Uganda

HL Deb 04 December 1985 vol 468 cc1376-98

8.11 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their attitude towards the present political and economic situation in Uganda, with particular reference to human rights.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am indeed deeply honoured and most grateful for this opportunity of raising the problems of Uganda, which have never been adequately ventilated in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I might say at the outset that I served in Uganda as a First Secretary at the British High Commission from 1969 to 1971. While I was there I met a large number of Ugandans, and I have kept in touch with several of them. I am now principally concerned with Ugandan refugees both in this country and abroad, and in fact I have taken several of them under my wing.

At this stage I should like to express my very warm thanks to the other noble Lords who are taking part in this debate. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition always supports me so gallantly on these occasions and it is splendid to have him at my side once more. May I also say how delighted I am to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon here because, as I shall show, both the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Churches have played a very prominent part, and continue to do so, in the evolution of Uganda. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who can give us an up-to-date, first-hand picture of conditions in Uganda. Finally, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, and I have spoken in several debates on Africa, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that he is an authority on that continent. Perhaps I may also say how delighted I am that the noble Baroness the Minister of State has found time to come and answer this Question, because I know how deeply she is concerned with human rights problems.

This debate is about the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Uganda. One might perhaps ask: why should we concern ourselves with Uganda? It is after all a sovereign state and we have no right to intervene in its internal affairs. People might well say: if blacks want to kill each other, let them do so.

As I see it, there are two very good reasons why we should concern ourselves deeply with Uganda and its problems. The first is that it was we, the British, who made Uganda great, as Ugandans freely admit. British expertise and dedication, coupled with substantial Ugandan participation, raised Uganda in the days of the Protectorate and in the early days of independence to a level of excellence which was probably unsurpassed in black Africa. Institutions like Makerere University and Mulago Hospital were the envy of most of the continent. What would they say now, those great administrators of the past—those doctors, judges and schoolmasters—if they were to return to Uganda today, to see their hopes largely in tatters, their achievements shrunken and shrivelled, stunted and blighted, if not wholly withered away?

The second reason why I consider we should concern ourselves with Uganda is that, whatever one may say about it, it is after all a member of the Commonwealth—our cosy Commonwealth club—of which Her Majesty the Queen is the head. No other country in the Commonwealth has suffered such grievous violations of human rights as Uganda; no other country in the Commonwealth, once so great, has sunk so low; no other member of the Commonwealth more greatly deserves Her Majesty's Government's enlightened concern.

The problems of Uganda of course stem mainly from tribalism, and I shall deal with that shortly; but I think first of all that it is important to consider the two conflicting elements, which represent in fact the two poles of human behaviour—the two conflicting elements which have been noticeable throughout the country's history. I shall call them the supra-human and the sub-bestial.

As the right reverend Prelate would tell us, Christianity took early root in the 19th century and we are now just about to celebrate the centenary of the martyrdom of 48 Ugandans, most of them pages, who willingly went to their deaths. They were given five days in order to collect firewood, and they died on their pyres glorifying God. It was in fact one of the most glorious martyrdoms of all time. But the point I want to make is that the spirit of those martyrs lives on today, as I have seen myself. It lives on in people like the late Archbishop Luwum and in a great many other wonderful Ugandans, so many of whom—I sorrow to say it—are now dead. Christianity is surging ahead in a most remarkable way. I do not want to pre-empt the right reverend Prelate here, but the proportion of those who now attend church is something like 60 per cent., I am told. I have a friend who used to worship with me in Kampala. He has now read for the ministry and he tells me that the congregations at All Saints' Church are bursting at the doors. They cannot be accommodated.

The second element is the sub-bestial, and before I get on to that—which of course will be much more widely known to your Lordships—I must emphasise that violence is not new to Uganda. Indeed, in the days of the Kabakas it was quite common for a page to have his head cut off just for shutting the wrong door—in the spirit of the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland. More recently when I was there in 1970 the chief of police told me that there were 9,000 homicides a year which were known to the police—and I would stress that that is only the number known to the police. There were a great many others in remote regions which were never reported. I can remember only too well that my gardener came to me one day in great distress because four men had been executed in the house next to his. That was quite a normal occurrence: they had been killed by the villagers because they had been found with stolen property and the police came along. No charges were preferred. It was a normal event.

The sub-bestial of course is most clearly demonstrated by the performance of the Ugandan Army in the past 14 years since Amin came to power on the 25th January 1971. There have been reports of this in the press and on television, but I wonder whether your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the appalling extent of these barbarities. Indeed I can say, probably without contradition, that the Ugandan Army has been and may still be—we hope it is not—the most evil in the world. Its barbarities have included looting, arson, robbery with violence, executions without trial, tortures of the most violent kind, the widespread raping of children, often in front of their parents, and other abominations too terrible to mention in your Lordships' House. The sum total of those killed, according to reliable witnesses—I am thinking particularly of journalists and others who know the country well—may be in the region of 700,000 in those 14 years under Amin and Obote. It is probably not less than 500,000.

One of the most telling pieces of evidence that I have received is from a British doctor who was serving in Kampala from 1983 to 1984. He said: I visited Kampala many times during my two years in the country. The residents lived in continual fear of the soldiers. I often stayed with an expatriate who owned a small engineering works. During my visits I got to know all his Ugandan staff. Nearly all of them had lost relatives killed by the soldiers, often in a horrible manner. One of these workers was picked up by the army and later starved to death in an army barracks. Another had his house raided by the soldiers who stole everything and raped his daughter in front of him. Another was severely beaten up at home by soldiers. These cases are by no means exceptions, as I heard of so many other cases of killings, torture, rapings and robbery by the army in Kampala.". Those people who were attacked in that way were not guerrillas. They were not involved in any political activity, so far as I know. They were simple engineering workers.

I now turn to tribalism. This is an immensely complicated problem, but one can say that the essence of this problem is the clash between the pacific south and the militant north. By that I mean, first, the Bantu-speaking tribes, the Buganda, who inhabit the region near Kampala, and the inhabitants of the other three former kingdoms, Bunyoro, Ankole and Toro. These are kind, gentle peace-loving people to whom violence is totally abhorrent. By contrast, the northern tribes—the Acholi, the Langi, the Kakwe, the Lugbara and others, who formed the bulk of Amin's army—are basically militant. I do not say for a moment that all the northerners are lions and all the southerners are lambs, but there is this basic polarity.

It is these four elements, and a few others, which have produced the present situation in Uganda. This is extremely difficult to assess. I know that I am treading on very delicate ground. So delicate is it that I may well be in danger of putting my foot in a nasty hole. Your Lordships are, of course, aware of the coup of 27th July this year, which overthrew Obote. The new head of the military government, Tito Okello, seems fairly humane. He seems to want to end bloodshed and the new government have stated that they are working to achieve peace, stability and national reconciliation, which has been demonstrated by the talks taking place in Nairobi.

We must also give the new government credit for the release of prisoners from civil gaols, but, unfortunately, there is no evidence of similar releases from military prisons. One understands that the head of the army, Basilio Okello, who is no relation of the head of state, is cruel and ruthless, and I am sorry to say that there is no evidence at all that the army has reformed. Indeed, there have been recent reports from Reuters of terrible attacks on schools and Roman Catholic missions. Another recent report from Reuters spoke of soldiers capturing 200 women, raping them and maltreating them in a thoroughly horrible way.

The government have said that they are taking action against the army commanders responsible. Indeed, they have stated that they have been dismissed. But what has happened to the soldiers? One does not know. It seems that the former soldiers of Amin, who have joined forces with the Ugandan army, have been largely responsible for these activities.

There are, in fact, two armies opposing the guerrillas, with whom I shall deal in a minute. One is the Uganda National Liberation Army, which is the original army of Amin and Obote, and then there is this group which I mentioned earlier called FUNA, who are Amin's supporters and mainly northerners. There are also two other groups which I need not mention in detail, apart from the Uganda Restoration Front. Its memorandum reached me only half-an-hour ago and therefore I cannot analyse its position. But according to this memorandum, it wants to unite Uganda through decentralisation, which can be achieved only through a federal system. So much for the government's position.

It is extremely important to assess the influence of the so-called guerrillas, but I shall not call them guerrillas because they like to be called the National Resistance Army. They are led by a man called Yoweri Museveni and it appears that they are now controlling about one-third of the country. Indeed, in terms of population they may be controlling half the country. According to reliable reports from journalists and others, they have set up an administration in the areas which they occupy which seems to be functioning quite well. They are the only military group in the country which is united and they seem to have the support of most of the people in the area.

On the other hand, Museveni—as it has been reported in the press—has been largely responsible for the breakdown of the Nairobi talks. He has been very difficult and very obstructive. Furthermore, it appears that the NRA have been guilty of stealing from banks and, according to the government, they have mined roads and killed those who refused to co-operate with them.

One of the most serious aspects of all in this situation is that it has been reported that arms are reaching both sides from foreign countries. Museveni has alleged that Egypt, Belgium and the Netherlands have been sending arms to the government forces, and the government have alleged that Museveni has been receiving arms from Gaddafi in Libya. If that is true, it will produce the most appalling situation. I cannot emphasise too strongly the innate dangers of such unrestricted supply lines. One has seen it in Lebanon—a country I know well—with arms pouring in, and that has bedevilled all attempts at peace.

I now come to the core of my speech, which is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Uganda. I feel—and I must confess that many Britons and a good many Ugandans said the same thing to me—that Her Majesty's Government have not been (how shall I put it?) as realistic, positive and constructive as they might have been. I raised the matter of Uganda in a Starred Question in your Lordships' House on 16th October last year, and the reply I received indicated to me that the Government were not fully aware of the extent of the barbarities. Certain visitors to the British High Commission in Kampala have indicated, so it appears to them, that the staff do not seem fully informed about what is going on.

But the most important criticism that I should like to make—and so many people have said this to me—is about our involvement with the UNLA. There were originally five Commonwealth training teams. We still have a training team, but the other Commonwealth powers have all pulled out. Why? It was because they felt that the Ugandan army was so irredeemably evil that nothing could be gained by staying on. We, in our wisdom, have stayed on and I wonder very much what we have achieved.

According to the doctor—and I shall not quote again from him, because time does not permit me to do so—he met members of our training team at Jinja and they told him that they were achieving nothing at all. Museveni has alleged that our training team contains elements from the SAS. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us anything about that. Can she tell us, too, whether the training team is to be reinforced? May I ask her also, while I am on the subject of Her Majesty's Government's policy, what is our aid programme? Is it effective? One does not know, but one has heard stories of much of the aid going to the wrong quarters. How should Her Majesty's Government act? Clearly we must support the Government of Tito Okello. We should also work for reunification of the country after arms have been laid down. That is essential. We should consider our relations with the army and our aid programme.

Finally, one must somehow or other work towards a solution of this terrible problem. Indeed, it is a situation which one has seen in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, a situation where fear breeds fear, hatred breeds hatred, and, most terrible of all, antagonisms become frozen in concrete. I can only hope and pray, and indeed all my Ugandan friends will too, that in time reason will prevail, that a new Uganda will arise phoenix-like from the ashes of the old. Her Majesty's Government can and must play an important role in this resurrection.

8.31 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for giving us the opportunity of putting on record tonight some of our thoughts about Uganda. I am sure that your Lordships will have been impressed by the moving way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has painted the picture—the sad picture—of Uganda over the past 20 or so years.

I am sure the noble Viscount will forgive me if I differ on some of the points which he has made but I am sure we shall have long discussions after we have left this Chamber and there will be no basic disagreement between us. The tone of my remarks tonight will not be critical of Her Majesty's Government because, within the constraints of the terribly chaotic situation which has prevailed in Uganda over the past few years, in particular since the removal of President Amin, the British Government have been quite constructive. Many high-ranking people in Uganda, or at least those who were there before the last coup whom I knew well, were quite favourably impressed by the attitude of the British Government not only in mediating between the Uganda Government and other powers but also in the very constructive way in which they offered help towards training the police and the army—it was not altogether successful but was done I think in the best possible spirit.

My connections with Uganda go back nearly 20 years in a business sense. I worked as the chief executive of a large British group which had wholly owned subsidiaries in East Africa. They had their operations in Kampala in Uganda, also in Tanzania and also in Kenya. In recent years, since I formed my own company, which is an export consultancy with special emphasis on central Africa, I have still been closely involved in Uganda because one of the clients of my company—sadly, not a British company—has been involved in two communications projects, one of which has been completed: the other is unfortunately in abeyance due to the present situation.

The other connections which I have with this country, or at least with the area of East Africa, go back a long way. My grandfather was seconded in 1904 from the Grenadier Guards to the King's African Rifles. The reason for this secondment was that he disobeyed his commanding officer who had told him he should not get married so young. Having a streak of disrespect for authority which I have perhaps inherited, he decided to go there nevertheless, and as a result of that disobedience my father was born the following year in Kenya. I have to thank my grandfather for that act of disobedience for my presence and for the honour of being in your Lordships' Chamber tonight.

I knew my grandfather well and I listened often when I was a child to his remarks about his experiences in East Africa. He had a great love, affection and admiration for the African peoples of this part of the world, as I think did a lot of people who served with the King's African Rifles. I like to think that I share some of my grandfather's admiration for these people, and in particular, in the intervening years in this particular country, for the people of Uganda, for the trials and tribulations which they have suffered.

Human rights are a serious problem but one that is always misunderstood. What do we mean by human rights? Human rights to African people mean something different from the human rights which we consider here. An absence of human rights prevailed at the time when the first missionaries went out to Uganda. The influence of the Church, as the right reverend Prelate will I am sure confirm, was very strong in the late 19th century. There started Britain's very good record in improving human rights in Africa. One of the first horrors which was faced by those early missionaries was the scourge of slavery. Slavery was very evident in the kingdom of Buganda, which, after all, was the core of what later became Uganda. The local leaders traded with the Arab slavers and, when the missionaries came—not only the British missionaries but those from other countries—they did a great deal to remove slavery from this part of the world and also to bring Christianity and a new, more hopeful view of life which has continued throughout all the troubles in East Africa to this day.

No noble Lord who has been to that part of Africa can have failed to be impressed by the huge congregations that one sees in all religious denominations. Going to church in central Africa is not just a duty as it sometimes is in our country and in civilised Europe as some people like to think of it. It is an occasion when people who have next to nothing scratch together their best clothes and take their relatives. It is a kind of celebration of being part of a family.

It is one of the tragedies of recent times that the Church has of necessity involved itself in politics. I do not want to get on to sensitive ground here but I do not see how any Church in any country today can avoid involving itself in politics, because politics are people and the same applies in our country as in any other. The Church has of necessity involved itself in politics and has as a result brought down on its head the wrath of successive leaders, with the unpleasant results, assassinations and so on, with which your Lordships are familiar.

Uganda is a beautiful country although many blemishes have appeared on its lovely surface. It is a very fertile country—in fact, it is one of the most fertile in East Africa. The Buganda region is one of the greatest coffee producing areas of the world. One needs no fertilizers. Things grow in that climate and in the agriculturally rich soil. That is perhaps one of the reasons why, despite all the killings and horrors of recent years, people still manage to eke out a living. It is basically a fertile country except for the small Karamoja region, which has been a desert region all these years. Compared with other countries, it is basically fertile and very rich. On that base we can help Uganda to build when the political situation is stable enough for it to do so.

Over the period when the British Protectorate was in existence, the British Army was there. During that period, Uganda was perhaps the jewel of colonial education, as was represented by Makerere University. Uganda was possibly the prime example in that part of the world of an attempt by a colonial power to produce high-class education in a country under its jurisdiction. That continued through into independence. Unfortunately, at the time of Amin many of the intellectuals in Uganda were persecuted and that great university and its great value declined—hopefully to rise again in the future.

After the coming to independence of the countries in that part of the world we saw the ill-fated East African Community. The great problem with that community was that it was dominated by Kenya. That was perhaps due to the very strong personality of President Kenyatta and also to the abilities of the dominant Kikuyu tribal people in Kenya. There is no doubt that one of the reasons—apart from all the others of tribalism and so on, which were really subsidiary—why the East African Community broke up was Kenya's domination over it. In some way, Kenya is to blame for not allowing her neighbours, Tanzania and Uganda, to develop in a satisfactory way. After all, Uganda was the most fertile of all those countries. It could have exported and built up its agriculture in a much more satisfactory way if it had been allowed to do so.

We also saw the assassination of the Kabaka. That was a terrible thing that happened under President Obote, and he has never been forgiven for his connection with it. It alienated President Obote and his people from the Ugandan people, perhaps for all time. That is rather like other situations closer to home. It created a cultural and blood feud which will be very hard to resolve.

President Obote was not favoured by the British and when President Amin came into power the reality is that he was welcomed by the British Government. I well remember the headlines in the newspapers at the time. He was the ex-boxing champion of the British Army in that area who was to be the great genial saviour of that part of the world. It did not take long, mainly due to his Muslim origins and because of the Muslim connections of his people in the north of Uganda, before he turned against his Israeli helpers at that time. He then made the great error of a very hurried and sudden expulsion of the Asians in his country.

As we all know, Amin subsequently became a host to all manner of movements which were unacceptable to us and to our allies. I well remember that, when I was in Uganda in the 1970s during the Amin period, I stayed at what was then called the Kampala International Hotel. I found myself there with Palestinians, with IRA terrorists, and with all manner of people who were training and being offered the hospitality of President Amin. It had the atmosphere of a Hollywood film; a kind of "Casablanca"—a place under siege.

It was inevitable that Amin would somehow or other be toppled in the end. I do not imagine that his military regime committed more excesses than any other military regime in East Africa. Amin's regime was a solid military regime. It had no education, although there were some well-trained military men. I well remember having dealings with the Vice-President of Uganda at that time, Mr. Mustapha Adrisi. He was responsible for the internal business of Uganda. He spoke hardly any English and he spoke no Swahili, which is the common language of that part of the world. He had instead a very frightened interpreter to deal with matters of business and state. So during Amin's time, there were people in charge who were culturally, tribally and racially alien to the really quite cultured and developed people of the Kampala region; the Ugandan people.

President Amin had to go in the end, but another misrepresentation by the. press concerned corruption during his regime, which was not evident to any great degree—unless one considers all consumer goods entering the country going to the army to be corruption. I do not call that corruption. It happens with every military regime in every third world country. Actual corruption in terms of kickbacks for contracts—and I was very close to that area of activity—hardly existed.

When Amin went, the whole situation changed. The corruption that has existed in Uganda since that time has been quite extraordinary. The brutalities have of course continued unabated because there is a basic political instability which has its foundations in the poverty of the country and in the basic tribal problems.

If I have any criticism it is not of this Government but of the naïvety of previous governments. The way in which the West encouraged the neighbouring country of Tanzania to invade Uganda was a very sad affair. Not only did it create the confusion which followed Amin's regime, with its many rivalries for power, but it also bankrupted neighbouring Tanzania and caused further instability in the area. I believe that Amin would have gone in the natural order of things. His regime was creaking at the time. However, it is no use speculating about the past.

The situation we have now is the same, so far as human rights are concerned. People are still being brutalised by the so-called army. Here I would part company with the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. There is in Uganda no army such as we would recognise. What one has there is a kind of mediaeval confederation of bandit gangs. That exists because there is no training. The British have offered training to the Ugandan Army. That is a very kind gesture, but in fact the British Army are sending advisers to advise advisers. The advisers are out of touch with the army because the army has not been paid and lives off the land.

The army goes around in bands, intimidating villagers and raping and looting at will. Without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, perhaps I may repeat one anecdote that I heard from a minister just before the last coup. Trains travelling to the north of Kampala were being regularly halted out in the bush by bands of so-called soldiers. All the passengers were told to get out and to place themselves at the side of the track, where they were expected to give something to the soldiers—if they were lucky enough to have anything to give. If they had nothing to give, then they were left behind while the train continued its journey. That was the way in which this particular band of soldiers enriched itself. What happened to the unfortunates who were left behind at the side of track history does not relate; we can only use our imaginations.

That state of affairs came to the attention of certain expatriates and news of it leaked out to other countries. The government therefore asked the so-called army commander—I prefer to call him a bandit leader—to refrain from such activities on condition that they would compensate him by adding to the price of the railway tickets. They would deduct from the ticket price his share and then give it to him. Of course he did not find that arrangement at all acceptable. Anybody who is familiar with mediaeval history will know that the financial reward is not the point of the matter. He was perfectly content to get his rewards in the way that he did because he was also showing his power and strength. I relate that anecdote just to illustrate the kind of mediaeval conduct of what we call the army in Uganda. There is no army.

When the recent coup took place, it was engineered because President Obote had become unacceptable to his own people. Those concerned came to an agreement with General Okello to help them because he had the arms to do so. They came to an agreement also with the Masseveni, the liberation army, so that they were aware of the coup. Thus President Obote was expelled from the country, but, as always happens in an African country when there is such a coup and general agreements are reached, the people concerned never keep to them afterwards. So we have the situation where the Masseveni, who had been promised things and not given them, immediately went back to an aggressive posture which we have today, where they are still fighting over shares of seats in the cabinet. As a result, conditions have worsened and the present so-called military regime, which is mainly the people who were there before though with some changes, has had to bring in some of Amin's old people to support itself.

All these factions have been armed from outside. I know that there are many armaments coming from Egypt to the revolutionary army. Nobody is short of arms in Uganda. The only trouble is that many are not trained to use them and therefore it is extremely dangerous if one is held up on a road or a train. Unless you know how to behave and have something to give to the people holding you up, you are more than likely to be caught in an unfortunate crossfire.

That is the situation. I apologise for going through my speech so quickly but I have been trying to paint a picture of the circumstances which exist in Uganda today. Bearing in mind what I have said, your Lordships can see that the position is difficult for any outside power, whether it is America, ourselves, France or anyone else, and that is why everyone is standing off to see what happens. I cannot be optimistic about what will happen, because there are endemic problems in a country which in colonial times was created on a totally irrational basis. Uganda is a country which was given borders which really do not exist. There are people of different cultures, different habits, and so on, within what we call Uganda, and these are difficult to resolve. That is not the case to such a degree in other neighbouring countries.

In conclusion, if the Government can do anything, they should encourage and support the voluntary agencies which are helping education in Uganda. I have spoken in debates in your Lordships' House on aid to Africa and I have been critical of the Government with their aid programmes. Food is always important to those countries, but Uganda is capable of growing its own food. Above all, what Africans want is education. It is only through education that we will break through the cultural barriers and get people to change their attitude to human rights, to justice, and so on. The Africans are hungry for education.

I know many Africans who have children who are clever enough to be educated abroad. They watch with intense interest the academic progress of their offspring—much more than do friends of mine. I still have children at school, and it is embarrassing to see the efforts by African children at school and the pressure put on them by the parents because, above all, they want to be educated and pull themselves out of the situation in which they find themselves. We can help by giving agricultural assistance and by education. The one way we shall not help them is by supplying them with arms to balance power struggles in the third world. I believe that this is a subject which we shall be debating in your Lordships' House over a long period because the way we callously provide arms for one reason or another, for greater theories of world domination is one of the evils of the world today. The African states need education and they need agricultural help. If the Government can assist in that way, I am quite sure that some improvement will take place in Uganda and other similar countries.

8.54 p.m.

Lord Bauer

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for his Question and his compassionate eloquence. He certainly did not overstate the conditions in Uganda. The repercussions extend beyond that country because civil wars there have cut the supply routes to Rwanda and Burundi.

I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, because for the first time in this House I have heard a description of what actually goes on in a third world country. I disagree with his interpretation of the causes, but it is the first time in the two-and-a-half years I have been here that I have heard a truthful account of what goes on in a third world country.

On three grounds Britain must bear some responsibility for the misery in Uganda, although I differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on what those grounds are. First, in the closing years of colonial rule extensive and close economic controls were introduced in Uganda and these much exacerbated inter-tribal and inter-racial conflict. These controls included state monopoly over the major exports—notably cotton and coffee—state licensing of transport, trading activity and cotton ginning; and extensive privileges to so-called cooperatives—in reality, government agencies.

Some of these controls conferred large windfalls on favoured people. Far more important, people's livelihood came to depend on political and administrative decisions which set up conflict and centrifugal forces in that multitribal and multiracial country. The controls were handed over to the incoming government of Dr. Obote.

Second, it was British help, including the supply of tanks and other hardware, which enabled Dr. Obote to destroy the Kabaka and his supporters in a coup early in 1966. The coup set off a major civil war in which hundreds, if not thousands, were killed. The coup was to forestall the elections announced for May 1966 which almost certainly would have been won by the Kabaka's party; a large and genuinely multiracial party including many Asians and which promised interracial co-operation and a more liberal economy. Dr. Obote's victory put paid to these hopes. He extended and intensified the controls and paved the way for Amin's bloodless coup of 1971.

Third, after the overthrow of Amin in 1979, Tanzanian troops stayed in Uganda for over two years. Their Government was unable or unwilling to bring them back. Not surprisingly, throughout this period the Tanzanian troops engaged in looting and killings which helped to destroy what was left of cohesion and order in that country.

Britain has had considerable leverage over both Dr. Nyerere and Dr. Obote. They received much Western aid, including British aid. Western aid was, and still is, very large relative to government revenues which, indeed, it often substantially exceeds. It is Western aid which has kept Dr. Nyerere afloat. It is distressing that our leverage is either not used at all or is used in ways which aggravate the misery rather than alleviate it. Overseas aid will continue for many years. The leverage it yields should be exercised to promote rather than obstruct the declared objectives of our policy of helping the poorest.

Before I sit down I wish to draw attention to some observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. He said that the frontiers of Uganda, like those of many other African countries, were completely arbitrary. This is true in the sense that they are multi-ethnic and multitribal societies. But the West, and Britain in particular, has been ceaselessly assailed for the past 40 years for balkanising Africa; that is, creating too many small units. Do your Lordships think we ought to have had the six or eight major tribes in Uganda form separate countries? Should we have encouraged the 240-odd tribes in Zaire to form separate countries, or the 60 tribes in Nigeria—there are many more, but at least 60—to form separate countries? Have your Lordships read Dr. Nkrumah's Africa Must Unite—because we Europeans have balkanised it?

Having said that, I should like once again to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for his Question and his eloquence.

9 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, I share with other noble Lords the sense of gratitude which they have already expressed to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for bringing this Question before your Lordships' House this evening. The noble Viscounts, Lord Buckmaster and Lord Falkland, have both already stressed the place of the Christian churches in the history and affairs of Uganda. Church and nation have grown together in this country. It therefore seems right that a member of the Episcopal Bench in your Lordships' House should make a contribution to this debate.

The size of the churches in Uganda in numerical terms gives an indication of their contemporary significance. Of the 15 million people of the country, just over 12 million, or 85 per cent. of the population, are Christian. In every part of the national life, Christians have been prominent and have held influential positions. But perhaps even more important than this, the churches have been evident throughout the history of Uganda.

Noble Lords have already made reference to the 19th century founding of the churches and the martyrs upon whose blood the churches were built, and because of their history prior to a colonial administration, the churches in Uganda are not regarded as foreign institutions. Elsewhere in Africa and Asia that is sometimes the case; but in Uganda it is not so. They belong to the country. There is no conflict between being Christian and being Ugandan.

The churches are therefore able to act and speak in Uganda as part of that country on behalf of the vast majority of its inhabitants, but in doing so they are handicapped by one fact—the fact of their disunity. The two major churches—Roman Catholic, with 50 per cent. of the population, and the Anglican Church of Uganda, with 35 per cent. of the population—do not speak with a common voice. This is not only because of difference of ecclesiastical tradition but also because of difference of political allegiance. Before the coup of July 1985 the Roman Catholic church broadly supported the democratic party in opposition, while the Church of Uganda broadly supported President Obote, who was himself of course an Anglican. One result of the coup was the virtual disintegration of President Obote's party.

The flux in the present situation provides an opportunity for Roman Catholic and Anglican leaders and people to move closer to one another and to overcome the suspicion—political as well as ecclesiastical—which has kept them apart. The machinery exists in the Joint Christian Council. What is now needed is one voice from the churches calling not for support of particular political parties but for a lowering of the level of violence and for a settled order in Uganda.

There is a division of potentially greater significant damage to Uganda than this ecclesiastical disunity. The present de facto division of the country into those parts which are controlled by the National Resistance Army and those which are under the authority of the ruling Military Council is a new version of the ancient division into the Bantu tribes of the south and the Nilotic tribes of the north. The churches have strong membership in both these groups. In days when we are asking what will hold Uganda together—noble Lords have already made reference to the perhaps somewhat arbitrary boundaries which originally designated it—one possible answer is the churches. People from every tribal background in Uganda meet regularly within the committees, councils and colleges of these churches. There they are able to know one another in depth. The House of Bishops and the theological colleges of the Church of Uganda are places where people from across the whole of the country are able to come together to live and to pray with one another.

The churches are potentially a great force for the unity of Uganda. They are the proclaimers, and indeed on occasion the practitioners, of a love and forgiveness which transcends tribal, regional and ecclesiastical loyalties, and which will be needed as Uganda seeks to find a way of common purpose in the future.

The present flux and uncertainty of Uganda's political life makes comment from outside the country difficult. There are a number of possible scenarios for the future and those of us who do not know the scene well would be advised not to comment in detail upon any of them. Maybe there will be an agreement and the setting up of a coalition in the light of the present discussions; maybe there will be the calling of a round-table conference for all political parties or maybe the collapse of the present interim administration and its replacement by one in which the national resistance movement will play a central part.

However, it is not for us in this country to look for particular political solutions for Uganda. That is something which the people of Uganda will find for themselves. Our role is to stand by them as they do so, to continue our support, our concern and our help. The future is impossible to foresee at this moment but the past and the present are all too easy to describe, and noble Lords have already spoken of the high level of violence which Uganda has known in past years. Uganda has been seared in every level of its society by this violence.

I took note of the comments on education made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, but I remember a former neighbour of mine and a member of your Lordships' House, the former Lord Hemingford, who in the days before his membership of this House was the Principal of King's School Budo. He told me that as far as he knew every member of that school who had passed through his hands was either dead or in exile. Education therefore has been part of what this country and other countries have provided for Uganda, but such education has not been able to survive the experience of violence which Uganda now knows. Every family has lived with the experience of robbery, beating, wounding and death. The churches have not been spared in this history of violence. Archbishop Janani Luwum and Bishop John Wasikye were killed during the years of Amin's rule; Namugongo Theological College was occupied by Government troops in May 1984 when all the students, women included, were beaten, and the Principal and the estate manager of the college were killed. It is entirely in keeping with this record that the Chapel of the 20th Century Martyrs at Canterbury Cathedral should include not only the name of Archbishop Janani Luwum but also a painting by a Ugandan artist of Jesus being carried from the Cross—a symbol not so much of violent death as of the loving forgiveness which, in the end, is more powerful than any violence.

It might be expected that with this experience the Churches in Uganda would be in the forefront of protest to the government of the day about the violations of those rights which most people take for granted. However, such is not the case. The Baganda bishops whose people have suffered most at the hands of the military since 1981 have been outstanding in their courageous protests during the period of Obote's government. But their fellow bishops in the Church of Uganda have not stood with them. Tribal loyalty and close links between Church and state have fragmented what should have been a united voice. That is why many from outside the country have felt moved to remind the Church in Uganda of its obligation. In a consultation with the Church held in February 1984 the issue of human rights dominated the minds and spirits of those from outside Uganda. They reminded the Church of Uganda that it is bound by its constitution to do all in its power to defend these rights. We believe it to be an essential task of the Church to speak with a prophetic voice on this issue.

The restrained vehemence of that entreaty sprang not only from the knowledge of many violent incidents but also from a particular incident earlier in this particular consultation. A visiting English rural dean from the diocese of Bristol was being entertained at a village meal to which he had been invited. An armed gang in military dress burst into the event, shots were fired, two people were wounded and all present, the Englishman included, were beaten with clubs and then robbed. Such violence is a commonplace experience in Uganda. What seems so disturbing in this case is the setting—an act of hospitality such as any of us might be offered if we visited the country, ending in a brutal and utterly unprovoked assault.

Almost anyone in Uganda will describe similar incidents that have happened to themselves or their families. One of the Anglican bishops returned from this country a fortnight ago. He was met by various members of his diocese, each of whom related to him an incident involving robbery, violence or death that had happened to a member of his own family or to one of his friends. Yesterday, a young Ugandan student who is at the moment my immediate neighbour in Cambridge said to me, "It is the gun that rules now in Uganda".

Since the July coup, the situation has deteriorated. The UNLA, which may indeed be a series of bandit gangs, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has so vividly related, have become more ill-disciplined, engaging in robbery, shooting and raping. There is little or no supervision or accountability. It might be thought that this was endemic somehow to Ugandan society; yet I believe that the accounts of life now emerging from south-west Uganda give a different kind of description.

The stark accounts of violence invading daily life stand in sharp contrast to the account of affairs in the territories which the National Resistance Army now control, where life apparently is somewhat different. I quote from a report of a missionary society secretary from this country who returned from south-west Uganda on 19th November, just over a fortnight ago: In all NRA territory the scene is remarkably peaceful. NRA guerrillas have set up administrative centres in towns and villages and most Uganda Government officers are working with them. The guerrillas are friendly, open and helpful. There is no shortage of basic foodstuffs in NRA territory and shops and markets are busy". He goes on to describe some of the difficulties, particularly shortage of petrol and problems of transport. But this witness to the discipline and friendly disposition of troops under the command of Yoweri Museveni does go back a very long way and contrasts strongly with the repeated reports of ill-discipline and violence elsewhere in the country.

Such a high level of violence so frequently associated with the military and in such contrast to the behaviour of the NRA troops must raise questions about the British military training team at Jinja. Local reports suggest that the presence of the team, small though it is, is much appreciated by the local residents who, I guess, find some form of protection in their presence. It is also appreciated by those who hold positions of any kind of command. But against this must be set the behaviour of the so-called army, the continuing high level of ill-discipline and violence. This must raise questions about the presence of the team. Cannot the British Government require some evidence of their effectiveness before continuing to supply this help to an army whose record is such an abysmal one?

We long for peace in the troubled country of Uganda. We long for its people to know once again a settled order and freedom from the horrors they have endured for so long. Individuals, churches, business enterprises, government—all together form part of the support we offer from this country to Uganda as its people search for a framework of government and administration that will allow them to flourish, to exercise their gifts, and to follow their way of life in peace.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for initiating this debate and for his knowledgeable and important speech. The noble Lord's interest in the subject of human rights is well known and his knowledge of Uganda and other parts of the African continent enable him to speak with authority.

When I first visited Uganda over 20 years ago, it was a peaceful and relatively prosperous country. There was of course complex tribal divison; and, as the noble Viscount has said, there was an element of violence in the community. But it seemed then that Uganda could look forward to a decent future. I spoke to Africans and to British and Indian residents and they were on the whole optimistic about the future. How wrong we all were. The decline to chaos and anarchy has been tragic and the once potentially prosperous country is an economic shambles.

The noble Viscount has described the scene and we feel sorrow and sympathy for the people of Uganda in their terrible suffering. We, of course, bear in mind the different customs and habits in Uganda, to which the noble Viscount has referred. But the suffering of the Ugandan people is not diminished by these factors. For suffering there has been and of a kind to make one turn away in horror.

The report prepared for Amnesty International by two British doctors—Miss Elizabeth Gordon, a consultant surgeon, and Professor Bernard Knight, a forensic pathologist—has been described as, the most terrifying document the human rights organisation has ever handled". It was published last summer and perhaps we can be told the reaction to it of the department of the noble Baroness. For the record, as this is a debate on human rights, perhaps I may be allowed to read the less painful parts of the document: New prisoners in Makindye were beaten with iron bars, cable, pieces of wood with nails driven through them, rifle butts and machetes. Some prisoners' heads were beaten to the exent that brain tissue 'leaked out' and many died. Cells were so crowded that prisoners were unable to lie down, the floors littered with corpses and soaked with blood, urine and faeces. Food consisted of thin maize meal porridge, with maggots, thrown directly on the excreta-covered floor, and watery bean soup poured directly into inmates' hands and often too hot to hold. Women had their breasts… sliced off and were constantly raped and sexually abused. Some pregnant women had their stomachs jumped upon by soldiers in boots, causing miscarriage. Toenails and fingernails of prisoners were forcibly removed and prisoners were made to walk barefoot over broken bottles. Soldiers beat and raped hospital patients 'even those on intravenous drips'. An old woman of 70 was seen 'sitting with the bleeding stump of her wrist which was red and raw, the hand having been recently cut off. It was without dressing, the old woman crying and still being beaten' ". And so I could go on reading from that report even more terrifying evidence.

This is what the debate after all is about. At that time Mr. Obote was still President and these grim offences were attributed to his undisciplined, ill-led and ill-paid, so-called army. That is the view of Amnesty. It is also the view of churchmen, as the right reverend Prelate has indicated in his thoughtful speech. The noble Viscount said that since 1971 some 700,000 people have died in Uganda. Without any doubt at all, I believe that Idi Amin's dictatorship will go down in history as one of the worst reigns of terror suffered by any country. This savage megalomaniac destroyed his country and its people without mercy. It is when we look at him and his works that we begin to appreciate men like President Kaunda and President Banda.

When Mr. Obote returned as President in 1979, there was a sigh of relief throughout the civilized world—I recall being relieved myself—although it became apparent that success would not come easily. As we have already heard, part of the failure lay with him personally. The Amin inheritance called for leadership of the highest quality, but his election itself was unsatisfactory and it created great bitterness. Then there was his previous record in the tribal context and his terrible attack on the Kabakas. He tried to introduce economic reform, which was long overdue, and he had the backing of the IMF. But he did not, or he could not, deal with problems arising from tribal divisions, and the record of human rights during his second presidency of six years was also, we are bound to admit, appalling. Commenting on Mr. Obote's economic record, the Economist said: The economy, once catastrophic, is now merely awful. As to human rights during this period, the Government's reactions have been somewhat confused, as the noble Viscount has said. We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but we are fully entitled to comment upon them; as I see it, they are only too ready to comment upon our internal affairs. In addition, as the noble Viscount said, we have historic links with Uganda and we give them aid. I believe that it amounts to £7 million a year, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will deal with that aspect.

Perhaps even more significantly, we have a small British Army contingent to which the noble Viscount and others have referred. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her colleagues share our view, namely, that Britain's sole desire is that Uganda should return to peace and stability under a decently organised government. If we can help in any way to that end, then we should do so positively.

There is no doubt that the presence of our army units there is a sensitive factor. As noble Lords have said, Britain had participated in the 36-man Commonwealth team up to March last year. The Commonwealth element departed, but we signed a new memorandum in August 1984 agreeing to send a 13-man training team. North Korea interestingly enough had a much bigger team. I am bound to say that it was a curious decision, but there must have been a good reason for it. We now have seven advisers there, but Britain's tiny presence has enabled some critics to argue that we are somehow associated with the abuse of human rights. However, I understand that the Government have argued that our presence there has helped to restrain atrocities. I am quite certain that the Government would not leave an army unit there if, for one moment, they thought that it would add to the abuse of human rights. However, perhaps it is a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will inform us. I acknowledge immediately that this is not an easy situation for the Government and I appreciate the Government's difficulty in this matter.

We now have General Okello in charge of affairs. I am sure he will forgive me if I say that the presence of generals in charge of a country's affairs does not fill me with confidence, but we must hope for the best. Presidents and Prime Ministers in uniforms covered with medals from heaven knows where always fill me with foreboding. He might just about make a mark if he brings economic and financial advisers of quality and international reputation into the country and then begins to put their advice into practice. He might also talk to the National Resistance Army, the NRA, and Mr. Museveni, if this is practicable, on the possibility of an independent multi-tribal council. I think that the right reverend Prelate was thinking along those lines.

The tragedies of the past 20 years have exacerbated tribal bitterness and rivalry to the point where it has become the biggest stumbling block to peace. The general view is that it is very doubtful whether partition is a practical solution in Uganda, although it has been mentioned by some.

It is to General Okello's credit that he tried to initiate talks with Mr. Museveni in Nairobi last August shortly after he came to power, but as the noble Viscount said, these foundered. It is said that Mr. Museveni feels strong enough to resist the new government and is gaining in public esteem. I have read several recent reports in newspapers which refer to the "Robin Hood" reputation of the NRA's guerrilla forces. I am not sure that things of this kind took place in Sherwood Forest even 700 years ago, or whenever it was. It was depressing to read a report in The Times in October that there continue to be extensive human rights violations by the military because of the civil war and the lawlessness of the army which threaten, and I quote from The Times, to perpetuate the country's reputation for lawlessness and bloodshed". It goes on: There is no sign that the soldiers who ousted Dr. Milton Obote in July can reconcile the political, religious and tribal factions that divide the nation". It is said that Ugandans themselves have detected little change since General Okello took over, and that one sinister factor is that many of the Government's troops are Amin's soldiers who returned from Zaire and the Sudan after the July coup. Save for the hope given by the Christian Churches, described so well by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords, on the face of it at least it seems that there is no immediate hope in Uganda.

On reading all the evidence available to me, I feel extremely depressed about the immediate future. What is essential, and what would change things, is a major revitalisation of the economy so as to give Ugandans of all tribes the real feeling that the country has a future in which all the tribes have a part to play and have a stake in its progress. One suggestion is that the Commonwealth should send a force to supervise the formation of a new army, and this seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion, given the state of the country at this time. But I am told that this proposal has received a mixed reception thus far, and perhaps the noble Baroness can comment on this prospect. Perhaps she can also say a word about the kind of aid we are providing to Uganda and which we propose to give over the next few months.

As the right reverend Prelate has advised, we should stand ready to take part in any reasonable enterprise to bring the cruelty and carnage to an end and to help in establishing and supporting a government who will set a new course for this unhappy country.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, I am sure that all those who have taken part in this debate this evening will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for asking this Unstarred Question. It has been deeply moving to hear from so many noble Lords who have spoken from great personal experience, including the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and we were particularly interested in the interesting contribution from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon.

The continuing conflict in Uganda is tragic. It has effectively split the country into two opposing factions. The economy and administration of this country, which could be one of the most prosperous in the region, have been brought very nearly to a standstill. Uganda's present predicament follows years of internal strife and suffering. One section of the community has frequently been pitted against another with all the loss of life and human misery that that entails.

The 1970s saw the Idi Amin era. None of us needs reminding of the horrors of his rule, or of the scars it left on Ugandan society. This was a point which was well drawn to our attention by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Amin's period of office also saw a dramatic run-down of the economy, together with the expulsion of thousands of Ugandan Asians, many of whom found refuge in Britain.

Three short-lived governments followed his overthrow before elections were held and Dr. Obote was made President in 1980. We all hoped that the return to democracy would bring with it the necessary peace and stability to allow economic development and that, after the years of Amin and war, the Ugandan people could live without fear.

As all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate had said, Britain's ties with Uganda are many and close. In recent years we have worked to make a real contribution towards Uganda's recovery. We commissioned a report to make recommendations about reform of the administration. We provided manpower support for Uganda's leading institutions and government departments. We helped train hundreds of Ugandans in this country and in theirs. We supported plans to rebuild Uganda's agricultural and industrial base. And we tried to assist the Ugandan authorities in providing greater discipline in the Ugandan army, through training assistance. We first contributed to a Commonwealth training effort (referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn) but from June 1984 onwards we provided our own Military Assistance Training Team (BMATT) with 13 people based at Jinja.

I have been asked a number of questions about this team and so perhaps I may say a few words about it. There are seven members of BMATT still in Uganda. Training has been suspended since the coup took place. We have made it clear that we are ready to restart military training if there is a satisfactory political settlement and the new government requests our assistance and BMATT is available to make an early contribution. Some noble Lords have asked how long BMATT will remain in Uganda. We are still considering the team's future. What will happen if a political settlement is reached is that BMATT's role will be reviewed in the light of any settlement.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the right reverend Prelate also asked me about arms sales to Uganda. I can confirm that the Government are not providing arms to either side in Uganda. I cannot answer the questions that have been raised particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about arms which may have come from other governments, but our own view about military sales to Uganda is that we believe that nothing should be done to jeopardise the peace talks which are now taking place in Nairobi or to inflame the internal conflict in Uganda.

As I have just said, we have provided our own military assistance training team and our efforts in that regard were not in vain. Uganda enjoyed something of an economic revival in the early 1980s, and BMATT's presence was beginning to bear fruit in terms of improved discipline in those army units exposed to its moderating influence. But as was revealed in full by Amnesty International's shocking report of June this year, and confirmed by that harrowing passage that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, read out, serious human rights abuses continued, particularly in the unsettled areas to the north and west of Kampala.

The Government have repeatedly deplored these abuses. I make it absolutely plain that we have, at both Ministerial and official level, urged successive governments to ensure respect for human rights. Following publication of the Amnesty International report, my right honourable friend Mr. Rifkind summoned the Ugandan High Commissioner and reiterated the need for an impartial investigation of the allegations in the report and asked the authorities to initiate appropriate legal action against anyone found responsible. The Government of President Obote subsequently stepped up arrests of soldiers accused of human rights offences and began discussions with Amnesty International about the terms of a factfinding mission. Then the coup of 27th July took place.

Since the coup we have issued a statement on 8th October expressing grave concern about the reports of fresh violations and calling on the authorities to punish those responsible. This message has been reinforced by representations by our High Commissioner in Kampala, who is taking a close interest in reports of human rights abuses.

The new military administration which took control after the coup of 27th July made it clear that it wished to make a fresh start. It released some 1,400 of those detained without trial under the previous Government and began to demonstrate that government soldiers involved in human rights abuses would be disciplined. It is essential that these policies are maintained and seen to be applied.

The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked me one or two specific questions about the role of our High Commission in Kampala. I can confirm to him that following the Amnesty International report our High Commission did send reports on those incidents of human rights abuses which were known to them, and on the strength of those reports we made representations to former President Obote on several occasions. However, there are practical problems in the scope of contact that it is possible to make and which are available to a small mission, as I am sure the noble Viscount will understand.

We have also made it clear to the present Government, both at ministerial and at official level, our hope that they will take steps to put an end to human rights abuses. On 8th October we publicly voiced our concern following reports of an increase of human rights abuses in the Luwero area. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, mentioned a figure of 700,000 and asked whether we could confirm that that number have died in Uganda as a result of the atrocities. I am not in a position to confirm that number; but however many there are I think we should all agree that there have been far too many, and that is the tragedy—one of the many tragedies.

The Military Council has also entered into negotiations with the National Resistance Movement, whose leader is Museveni, to bring to an end the guerrilla war which is threatening to tear Uganda apart. These negotiations have been held in Nairobi and most ably chaired by President Moi of Kenya. It is to be hoped that the present round of talks will lead to an agreement on a ceasefire and the formation of a government of national unit. We believe that the prospects for a stable and prosperous Uganda depend on a reconciliation between the parties to the Nairobi talks. Uganda needs peace and stability to allow a return to normal life, and, above all, it needs a strong and fair administration to ensure that human rights are respected. We therefore wholeheartedly support President Moi's efforts and wish them every success. If a settlement is not reached between the military administration and the National Resistance Movement, there can only be more fighting and more misery for the people of Uganda.

In the hope that a settlement will be reached, and in order to do what we can to further the peace process, we have, with the agreement of President Moi, attached Major-General Pollard to our High Commission in Nairobi. His role is to liaise with the negotiators and to advise on what military assistance we might offer to Uganda after a settlement. The assistance could include advice on the organisation, structure and training requirements of the new national army, and some training. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that in these circumstances we should of course welcome any Commonwealth contribution in this field. However, I should like to make it quite clear that there can be no question of Britain becoming involved in peacekeeping or enforcement of a settlement.

We are also considering with other donors what form of economic assistance we might provide to help a new Government put Uganda back on the road to economic recovery. I have of course noted the interesting and detailed observations of my noble friend Lord Bauer, and I hope that anything we might do in the future will make a positive contribution.

There is much that needs to be done. Uganda's already weak economy has been badly affected by the uncertainty and insecurity that has prevailed since the coup. Exports of coffee, the main source of foreign exchange, have fallen off considerably. Imports, too, have been reduced to a minimum, with petrol and other essentials in short supply. Fortunately, Uganda's reliance on subsistance farming has prevented any large-scale suffering. Important elements in any programme of reconstruction and rehabilitation will be the loan of skilled personnel to key ministries in order to help get the administration working again and schemes for the resettlement of former soldiers who are not found a place in the new army.

In the longer term we would wish to resume our aid programme in full. In 1984–85 the United Kingdom spent £5.7 million on aid to Uganda and we had plans to spend £7.5 million in 1985–86; but the bulk of our aid programme in Uganda has been suspended pending an improvement in security conditions. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about the type of aid and, in particular, made the point of the importance of education in Uganda. When President Obote was in Government our aid to Uganda could be broken down into five main types. There was provision of materials such as drugs and spare parts, for example, for the electricity authority, the railways or the cotton industry; the provisions of key manpower support for the administration; and part-finance of non-governmental organisation projects, including, for example, help to the Red Cross societies and organisations such as Oxfam. We provided scholarships for training in the United Kingdom and we provided training in the country; that is to say, an English lecturer, two science teachers, a four-man police team, and so on, to help short-term training teams in public administration and in training others for the administration of the country.

In conclusion, I think the short debate we have had this evening has shown the interest and I believe the concern of every noble Lord who has taken part in it. We all want to see a political settlement in Uganda. Without a political settlement leading to internal security and respect for human rights nothing would be possible in the use of our aid programme and the prospects for lasting stability in Uganda would be bleak indeed. It therefore remains our hope that the Nairobi peace talks will succeed and that all parties in Uganda will work together to ensure that a settlement can be implemented.

House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.