16 July 2008 :
Speech
Belarus
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Belarus ahead of the important parliamentary elections there in September.
I should first like to condemn the recent spate of bomb attacks in Minsk. Whether they were motivated by extreme hooliganism, terrorism or other factors, they are to be condemned, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the 50 or so people who were injured, many seriously. I hope not only that the perpetrators will soon be brought before the courts and the necessary justice dispensed, but that the police investigation will not be used as a pretext for curbing the freedoms of civic society and those religious, political and media organisations that espouse only peace.
Belarus stands at an important juncture in its history. The choice could not be more stark: the parliamentary elections in September will either provide a continuance of the status quo or an opportunity for a new dawn in which all the people of Belarus will be able to realise their full potential, and fulfil their dreams and those of their families.
For too long, political discussions inside and outside Belarus have been unhelpfully trapped in silos, too often accompanied by the outdated rhetoric of yesterday rather than the lexicon of the future and the language of hope. It is a false dichotomy to talk of Belarus choosing between east and west, for Belarus is strategically and geographically positioned to take advantage of both relationships, as it should—it is in its national interest to do so. One relationship does not have to suffer because of the desire to deepen ties with other partners. Belarus can be politically polygamous.
Although it may be convenient for some to talk in immediate, post-Soviet language, such language may rally to history, but it does not champion the future. Belarus can never cast aside its close ties with Russia—the Slavic and Russian influences on it remain strong—but no one is calling for that. Indeed, I believe that the Belarusian people would not countenance such a mistaken proposition. However, the European characteristic of Belarus is equally unmistakable and evident, and is a proud element within the make-up of Belarus, which is a fine, cultured country of brave people. Recently, a marker was placed in Polotsk to denote the geographical centre of Europe. Of course, it is not the only candidate—there are several rival claims—but it is another indicator that Belarus is part of the family of European nations. That is why I hope the country will move towards realising its true and full European potential, with the many benefits that closer co-operation will bring, not least in these difficult economic times. Belarus, like all nations, needs to minimise its risk to the vagaries of the global economy, and part of that process means seeking out new markets and opportunities, be they for large companies or small and medium-sized business. For the impressive Belarusian entrepreneurs, of which I know there are plenty, the future holds many opportunities.
What about UK-Belarusian relations? We enjoy good relations with Belarus—I would even say very good relations—in combating organised crime. Trade and investment are growing all the time, although the pace of growth is slow and could increase much further, given the right conditions. That is why Belarus’s international reputation is important. I know of several UK companies that would like to expand into Minsk and other Belarusian cities, but they are worried that their reputations could be damaged in the process. Those justified, multi-million pound concerns should be taken seriously. They are a huge missed opportunity for the Belarus economy, but I do not believe that such opportunities are lost for ever. That is a matter for the Government of Belarus. Although Belarus might seek to improve its own image, the reality rather than the perception of progress matters.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): When Belarus looks westward, who does my hon. Friend think will have more influence over the future direction of the country: the United States or the European Union?
Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend, as always, asks a pertinent and relevant question. Belarus’s relationship with the United States is a matter for the Belarus Government, and I am talking today predominantly about the Belarus-UK relationship and its relationship with the European Union. As I set out briefly already—I hope to set it out in more detail—there are a great many opportunities for Belarus to engage at all sorts of levels with the European Union. The difference between the types of discourse that the Belarusians could have with the Americans and the EU is not an issue, because Europe and the UK agree on the things that America is concerned about.
To reiterate, although Belarus might seek to improve its image, the reality rather than the perception of progress matters. A decision for progress will capture the imagination of international investors and increase foreign direct investment. The City of London is waiting to increase business with Belarus when conditions are right.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): My hon. Friend is a great champion for the City of London and an assiduous constituency MP, and I am delighted that he has brought this important issue to the House before the recess. Does he think that non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International also have a part to play in developing the international community’s perception of Belarus’s performance on human rights reforms and the development of democratic institutions? I think it is genuinely trying to do those things, and it needs encouragement to make progress.
Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I mentioned civic society in my introduction, and I shall refer specifically to NGOs later in my speech. I am grateful for that intervention and look forward to responding to that point.
The process of parliamentary elections in September 2008 is important. The word “process” is significant, because the process rather than the outcome matters to the international community. The EU and hundreds of businesses within it, including in the UK, as I said, are eagerly awaiting a democratic nod from Belarus.
I welcome the recent invitation from the Belarus Government to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to observe the elections. I hope that the OSCE will be given unfettered access to as many polling districts as it requests, that sufficient numbers of observers will be granted visas, and that they will be issued in plenty of time for the OSCE advanced teams to prepare and set up. The invitation to OSCE is a positive first step on a multi-step stairway—a “process”. The Government of President Lukashenko probably have more to gain from free and fair elections than possibly anyone else who would hold office or seek to be seated in Parliament. The European Commission’s European neighbourhood policy shadow action plan is just one manifestation of the potential benefits of closer ties with the EU.
Democratic elections are not about discrediting Governments, they are about legitimising them. Differences of opinion should not be used as some form of diplomatic brinkmanship but seen for what they are—differences of opinion. That is why Minsk, London, Bonn, Vienna and Brussels should enter into dialogue, recognising each other’s sovereignty, and undertake discussions with mutual respect. Then, I hope, they will move towards mutually beneficial co-operation. At the same time, commentators on Belarus need to understand that there are no shortcuts to democracy and that tokenism can never replace proper accountability and representative democracy. The parliamentary elections must be free and fair.
I do not wish to spend the whole debate on the parliamentary elections alone, although they are important. I wish to touch on media freedoms, which are linked to the elections. It is disappointing for all Belarus-watchers, and a retrograde step, that the Belarus Government recently tightened media freedoms, including the use of the internet, by introducing a new law on the mass media.
It is not acceptable that journalists and internet editors are being fined and harassed and having their technical equipment confiscated. Internet sites such as charter97.org are not enemies of the Belarusian state—that is a laughable idea. That site is run by Belarusians for Belarusians, and all love their country to a man and woman. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by some that parts of Belarus lack self-confidence or aspiration. Those attributes are imbued in the Belarusian psyche. Freedom of the press is not an optional democratic bolt-on but a key and fundamental freedom.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, and whoever is in outright control in a future Parliament, or perhaps in coalition, it is important that Belarus improves its human rights record. It is an international embarrassment that Belarus, at the heart of Europe, is still holding political prisoners in its jails. Those prisoners need to be released.
I recognise that there has been some progress on political prisoners. This February, five internationally recognised prisoners were released from prison, and the court case against the Belarusian Helsinki Committee was rightly suspended. Those were positive steps and could lead the way to the normalisation of EU-Belarus relations, but more needs to be done. I hope that all remaining political prisoners will be released before the September elections.
The strength of a nation is not counted by the number of political prisoners whom it detains. Belarus must recognise the fundamental freedoms that are enshrined not only in British and European laws and Parliaments but in the hearts of men and women around the world.
Those universal freedoms are the desire of all men and women, wherever they live—the freedom to choose their own Government and express their voice in an unencumbered way, the freedom of religion and expression, and the freedom to have members of Parliament chosen by the people, for the people, not by diktat. Those are not just western freedoms, they are Belarusian freedoms as well.
Freedom is not a sign of weakness but, I submit, a sign of strength. Belarus knows a lot about freedom and its high cost. Many will know of the Bielski brothers, the brave partisans who fought the German army victoriously. They started off with just three or four people and escaped to the woods, then formed a large group of more than 1,000 partisans, who did a great deal of damage to the Nazis. There is a forthcoming film about the Bielski brothers, called “Defiance”, starring Daniel Craig as Tuvia Bielski. I hope that it will shed some light on the suffering of not just the Jewish population, which suffered greatly, but Belarus as a whole.
When I last visited Belarus, the whole nation was celebrating the defeat of the Nazis, who wreaked widespread havoc, pain and destruction, destroying two thirds of Minsk and other parts of the country. The people of Belarus never gave up. They continued to believe in a day when people would be able to speak openly and freely without fear of being rounded up, detained and thrown into prison. They rightly dreamed of a day when they would be able to express themselves freely and openly. The story of the Jerusalem in the forest is a remarkable and exceptional one of human triumph over great suffering.
Similarly, I hope that the persecution of faith groups in Belarus, particularly the Christian Church, will end. Most people thought that the persecution of religious groups had been left behind in the 1930s and 1940s, and it is perhaps one of the worst excesses of overly sensitive Governments around the world. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches need to ensure that when they witness or hear of the persecution of other faith groups, or of smaller Christian denominations and Churches, they do not walk by on the other side. They must make formal protests and speak out for the persecuted and imprisoned and those who have trumped-up charges brought against them and are prosecuted falsely. Non-governmental organisations should also be free to go about their important work.
I know that the Government of President Lukashenko are aware of their responsibilities under the international covenant on civil and political rights, and I look forward to hearing that progress has been made on the issues that I have mentioned in the weeks leading up to the elections. I hope that those elections are free and fair and not characterised by intimidation and fraud; that the in the weeks leading up to September, there will not be a crackdown on civil society, NGOs and religious groups; that there will not be registration problems for other candidates and parties; that opposition parties will be able to print campaign materials and campaign openly; and that political websites will not be closed down.
I have a question for President Lukashenko. Does he want history to remember him as the leader who brought Belarus into a new era of economic prosperity and self-confidence, or does he want to be consigned to the long list of history’s leaders who have put self before country? I believe that he knows history and the importance of legacy, and therefore I, like many others, am waiting to see whether he will do what we all hope—lead Belarus into a bright future.
As I said earlier, the elections in Belarus are about process, not outcome. I hope that that process will not be rigged and that it will be free and fair. Within 12 weeks, we will all find out whether that has been the case.
2.49 pm
... MARK'S SUBSEQUENT INTERVENTION IN THE SAME DEBATE Mark Pritchard: The Minister has half answered my question before I have asked it, but I am happy to give him the opportunity to provide the other half of a reply. All countries should diversify risk in their economies. The issue is not between Russia or the European Union. If the conditions are right, both could provide huge opportunities for the Government and the people of Belarus, as the Minister says.
Dr. Howells: Yes, I could not agree more. The question posed by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire about what to do about the predominance of Russian gas flowing into central Europe and topping up the gas supplies that are distributed around mainland Europe is a serious one, and not just in relation to Belarus’s position as a country of passage. It could do very well out of that role if proper tolls and fees were paid. Part of its wealth in the past came from it, when cargoes of all sorts passed back and forth across that great region.
| 