---

Foreign Affairs and Defence

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Secretary-General, provoked or stimulated by the panel, produced what seems to me a much more elegant solution than that originally envisaged by the panel. Darfur has implications for the United Nations. The Minister for Europe made a strong case for what has happened, but he did not persuade me and I doubt whether he persuaded himself. The international community’s response to the crisis in Darfur has been slow and inadequate. None of us can be other than shamed by what we have done or not done about Darfur. According to the United Nations, 2 million people have fled their homes and at least 180,000 are thought to have died. People in Darfur are still unsafe and suffering shortages of food, water and medicine. That will be remedied only by strong and concerted peace enforcement action—I use those words advisedly—in Darfur, with full United Nations backing. The world has watched as Governments have prevaricated and the killing has continued. The Security Council should secure the presence of an African Union-led force of at least 10,000 troops and police as the UN’s humanitarian chief has requested, with full logistical and financial backing and air support. The force should have a clearer and stronger mandate to protect civilians, not just themselves. There should be targeted sanctions against the Sudanese Government, including a comprehensive arms embargo. A strict no-fly zone should be imposed over Darfur. United Nations monitors should be deployed, including human rights observers, and all the atrocities should be referred to the International Criminal Court. Effective action is imperative, to protect not only the civilians in Darfur but the fragile north-south peace process. The violence in Uzbekistan is a matter of grave concern. However, it is hardly surprising, given its Government’s long-standing record of systematic human rights abuses. For the moment at least, the former ambassador, Mr. Murray, must feel vindicated. The United States has a military base in Uzbekistan. It signed a strategic partnership agreement in 2002 and has provided more than $200 million in aid. There are reports that the United States and the United Kingdom receive information from the Uzbekistan Government that may have been obtained by torture. What do our Government say to those allegations? Why, in the past five years, have our Government approved arms export licences to Uzbekistan for categories including"““military, security and paramilitary goods and arms””?" Exactly what sort of equipment has been exported? If we are serious about arms exports, we should also be serious about their transparency. Did those exports conform to criterion 2 of the ““Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria””, which the Foreign Office publishes? It provides that licences should not be issued when there is a"““clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression””." What the devil is taking place in Uzbekistan now if it is not internal repression? Concerted pressure must be placed on the Uzbekistan Government to respect the universal right of peaceful protest and freedom of expression. Western states, including Britain, must defend and promote human rights and democracy everywhere in the world. There should be no selectivity. Oppressive regimes should not be exempt from censure simply because of political expediency. The campaign to spread freedom and human rights can never succeed unless the same rules apply equally to all. I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on Europe. He expressed his view a little more noisily than his predecessor but it is not much different. I thought that I detected a stirring in Rushcliffe; I thought that there might be a moment when Rushcliffe would be unable to resist the bait to put the sensible case on Europe, which used to be a characteristic of the Conservative party but has long since disappeared—