WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (Hansard, 28 June 1955)

§ Mr. K. Zilliacus (Manchester, Gorton)
I rise to raise the question of the conflict between the obligations of the Western European Union Treaty and those of the Charter of the United Nations.
I do not think that the Government contest that the military obligations of Western European Union conflict with Article 53 of the Charter, which declares that no enforcement action, defined as action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression, shall be taken under a regional arrangement or by a regional agency without the authorisation of the Security Council.
Nor do I think that the Government contest that under Article 103 of the Charter, if other treaty obligations conflict with those of the Charter, the obligations of the Charter shall prevail, which is interpreted by the Foreign Office commentary on the Charter, published after the San Francisco Conference in 1945, to mean that such treaty obligations cannot be invoked if and when the occasion arises.
The Government base their case for the validity of the obligations of the W.E.U. Treaty on the claim that this is a collective defence agreement under Article 51 of the Charter, which declares that Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. … 359 What this claim amounts to is the contention that members of the United Nations may, under Article 51, conclude agreements for doing the very things that they are specifically prohibited from doing under Article 53. It is further claimed that members of the United Nations who act in this way actually strengthen the peace-keeping system of the United Nations and reinforce the Charter.
I should like to give a homely illustration to show where this claim lands us. Under the Highway Code, pedestrians have the right of way on zebra crossings. Suppose that a genius arose who managed to interpret another section of the Highway Code as conferring the right on drivers of motor cars at their discretion to drive across zebra crossings whenever they liked as fast as they liked, individually or collectively, and added a rider that this did not affect the rights or safety of users of zebra crossings and actually strengthened the Highway Code as a protection for the pedestrian. We should think that that was a curious way of interpreting the Highway Code, whereby one section destroyed the force of the other.
To understand the full import of the Government's claim, let us look at the basic principle of the Charter, which is that the business of keeping the peace is entrusted to the Security Council. The members of the United Nations agree not to take the law into their own hands on matters of peace or war and on questions of enforcement action, but to leave it to the Security Council to decide when enforcement action shall be taken and to follow its injunctions.
There are two derogations to this principle in the Charter, but they are more apparent than real. In the case of Article 53, there is an exception which allows enforcement action to be taken under regional agreements with regard to an enemy State, that is a State which was an enemy of any signatory of the Charter in the last world war. Article 107 reinforces this exception and specifies that direct action may be taken against an enemy State. These provisions were put in because the French were extremely nervous about the danger of a German attack at some unspecified period after the war and wished to be free to deal with it directly.
360 It was for the same reason that the self-defence Article was inserted in the Charter, namely, to allay the apprehensions of France about Germany. But, as it stands, Article 51 endeavours to circumscribe carefully the exercise of the right of self-defence so as to subordinate it to the over-riding authority of the Security Council as the organ for keeping the peace. That is what the Foreign Office "Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations" meant when it said, pointing out the importance of this matter, that the Charter recognises … the explicit right of self-defence, both individual and collective, but in such a manner that the final authority and responsibility of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security is not impaired. There are three safeguarding clauses in Article 51 designed to effect this purpose. The first says that action may be taken to meet an act of aggression … until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security … The second safeguarding clause says: … Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council … The third and crucial safeguarding clause continues as follows: and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. This is the crucial clause because, obviously, if, on the plea of defence, measures are taken and action is indulged in which put the Security Council out of action and make it impossible for it to take charge of the situation, all these safeguarding clauses fall to the ground and the whole United Nations peacekeeping system collapses.
Bearing that in mind, let us look at Article 5 of the Western European Treaty, which reads: If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power. What does that mean? It means that without referring to the Security Council, on the plea of collective self-defence, the 361 members of W.E.U. are prepared to indulge in a first-class war, and these members include permanent members of the Security Council. How can it be contended that such action does not affect in any way the authority of the Security Council? The Security Council would simply cease to exist.
It is really like saying that someone may drop an atomic bomb on the vicar's tea party provided he does not spill the tea. The thing is an absurdity. Action is taken on a scale which, in fact, completely wrecks and disintegrates the United Nations. The Security Council ceases to exist in a situation where some of the permanent members are fighting the others. But in the next Article, Article 6, it is declared that this Treaty … shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. I should really like to know how the Government think that under Article 5 members of the Western European Union may render all the military and other aid and assistance in their power to a High Contracting Party they consider has been attacked, but that in doing so they shall not at the same time affect or impair in any way the authority of the Security Council. The thing is an absurdity. The two Articles contradict each other completely, and together they make no sense whatever.
The truth is that the founders of the United Nations never dreamed of the possibility that permanent members of the Security Council could invoke the terms of Article 51 in order to justify preparing for war against each other. The whole Article was put in to allay the apprehensions of France with regard to possible action of an enemy State outside the United Nations.
The Charter not only vests responsibility in the Security Council for keeping the peace, but stipulates that for this purpose the Great Powers who are permanent members of the Security Council must be unanimous. The Foreign Office Commentary explains that "the complete unanimity of the Great Powers is always required when the Security Council decides on enforcement action" because it is clear that no enforcement action by the United Nations Organisation can be taken 362 against a Great Power itself without a major war. If such a situation arises the United Nations will have failed in its purpose. Then the Commentary continues: Thus the successful working of the United Nations depends on the preservation of the unanimity of the Great Powers; not of course on all the details of policy, but on its broad principles. If this unanimity is seriously undermined no provision of the Charter is likely to be of much avail. In such a case the Members will resume their liberty of action. I believe that this indicates the only serious defence that can be made of the Western European Union Treaty. To argue that this Treaty is consistent with the terms of the Charter is untenable, I have given my reasons for thinking that. But there is a possible political case for it. It is possible to argue that the Soviet Union is solely responsible for our failure to agree with that Power on basic issues since the war, and, moreover, that the West are justified in inferring from this failure to agree that there is an intention on the part of the Soviet Union to attack the West. I do not personally accept this political plea, but what I am saying is that that is the only possible line of defence of the existence of W.E.U. It amounts to pleading a political necessity for scrapping the Charter and reverting to the balance of power, sustained by military alliances such as N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O., W.E.U., and an arms race in hydrogen bombs.
The Russians, of course, would enter the same political plea the other way round to justify the Sino-Soviet alliance and the over-all Warsaw Convention recently concluded. None of these military alliances, I believe, is compatible with Articles 51 and 53 of the Charter. They are all power political combinations based not on the Charter but on reverting to the balance of power. If that be so, a very important practical consequence follows.
The reason I have raised this subject tonight is that we are on the eve of the four-Power talks and we have just had a conference in San Francisco—the ten years anniversary of the United Nations—at which our own Government, the United States Government, the Soviet Government and the French Government have all again pledged their loyalty to the United Nations, and have said that they will base their policy on the United Nations. Mr. Dulles went further. He 363 told Mr. Molotov that there was only one condition necessary for coming to terms with the Soviet Union and that was that they should consent to base their policy on the Charter. I think that is true, but that it works both ways. It applies in the West as well as in the East.
As part of a general settlement based on the Charter there must be the scrapping of these power political alliances based on the assumption that it is not possible to come to terms. It would be quite wrong to invert the process and cause the negotiations to fail because we cling to these power political alliances. Their only justification is the alleged inability to come t o terms with the Soviet Union on the basis of the Charter, and they must not be allowed to become an obstacle to an agreement with the Soviet Union based on a return to the Charter in our mutual relations.
Of course, this cannot be done in a day. But I suggest that the very first step in this direction must be the readiness on our part, in return for the unification of Germany through free elections and under international supervision, (a) to scrap the Western European Union if we receive corresponding concessions from the Soviet Union in her alliances in Eastern Europe; (b) to admit United Germany and the other ex-enemy States in Europe to the United Nations; (c) to include them all in an all-European regional agreement based on Article 53 of the Charter and on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
Further, if, as I fear will turn out to be the case, the United States insist on clinging to the West European Union, in spite of the fact that by doing so they will render any agreement with the Soviet Union impossible, then our country has a very powerful diplomatic weapon in its hands, for we can say to the Americans that since the military obligations of W.E.U. conflict with Articles 51 and 53 of the Charter, they cannot be invoked under Article 103 if the occasion arises, and we do not propose to act on them without the authorisation of the Security Council, because without that authorisation they are not consistent with the Charter.
I hope the Government will not hesitate to use that diplomatic weapon, in 364 order to ensure that we get a settlement through the four-Power talks, and do not merely confirm and prolong the deadlock; and in order to take the first step in transferring our relations with the Soviet bloc from the balance of power on to the Charter of the United Nations.
I would add that in case of need—I hope the need will not arise—the Labour Party, which is by no means enamoured of West European Union—the Parliamentary Party would not agree to it and would not vote for it, and the last Labour Party Conference, by a knife-edged majority, passed a resolution which called for a contribution by Germany to collective security in accordance with the principles of the Charter, which I think rules out W.E.U.—would be quite prepared to invoke this view and to stand on it as a ground for opposing our acting under the military obligations of W.E.U., if the negotiations were to break down because of insistence on trying to include Germany in a West European alliance instead of trying to work for a United Nations settlement in Europe.
I hope very much that the Government will not encourage our American friends to cling to this alliance and balance of power conception, but will use their influence and this diplomatic weapon to try to swing the negotiations over to the Charter as being the only basis on which we can reach agreement.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton)
Listening to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), I was reminded of what was said of the Bourbons, that they had never learned anything and they had never forgotten anything. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has never forgotten any of his foreign policy during his enforced sojourn in the political wilderness, because the speech he has just delivered is very nearly identical with the one he delivered on 12th May, 1949, when he was dealing with a similar argument.
There are three main differences between what he has said tonight and what he said in May, 1949. In 1949, he was attacking not Western European Union but the North Atlantic Treaty as being inconsistent with the Charter. He now says that Western Union is similarly inconsistent.
365 The second difference is that in 1949 part of his argument was directed at proving that the North Atlantic Treaty was contrary to Labour Party policy and that the Labour Party was suffering then from political amnesia. Now he says that the Labour Party has come round to his point of view and, from the Scarborough Conference resolution, regards Western European Union as inconsistent with the Charter.
The third difference is that in 1949 his speech was punctuated by the applause of Mr. Gallacher, the Communist Member, but tonight there is no Communist Member to applaud the hon. Gentleman.
Let us see exactly what is the position of Western European Union and the revised Brussels Treaty. This is an arrangement made under Article 51 of the Charter. The hon. Gentleman now realises that it has nothing to do with the regional arrangements which are provided for under Article 52. There is no connection between the two.
The reason for Article 51—it is a very important reservation to the Charter, because without it there would be nothing in the way of the aggressor—is to lay down that every country shall have the right to self-defence and to collective defence. It provides, therefore, that countries can agree together to enter into collective defence. But there are certain important reservations in it. It says that whereas countries may resist the aggressor, when the Security Council takes enforcement action, then, in the words of Article 6 of the Brussels Treaty, the measures taken shall be terminated". That is very important, because it means that that Article is by that proviso wedded to the Charter.
The argument that has been addressed to the House tonight by the hon. Member—and I regret that he has left me such a short time to answer it—is that the revised Brussels Treaty and Western European Union provide for immediate military action, and that such action must affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council and must, therefore, conflict with Article 51 of the Charter.
That is surely a bad argument. He has himself read out how in the revised Brussels Treaty, after laying down in Article 5 the measures that must be 366 taken for collective self-defence, Article 6 goes on to say All measures taken as a result of the preceding article shall be immediately reported to the Security Council. That is in conformity with Article 51. They shall be terminated as soon as the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security".

§ Mr. Turton
I am left very little time. I cannot possibly deal with the hon. Member's argument and give way. I expected to have 15 minutes.
The present Treaty goes on to say that it does not in any way prejudice the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Having read these very clear Articles, the hon. Member said that this Treaty is in conflict with the provisions of the Charter. But it is closely modelled on the wording laid down in Article 51. The hon. Member mentioned the Warsaw Treaty, and it is interesting to see the distinction between Western European Union and the provisions of the Warsaw Treaty. It is quite true that Article 4 of the Warsaw Treaty begins with words that are rather similar to the words used in Article 5 of the Brussels Treaty, but there is this difference. Whereas In the North Atlantic Treaty and the Brussels Treaty it is specifically stated, as I have shown, that the authority and responsibility of the Security Council are unaffected by these treaties, there is no similar statement in the Warsaw Treaty. Therefore, the argument the hon. Member raised against Western European Union to that limited extent might well be used against the Warsaw Treaty.

§ Mr. Zilliacus
I agree.

§ Mr. Turton
It may well be that some of the arguments I used tonight have been similar to those used by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) when he replied to very nearly the same speech by the hon. Member for Gorton when he was the 367 hon. Member for Gateshead in May, 1949. My only defence is that truth is invariable and we who support the Atlantic Treaty and Western European Union have at all times been at pains to carry out our obligations under the Charter.
I ask the House to think for a moment of what would be the position if the hon. Member for Gorton's view were right. It would mean that the way of the aggressor would be easy. There would be nothing to stop the aggressor wreaking his will upon his neighbours, because he would know that if the Security Council did not take action there would be nothing to stop him. Surely what the hon. Member for Gorton is arguing is that the countries of Europe should go back to the law of the jungle. The hon. Gentle- 368 man should know better than that, for he himself had a great deal to do with the formation of the League of Nations and with its work.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to conform to the Charter of United Nations, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in San Francisco only last week gave that pledge. I am proud that this Government have been responsible for helping to form, and to ratify, the Western European Union which does provide so well for collective security in Europe.