Lords Sitting of 14 December 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

London Underground Rail Services
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve London Underground rail services, and when an improvement may be expected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have approved investment of over £100 million since October 1986 on measures to relieve Underground congestion in addition to the modernisation of the Central Line at a cost of £720 million. Some of this is already beginning to have an impact. But more must be done. It was for that reason that the Secretary of State for Transport launched the Central London Rail Study in March. The study is developing a strategy to improve London's rail services and cater for demand to the end of the century. Its findings will be published in the New Year.
Lord Nugent of Guildford:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful Answer. I congratulate him on the extra resources that the Government have placed at the disposal of London Regional Transport for this purpose. However, although 1 congratulate him on the dramatic improvement in the appearance of the stations, is he aware that the service is still defective? Far too often there is delay due to defective signalling or rolling stock, and this causes increased congestion and then further delays. Will my noble friend direct the attention of the management to taking further care to see that these faults do not occur?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, of course. As I said in my original Answer, much more still needs to be done. Included in the investment programme over the next three years is £200 million on a major continuing renewal programme for track, signalling, structures, lifts and escalators; the repair of track, tunnel, stations, bridges and so on; resignalling on the Metropolitan and District Lines; modernisation of the signal control and communication systems; and new lifts and escalators at some 20 stations. In addition to that, there are 16 new, additional trains being built which should come into service next year.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it intended to allocate any money to the escalator system, which seems to be continually breaking down?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, part of the £200 million is involved in escalators. This is in addition to the £266 million which has been allocated specifically for safety measures resulting from the Fennell Report, which we debated on Monday. It involves a good deal of work on the wooden escalators.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of recent events since the King's Cross fire, will my noble friend urge London Underground to concentrate on the provision of greater safety and in particular on providing unobstructed egress from all Underground stations while in service?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said on Monday, £266 million will be spent specifically on safety measures and finance will not be a barrier to implementing any of the Fennell recommendations. On egress from stations, my noble friend is probably referring to the automatic barrier system. This is also being reviewed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of these matters were considered during our debate on Monday on the King's Cross tragedy? Does he not also agree that there was a general feeling throughout the House that finance must not play any part in any requirements to improve safety?
The Central London Rail Study may well decide that there should be additional Underground lines and this could run into very large sums. While the Government cannot give an undertaking now, will they bear in mind that if the increase has to be borne by the passengers, that will be of no real value? All that will happen is that fares will increase, which will bring more motorists into central London, which will increase the problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we had a good debate on Monday on the general topic. Indeed the figures that I announced then gave some indication of the amounts of money and the undertakings that have been made on safety measures.
I cannot comment on the Central London Rail Study until it is published in the New Year. However, the question of paying for any new lines and so on will be addressed at that time.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to have a direct line and a station to Battersea?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no, not at present. That may or may not be a matter to come up in the Central London Rail Study.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of the Question on the improvement of services, how many of the workforce who operate these trains, drivers and signalmen, are on the executive board of management?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure what my noble friend means by train drivers and

935
so on being on the board. The board of London Regional Transport is appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am aware of the answer which my noble friend gave, but surely there is a further question to be answered along the lines which I suggested to my noble friend.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can only take note of my noble friend's request.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one escalator at Pimlico station has been out of order for months on end during the past year? This is one of the newest stations in the system and that escalator has now been out of order for many weeks. Is he aware that there are 85 steps and that many old people who live in one-bedroomed flats near the station, including a number of your Lordships, find those 85 steps a great burden? Why must that escalator be out of order for so long, with no work being carried out on it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer specific questions on individual Underground stations around London. That is not a matter for the Government but is a matter for the board of London Regional Transport. No doubt the noble Lord will wish to make his complaint to them.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are deeply impressed by the extremely high quality of the report by Mr. Fennell into these matters? Will he also accept that an escalating problem facing London Underground is that there are too many people in London? I should be interested to hear whether the noble Lord has any suggestions as to how we could deal with that matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure how that problem should be dealt with but the noble Lord makes a good point. Patronage of the London Underground is 80 per cent. up on the past six years, which is contrary to everything that the planners previously told us.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, could the population of London be catered for by promoting the sale of eggs?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that it would be wise for me to enter into a debate on that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord's reply to me was extremely unhelpful and constitutionally wrong. London Underground is publicly owned and in the last analysis the Government are responsible. I expect him to hand on my complaint to the London Underground. That is what he is there for and that is what he is paid for.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, without looking at the Standing Orders, I believe that it is not
936
appropriate to answer specific questions on the nationalised industries. I am giving a general overview of the Government's policy towards London Transport. If the noble Lord expects me to have details of every single Underground station in London and what might or might not be wrong with one escalator or lift, then I am afraid he is mistaken.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as regards extensions, as mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, can we have an extension on the Victoria Line through to Harlow, which would save the appalling congestion at Liverpool Street?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, the Central London Rail Study will be published in the New Year. I do not know what recommendations that will contain.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the Minister does not have the information on my question, perhaps he will write to me. Is he aware that many of us who use the Circle Line and have used it for years consider that it is almost dropping to pieces? Is he further aware that in all that I have read about the alterations and reforms on the Underground system, I have not read one thing about the Circle Line? Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to refer that to 55 Broadway, where he will find that they know what I have been trying to do. Will he write to me about that matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly do that. At present 16 new trains are being constructed, and I mentioned the Metropolitan and District Lines. I am not sure whether that would apply to part of the Circle Line.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not think that the new trains would be compatible with the present rails on the Circle Line.

Museums Year
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend as a result of the designation of 1989 as Museums Year and what support they intend to pledge to the national collections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, Museums Year is the initiative of the Museums Association in their centenary year of 1989. It has been strongly supported by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts. I understand from the Museums Association that the national museums and galleries are lending Museums Year their enthusiastic support. The Government's provision for museums and galleries will rise from £153 million in the current year to £174 million in 1991–92.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her splendidly encouraging reply. Is she aware that in 1989 Her Majesty the Queen is lending pictures from the private apartments at Windsor Castle to mount separate exhibitions at Aberdeen, Newcastle, Bristol, Norwich, Plymouth and Sheffield? Is she also aware that there is an excellent new museum which has started this year in the Guards Museum at Wellington Barracks? Is she also aware that the Anstruther Fisheries Museum in Fife is celebrating its 20th anniversary on 4th July and it is launching a boat called "White Wing"? Can she tell us any further good news?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her very interesting information.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while we are delighted to hear about all the people who are supporting museums, is the Minister aware that the increase for the arts world which she cited is still well below the rate of inflation? Is it not the case that now the Japanese are coming into the art market so strongly and buying works of art of all schools, irrespective of those referred to the review committee on the export of works of art, that unless purchase funds are increased, we shall lose even more of our national heritage? Moreover, is not a substantial increase in purchase funds the best way in which the Government can respond to Museums Year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Baroness for giving her commercial; but it is rather far from that which we are discussing on the Order Paper—that is, Museums Year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of our great museums and art galleries have vast numbers of treasures stored underground which are never seen by the public? Should not the opportunity presented by Museums Year be taken to do something about that, perhaps following the excellent example of Her Majesty in allowing some of those treasures to be shown outside London?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that the Museums Association will take note of what my noble friend said. Most of the national museums and galleries are involved heavily in Museums Year. For example, the National Gallery's 1989 exhibition programme is to be promoted as part of Museums Year. I shall not weary your Lordships with a long list; but I do have a long list if noble Lords would like me to read it out.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government consider allowing the national museums to recover VAT in the same way as local authority museums are able to do? Are the Government aware that the Tate Gallery, for example, which receives a purchase grant of £1·8million a year, has to pay £250,000 in VAT? How do the Government think that the gallery can compete in the international markets when shackled in that way?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is not a general debate on the arts. The Question concerns Museums Year. However, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, may be interested to hear (if he does not already know) of the passport scheme. The Museums Association has secured from The Times a substantial sponsorship for Museums Year. A passport costing £5 gives a range of discounts at the discretion of individual museums. There is a 150-page guide to the year's events. I think I may be allowed to make a commercial, too.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the important report published today by that most influential Select Committee in another place—namely, the Public Accounts Committee—which describes the conservation and storage situation in our national galleries and museums as a national disaster? Would it not be a fitting way to mark Museums Year if the Government could initiate a major programme to quantify the problem and, above all, to improve the standards of training for conservation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government's funding record for the national collections indicates a sincere commitment to supporting the institutions in their important work. In the new three-year allocations announced in November, the Minister for the Arts has set aside special provisions in 1991–92 for the priority concerns of the national museums and galleries in the management of their collections, including conservation, storage and documentation.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many museums will be grateful for the extra funding promised? Is she also aware that the Museums Association centenary conference is being held in York in 1989 and that the Museums Association was founded in the Yorkshire Museum in York?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any plans in her capacity at the Ministry of Agriculture to open a museum for the poultry industry, which the Government are trying so hard to kill off?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what I can tell the noble Lord is that the Science Museum is opening a new food and nutrition gallery in 1989 which is linked to Museums Year, as well as the celebration of British Food and Farming Year.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Government consider placing Mrs. Currie in that museum?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what makes her think that the Museums Association will take note of the wise words of her noble friend Lord Renton about the treasures hidden away in the cellars of so many

939
museums when it has failed to take note of those same observations which have been made over and over again for the past 20 years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is impossible for the museums to display all their collections. The only museum of which I have any personal knowledge is the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, which rotates pictures. Inevitably pictures will be in store, but it is up to the museums to work out their own programmes. I feel sure that many people will be reading these exchanges in Hansard.

Radioactive Waste Disposal
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the present arrangements for disposal of low level radioactive waste from medical equipment in hospitals and research departments of universities.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, radioactive waste may only be disposed of from hospitals and universities in the United Kingdom subject to authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by the relevant regulatory authorities. Authorisations set strict conditions and activity limits for each type of waste. All such premises are subject to inspection to ensure compliance with the terms of their authorisations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Where difficulties arise over ultimate disposal, and as this waste is so obviously a product of beneficial activities approved by virtually everyone, will the Government encourage carefully considered approaches to local authorities, voluntary organisations and the general public to convince them of the need to co-operate in the safe and thorough disposal of radioactive materials?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the technology for the most part exists and it is a question of making sure that everyone is convinced that it is being used to the best advantage. As my noble friend so rightly said, there are enormous benefits as a result of the work carried out in hospitals and universities which lead to some low level radioactive waste.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on occasions Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution gives authorisations without any consultation with local environmental health officers? Does not the noble Earl agree that there should be a statutory requirement for local consultation to take place before authorisation is given?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards England, which is the area for which Her Majesty's
940
Inspectorate of Pollution is responsible, I note the concerns of the noble Baroness and will look into the matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether, within the ambit of this Question concerning waste, he also includes the actual instruments used, which are frequently highly toxic and, therefore, also present a danger of radioactivity? Are they disposed of in addition to the waste? If not, will the noble Earl ensure that they are?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point, but I am sure that he is fully aware that those instruments which produce the waste are in most cases returned to the manufacturer for recovery and/or recycling. A strict account of all such sources are kept by the users and the regulatory authorities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not a satisfactory reply. The noble Earl said that "most" are returned. What happens to the others?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, those that do not need to go back to industry or to the manufacturers can be disposed of in a way subject to the authorisations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he may encounter the syndrome known as "not in my back yard"? That certainly does not apply in my case, and there are others who are familiar enough with the subject and the processes not to be afraid or apprehensive.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. We are referring to low level radioactive waste and that is strictly defined and carefully catered for. I am sure that some of your Lordships wear luminous watches and have no hesitation in putting those in the dustbin when they go wrong.

Foreign Exchange Markets: Intervention
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on intervention in the foreign exchange markets by the Bank of England.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, it has been the policy of this and all preceding governments not to comment on exchange market tactics.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that helpful and informative reply! Can he possibly tell the House whether the wise warning which the Prime Minister gave in the spring about the potentially domestic inflationary effects of substantial intervention in the foreign exchange markets by the Bank of England is still, as the Americans put it, operative?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would cast his mind back a few years to the time when he was a most distinguished Economic Secretary to the Treasury. If he had been asked this Question then, he would have given the answer that I am going to give now; namely, that it is not our policy to comment upon exchange policy tactics anyway.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is obviously detrimental for the Bank of England overtly to intervene? That can be counterproductive by giving the impression that there is a weakness which, in the international mind, may not exist.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that it is best that we do not comment on this whole area. It is an area in which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees a world in which sterling is strong. He is determined that it shall stay strong, in his own words, "for the indefinite future". I believe that we should leave the matter at that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in those circumstances will the noble Lord confirm more specifically that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain exchange rates which make our exports more expensive and which therefore are likely to hamper them? Is it also government policy to have imports cheaper and to encourage them in the existing circumstances? If the noble Lord is of a mind that he should not disclose any directions that go to the Bank of England as regards matters of this kind, will he say more precisely what is the exchange rate policy of the Government? Is the noble Lord aware of the interest rate implications on that subject?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although I shall not comment on the Government's exchange rate policy, I remind the noble Lord that, whereas our reserves stood at 22 billion dollars in May 1979, today they stand at 51 billion dollars. The level of official debt that was standing at 22 billion dollars in May 1979 is now under 17 billion dollars. I believe that those figures speak louder than words.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord willing to clarify his earlier answer in case the foreign exchange markets are misled? Are we right in understanding that although the Government have a foreign exchange policy, it is simply that the noble Lord refuses to tell us what it is?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that my answer demonstrated blinding clarity. I do not believe that I can add anything to it.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. As is the custom in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not
942
less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I am confident that noble Lords will keep the length of their speeches within the limits that are compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision with respect to deeds and their execution and contracts for the sale or other disposition of interests in land; and to abolish the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Campbell of Alloway, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Templeman, L.

Wilberforce, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Broadcasting:—

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Teviot, L.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have leave to confer on matters relating to sound broadcasting and to meet concurrently for this purpose with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting appointed by the Commons for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Southern Africa
3.4 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to call attention to the situation in southern Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will welcome the Brazzaville Protocol that was signed yesterday in the capital of the Congo. Before we become too euphoric about what may be an historic event, I believe that it is important that we note the grave dangers which accompanied the negotiations which have led to the signing of the protocol. It may be, as it has been widely reported, that it is the result of joint pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union. If it is, then I warn the House that the ordering of regional affairs by the two great super powers can bring grave dangers to the inhabitants of those regions.
As regards this protocol, nothing has been said as to what is to happen to the organisation known as UNITA led by Jonas Savimbi. So far as we know, United States' policy remains unchanged and it will continue to supply UNITA and Savimbi with arms, resources and finance. If that is so, the danger to the integrity of Angola continues.
Within the protocol there is an arrangement for the Cuban forces in Angola to be withdrawn. If those forces are all withdrawn, Angola itself will become vulnerable. I remind the House that Angola is a sovereign state exercising its full rights in asking for help from another sovereign state—namely, Cuba—when it was, and only when it was, invaded by South African forces. The talk about the Cubans being foreign forces on African soil really does not add up when one considers the number of the French forces that have remained on African soil for the past 20 years.
The second danger in this protocol is the danger to Namibia, which is not a party to the protocol. We have talked many times in this House about Resolution 435 of the United Nations guaranteeing that Namibia will become independent under United Nations' auspices. That has now been overtaken because Resolution No. 435 is no longer enough. The fact that Namibia is given constitutional independence is worthless unless that independence is totally guaranteed by the Security Council. We have seen that South African forces are able to penetrate
944
and invade Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Resolution 435 must be guaranteed and the integrity and independence of Nambia must be guaranteed by the Security Council if that new state is to be safe in the future.
I have no doubt that the Government will argue, as they have already done, that the arrangements and negotiations that have taken place have been the result of their policy of dialogue rather than sanctions. That is not the case. The South Africans have been forced to come to the negotiating table, first, because of their defeat in Angola last May when they lost control of the air and had to withdraw and, secondly, because of the very high cost of the Angolan and Namibian campaigns. It was a high cost taken at a time of economic crisis. It will be argued by the Government that they have helped to arrange this protocol and these negotiations. That is not the case. If anything, the United Kingdom has hindered them. The United Kingdom was a member of the Contact Group for eight years, but what did it do? What did it do about United Nations' resolutions? What did it do about the Eminent Persons' Group report? A Member of this House was one of that group.
What has the United Kingdom done about the purchase of uranium from Namibia and about giving resources to the South Africans and to the Namibians in breach of resolutions of the United Nations? The Government have said to me consistently that they do not recognise Decree No. 1 of the United Nations regarding Namibia. What they have not set out—and they could not answer this point when I met the Minister in July—is their attitude to the Security Council resolution, which is binding and mandatory on all members of the United Nations. The Security Council asked the International Court of Justice for a verdict on the position of Namibia and the position of member states of the United Nations regarding Namibia. That advisory opinion was given in 1971. It said that states members of the United Nations were obliged to,
"recognise the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia".
Member states were also obliged to,
"refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration".
What have the Government done since 1971 to follow that verdict? The Government say that they do not recognise the International Court of Justice. But in the same year the Security Council passed Resolution 301 stating its agreement with the opinion of the international court and reaffirming United Nations' responsibility in promoting Namibian independence. That was a Security Council resolution. It is mandatory but it has not been carried out by any British Government since 1971.
We must ask whether this protocol will improve the security of the southern African region. My answer is no. The whole core of insecurity in that region lies in South Africa. It lies not in the commonly used word "apartheid" but in the determination and religious belief of the Afrikaner nation over the past 100 years that white supremacy is all-important to the future of South Africa. It is

945
that white supremacy which is untouched. We welcome, and I pay tribute to, the efforts made by this Government to save the Sharpeville Six from the gallows, but long sentences were passed simply because the Sharpeville Six were members of a crowd. What is more, the day after the Sharpeville Six were reprieved five other Africans were executed.
In South Africa an average of 100 Africans are executed every year. As noble Lords will know, there has been a determined, oppressive and brutal campaign by the South African Government, described by Mr. Dukakis as "the terrorist state", against all opponents of apartheid or white supremacy. I have no doubt that the Government will claim, as they have already claimed, that it has been their policy of dialogue rather than sanctions that has led to the minor modifications of apartheid over the past few years. I contest that and do so by looking at the historical facts.
Despite British obstacles to sanctions, they have been applied and have worked. The Government have consistently argued that economic development will undermine apartheid, but the answer is that it never has. When South Africa was most prosperous in the 1950s and 1960s apartheid was applied with the utmost severity. Only when sanctions have begun to bite into that economy have any alterations, even minor alterations, been made. From 1985 onwards the United States and its banks called in their loans as a protest against apartheid. In October 1986 the anti-apartheid law was passed in the United States and sanctions were imposed. A ban was imposed on new investment and new hank loans. Exports to the South African police and military forces and certain imports from South Africa were banned.
It is estimated that 10 billion dollars of capital have left South Africa since 1985. The rand has fallen by more than 21 per cent. this year alone. Inflation is now running at 13.5 per cent. a year. Coal exports have fallen by 15 per cent. Steel has been blocked by Western Europe and by Japan. When the Government say that sanctions will hurt the Africans I should point out that more than 100 municipalities have reacted to the redundancies that have been caused by sanctions by removing racial restrictions on blacks doing business in central business districts. When the South African economy was under the greatest pressure the pass laws were scrapped—we all applaud that—and property rights were granted to black South Africans. Yes, sanctions do work and are working, although with residential segregation and compulsory racial registration, white supremacy itself has never yet been dented. It is still dominant and the British are protecting and assisting it through the expansion of their trade with South Africa, through their investment in South Africa and through the kindness of the Prime Minister to President Botha and by her opposition to sanctions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as the noble Lord said that all governments since 1971 have been guilty of the omissions to which he referred, is he saying that the Labour Government, who were there for quite a number of years, followed precisely the policy that is being followed now? What is the complaint from a Cross-Bench point of view?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am saying precisely that, my Lords. I do not excuse the Labour Government for what they did. This Government have expanded what was done. There was a great deal of argument within the Labour Government, as is shown by the references I have made previously in the House to Barbara Castle's diaries, as to whether uranium should have continued to be imported from Namibia. I do not see any such argument within the present Government.
Finally, I agree with the Government's consistent case that sanctions must damage the interests of the front line states just as they will damage the economic interests of certain black Africans in South Africa. The front line states and the black Africans have said that they are suffering already but that their suffering will be reduced in length by the application of sanctions. What are the Government doing in regard to the front line states? What are they doing to help Angola? What aid do they give to Angola? It is pitiful compared with what they give to other countries. How are they preparing Namibians to take control of an independent Namibia? Above all, what is their attitude to Zambia, which is also in the front line?
Why did the Prime Minister make that petty gesture of missing out Zambia in her tour of southern Africa? Is it because of the treatment of Sir Geoffrey Howe? Sir Geoffrey Howe was representing the EC. His visit immediately followed the report of the Eminent Persons Group. Yet the British Government were opposed to those specific recommendations.
Is it not the case that the Government are refusing to give Zambia programme aid until Zambia comes to agreement with the IMF—an agreement which at the beginning of the year immediately led to food riots because of the abolition of subsidies? Further, is it not the case that the British Government are trying to influence other European governments to refuse aid to Zambia until such agreement is made with the IMF?
Over the last month Zambia has devalued its currency by 25 per cent. and reduced its subsidies. It is taking measures, severe measures, which damage the interests of the people because of the great difficulties which Zambia has been labouring under as the copper price has dropped and as the cost of essential imports has increased.
As regards Zambia, I should like to ask the Minister who will be winding up the debate a specific question. Is it not a fact that when Mrs. Lynda Chalker, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was invited to Zambia during her recent tour the invitation was refused because it was felt by the Government that she should not meet with members of the African National Congress who are based in Lusaka—who are called terrorists by the Prime Minister—and because she would have been embarrassed by having to announce in that country that the British Government were not prepared to give any further programme aid until agreement was reached with the IMF?
Finally, and very briefly, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that South Africa is now a nuclear power. We went through this matter only last week. I asked the Minister then why the British

947
Government support the continued membership of South Africa of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He did not answer the question. He did not say why they support it. He gave various reasons as to why those who oppose it were not putting forward a good case. I want to know why the Government continue to support membership of an organisation that is providing South Africa with technical and scientific knowledge that is assisting that country in what is has boasted it can now do, which is to build atomic weapons.
We know from historical experience that no one can trust the words of the white South African leaders. We know that from the experience of the long conferences which have taken place; for example, the experiences of the Nkomati agreement with Mozambique. Their actions are based, and always have to be based, on the preservation of white supremacy.
South Africa is the fundamental challenge to the stability of the southern African region. Britain will be judged by history by the extent to which she supports South African racialism and the racialist regime there, or supports those who are fighting to create a non-racist society in South Africa and throughout southern Africa. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing this debate on a most important subject which has particular relevance to British foreign policy. I have not had the opportunity to visit some of the southern African states which he very properly mentioned but I had the pleasure of visiting the Republic last year. It is of my experience there, the opinions that I formed and the discussions that I had that I wish to speak today.
I came away with two conclusions, neither of which is the least bit original. The first was that it is a subject of quite extraordinary difficulty; indeed, it is a very complex subject. I think that the assumption which most people of this country have is that there are two groups of people, one black and one white, who are diametrically opposed and united together in their opposition to the group of the other colour. Of course on the ground that proves not to be so at all.
There are in fact among the whites two, or arguably three, distinct groups—or fairly distinct groups,—because they overlap—and among the blacks perhaps a dozen different groups. Each of those entities has its own objectives, tactics and policies, some of which coincide but many of which do not. It is very difficult indeed when one is there on the ground to form any sort of a cohesive picture of what the various groups want. So, first impression: difficulty and complexity.
The second impression that I had was of the dangers of unemployment, which are superseded at the moment by the political evils of apartheid, but they are latent nonetheless. There is unemployment in South Africa at present but due to the practices of the South African Government it is obscured from
948
the eye of the tourist to some considerable extent, but nonetheless it is there.
One wonders what will happen as and when black democracy takes over and black managers, who are at the moment at any rate singularly ill-prepared either by education or by training, take over the leadership of the major firms. One fears—and it is no more than a fear—that the effect on South Africa's economy may be very considerable and most detrimental. That of course is no argument for not opposing apartheid as such; but it is an argument for proceeding with a measure of caution when one comes to consider the methods which should be taken to overthrow it.
There were one or two other thoughts which I had, one of which was historical. One cannot wander in the country without reflecting on its history, and particularly of course on imperial history of the last 100 years or so. But what is more relevant is the outlook of the Afrikaners in particular, and the whites in general, to the historical background of their country.
I think that in this country it is commonly thought that the whites are in South Africa as Imperialist conquerors, much, if you like, as we were in India; whereas of course the original inhabitants— namely, the bushmen and Hottentots—have practically disappeared and in any event put up a rather token resistance to the ingression of the whites from the south and the Bantu black races from the north and east. The result was something like 100 years, or perhaps more, of fairly bloody warfare, and in the end the whites triumphed.
The Afrikaners, rightly or wrongly, look on the land as their land; they do not look upon themselves as conquerors, transient occupants or transient rulers of a native population. Whether one agrees with that or not, I think that it is a potent factor to bear in mind.
The other thought which cannot help but cross one's mind—and if it does not the white population are all too ready to discuss it—is what would happen if in the near future the whites were either removed or effectively neutered politically. I think that the assumption is that there would be a smooth, or relatively smooth, turnover to a form of black democracy, sponsored—led—by the African National Congress.
That is not the view of the whites of South Africa. Their view, which is a difficult one to oppose when one sees the conflicting forces at work in the union, is that the blacks of the major tribes—namely, the Zulus and their ethnic cousins the Xhosas—would be very likely to take over the entire peninsula. That may not be a realistic worry, but it is a cause for at least a certain caution when one presses forward as best one can with opposition to apartheid and with advice and recommendations for change. Too rapid change may result only in the black races going from the frying pan into the fire.
It is impossible to talk about South Africa without mentioning sanctions. Two preliminary points must be borne in mind. The first is the nature of the Afrikaners themselves. They are a tough, resolute, courageous lot and extremely obstinate. It has been

949
said often enough that they have nowhere else to go. It is pretty clear that if they cannot live in their country they will die in it. The second point is the nature of the country itself. It is a fertile, prosperous, agricultural community. It has an abundance of most of the principal raw materials and it has a far from negligible arms industry. In those circumstances, what will happen if the policy of apartheid is pressed hard?
The views, again, of the whites in South Africa in general are that the country can sustain a siege economy against the most savage sanctions likely to be imposed. It would result in hardship, hunger and perhaps death, but it could be sustained. A local study by the University of Cape Town estimates that 1 million of those who already have jobs would be unemployed, of whom about 16 per cent. would be whites. That would clearly have a catastrophic effect on the economy but could be sustained. If that level of unemployment can be sustained, what will happen next? There is only one last card to play, is there not? That is invasion. Who will invade? Certainly not this country. Certainly not the United States. The United Nations? We have seen the United Nations conduct some sensible, worthwhile police operations in different areas of the world, but I do not see it fighting a sustained and bloody war against powerful resistance.
The most likely eventuality is a state of siege followed by—this, I am afraid, is inevitable on the international scene—sanctions-breaking by individuals and nations who will do what is required for the money on offer. In the long run, sanctions are not the answer. What is the answer? We have only to reflect upon the type of people who influence us in our private lives. They are those who talk to us kindly and quietly and whom we trust and who we believe have our interests at heart. They do not shout at us through a megaphone from the street; they talk and give their advice persistently and in a friendly fashion. Those are the people to whom we listen and those are the people to whom nations will listen. The situation in South Africa demands patience and persistent, quiet advocacy. I believe that to be the present policy of Her Majesty's Government, and I warmly support it.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene in this important debate, for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had I not recently returned from a visit to South Africa after an interval of 10 years, previously having visited about 10 times. So far as one can, I know the country well. I cannot pretend to have the excellent knowledge of the politics of South Africa, or southern Africa generally, enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch; but I hope that I can maintain the same moderate tone as was demonstrated by the two previous speakers. A visit to South Africa today by a person of nominal sensibility does not leave one in a moderate state. It is an abomination to a great number of people.
Perhaps I may indicate the simple demography of the matter which makes inevitable, if not an abomination, a horrible anomaly. South Africa has
950
something under 5 million Europeans; about 28 million—at least that was the figure given in the 1984 census, which is believed by most experts to be much too low—blacks; 3 million coloureds and 800,000 Asians. That community is controlled by the 4.8 million whites. It is fair to say that, of that 4·8 million, possibly 3 million are supporters of apartheid. Something over 30 million people are condemned to a life of degradation, shame and deprivation because 3 million people so require it.
That is the simple demography of the situation. It is the ambit of the matter that must be solved. It is necessary to persuade 3 million obstinate people, who have valid reasons for apprehension—they are reasonably convinced that if the African obtains the franchise and there is a free vote by 28 million people—their way of life will be destroyed. I doubt whether that is a totally valid apprehension; but if it is, it would not be a good reason for maintaining the status quo. Merely to maintain the privileged position of 3 million people at the expense of millions of others would be wrong.
Perhaps I may demonstrate in a word how the problem impressed itself upon me during that visit. I had the misfortune to contract a rather hideous virus while I was there. I was in bed in the Mount Nelson Hotel, which is a haven of comfort, quiet and consideration, for some eight days or longer. The doctor thought that I should have nurses. I was attended by two coloured nurses. They were admirable girls. They were efficient, considerate and compassionate; they were even affectionate. No society can have a better quality of person than those people. They represented the best that one could hope to have in one's society.
There was an illustration of the problem that arises. One morning one of the nurses came in. I cannot remember her name, but she told me that she was named after a film star. I told her that she was looking tired. She said, "Oh yes, it is because I have to travel 40 kilometres to my home outside Cape Town." She said that if she could go by bus instead of train it would be more comfortable. I asked why she did not go by bus. She told me that it was because it would cost an extra 2 rands each way. Needless to say—it was not an especially generous gesture—I provided her and her colleague with the necessary additional rands to go by bus. I then asked her a foolish question, because I knew the answer before I asked it. "Why do you live 40 kilometres outside Cape Town?" She said, "I have to. I am required to live there. It is a coloured reserve to which we were moved from District 6 some years ago", when the entire population of that area was involuntarily evacuated to that area 40 kilometres away.
Does one need to say anything more to demonstrate the quality of civilisation that exists in that society? It is easy to point to the problems; it is much more difficult to point to the answers. I do not propose to engage in a discussion on sanctions, except to say that it is a mistake to believe that they are not biting. The anxiety and energy that the South African Government put into presenting reasons why sanctions should not operate is of itself conclusive proof that they are worried about them.

951
We are told that sanctions did not bite in Rhodesia. There is only one person here who can speak on that subject with greater authority than myself. They did bite in Rhodesia. On my last visit to Rhodesia, Europeans came up to me, tugged at my coat and said, "Please get a settlement", because the sanctions almost emptied the shops of consumer goods. The reports one receives from countries many thousands of miles away need to be verified by people on the spot.
The arguments against sanctions are difficult to assess. The South African arguments are three: one is that they will greatly damage the black population. I can only say that noble Lords should see as I did the conditions of an area called Crossroads, where a quarter of million blacks are living in what can only be called hovels. They are not even shanties. They were erected in place of the shanties that had been there which had been deliberately demolished by the South African Government for the solitary purpose of ensuring that they had de-blacked the urban areas so that there was no danger of too great a black population in those areas.
In place of the shanties, there were hovels built with bits of corrugated iron, bits of cardboard, bits of plywood stretching for miles and miles. There was no sanitation, there was a bucket scheme. There was no water; there was just one tap per four houses. If people tell me that sanctions will reduce the standard of living of these poor wretches, I must say that I should need a lot of convincing that the case is valid.
The other argument against sanctions is that they will not work: so obdurate and determined are the Boers to resist any suggestion of emancipating the black population, they will never succumb to any pressure. That may be so; but it seems to me that that is equivalent to a small boy saying, "It's no use punishing me; I shall not be good, whatever happens". I think one has to continue punishing him until one kills him. That seems to me to be another argument which has no great validity.
There is a variety of other arguments. One is that sanctions will destroy the economy of South Africa. The answer to that is that the solution is in the hands of this tiny minority. The 3 million people can behave properly as they were urged to do by the great Mr. Macmillan in 1960. He assured them that if they would behave like civilised people and operate what he said were Christian values, they could be sure that there would be no economic sanctions invoked against them. That is the simple answer to people saying that sanctions will ruin the economy. I do not wish or intend to pass judgment on that difficult subject. However, it is absolutely right that the argument should be presented to this House because the House has great influence in these matters.
One thing about which I wish to warn noble Lords is that there is a near-explosive situation there; but not on the part of the blacks. I spoke to a great variety of people and it is unfair to South Africa to say that there is no liberal opinion urging changes very vigorously. However, it is a tiny minority. The great majority of people are not wicked, they are just complacent, blind and terrified. I had, and still have,
952
many relatives in South Africa. I can assure noble Lords that they are virtuous people—they could not be members of my family if they were not! The fact remains that they are absolutely blind to what is going on. When I asked them if they had been to see the appalling area, Crossroads, they said, "Oh, no, we have not", although it is only 12 or 14 miles from Cape Town. There is a carefully devised situation where a great barrier has been built to prevent people coming from the airports seeing these shanties and the hideous conditions.
All I would say is this. I venture to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on only one point. I do not think that the solution lies in Britain's hands. I was immensely impressed, if I may say so, by the attitude of the British consul and the British ambassador who were behaving with total propriety and were concerned to see that visitors to the country saw the townships and the worst of the horrors going on. That reflected very much credit on them, and I was most impressed by it.
I went over there as the deputy chairman of the British Council. That council does a very good job and steers an extremely subtle and professional course, treading on very thin ice. It never expresses opinions that would antagonise people; but it never expresses opinions that show approval of what is going on.
I believe that the urgent necessity is to secure that something is done before there is an explosion. The place is a time bomb. Resentment did not emerge so much on the part of the blacks; a number of them came to see me and they are well-educated, nice, kindly people. I do not think that they are on the verge of explosion. However, I would not say the same of the coloured community, who show the kind of resentment that people who find themselves in this deprived and degraded position through no fault of their own must be expected to show.
The South African Government are incredibly astute at actions to try to require people to look at the situation through rose-coloured spectacles. As regards the homelands, they are probably the most ingenious piece of constitutional chicanery that has ever been devised. The Government have exiled great numbers of people from their own homeland and attributed to them a nationality and lands that do not really exist. I do not profess to be an expert on South African affairs; but I believe that there are now four homelands. The nationality of these poor wretches is attributed to those homelands but there is no foreign office, no means of getting a passport, no taxation system. They are just areas largely of scrub where people are required to live without any possibility of earning a living. Needless to say, those people who are supposed to live there do not do so. They return to the conurbations and their homes are systematically destroyed. It is a situation which requires a masterly approach from some masterly statesman who can influence that tiny, selfish, silly community to realise that it is committing suicide.
I do not believe that sanctions will produce the result necessary, nor that the Government could dismantle apartheid. I do not think it is within their power. If they tried to do so effectively then a more Right-wing and more poisonous government would

953
replace them. That is what I believe. However, that does not alter the fact that we have a duty to continue to urge upon these 3 million people the desperate necessity of submitting to important changes. That is our duty and it is what should take place.
I was appalled at the reaction of some of the white people towards the blacks, and the things they say about an heroic figure like Bishop Tutu. Whatever view one may take of his accent—and some might think that it is a little peculiar—the fact remains that he is one of the heroes of this age. He is living a life of great danger, the resentment against him is principally because he has the right to live in a palace in a select white area in Cape Town. What people said about him, the rancour and the viciousness of the utterances about this man, indicated the insecurity of the people concerned.
I urge upon us all the necessity to see this as an immensely serious international situation. It is necessary to use every possible means to urge upon the 3 million people—and I do not think it is more than 3 million who need to be convinced—that they are living in a world with a time bomb that will explode at any moment. That is my reaction.
I agree very much with what the two previous speakers said except that the noble Lord preceding me took the view that it was not possible to form any opinion because of the racial differentiation. It is very easy to say that because the 30 million or 40 million who are being oppressed, as far as the blacks are concerned, constitute nine different races (Asians, Indians and so forth), one can then justify the oppression and torture of them all. That is a very feeble argument indeed. We have a duty to urge and to continue to urge reasonable behaviour. I hope it may be possible for that urging to take effect before there is an explosion which will be too horrible to contemplate.
3.48 p.m
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am afraid that we are already over-running our time but I shall try to redress the balance if that is at all possible. I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, not only for his speech but for the opportunity he has given us to discuss this vital, burning question. I wish to a certain extent to follow the fine speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and direct the attention of noble Lords to human rights, a matter which is very much in our minds. In the subsequent short debate it will take up more of our time, I am sure to our benefit.
I do not think we realise sufficently what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, realises full well—the total disregard of human rights that exists in South Africa. It is something on which Her Majesty's Government quite rightly lay great stress. The Prime Minister herself has made some very cogent remarks about it. I hope that she will realise that human rights are ignored and spurned not only in some of the communist and other countries but also in South Africa itself. I shall give an example of that. Some 20 years ago I was invited—that is rather a mild word, as I was very nearly ordered—by the then Prime Minister John Vorster, with whom I had a curious
954
and somewhat close personal relationship, to visit Robben Island, and particularly to see Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners there. He invited me because there had been a great deal in the British press about the appalling conditions in which those people were kept. He wanted me to see how very well they were kept.
I spent a day there and I was shown round everything that I wanted to see. I had talks with several of the people there, including Mandela and Sobukwe. I came away with the very firm impression that the South African Government were convinced they were treating those people well—one could almost say humanely—but they did not really regard them as human beings. It reminded me very much of the kind of visits I used to pay in my youth with my father to various people who were considered modern landowners and modern farmers in those days. They used to show me their pigs. They used to tell me how well they kept their pigs. They used to say to me, "Look, they have so many cubic feet of air. They have balanced rations. A veterinary surgeon comes once a month to look after their health. They cannot be kept in better conditions." That was precisely the way in which those political prisoners were kept. They had medical inspections, they had clean concrete cells, balanced rations and so on. But they were treated as we would treat our rather valuable animals, but not as we would treat or consider treating human beings.
That is borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, that the majority of at least the Afrikaners, certainly the majority of those who control policy in South Africa, simply do not regard the blacks, or indeed the coloureds, as human beings. They regard them as something entirely different who, if one is liberal minded, one treats kindly but who one does not treat as belonging to the human race. Until we accept that and until we realise that it is the denial of human rights that is at issue—I put the accent on the word "human" rather than the word "rights"—we can never understand what is going on in the Republic of South Africa at the present time.
Millions of people are denied the most fundamental of human rights—the right to enjoy life, the right to develop their own capabilities and personalities, even the right to live with their wives and children, and the right to enjoy the normal type of civilised society and intellectual pursuits that we take for granted here. That is the great denial of human rights which is going on today in South Africa, and which is being imposed on the vast majority of those 30 million people who are living there. It is no good saying that people go to that country of their own free will, that they earn good money and send it back to their families; they are not being treated as human beings.
I now wish to draw very briefly to the attention of noble Lords the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, when he said, quite rightly, that whatever happens in South Africa the blacks are ill-prepared to take over not only the government of the country but the running of the country. The same thing applies of course not only to South Africa but also to Mozambique, Angola and, above all, to Namibia. I wish here to pay tribute to the painstaking and

955
lengthy work of Dr. Chester Crocker who, after many rebuffs and many disappointments, has at last produced something about which, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has doubts—of course we must have our doubts about it—we must happily admit is a very gret step forward both for Angola and for Namibia.
However, in all these countries—South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique—there is a whole mass of people of innate intelligence and innate capabilities. They have been born with those capabilities and endowed with them. They have received God given gifts which they are not now able to develop because of the educational facilities, which are virtually non-existent in so many of those countries, from the lowest level of literacy or numeracy up to the higher levels of technological capabilities in university training and other forms of education.
Here there is something that we can do. It is something which I believe is completely non-controversial. I hope it is something which will gain the support of your Lordships and, possibly more importantly, of Her Majesty's Government. I suggest that we could take active steps to help people from all those areas, and particularly those from Namibia and South Africa, to pursue some form of higher education—not very high, necessarily—in this country which will enable them, when eventually the time comes, to play their full part, whether it is in promoting new agricultural techniques, in carrying out research, or in keeping the electrical services, the telephone services, the legal services and all the services of government itself running properly. We hope that that time is not far distant in Namibia or Angola, although it is much farther distant in South Africa.
We could help produce a whole cadre of trained people. That is essential for whenever that transition may come about. By giving a modest amount of money in this country to enable such people to come over here and gain some training—they would, of course, be suitably selected people—we would do far more to help the future development of that sad troubled area of the wonderful continent of Africa than by any debates in your Lordships' House or elsewhere. I say that with the greatest respect.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to give serious thought to my suggestion as a positive contribution towards the well-being of all those countries. I urge them to give not only serious thought to it, but also hard cash to enable that to be carried out, and to be carried out immediately.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, this is a very timely debate and I pay tribute to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Hatch, and particularly to the humanity of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I wish to restrict my contribution to the country of Mozambique. It is a country with which I have had a long association. That association dates back to many years before its independence, when I used to speak in your Lordships' House in support of the
956
liberation movement which was then called FRELIMO.
It has been a very happy association, largely because of the deep humanity and the spirit of international friendship which characterises the leadership of Mozambique. It has also been happy because of Mozambique's unswerving commitment to a non-racial, non-tribalist society where people of all races, all religions, all cultures and all language groups can develop, thrive and build up the country together. That is the dream which we have for a nonracial South Africa.
However, that is very much a reality in Mozambique where, if one looks among the leadership one will find, for all that it matters, blacks, whites, Indians and those of mixed race. But the point is that it does not matter at all. It is the quality of one's contribution and not the colour of one's skin which counts.
It has also been an association beset by much tragedy. I recall with deep sorrow the late president Samora Machel, one of the great leaders of Africa. A true friend of this country, he commanded the respect of conservatives and socialists alike. Noble Lords opposite may recall his deep friendship with the late Lord Soames.
He was killed with other leaders of Mozambique in October 1986 when his plane crashed into a South African hillside. The black-box transcripts revealed that his plane was lured off course by a decoy beacon. The overwhelming inference from many suspicious features of the crash is that his death was engineered by some agency of the South African state.
President Samora had a deep love of children. He spoke of them as the flowers that never fade. He would say that the certainty of a better tomorrow lay with them. In the early years following independence huge strides were made in Mozambique in providing nursery schools, crêches and schools where the children and youth of the country could develop in ways which were unthinkable under colonial rule.
The overwhelming tragedy of Mozambique is that those children have become the deliberate targets of a terrorist campaign of unspeakable brutality. It is horrifying that that terrorist campaign has been created and is waged as the chosen strategy of the South African military forces.
In developing this theme I am very anxious to speak in a non-partisan spirit. While I share the deep disagreement expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, with the central elements of the Government's policy on South Africa, I should be the first to recognise that the Government have responded to Mozambique's call for help with concrete assistance and with co-operation on many fronts. On that aspect of the southern African situation I hope that political opponents can come together constructively to stop the brutality.
Horror and brutality are not exaggerated words. The terrorists of the co-called MNR, whom the people of Mozambique call armed bandits, have no political programme. They massacre whole villages; they destroy health clinics, schools and hospitals; they ambush civilian buses and food lorries; they destroy crops and cause whole populations to

957
become refugees; they mutilate civilian administrators by cutting off their ears and noses. They terrorise and kidnap the children, children as young as 11 and 12, to enlist them into their ranks and force them to become killers or, if they do not co-operate, to kill them.
Mrs. Graca Machel, the Minister of Education and widow of the late president, has taken special responsibility for the rehabilitation of the children who survive those massâcres or who manage to escape from the terrorist camps. British medical experts are among those who are helping her. The stories that they can tell would make all of your Lordships weep.
Why is that happening? Do not make the mistake of thinking that it is some haphazard form of barbarity. There is clear proof that the so-called MNR, originally created by the Rhodesian security forces, was taken over on the independence of Zimbabwe by the South African military. It is the South African military which has trained, armed, supplied, transported and in effect commanded the MNR. The documents captured at the Gorongoza base inside Mozambique in 1985 proved that active support from the South African military continued despite the agreement signed in Nkomati in 1984 between South Africa and Mozambique. That support continues to this day.
It is wrong to say that South Africa merely supports the MNR. The MNR is an integral part of the strategy of the South African defence forces. Those elements of the apartheid regime which pursue that strategy of sowing misery and devastation in Mozambique do so because they want to prevent the emergence of a successful, non-racial African state along their borders, a state which might be too fine an example for the South African people themselves. There can be no real peace or security in Mozambique or in any of the other front-line states until the system of apartheid is overthrown. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch on that point.
People are dying in Mozambique now. There are strategies to defend Mozambique which can be pursued now and on which I hope that we can find some common ground. First, we can maintain and increase the aid which goes from the United Kingdom to Mozambique, both governmental and non-governmental aid, both direct aid and aid through the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC). The government aid already includes military assistance in the training of the Mozambique forces. That is absolutely right. We should recognise that Mozambique has the right to, and the desperate need for, materials for its self-defence against aggression. However, the overall scale of the aid does not meet the needs of the situation.
Secondly, we should be exposing the nature and the causes of terrorism in Mozambique. It is a challenge, as great as the challenge of Nazism in the 1930s, to the civilised world to unite in action to stop the outward aggression of a vicious regime. President Samora Machel himself in a memorable phrase described apartheid as the Nazism of our time.
958
There are elements within the South African leadership which I believe wish, even while maintaining their own supremacy, to have good neighbourly relations and economic co-operation with Mozambique as against the brutal and confrontational policies and in particular the policies of the military. By taking a firm position, by giving a lead within Europe, by giving a lead to the new United States' Administration, the British Government can, I believe, play a significant part in helping to stop the aggression even if one could wish that they did more to help stop apartheid itself.
Thirdly, we should have no truck with the representatives of terrorism when they come to Europe. If we are consistent in our stand against terrorism we should be excluding from our country those people who come here from the so-called MNR to seek and sometimes to receive support for their terrorism. They receive it from certain shameful individuals and organisations in this country. At a major conference at which I was present in Bonn last weekend a leading Mozambique representative made this call:
"The peoples of southern Africa are fulfilling their duty to fight apartheid directly. Compared with what they have to suffer, they do not ask much of you: only that you help stop those forces which, in your countries, connive with the holocaust which apartheid has unleashed".
I urge your Lordships, and especially I urge the Government, to heed that appeal.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the end of apartheid is an almost universal goal but I should like to discuss whether sanctions and disinvestment are likely to bring that about and what they will achieve if they are successful.
There seem to be three schools of thought that advocate sanctions. First, there are those well-meaning people, frustrated by the continued injustice of apartheid, who seize on sanctions for a quick result. They see sanctions as the last possible peaceful alternative to revolution. While they believe that they can produce a quick result, they pay little attention to the mechanism by which that goal is to be achieved. They ignore the essential nature of the South African problem, the struggle for political power among all the competing elements within the country whether they be black and black, white and white or coloured.
The second school of thought doubts the effectiveness of sanctions but wishes to satisfy its conscience with a moral statement and wants to get on the right side of history. The third school is based on the idea of attrition. More realistically they realise that sanctions alone will not induce a powerful and very determined regime to relinquish control or even to share power. Sanctions are advocated as an adjunct to other forms of pressure, including armed struggle, but permanent damage to the economy is accepted as the price to be paid. When confronted with the apparent lack of progress they all argue for tougher measures, more to satisfy their consciences than in the expectation of success.
Should the impoverishment of the South African economy by sanctions actually succeed in ushering in black rule, the new black government could find itself

959
confronted not only with the appalling legacy of apartheid—under-development, urbanisation, population growth with many of the tribes at each other's throats but they would face an economic wasteland from which there would be little hope of recovery. That government would be unable to satisfy the expectations of their followers and would be doomed to instability. The end result would not be democracy but a different form of deprivation and repression, as we have seen in almost every other African state, and almost certainly tribal warfare.
What has in fact happened in the two years since the United States and the European Community introduced their measures? The laws of supply and demand have led to the growth of the South African armaments industry and they are now major exporters, following the united arms boycott of 1977. The embargo on oil has led to successful synthetic fuel production. International disinvestment has allowed delighted whites to pick up businesses at knock-down prices. While black employees benefit from the black advancement policies of the multinationals, it remains to be seen whether they will fare as well under their new masters in conditions of unemployment.
As their economy reduces, we can be sure that the 40 per cent. of Afrikaners who work for the government or the agencies will be all right. Jobs for bureaucrats will surely be protected. The people who will suffer—and I do not think there is any disagreement about this—are the black Africans. They will become unemployed and poorer. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the companies which have withdrawn have not reestablished themselves in neighbouring states. That is a recognition that there is no way to stimulate the economy of the southern African continent if the hub is in decline.
So sanctions in South Africa are sanctions against the whole of southern Africa, and no amount of aid will redress the growth and prosperity that has been sacrificed. Blacks will also suffer in other ways than by losing jobs. For example, two years ago Baragwanath Hospital had all the capital equipment that it needed. With disinvestment and reduced support, it is now falling back and will increasingly be less able to care for the health of all the blacks in South Africa, and indeed all the blacks in all of southern Africa, as it did before.
Yet while the Western world urges more sanctions, there is a startling uniformity against sanctions by most blacks. No more than a quarter of those who have been polled recently were prepared to support economic sanctions if they involved significant loss of jobs. Of 1,000 coal miners canvassed, 70 per cent. did not believe in sanctions.
What, then, is the answer? If we want to see the emergence of a democratic and prosperous South Africa the last thing that is needed is the impoverishment of the black population, particularly at a time when their skills will be increasingly needed to contribute to the running of the country. Black impoverishment achieves exactly the opposite of what is needed for black equality.
960
What is needed is black empowerment, and this implies that the greater their economic stake the more influence they can wield. This can happen only with greater black participation in skills, professions and management; and this can happen only with increased education, training and jobs. The essential need for their contribution would make their demands irresistible, and that is exactly what was starting to happen. Companies were adopting equal opportunity of promotion, with special help for blacks. New black businesses were appearing. For example, eight years ago there were few black taxis but since then black entrepreneurs have built up a taxi business in face of opposition by the state. There are now over 100,000 black taxis, employing directly or indirectly over 300,000 black people. There are many black businesses and even a sprinkling of black millionaires.
Those who work are better off than they are in most other black African countries that I have seen; and I have also seen Crossroads and been through it. The situation is dreadful but is the kind of situation that can be seen in every other African country, and also in Hong Kong. The only difference is that outside Crossroads the government have now built standpipes, lavatories, and so on, so that the conditions in Crossroads can be improved.
Ten years ago black trades unionism was launched by the Wiehahn Commission, and now unions and employees negotiate deals over a wide area beyond just wages. There is therefore a nascent industrial democracy at the heart of South Africa's economy. Great political progress has been made in the past 10 years, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said they were just touching at it. Sport is multiracial; job reservation has been abolished; public transport is about to be integrated; marriage laws were repealed in 1985; the Immorality Act has been scrapped; property ownership by blacks in townships was allowed; property ownership in grey areas is about to be allowed; the pass laws have gone; central business areas are multiracial; there are no curfews in the towns and it is illegal to attempt to reintroduce them. Political parties are open to all races, and there have been many other reforms. More and more housing areas are becoming grey areas, and the government are turning a blind eye.
However, once again the party in power has moved to moderation, too slowly for the world, maybe, but faster than their electors will stand. A Right-wing party has emerged to try to put the clock back, just as the Nationalist Party did in their own day. Even petty apartheid is coming up again. The world must accept a slow pace if it wishes to see continued progress and success in the end. We must accept South Africa and its voters as they are, and not as we would wish them to be. If South Africa is further isolated and its communities become further polarised, the gains will be lost. The influence of the unions, with smaller support bases, will shrink. Indeed, the Conservative Party policy includes the total banning of all black unions.
This is not to suggest that one man, one vote can ever be practical. Apart from wildcat leaders, more realistic, educated blacks realise that that would be tribal disaster. It would also be foolish to ignore that

961
white security is a precondition for black liberation. Greater black economic power is the surest route for full black political power in South Africa, but it is something that has to take time. The experience of the past 15 years has shown that black people can act to change their own situation. It is nothing short of racist for the world to deprive black South Africans of their most potent—weapon—economic power—by imposing sanctions and thereby deliberately imposing on them poverty, hardship and permanent political impotence.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, in the debate on foreign affairs following the most gracious Speech at the opening of Parliament, several noble Lords drew attention to the slowly improving international scene. It was suggested there were signs that certain long-term problems seemed to be moving forward, though perhaps not yet to the point of solution. Developments which 12 months ago were almost unimaginable are now taking place and are opening up the possibilities of fruitful consequences. President Gorbachev's speech and that of Mr. Arafat foreshadow such changes, but, in my view, it is not possible to exclude developments in southern Africa which may also be a prelude to beneficial change. There are undeniable signs of movement, and in the last few months we have seen meetings between President Botha and important black African leaders on the west coast of the continent, in central Africa and on the east coast.
The first steps have been taken to resolve the problems of Angola and Namibia. These have come with surprising speed and would have been considered impossible under the present Nationalist government only a few months ago. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the Namibia settlement is not foolproof. However, I believe that, having reached this point, it will be extremely difficult to go backwards. Actions have also taken place within the republic that suggest a new approach to some selected political prisoners; but I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the conditions within the country that the visitor sees—I have not been there for the past five years—are appalling, and one cannot fail to be shocked, just as the noble Lord was shocked. I think that the conditions are so unacceptable that in the end they will prove impossible to sustain.
I believe that the people of South Africa, black and white, want to solve their own problems. South Africa does not belong either to the black race or to the white race. Both have shameful episodes in their past when white has fought against white, black against black, and black and white against each other. I believe that the time is coming when the two races will eventually come to terms, and it may not be as distant as some speakers have suggested. It cannot be denied that among the younger generation there are signs that they are coming together. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, (who is to speak later) will be very authoritative on that point.
Thoughtful people in both black and white races understand that the full potential of the country cannot be developed without co-operation between
962
the races. They know in their heart of hearts that the clock cannot be put back. When speaking to white South Africans, I sometimes think that they do not reveal what their innermost thoughts are. They know that the time has come for change; they may not say it openly, but they know it in their heart of hearts.
In regard to Namibia, the Americans and the Russians have both done a great job. They have done it not by crude pressure on one side rather than on the other, but by the persuasion of both sides. Clumsy pressures like mandatory sanctions, so freely spoken of, are not the way. Those who favour sanctions are those who are least affected by them. Japan and Germany are now South Africa's largest trading partners, and no doubt will continue to trade. I believe that new efforts by the Commonwealth and even by the United States will be without constructive effect. There may come a time when Her Majesty's Government individually can play a role. Our influence in South Africa is traditional and remains strong. We should be alert for the right time to use it in a constructive and even-handed way. Above all, we must maintain direct and close contact with the South African Government in order to see how we can be helpful. Attempts from outside to force the pace without a real understanding of the depths of the problem can only fail.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing the Motion. I have one problem in trying to assimilate what he said about some of the great difficulties that he sees facing the British Government, and indeed everyone generally, in coming to a satisfactory solution of the situation in South Africa. He made certain assumptions that I found very difficult to follow in statements about the reactions of the Prime Minister to certain situations and reactions to what has been going on in negotiations with other territories. He may have a great deal more knowledge than I possess. It seems to me that such difficulties would be known to those people in the Foreign Office currently engaged in the business of dealing with the South African situation.
Apart from that, there is not very much else that I wish to say. I want to speak briefly and get what I have to say over fairly quickly. Most speakers have already adopted a 10-minute standard in their speeches and one or two have exceeded the allotted time. I do not wish to deprive any noble Lord of the opportunity to speak.
I have a view about British overseas colonial policy. I propose to defend that policy from my experience as a colonial officer of 30 years' service in Malaysia. In my view the policy was similar for all territories on their way to independence, a fair and humane policy of general application.
In recent times it has seemed to me that when an independent country gets into difficulties—and there are difficulties when an independent country governs its territory and anything goes wrong in the country, there is a tendency to attack British policy or former colonial policies and to blame Britain for what is happening. It is a great pity that we cannot be a little more careful in what we say in answer to those

963
criticisms in the speeches that we make and avoid the deafening silence which seems to be the policy that follows such a situation.
South Africa is of course in a somewhat different situation in application from other territories granted independence. For many years it has had its own Parliament—indeed, many years before many countries post-war were even granted independence. It has its own Prime Minister, whose residence was Groote Schuur in Cape Town, a house that I visited. Nevertheless, because of the Boer influence, there have been difficulties in recent years between that country and other countries in regard to what has happened in South Africa. There was our war with the Boers, which took place prior to the First World War. In the Second World War South Africa was our ally, and it was General Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa, who had a seat in the British War Cabinet and was an outstanding leader in that connection.
Of course, apartheid or separate development is a policy of the present South African Government under President Botha and is to be entirely deplored. Nevertheless, I do not believe that sanctions against South Africa would succeed in removing apartheid, quite apart from the fact that if they were imposed they would hit the poorer elements of the black community in two ways, and very heavily: first, by denying to a very large element of black Africans who travel annually from countries such as Zambia employment at higher wages than they command elsewhere; and secondly, by depressing the economy. Sanctions were not successful when imposed against Italy prior to the Second World War. That is going back some time, but it is debatable whether sanctions always succeed.
It has also seemed to me that President Botha in recent months has moved at least some of the way to placate criticism levelled against him by his commutation of the death sentence against the Sharpeville Six. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, felt that it was quite unreasonable for the life sentence to remain against them. I agree with that observation to some extent.
It has been suggested that President Botha acted in that way because he does not wish Mr. Mandela to become a martyr, which would be the case if Mr. Mandela dies in an African prison. It is said that he would release him on that count.
From my experience of Britain's attitude towards overseas territories and taking any decision which may affect their future, it has always been honourably concerned that there should be individuals in the country capable of governing and that others not governing would suffer by Britain's departure. In other words, the criteria was not to give independence too quickly and to ensure that the country concerned would be well governed before Britain's departure.
Three years ago at the time of Remembrance Day in Malaysia, I was asked by Her Majesty's Government to go to Singapore to honour the colonial servants who had died as a result of incarceration in Changi gaol. I was one of the
964
prisoners in the gaol. Terrible torture had been inflicted upon the inhabitants and oppression of the people had been a subject for our Government in Singapore.
The reason for my visit must be brought to the attention of your Lordships. If the people outside the gaol had any reason not to like our colonial policies they would never have risked their lives to ensure that an organisation was set up in order to obtain funds to supply prisoners with various items. We were able to set up wireless sets in the gaol and every night we listened to the broadcasts of the BBC. They kept alive people who would otherwise have died because they knew only to well that, if the BBC was able to broadcast our failures and defeats in the war, when the victory came and it broadcast the news it was telling the truth. I believe that that story is worth telling under the present circumstances.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important and topical subject. I should dearly like to touch on every country in the region but the time constraints of a short debate necessitate my remarks being confined to the southern half of southern Africa.
Seventeen months ago I forecast publicly that to increase vituperation and punitive sanctions against South Africa would, far from pushing white voters in a more liberal direction as was naively hoped, have precisely the opposite effect and boost the electoral furtunes of the far Right. So it has proved to be.
One of the main problems is that people in Europe and North America do not understand what the terms "Left" and "Right" mean in the South African context. In western Europe and Australasia—in North America the position may be slighly different—by and large those who are well off vote for Right of centre parties. By and large those who are less well off vote for Left of centre parties. In South Africa the position is precisely the reverse as regards white voters. Admittedly the comparison is complicated by the fact that in South Africa Right-wing parties believe in state intervention and subsidy, whereas Left-wing parties believe in Thatcherite free-market economics. In other respects the terms "Left" and "Right" mean the same as elsewhere.
Whites who live in large houses in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, or the more salubrious parts of Cape Town or Newlands, surrounded by immaculate lawns and high walls, normally vote for liberal parties. The less well-off whites who live cheek by jowl in bungalows normally vote for Right-wing parties. For a fuller picture of that section of the population—the poorer whites—I commend most highly to your Lordships an article by A. R. Kenny published in the Spectator on 5th September 1987, and an article by Stephen Robinson published in the Daily Telegraph magazine on 22nd October 1988. Incidentally, the poorer the whites, the more Right-wing they are.
The reason for that voting pattern is not that the better off are more altruistic, although they may well be, but the fact that they judge that there is a

965
reasonable chance of their continuing to do well—in a few cases, very well—under a black government. The future of their children and grandchildren is another matter, but at least the present generation will probably be all right.
In total contrast the less-educated and less-skilled whites fear that their futures will be very bleak indeed under a black government. Bearing in mind what has happened to their counterparts in other parts of the African continent over the past 35 years, who can blame them?
Let us not forget, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, mentioned, that the families of most of those people have been in South Africa for over 300 years. They are not gastarbeiter to be sent packing when their utility is at an end.
Incidentally, that shows how half-baked are the proposals of certain eminent politicians in this country to ban intercontinental flights from Europe to South Africa in order to punish the Right-wingers. Most Right-wingers have never ventured outside South Africa; they do not particularly wish to do so and many cannot afford to do so.
The threat that they perceive arises not because of any xenophobia on the part of black leaders, although some of their followers may well be xenophobic, but because of the terrible population explosion in southern Africa. There are far too many people chasing far too few jobs: this in the coming age of the micro-chip. There is massive concealed unemployment in South Africa in the form of overmanning; whenever I am there I am always struck by the fact that it takes eight people to do a job which three people could do easily in this country. However, given the well-known revolution of rising expectations, it is likely that, given a black government, the black electorate would press for still higher pay, and that would inevitably be at the expense of jobs.
Given the realities of the perceptions of the blue collar whites, it will be difficult to reverse the Right-wing backlash that we have seen. But at least the West can refrain from exacerbating the situation, and making the Right-wingers even more vicious, by constantly trying to undermine both the present Government and President Botha.
Irascible and difficult he may well be, but at least over the past 10 years President Botha has been responsible for more beneficial reforms than most previous South African governments put together. That includes the government of the much revered Jan Smuts. Furthermore he has presided over a massive increase in the real wages of the black population.
When I first visited South Africa 23 years ago the idea of a black consumer boycott was an absolute joke. The purchasing power of the blacks was so tiny that it would have had no effect whatever. Now collectively the black population has a massive purchasing power. On a per capita basis it is nothing like as high as that of the whites or the Asians but it is increasing all the time. To pursue a boycott such as we have seen recently in the Transvaal really hurts. It is effective and the kind of boycott I believe the West
966
should be glad to see as a means of shifting government opinion.
Yet President Botha is pilloried in the West as some kind of bloodthirsty, sadistic dictator who eats babies for breakfast. But many of his kith and kin regard him as a pale pink, wet, wishy-washy, liberal do-gooder, and a potential traitor to boot. To someone of his age it is hardly an incentive to go on trying very hard.
It is true that the National Party often gives the impression of not being sure where it is going: It muddles along hoping that somehow it will he all right on the night. In this respect I often feel that the Right-wing parties, for all their narrow-mindedness, their mean-mindedness and their frequent viciousness sometimes have a more intuitive grasp of the long-term realities than do the parties to the left of them.
On the African continent, power flows from the barrel of a gun, as indeed it does in most of the Asian continent, a good deal of the South American continent and the eastern part of the European continent. Treaties, guarantees, bills of rights, and other scraps of paper do not mean very much in the long term. For minorities to survive—and I do not mean in this instance only the white blue collar minority—at least some degree of autonomy is needed, together, with some territorial base where people can feel secure and relaxed even if they normally work elsewhere—all this within a customs union, a common currency area, with an integrated transport system, agreement on control of epidemics and so on.
An excellent example of the degree of autonomy and self-determination that is already to be found in southern Africa, is in Bophuthatswana. Bophuthatswana's enemies claim that it is not really self-governing because it called in South African troops to put down an attempted coup. But so did Lesotho and I do not think that anybody claims that Lesotho is not an independent country.
Naturally one understands why Her Majesty's Government believe that the diplomatic disadvantages of recognising Bophuthatswana outweigh the moral rectitude of such a course. But that should not prevent Members of both Houses of Parliament of all political parties, from going to Bophuthatswana to see for themselves. In particular I should like my noble friend Lord Goodman to do so. I think that he would have the surprise of his life. It is certainly not the barren land full of poverty-stricken people that he supposes. I should say that those who go there will be made very welcome and shown everything that they want to see—good, bad or indifferent. Unless their minds were hermetically sealed before departure, I guarantee that they would be extremely impressed by all the good things that are going on there.
4.42 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for instituting this debate. I should like to make one comment on what he said about the withdrawal of the South African army from Angola. He gave various reasons. I should

967
like to add one more. It is the death of white South African soldiers in Angola, to which I do not think he referred. From my observations in South Africa that is the reason, above all others, why the Afrikaner in the street was getting fed up with the role in Angola. I believe that is a fact; and I should like to add that for the purposes of the record.
The present situation in South Africa has been described very eloquently and effectively. I do not wish to add to that in any way. I should like primarily to look to the future and make certain comments on it. I believe, as I am sure we all do, that one day the hated apartheid and the white supremacy in South Africa must come to an end, if only for reasons of numbers or whatever.
First, on the question of talking, I am sure that we are all agreed that for people with opposing views to talk is very much better than to fight. My noble friend Lord Elibank talked about the disunity among the blacks. This is one of the problems that I see at the present moment, which is greatly fostered by the South African Government. They do not want the black leaders from different groups to get together and to build personal relationships with each other. I believe that that is a factor that should be encouraged by any means possible. The South African Government do not want to talk to all the different black leaders. However, I believe that there are ways in which black leaders can meet together.
I am not sure whether the Minister can offer us any encouragement on this or whether the British Government are able to provide opportunities for black leaders from different groups to meet together and to talk. I believe that it is one of the most fundamental things that should be happening at the present time. Perhaps I should mention to the Minister, having just come back from the Far East, how glad I was to hear his personal praises being sung there for his efforts on the work he is doing out there.
Secondly—on a point that has been touched upon—the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, spoke of preparing Namibians, and other noble Lords have talked about the question of preparing black leaders in South Africa, for the future. I believe that disinvestment has set back the preparation of black managers who were working in British-owned companies. But there are still quite a number of British companies out there with influence. I believe that we in this House should be doing all we can to encourage them to train black managers for the future.
Thirdly, I wish to talk about the question of what will happen when people from differing groups in South Africa meet together to talk about a possible settlement. We know that we probably have a greater experience in this than any other country. The UK Government played a very great part in reaching a settlement in Zimbabwe. Of course the decisions will need to be taken by the South Africans themselves when the time comes. On the other hand, there will be a great need for balanced ideas and programmes to be put forward for consideration. A settlement in South Africa will be far more complicated than most others that have ever been considered by Her Majesty's
968
Government. There are questions that will be raised and programmes that will have to be agreed not only on the consitutional settlement of South Africa but also on such questions as land reform, the economy, the future ownership and management of industry and how agriculture will be treated in a multiracial society. An enormous amount of work will need to be done before these problems are resolved.
Noble Lords may say that I am being overoptimistic in thinking that this is the time for any consideration of these questions. However, time has the facility of racing ahead. We do not know what will trigger the need for a settlement. We are not there yet; but it could come very quickly. There are very experienced people in your Lordships' House who, for instance, have been Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister. My question to the Minister is this. Are Her Majesty's Government, however informally, giving any thought to what could be done when the time comes for a settlement of all the enormously complicated and vitally important issues that will need to be resolved?
4.49 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I too wish to join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing today's debate. I believe that I am the only one among your Lordships who has spent almost all his life in South Africa. I have spent a total of 29 years there; I am now a proud 31 years old.
Indeed, today's debate comes at a very critical period. It comes at a time when there is crucial economic and political change evolving in southern Africa and against the following major movements of the past four months. We heard recently of the agreements about the withdrawal of Cuban and South African forces from Angola. We also have the likely agreement which could lead to the independence for Namibia and free and fair elections—which I might add are long overdue.
It also follows on the recent moves by the South Africans to normalise their relations with their neighbours, specifically the recent meeting between President Botha and President Chissano of Mozambique. Indeed, in South Africa it also closely followed on the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six and the release of certain political prisoners. Of course we all hope for the ultimate unconditional release of Nelson Mandela.
Finally it follows on the recent local elections in South Africa which saw the expected increase in the Right-wing pro-apartheid movements in the Transvaal. Indeed, the future and prosperity of South Africa hinge to a large degree on a lasting peace accord in Namibia, Angola and Mozambique and obviously an acceptable socio-economic and political resolve in South Africa incorporating all population groups.
I am well aware of the time restraints on this evening's debate and in preparing my speech I picked out a few of what I believe to be the major themes dominating the southern African situation. First and foremost, there is the inevitability of black majority rule in South Africa. There is the need for free and

969
fair elections throughout southern Africa, the interdependence of South Africa in southern Africa and a change in Soviet foreign policy and, more specifically, its influence in reducing tension in the region. I believe that that is a very major issue in the current developments in southern Africa. Finally, there is the choice between evolutionary or revolutionary change in South Africa.
My main theme is the inevitability of black majority rule in South Africa. One main cause for the stalemate in South Africa, apart from the obstacles of legislative apartheid, is the lack of strong unity on both sides of the dividing line. I speak here of the divisions within the Afrikaner Nationalist Group. Those divisions have only really developed over the past five years. I categorise them into two groupings. I call them the 1,000-year Reich Nationalists, which are the AWB (Afrikaans Weerstand Beweging) and the convervatives, the more moderate element, the aprés nous le deluge element, those who believe that the status quo will continue for their lifetimes but perhaps not for their children's. I believe that that is important to note. So often people speak about South Africa and the wicked Afrikaners who think that the situation will continue for the rest of their lifetime. There has definitely been a change in attitudes in South Africa.
One other aspect worth noting is on the other side of the dividing line; that is, the rivalry between the Zulu "Inkhata movement and the UDF.
Clearly the reform programme in South Africa has come to a literal standstill over the past year. To a large degree that has been a result of the Conservative Party becoming the official opposition and the reluctance of the Nationalist Party to forge ahead with their reform programme for fear that they might lose vital white votes.
However, as your Lordships are aware, next year there is likely to be another general election in South Africa. In terms of the constitution of the tricameral legislature, provision has been made for elections to be held before the end of 1989. Indeed, over the past year the South Africans have emphasised their efforts to normalise their relations with the southern African states. Clearly no matter what the Government in Pretoria do, they will fail to achieve success without the consent of the black population. For that reason I remain sceptical about the success of the Regional Services Councils. I support the idea of Regional Services Councils because that effectively is a phasing in of black power at local municipal levels, but until such time as the ANC is unbanned in South Africa those Regional Service Councils, I am afraid, are doomed to failure.
In fact I believe that Nelson Mandela will be unconditionally released, but only after the general election. What is more, I believe that President Botha will be resoundly returned to power and many whites in South Africa will be surprised at how the Right-wing has effectively shot itself in the foot. I mention that because of—and I can describe it in no other wayéthe disgusing behaviour in Boksburg where the Conservative Party, after coming to power in the recent local elections, re-imposed petty apartheid with "whites only" and "non-whites only" signs.
970
There we have seen an emergence of a very powerful weapon, the black consumer public. The boycotting of white businesses in Boksburg has effectively brought business there to an almost total standstill. I believe that that is an effective means of bringing about meaningful change to retarding the retrogressive measures of apartheid.
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was the first Prime Minister of the first colony to become independent in the early 1960s. His premise was that political freedom was the first ideal and that economic prosperity would follow. I beg to differ on this point.
Here, I wish to raise the issue of sanctions. We can argue for hours about sanctions but I simply ask whether economic sanctions work. I do not believe that they do. Certainly there is no quick fix. I hear the counter argument: What peaceful alternative is there to show the international community's disdain for the system of apartheid? I argue that targeted sanctions have worked. I bear in mind the Gleneagles Agreement. I am a very keen sportsman and something which hurt me most was when we were cut off from playing sport with the international community. Certainly the Gleneagles Agreement has brought about multi-racial sport. However I must add that now that there is multi-racial sport, there is no encouragement about when the South Africans will again be able to play sport with the international community. I believe that that is a great shame.
Economic sanctions can only hurt the very people whom they aim to help. I believe that the threat of sanctions is the most powerful weapon. That has had a profound psychological impact on the business community. However, in reality, economic sanctions have only served to polarise the white vote.
We now need to revert to my major theme; that is, the inevitability of black majority rule in South Africa. Do the sanctions lobbyists want South Africa to degenerate into an economic wasteland? I refer to a recent speech given by Gavin Relly, the chairman of the Anglo-American Group. In a speech to a delegation in Bonn he said:
"Political stability presupposes economic prosperity and social order. If a future black-led government were to inherit a wasteland, it would never be able to fulfil the expectations of its followers, and would be doomed to instability and worse from the outset".
I believe that the only way that change can take place in South Africa is by building an atmosphere of mutual trust. But how can mutual trust be obtained in South Africa? I do not understand why the South Africans have this fetish about keeping legislative apartheid. I live in a multi-racial village and have done so for 14 years. We have always had a multiracial village atmosphere. It is a complete facade to claim what I heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, say, that the coloureds have to commute from 40 kilometres outside Capetown. Certainly Mitchell's Plain is 40 kilometres outside Capetown, but there are many areas in Capetown which are multi-racial.
Why does South Africa keep legislative apartheid? I feel strongly on that point. Surely now is the time to repeal the Group Areas Act, to unban the ANC; now when it has shown its initiatives in bringing about real change in South West Africa and, we hope, a peaceful solution ultimately to Angola. Now is the time.

971
A well-brandished theme among white South Africans is that white security is the precondition for black liberation. I believe that following the next elections in 1989 we shall possibly see the lifting of the state of emergency. We shall see the ultimate lifting of the Group Areas Act. History has proven that violence has never succeeded in bringing about lasting solutions.
I conclude by quoting a very dear friend, Alan Paton, who in his last book, Save the Beloved Country, wrote:
"The great problem which confronts white South Africans and their country today is whether they will be able to undo the damage of the Verwoerdian doctrine"—
Dr. Verwoerd was the architect of apartheid—
"and gain, to some extent at least, the trust and confidence of Black South Africa in the goodness of their intentions".
Bearing in mind the enormous interdependence of South Africa and southern Africa, if South Africa is allowed to degenerate into an economic wasteland the repercussions for southern Africa will be disastrous.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch has once again given us an opportunity to review the current scene in southern Africa. We are grateful to him for that and for his comprehensive speech. We have also had a most impressive debate with knowledgeable speeches from noble Lords who know southern Africa well.
References to southern Africa were, of course, made in the recent debate on the gracious Speech and we were glad to hear on the day of our debate on foreign affairs that the Sharpeville Six had been reprieved although, as my noble friend said, they were given long prison sentences—a punishment which on the evidence they did not deserve.
One could recite a grim catalogue of state repression, executions, indefensible sentencing and of cruelty on an ever-widening scale towards the native population. Those are the inevitable consequences of apartheid. As some diseases produce outward manifestations, so this wicked policy has its terrible results. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, described it so vividly in his splendid speech, it is an abomination. There is no defence for it and the Government have properly condemned it.
The Foreign Secretary described apartheid as,
"A violation of basic human rights and human dignity".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/88; col. 345].
He went on to say that the Government are working for the "unconditional release"—he stressed those words—of Nelson Mandela. Of course, we warmly welcome that. After 26 years in prison Mr. Mandela has arrived in a bungalow with a swimming pool but he is still a prisoner, as Mrs. Mandela has made plain with her usual courage. How can one begin to find excuses for so indefensible a government?
Noble Lords have welcomed the developments on Namibia. There is no doubt that the influence of the United States and the Soviet Union was crucial in achieving the draft statement. Well deserved
972
compliments have already been paid to Dr. Chester Crocker for his long and assiduous efforts. Namibia and Angola will certainly need all the help they can get as they begin to rebuild their countries after a long war and there are now real hopes that there may be a negotiated end to Angola's civil war. However, there is still a long way to go. As my noble friend Lord Hatch said, we welcome the signing yesterday by the South African, Angolan and Cuban governments of an agreement to implement United Nations' Resolution 435 on Namibian independence.
The noble Lords, Lord Elibank and Lord Gisborough, have both argued against sanctions. That is where we on this side differ from the Government. The Government stand virtually alone in the world, and that is something we must regret. They have insisted throughout that sanctions will not work while we and others, especially our Commonwealth partners, have taken a different view. But the accumulating evidence appears to support our arguments because South Africa is in increasing financial difficulty.
South Africa has substantial short-term debts to pay. I understand that in 1990–91 South Africa is due to repay 12 billion dollars—about half its export earnings—and it has other related problems of insoluble difficulty. However, the point I must make to the noble Lord is that these problems are compounded, are made more complex, because South Africa has no one to whom it can turn. The fact is that since 1986 there has been a 5 billion dollar net outflow of capital as foreign banks and corporations under pressure from countries which do not believe in apartheid have pulled out of South Africa. I should like to know the Government's reactions to that. Are they at last prepared to take a similar line to those countries?
Where can South Africa turn for financial salvation? Does the Minister think that the IMF or the World Bank can or will help? It does not seem that western credit agencies or foreign banks will bail them out. South Africa might get some help from Switzerland and possibly from West Germany but, for obvious reasons, I would be surprised if those two countries show a willingness to sustain the government in Pretoria. For the South African economy to survive at anything like its level of recent years it must have new foreign capital to stimulate its economic growth. There is a strongly growing view that the necessary capital will not be forthcoming unless there is a radical change in South Africa's political system.
That leads us to a point of the utmost significance: namely, that if this scenario is correct, sanctions of a kind are certainly working—and working steadily to a profoundly serious end for South Africa, black and white. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman said, sanctions are biting. What do the Government make of that? I believe that the Government should combine with our allies and others to ensure that this economic pressure is applied more strongly so that the changes which we, and they, want to see come about as soon a possible. Change through economic pressure is better than change through force of arms. The sooner it comes the more lives will be saved in southern Africa.

973
There are still those in British political life who seek to find excuses for the South African Government. We had a slight flavour of that in one or two of the speeches today. The bogey of Communism was raised. It was said that the South African Government have moved away from the worse excesses of apartheid and that, at the end of the day, Mr. Botha may be a moderate leader, and so on.
I wish I could believe that. I want to see the end of violence; I want to see a free multi-racial community with equality for black and white. But unhappily I do not see any light at the end of this tunnel, though I hope that my noble friend Lord Greenhill's more optimistic view is ultimately proved right.
Perhaps I may take one example and that is the attitude of the South African government towards newspapers. Last month it closed down the Weekly Mail, a liberal newspaper mostly read by middle class white people. The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Stoffel Botha, justified the action on the grounds that the newspaper systematically published material which caused a:
"threat to the public order".
That is rubbish because this particular paper has a circulation of only 25,000 among relatively well-to-do whites. This particular Mr. Botha has the power to close any newspaper for three months without redress or right of appeal. As noble Lords are aware. other newspapers have been closed down and one editor, Mr. Sisulu, an enlightened liberal, has just been in prison without trial for two years. I am glad to learn that he has now been released, though strict restrictions have been imposed upon him. He must not practise as a journalist or express his views.
But what kind of government is this that stifles free speech and imprisons journalists without trial? Is this a government for which this House should feel a jot of sympathy? I think not—that is, if the traditions of this House on all sides stand for anything. I read last week that four ANC members were found guilty of treason, the judge saying that it was "common ground" that South African citizens "owed allegiance to the state" and that those convicted had conspired to overthrow the government.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am in difficulties about time and I apologise to the noble Lord. What the judge in question did not discuss in his summing up was the very relevant question why black South Africans should owe allegiance to a state which systematically operates apartheid and which deprives them of basic human rights in their own country. This South African high court judge also said that a call to scrap apartheid,
"is an unequivocal declaration of war on the state".
It reminded me of the summings up of Nazi judges in the 1930s. There is never a future for regimes which commit crimes against humanity. Sooner or later the curtain comes down and the work of repairing the damage has to start.
I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, whose views we must all respect. He spoke of interdependence of southern
974
African states. He is right. The key to the future of southern African states lies in South Africa itself. But while apartheid remains, tension, expenditure on arms and social and economic instability will persist throughout this vast region. This is why apartheid must be ended, and the sooner the better. We call upon the Government to use all their endeavours to this end.
5.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has given us an opportunity once again to debate the important topic of southern Africa. It is a part of the world which has caused great anguish to many. It still does, as this debate has shown. But it is one where we have seen significant developments in recent weeks.
At last a settlement of the long-standing problems of Angola and Namibia is in sight. We warmly welcome the agreement signed yesterday morning in Brazzaville between the governments of Angola, Cuba and South Africa. This confirms the understandings reached in Geneva in November on a timetable for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. This is a triumph for United States diplomacy and, we would all agree, a tribute to the efforts of Assistant Secretary Crocker. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in his comments about that particular triumph.
We are delighted that 1st April has been set for the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia. We look forward to the signature of an agreement by South Africa, Angola and Cuba on 22nd December in New York, which will ensure that the United Nations plan can be smoothly introduced. Namibians have had to wait too long for their independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, seemed to pour some scorn on the agreement, but nevertheless it was only through dialogue that this moment of very considerable hope could be reached. We welcome the flexibility that the parties have shown.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, pointed to two supposed dangers in the Brazzaville Protocol. First, there is the supposed danger to Angola. I say to the noble Lord that Angola is a sovereign power and it is not for us to question its own decision to sign. Secondly, he seemed to suggest that there was a supposed danger to Namibia. If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that the United Nations Resolution 435 was not enough. We say it is—I say it is—the essential step to independence for Namibia.
The noble Lord rightly predicts that we will argue that dialogue has achieved this major success. We have strongly supported the process throughout and we are also very much encouraged by the dialogue and the issue between the United States and the Soviet Union. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked what we were doing to aid an independent Namibia. Her Majesty's Government have been preparing for Namibian independence. We hope to make a significant contribution to the United Nations transition assistance group which will monitor the

975
elections. We and our partners in the Twelve also stand ready to assist an independent Namibia economically.
As regards aid for Angola, we are concerned about how the reconstruction of Angola might be achieved. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development will be attending the SADCC meeting in Angola in January when the question is almost certain to be discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, also called for this aid and he referred to education assistance, more particularly as regards South Africa. As regards Namibia, our education assistance will continue to grow after independence.
We have also witnessed a number of recent developments in South Africa itself. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has recently returned and he described South Africa as a time bomb. We are glad to see that the noble Lord has recovered from the virus that he picked up there. We have been encouraged by the South African Government's release of some political prisoners; by their reconsideration of draft legislation to enforce the Group Areas Act; and by their decision to drop other legislation intended to restrict the flow of foreign funds to local organisations. We welcome the statesmanlike decision of President Botha to reprieve the Sharpeville Six. We had made representations on behalf of the six on many occasions. I believe that the most important point is that those who were reprieved were reprieved from death. That is what our representations may have helped to secure.
As regards human rights, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston (and we shall turn to this matter in the second debate) that we condemn all abuses of basic human rights wherever they occur. In the case of South Africa, we have made our views plain to the South African Government on many occasions both in London and in South Africa. We have long called on the South African Government to release all those detained without charge. Our ambassador recently raised this issue again with the South African authorities.
I said that there were encouraging signals. They do not represent anything like a fulfilment of our hopes for South Africa. We will continue to press the South African Government to release all political prisoners, including Mr. Nelson Mandela. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that we shall continue to press for the group areas legislation to be not merely amended but abolished. Above all, we will continue to seek the total abolition of apartheid. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the Afrikaner newspaper Beeld in an interview very recently, apartheid is contrary to the Government's whole philosophy, which is that people should be able to live where they like in their own country, exercise their full democratic rights and advance according to merit, not the colour of their skin.
We do not believe that this objective, of a nonracial, representative system of government in South Africa, will be brought closer by further isolation of that country. Indeed, the positive developments of recent weeks, whether over Angola, Namibia, or
976
South Africa itself are, I believe, a vindication of our policy of engagement not withdrawal. It is this same approach—of searching for ways to make a positive contribution to improving the lot of black South Africans—that guides our response towards those who call for further sanctions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has, somewhat predictably, made his familiar call for sanctions. He gave some facts to support his case. I respect the noble Lord's point of view, though I do not agree with it. But I hope he will respect the Government's position and view and accept that our policy is also supported by facts. Punitive sanctions have not worked. Have they stimulated political change in South Africa? No, they have not. Have they prevented new repressive measures by the South African Government, or rolled back existing restrictions? No, they most certainly have not. Instead, since the last round of sanctions were imposed in 1986 we have seen the renewal and the extension of the state of emergency; the measures taken on 24th February against the United Democratic Front and other organisations; and the continuing rise of the extreme Right-wing in South Africa. No one could have put that point more eloquently than the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, with his special knowledge.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Gridley. The imposition of punitive sanctions would increase South African isolation. I very much agree too with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. How can we expect to change the outlook of those in positions of influence in South African society by cutting them off from the very ideas and influences that will do so? That is like trying to convert a country to Christianity by withdrawing the missionaries. It is true that some black leaders call for punitive sanctions. Others oppose them. But whatever the balance of black opinion, there is no escaping the fact that sanctions would cause ordinary black South Africans grievous harm. And without any doubt they would also hit the economies of the front line states severely.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked specifically about financial matters. I agree with him that market forces have had some effect on the South African economy, but they have not had the kind of effect that he would like to see and indeed I would like to see on the structure of apartheid itself. It is precisely because there were market forces that that is the case. Governments should not dictate to markets in quite the way that he suggests.
As to punitive sanctions, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, says that only where sanctions bite are alterations made by the South African Government he will reflect on what the President of the United States said in his report to Congress in 1988 on the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act 1986. I quote:
"The Act has reduced United States leverage, hardened the South African Government's determination to resist outside pressure and increased the appeal of ultra conservative movements".
My noble friend Lord Elibank mentioned jobs. It is perfectly true that Chief Buthelezi has stated that lost international trade has cost South Africa some 150,000 jobs already, and disinvestment some 60,000 jobs. It is worth remembering that the editor of the

977
largest circulation black newspaper, the Sowetan, told the Financial Times on 23rd November that most blacks oppose sanctions because they know they will lead to more unemployment and more misery.
All that is not to suggest that there have not already been a number of restrictive measures implemented by Britain. I have a list. There are 25. Some of them were agreed at the meeting of EC foreign ministers in September 1985; others at Nassau; others at Marlborough House in August 1986; and more in September 1986. It would serve the noble Lord and others who support sanctions to study precisely what has already been done.
The Government have rejected the negative approach in favour of engagement in South Africa, as I think my noble friend Lord Elibank would have us do, to work for positive change throughout that country's society. We have a rapidly expanding programme of aid to blacks in South Africa, now running at £4.5 million annually. We contribute some 20 per cent. of the total European Community aid programme, which is worth £14.5 million annually. If one adds that to our programme of scholarships, running at 500 this year with an expected increase to 960 in 1991—I hope that this will please the noble Lord, Lord Walston—the £500,000 we spend on community self-help projects as well as aid to social welfare projects and black trade unions, one can see that we mean business.
In South Africa's neighbours too we maintain considerable programmes of economic and security assistance. Since the formation of the South African Development Co-ordination Conference in 1980, we have spent almost £1 billion in bilateral aid to the countries of the region and have committed £54 million to projects of the SADCC organisation, mainly in the vital regional transport sector. We shall also give £103 million in the period 1986—90 as our share of commitments to the region by the sixth European development fund. Our objective is to help to ensure the survival of the neighbouring countries and to reduce their dependence on South Africa. Support for the neighbours sends a strong message to the South African Government. They know where we stand. We call on others to join us.
The economic dependence of the neighbouring states depends on their ability to defend the security of their transport routes to the Indian Ocean and ensure their internal security. We continue to provide military training to the Zimbabwean army and are training company-size units of the Mozambique army at Nyanga. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, spoke about Mozambique. He rightly pointed to well-documented atrocities by the rebel group. His account of South African support is, however, something of an exaggeration. We welcome the recent agreement at Songo between the presidents of Mozambique and South Africa and assurances by South Africa that assistance to the rebels will not take place.
In recognition of the importance of Mozambique's role in southern Africa, the British Government have increased substantially the extent of their aid to that country. During his visit my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary announced a £15
978
million contribution to phase two of the project to rehabilitate the vital Limpopo railway line which links Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This complements the £14 million worth of United Kingdom funding for phase one of the project channelled through SADCC.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, to whose points I listened with great care, referred to one other country, if I may describe it as such—one of the so-called independent homelands, Bophuthatswana. In common with all other states except South Africa, we do not recognise the so-called independent homelands. I do not believe that any United Kingdom interest would be served by a change in this policy. The noble Lord may disagree. Bophuthatswana does not meet our usual criteria for recognition as a state. Its creation is an expression of the South African Government's policy of separate development; and that policy, he will appreciate, we strongly oppose.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, accused me of not answering an earlier question about South African membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He asked why we support South African membership of it. We support the objectives of the IAEA to facilitate international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. We also firmly believe in the principle of universality of membership and the right of each state to belong, if it so wishes.
I must say to the noble Lord that support for South African membership in no way implies approval of the system of apartheid. I must also say that there is no evidence that South Africa has been violating the IAEA rules. As I explained the other day, we are continuing to urge South Africa to remove doubts about its position on nuclear matters by acceding to the non-proliferation treaty and opening all its facilities to IAEA inspection, as indeed some facilities already are.
In conclusion I believe that I have been able to demonstrate incontrovertible evidence of the Government's deep concern at the problems of southern Africa, and of South Africa in particular. Like the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord St. John, and my noble friend Lord Brentford, we believe that change will come to that country; indeed it is inevitable. Apartheid must go. But that change must come from within South Africa itself. Outsiders can assist, as we are doing, to bring the parties together and to encourage dialogue. That will point the way to preparation for an eventual settlement in the way that my noble friend Lord Brentford would wish. But, ultimately, it must be for South Africans to determine their future, and achieve a system of government which is fair and acceptable to all the people of South Africa.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my first pleasant task is to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which I think has been of a very high standard. I shall use the two minutes which I have to wind up the debate to take issue on just two points. First, the Minister who has been replying appears to

979
be arguing in two contrary ways: on the one hand, he says that sanctions do not work; and, on the other hand, he says, "These are the sanctions which we are applying". I ask why? He can only justify that if he inserts a word before the word "sanctions"—one which we have never used—namely, "punitive". The object of sanctions is not to create a wilderness in South Africa; it is to reduce the power of the South African terrorist state to terrorise its own citizens. That is the first point.
The second point is that all the way through the debate speakers have been saying that it will take time. Indeed the Minister was saying, "We are pressing", and talking about engagement. Before I was banned from South Africa in 1959 I was working with Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu on peaceful demonstrations against the oppression of the African people. By then they had had 100 years of peaceful protest; they only turned to violence when they found that such peaceful protests brought nothing more than increased oppression.
Today the black Africans, the coloureds and the Asians in South Africa have fewer rights than they had 100 years ago. That is the answer to the present policy of the South African Government. My whole point has been that we still have the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. Those are the foundation stones of apartheid. I ask the British Government to do what the Minister said in his last words; that is, to help those in South Africa who are working against oppression. We can only help; they have to decide. However, we can help most clearly by increasing our sanctions, as other countries have done. That has led, as my figures have shown, to the few reforms and liberalisations of the last period. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights
5.34 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster rose to call attention to the continuing violation of human rights world-wide and particularly in Uganda, Iran and Chile; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I consider myself particularly fortunate to have achieved this short debate today as last Saturday was Human Rights Day. In fact it was the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris on 10th December 1948.
Perhaps I should first remind your Lordships that the last wide-ranging debate we had on human rights was in the Unstarred Question which I asked on 20th July 1983. Since then, regrettably, there has been very little, if any, overall improvement in the situation, especially in the three countries to which I intend to give special attention; namely, Iran, Uganda and Chile. Indeed, in some ways, as I shall show in a minute, the overall situation has deteriorated.
Much of the information that one has to work on is inadequate and indeed suspect. I must say quite
980
frankly that even the excellent reports of Amnesty International cannot be taken as absolute gospel. But those reports do at least provide a starting point. And what a terrible picture it is that they portray: a picture of terror, torture, senseless slaughter, degredation and despair.
I suppose that it is axiomatic that cruelty is endemic in man and has been ever since Cain slew Abel. But is it not sad in the extreme that, whereas we set out happily to explore the mysteries of the moon and the marvels of Mars, we fail, in the words of the Bible, to live peaceably one with another?
We must not forget the judicial aspect. Instead of the Old Bailey with its timeless traditions of justice, probably unsurpassed throughout the world, we have in many countries today, especially in Africa, the "New Bailey", where impartial justice is virtually unknown, truth is manipulated to suit the whims of unscrupulous dictators and the size of one's sentence depends more than anything else upon the bribe that one is perpared to pay the judge.
But terrible though that picture may be to an outsider, it is even more disturbing to someone like myself who has seen some of these horrible happenings at first hand. I shall give just one example. I was in Kampala in 1970. While I was driving home one evening I saw two people lying by the roadside who had been beaten up by the police for no apparent reason. Moreover, the cause of the attack seemed to concern no one. I played the role of the Good Samaritan, took them to hospital and I was of course accused of being their attacker.
It is impossible in a short debate such as this to give anything approaching an accurate overall picture of human rights violations worldwide. I am sure many of your Lordships may criticise me for having framed the Motion rather too widely. However, you will have gathered enough from recent radio and television reports to gauge the magnitude of the problem in areas such as Kurdistan, where it seems that the Iraqis have been using chemical weapons against defenceless civilians, including young children. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will be able to say something on the matter, during the course of his speech, to which I greatly look forward.
I return now to the reports of Amnesty International. In its report of October 1982, upon which my Unstarred Question was based, violations of human rights in the form of extra-judicial executions—that is, executions without trial—abduction, imprisonment without trial and torture in prison were reported in 48 out of a total of 53 countries in Africa. The figures were 32 out of 39 in Asia, 19 out of 24 in Latin America and 20 out of 25 in Europe. Those were the 1982 figures.
The latest figures, published in the 1988 report, refer to 1987. These were 49 violations in Africa (that figure is up by one) 39 in Asia (that figure is up by seven) 23 in Latin America (that figure is down by one) and 21 in Europe (which is an increase of one). Those figures represent an overall increase of no fewer than 13 countries violating human rights during those six years. What a dismal and disturbing discovery that is. The figures take no account of the

981
nature of the violations, some of which are comparatively minor.
I shall not attempt to deal with the Soviet Union and other countries well known to your Lordships, except to say that in the Soviet Union there seems to have been some progress in the past year or so. I feel sure that those of your Lordships with wider knowledge of the country than I have will agree with that. For example, the authorities have opened up discussion on some human rights issues which were previously taboo. Many prisoners of conscience have been freed and fewer people are now being arrested on political grounds. Although that general picture may seem encouraging, and it is, there are as yet no laws to protect Soviet citizens who peacefully exercise their rights or to prevent ill treatment in places of punishment and abolish the death penalty. Thousands of so-called patients are still detained in unpleasant conditions in psychiatric hospitals.
I shall deal first with Iran, where the most serious violations are taking place and upon which so much attention has been focused recently. It is in Iran where the bloody and insensate tyranny of the ageing Khomeini continues largely unchecked. First-hand accounts of torture, authenticated by medical reports and testimony from Iranian refugees who have fled from political persecution in that country, suggest that arbitrary detention, unfair trials, torture and summary executions, not perhaps on the same scale as in the early 1980s, continue. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations General Assembly have repeatedly condemned that regime for its flagrant violation of human rights and have called on the Iranian Government to allow a mission to visit Iran to investigate the matter. Khomeini's response has always been in the negative.
Recently attention has been focused on reports of the position of the Mujahedin and their continued executions in that country. According to them, 5,000 people have been executed in the past four months. There is ample evidence from press reports to confirm that fact. For example, the headline in the New York Times of Thursday, 3rd November states
"UN states human rights abuses are continuing throughout Iran".
The report states:
"A United Nations report said today that serious human rights violations were continuing in Iran. It said the violations included a wave of executions of political prisoners in July, August and September after Teheran accepted a cease-fire in the war with Iraq".
That point is important.
I have another report in the Independent of Wednesday, 30th November 1988. The headline is:
"Mass executions reported in Iran."
It states:
"The Iranian opposition People's Mujahedin organisation claimed yesterday that 5,000 political prisoners had been executed in Iran".
An interesting report was made to me recently from a body called the Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People's Rights. It states:
"Detailed information makes it clear that prisoners with affiliation to a wide spectrum of political parties are included in the lists of victims. Numbered among the dead are leaders and supporters of the Iranian People's Mujahedin Organization, the Iranian People's Fedaian Majority, the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers, and
982
the Tudeh Party of Iran. Many of those summarily brought from their cells to execution were serving prison sentences passed many years previously".
That is an important point. People have been lying for years in some of those appalling prisons. I do not have time to describe the conditions. I did so last time. They are probably more dead than alive when they are finally taken to the gallows.
Some of your Lordships may have seen the worderful stand of the Iranian opposition Mujahedin who fasted for eight days in Kensington. It was a vigorous fast. I went to see them. I was greatly impressed by what I saw.
I must return now to Uganda. I spent two years (1969–1971) in Her Majesty's High Commission. According to Amnesty International more than 4,000 alleged—that word needs stressing—political opponents of the Government have been detained without trial during 1987. They are mainly in the Northern and Eastern regions where the army has been fighting armed revolutionaries. There have been many reports of extrajudicial killings of prisoners or non-combatant civilians by soldiers. They are continuing. There has been little change in the situation there.
I have recently received a mass of reports from various bodies opposed to the regime. Whereas in Kampala and other areas—the Western and Central regions—the situation seems reasonably peaceful, in the north and east the security situation is bad. Most of the information is repetitive and a good deal of it is tendentious. From that collection of papers various facts seem to emerge. The first is that in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, Museveni has been taking on the mantle of Obote. He has been more and more involved, it seems, in assassinations. It is difficult to estimate how many people have been killed. There are unconfirmed reports of several thousand. There are photographs, some of which again are suspect; but there can be no doubt, as the body was widely photographed, that a former commander of the Uganda People's Democratic Movement, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Odwar was killed in a horrible fashion by Museveni in January. Indeed, Museveni has several times been quoted as saying:
"We shall liquidate them. We shall crush them. We shall massacre them. We shall assassinate by terror".
He was referring to his enemies. That is the main fact which emerges from all the papers. Other reports deal with haphazard killings here and there and are perhaps not vital to the main theme of the debate.
I turn to Chile. Why do I bring in Chile, which has not been prominently mentioned in the human rights connection? I do so mainly because, although the fairness of the recent referendum has been referred to in your Lordships' House, there has been no recent reference in the House to human rights violations. The most serious problem relates to those who are known as the disappeared ones: those men, women and children abducted by governmment forces in the 1970s and about whom nothing has been heard since. Their number, according to a fairly reliable report, is now about 700. It may well be more.
The appalling mental suffering of the relations of these pathetic people can scarcely be imagined.

983
However, in addition, I am afraid that intimidation by clandestine groups is now one of the most common methods of political persecution in Chile. The use of death threats, abduction and other types of intimidatory action started to spread in 1983 when opposition demands for a return to democracy and the restoration of human rights began to gain momentum.
Apart from the three countries which I have highlighted, Amnesty International is also particularly concerned about Turkey and Kenya. My time is up and I cannot mention those in detail, but Amnesty is concerned about them.
I must make one brief reference to the better side, that is North and South Yemen. I visited that country last summer and conditions are very much better. It is now off the black list. Security is good throughout the country.
Finally, what are my recommendations? I say to the Minister that we need more and more vigorous protests. We have protested before, but perhaps we have not achieved very much. We need wider reporting from our overseas posts. Further, I should like to recommend a committee of inquiry to look into the situation in Uganda. More and more attention is now being focused worldwide on the terrible problem of human rights. I look forward to the contributions of noble Lords who have so kindly agreed to support me and particularly to those of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who knows so much more about the situation than I. I greatly look forward to an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg to move for Papers.
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, not only on his good fortune in winning the ballot and choosing such an interesting subject but on the telling way in which he has presented the question to the House, based on his tremendous knowledge.
I realise that in the terms of our debate we shall be concentrating mostly on violations and not on the happier side of things. However, if we want to cheer ourselves up, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, pointed out, matters are encouraging in the Soviet Union compared with a few years ago. I think the noble Viscount is quite right to be extremely cautious even though we can draw some encouragement there. After all, it is only 10 years since Spain returned to democracy, which was a tremendous event in the history of Europe. We now have the triumph of Benazir Bhutto and the return of democracy in Pakistan. I twice debated against that lady—once in the Oxford and once in the Cambridge Union—and was defeated on each occasion. I formed the opinion that she was a natural winner and I hope that she will be in power at the head of a democracy in Pakistan for many years.
I mean to spend these few minutes nearer home. We all know of the instruction of Jesus Christ given in the Bible, St. Matthew, Chapter 7. I quote from one translation of that gospel:
"God will apply to you the same rules as you apply to others. Why do we look at the mote in our brother's eye and pay no attention to
984
the beam in our own? You hypocrite. First take the beam out of your own eye and then you will be able to see clearly to take the mote out of your brother's eye."
We have been discussing the beams in the eyes of some countries. I am not saying that there are beams of such magnitude in our own eyes but I am at least asking the House to consider whether, in talking about the violation of human rights, there are not one or more motes which we might perhaps attend to. After all, there is no rule which exempts us, in this country, the one we know most about, from close scrutiny.
I have seldom spoken on Irish matters in this House and, having possessed an Irish and a British passport when I was a British Minister and wearing an Irish Rugby Union tie—given to me, I hasten to say, by an Ulster Protestant—I feel that my views might be discounted. However, just occasionally one feels the need to discuss matters affecting this country and Ireland.
I prepared these remarks before the result of the so-called Ryan case was known, although I knew that a decision was pending. I shall not inflame opinion further but just quote what the article in the Guardian has to say this morning:
"Whatever the temptations, the Prime Minister ought to sheath her megaphone"—
rather a curious metaphor—
"which has done too much damage already".
That is the view of the Guardian, and I suppose the view of English liberalism quite authoritatively. Incidentally, I hope that the word "liberal" can now be used without some sort of pejorative implication. During the American elections apparently one only had to call someone a liberal to drive him off the platform. I use the word in the complimentary sense and I am saying that much English liberal opinion would share the view of the Guardian.
I do not wish to give the impression that I am an unqualified critic of our Prime Minister.
A noble Lord: Why not?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there is a great deal of force in that liberal contention, but the answer I give in this connection anyway is that the Prime Minister played a major part in the establishment of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The great thing, it seems to me, in being infallible or in thinking you are infallible is that, whatever the circumstances, you stick to your guns. If by any chance you are in the right, then that is of enormous benefit. I shall not discuss the even more numerous cases where that helpful circumstance might not be present.
At any rate, I admire the Anglo-Irish Agreement and think that we need a really stubborn champion of it, as we all agree we have. I am not unaware that countries have to ensure their own survival and, when they are dealing with any form of terrorism and certainly with civil war, they adopt extra-legal methods. In Ireland in 1922, at the outbreak of civil war, some Irish leaders who seized the Four Courts in Dublin were taken out and shot. The justification was salus populi suprema lex. For those who were on the modern side at school, perhaps I may translate

985
that in the words of Bethmann Hollweg, the German Chancellor in 1914. He addressed the German Reichstag when Germany was invading Belgium with the words, "Gentlemen, we are in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law". I agree that countries which either are or think they are in a state of necessity pass outside the law. I hope we shall be told tonight that that is not the attitude of the present Government and that they are not just saying that anything goes and that, when dealing with terrorists. one must adopt the same methods. I hope that we shall be told something very different.
I shall raise quite briefly three matters which will be familiar to noble Lords. Let us look at an article which appeared in The Times of 30th November headed "Justice and the Guildford Four". I shall quote one extract from the article, which was signed by two Law Lords, both extremely eminent Members of this House, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Seaman and Lord Devlin. The attitude of these Law Lords was shared by a deputation which included two former Home Secretaries and it was later supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I should have mentioned also that the view was shared by Cardinal Hume, so there could hardly have been a stronger deputation, enjoying as it did the additional support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I shall quote one extract from the article written by the two noble and learned Lords:
"Justice for the Guildford Four is now in the forefront of a larger issue. Their fate has shattered our belief that there is no-one in any English prison serving a sentence of more than a year who has not been found guilty by a jury which has heard substantially all the relevant evidence."
I now come to the punch line. The article continues:
"our constitutional law on which our freedoms depend has been disordered."
People might dismiss that if it had been stated by a lawyer of ordinary rank. But that article was signed by two Law Lords. Therefore it must be taken very seriously. I need hardly say that it will be very carefully studied in Ireland when people discuss whether Irishmen get a fair trial in this country.
I now come to another issue that moves outside Ireland, although Ireland is involved in it. I wish to refer briefly to the British record before the European Commission of Human Rights. The United Kingdom has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights on 31 occasions since becoming a signatory in 1950, and has now been found in violation of the convention 21 times, including two rulings this year. We have yet to learn what attitude our Government are taking up as regards the latest condemnation by the European Court.
Finally, I come to what I will call, and what all will recognise as the Stalker Case. I shall not go into the details of that, but it was brought before the 44th session of the Commission of Human Rights by the international federation which includes our own much respected National Council for Civil Liberties. I shall quote from the statement of the international federation. The statement said:
"Last month the Attorney General announced to the House of Commons that there would be no further prosecutions in respect of the six shootings. He also announced that, although evidence had
986
been found which would have justified the prosecution of RUC officers for perverting the course of justice, the DPP had decided not to prosecute for reasons of 'public interest' and 'national security'."
It would seem that on that occasion public interest and national security took precedence over legal considerations. The statement continued:
"These events have severely undermined public confidence in the police and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. The maintenance of the rule of law requires that all those who pervert the course of justice be prosecuted. National security should not take precedence over the rule of law."
Those are just three examples, but others could be produced to show why there is no confidence in Ireland— in the 26 counties at any rate—in the kind of justice that is meted out to any Irishman who is accused of any kind of terrorist offence in this country.
Many years ago Sir Winston Churchill stated in one of his books:
"Integral communities like human beings are dominated by the instinct of self-preservation."
No doubt there is a great deal of truth in that. But this country is great for more than one reason. It is great because of its heroic survival in the face of great odds in various wars. It is great also when we are at our best—and we are not always so—in showing an equal desire to preserve the rights of others.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope I shall be permitted to start by paying tribute to Paul Sieghart, who is probably the most distinguished human rights lawyer of his generation. He was a great friend of many of us here and a legal adviser to the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, of which I have the honour to be chairman. He died less than 48 hours ago, and the best tribute I can pay to him is to base what I have to say on two remarks he made in his distinguished contributions to the literature of human rights.
He wrote in The Lawful Rights of Mankind that human rights exist for the benefit of the weak, and generally that weakness derives from some difference which distinguishes them from the dominant group. He further stated:
"In that sense all human rights exist for the protection of minorities".
In another of his great works, The International Law of Human Rights, he pointed out that, until after the Second World War, how a state treated its own citizens was a matter exclusively for its own determination. That, today, is no longer the case. He stated in that work:
"for the first time in the history of mankind . . . such matters are now the subject of the legitimate concern of all mankind".
We are very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for giving us the opportunity of debating human rights today, and for the effective way in which he presented his case. I am not sure that I take quite such a gloomy view as he did in saying that we had lost ground over recent years. It would be naive to expect that enormous strides would have been made in the observance of human rights, merely because of the agreement of the world community to the Universal Declaration of 40 years ago. As we have been reminded by the noble Earl, Lord

987
Longford, some of the principles on which the Universal Declaration was based were enunciated by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Indeed, one could go back 500 years earlier still to the Buddha. But, nevertheless, human nature is still the same. Perhaps the wonder is that we have advanced as far as we have in the space of a single generation.
The United Nations has at least evolved standards, particularly in the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights respectively, which command the support of the whole world. There are rules for applying the right of self-determination, conventions on the abolition of slavery, the abolition of torture, racial discrimination, discrimination against women, the status of refugees and religious intolerance.
However, what has been lacking is any really effective machinery for enforcing those magnificent undertakings. It is easy to see why that is. In a civilised community, the majority of citizens are not criminals, so they have no difficulty agreeing to legal procedures which may lead to the humiliation and the punishment of offenders. But since, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has pointed out, the majority of states violate human rights continually and flagrantly, the organisation which is composed of those states is not going to agree lightly to the arraignment of individual members before a tribunal with effective powers to impose penalties, or to compensate the victims.
I think there is one other important consequence that we should note of the rearguard action to defend the concept of absolute national sovereignty. We do not have any mechanism for examining and trying to alleviate the stresses which arise from conflicts between the aspirations of national, linguistic, ethnic or religious minorities and the perceived threat to the integrity of a state. The only way a new state can come into existence is by armed force, as the right of self-determination is limited to former colonial territories. Territories which have been annexed are treated in practice as having forfeited the right of self-determination, as we see from the examples of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Tibet, West Papua, East Timor, Eritrea and western Sahara.
There are also subject peoples who were denied a separate existence because it did not suit the great powers at the time, such as the Kurds, the Armenians and the Palestinians, and minorities which aspire to greater autonomy within some kind of federalism, such as the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Tigrayans and Oromo of Ethiopia, the minority nationalities in Burma, the Chakma of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, the Sikhs in the Punjab, and the non-Moslem southerners of Sudan.
Then there are minorities which might prefer to be transferred to a neighbouring sovereignty, such as the Albanians of Yugoslavia, the Hungarians of Romania and the Tswana-speaking people of South Africa. There are five examples one can think of where a state is actually ruled by one of its minority ethnic groups. There is South Africa itself, Burundi, Ethiopia, Guyana and Fiji. That was not meant to be a rigorous taxonomy of the right of self-
988
determination, but to cite those examples is to highlight the causes of some of the most horrible violations of human rights we see across the world today. We justly condemn the mass executions which have been perpetrated by the psychopathic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in what one hopes are its death spasms. But how much more frightful is the mass murder of Kurdish civilians by the Iraqis, using chemical weapons.
Incidentally, the United Nations has no mechanisms for dealing with the threatened use of chemical weapons. The Secretary General has yet to reply to a telex which I sent him concerning eye witness reports of nerve gases which were supplied by Libya to Somalia on 7th October. I suggest that there is a need for a special rapporteur to deal with allegations of the use or threatened use of chemical weapons so that, for example, patients can be examined properly and where possible scientists can test soil and other samples, so that there might be some form of deterrent to those evil men who contemplate the use of such evil weapons.
Somalia is another country where the regime is engaged in a viciously destructive conflict against a section of its own population. The whole of the North-West of that country has been reduced to rubble and the army and the air force are now attacking the 420,000 refugees huddled in the region's refugee camps. Is it not a crime against humanity to attack refuges, and why has that matter not engaged the attention of the Security Council?
I mentioned East Timor. In that case the United Nations originally condemned the annexation of the territory 13 years ago, but since 1982 the question has not appeared on the agenda of the Security Council. Responsibility for developing a solution in consultation with all the parties concerned was given to the Secretary General in November 1982. Since then we in the Parliamentary Human Rights Group have asked him on a number of occasions what steps he intends to take to consult the people of East Timor themselves, who after all are the most important of the parties concerned. We have had no reply to that question.
The 12 EC countries, I was glad to note, agreed at least on a joint statement to the UN Third Commission condemning human rights' violations in East Timor, but their message omitted any mention of the need to involve the people themselves in decisions on their future political status. Unfortunately there are many people in the outside world who are ready to listen to Indonesian propaganda. They accept the argument that more development aid and the granting of limited access to the territory somehow cancel out the extermination of a third of the population in the years following the invasion. They ignore the evidence that the people of East Timor are not reconciled to foreign occupation after 11 years, as was shown yet again by the need of the regime to arrest 3,000 people during the visit of President Suharto to the territory on 1st November.
The Australian Government, to their eternal shame, have recognised Indonesia's sovereignty over the territory, thus, in my opinion, encouraging potential aggressors to think that violations of

989
Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits the transfer of territory by means of force, can be purged by the mere lapse of time.
Jan Martensen of the United Nations Human Rights Centre in Geneva complained the other day that he had only 18 staff to deal with the many tens of thousands of cases that are brought to his attention over the course of any year. We shall never be able to have a world police force with the resources to carry out on-the-spot investigations of individual human rights violations, and the non-governmental organisations themselves can only scratch at the surface of the problem.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, pointed out, every year hundreds of thousands of people are murdered, abducted, tortured or imprisoned without trial by their governments. Millions more are deprived of some of the other rights in the international convenant such as the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, the right to emigrate, and the right to practise and teach their religion. The scale of the violations is so vast that we cannot expect to get very far by treating the problem on a case-by-case basis. That is not to say that the work of organisations such as Amnesty International is not useful or indeed essential. They highlight the abuses and create some public demand for actions by governments.
I think that after 40 years we should be considering new initiatives which tackle the root causes of human rights problems. If one takes, for example, the case of Sri Lanka, the government there killed thousands of Tamils in the North and East until the Indian peace-keeping force took over the job of maintaining law and order in those areas. The atrocities were then stepped up, spreading terror indiscriminately among the civilian population. Incidentally, that is the bottom of the slippery slope on which our own Prime Minister set foot when she remarked that civil liberties had to take second place to winning the battle against terrorism. In that sense I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that we have to be very careful not to be excessively critical of others when we do not always seek to put our own house in order. If the grievances of the Tamil community had been addressed vigorously and in time, I do not believe that Sri Lanka would ever have come to such a pass. But it was perhaps too much to expect that a Colombo government, dependent on the support of the majority Sinhalese community, could have made the necessary concessions.
What is needed is a new international agreement setting out the rights of ethnic, linguistic or religious groups which are not themselves in control of a state. Where the groups in question live in a definable geographical area those rights might include a measure of internal self-government, including control of the police force and appointments to the judiciary. There would also have to be a tribunal to which a group could appeal if they considered that their group rights had been violated. States would be unlikely to agree that decisions of the tribunal should be binding, but they could be crucial in at least persuading a majority community to accept generous solutions.
990
Meanwhile, I am sorry to say that attention is focused on human rights violations selectively, according to the political orientation of the offenders. At the United Nations, Chile and South Africa are seen as the worst culprits, because they have no friends in either the Soviet or US power blocs.
Conversely, nations which cultivate good relations with the big powers escape serious criticism. When I drew the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a report by Jonathan Mirsky in the Observer of 8th May about the massacre of 33 monks in Lhasa during the disturbances of 7th March, he replied that we had no direct sources of information about the atrocity. My own inquiries since then reveal that eyewitnesses saw 16 bodies of named individuals, both monks and laymen in the vicinity of the Jokhang temple after it was attacked by the Chinese police, and that a number of people were taken away by the police after the assault, some of whom were unconscious. We do not know whether they survived. There are many first hand accounts available of the torture of monks and nuns as well as lay people, and only a few days ago, on the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration itself, the Chinese police fired on peaceful demonstrators, killing at least two, including a monk, and injuring a number of people including foreign tourists. The Foreign Secretary assures me that we do remind the Chinese authorities of the concern of the British people for the Tibetan people, but our voice is hardly raised above a whisper.
Take the case of Ethiopia, a bankrupt and incompetent military dictatorship which receives massive arms and military advice from the Soviet Union, and economic assistance from the West. The Foreign Secretary told me that when he stopped in Addis Ababa during his August tour of East Africa, he took the opportunity of making clear to the Ethopian Foreign Minister, Berhane Bayih, our own Government's serious concern about the wars being waged by the Dergue against the people of Eritrea and Tigray, particularly the use of napalm against the civilian populations.
But he also remarked that those people would do well to look seriously at the proposals for regional autonomy contained in the 1987 constitution at the behest of the Soviet Union. Those proposals dismember Eritrea, and their purpose is to make sure that the instructions of the central party are carried out in the regions. What we ought to be doing is to persuade the Soviet Union to disengage totally from Ethiopia, and there is surely reason to hope for a positive response from the Soviet's following their disengagement from Afghanistan, Angola and indirectly from Cambodia. At the same time, we should be calling for a suspension of aid under Lomè IV, which serves to enhance the capacity of the regime to conduct military operations. The fact that the aid agencies have been kicked out of Eritrea shows that the Dergue wants to hide something, and we know that in the past they have had no scruples about diverting humanitarian aid to the armed forces.
When it comes to the Soviet Union itself, and to the satellites of eastern Europe, the Government have never hesitated to speak out and to go into detail about individual cases. It is claimed that different

991
methods are appropriate with different countries, but how is it that open criticism is thought to be more useful with Warsaw Pact countries, while "quiet diplomacy" is reserved for others? Is it not a fact that we use "quiet diplomacy" whenever there is a danger that we may lose business if we are more frank?
No discussion of human rights could fail to note the tremendous changes which, as has been said, are occurring within the Soviet Union itself. A year ago I wrote to a Soviet Exile, Lyudmila Yevsukova, who had recently arrived in the West, saying that at that time I was impressed by the release of political prisoners, greater freedom to emigrate and the emergence of some freedom of expression. This process seemed to have momentum, I thought, and the events of the past 12 months have confirmed my hopes.
I only regret that the liberalisation has not spread from the Soviet Union itself to the rest of eastern Europe. Romania is still a personal dictatorship of ramshackle corruption and nepotism. The GDR has explicitly rejected glasnost; and Czchechoslovakia, which I visited recently, severely restricts freedom of expression and of assembly, and continues to imprison people for what they say or even for what they might say. Yet the idea of the reforms being promoted by Mr. Gorbachev has caught the imagination of the people in those countries and, in the case of Czechoslovakia at any rate, there is a lot of discussion and the formation of new groups, such as the Independent Peace Association, prompting new political thinking outside the rigid framework of the communist establishment.
So although progress has been painfully slow over the 40 years since the universal declaration, there is some room for hope. The era of glasnost has vast implications for human rights, not only within the Soviet orbit but throughout the rest of the world. The diversion of resources from armaments to peaceful development and the possibilities of co-operation ultimately between socialist and capitalist nations for the promotion of human rights are wonderfully exciting in my opinion.
The Soviet Union may have a particular role to play in developing the mechanisms for resolving conflicts to which I have referred between subject nationalities and the state. If they can produce formulae which reconcile the needs of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, together with all the other national and linguistic minorities within their polity, they will have made a huge contribution to the future survival of mankind.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for having initiated this debate. I am not going to try to match the tour d'horizon of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; nor am I going to follow my noble friend Lord Longford into Ireland, though I am a citizen of that country, beyond saying that I agree with what he said.
Instead, as the noble Viscount indicated, I am going to turn once again to the Kurdish people of
992
Iraq because, in my opinion, they have suffered far more serious denials of human rights there than in any of the countries named by the noble Viscount or by any other speaker in this or the preceding debate.
There are now some 20 million Kurds in the area of Kurdistan, a large and rather amorphous area that stretches across the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, with enclaves in Syria and the Soviet Union. The other day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had a pungent remark to make about the plight of the Kurds in each of those countries in which they have been a subject people for decades after the allies reneged on their plan for an independent Kurdistan in the Treaty of Sevres immediately after the First World War.
However, in Iraq their sufferings have been greater than anywhere else. In Iraq they have for decades been a thorn in the side of the Baghdad Government because of their armed struggle for a greater degree of human rights, including autonomy and self-determination. The Baghdad Government took the decision, when the Iraq-Iran Gulf War ended and their army was no longer required in the battle against Iran, to move with all their force against the Kurdish people and to eliminate them. That programme has been carried out since, with devasting effect, and is still going on.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter in the Independent on 9th December from Jalal Talabani. He is one of the two joint leaders of the nationalist resistance in Iraq. He used to be leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan; now there is an alliance between the various nationalist groups. He is a personal friend of mine. I have complete confidence in what he says, and as a matter of fact he is not a million miles from your Lordships' Chamber at this moment.
Mr. Talabani's letter was on the 14th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration. He lists just a few of the denials of rights that there have been. He points out that the Iraqi Government have destroyed more than 4,000 Kurdish villages in the past 10 years and have deported tens of thousands—I should myself have said hundreds of thousands—of Kurds into what are known as protected villages or internal exile. In addition, there has been the use of chemical weapons as a means of exterminating entire Kurdish communities. Mr. Talabani uses these words:
"Iraq has been waging a systematic campaign . . . aimed at uprooting the Kurdish identity and transforming the national characteristics of the Kurdish homeland".
This programme has been going on throughout Iraqi Kurdistan: the complete devastation of the countryside, the deportation to other parts of the country (if you can deport to other parts of a country) of almost entire rural populations to the cities and the towns and to new concentration camps which have been built. There has also been the arrest of thousands of young men who are potential guerrillas and their subsequent disappearance. For instance, two or three thousand Barzanis have gone, and no one knows where they are.
Of course what has most caught the attention of the public here has been the devastating use of

993
chemical weapons against civilians in Kurdistan. Baghdad still appears to be denying that chemical weapons have been used; yet on the 8th of last month the Iraqi Vice-President, Taha Mohieddine Maarouf, admitted, and was reported in Le Monde as having admitted, that the Iraqi Air Force had been responsible for devastating attacks on the town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan on 16th and 17th March, in which at least 4,000 people—almost all women and children—died. Some shots of that tragedy may have been seen by your Lordships in the course of the television documentary by Gwynne Roberts recently.
Mr. Maarouf is said in Le Monde to have justified this operation by affirming that at the time Iraq was facing a war of aggression. He said:
"Every state that faces an aggression has the right to use all the means at its disposal to put an end to that aggression".
He believes that is enough reason to poison and kill 4,000 to 5,000 civilians with poison gas in Halabja. The use of poison gas would be justified in many war situations if one accepted arguments like that.
I maintain that actions of this kind—not only chemical warfare but mass executions and deportations—amount in the case of Iraq to genocide. I do not use the word lightly. It is a word that we hear used rather loosely. It means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group".
The definition that matters for us is that contained in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is very much wider. It is:
"In the present Convention genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group",
and so on. Under the UN definition, therefore, you are guilty of genocide if you kill a part—not a substantial part but a part—of a particular race. I would go a lot further than that and say that it should possibly be a substantial part. If it were a substantial part, in the present agony of the Kurds I would say that state action against the state's own people would qualify as genocide.
What is being done by the Western world in the face of genocide by a member of the United Nations? Practically nothing is being done—a few vague undertakings. But instead of taking positive action, the British Government are not talking about sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had some very telling words in the previous debate on how effective sanctions can be and should be. There are no proposals of sanctions against Iraq, there are no proposals of any action under the convention of 1948, about which I have just spoken, but instead the Government send a Minister to Baghdad vastly to increase the credits that Iraq can have in order that Britain can sell more material and expertise to Iraq in the reconstruction of that country. We should he stopping the dispatch of British-made goods to Iraq, not doubling the capacity of Iraq to import them.
I think that it is scandalous that this country should do business on these terms with war criminals, because war criminals is what they are. What the
994
Iraqis have done in Kurdistan is no better—Give them a chance, they have a little bit further to go—than Hitler did in the Holocaust in Germany before the war.
I call upon the Government to take action to initiate sanctions against Iraq over its behaviour in this case. I maintain that President Saddam should be brought to the international court and tried on charges of genocide.
6.35 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the subject in a wide way. I do not object to that at all because I think that some general principles are involved here affecting all the countries of the world.
It is of course the 40th anniversary of the United Nations declaration of human rights. We may well ask ourselves what exactly has happened over 40 years. My noble friend Lord Avebury touched on that. I think we may say that attitudes have changed towards different perceptions of human rights, but perhaps there has been no formula generally or by any accepted agency in the world of how to monitor and to endorse the right action against those countries or those individuals—but I think that countries and governments are the most important—that contravene what is an accepted level of human rights in their countries.
Being given this excellent chance, I should like to move to another part of the world about which I and, I think, other noble Lords feel passionately. It is a very different part of the world, the Western Sahara. The difference in the Western Sahara—this is one of the reasons why I value the opportunity to bring it up tonight—is that it is an extraordinary case of continued violations of human rights over a long period which has been virtually ignored.
Most people—certainly noble Lords, I am sure—know where the Western Sahara is. For the benefit of those who may pick up Hansard, I should like to explain that the Western Sahara was formerly known as the Spanish Sahara. It exists on the western coast of Africa below Morocco, north of Mauritania, roughly on a latitude similar to the Canary Islands. It is an area of some 900 x 500 miles, by our standards a considerable area. It became a colony of Spain in that rush for colonial possessions in the 19th century, and remained a colony of Spain until the mid-1970s when the area was ceded by Spain with promises of a referendum among the indigenous people of that part—albeit a nomad people mainly—on which would depend the future of the people in that area. This has failed to happen.
The Spanish withdrew. They failed to press for the implementation of the undertakings that they had given to the inhabitants of that part of the world. Encouraged by France and Morocco they entered into a tripartite agreement, which resulted in the 1970s in a very vigorous attack, an invasion of the area by both Morocco and Mauritania. We may forget Mauritania because it was ill-equipped to perform the invasion. Morocco was well equipped by major Western powers in the way that the noble

995
Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has described in regard to another part of the world.
Between 1975 and now there has been the most extraordinary oppression of a people in the Western Sahara who have been forced to flee their country in the face of the military power of Morocco, an ally of the United Kingdom. Those who failed to move to that area made available to them by Algeria, a newly independent country, remained in the South Western Sahara, where there has been an increasing settlement of Moroccans. There has been a long and tragic history of violation of human rights, torture, imprisonment without trial and disappearances on a scale one might expect in a South American country, which gets much more publicity.
Of those who managed to flee across a very dangerous, barren part of Africa to that area made available to them by Algeria many were women and children who not only suffered the privations of a long journey through a barren area—one of the most barren and difficult areas in the world—but during their flight to Algeria were harried by the Moroccan air force. It used against those women, children and adult men napalm, phosphorous and cluster bombs in exactly the same way as they have been used in other parts of the world but where more publicity has been levelled against their use.
Various international agencies have been concerned about the persecution of those people who were fleeing from oppression in their country. Many of the agencies have proof which cannot be disputed that the horrifying weapons, particularly napalm and phosphorous bombs, originated in the United States. Thankfully, my information is that the British have not had levelled against them the accusation of having supplied such weapons. I should be interested to know of the use that has been made by the Moroccan Government of British credits and whether they have been used for peaceful purposes. The United States was given undertakings by the Moroccan Government that weapons that it purchased from the United States would be used only internally. As usual, those undertakings were broken.
I speak in the debate in place of my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. He has previously spoken in your Lordships' House about the forgotten and horrifying episode on the western side of Africa. My noble friend was very moved when he visited the camps where the refugees have found a resting place. They have developed an encouraging community with equal rights for women and they have a constitution which specifically outlaws the use of violent terrorism.
It is an interesting part of the world because there are people who have been dispossessed. They have written into their constitution the fact that they will try to regain their homeland but will not resort to violence and terrorism. If one is cynical about the matter one may say that perhaps that is the reason why the country and the area of horror has been ignored internationally.
It gives a greater reason for major countries such as ours, the United States and others to pay particular attention to the plight of those who are deprived of
996
their human rights. That is regardless of whether the issues are connected with our alliances with various countries. Morocco is a country which many people, including noble Lords in this House, have enjoyed as a place to go for holidays and they have also enjoyed the importation of citrus fruits from that country. Nevertheless, it has a level of human rights well below that which we would expect of a country which enjoys such friendly relations with Britain. It is in a strategically important location in the event of conflict in the area. It has access to the important minerals available in the western Sahara. That may explain why there is such energy in pursuing an annexation of a country with total disregard for its indigenous population.
My noble friend Lord Winchilsea was so moved by what he saw that when he returned he formed a charity. It has been most successful over a short time because people have been horrified. Perhaps they felt guilty because they had totally ignored the situation or because they felt outraged by the fact that the international press had not given them information.
In a short time my noble friend raised an enormous amount of support from worldwide organisations. In February a number of vehicles which have been bought by the money secured by his efforts will leave from outside your Lordships' House. They will be driven through Europe by volunteers. They will pick up Members of Parliament, Euro MPs and personalities in show business and the record industry. Various organisations have been most supportive, including the Metropolitan Police. Some of the vehicles are fitted as ambulances and dental clinics, and some will carry educational equipment and medicines for children. Algeria is a country in exile and it has little access to products which are vital, particularly to the health of children.
Fifteen vehicles will travel down to Algeria. I hope that their journey will focus attention on that ignored part of the world where people have suffered terrible oppression. It is important to note that they have endured such hardships. A quarter of a million people have set up a state within a state in Algeria and have made the best of the little that they have. They have provided education for their children in a rudimentary form. Wherever possible they have secured health assistance in the form of volunteers. They have established a democratic society with equal rights for women and a peaceful formula for reasserting their rights to return to their homeland.
I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, whose passionate speech I admired. I hope that I have caught some of his passion for the subject. It is an example of a country and of people who have been ignored because the major powers found their case not particularly interesting. They found it troubling to involve themselves. Unparalleled hardship has been involved. Perhaps it stands alongside that suffered by the boat people and many others who have had the attention of the world brought upon them.
I hope that in the next 40 years we talk less of individuals. Society will always produce people like Klaus Barbie, Lieutenant Calley and Eichmann. I suggest that they exist in our society but are probably

997
doing mild things in the Home Counties and are unable to use their twisted talents. What matters is the environment in which people live. If a government and a country take seriously their responsibilities towards human rights, such people will not flourish. In this country we are lucky in that any breach of human rights is immediately sat upon and publicised. Many countries which are close to us and are our allies do not have such safeguards. Without fear or favour, regardless of whether they are our allies or our foes, wherever we see human rights being flagrantly denied we should treat them equally.
I hope that in February noble Lords will go out to see the column of vehicles leave. They are painted in the bright colours of the rainbow, so they cannot he missed. I see two noble Lords in the Chamber tonight who will be there. I believe that it will be a most informative journey.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, the quest for human rights is an endless crusade. Oppression has existed throughout human history and I am afraid that it is likely to continue as long as mankind exists. However, those of us who would prefer to see it otherwise must show eternal vigilance and be prepared to voice our opposition when we see it.
Over the past few decades Members of your Lordships' House have shown a great deal of vigilance. The House has an excellent record for providing time and opportunity for the discussion of abuses in many countries. It has also allowed the development of some noble proponents of human rights, not least among whom is the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, to whom we owe today's opportunity.
Many reasons have been advanced for oppressing opponents. However, one is particularly piquant to me. It has a special hypocrisy. It is religious extremism. It seems so inexpressibly bad and evil to use the will of God to burn people alive and oppress them in one's search for power. Goodness knows, our own country has enough blots on its record. We used to burn people alive to save their souls. There are still parts of these islands where extremism for religious matters still exists and causes great suffering and death.
However, I wish to draw attention to the position of the Baha'is in Iran. Your Lordships have considered the position of these poor people several times. Any noble Lords who have met the Baha'is cannot have failed to gain the same impression as I have done: that here are gentle and godly people. In spite of their sufferings, I have never heard a single word of malice from them towards their oppressors, nor any tendency to call for revenge in the future, no matter what they or their relatives have suffered. It does not seem to save them from further suffering.
The position in Iran is quite bizarre. The constitution of that country says that Iran is an Islamic republic. That is understandable. The vast majority of people are Moslems. However, a very liberal feature of the constitution is that it recognises the right of various minorities to their own religious
998
persuasions. Jews and Christians are therefore welcome to practise their religions. However, only those groups that are specifically mentioned are so free and those that are not do not have that freedom. It is one of the tragedies of our world today that these gentle people, the Baha'is, do not exist according to the constitution of Iran. Because they do not exist, they are thought to be heretics and they suffer from seizure of property and destruction of their places of worship. The marriages of Baha'is by Baha'i rites are not recognised. Those who marry in the high churches are considered to be living in adultery and are therefore subject to all the penalties of a Moslem country for that sin. Their children are denied education and their adults are subject to arbitrary imprisonment. Over the first eight years or so of the regime they have been subject to most appallingly cruel executions for their religious beliefs.
These happenings have given rise to a flood of protest in the world. Noble Lords have expressed their disgust in this House, and the press has contained many examples. The United Nations has given considerable attention to the problem. The special representative of the UN has recently published yet another report concluding that oppression of the Baha'is continues to this day. On 8th December—only six days ago—yet another resolution of the UN condemned the oppression still existing in Iran.
Is the picture hopeless? I hardly dare to breathe the words, but there could conceivably be the first hint of a pre-dawn light. Perhaps I may quote from a letter by a Baha'i to myself. It states:
"The Iranian government …appears to have concluded that their efforts to improve relations with the community of nations could he assisted by a reduction in the persecution to which the Baha'i minority in Iran has been subject over the past nine years".
Various people whom I know, who have access to information which appears to be reliable, for the first time have the feeling that over the past 12 months or so the pressure has very slightly eased. The numbers in prison have gone down slightly. There are now believed to be 129 still in gaol on religious grounds. The Baha'i children have begun to be readmitted to the schools. Perhaps there is the first hint of light.
It gives me therefore great pleasure to pass on to Her Majesty's Government, as I have been asked to do, the thanks of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom. Their words are:
"The United Kingdom can be said to have played a strong positive role in the adoption of the resolution"—
passed on 8th December in the United Nations—
"and we would be grateful if you would express on our behalf our genuine appreciation for the supportive position taken by our government. We know of the complexities that surround such issues and are all the more grateful for our government's resolute support in this matter".
To that I am happy to add my own support. I hope that this gratitude will encourage Her Majesty's Government to maintain pressure of representations in any way they can for a full restitution of civil rights to the Baha'is in Iran.
I understand that we are shortly to have a new ambassador in Iran. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to continue to press the Government's view on the freedom of the Baha'is. He might also

999
take the opportunity to point out that the strength of a regime is never shown by its arbitrary severity. It has been very common in human history that when a revolutionary movement takes power it tends to use strong-arm tactics to show how "macho" it is. However, that does not show real strength. We should express to the regime in Iran that if it wishes to be respected as having strength and maturity, then the real hallmark of maturity, strength, civilisation and confidence in a government is the tolerance and compassion which it shows to the least of its own minorities.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, there cannot possibly be any reason for persecuting the Baha'is. I hope that noble Lords are now disabused of the idea that they are a remote Middle Eastern sect. There are small, flourishing communities of the Baha'i in both Orkney and Shetland. They play a very valuable part in that they are attempting to synthesise the religions of the world and not to create difficulties between them.
We are indeed grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating this debate. Let no one say that these matters that are taking place all over the world are no concern of ours. In this sphere, no man is an island. Just as we feel for the Armenians and their troubles, so we should feel for the millions of people who at this moment are suffering the horrors of persecution—persecution on a scale worse than that of Armenia and in some cases persecution which has gone on far longer. From a more, if one likes, selfish view, the persecution of Jews has haunted this century ever since Hitler. We are all involved in the troubles which stem from attacks on human beings all over the world.
For some years I was chairman of the Minority Rights Group. We amassed a considerable amount of information about minorities in different countries. The difficulty is to get anyone to act on the information. I should first like to ask whether the Government have any proposals to put before the United Nations or other international bodies for monitoring and acting upon the wrongs of minorities.
As has been said this evening, one of the most appalling wrongs which minorities have suffered is what is being done to the Kurds in Iraq. I hope that we shall have a clear explanation, withdrawal and apology, if necessary, from the Government if it is true that we are supplying Iraq with the means, credit and so forth, to carry on that persecution, because that is what it amounts to.
There is a good deal which wealthy nations can do to help minorities. In my youth it was the traders in arms, particularly Sir Basil Zaharoff, who were condemned for creating war and persecution in different countries. I am afraid to say that it is now very often governments who stand behind the arms trade and who are frightened to take what action they can for fear of losing trade. Surely there are some matters in the world which are more important than trade, although in this country one might think that trade is by far the most important matter with which the Government have to deal.
1000
We should like to know what the Government have done, as regards Tibet. They appear to have contacted the Chinese. What progress have they made in stopping the persecution in Tibet? Hungarians are being persecuted in Rumania and one could also mention that in speaking to the leading Russians.
The particular matter with which I am currently concerned is Ethiopia as I am a vice-president of the British Horn of Africa Council. As your Lordships will know, Ethiopia has been under a Marxist government for some time. Tyranny and cruelty of all sorts have been perpetrated. Lately a particularly horrible event has been reported. It is said that 80,000 people have been forced to leave their homes around She'eb. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, those are people from Eritrea who at present are forcibly incorporated into Ethiopia. Four hundred of them were rounded up and crushed to death with tanks. Old men were locked in huts and the huts burnt. Children were driven out and thrown over precipices.
That is a country to which the western nations send aid. One thing which we could do would be to represent to our European friends that long-term aid to Ethiopia should stop unless it shows some attention to human rights, which, after all, is stipulated, as I understand it, within the recital of the Lomé Convention. Further, the 45th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission will soon meet. I should like to know whether the Government will raise the question of Ethiopia at that session.
Further, Russia is the main supporter of Ethiopia. As we are on good terms with Russia, we should raise the question as to what Russia will do with its new-found enthusiasm for human rights in order to use its influence to stop the atrocities in Ethiopia, which is very much under its protection and to a great extent is economically supported by it.
As I say, all over the world those atrocities continue and we have heard about them this evening; and yet the western nations seem unable to do anything about it. There are great difficulties about minorities, and I speak as someone who was chairman of the Minority Rights Group. It is not as impossible as governments like to think, because they are really terrified of losing trade. That is the basis of many of their attitudes to this.
If one wants to see the disastrous results of internal western politics on this matter, perhaps we should consider the banning of Arafat from appearing in America before the United Nations. That is a matter where our Government come out with no credit whatever. Their excuses were lame to say the least of it and dishonest into the bargain. That Arafat should be denied entry to the United Nations purely for internal reasons of the United States political scene is a scandal not only to the United States but also to the West. I hope that at the end of this debate the Government will not spend time wringing their hands or telling us what they have done—and I fully accept that they have taken some action. I hope they will tell us what they are now going to do in the the face of these appalling events about which we have been told from all over the House tonight.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for his initiative in bringing to the forefront of our minds the great issue of human rights. Perhaps I may say that it has led to a notable debate in this House in which the wings of noble Lords have been spread over a great deal of the world in the cause of pleading for something to be done to rescue and relieve those suffering from breaches of human rights.
I congratulate the noble Viscount on his foresight in enabling the great theme of human rights to be discussed in the House so near the celebration on 10th December of Human Rights Day—the day on which in 1948 members of the United Nations declared that every human being, wherever he or she may be, is entitled to basic human and inalienable rights and when the governments of the world then pledged themselves not only to respect those rights in their own countries but to protect and promote them in all countries.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was followed by two covenants on human rights, one covering economic, social and cultural rights and the other covering civil and political rights—both in terms binding on ratifying states. Regional human rights conventions have followed in different parts of the world.
The significance of those measures in international law was brilliantly expounded by Paul Sieghart in his book The International Law of Human Rights. He called it
"a revolution in human affairs comparable with those of 1789, 1848 and 1917; namely, the birth of international human rights law."
It was a cause to which he gave and dedicated much of his life. Sadly, he died on Monday, championing human rights and justice to the very end in a speech which I heard him make a few hours before he died. I am deeply grateful, as is the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his tribute to Paul who was a friend of so many of us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what was agreed and accomplished 40 years ago was in legal terms, as Paul wrote, indeed revolutionary. The accepted article of faith and legal doctrine until then was that the way in which a sovereign state treated its own citizens was a matter only and exclusively for its own sovereign determination.
Following the various treaties and conventions solemnly entered into by governments, including our own, when the war ended that was no longer the case. How governments treated their own subjects was, from then on, rightly the legitimate concern of all mankind and of international law itself. What is more, the actions of governments are now capable of being judged by the test of common standards of internationally agreed and legally binding rules, known now as international human rights law. If I may say so, it was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with his wide and distinguished record in human rights, speaking on these matters. The individual, wherever he or she may be, is no longer a
1002
mere object of compassion but a subject of rights. International law now reaches down to individual men, women and children.
The crucial question remains: what actual practical difference has this law made to the behaviour of governments? Alas, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and others in their eloquent speeches have indicated, very little. We have heard that violations of human rights' law are taking place all over the world in varying degrees of gravity.
A major difficulty is that there are few, if any, executive bodies at international level capable of enforcing this human rights' law against governments which are in breach of the law. The separate states into which the world is still divided boast of their sovereignty and still, alas, have the monopoly over the means of coercion of the offenders and enforcement of the law against them.
The question that has been asked, and upon which I wish to dwell, is: what steps are being taken by the United Nations and its agencies to create and operate mechanisms of enforcement against the offenders? Has it any emergency machinery? I know of none, but there ought to be.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is the central human rights body at the United Nations. For how long do its annual sessions last? I have the impression that they are not anything like long enough. In its 44th session at the beginning of this year the commission, which is composed of 43 governments who are elected by the Economic and Social Council, adopted without a vote a resolution calling for the release of those it termed "political prisoners". I am happy to say that the resolution was introduced by the United Kingdom Government. Political prisoners were defined as those people detained in many parts of the world for,
"seeking peacefully to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms, including not only the right to freedom of expression but also freedom of assembly, association and participation in public affairs."
As it is formulated, that resolution covers many of the prisoners of conscience who are of particular concern to Amnesty International, which has done notable work in this field.
Has any working group been set up to examine progress in this field? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question for us. Has a special rapporteur been appointed to investigate and report upon the matter? Is there any prospect that that will be done in any future sessions of the commission? If not, the resolution may be merely a statement of pious intent and nothing else.
Since 1980 the United Nations working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances has acted on more than 15,000 "disappearances" in over 40 countries. Can the Minister say—not in any detail, of course, but broadly speaking—what success was achieved? In 1987 the United Nations working group intervened in more than 1,000 new cases in 14 countries. Again, I wonder what the result was.
The special rapporteur on summary and arbitrary executions has approached 60 governments to try to prevent threatened executions. Were any of those approaches successful? I hope they were. I shall await

1003
to hear what the Minister says. I thought it right to give him notice of some of these questions because to shoot them out without warning would not be helpful to the House.
The special rapporteur on torture has tried to stop torture in more than 30 countries. Alas, the wicked evil of torture continues. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which to my surprise I learned functions in a Hampstead hospital, reports that although torture is banned in international law, it is practised in over one-third of the countries of the world. It is not simply the exercise of sadism by individual torturers, bad enough though that is, but it is often used deliberately by governments to suppress dissent through coercion and terror.
That foundation reports, "Torture knows no frontiers." It lists 32 countries, widely varied in their political and ideological affiliations, from which patients who attend that hospital come for treatment. The Dutch have a rehabilitation centre attached to the University College Hospital of Copenhagen where torture survivors are treated after an appeal from Amnesty International to doctors around the world.
I was happy to learn today—I missed it in the press, I am sorry to say—that the Government have ratified the United Nations convention against torture, and did so on 8th December. However, why was no declaration made by the Government under Article 22 of the convention, which I believe allows for the right of petition? For some reason they have not included that in their ratification of the convention. I submit that that should have been done in order to recognise the competence of the Committee against Torture.
Another matter of grave concern mentioned by one or two noble Lords is the number of reports that slavery continues to be practised in certain African countries. The House would like to know what steps the Government are taking in that respect. For example, have reports of enslavement of members of the African Dinka ethnic group in Southern Sudan been made to the United Nations or our Foreign Office.
As it has been reported by Amnesty International, is it the case that slaves are selling for £30 a head in the Sudan? Noble Lords have raised their own particular concerns and interests about other territories and other peoples. We would like an assurance as to the actual concern and involvement by the Foreign Office in and about the United Nations itself and particularly by communication and protest and whatever action is possible against the offending governments.
Persecution and the killing off of minority groups tragically still occurs. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others, have spoken of that and in particular of the suffering of the Iraqi Kurds and the appalling fact of aerial gas attacks. That takes us back to the evils of Mussolini in Ethiopia itself which has left a terrible mark upon the outlook and the fate of the unfortunate Ethiopian people. They are a splendid,
1004
lovely people. I had the pleasure of doing a case there many years ago. They are a delightful people suffering hell.
In its report, Amnesty International has indicated that in scores of countries governments pursue their goals by kidnapping and murdering their own citizens. In very many countries large numbers of their inhabitants are locked away for speaking their mind, often after sham trials. Mercifully, the struggle to enjoy human rights is not always lost. As has been said, there is room for good cheer in the Soviet Union but not, alas, in the territories of Iran, Uganda and possibly Turkey as well. The Prime Minister registered a remarkable vote of confidence in the Prime Minister after her return from Turkey when the information that one receives from there is by no means reassuring.
Apart from the actions of the United Nations, public opinion is a vital factor in this field. Dictators fear it and do their best to control it. One noble Lord has spoken of the manipulation of facts. Experience has shown that even the most repressive governments are sensitive to international pressure. Here the world-wide human rights movement is playing a vital part. Amnesty International has groups of volunteers working in almost all countries. There are more than 8,000 other human rights organisations in different parts of the world campaigning for human rights.
The exposure of offending governments to the glare of international publicity is a valuable weapon against the oppressor. It is good that the human race is to that extent very alert to what is happening. A large number of non-governmental human rights organisations, as I have said, are ready to expose human rights violations. To indicate the extent of it, 113 such organisations from all over the world attended this year's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
There is much more that needs to be done. One noble Lord has referred to the need for a proper system of monitoring by the United Nations and its agencies of these infringements and of enforcement of the law of human rights. Is there a particular machinery that has responsibility for that? As Ben Whitaker, the United Kingdom expert and member of the United Nations human rights sub-committee, has mentioned, do we not need to emphasise the individual responsibility of the torturers? They do not like at all the idea of being named. One day the law may catch up with them if we have the machinery. Ben Whitaker has suggested a world-wide United Nations inspectorate of prisons and police interrogation centres set up perhaps initially through the International Red Cross. Is that a practical possibility? It sounds a very dramatic and splendid concept to my mind. Perhaps something may be done in that field.
Reliable information is essential for the campaign for human rights to work. For instance, at present there is no independent press or source of information to report on situations in several of the states that are mentoned. I identify North Korea or Albania as enjoying the benefit of the lack of publicity as regards what goes on in the field of human rights. Peoples of the world still look

1005
anxiously for signs that the time for the world enjoyment of human rights has come. It has not come yet.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would have found it impossible, I believe, to find a more opportune moment to initiate this debate. Many of your Lordships have referred to the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which we celebrated on 10th December. I too should like to pay tribute to this declaration, particularly in the context of this debate, since for the past four decades the declaration has been of fundamental importance to the international community's efforts to promote respect for human rights.
I should also like to be associated with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, among others, about the death of Mr. Paul Sieghart. His death is indeed a sad affair. I gladly acknowledge the work that he has done in this most important field. He will be much missed.
The Universal Declaration was first a symbol of the determination of governments to protect human rights world-wide. It reflected the aspirations of the founders of the United Nations itself. Secondly, it elaborated a vital and new principle: that the international community has a shared responsibility to promote respect for human rights. It removed from governments the excuse that external comment on internal repression in other countries is interference, though sadly we still hear versions of that phrase far too often today. For the first time, on 10th December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set standards which were recognised universally, and against which all nations are judged.
To demonstrate the importance which we attach to the Universal Declaration, we have marked the occasion of its 40th anniversary in a number of ways to which I should like briefly to refer. Most important, we introduced agreed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill earlier this year which allowed us to ratify the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs himself deposited the instrument of ratification with the United Nations Secretary General on 8th December shortly before addressing the special session of the United Nations General Assembly which met in New York on that day to celebrate the anniversary. We will play our part in helping to ensure that the committee against torture works effectively to eliminate torture globally.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for giving me notice that he intended to ask a number of questions. I shall cover as many of them as I can. He asked in particular about the effectiveness of the United Nations in this regard. I entirely agree with him that what matters is the implementation of international human rights standards. We believe that the United Nations plays an increasingly effective role in promoting respect for
1006
human rights. The United Nations focuses attention on governments, making it harder for those who abuse the rights of their own citizens to escape the glare of international publicity and condemnation.
The Commission on Human Rights is particularly useful in this respect not least because it provides a most useful focus for non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International. The commission may meet for only a few weeks a year but it has evolved increasingly effective machinery which operates all year round. That is important. We strongly support the system of thematic and country rapporteurs and believe that they have been of practical assistance in promoting the implementation of existing standards.
The noble and learned Lord referred to two particular rapporteurs—for torture and for disappearances. The special rapporteur for torture was appointed in 1985 by the commission to investigate allegations of this particularly horrific abuse. We have strongly supported his reappointment each year and will continue to do so. The entry into force of the convention against torture has not removed the need for such a rapporteur. The committee against torture can only monitor the performance of states party to that convention—presently 38 in number. The rapporteur has a mandate from the United Nations to investigate allegations of torture wherever they might arise. We believe that his appeals to governments, like those of other rapporteurs and the working group on disappearances, have on occasion brought practical results. We shall continue to urge all governments to co-operate with the United Nations mechanism.
The resolution on political prisoners which we introduced at this year's commission was adopted by consensus. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made clear in his statement to the commission that we wish to see set up an appropriate mechanism, such as another special rapporteur, to focus on the problems of political prisoners throughout the world. Perhaps at this moment I may also refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord about slavery. We deplore the practice of slavery in all its forms and wherever in the world it is alleged to be going on. Although slavery is illegal throughout the world we are concerned to hear that slavery and the slave trade still exist in some places. The United Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution at this year's Commission on Human Rights which addressed the problems of slavery, including contemporary forms of slavery. The resolution recommended the appointment of a special rapporteur to look into ways of preventing and suppressing slave-like practices.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the subject of special rapporteurs, will he comment on the notion that a special rapporteur might be appointed to look at the use or the threatened use of chemical weapons against civilian populations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that point in a moment when I deal specifically with the Kurds and the alleged Iraqi use of chemical weapons. I shall endeavour to do that.

1007
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was and remains a remarkable achievement. The British Government described it on its adoption as "a milestone on the road to human progress". I think that assessment has stood the test of time. And yet the human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals continue to be violated all over the world—a sad reality. We are firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and seek universal observance of the standards which have been agreed internationally for that purpose. We are concerned about human rights abuses wherever they occur and whatever form they take and regularly raise such problems in our bilateral contacts with other governments, in joint demarches with our European Community partners and in international fora such as the United Nations. Our position was set out clearly in the statement agreed by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 21st July 1986.
We will continue to take a clear stand with other governments on human rights issues, in public and in private. Our objective is always to secure actual improvements for the victims of human rights abuses. We believe that discreet and confidential approaches are sometimes more likely to achieve this objective than public statements. We must also be ready to recognise improvements where they are established and to encourage further progress. If we are not prepared to do so we cannot expect the blame we hand out to be taken seriously.
I should like to turn now to the situation in the three countries referred to in the Motion and then come on to some others. I listened with care to the comments of the noble Viscount about the position in Uganda and noted his suggestion that a commission of inquiry be established. We have all very much welcomed the considerable improvement in Uganda's human rights record since the present Government took power in January 1986. In view of Uganda's tragic recent history, we are encouraged to see the priority now given to the re-establishment and maintenance of respect for human rights.
We have welcomed President Museveni's regular public statements of his commitment to this goal. He has shown his commitment in practical ways, such as the establishment of human rights commission, an amnesty for rebels, the release from Luzira and other prisons earlier this year of nearly 2,000 detainees, and the severe punishment of human rights offenders when detected. Under him, Uganda has become a party to most of the main international instruments on human rights.
At the same time we recognise that the Ugandan Government continue to face serious security problems in the north and east. There is continued armed insurgency there. It is naturally very difficult to be sure what exactly is happening in these areas on the ground. We are, however, aware that allegations have been made about human rights abuses committed by both government and rebel forces.
We of course treat these reports with serious concern. The Ugandan Government know this; we enjoy a good dialogue with them on these matters. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary
1008
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had the opportunity to discuss this very issue with President Museveni during his visit to Uganda in September.
We are also seeking to help in practical ways. We are giving Uganda considerable assistance in training its police force to resume responsibility for civil security. We have provided a large amount of equipment to help them do so. We are also giving help to the Ugandan judiciary by providing a supreme court judge and by contributing to the reprinting of Ugandan laws.
All these things are designed to help ensure that the improvement I spoke about earlier will be consolidated. And, where necessary, we shall not hesitate to continue to let the Ugandan Government know that we expect them to uphold their public commitments to the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Recent reports of executions in Iran are a matter of considerable concern to the Government. We have consistently condemned violations of human rights in Iran, bilaterally, in concert with our European partners and as members of the wider international community.
On 8th December, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on human rights in Iran which, among other points, urged the Government of Iran to respect the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a party. The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of this resolution and played an active part in its drafting and negotiation. We shall continue to make clear our concern at human rights violations in Iran for as long as they occur. At the same time, we welcomed the expressed commitment of the Government of Iran at the United Nations to co-operate fully with the UN special representative to enable him to investigate and report upon allegations of human rights abuse in Iran. We hope that this commitment will be fulfilled.
The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, asked about the Baha'is in Iran. The persecution of Baha'is is a continuing cause of concern. We shall continue to urge the Iranian authorities to ensure that human rights of all minorities are respected. I am glad that the Baha'i community is pleased with the action we have taken and will continue to take.
We very much welcome the progress which is being made in Chile to return that country to its former democratic tradition. We and our partners in the Twelve have been encouraged by the exemplary conduct of the 5th October presidential plebiscite, by the Chilean Government's speedy acceptance of the result, by the lifting of the state of emergency and by the end of the prohibition on the return of exiles.
Those are all positive steps and we have admired the great sense of responsibility shown by all the Chilean people in recent months. It would be wrong not to recognise this process. The armed forces have now more recently begun the process of withdrawing from government. This, we all hope, will culminate in orderly and peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections in December next year and the installation

1009
of an elected civilian president and government in March 1990.
We regard the restoration of democracy in Chile as the best guarantee of full respect for human rights in that country. Some progress in human rights has been made in Chile over the past few years, but so much more needs to be done. We remain seriously concerned about continuing violations, allegations of torture, the harsh system of military justice, the lack of full independence of the judiciary, the prolonged periods some prisoners are held, sometimes many years, without trial, and intimidation—particularly of people who are working to promote respect for human rights. We condemn these abuses.
I can assure your Lordships that the British Government are not slow to draw their concern directly to the attention of the Chilean authorities. We do so frequently, in the hope of encouraging change, and will continue to do so as long as violations persist. It is, for example, a matter of deep regret to the British Government that Señora Ledy Castro Urra, a Chilean lady whose husband and son reside in the United Kingdom, is now serving her fifth year in detention without any trial whatsoever. It is of concern to Her Majesty's Government that the Chilean authorities have so far failed to respond to representations on this matter.
But it would be wrong for any of us to be blind to the destructive terrorism which continues in the face of the advances which have been made towards a restoration of democracy in that country. As the United Nations special rapporteur, Senor Volio, has pointed out in his most recent report:
"Terrorism remains a formidable obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights in Chile".
The British Government fully agree with him and roundly condemn terrorism in all its ugly forms in Chile as elsewhere. It invites repression and does nothing to advance the cause of the vast majority of Chileans who want peaceful change.
In this debate we have not covered all the countries in which human rights abuses occur, though, judging by the amount of paper which I have here, I feel that we have gone a very long way towards that point. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave a masterly and all too depressing review of human rights abuses worldwide. Perhaps I may concentrate on one particular aspect, because I have some recent personal experience in the matter.
The noble Lord referred briefly to the Chittagong hill tracts in Bangladesh. I visited them only last week. While there I took the opportunity to make clear to the Bangladesh authorities the level of concern in this country about alleged abuses of rights of the tribal population there. I must say to the noble Lord that I was encouraged to find that those to whom I spoke were sensitive to this concern and were aware of the need to find a political solution to the current problems. Indeed, I was impressed by the activities which they are undertaking in order to bring this about. I thought that I should mention that fact to the noble Lord because, having been there only last Tuesday, it seemed to me that it was specially germane to the issue.
1010
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also touched on Tibet. Let me begin by saying how saddened I was to hear reports of new disturbances and loss of life in Lhasa. Her Majesty's Government have made clear to the Chinese Government the concern of people in this country, and in your Lordships' House, about Tibet. Both my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the subject of Tibet with the then Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Wu Xueqian, when he was here in March this year. Moreover, I have taken up the subject with Chinese Ministers in Peking.
It is difficult, because of the remoteness and isolation, to know precisely what is going on in that country. Indeed, there may be some exaggeration on both sides. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made a point and I can assure him that we shall continue to raise the matter as and when appropriate. It is important for the Government of China to work constructively with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, in the search for a political settlement.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, said that he would not mention the Soviet Union and then promptly did so. I shall be brief on the matter and say that the human rights situation in that country has improved in the past year. I think that that is very much in tune with President Gorbachev's long-term attempts to civilise Soviet society. However, not all problems have disappeared. For example, the KGB remains largely untouched by glasnost and perestroika. Few arrests on political grounds have taken place but other abuses, such as violent assaults on activists, have continued. Glasnost itself continues to be selectively applied. We are looking for fundamental and lasting change in the Soviet Union to allow all Soviet citizens to enjoy the full range of human rights and freedoms.
The noble Earl, Long Longford, referred especially to the Irish situation and human rights. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks about the Ryan affair. I shall simply say to him that it is important that a balance is struck—it always has to be in such cases, as the European Commission on Human Rights has recognised—between the protection of individual rights and the need to defend democratic societies against the threats posed by organised terrorism. I do not believe that those matters will ever be very easy to reconcile, and individual cases will crop up. Indeed we can all think of cases where we might feel that the balance had tilted one way rather than the other. However that balance is an important one to strike and I hope that the noble Earl will agree that that is what we strive to achieve.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot just sit here and allow that to be said. I do not agree for a moment with that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Earl may not agree but the fact is that a balance must be struck in such matters; that is what we try to achieve. I do not believe for one minute that the noble Earl can claim that in our attempts to meet the horrifying effects of terrorism, of which the noble Earl is fully

1011
aware, that we have in any sense denied human rights to the extent which he indicated in his speech this evening.
I turn now to the issue of the minorities which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Grimond. Both noble Lords are quite right to draw our attention to the plight of minorities, whether they be Kurds in Iraq or whatever. I note the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that a special rapporteur might be established to examine allegations of CW (chemical warfare) use. We took the matter to the UN and pressed for an independent investigation. However, I regret to say that the proposal received insufficient support.
As regards proposals which might be put before the UN to protect the rights of minorities—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—there is no shortage of rights on the international statute book. The problem, as I think we all agree, is actually enforcing them. We fully support the work of the sub-commission of the Human Rights Commission which is tasked to investigate abuses of such rights. Moreover, I am glad to say that a highly qualified independent British member was elected to that body last year.
So far as Ethiopia is concerned, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that we shall be raising the matter of the situation in that country—about which we share his concerns—at the next meeting of the Commission on Human Rights in February next year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that he wrote to me saying that it was not a good idea to have this put on the agenda of the 45th meeting of the Human Rights Commission, because when the United States attempted to do so in 1986, with UK support, it was voted down. He said that he did not think it was a good idea for such a Motion to be defeated on two successive occasions because he thought that that might lead the Ethiopians to be able to claim that their human rights record had been vindicated. Therefore I am not sure that he is right in saying that the 45th meeting of the Human Rights Commission provides us with the opportunity of exposing the record of the Ethiopians.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may look at my last letter to the noble Lord and reply to him in the light of his remarks and what I have just said about my understanding that we can raise the situation again next time. Of course I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library.
I turn now to the important matter of Iraq and the Kurds raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbacken. I can assure him that we are deeply concerned at Iraqi actions against the Kurdish people. I have referred to the issue on more than one occasion in your
1012
Lordships' House. Reports of chemical use are one, but sadly not the only, major humanitarian problem there.
My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary stressed our concern to the Iraqi Minister of State and described the use of chemical warfare as uniquely barbaric. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord's view that to isolate Iraq or to impose sanctions would encourage it to improve its behaviour any more than it would do on a number of other occasions, because it is important that we maintain our contacts and use them to impress upon the Iraqi Government the unacceptability of their behaviour.
We shall ensure that that issue is kept permanently on the international agenda. I shall make it absolutely clear that we do not allow the export of equipment which might be used for internal repression.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned Western Sahara. I can assure him that that conflict is far from forgotten. We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to mediate in that long dispute. We have welcomed the encouraging indications of progress in recent months.
It would be impossible to cover every country and wrong of me to do so in the time available for a short debate. I hope that what I have been able to say has reassured your Lordships that we remain deeply concerned about human rights abuses wherever they occur and we take a firm stand with governments on human rights issues. We recognise this to be a responsibility handed down to us by those who, 40 years ago, set out the Universal Declaration.
It is not a matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested, of Her Majesty's Government wringing their hands on such an issue. It is a responsibility which we try to fulfil as impartially as possible and we believe that our approach to human rights is coherent, consistent and constructive. We shall continue to play an active part in multilateral human rights fora and to work towards our objective, which is to secure the maximum improvements for the victims of abuse.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am especially grateful to the Minister for his encouraging reply. I did state in my little note that I should refer briefly to the Soviet Union. I am glad that he picked up that point. It was especially interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and other noble Lords who have first-hand experience, as I have, of that horrible problem. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.