INDIAN OCEAN: NEUTRALITY

HL Deb 19 March 1975 vol 358 cc748-75

2.58 p.m.

Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE rose to draw attention to the need to preserve the neutrality of the Indian Ocean ; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, discovering that there were only six copies of the White Paper on Defence at this end of the Palace of Westminster, I used my privilege as a former Member of the other House to collect a copy in order to have a hasty glance at it before speaking today. My hope was that in the White Paper I might find the answer to some of the questions which concern me. I am sorry to say I did not get much enlightenment from it, so I shall be obliged to depend on my noble friend who will reply to the debate to lessen the anxiety that some of us feel about current developments in the Indian Ocean. I ought to know what is happening there, but I am completely bewildered by conflicting statements from the highest sources.

I was in Mauritius two years ago and I have been in India recently. I have consulted the distinguished High Commissioners in this country and other experts. Nevertheless, developments in the Indian Ocean are still of the murkiest nature, and I believe this to be of concern not only to the littoral countries but to the entire world. I accept that we are no longer a great Power there. Nevertheless, I am doubtful about the statement in the White Paper that we have completely with-drawn. I will return to that later. I believe we could perform a service by stating the facts clearly and fully. No harm would come from that. It is non-sense to think that the Russians do not know what is happening on Diego Garcia or that the West does not know what is happening on Socotra. The only people who seem to be ill-informed about what is happening in this immensely important and now dangerous part of the world are the British public.

I should like also to declare why I am particularly worried about developments there at the present time. Time and again we have made the mistake of currying friendship with our American allies to the point of sycophancy. In doing so, we have damaged both American and our own interests. It is not irrelevant that I should recall how in 1951 the present Prime Minister, Mr. John Freeman, and Mr. Aneurin Bevan felt so strongly about American pressures in relation to the war in Korea that they resigned. They were Ministers concerned with trade and labour, and they knew the position about manpower and material supplies. They advised Mr. Attlee's Government, as it then was, of the absolute maximum that we could contribute, but our American allies were not satisfied. They forced a figure which bore no relationship to reality. It was a false figure. Indeed, later on the next Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, said it was a false figure, because it could not be achieved. So we did no service to our American allies but we did a great deal of disservice to the Labour Party, the Government of the time, and I believe kept us in Opposition for 10 years. I do not expect noble Lords opposite to weep tears over that, but it was a disaster not only for the then Labour Government and the Labour movement but for the country as a whole. I need not recall the more recent heartbreaking events in Vietnam and Cambodia. I might add that America does not consider that friendship for our country should go to the extent of taking up a position, "Britain, right or wrong ". Indeed, Suez was a dramatic illustration to the contrary.

What is happening in the Indian Ocean? When the Prime Minister of Mauritius makes a serious official statement, and makes it in the presence of the Prime Minister of India, as he did about a year ago, one cannot dismiss it simply as gossip or as somebody talking about issues on which he is ill-informed. And on a visit to New Delhi last April the High Commissioner of Mauritius said: Britain will violate a 1967 undertaking to Mauritius if it allows the United States to develop a naval or military base on the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia.

I should like to know the truth of the situation. Have we said to our American friends, in effect: "We cannot afford to have nuclear warheads in the middle of the Indian Ocean but we are perfectly willing to allow you to go ahead and develop nuclear weapons in this part of the world "? If that really is the situation, let us say it openly; but if it is not, let us know precisely what is happening. It is no good simply making the riposte: "If the Americans are developing nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean, so also are the Russians." I have no doubt that that is true, and as I have been talking about Diego Garcia, I have no doubt that I shall be asked what the Russians are doing in Socotra.

If one visualises the Indian Ocean with the Indian sub-Continent above and the whole of the African Continent—and Australia is also concerned—one finds there is a common passionate interest that the Indian Ocean should be kept free of nuclear weapons. A distinguished American statesman said not long ago that they could have a striking power from Diego Garcia which could cover the whole areas surrounding, including the oilfields, of the Middle East. This is alarming, for us as well as for the littoral countries. I should therefore like a clear answer, one way or the other, about the precise position in this critical island.

I would also be grateful to my noble friend if he would give me a clear answer to another question. The Mauritians insist—I checked this with their distinguished High Commissioner before coming to this debate—that when they received £4 million from Britain in order that we should lease this island, we did not lease the seabed. We have the island and it was understood that it would be used for fuelling and other normal sea-going purposes, but they insist that they retained the right of the seabed, and now, like the rest of the world, they are concerned to prospect for oil and other minerals.

An American company was engaged to examine the possibilities of oil and other mineral developments in the seabed surrounding the island, but they have been forbidden to go ahead. May I be told why they were forbidden? It may not have been by treaty or contract and it may have been something as simple as somebody saying, " You do that, and you will not get this." Whatever was said, it would be interesting to know the facts, because so far as I understand the position, there is an open door to the ships of Russia, France, Britain— indeed, the world, including Japan, because all are now interested in the Indian Ocean— and there is also an open door to the ports in this and all the other islands if the purpose of such visits is peaceful, such as for the refuelling of ships, the resting of crews and so on. What is particularly alarming is the way in which more and more nuclear weapons are apparently going to that part of the world.

It would be wonderful if I could be told today that this is all nonsense and that no such thing is happening, but whatever the position is I should like a completely reliable and official statement on the subject. I appreciate that whatever is done by the West, the attitude of Russia will most certainly be, "Anything you can do, we can do better ". One appreciates the Great Power rivalry, but surely we have learned from Vietnam and from so many other examples, that all the weapons in the world are useless if one is seeking to operate with an unfriendly population. Incidentally, this is one reason why the Russians and Americans prefer a small island to a mainland.

In all of this, who is going to win? Surely this battle will be fought not with aeroplanes, warships and nuclear weapons, but in the hearts and minds of the men and women who live in those countries, and they will not forgive the super-Power which they believe is responsible for aggravating the situation. We want genuinely to feel that the West— and I am talking specifically about America and ourselves and those associated with America—are doing everything in our power to fulfil the great dream of Nehru and Indira Gandhi and so many more in India that this should be an ocean of peace. But that does not mean playing the fool by leaving our shores defenceless.

That need for security applies also to India. So if anyone should ask why India does not join the non-nuclear club, the answer is that India is perfectly prepared to join provided the five nuclear Powers are also prepared to do so. But, determined not to be the catspaw of Russia, America or any other country, it has to have its own defences. I do not base my case on the fact that Indians insist that their developments are for peaceful purposes. As your Lordships know, there is a great deal of experiment taking place both in Russia and America. If we insist on guarding our shores, so must the Indians. Surely, we ought to take account of the point of view of the millions of people who are living in that part of the world. I should feel very much easier in my mind if I could be told today what we are doing directly and what influence we are exerting upon our American friends and allies to lessen the tensions and dangers in this part of the world where Americans, Russians and all others are welcome if they come as traders, if they come for peaceful purposes. Unless we can do something to reverse the terrifying process which is now going on in the Indian Ocean, there will be another avalanche of hatred and destruction and even we may not be as safe as we may think ourselves. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.12 p.m.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, I have listened with very great interest and care to the speech that the noble Baroness has just made, but it has only confirmed my belief that, however laudable the aims and the spirit of the Motion— and the sentiments which the noble Baroness has expressed are very worth while—its terms are totally impracticable. The present international climate, especially as it affects the area of the Indian Ocean, makes the idea of preserving its neutrality in the way the noble Baroness seeks to achieve—or appears to want—impos-sible to implement.

During the last three years, the United Nations General Assembly has passed at least two Resolutions declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace, and each time Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union have abstained. The last Resolution passed by the General Assembly— No. 3259A— called on the great Powers to refrain from increasing their military presence in the area, but that Resolution can never be implemented so long as the great Powers refuse to support it. Ever since the Six Day War, the Soviet Union has been steadily building up its naval fleet in the Indian Ocean and increasing its military and diplomatic presence throughout the whole area. I think that this has been done for several reasons. It puts more and more pressure on the weakened southern flank of NATO's defences, at a time when there is stalemate in the various talks to reduce the size of NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces in Europe. It provides protection for Russia's growing interests in the area and it helps to establish and enhance its political influence.

My Lords, it is estimated that the Russians now have some 35 naval ships in the Indian Ocean and in the surrounding area, compared to about 23 belonging to the Western Powers. However, because of the kind of ships involved, the imbalance is not so great as the figures at first suggest. On the other hand, it should be remembered that the facilities which the Russians have in the Indian Ocean can enable their ships to stay there much longer than the ships of the Western Powers. The Soviet Union is continuing to increase the facilities avail-able to it in the Northern part of the Indian Ocean. The Russian Navy has established mooring buoys North and South of Socotra Islands, in the Seychelles and in the Chagos Archipelago, not to mention its facilities in Somalia, Iraq and Southern Yemen. It is also carrying out a proxy war in Oman by giving assistance to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Oman. I am glad that the White Paper published today continues our help to the Sultan of Oman.

My Lords, the potential threat to Western interests is clear. The escalation of oil prices and the willingness of the OPEC member States, especially those in the Middle East, to use oil as a political weapon have brought home to us how vital Middle East oil is to the industrialised countries of the West. The comments made by President Ford and Dr. Kissinger on what might happen if the tap was turned off demonstrates the potential seriousness of the situation. While I do not believe that the Soviet Union would attack or impede one of our tankers, I do believe that it would be the height of folly to leave such vital interests unprotected and to leave the way clear for the Russians to do as they please. Indeed, the Russians have assisted their allies outside the Eastern bloc on occasion: one has only to look at the help that has been given to Egypt. Admiral Sir Terence Lewin is reported as having said that the West has a very real need to maintain a naval presence in the Indian Ocean, for the Russian Navy has no need to be in the area except as a threat to seaborne trade.

The problem will of course be further aggravated with the opening of the Suez Canal this summer. This will be of tremendous benefit to the Russian Navy which will no longer have to make the long journey around the Cape or from Vladivostok. Instead, it can do the short journey from the Black Sea through the Canal to the Indian Ocean. On the other hand, the reopening will not be of much assistance to the Americans and the other Western Powers, which will be unable to use the Canal because of the size of their supertankers and large naval vessels. Thus, the Cape route will still be of major importance to this country for a number of years to come.

My Lords, it has generally been accepted as inevitable by both sides of the House that Britain's world role should contract in those areas where we have no great interest, and that our defence of those areas where we have interests is partly dependent on the participation of our allies. The savage defence cuts announced last year by the Government and confirmed in the White Paper today make this all the more true, although the Government themselves have recognised in the White Paper that, we cannot exclude the possibility that the members of the Warsaw Pact might try to use their massive military power, especially in conventional weapons, to bring political pressure to bear, perhaps selectively, on Western countries in the hope of influencing their external and even their domestic policies. Yet, the Government have still decided to withdraw from Gan by April 1976, and to give up the naval communications station in Mauritius. They have decided to weaken, if not destroy, the Five Power defence arrangements, yet the White Paper says: … those interests absorb only a comparatively small proportion of the Defence Budget. Withdrawal from all these areas including the garrisons in the Mediterranean would save £150 million a year at the most My Lords, if we have to be faced with this decision, I think that it is even more necessary to offer our remaining facilities for the use and support of our Western allies. I think it is only right that the Sultan of Oman has agreed to allow the Americans to use Masirah on an irregular basis, and it is certainly in our own interests to permit the Americans to extend the facilities on Diego Garcia. However, the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in another place on 11th March that: … there are no plans to base ships or air-craft on Diego Garcia, and there will be no facilities of any kind for nuclear weaponry ". — [Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; col. 258.] When the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, comes to answer this debate, could he expand on that remark? What exactly do the Government mean by " no facilities of any kind for nuclear weaponry"? The idea of excluding nuclear weapons from the area of the Indian Ocean is, I should have thought, a little out of date, since the Indian Government have in fact carried out a successful nuclear test.

Since the Government have decided on withdrawing still further from East of Suez, it is all the more imperative that we obtain the most up-to-date intelligence on events in that area of the Indian Ocean. While I fully realise and appreciate that NATO is not allowed to operate South of the Tropic of Cancer—and I am not suggesting that it should—I do think that NATO should extend its area of interest and should study very closely developments in that area of the world. It would be wrong for NATO to ignore the potential threat posed by the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. On 14th January last the noble Lord's right honourable friend said in another place— …I believe that the NATO defence planning Council is worried about the growth of Soviet naval activity around the Cape and the Indian Ocean and that it will probably be embarking upon the study …".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/75; col. 176.] Can the noble Lord give the House any more up-to-date information on this point, which I think is of vital importance?

My Lords, one of the great advantages of the Simonstown Agreement, outside the fact that Simonstown has the only deep water harbour between the Cape and Singapore, is the provision of intelligence information in respect of shipping movements on the Cape route. If this facility is removed because of the Government's surrender in the face of pressure from the Left over the special provisions offered this country at the Simonstown base and over the joint exercises with the South African Navy, it will be a damaging blow to this country. I recognise that the facilities available at Simonstown would probably be still offered to us on a cash basis, but this depends on the result of the talks with the South African Government, and I notice that the Government White Paper on Defence conveniently skates over this very important point. It is regrettable that it does not go into greater detail on what the Government hope to achieve. I doubt whether it is in this country's long-term interest to antagonise the South Africans—whatever we may think of their internal politics—when such major changes are taking place in South Africa as a whole, and at the moment when the South African Government, anyway in their foreign policy, are trying to reach some understanding with the Governments of black Africa.

The withdrawal of Portugal from Africa has changed considerably the political situation in that Continent. Although the Frelimo Government of Mozambique is probably more sympathetic to Marxism than to capitalism it is likely that it will follow a rather pragmatic course after independence in June because of the disastrous state of the country's economy. This, I would presume, means that the Government will maintain the Beira patrol. It also, of course, poses an interesting moral dilemma. If the Indian Ocean were made a neutral area, as the noble Baroness wants, and foreign naval vessels were excluded, Rhodesia would of course find it much easier to evade sanctions.

We on this side of the House certainly want the Indian Ocean to be an area of peace, but we believe that this can only be achieved through mutual security. The Russians are not going to pull out and consequently give up the political influence which they have in the area. Thus they pose a potential threat to our vital interests in that part of the world and to the Southern flank of NATO. The answer surely lies in offsetting the Russian military presence by that of the Western allies. While I would readily agree with the noble Baroness that many of the littoral States would like to see the foreign forces totally removed from the area, I also believe that in general they would not want to have the Russians alone.

3.26 p.m.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, is chiefly reflecting the fears of Mrs. Gandhi that the Indian Ocean might eventually become the scene of some contest between the two super-Powers, especially some nuclear contest. But her main fear, if not her only concern in this respect, lies in the alleged development of the small and almost uninhabited British possession, the Island of Diego Garcia in the South of the area where we are said to have given or offered—and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will confirm or deny this —the Americans certain communications facilities. It can hardly be suggested that we ourselves, despite what the noble Baroness suggested, could make any prejudicial use of this island. In any case, though I am not sure whether I am here in agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, the Royal Navy has, I believe, no intention of developing Diego Garcia as a base. Anyhow it is obvious that it could be no real substitute for Simonstown.

So it comes to this. There is no intention of any kind of making Diego Garcia into a nuclear base. The landing strip, I understand, is quite unsuitable for any large bombers. And, if you were thinking of nuclear bases, why should that be necessary on an island thousands of miles away from the scene of any action, when presumably, if there was a catastrophe and a nuclear war, it would be conducted by nuclear submarines which both sides might send to the area so as to bombard any State in the area affected? That might, of course, be a danger, but I suggest it has nothing what-ever to do with Diego Garcia. What does seem to be clear is that, if the Americans are not given such communications facilities in Diego Garcia as they are asking for, they will have no facilities of any kind in the Indian Ocean, except as I understand from what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said, conceivably in Oman; otherwise nothing.

This obviously is not the case so far as the other super-Power is concerned. The Soviet Union has now very nearly taken over Aden and is also, I understand, constructing a base in Somalia at Mogadiscio, to say nothing of facilities in Socotra and, I believe, also in the island of Kamaran. We hear, too—as no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, has heard —of requests for facilities for so-called fishing boats and trawlers in Mauritius. And I have no doubt that before long we shall also be hearing of similar requests from the newly instituted independent Government of the Seychelles. And as for us, we have, of course, withdrawn from the Persian Gulf and now that we have given up Gan in the Maldives, and indeed Singapore, there is nowhere, except presumably Diego Garcia, where our war-ships or submarines, if there should be any in the area, could have any facilities at all.

Why, then, I ask myself, is it that Mrs. Gandhi is so occupied with what she apparently regards as an exclusively American menace? Suppose the Soviet Navy extends its system of bases even further, as I have suggested and as I think is probable, what would Mrs. Gandhi's attitude be to that? Is she perhaps pre-pared to give Soviet fishing vessels facilities in Bombay or Madras, and what would be the attitude of the Government of Colombo? We have not heard much about that so far. I believe that they are also backing up the Indian request that the whole of the area should, in some way, be a nuclear-free area.

But, my Lords, irrespective of all that, if the idea is that the Indian Ocean should somehow be transformed into a nuclear-free zone, how could such an arrangement be enforced? Would there have to be neutral inspectors in Mogadiscio, or Aden, or Socotra, or wherever it may be, to confirm that no Soviet warships entering or leaving their bases could be carrying any form of nuclear weapons? Is that the idea? Would India herself be prepared to submit to such disciplines if, by any chance, they were accepted by the Governments of South Yemen, or any other States in the area that might be concerned? We ought to have further information on that point.

The recent explosion of a nuclear device on Indian soil must, in any case— and despite assertions that the explosion has no military significance whatever— cast at least a certain doubt on India's intention to keep out of the nuclear arms race altogether. And, of course, if India should ever possess a single nuclear weapon, however small, the entire idea of a nuclear-free zone in the Indian Ocean would collapse. But irrespective of nuclear considerations, the object of any neutralisation or "peace zone" proposal would, I suppose, be to exclude any war-ships from the ocean, other than those belonging to the riparian States. If this could be arranged it would be an excel-lent thing. Here I do not altogether go along with the noble Earl, Lord Cowley. If that, I repeat, could be arranged it would, in principle, be excellent despite certain disadvantages; for instance, in regard to the blockade of the Portuguese coast for controlling Rhodesian imports, and so on. But after all, it would chiefly be a matter for consideration by the two super-Powers, and if Mrs. Gandhi could persuade them both to enter into a kind of self-denying ordinance we should, I suggest, all rejoice. At the moment, and as things are, it would seem best for Mrs. Gandhi to approach the Soviet Government who are actively engaged in asserting their presence in the area, and not the Americans who, except for some possible communications facilities in Diego Garcia, are totally absent from the whole area in a military sense.

But, my Lords, surely the whole question is whether or not the two super-Powers really are lining up for some global confrontation in the area; in so far as we can prevent this, let us by all means try. However, if by any chance the Soviet Union's objectives should be to threaten—or to put themselves in a position to threaten—our oil supplies from the Gulf, we should presumably, in those circumstances, have to give the Americans all the support we could in order to counter it. That stands to reason.

Apart from the possible approach to the Soviet Government, is there any other constructive step that might be taken? I think there is one. The Suez Canal is not, I believe, as yet completely open. When it is, why should not the Egyptian Government declare that they are to close it to all warships irrespective of nationality? That would make it much easier for Mrs. Gandhi to seal off the Indian Ocean from the activities of either of the super-Powers. I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, might put this proposal to her friend and ask her to take it up with Mr. Sadat, who is in a very good position to talk to both Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Gromyko on this subject. I would ask the noble Baroness to consider this practical suggestion when she sums up.

3.35 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, we all wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, for initiating this debate which is of very great importance to the world. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, delivered the speech which I expected and stated the Conservative view with clarity and conviction. I was a little disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for the Liberal Party, except for his conclusions. The opening part of his speech seemed to me very different from the Liberal views which his Party used to express in the days when I belonged to it.

We are discussing an area of the world which is very extensive and is of enormous importance for world communications. The Indian Ocean stretches for 75 million kilometres and borders three con-tinents—Africa, Asia and Australia. It is the link between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean in the West, and the Pacific in the East, and—here I endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, said in this respect—it is of supreme importance for trade; not merely the oil resources of the Gulf, which we have now learned are so important, but 90 per cent. of world production of rubber, jute, tea and other materials, as well as a large proportion of minerals, must cross the Indian Ocean.

My Lords, it is to protect production and trade to the West, that the West has insisted that a naval and military presence is necessary in the Indian Ocean —the United Kingdom, when Britannia ruled the waves before the World War, and the United States of America pre-dominantly since, with French presence decreasing with the loss of Indo-China. I have in my hand a map of the Indian Ocean which shows that both the Ocean itself and the surrounding lands and scattered islands are dotted with outposts of Britain and the United States of America. Some of these outposts are of little naval or military value; they are not much more than harbour facilities for refuelling, repairs and so on. But others are highly equipped naval and military force bases.

There is in the middle of the Indian Ocean the Diego Garcia post, to which the noble Baroness and others have referred. It was a fuelling base for Britain during World War II. In 1966, the United Kingdom agreed to a long-term lease to the United States of America. There was a question in the United Nations and, as a result, the Secretary-General sent technical observers to examine the situation. In April 1974, they reported that the base could be used by almost any aircraft in the world including the US Air Force B-52 strategic bomber and the KC 125, the refuelling aircraft for the B-52. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this American base is much more than the communicating contact to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred. In this situation there was great concern among the nations which bordered the Indian Ocean.

Last month there were discussions between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and of India; and Mr. Michael Welford, Deputy Under-Secretary in our Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reported to us and Mr. V. C. Trivedi, Secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, reported to India. Mr. Trivedi, for India, said that the US base would stimulate Soviet-American naval rivalry in a region which had so far been comparatively free of it. He did not only criticise the American presence in the Indian Ocean; he criticised the presence of the Soviet Union as well. It has been recently alleged that a threatening Soviet naval force has entered the Indian Ocean and the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, has given figures of, I think, 35 Soviet vessels against the 23 of the West.

I want to admit immediately, as I shall indicate later, that I do not have know-ledge of these facts. The presence of an American fleet was given as one of the reasons for maintaining the Simonstown base in South Africa. I say that I do not know the facts. I doubt whether there is anyone who knows the facts. It seems to me that one of the most urgent needs today is that the facts should be investigated. It is acknowledged that the Soviet Union has no naval or military base in the Indian Ocean. The countries most likely to pro-vide such bases, Iran, Somalia, India, Yemen and Bangladesh have all denied that they have given those facilities. It is possible that the Soviet Union may enjoy port facilities in Somalia, in South Yemen, in India and Bangladesh; but no equipped bases with runways for bombers or deep-water protection for its fleet is provided in any of those territories.

My Lords, I am bewildered in approaching this subject because of the different statements made on both sides. In June of last year the Representative of the Soviet Union in the United Nations wrote these words to the Secretary General: The Soviet Union has never had, has not established and is not now establishing any military or naval bases in the Indian Ocean region. Soviet ships and vessels have never posed a threat to anyone in that region. In accordance with the existing rules of inter-national law and with universally recognised international practice they are engaged in training cruises and in the search for and recovery of Soviet space craft that splash down in the Indian Ocean. It must also be borne in mind that transit routes from the European part of the USSR to the Soviet Far East pass through the Indian Ocean and that, accordingly, in order to ensure the safe passage of ships and vessels the Soviet Union is conducting scientific investigations in the region. I do not necessarily accept all those things; but what I am suggesting is that the time has come, when we are considering this important problem, for an impartial investigation to be made as to the facts in the Indian Ocean. Can the facts about the Soviet Government's presence be investigated through the United Nations, as the United Nations authorised in connection with Diego Garcia in 1974 when two visits were made on its behalf? I want to emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, said, that the littoral States on the coasts of Africa —Somalia to Yemen to India and to Malaysia in the North, the States which are bordering the Indian Ocean—are now asking for its neutralisation.

The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, drew attention to the fact that when this subject was debated at the United Nations the Soviet Union Representative abstained as well as the Representatives of the West. But he will be aware that, since then, Mr. Brezhnev and the Soviet Union have unreservedly declared their support of the demand of the nations bordering the Indian Ocean that the Indian Ocean should be neutralised. They have used the phrase and they support the idea of a "Zone of Peace".

I do not accept everything the Soviet Union says; but I suggest that we ought to challenge them when they have made that statement. Let us ask for a United Nations investigation of the facts. There does not seem to me to be any doubt that the majority in the United Nations would support the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean. I have no doubt at all that the vast majority of world opinion which desires peace would also support this proposal. It would be a precedent for other areas; it would be a precedent for the Mediterranean where Mediterranean nations are demanding neutralisation in the presence of great American and Russian fleets.

The Party to which I belong is not only pledged to reduce expenditure upon arms but also pledged to support the cause of peace. One would hope that our Party, in world affairs, will support this idea, which is endorsed by every nation which borders the Indian Ocean, that the area should be neutralised as a great encouragement to the neutralisation of the seas of the world and towards peace.

4.1 p.m.

Lord MERRIVALE

My Lords, I would certainly follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in agreeing that we are much indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, for introducing this highly important Motion this after-noon. The great American naval strategist, Admiral Mahan, wrote during the last century that: Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia and in the twenty-first century the destiny of the world will be decided in its waters. Whether American or British strategists today would express their concern over Soviet penetration of the Indian Ocean in quite those terms is doubtful; but I feel we should certainly consider the implications of the words of Admiral Gorshkov in July 1967, when he said: The Soviet Navy has been converted, in the full sense of the word, into an offensive type of long-range armed force … which could exert a decisive influence on the course of an armed struggle in theatres of military operations of vast extent … and which is also able to support State interests at sea in peace-time. Then there is Russia's long-term aim of filling the vacuum created by Britain's withdrawal East of Suez, the first incursion of Soviet naval vessels into the Indian Ocean being in 1968. Finally, there is the Russian desire to increase their influence and presence in that area. I think that the following statement which appeared in Pravda in August 1973 is as relevant today as it was then: Peaceful co-existence does not spell an end to the struggle between the two world social systems. The struggle will continue between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between world socialism and imperialism, up to the complete and final victory of Communism on a world scale. Therefore let us not forget the situation in Cambodia and, nearer home, in Portugal, while remembering the Russian build-up in the area we are considering today. I would add en passant that while Russia may be competing with the Chinese in a struggle for influence— in the Indian Ocean area China does not look on it as a strategic or political entity but more as an area in which exists "targets of opportunity"—on the other hand, the Soviet are intent on increasing the facilities they require and the influence they can exercise there.

Excluding for the moment reference to Russia military advisers and instructors in the area, one cannot ignore the fact that Russia is increasing her port facilities. For instance, the Soviet have a naval and submarine base at Hodeida in the Yemen Arab Republic, while in Iraq Soviet aid has helped to develop the naval bass at Umm Qasr at the head of the Persian Gulf. The island of Perim has also very useful naval facilities. Then there is Aden, which has already been referred to, with its excellent natural harbour, constituting as a base a definite potential threat, as it is readily available to Marxist-orientated naval units. At present the island of Socotra has no harbour— reference has also been made to this island—but I understand that about three years ago Soviet engineers made a survey of it. An unstable situation exists in Ethiopia which has a main naval base at Massawa; and last year the Soviet. Somali Friendship Treaty was signed, so that the Russians now have at Berbera important port facilities and the communications centre there is under sole Soviet control.

At Port Louis in Mauritius, the Soviet "fishing fleet"—and we all know what that means—has been granted facilities. At this point I should like to ask the Minister: what is the present situation regarding the important naval communications centre based on Mauritius for which we were responsible until last year? May I ask whether the arrangement has been extended and whether we are still responsible? As I do not wish to go beyond the Indian Ocean into Portuguese Atlantic areas, I feel that some concern should be expressed over some-thing that has already been mentioned; namely, the unstable situation in Mozambique. After the Russian demands for facilities at Madeira, one can imagine that they will seek increased co-operation with the Frelimo Government in Mozambique.

I should now like to turn to the very reasonable proposals to increase the use-fulness of the Diego Garcia Atoll to the United States naval forces in the area. In a Written Answer last year, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said on 5th February, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, at column 770 of the Official Report that the Government: … have long felt that it is desirable in the general Western interest to balance increased Soviet activities in the Indian Ocean area Accordingly they welcome the expansion of the U.S. facilities … Can the Minister say what the present situation is and what is the Government's attitude now regarding these increased facilities, which are fairly marginal at Diego Garcia?—bearing in mind a 3 to 1 Soviet naval presence as compared with the United States naval presence, and also an even greater ratio regarding "port time" in the area.

Finally, I am conscious of the fact— and I can understand the feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on this— that many African Governments would welcome the idea of a neutralised Indian Ocean, but as things are at the moment I feel that the idea of an Indian Ocean denuded of big-Power naval presence is anachronistic. The Russians, it seems, are there to stay and with the reopening of the Suez Canal (this summer, I believe) access to the Indian Ocean will certainly be much facilitated, particularly to the Russians and not so much to the Americans because of the size of naval vessels. At the same time, the major oil-producing countries once the Canal is open will be "ringed" by the Soviet Navy.

Having made these points, I feel that we should listen to the points which African Governments have to make and endeavour to see their point of view and see whether we cannot convince them or at least reach some form of modus vivendi and understanding on this very important matter. It is a subject they feel strongly about, I know. I am thinking particularly, of course, about the views (as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway) of the littoral States. I have in mind Madagascar, because I have been chairman of the Anglo-Malagasy Society since October 1961, and also Madagascar's importance in terms of its geographical location and size and heads of population—it has a population of over 7½ million people. Regarding that country, I think it relevant to point out that since 1972 their foreign policy has been what they term, "A politique d'ouverture tous azimuts" as practised by the then Foreign Minister, Commandant Didie Ratsiraka, which I certainly believe will be followed by the present foreign Minister, Pasteur Albert Zakariasy. In other words, co-operation with all countries, East and West, provided their national sovereignty is not impaired or impinged upon, on a basis of mutual understanding and friendship.

In conclusion, I feel though, as mentioned in a recent report produced by the Institute for the Study of Conflict, that in the Indian Ocean, as elsewhere, a strong Soviet Fleet is an instrument of moral and material support for groups in power or seeking power and willing to work with the Russians. Therefore, my Lords, this country and the United States should recognise this fact and act accordingly.

4.3 p.m.

Lord LEE of NEWTON

My Lords, each of the contributors to this debate has stressed the enormous strategic importance of the Indian Ocean, and none has suggested that any accomplished fact so far as a disturbance of the peace in the Indian Ocean is concerned, has as yet taken place. It is indeed a most remark-able fact that such a huge expanse as the Indian Ocean, with such enormous importance to so many people, has not revealed any of the disturbances which we have seen in most other parts of the world. I think we all agree that if it is in any way disturbed then vital differences could arise as between the great Powers.

My noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge who opened the debate mentioned the position in Mauritius. I was there about a year ago when she was, and there can be no question that Prime Minister Ramgoolam and others are extremely worried about what could hap-pen in Diego Garcia. I rather resented the imputation made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that, because the Russians have certain fishing rights at St. Louis this seemed to him to indicate there was a bias in favour of Russian power being encouraged in the Indian Ocean. I could find nothing of that kind in the discussions I had in Mauritius. In-deed, I would repudiate the thought that people with whom I negotiated in my days as Colonial Secretary, and who have always honoured their side of the arrangements we then made, would be capable of that kind of duplicity. It is somewhat ironic that at the moment when we are debating this issue the Constitutional Conference for the Independence of the Seychelles is now taking place in London. We, as a result of such Constitutional Conferences—whether they be for independence, as in the case of the Seychelles, or for associated status, as in the case of large areas of the Caribbean where I negotiated—do not cut ourselves off from friendship and assistance to those areas. They remain within the Commonwealth, and to me it would be unthinkable that we could rather hypocritically talk about granting Independence to the Seychelles if at the same time we were to lend our aid to build up warlike fleets within the Indian Ocean itself.

I should therefore be grateful to my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts if, when he replies, he will say who is right. Are my noble friends Lady Lee and Lord Brockway right in saying that in Diego Garcia there is to be a very considerable build-up of American military and naval strength, or is the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, right when he says it is merely a question of communications? There is, I suggest, a slight difference. One's attitude would be very largely determined by which way that question is to be answered. May I also ask this? Especially when one looks down the African coastline one sees that here again are members of the British Commonwealth of nations. Has there been close consultation between Julius Nyerere and people of this kind and the Americans before any arrangements were made—or will there be if arrangements are to be made—on the question of what is to happen on Diego Garcia?

I like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that with the reopening of Suez, which will bring the Gulf of Aden very much into this particular picture, it would be a good thing if the Egyptian Government made some statement about warships going through Suez. One looks at the Mediterranean and the access via Suez to the Indian Ocean of both the Americans and the Russians. It is now a feature which could change the disposition of power within the Indian Ocean very considerably indeed. For my part, I hope that Mauritious's Government would not only suggest to the Egyptian Government that they might consider doing this; I would go further and agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that it would be first class if we got an inquiry into the whole basis of this situation; if we suggested at the United Nations that it would be an excellent feature of their work in this part of the world if they could initiate such discussions, with a view to ensuring— I will not say the neutrality of the Indian Ocean, but certainly that the new possibilities which the reopening of Suez will bring are vetoed so far as both the great Powers are concerned. These, to me, are vital issues indeed.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lee on raising this issue. As I said, she, like myself, had practical experience of the feelings of the people in Mauritius If there is nothing in this suggestion about the build-up in Diego Garcia, how is it that it comes about at this particular moment? We have all known a very old friend of ours, the Prime Minister of Mauritius, for many years. I never heard any suggestion from him that there was danger of animosity between the Soviets and the Americans until the question of Diego Garcia came into the headlines. Therefore, I do not accept either that they are behaving hysterically or that they are merely surmising about what could happen. I think that today's opportunity is an excellent one. When he replies. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten what I confess is my complete ignorance about the answer to these matters, and that he will do so in a way which will enable the Conference on the Seychelles which is taking place now in Lancaster House to feel that they know that the answer is not only Independence, but Independence from what.

4.11 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the House will be very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge for introducing this important subject for debate, and for the balanced and cogent way in which she spoke. Britain has had a long history of involvement in the Indian Ocean and of relations with the littoral countries in that area. We were there first as traders, then as a colonial and naval Power; and I think it is reasonable to state that we exercised this power responsibly in fulfilment of our commitments to territories which we administered by the best lights available to us in that period of Imperial power, and in fulfilment of Treaty obligations in the area. I think it is true that we can look back with some pride on the rapid and harmonious transition which has been made to a new pattern of relationships with countries in the area, and there are noble Lords who are present in this House who have made distinguished contributions in that direction.

Of course, we continue to have an interest in the Indian Ocean, as have other countries, including European countries; but somehow it always falls to us to solve all the problems which occur in such areas, even though there are other countries which are directly interested. Like other countries, we have a legitimate interest in ensuring the security of these trade routes, and it is against this background that we have agreed to a limited expansion by the United States of the facilities at Diego Garcia. This offers no threat to the security of States bordering the Indian Ocean; nor, indeed, has it attracted any-thing like universal hostility from those States.

In recent years our military presence has been progressively reduced as we have reassessed our role in the world. Indeed, in this area of South-Western Asia and the Far East our presence has very greatly diminished in accordance with that reassessment. We are now almost confined to considering the future of Diego Garcia. I hope that what I have to say will, in some respects, reassure my noble friends and others who are concerned about the natural anxieties which have been expressed by the people of Mauritius and others about what is pro-posed to happen there.

May I therefore take the outstanding questions which my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge has put to me. She said that the Mauritian High Commissioner in Delhi had publicly stated that there was an undertaking not to use Diego Garcia for military purposes. My understanding is that when the Chagos Archipelago was detached from Mauritius to form part of the British and Indian Ocean Territory, it was made clear to the Mauritian Government that it was needed for "defence purposes". The Mauritians sought to place no restrictions upon this use. I believe that this is also the official understanding of the Mauritius Government.

My noble friend asked about nuclear weapons, and in this question she was joined by a number of noble Lords who took part in this debate. The Americans do not plan to base ships or aircraft at Diego Garcia and, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, there will be no facilities of any kind for nuclear weapons. My noble friend Lord Lee of Newton and my noble friend Lord Brockway, as well as the initiator of this debate, sought reassurance on this point. I give that assurance and add that if there were such a proposal they would have to come to us.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, the Minister says that there will be no American aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia. However, according to the report presented to the United Nations by representatives of the Secretary General, is it not the case that the run-way has been extended so as to allow aircraft of any size to arrive at and depart from that base?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I was coming to that point and to one or two related points. However, I thought that it was right and courteous to deal first with the extremely important questions that my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge has raised. My noble friend also asked a question about oil or other minerals discovered in or near the Archipelago. We have told the Mauritius Government that they would have the benefit of any minerals or oil discovered in this area. But the Islands are British sovereign territory and, in our view, this includes the territorial waters. However, we have said to them that they would have the benefit of these discoveries, if any; and, of course, as in the past, I think we shall do a great deal to assist them at the right time to make use of these benefits, if and when they are found to exist. My noble friend and, I think, my noble friend, Lord Lee of Newton, quite rightly asked whether there had been proper consultation.

Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE

My Lords, on the question of the surrounding seabed, I have been officially in-formed that the Mauritians had engaged an American company to explore for oil and other minerals in the surrounding seabed, and that they had been told that they could not go on with those explorations. It would be very useful if that point could be cleared up.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I am not immediately in a position to clear up that point. I think it is related to the immediate defence question in that area. I recognise my noble friend's interest in the matter and I share it. I do not wish to give a complete answer, because I am not in a position to do so. What I will do is look into it; but I repeat that we have told the Mauritius Government that they would have the benefit of any minerals or oil discovered in this area, and I have no doubt that we shall assist them, if and when this becomes practicable. How far this is related to the needs of defence is a matter for definition, and I wish to be more precise about this before I answer.

I come now to one or two detailed questions which have been put to me, including one put in supplementation by my noble friend Lord Brockway. The improvements at Diego Garcia, which are relatively modest, will provide facilities for refuelling, resupplying and minor maintenance of ships and aircraft. They include lengthening the runway, enlarging the parking area, improving ship sup-port facilities and storage and accommodation facilities. This does not in any way minimise the force of what I said previously, that it is not the intention to base ships or aircraft at Diego Garcia. There will be no specialised support facilities for submarines. The improvements to the runway will not strengthen or widen it sufficiently to permit B52 bomber operations, which I think the noble Lord mentioned. At present there are some 300 US personnel stationed there and the number will increase gradually to some 500. That is about the size of it, and noble Lords and others who have some experience of these stations—I avoid the word "base" because it is not a base; it is a station—will realise that it is not proposed to increase it markedly. I repeat that it does not constitute a threat to any State in the area, and I want to add that it certainly does not conduce to an imbalance of presence in the area.

I do not propose to engage in an evaluation of the Russian presence as compared with that of the Western countries in this area. Rather I should like to take up one or two points made by my noble friend about the prospects of moving towards—if not an absolutely nuclear-free zone—a peace zone in the general area. Here, if I may say so, I thought the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was most thoughtful and constructive. There are real practical difficulties about organising such an area over a wide ocean. The same difficulties do not obtain over a territorial expanse such as Latin America; may not obtain in what is mainly a territorial part of the world like the Middle East, but certainly do obtain over an oceanic part of the world.

We have, of course, a record of strong support for meaningful and constructive advances in regional neutralisation. We found it impossible to support—we did not vote against, but found it impossible to support—proposals put forward at the United Nations in regard to the Indian Ocean, for quite substantial reasons. We believe that these changes should be pre-ceded by proper studies and preparation. The suggestion that the Indian Ocean should be neutralised certainly reflects a genuine concern among the countries of the area. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the best approach to neutralisation in the Indian Ocean is offered by the suggestion of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Gough Whitlam, who we feel has gone to the heart of the matter. He has suggested—and we completely agree with him—that it is necessary to secure substantial agreement by the two super Powers before we move on, hopefully, to a conference designed to draw up a blue-print, however idealistic, but which, unless there is substantial prior agreement by the super Powers, may not result in any advantages to that area or to the world.

The countries bordering on the Indian Ocean do not form a distinctive group in a political or a cultural sense. It is natural that many of them should express concern about what is happening there— not just now in Diego Garcia, but what has happened over the past 10 or 15 years all over the Ocean—and should feel anxious about these developments. They are developments deriving from the lack of effective detente in the area between the two super Powers, and our role must be—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out very cogently —to support every practical way of get-ting the two super Powers together to agree to effective action.

A very interesting suggestion was made about the control of the Suez Canal. That would apply to one of the super Powers but, clearly, it would be a contribution in the sense that one super Power in particular would be subject to a possible sanction.

Lord BALNIEL

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him, before he leaves the subject of arms limitation in the Indian Ocean? The proposal for arms limitation is a very reasonable and desirable one, provided it is balanced and controlled and properly surveyed, and I am sure that if such a proposal were to be implemented it would certainly be welcome to China, to India and to the oil producing countries of the Middle East. But can the noble Lord say whether there has been any indication at all, apart from words, that the Soviet Government is in any way pre-pared to reverse the existing build-up of the forces in that area?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, it would be rather difficult for me to explain or project Soviet policy or intentions. We have heard words spoken by Mr. Brezhnev quoted in this debate. We have had recent experience of helpful and hopeful contacts with the Soviet Government. There may be others. Shall I say that we hope very much that the progress of detente will include a readiness by both the Soviet Union and the United States of America to look at the question of build-up in this area, in particular. I think that should be part of it, but I accept the noble Lord's point —in fact, I was dealing with it—that first the Russians and the Americans should indicate and seek to prove by deeds, possibly by a policy of small steps, that they are in earnest about achieving, first, a balance and, later, de-escalation in this area.

There are, of course, other considerations that we must bear in mind before we support positively well-meaning but, perhaps, not sufficiently thought out proposals in New York for conferences and arrangements designed to achieve what my noble friend and I—and I think all of us—so passionately want to see. First, the decision to form a nuclear-free zone should be taken voluntarily and freely by the States concerned in the area; secondly, the creation of such a zone should not diminish security or have a destabilising effect. This is particularly important in regions of nuclear confrontation between the great Powers.

Thirdly, all militarily significant States, and preferably all States in the zone, should be included. Fourthly—and here I join with the noble Lord—there should be arrangements for impartial, inter-national verification adequate for the particular circumstances of the region. It is no good having a blueprint unless it is first of all effectively implemented, and, secondly, effectively supervised in practice. Any progress towards creating any such nuclear-free zone or, indeed, zone of peace, would certainly contribute to-wards the reduction of tension in the area. We have shown willing by action as well as suggestion at the United Nations, and in other discussions, when we have supported effectively other proposals—at least five which I can call to mind— relating to Latin America, to the Middle East and to Africa.

My Lords, we have had natural doubts about certain proposals made about the India Ocean. This is not quite the same as Latin America, or even the Middle East. I can completely assure my noble friend that it is the aim of Her Majesty's Government to support the objectives she has so eloquently described. I hope that in these few remarks I have gone some way to reassuring her and my other noble friends about the position in Diego Garcia.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he at least try to answer the points I raised in relation to the study being carried out by the NATO Defence Planning Council in relation to developments in the Indian Ocean?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, not clearly at this point. If the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, will help me by possibly putting down a Question, I should like to look at that separately from the general points raised this afternoon about the Indian Ocean.

Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE

My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his courtesy in answering in detail the questions raised. As the noble Lord knows, every word he has said will be carefully scrutinised by the Governments to which we have referred. I look for-ward with interest, as I am sure he does, to the replies we shall receive from our many Commonwealth friends and others. We hope that what has been said by the noble Lord today will not only be re-assuring, but will be something to build on towards more secure times. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, with-drawn.