§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I am most grateful for the opportunity to initiate a debate on our relations with Latin America. It is no fewer than 38 years since the last general debate on this most important subject. On 26 May 1950 the House last had the opportunity to review the matter, so I believe that the debate is long overdue. So often foreign affairs debates in this place centre strategically on East-West relations, fashionably on Europe, nostalgically on the Commonwealth and indifferently on the remainder.
Latin America represents some 8 per cent. of the world's population. It has outstanding potential, abundant natural resources, skilled work forces and few extremes of poverty with which we are so familiar in Africa and Asia. Above all, Latin America has a close cultural identification and rapport with Europe.
Britain has long had a very special relationship with Latin America. It was our then Foreign Secretary, George Canning, who acted as the midwife of the independence struggles of the new nations in the early part of the last century, with his statement in the House in the debate on the Address of 12 December 1826 that he had
called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old".Illustrious Britons fought alongside the freedom fighters in the wars of independence in Latin America. Admiral Lord Cochrane played a vital part in the independence of Brazil, Chile and Peru, and O'Higgins became the first president of Chile. A British legion of veterans of the Peninsular wars made up the backbone of Simon Bolivar's liberating armies in Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador.We have a great heritage of good will to draw upon in the region. That was supplemented by the leading part that we played in developing its railways, livestock industries, mining and public and financial services. Latterly we earned their respect in the lead we took for the democracies in the second world war.
The affection with which we are still held compares favourably with the respect for the power of the United States, motivated by the Monroe doctrine and which descends into resentment at the United States" high-handedness and pressures over the years—not least that manifested recently in central America.
However, during the past 40 years, we have returned the Latin American affection very poorly indeed. In 1945, a quarter of Latin America's trade was with Britain. As a boy, I saw the majority of merchant shipping coming into the port of Santos in Brazil flying the red duster. By the late 1970s, our share of trade with Latin America had fallen to a mere 2 per cent.—way behind our trading partners.
We should draw on the fund of good will in Latin America, and at least the Government have made a good start. Our trade share now tops 3 per cent. Three of our right hon. and hon. Friends have travelled to Latin America in the past year to rekindle the flames of friendship, but we must do better. When I used to travel through Latin America 10 years ago Britain meant nostalgia to its people—the battle of Britain and the weird game of cricket. But they had written us off as delightfully decadent.
709 Today we are seen in the context as a new beacon; the virtues of Thatcherism, privatisation and sound economics are extolled. Perhaps the most salutary thing that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench could do would be to encourage our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a tour of the great cities of Latin America. That would show the high regard in which this country holds the countries of Latin America.
We must not let the trauma of the Falklands episode divert us. Latin American solidarity in that matter is proverbially as wide as the River Plate, but only ankle deep. Latin Americans respect our military achievement in the Falklands, but consider the islands a minor irrelevance in the great scheme of diplomatic and commercial relationships. The vivid scar on our relations with Argentina must be allowed to heal with time and without rancour.
British industrialists, told of Latin American opportunities, will often talk of failure to pay, of the debt mountain and of their personal expectations of mud huts, discomfort and palm trees. The debt crisis in Latin America represents Government and bank lending problems, and not necessarily the settlement of trade debt. Even these medium-term lending problems are mixed. Chile, in particular, is paying interest and principal on its debt. Venezuela is repaying official debt, and the recent Toronto summit paid particular attention to overcoming debt problems.
The message must go out: the slumbering giant of Latin America is again on the move, with a new realism setting in. Conditions for foreign investment in the continent are easing. Better trading conditions are prevailing. For instance, Mexico has joined the GATT. There are massive opportunities for joint ventures by companies from this country. There is scope for reciprocity deals with the EEC.
We must give a higher profile here to Latin American affairs. Canning house, the Latin American business and cultural centre in London, already does a sterling job. LATAG—the DTI's Latin American trade advisory group—must be given a greater airing. The British Council must be encouraged in its English language teaching thoughout Latin America. And the outstanding example of the Cultura Inglesa in many countries of Latin America shows what can be achieved in the region. Incidentally, a little more teaching of Spanish and Portuguese in our own schools would not come amiss.
We must also pay closer attention to the sponsoring of students in these countries to come to Britain, to our universities and colleges of further education. We are already making major advances with Mexico and should see what can be done in other countries, notably Brazil.
After a period of extreme difficulty for Latin America's economies, things are again on the move, and I hope that Britain will play a leading part, as it has done in history, in the development of Latin America.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for ensuring that there is a debate on Latin America, albeit at 3 am. I regret that it is seldom debated. I especially agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks: Spanish and Portuguese should be taught much 710 more in schools in this country. The teaching of the history of Latin America could be developed with great benefit to the school curriculum and to the chairs of the history of Latin American development in universities. I learned virtually nothing about the continent at school, although I have since visited almost all its countries. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Latin America's significance to Britain in the past because of its trading relations with Britain.
The hon. Gentleman said that developments were proceeding apace in Latin America. It is true that some Latin American countries are experiencing rapid rates of growth at present, but that often masks the most hideous poverty and the most appalling social disruption of people fleeing to large cities, where they lead short, bitter, miserable and poor lives in shanty towns. That is the lot of many Latin American workers.
There are great contrasts in wealth between Latin American countries. Brazil has a per capita income of about $1,700 per year, which is quite high by the standards of developing countries, but Honduras has a per capita income of only $721 per year. Averages can mean very little. If one's head is in an oven and one's feet are in a freezer, is one's body normal? The contrasts in wealth between Latin American countries are quite appalling.
I fear that the attitudes of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in dealing with Latin America's debt problems are solving the problems not for the majority of poor Latin American people but for the banking systems of the United States and western Europe. They are trying to impose economic policies that involve a reduction in public expenditure, loss of education and health programmes, high rates of unemployment, loss of public-sector employment and increased privatisation. That might make some balance sheets in Washington, New York, Frankfurt and London look a bit better, but it does not make life better for poor people, whose efforts to produce crops are not being rewarded if commodity prices continue to be depressed. Life is tough for many poor people throughout the continent.
We should be treating Latin America as part of the same world in which we live and doing what we can to alleviate the misery and poverty of its people. I am not convinced that the economic strategies being used by the world's financial institutions are doing anything of the kind. The line taken by President Garcia of Peru in attempting to limit debt repayments to no more than 10 per cent. of export earnings is a reflection of the anger felt by many Latin Americans about the vast repayments that they must make to banks elsewhere.
Some may say that Latin America's debts should always be top of the agenda and should always be repaid, but I ask them to consider how those debts were incurred. In many cases it was because of the oil boom. The oil-producing states were loaning money to anyone for anything, but the countries that borrowed money do not control the interest rates under which it was borrowed or the commodity prices which their exports earn. The position in Peru, Bolivia and Mexico has become worse as they have had to pay more in interest payments. Increasingly, they are having to take out loans to finance loans that have not been paid. The problem has become quite appalling.
The writing off of debt is the only way in which many countries will survive or recover. That has been recognised by many banks that have written off debts, and last year, 711 for the first time, some British clearing banks recorded a loss because of non-repayment of debt by Latin American countries.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldThe hon. Gentleman should differentiate between writing off the Latin American debt, which has not occurred, and the provision in the balance sheet of major banks against potential loss to the loans they have made, which has occurred. There is an important difference between the two.
§ Mr. CorbynI accept that there is an important difference. I was saying that many banks have accepted that they will not get all their debt back and have made provision for the non-payment of it. I am going a little further and saying that the debt is unpayable because Chase Manhattan bank cannot possess the economy of Peru or Boliva any more than anybody else could. Therefore, there comes a point at which the debt becomes unpayable.
The political consequences of attempting to impose economic models on so many Latin American countries are so catastrophic that I urge people to think carefully before they start urging policies on them that are impossible to achieve.
I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up too much time. However, I want to deal with central America, which is much in our thoughts at present. The conflicts there are deep-rooted and long-standing. In Nicaragua, the origins lie in the way in which the United States behaved before the second world war in the imposition of the Somoza family, and the war of liberation, which culminated in 1979 when the Sandinista revolution triumphed and the Sandinistas took over in Managua.
Since 1979 there has been nothing but a process of attack, destabilisation, economic and physical warfare and hired terrorists attacking the Government, all paid for by the United States. That has occurred largely because of President Reagan's obsession with the supposed threat to the United States of the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua. That is a bit of a hollow laugh when a small and poor country is struggling to provide its people with a health service, an education system, housing, jobs and opportunties. I do not understand how that can be a threat to the United States, unless it is the threat of an example which may be copied elsewhere in Latin America as people try to escape from the cycle of debt, poverty and deprivation.
The war that has continued since 1979 has cost the lives of thousands of people. It is ironic that the United States gives so much military aid to the Contras but refuses to give any humanitarian aid to the people of Nicaragua, other than through the Contras. The degree of interference in Nicaragua is appalling.
§ Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the first 18 months of the Sandinista Government, the United States, directly and through the World Bank and the American Investment bank, made available to the Nicaraguan Government more aid than they made available to the Somocista regime throughout its 19 years?
§ Mr. CorbynThe Carter Administration promised substantial aid to the Sandinistas. There is doubt as to how much of that aid was delivered before Reagan took office 712 and, in effect, prevented that aid from reaching Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman must agree that President Reagan has been obsessed with Nicaragua since taking office and that that obsession is continuing into the dying days of his Administration.
The process of peace that has taken place in the region in the past couple of years with the Arias peace plan and the agreement that all Governments in each country in the region would negotiate with the opposition forces, be they guerrilla forces or any other form of opposition, was a significant step forward.
In Nicaragua we see the efforts of the United States at their worst. They are trying to prevent that peace process. No Government has been more open, more quick or more ready to accept the Arias peace plan than the elected Government in Managua. At this moment it is still being frustrated by the decisions and destabilisation measures of the United States. Even now, in the last moments before its recess, Congress is debating yet more proposals for a resumption of lethal aid to the Contras against the Government of Nicaragua.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldWill the hon. Gentleman explain how it helps the peace process for the Nicaraguan Government to close down the Opposition radio station and newspaper in direct contravention of what the peace process is trying to achieve?
§ Mr. CorbynIn the past, the Nicaraguan Government have closed downLa Prensa, and have now closed it down again, and have closed down Radio Catholica because they were telling absolute lies and were inciting the Contra terrorists to continue their work of maiming.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that Nicaragua has been at war for a long time. During that war, many people have been killed and all sorts of dirty operations have been undertaken. I have visited Nicaragua several times; I have met the editor ofLa Prensa and discussed these matters with him. He showed me some of the stories that had been spiked out of the paper when it was in publication. Frankly, I was not in the least surprised that some of those stories had been spiked. I also met opposition forces in Nicaragua, before the last elections there.
The fact is that we are in the process of the peace plan. The new methods of destabilisation of the past few weeks have been deliberately designed to obstruct that peace process. I hope that the British Government will do what they can to put pressure on the United States Government not to resume lethal aid to the Contras because, if they do, we are straight back to the civil war and to all the deaths that have occurred. A ceasefire is a precious thing to have achieved. I very much hope that the British Government will be prepared to do what they can on that.
Last week a delegation of us went to the American embassy to discuss these matters and we argued with Mr. Seitz, who is responsible for Latin American policy, our view that the United States should not give any lethal aid. We made strong political points.
One point that cannot be answered by the United States Administration or anybody else is that made by Father Metcalfe, the priest to the Bluefields region on the Atlantic coast, which is not an area in which the Sandinistas initially had a great deal of support, although they now have much more. I am sure that Father Metcalfe will not mind me repeating that he has wondered what he can say 713 to the people in his parish and region, to the mothers of the young men who have been killed by the Contras, to the relatives of those who have been murdered by the Contras, to the people who have lost their homes because of the Contras, and to the people who have had their crops destroyed by the Contras, about the obsession of a man a few thousand miles away in the White House who is so frightened of the process of liberation in Nicaragua that he finances terrorists to murder, kill and destroy.
It is incumbent on the British Government to express the point of view that they support the Arias peace plan; that they support the right of self-determination of the people of central America—but, above all, that they tell the United States to stop financing the Contras, to stop the process of destabilisation and to give Nicaragua the chance that it is seeking for itself to develop its own economy for its people, and to develop its health, education and housing services. The crime that has been perpetrated against the people of Nicaragua during the past eight years is one of the most appalling since the second world war.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is not one iota of genuine opposition to the Sandinista Government among the Contras? Is he saying that no Contras are genuinely and properly opposed to the Sandinista regime? If he is not saying that, is not the process that should be followed one of dialogue and of trying to get the two together?
§ Mr. CorbynOf course the process of opposition must be by dialogue, debate, discussion and election—all those things are possible in Nicaragua. What is not possible in Nicaragua is dialogue, debate, discussion and election if, at the same time, the richest country in the world is financing a group of terrorists to destroy that very process. That is precisely why it is essential that the British Government put all the pressure that they can on the United States to stop funding the Contras.
It is quite interesting that Amnesty International has no cases against Nicaragua at the moment. That cannot be said about very many countries. It is important to remember that the political freedoms in Nicaragua do not exist to the same degree—or any degree—in the neighbouring countries in the region.
§ Mr. AshbyI agree with much that the hon. Gentleman says. I take an independent view. However, has not the unofficial human rights group in Nicaragua cited a number of instances of breaches of human rights? Are there not a number of well-documented cases of breaches of human rights in Nicaragua?
§ Mr. CorbynThe unofficial human rights group had drawn attention to some cases. Some cases have been resolved and many prisoners have been released under the amnesty towards the ceasefire.
The best way to achieve peace in Nicaragua, as I said earlier—I cannot repeat this often enough—is to end the financing of the Contras so that the peace process and the dialogue can continue. That would be a spur to the peace process and the dialogue in the region as a whole. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will be able to give us some hope in that direction.
714 I want to refer to the British Government's attitude to Chile. Chile is a poor country. It is one of the most indebted countries in the region. The debt figure per head is $1,540. Some 35 per cent. of its population cannot eat properly. As an example of the very low wages that poor people who have work in Chile experience, I can tell the House that those on the Government's temporary work programmes receive $32.20 a month. There are very many very poor people in Chile.
Chile's recent history is among the most tragic in the region. In 1973, a Government dedicated to eradicating poverty and to the development of a democratic society was overthrown in a brutal coup. General Pinochet has the blood of thousands on his hands. He supervised the murder of Salvador Allende and of about 20,000 other people. He herded all political opposition into the stadium in 1973. Since then there has been a monetarist experiment in Chile which gave great riches to a new middle class and brought terrible poverty to many others. Chile has been through purges; many people have suffered at the hands of the secret police and have been imprisoned. Many Chileans have found refuge here or in other European countries.
Tragically, in more recent years not only have the British Government been happy to trade with General Pinochet, but they have not been as forthcoming as they should have been in condemning the many abuses of human rights. Most appalling of all, they have been prepared to sell arms to Pinochet's Government which have been used to bolster his position in the region.
The horror continues day after day. Last week there was the festival of Chile Crea. That is a festival of culture, science, education and art. During the festival, a number of students were arrested and there were allegations that the Government had tortured people. Such allegations of torture by the Government have been made by many people.
Pinochet does not believe in democracy, fair play or the rights of the Opposition. That is clear, and his record speaks for itself. He is one of the most murderous, bloodstained dictators that the continent has ever seen. I find the British Government's attitude very surprising. They are prepared to sell Pinochet arms and to concede that some democratic process is going on in Chile.
A plebiscite is due to be held later this year, but the registration forms are very expensive, and many poor people will not be able to afford to take part. There will be only one candidate.
§ Mr. CorbynThe hon. Member for Leicestershire North-West (Mr. Ashby) shakes his head, but the fact is that poor people cannot afford to take part in the vote in the plebiscite. If the hon. Member looks at the income of the poorest people in Chile, he will begin to realise what I am talking about.
Few people have any faith that General Pinochet, the army or any of the institutions supported by General Pinochet will allow a democratic election of any sort in Chile. I do not believe that the man who murdered his way into power is about to walk out of power because the ballot box finds against him. Dictators are not usually from that mould, despite what some of the United States press might say about him.
715 We want to know what the British Government's attitude is towards this plebiscite. Do they plan to send any observers to find out what happens during that election? Are they observing the political scene in Chile? The crime that was perpetrated in 1973 against the people of Chile did not stop then. There are not normal political freedoms, in the sense that we understand them, in Chile. There will never be normal political freedoms in the sense that we understand them while Pinochet is in power and the army dictatorship continues. We want the return of a real democracy in Chile, but I do not believe that that is compatible with the presence of General Pinochet.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldOne of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has in referring to the events of 1983 is in explaining why it is that overwhelmingly the people of Chile were relieved by the change of power and the overthrow of Salvador Allende, because of the disorder and the hunger that that regime brought about. One of the significant aspects of Chile was the initial strong support for the regime of General Pinochet. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that point. Further, in saying that a military dictator will not give way he must look at the example of Brazil and a number of other Latin American countries which have made the difficult transition from a military dictatorship to a quasi-democracy without bloodshed.
§ Mr. CorbynThe hon. Gentleman has come out in his true colours—as an apologist for the murderer that Pinochet is. Only a year before Salvador Allende was murdered, his party received over 50 per cent. of the vote in the local election. Salvador Allende was elected with 33 per cent. of the vote in 1970. By 1973, in all the local elections that took place, the Unidad Popular Front was achieving more than 50 per cent. of the vote. He was murdered at that time because he was so popular, because he was attempting to nationalise foreign-owned multi-national companies and because he was redistributing wealth to the poorest people. That is why the army, the CIA and ITT moved in with a major vehicle for destabilisation.
The hon. Gentleman said that the coup was some form of popular event. I advise him to talk to the Chilean refugees who live in this country and who went through that hell of September 1973; when they saw their families shot in front of them; when they had to go to the stadium and try to get people out; when people had to hide in the Mexican embassy; and when people had to flee for their lives in fear of a Fascist dictator who had murdered an elected president in cold blood. When an elected Member of the House comes here as an apologist for that process, it is a disgrace of the highest order. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his words of apology for General Pinochet.
§ Mr. ArnoldI asked the hon. Gentleman to face up to the fact——
§ Mr. CorbynThe hon. Gentleman is an apologist, and he knows it.
§ Mr. Arnold—that the people of Chile noted the change of regime with considerable relief, because of the suffering and hunger that went before it as a result of the Allende regime. To suggest that that is some kind of apology for 716 the undoubted breaches of human rights that occurred in that process is a completely different matter and is certainly not the case.
§ Mr. CorbynIt is interesting that even now the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to condemn the fact that a military coup took place in 1973 and an elected president was murdered. I find it surpirising that the hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do that now, I shall happily give way to him. He does not want to.[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West finds this so funny. We are dealing with a murderer. If the hon. Member for Gravesham wants to condone it, so be it—it is on the record.
§ Mr. ArnoldThe hon. Gentleman still refuses to——
§ Mr. CorbynWhy does the hon. Gentleman not answer the point?
§ Mr. ArnoldI intervened on the hon. Gentleman to ask him how he explains the fact that the military regime of General Pinochet in Chile has undoubted support from the ordinary populace. That does not mean that I condone the disgraceful excesses and infringements of human rights that have occurred in that process. There is the difficult problem, which must be tackled, that the Pinochet regime —perhaps even to this day—has the support of the great mass of the Chilean people. If the hon. Gentleman does not face that, he is flying in the face of the reality of Chile.
§ Mr. CorbynThe hon. Gentleman is not talking about the Chile that I understood we were debating. If the Government of General Pinochet, as the hon. Gentleman so politely calls him, are popular, why do they require such an enormous secret police? Why do they require so many political prisoners? Why are there so many Chileans in exile? Why are so many Chileans who return from exile in danger? Why are so many poeple shot on the streets? Come on—we are dealing not with a democracy but with a Fascist dictatorship. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.
There are, of course, Ministers in the Government that the hon. Gentleman supports who have been to Chile and commended its economic policies. Presumably they are happy that 35 per cent. of the people do not have enough to eat. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that I have raised.
It is on the record that the British Government have sold ships and arms to the Chilean Government. I hope that the Government will say that there will be no more such sales. I also hope that they will say that British military forces will not use bases or any military facilities in Chile as part of the south Atlantic presence.
There is a great deal of suspicion that British forces have been using Chilean bases as part of the Falklands operation. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a clear statement that the Government condemn the violations of human rights in Chile, that there will be no further arms sales and that observers will be sent to see exactly what goes on in the plebiscite. Apparently they are not planning to do that at the moment.
§ Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for giving the House an opportunity, albeit at this time of the morning, to debate, after a very long interval, the affairs of Latin America.
My hon. Friend is the admirable secretary of the all-party Latin American committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman. I know that his deep knowledge of and commitment to British relationships with Latin America are profound. I hope that this debate will carry that interest forward and that we shall invigorate even more the Government's interest in furthering links between us and that continent.
I would like only to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. Our relationships with Latin American countries are deep and long standing. They are only dimly perceived in this country, but they are remarkably alive in nearly all Latin American countries. Our forebears played a leading part in the liberation of the continent. They did, 150 or more years ago, what I believe the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would thoroughly endorse. It is right that we should continue to take pride in the achievements of our country men and the lives that they sacrificed in the cause of Latin American independence from the Spanish empire, and encouragement from the fact that Latin Americans continue to recognise Simon Boliver, San Martin and all the other liberation heroes of the 19th century.
It is said that the tremendous commercial stake and position that we carved out towards the end of the 19th century and the first part of this century has declined so sharply. Everyone who has visited those countries knows about the railways, the public utilities and the banking systems. For example, Argentina was virtually rescued by the Baring loan in the 1840s and 1850s. All those left a legacy which we have squandered since the war.
The percentage of British trade with Latin America declined to an abysmal extent so that among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries our exports to Latin America were at barely 2 per cent. In recent years there has been an encouraging increase, but we are still only at 3 per cent. of the exports of all OECD countries to Latin America. That is deplorable and we must rectify it. For many years I have sought in various capacities to boost that effort, but so far we have not succeeded to the extent that we should. I hope that those efforts will be redoubled or even quadrupled.
One of our problems is the poor quality of reporting in the British media and probably the western European media as a whole on the affairs of Latin and central America. That is why we have misguided views, such as those we heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North. It must be recognised that the United States held out the hand of friendship to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, following the overthrow of the Somocista regime. The Marxist-Leninist regime of the Sandinistas rejected it and immediately installed a vast army by central American standards before there was any question of civil resistance or Contras. The Soviet Union, its allies and Cuba poured in and built up the army so that the Nicaraguan army is greater by far than the total of her neighbours' armies.
All that happened long before there was any question of action by the Contras or support for them from the United States. The repression that began when the Sandinistas 718 took office, the impact of the so-called Turbas Divinas, and the mobs and thugs who spread revolutionary terror predated any civil war in Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman and people like him perpetrate this complete misrepresentation of the real position in central America because of the abysmally low quality of reporting in the British media, and they should not be allowed to get away with it.
The other impact of the low standard of reporting, so much of which is extremely biased, is the poor level of understanding of what is happening. In many respects events in recent years are encouraging. Obviously, there is a debt problem and it would be wrong simply to write it off. The British Government, rightly, are taking a positive lead in helping the countries of sub-Saharan Africa with their debt relief. The countries of Latin America are of a very different order. It is true that they have severe problems, but they are greatly in advance of the really poor countries of the world in terms of per capita income, basic wealth and export earning potential. Each of the countries of Latin America has a different problem. They must be helped in terms of flexibility, and the IMF and the World Bank are providing that, but any idea of a blanket write-off would be misguided for the countries of Latin America—or, indeed, for any other developing country that looks to take loans from the international business community in the future.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North that the banking system of the world was, in a sense, becoming too easy thanks to the oil glut and the effect of the Arab oil surpluses. I agree that in the 1970s both the lenders and the borrowers had their faults. I hope that we shall all learn from that. I believe that the debt situation has improved and that it should not be writ too large as a threat.
Our own business men should look at Latin America country by country. The phrase "Latin America" rolls off the tongue far too easily. We all know that there are 20 separate countries with their own traditions and pride and their own possibilities for commercial, political and cultural co-operation. There are great opportunities.
To most of us, the other aspect of relations between Britain and Latin America is the problem of the Falklands. We all recognise that it is a deeply sensitive issue. I suspect that my views are slightly different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham. I think that the Falkland islands question looms somewhat larger in relationships with Latin America than he believes. I accept that we are talking largely about words rather than reality, but I think that there is some reality in terms of solidarity with Argentina on this issue.
We must continue to ensure that the freedom and the interests of the Falkland islanders are preserved. We should also acknowledge, however, that we are in a brittle situation and that it is not in the longer term interests of the Falkland islanders that this brittle situation should persist. It is unsatisfactory for them, for us and for the region as a whole.
I recognise that the impact of what has happened in the five or six years since the conflict has been a remarkable economic advance for the islands. However, that is a short-term perspective and before very long we must begin to look for a longer term settlement. That will require sensitivity and understanding on the part of the three communities involved—the British, the Argentines and, above all, the Falkland islanders.
719 The problem will not go away and the Government should realise that and accept that we cannot rest on the status quo, although we must nevertheless recognise that the interests of the islanders are paramount. In my view, they can be preserved and there are ways forward. I believe that even so we can proceed with a much more positive approach to Argentina, and I hope that the Government will take every possible opportunity to do that. The proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham about the possibility of more frequent visits by Ministers—in particular our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—to leading capitals of Latin America is an admirable proposal.
I place more emphasis than does my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham on the need to teach Spanish and Portugese, particularly Spanish, in our schools. We are now embarking on the new national core curriculum and are keen to ensure that what our children learn is relevant to their needs and the needs of Britain in the coming years. One of those is the need for greater facility in foreign languages. The most obvious and effective language, an easy one to learn, is Spanish, a delightful language to speak and one which enables the speaker to communicate with the people of 20 countries.
As we develop and produce the new curriculum, I strongly urge the Minister of State to make sure that her colleagues at the Department of Education and Science are aware of this need. Some hon. Members have been communicating with that Department on this issue and I have been far from satisfied with the response we have obtained. The Government as a whole, including the Department of Trade and Industry with its export promotion responsibilities, must do more about this matter.
It has been a long time since we debated Latin America. This is an extraordinary hour and an extraordinary time in our parliamentary timetable at which to be having this debate, but it has been valuable and I hope the Government will renew their efforts to reawaken British awareness and commercial interest in the continent of Latin America.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)We seldom debate foreign affairs. it is noticeable on the rare occasions when we do that the debates are dominated by what we call the great and good in the House. They make wide-ranging speeches covering the world; they deal with America, Europe, China and Japan, and they might just about deal with South America. But they never deal with central America. The reason for that is historical. We in Britain were put off taking an active part in debates on action in central and south America by the Monroe doctrine in the 19th century. Although that doctrine is said to be something of the past and is not part of our policy today—and is not part of America's foreign policy—it still looms large on the horizon and in fact forms an active part in our policies.
We do not seem to have an independent foreign policy covering central America. That poses a problem because almost every other country has such a policy. We are part of Europe and, come 1992, we shall have the Single European Act. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Germany have never been inhibited by the Monroe doctrine and they have policies covering central America. 720 They are making use of their political clout to make economic headway in that and other areas. I intervened on this subject in the previous debate initiated by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). Yet we are losing out in south America and in central America because we are stuck with this outdated Monroe doctrine as a result of our special relationship with the United States, which still treats central and south America as its own sphere of influence which the British are not permitted to enter. Yet other countries are allowed to do so. The Americans do not say to the Spanish or the Italians, "Hey, this is our area and you should not go there."
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldThe Monroe doctrine with which the United States said, in effect, "Don't interfere in our back yard," predated Canning's support for independence and was thus the first instance when Britain made it clear that it would not be associated with the Monroe doctrine —a figment of American wishful thinking which the rest of the world, including Britain, has never recognised.
§ Mr. AshbyBritain may not have recognised it. but the spirit or idea of it has inhibited our actions, certainly since the last war. Something in the background of our special relationship with America has inhibited our participating as fully as we should. Other countries such as Italy, Germany and Spain have not been inhibited in that way. One has only to consider the aid going to central America and to Nicaragua from Italy and Germany, which are not Left-wing countries. Since 1945, Italy has been a conservative country ruled and run by the Christian democrats. yet this year, and indeed in the past couple of months, Italy has given substantial amounts of aid to Nicaragua. We have not given that kind of help and our exports are not following our economic ventures.
§ Mr. WhitneyI continue to be puzzled by my hon. Friend's references to the Monroe doctrine, although I share his concern at the decline in our share of exports to Latin American countries, which is now down to 3 per cent. Is he suggesting that the failure of British business men to look for markets in Latin America is governed by a 180-year-old doctrine, or is he suggesting that there is some kind of Government influence involved?
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development pointed out in the earlier debate, the balance of aid to Latin America is different for Italy and Germany because the vast majority of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries.
§ Mr. AshbyMy hon. Friend has not followed my argument. I was pointing to the total absence of any substantial independent British policy towards central America. That is the major point. Countries such as Italy also have former colonies into which they put substantial amounts of aid. It may even be that Latin countries have a tendency to put their aid into other Latin countries, but that does not detract from the fact that countries such as Spain and Italy have policies towards central America which are followed up by substantial exports. That is why they are getting the business there. Germany as well has been following up its aid with business and exports. It has made substantial inroads into central America.
I visited Nicaragua about three years ago and I hope to revisit it during the recess to see the changes that have taken place and to renew my friendships there. The 721 revolution took place following a despicable regime which had been put in place and maintained to a large extent by the United States. There was strong resentment within the region towards the United States for that reason, and that resentment continues to this day.
It is important to remember that it was an all-party revolution, not a Sandinista revolution. When I was in Nicaragua I met a number of people whose politics are not dissimilar from my own. They are Conservatives, but they were all supporters of the revolution. I met Liberals who were strong supporters of it and had participated in it.
The problem is that after the revolution the Sandinistas went on to some extent to hijack it. They took it over as their own. In so doing, they sat upon many who had participated in the revolution. They disregarded them. At times they were to treat them quite harshly.
It was not a revolution that lacked popular support. Indeed, it had the overwhelming support of the population. I believe that the Sandinista Government have the support of the majority of the population. If there were a proper plebiscite, we would find that it is a regime that has the support of the majority. They are a Government who have been accepted de jure and de facto. They are recognised by the United Kingdom and other nations, and they should be respected as such a Government.
In 1984, for the first time for a long time, there were elections in Nicaragua. We must not take a black or white approach to Nicaragua for there are shades of grey in everything. We must not say yes or no, black or white or Stalinist or Marxist. Even within the Sandinistas there are moderate elements as well as elements far to the Left. It is a mix, and it must be regarded as such.
As I have said, in 1984 there were the first elections for a long time. The first steps were being taken towards democracy, and such steps are to be encouraged. It is rather unfortunate that the election was condemned in harsh terms by the world, including the United Kingdom Government and the American Government. It was not a fully fair election, but within limitations it was one to be accepted. We must look to the municipal elections next year and elections in the 1990s in tuning the process of democracy. If we continue to treat this and other central American countries in this way, we are not helping. We should be encouraging what is taking place, and urging the country towards more dialogue and democracy.
We must remember, for example, that a large percentage of the Nicaraguan population has suffered in the wars. I believe that a considerable element among the Contras is genuinely opposed to the Sandinista regime. We are not encouraging dialogue or getting people together by dismissing them as an odious regime. We can take a positive step. It must also be remembered that there are a number of English-speaking people in the Caribbean area. There is a strong English-speaking contingent in the Bluefields area, among the Meskita Indians, and we can be of great assistance there.
In the little time available, let me deal with the Panama. Like Nicaragua, the Panama is being treated most unhelpfully by the Americans. The leader General Noriega has behaved disgracefully, and his involvement in drug-running is well known and documented. But the attempt to destabilise the Government and get rid of him has only strengthened his position and that of his 722 supporters. There must be a better way of achieving what we all wish to achieve than by destabilising the country to the extent that America has done. Our Government can play a part in achieving a decent, democratic Government there.
We should be taking a positive role in central America, and we should have a positive policy there.
§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles)rose——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Has the hon. Lady the leave of the House to speak again? I hear no dissent.
§ Miss LestorWhen we are dealing with a wide range of countries—I agree that we should consider them independently rather than grouping them together—it is very difficult to know which one, or two, to choose in the short time left to us. I should have liked to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who raised the question of the Falkland islands, because I feel that we cannot leave things as they are: at some stage we must return to discussing the future of the Falklands and, indeed, Argentina. But that is a matter for another occasion. I shall confine my remarks to two countries, Chile and Nicaragua: perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with them in her reply.
I am not sure whether my information is accurate, but just before the debate began the Nicaraguan network in Washington told the Nicaraguan solidarity campaign that the Stevens-Dole amendment was being supported by the Democrats and was likely to be passed 60–40 in the Senate.
§ Mr. CorbynDisgraceful.
§ Miss LestorAs my hon. Friend says, that is disgraceful. If it is true, it is possible that the package could go through before the Congressional recess on 11 August.
The package proposed in the amendment consists of $27 million to the Contras for humanitarian aid, $20 million for lethal aid and $27 million in unspecified aid including insurance for air transport, making a total of $74 million. That is regrettable. It takes no steps towards what we all want to see—a resolution of the terrible problems in Nicaragua.
It is particularly ironic that, just as the first anniversary of the central American peace accord is reached in August, and while the Sandinistas have again unilaterally declared a ceasefire, the only United States of America contribution to that progress is an aid package to the Contras. That will only continue a process from which we hoped that we had moved away. My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) recently led an all-party delegation to protest about that. It was pointed out to the United States embassy that the eight-year war has led to 50,000 deaths. The Contra leadership is now dominated by a man who openly advocates terrorist tactics.
I remind the House that the central American peace accord was a strategy for all central America. However, United States, and to some extent British, policy has emphasised the lack of compliance in Nicaragua. In contrast, to date only the Nicaraguan Government have engaged in serious negotiation with the armed opposition. Talks in El Salvador and Guatemala have long been abandoned, and death squad activity in E1 Salvador is now 723 increasing at an alarming rate. Deaths and torture have dramatically increased in Guatemala and its Government have closed down a television news station. A weekly newspaper was also forced to close after its building was set on fire.
It is odd, therefore, that of the five central American countries that have signed the accord, Nicaragua should be singled out for infringement of it. Whatever the arguments about human rights abuses, Amnesty International has no Nicaraguan cases on its records. Surely we should ask the United States to leave Nicaragua alone and ask it not to go ahead with the aid package for the Contras. It should try to make everyone comply with the principles of the central American peace accord of non-intervention. At this stage, Nicaragua should be given encouragement and support rather than subjected to sabotage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke about Chile and I agree with his description of its past and the present state of affairs. It now appears that the junta is getting nervous. Recent opinion polls have shown that large sections of the electorate are undecided about the plebiscite that is to take place, and that the noes may have the majority. We do not know whether that is true, but we know that the state of emergency in Chile continues and that it impedes the activities of any opposition to the junta—that is the reason for it. Access to the media, which was promised, is still not allowed.
It is obvious to me and to many other people that, in such circumstances, intimidation will occur now rather than in the final days before the election. It is essential that, from now on, monitoring is undertaken.
The junta has just announced that it will meet on 30 August to nominate its candidate. Under the constitution, that plebiscite must be held between 30 and 60 days after the nomination and the speculation is that it will take place in the first week of October.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will be part of two delegations to Chile. One is an international, pre-plebiscite delegation. The other delegation will visit Chile in election week when my hon. Friend will be accompanied by Bishop Taylor, Lord Avebury and the well-known barrister, Geoffrey Bindham. It is important that the Government should also play a part in encouraging a return to democracy in Chile. They should send observers, just as the Labour party and others intend to do, to see what is happening now and at the time of the plebiscite.
I hope that the Minister will explain what pressure the Government are exerting upon Chile to ensure that the plebiscite is fair and that it is conducted according to democratic principles. At the moment it appears that such principles will not be observed.
Until 15 years ago, Chile had a long-standing tradition of democracy. We are concerned that, when human rights violations take place, the voice of our country should be heard. Our country should send representatives to Chile to ensure that such violations do not take place and to ensure that the election is held in as free and as fair an atmosphere as possible.
I am conscious that we have had a wide-ranging debate and that many other issues could have been discussed. Although I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I am grateful that he initiated the debate. J hope that, some time in the future, the 724 Government will take time to allow the House to debate in full the issue of Latin and central America, which could play an important role in developing other ties with the United Kingdom—particularly trading links, which are badly needed.
§ 4.5 am
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Does the right hon. Lady have the leave of the House to speak again?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI welcome the opportunity to speak on Britain's long-standing and varied relations with Latin America. It is quite clear that there is need to explain certain aspects of policy.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and I welcome his special role in the formation of the new all-party group on Latin America, which is important to the House. I welcome the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), who is the chairman of the group.
Britain's links with Latin America go back a long way. British troops fought under the great General Bolivar in the struggle for independence from Spain. British business, through trade and investment, has played a major role in the development of almost all Latin American economies. British engineers built Latin America's lighting and water systems, its railways and its river craft. The Portuguese royal family travelled in British vessels to Brazil to escape from Napoleon and it is the clearly stated wish of the Government to build on and develop those long-standing links.
The clear trend of a return to democracy throughout the region is encouraging. It is not as fast as any of us would like, but there are now only four Latin American Governments which are not democratically elected. The British Government very much support the process of redemocratisation.
I shall come straight to the point about Chile. The national affairs of Chile attract particular public interest and excitement. It is now embarking on the democratic process by holding a plebiscite later this year. We want an orderly return to democracy. We make that clear to the Chilean Government bilaterally and with our 11 partners in Europe. The EC statement of 11 July makes absolutely clear our wish to see fair elections. We welcome the fact that there is now co-operation between the democratic opposition parties which have courageously come together in the plebiscite campaign. We do not know definitely who will be the candidate for the opposition, but it is particularly important that the plebiscite takes place in fair and open conditions. I respond to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on that score.
I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that, although we are not sending an official observer delegation to Chile, our embassy will report fully on the outcome. The registered democratic opposition can nominate its own observers and scrutineers at all polling stations, and we shall make best use of our team in Chile during the plebiscite.
§ Mr. CorbynWhat about registration?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI have only 12 minutes to finish my comments on several countries. Let me try to get them on the record.
The hon. Gentleman is right in intimating that there is a problem about registration, but it is important to note that there has been an increase in voter registration which is now more than 6.5 million people. The democratic opposition now has access to television. I do not wish to prejudge the plebiscite, but the United Nations special rapporteur has declared that the electoral machinery has been prepared in a serious and responsible manner.
We have consistently made clear our concerns about human rights in Chile. We have done so elsewhere in Latin and central America—particularly in Colombia, in the light of the recent Amnesty report. We shall continue to make sure that we take a clear public stand whenever violations of human rights occur. It is not only a matter of "He who shouts loudest." We must recognise improvements when they take place and encourage further progress. We shall condemn violence from all quarters, however it occurs—and the violation of human rights likewise.
It would be easy to spend the whole debate discussing Chile. The hon. Member for Islington, North asked me about arms sales. He knows that it has been the policy of successive British Governments not to disclose details of defence sales. We believe that Chile has a sovereign right to secure its means of defence, but we take great care not to approve the sale of items that we judge could be used for internal repression, and we shall continue so to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham spoke a great deal about trade and investment. They should form a much more major element in our relationship with the region. The economic importance of Latin America is not always fully recognised. Latin American GNPs total more than those of the whole of Africa, the Indian sub-continent and south-east Asia combined, and we do well to remember that. Recent moves in the area to modernise economies present important opportunities for United Kingdom business. It has become a cliché that our trade performance is poor. It is now about 3 per cent. of the market in most countries again, having previously fallen to 2 per cent., but our entire trade with Latin America is only about 2 to 3 per cent. of our foreign trade. United Kingdom business men could and should do better, although our percentage share has risen over the past four years.
Latin America is now beginning to emerge from the debt crisis, although I readily admit that it is still worrying for many nations. In trade terms, however, Latin America is ripe for a more concerted export effort. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of personal contacts and of regular visits to the area. Official services are ready and glad to help. I commend the work of the Latin American trade advisory group which brings together those from Government and business who are interested in improving our economic performance there.
I must also mention the reopening of the consulate in Miami, and the British Florida chamber of commerce, which are there to assist United Kingdom trade into Latin America and the Caribbean. The DTI has held a seminar on the advantages to British companies of selling through Miami, and missions to the region are being encouraged to consider Miami in their itineraries before launching forth into Latin America.
726 We are seeking to offer exporters a range of services for Latin America, as for other markets, and the increasing interest of British companies, which is being reflected in the growth of market share, suggests that the service we are giving is effective. But we shall be truly effective only if—as hon. Members have said—our people can trade in the language of the countries with which they wish to trade. That means Spanish and Portuguese being spoken by our business men, let alone being taught in our schools.
Despite Latin America's problems, it is important that its potential should be made better known to investors. There is now well over $1 billion worth of investment in Brazil, where we are the fifth largest investor. A number of British companies with subsidiaries there and in Mexico and Venezuela, in which we are the third largest investor, are doing well. By expanding debt-equity swaps, we want to give a new entree into these markets. The Government are paving the way for business in Latin America by double taxation agreements and investment protection agreements. We are determined that our competitors, who have been active in Latin America in recent years, will not have the field left to them.
As hon. Members have said, debt still looms large in the popular perception of Latin America. We are trying to work with Latin American nations to solve the debt problems on a case-by-case basis. Many Latin American nations have made enormous sacrificies to meet their debt obligations. I welcome recent moves by Brazil and other countries to reach agreement with their creditors. I understand the frustrations that have been expressed in the debate, but we shall succeed in helping those countries economically only by working with them, not by simply believing that problems will go away if we ignore them. That has sometimes been the attitude of a few countries.
I shall not speak at length about the drugs industry, but one of the most worrying aspects of Latin and central America is the seamy side of their marketing of drugs. It is rather like a ghastly parody of economics that there are problems with demand and supply. If the cocaine problem is not tackled effectively, the dangers not only for south America but for the rest of the world are enormous. We shall continue to attach a high priority to combating the corrosive effects on all our societies of drug misuse and trafficking.
Many of the points made by hon. Members about drugs were too detailed to answer at this stage, but we are giving material support to Bolivia and Peru and have pledged money to the United Nations drugs law enforcement programmes to tackle the problem. We welcome the efforts being made by Latin American Governments to combat the evil of drugs. We shall attack the problem from the cultivation of the basic crop to the smuggling of it into developed country markets and its sale and consumption on the streets of our cities.
I must deal with central America, although I cannot spend long doing so. I add a serious note of caution about the position in central America, where, sadly, the peace process is barely alive. Esquipulas II offers the best hope for peace. We call on all central American Governments to redouble their efforts to implement its provisions in full, especially the conclusion of ceasefire agreements to make rapid progress towards a pluralist democracy. It is important for Europe to urge all parties to comply with their commitments, especially for democratisation. In this 727 context, I deplore the recent measures taken by the Nicaraguan Government in direct contravention of their Esquipulas II obligations.
Together with our EC partners, we welcome the Esquipulas II agreement, which was made in August 1987, and the Sapoa truce, which was made in March 1988.I am sorry that the regional peace process and the Nicaraguan ceasefire talks are virtually at a standstill. The peace agreement is still the best hope, and we must make progress at the various meetings of central American foreign Ministers and presidents, which will be held, as the hon. Member for Islington, North said, in August, towards a successful, peaceful, negotiated settlement of the conflict in the region. We shall continue to urge all parties to comply with their commitments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) accused the Government of not having a central American policy. It would be helpful to write to him at length to outline what is going on in central America.
I was asked whether I would condemn the United States' support for the Contras. My colleagues and I have been asked that question many times of late in the House. United States' policy is a matter for the United States. We do not always agree with the United States, and that is well known. Our position is quite clear. We shall continue to advocate peaceful, negotiated solutions, not military ones. We believe that to be as right in central America as anywhere else. The problems of the region cannot be solved by armed force, and we shall continue to urge restraint on all sides. We tell the United States of our views repeatedly.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of language. I commend the sterling work being done by 728 Canning house in promoting the study of Spanish and Portuguese. However, we need more teaching of those languages in our schools. We shall continue to press our colleagues for greater attention to be paid, not just to the language training of children but to the need for teachers able to train the next generation of children.
§ Mr. Whitneyrose——
§ Mrs. ChalkerWe try to help with scholarships for Latin Americans to come to study here and some of those Latin Americans help to increase our understanding of their countries as well as increasing their understanding of our country.
I cannot go any further other than to say that the Latin American region is one of great potential. We have historical links and we want to build on and expand those links. There are opportunities for business. Much work has been done and much remains to be done. The debate has been useful in showing our recognition of the importance of the region and I hope that by the efforts of the group in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and other hon. Members are participating we shall be able to build up political and economic links between Latin America and the European Community.
Latin America is increasingly looking to Europe, and we have made it clear that we support regional integration in Latin America. We hope that the region will learn some lessons from the European experience and that there will be greater political dialogue between the European Community and the group of eight countries, which has been a recent feature of international life. There is much to be done, and at 4.21 am it is time we got on with it.