Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh

HL Deb 15 December 1992 vol 541 cc516-50

4.30 p.m.

Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to raise in your Lordships' House the grave situation in Armenia and in Nagorno-Karabakh. I thank very warmly all noble Lords who will taking part in this debate. I know that their contributions will be greatly appreciated by the people who are suffering in that part of the world, afflicted by both natural and man-made catastrophes.

I have linked Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh because their tragedies are inter-related. Although the small enclave of Karabakh, which used to be part of historic Armenia, was cruelly relocated by Stalin in Azerbaijan in the 1920s, its largely Armenian population have continued to live in their ancient homelands. But as Azerbaijan has escalated its military offensives against Nagorno-Karabakh, many thousands have had to flee to Armenia, where the situation is also desperate, with acute shortages of essential supplies caused by the blockades imposed by Azerbaijan and also by the hindrance to the free passage of supplies by Turkey.

These blockades are grave violations of human rights, causing immense suffering and economic harm to Armenia and to Karabakh. Moreover, Armenia is still suffering from the effects of the massive earthquake in 1988, with thousands of its own homeless people. With the onset of winter, the plight of Armenia is perilous. There are desperate shortages of food, fuel and energy, and many thousands of displaced people and refugees.

As my noble friend Lord Shannon is chairman of the British-Armenian All-Party Parliamentary Group, he will be speaking primarily about Armenia; and as I have had the privilege of visiting the brave citizens of the beleaguered, blockaded and bombarded enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh seven times this year, I shall focus on their predicament.

I have been to Nagorno-Karabakh under the auspices of two organisations, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation and Christian Solidarity International, or CSI for short. Both are concerned with violations of human rights and the humanitarian needs of victims of repression, regardless of creed, colour or race. For example, we have sent aid to Moslem victims of the Gulf War and to the Azeri victims of the Karabakh conflict. However, our main endeavours in this region have been directed to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh because it was Sakharov's principle to be on the side of the victim, and the evidence shows that it is the Armenians who are the primary victims in this cruel conflict.

I must stress that this is not a religious war, as such. Previously, Christians and Moslems in Nagorno-Karabakh lived peaceably together, attending each other's weddings and funerals. But last year Azeri forces combined with the Soviet Fourth Army to carry out brutal deportations of entire Armenian villages from Shaumyan and Karabakh itself. These operations involved murder, rape, torture and pillage. Some survivors now live as refugees in appalling conditions in Armenia or in the rest of Karabakh. I visited some of these families in October, who were living in water tanks which will now be unbearably cold in the bitter winter. Food shortages were so acute that one family of 10 had only three potatoes to share between them for a whole day.

In spite of the deportations, the Armenians of Karabakh agreed last summer to forego their wish to be reunited with Armenia. They agreed to accept their longstanding status under the former Soviet empire as an autonomous enclave within Azerbaijan. In other words, at that stage they were not in any way violating territorial integrity. But in the autumn Azerbaijan responded unfortunately by announcing that it would annul Karabakh's autonomous status, and it threatened to rename its capital city, Stepanakert, with a Turkish name. Faced with those threats, the people of Karabakh resorted to what they perceived as desperate measures to protect their rights, including a referendum on their future, which resulted in an overwhelming majority in favour of a declaration of independence. Since then, the Azeris have escalated their aggressive policies into all-out military offensives.

The people of Karabakh have fought back, but the forces have been massively asymmetrical. The 160,000 Armenians of Karabakh faced 7 million Azeris, armed to the teeth with weapons taken from three major Soviet Fourth Army arsenals. The Azeris have also been aided by 40 senior Turkish army officers, who took early retirement, as well as Russian and Ukranian pilots flying fighter bombers. It is truly a David and Goliath situation.

The suffering in Karabakh is almost indescribable, with the twin effects of blockade and bombardment. In January I saw civilian casualties, with burns, amputations, glass in eyes and bullets in spines. The doctors and nurses had no anaesthetics or analgesics: only vodka, to try to alleviate the suffering. I could not sleep on my return to Britain, thinking of their suffering. CSI then authorised funds for the purchase of necessary drugs. The Home Office was very helpful and gave an export licence: within 12 days we were back in Karabakh with morphine and other necessities. I must report that the International Committee of the Red Cross did not enter Karabakh until four months later and other major aid organisations, with the notable exception of Médecins sans Frontières, have not been able to work in Karabakh because of the blockade and because of Azerbaijan's hindrances.

When we returned in January, the Azeris had begun to use what anyone who knows them must recognise as fearsome weapons—GRAD multiple missile rocket launchers—on civilians. When we went back in March we saw the results of those terrible weapons. The city of Stepanakert and the surrounding villages were being reduced to rubble. The level of bombardment was horrific: on one typical day in March I counted 400 GRAD rockets fired from the hilltop town of Shushi by the Azeris on to the civilians of Stepanakert and surrounding villages. I emphasise that that was a typical day.

Due to this constant bombing, the civilians of Stepanakert and the surrounding villages were having to live in basements and cellars with no light, heat, running water or sanitation, as the Azeris had cut off essential supplies of fuel, electricity and water. The only lifeline was provided by courageous pilots, who flew small twin-engined jet aircraft or two-tonne helicopters, bringing in meagre supplies of medicines, food and fuel and carrying out the most serious casualties. Those pilots flew incredible manoeuvres against the sun, to try to deflect the heat-seeking missiles. Sadly, on a flight out last summer, I saw the wreckage of a plane, flying out casualties, that had been hit by such a missile.

In May, Armenian self-defence forces captured the hilltop town of Shushi, which the Azeris were using as a GRAD launching base, in order to stop the complete annihilation of Stepanakert and its people. They also forced open a land corridor between Karabakh and Armenia, taking some Azeri territory and the town of Lachin in the process. They were criticised by the international community for violating the principle of territorial integrity. But if Azerbaijan had not been imposing that vicious blockade—itself a violation of human rights—it would not have been necessary to open a corridor; and if the Azeris had not been using Shushi as a base for GRAD missiles to rain down death and destruction on Stepanakert, the Armenians would not have had to risk everything in the seemingly impossible task of capturing a mountain fortress.

After the Azeri elections in June, the new government in Azerbaijan mounted a huge offensive against Karabakh in an attempt to impose a "military solution". They succeeded in overrunning 40 per cent. of Karabakh, as well as the Armenian-populated region of Shaumyan, forcing over 50,000 refugees to flee to the devastated and starving city of Stepanakert or into Armenia. The Azeris have since continued to escalate their military attacks. In August I witnessed SU25 bombers dropping massive 500 kilogramme bombs on civilians in Stepanakert and the villages. By October the Azeris had added cluster bombs to their repertoire of brutality. The civilian casualty rate doubled. Now, new long-range artillery is being used to pound Stepanakert and other parts of Karabakh, causing civilian deaths to be reported up until the last few days.

There is one other disturbing aspect which I must highlight before I begin to draw to a conclusion. As the debate is taking place so early this afternoon, I hope that I may be allowed to put this matter on the record because it is so important and we are not under a great pressure of time. I refer to the brutality with which Armenian hostages are treated by Azeris. In April my colleagues and I visited a village in the north of Karabakh which had just been overrun by Azeri forces which had since withdrawn. Homes, still burning, had been pillaged and set on fire. Forty-five villagers had been massacred and many had their heads sawn off. Vertebrae were still on the ground and blood still on the walls. The people reluctantly showed us the charred decapitated corpses of their families.

Also, earlier this year we met three hostages who had just been released from Azeri custody. One woman with her four year-old son had been passed from military unit to military unit. She was appallingly mutilated and still bleeding from wounds inflicted that morning. Her little boy had fractures. A man released at the same time had been in Azeri custody for three years. He was aged 41 but he looked 70. He had old and recent fractures and scars. He was a physical and psychological wreck.

More recently in October, five more women were released, still bleeding from fresh beatings. They said that the Azeris told them that they could not wait to get into Karabakh to kill every Armenian, especially the women and children. By contrast, my colleagues from the Sakharov Foundation and I have interviewed Azeri prisoners held by Armenians. With the exception of one soldier who in our view was not receiving adequate medical treatment, we were entirely satisfied that the conditions of those whom we saw met international criteria.

Azeris and Turks often refer to the alleged massacre by Armenians at Khodaly earlier this year. Your Lordships may remember the headlines across the Western press that thousands of Azeris had been massacred by Armenians. Western press gave massive coverage to the tragedy as portrayed by the Azeris, who have given open access to their evidence and to their version of events. Undoubtedly it was a tragedy and many Azeris died. However, the Armenian account has never been published, access to Karabakh being extremely difficult because of the blockade. The Armenian version has since been corroborated by the former President of Azerbaijan, President Mutalibov.

The Armenian version of that so-called massacre was that they undertook an attack on the town of Khodaly. They had to do so because the Azeris were using it as a base for launching GRAD missiles against Stepanakert. That is true; I can vouch for it. The Armenians also knew that civilians were there and they gave advance warning of the attack. It was not in their self-interest to warn a base that it was about to be attacked, but that has been independently confirmed by Russians and others to whom I have spoken. They wanted the civilians to evacuate safely. When they arrived, they were dismayed to see that civilians were still there. They tried to arrange a safe exit but the Azeri soldiers refused and fled, intermingling among the civilians. The Azeris fired at close range so that the civilians were caught in the cross-fire with horrible injuries. The Armenians subsequently allowed the Azeris to return to the area to collect their dead and the bodies were used as a basis for the dramatic allegations of an Armenian massacre which swept across the world's headlines.

I have been to the front lines and have seen the men who are defending Karabakh. They are not mercenaries. They are doctors, lawyers, grandfathers, students, priests and 16 year-old boys. They all say that they do not want to fight; but they have to defend their homes, their families and their homelands. Seeing the condition of the women and children taken hostage by the Azeris, one can understand why the Armenians fight against such terrible odds with such desperate courage.

How long will the international community desist from prevailing upon Azerbaijan to cease its military offensive, which is another example of ethnic cleansing? The people of Karabakh have asked the international community for help. I know that the Government have made £250,000 available for humanitarian aid and I know that this will be a great comfort for the people of Karabakh. But there are reports that aid for Karabakh from international bodies has been stymied by Azerbaijan. May I therefore ask my noble friend what assurances she can give that this aid will definitely get through to the people of Karabakh?

However, the fundamental problem lies in the continuation of the conflict. The overriding priority must be a cessation of military aggression before there is another genocide. That that is a real possibility is reflected in Médecins Sans Frontières' inclusion of Karabakh in its list of threatened peoples. I would therefore like to ask my noble friend three questions on attempts to find a political solution to the tragedy.

First, I understand that the US Government's legislation concerning economic aid to the republics of the former USSR has excluded assistance to Azerbaijan until it lifts its blockades of Armenia and Karabakh, and agrees to an unconditional ceasefire. Will my noble friend indicate what similar initiatives the Government are taking to put pressure on Azerbaijan to desist from its brutal and aggressive policies?

Secondly, there was a disturbing report in the Independent on Sunday on 6th December of a visit by a senior delegation from the Azeri Government to Britain earlier this year to buy Russian arms for hard currency. They wanted arms compatible with those they already had, but could not obtain directly from Russia, as the Russians, reluctant to stoke the Azeris' war with Armenia, had imposed a ban on exports of arms to Azerbaijan. The British arms dealer, it was reported, asked the Foreign Office for permission to export those arms, expecting this to be denied. However, the Foreign Office apparently had no policy on this matter. May I therefore ask my noble friend if Britain might follow Russia's example—and there can be no country in greater need of hard currency than Russia—of refusing to stoke Azerbaijan's arsenal of weapons for its policy of military genocide?

Thirdly and finally, there is the vexed area of trade. A report in The Times a few months ago indicated that Western investment in Azerbaijan, such as that by BP. was providing resources to enable the Azeris to win the war against Karabakh. The Azeris have been delighted by recent visits of leading British politicians who have been seen to be endorsing and supporting the very government which are perpetrating this brutal war against the Armenian minority in Karabakh and against Armenia itself. Instead, surely, every opportunity should be taken to persuade the Azeris to turn from war to peace. It is Azerbaijan which has steadily escalated the war: from the imposition of the blockades to the deportations; from snipers and hunting rifles, to tanks and armoured personnel carriers, alazan rockets and GRAD missiles; and now to aerial bombardment and cluster bombs. How long can Britain accept such behaviour as a matter of internal affairs and implicitly condone this attempted genocide?

The Azeris are also suffering from the war, with thousands of casualties and refugees. But the war is of their making. The people of Karabakh are fighting for survival and for the right to continue to live in the land of their ancestors. Ancient Christian monuments go back to the fourth and fifth centuries, testifying to the continuity of these people living in those lands. They fight with a desperate courage, which has enabled them to withstand the mighty onslaught of massive Azeri ground and air attacks. They will not surrender lightly.

Therefore, perhaps I may finish with a final plea to my noble friend. The suffering of the people of Karabakh is in some ways worse than that in former Yugoslavia. At least the world knows about Yugoslavia and the big organisations are there, trying to find a solution. Similar political initiatives must be sought to try to bring about an end to the conflict between the Armenians and the Azeris; for there is a real danger that it could escalate into a war extending beyond the Trans-Caucasus. When I met Russian Defence Minister Shaposhnikov earlier this year, he suggested that this conflict could even contain within itself the seeds of a third world war. In the past few weeks, Azerbaijan has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Armenia. Whether or not it has the capacity to do so, that kind of threat is hardly conducive to a peaceful and rational resolution to the crisis.

I appreciate the good news that the Government are giving humanitarian aid to the people of Karabakh and I know that they will appreciate it too. But I hope that my noble friend will also reassure us that the Government are undertaking comparable political initiatives to prevail upon all those concerned in this tragic conflict to achieve a peaceful solution as a matter of great urgency.

As Azerbaijan is demonstrably the primary aggressor, I hope that every effort will be made to require the Azeris to lift their blockades, to agree to an unconditional ceasefire and to allow independent witnesses to monitor human rights throughout the region. If such measures could be implemented, they would be the greatest contribution the Government could make to the alleviation of the sufferings of both the Armenian and the Azeri peoples. The Armenians have asked the international community for help. I hope that we shall not fail them.

4.40 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, the House can seldom have listened to a more moving appeal than that which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She has been actively involved in the plight of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia and, as she told us, has been there numerous times this year. I have had the privilege of reading her reports. One admires her immense courage in placing herself in the front line of this desperate conflict when her anxiety is solely for the alleviation of the sufferings of the victims, whether they be Armenians or Azeris. It would be a great shame if the words that she has spoken today were not heard by a wider audience than your Lordships alone. I wish that the British people as a whole could understand the horrendous plight which the people of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh suffer. I wish they could see the images, which she has presented to your Lordships from her recent trips, of the suffering of small children, the elderly, and the women. There are, too, the deaths of so many in the villages that have been overrun by hostile action.

The noble Baroness spoke about the relentless bombardment to which the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh has been subjected and the use of 500 kilogram bombs which can only be designed to kill and injure civilians. They have no particular military purpose. There has been the use of cluster bombs, again particularly designed to kill and injure civilians, and GRAD missiles, those horrible weapons which kill indiscriminately and damage people's properties so that they cannot live in them any more. And remember—we are talking about a territory where the temperature in the middle of winter is well below zero, minus 20 to minus 25 degrees centigrade. It is impossible to survive in the open.

The noble Baroness described how the Azeris have tried to blockade the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh completely so that only a trickle of humanitarian supplies gets through. On numerous occasions, it has been thanks to the noble Baroness and her colleagues, who passed through the lines and brought medicines and other equipment, with humanitarian relief, to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh regardless of their own safety.

Armenia is also blockaded and under intermittent attack all along the border with Azerbaijan and cannot therefore do a great deal to help its compatriots in Nagorno-Karabakh. I was talking to one observer who returned last week and who said that, if anything, the conditions in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, are even worse than those in Stepanakert. That is graphically confirmed by the article of Hugh Pope in today's Independent which many of your Lordships will have seen. He quotes Mr Ter Petrosian, the President of Armenia, as warning that, most of the 3.5 million people were below the poverty line, that 40 per cent. were at risk and that without help [from the outside world] 30,000 would die". That is a statement of fact, I believe, and not an exaggeration.

Hugh Pope also refers to the, 92,500 refugees from the war in Nagorny Karabakh". He adds that people are still homeless after the Leninakan earthquake. So the position is desperate.

At the moment, only a limited flow of humanitarian aid is coming in via Turkey from the EC, but that cannot be a secure route, bearing in mind that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the Turks are unofficially helping the Azeris militarily. I read in the noble Baroness's report, as she reiterated today, that Armenian military commanders say that there are Turkish officers serving with the Azeri forces. That has not been denied by the Turkish authorities, who make the excuse that the officers retired early from their service in the armed forces of their own country.

I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether any representations have been made to the authorities in Turkey about the matter. Surely, it is contrary to international law for personnel from the armed forces of one country to go and fight in another. On occasions in the past legal action has been taken against mercenaries of this country who, for example, went to fight in the war in Mozambique. Surely, it is an offence against international law which cannot be palliated or excused by saying that those officers were retired prematurely.

The international community as a whole should take up the matter with Turkey and get the officers recalled. It means that the Turkish Government are not neutral: they are—whether or not overtly—on the side of the Azeris in this desperate conflict. It means that we cannot rely on the Turkish route for goods to enter Armenia, but at the same time we should be pressing the Turks to allow further supplies of EC humanitarian aid to get in through that route. It is the easiest way to Armenia.

There are also some goods entering Armenia via Georgia, but, again, the route is insecure because the Georgians have their own internal problems. The supplies that get through have to meet the needs not only of the inhabitants of Armenia but also of an estimated 313,000 people displaced from Azerbaijan, following the pogroms of Sumgait and Baku in 1988, and the people who have fled from the conflict since then.

For the time being, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh have been able to repel the Azeri attacks and, as the noble Baroness described, to maintain the Latchin corridor which joins them. But for how long will that survive? I believe that Nagorno-Karabakh is militarily impossible to defend against a well-armed enemy with a much larger population surrounding it on all sides. The noble Baroness gave the figures of the relative populations.

The former Soviet forces on Azeri soil, who might have been a restraining force, finally left at the end of September, bequeathing their base facilities, some heavy weapons and probably many of their troops to the Azeri armed forces. According to the Georgian newspaper Gurandi, an agreement was signed on 25th May 1992 assigning equal shares of the former Soviet military equipment in the region to the three Trans-Caucasus republics. That would have given each of them 100 fighter bombers, 50 assault helicopters, 220 tanks, 220 armoured vehicles and 285 artillery pieces. But Georgia and Armenia received less than half that allocation, while Azerbaijan received the lion's share, including the 53 fearsome GRAD missile launchers which the noble Baroness mentioned.

How many troops the Azeris also incorporated into their armed forces is not known exactly, but the soldiers may have had some incentive to remain in a secure job rather than to go back home and join the dole queues. The Karabakh Minister of Defence, General Sarkissian, said recently that the Azeris have received additional massive deliveries of arms from Russia, including 130 SU24 fighter bombers, T82 tanks and BMP3 light tanks, and that Russian personnel are said to be training the Azeris in the use of these weapons systems. I am not sure how that squares with the charitable remarks which the noble Baroness made about the Russian wish not to do anything which would exacerbate the conflict that forced the Azeris into trying to acquire weapons in this country.

I believe that it is generally true to say that Russia has not played a very constructive role in stopping the many conflicts which have arisen in the former Soviet Union, and not just the one under discussion, but in Moldova, Tajikistan, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Armenians invited Russia to send in peacekeeping forces, but the Commander in Chief of the CIS, Marshall Yevgeny Shaposhnikov, said scathingly that it was not their job to separate warring tribes. That is not very good as an indication of the Russian attitude to the conflict.

The Russians of course still have a massive arsenal of weapons. They are interested in earning hard currency by selling those weapons to countries which do not immediately threaten Russia's interests. That trade is a dangerous, destabilising force in the world. I believe that the international community should take steps to halt the flow of arms which were bequeathed to the CIS by the Soviet Union. I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will consider asking the United Nations to set up a fund to buy and then destroy arms belonging to the CIS which would otherwise be sold to countries engaged in military conflict or which are likely to be so engaged.

The CIS forces should themselves become involved in peace-keeping operations if and only if the UN Security Council authorises their intervention. If that rule were applied, as of course it is for all peace-keeping operations outside the former Soviet Union, then the aggression of Azerbaijan against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh would have to be more actively considered by the Security Council than it is now because it would no longer have the excuse that Moscow had some residual responsibility. I do not understand the theory of that in international law. I ask the noble Baroness to consider why Russia or the CIS have an apparent right to intervene or not in conflicts which occur in any of the former Soviet territories without reference to the Security Council.

The only other possible means of settling this problem might have been through the initiatives of the CSCE, which the noble Baroness has mentioned. Representatives of 10 CSCE states have been working to broker a ceasefire in the area in December, as they have done many times before. But, as in Bosnia, it is very much easier to get the parties to agree to an armistice than to persuade the aggressors to observe it. The rule of international law has broken down in the former Soviet Union and mere persuasion has not worked. The Azeris must believe that time is on their side and that by a combination of sustained military pressure and the blockade they will achieve a final solution to the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, killing or driving out every one of the Armenian inhabitants. Why should they pay attention to the CSCE busybodies, as they no doubt see them, whose ceasefires can only delay the inevitable end of the process?

As with all other conflicts in the Soviet Union, it seems that the insistence that all the borders inherited from the communist era be left untouched will make a solution very difficult. Stalin's population engineering, to which the noble Baroness referred, made ethnic conflict inevitable once the heavy lid of Moscow's control was taken off the cauldron. The existence of an Armenian enclave in the middle of Azeri territory makes the inhabitants into hostages, who would always be dependent on the forbearance of neighbours who see them as dangerous enemies. But the immediate task is to end the military terrorism against the Armenian people so that negotiations can begin.

It has to be said here that Britain's policy on Armenia has not been either consistent or moral. We condemn the attacks by terrorists against innocent civilians elsewhere in the world, but we reward the Azeris, who engage in the killing of civilians on a far greater scale than any of the non-governmental terrorists, by sending the President of the Board of Trade to the seat of terrorism, where he says that he would like to do far more business with them. By that encouragement of aggression, which violates Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter, we are actively undermining the rule of international law and encouraging other armed predators to attack their neighbours.

The United Nations Secretary General's special representative, Mr Omar Halim, is reported to have been in Armenia and Azerbaijan at the end of November to see whether the UN has a possible role in ending the conflict. I ask the noble Baroness whether there is any report by Mr Halim and, if so, what he has suggested to the international community. According to Helsinki Watch in a report published quite recently, the United Nations has not so far proposed the deployment of peace-keeping forces to Nagorno-Karabakh for active involvement in negotiations. The United Nations' Secretary General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, has explained that the United Nations position on intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh is to encourage decentralisation in peace-keeping operations. We want to encourage the different regional organisations to play a role. In the case of the regional framework not being able to solve the dispute, then we could move it to the Security Council.

I suggest that we have already reached that position. In fact, we have gone beyond it and now is the time for the United Nations to take a hand in solving this conflict. If we fail to do that the consequences are dire. We might have to apply to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh the epitaph which was pronounced on the inhabitants of Turkish Armenia, in the words of W.H. Auden quoted by Christopher Walker in his book Armenia: The mass and majesty of this world, all That carries weight and always weighs the same, Lay in the hands of others; they were small And could not hope for help and no help came".

4.57 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford

My Lords, I cannot pretend to the personal knowledge and first hand experience of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh which the noble Baroness has acquired through her vision, courage and determination which we all so greatly admire. I am sure that there are many, not only in this House, who would like to place on record how much we profoundly respect and admire the courage which she has shown in her daring visits to that troubled country.

I dare to speak not from personal knowledge but because the House may like to know of a recent visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan by a delegation from the World Council of Churches. That body has on occasions had a reputation for supporting turbulence. Whatever the truth of that, on this occasion the delegation from the World Council of Churches was searching for reconciliation. The delegation returned to Geneva only last week and it seems right therefore that, as we give further consideration to Nagorno-Karabakh, we should have in mind what that delegation was able to report.

First, perhaps I may make a point of clarification and underline a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made; namely, that this is not primarily a religious conflict. It is more accurate to see it as a racial and cultural clash with religious overtones. As one of the World Council of Churches delegation put it: This is not a religious war, but it does have religious dimensions, and if the conflict is not resolved soon, religions could be misused and play a decisive negative role". Azerbaijan can be unfairly linked with pan-Islamic fundamentalism but I believe that it would be more accurate to say that, following Soviet persecution of all religions, Azerbaijan has become a secularised society. Nonetheless, there is near the surface the lurking force of religious conviction which could very easily be exploited.

Secondly, there is a sign of hope. The World Council of Churches delegation met Sheikh-ul-Islam, Pascha-Zadeh, of Baku in Azerbaijan, the leader of the Trans-Caucasian Moslems, and CatholicosPatriarch Vasken I, of Etchmiadzin in Armenia, the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Both religious leaders received the World Council of Churches delegation with courtesy and respect, and both leaders agreed to meet together under WCC auspices and in collaboration with the Conference of European Churches. So, both Moslem and Christian leaders want to reach out across the abyss of blood, tears and hunger in the hope of bringing separated communities together.

If a solution is to be found to this conflict", the World Council of Churches delegation has said, authentic voices from Azerbaijan and Armenia must be heard by the international community. The willingness of the leaders of Islam and Christianity in the area to meet is a sign that all is not lost in the flood of hatred and warfare: a glimmer of hope shines in the gloom.

Thirdly, I want to make a plea. There is no doubt about the suffering. That has been graphically and poignantly portrayed to us by the noble Baroness. There is suffering on both sides of this fruitless, destructive conflict—and there are wounded, homeless, hungry and terrified in both nations. The United Nations estimates that there are 216,000 refugees on the Azerbaijani side and only marginally fewer on the Armenian side.

The humanitarian aid from Britain of £0.25 million for Nagorno-Karabakh, with the further £200,000 just announced, is an undoubted help. But is it possible for the Government —here I underline what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—to press for UN observers and monitoring—and even for armed forces to ensure that the aid reaches those who need it most? United Nations observers would ensure we had reliable facts about the situation. They might encourage more responsible and considerate behaviour for the defenceless victims of this appalling conflict. We are beginning to learn from Bosnia and Somalia that humanitarian aid often has to be "forced" through. I recognise that it is easy to make the plea and far from easy to deliver what is requested; nonetheless, the plea must be that the United Nations should be urged to take much greater and more effective action in this area of conflict.

Finally, a reflexion: in Nagorno-Karabakh—as in Bosnia —we see a conflict undergirded by religious differences. If we do not with determination ensure that these conflicts are resolved, we leave it open to unscrupulous people to exploit the differences between Christianity and Islam and so expose ourselves to finding tension between these two cultures and faiths opening up in places where at present there is mutual understanding and toleration. How the international community handles the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh may have repercussions in many parts of the world far removed from the Caucasus. It is for such reasons that I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her persistent and courageous work not only in her visits to that part of the world, but in always ensuring that this matter is kept before your Lordships' House.

5.4 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, like many others, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for bringing the long-drawn-out suffering of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and the evil acts of the Azeris to the attention of your Lordships' House, as she has already done in the United Nations and in the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe after her courageous journeys to that troubled area. She has not told us that her head is forfeit in Baku. Like her, I hope to hear from my noble friend the Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the situation there, but we have to recognise that under the present rules of international conduct we have no standing to intervene as peace-makers on the ground, even if we had the resources to do so. The only country which has that status is Russia—or rather the states of the Commonwealth of Independent States, but they too have problems.

The first of these is that Russia is already committed to using its forces for peace-making in the North Osetia-Ingush conflict, the war between Abkhazia and Georgia and the serious conflict that is going on within Tajikistan, where many Russians are at risk and the Afghans are contributing to the unrest on the border. Russia has had to receive 470,000 refugees from internal civil wars in the CIS states and 800,000 forced migrants, most of whom came from Azerbaijan, Abkhazia, the Baltic States and Moldova. Another 2 million are expected by next year, and there will still be 24 million Russians according to Russian estimates living outside Russia itself in the CIS states. Nagorno-Karabakh, where the Russians were originally involved, is only one of many such trouble spots. It has to be said also that the CIS military command wishes for no commitment in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The next difficulty is that Russia evidently welcomes the deepening involvement, both political and economic, of Turkey in the former Central Asian republics, both as a moderate counterbalance to Iran and no doubt because Russia is selling Turkey helicopters, armoured personnel carriers and other defence equipment. The Bosphorus Declaration was followed at the end of November by the accession of Azerbaijan, with four other Central Asian republics, to the Economic Co-operation Organisation (ECO) which was formed in 1964 by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. One of its objects is to strengthen multilateral ties between countries sharing the Islamic faith, but it will also enable them to replace India as one of the strongest former trade partners with Central Asia. Moscow will not feel too happy about this but will probably hope to see Turkey act as a stabilising factor.

Earlier this month the Russians and the Turks met to discuss foreign and economic affairs, and the Russian Deputy Foreign Minster, interviewed beforehand, said: We are concerned about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, where Turkey can have its own peacemaking say, and we are ready to co-operate with Turkey in settling conflict situations in ways that meet Russia's interests". Turkey is evidently, indeed, willing to mediate, but it seems only too probable that Armenian doubts about Turkey's even-handedness may be justified. The Turkish Embassy in Baku stated in early December that Turkey was prepared to offer aid to Armenia provided that it ceased fire and withdrew its forces from Azerbaijan—that is, from Nagorno-Karabakh. The spokesman went on to say that as for emergency humanitarian aid, Turkey will give the United Nations an opportunity to deliver food and essentials to Armenia during the winter months, while other Turkish direct aid would depend on the cessation of combat operations in Azerbaijan by Armenia.

That statement followed a "summit" in Ankara at the end of October of the five Central Asian republics, at which Azerbaijan stayed behind afterwards. At that meeting President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan said that the CIS countries, with President Yeltsin, were trying to solve the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. "We are", he said, pursuing a policy within the framework of the United Nations and the CSCE. Third parties should not interfere in the problem. There is no need for the Turkish republics to unite to support one of the sides. We believe a dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia will be beneficial". Turkey and Azerbaijan took no notice.

It must be clear that, first, Azerbaijan has powerful friends (and even Russia has recently granted it some industrial credits), and, given its oil, it can expect investment from the West as well as from ECO. Texaco is looking at the onshore oilfields and may help the Azerbaijani oil industry, which is in trouble. BP is also active.

Secondly, Russia and the CIS countries do not intend at present, despite the fact that Armenia is a loyal member of the CIS and Azerbaijan is not, to intervene in a peacemaking role, despite a final, formal appeal from Armenia. Armenia (let alone Nagorno-Karabakh) is geographically isolated and now, fearing a cut in its own gas supplies from Baku, Georgia is reported to be bowing to the demands of the Azerbaijani authorities and sharply reducing the supply of Turkeman gas, which is normally routed to Armenia through Georgia. The only contiguous countries, Iran and Turkey, will help Armenia only on terms which are unacceptable, if indeed they intend to help at all.

Meanwhile, Armenia will come to a standstill industrially. There is no heat, bread is rationed and Azerbaijan, not content with the use of GRAD missiles and military aircraft, with the blocking of all humanitarian aid and the threatening of nuclear attack, is spending, as indeed Armenia is obliged to do, 70 per cent. of its budget on arms to pursue the fight.

What can be done to help, not only the brave people of Nagorno-Karabakh, but Armenia itself, an ancient Christian country, to survive? The UN Secretary General sent a representative there. A UN representative went also to Tajikistan and much humanitarian aid followed. Has it gone too to Armenia, and not via Baku? The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development is, I believe, considering help to Armenia. That should be encouraged. The EBRD has refused credits to Azerbaijan and I believe also to Armenia. The latter decision should be reconsidered.

Until yesterday I would have advocated bringing pressure to bear simultaneously on Turkey to use real pressure on Azerbaijan for an immediate and permanent ceasefire without conditions and on President Yeltsin to provide a CIS peace-keeping force to enforce the truce and report to the UN. But Yeltsin has much to do just now, perhaps even to survive, and I share the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the pressure should be on Turkey.

On 8th December in Baku the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Inonu, said that, unless Armenia resolves the Nagorno-Karabakh problem peacefully, Turkey will not develop its relations with that country". He stressed that Nagorno-Karabakh is and will remain Azerbaijani territory. He said that the bloody conflict could be resolved in the form of Armenia withdrawing her troops from Azerbaijani territory. He went on to say: This is of vital importance for the establishment of stability in the sensitive Caucasus region"; and added: Yerevan must realise that all wars are solved at the negotiating stage". That is surely an ironic statement. Azerbaijan had a priority position in Turkish foreign policy. Turkey would give no electrical energy and no aid to Armenia while that country attacked Azerbaijan. There would be no political relations until Armenia reverted to a peaceful attitude, peacefully resolving the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh. She would do nothing to harm Azerbaijan's interests.

In the light of such an unequivocal commitment to Azerbaijan on Turkey's part, it might seem hopeless to seek Turkey's help. However, we must surely have cards in our NATO hand to play. We should play them strongly as well as demonstrate to the UN that we passionately believe that the world should be acting now to exert whatever pressure it can to save Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us what the United Nations Secretary General is doing in the light of his representative's report and what that report was.

5.13 p.m.

The Earl of Shannon

My Lords, I cannot speak with the authority of the noble Baroness who is asking this Question because, as you have heard, she has made many visits to the most dangerous areas of the Karabakh bringing humanitarian aid, and has rightly earned the undying gratitude of all the people of Armenia and the admiration and respect of us all. As the House has heard, I am the chairman of the British Armenian All-Party Group. Although I have never visited Armenia, I hope to do so shortly.

Perhaps we may consider for a moment what and where is Armenia. It is a very ancient kingdom which at one time stretched almost from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Caspian. Over the many centuries it has been reduced in size by its rapacious neighbours, by deportation and by the massacre of its inhabitants. It suffered from the callous misrule of the Persian, Roman and Ottoman empires, the last being quite the worst when in 1915 the Turks "ethnically cleansed" the eastern part of Armenia, which was known as Turkish Armenia, by slaughtering the inhabitants, leaving little or no trace beyond a few ruined churches and monasteries of what was once a thriving community. These churches are now officially declared "earthquake damaged" in a peculiar and somewhat selective manner because the walls always seem to fall outwards, similar to the use of explosives, and neighbouring mosques are totally undamaged.

Now all that is left of that ancient and cultured country is what was known as Soviet Armenia, some 29,000 square kilometres—about the size of Albania —with a population of around 3 million. It is bordered by Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, with a small frontier in the south with Iran. The Turkish genocide of 1915 killed some one and a half million Armenians and after the First World War there was a short lived independent republic of Armenia from 1918 to 1920, when it was swallowed up into the Soviet Union rather than submit to Turkey. The western part, the Karabakh, was donated as a semiautonomous state to Azerbaijan, although it was 75 per cent. populated by Armenians. This was part of the ancient strategy of the Romans in keeping vassal states at loggerheads with each other so that they could not cause trouble to the central authority.

The Armenians have for centuries been noted for their culture and high level of civilisation and recently for their poets, musicians, scientists and mathematicians, many of whom are world class by any standards. They have maintained their culture, language, alphabet—with too many letters for our comprehension—art and traditions in the face of these centuries of adversity. Their Church, one of the oldest in Christendom, is still a central force among all Armenians, wherever scattered over the globe, as many now are, but still considering themselves Armenians.

This is a thumbnail sketch which in no way does justice to an ancient civilisation and people dogged by misrule, invasion, imperial rivalry and deliberate massacre, which latter still continues.

Let us look at today's situation. Azerbaijan looks at the mountainous area of the Karabakh with its largely Armenian population and says, "This was given to us by Stalin, so out you get of our country". The Armenians retort, "This has always been our land, where we have lived since ancient times, and here we want to stay". Although the Armenians originally voted to become an independent republic of the Karabakh, they withdrew this and agreed to remain, as they were originally, a semi-autonomous state within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan declared their previous semi-autonomy to be invalid and invaded the area in order to produce a military solution. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, a previous CIS directive had allocated a fair proportion of all the old Soviet military hardware between all the states, Armenia and Georgia have received only a small portion of their allocation, the bulk having been appropriated by Azerbaijan which used it against the Armenians in the Karabakh. How the Armenians there, armed mainly with sporting weapons and those captured from the invaders, have held out for so long is a miracle, but fighting for one's life, family and property gives one a greater spur than those whose only objects are pillage, murder and rape.

Azerbaijan has publicly offered ½ million US dollars for every hijacked SU-27 fighter delivered to it, and has twice threatened to use nuclear weapons against Armenia, not only the Karabakh but against Armenia proper. That statement was made by Azerbaijan interior Minister, Mr. Gamidov. It has since withdrawn that statement in the face of international horror, but then spread a story that Armenia was trying to build its own nuclear weapons from the remains of its closed-down reactors of Russian design and doubtful safety.

Not a day goes by without reports of the shelling of civilian targets in Karabakh and Armenia by Azerbaijan, so much so that the Armenians in Karabakh are now designated by Médecins sans Frontières as a people now threatened with extinction at the hands of Azerbaijan. That is not a very nice situation.

Of course, the Armenians have taken such small retaliatory action as they are able to neutralise artillery and rocket sites which are shelling them and to open a humanitarian corridor in the short distance which separates Armenia from the Karabakh in the Lachin area. That was done to break the blockade which is strangling them. Your Lordships would do exactly the same in the position in which they are placed.

So what price the high political rubbish preached by Western politicians—or some Western politicians —that the Armenians must learn to make peace? All they can do is to give in, be slaughtered and let the Azeris walk all over them. Is that the solution advocated for the Bosnians as well? It is no use pleading the Helsinki agreement either. It is the Armenians who want to keep the status quo, not Azerbaijan which seeks a military solution by invasion.

I have mentioned the blockade, and that applies to Armenia proper as well. For years that landlocked country has been under blockade by its neighbours. Extortionate demands are made by those neighbours to allow relief supplies to pass through their territory, or else passage is refused arbitrarily. Much humanitarian aid provided internationally just "disappears" in neighbouring countries.

Armenia, with the approach of a severe winter, is in a desperate situation. It is almost totally blockaded in both food and energy which are rapidly becoming almost non-existent. Energy receipts are now some 10 per cent. of previous consumption. Let us imagine what would happen in this country if our energy was cut by 10 per cent. There would be riots. They have 90 per cent. less energy. That lack of energy means that industry in Armenia is at a standstill. People are starting to die of cold and starvation—the classic way of conducting a siege to make the defenders give in.

Turkey did agree to supply some electricity but has recently reneged on that contract under pressure from Azerbaijan. Turkey may have originally agreed because there is an Armenian reactor near its border, and it was frightened that, in desperation, the Armenians might recommission that reactor with its possible nuclear peril rather than suffer certain death from hypothermia. Azerbaijan has also issued an ultimatum to Georgia, itself in turmoil, not to permit fuel supplies to be transported to Armenia through that republic.

We may ask: why are we discussing this subject? What interest does it hold for us? There is no oil in Armenia, but there is in Baku. We are therefore, as has been said, aiming to trade with the aggressors. What price now the Western nations' high moral stand over Kuwait—one member of the United Nations must not invade another nation—or was it really, "Get your dirty hands off our oil"? There has also been an information blockade. One can understand that the media are there to sell their programmes or their newspapers. What interest can there be for them? People have been to the old Yugoslavia on package holidays, but how many people have been on package holidays to Armenia? It is not a very interesting subject. What do we want? What is wanted now is freedom from blockade. That is clearly against international law. We want respect for the Helsinki agreement and existing boundaries. The Azerbaijanis should not try to alter them by military solutions. Respect for that agreement and its boundaries and a semi-autonomous state for Karabakh is what the Armenians want.

There is surely a lack of information coming out of Armenia. What is needed, as has been said, is United Nations observers to report accurately on the situation. The world should not be left with a dearth of information and the highly subjective press releases issued in Baku.

Within the past half an hour I have received a sheaf of faxes from Yerevan giving the latest information. Unfortunately it was too late for me to include it in my speech. However there is one paper at the back which is a fax that has come direct from Yerevan. Perhaps I might have your Lordships' leave to put it on the record. It reads as follows: I, the President of Armenia, Levon Ter-Petrossian, on behalf of the people of Armenia, declare the Republic of Armenia in a state of national disaster. Due to the devastating effects the Azeri blockade has had on the country, creating a severe energy crisis, the government appeals to all nations of the world, all international humanitarian organisations and government agencies to provide assistance to the people of Armenia for the next 12 months in order to secure the survival of the people through the harsh winter months. According to the UNHCR assessment survey of October 14, 1992, the economic collapse of Armenia is attributed to the 'blockade of Armenia [which] has been de facto in force from Azerbaijan/Nakhiohevan, Turkey (according to the inter-governmental agreement, Turkey is supply only grain via its rail road) and, lately, Georgia. Should attempts aimed at opening one or two relief corridors through Turkey, and, if possible, Georgia, fail, we are convinced that a catastrophe will take place this winter'. Other assessments by UN teams, the United States, the International Federation of Red Cross, the American Red Cross, the International Council of Voluntary Agencies corroborate these findings. The Government and people of Armenia urgently require sustained, effective humanitarian assistance in order to prevent deaths in the tens of thousands from exposure, hunger and inadequate medical attention. Unless immediate action is taken to transport fuel, grain, food items and winterisation items as well as medical supplies into the Republic, the dismal projections made by various assessment teams will become a reality. Thus, on behalf of the people of Armenia, I, the President of the country urge all governments and humanitarian agencies to respond immediately by putting pressure on different nations to allow the transportation of fuel and aid into the country". It bears the signature of Levon Ter-Petrossian, President of the Republic of Armenia. That letter is addressed to the Right Honourable John Major, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 10 Downing Street, London.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I find it difficult to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate on the tragic situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia when one is following my noble friend Lady Cox, who has spoken with the authority and compassion which only she can bring to bear on the subject. Furthermore, others have spoken and are to speak who know far more than I about the wider geo-political dangers which flow from the escalation of hostilities in the Trans-Caucasus.

But I believe that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House to have been with my noble friend to the area, even though it was in much less dangerous times in July 1991. I met the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia and I went by helicopter to both Armenian and Azeri villages in Nagorno-Karabakh and spoke to their leaders. President Gorbachev was in London at the time asking for western aid at the G7 talks in order to save his regime, and so our delegation was given unprecedented access to the region.

I hope that that experience allows me to confirm that the Azerbaijanis started off the more brutal phase of their present aggression with vastly superior forces. At the time of our visit they were supported by the Soviet Fourth Army, and by every branch of the Soviet special forces, in their policy of clearing Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh of the Armenians who had been living there for centuries and replacing them with Azerbaijanis.

In the simple peasant villages I found a shared dismay on both sides of the conflict as to how the hostilities had started. An Azerbaijani village leader told me that he could not understand what had happened. Only two years before he and the leader of the nearby Armenian village had been such good friends that they had both been to each other's daughters' weddings. He could not understand why his friends had started shooting at his village; it simply did not make sense. On the other hand, the Armenian village leader was equally nonplussed; but of course he believed that his Azerbaijani friends had started the shooting.

Those simple village folk did not seem to appreciate that Armenia had in the meantime committed the crime of wishing to secede from the Soviet Union whereas Azerbaijan had remained loyal to Gorbachev. Nor, I imagine, did they appreciate the importance of Azerbaijan's oil to the Kremlin. It seems at least possible therefore that the Soviet special forces were influential in starting the present conflict and that the Kremlin then threw the weight of its Fourth Army behind Azerbaijan. That view is shared by a number of Soviet experts who know better than I how Spetznaz and other special troops used to be deployed.

Be that as it may, in July 1991 there was no hint of embarrassment from either Mr. Mutalibov, then President of Azerbaijan, or from Mr. Victor Polianitchku, his henchman who had perfected Soviet village clearance tactics in Afghanistan, that the Soviet Union was on their side against the wretched Armenian villages of Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, when my noble friend Lady Cox and I were received in Moscow on our way back to London by Chairman Lukianov, who was acting head of the Soviet Union while Mr. Gorbachev was in London, he did not make any attempt to deny our view of Soviet involvement either. In fact, he was interested only in one thing; he was very anxious that what was happening in Nagorno-Karabakh should not be "internationalised". By that he meant that it should not be put on the international political agenda. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that my noble friend Lady Cox has defeated him in that object.

I hope your Lordships will not consider that that account of why and how the present conflict may have started is irrelevant to the problem today. Of course, the Soviet Union has disintegrated; but when it did, Azerbaijan took control of the arms left behind by the Fourth Army and other troops. Therefore, I am sure it is true that the Azeris, with a population of some 7 million, are now infinitely better armed than the 100,000 Armenians who are left in Karabakh and against whom they continued to wage war.

In a way it is hard to see why the conflict continues. The Armenians certainly want peace. All they want is to be allowed to live normally in their ancient homelands. I understand that they have said they will be happy to see the 20,000 or so Azeris, who have now left Nagorno-Karabakh and who are refugees in Azerbaijan, return to their villages and pick up the pieces of their broken livelihoods. Of course, any such initiative would require massive confidence-building measures from the international community and one wonders whether it has the stomach for that.

So why does Azerbaijan continue the conflict? Obviously, it wants back the villages and land in Nagorno-Karabakh for its refugees who are now living very uncomfortably around Baku, Agdam and elsewhere. To an unbiased observer it must also occur that Azerbaijan may have continued its aggression against the Armenians of Karabakh after the Soviet Union broke up partly for the well-known motive of drawing its people's attention away from problems at home. Then of course once the killing starts it is very hard to stop a conflict until one side wins. Azerbaijan is determined to remove every Armenian from Nagorno-Karabakh; the Armenians are prepared to die to defend their homelands, and so the killing goes on.

It is important to emphasise, as my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, that we are not looking at a religious war as such, even though the Azerbaijanis happen to be Moslems and the Armenians Christians. We are looking at a conflict which may have its roots in former Soviet strategy and interests, encouraged now by the factors that I have mentioned and no doubt by others. But if Nagorno-Karabakh were to fall to Azerbaijan, and if the conflict were to escalate to involve Armenia itself and perhaps Russia and Turkey, I suppose that the religious dimension would become very much more worrying indeed. Other noble Lords have commented on that issue and so I shall say no more about it now.

That brings me back to the role of the international community. Is it acceptable that small, private charitable organisations, such as those patronised by my noble friend Lady Cox, are the only ones to provide a lifeline of medical supplies and food to a people suffering what is now often referred to in the Yugoslavian context as "ethnic cleansing"? Is ethnic cleansing not much the same thing as genocide? Does not the word "holocaust" begin to lurk in the back of our minds?

In the wake of the break-up of the Soviet empire a huge question now poses itself, and it is this: to what extent are the civilised nations of the world prepared to tolerate these evils without committing their own troops to alleviate the suffering in question? The answer is not yet clear and I certainly do not pretend to be able to start to provide the answer.

But we now have the recent landmark decision of the United Nations to sanction military action in Somalia. International opinion seems to be moving towards more rather than less military involvement to relieve massive human suffering which does not affect our strategic interests directly. Of course, the UN decision would be of little avail if the United States in particular did not have the military capability actually to put enough men on the ground in the time required. I should go further and say somewhat in parenthesis that in what may be the changing climate of public opinion one begins to wonder whether the Government's decision to cut especially our Army, under their policy known as Options for Change, may not turn out to be even more misguided than most of us believed it to be in the first place. Our commitment of troops to Bosnia seems to underline that fear. But I am afraid I do not expect that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be allowed to agree with me.

Be that as it may, is my noble friend the Minister absolutely confident that our Government are at least putting all the diplomatic and commercial pressure that they possibly can on Azerbaijan to cease hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh? Could we not, for example, join with our allies to insist that free passage be given by Azerbaijan to international observers and to the major relief agencies? If that could be achieved, it would prevent this tragic and dangerous conflict from continuing to be forgotten by the world at large, and it might therefore contain the seeds of eventual peace.

Can I end by joining others of your Lordships in paying tribute to the remarkable courage, determination and skill shown by my noble friend Lady Cox in all this? I am afraid there are a few people—although I trust there is none in your Lordships' House—who feel that my noble friend has mounted a crusade to help the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh; that somehow she is not entirely balanced in her support for them. The Azeris and their friends go further of course and accuse my noble friend of pro-Christian bias. Well, we must not fall for this obvious propaganda. I am sorry to say that I am not a particularly good Christian myself. Indeed I have many good Moslem friends; and I have even pleaded in your Lordships' House that Moslem schools in this country should be allowed to opt into our state system of education. So I hope your Lordships will accept my assurance that my noble friend's version of events in Nagorno-Karabakh is entirely objective and unbiased. I believe it is true to say that without the huge personal effort made by my noble friend, first Chairman Lukianov and then his Azerbaijani friends might have succeeded in burying their genocide of the Armenians of Karabakh from international view.

I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend's missions are no crusades, and they are no picnics either. Towards the end of the mission upon which I was privileged to accompany her, the delegation told her lightheartedly that it was thinking of going on strike if its members could not be guaranteed at least three and a half hours sleep each night. Compromise was reached on a formula which guaranteed us not more than four hours sleep in future. On her later missions, she has been in much physical danger. Her jeep has been under sustained anti-tank gun fire, with one rocket lifting its back off the ground. If that rocket had pitched three feet further forward, she would not be with us now. One of the lorries carrying her medical supplies over the newly opened land route from Armenia into Karabakh was mined, killing the drivers. The aircraft in which she has been travelling have avoided heat seeking missiles thanks only to the skill of their Armenian pilots.

These are the sort of dangers she has faced to bring us this debate today. When the Armenian Orthodox Christmas comes on what is our Epiphany, 6th January, it will find my noble friend Lady Cox in Stepanakert, probably in a cellar underground, sheltering with her local civilian friends from Azerbaijani bombardment.

So I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us as to what more the Government may feel they can do to make that prospect less likely.

5.42 p.m.

Viscount Ingleby

My Lords, I, too, share the deep concern that has been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others in this debate. I wish to quote from a letter from the Bishop of Nagorno-Karabakh—his correct title is the Bishop of Artsakh—written on 5th January 1992. The letter was addressed to the hierarchs of all churches, the UN Secretary General, the heads of all states, all charitable organisations and societies and all people of good will. I wish to quote briefly from the letter: Artillery shelling has destroyed hundreds of homes in [the capital] Stepanakert [including the residence of the Diocese of Artsakh (28 December 1991, 7.05 am)]. It is only thanks to the mercy of God that I was saved". The Bishop got out of bed to pray when his house suffered a direct hit and a concrete block landed where he would have been on his bed. He continues: It is not only the perpetrators of crime and evil who commit sin, but also those who stand by—seeing and knowing —and who do not condemn it or try to avert it". Why is the United Nations not acting? If it intervenes to help the Moslems in Bosnia, why does it not intervene to help the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh? Why is there not a trade embargo? I must ask the Government whether we are still supplying arms and aid to the Azerbaijanis. Is there not a ban on that? Surely those supplies should stop until the Azerbaijanis stop the fighting? Can we not follow the American lead in this matter? Finally, are we in touch with Mr. Shevardnadze and Mr. James Baker, who I have reason to believe would be very sympathetic to the Armenians' plight?

5.45 p.m.

Viscount Brentford

My Lords, I, too, wish to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing this debate not only because it gives publicity to the needs of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh but also because it enables us to discuss whether additional national and international help on both the humanitarian and political scene can be given.

First, I wish to make a couple of preliminary points. We are dealing here with a question of human rights. My noble friend Lady Cox has clearly demonstrated the way the Azeris beat up, maltreat, rape and massacre the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. We are dealing with a severe case of human rights abuse which requires the world's attention.

We are all well aware that the press is not in the area and therefore it is not possible to see pictures on the television or in newspapers. Therefore no one pays attention to the situation. This is a matter that your Lordships' House can address. Noble Lords can publicise the situation and encourage action to be taken to mitigate the human rights abuses. A great deal is said and written about human rights today, and this is one instance which requires the world's attention.

My second point has already been made by several speakers. It concerns the religious issue. Last week we discussed the Sudan, where Christians are being severely persecuted. As we know, over 100 have been crucified. The problem we are discussing is primarily an ethnic one and one of cultural background. I wish to echo what has been said. We do not want to see religious differences being exploited. I believe that the Devil exists and that he is keen to exploit religious differences as that dishonours religion. We need to recognise that problem and help all those who are suffering from persecution. We need to treat them even-handedly.

I believe that there are four different spheres in which action can be taken to relieve the situation in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. First, my noble friend the Minister has been asked about the Security Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked, is this not the time to raise the matter in the Security Council? What is the result of the representatives' report? It could be important if it provides any signposts to the way ahead. I hope that my noble friend will say what the action of the Security Council should be.

Secondly, I refer to the Council of Europe. As we have heard, Turkey is lending help, and indeed is lending 40 prematurely retired army officers to the Azeri troops. Turkey is applying for membership of the Council of Europe. Therefore it seems to me that the Government have leverage to bring to bear on Turkey. The Turks' action in supporting the Azeris is not commensurate with a nation that is applying for membership of the Council of Europe. I hope that the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Turkish Government, both individually and through the Council of Europe, to desist from their support for the Azeris.

Thirdly, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe has already been referred to. I understand that only last week my right honourable friend Mr. Garel-Jones spoke about this question of Nagorno-Karabakh and the CSCE. He said that the Government are not approving licences for the export to Azerbaijan of military equipment or anything that could be used for military purposes and that we supported the CSCE resolution on the supply of weapons to the dispute. He also said that we are pressing for a widening of the embargo to cover all military assistance. Can my noble friend tell us what action has been taken since then to arrange for the embargo to cover all military assistance?

Finally, I hope that the Government themselves will bring pressure to bear and use their great experience and initiative to ensure stronger mediation, through Europe or through the UN, even, if necessary, including the use of peace-keeping troops in that area. It does not appear to be an issue which Russia will handle. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, this should now perhaps be a matter for the Security Council.

I very much hope that we shall not sit idly on the sidelines but will take action to try to ease the appalling suffering and stop the murder which is taking place in that region.

5.52 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, not for the first time the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for affording us an opportunity to debate this unhappy situation. Her concern for the area and its people, her courage in visiting Azerbaijan and Armenia more than once and going to the areas of devastation and suffering, her conversations with the victims of violence and starvation among people of both cultural traditions and her representations on their behalf to all the authorities concerned will one day, I hope, deserve a place in the history books. Certainly she brings to the debate a knowledge which I cannot hope to equal.

The debate comes at a time, as a number of your Lordships have observed, when it is difficult even to obtain up-to-date information about the situation and yet when it is so vitally important that we should contribute, if we can, to a solution of the many problems which press upon the people of the area. As the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate reminded us, I understand that this is not primarily a religious conflict but certainly it is a tribal conflict arising from the history of the interaction between two faiths. It is an area destined by history to be a meeting ground of two of the great monotheistic faiths. One of the ironies of history is that those faiths enjoin on their followers the virtues of peace, yet the very fact of their interface, at least since the 16th century, has denied its people any prospect of a lasting peace.

It is even more ironical that the tragedy should emanate only partly from external factors. It is one of those areas of the world where two peoples suffer a repressed sense of nationhood which has seared into their souls two rival tribalisms; so each generation has passed on to the next a consciousness of past insults and a commitment to continue the feud; so each successive generation bequeaths to the next the heritage which it has received together with its own contribution of wrongs waiting to be avenged. Of course it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, reminded us, that many people in adjoining villages, sometimes even in the same village, have found it possible to live together in friendship. But when ill-intentioned people apply a match, I suspect that the tinder of in-built prejudice is very much present. We have witnessed such tragic cycles in many regions of the world, sometimes within these islands, but rarely with more tragic consequences.

Perhaps most ironical of all is that the new freedom which has emerged in the lands of the former Soviet Union, the new opportunity for people to choose their own destiny, has enabled them to pursue old quarrels with greater intransigence and to practise old cruelties with fewer inhibitions. So it was at the break-up of the Roman Empire and the subsequent succession of empires Imposed by force, especially when external authorities have reasons of their own for wishing to foment problems.

It is encouraging to learn from the right reverend Prelate that the leaders of the two faiths are seeking a reconciliation. We hope that something may emerge from that.

Perhaps there are two lessons that we can learn before we begin to consider the details of this tragic conflict. The first is that, if there is to be any break in the cycle of wrong, retribution and revenge for the retribution, it is that someone must address the teaching of history in the schools in the hope that there will come a generation which will try to understand and forgive and break the deadly circle.

The second lesson—which I mention with a due sense of the feeling which your Lordships have for the people in the area who are afflicted—is that we should be wary not to say or do more than is necessary, which could inflame the sense of bitterness and frustration on either side. If we cannot close the breach we should be reluctant to take any steps which could widen it. If we cannot heal the wounds we should be careful not to infect them further. Of course I appreciate the concern of many of your Lordships that, where there is an imbalance in responsibility for the situation, it may sometimes be necessary to say so in the most forthright of terms, but that may not always be the way in which we can best help the people of Karabakh. It is very much a matter of judgment for those who are closest to the attempts which are being made to resolve the situation.

The whole House will applaud the efforts of the Rome group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, to bring about if not a reconciliation at least a ceasefire within the framework of the CSCE. It was a tragic disappointment that the efforts of the advance monitoring group to arrange the peace talks collapsed in September in the face of what must be said to be the intransigence on the Azeri side. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us, they believe, with justification, that might is on their side and that there are no specific pressures to bring them to the conference table. I hope that when she replies the Minister can tell the House whether any progress has resulted from further efforts of the Rome group. Perhaps she can also tell us whether any other efforts are being made outside the CSCE process. That is a question which has been asked by so many of your Lordships.

We wonder whether the Commonwealth of Independent States has taken any initiative. I appreciate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, that they have other things on their minds. But if there have been any other initiatives, can the Minister tell us what has emerged from them? In relation to the position of Turkey, can NATO persuade Turkey to play a more constructive role? As the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, reminded us, there is some leverage in the fact that Turkey has applied to join the Council of Europe. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us what has arisen from that situation.

The House has been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that in September it was announced that Mr. Boutros Ghali was sending his special representative to the area, Mr. Omar Halim. I confess that I have not seen, although some noble Lords appear to have seen, reports that he arrived in the area. Certainly no one seems to have heard anything further. Did Mr. Halim report? Did he have talks with the authorities there? If so, with what result? Is it proposed to raise the results of his report in the Security Council? Again perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten us on some of those matters.

Turning to the plight of the refugees from both cultural traditions, the latest figures seem to indicate that Armenia is coping with some 300,000 who have fled from Azerbaijan or from Karabakh at a time when that country, as the noble Baroness reminded us, is still suffering from the after-effects of the earthquake. Azerbaijan has received, we are told, more than 400,000 refugees, partly from Armenia but partly from other parts of Central Asia—a total of displaced persons approaching some three-quarters of a million. It is true that the deliberate blockading of Karabakh by Azerbaijan is creating some of the problems which afflict those unhappy people.

The announcement from the High Commissioner on 1st December was that an aircraft had been chartered to carry to the area two teams of relief specialists, each of five members, and that this marked the launch of an emergency operation amounting to some 6.37 million dollars. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us anything further in the way of news about that. One aspect which certainly occasioned me some anxiety was that it was said that the operation would concentrate initially on 145,000 of the displaced persons. I understand the reasons for that and I make no criticism. They are bringing relief to those who face a harsh winter in public buildings which are most vulnerable to hardship, particularly when, as we have been reminded in this debate, there is no energy for heating.

But what of the other refugees? Is it known whether and when they can expect help? Perhaps when she replies the noble Baroness can tell us what is the news in respect of that mission and possibly give us some idea of the contribution to the operation made by the EC and by the British Government. I noticed that on 12th November the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, announced that the United Kingdom had contributed £¼ million to the Red Cross for work in the area. Have the Government contributed further to the work of the mission? Any help which the noble Baroness can give us will be greatly appreciated.

In a war of this kind it is inevitable that there will be many casualties among the civilian population. But when your Lordships last debated this situation on 21st November last year there was grave concern, not simply about the incidental casualties, but about the deliberate atrocities by the military, a matter to which the noble Baroness returned this afternoon.

As so often in conflicts of this kind, there is some evidence that atrocity has led to counter-atrocity, and that in turn to further retaliation. But I think most of your Lordships accept, as I certainly do, that the principal concern is about the conduct of the Azeri armed forces. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us what representations have been made to the authorities on both sides to ensure that human rights and humanitarian standards which are now accepted by the whole international community are observed in the course of this conflict.

Finally, I turn to a matter which falls directly within the controls of countries outside the area. There is evidence—it has been referred to in the course of this debate—that a substantial contribution to the suffering has arisen from the supply of arms from outside regions, possibly to both sides in the conflict, but particularly, I accept, from Russia to Azerbaijan. I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us what steps have been taken with our EC partners, through NATO and through the United Nations, to stop that traffic in death and misery. Is it true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, intimated, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no policy on this matter in relation to the supply of arms from this country?

It is frustrating for all of us to know that there is so little which we can do to stop the suffering. It is doubtful whether there has ever been a time in history when the world has been so well aware, and so quickly aware, of tragedies in numerous regions and so powerless to avert them. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a need for a permanent unit, hopefully under the control of the United Nations, to respond to various kinds of emergency. Too often we seem to wait until there is a major fire before we begin to plan and assemble a fire brigade.

At this stage in the human story we are discussing conflict resolution, peace-keeping and relief for the victims. I appreciate that we are very far from an international police force which is capable of stopping a civil war. But I believe that one day our descendants will be as amazed to read that the world could not maintain law and order in a specific place as we are when we read of wars between Mercia and Wessex or as Americans would be if they heard of a war between Maryland and Connecticut. Until that day we have to do what we can to alleviate the suffering. We are grateful for those who, like the noble Baroness, remind us so vividly where that suffering exists.

6.7 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, first, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for bringing this important issue before the House. She has described the appalling situation in Nagorno-Karabakh clearly and poignantly. I always feel at a disadvantage when I follow my noble friend because, so bravely, she has been there and I have not. I know from my own limited experience how people who are suffering value their plight being drawn to the attention of the wider world, in this case your Lordships' House. We are all grateful to my noble friend for once again focusing our attention on yet another part of our world where, as she said, people are in a state of crisis.

As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said, this dispute is complex and centuries old. The Armenians today fear a re-run of the appalling injustices suffered by their people earlier this century. The Azeris insist that they are merely trying to control their own territory.

We are impartial but have limited influence. To use that influence we must take the situation as it is—not as one side or the other thinks it ought to be.

We have no vested interest in this dispute. All we want is to see it resolved peacefully, in a way which does justice to the legitimate hopes of all concerned.

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is only one of many other real and potential disputes across the former Soviet Union. In Tadjikstan, Georgia, Moldova and even in different areas of Russia rival groups aspire to greater autonomy or full independence. When the Soviet Empire broke apart, we and all our Western partners agreed that the very abruptness of events ruled out any attempt to redraw boundaries to do justice to all the rival clans.

The same considerations apply across the former Soviet Union as in Africa. There all the states have accepted, for better or worse, the fact of colonial borders. To do otherwise would open a Pandora's box of rival tribal claims with potentially terrible consequences.

That is why the international community recognised as independent states only the former Soviet Republics. Hence under international law the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh now is part of Azerbaijan. No country, not even Armenia itself, recognises it as an independent state.

International principles do not rule out changes to the status of areas such as Nagorno-Karabakh. But any changes must be made peacefully, with the agreement of all concerned. Azerbaijan will not cede independence to Nagorno-Karabakh. So a realistic solution must start from the fact of Azerbaijani sovereignty. But the Armenian community there cannot be expected to accept this unless they know that their rights will be respected, and their voices heard. This points to some form of autonomy, self-government, devolution of powers—call it what you will—for Nagorno-Karabakh. This basis for a solution—some sort of autonomy, under Azerbaijani sovereignty—is accepted by nearly the whole international community.

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that the world is not simply standing by while this dispute rages. For some months—originally at British initiative—the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has endeavoured to mediate. The CSCE enjoys UN backing, and has the promise of NATO observers when a ceasefire is arranged. The CSCE talks in Rome under the able chairmanship of Mario Raffaelli have concentrated on achieving such a ceasefire. Progress has been slow, but planning for an observer mission is now at an advanced stage. It must be said that both the Armenians and Azeris in turn have obstructed the talks when winning on the ground.

In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, the advance monitoring mission of the CSCE hopes to visit the region, including Nagorno-Karabakh, early next month on a reconnaissance mission. Now, at last, agreement on a ceasefire may be closer. We have been urging the parties to accept it and move forward. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade did so during a visit to Baku in September. He handed over a letter from the Prime Minister making the same point. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has asked his Turkish colleague to use Turkey's influence with Azerbaijan to the same end. This is where matters now stand.

I want to try to answer as many points as I can, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for giving me advance notice of her questions. My noble friend did not do it in the form of a question but she mentioned ethnic cleansing, as did my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I must make clear that ethnic cleansing of any sort anywhere is completely deplorable, but the picture in Nagorno-Karabakh is not clear cut. Not only tens of thousands of Armenians but also almost the whole Azeri civilian population have been forced to flee Nagorno-Karabakh.

As the noble Lord, Lord Archer, said, this dispute has produced over 400,000 refugees from both communities. Any solution must uphold the right of all the people in and around Nagorno-Karabakh—Armenian and Azeri speakers alike —to live peacefully in their homes. I was particularly glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford speak about the work of the World Council of Churches in the area.

I turn to a specific point raised not only by my noble friend Lady Cox but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. They asked for assurances that ICRC aid for Nagorno-Karabakh will get through. The ICRC's reputation for humanitarian work in difficult situations is second to none. It is accepted by the Armenians and Azerbaijanis alike. It does not at present have a delegate in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh; it hopes to post one there soon. The ICRC has four delegates in Armenia and intends to increase them to six. Two travel to Nagorno-Karabakh each month. Last month they delivered the first winter food parcels, and our diplomats in Geneva keep in close touch with the ICRC head office to monitor their progress.

My noble friend asked what the Government were doing to bring pressure to bear on Azerbaijan. British aid to Azerbaijan is limited, consisting mostly of small know-how fund projects which support the transition to a market economy. This sort of carefully targeted support has intrinsic merit and should continue. We do not attach political conditions to humanitarian aid in Azerbaijan or anywhere else. More generally we will continue to press the government of Azerbaijan to accept a full ceasefire and start negotiating a settlement.

When he visited Baku in September my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade handed over a letter from the Prime Minister to President Elchibei making this point. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friends Lady Park of Monmouth and Lord Pearson of Rannoch that we also continue to urge Turkey, publicly and privately, to use its considerable influence with Azerbaijan to bring about an early ceasefire.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, could the Minister arrange for a copy of the letter from the Prime Minister to be placed in the Library of the House?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I imagine so. The Government have no evidence of Turkish arms supplies to Azerbaijan, and Turkey has undertaken to respect the existing CSCE embargo on arms to the region. It is common knowledge that Turkish military advisers are helping the Azeris. In the CSCE the Government have raised the possibility of widening the existing arms embargo to cover all kinds of military assistance. The Government have pursued this proposal at this week's CSCE ministerial council meeting in Stockholm.

My noble friend Lady Cox quoted a newspaper report that claimed that the FCO had no policy on arms sales in Azerbaijan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, asked a question on the same subject. That report was quite incorrect. The Government have not approved licences for the export of any military equipment to Azerbaijan, nor will they do so. We adhere to the embargo on the supply of weapons to the region called by the CSCE on 28th February. Indeed, during the CSCE ministerial council in Stockholm this week we called for an extension of this embargo to cover military assistance to the region generally.

My noble friend drew our attention to British trade with Azerbaijan, and not least the major investment by BP. She implied that this amounted to British endorsement of Azeri policies. The new countries of the former Soviet Union face unique problems in overcoming the ruinous legacy of communism. Trade is the most important way of helping these countries to establish themselves in the international community. The Government intend to boost British trade with all these states, including Armenia and Azerbaijan. I do not see why we should be ashamed of trading with BP in that country.

My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth may be aware that we also have one large British project in Armenia put together by Simon Carves Limited. This project is nearing completion and should provide useful employment in Armenia. In short, commercial links are needed to help these countries establish themselves. Economic progress is the key to the transition from Soviet communism, but this should also extend to trade between the countries of the Trans-Caucasus. That is why we welcome Turkey's improving relations with Armenia and why we want to see all blockades lifted as rapidly as possible.

My noble friend Lady Cox spoke about the £250,000 the Government have contributed to the International Committee of the Red Cross for its work there. Most of this money will provide for 1,000 food parcels a month to be distributed in Nagorno-Karabakh this winter, and the remainder will be distributed between Armenian and Azeri refugees. I am delighted also to confirm today that the Government intend to make £200,000 available to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The UNHCR has just announced a six-month programme of emergency aid to over 140,000 Armenian and Azeri refugees from this conflict.

There is just one other point to which I should like to draw particular attention for the benefit of my noble friend Lady Cox. Hitherto we have asked the ICRC to deliver British assistance, but we certainly do not rule out using other organisations who are doing effective humanitarian work in Nagorno-Karabakh. I am pleased to tell my noble friend that the Government have decided to channel some assistance through Christian Solidarity International by providing the spare parts for ambulances which my noble friend Lady Cox delivered on an earlier mission.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about air attacks on civilians. Military attacks against civilian targets are of course unacceptable. The Government have made this point directly to the Azerbaijani authorities and not least during the visit to Baku in September of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. The CSCE hopes to mediate a complete cessation of hostilities, including air attacks. We look to both Armenia and Azerbaijan to accept this.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether the United Nations had considered setting up a fund to collect and destroy weapons in the former Soviet Union. The United Nations has not discussed this. The states of the former Soviet Union are independent, and it is for them to settle their defence arrangements. We look to the states of the former Soviet Union to adhere to the provisions of the CFE treaty, covering conventional force reductions in Europe.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth asked what role the Government envisage for Russia and the CIS in this dispute. It is not Russian government policy to take sides in this dispute. Russian troops remain in Azerbaijan and in Armenia. Some are reliably reported to have offered their services to one side or the other. The Government welcome any positive role the Russian government can play in mediating a solution, but such an effort must be part of the CSCE process.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what the Government are doing in response to the appeal addressed to leaders of the G7. At this week's meeting in Stockholm of the foreign ministers of the CSCE, we are urging Armenia's neighbours to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to Armenia. The Government have urged the Armenian government to contact the European Commission to arrange the rapid disbursement of over 20 million ecus of food and medical projects from the EC's loan to Armenia.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lady Park asked whether the Government accepted that United Nations peacekeepers had a role to play in Nagorno-Karabakh. The United Nations' Secretary General has sent two fact-finding missions to the region. He believes the CSCE is the right forum for negotiations. There is nothing to be gained by switching the negotiations to the United Nations, which is already heavily stretched. The CSCE can succeed if sufficient political will is demonstrated by the parties to this dispute. Without that political will, neither the United Nations nor any other forum or group of countries will bring about a solution. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Archer, that there are no immediate plans for either Azerbaijan or Armenia to join the Council of Europe. The European Commission has provided 1 million ecus of humanitarian aid, primarily to relieve the suffering of refugees in this dispute—

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I fear I must have been more than usually unintelligible. I did not intend to suggest that there were any plans for either Armenia or Azerbaijan to join the Council of Europe. I was asking whether the fact that Turkey had applied to join the Council of Europe might be used as a lever in encouraging Turkey to take a more constructive view.

Baroness Trumpington

I am sorry, my Lords; my carrier pigeon brought me the wrong information. I shall now turn to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords who reported the Azerbaijan threat to use nuclear weapons against Armenia. Azerbaijan is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state. The Russian Government has confirmed that there are no nuclear weapons stationed on Azerbaijan territory. However, the question of the nuclear power station is a very dangerous one. There are considerable difficulties involved in recommissioning the Medzamor nuclear power station. It lies on a geological faultline and has fallen into disrepair following the earthquake. Armenia does not have the expertise to maintain or operate the plant, and the European Community is funding a safety study of this power station which will be completed in the Spring. We hope that the Armenian Government will await the outcome of this and other studies before taking any decision.

Reference to Turkey has occurred a lot in the debate, and relations between Armenia and Turkey are fraught with historical animosity and tragedy. However, both sides now seem to accept the need to build on normal bases. Turkey has agreed to deliver 100,000 tonnes of grain to Armenia and to allow other such deliveries to transit its territory. They have agreed to supply electricity to cover 20 per cent. of Armenia's energy deficit this winter at prices below those made to Turkey's domestic consumers. These are welcome developments, and we are urging the Turkish Government to go ahead with these undertakings.

In the snug and cosy atmosphere of the House of Lords, it seems almost an impertinence for me to stand here and make this statement, but it is a sad irony that Armenia and Azerbaijan—so new to the international community—should immediately find themselves locked into this costly and destructive dispute. Unlike most of the other former Soviet republics, these two states have made serious progress towards democracy.

Both have held free presidential elections. Both have presidents previously imprisoned for their opposition to Soviet rule. Armenia's parliament consists of numerous parties. Azerbaijan plans fresh parliamentary elections next year. Both countries have ample resources and skills to draw on for their future prosperity if they can proceed in peace.

We hope that the CSCE talks will soon resume. They are the only realistic way forward. It is vital that the two sides play their parts in negotiating a settlement: their future is at stake. Armenians and Azerbaijanis alike will have to make historic compromises for peace and now is the time for them to do so.