Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
The House will know that on
The UK has decided to recognise Kosovo's independence and establish diplomatic relations with that country. I have set out more details in a written statement that I have put before the House today, but I shall take this opportunity to underline three factors that have driven our approach.
First, we share the view that leaving Kosovo's status unresolved is "unsustainable", to quote the UN Secretary-General. Secondly, after almost two years of intensive negotiations, it was clear that a mutually agreed settlement between Belgrade and Pristina, although desirable in many ways, was out of reach. In those circumstances, the implementation of the UN special envoy's proposals was the most viable way forward. Thirdly, the EU and other international players have made clear their readiness to play a leading role in implementing a settlement—a point demonstrated by yesterday's unanimous Council conclusions.
We shall work closely with our international partners and Kosovo's Government to support Kosovo as she takes her next steps forward.
My right hon. Friend has received a request from the overseas territories that they be allowed to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph. Discussions have taken place with his Department, and I do not believe that his ego is so great that he will not recognise that the overseas territories have a right to lay a wreath at the service, given that their people have given, and continue to give, their lives on behalf of our armed forces. Will he give in and allow the overseas territories to lay the wreath themselves?
As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State lays a wreath on behalf of the overseas territories at the service at the Cenotaph. There are no plans at present to change that arrangement.
With reference to Kosovo, may I agree with the Foreign Secretary? Nearly two years of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina failed to reach agreement, so the supervised independence of Kosovo, in line with the Ahtisaari plan, became the only realistic way forward. However, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to Kosovo's leaders that the widespread support here in Britain for that country's independence depends crucially on one thing above all—the full protection of the rights of all minorities, including property and religious sites? If that protection is supplied, the dark fears of the past in that region will not be ignited again.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive and supportive attitude to this difficult issue. I absolutely assure him that the spirit as well as the letter of the Ahtisaari plans is important to us. The cultural and religious sites that he mentions are important to many of the Kosovar Serbs, who are not simply in the north of the country but also in the south. I assure him that, both in our contacts with the new Kosovan Government and in my statement yesterday, I was clear about the importance of this aspect of the Ahtisaari plan.
On a separate issue, may I return the Foreign Secretary to the Prime Minister's speech at the lord mayor's banquet on
Far from unravelling, the "western" policy that the right hon. Gentleman describes now has the formal support of China and Russia as well, as a result of the E3 plus 3 meeting in Berlin and other discussions that I and other colleagues have been having. He is right to continue to point to the importance of this issue and to stress that there is a clear choice for Iran. It can either work with the international community and reap all the economic, scientific and technological benefits of such co-operation, or defy three successive UN Security Council resolutions—another one is in the pipeline—and suffer the consequences. I believe that the sanctions to which the Prime Minister referred remain important. The UN is in the lead this month with a resolution soon to be tabled, and it will be for the EU then to follow. I might point out that EU sanctions currently go beyond what is required by the UN resolution currently in place.
Yesterday's elections in Pakistan were significant. Will it not be important to maintain good relationships with the current President and develop new ones with the incoming Government? What did the British Government do yesterday to ensure that the elections were free and fair?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The election results to be announced in Pakistan over the next week or so matter to us all, and the credibility of those results is critical to this country. I can assure my hon. Friend that we worked closely with the Government of Pakistan on the detailed arrangements in 64,000 polling stations for which they had responsibility, and the importance of due process in those polling stations. The EU observer mission will be reporting later today, but I am sure it is gratifying for the whole House that despite, by our standards, large loss of life and injury over this weekend of voting, the allegations of electoral fraud seem to be small in number. There seems to be some confidence that, now that the governing party has indicated that it expects to spend time on the Opposition benches, the election results will carry credibility. I certainly intend to follow that up as the new Government are put into place.
What did the Foreign Secretary make of Vladimir Putin's belligerent final presidential press conference? What read-across does it have for Kosovo, bearing in mind the welcome news of this weekend?
I would like to have a longer chance to discuss British relations with Russia, but specifically in respect of the western Balkans, President Putin, soon to be Prime Minister Putin perhaps, made it clear that he did not propose to take action in respect especially of the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. That is important.
In respect of Kosovo, the Russian position has been made clear at the UN Security Council and elsewhere. Diplomatic protests and political views are welcome, but it is important on the basis of my discussions this morning with the new British ambassador in Pristina that the situation in Kosovo is calm. The continuation of electricity and other supplies is giving confidence to people there that the situation will remain calm.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Colombia is considered the most dangerous country in the world in which to be a trade unionist. Last August, I went with a delegation of British trade unionists and parliamentarians to Colombia to meet victims of human rights abuses. While we were there, we met many trade unionists who had been detained in jail without trial for lengthy periods for their trade union activities. One of them was Carmen Mayusa, who has been detained in custody without trial since
My hon. Friend is quite right; Colombia is a very dangerous place. I met the chairman of the Colombian TUC on my last visit to Bogota, and a large delegation of Colombian trade unionists will come to this country shortly. We will discuss with them how we can help to ensure the security of trade unionists in Colombia. I add that the people who are murdering the most trade unionists in Colombia are not the Colombian Government but FARC.
Yesterday saw the publication of the first version of the dossier that took us to war in Iraq. It is quite clear that it was written by a Foreign Office press officer, yet in May 2003 Downing street said:
"Not one word of the dossier was not entirely the work of the intelligence agencies", and much of the wording from the first version is replicated in the final version. When will the Foreign Secretary correct that totally wrong statement, and when will we have a proper inquiry into why we were led into an illegal war in Iraq contrary to British interests?
I certainly continue to believe that the September 2002 publication was the work of the intelligence services. The fact that both that document and the so-called Williams draft drew on similar intelligence material explains why the wording, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, is so similar. It seems to me that he and the Government have a difference of opinion about the Iraq war, but the publication of the Williams draft puts to bed many of the phantom scare stories put around about the origins of various aspects of the September 2002 document, not least of which is the so-called 45-minute claim, which he will now see was never in the Williams draft.
Further to that question, given that the Foreign Secretary has been forced to publish the Williams draft of the Iraq dossier, will he now reverse his previous refusal to answer the key questions that his Department has been avoiding during the past three years, including who authorised John Williams to produce the draft, who it was handed to and who commented on it? Otherwise, the Government's continued evasiveness on the issue can only create the further impression that they have something to hide.
The hon. Gentleman has pursued the issue for a long time, but now that the document has been published, I do not see how he can refer to evasiveness in respect of its contents. We do not know who wrote the marginalia and comments; that was made clear yesterday, not least by John Williams. Now that the document is in the public domain, it would be as well for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to recognise that publication has taken place and that we can debate what was in the dossier.
However, it remains important that draft documents and discussion within Government should be free and frank. It cannot be the case that officials believe that everything that they write down will go into the public domain. They must be able to advise Ministers without fear or favour, and it was that important point of principle that the Government were defending. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman can speak to me afterwards, as I did not hear what he said. There has been the publication of—
The world has been rightly preoccupied with the situation in Kenya. Both the previous and the present UN Secretary-General have been involved, and President Bush visited recently. However, in neighbouring Somalia the situation is absolutely desperate. The warlords are still in control, and the peace process and the reconstruction of the Government have not gone anywhere significant. If I were to advise Osama bin Laden where to look for the next failed state, Somalia would be high on the list. Will the British Government give us some assurance that we will play our role at the international level so that concentration through the African Union is devoted to ensuring that Somalia is reassembled and given the opportunity to function as a modern state?
My hon. Friend is correct. Somalia is generally regarded as being, perhaps, the world's only current failed state. It has had 16 years of brutal violence and is indeed a human tragedy. My hon. Friend will rightly continue to raise the matter. We are determined to play our part in the international community and also with the transitional federal Government to make sure that there can be effective governance and a degree of reconciliation, and to ensure that those 16 years of violence are brought to an end.
Does not the Simon Mann case underline the folly and short-sightedness of the Government in closing missions and embassies all over Africa? Twenty-three African nations have no British diplomatic representation at all, including Equatorial Guinea. Will the Minister give a commitment that Mr. Mann's rights will not be undermined as a result of the Government's short-sightedness?
The Government consider carefully where we have our diplomatic missions and we make sure that there are appropriate arrangements for consular support wherever British citizens are in the world. As the hon. Gentleman knows, HM consul in Lagos travelled to Malabo on
The UN special envoy on Burma is touring ASEAN—Association of South East Asian Nations—countries in an attempt to get them to act together in relation to Burma, and he has confirmed that India and China have the most leverage over Burma. What influence are we exercising over India and China to get them to exercise that leverage?
My right hon. Friend is right. The role of India and China in seeking to influence what takes place in Burma is enormously important. The topic of Burma is raised whenever we have contact through my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown in relation to China and India. The Prime Minister raised the matter when he was in China, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will also do so on his visit to China.