BOMBS FOR UNITED NATIONS IN KATANGA (Hansard, 14 December 1961)

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

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE
) My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, a request was made to us by the United Nations for 24 1,000-lb. bombs for use by Canberra aircraft. We were reluctant to accede to this request, since it did not seem to us that bombs of this type would be appropriate for defensive action, but an appeal was made to us on the ground that United Nations troops were in danger from attack by "pirate" aircraft and that heavy bombs were needed to destroy these aircraft on the ground. We therefore agreed on December 7 to supply these bombs, subject to the assurance given in the Secretary-General's letter of December 8, which I quoted to your Lordships the day before yesterday and which 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". We were a little surprised to find, after our agreement to supply the bombs for this defensive action, that we were not asked to deliver them for another eight days, and were greatly concerned both by the nature of the fighting in Katanga, and by the alleged statements of United Nations personnel in the Congo, some of which have since been corrected, which appeared to be inconsistent with the Secretary-General's assurances. We therefore thought it right to express our concern to the Secretary-General and to inquire once more as to the purpose of the United Nations action in Katanga; and I am glad to say that he decided to withdraw his request for the bombs in a letter to our Representative at the United Nations. I am sure that Your Lordships will agree that the Secretary-General's action was both courteous and considerate. It was agreed that this letter should be published simultaneously in London and New York at 4 p.m. yesterday by our time, which is of course 11 a.m. by New York time, and I was therefore unable to refer to it when answering the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, at 2.45 p.m. yesterday, but I arranged for copies of the letter to be handed to the noble Lord, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, at 4 o'clock.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government find it difficult to understand the recent course of military events in the light of 426 the Acting Secretary-General's assurance that the objectives of the United Nations forces are to restore freedom of their communications and to defend themselves. Attacks have been reported against industrial installations and on other civilian targets which do not in the Government's view appear to fall within the Secretary-General's definition. In these circumstances the Government feel that it is essential that a cease-fire should be brought about as soon as possible and that it is the duty of the United Nations to bring about at the earliest possible moment an end to hostilities and a return to the path of conciliation and negotiations.
They have therefore called on the Acting Secretary-General to secure an immediate cease-fire in the Katanga, in the hope that this will create conditions in which, in a united Congo, a peaceful and just basis for co-operation may be negotiated. In reply to these representations, the Secretary-General has decided to lay our request before the United Nations Advisory Committee on the Congo, which is expected to meet to-morrow afternoon. In taking this action the Government have noted the Acting Secretary-General's own references to reconciliation and have assured him of their readiness to assist in bringing about a cease-fire and a very early meeting between the central Government and Mr. Tshombe.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the very full reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that this shows extraordinary weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in having agreed to supply these bombs on December 7 and then, within a few hours, arguing with the United Nations Secretariat as to whether or not the bombs should be delivered. Was not the time for satisfying themselves as to the conditions under which they should be used, before they agreed to supply them, and not afterwards? Secondly, may I ask the noble Earl whether, in fact, these same bombs are not going to be provided by Canada and India? Further, could the noble Earl give us the terms of this courteous and considerate communication from the United Nations? I was under the impression that I had seen it. If that is the communication, it was very abrupt indeed, and I thought 427 that the United Nations, or the Secretariat, were somewhat displeased with ourselves—

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
Good!

§ LORD SILKIN
—and were giving us up as a bad job. May I further ask the noble Earl whether he regards the question of the cease-fire simply as a matter for the United Nations? Having agreed that the United Nations went into Katanga for self-defence, is it for them to say that they will cease fire without any agreement on the part of Mr. Tshombe and the Katangan people? This is surely a matter which must be negotiated on both sides, and should not be a unilateral decision. Finally, could the noble Earl give us the exact date when he received the communication from the United Nations Secretariat?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will be kind enough to help me in trying to recapitulate the six or seven supplementaries which he has asked. With regard to the last question, I think I have already given the date on which the reply was received. I had it yesterday morning, and it was agreed that it should be released simultaneously at 11 a.m. New York time, which is 4 o'clock our time. I arranged for a copy to be given to the noble Lord at that hour because the question which he asked me was an hour and a half too early to enable me to refer to it.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, had the answer already been received at 2.30 yesterday—was it received before that time?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I think I have said that already. It was received by us with an agreement, a stipulation, that it should be released simultaneously in London and in New York, and we had to observe that condition.

§ LORD SILKIN
Therefore, the noble Earl was aware of this answer at the time that he was making the Answer to the Question?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
Did not the noble Lord understand that from my original Answer?

§ LORD SILKIN
No.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
Then may I read it again? I am sorry, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this kind of thing. I said: It was agreed that this letter should be published simultaneously in London and New York at 4 p.m. yesterday by our time, which is of course 11 a.m. by New York time, and I was therefore unable to refer to it when answering the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, at 2.45 p.m. yesterday, but I arranged for copies of the letter to be handed to the noble Lord, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Rea soon after 4 o'clock. Surely the noble Lord understood that? Also, I mentioned it privately to him earlier this afternoon.
Another of the noble Lord's supplementaries was whether these bombs were going to be supplied by someone else. He mentioned Canada and India. I do not know whether they are going to be supplied by anybody else, and I think it is yet to be seen whether they will be required at all.
Then the noble Lord suggested that the letter from the Secretary-General was not, as I stated, a courteous and considerate one, which I think it was, but an unfriendly one. I am very sorry that the noble Lord should interpret the letter in that light. As it was published in the newspapers this morning, I do not know that I have a copy with me, but I thought its terms were perfectly acceptable and proper and I repeat that in our view it was a courteous and considerate action on his part. I have answered three of the noble Lord's supplementary questions. If I have missed out any he thinks are more important, I should be glad if he would remind me of them.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl of one of them about the cease-fire. I asked whether he would not agree that the question of a cease-fire was not one that the United Nations could decide upon unilaterally. They have gone into Katanga for self-defence, and they could not, on their own initiative cease fire.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I should have thought that was obvious, my Lords. What we want the United Nations Secretariat to agree to is to offer a cease-fire as soon as possible, because we are deeply apprehensive that if fighting goes on in the way in which it is 429 going on, it may develop into heavy street fighting with large civilian casualties in Elisabethville, which might make it impossible to have a peaceful solution at all.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, subject to what my noble friends and other noble Lords may wish to ask the noble Earl, I would propose to delay any further questions until the debate we are to have on Monday, which I think would afford a very favourable occasion, with the Foreign Secretary present, for ventilating these matters much more fully. But I imagine that some of my noble friends might wish to pursue this.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
My Lords, might I ask the Minister of State one question arising out of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said? Has there been any clarification by the Secretary-General of the purpose for which these great reinforcements of United Nations troops have been flown in, and the attacks which they have made on installations 60 or 70 miles away from any place where they have been stationed in self-defence?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, we have, of course, made representations on these matters. There is nothing which the Secretary-General has said in reply which he has authorised us to publish. Perhaps I might say that we are satisfied that he personally is doing his best in very difficult circumstances. Perhaps I might add that there are two of his deputies at present, Dr. Bunche and Mr. Gardiner, who are in the Congo, and who will no doubt give him advice on the subjects which the noble Earl has just mentioned.

§ LORD HENDERSON
My Lords, may I ask one question? In the letter which the Government have sent to the Secretary-General—I think the noble Earl quoted from it this afternoon—there is a statement to the effect that attacks have been reported on non-military targets, installations and so forth. Would the noble Earl say what is meant by, "have been reported"—by whom?—and whether the targets which, in a normal way may be non-military, have been attacked by military personnel firing or taking any military action which called for defence by the United Nations' personnel?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I have a few reports here, mostly from our Consul in Elisabethville. There were attacks on the road and railway between Jadotville and Elisabethville where a bridge was destroyed and two railway engines damaged. Then there was an attack on Luili not far from Kolwezi upon a mining installation. In and around Elisabethville, the railway station and post office were attacked, and an office block in the main street of Elisabethville was shelled and machine gunned by aircraft. The Katanga radio transmitter was temporarily put out of action and a Coco-Cola plant and brewery were damaged. On another occasion some 20 mortar bombs landed on a school and hospital and adjacent buildings causing civilian casualties. The sort of reports we are receiving are: December 7, shells have gone through the roofs of three houses occupied by British subjects. I visited four houses hit by 75 millimetre shellfire. It is difficult to see the motive for the attack on the Luili plant which is a dozen miles from any military objective. Again: Air attacks have put out of action a brewery. At 12.20 to-day, December 12, United Nations aircraft attacked an office block in the main street of Elisabethville. The Interfena building was shelled and machine-gunned. There are many others, and some of them may be explainable, but others are difficult to reconcile with purely defensive action.

§ LORD HENDERSON
My Lords, of course that is the whole point. If these houses had been nests of Katangan troops firing, naturally they would draw defensive action. If mortar fire hits a building it may have been a bad shot. Have any of these incidents occurred from the Katanga side? After all, the Government are using this as a very important argument in their change of policy, and I think we ought to know whether these things are occurring on both sides in the course of action, or whether the suggestion is that the United Nations are deliberately hitting or firing at and bombing civilian targets.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I think one can say with certainty that a great many civilian targets have been attacked and some of them damaged. 431 As for a change of policy, we have had no change of policy at all. Our policy has been the same all along. We are doing oat best to support the United Nations and we want to bring about a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible moment.

§ LORD HENDERSON
The only point I want to say on that, my Lords, is that the Government have declared many times that they recognise the right of the United Nations forces to defend themselves—I repeat, to defend themselves. These instances are cited as though they were non-military targets deliberately attacked by the United Nations forces. I think that is creating a quite wrong impression in the minds of the public.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, has the noble Earl any reference—

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)
My Lords, I think in a matter of this importance it would be helpful if my noble friend could be given the opportunity to answer one set of questions before another set of questions is put.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, if the civilian objectives had been used as military posts and this had not been mentioned in their reports by their own accredited observers, that would be reprehensible as an act of bad faith? We must take it that things are as they say.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I should like to make it clear that we are not pre-judging these matters and we are not making any charge of bad faith. We are merely giving these instances, I think rightly, as very strong arguments and support of our case for the earliest possible cease-fire. If fighting develops in this way, it may lead to consequences which may be irretrievable and which may have even fatal results to the survival of the United Nations.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has asked whether these places which are being bombed are not being used as snipers' nests, or something like that, 432 by Katangan troops—a very fair question. But is it not a fact that a number of these installations which have been bombed in Katanga, such as the Union Minière refinery, are 20, 30 or 40 miles from any place where there are any Katangan troops, or at least where there is any fighting going on?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I think I mentioned in a previous answer that some of these targets attacked were a very long way from any possible military objective and that we found it difficult to reconcile these attacks with the defensive nature of the action which is taking place.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would try to answer the question by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, about attacks by the Katangan air force? The noble Earl has come down equipped with a number of statements about attacks by the United Nations air force; bas he come down with any information at all about attacks which we know are being made by Katangan airmen?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, the day before yesterday I gave the latest example of that—I think the noble Earl may remember, as he was in the House—when I mentioned that there was an attack on the night of December 10–11 on the Elisabethville airport. I am now just looking up the OFFICIAL REPORT to make quite sure I have it right. Yes, I said this the day before yesterday [col. 231]: 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, and I added that Sir Roy Welensky had denied these allegations.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of reports appearing from reputable correspondents in a paper like the Daily Mail, which are described as giving these things from the point of view of those on the airstrip, from the point of view of the Katangan airmen?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
Very likely, my Lords. All I am saying is that if these things go on and develop and become 433 worse, the United Nations may find themselves involved in an interminable war of suppression in Katanga, and the more of these instances that happen, the more difficult it may be to prevent them and to bring about an early peace. That is why we think it is so urgent that a ceasefire should be achieved as soon as possible.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, may I suggest that perhaps we should be called to order by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for going on too long, but it is a very important question. May we know from the Minister of State, subject to what transpires in the debate in another place to-day, whether we are to understand that the Government's policy in this matter has been the subject of consultation with and agreement with the United States? We are very anxious about the position in general, and I should like to know whether the statements in the Press this morning as to the views of the United States are correct and whether they were the subject of consultation with the Government.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, may I say how delighted I am to see the noble Viscount back in such good form? As regards the current action in Katanga, I do not think there is any difference in broad policy aims between ourselves and the United States. We both believe that the United Nations should not seek to impose a solution of the Katanga problem by force. We both support these efforts at conciliation and we have both been doing everything possible to promote a meeting between Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe. On the question of appreciation of the immediate situation, there is at the moment this difference: that we think it will be the advantage of everybody that a cease-fire should take place at once, whereas—as the noble Viscount has probably noticed this morning—the United States spokesman has said he thinks a cease-fire should take place a little later when certain "minimum objectives" have been achieved. While that is a perfectly reasonable attitude, we should like to be sure that these "minimum objectives" do not involve heavy street fighting and heavy civilian casualties, which might make any peaceful solution impossible.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I think it is clear, from what we have been told this afternoon, that, whoever is responsible, the continuation of the present fighting is deplorable and may be disastrous. At the same time, judging from reports which some of us have read in the newspapers, it does not seem that the Secretary-General sees any need for undue hurry in giving an answer. What I wanted to ask was this—I do not want to put it in too crude a form—have the Government put any time limit on an answer to be given by the Secretary-General, or is the situation to be allowed to drag out without any reply from the United Nations? I do not say he should not be given sufficient time, but ought there not to be some time limit there for an answer to be given?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, no one could be more anxious for a speedy cessation to hostilities than Her Majesty's Government. I think it would be a mistake in the present circumstances to seek to impose a time limit on the Secretary-General, Mr. U Thant, whom we believe personally to be doing his best in very difficult conditions. He is under pressure from all kinds of people, including the Russians, who have a vested interest in disorder in the Congo.