§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley, Central)I wish to raise with the Foreign Office the question of the plight of the Jews in the Soviet Union. There are 2,115,000 Jews in the USSR. An estimate of practising Jews is up to 500,000. It is worth noting that Russian wartime losses were about 30 million. The Jewish share was 2.5 million, reducing the Jews from 2.5 per cent. of the population in 1941 to about 1 per cent. That meant that Jewish losses were proportionately four times as severe as those of the Soviet population as a whole. Therefore, they paid a price too. Yet, Russia is hostile to Zionism and to the new state of Israel. It deprives the Soviet Jews of the consolation of pride in the new Jewish state and contacts with it. Therefore, there is a tendency for the Jew in the Soviet Union to be technically a member of a non-Russian nationality. Indeed, on the passport of every Jewish person in the USSR the word "Jew" appears as the nationality. Yet Jews are denied the full facilities for maintaining and furthering the Jewish culture of the past.
Pressure from Western democracies, highlighting the suffering of the Jews and the restrictions on emigration to their land, has resulted in some movement. However, during the past few years there has been a drastic drop in the number of exit visas granted. In 1979, 51,000 Jews were permitted to leave. In 1985, the number was 1,140. Last month, the figure was a mere 104 and this year it will be less than 1,000.
The Soviet authorities say that almost all Jews who wish to join relatives abroad have already done so. The truth is quite different. Since 1968, some 648,000 Jews have requested invitations—a necessary legal prerequisite to the granting of a visa — from relatives abroad. Only 265,000 had received exit visas up to the end of 1985, leaving a balance of about 383,000 Jews still waiting for permission to leave. Even more depressing, is the number of refuseniks: people whose application to leave has been refused. Currently there are about 11,000 such cases known in the West and probably many more are unknown. A total of 8,200 have been waiting for five to 10 years and 1,200 have been waiting for over 10 years. Undoubtedly, there is a Jewish question in the Soviet Union.
The Council of Europe reported on the plight of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union in 1982. It noted with concern the current wave of anti-semitism present in most areas of Soviet life. It noted that the Jewish community in the Soviet Union is an oppressed cultural minority and it considered the situation worthy of international concern. The Council called upon the Soviet Union to cease the dissemination of anti-Jewish propaganda and the harassment of Hebrew teachers, to declare an unofficial time limit on the waiting period for exit visas and to grant, as a matter of priority, exit permits to those Jews who applied to leave five years ago or more.
Since 1980, the granting of exit visas has slumped. Today there is a virtual sealing of the gates. Particularly hard hit are the activists who, in Moscow, Leningrad and elsewhere, lead the struggle for visas. Thousands of Jews have been refused exit visas for many years. They have been told again and again that their chosen path to their 211 chosen land is a dead end. They live in a harsh limbo world of refusal. Many are thrown out of their professions, often pilloried in the Soviet press and regularly taunted with the phrase, "You will never leave the Soviet Union." Russian Jews describe this period as "nil emigration". Arrests of Jews still continue. They feel that they are at the crossroads and appeal to Western voices to cry out on their behalf, otherwise they fear that they will be crushed out of all activity.
The Soviets are refusing to honour and adhere to international treaty obligations. The draft resolution of the Council of Europe publicly declared that the policy of the Soviet authorities on Jewish emigration and Jewish culture is unacceptable. A culture is being made to disappear in spite of internationally guaranteed human rights. The doors of emigration are closing tightly. Families are being separated for long periods, and people are being exiled to Siberia because of their struggle for human rights.
I led a visit to Moscow last year of an all-party Soviet Jewry committee delegation of Members of Parliament. Our purpose was to meet refuseniks. It was a highly successful mission, all members playing their part to the full. We met 37 refuseniks — families, couples, groups, academics, workers and young activists. We were on a weekend charter tour, but we veered off to meet refuseniks in their apartments in and around Moscow. We made contact by telephone, had groups organised, and used taxis, the underground and trolley buses to get to our destinations. We split up into small parties and met late on Friday night, throughout Saturday and Sunday —there were meetings all weekend, including one with our ambassador in Moscow before we left.
First, we gave those people encouragement and explained our special visit to them. We explained activities going on, on their behalf. We told them about the debates printed in Hansard and the motions on the House of Commons Order Paper. We explained about other national and international bodies involved. I was somewhat disappointed with their living standards. They were not the best of living conditions, no doubt because they were refuseniks. Many were on menial jobs and low pay. That was reflected in what we saw. They do not fear us highlighting their plight. Indeed, they want us to do more, because the general situation for all Soviet Jews has deteriorated.
The all-party parliamentary committee on Soviet Jewry is grateful to the Foreign Office for its activities on our behalf, and we wish to place on record our appreciation, but at the same time we should like to inform the Foreign Office of our constant anxieties and we hope that it will take them on board. One small way in which we, in our all-party committee, believe that the Foreign Office could help to boost morale in the refusenik community would be to invite refuseniks to attend cultural and other events at our embassy in Moscow. With that in mind, colleague officers and I have written today to Sir Bryan Cartledge, our ambassador in Moscow. We have invited him to make a presentation of our committee's annual award to those Soviet Jews, past winners of the award, still resident in Russia, who have been prevented from accepting our invitation to attend here at Westminster in person. I hope that our ambassador agrees.
212 Additional administrative obstacles are constantly being placed in the path of potential emigrants. There have been reports of them being told that exit visas have been refused for life. In addition, some have been told that the required invitations from relatives from abroad can now be accepted for only one exit visa application. Each invitation can now come only through the postal system and can no longer be brought in by visitors to the Soviet Union. If the application is refused, it can be renewed only once a new invitation is received. Many of those denied the right to emigrate have been told that the refusal is based on security grounds, although in many cases those concerned have not worked for the Government or been in military service for many years.
An official campaign against the Jews was stepped up in late 1984 and early 1985, with crude attacks in the Soviet press, and on radio and television. In 1984, the Soviet authorities created difficulties over providing burial space in cemeteries, especially in the Moscow area, and have insisted instead on the cremation of the dead. That has caused great offence to orthodox Jews, whose religion forbids cremation.
The authorities have also stepped up their efforts to prevent the teaching of Hebrew, with the widespread confiscation of Hebrew literature and the arrest in the past two years of Jewish leaders, showing that a significant factor in several of these cases is that "criminal" charges are being brought for the alleged possession of firearms and drugs, as well as the more normal "political" charges, such as anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.
The Soviet authorities also announced that from 1 August 1984 customs duties on parcels sent to the Soviet Union had to be paid by the recipients. That move was seen as an attempt to eliminate schemes, some of which involve Jewish relief organisations, whereby the duty is pre-paid at the point of dispatch. The Post Office earlier sought clarification of the new arrangements from the Soviet authorities but was merely told that it applied to all categories of parcel. There is also continuing concern, especially among Jewish organisations, at the non-delivery of mail sent to the Soviet Union. Although the United Kingdom delegation, in concert with our Common Market partners, raised the matter at the congress of the Universal Postal Union in Hamburg in July 1984, it still goes on.
During our visit, one interesting theme, which was difficult to accept totally, was that scientists and Soviet academicians yearn to go West to New York, Washington or London to enjoy, and become involved in, the international seminars of higher learning. They like to mix in the higher learning circles of the Western world. "Well," say the refuseniks, "Why not make them pay a price, with refuseniks being released pro rata or in proportion to the number of academics visiting the West." Refuseniks say, "They freeze us out of Israel, let us freeze them out of the international circles of higher learning." That is a natural reaction, although difficult to put into practice. I must ask the Foreign Office whether that should not be registered with the Russians.
We also came across some young activists and human rights demonstrators who had paraded in the streets, but who had unfortunately been harassed as a result. I thought that morale was low, but there was allied with it a spirit that was unyielding despite their difficulties. There has been more harassment, with the searching of flats, confiscation of literature, with refuseniks being stopped in 213 the streets and embarrassed, with them being questioned at work, losing their jobs, with their wages being cut and with demotions.
Moreover, the teaching of Hebrew has been severely cut back. The Soviets fear that it is being taught solely in order to prepare Jews for Israel and its environment. Why not? Are not the Jews a special case? A land of their culture awaits them. Their religion, culture, and language await them, along with a chance to help to build their own state. I marvelled at them all, and thought that they were wonderful. On their behalf, we must constantly remind the Russians of their international obligations.
The Russians must recognise the universal declaration of human rights. Article 13(2) states:
Everyone has the right to leave any Country including his own and return to his Country.Thousands of Jews await release from their Soviet bonds. At the moment there is "nil emigration". They are appealing for Western voices to cry out on their behalf. Last week, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe opened in Vienna. As early-day motion 21, which was placed on the Order Paper yesterday, says, the Vienna conference presents a valuable opportunity for a thorough review of the Helsinki Final Act by the participating states on the question of human rights.The "Helsinki process" has high aspirations, but it has been repeatedly frustrated by Russia's failure to live up to its statements of good intent or to honour its commitments. The plight of Jews in Russia is a prime example of the Soviets appalling disregard for human rights. Western Governments represented in Vienna must insist that this deplorable state of affairs be remedied. In future the Soviets must be judged by their performance, not by their promises and still less by their propaganda.
There is a yawning gap between the Soviets and the Western democracies on the interpretation of democracy. Within the definitions, religious freedom is very narrowly defined in Russia. This is the entrapment of the Jews. In our country we see no danger in religious expression, irrespective of the church or its culture. Until the Soviets are prepared to widen their horizons and to recognise these persecuted minorities, all of us who hold all the basic freedoms as of right, with no distinctions of any kind—such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, birth or any other status — must make them aware that we are prepared to campaign for the Jews to be recognised. If detente is to be meaningful and the Soviet's signature is on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is incumbent on them to be fair and true to the Jewish race.
§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye very presumptuously so that I can intervene in this debate. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) for allowing me to intervene so that I can make a few quick comments. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall have to be very quick indeed so that the Minister can have a chance to reply to the many detailed points that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
I pay sincere tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, not only for his speech, which was packed with scholarship, facts and figures—all of which I endorse—but also as a student of the dreadful plight of Soviet Jews. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he presented 214 the subject, and for the way in which he said thank you to the Foreign Office for its efforts in the past. Just because we ask for more does not mean that we do not appreciate those efforts.
I wholeheartedly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said, and am conscious of the work that he and other hon. Members in all parts of the House have done over the years. I was the founder chairman of the all-party Soviet Jewry committee. It has burgeoned and developed since then. We have made many efforts, but it is frustrating to know that the numbers are even fewer than before. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the miserable statistics of the ones who are allowed out.
My wife is the chairman of the Parliamentary Wives for Soviet Jewry, which two years ago held a successful international conference in London which highlighted the plight of Soviet Jews. Earlier this year we were able to rejoice at the release of Shcharansky and subsequently members of his family. We thought that was the beginning of a new era, but since then the gloom and doom has returned and the whole scene is extremely sorrowful and sad.
We are therefore fully entitled to repeat our exhortations to the Soviet Union. Let it now be bold and acknowledge that human rights and the universal declaration of human rights are important. After all, it is a signatory. We do not wish to intervene improperly in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, but they become externalised once it is a signatory of a universal declaration and a particular group of people wish to leave the Soviet Union. That is a matter of external interest to us, and we insist on our participation in it. We know that the refuseniks appreciate our efforts, although they are often puny. We wish that we could do much more. We thank the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central for what he did on his recent visit. We thank others who have been before as well as those who will go in the future, and we thank the Government for their efforts.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton)It is with genuine pleasure that I say to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) how grateful I am to him for raising this subject and for initiating this debate. I say the same to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I know how both hon. Members have given their time to this difficult subject. It is a particular concern to hon. Members on all sides of the House at present, and the timing is extremely apposite.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, 10 days ago we saw the opening of the CSCE follow-up meeting in Vienna at which abuses of human rights, including the Soviet treatment of their Jewish people, will be a central theme. Last week I myself visited Vienna for two days.
It is also apposite because, in the wake of the Reykjavik summit, people from Governments in both East and West are looking again at the East-West relationship, including its vital human rights component, and wondering how best to make progress in the new circumstances.
First, I shall turn to two of the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. Obviously, I shall take careful note of his suggestion that invitations should be issued to refuseniks to attend embassy cultural events. I shall pass that on to our embassy in Moscow. The embassy must also bear in mind the risks that such invitations could 215 involve for the refuseniks and the problems that any Soviet citizen has in getting access to our embassy. That reinforces many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech.
On the letter that the all-party committee for Soviet Jewry has just sent to our ambassador in Moscow and the proposal that he should present the all-party Committee's award, I have no doubt that he will consider that interesting suggestion carefully and sympathetically. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for making it.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, despite protestations to the contrary from Moscow, I have no doubt that Jews in the Soviet Union are still subjected to widespread discrimination. They are prevented from freely practising their religion; prevented from developing their culture and language; discriminated against in political life, education and employment; and, perhaps most important of all, many are prevented from maintaining contact with their family and friends overseas. The right hon. Gentleman has already provided the House with eloquent and detailed evidence and we particularly share his concern on exit visas.
We have heard much about Mr. Gorbachev's determination to present a new and more human face to the world. I do not discount the changes which are taking place, in particular the first, halting moves towards greater openness. It is, therefore, with great regret that I note that the new broom has not swept away the dismal record of recent years in the granting of exit visas to Soviet Jews.
We all greeted with enormous pleasure the release of Nathan Sharansky after years of incarceration in Soviet prisons. We greeted with equal pleasure the release of such non-Jewish dissidents as Yuri Orlov and Irina Ratushinskaya, although Mrs. Ratushinskaya has still not got her visa to come here for medical treatment. But two or even three swallows clearly do not make a summer.
There seems to be no pattern as to who is granted a visa. Old age and ill health do not guarantee one. Sometimes one has the impression that visas are being saved up to be used as bargaining counters or distributed as prizes for good behaviour. What a cynical way to do business!
I am in no doubt about the strength of feeling that exists on this subject among ordinary men and women in this country. My postbag, like that of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend bears daily testimony to that.
It is not only the Jewish community which suffers harassment and repression. I hear equally depressing stories about the treatment meted out to Baptists, Pentecostalists and other Christian activists, as well as to many others of all denominations, whose crime has been simply to think for themselves and to demand free speech or freedom of association.
But it has to be said that the persecution suffered by the Jewish community has always been a central theme in our criticisms of the Soviet Union's human rights performance. They have probably suffered more consistent harassment than most other groups. The rights which that community is fighting to exercise cut across the whole spectrum of human rights abuse—the right to freedom of worship, the right to national and cultural self-expression, the right to leave one's country, and the right to expect one's Government to act within the rule of law.
216 When my colleagues and I raised these issues with the Russians, we used to be told that criticisms of these abuses constitute interference in the internal affairs of another country and are therefore unacceptable. In other words, it was none of our business. I am glad to say that we now tend to meet a greater readiness, to discuss the issues reasonably, even to admit that a problem exists. That is encouraging, but it is a big step from admitting a problem to resolving it.
What, then, should we do? What practical steps can we take to encourage the Soviet Government to conduct themselves in a more just and civilised manner towards the Jewish community and towards other dissenters? There will be no overnight miracles. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we need patience and persistence. First, my colleagues and I in the Government will ensure that the subject is on the agenda for our bilateral conversations with our Soviet opposite numbers at every available opportunity. We will tell them that the subject will not go away. Only real practical improvements will secure this.
Secondly, we will say again and again to the Soviet authorities that in raising the subject of human rights we are not engaging in political point scoring but are representing the deeply felt concerns of all political parties in this country and of the public at large. I always stress this point in my talks with the Soviet ambassador. I and my colleagues are greatly assisted in this task by the dedicated organisations and individuals who campaign on behalf of Soviet Jewry and ensure that the subject is kept at the centre of public attention.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that human rights are seen and understood as an integral part of the wider East-West process. I sometimes hear the argument that we ought to set human rights on one side and concentrate instead on achieving real measures of arms control and disarmament. With respect, this is fundamentally mistaken. It ignores the intimate linkage between security and human rights. The way that the Soviet authorities treat their citizens creates a problem of trust and understanding which is at the heart of the problems that we and others meet over arms control table. It is often said—but is none the less true for that — that there can be no security without trust. We cannot keep these issues in self-contained packages, bringing one out and putting the other into cold storage as the fancy takes us. We must pursue each consistently.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the CSCE review conference which opened in Vienna on 4 November. Our delegation is now participating vigorously in a thorough review of Helsinki commitments. When this is complete, it will aim to build on the proposals tabled at the specialised CSCE meetings which have take place in the past two years. These proposals include a number of provisions which, if agreed and implemented, would alleviate some of the hardships suffered today by Soviet Jewry. Among these proposals will be that tabled by the British delegation at Berne on interference with the mail and telecommunications.
We shall also be looking at the proposal made by Mr. Shevardnadze in his opening speech to the Vienna meeting on 4 November for the holding of a conference of CSCE participating states to consider problems of humanitarian co-operation including human contacts, information, culture and education. This is a challenging proposal. It will need careful consideration, but I will want to have many more details of Soviet thinking on participation at such a conference, access, openness, arrangements for 217 publicity, the ability of dissenters and refuseniks to speak to visiting Ministers, and so on, before I can give a responsible reply.
This is a time of change in the Soviet Union. Under Gorbachev, "openness" has become a catchword. This is far from the openness we know in Western countries, but at least the veil of secrecy is being lifted a little. There are some signs of growing cultural freedom; there is some debate within the party on the way forward. The Soviet public are being provided with bad as well as good information; they are hearing of accidents and disasters as well as record production achievements. A few days ago, Pravda even carried a long interview with myself on the subject of arms control. This makes it even sadder that so far there have been only minimal tactical changes in the Soviet human rights policy, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so movingly and with so much information.
218 I urge the Soviet leadership —I am sure that in this I have the whole House with me — to see that the improvements we are asking for would not damage their security or undermine their system. It is a great enough country to tolerate these changes. In his speech in Vienna, Mr. Shevardnadze claimed:
the strength of any society lies in its ability to perfect itself".We are not asking for perfection, only some real and perceptible improvements which would remove an irritant, relieve human suffering and immensely improve the Soviet Union's standing in the world.It is with genuine feeling that I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend for having raised this very important and apposite subject tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.