§ 3.28 p.m.
§ LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why they supported the Resolution on the Congo adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on December 30, 1964, demanding, inter alia, "as a matter of urgency" the withdrawal of the mercenaries, having regard to the fact that these troops have already rescued hundreds of hostages and are the only hope of survival for many others who are still held prisoner.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHAL-FONT)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government supported the Resolution because they believe that if it were carried out it would contribute materially to the solution of the problems of the Congo. and would indeed improve the chances of survival of those non-Congolese civilians still in rebel-held territory.
§ LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOLMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I should like to ask him this further question. As the Resolution was purposely drafted so as to make it ambivalent, how did Her Majesty's Government know when they voted for it what they were supporting? Would it not have been much more sensible if they had joined with France and abstained from voting?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the noble Lord will know that the Resolution as a whole appeals for a cessation of outside intervention and for a cease fire, which is quite unequivocal. If these things could be arranged, then the negotiations for the release of hostages might become easier. But I would point out to the noble Lord that, until a ceasefire is arranged, there is no question of the Congolese Army's unilaterally holding up its operations and ceasing its rescue work. The reason why Her Majesty's Government supported the Resolution was this attempt to bring about a cessation of all outside intervention and a cease-fire in the Congo.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, now that the United Nations has withdrawn its own force from the Congo, surely it will incur a terrible responsibility if it is going to press the legal Government of the Congo to abandon its only effective instrument for preventing the barbaric massacres and tortures of these innocent victims. Ought we not at least to have dissociated ourselves from that responsibility?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the Congolese Government is, of course, entitled to obtain and keep assistance from whatever source it wishes. But I would point out to the noble Earl that the Congolese Government has indicated its willingness to dispense with the aid of these mercenaries if aid to the rebels from outside the Congo can be stopped. Her Majesty's Government therefore feel that the most important thing to do is to achieve a cease-fire, to stop intervention from outside, and then to allow the Congolese Government, with whatever help it wishes, to solve this problem on its own.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, can the Minister say why these soldiers are called "mercenaries", when in the 1014 Spanish Civil War such people coming in from outside and being paid were called "volunteers"?
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask whether it is not the case that this Resolution insists on the withdrawal of any external support, either to the Government or to the rebels; and that it asks for co-operation with the Organisation of African Unity for this purpose? Secondly, will the Government do all they can to assist in the implementation of this Resolution?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the answer to both parts of that question is, Yes.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the difference of status between those who are so loosely described as "mercenaries", in the service of the legal Government of the Congo, and British officers serving in Nigeria and Kenya, or, indeed, American officers serving in South Vietnam? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Since the rebel leaders Christoph Gbenye and Gaston Soumaliot are quite openly operating under Chinese and Soviet influence, and are being illegally supplied with arms from Algeria and the United Arab Republic, do Her Majesty's Government really welcome the prospect of the withdrawal of these mercenaries when all that can ensue will be chaos and Communism?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think the answer to the first part of the question is that those British officers who are serving with Kenyan and other forces are there at the invitation of the Government—
§ LORD COLYTONSo are these.
§ LORD CHALFONT—and with the express consent of Her Majesty's Government. I am not really prepared to enter into a discussion as to what constitutes "mercenaries". The official interpretation is that they are people who join armies, and fight, for pay. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I would again repeat that the object of the Resolution is to bring about a cease-fire and the cessation of all outside intervention.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, may I take it that Her Majesty's Government are not taking the 1015 line that the so-called mercenaries should be withdrawn before those who are aiding the rebels are withdrawn? May I take it that the aim of the Government is to secure the withdrawal of all outside assistance, on both sides, and that each side should be entitled to be satisfied that the other side is going to withdraw its assistance?
§ LORD CHALFONTYes, my Lords. I would repeat that there is no question of asking the Congolese army to hold up its operations unilaterally. The object is to get a cease-fire and a multilateral withdrawal of intervening forces.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is not asking for operations to be held up unilaterally. But I must ask him this: is he really suggesting that Her Majesty's Government are quite impartial as between the legal Government of the Congo and these Communist-supplied rebel forces which have committed these appalling atrocities?
§ LORD CHALFONTNo, my Lords, there is no question of that. As I have said, and say again, what we are trying to achieve is an overall cease-fire.