HL Deb 13 March 1969 vol 300 cc593-5

3.12 p.m.

LORD SEGAL

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 will support an initiative by other countries for a conference to be held, under the ægis of the United Nations, and without the participation of the combatants, in order to bring about a cease-fire in Nigeria.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD)

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome any peace-making effort that offers a prospect of success. It would, however, be contrary to international practice to seek to settle an internal problem of this nature without the participation of the parties directly concerned, and I do not think the United Nations would be prepared to convene a conference on this basis. Further, we think it unlikely that a cease-tire could be achieved without the agreement of both sides.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, and I also extend to him our good wishes on the eve of his Caribbean visit. Would not my noble friend agree that the Nigerian issue is now no longer an internal dispute or only an African dispute, and that it has now become a world-wide issue? Would not Her Majesty's Government now promote, through diplomatic channels, some initiative on the part of uncommitted Powers to intervene on the side of peace?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, if my noble friend will read the speech which I made the other day in reply to the noble Lord. Lord Brockway, he will see that I said the one thing that is not absent is a number of willing mediators and friends on both sides. The great difficulty is in bringing the two sides together to achieve this agreement. I do not think that seeking to bring this matter to the United Nations, and therefore bringing yet another body into the field, will bring peace any closer.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, have not Her Majesty's Government established a most welcome precedent, in taking the initiative to promote a four-Power conference on the Middle East dispute without the participation of the combatants?

LORD SHEPHERD

Yes, my Lords, but the Middle East dispute is already before the United Nations. It involves various countries, and is in response to the Security Council resolution, while this case, as I have said, is an internal matter.

THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the possibilities of peace are being seriously jeopardised by the action of non-African nations in providing the arms with which the war is being propagated? Is it not possible that some initiative such as the noble Lord, Lord Segal, has suggested might assist?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, here again we are discussing a subject which we have debated on numerous occasions. I pointed out that we for our part should be willing to take part in an embargo on arms to both sides, provided there was agreement by both sides; and that would be a consequence of a cease-fire. I also pointed out the difficulty of an arms embargo when arms come from very many different quarters, in most cases impossible to trace. While an embargo has many advantages, I do not believe that it could in fact be brought about.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, in view of the questions by my noble friend Lord Segal and the remark of the right reverend Prelate, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that during the three months that I was at the Human Rights Committee last year the question of Nigeria and the war was not mentioned once?

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, while not wanting to repeat what was said in the debate, and recognising the difficulty of the United Nations, because the Federal Government is a Member State, I would ask: could not two issues be raised in the United Nations? The first is an arms embargo by other Member States, and the second is a peacekeeping force if a truce is established. Also, may I ask whether it is true, as reported in the Press to-day, that the Prime Minister is likely to go to Lagos and, if so, whether he could raise issues of this kind with the Government there?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have no idea—I must be frank with the House —what the intentions of my right honourable friend are from day to day. In regard to the first supplementary question, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, the Secretary-General himself has made comment upon the use of the United Nations in this matter. But I myself do not believe that a cease-fire will be achieved until the two sides can agree to one fundamental issue, which is the unity of Nigeria. Until that is brought about, or until some formula is agreed, I do not see this war being brought to an end, no matter how many mediators there may be, or whatever their size and strength.

LORD KILBRACKEN

My Lords, is it really so very difficult for the United Nations to intervene in what has been described as an internal matter? Is not this precisely what they have done before in such cases as the Congo, Cyprus and the Yemen?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, to the best of my knowledge—and I speak here subject to correction—in all those cases the United Nations were invited in. They have not imposed their will in an internal matter.