BIAFRA: UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL AID (Hansard, 15 July 1968)

§ LORD ROWLEY
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 (LORD CHALFONT)
My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate to initiate a proposal of this kind in the Security Council which, under the Charter, is concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security, not with the relief of suffering. It is the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations which are particularly concerned with relief work. In this connection the United Nations Secretary-General, U Thant, announced in 2 Geneva on July 10 that he had already assured the Head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, through which he considered all international relief to Nigeria should be channelled, of his fullest co-operation. U Thant had already had useful discussions with the heads of some of the Specialised United Nations Agencies involved in this humanitarian work and undertook to pursue the matter further with the whole family of United Nations agencies on his return to New York on July 13.

§ LORD ROWLEY
My Lords, in view of the objections of Colonel Ojukwu to British participation in this relief work, should not an international operation be organised which could be operated by the International Red Cross but be under the ægis of the United Nations? Secondly, to meet the objections of the Prime Minister of Nigeria, General Gowon, could not arrangements be made for all relief planes to be inspected by representatives of the International Red Cross and a representative of General Gowon before taking off for Biafran territory?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords. to the first part of my noble friend's question I would answer that the International Red Cross are doing what they can to impress on Colonel Ojukwu the fact that the relief operation is a purely humanitarian effort designed to save lives, and I they are trying to persuade him to agree to a land route to make safe corridors for this relief to get into the Ibo part of Nigeria. I must make it quite clear that we are in no position to force Colonel Ojukwu or to force this issue at all, and 3 we can only call on those who have influence with him that now is the time to use it in the interests of relieving the suffering in Nigeria as a whole.
On the point about air supplies, here again, as I said, the main co-ordinating agency must be the International Red Cross and we hope that the discussions between them and General Gowon and the Federal authorities which are going on it the moment will find ways of getting he relief supplies where they are so badly needed. I should also say that Lord Hunt is in touch with the Red Cross and the Federal authorities. I again make the point which has been made previously by my noble friend: that to get the large quantities of food needed to make any impression on the problem, air supply will not be enough; we must have land corridors.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, however admirable the international organisations for relief are—and they are indeed admirable—they simply cannot have the same authority as the United Nations between one side and another in a civil war of this nature. Disregarding the legalistic side of it, is this not above all the sort of occasion where the United Nations should intervene, and intervene beneficially?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, as I said, we are in no position to force this issue, and I believe it would be inappropriate for us to suggest forcing it in that way. I agree that this is a terrible problem and one upon which international relief organisations have so far failed to make very much impression. I believe we should give them time to do it. I know time is short; I am not suggesting there is any lack of urgency, but it is a matter for the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations and I do not think there would be much profit in trying to force the issue beyond that.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that this has now become a human calamity which overrides political considerations? Might not the United Nations contribute in two ways? First, could not the Security Council instruct U Thant to invite urgently all member States to participate in a vast relief 4 project by air and land, guaranteeing to both sides neutrality of the conditions of relief? And, secondly, could it not carry a resolution calling for immediate cease fire and negotiations for a settlement, either through the Commonwealth or through the Organisation for African Unity'? Has not this become a human disaster which demands that we should break through the legalistic barriers which now prevent relief to 3,000 children dying every day and a million in a month?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, of course I am aware that this is a vast and terrible human problem. I do not suppose there is any Member of your Lordships' House who is not as well aware of it as is my noble friend. I can only say to him that we understand that the Secretary-General, who is, after all, the key figure in the whole of this matter, is urgently considering the whole question. I can say no more about that at this moment except to say that if he can devise some sort of solution to or some sort of contribution to solving the problem, Her Majesty's Government will gladly support any arrangements he is able to make with the Federal Government to help with relief operations. There are two problems here. One is the one my noble friend mentioned, the need to bring the war to an end, to achieve a cease fire and solve what problems lie beneath the civil war. But the more immediate problem is to try to relieve the suffering caused by the civil war. This must be done through the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, and the Secretary-General is working very hard on this problem.

§ LORD CARRINGTON
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, I am sure, quite by chance, he is giving the impression that he is more worried about the form in which things are being done than about what is being done? Surely this is an occasion when the United Nations, which represents all nations, should be able to do something constructive and useful, and surely the Government representing us should be pressing them to do it.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, of course I am not more interested in the form than the substance of the problem. I am surprised that the noble Lord should 5 suggest that, and if I have given that impression I apologise to him and to the House. We are gravely concerned about the substance of the problem. We believe that for the moment the best way to move towards a solution is to allow U Thant, the Secretary General, to continue with the work and with the consultations that he is holding. I would point out to my noble friend—and this has been said often enough from his side of the House —that we do not control the United Nations; we are only members of it. I believe that we may soon hear some signs of progress from the Secretary General, and I beg your Lordships to allow him to complete his consultations before doing anything to force this issue further.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
My Lords, I should like to ask two brief questions of the noble Lord, if I may. The first is this. In this emergency do Her Majesty's Government accept the need for immediate action, through the International Red Cross or though the United Nations, or unilaterally by this country, against the wishes of the authorities, both in Lagos and in Biafra, should such a step become necessary? The second question that I want to ask is whether Her Majesty's Government accept the fact that the moral case for a ban on the export of arms to Nigeria is now unanswerable?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go all the way with the noble Lord on either of his questions. I would have grave reservations about saying that Her Majesty's Government would support action taken in defiance of the wishes of a Sovereign State. I would also take issue with him about the unquestionable nature of the moral case against supplying arms to the Federal Government. 'He is well aware of the arguments behind the fact that we continue to supply arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria, which we regard as the legal Government. As I say, this is a Sovereign State, and I should be quite reluctant to associate the Government with any suggestion that we should do something against its express wishes.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
It remains a scandal!

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two 6 questions. He has told the House that there were certain legal implications which prevented us taking the initiative in the Security Council. Can he say whether there is any precedent for invoking the moral law? That is my first question. Secondly, are we, every day or every week, still sending arms to Nigeria?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, the second part of my noble friend's question I think I have answered by implication. We have not changed our policy of supplying arms, as we did in the past, to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
Shame!

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's question is concerned, I did not actually say that there were legal difficulties, or legalistic difficulties about this. The fact is that the Charter of the United Nations lays down that the Security Council is concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security. All we have said is that the Security Council is not the proper agency for solving this problem; the proper agencies are the Specialised Agencies through which we, Lord Hunt, and the Secretary General of the United Nations are working.

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, on the question of arms supply, is it the fact that we are supplying the bulk of the automatic and small arms which are causing the casualties, and if we are, is it not absolutely wicked?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, while I agree that the supply of arms to the Federal Government is a matter of great importance and gravity, it is outside the framework of the orginal Question, and I must ask the noble Lord to put down another Question.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, as the original Question concerns relief, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the continuance of the supply of arms to Nigeria is proving a hindrance to the acceptance of relief by starving people in the Biafran territory? Does not that humanitarian consideration of a desperate kind call for a reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning arms?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I am aware of the deep feeling that exists in the House about this particular problem of the supply of arms to the Federal Government. I can only say that, having experienced the depth of that feeling and taken the sense of your Lordships' House, I will see that it is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend.

§ LORD ROWLEY
My Lords, in view of the statement by my noble friend that U Thant is making or is expected to make a statement this afternoon, may I ask my noble friend whether he will undertake to make a Statement to this House tomorrow based on the statement of the Secretary General?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I think I should correct a misapprehension which may be my fault. I did not say that U Thant was about to make a statement this afternoon. I said that I hoped that we would be hearing something from him soon. I am not aware of the exact time or date of any statement; but if a statement is made, I will try, through the usual channels, to bring it to the attention of your Lordships' House.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one further question? Is it not the case that the holding up of relief is due to the fact that there is a difference between the Lagos Government and the Biafran Administration regarding the supervision of that relief? Is he aware that many of us have urged, both on General Gowan and Colonel Ojukwu, that they should accept International Red Cross supervision of the relief that is provided? Would not my noble friend also agree that, so long as Her Majesty's Government are providing arms to one side, it would be very difficult indeed to get the Biafran Government to agree to the conditions of cooperation for that relief?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, so far as the question of the supply of arms is concerned I have, as I said, appreciated the deep feeling that exists in your Lordships' House. I can do no more than to say that I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend. I can make no other promise at this time in your Lordships' House.
I think I have answered the other part of my noble friend's question. We 8 are hopeful that the discussions that are going on now between the Red Cross and the Federal Government, and between Lord Hunt and the Federal Government and the Red Cross, will result in some effective system of control and inspection being implemented. But I cannot promise any further than that.

§ BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY
My Lords, I understand that the Government base their case for supplying arms to Nigeria on the fact that the Government of Nigeria is the legal Government. Do not the Government recognise the right of secession in some cases, and the exercise of secession? It happened, after all, with this country in the case of Ireland; and, surely, it would have been thoroughly justified if some part of Germany had seceded from Hitler.

§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON)
My Lords, we have had a quarter of an hour on this Question. I recognise that this is a matter of great concern to the House, but it is also my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we really ought to be going on to another Question.