§ 2.44 p.m.
§ Lord MONSONMy 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 why the United Kingdom delegate to the Diplomatic Conference on the Humanitarian Laws of War in Geneva abstained in the vote on the proposal to give combatant and prisoner-of-war status to guerrillas, instead of joining with the Brazilian and Israeli delegates in voting against it.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, the United Kingdom supports in principle the humanitarian aims of draft Article 42, which would extend prisoner-of-war status to guerrilla or resistance fighters who are members of organised armed forces taking part in armed conflicts of an international character. Such combatants are not adequately protected by the existing law. However, as is made clear in the delegation's explanations of vote, a copy of which I have placed in the Library of the House, certain aspects of the text of the draft Article gave rise to doubts which led to our abstaining in the vote, rather than giving the draft our support. These doubts were not considered to be so serious as to justify a negative vote.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, would he not agree that, whatever may be the varied considerations that motivated Britain's abstention, ratification of this Article will, without question, lead to an increase in the number of aircraft hijackings, and, indeed, to an increase in the frequency of attacks upon aircraft on the ground? Will he not agree that it will increase the probability of a repetition of the Munich Olympics massacre, or something of that nature, and will further endanger the lives of the Security Forces 455 and of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland? Would not the Minister further agree that each and every one of these prospects is totally abhorrent to the British people?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, certainly I agree that every one of those prospects is completely abhorrent to the British people and to all thinking and humane people everywhere. As was made clear in another place on 3rd May, draft Article 42 would not apply to terrorist activities in peace time, including the present or any foreseeable future situations in Northern Ireland. Our aim in these discussions has been to prevent any increase in the risk to innocent civilians by any change in the provisions for the status of guerrillas. There is a distinct possibility that if we do this without due thought, then we may be imperilling further the position of quite innocent people—innocent bystanders. I should also like to assure the noble Lord that so far we have abstained because of our doubts about the efficacy and equity of this Article. However, the plenary session will be considering the Article towards the end of this month or the beginning of June. Between now and then we shall be considering the position further, especially in consultation with Western Powers and, indeed, other countries.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, while welcoming the statement of the noble Lord, which I take to be an assurance that in no circumstances whatever will prisoner-of-war status be granted to members of the IRA, especially in view of the horrible arrest, torture and murder of a young Grenadier Guards officer this morning, may I ask the noble Lord whether or not it would be right that if they wish to be treated as prisoners of war the guerrillas themselves should observe the laws of war?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, yes, indeed; I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord on both of the points which he has made. Certainly this does not apply to people like the IRA in Ireland, or to people in any other country or in any other circumstances. They are not covered by this Article. I join with the noble and learned Lord in once more deploring and abomin- 456 ating the practices which characterise this kind of movement. On the second point, of course I agree with the noble and learned Lord and give my full assurance upon it, too.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend to realise that what has already been pointed out is tremendously important? The hijackers, the terrorists, all the gangsters who are acting in this capacity, are likely to ask for protection of this nature, whereas in fact they are downright villainous terrorists who have no excuse at all, except that they are taking certain actions against humanity in order to destroy civilisation.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord has spoken for us all in his denunciation of these practices. I think that I could add once more the assurance to those who have taken part in these exchanges that draft Article 42, with which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is concerned, would not apply to terrorist activities in peace time, including the present or any foreseeable future situations in Northern Ireland, or comparable situations in other countries.
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to an article on Mozambique in the Sunday Telegraph of yesterday's date and to its horrifying details? In view of the fact that terrorists from Mozambique are progressively making attacks on British territory, does not the noble Lord think that, in order to show to the world our disagreement over the behaviour of these terrorists, it would more properly have befitted the United Kingdom if the British representative had voted against the proposal?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the draft Article does not apply to activities of that kind unless they are of an international character. Where they arc, of course the draft Article will be applied.
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether any conditions are attached to the protection afforded to these guerrillas to the effect that they should be combatant in uniform, so that they could be identified from civilians?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSYes, my Lords; the proposal is that there should be distinguishing marks for such combatants so that these provisions could be fairly accorded to them, because they are properly distinguished as being part of organised armed forces in an international action; in that way it would make it more possible to protect innocent bystanders.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYSMy Lords, the noble Lord referred twice to a qualification regarding peace time. Can he make it clear that in no circumstances would combatant status be accorded to hijackers, who essentially are not in uniform although I suppose they might put their uniform on at the last moment? However, I imagine that that would not absolve them from the qualification that they must clearly be combatants in uniform and recognisable as such.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the first sentence of the noble Lord's supplementary question is the one to which I would say absolutely Yes; that is the position.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, the noble Lord said that protection would only be afforded to guerrillas under this Article in times of war. Do not the PLO consider themselves to be the representatives of a Palestinian nation which is at present at war with Israel?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, there is a definition of "a state of war" in international terms. Of course what has been said this afternoon will form part of the caucus of consideration which our representatives will be discussing with other interested countries. We were joined by a large number of countries which were anxious to effect necessary humanitarian reforms but also we were concerned about the difficulties, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon.