|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): I welcome the Governments finding time for this debate, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), I regret the fact that only three Labour Back Benchersmy hon. Friend is here in his capacity as the distinguished Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committeeone distinguished Conservative Back Bencher and three Front-Bench spokespersons are here. That puts into perspective the gap between some of the hysteria about Europe that we read in the anti-European right-wing press and the actual state of public debate on and awareness of Europe.
In a sense, there is some reality in that position, because, at the end of the day, the European Commission takes just 1 per cent. of Europes gross national income for its purposes, and, of that 1 per cent., about 85 per cent. is immediately returned to national Governments in the form principally of agricultural payments and what are called structural, regional or cohesion funds. The agricultural policy is much contested in Britain, and rightly so. But if we did not have the CAPthe common agricultural policywe would have to have a BAP, FAP and GAP; that is, a British, a French and a German agricultural policy. That is enough acronyms.
Believe me, I am absolutely confident that the National Farmers Union, backed by redoubtable Conservative Members of Parliament from the rural areas, would be extracting even greater subsidies for the farming industry in this country from the British national taxpayer than what is provided through the CAP.
Kelvin Hopkins: I think the idea of national agricultural policies has great appeal. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that national Governments would be much better than the European Union at targeting subsidies where and when they are necessary, and that the agricultural situation and industry of each member state is quite different from that of all the other member states? It would be much more sensible for national Governments, not the European Union, to determine agricultural policies.
Having lived in Switzerland and seen the massive subsidiesa much greater share of state revenue than in this countrythat the Swiss taxpayer
has to give to its farmers because they are not in the CAP, I am not entirely convinced by my hon. Friends argument. Furthermore, to make an agricultural policy stick is a matter not just of subsidy but of import and export of agricultural goods, and the ineluctable and natural tendency of any farming lobby since the far-off days of the Roman empire is to ensure the protection of borders. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) smiles at that reference to ancient history, but Socrates, who predated the Roman empire, said that the man who does not know the price of a bushel of wheat will not last long in politics. If Socrates were an adviser to the NFU today, he would find that that aphorism still applies.
Of the 1 per cent. that comes to Europe, 85 per cent. goes straight back to national Governments for disbursement, and it is at national Government level that the legendary and perfectly accurate point about not being able to sign off accounts occurs. The European Commission is not able to have a functionary and accountant in every sheep field and wheat field to count the lambs and bushels in and out. The task is clearly beyond anybodys grasp.
It is actually the failure of national Governments to spend the money in an accountable way that means that the European Commission cannot sign off its accounts, just as we cannot sign offand never have been able to under any Administrationthe accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions in any of its previous manifestations. I am afraid that the level of benefit fraud in Britain is such that an accountant cannot sign off the accounts. He knows that money has gone out but he cannot be sure how it has been spent.
We have to bear down and demand maximum transparency, but when we examine Europe, we find that 1 per cent. of its gross national income goes to Brussels, and of that 1 per cent., 85 per cent. is sent back for disbursement through national Governments. Just 15 per cent. of 1 per cent. is all that remains to the Commissionone seventh of 1 per cent. The idea that one can construct a monolithic superstate steamroller that destroys national freedoms and liberties in its path on the basis of one seventh of 1 per cent. of collective state income is nonsense. What is remarkable is how much has been achieved with that rather small portion of total EU income.
I will not enumerate the advantages that we have through travel, trade, investment and so on, because I want to focus on two narrow areas of the annual policy strategy for 2009. I hope that before I leave this House we might have a Government debate, in Government time, on something called the Governments annual policy strategy for the year. That would be an exciting and innovative concept, but I am not sure that it would completely commend itself to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or any future Prime Minister who may occupy 10 Downing street.
I had the pleasure of observing the Macedonian elections two Sundays ago. Some of them will be rerun this Sunday because of electoral fraud and manipulation. Before that, I had the pleasure of being in Kosovo, which I visited often as a Minister. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister will be in Kosovo on Sunday or Monday, at the moment when Kosovo achieves its statehood. It has already made its declaration of independence, but this weekend, and with the presence of the Minister, it will celebrate its independence. It is absolutely right that Britain should be there because the fate of the western Balkans has taken up a great deal of the attention of the House and the Government over the past 20 years.
I suspect that all of us in this House will, at some stage, have had gentlemen and women come into our surgeries who are asylum seekers from Kosovo or other parts of the western Balkans, or who have been transited through that broad region from Athens up to the Alps. Trying to bring some stability, democracy and rule of law to that region ought to be a Government priority. It took far too long for the British Government to intervene in the 1990s.
I commend to those who are interested the statement made to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who was Foreign Secretary at the time of the Srebrenica massacre. I saw a bowl of water on the Dispatch Box and a distinguished Foreign Secretary washing his hands in it, saying, Its nothing to do with me, we cannot do anything, were staying out of it. I hope that I never have the shame of listening to that kind of do-nothing policy again in my lifetime. Later, we had to intervene in Kosovo. It is one of the positive marks in the record of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that he put together the coalition and persuaded the United States to put in air and land power to stop the mass butchery of Muslims by Milosevics thugs.
For nine years, soldiers have been down there18,000 are currently in the Kosovo peace implementation forceand Kosovo has been in limbo, being neither a state nor a province. It is quite clear that the people of Kosovo utterly reject rule by Belgrade, just as the people of Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia and, more latterly, the people of Montenegro rejected its rule. The people of Kosovo did that peacefully by building their own civil society in the 1980s and 1990s, under a great leader, President Ibrahim Rugova. They took the path of Ghandian non-violence until the very last moments of 1998 and 1999, when such were the exactions and repressions by the Black and Tans of the Milosevic militia that a resistance army was formed and a short war took place until the intervention of NATO, Europe, the United States and the United Nations to bring peace to the area. However, peace in the sense of absence of war has not meant peace in the sense of the Kosovans being allowed to create their own Government, elect their own leaders, decide their own laws and build their own relationships with their neighbours and the wider world.
Martti Ahtisaari, the Finnish President, after many long visits to both Belgrade and Pristina, and after the utter refusal of the authorities in Belgrade to accept that Kosovo should be Kosovo, advanced a plan, which in his typical Ahtisaari, Finnish way contained important safeguards for the Serb people in Kosovo. There is no denying that Kosovo is, for many Serbs, part of their
historic roots: the first patriarchy of Serbia was in Pec, which is in Kosovo, and some of the great battles in Serbian history were fought in what is now Kosovo. However, one could say the same about Ireland in relation to England in the 1920s. Looking back to the 14th century, I imagine that bits of France were then part of England, but we do not seriously expect to be allowed to reclaim them. It is one of the tragedies of the western Balkans that the Serbs have not allowed Kosovo to be Kosovo and accepted that the future will be different; instead, they have been locked, sadly, in the pastparticularly the ultra-nationalist irredentists in Belgrade, who have been making speeches and demanding that the Kosovans should accept rule by Belgrade again.
Kelvin Hopkins: There has been a suggestion of partition for some small bits of Kosovo, which would allow the remaining small groups of Serbs who tend to be on the Serbian fringes of Kosovo to join Serbia or form enclaves within Kosovo. Is that possible?
Mr. MacShane: I travelled from Prizren to Kacanik in the southern part of Kosovo and went through Brezovica, which is a Serb enclaveit is the principal ski station in Kosovodoing a little reconnaissance for a later visit. As former chair of the all-party group on skiing, I say that it is important that we build our contacts on the slopes. The notion that this little part of Kosovo could somehow be disconnected and reconnected to Serbia is a bit like saying that Luton could be disconnected from Bedfordshire and reconnected to one of the many European countries that my hon. Friend is so fond of.
Mr. MacShane: Perhaps. The answer to my hon. Friends question is no: the frontiers are set. Many Albanians living in the Presevo valley in Serbia proper could also make that claim. It is better to stick with the current frontiers rather than start trying to redraw them, which is not a Serb demand, by the way; the Serb demand is still that Kosovo is an eternal part of Serbia and that the Kosovans just jolly well have to live with that. On the contrary, we have to lend maximum support to allow Kosovo to be Kosovo. Britain has done that. Some 42 nations have now recognised Kosovo, and that is the agreed position of the European Union.
However, I say with regret that key European partners are refusing to recognise Kosovo. Spain, for example, does not recognise Kosovo, for reasons that are astonishing. As someone who has always supported Spanish freedoms and democracy, I have to say that for Spain to side with the Serbs is the same as if I were to side with the ETA thugs in the Basque country against the broader interests of the Spanish people. Bulgaria, a Slav country, has recognised Kosovo and I congratulate it for doing so. However, Romania, which is not a Slav country has, for whatever reasons, refused so to do.
Greece does not recognise Kosovo. That is a contradiction in terms of Greeks national interests. Greece needs a peaceful western Balkans corridor soonI should like it to be composed of EU member statesthrough which Greek commercial interests, including tourism, can pass, allowing visitors to go peacefully up to the north of Europe instead of having to go through all the
border checks. There is huge Greek investment in both Macedonia and Kosovo. Greek business men are there, helpfully making money and growing the two economies. Yet Athens cannot, for its own reasons, find its way to a peaceful relationship with Macedonia over the name issue or even give Kosovo diplomatic recognition, as we have and as France, Germany, the Nordic countries and the United States have.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get the Foreign Office to see what it can do to counter the Spanish diplomatic campaign in Latin America against recognition for Kosovo. Through the Commonwealth and with our French friendsthrough La Francophonie, as it is calledand through other networks of states, working in particular with the majority Muslim countries, I ask him to see what can be done to show Belgrade and, behind Belgrade, a deeply revanchiste Russia, that Kosovo is getting recognition.
I am impressed by the level of economic activity in Kosovo. In the three or four years since I last visited, when I was a Minister, it really has been transformed from a war-torn country into one with a great deal of economic activity. Much of the money in the country is what we call black money, or illegal money, but as the Swiss say, money has no smell. With new buildings being built, along with new restaurants, hotels and gas stations, and with cars on the roadthere are traffic jams galore in Pristinaand motorways being built, I see a future of economic activity and buzz.
Thank goodness, the 2nd Battalion the Rifles is currently in Kosovo, but only for a short time to cover the arrival of the EU legislative team, which is mentioned on page 6 of the report. The Ministry of Defence suffers from immense overstretch and from the deep irritation, shared by many hon. Members, at the fact that although there are 18,000 troops in Kosovo, few of them are as capable of imposing peace as the British Army and one or two other European contingents. I ask the MOD to see whether there are training possibilities in Kosovo for the soldiers we have stationed in Germany, and some way of having more British soldiers on the ground. Believe me, armoured vehicles going around with the Union Jack fluttering at the back do more to send out signals of confidence, law and order and a rule-based society than almost anything else.
We need to de-UNMIK Kosovothe United Nations Mission in Kosovowhich is mandated by the UN and does its best. However, after the initial year or two with top people visiting, it does not have the finest flowers of the available global civil service. I am sure that they do not leave security material on the local public transport, but they are not necessarily of the highest quality. Frankly, a state cannot be run by the United Nations. A nation can only run itself by creating its own state.
Macedonia, which is next door to Kosovo, has never gone over the edge into full-scale violence, as the ex-Yugoslav states to its northern frontier did in the 1990s. In 2001, we came close, but strong intervention by Lord Robertson, who was the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Patten, who was the EU Commissioner for foreign affairs, and Javier Solana, who was the European Councils representative on foreign matters, really made a difference. Through the Lake Ohrid agreement, they stabilised the situation and avoided what could otherwise have been a
quite difficult confrontation between Macedonians and Albanians, and between Macedonians and Macedonians of a more Slavic origin.
Unfortunately, the failure of the EU and NATO to allow Macedonia to pursue full Euro-Atlantic integration has led to the return of some of the old political thinking in Macedonia. I do not blame Her Majestys Government for that in any way. We have two excellent ambassadors in Andrew Key, who is in Skopje, and Andy Sparks, who is in Pristina. I also know how concerned the Minister is about the issue and how concerned previous Europe Ministers have been about it in the past few years. However, the plain fact is that Macedonia was led to believe that it could join NATO, when key NATO stakeholders did not have enough authority to overturn Greek objections.
I will not enter into the debate about Macedonias nameit is rather like the argument in Gullivers Travels about whether one should crack an egg at the big end or the small end. I accept that the issue is of passionate importance to our Greek friends, but it should not prevent Macedonia from exercising its right to pursue EU and NATO integration. I therefore ask the Minister to see what solutions can be found. We should leave the issue of the name to one side, and I will not, as I said, enter into a debate about its merits or demerits. We should not allow the question whether a rose is a rose by any other name, or Macedonia is Macedonia by any other name, to block Macedonias path to greater EU integration.
The same is true for Serbia. I love the Serb people. On every visit to Belgrade, I feel that I am in one of the greatest cities of the world, with an educated, cultivated, post-industrialalmost post-nationalclass of people who are multilingual and hugely talented. None the less, they seem to want to live firmly in the past. We make a mistake in thinking that if we are kind to the Serbs, they will be kind to themselves.
In that respect, I regret that there was a change of policy at the European Council on the issue of Ratko Mladic, the man primarily responsible for the butchery of 8,000 European Muslims in cold blood in 1995. The condition that was always setthat he should go to The Hague if Serbia is to unlock the door barring it from setting out on the path to future EU membershipseems to have been watered down. Ratko Mladic is known to the Serb authorities and he was part of the Serb army and militia network. He was seen around Belgrade a few years ago, so he is not hiding in the hills, unlike his comrade in shame, Karadzic, who is in Republic Srpska. We should have made Mladics removal to The Hague an unqualified condition, just as we made the rendering of Ante Gotovina to The Hague a condition for starting Croatias application for EU membership.
The Serbs do not respect the EU when it gets weaker bit by bit, drops conditionality and thinks that it will be rewarded for being nice. Not until we politically confront and defeat the so-called radicalsthey are actually ugly, Falangist nationalists, who are not radical in any progressive or decent sense of the wordwill there be much hope for Serbia and its brave President, Boris Tadic.
Those are just some views on the western Balkans, which derive from my complete belief that, having offered to integrate the western Balkans into Europe and Euro-Atlantic structures, we have taken our eye off
the ball. For honourable and decent reasons, the eyes of the Minister and the Foreign Secretary have to be on many other balls and many other parts of the world. Currently, they are probably on the level of rainfall in Ireland and on what effect that might have on a certain decision that is being taken in the emerald isle today. However, Europe and Her Majestys Government have not put the same high-level pressure on the western Balkans that they did during the recent great crises. Bit by bit, the Balkans, instead of Europeanising, are gently suggesting that they might balkanise Europe. We need a serious push to move all the western Balkan nationsI have not gone into depth about Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro or Croatiainto the same position that Slovenia now finds itself in.
I turn now to the section of this excellent document entitled Europe as a World Partner and to the issue of the Maghrebthe countries of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. There is a debate about the extent to which Libya should be considered a fully Maghrebian country, but for the sake of my remarks, I will refer just to Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Those three countries are indispensable future partners for Europe, and I therefore very much welcome the initiative by President Sarkozy. When he announced what the French would do during their presidency of the EU, he said that they would create what he called a union for the Mediterranean.
That raised certain eyebrows and met with opposition from parts of the EU that felt that the proposals were about the French seeking to put themselves in the driving seat in relation to their corner of Europethe western Mediterranean. It was thought that that would somehow undo the so-called Barcelona process and the Euromed work launched in 1995. Be that as it may, new energy and a new initiative were needed to get Mediterranean and European economic and diplomatic relationships going again. Of course, the supreme prize is peace in the middle east, but rather than trying to climb the Mount Everest of middle east peace without oxygen, it might be better to attempt the rather lower mountains of the Maghreb countries. I hope that the Government will support President Sarkozy, and I am sure that they will be represented at the conference that he proposes to call. I also hope that we will somewhat upgrade our economic, political and diplomatic relations with the countries in the area.
The three Maghreb countries are all tricky. Algeria is an enormous potential source of energyparticularly gasfor the EU, but since the early 1990s it has faced a non-stop assault by ideological Islamists, which is aimed at destabilising the state. In that respect, it remains a mark of shame that Britainits legal system, the Home Office, Liberty and all the other libertarian organisationsprotected a man called Rachid Ramda, who was the financier behind the Algerian Islamist onslaught on the Paris Metro, which killed several innocent people in 1995. That was a forerunner of what happened in Madrid and in our own London tube bombings in July 2005. It took 10 years for this terrorist thug to be sent back to face his accusers in Paris and he is now, correctly, serving a life sentence because the evidencewith or without 42 days discussion with himwas incontrovertible.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|