§ 3.17 p.m.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy 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 what steps they have taken to persuade the South African Government to cease their military invasions of Angola and put into effect the United Nations resolution on Namibia.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the Government are working to solve the problem of violence in and around Namibia at its roots, through the United Nations Plan. Together with our Western partners, we have told South Africa that we are deeply concerned at their military activities in Angola, and that we hope that all sides will exercise restraint. We will continue to use our influence with South Africa in favour of the Secretary General's recent proposals for solving outstanding problems.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, would the British Government agree that this is a naked invasion of a sovereign state which has been taking place since 8th June, and would they consider applying the same kind of publicity for their views to the invasion by South Africa of Angola as they have—and it is the same principle if not the same extent—to the invasion by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I think the noble Lord is mistaken if he seeks to compare those two events. The situations are very different indeed. In any event, there is now conflicting information on the position in Angola. South Africa maintains, and indeed have so informed Mr. Waldheim, that all their troops have left Angola, although the Angolans deny this.
The Earl of SELKIRKMy Lords, could my noble friend say whether the Government have brought any pressure to bear on the Government of Cuba, or whether the United Nations Secretary General has brought any pressure to bear on the Government of Cuba, to withdraw their troops from Angola?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I think that is a very pertinent supplementary, if I may say so, although I do not have any information on it.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is it not a fact that if there are any foreign troops from Cuba in Angola, they are there at the invitation of the Government and not for the purpose of carrying out hostilities against the people of Angola? Could the Minister say what is the status of the prisoners who were taken by the South African military when they invaded Angola 1305 18 months' ago and who have been held in detention ever since, and whether these prisoners are covered by the Geneva Convention? Is the noble Lord aware that the Red Cross recently obtained the permission of the Administrator General of Namibia to visit these prisoners? Further, what report has he received about their welfare and the allegations of torture of prisoners which have been made by several authorities?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, at the outset of his remarks, the noble Lord referred to the "invitation", as he put it, for the Cuban troops to enter Angola. I have come to be very suspicious of that type of invitation after what happened in Afghanistan, when the alleged invitation was apparently issued by someone who had been shot the day before! As regards the condition of the prisoners, to which the noble Lord referred, he will know that this matter was raised when Dr. Viljoen came to London recently and the answers that we received were satisfactory.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I should like to ask about that last sentence with reference to the putting into effect of the United Nations' resolution on Namibia. Are not the Government of South Africa now defying both the United Nations and the United Nations mission which has been acting in Namibia? Are they not so doing by recognising a puppet government not recognised anywhere else in the world; by their raids into Angola; by their refusal of a demilitarised zone and by their refusal to agree to the confinement of forces to bases?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the attitude of the South African Government in this matter and the policies that they have pursued do lead us to make representations to them, as I have already described. But, some of the assertions made by the United Nations in this matter leave us with some doubts as well.
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, reverting to the original Question, is it not a fact that all these incursions by South African troops into Angola have been provoked by acts of violence from north of the border? While having great respect and admiration for the noble Lord who asked 1306 the original Question—and not believing that if he were, with his personality, heavily struck, his inclination would not be to hit back—is it not a fact that the incursions from south of the border have probably been far less frequent than the great number of incursions, with the intention of violence, from the north to the south, into South-West Africa?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the South African Government certainly maintain that they are striking back legitimately when they make these incursions into Angola. None the less, we feel that these actions are, to say the least, unhelpful in the present circumstances and we hope that they will stop.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, is it not a fact that for a long time now the whole policy of the South African Government has been to thwart the intentions of the United Nations in regard to Namibia; to be in default of the unanimously adopted resolution relating to that country; to prevent the creation of a democracy and a free state in Namibia and thereby to imperil the very hopeful example of Zimbabwe; and to place the future peace of Southern Africa, as a whole, in grave jeopardy?
§ Lord TREFGARNEYes, my Lords, there is more than one UN resolution on this matter. The latest one, Resolution 475, contained extreme language envisaging sanctions against South Africa and, indeed, we abstained on that resolution. However, although, as I have said, we certainly believe that these last incursions were highly regrettable, none the less there is a little light at the end of the tunnel in this matter and we are hoping to advocate a more constructive policy in future.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, I should like to return to the noble Lord's original Answer to my Question. Would he agree—and remember that I specifically used the word "principle"—that in principle the invasion of Angola is in the same category as that of Afghanistan? If that is so, why was it that the British Government abstained in the Security Council when the Security Council, with the exception of the United Kingdom, the United States and France, condemned that invasion?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, as I said earlier, these two situations are in no way comparable. To begin with, the South Africans have now largely withdrawn from Angola, although I agree that there is room for more than one view as to whether they have completely withdrawn. In any event, the South African position on some of the other matters is rather more constructive. For example, responding to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 12th May their communication contained some positive elements, including commitment to international settlement and the demilitarised zone concept and other matters.