§ Lord BROCKWAYMy 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 how the British delegation at the United Nations General Assembly acted on the resolution of 29th October 1976 proposing a treaty banning the use of force in international relations; and what was the voting on the resolution.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, the United Kingdom, in the company of all NATO countries except Greece, abstained on this resolution. The voting was 94 in favour and two against, with 35 abstentions. A further 14 States did not vote at all.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the reason for the abstention? Is it not the case that the proposal was that there should be comments until next June, so that the matter might be considered by the next General Assembly? Was that really a reason for Her Majesty's Government to abstain on this issue, when it went much further than previous proposals by an actual treaty which was to be considered?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we abstained because, although we are wholly committed to the principle of the non-use of force, we are not convinced that the draft treaty proposed by the Soviet Union will add anything to existing legal instruments, in particular the United Nations Charter. In fact, the treaty seems to us in its present form to be less effective and demanding than the United Nations Charter.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, though one may accept the kind of sentiments that are implied in this Question, some kind of sanctions are necessary if the treaty is to have any meaning? Can the noble Lord tell me whether those who have promoted this treaty envisage that it will he necessary to resort to force to enforce the condition against force?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it is, in fact, a derogation of this treaty in its present form that, unlike the provisions of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, it does not provide for enforcement, and in that sense I suggest it is less than adequate for the purpose it proposes.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us how the five nations committed to war over Rhodesia voted on that issue?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I could if I wished to detain the House unnecessarily. I would prefer to hand to the noble and learned Lord a full list of those who voted for and against, and the 51 nations which either abstained or did not trouble to vote at all.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, if an organisation is given observer status in the 867 United Nations and brings a gun into that forum and threatens that unless it complies with the demands the gun will be used—I am talking about the PLO—what can be done about that, and why cannot something be done to prevent such abuse of the Charter of the United Nations?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTSMy Lords, there is no doubt that in supplementary questions a whole range of matters relating to the Charter can be raised. That does not mean that a mere Minister can cope with them.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, could not all these objections have been submitted by June, as was proposed? In particular, arising from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is it not the case that Article 4 of the proposed treaty made the great concession, which we have been demanding, that in disarmament there should be strict and effective international control? Is not that a great advance?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the noble Lord is dealing with disarmament and arms control. It is, of course, a major objective of this and, I imagine, every other country to have effective verification in the field of arms control and disarmament. It is a slightly different question when it comes to the non-use of force and, as we see it at the moment, to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, to which all the countries which took part, or did not take part, in this vote are signatories.