119
[Mr. Hurd]
Foreign Affairs and Defence
19 NOVEMBER 1993
anything to do with qualified majority voting. There is no suggestion in the Councils we have had since then that any of this should be dealt with by qualified majority voting; it simply would not be appropriate or suitable, and we would not agree to it. The circumstances in which qualified majority voting can be used are set out in the treaty. There is no suggestion that it should be applied in this case.
Getting back to the question of Bosnia, we need a big push this winter if the present political vacuum and lack of co-operation persist. The parties cannot expect the humanitarian commitment that many of us undertake to continue indefinitely. It is unrealistic to expect that the convoys and the troops escorting them can go on for ever, when we are not receiving local co-operation and when there is no progress towards a political settlement.
Mr. David Faber (Westbury): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: Let me get on a bit and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
The onus is now on the Serbs to make further territorial concessions to meet Muslim demands in the Geneva talks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) knows, Belgrade faces a bleak and sanctions-ridden winter. If a Bosnian settlement is agreed and is being implemented, those sanctions could and should be progressively lifted.
Mr. Faber: I am very heartened to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. When the EC Foreign Ministers meet next week, will my right hon. Friend again raise the issue of such sanctions against Croatia? Given that as many as 15,000 regular Croat army troops are currently in Bosnia, continuing to commit atrocities, apparently without punishment, under the very noses of British troops; given that British troops in Bosnia acknowledge that they are at greatest risk from Croat soldiers; and given the mindless acts of vandalism, such as the destruction of the bridge in Mostar, it seems incredible to some of us that the issue of sanctions against Croatia is still not on the negotiating table.
Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that introducing sanctions against Croatia would help remedy those matters. As my hon. Friend knows, the sanctions were originally introduced against Serbia and Montenegro because the Security Council believed, and we agreed, that the main responsibility for starting and sustaining the war at that time rested with the Serbs and Montenegrans. The Croats later joined in, but it does not necessarily follow that sanctions against Croatia-even if they were agreed— would bring these evils to an end. Sanctions cannot be ruled out, and President Tudjman is aware of that. Whether there could be agreement about the use of applying them at this time needs to be discussed, but a decision on that is not likely to be taken on Monday.
Turning briefly to the world economic scene, the next few weeks in the Uruguay round negotiations will be, I believe, the last few weeks. A breakthrough on market access was achieved at Tokyo in July, but it has not been translated into immediate results in Geneva. Progress has been painfully slow-partly because of the nature of the negotiations; nobody wants to make concessions until the last moment.
Foreign Affairs and Defence
120
Some of our major partners have cial reasons to be cautious. The United States has waited until the voting on the North American Free Trade Agreement was completed in Congress. I congratulate the President on the success of that vote, and I hope that the United States can now give much-needed momentum to the Uruguay round and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
A successful outcome, however, will depend on more than that. It will require enormous efforts from the negotiators and brave decisions from the political leaders, including those in the European Community, between now and the deadline of 15 December. I believe, however, that the House accepts our view that we cannot afford not to reach agreement.
The best advertisement for the benefits of the free market and an open trading system is, of course, Hong Kong. It combines a clean and efficient administration with a system of values based on the rule of law: together, those factors have made Hong Kong special-in my view, unique-and successful over the years. If Hong Kong is to remain attractive to business men and investors, and to its citizens and their children, those assets must be preserved.
Our talks with China on constitutional changes in Hong Kong are not about whether there should be a growth in democracy-whether democratic arrangements should operate now and after 1997. That principle is agreed by both Governments. The argument is about whether the final round of elections to be held under British sovereignty -some will take place next year, and some in 1995—will be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
We have agreed with the Chinese that the content of the continuing talks should be confidential, but our approach has been persistent; we have continued to look for an agreement. It has also been flexible, within the framework laid down by-among others--the governor of Hong Kong, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me. I have discussed these matters with my Chinese colleague, the Chinese Foreign Minister, twice in the past four months. We are resolved to intensify our efforts in the talks, focusing first on the more easily soluble issues in a first-stage agreement. We will work strenuously for such an agreement—indeed, we are already doing so—but not at any price. We have made major moves to meet Chinese concerns. Now they know, as we do, that time is running short; we look to the Government in Peking to work with us in bridging the remaining gap.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the time for whittling away the limited democratic proposals advanced by the governor a few months ago has come to an end? Is not there a serious danger of a complete capitulation to the Chinese position, which will undermine the morale of all who believe in pro ress towards greater democracy in Hong Kong- which has now been established in, for example, Taiwan? Is it not time that Parliament took a strong stand and said, "We believe in democracy worldwide, including in Hong Kong and, ultimately, China”?
Mr. Hurd: The arrangements for the elections in Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995 will be decided by the Legislative Council there. Before too long, the governor will have to put proposals to the council, but it is the council that will decide. We should prefer the governor to be in a position to put proposals that had been agreed with the Chinese. We do not yet know whether that is possible, but it is clearly
82 CD54/4 Job 1-10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.