§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
10.16 pm§ Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor)As this is my first opportunity to do so, may I welcome the Minister to his new position? He will know that I am raising the issue of Belarus as a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is ably led by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). It continues to make good progress in countries newly arrived at democracy and civic society around the world. Indeed, sitting in at European Union summits such as that held in Gothenburg a few weeks ago are a number of aspirant countries which only a few years ago were bound fast into a system wholly opposed to the democratic process.
The Westminster Foundation for Democracy's earlier work in countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary has played a significant part in bringing nations through the often painful and difficult transition from tyranny to democracy. However, there remains much for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to do. Recently, it has been busy in Bosnia and Kosovo. Currently, we are all thinking about the position in Macedonia.
Much work also goes on in other parts of the world, especially in Africa, and I am thinking particularly of Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone. We should commend the work of the professional staff who work for the WFD and also that of the non-party governors. The House should also recognise that the co-operation of our political parties in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is a testimony to what we as Members of Parliament can achieve together in the important work of representing our country's basic values overseas.
This is the third time in 12 months that I have brought before the House the current situation in Belarus, and I make no apologies for doing so. The people of Belarus have severe difficulty in getting their voice heard in the world, and it is surely our duty to help give them a voice. Belarus has the worst human rights record of any European country; with the fall of Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Belarus's President Lukashenko holds the unenviable title of our continent's most despotic and tyrannical leader. Belarus is in crisis again at this very moment.
I visited Minsk last year. In a subsequent debate in Westminster Hall, I described the atmosphere of oppression and fear that exists in Belarus—whose ruling elite is proud still to run its own KGB and quite aggressively to call it that. Last year we also had a powerful report from Amnesty International, which, sadly, often reminded one of its earlier excellent work in the former Soviet Union. Belarus is a country where prominent public figures still all too often flee into exile or are disappeared or murdered.
All is not gloom in Belarus, however. The country has developed a remarkably cohesive democratic opposition, which approached last year's elections to Lukashenko's puppet parliament in a united spirit of defiance. I asked the Government for their reaction and was told that they endorsed the assessment of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission, that the elections did 635 not meet international standards for democratic process. A parliamentary troika drawn from the European Parliament, the OSCE and the Council of Europe reached a similar conclusion.
Last December, I returned to the subject in the Chamber, in particular to criticise the withdrawal of the British Council from Minsk. We should not lose sight of that mistaken and shameful act. I was pleased to see that the Foreign Affairs Committee followed up the cause and gave the British Council a hard time in January at one of its evidence sessions.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who has a distinguished record on Belarus matters, did well to attack the view, shared by the British Council and the Foreign Office, that Belarus had a "relative lack of importance"—a direct quotation from the British Council's statement. Dr. Baker of the British Council told the Committee that the matter was
certainly discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we both concluded that Belarus was not a high priority.What a sorry state of affairs. Much has changed for the better in the British Council in recent years, but I am very sorry that the generation that regarded part of its responsibility as working with the oppressed against their oppressors seems to have been superseded.In sending the wrong signal to Belarus, we betray all those brave men and women in its political parties, trade unions and non-governmental organisations, across the political spectrum, who are struggling to establish the most basic human rights in their country. I ask the Government urgently to review the decision and restore the British Council's presence in Belarus.
Belarus faces a presidential election, set for 9 September. The four basic conditions laid down for last year's elections, which were not met then, have still not even been addressed. First, Belarus still needs a fully powered, properly functioned parliament, as part of a proper division of powers, for President Lukashenko still rules by decree. Secondly, Belarus's electoral legislation still needs thoroughgoing reform. Thirdly, there is still no guaranteed real and regular access to the state-run electronic media. Fourthly, and in many ways most important, there has been no effective or visible change in the political atmosphere.
In other words, there has been no end to political repression. Indeed, in many ways it has got worse. This March, the president issued a decree banning any outside help for the democrats and enabling the authorities to block the activities of political parties and NGOs directly involved in the process of preparation for the presidential elections, including such simple matters—simple to us, at least—as collecting signatures, distributing leaflets and direct campaigning.
The decree was followed by demonstrations in Minsk on 25 March, during which Mr. Vintsuk Viachorka and Mr. Ales Belyatsky, respectively chairman and deputy chairman of the Belarus Popular Front, were arrested and imprisoned. Again, I tabled questions to the Foreign Office to discover the Government's view of the matter and was told eventually that the Government, together with EU partners, had delivered a dèmarche to the Belarus authorities about the cases, for which we are grateful.
636 Meanwhile, however, it is left to the OSCE to make the running in Minsk. In April, the Belarus authorities ludicrously accused the OSCE of training spies rather than election observers. The OSCE robustly denied that, insisting that the observers' work was both legitimate and necessary. Later the same month, Freimut Duve, the OSCE representative on freedom and media, publicly cancelled his scheduled visit to Belarus, stating that he could not accept what he called
severe interference in the independence of his OSCE institution by a participating state".There is here a clear pattern of persecution by the Belarus authorities of the OSCE. We should admire the OSCE's stand and further regret the fact that the British Government were not so robust over the British Council presence in Minsk.Persecution in the run-up to Belarus's presidential elections spreads much wider. The bigger picture was well summarised by the deputy chief of the US OSCE mission, Josiah B. Rosenblatt, a few days ago. His view closely reflects the tougher thinking of the US Government. Mr. Rosenblatt points out that the presidential elections present Belarus with an opportunity to end its self-imposed isolation. He says that Belarus needs in particular to release political prisoners Andrei Klimov and Valery Shchukin and account for the missing, among whom are the former Minister of Internal Affairs, Yury Zakharenko, the Deputy Chairman of the legitimate Representative Assembly, Viktor Gonchar, and his associate, Anatoly Krasovsky, as well as the television cameraman, Dmitri Zavadsky.
Mr. Rosenblatt added that Belarus must allow all candidates equal access to the state media; cease the arbitrary disqualification of candidates; and enable the electoral commission to ensure that the votes are counted accurately. But the problems are starting even earlier in the process in Belarus. At the moment, evidence is mounting from all over the country that opposition parties are deliberately being excluded from the local territorial electoral commissions. It appears that none of the 600 applications nationwide made by the opposition or the presidential candidates to the commissions have been accepted by the state authorities. Lukashenko is forming the electoral commission for his own presidential election on his own. The Belarus Helsinki Committee states that it has been formed in violation of the law.
In the past few weeks, further worrying developments have taken place. While it has always been difficult to get the western media to take an interest in Belarus, a story of the sort our media understands has broken into news reports. Among others, the BBC has reported on the allegations that a death squad working for the country's senior leadership has assassinated key political opponents of President Lukashenko. That is not a new claim, but for the first time it has been made by insiders—two former staff members of the state prosecutor's office, one of whom was formerly one of the investigating officers in the Zavadsky case. In particular, they allege the complicity of the country's leadership in the murders of Mr. Zakharenko, Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Zavadsky, all of whom I mentioned earlier in a context in which it was hoped they might still be alive. In all, it is claimed that there have been more than 30 murders.
The stakes are already high and will, no doubt, rise yet higher in the run-up to the Belarus presidential election. I have every confidence in our diplomatic presence in 637 Minsk, but I urge Ministers to follow events closely. I also have every confidence that the united opposition forces will agree on one joint significant candidate for president—it will have to be a very brave person—to represent them all. That individual will need all possible practical help as well as maximum moral support.
What else can we do to help? The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly is meeting in Paris and I very much hope that progress will be made there to extend its tough line against Lukashenko. I believe the British Government should also speak out and strongly condemn tyranny in Belarus. In particular, I would urge the Government to bring what pressure they can to bear on the Belarus authorities to form their electoral commissions in a proper and acceptable way. It is also vital to send a clear message to Lukashenko that all contenders in the presidential election must have equal access to the mass media.
Moreover, every effort should be made to insist that both domestic and international observers are allowed to scrutinise the election. We need to be sure that the registration of the presidential candidates and a most curious and suspect procedure for early voting in Belarus will be watched with as much care as the main polling process. We must also tell Lukashenko in the clearest terms that threatening political opponents and opposition parties, and creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, will not be tolerated.
Some might say that we have little power to influence a country such as Belarus, but I do not agree. The work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy became necessary because, in the not-too-distant past, we bore down heavily on countries where oppression was the order of the day. We did that in many ways, but especially by refusing to accept the legion of lies that support the totalitarian structures of such states. Each little lie is a vital part of the great lie that sustains tyranny, and each blow we make chips away at its foundations. In this case, we must make it quite clear to Lukashenko that if he does not observe the basic minimum standards we expect, we shall refuse to recognise the validity, the legitimacy, of the election, and we should make that clear in advance.
In today's Belarus, an event the like of which we thought—we hoped—had disappeared into European history is going on. I believe that our Government should take a lead in condemning the corrupt processes of the Belarusian presidential election. This policy could and should be a centrepiece of a new approach by the Foreign Office ministerial team. Here is a country where the police are far more efficient at harassing their own citizens than in combating the ever-growing flood of drug trafficking and organised crime. This is a country that we very much hope will soon share a border with the European Union. A former Home Secretary, now at the Foreign Office, will surely understand the importance of that.
Here is a country which, in one way or another, understands its need for western investment and economic assistance. Britain and the European Union have clear self-interest in the condition of Belarus and real leverage on the situation there. Here also is a cause—the cause of liberty—that we in Britain should champion, as we did those of other central and eastern European countries not so many years ago. I ask the Government to speak with a clear and urgent voice on this matter.
§ The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain)I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) for initiating this debate on Belarus. He is an experienced observer of Belarus politics, and his interest, energy and expertise are very welcome, as is his work for the admirable Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Like him, I think it long overdue that the torch of liberty should be lit in Belarus. I congratulate him on keeping that flame alive and for drawing the House's attention to that need.
The hon. Gentleman has developed close links with the centre right United Civic party and the Belarusian Popular Front. I know that he has gained the trust of the leaders of those two parties, Mr. Anatoly Lebedko and Mr. Vintsuk Viachorka. As he knows, the Government have a great deal of respect for these and other democrats in Belarus, as was shown last November when they visited London and called on my predecessor.
The hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate last July came at a time when Belarus was preparing for parliamentary elections in October. The international community hoped that Belarus would use that opportunity to take a tangible step towards democracy. Unfortunately, those hopes were not fulfilled. Belarus has now entered another crucial pre-election stage, with presidential elections to be held on 9 September.
Let me turn to the British Council closure, about which the hon. Gentleman, to his credit, has kept badgering the Foreign Office. The decision to close the British Council operation in Minsk followed a strategic review by the council designed to maximise effectiveness world wide. This focuses resources on countries where the Council can achieve greatest impact in support of British interests. It is important to stress, however, that council activity has not ceased. Through its offices in neighbouring countries, the council continues to co-ordinate Foreign Office Chevening scholarships for Belarusian students, youth exchange visits, Department for International Development regional academic partnerships with Belarusian universities and examinations work. The council enabled 92 Belarusians to sit British examinations in June this year alone.
It is also important to stress that the closure of the British Council does not affect our support for civil society, human rights and democracy-building projects. That support is not dependent on the presence of a British Council office. The Government have recently funded projects such as a domestic election observation network; a human rights conference and workshop organised by the British East-West Centre; a freedom of the media workshop organised by the OSCE's media freedom expert, Freimut Duve; a United Nations Development Programme project to improve the legal framework under which Belarusian non-governmental organisations operate, and funding for four Belarusian journalists and two NGO representatives on a United Kingdom study tour of the British election.
Belarus occupies a strategic position in Europe, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is set to be a neighbour of an enlarged European Union and it borders NATO. Given the country's strategic location in the east of the continent, it is extremely regrettable that Belarus, which promised so much at independence in 1991, cannot be regarded in any sense as a member of the family of democratic European states.
639 From the hon. Gentleman's contacts and visits, he will be familiar with the nature of Mr. Lukashenko's regime. The flawed Belarus referendum in November 1996 significantly increased Mr. Lukashenko's powers; undemocratically and unconstitutionally extended his term of office until 2001; and undermined the democratically elected Parliament of the 13th Supreme Soviet. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Lukashenko continues to rule in an autocratic and increasingly idiosyncratic manner, preventing the development of civil society. He has ensured that no significant legislative powers have been granted to the National Assembly—a body that we and our partners do not recognise as legitimate. Crucially, the Assembly is unable to exert control over Government or president.
The judiciary lacks independence. The judicial process is inconsistent and prone to abuse for political ends. The recent trial of eminent professor Yuri Bandazhevsky is an example of that. The professor had criticised the Government for suppressing information on the harmful effects of even small doses of the radiation resulting from the Chernobyl disaster. The British Government and the European Union are appalled at the harshness of the treatment received by the professor. The sentence of eight years hard labour for allegedly taking a bribe is vindictive; it was based on the testimony of one person and no material evidence was offered by the prosecution.
In the face of that oppressive regime, our Government have a good track record of supporting projects—some of which I mentioned—which promote democracy and civil society, raise awareness of human rights issues and encourage objective, independent media in Belarus. We shall continue to look for such opportunities, and we hope that the Government of Belarus will not stand in our way. If the hon. Gentleman has any other suggestions, I shall be happy to receive them.
In that regard, we are concerned about another negative development—the issue in March of presidential decree No. 8. The decree, which has brought condemnation from the British Government, in concert with the United States and our EU partners, regulates and limits the use of foreign financial assistance in Belarus. It has the potential to restrict the legitimate activities that we, the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe choose to support in Belarus as a means of promoting democracy and civil society there.
The OSCE's advisory and monitoring group is doing an excellent job carrying out its mandate under increasing pressure from the Belarus authorities. It is running good projects, some of which are directly funded by the UK. The head of the OSCE advisory and monitoring group has recently come under intense criticism for his activities and has even been threatened with expulsion by the Belarusian authorities. I deplore those attacks and, needless to say, we and the EU will continue to support the tireless efforts of Ambassador Wieck and his team. We hope that the recent criticisms from Mr. Lukashenko and some of those close to him in the Government will cease.
Belarus had an opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that it was committed to taking a democratic path at last October's parliamentary elections. Regrettably, it did not seize that opportunity. The OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which carried out limited observation of the elections, 640 concluded that they had failed to meet international democratic standards. As a result of that assessment, the EU does not recognise the legitimacy of the Belarus National Assembly.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I was also alarmed at recent newspaper reports of the existence of so-called death squads in Belarus. Our embassy in Minsk is monitoring that situation closely, and will inform us of any evidence that substantiates reports of the alleged existence and operation of such death squads.
On disappearances, Britain, together with our European Union partners, has, as the hon. Gentleman said, repeatedly called for the Belarusian authorities to investigate the disappearances of Viktor Gonchar, Deputy Chairman of the 13th Supreme Soviet; Mr. Gonchar's business associate, Anatoly Krasovsky; former Interior Minister, Yury Zakharenko; and television journalist for Russian ORT, Dmitri Zavadsky. The latest European Union declaration issued on 7 May—the second anniversary of Zakharenka's disappearance—urges the Belarusian authorities to do more to ascertain the fate of the disappeared, and it is part of the pressure that we are putting on them.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, current European Union policy towards Belarus is based on the General Affairs Council conclusions of September 1997, which were adopted in response to Belarus's poor record on constitutional matters and human rights. Those conclusions include a restriction on bilateral ministerial contact; the suspension of aid to Belarus, except for projects that directly support humanitarian causes or the democratisation process; the suspension of the ratification of the EU-Belarus partnership and co-operation agreement; and an agreement by the EU member states to oppose Belarus's accession to the Council of Europe.
The United States has a similarly restrictive policy towards Belarus. Of course, Britain and our European Union partners have no desire to isolate Belarus, but we remain very concerned about the continued dreadful human rights record, the harassment of opposition politicians and the failure of the Belarusian authorities to investigate the disappearance of several opposition sympathisers. We continue to receive reports of harassment of the independent media, with publishing houses being burgled or their printing presses impounded. We stand ready to review the General Affairs Council conclusions and to engage further with the Belarusian Administration when we see signs of steps towards democracy and respect for human rights.
In a statement made on 11 June, the European Union made it clear that the holding of free and fair elections could be the step towards modernising relations with Belarus. I underline that message in the House this evening. Full, mutual beneficial relations would be to the advantage of all the citizens of Belarus and the EU, but policy has to change for that to be possible. EU Commissioner Chris Patten's tough statement on Belarus, delivered to the European Parliament on 5 July, shows that European Commission thinking at the highest level is very much in line with ours.
The presidential elections of 9 September represent yet another opportunity for Mr. Lukashenko. It appears that he is a popular politician in his country, so I call on him to rise to the challenge of allowing democratically accountable presidential elections to take place in an environment free of intimidation, but I fear that that will 641 not happen. Following its visit to Minsk from 30 June to 2 July, the OSCE parliamentary working group to Minsk reported no improvement in political conditions in Belarus at all. In fact, it seems that the reverse is true.
What does the international community want of Belarus? What do we mean by free and fair elections in that country? We want opposition candidates to have better access to the state-controlled media, coupled with objective political reporting in regular current affairs and news programming. We want the political campaign to be free of harassment, starting with the registration and signature-collecting phase that is under way at the moment. We want the electoral code to be implemented in such a way that those who have complaints against the system can seek and obtain redress. We want the voting and counting process to be transparent and reliable, and preferably to be observed by a full international observation mission under the authority of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. It is not who wins but how that person wins that concerns us. We are concerned only with the fairness and transparency of the process, not with the individuals.
642 We should not overlook the pivotal role of Russia, either. As Belarus's closest ally and largest trading partner, Russia has more potential than any other country for exerting a positive influence on Belarus. I hope that Russia will seek to convince her neighbour of the need to conform with democratic norms appropriate to a member of the OSCE and to a Council of Europe aspirant. I hope, too, that the other neighbours of Belarus, including the Baltic states and Ukraine, will use their special relationship with Minsk to convey that message.
We want to deepen our bilateral relationship with Belarus. The country is too important for us to neglect. The holding of free and fair democratic presidential elections will be a first important step in allowing us to realise our aim. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and to receiving his representations to achieve the objective that we share.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.