he Helsinki Agreement: Madrid Conference (Hansard, 21 January 1982)

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington)
My Lords, western delegations welcomed as a useful step the draft concluding document tabled on 16th December last by certain neutral and non-aligned states. But the recent and continuing repression of human and social rights in Poland, which violates commitments undertaken in the Final Act, inevitably affects the situation in which the conference will resume.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is not this the third occasion on which the non-aligned nations have saved the conference? Is not their draft proposal accepted as favourable by both West and East, although some amendments arc necessary? Does not this draft statement include the positive results of the conference? Can the noble Lord say what they were? Can he place a copy of that draft in the Library?

§ Lord Carrington
My Lords, the concluding draft document highlights the points on which we were agreed and the points on which agreement is still to be reached. From that point of view, I think it is useful, and we must hope that it is possible to reach agreement. But I would be less than candid if I did not say that the events in Poland have made things in Madrid that much more difficult.
With regard to tabling the document, perhaps I could take advice as to whether or not I can do so.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, in view of the fact that the Helsinki Agreement lays down that signatories will not interfere in the affairs of other countries, would my noble friend consider putting a list in the Library showing the transgressions made by the Soviet Union, perhaps in alphabetical order, starting with Afghanistan, going through Poland and finishing with Zaire? Could this list be made publicly available? Could we not take some credit for drawing the attention of the Soviet Union to the way in which they have disregarded so much that they signed at 696 Helsinki? If progress is not made, would it not be a good idea to withdraw from the Madrid Conference? —because many people believe it is now becoming farcical.

§ Lord Carrington
My Lords, I shall look at the first part of that to see whether what my noble friend suggests would be possible. On the last part of my noble friend's question, it seems to me that since the CSCE conference flows from the Final Act at Helsinki, which specifically includes the problem of human rights—which are now at risk in Poland, and for violations of which the Polish Government and, we believe, the Soviet Government are responsible—I think that there will be an admirable opportunity when the conference resumes on 9th February for the West to make known to the Soviet and Polish Governments what they feel about these matters. For these reasons I think that it would be a mistake to call the conference off.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House, and I suspect the House on the whole, would welcome the resumption of the talks at Madrid, even though they have been going on for very nearly 18 months? Indeed, would not the fact of the conference reconvening on 9th February perhaps be used as a spur to promote the ending of martial law in Poland in the very short term and the restoration of the significant advances that were made in that country before the present crisis arose, both in the field of human rights and in civil liberties? If the noble Lord is to pursue the suggestion of a list of countries that have offended against the rule of non-intervention, will he make that as general, fair and wide-ranging as the circumstances, alas!, require?

§ Lord Carrington
My Lords, with regard to the last part of the question, I think that I should like to look at the whole subject to see whether it is worth doing and whether the amount of trouble that would be involved is worth it. I agree with the noble and learned Lord as regards the first part of his question. I think that 9th February would be an excellent opportunity for making plain the West's position.
I would also say to my noble friend that of course one part of the conference which we hope will be successful is an agreement on what was originally the French proposal for a disarmament conference and confidence-building measures, which were to take place as soon as the conference was over. I think that this would be very useful to have, if we could get it. So at the moment I think that it would be a mistake to assume that it would be in our interests to see the conference ended.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, has any limit been set to the discussions in Madrid or are they expected to go on for ever? If any limit is set and no agreement is reached by that time limit, will we withdraw from the whole operation, or what will be the result?

§ Lord Carrington
My Lords, I think that forever would be too long, but a little longer would be right.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, would the noble Lord reaffirm the Government's commitment to détente? Judging from the tone of some of the questions asked by noble Lords sitting behind him, not all of his noble friends retain that commitment. It would be rather welcome to some of us on this side to know that, in their zeal for human rights, the Government do not want to throw peace out of the window.

§ Lord Carrington
My Lords, of course we are all in favour of human rights, and we are in favour of détente if it is made possible by those with whom we seek to get agreement.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the deep appreciation which many of us have for the full and frank way in which he replies to our questions?

§ Lord Brockway
But, my Lords, I should like to ask this. Is not the real problem two different views of human rights in the East and the West? Is it not the case that the East concentrates on living conditions, employment and homes, which gives the individual an opportunity, while the West insists on rights of personality and freedom of speech? I am in favour of both. Cannot the Helsinki talks try to find some co-ordination between them?

§ Lord Carrington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his compliment, but it is the "but" that counts in the end. I do not think that I agree with the noble Lord. I think he will find that in the Helsinki Final Act it is fairly clearly written down what is meant by human rights, and everybody subscribed to it. There is no doubt whatever that there has been a violation of human rights in Poland.