HC Deb 26 March 1991 vol 188 cc932-8

Motion made,and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

2.32 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

The debate arises at an appropriate time, although, judging from the exit of various hon. Members, they are not prepared to listen to the problems of the Baltic states.

This is not the first time that I have applied for such an Adjournment debate, but I use the word "appropriate" because it follows hard upon the heels of a visit paid by the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and myself to the Baltic states between 10 and 15 March. Both those hon. Members hope to intervene briefly before the Minister replies.

All three of us would like to place on record our gratitude to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the way in which it facilitated our visit, and we hope to give an extensive briefing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the results of our visit and fact-finding mission.

We would also like to place on record our thanks to our hosts in Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn. We all found the visit extremely informative and we were impressed by the fortitude and determination of the people we met there. We were also made acutely aware of the oppression which exists in the three states—physical oppression which we could witness through the presence of tanks and Soviet troops, the economic pressure under which many people exist, and the hidden, but perhaps more insidious, pressures being exerted on those fragile democracies by their larger neighbour, the Soviet Union.

My viewpoint and that of my party is that the west should have no hesitation in recognising the three states as independent in their own right. After all, we never did recognise the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement of 1940 and now we should recognise de facto the decisions being taken by the peoples of those states to declare themselves independent nations.

I want to make six points, all of which arise from our findings on our visit, and all of which are intended to encourage President Gorbachev and other representatives of the Soviet Union to come to the negotiating table and, during that process, to assist the people of those three states in a practical way.

If it is not possible for the British Government—or, indeed, other western Governments—to grant immediate official recognition to the three states, the west should make a clear statement that the Soviet Union is placing obstacles in the way of the Baltic states' work towards independence, and that that contravenes the rights of nations to self-determination under international law.

The Minister will be aware of the "Charter of Paris for a New Europe", completed in November 1990. Page 1 clearly spells out that Democratic government is based on the will of the people, expressed regularly through free and fair elections. Democracy has as its foundation respect for the human person and the rule of law. By any democratic yardstick, the people of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have expressed their clear wish to be recognised as independent nations within the community of the world.

The issue should be taken into the international community, given our respect for international law. There are facilities for the Government, through the various international forums, to ensure that the future of the Baltic states is placed firmly on the international agenda. We should also state clearly that technical aid and economic credits are conditional on the Soviet Union's willingness to engage in dialogue and negotiation with the elected Governments of the Baltic republics.

During our visit, it was made clear to us that many people believed that further bloodshed would have occurred following the killings in Vilnius and Riga had the European Community not expressed its willingness to withdraw technical aid at that stage. That willingness should be reiterated. Surely none of us would tolerate circumstances in which people were threatened, and their lives taken, because of their beliefs in their country and their right to have their own Government.

Thirdly, I believe that the states would be helped by the establishment of reciprocal information centres to promote trade and cultural links. That was emphasised by all the members we met. It is clear that the legal status of such centres could be variable, but they could eventually adopt full diplomatic status at the appropriate stage. It would mean a great deal to the three countries if such centres were established.

Fourthly, an attempt is now being made, under the auspices of the Nordic Council, to hold an international conference to deal specifically with the issue of the Baltic states. It is, after all, one of the unresolved questions of the last world war, and such a conference would be extremely helpful. It has been suggested that it should be a parliamentary rather than a governmental conference, but I hope that the British Government will look favourably on the idea. The conference could provide a framework for dialogue between the Baltic states and the Soviet Union, with Denmark and Iceland in particular cast in the role of mediators.

Fifthly, there is the question of practical assistance to the states. That should cover such questions as how we can assist educational institutions such as universities and colleges, how we can help the people to build up a knowledge of legal systems and human rights, how we can help them to build up trade and commerce, to establish communications with the outside world and, indeed, to arrange exchange visits with our Parliament. Many people there want to come here, meet hon. Members and discuss how we operate and what advice we can offer.

It is important that some of the know-how funds established by the Government for the emerging eastern and central European democracies should be earmarked for the Baltic states. We met representatives of all the political parties in the three countries. We must remember that they are talking about what they have called a black hole of democracy. The political parties have to educate people to understand the meaning of differences between political parties and how important it is to exercise a democratic vote. The earmarking of some of the funds would do a great deal to assist those very brave politicians who are trying so hard to establish democracy against a background of overwhelming threat from the Soviet Union.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to some of my comments. There is a great deal more about which we, as the representatives of Parliament who visited the Baltic states, can talk. However, an Adjournment debate does not give us sufficient time to do so.

2.40 am
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding)

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Does the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) have the consent of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of the Minister?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

indicated assent.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

indicated assent.

Mr. Davies

I endorse the analysis of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who I accompanied with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to the Baltic republics, and her suggestions. We were greatly impressed by the enormous sense of the indomitable human spirit that one encounters in the three countries. After 50 years of apparently overwhelming propaganda and the most brutal repression, the determination of the countries to achieve their national independence again, and their pride and patriotism, have been utterly unextinguished and undimmed. We were also impressed by the tremendous human courage displayed by the people in the three countries, especially in Lithuania during the events in January, when the people literally interposed their bodies between Soviet tanks and their Parliament, which is the symbol of their re-emergent democracy.

I know that the Government remain hopeful that Mr. Gorbachev and the Kremlin leadership will begin to negotiate with the republics on moves towards genuine independence. For a host of reasons into which I will not go now, I have little confidence that there is much prospect of such meaningful negotiation beginning in the forseeable future. However, in those circumstances, the right policy is for the Government, by gradual measures, to encourage the three states to expand the area of their de facto independence so that there is a general sense of inexorable movement in the direction that all of us must feel is right.

2.42 am
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) have the consent of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of the Minister?

Mr. Douglas Hogg

indicated assent.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

indicated assent.

Mr. Flynn

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). The story from the visit which haunts me is the one that was told to us by one of the Members of Parliament in Lithuania about her aged parents. She explained to us why she felt so strongly. Like many other people we met there, her parents had spent time in the gulags. They had been robbed of their childhood. When the coup d'etat, which failed, took place in Vilnius, the mother told the father, "This time you must go down. If anyone should die, it should be old people such as you. We need our young people to build the new, free Lithuania." The picture of that frail 70-year-old man challenging the brute force of the tanks with his stick is powerful.

We saw the free, democratically elected Parliaments. There was an affront to all our values because the Parliaments operate behind brick walls, barricades and armed guards. The threat to them is the alien forces of panzer communism. Sadly, we must now take the view from the news even today that glasnost is in its twilight. We must also acknowledge that the situation in the three countries is not stable.

There is likely to be conflict, and we must look to our own history, to our links with those countries and to the feelings that those countries have towards ours, and we must remember the 50 terrible years in which the flower of the nation has been abused, deported and killed in great numbers and in which the worst of the nation have been elevated to privileged positions. Their language has been degraded, but, despite that, the spirit of those three small nations has survived and is enjoying a new spring. It is possible, however, that that spirit could be trampled down again by the forces of Moscow.

I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Members for Moray and for Stamford and Spalding. When that conflict comes, we must ensure that we have established links at every level that, if possible, bypasses Moscow. We should establish links on a parliamentary level but also on a non-governmental level which incorporate voluntary and religious groups. We must ensure that those links with the Baltic states are direct. When the new conflict arises, there is no way in which this country and Parliament can remain neutral.

2.45 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

Despite the lateness of the hour, I am glad that the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) have raised the question of the Baltic states. I am also grateful to the kind words of the hon. Lady on the briefing and assistance that she received from the Foreign Office—I shall ensure that officials are aware of those kind words.

I should like to take advantage of the debate to outline in general terms the Government's policy towards the Baltic states, as well as to respond to the specific questions that have been posed. It would be helpful if I summarised the Government's policy towards those states and our policy towards the Soviet Union's own policy to the Baltic states.

I should make it clear that the United Kingdom Government have never accepted the legality of the incorporation of the three Baltic states into the Soviet Union. As the hon. Lady said, that was a clear act of aggression, and the three republics were sovereign, independent states at the time of their incorporation.

Although we never recognised as lawful the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the Union, one must accept as a matter of de facto law that the republics are part of the Soviet Union. Although we have recognised that fact, we also assert their right to self-determination. But, if we are realistic about this, we must accept that the right to self-determination can only be effectively achieved through genuine and free negotiation between the Soviet Union and the republics. The outcome will necessarily depend upon those negotiations.

The outcome may be full independence, or some form of autonomy that falls short of that. It is not for us to prescribe or seek to prescribe the outcome of those negotiations. Out interest and duty is to try to secure free and bona fide negotiations between the Soviet Union and the republics. Their purpose must be to try to devise a genuine, consensual and long-lasting solution to the problems that the hon. Lady has outlined.

For about two years up to January 1991, there were grounds for optimism. Genuine elections were held, representative bodies were established, real political freedoms came into existence and there was a real measure of political independence. Then came the killings in January in Latvia and Lithuania, a truly shocking event which the world, the European Community and the United Kingdom in particular rightly condemned in clear language. Those killings threatened to put into reverse much of the improvement that had been secured in east-west relations during the past five years or so.

Perhaps as a result of the condemnations and criticisms which I have just described, the Soviets held back from any continued force. The hon. Lady was kind enough to suggest that it may have been as a result of the action taken by the world community. In any event, the position has achieved a certain rather menacing stability: elected leaders in the Baltic republics are still in power; the bloodshed in Latvia and Lithuania was not repeated in Estonia; and there is some evidence, although not as much as we would like, that the Russians are seeking negotiations.

Mrs. Ewing

I wish that I could share the hon. and learned Gentleman's optimism about the idea that there is evidence that the Soviet Union will enter into negotiations. We found that attempts were being made by all three Parliaments, Presidents and Prime Ministers to open up negotiations. Organisations have been established. Yet time and time again, the Soviet Union has refused to come to the negotiating table. Does he have any evidence to the contrary?

Mr. Hogg

That is why I expressed my remarks in the way I did. I said that there was some evidence, but I went on to say that it was not very persuasive.

There is some evidence—for example, the remarks that President Gorbachev has made from time to time about his willingness to enter into negotiations and also the appointment of the delegations. However, I am not trying to persuade the Chamber that it is very persuasive evidence, and that is why I qualified my remarks.

To summarise the position thus far, our policy is, first, to press the Soviet Government to enter into genuine negotiations with the three Baltic republics with a view to achieving a genuine, consensual, long-term solution to their claims for political self-determination; and secondly, to make it plain to the Soviet Union that, if there is any recurrence of the military policy action that took place in Latvia and Lithuania earlier this year, it will automatically bring into major question any further improvement of the relations between the Soviet Union and the west. Indeed, I do not see how the Soviet Union could look to the west for any sort of assistance in the event of such action taking place.

Thirdly, we must try to build up the links and connections that can be developed between the United Kingdom and the Baltic republics. I shall give some examples. Clearly, the visit paid by the three hon. Members who are now in the Chamber is one. That was extremely welcome. We are trying to expand contacts. For example, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw representatives of the Baltic republics when he visited Moscow earlier this month. I have seen the Foreign Ministers of the three Baltic republics since I have been in office—in November last year. The British embassy in Moscow has been building up a fairly extensive programme of visits to the Baltic republics. As the hon. Lady may know, the British Council is hoping to establish an English language training centre in Tallinn. There are other examples of these improving contacts that we should like to develop.

The first specific question that the hon. Lady asked was whether one should use the prospect of economic technical assistance from the European Community as a method of ensuring that the Soviet Union enters into negotiations with the Baltic republics. If the Soviet Union were to use force against the Baltic republics, it is incredible to suppose that the European Community programme would survive. In other words, the use of force would cost the Soviet Union the technical aid programme that is available under the EC scheme.

However, it would not be sensible to use the existence of the EC scheme as a lever to bring the Soviet Union into negotiations with the Baltic republics—for two reasons. First, I doubt whether it would be successful. Secondly, there are free-standing reasons that justify the aid programme. After all, it spreads right across the Soviet Union and brings real benefits to its people. It would not be sensible or desirable from the point of view of the Soviet Union broadly defined to withhold that aid merely because it had not entered into negotiations. The policy is to persuade the Soviet Government to enter into negotiations, but we shall not withhold the EC programme as a sanction if they do not. However, we would use it as a sanction if they used military force in the Baltic republics, but one would have to carry one's EC colleagues with one on that.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of a Nordic conference. I must confess that I cannot help the hon. Lady on this because, although I have made earnest and searching inquiries about the Nordic conference, truth to tell, I can find no evidence that there is about to be one. That may be my fault, but I cannot; that being so, I cannot give the commitments for which the hon. Lady has asked. I am sorry not to be of greater assistance in that regard.

I can be more forthcoming about the information centres. The United Kingdom Government have no plans to open information centres in the Baltic republics although, as I have said, we do have plans to extend our contacts. On the other hand, the Baltic republics themselves are extremely welcome to open information centres in the United Kingdom if that is what they wish—although, clearly, such centres would not have any diplomatic status—and my understanding is that they wish to do so.

There has not been any substantial dispersement of the know-how funds to the Soviet Union. Disbursements are likely to begin after 1 April this year, and it is probable that there will be significant projects from the Baltic republics. We would very much welcome that. However, that is not to say that a specific sum is earmarked for the Baltic republics, but I should be extremely disappointed if substantial portions of the funds available did not go to projects emanating from the Baltic republics. Although I do not think that it was under the auspices of the know-how fund, some work has already been done on, for example, port privatisations in Estonia, and developments of small farm agriculture in Latvia and Lithuania.

The hon. Lady also referred to wider and broader contacts being made with the Baltic republics by the United Kingdom and various of our institutions and organisations. I strongly endorse and support what the hon. Lady said. She made a valuable suggestion, and we shall endeavour to find ways of deepening the relationship. I have already mentioned some of the things that we have done and which we shall continue, such as establishing parliamentary, educational, cultural and commercial contacts. They all build a relationship, which is important not only in terms of the relationship itself, but in improving security for the Baltic republics. The hon. Lady's suggestion is to be adopted and applauded.

I hope that I have covered all the points made in the debate. Finally, I should like to thank the hon. Lady once again for raising this important subject. It is our joint misfortune that it should now be 2.59 in the morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.