Oral Answers to Questions — Defence – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 4 July 2005.
If he will make a statement on British forces being deployed to Darfur.
The UK continues to play a significant role in seeking to improve conditions in Darfur, through complementary NATO and EU aid to the African Union's observer mission.
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, although he did not actually answer my question. After the Live 8 events, on which I am sure the whole House will congratulate Bob Geldof and his team, the world's attention is focused on Africa, nowhere more so than Sudan, where ethnic cleansing and genocide have led to thousands upon thousands of deaths. So, are the Government satisfied that sending a total of 17 soldiers and officers, 15 under a NATO flag and two under a rival EU flag, is really doing enough in what the UN described as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at present?
The hon. Gentleman is right that this matter is important. These are tragic circumstances, in which, perhaps, the response of the world community as a whole has been belated—as it has been in certain other cases. Having said that, if we are to contribute—however much and through whichever mechanism—I think the hon. Gentleman will accept, as do both the EU and NATO, that there must be a lead from the African Union, so we are responding to the request of the African Union. I leave aside the fact that currently our service personnel are in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. We are actually responding to what the African Union wanted, which is logistical support.
Would my right hon. Friend care to give an opinion? He may not have seen last night's "Panorama" programme, which gave a further response to the tragedy in Darfur. It is clear that the AU is doing invaluable work—it is a real test for the AU—but what the AU needs more than anything on the ground is logistical support, which can only come from developed countries such as the UK. So I hear what he has to say, but will he go back and talk to his NATO colleagues and, indeed, those in the EU to find out what additional support can be brought to bear to ensure that the AU is as effective as possible on the ground?
Absolutely. I do not think there is any difference of intent between my hon. Friend and me. Indeed, it was precisely at the request of the chair of the African Union to both the EU and NATO that I contributed to the discussions, in the EU on
Given any possible international deployment of military personnel, will the right hon. Gentleman give the people of Northern Ireland the assurance that they require that the required military personnel and their bases will be there to deal with the very fluid situation in the coming months?
Yes, I can give that assurance.
As Mr. Ellwood pointed out, the world's attention on the Make Poverty History campaign has put more focus on devastated, poverty and conflicted-ridden regions such as Darfur. We certainly believe that there should be more urgency in the international community's efforts to find a peaceful solution, but we welcome the Government's contributions so far. Will the Secretary of State confirm how much of the assistance pledged to the African Union by the Secretary of State for International Development in his written statement on
The answer to the first question is that I do not know how much of that assistance has been delivered at present. If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The answer to the second question—whether I think the troop numbers are sufficient—is that time will tell, but the number is what the African Union thinks is sufficient at present. The answer to the third question is that we will give whatever help we can. Although that has been diminished to 17 personnel—to paraphrase Mr. Ellwood—the UK has, in fact, already provided significant logistical assistance, including approximately 600 vehicles, rapid deployment equipment, air-lift for Nigerian soldiers and technical military advice. On
All hon. Members would agree that this is an horrific situation, which many of us have been pursuing for the past year. Will the Secretary of State explain the bizarre command and control arrangements in Darfur? Contrary to every existing military principle, is it the case that only an EU headquarters is being established because of French antipathy towards NATO and the United States? Does he believe that having two headquarters running one operation will contribute to a successful and efficient operation there?
In fact, far from illustrating a dichotomy or contradiction between the two institutions, this has been perhaps the first major example of how the two institutions can work together. Although there have been no formal contacts, there have been informal ones and, indeed, informal meetings, and both the Secretary-General of NATO and the High Representative of the EU have worked very closely. That is to the benefit of the African Union and the people in the area itself, which is as it should be. We have never believed that the European Union security and defence policy and NATO should be contradictory and competitive. One of the principles that I made absolutely plain to both those institutions is that they should work in partnership, in complementing and dovetailing with each other, and they have done so on this occasion to a far greater extent than ever before.