§ 1 pm
§ Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East)I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss Russia's application to join the European democratic community that is the Council of Europe. As the House may know, I am one of the three rapporteurs whose responsibility it is to recommend an opinion for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to offer to our Committee of Ministers, which will be debated at our next session in Strasbourg in two weeks' time.
It must be clear that, whatever our recommendation, it will have far-reaching consequences for both Russia and Europe. Should we decide to invite Russia to join, for which it has been pressing since 1992, we know that that will be a political judgment, made in the clear realisation that Russia has not yet reached our standards of membership, but that it is more likely to achieve those standards as a full member than if we were to keep it out in the cold.
Should we decide that we cannot compromise our standards to such an extent in the case of the largest country in Europe, we risk unknown consequences for Russia, Europe and the rest of the world. That dilemma was discussed in a debate on the same subject in another place just over a year ago by my noble Friend Lord Finsberg, in his capacity as leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe—and I use this opportunity to record what an excellent leader he is.
At the risk of boring the House, before enlarging on my case for Russian accession now, I shall place on the record my personal experience, which has led me to the debate today. As a hitch-hiking student in the 1960s, I visited Leningrad and saw at first hand how Russian people were treated under the Soviet system, and how their human rights and fundamental freedoms were denied.
I was especially appalled by the way in which Christians and Jews were treated, and I was determined to do something about it—although, when I was a student, there were few opportunities for that, except by sharing my experiences with any audience that would listen.
Shortly after my election to the House in 1977, two things happened. First, I became involved in a human rights organisation called Christian Solidarity International, which campaigns on behalf of those who are persecuted for being Christian. It had recently been established in Switzerland to support the dissident Russian baptist pastor Georgei Vins. CSI sent me on several missions behind the iron curtain to meet brave campaigners for human rights, such as Father Gleb Yakunin and others in the Moscow Committee for the Defence of Believers Rights, many of whom were subsequently sent to the gulag.
Those visits, on which I can now look back with some satisfaction, were pretty hairy at the time—perhaps it is just as well that it was only recently that I learned that my KGB file described me as working at various times for MI5, the CIA and Mossad.
The second occurrence was that Baroness Thatcher appointed me to the British delegation to the Council of Europe, which provided me with an appropriate platform, in addition to the House, from which to publicise the 173 human rights situation that I had seen at first hand in the Soviet Union and its European allies. I did so, in five reports over 10 years, with recommendations for member states to pursue in the Helsinki process, now the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
I was especially delighted that the Vienna concluding document of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—as it then was—dated 19 January 1989, which only Ceausescu's Romania refused to sign, defined freedom of religion according to the CSI definition that I had recommended.
It was on the strength of those reports that I was appointed the rapporteur on Russia, following its application for membership. Russia had inherited the special guest status granted to the Soviet Union in response to President Gorbachev's commitment to reform, and that allowed a Russian parliamentary delegation to come to Strasbourg.
A year ago, it became clear that Russia under President Yeltsin had made considerable progress towards our standards of democracy and human rights. There is freedom of religion, of expression, of assembly and of association, and freedom for the media. Russia is also developing a multi-party system. We had found its first elections to the new bicameral Parliament that replaced the Congress of People's Deputies to be free and fair, but with certain shortcomings that we expected to be improved in the elections that were due last month. Indeed they were, as I saw for myself.
Russia's new constitution, clearly endorsed by referendum, established a presidential and parliamentary system similar to those of France and of the United States—although it soon became clear that the essential checks and balances between the presidency and Parliament would take time and experience to evolve.
Russia was also fast establishing a free market economy—too fast, perhaps one can say with hindsight, without adequate safety nets for the most vulnerable, and without an effective rule of law in place to deal with organised crime and with the former party bosses who knew how to milk and launder the proceeds of privatisation. The reform parties certainly paid a heavy price for that at the elections last month.
Russia still had a long way to go to improve its rule of law and its legal order, its criminal and civil codes, and especially the conditions in its prisons and detention centres, as the independent "Eminent Lawyers"—members of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights—found in their damning report of October 1994. Nevertheless, there were grounds for anticipating that Russia might qualify for accession last year—perhaps, as some suggested, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe.
However, those expectations were dashed by Russia's conduct in Chechnya a year ago. The excessive brutality used, and the denial of basic human rights so effectively exposed by Sergey Kovalev, the former dissident and President Yeltsin's human rights commissioner, were in our view no hallmarks of a country preparing to join the Council of Europe. Consequently, we suspended dealing with Russia's application, while continuing to advise and assist in the search for an acceptable alternative political and peaceful solution to the problem in Chechnya.
174 After many meetings with the Russians, as well as with Dudayev's representatives in Grozny, the three rapporteurs felt able to recommend that we resume dealing with the Russian application, and the Assembly endorsed that recommendation last September. Following last month's elections to the state Duma, the Political Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe accepted the unanimous opinion of the rapporteurs that the Assembly should now recommend Russian accession.
§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a recent press report, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), on his recent experiences in Chechnya? As I read that report, far from being an endorsement of Russia's candidature for the Council of Europe, it constitutes a jolly good reason why we should now reconsider that application very seriously.
§ Mr. AtkinsonYes, I am aware of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), which appeared in The Independent. I read it last night, and I shall respond to it later.
I supported that final draft opinion of the Political Affairs Committee, because it now provides for eight of the 10 outstanding conditions that I regarded as essential, a copy of which I sent to the Minister's colleague, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), in November. The first of those is to ratify the convention for the prevention of inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, which would end the unacceptable conditions in Russia's prisons. Others are: to effectively exercise those rights enshrined in the constitution relating to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence, which would end Russia's unacceptable permit system; to pursue legal reforms in line with European standards, which would—among many other things—bring to an end the unacceptable 30-day detention without charge and the unacceptable brutality and violations of the basic human rights of young conscripts and recruits in the Russian armed forces; to adopt a law for alternative military service, as foreseen in the constitution; to relax restrictions on international travel of the remaining so-called "refuseniks" who are aware of state secrets; to negotiate with the Churches the return of property stolen since the 1917 revolution; and to withdraw the 14th Russian army from Moldova within three years of the agreement of 21 October 1994.
Of course, I still want to see legislation to provide for the private ownership of agricultural land, which would do so much to realise Russia's food potential, but that remains a matter for its Government and Parliament.
I shall be proposing that the Assembly establish a special committee to monitor the situation in Chechnya and to come forward with proposals based on our own Council of Europe's expertise on the protection of minority rights, including our new framework convention, which both sides can accept. That committee will certainly monitor reports such as that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North, following his recent visit to Chechnya. He saw at first hand brutality not just by Dudayev's forces but by Russian forces, and he accurately reported upon that.
The House must be concerned about what is happening in the Chechen region at present. The holding of innocent patients as hostages by forces associated with Dudayev is 175 wholly unacceptable. We regard Chechnya as part of the Russian Federation. As we know, the so-called "Tatarstan solution"—providing for maximum autonomy short of outright independence—is negotiable. That is a clear message that I hope will emerge from the forthcoming debate on the Russian accession.
I appreciate that there will be those pessimists who will regard an imminent Russian accession as premature, a compromise too far, and dangerous for the Council of Europe. There is no doubt that Russian membership will represent the greatest challenge to the Council of Europe since we introduced special guest status for those countries emerging from communist control.
But we should be positive. Full membership will encourage the forces of democracy and reform in Russia, both in Parliament and in government. In the light of last month's elections, those forces need every assistance and co-operation, which the Council of Europe programmes—along with those of the European Union and our own excellent know-how fund—are providing.
Ratification of our numerous conventions—an essential condition of membership—will further encourage Russia's progress towards our European standards. Most crucially, of course, the ratification of the convention on human rights will provide for the right of an individual to petition the European Court, which—as we know only too well from our own experience—has a jurisdiction higher than any national court or Government.
No doubt it will be said that the ordinary Russian in the street will never get to hear of this unique protection of his rights, let alone about the legal processes which are there to realise it. My experience of Russian human rights organisations suggests a different conclusion. Born during the Soviet era, there are probably more human rights non-governmental organisations in Russia than in any other country, and those organisations are well aware of their rights in the constitution and in law. They will, I suspect, be seeking to put to an early test any violations, and with the utmost publicity.
I learned last night that the BBC's excellent Marshall plan of the mind trust—which provides information and advice to Russia on the consequences of reform—will include in its next phase the rule of law, human rights and the right of individual petition under the convention should Russia join the Council of Europe. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that that is properly financed through the know-how fund.
Should a reactionary, fascist or ultra-nationalist candidate be elected as Russia's next President in June, it will not he so easy for Russia to withdraw from the clear international legal commitments of full membership, amid all the publicity that such an unprecedented move would encourage. I would expect such a withdrawal to end Russia's association agreement with the EU and its partnership agreement with NATO, as well as to create problems for itself within the OSCE.
Let us not forget that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers have now in place improved machinery for the implementation of commitments entered into by all new member states. My task as rapporteur does not end with accession, but is to monitor, advice, assist, encourage and regularly report to the Assembly with as much publicity as possible. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can 176 confirm that it is open to the Committee of Ministers to suspend a member state which is seriously in breach of its obligations.
Alternatively, should the pessimists win and we decide to tell Russia that it must wait—probably for several years—for full membership, I have no doubt that President Yeltsin will feel obliged, as well as being overwhelmingly pressed, to withdraw the application. It would be a slap in the face for him, and for Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and the two Speakers of the Parliament who jointly signed an historic document in January 1995 which committed Russia to satisfy our conditions.
Such a decision would undermine the position of the reformers and democrats, who would be ridiculed by those who have always warned that Europe does not want Russia. It would encourage the forces of ultra-nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia and intolerance—all things that the Council of Europe's summit of 1993 pledged to eliminate in Europe—in the run-up to the crucial presidential elections in June.
Should a candidate such as Zhirinovsky—who does not want Russia to join the Council of Europe, but is pledged to establish a Russian-dominated council of eastern Europe—be elected, we would be plunged back into the division, tension, threat and hostility of a cold war, which can lead only to rearmament. It would demonstrate that we have not learnt the lesson of Hitler, who was no part of an institutionalised Europe.
That is a risk we must not take. The next six months will be a decisive period in Russian history. Russian membership of the Council of Europe now can contribute to keeping Russia on track towards meeting our western democratic values, from which we, Europe and the world have so much to gain. I hope and expect the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to share my judgment in two weeks' time.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for raising this important issue. The relationship of the west with Russia is one of the most critical subjects on which we must make decisions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us an opportunity to discuss the matter, with particular reference to Russia's accession to the Council of Europe.
My hon. Friend has personally played a most active part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, both as rapporteur on Russia and as chairman of the committee on relations with European non-member states, in helping to bring Russia to the threshold of membership of this democratic family of 38 member states. My hon. Friend also has a deep experience of Russia and its culture, and his interest goes back to his student days.
It is remarkable to note how the family of the Council of Europe has grown since 1989. The fall of the Berlin wall showed that the former countries of the Soviet bloc were not just willing but able swiftly to embrace the democratic values and obligations to protect human rights enshrined and upheld by the Council of Europe—values almost taken for granted by the established democracies of western Europe. One by one, these countries have sought 177 admittance to this unique club. Some have found it harder than others to meet the high standards required of members, which are based on the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and the safeguarding of human rights.
Russia has not found the journey to membership an easy one. It has had to negotiate a difficult road since it applied in 1992, and it has had to answer searching questions, particularly about the rule of law. It cannot have been easy for Russians, steeped in the secrecy of the Soviet and Tsarist traditions, to allow Council of Europe parliamentarians to inspect and check the nooks and crannies of the Russian establishment. For a country so soon out of the stultifying grip of 70 years of Soviet rule, that must have been a bitter pill to swallow, but swallow it did.
As a frequent visitor to Russia, my hon. Friend well knows the inner tensions that needed to be overcome in order to provide the assurances that political, legal and economic reforms in Russia continue to be sustained.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly is recommending in its opinion to the Assembly in Strasbourg later this month that the Russian Federation should be invited to become a member of the Council of Europe. The Assembly will debate and vote on this opinion, and, if it is approved, will recommend to Governments of the member states that Russia should become the 39th member state in February.
Some argue that it is wrong to allow Russia's admission before it has fully met the entry requirements. There is concern that it will lose the incentive to fulfil its obligations once it has acceded to the organisation, or that Governments will lose the will to monitor compliance with them.
§ Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North)Will the House get an opportunity to discuss the Assembly's decision, if it decides to admit Russia? Many of us here feel that it would be the wrong decision in the current circumstances. Many people throughout eastern Europe—Poles, Hungarians and Czechs—feel that it will be seen as a stamp of approval for Russia's brutal campaign in Chechnya, and another sign that the west is ignoring that campaign. They feel that it would be a dangerous move, which we would come to regret in the long term.
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorI shall come to Chechnya in a moment. It is not within my power to decide whether the House has a debate on the issue. My hon. Friend will have to take that up with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the business managers.
Whether Russia should be admitted into the Council of Europe is, of course, a political judgment. On balance, the Government think that the arguments for Russian membership next month outweigh the disadvantages, and we welcome the prospect of early membership for Russia. Given the necessary political will, Russia seems more likely to try harder to meet the Council of Europe's standards if it is a member of the organisation than if it is kept outside. Membership would help to underpin Russia's commitment to political reform and democratic principles, and to the observance and protection of human rights.
In dealing with the preparations for Russian accession to the Council of Europe, we are facing a difficult task. The very size of Russia and its needs will make new and 178 varied demands of the organisation as well as of the Russian Government. In this, Russia should be able to count on the firm support of its fellow members of the Council of Europe for encouragement, as well as advice and practical assistance.
For its part, the United Kingdom offers all three types of help. We sought to encourage Moscow most recently by supporting the EU statement of 2 October which welcomed the resumption of the procedure for Russian accession. We have offered advice to the Russians at both ministerial and official level to co-operate fully with the Council of Europe rapporteurs who are preparing the opinion on Russia's accession. We also offer practical assistance in the areas relevant to that application. In the last financial year we put almost £2 million of the know-how fund's resources to good use by funding projects ranging from reform of the criminal justice system to providing training courses for journalists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East asked about the next phase of the BBC's Marshall plan of the mind. We received last month the BBC's £5 million proposal for phase III, which includes programmes on the rule of law and the individual's right of petition. We have already funded phases I and II of the Marshall plan of the mind, to the tune of approximately £4 million, and we are currently considering the latest proposal. I am afraid that I cannot at this stage give my hon. Friend the assurance he sought, but I promise him that we will consider the proposal carefully.
Within Russia itself, there are those who are unlikely to allow the Government to forget their commitment to improving the human rights of its citizens. My hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House to the numerous and articulate non-governmental organisations in Russia. Nor should we overlook the power of a free media to open up to public scrutiny the actions of Government.
To be made to wait uncertainly on the sidelines would not strengthen Russia's interest in the Council of Europe, or help the democratic process. It is worth noting that a number of countries, already members of the Council of Europe, similarly use their membership to reinforce their commitment to democratic principles and human rights. Constructive dialogue from within the organisation can provide a way forward for each of these countries. Russia should not be an exception to this approach.
In this respect, however, the Government are opposed to the suggestion contained in the political committee's opinion that some form of special control body be set up to monitor Russia's performance with its obligations. Monitoring will be important, but it is just as important to treat all member states equally. We hope that this can be achieved through the existing Strasbourg monitoring mechanisms. Dialogue and co-operation, not accusations and confrontation, should be our watchwords.
My hon. Friend asked about the power of the Committee of Ministers over members which fail to honour their commitments. I can confirm that, if any member state seriously violates article 3 of the statute of the Council of Europe, it is within the powers invested in the Committee of Ministers to request that member to withdraw from membership under article 7.
If the member fails to comply with this request, the Committee of Ministers may decide that it has ceased to be a member, under article 8 of the statute. That is the ultimate sanction available to Government, and one which 179 we would not lightly contemplate. We expect and hope that the existing monitoring mechanisms will be sufficient to ensure that any required improvements in democratic standards are achieved without recourse to that severe form of action.
We are under no illusions as to the significance of the decision that Council of Europe parliamentarians will need to reach shortly. There are developments that continue to provoke disquiet, some of which have been mentioned. I shall mention two.
The first is Chechnya. We all recall the horrors of the Russian intervention in Chechnya that began just over a year ago. There was something particularly shocking about the brutality of the assault, the disregard for civilian life, the wanton destruction and the sheer incompetence with which the operation was carried out.
It is most regrettable that a negotiated settlement has still not been reached in Chechnya. All hon. Members will be aware that fighting of varying degrees of intensity continues. Particularly violent scenes occurred recently with the capture and recapture of Chechnya's second city, Gudermes. We deplore the civilian casualties which arose from that incident. At the same time, we condemn the most recent terrorist incident in Kislyar. It is welcome news that the majority of the hostages have been released. We hope that the rest—I believe about 150—will also be released unharmed. Those incidents underline the need for a negotiated solution, and also serve to emphasise the difficulties in reaching one.
We shall continue to deprecate violence, and call for a peaceful settlement. We shall continue to call for human rights abuses to be investigated, but the plain fact is that the conditions for a settlement acceptable to both sides have still not been found. Fears for its security made the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe assistance group withdraw to Moscow, but I am pleased to inform the House that it returned to Grozny last weekend. The second area of concern is Russia's political future. To put it simply, there are those who would prefer Council of Europe membership to be put off at least until after the Russian presidential elections in June. However, despite gloomy predictions to the contrary, the parliamentary elections were held in Russia on 17 December, and they have been unanimously judged as free and fair.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) can testify to this. They were official British monitors and Government observers. What is more, assertions about Russian apathy and lack of interest in democracy were confounded by the very substantial turnout of 65 per cent. 180 My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East has referred to the dangers from nationalists, and in particular from Mr. Zhirinovsky. The communists under Mr. Zyuganov were even more successful in the recent elections. There are very real dangers, and we should not attempt to hide them, but equally we should not adopt an alarmist approach towards them.
While we wish that the Communist party was readier to accept the need for further economic and political reform, it appears to accept the democratic process and the need for Russia's leaders henceforth to be chosen by the ballot box. As long as its leaders do that, there is no reason why the possibility of their coming to power should present an obstacle to Russia's membership of the Council of Europe.
Indeed, to postpone again Russia's membership after elections judged as free and fair would be a humiliating rebuff. It would be bound to strengthen the hand of those who argue that Russia demeans itself by attempting to enter the Council of Europe. It would give fresh force to those Russians who argue that it is not right for Russia to participate in bodies which give foreigners the possibility of interfering in its internal affairs.
Our hope and intention is that membership of the Council of Europe will provide a catalyst for further progress on human rights issues. More generally, both we and our European Union partners favour early Russian accession. The Council of Europe has a crucial role to play in bringing Russia into the European family of nations and as a means to provide practical support in entrenching western values.
It is, of course, for the parliamentarians of the Council of Europe, not for the United Kingdom Government, to determine the outcome of Russia's application during their debate on 25 January. That debate will be conducted with the full participation of the United Kingdom delegation, led by Lord Finsberg, to whom I should like to pay great tribute. I had many dealings with him when he was a Minister in the House. He was a superb Minister, and he does this job equally well.
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorI am afraid that I do not have time to do so.
The Government would welcome a positive recommendation from that debate, which will allow the Russian Federation to join the main stream of European life, through the Council of Europe. A Europe in which Russia adheres fully to Council of Europe ideals and plays a positive and constructive part in the activities of that organisation will be a safer, freer and happier place.