§ 2.52 p.m.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy 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 whether their diplomatic representatives in Afghanistan have assessed the number of casualties arising from the Soviet use of chemical and biological weapons.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, recent reports that the Russians are using chemical weapons in Afghanistan, and inflicting heavy casualties, are a matter of grave concern. We have no independent means of investigating the allegations, since our diplomats cannot travel outside Kabul. But we give strong support to the United Nations' resolutions for an investigation on the spot by experts.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that information. Is it not true that the United Nations has now passed two resolutions asking that this matter should be investigated, the last being on 9th December 1981? Are not the wishes of the United Nations being totally frustrated because the Kabul administration are refusing to allow any investigators to visit Afghanistan, and the Soviet authorities who are in control are equally refusing? What can be done to expose crimes of this kind where, according to a report to Congress, 3,000 deaths have occurred as a result of the use of nerve gases, toxic substances, and other chemical warfare weapons? What can we do to try to investigate the situation when local people will not allow in investigators?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, of course we cannot force the administration, or rather the régime, in Kabul to accept the United Nations' mission for an investigation on the spot. But history tends to suggest that those who refuse in this way have something to hide.
§ Lord PeartMy Lords, may I ask a question? I hope that the noble Lord who asked the Question has read the excellent report from Delhi by Trevor Fishlock, who states:
These claims"—that is, that 3,000 Afghans have been killed in 47 chemical attacks—invite scepticism. So far as is known, no other country or agency can provide evidence of chemical warfare, certainly not on the scale suggested".I hope that noble Lords will be very careful about attacks on the Soviet Union.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I, too, have seen the report to which the noble Lord has referred; but as I said earlier, I can neither confirm nor deny either of the reports that have appeared in the press, because our diplomats are not able to visit the spots on the ground.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been talking to an Afghan refugee who came back from the border area last week, and who said that the United Nations' mission there was receiving massive evidence of casualties caused by the use of chemical weapons, and that reports have been made to the investigating mission by not only the patients, but also the doctors who have treated the casualties? Is the noble Lord further aware that evidence accumulating in Eritrea shows that nerve gases are being used there on a wide scale, too? Does not the noble Lord think that the time has now come when the United Nations should make a proper and 394 thorough investigation of all the claims of the use of these weapons in the three areas referred to—Cambodia, Afghanistan and Eritrea—and stop pussyfooting about and making excuses that we do not have the information because our ambassadors cannot obtain it?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I certainly agree that an investigation by the United Nations would be very helpful in this context. The General Assembly resolution makes provision for that investigation, and in the resolution the Secretary-General is invited to report to the next session of the General Assembly with the results of his investigation. But the fact remains that it will be very difficult for him and his experts to produce a conclusive and definitive report if they are not able to investigate the areas concerned.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that The Times report this morning fairly conclusively reaches the view that these reports are in fact without foundation, and in these circumstances is it not right that we should withhold judgment in the matter until the United Nations has carried out a full examination—which of course all of us would wish to see—and a conclusion can be reached? Is it not undesirable that in the meantime currency should be given to these rumours while they are still rumours?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am afraid that it is not within my gift to prevent these stories appearing in the press, and I have to say that many of the press stories in fact have a good deal of circumstantial evidence to support them. I agree that there is more than one view as to the accuracy of the reports; but, as I say, there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence to support them. I certainly agree with every noble Lord who has spoken on this matter that a thorough United Nations investigation into the issue is highly desirable, and I hope that the Soviet authorities who control not only Afghanistan, but also some other parts of the world—notably South-East Asia, where these allegations have come to light—will give access to those areas so that investigations can be made.
§ The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, does not my noble friend agree that as long as investigation is prevented, the rumours will only grow, to the discomfiture of noble Lords opposite—such as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and others—who are so eager that there should be a fair and just appraisal? Therefore it is vital to press the Soviets to let an investigation take place.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I certainly agree that the pressure ought to continue to be applied to the Soviets. As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, those who seek to prevent the investigation very likely have something to hide.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, in view of the escalation of the production of chemical weapons on both sides as a result of this situation, will Her Majesty's Government press on the Security Council of the United Nations not only the idea of a commission of inquiry, but also the view that the commission should be impartial—representing 395 the unaligned nations—so that it might be acceptable to both sides in this controversy?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I have no doubt that the investigation which the Secretary-General has been empowered to mount by the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations will be impartial, and I very much hope that it will be successful.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, will my noble friend consider whether, due to the frustrations of the United Nations, and even if pressure from all quarters does not yield any progress by the United Nations, the Government should ask the International Red Cross to look into these accusations of the use of chemical weapons in, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, not only Afghanistan but possibly Eritrea as well?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I certainly think that the views of the IRC in this matter will be very important. I am not certain that they have expressed a view so far, but I shall be very willing to hear it if they want to do so.
§ The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the proposed inclusion of nonaligned nations in the investigation takes us no further since there are already non-aligned embassies in Kabul which are restricted like the rest of us?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I think I would rest my case on the United Nations investigation. That resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority, I understand, and I think the world is now waiting to see that the nations at whom the finger has been pointed in this matter fully co-operate with the investigation.