli Rehn. On 26 April, the Charlemagne column in The
Economist said:
“It is often said that
the EU’s enlargement policy has been the most potent tool yet
devised to entice its neighbours along the road to free market
democracy.... But the corollary is a loss of influence after a country
actually joins. The pattern of intensive reform to qualify, followed by
a let up in the process once membership is achieved, is too common to
be mere happenstance.”
The
Committee must acknowledge, in fairness to those countries whose
accession reports we have pronounced upon this afternoon, that they
need to make progress, but so do some countries that are already in the
European Union. They, too, need to make further progress in some
areas.
Jo
Swinson:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the
problem is the fact that in the run-up to accession, a range of
international, EU and World Bank agencies operate intensive programmes
to improve the infrastructure and the political and judicial systems in
those countries, but that when accession takes place, that all suddenly
moves to the next accession country? That is one reason why progress
levels off, and why, in some cases, we do not see the progress that we
would like.
Mr.
Francois:
The hon. Lady makes a pertinent point. I am
trying to stress the fact that, although we may comment on the progress
of aspirant countries, we must confess that countries within the EU are
not without problems. It is only fair to acknowledge that when we ask
other people to try harder, because there is a point at which they
could ask us to remove the plank from our eye.
In conclusion—words that
always bring a smile to the face of the Government
Whip—
The
Chairman:
And the Chairman.
Mr.
Francois:
The reports provide a substantial amount of
detail about the progress of the accession process in the Balkans, and
we should thank the European Scrutiny Committee for the opportunity to
discuss that. We must also thank that Committee for the opportunity to
discus the developments today at the European Council, in particular
the signing of the SAA with Serbia. Overall, the picture is mixed:
there are many examples of progress in states such as Albania and
Macedonia where the signing of a stabilisation and association
agreement has led to the will to adopt European norms, and there is
hope that a similar picture could develop in Serbia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina over time.
However, the region is still
overshadowed by the slow progress in the building-up of institutions in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and by the uncertainty regarding Kosovo and
Serbia. The Serbian elections on 11 May will be crucial to the
development of Serbian relations with the EU. We all wish to see a
Serbia that is outward-looking, on the road to EU accession and in full
compliance with its obligations to the ICTY. It is important to hold
out the prospect of EU membership to Serbia while stressing absolutely
clearly that the ICTY requirements must be met. It is hoped that the
signing of the SAA with Serbia will bring the process forward,
ultimately to a successful
conclusion.
5.54
pm
Jo
Swinson:
We have had an interesting debate. I agree with
those who said that the standard of discussion in the debate was
improved by the addition of members of the European Scrutiny Committee.
The Balkans is obviously a very troubled region and has a history going
back centuries that proves that. There are many rapidly moving
developments, which is why the hon. Member for Rayleigh said that the
debate was timely. I differ with him slightly. I agree that the debate
is topical but think that it would have been somewhat more timely had
it been in advance of some recent developments, such as the signing
today of the SAA.
There is probably great
consensus among the different individuals and parties represented here.
Most, if not all hon. Members, want to see these countries become
strong EU members, with their domestic institutions achieving the
various criteria to qualify for accession to the EU and then, within
the bounds of that organisation, have a stable and prosperous future.
The EU is the best vehicle for them to achieve that. However, opinions
differ on the best way to achieve that ultimate
goal.
Mr.
Cash:
It does not necessarily follow that because the
European Scrutiny Committee has recommended a document for debate, that
all members of the Committee are necessarily in favour of the
underlying questions that lie at the heart of these documents. I for
one am not in favour of recognising Kosovo.
Jo
Swinson:
I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s
comments. That is why I said, “most, if not all hon.
Members”. I think that it is most hon. Members and not all, as
he has confirmed. None the less he has made interesting contributions
to the debate
today.
The six
countries face many common challenges with which they will have to deal
if they are to join the EU. Corruption has caused problems in that part
of the world. Slightly further north, Romania and Bulgaria have already
joined the EU. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that the
problem of corruption had been totally ironed out in those countries,
but steps have been made in that direction.
I was interested to hear the
Minister say that a different process was in place for those countries
to tackle the issue. I hope that lessons will have been learned from
the experience with Romania and Bulgaria on how to improve and manage
the process. Corruption is a scourge of societies because nothing
can happen without a backhander here or a bribe there to the extent that
it is worked into the costs of doing business. It is certainly a
challenge that needs to be overcome.
Again, because of the special
status of those countries, there is a common theme of the protection of
minorities and how to ensure that the different ethnic groups can get
along and live side by side in peace. That is made all the more
difficult given the recent history of atrocities across the region. The
experiences of such atrocities are still fresh in people’s
minds, which is made worse by the outstanding tribunals of the various
war criminals who have still not been apprehended. Managing to get to a
stage in which people such as Karadzic and Mladic are put on trial
should help to achieve some sense of closure in the region and act as a
catalyst to improve the situation within those countries and enable
them to foster better
relations.
5.58
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
6.13
pm
On
resuming—
Jo
Swinson:
Some of the key challenges that those countries
face include corruption, the protection of minorities and the war
crimes issue. On top of those challenges, many of them are also having
to deal with basic development issues, such as improving their
infrastructure and the logistics for better roads and transport and
dealing with energy and electricity supplies, which is particularly
topical at the moment because of world oil prices. Indeed, they have to
deal with generally developing their economies. Some countries are
obviously further ahead than others in addressing those issues and some
have better resources with which to build vibrant economies than
others.
Across the six
countries, there is quite a range of levels in respect of where they
are in addressing those challenges. Macedonia is probably the furthest
ahead—it is already a candidate country—and there is
reason for a lot of optimism, although, as the hon. Member for
North-East Bedfordshire mentioned, the outstanding issue with Greece
relating to the name needs to be resolved. Sadly, that has already held
it back from the invitation to join NATO that was extended to Albania
and Croatia just a few weeks ago. That issue obviously needs to be
resolved between Greece and Macedonia, but we hope that both sides will
be able to get round the table and find a way through, as I think that
the FYROM name is probably not likely to be particularly enjoyed or
welcomed by the Macedonian people. Equally, it does not exactly trip
off the
tongue.
Montenegro has
signed its SAA. The reports outline the further progress needed,
although Montenegro is comparatively fairly on course. Albania has also
signed an SAA, but the situation looks less constant, as the political
parties are dragging their heels and infighting. We have heard that
that country in particular has a lot of problems with organised crime
and corruption to face.
The big three on which
today’s debate understandably focuses are Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo. Considering the scale of the war in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, that country’s struggle is huge and
uphill, but it made good progress in the initial years after the war.
It is therefore particularly disappointing and tragic that in the past
couple of years, that seems to have stalled. In many ways, the country
is going backwards. There have been problems with police institutions
breaking down completely, and there are still issues of compliance with
the war crimes tribunal.
It is important that Bosnia is
not overlooked amid the rapid developments in Kosovo. The FCO
says:
“Kosovo’s
unresolved status dominates the political landscape”,
but the development of Bosnia and
Herzegovina is also incredibly important for the long-term stability
and security of the region, so we must ensure that it is kept high on
the agenda. It is, of course, welcome that its SAA might be signed
shortly and that some progress might be made on the police following
the agreement a couple of weeks
ago.
Kosovo
is also incredibly topical, given the announcement today by the
Secretary of State for Defence that 600 troops will go there. Although
we should be happy to maintain our role and responsibilities in helping
that country, it will leave our army stretched to its limits. Last
summer, General Sir Richard Dannatt said that the possibility of
reinforcements for emergencies was already almost non-existent. We need
to recognise the strain on our armed forces and consider carefully
whether any extension will be required after the end of June, as the
Army is not necessarily in a position to meet all its current
commitments without
suffering.
The date 15
June will be significant, as the constitution is due to come into
effect then. That is why it is important that equivalent and required
troop numbers should be there to ensure that there is an opportunity to
deal with any negative response at that flashpoint. What is concerning
about Kosovo and offers less scope for optimism than even a few weeks
ago is the increasing uncertainty about what will happen with the UN.
We expected a fairly seamless handover from the UN to the EU, but that
now seems in doubt. The EU mission has been pushed back, and the UN
says that it will have to stay. Maybe some solution can be worked out
that might even be better, but it is important that that uncertainty is
resolved.
There is also
the issue of Serbia, which is particularly topical, as the SAA has been
signed today. It was a creative idea for the Netherlands and Belgium to
sign the agreement and immediately suspend it. It was a way to get
around the problem of how to send the Serbian people a strong message
that we want Serbia to be part of the EU while holding a firm line on
the issue of war criminals. Confusion has arisen in today’s
debate about whether that agreement has actually been suspended,
whether the Serbs will be able to accede to the EU if the war criminals
are not handed over and what the exact definition of full co-operation
is. It has muddied the waters somewhat. Clarity is vital. We must hold
the door open for future EU membership for Serbia. That message must be
clear, but the EU must equally be firm. Countries cannot be EU members
if they are not
willing to conform to the basic principles of upholding justice. That
includes ensuring that war crimes are tried appropriately. It is
vital.
There is one
issue that might be the elephant in the room, although we have not come
to it yet—the accession of Serbia and Kosovo, and how it will
ever be possible under the current circumstances for one or the other
of them to be an EU member. If Serbia acceded first, would that not act
as a veto on Kosovo ever entering the EU? No doubt a solution will have
to be found to that thorny issue. The ideal scenario is both of them,
as members of the EU, working as constructive neighbours. That is
somewhat difficult to envisage at the moment, but I am sure that in the
future we can work towards that
objective.
Mr.
Cash:
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is by no means
certain that the people of Serbia want to be in the European Union and
does that not undermine some of the arguments that she is advancing?
She is making a bit of an assumption that that is what they
want.
Jo
Swinson:
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I
have not seen evidence from opinion polls in Serbia, but obviously
Serbia needs to make a choice. Some analysts would say that it might be
weighing up the possibility of being close to Russia, but if we
consider the places that young Serbian people want to obtain visas
for—where they want to work and visit—we see that there
are many reasons to suspect that their future lies with Europe. If we
examine the situation rationally, that seems to be a more sensible
option for Serbia. Obviously, Serbia will not accede to the EU if the
Serbian people do not want to do so. That will be a key issue for
debate in the elections on 11
May.
Mr.
Cash:
Unless they are pushed into it, of
course.
Jo
Swinson:
I believe that it is up to the citizens of a
country to decide their future in the manner that I have described and
I am sure that they will do
so.
I congratulate the
European Scrutiny Committee on bringing the issue before the European
Committee and on the contributions that those of its members who are
present have made to the debate. The ESC describes the reports before
us as “unhappy progress reports” and although I think
that there are some chinks of light, I agree that, overall, the outlook
is still fairly
disappointing.
I very
much appreciate the Minister’s efforts to give us answers
today—I know that this issue is not usually part of her brief.
She mentioned before the debate started that it is a shame that the
Minister for Europe is in Luxembourg rather than Brussels, or he could
have brought back some lovely Belgian chocolates. I suggest that he
owes her a big box of lovely chocolates for leaving her with that task
today. I hope that we can look forward to further information. I am
sure that the Minister will write to members of the Committee to answer
some of the unanswered
questions.
This is a
fast-moving situation and I am sure that we will return to it in many
debates. The EU approach of almost having different policies for each
country and considering them in isolation needs to be reassessed
because it has not necessarily proved a great success. We have seen
Serbian radicals possibly gaining popularity, Bosnia going backwards
and Kosovo facing an increasingly uncertain future. We need a coherent
regional approach to deal with those issues because they will be
crucial to the security and stability of
Europe.
Several
hon. Members
rose
—
The
Chairman:
Order. I inform the Committee that we will now
finish at 7.15 pm, assuming that there is not another Division. I would
like to call the Minister at 7 pm, and four hon. Members are trying to
catch my eye. If they bear that in mind, everybody who wants to should
be able to
speak.
Ann
McKechin:
I would like to give the Committee an indication
of the consequences of a meeting that I had in Pristina and Kosovo and
in Belgrade and Serbia last week as part of the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly. I was accompanied, along with parliamentarians from other
countries in NATO, by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and
Penistone (Mr. Clapham)—who chairs the committee on
the civil dimension of security at the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly—and also, when we visited Serbia, by the right hon.
Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John
Stanley).
It was clear
from the wide range of people whom we met on our visit—including
the Speakers and Deputy Speakers in both Assemblies, representatives of
non-governmental organisations and armed forces, senior civil servants
and representatives of the international community—that the
situation is very fragile. The results of the elections that are due to
be held in Serbia on 11 May are uncertain. The decision made by the
European Union is very welcome, because all the voices of moderation
that we heard, particularly in Serbia, told us that there was a very
strong case for the EU to indicate its support today for the
stabilisation and association agreement if they were to ensure victory
over the radicals, whose support has increased, particularly since the
unilateral declaration by Kosovo of its independence in
February.
The hon.
Member for Stone asked about the level of support for the EU in Serbia.
At the moment, it is pretty high. Around two-thirds of people polled
recently indicated support for that process. But given that the
atmosphere is much more fevered during the current election period,
support has begun to drop, so it is important for those who are
moderate in Serbia to hear a clear voice on the European
Union.
Mr.
Cash:
I am in no better position; in fact, I am not in as
good a position as the hon. Lady, as she has just come back. Today a
BBC report
states:
“Polls
currently predict a narrow victory for the
nationalists.”
Ann
McKechin:
The hon. Gentleman confirms the story that we
were told last week: the margin could be very close in the coming
elections. That is why today’s announcement by the European
Union is important.
Accompanying us on the visit was
the chair of the Netherlands foreign affairs select committee, who was
a member of the governing party. He was closely
followed during our visit to Serbia and was met by a number of senior
officials and parliamentarians, which was indicative of how willing the
Serbian Government are to provide assurances to countries, such as the
Netherlands. Because of the experience those countries have of Serbia
and the haunting case of Srebrenica, which is still a political issue
in the Netherlands, the Serbs wanted to assure them that, certainly
among the moderate side, there would be full co-operation with the ICTY
process.
We have had a
debate about what full co-operation means. If we consider any other
principle involving the evolution of an international criminal court,
it is not guaranteed that suspects will be delivered. We cannot
anticipate every set of circumstances. For example, if the suspects
should suddenly pop up in the jurisdiction of another state, clearly
the countries concerned could not be held responsible for the delivery
of suspects to an international court. That is not to say that the
Serbian Government do not have a serious responsibility. We spoke to a
significant number of players within Serbia, including the head of the
Serbian armed forces, and we were continually assured that there was a
genuine desire to co-operate with the tribunal.
In the current
atmosphere of the elections and with the release of the former Kosovan
Prime Minister, it can only be described as very worrying that three of
the witnesses who were designated for a trial at the international
tribunal were killed before the trial proceeded. That hardly increases
confidence within the Serbian population about the objectivity of the
international tribunal process. Everyone in the international community
needs to look hard and closely at how the tribunal has acted and to ask
some probing questions about whether the process of prosecution and the
message that is sent to citizens in countries hundreds of miles away
assists the process of reconciliation, which will be a long process
between citizens in Serbia and in Kosovo itself. That is why the result
of the elections in May is crucial and why the European Union has a
large part to play in ensuring that the many regional difficulties that
afflict the western Balkans are adequately addressed.
The hon.
Member for Orpington asked about human trafficking in the western
Balkans. When we visited the Serbian armed forces, they were taking
part in an international exchange of armed forces throughout the
European Union and with NATO forces, led by a Danish commander, in
relation to the issue of human trafficking. The course was led by a
member of a Serbian non-governmental organisation that has concerns
about human trafficking. We certainly got the distinct impression that
that matter was being taken seriously, at least by the armed
forces.
As I have said,
many of the problems in the area are regional in nature, such as
organised crime, the economy and the long-term stability of the area.
That is why EU accession represents a clear route for people to aim
for, and why it is so important that we support
it.
Obviously, as the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, we were there also to examine the issue of
NATO accession. Usually, the pattern has been that countries have first
acceded to NATO and then applied to the EU. That has been seen, and
continues to be the
pattern seen by a number of countries in the eastern European area as
the route to the EU. Given the history of Serbia, it may well work the
opposite way round there. Understandably, support for NATO accession is
at a much lower level, although people have pointed out that it is no
lower than in countries such as Bosnia and Croatia. It is more than
likely that, for Serbia, the issue of European accession will remain
the dominant international focus in the years to come. That is why this
week’s decision is important, as I have said. All the players in
the international community need to ensure that dialogue between all
sides is retained.
We
do not detect any desire for a return to armed conflict, despite the
rhetoric of the radicals in Serbia. If they are allowed to gain the
advantage and start to dominate the dialogue in Serbia, we may be in a
different position a year from now. That is why I mentioned visas
earlier. Time and time again when we were in Serbia, people pleaded
with us to reconsider the position of visas. Serbia is filled with
young people and has a young population. Very few of them have had the
opportunity to travel anywhere in the EU, because the cost of visas is
prohibitive, and the process is long, complex and difficult.
As a result, people’s
views of the EU countries are unfortunately limited, and that is why
they are more prone to listen to what the radicals say. It is
simplistic and seems to offer simple solutions in a country faced with
mass unemployment and economic decline, in a region that has faced a
difficult political period in the past 10 years. I ask the Government
to consider visas closely. I know that people in the EU will talk about
the danger of people coming over and staying, and not going back when
their visa ends. However, given that Serbia is a country with a
population of about 6 million or 7 million, the advantages
for the whole EU well exceed the relative risks in this instance. We
could go a long way towards changing opinions and the dialogue in
Serbia and towards allowing the moderate voices to gain ground on the
radical ones, for which support has unfortunately increased in recent
weeks.
6.33
pm
Mr.
Hands:
May I start by saying thank you on behalf of the
European Scrutiny Committee, especially those members of it who are
here today—the hon. Member for Chorley, my hon. Friend the
Member for Stone and the right hon. Member for Streatham? Seeing the
operation of this Committee today has helped our reformed European
scrutiny arrangements and
procedures.
I speak as
a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, but also as somebody who
has spent a great deal of time in each of the countries in question
over the past 15 years. In general, I am very much in favour them all
joining the EU when the time is right and when the conditions that we
have set out have properly been met. As I have mentioned, the Committee
recently visited Macedonia, where we were impressed by the Government,
led by Nikola Gruevski, and others. We were perhaps less impressed by
some of the parliamentary processes, but that country is nevertheless
making considerable
progress.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Stone said that our Committee did not necessarily
speak with one voice,
and that is certainly true about the independence of Kosovo. I happen to
be in favour of it, and I know that he is against it for reasons that I
am sure he has set out
before.
Albania is
making a great deal of progress away from a time when it was the
darkest country in Europe, given what was happening under the Hoxha
regime until 1985. Ironically, probably the first foreign policy
venture of the Chinese Government was to team up with Albania. It was
Hoxha who coined the memorable slogan when he said, as a way of
justifying his alliance, that together Albania and China were 800
million people. Albania was the only country in the world that was
allied with China at the time of the cultural revolution.
On the subject of Serbia, I
believe that it is a great European country that must be in the EU.
Belgrade these days is one of the most vibrant European capitals.
Again, the conditions are vital. The Serbian Society of Great Britain
happens to be located in my constituency and the Serb communities in
Great Britain play an active role.
There has been very disparate
questioning on a number of fronts, but I found a few of the answers a
little worrying, especially given the context in which the European
Scrutiny Committee had earmarked these documents for discussion. Olli
Rehn said that
“after a
country has a seat round the table it is much harder to apply pressure
to it.”
That is something
that the European Security Committee takes very seriously. When we look
at the accession process we are very mindful of the fact there is a lot
more leeway and leverage before entry than after it. We are already
deeply concerned at the apparent weakening of a lot of the conditions
on Serb membership, in particular in relation to war crimes and the
ICTY.
Among all the
confusion as to exactly what was signed today, whether it is taking
effect, whether it has been suspended and what the text of the
agreements themselves are, I was not given any reassurance that we are
any closer, thanks to what has happened today, to seeing justice done
for victims in Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s. We mentioned as a
Committee that we are worried by the precedents of Bulgaria and Romania
possibly having been admitted a little bit too early on a number of
fronts. We share some of those concerns with some of the current
possible entrants.
A
clear condition on Serbian entry, outlined by the Government as
recently as February in their letter to the Committee, was
that
“the political
process must move forward in Serbia in a way that upholds ICTY
conditionality and ensures that this remains embedded in the accession
process.”
I have been
given no real reassurance that that has been embedded as a result of
today. In fact, I would say the opposite is probably true, looking at
the reaction of the Serbian Foreign Ministry. The Serbian Foreign
Ministry is able to tell the people of Serbia that 90 per cent. of the
agreement is already in place, despite everything, and proclaiming it a
great victory. That seems something that will probably set back the
delivery of war criminals in the coming years, which is extremely
concerning.
I have not been at all reassured
by what the Minister has told us about what happened today. It
reinforces the Committee’s original concerns. A desire to
compensate Serbia for its opposition to the EU’s recent action
in Kosovo is leading to an undermining of the conditionality, through
the offer of an arrangement that would provide the benefits of an SAA,
without what has hitherto been a crucial precondition being met. This
may have adverse implications for the accession of other countries in
the western Balkans and, indeed, looking further afield, for countries
such as Turkey. I have not been at all reassured but it has been
helpful to us as a Committee to see these important questions being
discussed in this
way.
6.39
pm
Alistair
Burt:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Wilshire. I shall do my best to be brief as I appreciate
that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone also wants to speak. I have
been a regular visitor to this area of the Balkans since 2001, when I
met Boris Trajkovski, the former president of Macedonia who was
tragically killed in an air accident some years ago. Since then I have
visited Albania, Serbia and Macedonia a number of times. I shall
confine my remarks mostly to Macedonia and express my strong support
for that country and the efforts it is making towards European
accession.
The first
point I would like to make is one that has been made by one or two
Members, and that is the immense importance of the EU to these
countries. Conversations with members of political parties of all sorts
and members of the public in these places make it clear that our
sometimes sceptical perspective on the European Union, when seen from
the British Isles, is considered differently over there. With their
history of conflict and in many cases occupation, their perspective of
Europe and what has happened to them over generations is somewhat
different to ours. Consequently, the opportunity of being part of the
European Union and everything that means for stability and democracy is
a prize that they do not consider lightly.
We must have that point at the
back of our minds when considering the approach to the European Union
in these cases. It reminds us that whatever trials and tribulations the
European Union may go through, and whatever the need for
reform—there is a need for reform and I strongly support
it—the basics of the European Union and its impact on democracy
throughout the constituent countries of Europe is immensely important
and sometimes dwarfs some of the other things that concern
us.
My colleagues have
spoken well about the relationship with Serbia and the importance of
getting the initial agreements right. In our desire to see the
enlargement of the European Union for some of the reasons that I have
stated, there is a danger of making agreements in haste and because we
want things to happen, rather than exercising our critical scrutiny and
being sure of what might happen. Colleagues who referred to the
concerns about war criminals, and the need to keep the pressure up on
Serbia on that, were absolutely correct to do so. I would also be
concerned if the Government were complicit in any way, particularly
unknowingly, to anything that might to lead to the
wrong conclusion. The outcome of the Serbian election is significant. In
this country, we want those returned to have an open mind and an open
relationship with the future of the European Union, rather than have a
nationalist result. We hope that that will be the case, but it is
important that the right signals are sent by the European Union in its
negotiations.
I commend
the overall progress in Albania, but the particular concerns in
relation to trafficking should be uppermost in our minds. Sadly, the
destination of so many of those women from eastern Europe tends to be
here. We have a particular interest above many other European Union
countries in ensuring that that trade is ruthlessly stamped out, and
that everything that can be done in constituent countries to deal with
it is done during the process of accession.
I shall
briefly make some remarks in relation to Macedonia. My hon. Friend the
Member for Hammersmith and Fulham referred to parliamentary issues,
which are covered in pages 191 and 192 in the bundle of documents. I
attended a conference at Wilton Park in January this year, along with
the hon. Member for Selby. Under the auspices of Wilton Park and with
the support of Westminster Foundation for Democracy, a large group of
parliamentarians were over to try to resolve some of the issues that
had emerged from their own internal discussions—some of them are
highlighted in the documents—and to overcome some of the
problems they have with their parliamentary procedures. What was
evident was their thirst for democracy and their absolute determination
to build a degree of independence into their parliamentary processes.
Macedonia is a young democracy, but they know that they need resources
for research and to establish their independent credibility, so that
they are not just a creature of government or a creature of their own
political parties. Their determination to work that through was
significant.
I had the
pleasure of addressing the Macedonian Parliament in October 2006, under
the new democratic initiative supported by the Westminster Foundation
for Democracy. Again, the importance that Macedonian parliamentarians
attached to the process of accession and overcoming the difficulties
that they know they face in a variety of ways was both touching and
encouraging. I urge the Government and the respective foundations that
are working on democratic progress in Macedonia to continue those
efforts, and to work closely with those dealing with parliamentary
reform and those promoting the strength of various internal committees.
In time, they will make an exceedingly valuable contribution to the
process that the Government are going through.
Secondly, I
want to refer briefly to the problems related to NATO and the name
issue. It was a profound shock to people in Macedonia that their
application to join NATO was vetoed. The dispute with Greece is long
lasting, and it is not for us to come up with the solution. However,
when a long-lasting historical wrangle over an issue such as a name
gets in the way of the progress of countries joining multinational
organisations such as NATO, or potentially the EU, the matter has gone
too far. The issue is causing real difficulties and upset in the
region. I was reassured by the Minister’s response to my
question stating that this should not have an impact on
EU accession, but I am not sure that I would bet on that at present. As
we progress, we must be clear about the determination of the EU
Parliament, which voted on Macedonian accession on Wednesday 23 April
and called on both sides to resolve the issue. It is something that we
should take exceptionally seriously, and the British Government should
strongly support that. Just as accession to the EU was a matter of
common currency among parliamentarians and people in Macedonia, so was
NATO membership. The veto caused particular disappointment, and I hope
that the process has not come to an end.
Last, I will mention Kosovo. The
response of the Macedonian Government to the issues in Kosovo has been
mature and extraordinarily helpful to the process. It is difficult for
people in Macedonia; about 20 per cent. of the population are ethnic
Albanian and, as we know, they have had issues in the past. However,
the Macedonian Government have played this very well and carefully, and
should be commended for the work that they do with the Albanian
Government and others to ensure that nothing untoward is said and that
the fragile stability in the area is not made more difficult by
pressure from Macedonia or Albania, bearing in mind Serbian
reaction.
That is all
I wanted to say. I am very fond of Macedonia; it has a tremendous
future as a country and we should pay as much attention to it as we
can. The Government of Nikola Gruevski and his colleagues are doing
well, and they have their own elections coming up shortly. I strongly
support the efforts being made for accession, and I hope that the
difficulties set out in the report will be overcome as time goes
on.
6.47
pm
Mr.
Cash:
I am glad to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Wilshire. For a long time, and more recently in a
Westminster Hall debate, I have expressed my concern about the question
of the recognition of Kosovo. In the course of my questions to the
Minister, I asked as a starting point, a question about the legal base
on which the arrangements have been entered into. From the documents
that I have here, I am told that article 310 provides for the
stabilisation agreement and so on. I looked at what it says—and
it is often the case that people do not look—and I simply quote
from article 310, which is the legal basis of the agreement:
“The community may
conclude with one or more states or international organisations
agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and
obligations, common action and special
procedures.”
Article 300
provides for certain letters to be concluded where the treaty provides
for the conclusion agreement, so it all turns on article 310. The mere
recognition of Kosovo by a number of states in international law is not
adequate in itself. With some disappointment, I must say that—I
have said this already in a Westminster Hall debate, and I am sure that
my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh will understand—that my
own party agreed, rather precipitately I thought, to recognise the
so-called state of Kosovo. I say that because, among other things, we
heard reference to UN resolution 1244. Although the Minister may well
be right—I will check it as I am sure she will—that,
apparently under some pressure, eight out of 15 states
now appear to have recognised Kosovo, the UN resolution itself is
subject to extremely vigorous, and in my view highly principled,
concern. To paraphrase a statement from another age, some would argue
that it is a region of which we know much. It is important to remember
that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, North said, it is a very fragile
state and situation. I also mentioned today’s recent
polls.
6.50
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the House.
7.5
pm
On
resuming—
Mr.
Cash:
I was talking about the polls that were mentioned
today by the BBC in its report entitled “Crisis looms over
Kosovo’s future”. It said:
“If the nationalists,
including the Serbian Radical Party, form the next government, defiance
of the EU missions in Kosovo could intensify. Polls currently predict a
narrow victory for the
nationalists.”
I ought to
say straightaway that, as I said in the recent debate in Westminster
Hall, I am not in the slightest bit interested in advocating one
particular viewpoint in the argument between those in Serbia who do not
want Kosovo recognised and those who do. My concern is a practical. I
do not believe matters will work. I recall the historical problems of
the region hundreds of years ago. Some would say that they go back to
Roman times. It may seem rather strange to describe them by such a
broad sweep in history, but we have only to read Gibbon to understand
that what is happening is not all that different from what was going on
over the many centuries to which I have referred. It is therefore
imprudent precipitately to make arrangements for the recognition of
Kosovo, because we do not know what the outcome will be. Furthermore,
the opinion polls in Serbia are predicting a narrow victory for those
who are against the recognition of
Kosovo.
I
am reading documents, one of which is entitled “Western Balkans:
Enhancing the European perspective”. If the European Union were
to become the kind of European Union that I wish for, which is an
association of nation states and, in the words of Winston Churchill,
“associated but not absorbed”, we could arrive at a
reasonable accommodation with other countries. However, as I have
already said, it has in a way that seems ultra vires, with a huge
amount of our taxpayers’ money behind it, agreed that it will
recognise Kosovo. According again to today’s BBC report, there
is a major headache ahead for the EU because the head of the United
Nations mission in Kosovo, Mr. Ruecker, has confirmed that
he thinks he will have to stay there longer than expected. Referring to
the 2,000-strong EULEX, to which I have referred in a question to the
Minister, which has already begun to be deployed without sufficient and
adequate legal authority, Mr. Ruecker
said:
“We do
take note of the fact that Eulex is coming in...and in principle
we do not want to duplicate...But whether and how there can be
co-operation with Eulex remains to be
decided.”
As I pointed out
earlier, that represents a serious problem for the European Union
because, even on its own terms, it is expected to inherit a fleet of
about 400 UNMIK police vehicles plus headquarters. The extra cost of
buying and building a mission from scratch
could be as much as £78 million. That may be peanuts to the
European Union, but I regard it as a bad
omen.
I am not
criticising the Minister as I gather that she was planted with this job
only today, but the EULEX deployment deadline—which she did not
mention, although she might not have known about it—has already
been put back to August, and apparently informed speculation in
Pristina is that October is more realistic. All I can say is that that
demonstrates deep divisions within the international community about
Kosovo’s independence and that there is great uncertainty and
concern in Serbia, not to mention
Kosovo.
There is a
further question about whether the constitution will in fact become
reality, because it was supposed to come into effect on 15 June and, as
we know, was based on envoy Martti Ahtisaari’s proposals. The
bottom line is that there are serious doubts about the whole situation
to which we have committed ourselves and which I believe to be
extremely precipitous and
dangerous.
The
Commission’s communication to the European Parliament and
Council, “Enhancing the European perspective”, which came
out very recently,
states:
“Public
opinion in the Western Balkans is largely favourable to EU
integration.”
That is
just not the case with Serbia and Kosovo for a start. It also
states:
“All
governments have committed themselves to this objective and are
implementing
reforms.”
That is highly
dubious. It
continues:
“However,
societies remain divided on a number of key
issues”
including
constitutional reform and the
“integration of different
communities”—
one
can say that
again—
“Further
efforts are needed to achieve
consensus”
and
“to avoid harmful displays of
nationalism”.
If
decisions taken in an election are described as a harmful display of
nationalism, I seriously worry about the way in which the documents are
put together. After all, they discuss the prospect of elections, and if
it is a harmful display of nationalism to say, in line with UN Security
Council resolution 1244, which I shall mention in a moment, that it is
inappropriate to recognise Kosovo, that is not nationalistic; it is the
rule of law.
One of my
main points is that it is extremely dangerous, imprudent and unwise to
recognise on the basis of a purported rule of law something that cannot
be substantiated as a matter of law in either international or European
law. That is an unwise move, and smacks of de facto annexation. That is
what it boils down to. When I say “annexation” I mean
annexation to within the European framework. The object of the exercise
is to integrate Kosovo as well as Serbia into the European Union. One
cannot force Serbia in, but by recognising Kosovo on the terms
described, one is effectively creating a situation that I regard as a
form of Euro-colonialism. That is extremely unwise, particularly given
the history of the region.
Mr.
Hoyle:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting buy one, get one
free?
Mr.
Cash:
No. The object of the exercise is to ensure that on
one hand Serbia becomes part of the European Union, which is what we
heard from the Minister and the Liberal Democrat shadow Minister; if
one is going to try to recognise Kosovo as well as Serbia and integrate
them into the European Union, I would say that that is extremely
dangerous against the background of the known fragility of the region
and the opinion polling that we are observing. I would not simply go
down the route of opinion polls, but it is precipitous and unwise. For
example, one could look at what United Nations resolution 1244 of 1999
actually says. It is important to put this on the record: it confirms
without any question the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Serbia. Article 7 requests all countries to respect Serbia’s
borders. When that resolution was entered into, there was absolutely no
doubt whatever that it included Kosovo. I cannot see how any argument
could be put forward to suggest that the independence of Kosovo can be
recognised in relation to the resolution.
I should also point out that the
situation is not by any means resolved, even if it is 10 countries
against independence and five for or, as the Minister says, eight out
of 15. I am bound to say that, as I understand it, in the past 10 years
or so, 7,700 acts of violence have been committed on minorities in
Kosovo, mainly on Serbs; 1,248 non-Albanians have been killed and many
more have been kidnapped and are now presumed dead; of 158,000 Serbs
officially recognised by United Nations bodies as ethnically cleansed,
fewer than 5,800 have returned to their homes in Kosovo; there are
apparently no-go areas in parts of Kosovo; Serbs live in ghettos; 151
spiritual and cultural monuments have been destroyed and, instead, 213
mosques have been built with money, I am told, from Saudi Arabia; 80
per cent. of the graveyards have been destroyed or desecrated; and the
Albanians apparently have turned Christian graveyards into car parks. I
do not regard that as consistent with the arguments from the European
Commission—
The
Chairman:
Order. I do not have the authority to stop the
hon. Gentleman speaking, but I would like give the Minister adequate
time—I said from quarter of an hour from the end—so I
would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman could help me
out.
Mr.
Cash:
I would be delighted to do so—I have said
quite enough. My concern is that this is a fragile situation and it is
precipitate—
[Interruption.] The sniggering from the
Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for
Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush, is unwise. We could easily be
facing an extremely dangerous situation in the region, and we will be
involved. The Minister made a statement today to say that a battalion
of British soldiers is about to go out. The situation is an impending
disaster and, in the words of the BBC, a crisis looms over
Kosovo.
7.17
pm
Meg
Munn:
I thank members of the Committee who have taken part
in the debate. We had the opportunity to look in detail at the issues
and, as I stated, I will provide in writing those specific details that
I was unable to provide to hon. Members today.
We have heard
some interesting speeches. I particularly compliment my hon. Friend the
Member for Glasgow, North and the hon. Member for North-East
Bedfordshire on thoughtful and illuminating contributions. It is clear
that most of us support a European perspective for the western Balkans
and agree that that is important for the future stability of the
region. Key to that is Kosovo’s stability.
Kosovo’s independence
brings a long-awaited certainty and permanence to its identity, marking
an end to nearly nine years of political and economic limbo. Her
leaders have shown maturity and resolve as they begin to build their
new state. The UK will do its utmost to ensure that that progress is
sustained. We recognise how difficult Kosovo’s independence is
for Serbia, but we firmly believe that resolving the issue is in the
long-term interests of the region. Serbia has some difficult choices to
make in the coming months. It is for Serbia’s voters to decide
at the election on 11 May, but we want to see it move towards
Europe.
EU enlargement
enjoys support on both sides of the House. It benefits the citizens not
only of new member states, but those of the older member states. A
bigger EU means more markets to trade with, more consumers to whom we
can sell and more destinations to which we can travel easily, confident
that our rights will be respected. To keep enlargement as a win-win for
the rest of the Balkans and for Turkey, we need to be sure that the
candidates comply with accession processes, and that reforms are made
and properly implemented. The progress reports that we have examined
today provide evidence that, under the current arrangements,
enlargement is above all well managed. I commend the reports to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 14999/07,
15001/07, 14995/07, 14993/07, 14996/07, 14997/07, progress reports on
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and
Serbia, No. 15616/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Council Decisions on
the signing and on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement between the European Communities and its Member States and
the Republic of Serbia, No. 15690/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Council
Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement
on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and
the Republic of Serbia, and unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 15
February 2008, Interim Political Agreement on Co-operation between the
European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Serbia; and
supports the Government's position that European integration offers the
best prospects for regional stability in the Western Balkans and is
therefore in favour of a clear European perspective for the countries
of the Western
Balkans.
Committee
rose at twenty minutes past Seven
o’clock.
