§ 3.41 p.m.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, with the leave of the House may I now answer the Private Notice Question of my noble friend Lord Gisborough by repeating a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal about the mobilisation of Zambian military forces against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. In particular I apologise to the noble Marquess, Lord Ailesbury, for intervening before his maiden speech. I hope that he will forgive me. The Statement is as follows: " On 20th November President Kaunda announced the full mobilisation of his country's resources as a result of recent Rhodesian raids on bridges in Zambia. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister sent a personal message to President Kaunda on 20th November expressing her concern and the Government's determination to bring all such incidents to a speedy end. My right honourable and noble friend is seeing the Zambian High Commissioner this afternoon.
" As the House is aware, the persistent tension between Rhodesia and Zambia, of which this is the latest manifestation, is caused by the conflict in Rhodesia which we are trying to resolve through the Lancaster House Conference. We have come closer to a settlement than ever before. Any intensification of violence by either side at this stage is clearly contrary to the spirit of reconciliation which we are trying to create.
" There is a heavy responsibility upon all parties to the Conference to end the war quickly now that agreement on the political issues has been reached. And we call upon both sides to reach early agreement on the cease-fire on the basis of the proposals we have put forward."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating in this House the Statement made in another place. Will he agree that the implementation of the political agreement 139 reached at Lancaster House last week very much depends on our achieving an early and genuine cease-fire? Moreover, will he agree that the attacks launched by the Salisbury régime—which is still an illegal régime—not only on guerrilla camps in Zambia but on the very fabric of the economy of that country, are bound to make the achievement of a cease-fire, without which a general agreement of a lasting nature is impossible, not only more difficult but perhaps impossible?
In paragraph I the Statement refers to representations in a personal and, I am sure, very friendly way, made to President Kaunda on 20th November about these latest happenings. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether similar and perhaps very strongly worded representations have been made to the Salisbury régime for launching the attacks which have disturbed President Kaunda so much that he has taken this action? Moreover, will he not agree that to continue with these attacks on Zambia, almost on the morrow of the signal contribution made by President Kaunda and Zambia to the success of the Lancaster House Conference, has an ominous and almost sinister air to it? It seems to be deliberately timed to make it perhaps more difficult, if not impossible, for that agreement to be implemented. Will the noble Lord confirm—and this is a very important point—that the High Commissioners of the Commonwealth in London, not exclusively the African High Commissioners in London, have, in assembly, strongly condemned the action of the Salisbury régime in launching these last attacks? Therefore, have the Government taken full note of what the High Commissioners have said?—as they, more than anybody were responsible for the fact that the Lancaster House Conference was made possible, and made a major contribution to its success.
§ Lord WADEMy Lords, I should like to add just a few words to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I simply want to emphasise one point and I shall put it in the form of a question. Is it not important that not only should we press both sides to cease the conflict which is taking place, but we should be seen to be pressing both sides equally? There might be some uninten- 140 tional misunderstanding as a result of this Statement, and it is important that we be seen to put pressure on both sides equally.
§ Lord GISBOROUGHMy Lords, will my noble friend confirm that this is in no way a declaration of war by Zambia? Secondly, will he agree that the conclusion of the cease-fire agreement is now even more urgent? Can he given an indication of the current progress of the talks? Finally, can he say whether raids are still taking place by terrorists into Rhodesia, even up to the current time, in spite of the progress of the talks?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, perhaps I may answer the interventions first. To take the point made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, yes, I am afraid it is the case that cross-border raids from Zambia into Rhodesia are continuing. Indeed, Mr. Mugabe—whose forces are not, generally speaking, based in Zambia—actually called upon his supporters to intensify their raids only recently, and we regretted that very much indeed.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, how recently?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, asks me how recently. Certainly within the last few days. I am not suggesting that the recent Rhodesian attacks into Zambia were a response to that, but certainly Mr. Mugabe's exhortations were not helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, also asked me whether the agreement so far reached was not conditional for its effect upon the further agreement of a cease-fire. Indeed, that is certainly the case. The noble Lord asked me about our specific protests to the Rhodesians as a result of these raids. The Government are very deeply concerned at the increase in tension which has developed between Rhodesia and Zambia in recent days and it is essential for all parties to exercise the greatest restraint at this crucial time. I hope that that conveys our feeling on this matter sufficiently.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, when the Minister replies he does it in a detached sort of way. Do he and the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary not realise that 141 those in Rhodesia are in rebellion against the lawful authority of Parliament and the Sovereign, and that therefore President Kaunda has every right to look to the British Government to stop them?—as they are in a position to do if they want to, because aircraft piloted by officers of the Royal Air Force have landed in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. if they do not do it, clearly they are identifying themselves—as I believe they have all the way through—with trying to secure the return of the Muzorewa Government at all costs.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, no, that is not our aim. Our aim is to achieve a comprehensive settlement at the conference at Lancaster House so that elections can be held in Rhodesia and so that the Rhodesians themselves can decide who they should have as their Government. It is not true to say, as the noble Lord is suggesting, that we are hoping and expecting that the bishop will win the forthcoming elections. Our primary purpose now, having reached agreement on the political and constitutional matters, is to bring the war to an end. I would remind your Lordships that that war has now been going on for five years, 20,000 people are already dead, another 100 die every week, and many more are maimed, injured and bereaved. I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government policy, which is aimed at bringing that war to an end, is the right one.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not a war, it is a rebellion, and a rebellion against the lawful authority of this country? The Government have a duty to reimpose the authority, which they propose to do in a nominal way by sending a governor out there. But at the moment, as a result of the Government's passive attitude, the Rhodesians are acting as though they were a lawful Government, which in fact they are not.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, it is also the case that there are major military operations being mounted from Zambia and other countries into Rhodesia.
§ Lord GRIDLEYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is a fact that the Government of Bishop Muzorewa months ago offered a cease-fire? Is not the essence of the difficulty now that if 142 there had been a cease-fire on the other side matters would have gone on very much more quickly and that we would not be in the situation that we are in today? Is it not desirable at this time to remove all tension? Can we not understand that probably President Kaunda is in a very difficult situation? But, so long as things go on as they are now, would it not be better if an appeal went out from your Lordships' House to both sides to respect a cease-fire?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, it is certainly the case that when the conference opened at Lancaster House, 10 or 11 weeks ago now, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary invited all the parties to the conflict in that part of the world to agree to a cease-fire at least for the duration of the conference. The Salisbury parties agreed to that ceasefire, and it was a matter of great regret that the Patriotic Front did not. Certainly had they done so there would be a ceasefire now. We hope that the new proposals that we have recently tabled will soon commend themselves to the parties and that a cease-fire can be then brought into force.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on all sides of the House we echo the passionate desire for a ceasefire, and that we echo the noble Lord, and also the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who takes such an interest in these matters, but that we on this side have a special anxiety to stop the bombing and the incursions carried out by the present Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Government? It is not aimed simply at community things. It is aimed at destroying bridges; it is aimed at destroying the means by which the Zambian people can actually eat. That is what it is all about. We should be grateful if the noble Lord could condemn that aspect of the activities of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Government.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I shall certainly condemn all military actions that are going on in that part of the world, including the actions of the Rhodesian Government and the actions of the other parties to the conflict.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that his 143 history this afternoon has been insufficient? The tension between Zambia and Rhodesia stems from UDI in 1965, when the Zambians were asked by the then British Government, and by successive British Governments since, to assist Britain in their economic war against the illegal regime in Rhodesia. Would he not confirm that there is not a single instance of a Zambian soldier being found on Rhodesian soil; that this series of attacks over the last few weeks, as my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies pointed out, has been upon the Zambian economy and not on the Patriotic Front guerrillas; and that this is an attack on a friendly Commonwealth country which should be condemned by the British Government, as a member of the Commonwealth, like the rest of the Commonwealth has already done?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the noble Lord refers to the history of Zambian participation in the sanctions, and he is right to do so. Certainly they have been in the front line of the sanctions war in that part of the world. Indeed, they still are, as the noble Lord reminds me. I should perhaps tell your Lordships that we have recently agreed to supply the Zambians with 13,000 tons of maize, and rather more than half of this has so far been supplied. I say that in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness that their food supplies were being disrupted. We are asked to be more forthright in our defence of Zambia. I wonder whether this would really be helpful. We are quite persuaded that to appear one-handed in this matter would not help to reduce the armed conflict; it would intensify it, and it would certainly not help progress at the Lancaster House talks.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, may I just add one suggestion, in the best possible spirit, arising from what we heard so cogently from the noble Lord just now. Has thought been given to the possibility of a joint Commonwealth representation to all concerned to implement the cease-fire of their own accord, now that the negotiations for a permanent basis for the political and the military agreements proceed? It seems to some of us that the Commonwealth in Lusaka showed great and helpful significance at this juncture, and has throughout the 144 negotiations, so far as we can see, in many ways made very helpful contributions. It may be that the joint representations of the Commonwealth to everybody concerned in Zambia, and other countries as well as in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, may have an effect.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, as the noble Lord reminds the House, the Commonwealth Heads of Government at their Lusaka meeting earlier this year clearly laid down the lines upon which we ought to proceed. But the responsibility for doing so rests with the British Government, and we are now discharging that responsibility. However, I can say that throughout the Lancaster House talks our Commonwealth colleagues have been kept fully informed.