| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Mar 2009 : Column 188WH—continued
We went to Santa Cruz where we met the prefect, who is strongly opposed to the general trend of Bolivian politics and would not count himself a great friend of
Evo Morales, to put it mildly. He complains loudly about the land reform and we were slightly puzzled by that, because it seemed fairly modest to us, in that there is still an enormous land area allowed to be owned under the new constitution and a huge imbalance in land ownership. We urged him strongly to undertake a series of meetings with President Morales and join in the national debate and consensus, because although a constitution has been passed into law, a lot of subsequent legislation is needed before the elections can be held in December. The logjam that exists between the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies is not helpful. We urged him to take part in debates and in that discussion. Indeed, we presented him with two whisky glasses, suggesting that he drink from one himself and keep the other for President Morales when he visits, so that they can have a little chat together. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington complimented him on the high quality of the British suit that he was wearing during the discussion.
The other aspect of Bolivia’s future is its mineral resources and hydrocarbons. Bolivia has been pillaged by Spain and by international companies that have taken the silver and tin and paid, effectively, low prices to the Bolivian people. The Bolivian Government have taken into public ownership all mineral resources, particularly hydrocarbons. There was an interesting debate about how Bolivia now goes forward, both in respect of exploration for new reserves of gas in particular, and the exploitation of those reserves.
We spent a day visiting the BG Bolivia gas field near Villa Montes, in the south, looking at the process used to extract the gas from the ground—drying it and cleaning it—after which most of it is exported to Argentina and Brazil. We also had a discussion with a representative of the state hydrocarbons company. Essentially, at the moment the hydrocarbons are in state hands. The companies operating in Bolivia extract, cleanse and export the gas. The process is monitored by the state company, and the extracting company—in this case, BG Bolivia, but there are others, such as Repsol—is paid accordingly. There seemed to be a fairly good practical relationship, although the issue of the funding of future exploration has not been satisfactorily resolved as yet. We hope that it is resolved in the near future.
For me, going to Bolivia was exciting. Seeing what was happening, including feeling the sense of hope and optimism of many of the poorest people—particularly, meeting the indigenous groups that have traditionally suffered the most appalling discrimination, including lack of access to education and the political system—was exciting and made me optimistic.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab):
As my hon. Friend has noted, President Evo Morales is the first indigenous president of Bolivia, in a society in which, in living memory, indigenous people were second-class citizens who were not allowed into certain parts of La Paz and not even allowed to meet a person of European origin and look them in the eye. Do not all the left-of-centre Latin American Governments—those led by Evo Morales in Bolivia, Lula in Brazil and Chavez in Venezuela—represent groups and ethnicities that have hitherto been marginalised
in Latin American society? Is it not important that Her Majesty’s Government look at these Governments not just through purely ideological eyes, but through those of the marginalised ethnic groups and indigenous people whom they represent and put ourselves on the right side of history in supporting the progressive change that they represent?
Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend. I first went to Latin America at the age of 19. I remember going to remote towns and villages in Bolivia where nobody spoke one word of Spanish, and they did not feel safe in going—and did not even feel the need to go—much beyond those communities. As far as they were concerned they were surviving and a Spanish-speaking elite ran the politics and dominated the whole country. Things have changed and they are never going to change back. A fundamental, exciting change has happened. The change is not just linguistic: it is cultural, iconic and religious and permeates all the way through society. All of us are going to begin to understand a lot more about the culture of Latin America that has been suppressed for a long time and is now bubbling up to the surface and coming out into the open. That is exciting.
The way that we deal with the change is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough said in his intervention, there was a serious attempt at derailing the Government of Bolivia last year and there was a series of stand-offs. A number of things happened. The European Union ambassadors, particularly our ambassador, got involved in trying to promote political dialogue, which helped stabilise the situation, and every one of the neighbouring countries, bar none, took part in an important meeting in Santiago and declared their support for the unity of Bolivia and opposed the idea of any secession of the wealthiest parts in the south and east of the country. The ambassador and others have played a valuable role in that process. I think that I am right in saying that all the members of the delegation concurred on those points.
Jeff Ennis: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that there is still a tension between the national Government and the regions? To some extent, I compare that with the tension 10 or 15 years ago between the different regions of our country. That tension needs to be resolved through dialogue and talking, and that is what we—as a neutral nation, as it were—should be promoting in Bolivia.
Jeremy Corbyn: I agree that the only way to resolve the issues is to accept the need for justice, dialogue and democratic and accountable government. I did not detect any hostility to that concept by most of the politicians whom we met, but I detected a group of people in some parts of Bolivia who are extremely wealthy and powerful and who believe that they need not pay taxes and that revenue should not be used to deal with the appalling poverty that the people on the Altiplano typically suffer. More than half the population survive on less than $2 a day, and living in Bolivia is not cheap.
Ms Abbott: On the tension between different groups in Bolivian society, more dialogue is certainly necessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) said. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) agree that particular groups should not believe that they have the tacit support of the United States?
Jeremy Corbyn: US strategy towards Latin America has changed for several reasons. Its economic problems, its obsession with the middle east, and the war in Iraq have taken its attention away from Latin America. The new President and his Administration have not made a high priority of relations with Latin America. This is a period when Latin America can consolidate itself as an entity following the eternal dispute with the United States.
Mark Pritchard: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right, while the British Prime Minister is in Washington talking to world leaders about avoiding protectionism, to call for protectionism in Latin America when almost all Latin Americans, whether in Bolivia or Venezuela, want free trade—albeit fair free trade—to improve their life chances?
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not remember calling at any time for protectionism in Latin America. I was talking about investment to ensure that hydrocarbon and other mineral resources are properly developed and that anti-poverty programmes strengthen the internal market and internal buying power of people in Bolivia, and about the development of intra-Latin American trade, rather than Latin America’s tradition of exporting raw materials to other parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that a considerable body of opinion throughout Latin America is trying to develop the Latin American economy and internal trade. Bolivia’s trade pattern is increasingly with Brazil and Argentina rather than with other parts of the world.
Jeremy Corbyn: I will give way once more, but I think the hon. Gentleman may be preparing to make a speech.
Mark Pritchard: Not at all. I am merely trying to be helpful. Every export that might be prevented could have an impact on British imports. Brazil is our biggest trading partner in Latin America, and any hint of trimming exports or imports would have an impact on both Brazilians and the United Kingdom.
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not know whether I am missing something here, but I have said nothing of the sort. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s point is. There is terrible poverty in Bolivia and in most Latin American countries. The whole political imperative and process of an anti-poverty strategy is to liberate people from the oppression and depression arising from poverty and from lack of opportunity, education and health care. We should be pleased to witness that, and to support it.
The underbelly of Latin America is poverty and oppression, and the human rights abuse that comes from that. Individual human rights—the right to vote, the right to free expression, the right to free organisation, the right to religious freedom—are obviously important and are enshrined in the universal declaration, but people have a right to be able to live where they are, free from poverty. For many, the only way out of poverty is to escape, and ones sees poor migrants leaving Guatemala, travelling through Mexico to try to get into the USA to survive, but being brutally oppressed at various points. The death rate among migrants is very high. There is a “fourth world” of migrant peoples, and we would do
well to recognise that the way to prevent that is to encourage the economic development and anti-poverty programmes that are so important and exciting throughout much of Latin America.
I hope that the Minister will say that the Government take seriously our relations with Latin America, and that they are prepared, if necessary, to upgrade our diplomatic representation, and prepared to encourage DFID to become far more involved in Latin America.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I understand why the hon. Gentleman has concentrated on Bolivia, but he has not said much about his old friend, President Chavez of Venezuela. Does he think that seizing assets by nationalisation, whether in Venezuela or Bolivia, will encourage investment in delivering mineral resources, which in turn benefit the people through trade and exports?
Jeremy Corbyn: I have spoken for 35 minutes, and the hon. Gentleman tempts me to speak for another 35 minutes about Venezuela.
Ms Abbott: Time does not permit my hon. Friend to expand on the glories and triumphs of President Chavez in Venezuela—[Interruption.]Others among us will do that. Our delegation to Bolivia was greatly aided by my hon. Friend’s expert leadership and his fluent Spanish.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind intervention. I am tempted to speak at great length about Venezuela and other places, but I will not, save to say that any country has the right to take into public ownership resources, industries and services. That is what a sovereign nation can do. This country has done that. We have just taken several banks into public ownership. Even Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), could not bring themselves to vote against bringing banks into public ownership—[Interruption.] I was there, and I observed what was going on.
Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman should be careful.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am being extremely careful, but I am sure of my facts.
President Chavez in Venezuela is taking some industries and services into public ownership—I understand that he is minded to take rice processing into public ownership—because he believes that his Government are being held hostage by the administration of those companies and the denial of food supplies. Some of us witnessed the same process against the Popular Unity Government in Chile in the 1970s. Governments have the right to do that.
We had discussions with Bolivia about its nationalisation programme, and about its wish to ensure, by agreement, open negotiation and public contract, exploitation and exploration of mineral resources. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Any country can do that if it wishes, and we must respect the sovereignty of any nation that wishes to take its own path to economic development.
These are exciting times in Latin America, and poverty can be conquered. For the first time, many people can see a pathway out of poverty. I hope that we will respect
and support that process, and the cultural liberation that is taking place throughout Latin America, with an even-handed approach that ensures decent, fair and reasonable trade, and that we support the independence of every country in bringing that about. Opportunities exist for British companies in railway development, construction, high technology, machinery and tools, and so on. There are huge development programmes in Mexico and elsewhere in which we could and perhaps should be involved. There is nothing wrong with that, because that is reasonable and fair trade, but above all we must respect the integrity of the nations concerned, and their choice of pathway out of poverty.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. The winding-up speeches start in 21 minutes’ time, so to be able to call all hon. Members who wish to speak, I ask for their co-operation in sharing out the time.
10.9 am
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I shall try to keep my remarks to 20 minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on initiating the debate, which is timely, and I thank him for his generosity in giving way so often. I also pay tribute to Baroness Gibson, Anne Gibson, in the other place, who chairs the all-party group on Latin America and does an excellent job in that role.
The hon. Gentleman, in his concluding remarks, mentioned the word “exploitation” and of course none of us in the House, whatever our political views, would want to see the exploitation of a single person in Latin America, but even if there has been exploitation by some Governments and some states in Latin America, that should not be replaced by exploitation involving the private sector. We need an end to exploitation from whatever quarter.
That leads me to renationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right to say that renationalisation of assets is not only illegal in most cases; it also sends a negative message with regard to future investment. It creates a negative investment climate that international observers, with many places to shop around, might decide to avoid and which would put off would-be investors. The hon. Member for Islington, North himself said that in relation to his trip to Bolivia. There is a big unanswered question in relation to future exploration. It is okay to renationalise assets, but what do people do once they have them? That applies to many countries, not only in Latin America but across the world, once they have taken back state assets. One might even argue that it even applies in this country more recently. What do people do once they have such assets, and how is future investment encouraged?
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) seemed to think that the whole nationalisation debate was about a virility symbol and whether sovereign countries have the right to take those assets. Of course they have that right. The question is whether it is wise to deploy it. If the private sector sees assets being taken with no money being paid for them, that affects not only the minerals sector, which is directly
affected, but the whole economy, because other countries will not want to invest in those economies and therefore the standard of living of those peoples suffers as a result.
Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as he always does. The other relevant point is that there is a direct impact on constituents in Islington, Shropshire and everywhere else represented here, because there are pension investments in those countries and for every industry that is nationalised, there is a direct impact on pension funds in the City of London as well. It is a very worrying step that President Chavez has taken deciding to move into food production and food supply and, as we have heard, to renationalise rice production in his country.
That leads me to land reform which, of course, is needed in Latin America—I accept that. Redistribution of land is needed, but it must be both legal and fair. A sensible period of consultation is needed with the people whose land will perhaps be taken back to the state. A right of appeal is also needed. So often in Latin America we have not seen that. We have seen just the heavy hand of the state moving in and the state saying, “We’re taking land back from you.” There is no consultation or compensation. It is illegal most of the time and it certainly is not fair. Again, that sends the wrong message about Latin America as a continent. Unfortunately, there is a negative halo from certain countries in Latin America, which impacts on the whole continent when other countries are wanting to do the right thing, even with land redistribution and—dare I say it?—renationalisation.
The same applies to free trade. Some countries want global free trade. Some want regional free trade and, indeed, free trade with north America. If those countries, which have elected Governments, want to have a free trade agreement with north America, they should be entitled to do so. They should not have to deal with meddling, either political or through other, more sinister means, by countries that take a different ideological view, as that is unsettling and destabilising for the region. If countries such as Colombia and Peru want to trade with north America, they should be entitled to do so. That is not to suggest that they do not want to trade internally, within the borders of Latin America. I believe that they want to do that as well, but if they want to do both, they should be able to do so without having political machinations set upon them by neighbouring nations or others on the continent.
That is why it is important, as we have heard today—I hope that the Minister will note this—that there is cross-party consensus on real concerns about UK diplomatic representation in Latin America. It was a backward step for the Paraguay embassy to close. Paraguay is a huge country; Argentina is large as well, and to try to run operations in both countries from Buenos Aires is very difficult. If I were, for example, a Paraguayan Transport Minister wanting to construct three new bridges and there were a French embassy and a Germany embassy but no British embassy and a trade counsellor in those embassies, who would I be more likely to call and want to nip round to see to talk about that investment project? From a political, diplomatic and trade point of view, the United Kingdom is losing out for every diplomatic mission that it closes around the world, including in Latin America.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |