Cambodia: Assistance (Hansard, 23 October 1989)

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we do support such provision: £100,000 was provided to the Food and Agriculture Organisation in June 1988 and £250,000 to UNICEF in December 1988. In addition, since 1979, we have given £13.7 million for displaced people, mainly Cambodian, on the Thai border. More than half of this went through UN agencies.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that well-informed journalists who have visited Cambodia can hardly believe that the Cambodians have received any assistance whatsoever? The journalists have said so on British television and radio. Is the Minister further aware that they have made the very dramatic appeal that perhaps this country can urge the United Nations to try to understand that 2 million human beings have been slain under the evil rule of Pol Pot, and that there is terrible agony and tremendous suffering? Does the Minister agree that there is still 1140 a great deal for the civilised world to do in order to try to ease the appalling burden that Cambodia now suffers? I ask the Government to raise this matter once more with the United Nations.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I certainly agree that the situation in Cambodia is very bad. However, a little light is now appearing at the end of the tunnel. We have been told that the Vietnamese soldiers have withdrawn; but we would have preferred to see that verified by international observers. Considerable discussion is going on as to the future. For example, there was a conference held in Paris during July and August which unhappily did not reach a conclusion at that time. We hope that the conference will be reconvened in due course, and will reach a conclusion. We certainly agree that the influence of the evil Pol Pot (as the noble Lord referred to him) was a very grave matter indeed. We do not believe that he has any place in a reconstituted Cambodia.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, can the Minister say what government-to-government aid Her Majesty's Government are giving to the coalition government of Kampuchea? The government is nominally led by Prince Sihanouk; but in fact it is dominated by the Khmer Rouge. Can the Minister also say how he regards the fact that the United Nations is feeding Khmer Rouge troops on the border?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we have made it absolutely plain that the aid we can provide is not for the benefit of the Khmer Rouge. Indeed, we have received assurances from the United Nations agencies through which principally we have channelled our aid that none of it is getting into those hands. I quite agree with the noble Baroness that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot have no sensible part to play in the future of Cambodia. We should like to see the Cambodian people choose for themselves the government that they wish to rule over them. If and when that government emerges, it will have our support.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the fact that he is seized of the grievous and serious situation in Cambodia. Can he appeal to our American allies to make a very big contribution? I ask that because the Americans bombed Cambodia more than they did Japan. Does the Minister agree that the Americans as well as the British Government have a responsibility to contribute? Following the appalling situation after the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, does the Minister agree that we now need all civilisation to make some effort to ease the pain, suffering and agony that still exists in Cambodia?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the right way forward in this matter is for the United Nations to take the lead. We shall give them every support. Prince Sihanouk is involved in the discussions; and we also support what he is doing.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, my noble friend drew attention to an extremely important 1141 matter; namely, that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge dominate the Cambodian representation at the United Nations. Can the Minister say whether there is any initiative that Her Majesty's Government and our allies can take to see that that dangerous farce is brought to an end?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the government in Cambodia is not, as the noble Baroness said, a coalition government. I am not surprised that she is confused on the matter because I was until I received the benefit of my advice this morning. It is a complicated issue. The government in power in Cambodia at the present time was originally put in place by the Vietnamese when they invaded the country some years ago. I would not go so far as to say that this government are still a tool of the Vietnamese, but they were certainly put in place by the Vietnamese all those years ago. The representation at the United Nations is not the representation appointed by that government, but comes from the coalition to which the noble Baroness referred. It is a matter for conjecture as to how representative it is of the Cambodian people. It is perhaps not for us to challenge the work of the United Nations credentials committee which authorised that particular representation.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's response. However, as it is such an agonising issue, can the Minister confirm that I am right in understanding that the British Government on behalf of the British people, who have massive sympathy for any form of suffering, will raise this matter once more, as he has said, at the United Nations?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we have consistently played a key role, including at the peace conference in Paris earlier this year.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I am sorry to return to this issue. Can the Minister say why we cannot question and challenge the United Nations credentials committee in order to try to weaken the Khmer Rouge in its position of having a seat with the coalition at the United Nations?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not sure whether any representations that we made on that particular matter would have the effect for which the noble Baroness hopes. We want to see the people of Cambodia choose a government of their own preference; and then to send their duly selected representative to the United Nations. In the meantime, we may have to live with some inconsistencies which I agree are wholly undesirable. However, the main objective is quite clear.