Foreign Secretary David Miliband took time out from his recent trips to Hong Kong and China to answer questions from Reuters Online readers.

The Middle East peace process dominated the post bag as well as Britain’s reaction to Kosovo’s independence. Afghanistan and Zimbabwe also featured.

A selection of questions were sent to the foreign secretary, and his answers can be found below.

[Editor’s note: The first question was raised before the UK said it would recognise Kosovo]
Q: Nigel Gordon-Johnson asks: Will the British Government recognise Kosovo Independence and how will it improve relations with Russia?

A: Resolving the Kosovo issue mattered for Europe’s security. We saw in the 1990s what happened when the international community became paralysed with indecision - and the human and political costs that Europeans paid for it. That is why the UK, along with our European partners and others, recognised an independent Kosovo on 18 February.

Clearly the Russian government had concerns about the international community’s recognition of Kosovo. But inaction was not an option. The Russian Foreign Minister himself agreed last September that the status quo was unsustainable and that a solution had to be found without delay. I do regret that we were not able to reach agreement with the Russians to implement UN Special Envoy Ahtisaari’s proposal for a settlement. Nevertheless, I hope Russia will now work with us and others to encourage stability in Kosovo and the wider Western Balkans region.

Q: Mr Milliband asks: When will the British Embassy will be fully active in the newest country - Kosovo?

A: The UK established diplomatic relations with Kosovo on 18 February. The British Embassy , previously the British Office, is currently active in Kosovo.

Q: Marko asks: What does it feel like to have participated in a flagrant breach of international law by encouraging an illegal separatist state almost entirely and ethnically cleansed of its Serbian population with local power structures dominated by organised crime? Also, how do you intend to react when (1) Serbia eventually takes concrete and practical action to re-establish its sovereignty over its southern province and (2) the Bosnian Serb Republic issues a referendum for secession?

A: I don’t accept the premise of the question - United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which provided the basis for a Kosovo process, did not constrain the outcome of Kosovo’s final status. Of course we recognise how painful Kosovo’s independence is for Serbia. But reintegration of Kosovo into Serbia was not a viable option; independence with international supervision was the only realistic way forward, and in line with international law.

We expect all sides to behave in a measured way to developments and to adhere to their commitments to avoid violence and provocation. Throughout the 1990s, we saw the consequences of political irresponsibility in the Balkans. Today’s politicians must learn from that tragedy and act with moderation and restraint.

I see no linkage between Kosovo and Bosnia. The Dayton Accords provide a framework for Bosnia, which has been signed up to by Bosnia’s leaders as well as by Belgrade and Moscow.

Q: Tracy asks: Mr. Miliband, with multinational forces in Afghanistan, what particular role does the British presence play? Reading the reports, the current system of parcelling out individual provinces to each nation’s army seems to create disparate qualities of peacekeeping, security and quality of life for the Afghans that in turn seem to further divide them among provincial lines. What can you do to ensure that a standardized practice exists among international forces and keep Afghanistan whole?

A: The UK is one of 40 countries, from within NATO and beyond, that contribute to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Whilst UK Armed Forces are largely located in Helmand Province, where the UK leads a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), British soldiers are also deployed to ISAF’s Headquarters in Kabul (where the Deputy Commander is a British General) and to the Regional Command (South) Headquarters in Kandahar. But UK military forces are only part of our commitment to Afghanistan. They are complemented by a significant diplomatic presence, and an annual £100 million development programme.

These efforts are designed to help the Government of Afghanistan extend its authority throughout the country, and deliver security and public services to Afghan citizens. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach - every part of Afghanistan presents its own unique challenges. But there is a significant level of co-ordination between the contributing nations and, more importantly, with the Government of Afghanistan, who are firmly in the lead. The UN plays an essential role in this.

There is always room for improvement. That’s why Ministers regularly review ISAF’s progress to ensure that international co-ordination remains on track: I discussed this with my NATO Foreign Ministerial colleagues this week, and we will also review it at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in April. Similar meetings take place regularly to review progress on the reconstruction and development side.

Q: Vincent asks: Dear Mr. Miliband. When will Britain and the United States end the covert/overt economic sanctions that are starving the (mostly black) people of Zimbabwe. The British government and BBC propaganda blame economic mismanagement by Mugabe, yet the USA has a law called ZIDERA that is crippling the Zimbabwean economy. Why the lies? Why punish millions of black Zimbabweans because of 2,000 white farmers?

A: Neither the United Kingdom nor the EU have economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. The EU’s targeted measures have no adverse effect on the Zimbabwean economy at all. These measures, which include a travel ban and an asset freeze, are directed only against the 131 individuals who are directly responsible for Zimbabwe’s suffering. There are no international restrictions on the flow of trade and investment into and out of Zimbabwe, with the exception of an arms embargo.

On the contrary, the UK remains committed to supporting the people of Zimbabwe. We are one of the three largest donors to the country. We have provided more than £500m in bilateral support for development in Zimbabwe since independence. We continue to provide annual support to alleviate the increasing humanitarian crisis and to ease HIV/AIDs suffering totalling over £150m in five years. And we have responded to the growing crisis of food security through a £8 million commitment to the World Food Programme. Our concern throughout is for the people of Zimbabwe and we will maintain our support as long as it is needed.

Q: alex asks: Mr Miliband, will you and the foreign office be exerting any public pressure on Robert Mugabe / Equatorial Guniea in order to secure the release of Simon Mann? He is after all a British Citizen and and former servant of his country? similarly what about the former British soldiers kidnapped in Iraq? Does being a private security contractor - (mercenary to use the unacceptable word)mean the Foreign Office will do nothing publicly, even if you are a) a British citizen, b) a former British soldier and are c) engaged in activities that the goverment supports? the silence is deafening.

A: British officials have visited Simon Mann in prison, and we will continue to provide consular support to him and his family. Our priority in his case, and in the cases of the other 2,500 UK nationals detained or in prison overseas, is to ensure that consular and welfare needs are being met. That includes ensuring access to legal representation where available.

Q: jill asks: Reference the EU referendum. I acknowledge he asserts “in…[his] opinion there is no need for a referendum”. Therein lies the crux; that this is his opinion. It is taking absolutely no account of the majority he is supposed to be representing. How and in what way, can that be described as democracy?

A: The Constitution proposed in 2004 would have ripped up the existing treaties and replaced them with a completely new constitutional treaty. That is why the Government proposed holding a referendum on it. But all of Europe’s leaders have agreed that the constitutional concept is “abandoned”.

The Lisbon Treaty that we are currently debating in Parliament amends the existing Treaties - just as the Single European Act, Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam treaties did. No British Government has ever held a referendum on an amending Treaty, and Parliament is the appropriate place for debating and deciding on the Treaty of Lisbon. Others in Europe agree: whereas nine countries held or planned to hold referenda on the defunct Constitution, only Ireland now plans to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Q: Mike asks: Mr Miliband, a great deal of political capital is being invested into the Annapolis process in order to achieve a lasting resolution by the end of 2008. However, Israel, the US and the UK will not engage with Hamas. Do you think (a) Annapolis can succeed if there is no dialogue and (b) there should be a policy change within the UK in order to engage with Hamas?

A: The Annapolis conference marked the start of a process, and the UK is deeply committed to making that process a success. There is a real opportunity in 2008 to make genuine progress, but all of us will have to work hard to ensure that this leads to a comprehensive peace settlement.

Our policy on Hamas has not changed. There needs to be significant movement by Hamas towards the three Quartet principles of non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements, before we can have a political dialogue. Such a dialogue is impossible so long as one party is dedicated to violence and the destruction of the other.

Q: Hassan asks: what is your reaction to the Israeli authorities inviting companies to bid for the contract to build the new homes at West Bank. The international community considers all settlements in East Jerusalem, as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Should the UK call on Israel to stop building new homes in the West Bank, on land Palestinians claim as part of a future state?
Should any action to be taken against Israel if it construction continued?

A: We are very concerned about recent reports of Israeli settlement activity, and I have raised the issue with Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, and Defence Minister, Ehud Barak. The Roadmap is clear: Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including the natural growth of existing settlements. The UK considers that Israeli settlement building anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal under international law. This includes settlements in both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. This has been our constant position and one we have raised and will continue to raise with the Israeli government at all levels.