House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Apr 1990

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many hon. Members think that some irresponsible comments have already been made in this matter, which also affects other prisons? Is it not a fact that warnings are nearly always given when violent men are mewed up in prison? It is nonsense to continue to say that the governor was especially warned--he must always be warned. Is it not also a fact that there are 2,700 fewer prisoners now and that there are 3,000 more prison officers than there were three years ago? It is entirely unhelpful to give the

Column 1345

impression that prisons are overcrowded and under-staffed, because that affects the morale of prison officers and people outside, and that irresponsibility should stop.

Mr. Waddington : Over the past 10 years there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of prison officers and only an 11 per cent. increase in the number of prisoners. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point that, sometimes in the past few days, people have overlooked the very big increase in the staffing of prisons that has taken place in recent years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about warnings, but, now that the inquiry has been set up, the best thing is for people who have any information that they think is relevant to give that information to the inquiry. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day. I shall allow questions to continue for another five minutes, and then we must make progress.

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : Bearing in mind the difficulties of this sad incident, the fact that many prisoners have been transferred to other gaols where subsequent incidents have occurred and that other incidents have been happening at other gaols anyway, will the Home Secretary comment, albeit briefly, on the practice of containment? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, bearing in mind the violence and everything else that has occurred, containment is in the best interests of people who may be left in prison for a considerable time?

Mr. Waddington : That is a matter for decision by governors. It would be rash for politicians to tell governors how best to make such difficult decisions.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask Lord Justice Woolf to look not only at the problem of rule 43 prisoners but at the problem of HIV-positive prisoners and prisoners with AIDS who have their own problems in prison and are not at all the same as those who are under rule 43 conditions, even though they are often segregated?

Mr. Waddington : My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly it is not for me to tell Lord Justice Woolf what to look into. No doubt he will consider all those matters and will look at his terms of reference and then decide how he should approach the task that he has been set.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Are not the public entitled to know why only five prison officers accompanied 300 prisoners to the chapel last Sunday, a matter of 12 hours after a prison officer at Strangeways logged the fact that he believed that there would be violence the following day? Does that not show that inadequate manning inevitably leads to trouble?

Mr. Waddington : The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. I stated the other day that there were 10 prison officers inside the chapel, and there were also more prison officers outside. In any event, those matters are for Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry. I do not think that it helps when hon. Members propagate various rumours. All those matters can be established in due course by the inquiry.

Column 1346

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : Although I enormously admire the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has handled this extremely difficult tragedy, I was slightly disappointed with his reply to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) about remand prisoners and privatisation. It is essential that remand prisoners, many of whom may be guilty of no crime whatever, are segregated from those who have been convicted. One way forward may be to have privatised prisons in which remand prisoners can be held separately.

Mr. Waddington : There never has been any question of the privatisation of prisons. The matter that was raised by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary was whether the private sector could play any part in remand centres. That matter is under consideration.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the proposed Home Office reorganisation, which was deprecated by a number of prison governors, including the one at Strangeways, and its effect will be taken into account by the inquiry? Will he assure hon. Members that that reorganisation was not a prelude to privatisation of sections of the prison service, as many people thought? Will he, as a matter of urgency, review the proposed reorganisation to make sure that it is halted before any further adverse effects occur?

Mr. Waddington : It is not for me to express a view on that matter now because it goes wide of the statement, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is up to Lord Justice Woolf to look at his terms of reference and decide what matters are relevant and what matters are not relevant.

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the courage of all those who have worked so hard to bring the matter to a conclusion. It should not be forgotten that they did not allow one prisoner to escape into the general public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Home Office has plans to redevelop Manchester prison? Is it not important that any decision in the area should take account of the lessons to be learned from the distressing events of the past week?

Mr. Waddington : I said in my statement on Tuesday that, only days before the incident broke out, arrangements had been made for the purchase by the prison service of land adjoining the prison. My hon. Friend is right to congratulate all those involved. He has drawn attention to something that I should perhaps have mentioned earlier : not one prisoner escaped.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Whatever repugnance we may rightly feel for those convicted and gaoled for crimes involving sexual violence and abuse, they nevertheless deserve to be placed in circumstances governed by the highest degree of segregation. In the understandable haste surrounding the transfer of prisoners from Strangeways, was the need for protection of rule 43 prisoners maintained?

Mr. Waddington : Rule 43 prisoners were segregated. The trouble was that access was obtained to the part of the prison in which they were held. How any rule 43 prisoner is dealt with at the receiving establishment is a matter for the governor.

Column 1347

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) : I too thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his wise handling of this tragic matter and for the Government's largest building programme this century for prisons which may bring an end to the disgusting circumstances in which prisoners have often been held hitherto. Does he agree that too many prisons are potential tinder boxes, because they are repositories of violent men, which are contained and made secure only through the bravery of prison officers? Will he make sure that not only the governors and the prison service but prison officers always have easy access to the constant support of his Department, and that their views are listened to?

Mr. Waddington : I would be the first to pay tribute to the bravery of prison officers, as many hon. Members from both sides of the House have done, for the way in which they responded to the emergency. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks about the prison building programme. It is a great tragedy that this incident will set it back.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : I am sorry that it was not possible to call every hon. Member who wished to speak. I sought to call those who have a direct interest in the matter and those who were not called when the previous statement was made.

Column 1348

Iraq

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) must divide their time between them-- they have 29 minutes each.

11.32 am

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I accept that Britain has diplomatic relations with several dictatorships with deplorable human rights records. I am aware of the criteria by which recognition is given and which successive Governments have followed. There are instances, however, when outrages against British interests or nationals lead to the conclusion that we should break off diplomatic relations in peace time. Hence, at present, Britain does not have relations with the authorities in power in Libya, Iran and Syria. I think that I am right in saying that that has the approval of the whole House.

The Government have told us that, despite recent events in Iraq affecting Britain, they intend to continue diplomatic relations with that country. No doubt the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will reply to the debate, will reaffirm that position today. Leaving aside the matter of diplomatic relations, the House should take an interest in events in Iraq. That country was the subject of statements and private notice questions recently over the long detention and then execution of Farzad Bazoft. The case turned the spotlight on the nature of the dictatorship in Iraq. Mr. Bazoft was there by invitation of the authorities and was with a group of other journalists. We should remind ourselves that he had previously visited that country, again by invitation, on five occasions. Mr. Bazoft was stateless, but he travelled on British travel documents. The regime seemed to take a sheer delight in Mr. Bazoft's execution. In Britain, the reaction was one of widespread dismay and anger. As the Minister will probably remind us, two other British citizens--Daphne Parish and Ian Richter--are still being held in Iraq. We all want to see their return to Britain as quickly as possible. No doubt those two cases will be the subject of continuing questions to Foreign Office Ministers.

What about the dictatorship itself? What sort of a country is Iraq? How has it been led in the past 10 or 15 years? Such questions are important and relevant to the United Kingdom and should be taken into account by the Government in their relations with the regime. Many British people believe that the Government's mild reaction to the execution of Mr. Bazoft was not appropriate. The contempt that the regime showed for British protests and representations demonstrated again that when one is dealing with totalitarian regimes, mild protests or appeasement of any kind simply do not work.

As I said yesterday during Foreign Office questions, terrorist dictatorships work on the basis that democracies are unlikely to act tough and will find all kinds of excuses for not doing so. The reaction of totalitarian regimes is simply to show contempt for what they see as weakness. That was the lesson of the 1930s and the continued criticism of the Opposition towards the dealings of the British regime with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

Column 1349

I have referred to Iraq as a terrorist regime. I certainly believe that that is an accurate description. It is one of the most notorious and bloodstained dictatorships in existence. That is saying a great deal when one thinks of the other dictatorships in various parts of the globe. In Iraq there is constant spying on and intimidation of its citizens, mass arrests, prolonged and savage tortures, show trials and large-scale executions, including public hangings. Those are all part of the way in which Saddam Hussein has ruled Iraq in recent years.

One of the worst crimes of the regime, and there have been many, was the use of chemical weapons in March 1987 against Kurds in a town in northern Iraq. Thousands died from the effects of the poison gas used. The regime denied that chemical weapons were used, but does anyone in the House or outside believe a word of what it says? The recent comments of the regime about a possible attack using chemical weapons against Israel give us even more reason to disbelieve it. By any standards, the attack using chemical weapons was a crime against humanity.

All the abuses in Iraq have been well documented in reports by Amnesty International. In 1989 that organisation referred to other crimes carried out by the terrorist regime. It dealt with the hundreds of executions of those considered to be opponents of the Government and army deserters. It said that routine torture and ill-treatment of prisoners continues to occur and that many are tortured to force them to sign confessions or to renounce their political affiliations. It said that political prisoners are reported to have been beaten, whipped, sexually abused, subjected to electric shocks and deprived of food. It also mentioned the cruel and sadistic tortures that have been inflicted on women prisoners. That is all part of the regime ruled over by Saddam Hussein in that unhappy country, as it has been for so many years.

Another report from Amnesty International devoted entirely to the detention of children documents the brutal treatment of young people, many of them very young, held in Iraqi prisons. Some of those children are executed once they have reached 16 or 17. Children in Iraq are frequently arrested and held as hostages in lieu of their parents or other relatives.

Some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members--I emphasise that they are not present now--may say that what goes on in other countries is not our concern, that we should not worry unduly about that and that we should mind our own business. Twenty-two years ago, I had an Easter Adjournment debate on the military regime in Greece. A year had passed since the colonels had taken over and I protested strongly about the dictatorship and the brutalities occurring there. I quoted then from Amnesty International reports. On that occasion I was sitting on the Government Benches and I did not receive much support, if any, from Conservative Members.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : I place on record my concern, and that of many Conservative Members, that Iraq may, in the near future, have nuclear weapons which could have a destabilising effect on the middle east.

Mr. Winnick : I shall come to that point in a moment.

The House of Commons should always be concerned with brutality and torture in other countries. If we as a House refuse to show such interest, we shall lose one of our

Column 1350

important roles and one of our most honourable traditions. That is my view and I am not likely to change my mind.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq, and the events of last week at Heathrow airport were a timely reminder of the determination of Iraq's criminal regime to manufacture nuclear weapons. I know that the argument of British domestic policy is that we should have nuclear weapons because other countries have them. I shall not go into that controversy today. No doubt Saddam Hussein would use the same type of argument. But that undoubtedly shows the immense dangers to humanity of nuclear weapons of any sort being in the hands of a criminal regime with a bloodstained record such as I have been describing. I hope that the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq will be the subject of much interest not only in Britain and the western world, but among Arab countries, too.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Would not that also be relevant to our attitude towards the protection of the state of Israel, because what happens in Iraq must be of direct concern to the democratically elected members of a state which is at risk?

Mr. Winnick : Yes. I am critical of the policies pursued by Israel, certainly in the occupied territories--the Minister knows my view--but I agree with my hon. Friend.

I strongly urge that the banning of all export high-level technology to Iraq should be given the highest priority and that every effort should be made urgently to seek co-operation on that, certainly from the countries of western Europe, but also, as I pointed out yesterday, from the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe. One of the most significant things about the renewal or the beginning of the democratic process in eastern Europe and, I hope, in the Soviet Union, is that those countries will no longer wish in any way, directly or indirectly, to support terrorists or criminal regimes.

The sanctions that I have just been urging should be applied against Iraq as soon as possible. Trade credits to the regime should also be ended. I know all the arguments about the benefits to Britain of such trade, but the more that we can isolate such a regime the better it will be, not only for our well-being in Britain, but for humanity as a whole.

We also need the support of Arab states in spotlighting the dangers to their countries. That is not directly a matter for the British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned Israel, and that is clearly a matter which will deeply concern the Israeli Government. But Arab countries in the region--Muslim countries--will recognise the dangers of Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons and, in particular, the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein. I hope that such dangers will be recognised by countries such as Egypt.

When we raise such matters, it is sometimes argued that we are being critical of Muslim countries. It should not be forgotten that the large majority of victims of the regime that I have been describing have been Muslims. In the main, the Kurds are Muslim. One should also remember that Iraq started the Gulf war. Perhaps at that time it was in western interests to see Iran defeated, but it should not be forgotten who started the war. The millions of casualties which resulted from those two ruthless

Column 1351

dictatorships fighting for years were all Muslims. That was a needless and senseless war and I am only too pleased that it has finally come to an end. The leaders of Iraq may welcome a new war to divert attention from domestic problems. I have already referred to the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein.

I have chosen this subject because, following recent events, including what happened at Heathrow, it is necessary to spotlight what has been happening. I hope that this subject will continue to interest the House when we return after the recess. I hope that every opportunity will be taken by the Government to pursue the line that I have urged--not appeasement and not a show of weakness, but a recognition of all the dangers involved in the criminal regime in Iraq, to try to isolate it in every way possible and to seek the utmost international co-operation in pursuing that course. 11.46 am

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for giving the House another opportunity to express, as I am sure it will wish to, its horror at the execution of Farzad Bazoft, and I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about that case. I shall make one or two comments on the wider issues of our relations with countries whose regime we abhor and whose human rights records we know to be dreadful. Both those things, I am sad to say, are true of Iraq at the present time. We have made that clear in recent years.

I am responsible, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for relations with the middle east, Africa, eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. With the wonderful exception of events in eastern Europe, there are- -with one or two honourable exceptions--few countries among those for which I am responsible whose human rights record or commitment to democracy would meet the approval of this House. If this country's diplomatic relations, let alone trading relations, were to be dictated as our hearts would like to dictate them, and if we were to maintain relations only with countries of which we approved, our relationships around the world would be few. The hon. Member for Walsall, North is justified in saying that Iraq is among the nations having the worst record of human rights--although I could put others in that dismal competition.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Does the Minister accept that few other countries have taken action against someone travelling on a British passport, or at least with British travel documents, in the way that Iraq did recently?

Mr. Waldegrave : Mr. Bazoft was not travelling on a British passport, but, like many displaced people, used travel documents issued by the country in which he was staying.

The list of executions that have taken place in the countries for which I am responsible is very long, and there are many competitors--alongside the catalogue of those who have been tortured and wrongly imprisoned.

It is the duty of all countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention, and certainly the duty of this House, to protest whenever possible. When a case comes close to us, such as that of Farzad Bazoft, who was

Column 1352

working for a British employer at the time of his arrest and travelling on British travel documents, it is right that the House should do what it can. My Government made major efforts to save Mr. Bazoft, aligning a huge international protest. Tragically, that effort failed, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Walsall, North acknowledges that Britain did all that it could to save Mr. Bazoft. Those of us working in the Foreign Office were as distressed as anyone by the terrible outcome of that affair.

Farzad Bazoft's confession, which was about the only document put before the court, is a pathetic document, because it clearly tells the truth about a number of rather low-level contacts that Mr. Bazoft had with special branch officers in this country when he was trying--as journalists do--to swap information with the police about Iranian dissidents and about demonstrations in London some years ago. Whether deliberately or in ignorance, that admission was taken by the Iraqis as evidence that Mr. Bazoft was in touch with the British secret services, and so on. The horror is complete because, from what I have read of his confession, Mr. Bazoft told the truth. By telling that truth, which was entirely innocent, he was taken as condemning himself.

As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning chemical weapons, at the chemical weaponry conference in Paris last year, Britain was the only country, not only in Europe but the world, to name Iraq as having breached its 1925 obligation. We were in the forefront of protests about that breach and welcomed the commitment given by Iraq at the conference that it would not recur--a commitment that we hope will be honoured.

As the hon. Member for Walsall, North rightly said, we were deeply involved in the desperate attempt to stop the export of nuclear weaponry technology not only to Iraq but to other countries, as was our duty under the non- proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime. I join the hon. Gentleman in emphasising that one of the most hopeful developments is the new, genuine adherence to those measures by the Soviet Union, which is making it known that, although it is not willing at present to join the missile technology control regime, it will act as though it has done so and in parallel with its requirements. That is a most helpful and hopeful development.

Another hopeful development in the whole area of terrorism is that a number of former safe havens in eastern Europe have gone for ever. The countries that formerly served as safe havens are now taking steps to join those of us who act against terrorists, which is most beneficial.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Is it true, as reported in The Independent on Sunday , that the same capacitors as were allegedly brought into the United Kingdom are available in university laboratories in London? Are efforts being made in the United States to monitor the production of the capacitors to ensure that they do not enter the export chain?

Mr. Waldegrave : The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The success of our extremely succesful joint investigation with the Americans over several months answers the hon. Gentleman's second question.

I have little argument with the hon. Member for Walsall, North about our horror at many practices of the Iraqi regime and of many others. He asked us to consider taking further steps against them. However, I genuinely

Column 1353

believe that it would be wrong for us to break diplomatic relations with all those countries whose human rights records fall short of what we desire.

Mr. Winnick : I agree.

Mr. Waldegrave : The hon. Gentleman concurs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that we broke off relations with a number of countries that took steps against our citizens either from their diplomatic premises in Britain--as in the Libyan or Syrian cases--or in their own country, as in Iran. We maintain diplomatic relations with a range of other countries whose practices, I am sorry to say, we deplore.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, where there are 2,000 British business men and British prisoners--the hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the cases of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Richter, on whose behalf we continue to work hard--we would leave British citizens without such help as our diplomats can provide. We would be left with a swathe of countries, from the Khyber pass in Afghanistan, across to the Mediterranean and Syria, without any British diplomatic representation. We must avoid that if we can.

The trade argument is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North. It suggests that we are granting the countries concerned a privilege by allowing them to buy things from us. However, it is worth remembering when horrible cases arise that we ask our business men to earn this country's living by going to some of the most unappealing places in the world, and by living often in constrained and unpleasant circumstances, to help keep people employed in our country. A Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, once remarked, "Exporting is fun." I am not sure to what extent that sentiment would be echoed by business men who have to operate in some of the countries that I have mentioned, to win orders to keep their factories running at home.

It is argued that Britain should cut off trade credits. Nothing would please Treasury Ministers more, for they are always against lending money to anyone. However, if British business men are to be sent in to bat against the Germans, Japanese and Italians without even the minimal support of trade credits, one might as well not send them at all. We are not granting Iraq a privilege but are competing against all the industrial countries in earning our living as a trading nation.

There is no question of isolating Iraq. The Arab League unanimously supports Iraq on the Bazoft case. A number of our friends in the Arab world asked for clemency beforehand, but the Arab League afterwards passed a motion supporting Iraq, and a further motion supporting Iraq against the media campaign on nuclear matters which it alleges has subsequently taken place.

Therefore, I fear that it is being hopeful to have the idea that cutting off British trade credits and trying to prevent British business men from going to that market--not that we could legally do it--would isolate Iraq. That could create satisfaction among our industrial competitors and it would lose us jobs and orders in Britain. It would have no other effect.

Column 1354

Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I would have much preferred to stand at the Dispatch Box in the times of Lord Palmerston or perhaps even of Mr. Anthony Eden-- although I doubt whether the hon. Lady would have supported his exercise of power in the middle east. However, those days are not with us now and it is no good pretending that they are.

Mr. Winnick : Although I was around at the time, but not in this place, no one could have been more opposed to that criminal Suez adventure than I was.

As I tried to emphasise in my remarks, is there not a need for co-ordinated action, or is the Minister of State telling us that other democracies are so short-sighted that they do not recognise that to take advantage of any actions we take would not be in their interests?

Mr. Waldegrave : I pay tribute to the European Community, which protested strongly, and to those countries in the Arab world which asked for clemency on our behalf--as a good many did, including King Hussein.

If the hon. Member for Walsall, North thinks that it is possible to arrange a trade boycott of Iraq because of these events, he is whistling in the wind. It is completely impossible. I fear that those are the facts. We have to live with them and to recognise the limits of our power.

However, that does not mean that we should not protest--we should. It does not mean that we should not conduct relations with a country that behaves in such a way, although it will obviously be in a different style than with those countries with which we are friendly.

Mrs. Dunwoody rose --

Mr. Waldegrave : I have only one more minute.

It is not sensible to pretend to our people that we have powers that we do not have. Nor is it sensible to pretend that we have the luxury of living as a self-contained island that does not have to trade with, potentially, hundreds of regimes round the world which do not meet the human rights standards that we seek to defend in the House. That is the truth of the matter.

The tensions and dangers in the middle east ultimately derive from the unsolved problems of the region. If the Iran-Iraq war was not still suspended, those countries would not be seeking to arm themselves with terrible weapons. If the Arab-Israel dispute was following the course of a peace process--which the hon. Member for Walsall, North and I would both like--tensions would diminish. As diplomats, that is where we should put our primary effort--to trying to remove the underlying conditions that give comfort to and produce those dreadful regimes, because it is the tensions within that region that help the maintenance and growth of the dictatorial regimes about which the hon. Gentleman so rightly protests. That is where our principal effort should be directed and that is where the Government's diplomatic efforts are still directed in the Iran-Iraq and Arab-Israel conflicts. If we can help to get those on their way to a solution, we shall have done something, in the longer term, to dissolve the conditions that produce the regimes against which we have to protest all too often.

Column 1355

Baltic States

12.3 pm

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East) : I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the current situation in the Baltic states at such a timely moment.

I am sure that the House, if not the entire free world, including or course central and most of eastern Europe, have been watching developments from Lithuania with bated breath ; with sympathy for the demands that its Parliament has made for independence, so recently and so clearly endorsed by the elections in February ; with understanding for its declaration of independence and President Landsbergis's appeal for western recognition and support ; with admiration at the cool and courageous way in which he and his colleagues are responding to the psychological pressure that is increasingly being applied by Moscow ; with alarm at the intervention of the Red Army and its occupation of public buildings and of the free press, the expulsion of foreign correspondents and the closure of the border with Poland ; with fear that the situation will lead to a classic confrontation in the tradition of the Breznev doctrine, which the world had understood had been abandoned ; and with distress at the consequences of such an intervention for the remarkable progress that has been made to end the cold war and to improve east-west relations, and in arms control, and for President Gorbachev himself and his progress towards political and economic reform, which we fully support--provided, of course, that he means what he says. That is where the matter rests at the moment, perhaps awaiting a further turn of the screw to encourage negotiations on the Kremlin's terms.

I have no doubt that all that was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with President Gorbachev during their telephone conversation last week and is being discussed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Shevardnadze in Washington and that the limits beyond which it is unacceptable for both sides to go are being clearly spelled out. To date, the line that western Governments have taken in public, including Her Majesty's Government, has been that the future of the Baltic states is an internal matter for the Soviet Union and the republics concerned. That is a lie which I cannot accept any more, and I do not believe that the House will accept it either. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, the secret protocol of 1939 makes the Baltic states a special case. Their problem is not just a Soviet problem ; it is a European one. Like German unification, it is the legacy of the last war, which can and should be resolved only by the four powers in a European context within the forums that already exist for the resolution of such matters, peacefully, securely and in a spirit of co-operation. That is what the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe--the Helsinki process--is all about. That is the principal argument of my debate today, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will respond to it.

Perhaps at this point it would be helpful for us to recall the events that led to the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1939 and 1940. In 1918, the Baltic states gained independence of the Russian

Column 1356

empire amid that turbulent period which saw the German advance, following the withdrawal of the Bolshevik forces, turn into a retreat in November.

The Russian civil war that followed became a war of independence for the Baltic peoples. Eventually, in 1920, peace treaties were signed with the Soviet Union which unreservedly recognised the independence of the new republics from Russia, which renounced all former rights of sovereignty "voluntarily and forever".

In 1921, the League of Nations recognised all three states to which de jure recognition had been extended by most countries and they became member states of the league. Further independently negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union confirmed the legitimacy of the new states.

Liberal democratic constitutions were adopted. Minority rights were guaranteed by law, and no one group exercised significant political influence. Tragically, proportional representation led to a plethora of small parties, which in turn led to cabinet instability, parliamentary paralysis and a series of largely pre-emptive coups d'etat and the setting- up of largely authoritarian regimes. With the resurgence of Germany, the Soviet Union became concerned about its security in the event of German aggression against the Baltic states, and saw an opportunity for territorial expansion. On 23 August 1939, Ribbentrop and Molotov agreed a treaty of non-aggression. That was the public document published at the time. On the same day, however, a secret additional protocol concerning their respective spheres of influence in Poland and the Baltic area was signed. That was amended by a further secret protocol on 28 September transferring Lithuania to the Soviet sphere.

Following the German invasion of Poland, all three states were forced to conclude military alliances with the Soviet Union. All three treaties assured the Baltic Governments that their sovereignty would be fully respected, but it was not long before Soviet troops entered the Baltic states. They were incorporated into the Soviet Union behind a facade of ligitimacy.

When the Soviets returned in 1944, following the German occupation, there was a large-scale flight to the west which was not surprising. They knew what to expect : enforced collectivisation,

industrialisation and integration into the Soviet economy, and persecution of the church and of all nationalist consciousness. Six hundred thousand people were deported to Siberia ; hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Soviet prison camps. The process of Russification, through the immigration of Russian peoples, was designed to swamp the Baltic majority.

During the 40 years of apparent acquiescence to the Soviet occupation that followed, it is clear that Baltic nationalism was barely affected. At every level of society, people used their official positions to preserve national identity and integrity. However, it is only during the past two years that there have been more changes in the Baltic states than at any time since Stalin--in response to unprecedented popular demands, themselves in response to glasnost and perestroika, that have led so dramatically to today's circumstances. The establishment of the popular fronts in Latvia and Estonia and Sajudis in Lithuania provided the impetus and the channel for national self-assertion, the adoption of national flags and symbols and the more recent demands for independence and a democratic parliamentary system.

Not far behind have been the Communist parties of all three states which, either through conviction or for

Column 1357

survival, declared their own independence from the Communist party of the Soviet Union in support of national self- determination. Perhaps one of the most impressive and moving peaceful demonstrations in history of solidarity between peoples against an occupying power took place on 23 August 1989 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when more than 1 million people linked hands in a human chain across all three republics.

In its initial response to such clear demonstrations of nationalism, Moscow postponed environmentally sensitive projects, restored Vilnius cathedral to the Roman Catholic Church, granted economic sovereignty and decentralisation and proposed the prospect of limited sovereignty. In addition, the Yakovlev commission was established to inquire into the status of the secret protocol. Throughout last year, and into this, the Parliaments of all three states seemed to outdo each other in declaring ever-more daring acts of defiance in pursuit of independence, with Lithuania making the running in declaring Soviet annexation invalid and adopting laws to pave the way for a referendum on independence and ending the party's leading role. Given the fact that such unprecedented demands for nationalism were being emulated elsewhere in the Soviet Union, it became clear that it could not be allowed to continue unchecked without undermining President Gorbachev's position and authority. In December, he appealed to Lithuania to reject the idea of an independent state outside the Soviet Union, although in January, during his visit to Lithuania, he promised legislation to permit an orderly secession. The Yakovlev commission declared the secret protocol to the contrary to international law but claimed that that did not invalidate the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the USSR in 1940. In February this year, the terms of such secession became clearer, including the requirement that three quarters of the population must participate in a referendum, which would be followed by a transitional period of five years--endorsed this week by the Soviet Parliament. If that was designed to discourage demands for immediate independence, it has failed. In last month's elections to the Lithuanian supreme soviet, Sajudis obtained 97 seats out of 141 and Gallup reported 63 per cent. in favour of full independence. Its supreme council has adoped a declaration of sovereignty and a resolution reinstating the constitution of 1938.

More recent elections in Latvia and Estonia have also produced majorities for independence candidates, despite the influx of Russian troops to influence the results with their votes. In response, the USSR's Congress of People's Deputies, which I attended last month, appointed a commission to review the position, since when the Government have refused to accept the Lithuanian declaration of independence and have sent Soviet troops to occupy party buildings in Vilnius and to arrest deserters.

As the whole world knows, President Landsbergis has refused to withdraw the declaration and has appealed for international recognition and support. It is an appeal reminiscent of Dubcek's in 1968 and of Nagy's in 1956. We

Next Section

Home Page