AFRICAN PRESIDENTS AND TERRORISM (Hansard, 3 March 1977)

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

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the front line Presidents are failing to discourage terrorism. They have long made plain their preference for a peaceful solution based on genuine majority rule. In the absence of such a solution, however, they have felt that they have no alternative but to support the armed struggle.

§ Lord COLERAINE
My Lords, I am not clear that I heard correctly the earlier part of the noble Lord's reply. But I gather from what I did hear that he takes the view, and Her Majesty's Government take the view, that anyone who has a political grievance, if he cannot get it settled his way, is entitled to take military action. I would ask the noble Lord whether the attitude of the front line Presidents is a breach of the United Nations' Charter in at least two respects. In the first place, is it not interference with the internal affairs of another country? In the second place, is it not a breach of the peace rather than a threat to the peace?
May I put this further point to the noble Lord. I do not know whether he is haunted by the same fear that haunts me; namely, that Salisbury may prove to be the Sarajevo of a third and final world war. Will he impress upon the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who I understand are shortly to visit Washington, the urgency of persuading the Americans to take a more positive line in Africa than they have so far done, in order to avert what may be the most appalling clash between East and West?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, I do not think that anybody in this noble House would disagree with the 737 closing passages of the noble Lord's supplementary question. Most certainly my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will pay attention to what the noble Lord (a former Minister and a right honourable gentleman) has to say on this matter. I will not detain the House on the question of constitutional niceties which are important and which the noble Lord raised, but I wish to take this opportunity of making it absolutely clear to him and to everybody else that Her Majesty's Government never have, do not now, and will not support armed struggle, still less terrorism. It is a matter of opinion as much as of fact as to who in Rhodesia for the past 11 or 12 years has been engaged in terrorism, and we could detain the House by arguing this matter.
I have said to the House before now that it is a tragedy that the past 11 years—11 years of illegal rule—have been wasted, without any attempt being made to move forward towards majority rule and equal rights in Rhodesia. Today we are all paying the price; the dangers in Africa, to which the noble Lord quite rightly drew attention towards the end of his remarks, are very acute indeed, and I place the greater part of the blame on those who for the past 11 years have not moved at all to solve those questions.

§ Baroness ELLES
My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said, but would he not agree that Ian Smith, whatever his faults and however much one may blame him, has in fact in the past few months made a considerable change in his attitude, first, by agreeing to achieve majority rule within two years and, secondly, by his recent actions in removing apartheid, particularly in relation to land tenure?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, I would address myself to Mr. Smith's policies and actions against the background of the past 11 years, not the past 11 days. One can only hope that these measures—too little—are not too late. It is not enough to condemn the front line Presidents and the leaders of black Africa for taking the attitudes they do. They have been extraordinarily patient for the major portion of those 11 years. They did not engage in violent action in protest against the illegal régime. 738 I only hope that even Mr. Smith may be able to persuade a majority of his Party to agree to this moiety of tardy equity for 7 million black Africans in his country.

§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE
My Lords, is there not a danger that we are losing sight of the importance to the world of the United Nations' Charter? Was it not in fact one of the main purposes to outlaw war except in direct self-defence? We have had two Questions today, both of which arise out of the fact that in different parts of the world nations resort to war, which they may beautify by the term "the armed struggle", in direct conflict with their obligations under the United Nations' Charter, which is not to resort to war as an instrument of policy. Is that not so?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that that is the meaning of the Charter; and I have said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, that we have not supported, and do not support, armed struggle, still less terrorism. But the facts are that, after a long period of expecting movement forward by the illegal regime, black Africans have lost patience. This is not to say that they are within the Charter; it is only to say that these are the facts.

§ Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the sentiments he has expressed were previously expressed in this country by one of the really great men among the front line leaders, Mr. Julius Nyerere? Is he aware that, when Mr. Nyerere was in this country as the honoured guest of the Crown, in dealing with the Palace and in dealing with the leaders of both Government and Opposition, his whole plea was that they should recognise the suffering that would be imposed on the African masses if no alternative was open to them except armed conflict? Is the Minister aware that everything that Mr. Nyerere cares about—the lives, the future and the dignity of his people—has been involved in seeking a peaceful solution, but that he also warned that if a peaceful solution was not available then the mood of the African people today, from North, South, East and West, is such that it will be a bloodbath, that we will all abhor, for both black and white?

§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER
My Lords, are we asking Questions or are we having a debate?

§ Lord AVEBURY
My Lords, I have been trying to ask a question. Would the noble Lord agree that, while we would all condemn terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians, there have been many occasions in our history when British Governments have supported the struggle of peoples against oppressive dictatorships, from the days of Garibaldi, when he was fighting against the atrocious dictatorship of King Ferdinand (Bomba) in the Kingdom of the two Sicilies, to the Maquis in the last war; that when constitutional means of change are not open to a people then armed struggle may be the only alternative; and that after 11 years one could hardly disagree that that situation has been reached in Zimbabwe?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, when constitutional means of redress are obviously unavailing or unavailable then it is, I will not say natural but understandable, though not justified—and this is where I agree with the noble and learned Lord. We do not take the view that armed struggle in pursuit of political change, still less terrorism—and often the dividing line between the two is very thin—can receive the support of Her Majesty's Government. I am personally absolutely clear on this. I regret I cannot follow the noble Lord back to 1860 and discuss with him the views of Garibaldi. I prefer to agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, when she refers to Nyerere, who, repeatedly, with others from black Africa, has in the past shown patience and expressed warnings. We have to address ourselves to the facts of life today; how can we retrieve, in the present circumstances, the possibility of a just and durable multilateral, multiracial solution in Rhodesia? It is not going to be easy, and the main reason, as I have said, is that 11 precious years have been lost.