---

British Association For Central and Eastern Europe

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Radice, for launching this debate, which those who do not know the amazing story of BACEE might find esoteric; they would not be quite sure what actually happened. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for his account of the earlier years. It is a great story of British achievement and also the achievement of those who attended the seminars and meetings of what might be described as an international roving Chatham House, an entity that was here, there and everywhere. Other countries have similar organisations of all kinds, but the focus on eastern Europe of this organisation and its predecessor was really of crucial importance. One of the great things, to which the noble Lord, Lord Roper, alluded, was the lack of condescension in the approach that BACEE made to people. One can imagine the sensitivity needed in those approaches, particularly in the grimmer days of the Cold War, when contacts were much more limited. The turbulent history of eastern Europe was a complicated matrix, which people needed to absorb to work for BACEE, as volunteers and members of staff, in order to avoid the intense irritation that the recipients of their words of advice would feel if it was handled in the wrong way. In fact, it was handled with great sensitivity. We remember the old Foreign Office enthusiasm for BACEE in the old days—and we come on to that theme now. We need to hear from the Minister about what has happened, and so on, and just to remind us again about what I think is a sad story. I speak only personally, although I also represent these Benches, but I think that there was an argument for keeping BACEE going, even after the huge changes in the political economy of the principal countries. The only one of these countries that, sadly, I know at all well—and this is a terrible confession on my part—is Moldova, which is just about the smallest of them. Moldova would not resent people saying in the westernmost part of western Europe that that country needs urgent help of all kinds. It is a country of great poverty, but it has a sophisticated political leadership of all the parties and is trying to find its way forward. It is next door to much bigger countries—Romania, with all its problems, and Ukraine. That is one country to which particular attention needs to be given. The All-Party Moldova Group is trying to focus on those themes as well, particularly after a very successful visit several years ago. The other countries, regrettably, I know only from brief visits, so I am not an expert, as are the noble Lord, Lord Radice, the outgoing chairman—I say, sadly, now that BACEE has closed—and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, one of the previous distinguished chairmen, with their detailed knowledge of these matters. A lot of good was done. Various reports were issued over the period and many references were made to the successes with those countries. Of course, BACEE was even more important in the sense that too many members of the public in western European countries, because of how the press writes its stories, thought that everything was much more wonderful in our countries than in the single-party state, Communist countries. On the other hand, the propaganda in the single-party state, Communist countries said that everything was much worse in Dickensian terms for people living in western European democracies. The Soviet Union used to focus on lots of stories about Dickensian England in the 1950s and 1960s. There were many such examples; people forgot about the obvious complications of all those sophisticated eastern European societies, some of which had been flourishing democracies or putative quasi-democracies before the Second World War, but did not have a chance to complete that process. Obviously, BACEE’s was a small effort in terms of the amount of political and other activity put in to change the nature of those countries, but 5,000 people is not a bad tally, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, suggested. It must have had some considerable effect, as people saw the huge changes coming from the fall of the Wall, which was very abrupt—and thank goodness it was done in peaceful conditions. We should pay tribute sometimes to these things—for example, when we recall how the Red Army in East Germany recognised the reality of those fundamental changes, when it would have been so easy for senior military personnel in that army to make a different decision, fatally different and terribly tragic, to try to keep the status quo going. They knew what was happening because of how people voted with their feet and the Trabants poured into Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. It has now since become fashionable to have a convertible Trabant in eastern Germany; it is regarded as a very glamorous car. Things change in all societies. The efforts that were made then and the way in which people reacted to them presaged very substantial changes. Those countries could easily have had their own alliances locally or regionally or become democracies of one kind or another more gradually; but they did not, and we now see the amazing difference. One might sum up the history of BACEE, and the observations of its members and staff over the years, as the three great stories of Europe after the Second World War, which was a huge, ghastly tragedy. Franco-German reconciliation in western Europe was an amazing story, to which the British press do not give enough attention; indeed, some newspapers in Britain do not like the idea much, for some bizarre reason. The second story was how the Soviet Union came to and end, in remarkably peaceful circumstances. Russia had its own internal coups, but they did not affect anyone outside. We should pay credit to the quality of the leadership in Russia and the Soviet Union for achieving those things, although President Gorbachev was very disappointed with how they did not keep the Supreme Soviet and some of the other structures. The final story must be the gradual approach and culmination of becoming EU members for quite a few of those countries—eight of them, originally, and then Bulgaria and Romania following and making it 10. It is an amazing story of an achievement. Bumpy rides are still to come, which is why an organisation such as BACEE should still exist—but, sadly, it does not. Other countries will be joining the European Union. Heaven forfend that I mention the subject of tomorrow’s debate—the Third Reading of the European Union (Amendment) Bill—but if the Lisbon treaty somehow revives in due course, with the consent of the Irish people and in whatever form, with adjustments, that, too, will help those new countries. Their enthusiasm for the institutional arrangements to ensure that the community of 27 countries worked properly has been very marked, often much more so than that of the long-standing member states. There was a common feeling about the necessity of all those things. In August 2005, BACEE was closed down, under the then Foreign Secretary. The outstanding Foreign Secretary now, David Miliband, might have made a different decision, but you never know. In those days, in the summer of 2005, the morale in the Foreign Office was very low, with the various budget cuts scything through the building and the embassies. Personally, I think that it was overdone, but Governments will always say that they have to make cuts in the modern world. Far too many missions have been closed down. In the mean time, the Minister, who is widely respected for many different reasons and not only because of his UN past, can give us an explanation and perhaps also try to defend that closure, because I personally regret it and feel that it was a mistake.