§ Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe)I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Minister of State, on the Government Front Bench. I am sad, of course, that this is his last appearance in his current persona. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well in his new pastures in the Treasury. We look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) joining us in our deliberations on foreign affairs in general and on Latin American affairs in particular. I hope that he will have a long, fruitful and educative tenure in his new office.
All of us—certainly those of us who are members of the Latin America group—are grateful for the opportunity to air our concerns, interests and points of view once more. It is a happy event that this is the seventh debate of this nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is the chief instigator of our group, deserves great congratulations on forming what has become a national—nay, even an international—institution. He keeps us up to the mark.
Over the past six years, most hon. Members have taken a bullish and positive view of what has been happening in Latin America: its awakening from the past and what was known as the "lost decade" of the 1980s; the casting off of the often unjustified image of unstable regimes and isolated protectionism; and the worrisome fact that Latin American countries were not as full members of the international community as we would wish them to be. All is not yet perfect; would that it were, in this country or any part of the world. Some of the problems in Latin America will doubtless be raised by other speakers in the debate, but most hon. Members have welcomed the significant progress made in the past five years or so.
The democratic process has taken a firm hold. We can all point to areas where it has had setbacks, but, with the sad exception of Cuba, the peaceful change of political power is now the norm in Latin America. It has been particularly noticeable that those democratic Governments have taken courageous decisions in the economic sphere. Even those of us in a deeply rooted, established democracy such as Britain's know that it requires political courage to take unpopular decisions.
Conservative Members have welcomed the correction of budget deficits, bringing under control the massive inflation that was a feature of the past—in some cases, it is still a feature—the reduction of protectionism and the role of the state, the promotion of free market ideas and the privatisation of the economy. As those developments are the leitmotifs of virtually all states that are moving forward in the world, as we saw most recently at the G7 summit in Naples, they are greatly to be welcomed in Latin America.
That process continues in nearly all the countries of that hemisphere. Some signs, however, give cause for concern. Those who are friends of Latin America should take note of them and, where necessary and possible, our Governments should take appropriate action to collaborate with the Governments of Latin America to ensure that those negative tendencies are checked and not allowed to damage or reverse the improvements that have been so welcomed.
The improved political position and economic situation in recent years has resulted in substantial capital inflows of 454 some $60 billion a year, until recent months. The extent of that capital has funded the current account imbalances, and in many countries—although not all—it has given a kick start to economic development.
However, there are signs that the level of those capital inflows is beginning to diminish. The temptation for capital to move to, or remain in, the industrialised world is increasing. In February, the United States Federal Reserve increased its interest rates, and that has significantly checked US dollar inflows into Latin America. As the west European countries, led by the United Kingdom, come out of recession, the demands on capital in our own regions may have a negative effect on those capital inflows in Latin American countries. In addition, there is the rival attraction of the rapidly developing countries of Asia.
Some observers are worried that there will be another of the boom and bust cycles that have been a feature of the development of Latin American countries. Most observers estimate that there have been five such cycles since the 1820s. I believe that it is possible to ensure that we are not in another such cycle, because fundamental improvements have been made. The capital now on the whole goes, not to Governments, but to private companies—well-founded corporations, which are soundly based and exist to make a living in the marketplace. The fiscal disciplines in most Latin American countries are much stronger, and the mobility of capital and of labour are much improved.
The fundamental wealth of Latin American countries, specifically in raw materials and energy resources, is great, and can certainly continue to be developed for the benefit of the people of those countries.
However, among the negative factors in those difficult equations is the continuing low labour productivity in most —although not all—industrial sectors in Latin America. The low competitiveness of their exports is set against the great demand that is burgeoning for imports, and that is leading to trade deficits.
Another factor that causes considerable worry to all of us is the degree of wealth inequality that exists, arid possibly is growing, in some Latin American countries. I came across one estimate by Mr. Alejandro Foxley, a former Finance Minister of Chile, who said that one of the crucial differences between Asian and Latin American countries rests precisely in that area of wealth inequality. He calculated that, in Asian countries, the richest fifth of society were between five and 10 times wealthier than the bottom fifth, whereas in Chile, that ratio was 12, in Argentina, 16, and in Mexico, as high as 27.
Obviously, the political significance of such inequalities as that are considerable, and could have a serious political impact. They could strongly inhibit the courageous moves that are being, and continue to be, taken to develop free markets, to let the private sector carry the economies forward. As we in this country well understand, those moves carry political, social and economic tensions. If those inequalities in wealth are allowed to get out of hand, the consequences could be serious.
The significance of the regional groups is important and needs considerably better handling than we have so far achieved in the European Union. We welcome the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement and Mercosur, the various bilateral relationships and the general reduction of tariff barriers. But it is important that those blocks do not develop into ring-fenced hostile trading blocks, with each one acting against the other.
455 We in Britain, particularly in the Conservative party, have always stressed that an important contribution that we have to make in the European Union is to ensure that the danger of Fortress Europe does not materialise. Our friends in the Latin American countries have the same responsibilities, of which they are aware. There are great opportunities, particularly for the European Union and Mercosur, to develop links. That is already happening, and I urge the Government to continue to concentrate on that issue.
Having made a macro-case, I shall now make a micro-point. One part of our trade with Latin America involves Scotch whisky—a significant and increasingly important export from Britain to Latin American countries. Venezuela is only just behind Japan as the fifth most valuable export market for Scotch, with exports last year worth £83 million.
There are concerns that in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay—where together the markets were worth more than £70 million in 1993—Scotch whisky exports face severe fiscal discrimination. In Mexico, where Scotch whisky exports earned £33 million last year, the geographical description of Scotch whisky is neither recognised nor protected. That is a sphere where Her Majesty's Government should ensure that they work hard to correct what is clearly an unfair position.
There are two other areas where Her Majesty's Government should continue to develop and improve their performance in relation to Latin America. The first involves the teaching of the Spanish language, which comes a poor second to French—the first foreign language taught in British schools. I am well aware of the practical difficulties relating to the availability of teachers as well as a number of other factors, but the teaching of Spanish should be a high priority with the Department for Education. A most welcome development over the past year has been the increasing number of ministerial-level visits by British Ministers and other political leaders to Latin American countries. The high number of inward visits of Latin American political figures into this country is also most welcome. I hope that that development will continue.
My final plea to the Minister is that he and his colleagues should reconsider a point that a number of us have made on many occasions, both in the Chamber and in correspondence. There should be another Government-sponsored conference on Latin America. The last such conference was, I believe, held in 1972. It is high time that another conference was staged, not only to bring to the notice of business men on both sides the opportunities available, but to highlight our growing political links as Latin American countries take an increasingly international role in the United Nations' activities and a number of other areas. Our cultural and historical links with Latin American countries are also long-standing.
All those matters are worthy of great attention. I hope that the new Minister of State at the Foreign Office, together with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry, will take that on board. Britain has a long and distinguished record of links with Latin American countries. Over the last generation, those links have been allowed to fade away considerably—but not, I am glad to say, to disappear 456 entirely. They have been diminished and weakened. It must be in our interests, in the interests of all those whom we represent in the House and, I venture to suggest, in the interests of the Latin American countries that Britain, both nationally and through the leadership we can offer many of our partners in the European Union, should give a new charge of energy and enthusiasm to our links with Latin America. I very much look forward to my right hon. and hon. Friends leading us in that direction.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)This debate is a welcome annual event. Although it is 1 o'clock in the morning here, it is only 8 o'clock in the evening in most of South America. Perhaps people there can listen to this debate live and at a reasonable hour, just as we were able to watch the World Cup at a reasonable hour.
This is an important debate. Indeed, it is important that we have this sort of discussion. What divides Labour Members and the Conservative Members who introduce this debate in most years is that they believe that democracy equals a free market economy equals privatisation equals freedom for all people, whereas we are sceptical about that point of view.
We stress the way in which the imbalances between rich and poor in most of South America have actually widened and are still widening. Absolute poverty is becoming worse. The degree of rampant urbanisation, with people moving into shanty towns, is truly frightening to perceive.
The issue that has arisen during the past year has been the desire of millions of ordinary people throughout the whole of Latin America to live in a society where their vote counts for something, where they do not have to live in fear of the military, where the police are under some form of democratic control, and where their children will enjoy an available health service and will grow up able to go to school, have an education and get some meaningful job at the end of that.
Those engaged in agriculture want to get reasonable prices for their crops. There is not much point in well-meaning politicians in western Europe and North America lecturing farmers in South America and telling them that they should not grow crops that are eventually used for hard drugs that destroy the very lifeblood of children and young people on the streets of our cities, when they are paid such appallingly low prices for maize and other crops. There is a connection between the two.
The economic event of the past year has been the establishment of the North American Free Trade Area. There will be problems for much of Latin America if it is to be cut off from natural trading with North America by the growth of NAFTA. The idea of a barrier south of Mexico through which trade with the rest of South America cannot necessarily pass contains within it the seeds of the most enormous conflicts, as does the attitude of the European Community and a number of other countries.
The signing of the GATT treaty is presented as a kind of all-winners situation, but many of believe that the poorest in the poor countries will suffer as a result because much of that treaty is designed around the needs of multinational capital rather than for social improvement and environmental protection.
It would not be right to continue the debate without at least mentioning the horrors of what is happening in Haiti, 457 where a democratically elected President was overthrown by the military. By whatever means, if President Aristide is restored to power, he will not be able to govern and the country will be permanently unstable until the legacy of the Duvaliers, their secret police and the fear factor is removed.
The tragedy and horror for the people on Haiti, be they those living in fear of the secret police in their own country, or those dying on the high seas as they try to escape to safety, will continue for a long time. It is to the shame of many that many countries were happy to go along with the Duvaliers' regime through aid, recognition and so on down the years.
During the past year, the most dramatic events in much of the region have been in Mexico, with the Zapatista uprising in the south. That was seen as an outrageous event by many in the world community, who simply did not understand the degree of impoverishment in many parts of Mexico. When the Zapatista National Liberation Army, the EZLN, occupied San Cristobal de las Casas and a number of other towns in the Chiapas region, it issued a statement which said:
As free men and women we are aware that the war we are declaring is a last but just resort. The dictators have been waging an undeclared and genocidal war against our peoples for many years, wherefore we urge your full participation in support of the Mexican people and their struggle for work, land, housing, food, health, education, independence and freedom, democracy, justic and peace. We shall not cease our struggle until we see these basic demands of our people met, forming the government of our free and democratic country.The report from which I am quoting goes on to point out that, in the Chiapas states, 66 per cent. of households lack electricity, 71 per cent. of children over the age of 14 are unable to go to school, they are fourth from the bottom among Mexican states in the percentage of households with access to running water and sewers, and the mortality rate is 94 per 1,000 live births. That is in a country that was being described by the World bank and others as on the road to economic success. It is hardly surprising that those things happened. It is interesting that, in later opinion polls throughout Mexico, what the EZLN had done in that region was supported by 61 per cent. of the popultion.The horrors of what is happening in Mexico as a direct result of the World bank's intervention during the debt crisis of the early 1980s and now the North American Free Trade Agreement will not go away in a hurry and it might well break the stranglehold of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional on politics in Mexico. I hope that the British Government will support the sending of independent observers to watch the presidential and congressional elections in Mexico this year. It is essential that those involved in those elections understand that people from outside are prepared to watch what is going on.
I also want to draw attention to what has been going on in central America during the past year. There have been significant changes and earlier this this year a large number of hon. Members signed an early-day motion looking forward to the restoration of human rights and proper judical processes in Honduras. It was important to do that. It is significant that, on 13 April, the new President Reina of Honduras said:
International human rights organisations have perceived that there could be threats to my government and they have denounced that situation … to prevent these threats being realised.458 That is a cry from the heart for many within the central American region where some democracy has been restored, as in the case of Honduras.There is still fear of paramilitary organisations and of the military as those Governments try to uncover human rights abuses. Unmarked graves have been discovered, people have disappeared and what may or may not have happened to them has come to light. The military is often virtually off the hook and able to do much as it pleases.
Although elections have taken place in El Salvador and the horrors of the civil war there have ended—hopefully for good, but perhaps only temporarily—one must question the policy followed by the United States in pouring vast amounts of military aid into El Salvador for a war that could not be won, to protect an elite trying to hang on to their power and wealth. The new Government have pledged themselves to work with the Opposition and other parties, but it is a matter of concern that President Caldersón Sol of the ARENA party was close to Roberto D'Aubuisson, who was closely involved with the death squads during the horrors of the civil war.
There is an economic base to many such conflicts, arising from the desire of the poorest people to enjoy a decent standard of living and the desire of the wealthy and powerful to hang on to their wealth and power at all costs. Traditionally, the US has supported the wealthy and powerful against the poor in that region.
In previous debates, I have often asked about Chile. Things have changed enormously there in the past few years. The second democratic elections will be held this year, and I was among the people who met a parliamentary delegation from Chile that came to Britain last week.
For all that, I find it astonishing that Chile's head of armed forces is General Pinochet, who was responsible for the deaths of at least 50,000 people in Chile. He seems to travel around the world with impunity, aided and abetted by the British Government in entering this country using false names and false passports, to buy arms here. It is disgraceful that the Government are prepared to share in such duplicity organised by the Chilean military, led by General Pinochet. He is still on his arms-buying excursions, and flexes his muscles to demonstrate what a powerful person he is in Chile.
I had the privilege of chairing a huge meeting in Manchester last month which brought together speakers from different parts of the world to examine the new world economic order and the problems that it is creating. One speaker was Marco Aurelio Garcia, international secretary of the Workers party of Brazil. He also attended a meeting in the House, and displayed an impressive grasp of world affairs.
His description of his party's programme and its hopes of winning elections later this year gives me great encouragement. He pointed out that, for all the facade and his country's brilliant success at football and wonderful cultural traditions, enormous poverty is suffered by many Brazilians. It was shown in a TV programme about Brazilian football broadcast on Tuesday, directed by Roberto Mardo.
Seventy million people in Brazil are excluded from its economy and a normal life. They have a twilight existence, living hand to mouth by scavenging, begging, prostitution and drugs. The Government elected later this year will have to confront those problems. They will be elected with a mandate to change, spread wealth, and bring education, housing and employment to the masses.
459 All those aims are highly laudable. They would be difficult to achieve in any society in any circumstances, and well nigh impossible if the world community, through its financial institutions, continues the stranglehold on Latin America economies of the debt repayment system and underpricing of basic commodities.
We have, I hope, a humanitarian interest in the standard of living of ordinary people throughout the latin American continent, but we also have a vested interest, as does every citizen of the globe, in protecting the environment of the planet. The economic system that is being imposed on the poorest countries is one that quite deliberately damages the environment. There is not much point in lecturing people to defend their rain forest if we tell them at the same time that the only way out of their economic problems is to increase the planting of crops for export, knowing full well that that will be done on areas which were formerly covered with rain forest.
There are many countries and many areas in Latin America on which one could spend a great deal of time, but unfortunately the time allowed for the debate is fairly limited.
The issue of human rights and the image that is presented on our screens of the war against drugs is very real. I have no time for hard drugs in any way. Indeed, I see the horrors of their effects on young people in my community when they become involved in taking them. It seems to me that something is thoroughly wrong when the poorest people in Latin America are growing the ingredients that eventually turn up as hard drugs on the streets of European and north American cities, causing a cancer and a poison in societies at both ends.
Somewhere along the line, unnamed faceless people living in tax havens are making vast profits from that, and are laundering drug money all over the place. I certainly would not want to have any truck with those people.
We must also recognise that, in the facade of the war against drugs, in countries such as Colombia, some totally vile abuses of human rights are going on. The number of political killings in Colombia and the political violence there is truly frightening.
I have in front of me a copy of a paper from the US Committee for Refugees entitled "Feeding the Tiger: Colombia's Internally Displaced People". It contains a graph that has three factors: political assassinations, disappearances, and deaths in combat. From it, one can see that the figures are fairly static from 1970 to 1980, with a bit of a blip around 1977. From 1980 onwards, there was a massive increase in the number of political assassinations —up to 3,000 a year in the late 1980s, settling down to some 2,000 a year currently. Disappearances are rising fairly steadily, and deaths in combat are rising very rapidly indeed. Those figures represent the people who are killed in Colombia.
There are many complex reasons why people are killed in Colombia. Other figures show that, in 1988, 2,738 political, or presumed political, assassinations and 210 disappearances were recorded. In 1992, 2,315 political, or presumed political, assassinations and 237 disappearances were recorded. In addition, 1,801 assassinations with a possible motive of social cleansing were recorded. Those figures are truly frightening, whichever way one cares to look at them.
460 When one starts to look at what is going on there, one finds that British Gas, a privatised utility in this country, is well placed to lead a multi-billion pound contract to pipe Colombian natural gas throughout the capital—and making a great deal of money at the same time. When Amnesty International produced a very thorough report on human rights in Colombia, it met a strong riposte from both the Colombian Government and the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who was a junior Minister at the Foreign Office.
David Bull, director of Amnesty International, wrote in The Guardian shortly after:
The outrage of the Colombian authorities at our recent adverts in the British press is matched by our bewilderment. As head of the Colombian Administrative Security Department (DAS). Dr Fernando Brito must be aware that there is no such international court or forum to which he could "sue" Amnesty International"—that was after a threat to sue Amnesty International. Mr. Bull went on to say that he wouldwelcome the opportunity to have its evidence on human rights violations presented and tested before any independent body.The Amnesty International report, entitled "Colombia —The human rights movement under siege", catalogues the problems encountered by people who have stood up for human and social rights in the country. Trade unionists have been assassinated; those who have stood up for the land rights of the landless have died as a result; and the constitution grants impunity to many of those responsible for the abuses.Summarising recent reports on the situation in Colombia, the Inter-congregational Commission of Justice and Peace quoted these words from Amnesty International's report:
Successive Colombian governments have largely escaped international criticism because of a skilful mix of political initiatives, public relations campaigns and the support, in the international arena, of powerful allies for whom Colombia's strategic and economic significance is of far more importance than its human rights record".The British Government say that they are keen to increase the amount of trade with and inward investment in Latin America—interestingly, by a number of newly privatised utilities from this country—in order to make considerable profits. In Colombia, there is not just a battle between the drugs barons, but a battle against those who are standing up for human rights. Trade union leaders, social leaders, activists and others who want housing and schools for their children are being assassinated.The British Government are also providing the military with logistical and intelligence support—as is the United States—in the guise of a war against drugs. Many in Colombia suspect that the intelligence system is being used to monitor the activities of those who are standing up for the social progress to which I have referred.
Several reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the current situation. The armed forces must act within the law, and the growth in the paramilitary forces must be not just checked but reduced; there is a great deal of illegal paramilitary action. Links between the army and the paramilitaries are suspected, and it is thought that anti-terrorist legislation is frequently used to prevent people from taking part in social protests. There are few signs that those who are guilty of these appalling atrocities are being brought to book.
I hope that the British Government will be prepared not only to recognise the existence of serious human rights violations in Colombia, but to support monitoring 461 exercises and human rights initiatives. I hope that their foreign policy initiative will stress human rights objectives rather than purely economic ones.
We are discussing a continent of wondrous diversity, beauty and potential. Many of its people live in terrible poverty, and much of its cultural heritage is under threat in numerous ways. We must view the world as a whole—its trading patterns, its ecology and its sustainability. I think that much of the treatment of the poorest people in South America is deplorable; we ought to participate in the development of a foreign and trading policy that takes a very different attitude to the region and its problems.
What has happened in Mexico, and what is happening in Haiti and to the poorest people in Brazil and Colombia, will be replicated throughout the continent. Although we cannot solve all the problems from here, we can at least recognise them and not always be seen to be supporeing the rich and powerful against the poor and landless.
§ 2.8 am
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), the distinguished chairman of the British-Latin American parliamentary group, on opening the seventh consecutive summer Adjournment debate on the important subject of this country's relations with Latin America. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) to his last outing as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, responsible for relations with Latin America, and congratulate him on his appointment as Paymaster General.
This has been another good year for Latin America, and in particular for Britain's relations with it. A glittering array of Her Majesty's Ministers has travelled across Latin America, which is good for our relations; it is also good for Ministers to absorb an appreciation of Latin America and take it into the heart of Government. It is a collection of countries with an educated elite that can match that of countries anywhere in the world. It is a continent with representative democracy now firmly re-established, except in the shameful cases of Cuba and Haiti, and it is a continent with growing economies. I hope that the Prime Minister will build on his recent visit to Colombia and to Brazil—the first such visit by a serving British Prime Minister—and I hope that he will build into his programme visits to other Latin American republics.
Only two weeks ago we welcomed President Wasmosy to the House and Celso Amorim, the Foreign Minister of Brazil is here now. In fact, only last Tuesday he witnessed from the Gallery the interesting spectacle of Prime Minister's Question Time. In London today we have also seen Ernesto Samper, the President-elect of Colombia. He spoke to us here, in the mother of Parliaments. This year, the Inter-Parliamentary Union has welcomed parliamentary delegations from Cuba and from Chile, with whom we have had interesting discussions.
Last year I spoke at length about Brazil, which covers one third of the area of Latin America. It is the ninth largest economy in the world and has an annual gross domestic product of $500 billion, which is three times that of Mexico and twice that of Belgium. The economy of the state of São Paulo in Brazil is one and a half times that of the entire Argentine republic. That puts that magnificent country into context.
462 Brazil is currently going through a major transformation through its economic stabilisation programme which was launched by the then Minister of Finance, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. It has already switched from the cruzeiro real currency, which only last April was depreciating at the mind-boggling rate of 42 per cent. per month, through the URV index to the new currency, the real, which was launched on 1 July. By the use of strong monetary control, high interest rates and supportive measures it has stopped inflation in its tracks. The new currency has appreciated gently against the United States dollar in the weeks since its introduction.
None of that can do any harm to the election prospects of Senator Cardoso who has become a strong presidential candidate for the elections due on 3 October. Nevertheless, he has a herculean task to outstrip the front runner, Luis Inacio da Silva, well known as Lula, the leader of the Workers party, to whom the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred.
Brazil may be proud of its recent democratic record. It reverted from military dictatorship to democracy without bloodshed. It went through the disillusion and trauma of seeing its first renewed democratically elected president, Fernando Collor de Mello, driven from office accused of corruption. It has seen its interim and current president, Itamar Franco, weather a personal scandal. It has been through all that without breaching its constitutional procedure. That is a proud record and we in the House must await the new president who takes office at the beginning of 1995.
I should like to draw the House's attention to developments in Argentina. We must lift up our eyes above the hurt brought about by that tragic piece of fratricide, the south Atlantic conflict of 1982. Argentina is a country akin to sleeping beauty. It has been kissed by the prince of democracy and is emerging from a 50-year slumber. I ask the House to cast its mind back to the 1920s and 1930s. Argentina was then interlocked with the economies of the British empire. British companies ran the public utilities, the meat trade and the banking. The Argentines exported their agricultural produce to Britain and we, in turn, exported our industrialised products to Argentina. It was akin to one of the great dominions. However, it was our actual great dominions—Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa—which saw them as competitors and invoked imperial preference against them at the Ottawa imperial conference in 1932.
The shock of that event was like that experienced by a child rejected by his parent. It led to the 50-year trauma from which Argentina is only now emerging. It is ironic that Britain has also played a major part in that emergence by defeating the military dictatorship in the south Atlantic conflict. The 50-year trauma—mob Peronism followed by military dictatorship—had a devastating effect on Argentina, taking it from being the emerging power alongside Canada in the 1930s to the self-deprecating shadow of the early 1980s.
What a great humiliation that that potentially great country should have had the self-image of a third-world country. Not for nothing did Argentines joke bitterly that God had given Argentina its agriculture, its wine and its oil but that, to redress the balance for those riches, God had given it the Argentines themselves. It was a loss of confidence on a grand scale.
The earthquake of the Falklands conflict, the discrediting of the military and the restoration of 463 democracy did not complete the renaissance. President Alfonsin, the first democratically elected president, began the task, but it has been the unlikely figure of President Menem who has seen it through to fruition. Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you remember presidential candidate Menem —the Peronist candidate—with his byzantine appearance and bellicose utterances, especially those against the Falkland Islands?
Who could have foreseen what that man would achieve? He has transformed Argentina—inflation has fallen, the deficit is being reined in, the vast inefficient nationalised industries have been privatised, foreign investment and expertise have been brought in, and the British utility companies have reinvested. Certainly, Argentine industry, which is old-fashioned and inefficient, needs investment and renewal, and there are many opportunities for this country in that process.
The Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, is a highly impressive gentleman of world class. He has launched his "charm offensive", which is helping the wounds of conflict to heal. The House should not forget that Argentina's wounds are still painful to the touch. I hope that there will be a steady building of bridges between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, and the recent Anglo-Argentine conference in Mendoza attended by some hon. Members and others will have done much to help that process.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right, however, to stress our dedication to self-determination and the fact that that dedication would lead us to defend the Falkland Islands should it be necessary. It is no kindness to Argentina to give it the impression that we would not back the democratic rights of the Falkland Islands should it be necessary to do so. That message should be clear.
Incidentally, the same message should be sent to Guatemala in relation to Belize—this country and, I believe, the world community, would, through the United Nations, stand behind the independence and sovereignty of Belize.
Argentina has got rid of violence—the violence to the "disappeared", the violence of abductions and that of left-wing terrorists has gone. How tragic that, earlier this month, we witnessed the bomb explosion at the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish community, in which 22 people lost their lives and 140 were injured. Apparently, the perpetrators are believed to be an Iranian Hezbollah terror team. I am sure that the House will echo the message of sympathy and support that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent to the Foreign Ministers of Argentina and Israel.
Argentina is again taking its rightful place in the world community. Its navy participated alongside ours in the campaign to liberate Kuwait, and its armed forces are shoulder to shoulder with ours on the green line in Cyprus. Argentine is again a valued trading and investment player and a major companion on the world stage, and we must give it our attention.
Recent months have seen the drama of the GATT agreement and the saga of the European Union agriculture and trading developments. The lesson to be learnt is that the United Kingdom and Latin America are natural allies. This country's fight for free and open trade marks us out as 464 the Latin American countries' natural ally in Europe. Our friendships go back to the days of Canning, and of their independence struggles. Our interests run in parallel.
We cannot ask the Latin American countries—or, indeed, other developing countries—to return to democracy and to have sound economies and free trade, and then put up barriers against them. They must earn their way in the world, and for that they need markets in which to sell their goods, to earn foreign exchange with which in turn to buy our goods.
For that reason I alert the House to the growing phenomenon of protectionism masquerading as allegations of social dumping. Allegations of exploitation involving child labour, slavery, prison labour or dangerous working conditions are made against developing countries, and those are used as a justification for trade barriers. Clearly the House is against the misuse of prison labour, which we see taking place in the communist republic of China. Equally, child labour, as seen in far too many Asiatic countries, is abhorrent. However, we should not allow the allegations to cloud our judgment.
Those allegations come mainly from three sources. The first source is the extreme left, who blame all injustices on the international trading system; the second is producer interests in the industrialised world, including the trade unions; the third consists of the advocates of regional blocs, such as Sir James Goldsmith. Those are indeed strange bedfellows.
I believe that the greatest threat to our relations with Latin America would come from an introverted European Union, and the Latin American republics consequently looking inwards to a Mercosul and other sub-regional organisations, and then to an extended North American Free Trade Agreement. Such an extension of NAFTA would constitute a self-imposed subjection to a belated Monroe doctrine.
§ Mr. CorbynDoes the hon. Gentleman not think that one of the many failings of the GATT deal is the fact that there is nothing in it about the rights of workers, or about protection against child labour? If we are serious about opposing the use of penal labour or child labour anywhere, would it not be helpful if such provisions had been written on the face of the GATT treaty?
§ Mr. ArnoldIf such provisions were written in, they would hamstring many of the developing economies. It is all very well for us to parade our social consciences, but it is quite another thing if those countries cannot compete in the world. We must never forget that.
We must guard against the advocates of social dumping allegations, such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North and also against the possibility of their winning their case in the new World Trade Organisation. Batteries of European Commission lawyers and experts are already descending on Geneva, using alleged cases of child labour, which they then take from the particular to the general, as an excuse for banning third world exports. The United States is also likely to behave in the same way.
That is a looming challenge that we must fight. Fortunately, we have an ally in Sir Leon Brittan as European Trade Commissioner. He has specifically opposed any action against social dumping when exporters have owed their advantage purely to low wages and social costs.
465 I shall make a few specific bids to my hon. Friend the Minister. I strongly support the call from our hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, on behalf of the British Latin American parliamentary group, for a Government-sponsored conference in London on Latin America. That can only heighten the profile of that important part of the world.
I also support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for greater emphasis on the teaching of the Spanish language to our young people. Clearly, with a multiplicity of countries in Latin America and elsewhere speaking Spanish, the language is important, certainly by contrast with French and even more so by contrast with German. I also put in a plea for the Portuguese language and I ask that we ensure that the setting of a GCSE examination in this language is continued.
I ask that we thoroughly review the support that we give, through the British Council, to the network of the Cultura Inglesa in so many Latin American countries. Those institutions are doing sterling work in teaching the Queen's English and British culture to Latin American young people. That does much to strengthen the cultural ties between our country and Latin America.
I am grateful for the opportunity for this seventh debate on Latin America. It is vital and we are making great progress to rekindle the warm relationship between this country and Latin America.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)I, too, am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) secured what is, by now, a traditional end of Session debate on Latin America. I am sad that this will be my last such debate before I transfer from the Foreign Office to a new job in the Treasury. However, I hope that it will not be the end of my relations with Latin America.
I have enormously enjoyed my work with Latin America over the past 14 months. It is a continent of immense dynamism, potential and diversity. I have been treated with great kindness by the ambassadors of the countries represented here and, indeed, by their Governments in many dealings with them, including when I have had to deal with some difficult and controversial matters.
In all cases, I have received courtesy and understanding, and I have always admired the professionalism with which those countries conduct their relations with us through their ambassadors and the staff in London.
There has been a lively traffic of visits in both directions over the past year. This week, to take an example, we have received here the President-elect of Colombia, Mr. Samper, and the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Mr. Amorim. Indeed, I dined with him shortly before this debate started. Both during that dinner and in the more formal parts of their visits, we carried forward our traditionally close relations with those two countries. Earlier this month, we welcomed President Wasmosy of Paraguay. There, too, we found a high degree of common accord.
It is worth noting that, in 1989, nine British Ministers visited Latin America. Last year, that figure had risen to 22 visits. We are not just continuing, but developing and enriching the ministerial relationship between our two continents.
466 I pay tribute here to the role of Canning house in this respect. It is always a privilege for me to address audiences there and to listen to questions, points and criticisms from audiences assembled by Canning house. I know that visitors always welcome the opportunity to make contact with British business men, academics and other politicians. As for the calls for a conference on Latin America, I should not tie the hands of my successor, but I hope that he will read this debate and the particular request made by my hon. Friends.
Relations are also helped specifically by the interest taken in Latin American affairs by hon. Members. Those hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are known for their continuing interest in the issues. That fact impresses visitors who come here; they like to know that hon. Members take not only an occasional but a continuing interest in developments in Latin America. They know well that that implies not only applause for the successes of the continent but scrutiny of its problems.
Human rights are not a taboo issue. Provided the discussion is informed and constructive, it enriches the international debate that human relations issues and allegations should be raised and discussed. In that context, I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We all respect the knowledge that he brings to bear on the subject, as well as his genuine concerns about human rights abuses, which we recognise still occur in at least some of the countries concerned.
My final point is that, if hon. Members are considering a visit to Latin America during the recess or at any other time, I hope that they will let the Foreign Office know, so that our post out there can help to make their visits a success. Although I am leaving the Department, I intend to visit Latin America in August and September to complete a little business and to have a holiday in the region, which is a legitimate pursuit. I hope that the last 14 months have at least earned me a little recreation in the area, as well as a little more work.
The matter of trade was raised several times in the debate.
§ Mr. CorbynBefore the Minister leaves the subject of human rights, I raised some specific points relating to Colombia. I asked whether the British Government are prepared to support human rights initiatives and examine seriously the situation in Colombia, because one gets the impression, from the outside, so to speak, that the Foreign Office is more interested in inward investment in Colombia than it is in looking at the human rights problems which undoubtedly are growing in Colombia, not diminishing.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI intend to come back to the issue of human rights later in my remarks. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when President Gaviria visited us last year, when I visited Colombia and, indeed, when President-elect Samper came here this week, human rights issues were raised; our concerns were made clear to the Government of Colombia and those individuals. If I may, I shall respond later on what I consider to be a particularly important aspect of human rights in Latin America.
As for trade, hon. Members will be pleased to know that our exports to the region increased by some 27 per cent. to some £1.7 billion in 1993, and there is evidence that, 467 during the early months of this year, they increased by a further 17 per cent. Despite that, our market share remains disappointingly low, and we are working to correct that.
British industry and commerce are becoming more interested in the region. It is especially pleasing to see a number of British companies which were previously Government-owned domestic utilities, such as British Gas and the water companies, emerging on the world scene and winning contracts in Latin America in the face of stiff international competition. We and the Department of Trade and Industry are working jointly to promote trade. Eight export promoters for Latin America have been appointed by the British Overseas Trade Board and business men frequently accompany Ministers on visits to the continent.
Latin America has changed. The old development model.and Government aims of closed economies, high tariffs, nationalised industries and import substitution have given way to an opening up of markets, a lowering of barriers and a welcome of investment. Most Latin American countries have embarked on privatisation programmes, many with help from British banks and institutions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, those economic changes are often painful. It takes political courage to undertake a programme of reform to reduce budget deficits, control inflation, get on top of macro-economic problems, as well to restructure economies. Those changes are not easy, and the fact that, in almost all cases, countries have persisted and are now seeing the fruits of their endeavours demonstrates their political maturity.
It is not, of course, an even process—some countries' rate of change is faster than that of others—and there are exceptions to the general lowering of tariffs. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to Scotch whisky, which faces discriminatory tariffs in a number of Latin American countries. We continually point that out.
It is of almost overriding importance that our continent and the European Union maintain their world trading vocation. We must resist any temptation to live in a fortress Europe. We must be an outward-looking trading organisation, and we must develop links with Latin America generally and with the regional groupings within that continent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham also struck a correct note of caution about any attempt to use trade policy to try to force through social changes in poorer countries. That quickly becomes a form of protectionism, and it is a way of saying, "We're not going to trade with you, you are too poor." That is quite wrong and self-defeating.
Of course we are all repelled by the use of prison labour to undercut the market, and the use of child labour must be addressed through international mechanisms. When trade is used to effect such changes, it is an extremely blunt and clumsy instrument. As those countries recognise, such a policy can quickly become a form of disguised protectionism, which we will always resist.
Parallel political developments have occurred, and the establishment of civilian government is now almost universal in Latin America. If we take as a general test of democracy the three requirements of the rule of law, freedom of expression and representative institutions with 468 free elections, those countries are democratic. It is noticeable that when they suffer from internal governmental crises, as they have done, they have recently been resolved peacefully and constitutionally.
Some of those crises have been serious, and have involved the removal of presidents, but whereas, 20 years ago, that might have led to the military taking over, now they are coped with and resolved within those countries' constitutions. The old stereotype of Latin America suffering from frequent revolutions, military dictatorships and repression is out of date.
The need to improve the quality of democracy in those countries is widely acknowledged. Democracy does not consist solely of periodic elections. In many instances, it requires the strengthening of the state and its administrative systems. That is why, in some countries, we have aid programmes that fall under the general heading of good government. Human rights abuses are still too common, and there is frequently a need to strengthen the judical and law enforcement systems. We from the outside can often assist with that.
There is a similar point to be made about poverty. We on the Government Benches strongly believe that free trade, liberalisation and market economics provide the dynamic for economic growth and are indispensable. The statist model comprehensively failed. I believe that the economic changes are irreversible.
As for the distribution of wealth, overcoming problems of poverty and ensuring that as many people as possible participate in the market, these are properly matters for the individual countries. They all require a strengthening of the administrative and legal systems, so that all the peoples of the countries that we are discussing can live under governmental systems of probity, integrity and efficiency.
We know that Colombia is a violent country. The connection with drugs money is evident. All too often, the colossal profits made from drugs overwhelm the administrative, judical and law-enforcement systems in the country. These systems are too easily subverted by the flows of drugs money. The war on drugs is an important way of preventing the spread of poisonous drugs into the rest of the world, and of enabling the Government of Colombia to deliver good government in every sense of the term to their citizens.
§ Mr. CorbynI understand the Minister's comments about the drugs war, but I was talking about the growing number of political assassinations of trade union leaders, of social protest groups and of people demanding education, health services and land reform. It seems that foreign Governments all concern themselves with the drugs war and ignore the vicious civil war that is being waged. The number of trade union leaders and political activists who have been assassinated is frightening. Surely that is something that should concern us.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThe causes of violent deaths in Colombia are many and complex. Common crime is a factor. Far too many disputes are resolved violently. Far too many people own weapons and use them. There are guerrilla groups that refuse to come into the constitution to pursue their aims democratically. Drugs wars are financed by the profits to which I alluded. There are rogue elements in the security forces.
469 It is an aim of the Government of Colombia, and of the next president, to improve the judicial and law-enforcement agencies, the police and the army. It is the next president's aim to use his authority to improve those organisations' respect for human rights. That often means improving the pay of their employees, their discipline and their training, and ensuring that they are subject to the civilian authorities.
In Europe, we are used to human rights abuses being very much connected with the overbearing power of the state. Indeed, we have dealt with two ideologies in our continent—fascism and communism—which represented states which in many respects were too powerful. There is a difference between that and what is common in Latin America, where it is often the very weakness of states and their failure to control rogue elements in the apparatus of government that lead to human rights abuses.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldMy hon. Friend is right. The problem in Colombia is the vast scale of the country and its rugged terrain. Since independence, the Colombian Government have been unable to get their civil writ to apply throughout the country in the minutest detail. We must regard the issue from that perspective, not the extraordinary perspective from Islington High street.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryMy hon. Friend gives a further illustration of the point that I was making.
May I take this opportunity to pay a personal and parting compliment to the officials and staff in the Department in which I have served for the past year? They have served me with unfailing good humour, in good times and bad. The skill and dedication our diplomats and officials in the Foreign Office are an asset of which this country should be proud.