§ 2.57 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been, or are being taken, by the members of the United Nations to deal with violations by terrorists of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted unanimously by the United Nations; and in particular what action they propose to take in regard to the Lebanese Government, who are harbouring terrorists who plan and carry out such violations.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, as I have said on several occasions, the Government condemn all acts of terrorism, including those mounted from Lebanon against neighbouring countries. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child is not a binding legal instrument, but exhortatory. The question of violation does not therefore arise. The chances of preventing terrorism from Lebanon would be considerably increased if the Lebanese Government were enabled to exercise their authority throughout the country.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, with the greatest respect, is not that an evasive reply? Did not Lebanon in fact vote for the declaration, and does it not today harbour and encourage the PLO, and give them an open field to commit these atrocities against babies and children in 1008 homes, and in addition to destroy the confidence that any decent set of people can have in a Government who are prepared to perpetrate, and assist in perpetrating, these acts?
May I also ask the noble Lord whether it is not about time that Isreal ceased being blamed for doing what it is entitled by international law to do; that is, to pursue these criminals into Lebanon, in the same way as we ourselves act, and as other nations act, in accordance with the desire to prevent babies and children from being murdered, brutally assaulted, and treated as hostages? What are we prepared to do in order to persuade the Lebanese Government to stop the PLO doing these things?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord misleads the House with those kind of supplementary questions, because he is wholly misrepresenting the situation. The fact is that the Lebanese Government are doing their best to maintain law and order in their country, and at the moment are very much obstructed by the irregular forces of Major Haddad, which are operating in the South of that country. Those forces, we are told, are supported and encouraged by the Israelis.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, may I ask one final supplementary question? Is that not the kind of answer which is being given in respect of a democratic country which, for example, condemned the action of one sect of Moslems who killed somebody in another sect, and which was blamed for it in certain quarters? Will the noble Lord realise that I know enough of the situation not to misrepresent it, and to know that no longer ought we to utilise Israel as a scapegoat for any difficulties that arise?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not quite hear my original Answer, when I said, as I have said so many times before from this Box, that we condemn all acts of terrorism, from wherever they come and whoever may perpetrate them. The fact is, as I have said on many occasions before and as your Lordships will know in any event, that the problems in Southern Lebanon are at the moment under control (or we would wish they were more under control) by 1009 virtue of the presence of United Nations forces in that country. The actions of that force are being severely hampered by the forces to which I referred earlier.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister this question: Since he has said that the Lebanese Government are anxious to maintain law and order, is he saying that the Lebanese Government recognise Israel's right to exist?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, that is a wholly different matter, and, of course, those sort of things come within the compass of an overall settlement in that area.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, does not the point which my noble friend has raised really involve a very much wider issue? An increasing class of nations have neither the power nor the will to perform their duties under international law or to respect the security of their neighbours, and will not the time come when such nations have to be told that if they cannot perform their duties under international law then they cannot expect the protection of international law, and that nobody will help them when private action is taken?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am not quite sure who the noble Lord is referring to when he talks about countries not honouring their commitments under international law on this matter, but as far as the Lebanese are concerned they, of course, are party to the fact that the United Nations forces are present in their country, and the situation there would be greatly helped if those United Nations forces received more co-operation.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords—
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy noble friend has had one go. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there is general agreement in condemning this kind of abomination, whoever is responsible for it? But is he further aware (to put it like this) that it is not 1010 always a question of national policy, but sometimes that stems from the fringe groups—very powerful, very vindictive—which are operating all over the world; and, to that extent, would it not be a good idea for this country and like-minded countries to promote in the United Nations an international statute with sanctions, rather similar to the series of provisions which we have successfully adopted in regard to hijacking, especially in the air?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, that sounds a most interesting suggestion, which clearly ought to be looked into further.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, if I could return to the noble Lord's reply to me, is he suggesting that the Lebanese Government are in control or in charge of their own country`? They obviously are not. They are not in a position to control the PLO. That is the whole trouble, is it not?
§ Lord TREFGARNEYes, my Lords, the noble Lord is quite right.