Madrid Conference on Helsinki Agreement (Hansard, 27 July 1983)

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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, the consensus necessary to bring the Madrid meeting to a close has not yet been achieved. We prefer to await formal closure before giving a final assessment. But the document agreed between 34 of the 35 participating states would stress the political significance of the Helsinki Final Act, add impulse to the CSCE process, and record a number of useful new commitments.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There are many questions that one would like to ask. Will the Minister agree that a tribute should be paid to the non-aligned nations—in particular Austria and Switzerland—who saved the conference last year, for their contribution to the basis of the declaration, as well as a tribute to the Spanish host for his final complementary compromise? May I ask the Minister two questions? Will he give a full assurance that the Government will support the decision for a monitoring of military activities from the Atlantic to the Urals, including even NATO exercises in the Atlantic? Secondly, will he also give a similar assurance about the preliminary meeting to be held in October in order to prepare for the European disarmament conference in January?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I certainly agree that the role of the non-aligned nations, and lately Spain, in the preparation of the final document has been most useful. As for the two points that the noble Lord put to me about the CDE conference, it is true that the mandate for that conference is included in the final document, and the Government certainly adhere to that.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how he can possibly regard anything emerging from the Madrid Conference as significant, in view of the Soviet Union's attitude towards its own citizens? I have in mind, for example, the case of Mr. Begun, a loyal Soviet Union citizen, who apparently has been sent to prison and is now threatened with further imprisonment or exile simply because he seeks to adopt the precepts of his own religion. Is it not time that we became a little more realistic about the Russians and understood that we are most unlikely to obtain from them anything in the nature of consensus, because what they want is confrontation?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is certainly true that the outcome of the Madrid Conference, so far as the human rights provisions are concerned, is less than we should have wished. Having said that, I would add that it is true that what we are now facing in the Madrid Conference is a consensus bar one on the final document. And I must say that the Soviet Union, too, has made some concessions.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not unfortunate that by the attitude of a single nation, on a point which I understand is not central to the issues on which agreement has been reached, the Government are prevented from making a statement on this matter on the last day that this House meets before the Recess? Is there any way in which this regrettable situation can be overcome?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I fear that it will not be possible to go further today because, as the noble Lord points out, we are short of a consensus by one, which is of course Malta.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to elaborate his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in regard to the human rights issue? Are we to understand from what he said 1537 that any agreement is not honouring all four baskets of the Helsinki Agreement?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the document to which I have referred, and which is now almost agreed in Madrid, provides, as I say, for some important new steps with regard to human rights. In particular, there is to be a meeting of experts in connection with this matter in Canada, in 1985, and this is embodied in the document.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the degree of agreement achieved in Madrid augurs well for the disarmament conference in Geneva? Can he say a word about the difficulties that have caused the delay in reaching a final agreement: namely, what is referred to as the Maltese problem? Can he state what is Her Majesty's Government's view of the Maltese problem? What does he think the sticking point is? Does he think that it can be overcome?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, with regard to the second point that the noble Lord made, the onus is now clearly upon Malta to join the consensus that has been reached. It is the Government's view that the proposals that Malta is now bringing forward would not be appropriately included in the final document. Indeed that is the view, I understand, of the other 33 members of the conference in Madrid—all, indeed, save Malta itself. As for the implications of the CDE for other conferences that are taking place in the world—for example, the START, the INF and the disarmament conference in Geneva—we shall have to see whether there is any read-across, to use the jargon, from one to the other; but the preliminary conference with regard to the CDE will take place towards the end of this year.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Malta, if it so decides, would have a veto that would postpone settlement indefinitely?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the CSCE rules provide that agreement must be by consensus, which is to say that no one must disagree. Malta is so far failing to agree.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, as I am unlikely to be allowed to put another question for the next three months—and I can give no guarantee even after then that I shall be available to put a question—may I put this simple question? Can the Minister out of his own heart and mind, as representing the Government to which he belongs, really believe that within the next three months it is possible to come to some satisfactory arrangement with the Soviet Union which will provide some kind of guarantee or, at any rate, belief, that we can avoid a conflict with that country?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I hope and believe that we can avoid a conflict with that country not only within the next three months but, indeed, for as far ahead as I can see. With regard to the Madrid conference and the CSCE process generally, we never thought that we would achieve everything overnight. 1538 Indeed, the latest Madrid conference has gone on a lot longer than we would have anticipated. But we have made a little progress, and we should be thankful for that.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question about the difficulty that has arisen with Malta? While it would be inappropriate to hold a European conference on the Mediterranean, because it would cover North Africa and West Asia, cannot an assurance be given that a separate conference would be held on this important issue?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have no doubt that if Malta wanted to hold such a conference and convene it, it would be open to Malta to do so. The question is whether the provision of such a conference and some of the other things that Malta wants to go with it, should be included in the document that we are now considering.

§ Lord Hankey
My Lords, will the Government agree that it is terribly important to go on talking to the Russians whatever our relations with them across the world? Is it not equally important not to be bamboozled by the peace campaign that seems to be starting in Soviet external relations at a time when the Communists are trying to mop up central America?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I agree with both assertions.