| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
City of Edinburgh Council Order Confirmation Bill
Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Bill
Zaire
3.33 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Zaire which is being made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
-
"The Great Lakes region of Africa is facing a complex emergency and a potential humanitarian catastrophe. Throughout this century violent clashes have occurred periodically between local tribes and Tutsis of Rwandan origin who have lived in Zaire for generations--who are known as Banyamulenge. Those tensions have been aggravated by the arrival in Zaire of over 1.2 million refugees fleeing conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi.
"Despite efforts by the international community, and the government of Zaire, those refugees have been unwilling to return to Rwanda. The presence amongst them of up to 50,000 armed militia has been a destabilising factor in the region. Violence flared earlier this year, when Tutsi and other groups were attacked by armed Hutu militia (the Interahamwe, who carried out the 1994 genocide in Rwanda) and by elements of the Zairean army.
"The current crisis was precipitated by Zaire's decision to withdraw citizenship from the Banyamulenge, and its threat to expel them from Zaire. The Banyamulenge retaliated by counter-attacking in areas close to the borders with Rwanda and Burundi, and captured the main towns in Kivu province. Zaire has portrayed the conflict as an invasion by Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. Rwanda says that all its troops which had been supporting the rebels have now withdrawn.
"During the past 24 hours, fighting in the region is reported to have intensified. One thing at least is clear. If no action is taken, we could be facing a huge humanitarian tragedy. The United Nations has estimated that the death toll could rise in the next week to 10,000 to 20,000 per day. Over 800,000 refugees are reported to have left their camps, and a quarter of a million Zaireans have also left their homes.
"The United Nations Secretary-General's Humanitarian Co-ordinator is leading the humanitarian effort and the UN Secretary-General is drawing up urgent plans for a humanitarian task force, and planning an international conference to address the political causes of the conflict. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees' organisation is struggling to distribute what aid it can. The Overseas Development Agency which has done an excellent job is in close contact with UN agencies and non-government organisations but, without help, the agencies will not be able to avert the impending crisis.
"On 9th November, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for nations to plan for a multi-national force to protect humanitarian relief and promote refugee repatriation. Repatriation must feature in any lasting solution to the crisis. Because
- of the complexity and urgency of the task, the UN is looking to western nations to provide forces in the first instance.
"Britain has been actively involved in contingency planning since last Friday. Canada has now emerged as the lead nation for a multinational force and the USA, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Britain, amongst western nations, have indicated a willingness to participate. We understand that a number of African countries are also potential troop contributors: South Africa, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Tunisia, Kenya, Botswana, Ethiopia, Mali and Chad.
"A statement from Washington last night made clear US views on key points relating to the mission. First, there is a need to assess fully the threat before deploying and have the consent of the governments of the nations in the area.
"Secondly, the mission should be to facilitate the delivery of aid by civilian relief agencies, and to allow the voluntary repatriation of refugees by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The mission would not include disarming the militias nor policing the refugee camps.
"Thirdly, the force will operate under Chapter 7 rules of the UN Charter which permit an active enforcement role. It would not be a "blue-hatted" operation.
"Fourthly, the participants would bear their own costs and additional arrangements need to be made to support participation by African nations. But non-troop contributing countries who can afford it should help bear the costs.
"Fifthly, the humanitarian mission should be of short duration--about four months. The exit strategy would be to transfer a more stable situation to other nations, whose task would then be to ensure that the conditions of today do not recur.
"Sixthly, the US has made clear that it would wish its involvement to be around Goma airfield, in establishing an air bridge to the region, and to provide security along a corridor from Goma to the Rwandan border.
"Those principles provide a good starting point for us to develop a full plan before the time our forces could deploy. A senior British military planner is in New York today working to develop joint thinking between the allies.
"There are important additional questions to be settled. First, of course, is what level of force might be required were our entry into Zaire to be opposed, and how many would be needed to enable relief to reach those furthest-scattered refugees.
"We need to settle detailed objectives flowing from the broad principles spelled out in Washington. In particular we will need to agree critical matters like rules of engagement.
"No British forces will be sent unless the Government are satisfied that the objectives are clear and attainable; the prospects of handing on to a follow-on force are good; command and control is
- clear; and that British forces are sufficient and well enough armed to protect themselves, and to save lives. Complex as those issues are, we must prepare ourselves now for action since the urgency is great.
"I have authorised a small number of reconnaissance troops to travel to the area to assess the conditions that British forces would face. I have shortened the notice to move of certain units centred on the Joint Rapid Deployment Force.
"The House will rightly ask why Britain should become involved in a place far from our country and where no vital national interest is engaged. Because we are a civilised nation.
"We can see people about to die in their thousands, and we are one of the few nations on earth who have the military capability to help at least some of them. We recognise our humanitarian obligations.
"We take pride in our permanent membership of the UN Security Council, but it carries with it clear obligations. Some of our leading allies in NATO are willing to assist, and our place is with them.
"Britain often faces such calls to action. I believe we should respond out of our deep concern for our fellow man, and with a sense of pride that Britain can make a difference."
3.41 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is a grave situation. The noble Earl is quite right in saying that,
- "we could be facing a huge humanitarian tragedy".
Therefore, in these circumstances we support generally the Government's view and we shall not do anything to oppose effective, humanitarian action on behalf of those who are suffering at present in this terrible crisis in Central Africa.
However, perhaps the noble Earl could elaborate on several questions which arise from the Statement. I understand that we are at an early stage and a detailed plan will come out shortly.
First, the White House statement specifically states that US troops in this operation will be under US command, that there will be a Canadian commander-in-chief of the operation, as I understand it, but, to quote the terms of the White House statement,
- "US troops would remain at all times under US command".
I put this point to the noble Earl. Would that be the case for British troops? If US troops are to be under US command, would British troops be under British command? If not, I do not see how we can reconcile our participation in this force with a different command structure being imposed by the United States. But, if so, what is the command and control structure to be? How can one negotiate a situation where a Canadian lead, presumably a commander-in-chief, has a US deputy force commander, as specified in the White House statement, and the US deputy force commander is the man who gives instructions to US troops? That is the first point.
Secondly--I do not wish to press the noble Earl too hard because I know it is a difficult and fluid situation--could the noble Earl comment on another point which was picked up in the White House statement? It states that,
- "The force will not separate or disarm militants, conduct forced entry, or police operations in the camps",
Nevertheless, it will have robust rules of engagement. If we are sending British troops into a difficult situation, I very much hope that the robust rules of engagement will prevail over any precondition that the United States Government might set on the intervention of the troops. As the noble Earl rightly said in the Statement, if British troops are sent into any situation, it is in all our interests that they should be able to protect themselves against whichever enemy comes from whichever side. In this case we do not know which enemy will come from which side.
Will the noble Earl also comment on the proposed duration of the project? In the fifth condition--it was a condition put by the White House on United States participation--the White House statement says:
- "We envision the humanitarian mission to be of limited duration--about four months. We are discussing with other nations the need for a follow-on presence".
As we have learnt on many occasions, it is vitally important that we have an exit strategy. It is no good sending in troops or forces unless one knows how one will get them out. I am not entirely clear that we, the White House or the Canadians, have an exit strategy. If the noble Earl could help us on that, I should be grateful.
The fourth condition in the White House statement says that,
- "The costs of the mission will be borne by participating states".
The Statement mentions a number of African states--Senegal, Zimbabwe, Gambia; I shall not repeat the list. How do we ensure that the cost of the operation is borne by states who already seem to be in dire poverty? Could the noble Earl enlighten us further on that?
When saying that we support the Government, I hope it is clear that we support the Government generally that any deployment of British troops must be with the consent of the countries in the region. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure us that that is the case. The force must be a multinational operation. I am slightly unclear--perhaps other noble Lords are slightly unclear--about how an operation can be under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter and not be under the United Nations control: that it would not be a "blue-hatted operation", in the words of the Statement. Are we clear that the multinational force's objective must be to facilitate the distribution of humanitarian relief aid by the relief organisations, and not to disarm the combatants? If that is so, as I hope it is, then we must be prepared to think about the possible scenario that people will come at our troops from all sides, and the troops must be able to defend themselves.
This is, I believe, the third Statement that I have taken for the Opposition involving British troops going into danger and possibly risking their lives. I conclude by wishing them the best of luck and a safe return.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page