HL Deb 12 December 1961 vol 236 cc228-43

2.48 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the supply of bombs to the United Nations for use in Katanga.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)

My Lords, as your Lordships' House was not sitting yesterday, I understand your Lordships would like me to begin by reading the statement which was made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal. It is as follows:

"Fighting in the Katanga has continued to spread and has become more intense since I answered a Question in the House last Wednesday.

"The United Nations forces are still being attacked at their headquarters in Elisabethville, at the airport and on the road joining them. The United Nations forces have attacked the Katangan gendarmerie camp and it appears to have been in the course of this that a number of mortar bombs fell in or near the hospital. They have also attacked communications by which Katangan reinforcements are being brought to Elisabethville. These include railway engines, stations and fuel supplies.

"The radio station and General Post Office have also been attacked. In addition, there are reports of attacks on power stations and mining installations, although I have not yet had confirmation of these from official sources. This situation is, therefore, highly dangerous.

"Her Majesty's Government have been faced with a grave decision during this time as a result of the request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the supply of 24 1,000 lb. bombs for the use of the Canberra squadron stationed in the Congo.

"As the House knows, throughout these troubled months in the Congo Her Majesty's Government have done their utmost to restrict the use of force and to bring about a reconciliation between the opposing groups. In particular, during the events of last September they endeavoured to prevent the conflict from spreading to air warfare.

"This request of the Secretary-General was specifically related to the need for the United Nations to avoid a recurrence of the situation in September in which the lives of its troops were endangered by the operations of pirate aircraft. Since then, additional planes capable of military use have arrived in Katanga and have been in operation.

"As I told the House last week, Her Majesty's Government fully recognise that the United Nations force must defend itself and its means of communication. They were very much alive to the dangers of allowing the United Nations forces, including those from Commonwealth countries, to be deprived of protection against air attacks.

"With these matters in mind, Her Majesty's Government considered the Secretary-General's request. Her Majesty's Government recognised the reasons for it, but, at the same time, they were loath to see an intensification of the fighting by this means. At the request of Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary-General gave specific assurances in writing that the bombs would be used only against Katangan military aircraft on the ground and against the airstrips used by them.

"The Secretary-General undertook to pass these assurances to the United Nations Command in Leopoldville with orders that they should be conveyed to commanders of the squadrons and to pilots in the field.

"In these circumstances, and in view of these assurances, Her Majesty's Government decided to meet the Secretary-General's request. The United Nations itself is making the necessary arrangements for the collection of the bombs, which, we understand, will be carried out at the end of this week.

"As I have repeatedly told the House, Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the United Nations operation in the Congo and. equally consistently, we have urged the course of conciliation. We have always believed that the Congo should remain a viable entity within its existing frontiers. We have not supported or condoned a movement for secession of any part of the Congo. But the constitutional difference inside the Congo should be resolved by the Congolese themselves. The imposition of a political settlement by the United Nations is specifically excluded by the Security Council resolution of 9th August 1960.

"Her Majesty's Government are now seriously disturbed by the way in which the fighting in Katanga has developed. Attacks on non-military objectives, such as power stations, mines, dams, hospitals and private houses, have been reported, although some of these have not been confirmed. There has been some loss of civilian life in addition to military casualties.

"Her Majesty's Government are also greatly concerned about certain statements which have been made over the week-end by both military and civil United Nations officials in the Congo about their objectives in Katanga. In this connection, they are studying the important statement made by the Secretary-General last night, and, in particular, the latter part describing the purpose of the present military operation. They feel that aspects of this policy will have to be clarified before Her Majesty's Government feel that they can authorise the release of the bombs.

"In his statement last night the Secretary-General also said: 'I shall welcome any initiative which will enable us to achieve our aims as peacefully and as speedily as possible'. Her Majesty's Government believe that the first step must be to bring about an end to the fighting, and they are prepared to contribute to this in any way they can. Her Majesty's Government have already been seeking methods by which this can be achieved, and they will continue to do so in conjunction with like-minded Governments and the Secretary-General of the United Nations."

That is my right honourable friend's statement, and since it was made yesterday there have not been many developments on the ground. Elisabethville airport was bombed the night before last, December 10–11, and allegations have been made that the aircraft came either from Kipushi or, more generally, from abroad. Sir Roy Welensky has, I understand, strenuously denied the allegations about Kipushi, or that the territory of Rhodesia was used.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the full statement he has made on these deplorable events. I should like to ask him three questions on his statement. The first one is that I understand that the object of Her Majesty's Government still is to get a cease-fire as soon as possible, and I am sure that we all warmly welcome that information, but I should be glad to know, if he could possibly give us the information, what definite steps they have already taken. Have they yet approached the Secretary-General on the subject, and what has been his answer? That is the first question.

I now come to my second question. We welcome the statement by the Government, which was contained in the statement which has just been read by the noble Earl, that they have asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations for further assurances as to the use of these bombs before the bombs are delivered to the United Nations. But I should like to ask what assurances the Government would regard as adequate, in view of the very wide differences which apparently exist between the Secretary-General in New York and the United Nations' commanders now operating in Katanga. At present the objective of the military leaders in the United Nations seems to be not confined any longer to self-defence but to get a cease-fire not by conciliation but by the surrender of Katanga.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Speech, speech!

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am coming to the question. Will Her Majesty's Government insist that they repudiate that policy by deed as well as by word, and make it clear that otherwise Her Majesty's Government may be compelled to withdraw their support from the Congo operations? That is the second question.

This is the last one. On the assumption that the Government of India purchased in this country the Canberras which are now being used in Katanga, I would ask whether that Government also purchased bombs and, if so, did Her Majesty's Government suggest to the Secretary-General that the Government of India should be requested to offer their own bombs to the United Nations before they asked for any of ours?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, on the first of the noble Marquess's supplementaries, as to what steps we are taking to stop the fighting, I think it is a question of continuous endeavour rather than steps. As my noble friend knows, for months we have been trying to bring about conciliation, and now that fighting has, unfortunately, broken out, we are, of course, intensifying our efforts through all possible channels, to see if the fighting cannot be stopped and conciliation proceeded with. I do not think it would help the situation if one were to discuss in public any approaches which are being made.

Then my noble friend asked what valid assurances we think we can get, and about the lack of liaison between United Nations' authorities in New York and those who are executing in the Congo itself the resolutions passed by the United Nations. As my right honourable friend made plain yesterday, our present difficulty is that we feel that more clarification is needed on this matter, and we hope that, in view of conflicting statements by United Nations' representatives in the Congo, the Secretary-General will be able to assure us that the chain of command is effective. As your Lordships will remember, this is not the first time that doubts have been created about the effectiveness of this chain of command.

My noble friend's third supplementary question was a double one about the Canberras sent to India. He asked: did we send bombs with them, and why could not the Indians provide the bombs? My Lords, we certainly supplied large quantities of bombs to the Indians two years ago, but we have no information about stocks of bombs now held by the Indian Government. On December 7, when we agreed to supply these bombs, we did so on the strength of the statement made to us by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that he could not get them from anywhere else.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, if he thinks the Indians are now running out of their stock of bombs, whether he can tell us where they have used them?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

No, my Lords; I am afraid I have no information either about the use made by the Indians of the bombs or about the present stocks held by them.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, are the Government aware that it is generally believed throughout the world that they are acting hypocritically in professing to support the United Nations whereas in fact they are frustrating them in every possible way under the influence of interested parties in Parliament and of people outside, including Sir Roy Welensky? I put that as a question to Her Majesty's Government, because there is a very widespread belief on that point. In particular, I should like to ask the noble Earl this: how does it come about that this allegedly peace-loving people under Mr. Tshombe who want nothing more than to be left alone, come to be in possession of a large, highly-trained army with European officers and with modern weapons, including mortars supplied by this country—or, at any rate, of British origin—and of aeroplanes? Why do they need military aeroplanes, and where have they been supplied from?

Then, further, are not the Government laying themselves open to worldwide outcry in acting in this wobbling manner, in their agreeing to supply these bombs at the request of the United Nations and then withholding these promised bombs on the strength of Press reports, unconfirmed at the time and since, I understand, entirely repudiated? Would it not have been more proper for the Government to make quite certain that these alleged statements were in fact made and that they meant what the Government say they meant?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, the noble Lord began by referring to a number of very grave calumnies which are often spread among ignorant people and, I am afraid, often by not so ignorant people abroad about the policy and motives of this country. I think it is right that all of us should repudiate these misrepresentations, which are entirely without foundation. I hope that the noble Lord opposite and his friends will try to quench, rather than to inflame, this outcry to which he refers.

With regard to the latter part of his question, I must repeat that we are not satisfied about the efficacy of the chain of command between New York and the Congo. We think we are right in asking that it should be clarified. The Press statements to which the noble Lord referred have not been entirely repudiated but only partially—or, rather, one of them has been partially repudiated and others have not been repudiated at all. I think, in view of the uncertainty which has been created about the intentions of United Nations' executive officers on the ground in the Congo, that we must make sure that we have a clear assurance about their intentions before we proceed any further in this matter. I think we should be acting very wrongly if we did not.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, may I ask the Minister of State whether it is not the fact that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been plainly stated to this House, to this country and to the world in the statements made by the Secretary of State? May I further ask him whether, in view of that plain statement of the purpose which we understand the United Nations is, or ought to be, pursuing, and the determination of the Government to support nothing but that purpose, they would not run a grave risk of compromising that clear position and Her Majesty's Government's clear policy if they were to supply bombs before there has been a cessation of this great extension of aggressive action—I can call it nothing else—on the part of the United Nations' forces?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, my noble friend is indeed right in saying that our policy has been repeatedly and very clearly stated, both in this House and elsewhere, by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. Those clear statements have not prevented our policy from being most unscrupulously misrepresented and vilified in many parts of the world, and I hope that none of us will do anything to encourage such misrepresentation. With regard to the last part of the question, I think that is a matter of opinion upon which my noble friend will not expect me to enter beyond what I have already said.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, has not the Secretary-General within the last twenty-four hours repudiated any apparent change in or development of United Nations' policy contained in the alleged Press statements? He has repudiated them. Did he not, according to the noble Earl's statement, give specific assurances in writing that the bombs would be used only against Katanga military aircraft on the ground and against the airstrips used by them? Further, did not the Minister, in his additional statement this afternoon, refer to bombing attacks by Katangan aeroplanes during the night? Since the United Nations Secretary-General has re-declared the objectives of United Nations' policy and has given a written undertaking that the bombs would be used only on aerodromes, and since the United Nations' forces experienced another air attack last night, surely it is right that the British Government should provide these bombs in defence of the United Nations' forces.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, we are not suggesting that the Secretary-General is not entirely sincere in what he says, but we think we ought to have a little more clarification of the way in which the chain of command operates.

LORD HENDERSON

May I ask the noble Earl a further question? More than two or three days have passed since they got the written undertaking from the Secretary-General. Have we had any reply from the Secretary-General on the points of query which they say they have since raised?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, the Secretary-General has made a statement concerning a Press interview which was given, to which I thought the noble Lord was referring, in which he has repeated his own assurances about the defensive use to which any armaments we might supply would be put, and also the defensive purpose of the present operation.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, I think the noble Earl misunderstood my question. There is a question about control, running from the Secretary-General right through the chain of command into the Congo. That is the point they have raised. Have they had any assurance from the Secretary-General on that point?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

No, my Lords, we have not.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, could the noble Earl make a statement relating to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton? Is it the Government's view that the United Nations are the aggressors? The noble Earl did not reply to that, but the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said that the United Nations were the aggressors. Is that the Government's view?

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that, with great respect I should like to make plain exactly what I did say. I said: in view of the extension of action by United Nations' forces in Katanga, which I can only regard as aggressive action.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, with respect, that is a slight modification of what the noble Earl originally said. But I should still like to ask the noble Earl whether the Government regard the United Nations as aggressors in this conflict.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I do not think I ought to enter into a discussion of views expressed in supplementaries by noble Lords, or modifications of those supplementaries, but this unfortunate fighting arose out of the erection of a road block in the first instance. It is extraordinarily difficult—

LORD LATHAM

What happened?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

Surely the noble Lord knows, or is he ignorant of the whole position? The gendarmes erected a road block, as I think everybody knows, between United Nations troops and Elisabethville Airport. We recognise that any military force has a right to protect its own communications. Therefore, we have never taken the view that this military operation to protect communications, although we regard it as a very tragic thing, is an act of aggression.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with what was said by the Minister in another place, that the Government of Katanga is a properly constituted and duly elected provincial Government? If he agrees with that statement, can he say what is the explanation by the United Nations of the persistent attacks by United Nations' forces on non-military objectives? Can these attacks be explained in any other way than as a determination to make war on the Government and people of Katanga?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I always agree with what my colleagues in another place say. With regard to the second question, these are matters on which it is extremely difficult to get information, and it is partly because of our doubtfulness that we feel we want more clarification before we can really come to a decision on this question.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, was it not very unfortunate that the Minister read us to-day the same statement as was made yesterday in another place, bearing in mind that the alleged statements of United Nations' commanders have been denied or repudiated since that time? If the noble Earl doubts that, he has only to turn to the Guardian of to-day to find explicit denials of this statement. In all the circumstances, can he be surprised that no one believes that the Government have really changed their minds because of these alleged statements? Is he aware that everyone realises that the Government have given way to the Back Bench pressure of their more extreme supporters?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I do not know whether there is anything intrinsically unfortunate in repeating to your Lordships the statement which has been made in another place. After all, your Lordships will have the enjoyment of criticising it as much as you like. With regard to the partial dementi of the Press statement, to which the noble Earl has referred, the reports of the original interview which took place on December 7 were published in a Swedish newspaper on December 8, and the reports of them reached the Foreign Office on the following day. They were then drawn to the attention of the Secretary-General, who no doubt had them in mind when he made his statement, clarification of which we asked for on December 10, and to which my right honourable friend referred in another place yesterday.

Yesterday afternoon a telegram was received about the partial retraction of this statement, which my right honourable friend had not time to see before he made his statements in the House. This reports that, on being shown the report which had appeared in the Swedish Press, Dr. Linner in Leopoldville, who had made the original statement, made a second statement, of which your Lordships may have seen part published in The Times this morning. He made a second statement which was published in the Swedish Press, I understand, on December 10. I have not seen, and my right honourable friend has not seen, the full text of the December 10 article, but he has seen the text of a statement which Dr. Linner made to the Swedish Consul, setting out his comments. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, this is not entirely consistent with the Secretary-General's statement of December 10.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, while we all deplore the unsavoury manœuvrings of these men who are part of the "Katanga lobby", is not the paramount consideration to-day the fact that the whole concept of the United Nations is in jeopardy? Therefore, could not the noble Earl divorce himself from all these considerations which have been discussed this afternoon and recognise, even if it is only as a matter of enlightened self-interest, that the United Nations should be strengthened and adapted now in order that it would be ready to face future challenges? For, who knows, although we have heard noble Lords denouncing and deriding the United Nations, the situation in the field of foreign affairs to-day is such that the time might come when the United Kingdom would be anxious for the United Nations to intervene.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, it is exactly because we all see the jeopardy, to which the noble Lady has referred, of the future of the United Nations that we are all so anxious that United Nations' forces should not become bogged down in a long and bloody colonial war in the Congo.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, I think the Minister has already answered it in some degree, but I should nevertheless like, as a strong supporter both of the United Nations and of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. to ask just one question of the noble Earl. It is this. Would my noble friend agree that, apart from the obvious legal objections and to the fact that it has been prohibited by the Resolution of August 5, any—possibly unwitting—imposition of a settlement by force in Katanga would merely result, or probably result, in saddling the United Nations with responsibility for administering a vast area, in conditions of almost total anarchy, without any of the men or the money required for the purpose, the United Nations being at the moment very heavily in the red? Would he not, therefore, further agree that even in the heat of the battle—for it is a battle which is now raging—the local United Nations commanders, who, after all, no doubt think they are only doing their duty, should realise that the last thing they want to insist upon in Katanga is a policy of unconditional surrender?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, that is our sincere belief, and I am afraid it is least shared by those who have least experience and knowledge of Africa.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Earl said in his statement that the United Nations forces in Katanga are mainly Commonwealth. May I ask him whether the air forces that are available to the United Nations have at the moment bombs sufficient to deal with the repeated attacks that are being made on installations in Katanga?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I did not say that they were mainly Commonwealth; I said that they included Commonwealth forces. With regard to the sufficiency and availability of bombs, I can only repeat what I said before. We agreed to supply these bombs on the strength of a statement made to us a week ago that they were not available from any other quarter. As noble Lords will have seen from Press reports, they have smaller explosive weapons, mortar bombs and rockets, which are being used by United Nations' aircraft. We were told that they could not get 1,000 lb. bombs from anywhere else. I cannot say anything further about stocks which may or may not be held by any other members of the Commonwealth or by the United Nations.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, presumably the inquiries of the Government about what is happening and the request for clarification of the undertakings given by the United Nations must have been sent 24 or more hours ago. Can the noble Earl say whether any reply has been received by the Government?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I have already mentioned the statement made two days ago, on December 10, by the Secretary-General. I have not any knowledge of any further statement which I could authoritatively make to the House this afternoon.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, the Government, having announced their apprehensions in Parliament and having intimated that they were asking for clarifications of the undertakings and guarantees about the undertakings, presumably have communicated these to the Secretariat of the United Nations at the New York headquarters. What I am asking is: were they so sent and have we had a reply?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, of course, all these matters are automatically communicated to our representatives in all the appropriate capitals, particularly to the United Nations. I cannot add anything to what I have said about the statements of clarification beyond those which have already been made either in another place or this afternoon.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, with great respect, the noble Earl has it wrong, though I thought I had made very clear what I wanted to know. Presumably the British Government made representations to the effect I mentioned to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. What I want to know is whether the British Government have received any reply in response from the Secretary-General; and if they have, what is it?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, the letter which was given to us by the Secretary-General after we agreed to supply the bombs stated: I should like to confirm the assurance previously given you by the United Nations Secretariat that these bombs will only be used in preventive action undertaken in self-defence confined to aircraft used for military purposes in the Congo other than aircraft operating under the authority of the United Nations or the Government of the Republic of the Congo and the air-strips from which they operate. The Secretary-General has since confirmed that that is his intention and I have no further information to give at the present moment.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I really must ask the noble Earl to give me a categoric answer. I have made the question abundantly clear on about four occasions. The Government stated that they had asked for clarification or for confirmation or for specific undertakings about the use of these bombs. This was stated in Parliament yesterday. Presumably, before that statement was made, the Government asked for this information or undertakings by cable, 24 or more hours ago. That is what I am talking about, not what the Secretary-General said before this later issue had arisen. And I want to know from the noble Earl whether that later inquiry was made by Her Majesty's Government and, if so, whether a reply has been received, and if it was, what it is.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that I am reluctant to give him any information. He said he asked this three times. I have answered it three times, and I have given the right answer. We have not received any further clarification beyond that which I have already given to your Lordships' House.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

My Lords, I am sorry. I still want to know whether the Government have asked for clarification and the undertakings mentioned, after the Secretary-General's original interchange. I assume that they did and, if so, have the British Government received a reply?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I have already told the noble Lord that we did not.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl gave some interesting and important information in his penultimate answer. Up to now we understood that the bombs could be used against any aeroplanes not under the command of the United Nations. He has now added: and the Central Congolese Republic. There is a direct differentiation not only between the United Nations and Katanga but also between the Congolese Republic and Katanga. Under those circumstances, surely it would be quite wrong for Her Majesty's Government to take sides in this dispute, and they ought to deny the bombs.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Marquess has made that distinction, but the purpose of these bombs, if they are going to be supplied, is to enable the United Nations' troops to defend themselves against attack. They are not being attacked at present by forces under the Leopoldville Government's command.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, does that mean that the noble Earl and the Government regard that as a completely impartial position?

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, we certainly want to be impartial, but I do not think that that is quite relevant to the conditions which we asked for when we agreed to supply these bombs, which were for the protection of the United Nations' troops against aeroplanes which attacked them. We wanted the bombs to be confined to that purpose and that purpose alone.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, all I can say is that I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl seems to be extremely embarrassed by these questions.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am not conscious of any embarrassment at all. I am most interested and exhilarated by the noble Marquess's supplementaries.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, on the understanding that no reply has yet been received to the representations and inquiries made, I should like to give the noble Earl notice that we shall put a Question to-morrow in the hope that some information will be given to the House.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord is going to try to talk to-morrow about what might happen to-night and not try to talk to-day about what has not happened yet.