---

European Affairs

It is a pleasure to sum up this often lively debate for Her Majesty's Opposition. It has touched on a number of subjects, including the European economy, the Balkans, the Russian invasion of Georgia and the European summit later this week. We also touched on other subjects. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) spoke movingly, from her own perspective, about Turkish-Kurdish relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) spoke knowledgeably about the complex problem of Cyprus. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) achieved something remarkable: she charmed my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). During our debates on the Lisbon treaty, Ministers almost pleaded with him on a number of occasions not to intervene on them, all to no avail. However, she somehow managed to keep him at bay for half an hour. She has developed a knack that we on the Front Benches have not yet mastered. Therefore, we must pay tribute to her. One of the most important challenges for the international community in Europe today is the need to maintain stability in the Balkans, and in particular to preserve it in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), touched on that in his contribution. The Bosnian wars of the 1990s were perhaps Europe's bloodiest in the past 60 years and were an unfortunate throwback to some of the worst chapters in European history. Since those days, there has been much progress. The Dayton peace agreement has by and large held. Bosnia and Herzegovina recently signed up to an EU stabilisation and association agreement and looks as if it might be on the road to eventual EU membership. However, although Bosnia presents a face of progress to the outside world, serious problems remain. The state institutions remain weak, with politicians in both Republika Srpska and the Croat-Muslim Federation pandering to some extent to nationalist sentiment. Crucial reforms, such as the need to set up a truly national police force, remain blocked. Most worryingly, the political rhetoric of the Bosnian Serb Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, has become increasingly strident in recent months. In fact, in a recent joint article in The Guardian entitled ““A Bosnian powder keg””, Richard Holbrooke and Lord Ashdown stated of Dodik:"““His long-term policy seems clear: to place his Serb entity, Republika Srpska, in a position to secede if the opportunity arises.””" Bosnia is therefore at something of a tipping point. Either it can go forwards, build up its institutions and start down the road to eventual EU membership or—God forbid—it can regress into the Bosnia of yesteryear, a failed state riven by religious and ethnic hatred. However, it is at this point that international resolve seems to be in danger of faltering. The long-term future of EUFOR, the European Union force tasked with maintaining stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, remains uncertain. Its lifespan has now been extended for another year, which we welcome. However, given the delicate situation in Bosnia, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will continue to support EUFOR and the High Representative and that they will call on other EU states and the United States Administration to do the same? There are, however, some positive signs in the Balkans. In Serbia, the elections in February resulted in the victory of President Boris Tadic, who was elected on a manifesto committed to improving relations with the European Union. Significantly, the nationalist elements in Serbia, having failed in the election campaign to convince the Serbian people of their vision of an isolated, inward-looking Serbia, have since turned on themselves and divided in two. That leaves us with a real opportunity in Serbia to demonstrate the benefits of engagement with the outside world, including with the European Union. I would, however, offer this warning to the Minister. History tells us that these opportunities for progress in the Balkans do not last for ever. It is therefore important to resist those voices in some EU states that are tempted to speak out against further EU enlargement. If states such as those in the Balkans are led to believe that future EU membership is closed off to them for ever, they might look for an alternative future, in which the progress of the past few years could be dramatically unwound. Since our last EU affairs debate, we have seen a sight that most of us hoped had been confined to archive film footage: Russian tanks rolling across a European frontier. The Russian action in August in invading the sovereign territory of its neighbour, Georgia, not only violated international law but ran contrary to its own express sentiments at the United Nations a few months earlier. Whatever one might think of the Georgian actions on 7 August, the Russian invasion of Georgia was grossly disproportionate, and in breach of international law. That fact was rightly acknowledged by the Foreign Secretary, and we congratulated and supported him when he said that at the time. The immediate response of the EU presidency was quite impressive, with President Sarkozy himself brokering a six-point ceasefire. Since the ceasefire, however, there has unfortunately been little real progress. Russian combat troops have not withdrawn to their pre-7 August positions. Russia has not allowed Georgian refugees to return to their homes and, in contravention of the ceasefire agreement, it has not allowed EU monitors into either of the disputed territories. In our view, it is therefore wrong that the EU—now with British Government support—should reward Russia by restarting EU partnership talks when the ceasefire that the EU brokered is not being honoured. The Government should also ask themselves what message that sends to the states that neighbour Russia. Russia's action in Georgia should also bring home to the Russian leadership that there are real costs attached to its decision. First, Russia's diplomatic offensive to promote recognition of the independence of the two disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has convinced only a few others, such as the regime in Nicaragua and that of Hamas, to support it. Conversely, states on which Russia thought it could rely—such as Belarus and members of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation—have refused to comply with Russia's requests for support. Secondly, as well as lacking clear support diplomatically, Russia has damaged itself economically. The Financial Times noted that, on 8 August, the Russian stock market ““plummeted”” 6.5 per cent. and that:"““Mr. Putin's boasts about Moscow as a new global financial centre and the rouble as a coming international reserve currency have become a sad joke.””" Since that time, the Russian stock market has fallen much further, with the Moscow RTS index standing today at 632 points, which is down from more than 1,800 on the day of the invasion. Importantly, foreign capital had already started to flow out of Russia before the credit crunch had an impact on financial markets. The Financial Times estimated that foreign investors pulled out £32.6 billion between 8 August and 19 September. Moreover, when the crisis in the financial markets truly arrived some weeks later, trading on the Russian stock exchange had to be suspended on several occasions, partly because so much foreign capital was being withdrawn from the country. Russia will pay a price economically for its actions in Georgia. With the economic downturn and falling oil and commodity prices, Russia's actions in Georgia mask important weaknesses that Russia might now need international co-operation to help it to alleviate. We wish to have a positive relationship with Russia. There are many potential areas of mutual interest. Russia needs a market for its oil and gas. It also needs investment, not least in its oil and gas industries. Russia surely does not wish to see the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east and elsewhere. In all these areas, Russia and the west need each other's co-operation. We hope that Russia will come to realise that, and will act accordingly. We debated economic matters today and a number of references were made to suggestions that some in government now advocate our membership of the single currency, the euro.