Tripoli: US Action (Hansard, 4 June 1986)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, President Reagan assured my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the United States action would be limited to clearly defined targets related to terrorism, and that the risk of collateral damage would be minimised.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, as it is the case that a number of innocent civilians were killed and injured both in Benghazi and in Tripoli, have the Government expressed their sympathy at this occurrence and, if not, will they now do so?

§ Baroness Young
Yes, my Lords, it is a matter of sorrow that there should have been civilian casualties. But the point of the noble Lord's Question is answered by saying that the targets met the criteria stipulated.

§ The Earl of Kimberley
My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that questions such as this do irreparable harm to Anglo-American relations?

§ Baroness Young
Yes, my Lords. What is important in this matter is a recognition by this country of the importance of our alliance with the United States. I made clear in my Answer to the Question the points that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in consultation with the American President.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, what estimate have the Government made of the number of civilians who were killed during the American air attack on Tripoli and Benghazi? Furthermore, can the Minister explain the difference in logic between the notion that killing civilians in Tripoli and Benghazi will influence the Government of Libya and the notion that killing civilians in Brighton or Birmingham will influence the behaviour of the British Government?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, there were no civilian targets; so a question of warning to civilians did not arise. As I indicated, we laid down the criteria for the use of United Kingdom-based aircraft, and within these criteria the operational decisions were for the United States.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, my I ask the noble Baroness whether she really believes that the activities of NORAID and the IRA, which lead to the wanton slaying of British people, improve relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States of America? Would she rather not prefer to see that harsh steps were taken by President Reagan not merely to return those who are charged with killing Britons but to prevent the killing of British nationals by stopping financial aid getting to the IRA?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the question of NORAID is quite outside the terms of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but would the Minister be kind enough to read the supplementary question that I put and the answer that she gave? If, in the light of her study of that question and answer, she agrees that it has not been satisfactorily dealt with, will she find some opportunity of placing on record what are the facts concerning the civilian casualties, and what is the Government's view of the logical difference, if any, between the two circumstances that I quoted?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, of course I shall read Hansard when it is published, as I always do. I have already indicated that it is a matter of sorrow that there should have been civilian casualties. The truth is that the possible risk to civilians is not a sufficient reason for rejecting the concept of self-defence in the face of terrorist action which sets out deliberately and ruthlessly to maim and kill innocent civilians in many parts of the world.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, to get this matter in right perspective, is the Minister aware that some of us regard the decision to bomb Tripoli and the rest as a justified decision? Some of our central NATO allies refused to co-operate, yet on the very first occasion they get, they put their hands out for all the friendship and for all the money that they can receive from America. Is it not hypocritical that people like that should now be criticising what the Americans have done? Is the noble Baroness further aware that some of us think that the United States alliance is the most necessary and essential part of our future foreign policy?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I think that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, would be shared by very many Members of your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the House of Commons research note on this could find no justification whatsoever for the action that was taken? Is she aware that it is therefore a crime in international law; and that the role of an ally when another ally commits a crime is not to comply with it but to criticise it; and that that is what the noble Baroness ought to be doing?

§ Baroness Young
No, my Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord has said. The United States action 980 was in accordance with the inherent right of self-defence recognised under Article 51 of the United Nations charter.