Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels on 12th January 1994.
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the NATO summit in Brussels, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
On 10 January, the summit launched the "partnership for peace" programme with a framework document and an invitation to 22 states to participate. On 11 January, it issued a declaration. These documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
NATO summits are not held routinely, but only for a specific purpose. This was only
the 11th summit in 35 years. It met to carry forward the post-
NATO's core function is to ensure the security of its member states. It has been
by far the most successful collective security organisation in history, and it was
agreed that the alliance will continue to be the cornerstone of post-
Over the past five years, new democracies have been born to the east. A pre-
The aim of the partnership is to bring Europe together by building practical military
A second challenge for the summit was to improve the alliance's ability to mount
new humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. During the cold war, NATO's military
structures were based predominantly on static regional commands and large-
The summit endorsed the new concept of combined joint task forces. They will improve NATO's capability to deploy task forces inside or outside the NATO area, but, because they will be available for purely and predominantly European operations, the combined joint task forces could also meet the requirements of the European security and defence identity. They will strengthen the European role within NATO without detracting from its transatlantic character.
Partnership for peace and the combined joint task forces are changes of fundamental significance. The alliance will now begin to implement them. The summit discussed other important issues. It supported efforts by the United Nations and the European Union to secure a negotiated settlement in Bosnia. We discussed the recent intense fighting in Sarajevo. We reaffirmed our readiness, under the decisions taken last August, to carry out air strikes to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.
We also considered ways to solve two other current problems. The United Nations command in Bosnia has recently been prevented from rotating the United Nations Protection Force contingent in Srebrenica and from using Tuzla airport. On a proposal from the United Kingdom and France, the summit asked UNPROFOR to draw up plans for the Netherlands contingent to take over from the Canadians in Srebrenica. We also decided to examine with UNPROFOR how Tuzla airport could be opened for humanitarian relief purposes.
We would prefer not to have to use force, but those who are impeding UNPROFOR at Srebrenica and Tuzla must realise that force is available, if necessary, to support UNPROFOR and its ability to protect relief efforts.
In all our discussions, we were conscious of the importance of closer relationships with Russia's democratic leaders. Russia has a huge contribution to make to stability and to efforts to resolve international problems. I hope that the Russian Government will take up the invitation to partnership with the alliance. If they do, it will be another way in which we can enhance our support for reform and democracy in Russia.
I should briefly describe individual meetings which I held during those two days. I met the Prime Minister of Turkey and welcomed her country's continuing support for Operation Provide Comfort in Iraq. Mrs. Ciller expressed her commitment to settlement of the Cyprus problem, which is long overdue.
I focused on Bosnia in my meeting with the French Prime Minister. We decided to call for the action in connection with Srebrenica and Tuzla which I have described. With the German Chancellor and the Italian Prime Minister, I discussed developments in Europe and further efforts to enhance relations with Russia and to support reform there.
I thanked President Clinton for his support concerning Northern Ireland. We welcomed the decisions taken about Bosnia, and looked ahead to our next meeting in Washington at the end of February. I had a long meeting with the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Joulwan, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Sir Richard Vincent, and other senior NATO officers. We examined how "partnership for peace" would be put into effect, and the way in which the combined joint task forces would be set up.
It was a timely summit. It has reaffirmed northern America's commitment to Europe,
and has shown that the allies stand closely together in maintaining their collective
security. The summit has carried forward the modernisation of NATO's military structures.
It has launched a vital new initiative towards the east, opening the way to new relationships
and new members. It has established the outward-
Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East): We on this side of the House broadly welcome the declaration agreed by the North Atlantic Council yesterday in Brussels. We hope that it is the beginning of a process in which countries and institutions such as NATO seek to come to terms with the opportunities and challenges that result from the end of the cold war.
I particularly welcome the general principles and direction of the "partnership for
peace" concept. That offers the prospect of closer co-
However, may I suggest that the emphasis on military co-
On issues of arms control and disarmament, which were discussed at the council, we
welcome the declaration's stated commitment to the indefinite and unconditional extension
of the non-
Despite attempts by the British Government to continue nuclear testing, we welcome the US moratorium and similar action by France and Russia, which we hope will soon lead to a treaty being signed. Do the Government accept the target date of September 1996 for the successful negotiation of that vital treaty?
Following the welcome agreement by the United States, Russia and Ukraine to destroy
Ukraine's nuclear weapons, will the British Government accelerate the promise made
in 1992 to supply British-
On the continuing and agonising situation in Bosnia, will the Prime Minister say whether the acceptance of the use of air strikes now is different from or stronger than the apparent commitment made last August, which resulted in no effective action or sustained improvement in the situation?
Does the Prime Minister accept that repeated declarations that are not followed through
risk undermining the credibility of both NATO and the whole UN operation, and only
strengthen the hands of those who have become adept at defying the wishes of the
international community? Will effective action now be taken to open the airport at
Tuzla, allow the replacement of UNPROFOR forces in Srebrenica, and lift the siege
of Sarajevo? Is it not wholly intolerable that a defenceless population in Sarajevo
should be shelled so relentlessly and pitilessly? Was it not disgraceful that, during
Finally, will the Prime Minister put an end to suggestions that British forces in Bosnia might be withdrawn once the winter is over? Do we not need a commitment to increase ground forces, as requested by the UN, to make a greater effort to bring some peace to Bosnia?
The Prime Minister: First, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general
support for the declaration and the "partnership for peace" policy. I am sure that
he is right to say that co-
On political development and military co-
Our offer to help the Ukraine with the removal of nuclear weapons has been there for some time. I do not immediately know whether it is practicable to accelerate it, but I have no objection in principle to doing so if that would be of assistance and if our assistance is required. The agreement reached between Presidents Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk, if carried through, is a remarkable advance in the reduction of nuclear weapons and I very much hope that it will be adequately carried out. To have nuclear weapons removed from Ukraine would be a great bonus.
The declaration on the general level of air strikes as regards Sarajevo was a reiteration
of what was suggested on 2 and 9 August. Of course, the practical decisions for that
should not be made by politicians some distance away, but should best be made upon
the advice of troop commanders near at hand. It is predominantly upon their advice
that it would be right for NATO leaders to act. Reservations have been expressed
by troop commanders from time to time, and we would be very unwise to sweep those
to one side. It was determined that, in the light of advice that we might receive,
the agreement in principle for military strikes exists. What is different in this
particular declaration is that the two specific cases of Srebrenica and Tuzla are
included under the broad umbrella. The position in Srebrenica is that the Canadian
troops can probably come out-
It is intolerable when UNPROFOR troops are inhibited from getting into Srebrenica to carry out the necessary humanitarian work. To be strictly correct in relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, Tuzla airport is technically open. The problem lies around the airport, because there is a danger of incoming aircraft being attacked. It is not immediately evident precisely what needs to be done on the ground.
It is for that reason that the commanders are finalising the plans that they commenced
some time ago with the determination to ensure that Tuzla airport is open-
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): When?
The Prime Minister: As soon as possible. It should be open to assist the humanitarian relief. The right hon. Gentleman may shout, "When?", but, yet again, if we are wise, we will not issue such casual edicts from afar, but will seek the advice of the military commanders on the spot. That is what we are committed to doing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the withdrawal of troops from Bosnia. We have committed ourselves to assist with humanitarian aid, and I must tell the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, at this stage, I am not prepared to extend that commitment until I am certain of the security of British troops working for the United Nations there. I have consistently taken that position, and it is also taken by the Heads of other Governments who have troops on the ground in Bosnia. Despite the remarkable work that they have done for humanitarian reasons, our first concern must be the security of the United Nations troops, and in particular those of our own country.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): If air strikes are authorised, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that contingency plans are in place to prevent British troops and United Nations troops from being sucked in to the conflict in Bosnia?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is part of the UNPROFOR determination to discuss with
troop commanders on the ground the current position. I am sure that my hon. Friend
will realise why I do not go into details of what might have to happen in those circumstances,
but I reiterate that the security of our troops would be given the very highest priority
of all. The Secretary-
Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that the future peace and stability of Europe depend on upholding the principle of national integrity of borders, especially in volatile areas such as the new democracies of eastern Europe? If NATO, for very good reasons, has to treat the matter gradually, is there not a case for Europe and the Western European Union to be a little more bold? Specifically, does the Prime Minister accept that the WEU has a role to strengthen and complement NATO's actions in creating a framework for peace in Europe?
On Bosnia, does the Prime Minister recognise that, as he has been warned on many occasions, the bottom line credibility of the United Nations operation in Bosnia is now at risk? As President Clinton said, if we cannot show the determination to deliver our promises, we should not make promises. In that context, is not the opening of Tuzla airport central to that credibility? If the Prime Minister will not say exactly when that airport will be opened, will he at least give us an indication of the time scale in which he expects it to happen?
The Prime Minister: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that the last part of his question was unreal. It does depend on what is happening on the ground and on the advice that we get from the troop commanders there.
As for not making promises unless we can keep them, we have been very careful about
promises we make unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has been shifting and manoeuvring
throughout this whole operation, advocating everything from all-
On the right hon. Gentleman's earlier point, there are practical reasons for adopting, and it is right in principle to adopt, an evolutionary approach to the possible extension of the NATO alliance. Of course the WEU has a role ; that is partly why we have combined task forces. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Western European Union also has a role as part of the European defence identity and as the European pillar of the NATO alliance. That is most certainly true, and it will remain so.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster): I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance about the priority given to the security of British and other United Nations forces in Bosnia. I also welcome the cautious approach that he and his colleagues have adopted towards the evolutionary process of bringing the former Warsaw pact countries under the NATO umbrella.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about Cyprus? He said that he met the Turkish Prime Minister and obtained assurances from the Turks that they seek a peaceful solution. Will he also approach the Greek leadership and ensure that the Greeks do not adopt too aggressive a stance in attempts to reach that peaceful solution?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, the straight answer is yes : most certainly.
That is a matter that we regularly discuss with the Governments of Greece and Turkey.
What was encouraging in my discussions with Mrs. Ciller was her belief that the confidence-
This dispute has gone on for far too long. United Nations troops have been in Cyprus far too long, and I think that there is impatience on all sides that people should move towards a proper settlement of what we have for too long known as the Cyprus problem. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about an evolutionary approach to the extension of NATO. I am sure that such an approach is right. For example, once a country enters the NATO alliance, it undertakes an inviolable commitment to defend the security of NATO's borders.
There has been a British Army on the Rhine for 25 years. Once NATO is extended, it is conceivable that, at some stage, there will be a NATO army, not on the Rhine but on the Vistula. We need to be careful about extending NATO; it must be done in an evolutionary fashion. That is right in principle, and desirable in terms of the practical way in which NATO should develop.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given his office notice? Are his NATO colleagues at ease about the continuing sanctions and actions against Libya, given the evidence from Edwin Bollier, the Swiss manufacturer of the timing mechanisms that were so crucial to the Lockerbie crime, and the evidence of his engineer, Ulrich Lumpert? Is it true that Lumpert's evidence was given to the Scottish police three years ago?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his question about the Lockerbie bombing. Sanctions against Libya were not the subject of discussion at the summit. As the hon. Gentleman has said, new evidence has been reported in the press, casting doubt on Libyan complicity, but after five years, the inquiry into the bombing has not revealed any evidence that implicates any country besides Libya.
Recent press reports notwithstanding, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains convinced that the evidence still justifies the warrants issued for the arrest of the two Lockerbie suspects. The inquiry remains open; if anyone has new evidence pertinent to the case, he should pass it to the investigating authorities without delay. But there seems no doubt at the moment that it is right for the two warrants to stand.
Mr. David Howell (Guildford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the accepted or agreed new stronger line against Serbian obstruction of humanitarian aid in Bosnia is welcome, provided that the operations are carefully limited, and that it does not lead to any uncontrolled escalation of outside troop involvement in the area? On the question of NATO expansion, did my right hon. Friend note the comment by the President of Poland, Lech Walesa, a few days ago that it would be a tragedy if Poland and other western and central European countries were not brought by some firm date into a new European security alliance of some kind? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that can be done without in any way isolating Russia and its neighbours, whose security needs are also great? Does he accept that that is the right way forward, and that it would allow us to have a Europe with a new security system, and not one in which many countries feel that they are still in a security vacuum?
The Prime Minister: On Yugoslavia, I can do no other than agree with my right hon.
Friend. In terms of the expansion of NATO, for the reasons that I set out some moments
ago, it is right to take this matter carefully and to deal, firstly, through the
"partnership for peace" proposals. Of course, in the case of Poland and the other
Visigrad countries, it is expected that at some stage in the future-
Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South): The Prime Minister and the other Heads of State and Governments are to be congratulated on evolving NATO even further and, in particular, on confounding those who had hoped that NATO and the alliance were now superfluous. While the Prime Minister was discussing "P4P", we were discussing "B2B".
I have three brief questions. First, if NACC-
The Prime Minister: We are, of course, moving on beyond NACC with what is actually proposed. On the levels of armed forces, of course the intention is that there should be joint task forces, for example, and joint disciplines. There would be more people coming in to be available to deal with peacekeeping and other matters. Of course, those countries that are in "partnership for peace" would also be able to play a role in the joint task forces from an early stage. Therefore, a good deal of practical action can be taken to prepare the countries in the "partnership for peace" proposals for possible eventual accession to NATO.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his exceptionally
strong support team on the important British contribution to this sound strategic
plan for NATO. Does he agree that the worthy objective of the distribution of humanitarian
aid in Bosnia requires the active co-
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points precisely to one of the primary factors that needs to be taken into account before determining whether any military action of any sort needs to be taken. It is easy to say that it is an easy decision, and that one has only to unleash an aircraft or two and all will be well. I say to those who readily advocate that course without careful thought that it may well not be a wise policy. It may be a necessary policy at some stage, but such a policy should be entered into with very considerable caution.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The Prime Minister reiterates yet again the readiness
to use air strikes. Can he explain how, over these many months, no action whatsoever
has been taken where it has been desperately necessary, and all we have had have
been the mumblings and the bumblings of the Foreign Secretary of this country, and
of other western countries in Europe? How has he-
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated, with very great clarity, I fear, how easy it is to make declaratory remarks without considering what is necessary on the ground to carry them out and without any understanding whatever of what we might be asking the commanders on the ground to do, and, if they have done it, what the subsequent implications of that would be, either for their troops on the ground, the humanitarian operation, or indeed the civilian population, who are there to be helped, if it became impossible to carry forward the humanitarian operation.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. Every Head of Government at NATO
had the will. What we need to be sure of is that it is wise to do so, and on that
we must necessarily rely on the advice of the commanders on the ground, and, as the
sanctions are in United Nations guise, the sanction of the Secretary-
Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington): In view of what my right hon. Friend has
said, does he now feel that there is a key role for the Western European Union to
extend the hand of co-
The Prime Minister: Yes. I have no doubt about the present-
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Would the Prime Minister care to elaborate on what obligations he might feel that some countries may not be able to meet in becoming members of NATO? Although I welcome the general thrust of the statement and the Council meetings, does he agree that it is unwise to make promises that may not be able to be fulfilled, and imply threats that are not carried out? In the end, that causes people to ignore the issues.
When he thanks President Clinton for his co-
The Prime Minister: President Clinton has certainly given strong support to the joint declaration issued before Christmas, and he reiterated that in a meeting that we had in Brussels a day or so ago. I have no doubt that we will return to the general issue of Northern Ireland in the meeting that I will have with him on 28 February. There would be substantial obligations for countries joining NATO. They would, for example, need to join the integrated military structure. Fresh members of NATO would certainly be required to do that.
One of the reasons why it is right in practice, as well as in principle, to have an interim approach via "partnership for peace" is that one needs to prepare the planning, organisation and management of defence in other nations, to look at a whole range of things, such as equipment interoperability and a proper legal framework for military forces, all of which, when the time came, perhaps, for a country to enter NATO, would need to be determined. During the period of membership of "partnership for peace", it is hoped that, through those proposals, potential applicant members will begin to make those changes.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that,
if the central and welcome aim of the summit-
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be desirable both to prevent the expansion of the present conflict and then to bring it entirely to a halt. What has happened has tended to happen frequently. There was no doubt at the outset of the conflict that the principal aggressor was Serbia and the principal victims were the Bosnian Muslims.
Since then, the position has become not quite so clear-
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): Will the Prime Minister accept that at the heart of the issues concerning the future of NATO are Europe's community of interest and the understandable security fears of the Visegrad countries in central Europe? Therefore, will he make it clear this afternoon, as the Foreign Secretary did on the BBC's "Newsnight" the other night, that any physical threat to the security of those countries, irrespective of when they become members of NATO, will be met by effective NATO action to defend them?
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have put it in quite that crisp fashion. [Laughter.] My right hon. Friend is quite capable of doing almost anything, but I doubt that he spoke precisely in those terms. Of course the security of countries is of great importance to us. However, what the hon. Gentleman invites me to say goes further than he would find anyone going at the moment.
The best way to ensure security for the future of Europe is to ensure that the reform process and the reformers in Russia are sustained and stay there. That is of vital interest not just to Russia but to the rest of central and eastern Europe. If there is one thing that would be of immense value for this generation of politicians across Europe to pass on to the next, it would be to have helped Russia to become permanently a good neighbour to Europe, and part of the general western system of democratic nations.
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes): Could my right hon. Friend elaborate on the integration of the French Government and French forces into future NATO planning and thought? That is crucial both in NATO and in the WEU.
The Prime Minister: French forces have for many years not been part of the integrated command in the same way that other NATO forces have been. As to the joint task forces and the new proposals, France will play precisely the same role in terms of integration as each of the other members of the NATO alliance. France will take a full part, to deal with the point most pertinently, in the joint task forces that are proposed.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): While many of us will understand the caution being exercised by the Government and their allies in the context of the expansion of NATO, could the Prime Minister elaborate on the criteria that will apply to those who wish to move from partnership into membership, particularly in the context of the time scale that will be applied, not solely in terms of capability? What consideration is being given to the Baltic states, given that Lithuania is one of the applicants for full membership of NATO, as those states that are recently independent from the Soviet Union surely deserve our support?
The Prime Minister: Yes, they certainly deserve our support, and we hope that they
will take up the "partnership for peace" proposals. The Baltic states are among the
countries that have had the offer, and I both hope and expect that they will take
it up. The obligations placed on potential applicants for NATO are the same as those
that are placed on existing NATO states-
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-
Will the Germans participate out of area, as to do so is against their basic law?
Will there be integrated military staffs? Will there be pre-
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's last point shows precisely why we need the new combined joint task forces. Many of his detailed questions are being considered by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who will report to the North Atlantic Council by the end of March. I suspect that I am able to anticipate most of the report, but it would perhaps be wiser to wait until he has delivered it.
Although the command and control, for example, of NATO operations in Bosnia has been ingenious and effective, it has necessarily been ad hoc. It is intended to ensure that the alliance is capable of taking on a full range of likely future mission adjustments. The purpose of the combined joint task forces will be to ensure that a proper command and control structure is swiftly available, rather than it having to be provided when a crisis arises.
It is a new concept that is being developed by SACEUR. Its intention is to provide
more flexibility, specially earmarked personnel and personnel who are trained, used
to working together and deployable, at home or abroad, at short notice under the
command of NATO. As my hon. Friend knows, the concept has been employed with some
success by some nations-
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Was not NATO set up in 1948 in answer to a perceived
threat from the Soviet Union? Since that threat has now diminished and disappeared-
The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries many Labour Members
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath): In view of the isolationist tendencies in the
United States, should not the President's firm commitment to have 100,000 American
troops on the continent of Europe be warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides
of the House? My right hon. Friend will have read the reports of an era of estrangement
between Britain and the United States. Will he and the Foreign Secretary make a new
year resolution to do all in their power to ensure that the Anglo-
The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, I strongly welcome the re-
As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there was one area of disagreement
some nine months ago, but apart from that, President Clinton called for the integration
of a broader Europe and the integration of the former communist bloc with the rest
of Europe. As the House will know, I have been advocating that course vigorously-
When I next meet President Clinton in Washington at the end of February we shall have much to discuss : Russia, on which we have a common view; the free trade agreement; the GATT agreement, on which we worked together to ensure that it came about; the middle east peace process; Lockerbie; sanctions on Iraq. Those are all matters on which the United Kingdom and the United States are in complete agreement and upon which the two Governments have worked together. As I said a moment ago, I was able to thank him for his strong support over Northern Ireland. So the relationship between the United Kingdom and United States is in very good repair.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Does the Prime Minister agree that
Tuzla airport has become critical precisely because the heaviest, severest and most
barbarous fighting is between the Muslims and the Croats in the areas around Mostar
and Vitez and is blocking the supply line from the port of Split? Was there no discussion
at the NATO conference of the need for pressure to be put on the Croats and the Muslims?
How on earth can a one-
The Prime Minister: It is not just a question of signing in Geneva. Quite a lot of agreements have been signed in Geneva. What concerns me is whether the agreements signed in Geneva are honoured in Bosnia. That has been the principal difficulty.
As for putting pressure on all the parties, that point was discussed, and it was agreed that, in terms of diplomatic political pressure, it is desirable to put pressure on all the parties, not only the Serbs. There are particular transgressions by the Serbs, where it may be necessary for us to carry out the air strikes we referred to earlier, but pressure undoubtedly needs to be put on all three parties to achieve a negotiated political settlement : the hon. Gentleman is quite right.
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): In view of the recent sale of North Korean
The Prime Minister: Predominantly, the summit endorsed comprehensive examination
by NATO of responses to the particular problems of proliferation. The intention is
that that approach will embrace the traditional non-
Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness): The final communique at the summit referred to NATO intensifying and expanding its efforts to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what specific or new proposals he has in mind to achieve this desirable and important objective?
The Prime Minister: It was one of the things that has occurred. It is not simply
a matter for the United Kingdom ; that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, spreads much
more widely. The agreement that was reached with the Ukraine, Russia and the United
States is a further move forward. We need to make sure that START and other agreements
are fully honoured. All these are elements of the non-
Several hon. Members rose -
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.