When he next plans to meet the Zimbabwean high commissioner to discuss the rule of law in Zimbabwe. [154087]

What plans he has to visit Zimbabwe to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement. [154089]

If he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [154094]

We deplore the escalating attacks on human rights in Zimbabwe. Of particular concern has been the enforced retirement of the Chief Justice following threats to his life; the destruction of the printing press of the only independent daily newspaper; the expulsion of foreign journalists for criticising the regime; and the continuing political intimidation, which has claimed more than 40 lives in the last 12 months.

Given that the Mugabe regime is now flagrantly abusing human rights, as the Foreign Secretary described, is it not time to admit that the policy of deploring and issuing statements—all the ethical posturing—has failed? Is it not time to put serious pressure on the regime by freezing the assets of the corrupt Government, banning travel by Mugabe's associates and getting tough with that regime?

May I remind the House and the hon. Gentleman of what we have done in the past year? We have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe; we have stopped the supply of Land Rovers to the Zimbabwean police; and we have cut the aid that we give to Zimbabwe and focused entirely on humanitarian aid, such as combating AIDS. We have used the Commonwealth to condemn what has been happening in Zimbabwe and to send observers to the elections; we now have dialogues with the European Union under the Cotonou agreement, which provides the possibility of restricting aid to Zimbabwe.

This is not just a case of harassment of the opposition and the judiciary; we are talking about murder and torture. If the Government really have an ethical foreign policy, why are they not proposing that Zimbabwe be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth? Why are they not suspending unilaterally British economic aid? Why do they not declare Mugabe to be guilty of gross abuse of human rights and arrange for him to be arrested if, like Pinochet, he sets foot in the European Union or Britain? If the Foreign Secretary will not do that, is it not a sign of double standards? Will he accept that a large proportion of the Zimbabwean population are a lot worse off now than they were under Ian Smith?

I welcome the first statement that I have heard from a Conservative Member in support of our action on General Pinochet; I note that that is another Conservative U-turn. We have unilaterally suspended economic aid to Zimbabwe, and now provide no aid to the Government themselves. We have pared aid by one third, and now provide it to those who are suffering from HIV, to try to combat AIDS and provide clean sanitation in the villages of Zimbabwe. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman imagines we would increase pressure on President Mugabe if we withdrew that support for the poor people of Zimbabwe.

In the context of the Foreign Secretary's withered so-called ethical foreign policy, and in the light of the terrifying and unjustified expulsion of the BBC correspondent, Joseph Winter—along with his wife Anne-Marie and their baby daughter Anenti—who reported that

"the opposition MP, Job Sikhala and his pregnant wife, white farmers and suspected opposition sympathisers in remote areas with only a mud wall and straw roof to protect themselves, have been beaten, tortured and killed",

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and fully endorse his description of the expulsion of the BBC journalist, about which we have protested vigorously, and shall continue to do so. The Harare declaration provides clear principles for the rule of law, freedom of speech and democratic principles. Plainly, but ironically, Zimbabwe itself is now in breach of that declaration.

In condemning again the Mugabe regime's thuggery, murders, intimidation and its playing of the race card, does my right hon. Friend not agree that such condemnation best comes from those who have always attacked tyrannies—not the Opposition who, time and again, have defended previous tyrannies in South Africa and been apologists for Pinochet and his murderous regime? We need no lectures from Tory Members.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. To sharpen the point, the House and those on the Opposition Benches might wish to recall that it was the Conservative Government who presided over the government of Great Britain at the time of the Matabeleland massacres, which led to the killing of 10,000 people in Zimbabwe and took place over a period of two or three years, during which there was not a word of criticism from any Minister. There was no cut in overseas aid—on the contrary, Lady Thatcher increased aid by £10 million at the time of the massacres. No attempt was made to use the Commonwealth against Zimbabwe at the time. It is no wonder that President Mugabe let it be known that he was grateful for the British Government's restraint. In the light of their inactivity at the time, it is rich hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Opposition to criticise us for not doing more.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that consistency requires that Zimbabwe should be treated the same as any other Commonwealth country that was found to be intimidating judges, expelling independent journalists and seeking to use intimidation and other weapons of repression against its political opponents? A Government adhering to the principles of the Harare declaration of 1991 would not have anything to hide. In those circumstances, does not the refusal of the Mugabe Government to receive a mission of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers tell us all that we need to know?

I agree absolutely with the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. We will not accept it the first time President Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe says no. I welcome the statement by the Secretary-General that he will continue to press for the delegation to be received. The reason that the Zimbabwe Government seek not to receive it is that they know full well what a serious step it is for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers to agree to send a delegation. I hope that they will stop pretending that this is all a British conspiracy, when it was a decision taken unanimously—unanimously—by eight representatives of Commonwealth countries representing those members of the Commonwealth charged with keeping close tabs on violations of human rights. I believe that the delegation must be met. If not, that will send a strong signal to all the Commonwealth countries.

I do not recall the Labour Opposition of the late 1980s fulminating much about Mr. Mugabe, either.

I have no problems with publishing the advice, which I will happily send to the right hon. Gentleman and place in the Library. It set out the scale of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. We have since been advised by the Foreign Minister of Belgium that in the course of the meeting the Prime Minister of Belgium pressed President Mugabe to end the occupation of the farms, to allow foreign journalists to return and to stop the intimidation of the Chief Justice. I am glad that I provided the advice. It was plainly useful in the exchanges.

The effect of those visits was to give Mugabe a propaganda coup, and the Foreign Secretary should admit it. If the Commonwealth ministerial action group is prevented from undertaking its mission in Zimbabwe, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, without hesitation, he will press for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth? Will he urge the imposition of travel bans and criminal investigations of those of Mugabe's henchmen who sustain him in his murderous and repressive regime? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, yes, there is a case for quiet diplomacy, but that there is no case for supine inaction?

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has been listening to the exchanges that have taken place so far, and I am quite clear that he wrote that last line before he heard them. I have retailed to the House exactly the action that we took, which provides clear, sharp contrast with the inaction of the Conservative Government during the Matabeleland massacres. In the event of President Mugabe persisting in his refusal to see the delegation from the Commonwealth ministerial action group, we will consider that with our colleagues. We are committed by the statement that we adopted last week to provide advice to the Heads of Government, and plainly that will have to be reflected in any advice that we offer.

If he will make a statement on US-British co-operation on defence. [154088]

The United States is Britain's closest ally. We enjoy excellent co-operation across a wide range of defence and security issues. NATO provides the cornerstone of our relationship. Co-operation between Britain and the US has continued after the recent change of US Administration, not least because a close working relationship is the best way of advancing our mutual interests and safeguarding our collective security.

Will the Minister confirm that the Nice treaty refers to an autonomous capacity to take decisions and to independent intelligence and logistic capabilities? Will he now come clean and accept that the duplicate and parallel structures agreed at Nice can serve only to undermine the Atlantic alliance?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not come to last Monday night's debate on European security, in which I explained in great detail that the reason for the problem in understanding what has happened on European defence is the activities of Opposition Members, and especially of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). I repeat that it is quite clear that NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. That means working with NATO and consulting it at every single stage before a decision is taken.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern that is felt in a number of quarters about the US national missile defence proposals? That concern is felt not only by the Russians, the Chinese and our EU allies, but by local people who live close to the sites that would inevitably be involved—Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. Ministers rightly pride themselves on our very close relationship with the US, but will he assure the House that our anxiety to keep in with the Americans does not outweigh our ability to make a balanced judgment about the threat to world peace that this star wars proposal might cause? We do not want to allow the threat of an escalation in the arms race because we are frightened of falling out with the Americans.

My hon. Friend has long held those views, but she will also know that America is our closest friend and strongest ally. I refer her to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush at Camp David on 23 February this year. The Americans have promised the fullest co-operation and consultation with the United Kingdom and all its allies. Clearly, there is a threat, because our closest ally and strongest friend, the United States, believes that there is one. Of course it is important that we prevent the escalation and proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we will work with our allies to ensure that that threat is dealt with. I assure her that we will also work with them to ensure the fullest possible co-operation.

Having visited the United States recently and talked to many of the people there who know about the role played by Europe in the affections of the Government, what on earth leads the Minister to believe that their suspicion about weakening NATO arises from criticisms made by Opposition Members? Surely he has greater respect for the Americans whom he meets.

I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that he feels strongly about these issues, but the facts are very clear. On 23 February this year, a joint communique was issued by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister. It made it clear that the United States Government support the European security and defence policy. They are relaxed about that policy because its bedrock is NATO. The right hon. Gentleman need only look at his right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to know where the history of European security and defence began: the Maastricht treaty, which his right hon. Friend signed.

Will my hon. Friend say whether there have been any discussions whatever on the national missile defence system? If such discussions take place in future, will he tell the Americans that the system will restart the cold war, and that many people here do not want to see our country turned into an unsinkable aircraft carrier?

I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work very closely with our strongest friend, the United States of America. No proposals are currently on the table. If there were, I assure my hon. Friend that he and the House would be aware of them, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence would be explaining them to the House; but there are no proposals. We told President Bush on 23 February that we would continue to work closely with the United States, and that remains the position.

Does the Minister not understand that the real American concern about the ESDP is that it is located outside NATO. It is autonomous—separate from NATO.

"if we don't get involved in European defence, it will happen without Britain. Then those people who really may have an agenda to destroy NATO will have control of it."

What is astonishing is the right hon. Gentleman's complete lack of understanding of what has been going on over the past 10 years. I find that particularly astonishing, because it was the right hon. Gentleman himself—St. Francis of Maastricht—who signed the Maastricht treaty, so he knows all about European defence.

If he discussed matters relating to the UN administration of Kosovo when he last met his colleagues representing other member states of NATO. [154090]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed matters relating to Kosovo with his NATO counterparts at a North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting on 27 February. Hans Haekkerup, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Kosovo, briefed the North Atlantic Council on the work of UNMIK—the United Nations Mission in Kosovo—on 28 February.

Maintaining law and order in Kosovo is an immensely difficult task: everyone knows that. Am I right in thinking that KFOR is largely a European force, and a highly trained one at that? By contrast, the UN's international police force is composed of officers from 66 countries, many of whom, regrettably, are poorly trained. When did the Minister last raise at the UN the problems caused by this ill—equipped police force? There are some first—class officers in Kosovo, but many officers are not up to it.

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. Having just visited the area, he knows the seriousness and the difficulties of the situation. We believe, however, that things are improving. We continue to raise these matters at the UN, and in every forum that we have at our disposal, because we believe that to be the best way of ensuring that there is a lasting legal framework that people respect.

I have just returned from a visit to Kosovo with the Select Committee on Defence, and I was immensely impressed by the work that our troops are doing there; but can the Minister give us any guidance on the Government's exit strategy for our troops deployed in Kosovo?

We will continue to be involved in trying to win the peace, as we have been throughout the past few years. The hon. Gentleman has just visited the area, and I would be keen to look at the report that he and his Committee will publish as a result of that visit. He knows that these are agonisingly difficult problems. The way to deal with the situation is, as I have just said, to build confidence between the communities. It would not be appropriate or right to talk about exit strategies. We are there to support the restoration of law and order, and to provide the necessary forces to ensure that there will be peace and security for the people of Kosovo.

I, too, was in Kosovo last week with the Defence Committee. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the British forces—the 1st Battalion, the Duke of Wellington's Regiment and the other forces—that are doing such a vital job there? Is he aware that, unfortunately, a lot of their time is at present devoted to defending the lives .and protecting the religious property of the very few—only 300—Serbs remaining in Pristina? Is it not vital, given that that conflict was fought to preserve a multi-ethnic Kosovo and Serbia, to send the message firmly and clearly to Albania, to the groups in the Presevo valley and in Macedonia lind to the Kosovar Albanians, that the international community will not tolerate any moves towards single ethnicity in the Balkans?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the British forces. I shall certainly pass them on to the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend's message is a powerful one, which we should heed, especially at these difficult times in tho Balkans. What has happened there is a tragedy. Our role is to do exactly as my hon. Friend has suggested: to ensure that the message of multi-ethnicity is one that every country in the Balkans understands. This is the best way in which the communities themselves can work together. We have a proud record in the Balkans. We will also maintain our proud record of trying to ensure that the communities work together, and I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

If he will make a statement on relations with Pakistan. [154091]

Relations between the UK and the people of Pakistan are warm and close. However, the people of Pakistan deserve better governance, and a democracy that can deliver stability, human development and international credibility. We continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a credible timetable for national and provincial elections by autumn 2002, in accordance with the ruling of Pakistan's supreme court.

Will the Minister at least assure us that the Government will give their support and encouragement to the Government of Pakistan in coping with the enormous problem of refugees from Afghanistan? That problem has existed for years. Will the Minister also give some indication of roughly how many refugees there are in Pakistan at present, and whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing? Do the Government think that there might be a case for some kind of international effort to find a solution to one of the world's biggest refugee problems?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Pakistan has a good record of taking refugees from the war in Afghanistan. We believe that about 1.2 million refugees have entered Pakistan from Afghanistan. The issue has been discussed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and support is available to help to cope with the influx of refugees. Of course, the best solution to all those problems would be an end to the fighting in Afghanistan, and that, above all, is what we would urge.

What action has the Minister taken to build on the opportunity created by India's ceasefire and Pakistan's policy of maximum restraint to make progress towards a just and peaceful future for Kashmir, based on respect for human rights and the will of the people of that region?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We very much welcome the reduction in conflict in Kashmir and we are using that opportunity both bilaterally and through the European Union and other international bodies to urge India and Pakistan to continue dialogue and to find a solution. A solution will be found only through such dialogue. We are also urging our Indian counterparts to allow greater access to. Kashmir, including for Amnesty International and the UN special rapporteurs, and I reiterate that it is important that human rights violations are investigated and that action is taken against the perpetrators. We welcome the two reports on incidents last year as a step towards such transparency. On all those fronts, we are urging dialogue and we are making it absolutely clear that nobody but India and Pakistan, through dialogue, can achieve a resolution to those problems.

Of course, the Minister will know that every friend of Pakistan in the House wants democratic elections to take place as ;speedily as possible, but one question bemuses most of us. Why is Pakistan suspended from the Commonwealth and not allowed to take part in any Commonwealth deliberations even though Zimbabwe is still a full member? Is not some double standard at work here?

If I may make a fairly obvious point to the hon. Gentleman, he may have missed the fact that there was a military coup in Pakistan. Thereafter, the decision was taken by all the members of the Commonwealth.

If he will make a statement on recent initiatives to tackle the international trade in illegal drugs. [154092]

The Government are at the forefront of international efforts to combat the illegal drugs trade. Our aim, as stated in the 10-year drugs strategy, is to halve the availability of those class A drugs that cause the greatest harm, particularly heroin and cocaine.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that 80 per cent. of the heroin sold in this country comes from Afghanistan? Furthermore, will he continue to work with states in the region to put pressure on the Taliban to eradicate heroin trafficking? In particular, will he continue the policy of positive engagement with Iran?

I thank my hon. Friend, who takes a serious interest in this crucial matter. I emphasise the fact that heroin and cocaine on the streets in Britain, be it in West Bromwich, West or in Leeds, West, usually come from either Colombia or Afghanistan. Our programme of counter—drugs assistance overseas is aimed at those key producer and transit countries. Through the multilateral agencies and the UN, we funded a drug crop survey in Afghanistan, and the results for 2001 suggest that opium poppy cultivation in the region is significantly lower than in 2000. That is encouraging. There is evidence that an edict by Mullah Omar in July 2000 banning cultivation is being enforced by the Taliban, but we are still worried that stockpiling and trafficking in opiates continue. We will maintain our high-level contacts to combat that activity until we tackle the problem of production.

The Minister will be well aware that in many places that produce those drugs there is no alternative crop. For example, damage was done in Nepal by closing down drug cultivation without any alternative being provided, which enormously aided the arrival of the Maoist rebels. Will he give us an assurance that he is working hard with the Department for International Development to find alternative ways of yielding an income to the peasants?

The hon. Gentleman pinpoints an important problem: if local campesinos—peasants—produce drugs, they get greater value for such a crop. Replacing it with alternatives is always difficult. However, I do not want the hon. Gentleman to leave the House with the impression that nothing can be done, because an alternative crop strategy has worked to a large extent in Bolivia. We are working closely with the Colombian authorities to develop an alternative cultivation strategy in the Magdalena Medio region to ensure that campesinos do not depend on growing drugs for their livelihoods. We will work with the Department for International Development to ensure that those programmes are successful. Alternative economic development is the genuine answer.

My hon. Friend may be aware that on Sunday thousands of people will take to the streets of Glasgow to join the Daily Record's march against drugs. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Daily Record on its initiative, and tell those who will take part in the demonstration that the war against drugs will be waged not only in Glasgow and every other city in the United Kingdom, but against the international sources of drug supply?

We welcome the demonstration and wish it every success. Sometimes, the impression is created that there are producer countries and consumer countries and that the problem is the latter, not the former. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that production and consumption occur in both. Even in Britain, forms of drugs that are almost artificial are being produced. We must tackle the problem internationally. That is the purpose of our programmes and why we join the UN, the EU and the G8 and take an active part in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. We must knit together our response and fight the problem from every angle.

Bearing in mind the limited success of alternative crop strategies, does the Minister know that heroin and cocaine are cheaper on the streets of the United Kingdom now than in 1995? In his discussions with the Governments of drug-producing countries, will he ask them to redouble their efforts? Will he commend the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which does so much good work in the United Kingdom and overseas in disseminating information and intelligence? That is the key to the problem.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is vital in discovering and analysing what is happening.

Which members of the Government have visited Belgrade since October 2000. [1540931

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade visited Belgrade on 8 and 9 November. A visit by the Foreign Office is a high priority. The visit to Belgrade by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) participated, was also a success. Federal Foreign Minister Svilanovic was in London on 27 and 28 February.

Does the Minister accept that that reply is unsatisfactory? He is responsible for the Balkan region but he has not visited it. He has not been to Belgrade, Pristina, Podgorica or Zagreb. Either there is a shortage of Foreign Ministers or the priorities are wrong. When is he going?

With such an invitation, I should be on the plane tomorrow with my right hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that Foreign Office Ministers are fully engaged in bilateral visits. He may shake his head, but a few weeks ago he chided another colleague about a visit to Poland. We must set priorities, and we have done that. Several Foreign Ministers have visited London. We organised a Balkans taskforce conference last year and several other Foreign Ministers attended it. I know that my hon. Friend is cross. but I assure him that the Balkans are a high priority, ;and I hope to give him some welcome news in the not too distant future.

Further to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) earlier, it is not so very many weeks since the man whom many regard as a dictator, a tyrant and a murderer was invited to Belgium and France. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. 9."] The Foreign Secretary has indicated that he intends to publish the advice that he offered the Belgian and French—

No. 9.

Order.

If it is not too late, Mr. Speaker, I will answer questions 9, 13 and 14 together.

What plans he has to meet President Mugabe; and if he will make a statement. [1540951

What plans he has to meet Morgan Tsvangerai to discuss the present situation in Zimbabwe. [154099]

What contact he has had with the Governm4mts of Belgium and France and with the Commission of the European Union about the recent visit of President Mugabe of Zimbabwe to Brussels and Paris. [154100]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier.

Having waited for that answer, I do not think that it was terribly wrong of me to proceed—

Order. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when I called him I expected him to call out the number of the question on the Order Paper, and he should have done so. I therefore hope that his supplementary will be very brief.

It is not so very long since a man whom many people regard as a dictator and a tyrant was invited to Belgium and France. The Foreign Secretary has indicated that he intends to publish the advice that he gave the French and the Belgians, and that is welcome. However, will he say whether at any time he indicated to either of our European allies—

We have to provide the opposition as well.

Order.

Has the Foreign Secretary indicated to either of our European allies that this man ;should be treated as the pariah that he is, and not given the red carpet treatment that he received?

I have repeatedly been urged in this House to use all possible channels of communication with President Mugabe to increase the pressure on him to improve the observance of human rights within Zimbabwe. We therefore communicated to Belgium and France that if they were to meet President Mugabe, it was important that they pressed him on human rights. As I have already spoken about the Belgian meeting, perhaps I can add, for completeness, that we understand that when President Chirac met President Mugabe, he insisted that there should be dialogue with the commercial farmers and respect for the rule of law, that the violence should be curbed and that President Mugabe should halt the expulsion of foreign journalists. I welcome that message to President Mugabe.

Does the Foreign Secretary realise that what so many people in this country, myself included, find so offensive is the contrast between the Labour party's view on South Africa, when we were treated to frenetic indignation the whole time, and the Government's total lack of urgency as Zimbabwe, a once prosperous country, declines into penury, state-sponsored murder and chaos? Surely the Foreign Secretary is utterly inept to withdraw the one lever that the British Government had over the Government of Zimbabwe—the military component operating out of Harare. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now cancel that decision so that at least he would do something that the Opposition in Zimbabwe would like the British Government to do?

As a matter of fact, for the sake of the completeness of the record, I was urged to withdraw that in April of last year by Conservative Front Benchers. It is a bit rich to do it and then to be condemned.

Did the European Commissioner and the leading figures of two important European Union member countries remind the President of Zimbabwe that there are in his country some 20,000 European Union citizens who hold British passports and who should be the common concern of our European Union partners and of Her Majesty's Government? Have not the Foreign Secretary and our European partners betrayed them in not making it clear that any question of taking away their dual nationality, dispossessing them of their farms and perhaps ejecting them from the country is against every tenet of human rights and decent international behaviour?

Both the European figures—the Prime Minister of Belgium and the President of France—raised with President Mugabe the illegal and brutal occupation of the farmlands, and urged the use of dialogue to resolve that and bring it to an end.

Is it not a fact that on every possible occasion the British Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have made it clear to Zimbabwe and President Mugabe that this Government are extremely concerned at the erosion of democracy and the independent judicial system in that country? Is it not also a fact that within about 12 months the people of Zimbabwe will have the opportunity to elect a President? They may well choose to change President on that occasion.

My hon. Friend's final point is important. It is important for all of us to use every channel to ensure that when that chance comes, the people of Zimbabwe have the opportunity of a free and fair election in which they can exercise their vote without any threat of intimidation. My hon. Friend is right. We have repeatedly condemned what is happening in Zimbabwe. We have done so within the Commonwealth. the European Union and the United Nations. If the Opposition can come up with anywhere else that we have not done so, I will be happy to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Commonwealth takes action against Mugabe if the present situation continues? Would he like to remind us about any protestations or official representations from previous British Governments at the time of the Matabeleland massacres in 1982–84?

I have already made it clear to the House that we cannot discover any representations on the Matabeleland massacres. There was certainly no attempt to use the Commonwealth. We raised the situation in Zimbabwe with the Commonwealth last week. We were successful in securing unanimous agreement on the concerns, in particular the intimidation of the judiciary and the media. I am glad that there is agreement to send colleagues to Harare to express those concerns directly and to hear what answers there may be from the Zimbabwean Government. We will continue to press that Government to recognise that, as a member of the Commonwealth, they have a duty to receive the delegation from the Commonwealth.

The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) introduced the question of consistency. Does my right hon. Friend recall, during the bloodthirsty, murderous and repressive regime in Chile under self—styled Senator Pinochet, much opposition and condemnation from the then British Government, who are now Her Majesty's Opposition? How consistent does he believe that is with their quickness to condemn what is happening in Zimbabwe?

Order. That is nothing to do with the Foreign Secretary.

Rather than issue an all-party declaration about what the right hon. Gentleman would like to happen in Zimbabwe, would he do something practical and invite the Government of South Africa—probably the only Government to whom the Zimbabwean Government will pay any attention at the moment—to apply pressure to the President of Zimbabwe to cease his activities with regard to the judiciary, the press and the rule of law? Surely that is the most practical and effective thing to do, and he could do it now.

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point about the influence of the countries of the region on Zimbabwe. We have had regular dialogue with them ever since the Cairo European Union summit in the spring of last year. We will continue to raise the matter with them. Indeed, I spoke only yesterday with the Foreign Minister of Mozambique about our concerns about Zimbabwe and what the countries of the region can do to help. South Africa is by far the largest country in the region—it is by far the largest economy. It has a lead role in the region, which places certain responsibilities on it.

When he expects the UK to seek ratification of the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. [154096]

The UK will ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as the necessary legislation is in place. The International Criminal Court Bill is before the House and we hope that it will receive strong support on all sides. Our intention is to be among the first 60 states to ratify.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Certainly, organisations and individuals in my constituency who have written to me on the issue will welcome the ratification of that important measure. That goes for groups such as Amnesty International and other human rights bodies that submitted their opinions on the draft Bill, followed by detailed scrutiny in the other place. Will my hon. Friend reassure me of the continued support of all parties in the House for a speedy resolution and ratification of the Bill, and that the all-party support still holds firm?

The draft Bill was published last August; there were about 45 submissions giving detailed comments—mainly positive and supportive—from a range of non-governmental and professional organisations, lawyers, academics and interested parliamentarians. It will be a historic Bill, which I hope all parties in the House will continue to support That will send a signal to the world's tyrants that there is a clear consensus in Britain and in the international community that we are united in that determination to end impunity, because justice, wherever possible, is obviously the best foundation for long-term peace.

For the record, both sides of the House support the aims of the International Criminal Court Bill to bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity. However, the current Bill introduced by the Government has some fundamental flaws, which our military commanders have warned could lead to British troops being prosecuted for war crimes and being prevented from carrying out peacekeeping tasks . The French have protected their armed services through an opt-out. Will the Minister undertake to accept the Conservative amendments to the Bill tabled in another place that would safeguard our armed forces, or do our soldiers, sailors and airmen get less protection than the French?

It must be jitters before the election—the hon. Lady is changing her position. On two occasions, she pressed us to get on with the measure: in July 1988—[HON. MEMBERS: " 1988?"] —she said she welcomed the Bill; in October 1999, I think that she said she would help Ministers in any way that she could. It does not sound like that now.

If he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east. [154097]

Following a successful European Union Troika visit to the region, Heads of State and Government discussed the situation in the middle east at the European Council in Stockholm on 23 March. The Council reaffirmed the Union's determination to contribute to peace, stability and future prosperity in the middle east. To that end, it requested the EU High Representative Javier Solana to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role in promoting the resumption of the peace process.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming evidence that Palestinian terrorism—such as the mortar attack from a Palestinian police station in Gaza last week, the two bombs in Jerusalem today or the terribly tragic shooting of a 10-month-old Israeli baby girl yesterday—can no longer simply be attributed to Palestinian rejectionist groups, but is also the responsibility of the Palestine National Authority? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that Mr. Arafat does whatever he can to try to stop that terrorism and violence from the Palestinians and so allow the peace process to be resumed?

We condemn such acts from whichever source they come. The problem is that if there is no atmosphere of dialogue—an atmosphere that appears to be leading to a just outcome to all the problems—it makes room for extremist elements to preach a doctrine of violence and to commit the acts to which my hon. Friend refers. Everything that we do and say is directed towards a resumption of the peace process with one aim—getting people around a table to discuss a solution, taking up where discussions were leading before the Israeli elections, and feeding into the process, bilaterally, through the European Union, in every way possible. Taking out isolated acts of terrorism and condemning them is perfectly legitimate, but it does not contribute to the wider solution. We condemn all violenee. We must have dialogue if there is to be peace.

What are the objectives of the Government's policy towards Iran?

We are anxious to encourage reform within Iran. We are anxious to develop our relations, and to that end the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently made the first high-level visit to Iran in, I think, 20 years. We shall take that process forward. Where there is progress towards democratic standards we will encourage that, and that is true in Iran.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a senior Iraqi official has recently been in the UK, that he is a close friend of Saddam Hussein, that he has been given a multiple entry visa by our embassy in Jordan and that he is closely connected with an institute in Iraq that is involved in chemical and biological components? Why was he given a visa when visitors who wished to come here from Iraq and Syria—members of the Iraqi opposition—were refused visas this weekend? Has there been a change of policy on Iraq?

I do not think that this is really the forum in which to second-guess the visa process. However, I would say that the gentleman in question was admitted as the president of the Council of Technical Colleges in Iraq. He was not judged to be a senior figure in the Iraqi regime. He came here to access educational materials and, as my hon. Friend and the House well know, the policy of sanctions against Iraq is not directed against educational materials or humanitarian goods. In that spirit, it was consistent to grant the visa to that gentleman.

With reference to my question 33, and echoing the words of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), does the Minister agree that the overriding priority at the moment, given the extreme fragility of the middle east peace initiative, must be to encourage an end to violence and a resumption of the dialogue and negotiations? Given that the European Union countries have presented the Palestinian authorities with a very favourable economic package, does the Minister agree that he and his counterparts in Europe must use all the influence that they have at this time to encourage Yasser Arafat to meet those twin overriding objectives?

There is a significant role for the European Union—and I think that everyone in the middle east believes that there is a role for the European Union in this process. Therefore, I am very pleased at the visit by the EU High Representative to explore how the EU can play an enhanced role. That step was strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Stockholm at the weekend.

When he plans to take steps to enable the UK to ratify the treaty of Nice. [154098]

Last week's Command Paper contains the text of the treaty of Nice. We will bring the Bill necessary to ratify the treaty before the House as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress that has been made towards enlargement can certainly lead to the avoidance of the mistakes of the last century, particularly those mistakes that led to wars, and does he agree that the Opposition have not necessarily learned the lessons of the last century? Will my hon. Friend elaborate on the early warning system and human rights?

My hon. Friend is correct on his last point. There is provision for an early warning system that would enable the European Union to intervene in a helpful way if there were any departure from human rights, but the departure has to be serious and persistent before it is triggered. I agree absolutely with his other remarks. A dozen or more countries are now seeking to join the European Union. One day they will be in the Council Chamber as full members. It is in Britain's interest that they remember us as friends of their applications and as supporters of the treaty of Nice.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the failure at Nice to halt the continuing slide to political integration will damage successful enlargement? In that vein, the Belgian presidency is seeking tax harmonisation on all savings, on personal and company taxation and on energy, labour and capital. Why is he not fighting to reform the one policy that will really jeopardise enlargement—the common agricultural policy, where British leadership is so pathetically absent?

There is not a single Government among the candidate nations who would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the treaty of Nice does not further enlargement. I ask him to reflect on the fact that if someone is the only one who holds a certain opinion, it is just possible that that person is wrong. The hon. Gentleman is probably wise to stick to his written text, rather than to try to answer my question, but the House will have noticed that he and the right hon. Member for Horsham cannot tell us what must be renegotiated in the treaty of Nice. If they cannot tell us, they might as well admit that their policy is wrong and lacking in credibility and that they have no intention of carrying it out.

We shall deal with question 24. I call Mr. Ben Bradshaw.

If he will make a statement on the situation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. [154111]

On Sunday, the army of Macedonia launched an operation to retake the hills above Tetevo. The operation appears to have been a success and the armed extremists have abandoned their positions.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that statement and warmly welcome the constructive role being played by Britain in securing the Macedonia-Kosovo border, but will he make it absolutely plain to all the protagonists in the region that nationalism and attempts to redraw borders will not be tolerated by the international community? Will he do all that he can, working with his partners, to ensure that there is a just and peaceful settlement in Macedonia?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When the European Council met in Stockholm, it received President Trajkovski, who addressed us. In our conclusion in the declaration at the end of that meeting, the European Union affirmed its commitment to the sovereignty of Macedonia and to its territorial integrity. We want the countries of the Balkans to continue on their path towards greater association and integration with the European Union, but that can be done only under the principles of the European Union, which involve respect for borders and an acceptance that borders can never be changed by force.

We welcome the decision to send an extra British contingent to the frontier. British troops are particularly well suited and well trained for such work, and it is essential that the border between Kosovo and Macedonia should be properly sealed to prevent terrorists from coming across. There must be resolute support for the Government of Macedonia, who are democratic, legitimate, include Albanian parties and have endeavoured to create a genuinely multi-ethnic society.

I welcome the opening two sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and will convey to KFOR and the British troops his support for, and confidence in, their deployment to the border.

You agreed with the policy.

I did not agree with the policy; I happen to remember because I was the Opposition spokesman at the time.

Order. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) must allow the Foreign Secretary to reply.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants a contrast—

rose—

Order. I have given the right hon. Gentleman an instruction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a contrast, it is the contrast between the vigorous and resolute action that we took in Kosovo to halt ethnic cleansing and the tolerance, under a Conservative Government, of ethnic cleansing for years in Bosnia.

What are the rules of engagement under which British troops could open fire?

My hon. Friend raised that question yesterday with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and asked him to place the document in the Library. The rules of engagement is a military document, and it is not customary to make it public. It is not helpful to British troops for others to know the point at which they will open fire and, therefore, the point up to which they can go before fire is opened. It is very much in the interests of British troops that we preserve the discretion of that document.

May I offer my support to the Government in the policy outlined by the Foreign Secretary? In circumstances where all the gains so painfully achieved in the Balkans over the past 10 years have been put at risk, will he continue to impress on the Macedonian Government the need for their forces to exercise restraint and self-discipline, and not to fall into the pattern of revenge that we have so often seen in the Balkans during those 10 years?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a number of valid points. I entirely agree with him on the importance of the Macedonian army remaining disciplined, focused and proportionate in its response. I echo the welcome given by Lord Robertson in Skopje late last night for the fact that the recent action was firm and restrained. We should remember that 40 per cent. of the Macedonian army is Albanian.

It is surely right and in our national interest to support the democratic Government of Macedonia, who have been a beacon in a highly difficult region. As my right hon. Friend said, there is the military track and the political track. What particular help is he prepared to give the Macedonian Government in addressing the legitimate grievances of the Albanian minority? What does he have in mind? Would it not be best if a Foreign Office Minister took our clear message to the Macedonian Government, who are now, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, in a position of strength?

I am pleased to say that we are already heavily engaged in helping the Macedonian Government in practical ways. The United Kingdom has committed £500,000 to help to set up the new Albanian university in Tetevo, which should open for business this coming autumn. Obviously, we will look sympathetically at other projects.

What help will the British Government give the Macedonian Government in relation to the population census in that country, which is planned for next month? Will American troops be playing a greater role in policing the Kosovo-Macedonia border?

Much of the border is in the American sector. The Americans are already involved in policing that border and our troops will work closely with the local US commander when they get there. We discussed the census at Stockholm and I put it to the Commission that we should be willing to provide European Union observers because the Albanian community is keen for it to have an international legitimacy.

May I support everything that my right hon. Friend said today and in Stockholm? I also agree with his condemnation of the demand by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that we should show some support for the independence of Kosovo. It is a fragile state in which a small group of extremists on the border is trying to incite discontent among the minority population in Macedonia. The last thing they need to hear is that Members of this House have been talking about independence. There is a long way to go in Kosovo. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not know that his party involved others in helping to build a democracy there.

It is very important that no one speaks as if the extremists who have carried out the insurgency in Macedonia have the backing of the wider Albanian community. Their action has been condemned by the Albanian political leaders in Macedonia, the Kosovo leaders in Pristina and the Albanian Government. They represent themselves, not the wider community.

May I express the hope that the Foreign Secretary has studied the characteristically pungent remarks of David Lloyd George about the difficulty of influencing events in Macedonia and the experiences of the British Salonika expedition? Does he agree that the most cursory glance at the map shows that it would require tens of thousands of troops to close the Macedonian frontier to the countries that surround it? Will he also recognise that his remarks about the need to make further concessions to the Albanian minority in Macedonia will be badly received by the majority in that country who remember that almost identical language prefaced the British Government's decision to pursue policies that have replaced Serb rule with Albanian rule in Kosovo?

I have to be candid and confess that I have not had time in the past week to consult David Lloyd George on the situation in Macedonia. I have been trying to address the problems of this century, not those of a century ago. However, I rebut what the hon. Gentleman said. We should not regard a modern pluralist democracy in Macedonia as a concession. Indeed, better and stronger local government would benefit the people of both communities in that country.

Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence to establish what resources, there are in both Departments to fly out as many Conservative Members as possible to the Balkans to enhance their understanding of the area? Perhaps on that visit, they could discover what the consequences of a referendum for self-determination—independence—would be for the region. If we think that we have had problems up to now, I suspect that independence for Kosovo in the foreseeable future would have catastrophic results.

I absolutely endorse the last part of my right hon. Friend's observations. One of the strengths that our trained and equipped forces will bring to the border is a capacity for operating at night, which is the time when the terrorists try to move.

Is it not as well to recognise that while it is a good thing that British forces should be helping to "seal" the Schar Planina range and the border between Kosovo and Albania, in reality that will be impossible? We have put 20,000 troops in Northern Ireland for 25 years, but we could not stop bombs being let off in London. We are talking of a border that is extremely difficult to police. We must do our best, but we should not promise that we can stop exfiltration of terrorism from Kosovo, not least because even if we could do a good job on that border, it would still be possible to pass through the Albanian border between the south of Kosovo and Lake Ochrid, which is already happening.

First, may I correct the right hon. Gentleman? We do not use the term "seal" the border for the very reason that the right hon. Gentleman has stated. We can do much more to secure the border, but we are not pretending that in a difficult terrain we shall be 100 per cent. effective. However, that does not undermine the importance of doing what we can to prevent movements, as we have already, and we can do more. For instance, we can prevent the movement of heavy weaponry—that is certainly a feasible objective. We will enhance liaison with the Macedonian military intelligence to ensure that we co-operate as partners.

I was in Kosovo last week, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. I saw what was happening. I find it difficult to control my anger having heard the irresponsible utterances of the Opposition spokesman, who seeks to be in a Conservative Government. May I—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the matters for which the Foreign Secretary has responsibility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. Friend speaks from the experience of his visit. I have already condemned what I believe to be an unhelpful and irresponsible call for independence in Kosovo, but I am happy to do so again. My hon. Friend is right to remind us all that there are several thousand British troops in Kosovo who have to live with the consequences.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in facing the incredibly difficult ethnic mix, the tensions and the prospective explosive situation in the Balkans, an element that has not been mentioned is the amazingly high level of criminality? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be appropriate for the Government to do all that they can to assist all local Governments to have available to them the necessary mechanisms of law and order? There is a mix between ethnic nationalism and banditry and crime of every sort.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and important point. A high priority of our policy on Kosovo and the wider region is to work with our European partners to tackle the organised crime that threatens to disfigure the region. That is why, in the early days after the liberation of Kosovo, we sent in a police contingent to look particularly at criminal investigation. We shall continue to do all that we can to make sure that we tackle crime. The tragedy is that organised crime in the region and the drugs trade have a close overlap with the terrorist extremists whom we have seen in action in the past week.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, especially his emphasis on seeking long-term stability in the region once we have dealt with the conflict in Macedonia. Will he express his view on the pending referendum in Montenegro, the fact that the Albanian minority will almost certainly vote for independence—but for the wrong reason—and the impact that that will have on the conflict in Macedonia? Does he agree that the secret is not the ridiculous suggestion from the Opposition, but the creation anchors of stability in Serbia and Albania, using Croatia as a model?

We have repeatedly urged on President Djukanovic the importance of any new constitutional arrangement between Montenegro and Serbia being achieved by mutual agreement, dialogue and negotiation. We have also stressed that a narrow majority in a referendum for independence is not what is required for such a major constitutional change; that would require a settled consensus of the population.

The Foreign Secretary is much better informed than the British public. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is a very wise man. Does he feel that the public may be a bit confused? Previously, the British Government went to war on behalf of Albanian self-determination in Kosovo-[Interruption.] No, it is true. Now, when another group of Albanians, admittedly rather nastier than the other lot, want to go to war for their own self-determination, they are condemned. Are the Government going to have a consistent policy and are they going to stand up for self-determination, wherever it occurs.

I know that Conservative Members are given to collective amnesia about what happened before 1997, but that is a remarkable piece of amnesia about something that happened only two years ago. We did not go to war on self-determination. We went into the conflict in Kosovo to halt a major humanitarian catastrophe, triggered by the systematic and brutal ethnic cleansing by President Milosevic. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who did not support us at the time, still argues about whether we were right to do so.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon. Our forces, as well as our Royal Ulster Constabulary and Ministry of Defence police officers, are doing a marvellous job in Kosovo. However, is there any truth in the claim in The Scotsman this morning that

"around 20 counter-insurgency specialists from the Royal Marines of the Arbroath-based 45 Commando will be sent to Macedonia"?

It is the case that we have recently dispatched a 10-officer recce team to Macedonia to advise us on how we can best support the army of Macedonia by providing advice, training and equipment. It has just submitted a report, which we are considering. We are not currently contemplating the dispatch of any further team, but if a case was made for a way in which we could be of assistance, it would be responsible of us to respond to that. Equally importantly, we should be responsible for safeguarding the security and safety of any troops whom we send.

As political initiative and diplomacy will be required to resolve the conflict, the number of troops is understandably small and ambitions for them are limited. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us who is in charge? Is it NATO, the European Union or the British Government?

The commander of KFOR is appointed by NATO and accountable to NATO. I do wish that, now and again, the right hon. Gentleman would address a serious issue under discussion, rather than trying to score his petty European points.

I was in Kosovo in January this year. One of the many things that I learned there was that the main food supplies, as well as aid and other goods, come into Kosovo through Macedonia. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that those routes will remain open or, if that cannot be guaranteed, that contingency plans are in place to ensure food supplies?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the strategic routes. It follows from that that there would be great difficulty in providing any alternative route in. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we support the Government of Macedonia—not just because they are democratic and multi-ethnic, but because they have been of great support to KFOR in Kosovo. We have a debt of honour to them, and we should discharge it by making sure that we give Macedonia all the help that we can.

On the same visit under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, many of us were surprised to learn that the Americans were not policing their own border. We were told that they did not have the type of troops that would normally go out on their own and be exposed in that way. Following America's announcement that it is taking troops out of its sector, can the Foreign Secretary tell us why we are sending British troops in? Is it because only British troops are willing to put their lives at risk? Are not some of the problems of overstretch of our forces caused by the fact that whenever there is a difficult issue to be dealt with, that must be done by British troops, rather than by our allies?

On overstretch, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the 300 troops that we are supplying for the border are from our present contingent to KFOR. They are not coming from any additional deployment to KFOR, although we have not ruled that out, should it be required by the commanders on the ground. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the position, broadly, in KFOR would be much easier if other nations showed the same flexibility as we did and were also willing to accept orders from ComFOR when he requires help in particular areas. Such a step by others would greatly enhance the capability, the achievements and the effectiveness of KFOR.

Does not the international community owe a great debt to Macedonia? Would it not send a valuable signal to the Government in Macedonia, who are trying to deal with infiltration through a border that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) described as very permeable, if we considered re-activating UNPREDEP, perhaps with a different mandate and perhaps extending its operation around Tetevo and Gostivar, and showing that we are committed to the integrity of the Macedonian border?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about our debt to Macedonia. I have already discussed that. At present, there is no active proposal in the United Nations for a restoration of UNPREDEP. That was ended following the Chinese veto after Macedonia recognised Taiwan, and there would be internal United Nations problems in restoring it. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can to seal our side of the border, and we are working with the Macedonian military to make sure that it can secure its side of the border.

The Foreign Secretary will remember the warnings that he received in 1999 that, as a product of the Government's diplomatic and military strategy, NATO and British forces would in the end be involved in opposing an ethnic Albanian insurgency. Is that what has happened?

At present we are making sure that the majority of the Albanian community in Kosovo can have the peaceful life that those people want, in their own society, free from the shadow of the terrorist, and free from the shadow of President Milosevic and the thugs with whom he was terrorising Kosovo two years ago. If the hon. Gentleman imagines that Macedonia would be any more stable now if we had allowed Macedonia to continue to be the host to half a million refugees from Kosovo, he has no grasp of reality. Macedonia is much more stable now than if we had not taken the action that we took to enable those people to go back to Kosovo.