Q4. Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Nigeria.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 15th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 984–5.]
Mr. TaylorIs the Prime Minister aware that, despite the complexity of the problem, it is intolerable that we should stand by in inactivity when Federal troops are at the gates of Umuahia and a major fight seems inevitable? Would any purpose be served by an appeal for a cease- 1328 fire by all the major Powers? If so, could the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to sponsor it?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman has put his question very fairly. But I have said before that a cease-fire as such by itself would not be a contribution to the solution of the problem. A cease-fire requires arms control just as arms control could not be effective without a cease-fire. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, particularly if he recalls the report I gave to the House before Easter, that the important thing now in getting forward from the present situation to negotiations must be to leave it to the Consultative Committee of the O.A.U., which is meeting in Monrovia today under the chairmanship of President Tubman of Liberia. The Emperor of Ethiopia is also present at the meeting and he as made very distinguished, long and exhausting attempts to get the two parties together. I commend to the House that it should wait and see what comes out of the O.A.U. meeting.
§ Mr. James GriffithsWhile appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said—that the best hope now is mediation from other African States—since the O.A.U. is meeting today, would my right hon. Friend not consider sending a message in the name of the Government and, I hope, in the name of the House, urging the meeting to take the initiative to bring about a ceasefire and stating that if it does, he will take action with other Powers to seek an embargo on all arms?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend has long experience of Nigeria and of African problems in general. He acknowledges that mediation is now for African States. The Federal Government know our views and I have had encouraging assurances from them, which I have reported to the House. The Emperor Haile Selassie also had a full report and I indicated to the House how close we were in our approach to the problem. I have also exchanged messages with President Tubman. I am not sure that any further measures are necessary at this time but, of course, we are prepared to give any help that we can.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserIf anything comes out of the present conference—and I fear that nothing will—will the right hon. Gentleman consider, through diplomatic 1329 channels or the United Nations, approaching the four major Powers, as he should have done, in my view, from the beginning? After all, they tried to do something about the Middle East.
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman means an approach for purposes of mediation or for an arms control agreement. But I have told him before why I do not think that such an agreement could be positive, for the only way to enforce it would be on the ground, which would mean a ceasefire. We are prepared to co-operate in any way we can. We have discussed this matter with U Thant and have put proposals to a number of other leaders and African Governments. The answer at present does not lie there but in Monrovia. We shall have to consider what more we can do if, unhappily, the right hon. Gentleman is correct and no progress is made there.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunAs long-range Federal guns have begun to shell the most densely populated areas of Biafra, according to Red Cross reports, will my right hon. Friend ask Lagos to stop this killing of civilians?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend will be aware of the representations I made about indiscriminate bombing, and there are signs that what I said then has been listened to. I said before that this is a brutal civil war. I did what I could then, and others have done what they can. Many of Her Majesty's Ministers have been out there for this purpose and talked to both sides, there and here, to try to get the parties together. I do not think we can, in those circumstances, say to the combatants that they must stop fighting. After all there has been no offer from Colonel Ojukwu to stop the continued shipment of arms supplies there. It is a tragic thing, and I agree with many of the things my hon. Friend has reported about his own visits there. It is not the way to get a peaceful solution.
§ Mr. HeathIs this not a new doctrine—which was first put forward by the Foreign Secretary, and has been repeated by the Prime Minister—that we can only have a cease-fire with an international agreement about an arms embargo? This was certainly not the case in Laos, where the cease-fire was obtained. It was cer- 1330 tainly not the approach in Vietnam. A cease-fire was obtained in the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries without an arms embargo. Ought not the Government to concentrate on getting a cease-fire, the whole purpose of that being then to reach negotiations about a settlement, and then the arms embargo can be arranged afterwards, if it is ever possible?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend and I are not seeking to enunciate any international doctrine appropriate to circumstances other than these. What I said was in relation to this particular war. The position here is that a great deal of arms are being ferried in by night, mixed in with the relief planes to Biafra. If we had a cease-fire without an arms embargo then of course this would merely be a period for one side to regroup and rearm. I do not know many combatants in history who would have agreed to a cease-fire on those terms. As to the cases he mentioned, which were all legitimate and well-proven cases, as he said, they were cases where there was no problem about the ability of one side to continue the fighting being advanced at the expense of the other by a cease-fire, unaccompanied by an arms embargo. This is a very different situation.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonCould my right hon. Friend say whether he is aware of any information that the renewed military activitiy has led to the mass slaughter which was referred to by the hon. Member opposite? Does it not appear that in so far as it is possible to wage war without mass slaughter the Federal forces have been doing as well as they could?
§ The Prime MinisterThat was my impression from my visit, and from the reports of international military observers whom I met, as well as from the reports of very distinguished British serving soldiers who went into this question when I was there. At the same time, one must say, accepting the phrase "they did as well as they could", that there has been the problem of indiscriminate bombing, about which the House was right to be concerned and which I raised—I put very strong pressure on Colonel Gowon—and on which I got, I thought, the best possible answer in the circumstances.
I have no recent information about casualties during the period of the fighting, which appears to be getting close to 1331 Umuahia. In the absence of any authoritative information I should not like to comment on this. This has been a most brutal war, and civil wars unfortunately carry with them a degree of brutality going even beyond what the modern world knows by international war.
§ Mr. HeathIf I may press the Prime Minister on this, with reference to his earlier reply, while this ghastly conflict goes on, arms are going to both sides and it is understandable that during a ceasefire, possibly, arms would continue to go to both sides. But at least it would give the opportunity for a mediator, or both sides directly, trying to get some sort of interim settlement. Is it not worth concentrating on this rather than abandoning the hope of a cease-fire because it is known that we cannot get an international arms agreement?
§ The Prime MinisterI recognise this as a respectable argument, and one which might very well be applicable in many other situations. If a cease-fire were necessary to get negotiations, I think that the right hon. Gentleman's case would be even stronger than I know he feels it to be. The plain fact is that the Nigerian Federal Government are unlikely to agree, and I think it would be unreasonable to ask them to agree, to a cease-fire—alone—if, when they feel that they are making substantial military progress, a cease-fire could be used for a unilateral build-up of arms to redress the present arms and military imbalance. What the Federal Government expressed to me, and I told the House, was their willingness to sit down, now, today, tomorrow, with Colonel Ojukwu or his representatives to discuss a settlement. That is possible, even without a cease-fire.
§ Mr. ThorpeSince today's reports indicate that the Red Cross is evacuating Umuahia because it is under fire, can we not take some initiative to try to step up the number of international observers and, albeit to put them in a very hazardous position, to try to get them on both sides of the line?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is what I spent a lot of time trying to deal with when I was there. I discussed it with international observers and it was certainly one of the things that I would have 1332 wished to discuss with Colonel Ojukwu. Many of his own claims, which he has a right to demand should be investigated—some of them have been quoted in this House—could have been investigated in many cases if we had had international observers on the other side of the fighting line. It became impracticable and in the event, regrettably, I was not able to meet with Colonel Ojukwu.