§ 2.39 p.m.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true, as reported in the Press, that the United Kingdom Representation at the United Nations said on October 19 that the South African 494 Republic had forfeited the right to administer South West Africa; and if so—
- (a) what is the purpose of such interference with the internal affairs of South Africa, a friendly country; and
- (b) why our large and satisfactory trade with South Africa should be thus imperilled when silence would have been more appropriate.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON)My Lords, it is true that my noble friend, the United Kingdom Representative at the United Nations, stated on October 19 that the South African Republic had forfeited the right to administer the mandate for South West Africa. This is not interference with the internal affairs of South Africa because South West Africa is not part of the Republic. It is a territory with international status, which has been administered by South Africa under a mandate from the League of Nations, and in respect of which the International Court stated in 1950 that South Africa was accountable to the United Nations. I do not accept that it would have been appropriate for the United Kingdom delegate to remain silent during a debate on a matter of such great concern.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, arising out of that reply, does the Minister not think it time that realism entered into the picture, because it is quite certain from Ministers in South Africa that in no circumstances, other than military compulsion, will they give up that territory to administration by anybody else? Secondly, can he explain why silence would not be preferable to damaging unnecessarily our trade with a friendly country—a trade which is so large and so important to this country?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I think that realism has always been—at least during the last few years for which I am entitled to speak—a strong point of our policies, both at home and abroad, but I cannot agree with the noble Lord that it is right on an occasion such as this to remain silent in the hope of getting some commercial benefit from our silence. I think that would be running away not only from our responsibilities but also 495 from our principles, which I am quite sure the noble Lord would be the last to advocate we should do.
With regard to the commercial aspects of this question, we are still anxious to do trade with South Africa, as we are indeed with any country in the world, and we believe that the greater the trade the greater the chance of understanding. So I do not want the noble Lord to think that the remarks setting out the true facts and true feelings of Her Majesty's Government in any way indicate an unwillingness on our part to trade with South Africa or any other country.
Low FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, was not the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, merely an echo of the American statement? And is it not surprising that that great country should lend itself to a statement of the kind made by them and repeated by Lord Caradon, when at the time the League of Nations came to an end the United States, instead of leaving its island territories in the Pacific which were under mandate to them to go on under trusteeship, just gobbled them up themselves on strategic grounds? Is this not rather a humbug?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, my noble friend's statement was in no way an echo of the statement of the United States Government or indeed of any other Government. It was purely and simply a statement of the views and adherence to principle of Her Majesty's Government and, I believe, of this country. If it happened, as it did, that our views on this very important matter coincided with those of another friendly country which shares the great majority of our own views on important matters, it is hardly surprising that we spoke in very similar terms.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, referring to the noble Lord's desire expressed a moment ago to foster trade with all countries, for example with the Iron Curtain countries, the Chinese Republic and South Africa, is it a good idea to disparage in public your third best customer in the world, and does talk like this really accord with perfectly honourable self-interest?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, whether the statement is to be considered disparaging is for others to judge. But I 496 repeat what I said to the noble Lord when he asked his Question: I do not believe that any Member of this House or anyone in this country would support a policy which advocated keeping quiet on matters of principle, of International L aw and right and wrong, in order to gain some commercial advantage.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, would it not be most regrettable if this House were to associate itself in any way with denigration of the International Court of Justice, which was established with the approval and co-operation of Her Majesty's Government? Is it not a fact that not only in 1950 but in 1955 and 1956 the International Court specifically gave an advisory opinion to the effect that the obligations under the 1920 mandate still continued so far as South Africa was concerned, and that the United Nations, as successors of the League of Nations, had supervisory powers over South West Africa?
§ LORD ROWLEYThere is dissent from the other side, but that has been accepted and is embodied in the recent resolution passed by the General Assembly, and I imagine the General Assembly are just as well aware of the legal position as the noble Lord opposite. May I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government would not propose that the International Court of Justice be asked to give another advisory opinion, this time as to whether or not South Africa has breached its obligations under the 1920 mandate, which would give a legal basis to any action taken by the Security Council under the recent General Assembly resolution?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, my noble friend is perfectly correct in what he says about the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1950, in which it stated quite categorically as an advisory opinion that the mandate was still in force, that South Africa continued to have obligations under it and that supervisory functions were to be carried out by the United Nations. Whether or not a further request to the International Court for a further advisory opinion would in fact have reinforcing value is a matter which I think is well worth further consideration.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can answer this question? I am not questioning at all his description of the opinion given by the International Court. What does he say about this statement that the South African Republic has forfeited the right to administer South West Africa? Is that an expression of a political view, or does it purport to be an expression of a legal view?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, it is perfectly true that some of the statements made during that debate went a good deal further than Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend were prepared to go; and in fact, as the noble Lord well knows, my noble friend abstained from voting on the resolution itself. But regarding the general proposition that we have already been through, I am in complete agreement with, and support, the action which was taken by my noble friend on this occasion.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware how surprised many Members of this House are at the expressions—
§ LORD BARNBYMay I interrupt the noble Lord to ask the Leader of the House whether an ex-member of the Cabinet should have precedence?
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)My Lords, I saw two Members rise; one Member sat down, and the other Lord Brockway, asked a question.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, which was contrary to the understanding of some of us.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware how surprised many of us are by the expressions of opinion which have been uttered on the other side of the House? Is it not the case that the Opposition as well as our own Government have declared against this annexation of South West Africa by the Republic of South Africa? Is it not also the case that not only have both sides of the House expressed this opposition, but that with only two dissentients the whole of the United Nations, 120 delegations, have expressed this opinion? In view of that fact, will my noble friend make it clear that those who 498 have expressed these views are expressing the views of only a small minority of racialists in this country?
§ LORD BROCKWAYAnd may I also ask that the Front Opposition Bench should have the courage to-day to repeat what they have said?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to this situation. I can only repeat what I have already said: that I cannot believe that there are any Members of this House, no matter on which side—
§ THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGHMy Lords, the Motion has been made that Standing Order No. 29 be now read.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I had not quite finished answering my noble friend's question. I will simply repeat what I have already said once: that I cannot believe that there is any single Member of this House, no matter on which side he sits, who really believes that we should, in order to get some commercial advantage, forgo the principles expressed on both sides of the House on more than one occasion.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I put this question to the Minister of State? Is this the conclusion that we are to draw from all that has happened: that whereas Lord Caradon expressed a view on how South Africa had administered or failed to administer the mandate, he also stated that it would be clearly contrary, and indeed fatal, to the interests of this country to impose sanctions upon South Africa in order to try to enforce any particular point of view; that was why he abstained from the vote? May we therefore take it that, for all practical purposes, whatever may be the views expressed, Her Majesty's Government would be no party to imposing further sanctions upon South Africa?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I think that these questions are getting a little 499 wide of the original Question; but I would again repeat what I said in an earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that our policy in these matters is always a realistic policy, and my noble friend Lord Caradon, while making our stand absolutely clear, also made the realistic potentialities of this country completely clear, so that nobody can be under any misapprehension as to where we stand on either count.
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, may I suggest that we are now turning what was originally a Question into a debate? If the House wishes to debate this matter, a Motion should appear on the Order Paper; otherwise we ought to confine our questions purely to the point which was raised by the original Question. I think that we have passed the point now where we are dealing with the original Question. May I suggest that we move on to the next Question?
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, may I, with all respect to the noble Lord, as the asker of the original Question, have permission to thank the noble Lord for the fulness of his reply, and, in his second reply to me, for his announced dedication to realism? Arising from that, may I ask what other means there are to administer South West Africa, except through the Republic of South Africa, in view of the vast amount of money they have poured into the railway system, of which they alone own the rolling stock? Secondly—
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, secondly, since silence was not, in his judgment, permitted to our representative in the United Nations, why is that in contradistinction to other matters which can arise in the United Nations?