UGANDA (Hansard, 21 March 1973)

§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South-West)
I hoped that in the months since General Amin introduced his current policies towards this country we would find some time for a proper, full debate by the whole House or at least by those interested in international affairs. It is not adequate that one should discuss such a subject in an Adjournment debate, but I think that it is better discussed in an Adjournment debate than not at all.
The behaviour of the Uganda régime which I find sufficiently offensive to make me wish the British Government to take counter-action is divided into two parts. There is first the expulsion from Uganda of residents there who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That action was entirely within the legal rights of the Uganda Government and, leaving aside the manner in which it was done, it is not action to which I wish to direct special criticism, though I regret it.
In so far as blame attaches to anyone for the situation that Britain now faces 620 as regards the United Kingdom citizens who were in Uganda, it attaches to the Government—it happened to be a Conservative Government—who in the early 1960s proposed to the House that the right to retain United Kingdom citizenship should be conferred in the East African case. It belongs to Parliament, which did not pay sufficient attention and allowed the proposal through without thinking about it. It belongs especially to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who master-minded it. It does not belong to General Amin.
The offensive behaviour which I distinguish from that is the inhuman and inhumane manner in which the expulsion was conducted, the confiscation of goods of United Kingdom citizens and others in Uganda, and the breakdown in the rule of law in Uganda, creating danger not only for the people of Uganda but also for foreigners living there, and manifested by the dragging out of the Chief Justice of Uganda from his own court and his later assassination as an official act of policy.
The offensive behaviour is entirely domestic to the country of Uganda. It is not a matter in which we are entitled to interfere. But that does not mean that we should be indifferent to it in our attitudes, and we are not, as Her Majesty's Government have made very plain. But nor should we sit back and take no action in respect of our practical dealings with Uganda.
As a result of history, there are three areas in which we have close practical dealings with Uganda. They are in aid, trade and Commonwealth membership. The Government take great pride in having announced that the £10 million loan which Uganda would have got but for her present policies has been stopped. That is good. They have also announced that the topping-up of salaries of OSAS personnel in Uganda is to stop when contracts expire. But those actions are nothing like enough, and they were not taken quickly enough to have any effect.
For aid to be justified, there needs to be a relationship between the giving Government and the receiving Government so that the giving Government can feel confident that the receiving Government will administer it efficiently and responsibly. We can have no confidence that 621 any aid provided to Uganda at present will be used competently or wisely.
In the circumstances it seems to be right that we should cut off immediately all aid to Uganda. We should do it as a sudden action to manifest our displeasure with and distrust of the régime. It is not good enough to wait until present contracts expire. We ought to say to our partially aid-financed personnel in Uganda, "Come out. We are not prepared to go on putting British money into Uganda, no matter how little it may be."
Then one comes to trade. Uganda continues to enjoy preferences in this country as a Commonwealth country. Although preferences will be phased out as part of the terms of our entry into the Community, they still exist at the moment and they are of real benefit to Uganda. It is worth noting that there is a reverse preference. That is not General Amin's fault. It goes back to the Congo Basin treaties, and existed in colonial days. It is worth noting that there does not happen to be a quid pro quo relating to Uganda preferences.
In 1971 the balance of trade between Britain and Uganda was in Uganda's favour. Uganda exported to us about £19.4 million worth of goods and we sent to Uganda about £15.7 million worth of goods. In 1972 the adverse balance had become greatly worse. From Uganda there flowed about £18.8 million worth of goods and to Uganda we sold just under half—namely £9.3 million. The position has become worse and worse month by month as the chaos in Uganda means that it is impossible for our exporters to sell there. In the last six months from Uganda there came £10.3 million worth of goods, and only £2.7 million worth of goods were sent by us to Uganda. That compares with the equivalent six months the previous year when Uganda sent £10.4 million worth to us and we sent £8.1 million to them.
The figures show that Uganda is enjoying a favourable trade relationship with us. It is true to say that in respect of some of Uganda's principal commodities the preference does not apply. Nevertheless, preference applies to a lot of goods, and it constitutes an encouragement to Uganda's favourable balance of trade with Britain rather than a dis- 622 couragement. It seems wrong to allow that situation to continue when Uganda's behaviour towards us is considered.
I have intervened several times in the House to say that it seems clear that we should take the initiative to the other Commonwealth Governments—and they would have to agree—and advise them that Uganda should be suspended from Commonwealth membership because of its behaviour. I stress "suspension" and not "expulsion". It can be argued that there is no such thing as suspension from the Commonwealth and that it has never happened before. But nothing has ever happened in the Commonwealth which has ever happened before. It lives on innovation, and that would be a sensible innovation to introduce. It was thought impossible to have a republic in the Commonwealth until suddenly it was done without any difficulty. I suggest that there would be no difficulty in introducing the concept of suspension from Commonwealth membership as opposed to expulsion if Commonwealth Governments wished to do so, which is a big "if".
The second possible technical objection, which has been put forward in the House by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, is that it is not for Britain to take the initiative. On one occasion at least the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was impossible for Britain to take the initiative, and procedurally wrong for us to do so.
There is nothing impossible about it. It is obvious that all that Britain has to do is to send messages to the other Commonwealth Governments, with the exception of Uganda, suggesting that it would be appropriate for Uganda to be suspended from membership, and to achieve that before the Ottawa conference in August of this year. It may or may not be wise in the opinion of the Government, it may or may not result in agreement with the Commonwealth Governments, but it is a possible initiative for the British Government to take. If the British Government cannot take it, who can? The Commonwealth Secretariat cannot take the initiative on an important policy matter such as this.
There is one specific matter on which I should like an answer either tonight or later. This relates to the question whether 623 there has been any consultation with other Commonwealth Governments on this point. I have now asked this question twice in the House and have been fobbed off. I recognise that confidential negotiations with Commonwealth Governments are normally hidden from the eyes of Parliament. But I wish to know whether there has been any discussion between Commonwealth Governments—and I use the word "discussion" in the widest sense—on whether this is a desirable and possible thing to do.
The third technical objection that might be raised—the Foreign Secretary has raised it in the past—is that this is something that should come up only at Ottawa when everybody is sitting round the table —including Amin, if he dares leave his country. That is the time, it is hinted, to discuss whether Amin should be at the table. Has anyone ever heard of such a daft idea? If we do not want to sit at the same table with him, let us do something about it before we sit at the same table. Let us not wait until we all get round the table at Ottawa.
To come to the substance of the question of the suspension of Uganda from the Commonwealth, the considerations are as follows. The Commonwealth in the last 30 years has changed from being a grouping in which it was conceived that the value lay in the similarity of outlook of its members to one in which it is thought—rightly—that the value lies in the dissimilarity of its members' outlooks, politics, geographical location, and so on. Therefore, we must be extremely tolerant of the different policies which the different Commonwealth Governments will wish to pursue. But there has to be a limit to the elasticity that we are prepared to allow the Commonwealth relationship to show. If the relationship is so elastic that it can take in Britain at one extreme—to think of one law-abiding country—and at the other extreme a country whose chief justice can be dragged from court and assassinated I do not regard that association as one having any kind of value. There must be a limit to the tolerance which such an institution can exercise.
It is possible that it is being argued in the Foreign Office that the presence of Amin within the Commonwealth shows how useless is the relationship of the 624 Commonwealth, and that may be the secret policy of the Foreign Office. But if Amin is allowed to stay within the Commonwealth the institution has lost its value. If we are to take Amin back, we might as well take South Africa back. We might as well have Smith at the table, if we are to have Amin there. We might as well invite President Nyerere to bring in representatives of the thug government in Zanzibar if we are to have Amin there.
I accept that the position of Uganda's relationship with the Commonwealth is one which Britain alone cannot take. It is a decision that rests with all Commonwealth members other than Uganda. I also accept that the chances of getting the other Commonwealth members to agree that it would be a good idea to suspend Uganda are small to the point of non-existence, but the other members must choose. If they want Amin in the Commonwealth that is all right—but if they do, then they do not want us. If they prefer to have that régime represented at Ottawa, let them choose to have that régime there. We shall not leave the Commonwealth, we shall be around when Amin has gone, but if they want Amin to be present we can say that we see no point in attending. If it came to that, I would prefer the Commonwealth to disappear and go under on the basis of such a principle involving an initiative by Britain, rather than that Amin should linger on like the smile on the face of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland because we were not prepared to draw the line.
The repercussions of our policy towards Uganda go wide outside that country. If nations think, as they do, that Britain will put up with any sort of treatment of its nationals and interests abroad, they will impose upon us whatever treatment suits their interests. It is because it has become accepted over the years that Britain rather turns the other cheek that we have to put up with Franco's behaviour in Gibraltar and Iceland's in the Icelandic fisheries matter. It matters what the world thinks that Britain will do when faced with a challenge to her interests such as Amin has put forward.
This question also raises the matter of the quality of Britain's diplomacy, of which I have no high opinion. Diplomacy 625 is apparently to get what one wants, preferably without paying for it, and to stop others from doing what they like if it is not in one's interests that they should do it. Looking at the Uganda situation, the world can have no faith that Britain is able to look after herself.
There has been reference in the House to compensation for United Kingdom nationals in Uganda. The Foreign Secretary, on 28th February, told us that the Government were trying to get compensation from these people. When I put it to him that it was important to make clear to the Uganda Government what consequences would follow from us if compensation was not forthcoming, he said that that was a point to which we would come if they refused compensation and we would see what, if anything, we needed to do to Uganda as a result of that decision.
I do not know where the Foreign Office learned its diplomacy, but it should take a lesson from the trade union movement if that is how it thinks one gets what one wants. When negotiating with people one tells them what awful consequences will follow if they do not agree while the negotiations are going on. There is no point in doing it afterwards. It is too late then.
I am not inviting the Government to use bluff or to make idle threats. It is important to have some sanctions to apply. We should have sharpened our knives and primed our weapons and made it clear to Uganda what we would do if it refused compensation.
An announcement has been made that the proposed £10 million loan will not now be made, that the process of topping up will cease, and that the strength of our arm is downgraded to the level of an acting high commission.
On 23rd October the Foreign Secretary said that when the Asians were out of Uganda it would be his intention to review our general policy towards Uganda to see what ought to be done. As a result, on 30th November he announced those three proposals: that we would not go on to make the £10 million loan, that we would not top up salaries of technical assistance staff and that we would not appoint a high commissioner. That was the result of this magnificent 626 review of our general policy towards Uganda.
I will outline what I should like to see happen: first, that any aid still flowing should be stopped immediately; secondly, that preference should be terminated immediately—that may require legislation, but it can be done quickly— and, thirdly, that we should be in active consultation with other Governments to organise international pressure upon Uganda. Then we should get our people out of Uganda, because it is the presence of United Kingdom citizens there which gives Amin the continuing weapon to put the screws on this country.
It is tempting, perhaps, in international affairs sometimes to turn the other cheek, but it is not only a matter of dignity, although dignity is a pretty good guide when it comes to diplomacy.
It is also because we are defending the interests of people in this country, British people abroad, and so on, that we have to ensure that actions such as Uganda has perpetrated are not allowed to pass without a penalty. Our motto should be nemo me impune lacessit.
The Minister will no doubt ask why we should punish the people of Uganda for the offences of the Government. There is no need to punish the people of Uganda—quite the reverse. If we were to take the kind of action which I have indicated it would be seen by the opponents of Amin within Uganda as a statement of our support and understanding of their very genuine grievances against the present régime.

§ The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel)
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) has rendered a real service to the House in securing this debate, but he will appreciate that only a brief moment remains for me to reply to it. To some extent the hon. Gentleman has answered to his own satisfaction the points that he wished to put forward, and I have taken careful note of what he said.
Britain's policy in Uganda continues to be that which was announced to the House on 30th November and 19th December by my right hon. Friend the 627 Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman said, Her Majesty's Government have cancelled the proposed £10 million loan agreement. Supplementation for technical assistance personnel will not continue beyond the course of an officer's current contract, and we shall do our best to minimise the financial hardship to any officer who chooses to leave Uganda early.
In the wider context to which the hon. Gentleman was referring we have brought the attention of the United Nations on more than one occasion to the inhumanity of President Amin's precipitate expulsion of the Asians. This was an act of blatant racialism and discrimination in violation of the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in violation of the recognised standards of international behaviour.
We have made clear to President Amin that we expect full compensation to be paid to the Asians for their businesses and the properties left behind in Uganda. We have made known our strong opposition to the arbitrary and discriminatory manner of his expropriation of British businesses in Uganda, and for these also we expect full compensation to be paid as provided by law.
Events in Uganda have shown up the shortcomings of the protection which is accorded by international law to people who are not citizens of the country in which they live. We have taken the initiative in the United Nations Human Rights Commission by proposing that consideration should be given to this problem so as to prevent, if possible, any repetition elsewhere of the events in Uganda.
I fully accept the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which was constructive, firm and advocated robust policies, but I think he will recognise that we must be careful to distinguish, on the one hand, acts which are designed to safeguard essential interests and to improve the situation from, on the other hand, acts which are purely retaliatory or have a kind of symbolic effect.
The hon Gentleman mentioned the question of trade. Uganda would have very little difficulty in selling elsewhere 628 the coffee and probably the tea which are her main exports to this country. The first people to suffer would be consumers in this country, but I shall look carefully into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in this regard.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, as others have, that Her Majesty's Government should take further measures, and he referred in particular to the possibility of Uganda's suspension from the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained the position on this on 28th February. Certainly, some of Uganda's recent acts towards foreign communities in Uganda, and in particular towards the Asians and the British, are outrageous by normal standards of civilised behaviour and incompatible both with the behaviour expected within the Commonwealth partnership and with the ideals of the United Nations Charter.
There are clearly a number of possible courses of action which may be open to us. But the proper place to discuss Uganda's relations with the Commonwealth would be at the Prime Minister's meeting in August. The hon. Member asked whether there had been discussions. It is not for me to disclose confidential discussions, but it is our view that the suspension of a member from the Commonwealth is of such importance that it is a matter for Heads of Commonwealth Governments. It is our view that Ottawa is the best place for this discussion to take place.
Any actions which the Government might take unilaterally, despite the emotions involved, we must consider with great care. There is a British community in Uganda of over 2,000 persons whose interests must remain uppermost in our minds. The Ugandan authorities have been reminded of their responsibility for the protection of the British community on several recent occasions and they have accepted full responsibility for the protection of the lives and property of all foreign nationals.
Her Majesty's Government have noted with surprise the scarcely veiled threat to this community by a military spokesman on 18th March. The spokesman referred to articles appearing in the British Sunday Press as "hostile British propaganda" and said that if this continued British 629 personnel still in Uganda would be in a difficult situation. He also referred to the possibility, if the Press campaign continued, of further takeovers of British companies still operating in Uganda and of not paying compensation for companies already taken over.
Our acting High Commissioner has already made to the appropriate Ugandan authorities the points that the British Government are not responsible for articles appearing in the British Press and that if the Uganda Government deported British journalists such as Philip Short the British Press would in future have no option but to fall back on stories by persons who had either never been there or had not been recently.

§ Mr. George Cunningham
I bet that has got him worried.

§ Lord Balniel
As to the question of compensation for the United Kingdom passport holders and the British subjects whose businesses and property have been taken over, we have invited our nationals to place on record with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a statement of their property left behind in Uganda and we 630 continue to press for talks with the Ugandan Government. At this stage it may be appropriate, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, to point out that our differences are with the Government of President Amin rather than with the Ugandan people as a whole, the vast majority of whom still remain friendly to us.
In these circumstances we must consider very carefully before we take any purely recriminatory measures. It would not be in our interests to repeat the inhumane acts of the Ugandan Government, for instance, if we were to order Ugandans out of this country or to interrupt educational and training courses which have already been arranged. Instead we must look for positive openings—