HC Deb 04 November 1960 vol 629 cc609-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) I would observe that the title given to his subject for debate on the Adjournment would cover matters for which there is no Ministerial responsibility, but I feel sure that I am able to request him to confine himself to matters for which such responsibility exists.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

The subject which I am raising today covers Ministerial responsibility in so far as any foreign affairs covers it, and this is, indeed, a continuation of the foreign affairs debate.

We are now debating the subject of Algeria at the beginning of the seventh year of the war in Algeria. I think I can say without any exaggeration that the situation in Algeria is the most dangerous international situation confronting the Government, or any Government throughout the whole world. It is infinitely more dangerous than the crisis in Berlin, it is more dangerous than the crisis in Cuba and what might follow from that, and also it is more dangerous than the situation in Quemoy and Matsu and the offshore islands. I want to draw the attention of the House to the war in Algeria, because it raises some very painful Ministerial responsibilities. As members of N.A.T.O. and of the United Nations and otherwise there can be no question about the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

The cost of the war in Algeria is one which really deserves bringing to the attention of the House. According to French sources, 180,000 people have been killed in the war which has been going on for six years. Other estimates make the figure even higher. One and a quarter million Algerian civilians have been moved from their homes by the French forces and put in regroupment camps, and half a million have been forced out of Algeria into Tunisia and Morocco Here again Her Majesty's Government have accepted a major responsibility by the help given to the refugee camps. According to the Economist the war is costing £1 million a day, and 600,000 French troops involved have been released from commitments in Europe by the N.A.T.O. Council, of which the British Government are members. In this war there has been terrorism and the appalling brutality of torture and other means of extracting information which has earned the condemnation of civilised men in all parts of the world.

The background of the war is one that demands a little explanation. Although the French authorities have tried to assert that this was a domestic affair of France herself, it is part of the classic pattern of colonialism going back to 1830 when the French occupied Algeria at that time and were very much opposed by the British Government. Ever since then there have been all sorts of activities of a nationalist kind in Algeria with which we are familiar in other empires including our own.

One of the things that causes the greatest bitterness among Algerian nationalists is what happened during the war when British troops in American uniform were sent as part of the war effort to reoccupy North Africa and as a result were instrumental in putting the French back in control. As the Algerians say, the uniforms were American, the troops British and the victory French.

At no stage in this story is it possible to escape the responsibility of Her Majesty's present and previous Governments. The war, which is a threat to world peace, began in November, 1954, when after a period of constitutionalism which gave no real rights to the Algerian people a rising took place in Algeria. Ever since then there has been developing consistently in Algeria organised military opposition to the policy of the French Government. In 1956 at a famous congress the National Front was formed. In 1958 the Algerian Government in exile was formed and nineteen countries recognised the Algerian Government as being the Government of Algeria. Those countries are backed in addition by many others who support the Algerian cause at the United Nations, including India, a member of the British Commonwealth. Therefore there can be no doubt at all that the G.P.R.A., the Algerian Republican Government, have an indisputable claim to represent those Algerians who are engaged in the struggle for their independence.

They do not themselves claim to be more than a provisional Government in Algeria, because it is their wish that guarantees for self-determination should be available in Algeria which will give the Algerian people the right for their own people to choose their own form of Government. It has been the view of Her Majesty's Government that this was specifically a French problem. Therefore, since that is the view, I must refer briefly at any rate to the history of French policy in North Africa, bearing in mind that in 1949 when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was signed Algeria was included as being within the area of Metropolitan France and therefore an area for which we hold ourselves to be responsible in the matter of defence.

During the years immediately after the war, French policy in North Africa was absolutely rigidly opposed to the granting of independence. The Sultan of Morocco was exiled, much as was Archbishop Makarios in the Seychelles. Subsequently, Mendes-France, in that short period of sanity in French politics after the war, gave independence to Morocco and Tunisia. But throughout that period there was never any recognition whatsoever by the French Government of the right of the Algerians to independence. Even M. Guy Mollet, the French Socialist leader, when he was Prime Minister, spoke only in terms of internal autonomy for Algeria.

The policy of attempting military repression in Algeria led, as the House knows very well, in February, 1958, to the tragic Sakiet incident when French aircraft—as a matter of fact, they were American aircraft flown by French pilots in the French Air Force—flew across the frontier of Algeria and Tunisia and bombed the village of Sakiet Sidi-Ben-Yussef, causing great casualties in the refugee camps. So seriously did Her Majesty's Government take the situation that on that occasion they agreed, at the instigation of the United Nations, to set up a good offices commission and the Beeley-Murphy group went out to study the situation and make recommendations.

It was upon the Beeley-Murphy recommendations that the Gaillard Government fell, leading to the collapse of the French Republic. Since then, and since de Gaulle has been in power in France the situation has not really changed very substantially. I think that few French commentators would deny that the collapse of the Fourth Republic and the advent of General de Gaulle to power were because it was impossible for the previous Administration to solve the Algerian question.

Even though de Gaulle was given the mandate of the whole French nation in the referendum that succeeded his coming to power, he has been proved time and again to be the prisoner of the situation which reigns in his own country. No greater evidence of this could be found than the four episodes in de Gaulle's Algerian policy. He takes over, first of all, while the hooters in the Champs Elysées sound out their victory sign "Algerie Francaise". On 16th September last year he makes his great speech calling for self-determination in Algeria; when the F.L.N. asks for talks and nominates its spokesmen, he turns that down. Then he faces the Algerian rising last February by Lagaillard and Ortiz, and the whole of French policy goes back again and the possibility of negotiations comes to a conclusion. In June or July there are the talks at Melun which raise hopes again, and as a result of this one gets the formation of the Soustelle and Salan groups in France, which proves once again that there is on the Algerian question a total paralysis in France that makes it quite impossible for the French to solve the problem.

But if French politics are unable to solve the Algerian problem, that does not mean to say that the war can go on indefinitely. Outside the narrow, limited, rigid atmosphere of N.A.T.O., the Algerian war has always been seen as an international question. From the outset, the Arab League has given its support to the Algerian fighters. In 1955 at the Bandung Conference there was support for the Algerian freedom fighters. At the United Nations in 1957, 1958 and 1959 resolutions were brought forward by the Afro-Asians and others, giving full support to the Algerian demand for self-determination. On every one of those occasions Her Majesty's representatives, to the ultimate disgrace of this country's reputation for liberty, voted in the first instance against even inscribing the resolutions and subsequently against the resolutions themselves.

Yet, at the same time, by last December when the resolution was passed by the General Assembly, though without a two-thirds majority, the United Nations was committed to the policy of self-determination. Since then, at the Pan-African Conference, at the conference of independent African States, the Algerian case has won greater and greater support. It is absolutely useless looking at the Algerian question any longer as if it is an internal affair of France.

I want, Mr. Speaker, in response to your request, to clarify the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, to go very quickly through the history of British policy towards Algeria since 1949 when Algeria was included in the area of N.A.T.O. In 1955 the British voted, as I said, against debating the Algerian question at the United Nations.

In 1956, Sir Anthony Eden said in this House that he had nothing but sympathy for the French policy in Algeria. Again, later in 1956, the British Consul in Algiers, Mr. Irving Mill, pledged the support of the British people for French policy in Algeria and was upheld by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Foreign Secretary. The then British Ambassador in Paris, Sir Gladwyn Jebb, said he praised the "civilising mission" of France in Algeria—a "civilising mission" condemned by the Catholic Church, Protestants, a Commission led by M. Jean-Paul Sartre, the Red Cross and others, every one of whom found evidence of systematic torture.

The British Government sent helicopters to the French. I raised this in this House and again the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think that they were frightfully lethal weapons, though there is evidence that helicopters and other equipment supplied to France have, been used effectively against the Algerian people. In 1957 the present Prime Minister and M. Gaillard met and issued a memorandum saying that the responsibility for a solution of the Algerian question lay with France, and in a spirit of solidarity between the two countries they expressed their conviction that France must continue to assume her special responsibilities in North Africa. Finally, in 1958, we had the story of the British representative voting against the resolution which recognised the right of independence for Algeria.

It is not only Britain that stands in the dock on this question. There is also the United States, which has, owing to its greater wealth and power, not only given outright support to the French in Algeria but far more substantial military support. A report in The Times of 25th February referred to a report from the Defence Department in Washington—kept secret and now divulged under pressure from Congress—which showed that in the last ten years France had received from the United States 1,200,000 dollars' worth of military aid per day, most of which was spent on the wars in Indo-China and Algeria. That included planes used in the Sakiet raid.

M. Spaak the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., has been quite frank in saying publicly that he regards the Algerian war as something of concern to the N.A.T.O. allies. I describe these facts only because they are indisputable and available to anyone who wants to read them. The story does not end with my condemnation of what the Government have done, because inevitably this policy has led to a reaction on the Algerian side, which now represents a new element in the situation which the Government have consistently ignored.

I was privileged to be the Labour Party's representative at the Pan-African Conference last January, held in Tunis, which was opened by President Bourguiba and attended by all African States of consequence. They described the situation in Algeria as being an act of aggression committed by N.A.T.O. against the Continent of Africa. Whether we accept this verdict or not, it is impossible to escape the fact that it has been Western support—British, American and N.A.T.O.—that has enabled the French to pursue their war in Algeria.

Consequently, the Algerians have been trying to find out what allies they could have. First, they got support from their Arab brethren in the Arab League, contributions from Egypt and other Arab countries, on a very small scale, amounting to £12 million a year. Now they are looking east for help and find that it will be forthcoming.

Until the Summit, the Russians always adopted a very strict attitude of protocol towards the Algerian war, and in March Mr. Khrushchev made a speech in France, on his visit to de Gaulle, which was interpreted as being rather hostile to the Algerian cause. But the Chinese have offered a technical mission, material, arms and men and, since the breakdown of the Summit, the Russian attitude has altered completely. We are building up to a tragedy in Algeria, the consequences of which will affect this country very gravely in the next few months.

I point out what the timetable of future development will be. First of all, at the General Assembly next month there will be another resolution calling for a United Nations referendum to bring peace in Algeria, and that will get the two-thirds majority this year because of the new nations coming into the Assembly.

The Security Council will then be called upon to enforce it and if the Government pursue the policy this year which they have followed in previous years and oppose the debate and oppose the resolution, then the responsibility for what will follow the United Nations debate will rest upon their shoulders. President Bourguiba and the King of Morocco have both made it abundantly clear—and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to believe this—that if within the next few months the United Nations does not solve the problem, then there will be a federation and expansion of the war into Tunisia and Morocco, and within six months there could easily be Chinese intervention which has long been offered and long resisted by the Algerians in the interests of a peaceful settlement, but which cannot be resisted if there is not a peaceful settlement.

It is time that the Government woke up from their attitude on this question of total complacency if not actual hostility to the Algerian cause. In Iraq, Cuba and many other countries the Government have shown a lack of awareness of what was happening. Having discussed this matter with many people in the Diplomatic Service and abroad, in Tunis and elsewhere, I am perfectly convinced that the Government have never taken this problem seriously.

It is now time that we should recognise the Algerian right to freedom, recognise that it is a threat to peace and a problem which can be settled only by international action and that France cannot solve it and that only the United Nations can.

I say specifically that there are four things which Her Majesty's Government should do in the next few months. First, they should give full support to the inscribing of this resolution upon the agenda of the United Nations. Secondly, they should vote for it when it comes up for debate. Thirdly, they should use our vote on the Security Council to support this resolution, which will have the two-thirds majority, and then raise at the N.A.T.O. Council the question of the exclusion of Algeria from the territory which is held to be the responsibility of N.A.T.O. Finally, when all that has been done, they should back up the United Nations action by cutting off supplies of arms which the French are using in Algeria in order to enforce their will.

That is drastic action, indeed, but the situation has become so serious that if there is not drastic action, then a very serious tragedy will develop. We are discussing not just the future of Algeria, but the future of the United Nations, because if the United Nations cannot solve this problem, it is unlikely to be able to solve any of the other pressing problems which lie ahead for this country and for the U.N. in the dangerous world in which we live.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I intimated to you that I wished to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate when it was moved and put to the House at four o'clock, but I did not hear it put to the House.

Mr. Speaker

I appreciate that in the circumstances the hon. Member had no opportunity for that of which he had courteously given me warning. Has he some other matter to raise now?

Mr. Hughes

That is the point.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Heath.

Mr. Hughes

There is some misunderstanding. I listened very carefully to hear the Question being put to the House, but I did not hear it and other hon. Members did not hear it being put.

Mr. Speaker

No. The Minister was talking and, to use common parlance, talked out time so that I was obliged by the Standing Order when the clock struck four to interrupt and to proceed without putting any Question. That is all. Mr. Heath.

4.25 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath)

The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has raised a question which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition described in his speech on the Address as an international issue of some delicacy. He described it as "international" because of one or two things mentioned at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, perhaps the threat of arms and volunteers from China and the Soviet Union. Without accepting the adjective "international", I shall certainly treat this as a matter of same delicacy.

The hon. Gentleman has given a full account of his views of the history and the factors in this situation. I think that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in his concluding sentences, recognised that this is a much more complicated matter and that there are other interests involved. No Government which has ties of interest and friendship in Europe and Africa can be indifferent to the Algerian question. I share the concern, and so do Her Majesty's Government, expressed by the hon. Gentleman. There is no complacency whatever about this question, but, for reasons which I shall explain briefly, I do not entirely accept the solutions he put forward in his concluding sentences.

The hon. Gentleman gave us a large number of facts and figures. I do not propose to add to them, but I think that he should look at the picture as a whole and try to understand some of the emotional and other factors involved, because without that understanding I am certain that we shall have the utmost difficulty in achieving the main object, which is to reach a solution of the problem.

Algeria has been intimately linked with France for over a hundred years. Its economy depends largely on trade with France. Of its population of 10 million over 1 million are of European origin. Of its Muslim population, nearly half a million earn their living and support their families by working in France.

There are two positions to understand. Many Algerian Muslims—it is impossible to tell how many—believe that it is an anomaly that a people of their size and talents should not already have achieved independence in a world where so many smaller and less advanced countries have achieved it. That is understandable.

On the other hand, some sections of French opinion have fears which, whether they are justified or not, are at least understandable, that if Algeria becomes independent their interests and perhaps the whole fabric of their lives will be endangered.

I think that we as a House of Commons and as a country should show understanding of differing views like this, because although they have not reached a desperate situation in our own territories, we find similar problems in some of them.

Many people on both sides have tried to resolve this problem, unfortunately so far without success. On 16th September last year General de Gaulle first announced his offer of self-determination to the Algerian people. He has reaffirmed that policy on many occasions, and he has made it clear that he expects the outcome to be an Algerian Algeria. That is the bedrock of his policy.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the talks at Melun. Everyone is disappointed at the lack of progress during the past year, and particularly at the failure of those talks. It was hoped that they would lead to meetings at a high level between the French Government and the F.L.N. leadership. Everyone hoped that that would come about.

The disappointment that it did not is, I know, felt in France as strongly as anywhere, because the war in Algeria imposes as heavy financial, moral and political strains in France as in North Africa. Any friend of France must recognise that.

The F.L.N. has announced that it must now turn to the Soviet bloc and the Chinese in the hope that those countries will provide it with arms and a technical mission. In other words, this will give it the means to settle by military means a problem which it no longer believes to be susceptible to negotiation.

If this is its decision, it runs great risks in following that decision through. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is the danger of the situation. For this reason, it will make negotiation even more difficult than it is at the moment. It will, moreover, expose North Africa to all the disadvantages and dangers of East-West tensions. Those are two very great disadvantages indeed. They are the reasons why Algeria's neighbours—Morocco and Tunisia—and the members of the French community in Africa are immensely concerned at this recent development.

I understand why in these circumstances there is a feeling that the United Nations should now attempt to intervene directly. That is really what the hon. Gentleman has asked for. His view is based on a false premise. It is our hope that, when this topic is debated again in the United Nations, the debate will be a constructive and helpful one. It can be so. It has happened with other problems. There is no reason why it should not happen with Algeria. That is certainly the spirit in which the United Kingdom delegation will take part in the discussions. But at the moment we do not know what the resolution is to be. We do not know what form the debate will take. Therefore, I obviously cannot foretell what the instructions to the United Kingdom delegation will be and, still less, how we shall vote when that matter arises.

What is far from constructive—it is in fact unhelpful—is the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman in the few words he said on this matter on Tuesday, when he suggested that the United Nations should "impose" a solution. In this we are completely opposed to one another. It is both unrealistic and unhelpful to think that in a problem of this kind and complexity the United Nations can impose a solution. I do not think that one even needs to look at the practical question of how the United Nations can impose a solution or a settlement in a situation like Algeria today. As a matter of plain fact, which we must recognise, a settlement cannot be achieved without the co-operation of France, and it can only do harm if one pretends that it can. The plain fact is that it is a question which can be solved satisfactorily only by negotiations and with the consent of those concerned in it.

Despite the present difficulties and disappointments, the pronouncements made by both sides over the past year or so suggest that there may not be an unbridgeable difference of opinion about the ends which they are trying to achieve. I will not go into details now, because it is not my task to speak for either side. However, I do not believe that the difference is so great that it will be impossible to bridge it as to the ends.

If that is so, the real question is to decide the means which should be used. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the United Nations. Without minimising the importance of the United Nations or the part it can at times play in such matters, I do not think that we should be too dogmatic about its rôle on this occasion. There are countries and groups of countries which have particular bonds of history and friendship with both France and Algeria. They may be in a better position to help than some other form of grouping or organisation which might be thought of. I am certain of this one matter—

The Question having been proposed after four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to five o'clock.