DIEGO GARCIA

HC Deb 20 March 1974 vol 870 cc1267-77

3.58 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

The purpose of this debate is to help Ministers in the incoming Government to exhume one of the skeletons in the cupboard of our inheritance—namely the policy, discussion of which is in order under Class II, Vote 2, Subhead C8, of developing an Anglo-American base, or staging post and communications centre at Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean territory, 1,900 miles south-south-west of Singapore and 3,000 miles from the Suez Canal.

It may be thought a little strange that I did not take part in the extended debate on the Kilbrandon Report, but if Diego Garcia seems a rather esoteric subject, I believe that to go ahead with this project would sow the seeds of trouble for some years to come.

In 1967 I had hoped and thought that we had heard the last of coral atoll bases in the Indian Ocean, with the decision not to go ahead with the proposed staging post at Aldabra—now, I am glad to say, manned only by a small unit of scientists from the Royal Society, living in peace with frigate birds, giant tortoises, pink-footed boobies and the rest of the unique eco-system of the atoll.

The plans that would have wrecked Aldabra were defeated by a combination of the Royal Society, the Treasury, various Americans—including Don Hornig, Glenn Seaborg and Dillon Ripley, Secretary of the Smithsonian—and a barrage of parliamentary Questions.

However, there are very persistent people in the Ministry of Defence and in the Pentagon. Frustrated on Aldabra, they have now turned their attention to Diego Garcia.

I had better say at once that my case would be harmed if I claimed the scientific, ecological considerations which were so powerful in the case of Aldabra applied equally to Diego Garcia. They do not. I shall not be handing in any personal letters from Dillon Ripley to 10, Downing Street, as in the case of Aldabra, on the subject of Diego Garcia.

I have a number of questions of which I have given the Foreign Office 36 hours' notice.

First, can we establish the facts? What exactly is to be done? Is there to be a deepening of the anchorage? What is meant by reports that it is to be done at "not too great a cost?" Is the airstrip to be lengthened from 8,000 ft. to 12,000 ft.? Is it true that the base is to handle strike aircraft as well as reconnaissance planes? Are there to be extra warehouses and fuel storage tanks? What about extra barracks? What is meant by extra maintenance facilities and communications facilities?

I have been told "Don't worry. This is nothing to get het up about. These are minor improvements." That is not the view of Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff. He sees things a little differently. Eight days ago in Washington the Admiral wanted KC 135 jet tankers, which can refuel B 52 bombers, to patrol the Indian Ocean regularly. My hon. Friend knows very well that for B 52s and the P 3 Orion long-distance search aircraft to operate one needs facilities such as those at Guam. One does not have KC 135s and B 52s just as a result of improving a minor facility.

The Economist said on 9th February that the changes at Diego Garcia mean that a major American squadron will be operating more or less continuously in the Indian Ocean in the foreseeable future. They will allow the American Navy to bring its powers to bear in the area much more rapidly and effectively than in the past. That surely means a squadron with major carrier protection.

A few months ago I took my little boy on an open day in the Firth of Forth on board the carrier "John F. Kennedy". The scale of the operation has to be seen to be believed. American squadrons do not operate from 2½d or even £12½ million facilities. I noticed in yesterday's Daily Express that by some miracle the figure had gone up overnight from £12½ million to £40 million. I am sceptical about whether anything to suit Admiral Moorer could be done in a typhoon-ridden coral atoll for less than £100 million. In the case of Aldabra I was told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), then Minister of Public Building and Works, that my estimate of £100 million was much more nearly right than the departmental estimate of £20 million at the time.

Does the Royal Navy plan to maintain a presence in the Indian Ocean when the Suez Canal reopens? Is it to do it on the principle of group operating, sending in a few warships for a few months at a time, usually led by a cruiser and whenever possible including a nuclear submarine? Is Diego Garcia to have a Nimrod capability?

I would much rather see the Royal Navy turning its attention and resources to the urgent requirement of a North Sea Environmental Command, along the lines envisaged by John Erickson and Alan Thomson, of Heriot Watt University, to protect our oil rigs and pipelines against sabotage and help in the development of the North Sea.

However, if the scientific case is weaker for Diego Garcia than for Aldabra, the political case is far stronger and more vocal.

What do we think we are up to, developing an Indian Ocean base against the public wishes of Mrs. Indira Ghandi and the Government of India; against the public wishes of President Bhutto and the Government of Pakistan; against the public wishes of Mrs. Bandaranaike and the Government of Sri Lanka; against the public wishes of President Suharto and the Government of Indonesia; to say nothing of the caustic comment of Mr. Chou-en-Lai?

As a Member deeply interested in Britain's relations with Asia, I am embarrassed and appalled by my conversations with many Asian friends during the past year who do not understand why Britain should want to meddle in what they see as end-of-empire commitments. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows far more about the Africans than I do. How do her African friends react to what they see as a base in the Sea of Madagascar but which we call the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Ronald Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

Is my hon. Friend going to make comments about every island in the Indian Ocean taken over by the Soviets, including those being used as intelligence units? Is he going to pursue that part of what is happening in the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Dalyell

I shall deal with the Soviet Aden based facilities and the possible Sverdlov-class cruiser and the 25 other Soviet ships which are supposed to be out there later in my speech.

In the interest of coherence, I shall go on with the series of questions to my hon. Friend of which I have given 36 hours' notice in detail.

First, what is the Foreign Office's reply to Mrs. Gandhi's statement of 7th February that plans to set up a nuclear base by Britain and America in the Indian Ocean were motivated by aggressive intentions and posed a threat to the security of India?

Secondly, can the Government deny that there are plans for a nuclear refuelling capability centre at Diego Garcia?

Thirdly, if there is to be nuclear involvement, is this not gratuitously offensive to the Indians, who have hitherto stuck to the concept of the "peaceful uses of atomic energy?".

Fourth, what is the Government's reaction to the suggestion by Mr. Swaran Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, in Parliament in Delhi on 12th March, that big naval powers should be invited to a conference on the prospects for "mutual restraint" in building up strengths in the Indian Ocean? I hope that the Russians would also attend such a conference.

Fifth, how does my hon. Friend react to the Indian Press report of 5th February that the then British Government "brushed aside" Indian representations that the Indian Ocean should be preserved as a "zone of peace"?

Sixth, what has been the reply to the Sri Lankan objections that they do not want to see the Indian Ocean made into a … cockpit of big power rivalry"? My hon. Friend is an expert in her own right on African affairs. I am not. But I would ask in what circumstances did the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) find it necessary at a Press conference in Nairobi on 7th February to defend the build-up of Western naval strength in the Indian Ocean?

What discussion has there been with African States on over-flying rights, either from Britain or from possible bases such as Ascension Island? This is a very important question.

Is it true that, as far as the Arabs are affected, assurances have been given to them that Diego Garcia has no direct bearing on the Middle East or the Arab world?

In the light of the interesting article by that distinguished journalist, Martin Woollacott, in yesterday's Guardian, I want to raise a question which had not hitherto occurred to me. The American sector at Diego is supplied by Utapao, the American base in the Gulf of Thailand, and the article poses the problem the situation may present to the Thai Government.

Again, what complaints have been received from the Australian Government? On 8th February, Mr. Whitlam, the Australian Prime Minister, was reported as saying: Any military expansion in the Indian Ocean conflicts with Australia's long-term objectives. What representations has the Foreign Office received from the Soviet Government about expansion of British and American military facilities in the Indian Ocean? What view does my hon. Friend take of the recent Soviet-Indian statement, signed by Mrs. Gandhi and Mr. Brezhnev, in which they reaffirmed their readiness to take part with other countries in an attempt to turn the area into a zone of peace? The Indians see this as a test of good faith, and so it is.

Mr. Ronald Brown rose——

Mr. Dalyell

Perhaps my hon. Friend will make his own speech. What reasons are there to be sceptical of the Soviet-Indian intentions? Even if the Russians have port facilities at Aden and a Sverdlov-type cruiser and 25 other ships in the Indian Ocean, what do our Government think that the British and the Americans should do about it? Are we to understand that it is intended to match strength with strength?

I welcome very much the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, including his idea that safer and more productive relations should be sought with the Russians. I hope that a bit more dynamism will be added to the Geneva discussions. We are in danger of getting bogged down on the point of becoming counterproductive.

Mr. Ronald Brown

Does not my hon. Friend consider that the influx of Russian armament into the area has escalated the situation to a defence situation? Does he feel that we should take no further action and write off the area so that the Russians can use it entirely?

Mr. Dalyell

I hope that the policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his first-class presentation to the House yesterday will be vigorously pursued.

What instructions are being sent to Mr. Ivor Richard on the matter of Diego Garcia? What is to be his attitude to the United Nations resolution to make the Indian Ocean a nuclear-free zone? Why did the previous Government refuse to deny that Diego Garcia would be used as a base for Polaris and Poseidon nuclear submarines? Was it because the deep lagoon at Diego Garcia, like the Holy Loch, provides ideal natural facilities?

On the issue of the Americans, I must mention that the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Mansfield look like giving the project a somewhat rough ride. In case it is thought a minor matter I quote the Annual Defense Department Report, FY1975, of the Secretary of Defense, James R. Schlesinger. It says: As part of the effort to ensure a naval balance we plan to expand our facilities at Diego Garcia and maintain a more frequent presence in the Indian Ocean. We may also wish to consider the use of long-range land-based aircraft for patrol in that general area. Aviation Week's "Washington Roundup" gives a full account of the matter. It says: A Senate fight over the extension of a strong US military presence into the Indian Ocean is in the offing. It will centre around Defense Department's request … to start a major air and naval base on the British island of Diego Garcia, now the site of only a modest US communications installation … Senator Clairborne Pell, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is leading the opposition to what he refers to as the Defense Department's move 'to round out American control of the world's oceans, seeking a Mare A mericanum per Mundum''—an American World Ocean. I hope that the Foreign Office, before it commits us, will talk to Senator Pell and hear his views.

I believe that Diego Garcia is the thin end of a big wedge, and the question for us is whether we are to underwrite a possible expansion of America's military rôle by providing a more than useful and perhaps essential piece of real estate.

4.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving notice of some of the questions which he intended to raise. It has been possible to deal with some of them in some detail as he will see as my reply progresses.

The cost of administering the British Indian Ocean territory amounted to £88,993 in 1972–73. For 1973–74 the estimated cost is £123,000. From those figures the revenues which I shall mention shortly should be deducted. About half of the costs arise from the need to run a 500-ton cargo-passenger ship which is necessary to support life on the remote islands which are scattered over a distance of approximately 2,000 miles across the Indian Ocean. The vessel delivers food and other supplies and collects the copra produced on the island plantations. The bulk of the remaining costs is attributable to running these plantations. The vessel and the plantations both produce revenue. The total revenue in 1972–73 was £73,716. For 1973–74 the estimated total revenue amounts to £87,000. The operations of the facilities on Diego Garcia have little bearing on these figures. The proposed expansion of these facilities would be paid for by the Americans.

The British Indian Ocean Territory was established as a colony by Order in Council in November 1965. The Territory is governed by a Commissioner. At present the Commissioner is also the Governor of Seychelles. The Deputy Governor of Seychelles is concurrently Administrator of the Territory. On Diego Garcia there is a British Government Representative who is at present the senior Royal Navy officer on the atoll. In addition to his naval duties, the Representative has a number of civilian tasks to perform. He is, for example, the magistrate, the civil registrar and the immigration officer. He is also concerned with the protection of wild life. As my hon. Friend is aware, Diego Garcia has none of the rare giant land tortoises which are to be found on Aldabra. But he will be glad to hear that there are three small islets at the mouth of the lagoon at Diego Garcia which are being left undisturbed to provide nesting sites for sea birds. My hon. Friend already knows that Aldabra has been leased to the Royal Society which maintains a research station there.

As hon. Members will be aware, an Exchange of Notes was signed by the British and American Governments in December 1966, under which the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory were made available for the defence purposes of both Governments for an initial period of 50 years. In 1968 Her Majesty's Government approved in principle, within the terms of the 1966 Exchange of Notes, the setting up of a limited United States naval communications facility at Diego Garcia. A further Exchange of Notes was signed in October 1972 and the facility began operating early in 1973. The purpose of this facility is to provide a link in United States defence communications and improved communications support in the Indian Ocean for United States and British state-owned ships and aircraft. It includes an anchorage and an airfield.

In January this year the United States Government approached Her Majesty's Government for their approval in principle to plans for a further development of the facilities. These plans would involve improvements to the airfield and to the anchorage as well as to the shore facilities. The facilities would be available for British as well as American use. The previous Government gave their approval in principle on the basis stated in both Houses on 5th February. This is subject to a formal agreement being concluded in due course. A number of Governments, including those of the Indian Ocean Littoral States, were given notice of the 5th February announcement shortly before it was made. We have not been in office long enough to consider the question in any detail, although we shall, of course, do so as part of our general review of foreign policy. Any delay in establishing our attitude to this question does not carry implications as to what attitude Her Majesty's Government will eventually adopt.

It is, therefore, impossible for me to give answers to all the detailed questions my hon. Friend has put to me. I am sure he understands this. We shall of course give careful consideration to the views of the littoral countries, among whom are a number of our Commonwealth friends. But of course we and our allies also have a legitimate interest in the Indian Ocean which is crossed by sea lanes of vital importance to our economic interests.

In this connection one of the things which we also have to bear in mind is that the Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean has increased steadily in quantity and quality over the last five years and is larger than that of western countries.

Her Majesty's Government are always ready for positive discussion concerning the security of the Indian Ocean. We have not yet had time, as I have said, to consider the proposals for an Indian Ocean peace zone. But the Indian Ocean covers a vast area, and the difficulties of verifying a zone of peace, even if one could be demarcated, would be formidable.

I come now to one or two of the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dalyell

May I say that I regard the Government's attitude as wholly reasonable. I am not asking for instant decisions. I just express the hope that, in the bogged-down Geneva talks, we shall get a move on and discuss the zone of peace as a practical proposition.

Miss Lestor

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. They will be borne in mind as we review this whole question.

Over the past six years, up to six Royal Navy frigates have been deployed east of the Cape. At any one time, one or two of these ships would have been transiting or operating in the Indian Ocean. Present deployment plans envisage at least six ships being deployed east of the Cape for a total of about 10 months of the year.

I come next to my hon. Friend's reference to Mrs. Ghandi's representations on 7th February. In her speech, made during the course of an election campaign, Mrs. Ghandi said nothing that was new, had not been said before, or was not known to us. Indian views about keeping the Indian Ocean as a nuclear-free zone are well known. No reply or comment by Her Majesty's Government at that time was called for.

My hon. Friend asked about our reaction to the suggestion that the big naval Powers should be invited to a conference on the prospects of mutual restraint. We have not been approached by the Government of India on this matter. I do not think that I can be expected to make any pronouncements about our attitude to such a request at this stage, before we have had the opportunity to review the matter in detail.

My hon. Friend asked also about reports in the India Press that the British Government had brushed aside the Indian representations. These reports are completely erroneous. The Indian Government were told informally at an early stage that negotiations between ourselves and the Americans were in progress. Subsequently, the Indian Government were formally notified by our High Commissioner in Delhi of the plan to extend the facilities on Diego Garcia. Far from brushing aside the Indian representations, we have kept the Indian Government well informed of the position.

Next, the question of flying rights over African States. In the event of a Royal Air Force aircraft en route to or returning from Diego Garcia wishing to overfly African countries, diplomatic clearance would be sought from the country or countries in question in the normal fashion. There is no question of that not taking place.

My hon. Friend mentioned complaints from the Australians. We have received no official complaints from the Australians, but the Australian Government have said publicly that the arrangements proposed for Diego Garcia do not contribute to the long-term objectives of an Indian Ocean peace zone. Mr. Whitlam said on 19th March that he hoped that there would be an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union to restrict their Indian Ocean build-up, and these comments will be borne in mind as we proceed to review the whole policy.

My hon. Friend recognises that it is not possible for me to answer some of his questions, since we are reviewing the matter, but if there is any point which I have missed on which I could comment now, I shall be happy to try to help.

Mr. Dalyell

I find my hon. Friend's response wholly reasonable, and I shall take up no more of the time of the House.