§ 5. Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will launch a further initiative to obtain an internationally agreed embargo on the supply of arms to either side in the war between Nigeria and Biafra.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 21st October. I have nothing to add.
§ Mr. BarnesWill not my right hon. Friend agree that his repeated refusals to take any public initiative of this kind makes his constant blaming of the Biafrans for everything less and less credible? What has he to say about Group Captain Cheshire's statements? Are they not a formidable indictment of the closed-mind attitude which the Foreign Office has adopted throughout this whole tragic business?
§ Mr. StewartNo, Sir. I cannot accept that view at all. I have already explained publicly to the House the steps we have taken to try to get agreement both with France and the Soviet Union on this matter. I must repeat that if one wants a workable arms embargo, it must be combined with a cease-fire on the spot. With regard to what my hon. Friend said about Group Captain Cheshire. I would make just two points. First, we have, with the help of a great many people, obtained first-hand knowledge of what is going on in Biafra. Secondly, we were obliged to disagree with Group Captain Cheshire's judgment that what Colonel Ojukwu was concerned with was not secession but security. I wish that were true, but Colonel Ojukwu has himself explicitly denied it.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserSurely, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about an arms 821 embargo he is being totally hypocritical. The one thing that this Government are doing is stepping up arms supply to Nigeria, and his own miserable Under-Secretary admitted it yesterday. I am told that as much as 60 per cent. of the battle weapons are now coming from this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
§ Mr. StewartThe right hon. Gentleman always uses words like "hypocritical" and "miserable" when he begins to run out of arguments. In the first place, we have made, as I have repeatedly explained to the House, efforts to get an agreement for an arms embargo, and for reasons that also have been explained to the House it has not been possible to reach such an agreement. The Government believe, and so do the great majority in the House, that it would be wrong for this country to give up arms supplies to Nigeria, because that would amount to condoning a tribal secession of great injury to Nigeria and African people as a whole. That, I think, is the view that the majority in the House have accepted. With the increase in size of the Nigerian Army, there has, of course, been an increase in the absolute amount of arms sent to that country. They still remain at about 15 per cent., by value, of all the arms which Nigeria is obtaining from abroad, and some of them, I may say, recently took the form of anti-aircraft defences, which I think it is quite legitimate to provide.
§ Mr. WinnickIs my right hon. Friend aware that millions of British people have seen on the television screen the sheer horror of the starvation and near-starvation in Biafra and would like to see the Government make some positive contribution to ending the misery? Is he aware that it would be far more honourable to us as a nation to send food instead of continuing to send arms?
§ Mr. StewartMy hon. Friend may be a little anticipating other Questions on the Order Paper, but it is right to say, first, that we have made a very substantial contribution to the supply of food and medicines. Second, we played a proper part in helping bring about an agreement between the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government for a plan for daylight relief. Colonel Ojukwu objected on grounds that it would involve him in 822 some military risk and said that he wanted a third party guarantee. Such a guarantee was provided by the United States, but Colonel Ojukwu still refuses to accept. In these circumstances, the blame for starvation cannot be laid at Britain's door.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAs the right hon. Gentleman says, we shall come back to the question of food supplies on later Questions. Would he recognise that there is an increasing impatience that the British Government are not seen to be trying for an arms embargo? Is it not as well if either the French or the Russians seem to be objecting that they should be shown in the United Nations to be objecting?
§ Mr. StewartI shall consider whether we should take any other step, but I do not want to deceive the House about this. We have examined it very carefully. I raised the matter when I was at the United Nations recently. I think it would be wrong to deceive the House into thinking that all that is needed is a few words to get something which I do not believe can be done without co-operation of the parties on the spot.
§ Mr. ThorpeThe Foreign Secretary will be aware of the growing horror in this country that we are one of the main suppliers of arms in a civil war. Surely the Foreign Secretary is no longer suggesting that this civil war, which has gone on for two and a half years, is merely a tribal secession? Is there any reason why this Government —whatever the recalcitrance of the Americans, the Russians or the French —should not raise this publicly in the Security Council and let those who are not prepared to have an arms embargo be counted before the full glare of world publicity?
§ Mr. StewartI discussed this with the Secretary General in New York. I do not believe we would succeed in getting agreement to get this inscribed on the agenda of the Security Council.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserWhy?
§ Mr. StewartThe right hon. Gentleman must realise how strongly African States feel about this issue of tribal secession, which is not something which can be brushed aside in the way the 823 right hon. Gentleman thinks. This is at the heart of the matter and the welfare of Africans is concerned with it.
§ 17. Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the breakdown of the International Red Cross's negotiations for relief flights into Biafra and the declared inability of the Nigerian Red Cross to move supplies, he will now financially assist Joint Church Aid who are actively relieving famine both in Nigeria and Biafra.
§ Mr. M. StewartNo, Sir. Her Majesty's Government could not properly give aid for an operation through the air-space of a country with which we are in normal, friendly relations in contravention of the requirements of the Government of that country in accordance with international law.
§ Mr. Hugh FraserSurely the right hon. Gentleman knows that he is assisting what has become genocide by starvation. He knows that it is up to the human beings in Britain who want to support relief to act. He surely ought to do something about it now. Will he confirm or deny the truth of the article in The Guardian last week which said that he is trying to put pressure on the Churches to stop it?
§ Mr. StewartOf course that article was not true. It is surprising that it should even have been published. For the reasons I have given, we cannot properly give aid for an operation of this kind. The right way and the most efficient way to get food into Nigeria is either by daylight flights or by land. We have played a considerable part in putting plans forward by which that could be done. It is by now quite clear who is responsible for the fact that the food is not going in in the way it could.
§ Mr. James JohnsonWhile not forgetting earlier comments about the mission of Group Captain Cheshire, is not my right hon. Friend puzzled, as I am, by the changing attitude of Colonel Ojukwu? On a Monday we are told that he is willing to discuss with no conditions and forgetting secession. Two days later we are told that conditions have entirely changed. How can we negotiate on this position?
§ Mr. StewartThis is difficult, but there have been statements on behalf of Colonel Ojukwu that he is prepared to talk without pre-conditions. I hope that that is correct and that, as that is also the Nigerian Government's view, if Colonel Ojukwu wishes it the talks could begin.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWill the Secretary of State clarify the existing situation for the House? Is it true that there could be now, if Colonel Ojukwu would accept them, daylight flights every day between 9 and 5, that the aeroplanes would start from outside Nigeria, and that on the aeroplanes the Red Cross could choose who would accompany the cargoes?
§ Mr. StewartThat is so. There is the further point that I have already mentioned, that there would be a guarantee from the United States Government that this would be done in a manner which would not give military advantage to the Nigerian Government.
§ 18. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on efforts to end the Nigerian war; and if he will hold discussions with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France regarding a joint ban on arms to both sides.
§ Mr. M. StewartI would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 13th October. The vigorous efforts of African statesmen to bring about peace talks are continuing. We are ready to support them if we can help in any way. On the proposals for a joint ban on arms, my information continues to point to the conclusion that an initiative of the kind suggested would not be successful.—[Vol. 788, c. 12–13.]
§ Mr. AllaunIs not Group Captain Cheshire quite correct in saying that our Government are laying all the blame on one side, when those of us who have been to both sides know that there is a desire for peace on both sides? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government put themselves in a position to act as mediator by ceasing their present attitude, act in an unbiased way, and do as the right hon. Member 825 for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) suggests—raise the matter in the United Nations?
§ Mr. StewartThere are several points there. First, if my hon. Friend has listened to the several speeches that I have made in this House, he will know that it is not true to say that we have put all the blame on one side. I have referred to the massacre of Ibos, and to the tragic events which preceded the war, on the assumption that solving the problem by armed secession was wrong.
On the immediate issue of who is responsible for the fact that food does not go through, I have, in answer to the previous Question, given the facts to the House, and the House can judge who is responsible. I think that we should also notice that if this country were to decide to change its policy on arms supply it would be an illusion to suppose that that would put us in a position to be a mediator.
§ Mr. GoodhewIs not the right hon. Gentleman disclosing how prejudiced he is in this matter? Was it not his Government who were so confident that they could prevent all other countries in the world from providing any goods for Rhodesia? How can the right hon. Gentleman say on the one hand that that is possible and in the next breath suggest that he cannot get together with two countries to stop the supply of arms to Biafra?
§ Mr. StewartThat question seems to be prejudiced and nonsensical.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonWould not Group Captain Cheshire, if he is satisfied about the sincerity of Colonel Ojukwu, and satisfied also that the Nigerians are not planning genocide, be better employed in trying to bring this home to Colonel Gjukwu? This is really the source and cause of this war. If it were brought home to him, might it not any longer be necessary to have these protracted inquiries into the causes and outturn of the war?
§ Mr. StewartI hope that anyone who has any access to Colonel Ojukwu will urge on him two things: first, that he ought to agree to the daylight flights, particularly now that he has the third party guarantee for which he asked. Second, that he should be prepared to enter into talks without pre-conditions.