| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.3 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford): I join other hon. Members in welcoming this annual debate. I know that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) arranged the debate to coincide with the visit of President Frei to Great Britain, which is a very important event in cementing relations between Chile and Great Britain. More generally, however, this debate is a symbol of the importance of Latin America to us because of trade and the role in world affairs that we seek to play with our partners in Latin America.
The growth of interest in Latin American affairs in the House is very welcome. We have had a visit not only by President Frei but, earlier this year, by President Zedillo. President Cardosa will, we hope, visit Great Britain early next year. I regret that I shall not be able to take part in the visit to Argentina next week, but that visit is significant. The Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on Brazil and Argentina last year, and this year's examination by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of Latin American affairs demonstrate the increasing importance of relations with Latin America to the House and to the political system in Great Britain.
I must, however, introduce a note of controversy. We must examine some aspects of our relations with Latin America and of our failure to maximise those relations. I do not want to arbitrate between my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), but it is desperately important that we do not have a one-sided emphasise on relations with Latin America. Important though they are, we do not have only trade relations with Latin America; it is also important to recognise the need for economic progress and eradication of poverty there. Those matters are fundamental if we are to achieve political stability in Latin America, which all hon. Members desire.
We have a vested interest in political stability in Latin America because poverty and the corruption that sometimes feeds on poverty allow the widescale development of the drugs industry, as has been mentioned by hon. Members in this debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham is right: demand for drugs in countries such as Great Britain, and even more so in the United States, fuels the drug trade in parts of Latin America, where it is an endemic and deep-rooted problem. We cannot separate those issues.
The issue of economic progress is important, but it must be linked to building democracy and developing an active policy on human rights in Latin America. If we are to co-operate effectively in the spheres of drug control and eradication, we must consider all the issues.
The hon. Member for Gravesham has already mentioned the importance of Latin America and the growth of Mercosur. This month, Chile acceded to associate status in Mercosur and, early next year, Bolivia will achieve the same status. Mercosur is developing rapidly. I was recently in Venezuela, and the Venezuelans told me that they also are keen to enter negotiations to accede to Mercosur.
The hon. Member for Wycombe made the important point that trading blocs--of which Mercosur is now the third largest--must not develop as competitive and rival blocs. It is desperately important for Great Britain and for the European Union that we use our role to ensure that the European Union opens up a wide relationship with Mercosur and with Latin America, because the alternative--which needs to be spelled out--is economic hegemony by north America, and particularly by the United States.
I do not say that with any sense of aggression towards the United States, as it is and will continue to be among our most important political and economic contacts in the world. We must recognise, however, that we have to ensure that Latin America, and particularly Mercosur, can count on Great Britain, within Europe, to keep open world trade. We must also ensure that we keep open our access to Latin America, and that we give Latin America an alternative to the free trade areas of America as the only outlet for trade in that region. That will be good for Britain, good for Latin America and, in the long run, good for the world.
Despite the importance of Latin America and the warm words that we have heard, Britain performs relatively badly in Latin America, if we compare our trade performance with that of other comparable European countries. In virtually every country in Latin America, Britain performs worse than Italy, much worse than Germany and in most cases worse than France. That is a long-term phenomenon, but the situation is not improving. In 1994 and 1995, Britain's share of world exports to Latin America dropped. In fairness, that should be seen in the context of the rising tide of trade; nevertheless, we are slipping behind the countries that I mentioned.
Is it still the Government's view that we can double our share of trade? We ought to aim for that target. Is the benchmark of the year 2000 realistic? Many people have pointed out to me that, until we examine why we do so badly, we will not be able to rectify the problems. Other hon. Members have identified various relevant factors, but I should like to suggest one or two further respects in which the Government are not playing their role as we would wish.
For example, some 30,000 young people in Britain are studying French at GCSE level, whereas the number taking Spanish is little more than 4,000, and fewer than 200 are taking Portuguese. We should have begun to examine such statistics 30 years ago when we started to develop an interest in Latin America. The time is long overdue for us to rectify that problem.
The BBC World Service is widely respected throughout Latin America. Why is the BBC world television service not beamed into all parts of Latin America as it should be? I am told that there are plans to close down the Brazilian service of the World Service. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the matter has been resolved, as it would be outrageous if that happened. I hope that other hon. Members would support that statement.
On the staffing of British diplomatic missions in the region, the Minister took part in a debate with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which he said:
Economic development is a necessary partner to the development of human rights and democracy building. Democracy and human rights are not a bolt-on extra to the debate. It is disappointing that the Minister's submission to the Select Committee contained only three short paragraphs on human rights. On the human rights clauses in European Union treaties with Latin America, he said:
Latin America will not introduce democracy and better human rights as a result of bullying by Britain or other countries. It has not done so in the past and will not do so now. We should state, and a Labour Government will state, that we will work with Latin American Governments and people to build the institutions, particularly the legal and judicial systems, that will give proper recourse against those who perpetrate abuses against the civilian population. That still exists on a wide scale, but this is not the time to discuss individual countries and cases.
There are many countries in which the existence of a notionally democratically elected president does not guarantee individual liberty, and certainly does not guarantee that other institutions, especially the military, have been conclusively taken out of the political system. We should say--as a Labour Government will say--that we want to work with democratic forces in Latin America and that we will pursue a policy actively supporting democrats and discouraging perpetrators of abuses against the civilian population.
"I think that the Foreign Office is under-funded".
I hope that we will hear more such candour on the Floor of the House today as he rightly berates his Treasury colleagues. The memorandum that he sent to the Select Committee demonstrates that staffing levels in our embassies throughout the region are well below those of the embassies of France, Italy and possibly Germany. There have been recent increases, but the staffing of our embassies has been cut significantly over the past few years. Government rhetoric points us in one direction, but reality points us in another. I hope that we shall receive assurance this morning that the weaknesses will be examined and rectified.
"There was a concern but we have helped to allay it that this was somehow picking off the Latin American countries as being in need of human rights clauses. However, it is a universal clause in all EU trade treaties of this kind and therefore we managed to placate the Latin American sensitivities on that subject."
There is no question of sensitivities. We should be actively supporting the many people in Latin America who want strong democracy and who want to build societies in which human rights are taken for granted, not seen as extraordinary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |