HL Deb 28 October 1993 vol 549 cc963-86

5.8 p.m.

The Earl of Shannon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have made to induce Azerbaijan and Turkey to lift the blockades on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict in that region.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I realise that in asking Her Majesty's Government this Question I shall be speaking in defiance of a great deal of heavy money lobbying in favour of our kowtowing to Baku in the hope of getting an oil concession.

Perhaps at this point I should declare an interest as chairman of the British-Armenian All Party Parliamentary Group. I have just returned from a visit to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh with other members of the group, which included the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the honourable Member for the Sherwood constituency, Mr. Paddy Tipping. The visit was at the invitation of the President of the Armenian Parliament, Dr. Babken Araktsian.

The object of the visit was to see for ourselves exactly what was the situation in that troubled part of the world. We were and had been somewhat suspicious of the very one-sided reports of events through the Western media. Our suspicions were, to a great degree, confirmed: that there had been a cover-up of one side of the story and massive misinformation planted for purely commercial reasons. Although the roots of the present situation go back a long way in history, at present the main bone of contention is the area known as the Nagorno, or mountainous, Karabakh. Until this is resolved, there can be no peace in that region.

After centuries of dismemberment by Persians, Romans and Ottomans, what was left of ancient Armenia, then an independent republic since 1918, was absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1920, where again it was partly broken up in 1923 and, inter alia, the mountainous Karabakh was made an autonomous Oblast within the geographical borders of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. That perhaps may have been in consequence of the fact that the inhabitants of the Nagorno-Karabakh. who were over 95 per cent. Armenian, had in 1918 declared themselves to be an independent administrative unit. Furthermore, in 1920, the then independent Republic of Armenia had declared the Nagorno-Karabakh to be an indivisible part of Armenia. The declaration was confirmed in 1921 by the by now Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Being an autonomous region with its own local government and a political entity in its own right, but centrally controlled from Moscow, also with its own clearly defined borders, the Nagorno-Karabakh decided in 1991 to make use of a provision in the 1977 constitution of the USSR which permitted the secession from the union, subject to the holding of a referendum, Armenia also decided on that course of action. Notification of intention to secede was given in March 1991, with confirming referendum in September of that year. Needless to say, the result was in the affirmative.

Azerbaijan, however, never made use of that permission under the Soviet constitution, perhaps because if it had done so, it could only do so legally for itself and thus would have left the autonomous oblast of the Nagorno-Karabakh still within the Soviet Union and out of its reach. Azerbaijan never did secede from the USSR but, along with many other Soviet Socialist republics, declared its independence immediately after the failed coup of 18th and 19th August 1993, which effectively evaporated the old USSR. However, before that time both Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh had legally and constitutionally given notice of secession from the USSR and were only awaiting the confirmation of a referendum, which they obtained.

In spite of that clear constitutional position, the authorities of Azerbaijan, who had for many years harassed the inhabitants of the Nagorno-Karabakh in the hope of getting them to leave—as had been the case in Nakhichevan—invaded the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh, occupying up to about 40 per cent. of the country, before being brought to a halt.

Previously, as part of the harassment, Turkey, not exactly a friend of Armenia, probably out of a sense of guilt for having murdered one and a half million Armenians in the genocide of 1915, in order to appropriate land which is now called Eastern Turkey, joined with Azerbaijan in imposing a blockade on both landlocked Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, intending to bring them to their knees by cold and starvation in the true old Ottoman Empire fashion.

I am unaware of any United Nations resolution of the time imposing sanctions on Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, yet Turkey, as well as Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, through their membership of the USSR in 1975, are all signatories to the Helsinki Final Act. That Act, in Basket One, Clause VI reads: They will likewise in all circumstances refrain from any other act of military or of political, economic or other coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by another participating state of the right inherent. in As sovereignty and thus secure advantages of any kind". Thus, Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh were blockaded by their neighbours in total defiance of the obligations under Helsinki. Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh had become sovereign independent countries under the USSR constitution of the time and in accordance with the spirit of United Nations Resolutions 1514, 2160 and 3103, among many others. Yet what United Nations resolution came to their aid when blockaded and when the Nagorno-Karabakh was invaded? That smells a little to me.

The blockade of Armenia, although mostly effective, did not stop some economic assistance coming in through Georgia in the north and Iran from the south.

Nagorno-Karabakh was, of course, completely cut off and in total desperation its people opened a humanitarian corridor near Lachin through to Armenia proper, which was only 10 kilometres away.

Azerbaijan used its troops, well armed as a result of equipment left behind by the old Soviet Fourth Army, to invade the Nagorno-Karabakh. The Karabakhi Armenians resisted as best they could, addressed complaints to the United Nations and then were thoroughly shelled by Grad rockets. Hardly one house in 20 in Stepanakert has even the vestige of a roof.

It is curious to note that all this time few reports appeared in the Western press. Was it that editors knew which side their bread was oiled? However, the moment the Karabakhis decided that the Western powers were again letting them down, as they did in 1918, they decided to retaliate. Then the Western media started to fill with reports of Armenian aggression. The United Nations suddenly woke up and started passing resolutions—not in favour of the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Karabakhi Armenians, mostly using captured weapons, evicted the Azeris from the Karabakh and also from the adjacent territory of Azerbaijan from whence the attacks had come and the sites used to bombard their territory. Their local commander assured me that they would be only, too happy to withdraw from this cordon sanitaire around their country the very moment that they received an adequate guarantee that the sites would not be re-used for aggressive action against them. That was recently re-stated in view of the action of 26th October. The Nagorno-Karabakh authorities have unilaterally reinstated the ceasefire, subject to a similar response from the Azeris not to start the offensive again and to carry on talking and negotiating.

In the original invasion the Azeris had made the mistake of thinking that the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians would be sitting ducks. The Armenians are front line soldiers and provided more senior officers in the old Soviet army than any of the other Soviet republics. The Azeris were mainly used for maintenance and supply in the old Soviet army and were no match, even with their Turkish officers, for the Armenians, who were fighting for their homes and families while Azeris were not quite so keen to lay down their lives for the acquisition of a land which they knew perfectly well did not belong to them.

Once the Karabakhi Armenians had captured some weapons, they went through the Azeris like a knife. Their local commander jokingly said to me: "If we had gone on, we could have ended up in Baku". I really think that at the time they could have done so. But they went only as far as they had to in order to neutralise the forming up areas and artillery sites from which they had suffered.

Whitehall can be full of platitudes about talks and negotiations, as well as much verbal hand wringing or washing over international situations, especially when it seeks to avoid involvement. But in this instance, I wonder if I might ask the noble Baroness the Minister who is replying: what is the Whitehall solution to the following scenario? A Karabakhi man is recovering the shrapnel-shredded bodies of his wife and family from the rubble of his home after a hit by an Azeri Grad rocket. Should he say: "Dear, oh dear, what nasty people the Azeris are. I shall have to write yet another letter to the United Nations in New York?" Or should he go out and put a stop to it, which is in fact what he did?

In this context it is interesting to note that when nearly half of their country was occupied by invading Azeris and many had been killed, the Karabakhi Armenians asked for a ceasefire and talks. That was refused by Turkey and Azerbaijan. Also, Azerbaijan refused to talk directly to the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities. However, the moment the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians hit back and routed the invaders, it was Turkey and Azerbaijan who were shouting "foul" and pleading for a ceasefire and Azerbaijan offering to recognise the right of the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities to participate in talks. The Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians immediately agreed. I am thankful to say that the ceasefire is, generally, still holding, although uncontrolled Azeri troops have just launched an assault on Zangelan—an assault which has fortunately been contained by the Nagorno-Karabakh defence forces, who are now again in control of the area. Perhaps we may now await the planted misinformation in the press about Armenian aggression. It is sure to come.

Unfortunately, the conflict goes on on two other fronts. One is the propaganda campaign initiated by those same public relations budgets which previously wished to keep the whole matter quiet but are now full of the "Armenian aggression". The other is far sadder. It is on the ground of the Karabakh itself, through the ultimately cowardly action of the Azeris in indiscriminately sowing the areas from which they were evicted with small anti-personnel mines. Now the casualties having their legs amputated, sometimes without anaesthetic due to the blockade, are the women and children returning to their villages. One has not heard much about that in our media—only carefully planted interviews with Azeri refugees complaining about the "expansionist policy" of the Armenians. From the look of them they clearly do not even know what it means, but they have obviously been told to say it and there are no prizes for guessing whose PR budget paid for that one. That is the present unhappy situation. One may well ask: where does one go from here?

One option is quite definitely not open; namely, any attempt to declare Nagorno-Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan. That would be to reward those who indulged in aggression and invasion of a neighbouring independent state, as well as to cause gross violations of human rights in total defiance of treaty obligations. Any such declaration would make a total nonsense of international law and treaties. It would be like saying to Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War: "Well, perhaps you could keep just a little bit of Kuwait." Yet, although aware of that, Azerbaijan evidently thinks that with Turkish aid and the clout of its potential oil fields it can take over just what it likes in Nagorno-Karabakh. There should not be any lingering doubt, even in Whitehall, as to its intentions. But if there is, we should remember the statement made by its then President Elchibey in June 1992, when, after opening full hostilities against the Karabakh, he said that if there were any Armenians left in the Karabakh by October they could hang him in the central square of Baku. It is a pity that they did not! No amount of oil-lubricated waffle or diplomatic flannel in the West can excuse this clear statement of intent by a head of state. It has the underlying unequivocal ring of statements made by the late Genghis Khan, and we all know what his intentions were.

With such a delicate situation, Armenia, in spite of considerable provocation, did not and has not officially recognised the independence of the Karabakh because it felt that that would only exacerbate the situation. Also, in a very statesmanlike manner it has avoided sending troops to assist its kinsmen and has restricted its help to humanitarian aid, although people there are themselves desperately short. Armenia has announced that, now there is a ceasefire and now that the Azeris, once their troops have started losing, have now agreed to talk directly to the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities, Armenia will concur with and support whatever may be agreed as a result of the talks. To insist now on pre-judging the final status can only endanger the fragile ceasefire and the present negotiations. So we can only pin our hopes on a successful outcome to the Minsk process.

To revert to the subject of the blockade, one of the most pressing needs of Armenia is for energy. That country's industry is at a standstill for lack of electricity. Lighting is limited, and heating is non-existent. Limited gas supplies from Georgia are continually being blown up, especially where they pass through Azeri-populated villages.

Consignments of oil from Russia arriving from the port of Bartu cost more in bribes for transit than the value of the cargo. Hydro-electric supply is in very short supply as Lake Van is already 18 metres below its normal level. However, steps are being taken for one of the sections of the nuclear reactor at Metzamor to be put on stream for next winter because the International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected it and confirmed that "there is no technical objection" why it should not he brought into use.

When we last debated this subject in December last year, I said in my speech that Turkey had reneged on its contract to supply Armenia with some much-needed energy (Official Report, 15/12/92; col. 533). The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, speaking on behalf of the Government, contradicted me and made great play of how relations between Turkey and Armenia had so improved that Turkey had just signed a contract to supply electricity to Armenia (col. 548).

I forbore to dissent from that statement, feeling that the noble Baroness had behind her the full resources of the Foreign Office and must have more and better information than I. How wrong I was, and how wrong was the Minister's brief! I made diligent inquiry and found that from the moment of signature on that contract Turkey had pleaded technical difficulties over the supply, although refusing all offers of Armenian technical assistance to overcome the difficulties. Eventually, after running out of excuses, it was admitted that there were no technical difficulties and it had been a political decision to tantalise Armenia but never to supply one single watt of energy.

For the noble Baroness to have received a totally incorrect statement in her brief can only mean that the department is not kept aware of things that perhaps it should know. When one considers that Her Britannic Majesty's representative for the area is over 1,100 miles away, that deficiency becomes understandable. The embassy must be an easy prey to any planted misinformation issued by Ankara, Baku or international oil consortia hoping for concessions under the Caspian.

In a conversation I had with the ambassador of the United States in Yerevan, Mr. Gilmore, he expressed surprise that it had not been seen fit to appoint a British ambassador to Armenia as he himself was continually sending back valuable reports to Washington. I suppose that the answer that I shall receive to my request will start with the complaint, "Oh, but the Treasury" and so on. But I must say that I find it particularly shaming that poor, penniless, besieged Armenia can produce an ambassador at the Court of St. James while the once great Britain parsimoniously ducks the issue. Turkey has also refused to have an ambassador in Yerevan and that, together with the great loss of face in having championed the now routed Azeri rabble army, means that its influence is waning fast in that area.

I was very pleased to hear that Mr. Douglas Hogg paid a one-day visit to Armenia during his whistle-stop tour of the region. I hope that it may lead to a better understanding and appreciation of the real information about what is going on in the area.

In conclusion, is it not about time that we and the other Western nations realised that, despite the siege conditions imposed upon it by its neighbours, Armenia has been constant in its policies, has maintained a stable, democratic government and is struggling to pull itself up economically by its bootlaces from the particularly lousy deal that it is being dealt by its neighbours? That is in stark contrast to almost every other state in the old USSR, all of which are unstable and undemocratic with transient governments, sometimes aged in months only, and with all the best ingredients for chaos. Unlike almost every other country experiencing troubles around the world, Armenia's troubles are not internal nor are they self-inflicted. Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh are having their troubles forced upon them by their neighbours.

The simple logic which gives the lie to the misinformation, put out at great expense by sycophantic commercial interests, is that the Armenians both in Armenia and in the Nagorno-Karabakh do not want to "go" anywhere. They just want to be left alone in the land where they are and where they have been for centuries. Both Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, with only 150,000 inhabitants, are economically viable and in the past regularly had export surpluses. So there is no question of interminable third world aid for them. The grit and determination which they have shown indicates that they will inevitably become the most stable, prosperous and leading community in that area, given the normal relations which they are entitled to expect from their neighbours.

The blockades are illegal in treaty, humanity and reason. The oil-financed propaganda should be seen for the misinformation that it is, even if it reaches right back to the United Nations in New York. If it were not so undignified as well as hurtful to the brave people of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh, one would split one's sides with laughter at the sight of Western politicians grovelling in Baku and joining in the cry of the improvident, foolish virgins of old, "Give us of your oil"

5.37 p.m.

Baroness Cox

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for giving us the opportunity to address these important issues and for the very robust and comprehensive way in which he did so. I especially congratulate him for speaking with the authority based on a visit to the areas affected, as is also the case with my noble friend Lord Pearson. For my contribution I wish to provide an overview of the developments which put the current situation in context and to raise a number of issues. I anticipate that my noble friend the Minister will highlight recent developments in which the Armenians of Karabakh have achieved some military successes and thereby have been condemned by the international community as aggressors, as the noble Earl said. They have also been pressurised to withdraw from the Azeri territory which they reluctantly had to occupy in self-defence.

I originally visited Armenia, Karabakh and Azerbaijan under the auspices of the Andrei Sakharov Foundation. We went with no prejudice. We tried to follow in the footsteps of Andrei Sakharov, who always tried to be on the side of the victim. I have now visited the area 16 times. The evidence we found has led us to view the Armenians of Karabakh as the primary victims in this tragic war. We believe that recent developments and future policy must be viewed in the light of that evidence.

Last winter was hell for the Armenian people in Armenia and Karabakh. In Armenia the blockades imposed by Azerbaijan created horrendous suffering as people struggled to survive that bitter winter, with temperatures 20 degrees below freezing, often without light, heat or energy to operate schools, bakeries and other essential services. As the noble Earl said, Turkey, which had promised to supply electricity, never allowed a single kilowatt to cross the border.

In Karabakh the Azeris were still trying to impose a military solution. During last year they escalated their military offensives against the Armenians of Karabakh with tanks and multiple missile Grad rocket launchers. In March of last year I counted 400 Grad rockets on a typical day raining down on the capital city of Stepanakert, pulverising the city and causing massive civilian casualties. In June, with Turkish help, the Azeris overran 40 per cent. of Karabakh—it is only 100 miles north to south and 50 miles east to west—forcing 80,000 Armenians to flee their homes and to converge on the devastated and starving city of Stepanakert or to flee into Armenia, paralysed by the blockades.

As the year progressed, the Azeris resorted to the use of aerial bombardment of civilians, with 500 kilogram bombs, then with cluster bombs and ground-to-air missiles detonated to explode with no warning over civilian targets, shedding lethal shrapnel. In June of last year, the then President Elchibey of Azerbaijan claimed that if there was a single Armenian still living in Nagorno-Karabakh by October the people of Azerbaijan could hang him in the central square of Baku. I repeat that statement because I cannot think of a more unequivocal commitment to a policy of ethnic cleansing.

Last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister rightly condemned policies of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia. But the British Government seem to have been strangely silent when similar policies were being perpetrated by Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.

In January of this year I returned with another 50-tonne cargo plane of essential supplies, sponsored by Christian Solidarity International, which helps victims of repression regardless of colour, creed or ideology. We have also taken aid to Azeri victims of the war. On this occasion we were taking medicines and baby milk powder into Nagorno-Karabakh. Travelling overland through the humanitarian corridor linking Armenia with Karabakh, we ran into a blizzard in the high mountains of Southern Armenia and were stranded for 20 hours in a snow drift.

We were not the only people trapped there in temperatures of −25°, which, with the chill factor of the wind, dropped effectively to −50°. Again and again our Karabakh host, Dr. Balayan—he has met Ministers here and that is why I mention him—risked his life in that howling blizzard to go out and bring in to our antiquated bus families trapped in cars who would never otherwise have survived that terrible night. During those dark, cold hours it occurred to me that that was a symbolic place to be, for it was the Armenian Christmas Eve and on the first Christmas Eve there was another family in the cold with nowhere to go.

That incident highlights the fact that the humanitarian corridor—a vital lifeline for the Armenians of Karabakh—is inherently hazardous. Not only are the road conditions dangerous (a colleague's truck had fallen 100 feet over the edge) but the corridor has also been systematically shelled by the Azeris. On one occasion a vehicle in a convoy ahead of ours was hit by a Grad rocket and all four occupants killed.

The Armenians of Karabakh were strongly condemned by the international community, including Britain, when they forged open that corridor through Azeri territory. But if there had been no blockades there would have been no need for a corridor. The international community had been relatively silent about the blockades and for a long time had done nothing practical to help the people of Karabakh suffering from them. Major aid organisations could not go into Karabakh, lacking invitations from the Azeri Government. So the Karabakhis were being abandoned to death by bombardment and starvation, cut off from essentials such as fuel, food and medicines. There were no anaesthetics for casualties with injuries such as burns, amputations, glass in eyes; and no analgesic, only vodka to try to alleviate the suffering of those injuries. What were the Armenians of Karabakh supposed to do? Were they to watch their people suffer and die?

This year the Azeris built up large concentrations of troops around the corridor. In the Kelbadjar region they were within two miles of the road. If they had captured that corridor it would have been the end of Karabakh. The Karabakh forces had to fight or see that vital lifeline cut:. To their credit they repeatedly stopped their military advance to warn A zeri civilians and give them time to escape. That was in stark contrast to the Azeris. When they overran 40 per cent. of Karabakh last year they deliberately killed as many Armenian civilians as possible, shelling women and children as they fled and murdering those who could not escape. I have seen corpses of people whose heads had been sawn off by the Azeris when they overran their village.

Again, the Armenians of Karabakh were fiercely criticised for taking Azeri territory. Again I ask: what were they meant to do? Should they see their lifeline cut off and revert to a suicidal state of strangulation of essential supplies? Some Azeris who were wounded or who were stranded and fled into Karabakh have been well cared for by the Armenians. I have met them. The wounded, the women and children are grateful for the care that they have been given. Many describe how, when the Armenians approached the area, the Azeri men just escaped in jeeps and left them behind.

Heavy fighting continued this year through spring and summer, with many casualties on both sides. Then a peace agreement was brokered by Russia, the USA and Turkey. It was accepted reluctantly by the Karabakhis as it discriminated against them, requiring them to return the land they had taken in order to protect that vital corridor and giving them nothing tangible in return. But to promote peace—as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, emphasised, they want peace—they signed, although they argued that it was immoral of the international community to require concessions of the weaker side.

Then in June, almost before the ink on that agreement was dry, the Azeris broke the peace with heavy shelling of Stepanakert and aerial bombardment with SU25 fighter bombers. The Azeris denied those attacks, but international observers in Karabakh will testify to them. I and my colleagues were in the city at the time, near to the shells. We picked up fresh shrapnel as proof that those attacks occurred. The Azeris continued shelling Karabakh towns and villages from their own towns in Azerbaijan—Agdarn, Fizuli and Jabrail. The Karabakh forces eventually counter-attacked, neutralising those bases. Tragically there were more Azeri refugees. And again the international community severely criticised the people of Karabakh. But again I ask: what were the Karabakhis supposed to do? Should they remain passive and watch their women and children shelled, wounded and killed?

As the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, emphasised as a soldier, if your people are being attacked it is irresponsible not to defend them. If the Azeris' commitment to continuing to try to impose a military solution resulted in a Karabakhi counter-attack which left many Azeris homeless, it is the Azeri Government who are predominantly to blame for the predicament of their own people—unless, that is, the international community puts such an overriding premium on the principle of territorial integrity that all human rights are to be sacrificed to it, including the right to life itself.

That leads into a discussion of some of the issues raised by the Karabakh conflict. First, I turn to humanitarian aid. Last year the people of Karahakh suffered appallingly, with little relief from major international relief organisations who were prevented from access because they depend on invitations from a sovereign government. More recently the people of Karabakh have received help, and I particularly wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for funding the vaccination programme for the Karabakh children whose physical development was found to be worse than that of the children of Bosnia. The vaccination programme has been carried out superbly by the new British organisation MERLIN. I know that the people of Karabakh are deeply grateful to the ODA and to MERLIN. They also appreciate the assistance given to a surgeon from Stepanakert to visit Britain to update his professional knowledge.

But humanitarian aid is only first aid and the priority must be a political solution to the conflict. Here I wish to raise the second issue of the asymmetry, even apparent hypocrisy, of the international community to the Karabakh conflict, with a deafening silence in response to gross Azeri violations of human rights against the people of Karabakh and against Armenia, with the imposition of blockades and a contrasting one-sided condemnation of the Armenians of Karahakh as they have struggled and fought for survival. Some even say that it is the Armenians of Karabakh who have carried out ethnic cleansing. That is ridiculous when one sees the conflict in the context of the indisputable evidence that Azerbaijan has been the primary aggressor for many years.

For decades the Azeris have systematically exploited and harassed the Armenians of Karabakh; then there were the cruel blockades; the brutal deportations in 1991, never denied; then the use of weapons of indiscriminate destruction against civilians. It is a miracle that the 150,000 Armenians of Karabakh have survived against 7 million strong Azerbaijan assisted by Turkey. It is only their courage, tenacity, commitment and sacrifice which have made it possible for them still to be living in their ancient land today.

Her Majesty's Government appear to me to have condoned Azerbaijan's escalation of military offensives against the people of Karabakh in terms of the principle of the inviolability of borders, affirmed by the CSCE. But in focusing almost exclusively on only one of the CSCE's twin pillars, there seems to have been a tendency to forget that other pillar—respect for human rights, the gross violation of which initially precipitated Karabakh's unilateral declaration of independence in 1991.

The first principle alone is a charter for states to discriminate against and to wage war on their own citizens with impunity. The international community needs urgently to give as much weight to protecting human rights as it has done to protecting territorial integrity. It has so far failed conspicuously to do so in the Karabakh conflict.

I have to say that I have been deeply disappointed by the British Government's asymmetry of response to Azerbaijan and Karabakh. I visited the Foreign Office several times to urge the Government to remonstrate with the Azeris when they were perpetrating gross violations of human rights against the Armenians of Karabakh. But the British Government have remained relatively silent in any criticism of the Azeris, while being very ready to condemn the Armenians of Karabakh. One may surmise, as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has, that this asymmetry is perhaps not unrelated to the BP oil interest, which has prompted some senior British politicians to visit Azerbaijan, to give credibility, and not only credibility, to that regime when it was slaughtering the people of Karabakh with all the means at its disposal.

For example, when the Azeris started to use cluster bombs against the civilians of Karabakh—and I had seen the people wounded with shrapnel so deep that it could not be taken out—I asked the Foreign Office to try to persuade the Azeris to desist from this brutality and I drew attention to the very commendable initiative by the United States to amend its Freedom of Support Act so as to inhibit economic assistance to Azerbaijan until it lifted the blockades against Armenia and Karabakh. Britain refused to take a similar initiative. Instead, I was told by someone at a very high level in the Foreign Office that no country has an interest in another country—only interests; and we have oil interests in Azerbaijan. For the first time in my life, I felt deeply ashamed of being British.

The historian Christopher Walker seems to have summed up British foreign policy when he said that it appears to be shaped by commercial interests in Azerbaijan and strategic interests in Turkey. I understand the significance of both commercial and strategic interests. I do not undervalue them. But I hope that they will not override our concern for deeper moral and spiritual values. I do not believe that any country's well-being is promoted in the long-term by putting commercial self-interest before concern for human rights.

Coming back very briefly to the present, a fragile ceasefire has been holding generally, although it was broken a few days ago. The Russians had brokered direct negotiations between Azeri and Karabakh leaders. Talks under the aegis of the Minsk conference led to another peace plan, involving the return of Azeri territory by Karabakh and some lifting of blockades. Unfortunately, I understand that the Azeri participants rescinded their agreement at the last moment. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister for the latest information on these initiatives.

I also understand that President Aliev of Azerbaijan has said that the ceasefire is necessary for Azerbaijan to rebuild its army. Given such statements, and given all the violations of human rights which have been perpetrated by Azerbaijan against the Armenians, there will be a need for massive confidence-building measures as a basis for any peaceful political solution.

If peace can be established and maintained, and if a political solution can be found, this could not only save the lives of countless Armenians and Azeris and prevent yet more man-made suffering; it could also be a historic precedent which might defuse many other conflicts in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere in the world. It could provide a creative breakthrough in the impasse created by the current conflict between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination. There could be a real sign of hope here if such a creative initiative could be forged and implemented. But clearly any political solution will have to be acceptable to all parties concerned.

I was therefore disturbed by reports which describe the recent visit to Baku by my honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hogg which said that he had stated that Britain is seeking its own possibilities for settling the conflict and gives priority to Azerbaijan. If the British position is as partial as it sounds in that report, I cannot believe that it will help the other parties to have confidence in the delicate peace process. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could clarify the position taken by the British Government in Baku; and whether Mr. Hogg, in addition to celebrating good economic and political relations between Britain and Azerbaijan, also raised with the Azeris any issues concerning their infringements of human rights. I do not expect my noble friend to answer these questions today as I did not give advance notice, having been abroad. But I know that many people would appreciate clarification.

I conclude by emphasising that there is so much at stake in the war between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. I finish with a true story, of an Armenian from Getashen, the first village to suffer deportation by the Azeris. He recalled how, after witnessing the brutal deportation, seeing his people tortured, raped and murdered, he escaped and stayed back to defend his land. He climbed up the mountainside and came to an apricot tree which was in blossom. On the tree he saw hanging a five year-old Armenian girl, cut in two. He vowed revenge. But he described how, when the Armenians subsequently retook another village, he broke his vow because he could not bring himself to harm a child. When one of our delegation commented on his compassion and his dignity, he simply replied: "Dignity is a crown of thorns".

The people of Karabakh have been wearing their crown of thorns with great dignity. I hope that the international community, and especially the British Government, will not stand by and watch them, at some stage in the future, be condemned to death or deportation.

The Armenians who were massacred by Turkey in 1915 will never be forgotten. The people of Karabakh will also never be forgotten, whatever their future; for their struggle for survival has been a just struggle and they have already paid a high price for the freedom to live in their ancient historic homeland. Britain's role in shaping the outcome to this conflict will also be recorded by history. I hope therefore that the British contribution to the outcome of this war will not be one dictated primarily by commercial and strategic self-interest but one in which respect for fundamental human rights is also demonstrated so that our record may become one of which we, our children and our grandchildren can become proud. I hope my noble friend will be able to reassure us on these issues.

5.57 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I cannot hope to contribute to this debate with anything like the depth and recent knowledge which we have just heard from the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lady Cox, and so I shall be brief. I am also encouraged towards brevity by the knowledge that I have not been to Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia or Azerbaijan since July 1991, whereas both previous speakers have just visited the area. However, I believe my time spent in that troubled region, and my contacts with it since, do entitle me to support the speeches of the noble Earl and my noble friend. Indeed, one could say that the spring of 1991 saw the start of the present phase of what is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Soviet Union was still intact, and Mr. Gorbachev was actually in London for the G7 talks, from which he hoped for much. Probably because of this our multinational observation team, consisting of 14 people, was given unprecedented access in Nagorno-Karabakh by military helicopters, and we were flown in Soviet aircraft from Baku to Yerevan to Stepanakert and back. I had learnt of the joint Soviet-Azerbaijan policy of clearing the Armenian villages of Karabakh when I was in Moscow in May of 1991. It had apparently started around Easter that year. I can assure your Lordships that all members of our team went to the area with an open mind. Of course we all knew how much Armenia had suffered over many years, but we were still determined to report only what we saw.

When we left we were unanimous that a very grave outrage was being perpetrated against the Armenians of Karabakh. The aggressors were largely Azerbaijani OMON troops, supported massively by the Soviet 4th Army. Soviet Spetznaz troops were also very visible.

So I believe I am qualified to say that at this early stage of the present conflict Azerbaijan was undoubtedly the aggressor. I believe that it is also beyond doubt that Azerbaijan had already blockaded Nagorno-Karabakh for a year, and has continued to do so, or at least has tried very hard to do so, for the past three years. Furthermore, it seems to be a matter of fact that it was Azerbaijan which subsequently used weapons of indiscriminate destruction against civilian targets.

Since my visit, it is clear that the Armenians have put up a tremendous fight. Hugely outnumbered and outarmed, they have survived Azerbaijan's attempt to drive them all from Karabakh. Of course, the Armenians believe that they have right on their side. I have to say that it so happens that all impartial observers who have been to the region agree with them. Conviction and the truth are wonderful allies, and I have no doubt that they have served Armenia well.

Indeed, so successful has she been that some Western observers are now beginning to suggest that it is Armenia which is the aggressor. I cannot help feeling, as the noble Earl and my noble friend have indicated, that these suggestions must be more influenced by our interest in Azerbaijan's oil than by any honest assessment of what is actually happening on the ground. Be that as it may, and I think it probably is, I have no reason to disbelieve the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lady Cox when they say that the Armenians have only taken the territory which they need to avoid Azerbaijan's blockade and to defend their own population. If my noble friend the Minister has another view on this point, I am sure that we should all like to hear from her. However, I have to point out that in our several debates on this tragic conflict not a single Member of your Lordships' House has come forward to defend Azerbaijan or to criticise Armenia. I am sure that there is a message in that.

Turning to Turkey's part in all this, I personally have no first-hand experience as to how Turkey may have been behaving, but again I have no reason to doubt the word of my noble friend Lady Cox and of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. I regard myself as a friend of Turkey; I have good Turkish friends, and I appreciate Turkey's strategic significance to all of us. It therefore hurts me to have to add my voice to those who ask that Turkey should also be encouraged to change her attitude to the problem we are discussing. I cannot believe she would lose much by doing so, and perhaps she would have much to gain.

I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to agree that this is a good moment to press both Turkey and Azerbaijan to change their stance towards Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. I say this precisely because the Armenians of Karabakh are now in a position of comparative strength. I am assured by my Armenian friends that they are ready to talk peace, as indeed they have always been, and I would have hoped that Azerbaijan might now be in a frame of mind to do so as well, provided enough international pressure can be brought to bear and provided our international conscience is not put to flight by our interest in Azerbaijan's oil. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to agree.

6.3 p.m.

Lord Archer of Sandwell

My Lords, the whole House will wish to echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. for the information which they have given us arid for affording us the opportunity to review again this tragic situation. Even those of us who do not seek to emulate quite their commitment to one point of view—because if we are to help we must retain the confidence of both sides—must commend their care in ascertaining the facts and their dedication to the relief of suffering.

Since we last debated this situation on 15th December last year, there have been two major changes on the scene. The first is that the people of Karabakh were then facing a military situation in which they were confronted by what seemed to be impossible odds; a population of 160,000 faced a nation of 7 million. The Azeris, as the noble Baroness told us on that occasion, were, armed to the teeth with weapons taken from three major Soviet Fourth Army arsenals".—[Official Report, 15/12/92; col. 518.] Admittedly, the people of Karabakh were being supported by Armenia, but the Armenians themselves were likely to need all their military resources for the defence of their own country. That was in December last year. Since then the forces of Karabakh have established a clear military dominance. The Azeri armed forces have virtually disintegrated. It is now they who are in need of a ceasefire.

The second major change is that back in December Azerbaijan was not a member of the CIS. Indeed, it had a government which wanted as little to do with Russia as possible. It seems to have been widely believed among the Azeri people that the forces against them were being reinforced from Russia, although I am bound to say that I have very little hard evidence of that. Now they have a president who wants a rapprochement with Russia and Azerbaijan is a member of the CIS. With both contestants as members of the CIS, there is a reasonable prospect that that organisation may be in a position, if it wishes, to play a helpful role in the peace process.

So the picture is very different from what it was at the time of our last debate. But we have to face the fact that since then there have been further tragedies, further wrongs and reprisals on both sides, to add to the long history of trespass and counter-trespass; of ruined lives and bitter memories which divide the two peoples.

Last year it could be said by the people of Karabakh that they were fighting to defend their own homeland. Now, as we have been reminded by all the previous speakers in this debate, they are occupying territory which extends well beyond their borders. I understand their reasons—of course I do. While there is a war going on it is not surprising that they occupied the positions from which they were being bombarded. In a war legal boundaries have little validity because the laws are silent. It is not surprising either that they are reluctant, while hostilities continue, to relinquish the Lachin corridor which is their lifeline to Armenia. The tragedy so often in these situations is that each side behaves as I suspect I would have behaved in their position.

But there are now Azeri communities outside the boundaries of Karabakh who have been displaced from their homes, who have been the victims admittedly of brutality and who will not easily forget. One of the many reasons why we have to be grateful to the delegation for their report is that they make it clear that among the Armenians of Karabakh there is a recognition that their forces were guilty of actions of which, on reflection, they are not proud. They offer two explanations. First, they say, their people were giving vent to anger at what the other side had done. Secondly, they say, that what they did was not of the same order as the atrocities committed by the other side. Those are arguments rehearsed tragically in very many parts of the world.

I do not seek to pass judgment. I have never suffered as they have suffered. It was good to read in the report the words of one of the leaders: We regret this and we will soon restore ourselves to our moral standards and the values of our civilisation". But what is clear is that the longer the military action continues the greater the weight of bitterness between the two peoples with which those who seek a reconciliation will need to contend. It is idle to hope in a military struggle that the two sides will always be mindful of international humanitarian rules. War is not a game where players are constantly being reminded of the rules. Here, with each day of the war, the task of making peace becomes so much the more difficult.

So, what, if anything, can the international community do to help? The most obvious need is for the relief of individual suffering on both sides. I found one of the most moving passages in the report the interview with three displaced women from Arakul, who said: We want to return to our village, to put up a tent or a small house; but there isn't one rock left. We have no shoes, no dresses—nothing with which to build up our lives again". There is nothing there about political theory—not even a clarion call about nationalism. They are simply human beings who want to get on with daily living without having their world constantly torn apart. Perhaps most moving was the explanation that they gave for the destruction of their homes and the absence of building materials. In that case it was not due to any calculated atrocities by the other side. They said: Ours was the closest village to Jabrail and the Azeris took the stones of our village homes to build their own homes in Jabrail". There is an urgent need for relief and that entails lifting the blockade of Armenia by Turkey, and particularly the embargo on energy supplies. As the noble Earl pointed out, it appears that the Turkish action is an infringement of the Helsinki declaration to which they themselves were signatories. Again, the tragedy is that if the government of Turkey continue in that, they will be creating the instruments of their own future misfortunes, because it is partly in consequence of the blockade in relation to energy that the Armenians feel compelled to open the nuclear plant which is understandably giving rise to so much anxiety among Armenia's neighbours. But it is equally incumbent upon Armenia to allow supplies to Azeri refugees who, together with their homes, have lost their livelihoods.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, paid tribute to the vaccination programme, which I echo, and to the part played in it by Her Majesty's Government.

There are two matters on which I should welcome information from the Minister when she replies to the debate. In our last debate we were told that £250,000 had been contributed by the Government to the International Committee of the Red Cross for work in the area. Unhappily, it now appears from a report by Mr. Hugh Pope in the Independent of 29th September that the International Committee of the Red Cross feels obliged to make plans for years of work in the area. My first question is, can the noble Baroness tell us of any further provision that is being made in that direction? My second question in this part of the debate relates to the fact that we were also told that the Government were making available £200,000 to the High Commissioner for Refugees in connection with a six-month programme. Presumably that programme is now complete, but the need is ongoing. I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us further about that.

What can the international community do to further the peace process? It is clear now that any peace process must fall into two stages: first, an effective ceasefire and then—and only then—discussions about the constitutional and international future of Karabakh. Both sides alike have everything to gain from a ceasefire. President Aliev has been negotiating for one, and the leaders of Karabakh have told the delegation that they want a ceasefire. There was a moment when I thought that this would have a tragic outcome when we read that the date agreed with the Minsk group had not been adhered to anti that the ceasefire had broken down. But perhaps we can take comfort from the information given to us today by the noble Earl that that was an aberration and the matter is now under control. It may be that the leaders on either side do riot have the control over their own troops which is to be hoped for in this situation.

If there were an unconditional ceasefire, then it would be possible to proceed with the next stage and negotiate about the future. And whatever help outsiders may then offer as conciliators, I believe that their most important contribution now is to refrain from suggesting what the outcome of the constitutional discussions ought to be. There really is no point in calling for negotiations and at the same time prescribing the conclusions which the negotiators ought to reach.

I do not want to introduce a controversial note into this debate, but I have to say that I regret that Her Majesty's Government have already announced their view that Karabakh should not emerge as an independent state. l was troubled in our last debate on this when the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, indicated that she did not regard that as one of the options. I do not suggest that that was the only option. I pass no judgment on the viability of Karabakh as an independent state, and I am as conscious as the Government that the world is becoming too fragmented and that what we need globally is not greater fragmentation, but greater unity. I concede all that. I suggest only that those are all considerations which will need to be addressed at the second stage of the process, and which will need to be addressed principally by those whose interests are most immediately involved. However, those on both sides who are seeking a ceasefire will not find their task facilitated by that kind of announcement from outside. I believe that we can best help not by announcing the conclusions that they ought to reach, but by inviting them to stop fighting and to start talking.

I do not believe that the negotiations will be easy. Each side will need to make concessions because that is what negotiations are about. Each side, no doubt, will see itself as being called upon to make the greater concession because that is always what happens on such occasions. I do not expect the discussions to result in a final solution of all their differences. I do not expect them to produce an agreed theology although many of us are discovering daily what a wide area of consensus there is between, for example, the three great monotheistic faiths and the cultures which go with them.

These negotiations will not be about that. They will be about how peoples can live together in peace and, we hope, in co-operation in spite of their differences arid in spite of their different histories, cultures and faiths, because the future of this planet depends riot on all the peoples of the world becoming alike, not even on our all', finding a basis on which to agree, but on finding ways to live on the same planet despite our differences and despite our disagreements.

Initially, I do not think that the solution will be in the area of constitutional principle or international law. If the parties decide that they want to live together in peace, a whole spectrum of constitutional arrangements is available which will enable them to do that. But if they fail, the failure will not: be of the head; it will be of the heart.

We may find that interventions from outsiders will not always be welcome. I understand the feelings expressed to the delegation by the people of Karabakh. When they were facing potential military disaster, the outside world did not want to know. It was only when they began to win that the international community recognised a problem. It will require an effort to assure both sides that the world has understood their difficulties and their aspirations. But I do not believe that either side wants to see its people involved in a conflict of indefinite duration—a source of perpetual tragedy passed on from generation to generation when normality and crisis become synonyms.

Perhaps the greatest hope lies with the CIS although we can understand that the Russian authorities have other things on their minds at the moment. We have heard very little in recent months about the efforts made by the CSCE or any programme from the Minsk group. I am sure that the House will be grateful for any information that the Minister can give us about those efforts.

This is yet another instance where the international community cannot yet act as a global police force to impose law and order, although I believe that the time may be closer than we sometimes believe when our progeny will regard that as the most natural order of things just as we perceive the activities of a national legal system. If they do not, there may be very little hope for the planet; but until then it is frustrating that there is so little that we can do to help. Until the peacemakers inherit the earth—I am aware that I am mixing my beatitudes—we shall all have cause to be grateful to individuals who, like the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, do what lies in the power of individuals: to inject compassion and sanity.

6.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, first, perhaps I may thank the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and my noble friend Lady Cox for again bringing this complex and important issue to our attention. Their knowledge of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and the situation in the region, and their concern for the suffering of the people, are well known. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, are right when they talk about needing to find a way forward and not, however sympathetic we may be to the people, to come down on one side or the other.

Behind the remarks of the noble Earl lies the terrible human tragedy of the fighting, and the need to redouble our efforts to find a peaceful solution to this tragic conflict is both urgent and, many will say, long overdue.

The full cost of the conflict was brought home vividly to my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg during his recent visit to the Transcaucasus earlier this month. He has geographical responsibility for the region and for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. During his visit, he had talks with many of the key figures, including the presidents and foreign ministers of both countries and representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh. In his talks the dominant topic was obviously Nagorno-Karabakh. He was briefed on the measures being implemented to help the people face the winter. One of the things that came out of his discussions was the fact that those in Yerevan in Armenia thought that there was now a real opportunity to reach a settlement. I shall return to the question of the CSCE process a little later. They felt that by bringing together the CSCE, and the Russian efforts which seemed to be emerging, there might be the possibility of real, long-term security guarantees for Nagorno-Karabakh. I am aware that the Armenians' view is that it would mean the deployment of peacekeepers, probably mainly Russian, but with a clear international mandate and control.

The war weariness which is discernible among all peoples in that region may now be creating that necessary window for diplomacy. We in this country are concerned to do all that we can to assist the process. We are actively considering joining the CSCE Minsk group ourselves. That group has been working to set up negotiations leading to a peaceful settlement, but none of us is in any doubt that it will not be easy. The continuing occupation—because that is what the Azeris believe it to be—of the Azeri territory between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia is obviously a complicating factor. So was last week's fighting on the ground, which everyone has strongly condemned. I believe too that a hardening in Nagorno-Karabkh's insistence on independence is another problem with which we have to deal. But the negotiations must continue, and Britain will play its full part in the search for solutions acceptable to all.

In the Question that we are debating, the noble Earl and my noble friend Lady Cox highlighted the economic blockades on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. We deplore the blockade imposed upon Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as the Armenian blockade on Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan. None of that blockading will lead to a solution. It only makes it harder to reach a solution, whoever does the blockading. As your Lordships will be aware, the United Kingdom has urged all states in the region to allow at least. the transit of humanitarian aid through their territory.

But the plain fact that we have to face is that all the offensives in the region, whether by Nagorno-Karabakh or the repeated attacks by Azeris, have called into question the overall readiness to work for a negotiated peace rather than for one side or the other to continue the war. It is not easy to believe that some Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians have been able to prosecute the war without outside assistance. That makes it even more difficult to argue that the blockade against Nagorno-Karabakh should be lifted, as indeed it should, when those Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians resist the efforts of the CSCE Minsk process to broker a peace settlement. Everyone has to join in the Minsk process otherwise a settlement will not be achieved and many thousands more innocent people will die and will suffer.

The whole of the problem makes it difficult to argue that the blockade of Armenia can be lifted in face of the ongoing suspicions in the region. We do not know who is lending support to whom, although we have some good ideas, thanks to the work of my noble friend Lady Cox.

I was struck by one of the quotations in the report of the group which visited the area. It is the only quote I shall give, but I believe that it is illustrative of what I have just been saying. The Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh admit that they have undertaken some wanton damage and destruction especially in Agdam. As one of the leaders said: We could not restrain our people from giving vent to so much anger, accumulated over years of destruction of our towns and villages. For the moment we have been as bad as the Azeris, but we regret this, and we will soon restore ourselves to our moral standards and the values of our civilisation and stop such behaviour". He continues: The destruction is nothing like as bad as the sustained and wilful destruction inflicted by the Azeris". That is a fair point, because each side that destroys the property and lives of the other is perpetuating what is a totally unwinnable situation. I know that my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Earl care greatly about bringing this problem to a peaceful conclusion.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox about what she said about aid in the region. Since December last year we have announced another £1.5 million in aid. The European Community has approved humanitarian aid for Armenia totalling nearly £11 million this year, as well as aid for some Azeri refugees following the recent offensives. Further assistance may follow. I am looking at the whole situation, as my noble friend asked, but at the Dispatch Box today I cannot give her any answers, and will be unable to do so for some weeks to come. But the aid will help in the short term only to alleviate the consequences of the blockade and the fighting. That aid will not put those people back on their feet. The long-term solution will come about only as part of the overall peace settlement in which confidence-building measures will play an important part. That is not just the view of the British Government; it is the view also of the Minsk group and it is why its peace plan contemplates a lifting of the Azeri blockade in step with the withdrawal of Nagorno-Karabakh troops from the occupied territories. I fully understand that that linkage causes the Azeris at least as many difficulties as it does the Armenians. However, in the real world it is hard to imagine either party agreeing to lose what they see as their main negotiating advantage without some balancing concession. The United Nations Security Council accepted that view in its Resolution 874 on 14th October calling for the, immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's 'adjusted timetable', including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation". The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, was concerned that the United Nations resolutions had not been critical of Azerbaijan. I remind the noble Earl that in the Security Council, three resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh in April, July and October have called for an immediate end to the blockade, and immediate withdrawal of the Nagorno-Karabakh forces from Azerbaijani territory. But, above all else, the resolutions have called on all states to refrain from hostile actions and to co-operate to settle the dispute peacefully.

I am not in the business of apportioning blame or of seeking to make excuses for things which have gone wrong in the past. My concern—I believe that it is the concern of all those involved in the CSCE process—is to resolve this terrible situation. That includes the United Nations Secretary-General. He has sent several fact-finding missions to the region. He believes that we shall not do better than the CSCE Minsk Group as the right forum for negotiation. Therefore it is not a case of the UN not becoming involved but of the best people to try to resolve the situation.

I understand that among the members of the CSCE group—it includes Turkey, Russia, Sweden, Italy, France and Czech republic—there is a real belief that they could now make progress forward. They too believe that nothing would be gained by switching negotiations to the United Nations.

Similarly, the British Government believe that any future monitoring peace-keeping force should be employed under the CSCE aegis rather than through the United Nations. I am told that the CSCE thinking on that has reached an advanced stage. When we have further information, I undertake to write with it to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. However, the real point is that such a course seems to be the one way forward. It is not only for that reason but because we wish to play a more active part that we are considering joining the Minsk Group.

In our debate last December, my noble friend Lady Cox accused my noble friend Lady Trumpington of a silence on ethnic cleansing. At col. 545 of the Official Report of 15th December 1992 my noble friend stated: I must make clear that ethnic cleansing of any sort anywhere is completely deplorable, but the picture in Nagorno-Karabakh is not clear-cut. She spoke of the numbers. Let me make it clear beyond all peradventure. Ethnic cleansing is wrong and there is no way in which we, for any reason, are prepared to see ethnic cleansing and we will do all in our power to stop it. But the best way of stopping it is by getting the parties to the dispute to decide that they themselves want to bring ethnic cleansing to an end.

In his interesting speech, the noble Earl made a number of fairly bitter criticisms about the United Kingdom's position on Nagorno-Karabakh. Like the rest of the international community, we recognise the independence of the countries of the former Soviet Union on the basis of the existing republican borders. Whether we like it or not, under international law the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh is still Azeri territory. That insistence on the inviolability of frontiers was recognised in successive UN resolutions. The UK position is in line with that of other Western countries. The principle of the inviolability of existing borders is recognised by the international community. It is also a basic principle of the CSCE. If we were to throw that away, there would be absolute chaos in the current situation even if, in the future, countries may decide, as did Eritrea by its own referendum, to become separate. But at the present time there is no means of achieving that situation.

We will not prejudge the results of those Minsk negotiations on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh. On the contrary, we shall align our policy with our partners in the Minsk process because we wish to see peace. I am glad to say that during the two-day visit to Armenia by my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg. none of the Armenian leaders nor the Nagorno-Karabakh representatives has questioned the British position. They have understood it for what it is.

The noble Earl also made considerable criticism of the Western media and indeed of the British Government for being interested in the oil in Azerbaijan. I believe that Britain is right to be pleased that a British company is a member of the consortium which will help Azerbaijan to develop its oil fields. We also want to see opportunities to work with the Armenians in Armenia. However, the only key to transition from communism will be economic progress. That means that all countries trying to break away from the past must find sensible trading ways of unlocking their economic potential. Therefore there is nothing wrong in Britain being supportive of British companies wherever they go. I can assure my noble friend Lady Cox that the British Government are not taking an asymmetrical response, as my noble friend put it. We are looking for opportunities wherever they can be used for the benefit of the countries concerned. If British companies have the know-how to give that help, then British companies are well advised and supported in so doing.

Many other points have been made in the debate. It is a great temptation to deal with each and every one of them. However, I wish now to turn to the question of power and the fact that one of the greatest difficulties in the region is that, through the blockade imposed by Turkey on Armenia, the Armenians have been without electricity. We have called on Turkey and the other states to allow humanitarian aid. Power is needed for humanitarian reasons too; it is not outside it. However, as noble Lords will well know, relations between Armenia and Turkey are fraught with historical animosity. The position has recently been hardened by the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian incursions into Azerbaijan. Therefore it is not an easy situation to solve. We must look at how we can help to bring all those problems to an end and, at the same time, allow the Armenians to have power.

One of your Lordships referred to the Medzamor nuclear power station in Armenia. It is probably well known that that lies on a geological fault line. That was the reason that it was switched off after the 1988 earthquake. But the European Community has funded a safety study of that power station and we hope that, before they come to a decision, the Armenian Government will take account of the outcome of the work which the European Community has done there and that of other studies. We realise the sensitivity of the issue and we are trying to help.

My noble friend Lady Cox spoke of attacks on the oil pipeline supply to Armenia. I know that that pipeline was blown up on several occasions in Azeri populated areas of Georgia. I must say to my noble friend that, even when that pipeline is repaired, the current chaos in Georgia will make it extremely difficult for regular supplies to get across. But through the European Community we have agreed to supply fuel aid to Armenia, subject to the guarantee that it will be used for civilian humanitarian purposes. Supplies should begin very shortly. Therefore, I hope that that may in some way go towards helping in what is a very difficult situation.

I implied at the beginning of my reply to the debate that it is not our role to apportion blame. We must use our influence on the situation as it is. We must not take one side or the other or take the side that we think it should be. It is important to look forward and build on what the CSCE has tried to do.

We want to be positive. Certainly any changes to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh can happen only with the agreement of all. We well know that Azerbaijan will not simply cede independence. That is why it is very sad that this evening, after 10 months, we can say that there have been few positive developments. There have been far too many setbacks. But I have some hope. The informal ceasefire which came into force in August has been a plus, despite the recent serious violations. We call on all sides to withdraw their forces and to co-operate with the Minsk negotiating process. We need to step up our efforts for a lasting peace.

I hope that the conference will at last be held in Minsk. The preparations have been taking place for a very long time. The one thing that I say to your Lordships is that, as in so many other vexed situations like this, no outsider can impose a solution, whether through the CSCE or any other forum. What we can and will do, and are already doing, is to work tirelessly to bring together the parties and to encourage them to make those concessions needed for a durable settlement. Lifting the blockades on Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh will be an important part of that process. But to achieve that, historic compromises will have to be made both by Armenia and by Azerbaijan if they really want peace.

We are ready, willing and anxious to do all that we can. I only hope that the peoples of the area will be ready to have discussions before another winter takes the toll of many thousands of victims of the conflict, because we shall be in an even more difficult situation in the spring of 1994. I have hope. We shall work at it. I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the debate this evening.

Lord Elton

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, given that the Minsk process can succeed only if it produces a viable solution on the ground and given the isolation and the need for some quasi independence in Nagorno-Karabakh and the need to appease those around it, will my noble friend consider, perhaps in consultation with other countries, the direction of development aid to the region to secure the economic viability of the areas concerned? That could be made known to the conference before it concludes so that it could be seen as an option.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I hoped that I had said in answer to my noble friend Lady Cox that I am quite prepared to look at what more we can do. But I must say to your Lordships that, until the fighting stops, we cannot even go in to make an assessment of what will be the most applicable development aid. Therefore, willing as I am to help people to help themselves—that is what development aid is all about—we cannot proceed down that path until the Minsk process is under way. It will be known that we are willing to help although it may not be an area of which we have great experience. However, before anything effective can occur, the fighting must stop. Let us hope that the Minsk process can quickly begin and produce a thoroughly good result.