HC Deb 19 December 1956 vol 562 cc1415-26

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Grime Finlay (Epping)

After the debate to which we have just listened, it is in a spirit of deep humility that I rise to debate the many-dimensioned and mondial issues connected with strengthening the United Nations. This evening's debate on the torture of Hungary will, I think, only more deeply impress upon all of us the essential conditions which are precedent to a civilised world order. These were very clearly stipulated last Sunday in an eminent article in the Sunday Times by Professor Gilbert Murray. First, he said, there must be a general willingness to obey the law; and secondly, he said, there must be the absence of any one Power ambitious enough and strong enough to wreck it.

In regarding world problems, I think we must recognise that the Soviet Union is not generally willing to obey the law and is, moreover, strong enough either to ignore it or to wreck it. We must therefore, I think, shape our attitude towards world institutions accordingly and realise that there are severe limitations imposed upon the effectiveness of the United Nations. Any other course is merely dangerous escapism. That, of course, is not to say that we should do nothing at all. There are certain steps which we should take, and should do all we can to encourage, in strengthening the United Nations.

There has been much talk in recent times about teeth—better and sharper teeth—for the United Nations. Teeth are certainly important; indeed, they are essential. But much more significant, I submit, are the impartial principles on the basis of which any such teeth are to be applied. If the United Nations is to have real moral force, its decisions must be just decisions.

Anyone will agree in this matter, I think, that whatever else they may be, the decisions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly are not judicial decisions. In no sense are they the decisions of some great mondial supreme court. No evidence is called, examined and cross-examined, no authorities or precedents are cited. No reasoned judg- ment, based upon accepted judicial principles, is delivered by judges.

On the contrary, the decisions are made from a very mixed assortment of motives of political expediency. Some nations plainly regard their own interests as top priority. Racial, economic and religious blocs are found to support those interests and bargains are reached between the groups. Still other nations are content or have, perforce, to follow in the orbit of some major nation of which they are the satellites. There is something distinctly unseemly, moreover, and I would almost say indecent, in nations which have consistently broken the spirit of the United Nations Charter, set at naught its Resolutions and defied their obligations under international treaties, taking part in the proceedings of the United Nations and exercising their vote and their membership against other nations.

It should be obvious that if the Assembly is really to count as representing the conscience of the civilised world, its decisions should be reached impartially and on the basis of civilised judicial principles. A more judicial instrument is called for, and when Charter revision is considered this year disqualifications for members infringing the code should be introduced. Indeed, it should be considered whether they should not be expelled altogether.

Unfortunately, public international law is still a far from complete code, although considerable progress has been made towards this development. The judgments of the International Court are not yet enforceable and even if they were it is difficult to see what the means of enforcement would be in many cases, short of armed conflict. I need only recall the two unfortunate experiences of the Corfu judgment and the recourse to the Court in respect of the nationalisation of the oil interests by the Government of Iran. In the Corfu judgment, the British Government got judgment for over £800,000 in respect of the lives of our seamen and the loss of our destroyers in the Corfu Channel, not one penny of which has been recovered. If one applies that situation to our domestic procedure in relation to court judgments, we know that one can go and put the bailiffs in and one can get execution. But one cannot put in the bailiffs when the Government of Albania are concerned, and distrain on their chattels and pro- perty. In fact, there is nothing short of armed action by which one can enforce justice.

Many members of the United Nations organisation even refuse to accept as compulsory the judgment of the International Court, thereby exposing either their bad faith or their lack of confidence in its machinery. I think the first task of the International Law Commission must be to extend its work in completing and restating the code of international law. This, I think, should include the law as to international waterways, and the rights of transit through them, and steps should be taken to make compulsory the jurisdiction of the public International Court.

Turning to the question of the Charter and amendment of it, I come to the definition of "aggression." The International Law Commission has for some years past been trying to get a clearer definition of that expression, but little advance has been made, due to the deep divisions of opinion. We all probably think that we have a pretty good idea of when one country has committed an aggression upon another. We think that in terms of common sense. But some members think that a clearer definition would only encourage the evil which it was intended to prevent. Others are divided regarding the type of definition to be adopted, and a special committee has, I understand, been considering these matters exclusively.

What I have in mind, however, is not a comprehensive and exclusive definition of aggression but the laying down of a series of considerations which should be taken into account before it is decided that an aggression has been committed. In view of recent events which have taken place in the Middle East, these considerations could, I suggest, clearly include the following factors: previous threats; hostile military or economic dispositions: previous record of aggressions; declarations as to a state of war between the parties. All those four factors are guides which could enable a court, exercising its mind judicially, to reach a conclusion.

Another obvious common-sense consideration, if one wants to weigh this question of aggression, is the relevant military strengths of the nations concerned. It is in the highest degree unlikely that a weak nation will be guilty of aggression against a strong nation.

While principles of this kind should not be conclusive, they should afford a guide in enabling a decision to be reached on the issues of aggression or of self-defence. I should be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has to say in reply. Obviously, considerable complexities are involved, and there are many forms of preparation, practice and penetration which can cover aggression.

It is normally regarded as a virtue, I should have thought, for the law to be clear. Very often in this House we define crimes, and I do not remember hearing the Law Officers of the Crown say that that enables a potential criminal more easily to cloak his evil desires. I think that we have to try to do something about this.

As to sharper teeth, the absolute condition precedent is that the principles of their application must be sound before they are supplied. Only if that requirement is satisfied should we aim at the following improvements.

First, we want more rapid and judicial machinery for determining an aggression, otherwise the situation may be changed so rapidly that it is irretrievable save at the cost of a major war. Of course, such machinery involves very considerable difficulties. For example, it is impossible to have a satisfactory interim procedure upon the lines of our English interim injunction procedure. Rights of appeal have to go by the board because of the inevitable delay involved.

What should this judicial instrument for deciding aggression be? I suggest that we want something in the nature of a security court, and that it should be composed and presided over by international jurists of the highest learning and the most exceptional integrity that we can find. They should be supported by military, naval and air assessors, and they should have as well a staff of military observers who should have at their disposal all possible air facilities which would enable them to reconnoitre any dispositions which had a bearing on the question of aggression.

Secondly, I submit that an effective standing force should be immediately available, and I stress "immediately." We know that for various reasons those Articles of the Charter providing for instantly available armed forces have not been fulfilled, and, in particular, that national air force contingents have not been provided under Article 45. If possible, steps should be taken to remedy that. Properly equipped troops, perhaps two divisions of all arms, should be established before the crisis occurs and not weeks after, as in the case of the Middle East.

Those troops should receive practice and training in United Nations police and liaison duties and be instantly available. Military training manuals ought to have some new chapters written upon the tactics and methods of effective intervention. The troops should be provided with their own transport and their own air arm, and should not have to rely upon the disputants themselves for those facilities, as has been the case in the Middle East. Can one imagine anything more derogatory to the dignity and effectiveness of any police force than having to rely upon those who are the parties to the dispute for their transport? That is something which must be put right.

If it is not possible to raise the necessary personnel by direct recruitment to the United Nations organisation, which is the best course, or by seconding from national forces, then it should be the responsibility of members to earmark certain of their forces for the purposes of United Nations duties, and they should receive training in them, and carry out joint exercises. I want to see the cohesion and the discipline of these forces effectively arranged, and they should be in no way inferior to national contingents.

I doubt very much whether, as things are organised at present in the Middle East, the disciplinary arrangements under General Burns are effective. We shall have to see, but I doubt whether they are. I feel that in training, in discipline and in turn-out the United Nations should seek to set an absolutely exceptional example and build up an outstanding type of esprit de corps quite its own.

History provides many examples of efficient mercenary forces, whether it be the Swiss or the Scots in mediaeval times. In the present time, what about the Brigade of Gurkhas, or the French Foreign Legion? We do not need to have purely national contingents to show good fighting qualities. We can look to some of these examples for those qualities. In addition, the United Nations forces will have an extra opportunity of acting in accordance with the highest international ideals.

As things are ordered at present I do not think that those forces can hope to serve anything more than a strictly limited purpose. They can act only as a police force by consent of the disputants, as in the Middle East, or as a military force against a small and relatively weak opponent. I am quite certain that in existing circumstances they could not tackle a heavily armed world Power. In these matters we must be patient and content with progress which is limited, but which, on the other hand, is real progress. We must not expect too much but try to make a start.

Today the United Nations is being put to a real test. The world is watching how it carries out its duties in supervising the withdrawal of the various forces and securing freedom of transit in the Suez Canal. I am certain all of us devoutly hope we are going to learn the lessons of the past anxious months, and that we shall, out of these small beginnings, see a system emerge more effectively to preserve the peace of the world.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Boyd (Bristol, North-West)

If I understood him correctly, I certainly agreed with the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) about the building up of a United Nations police force. I shall not repeat what he said.

During the early part of his speech I had what must be an unusual feeling for an hon. Member on this side of the House about an hon. Member opposite, that he was being a great deal too idealistic and perfectionist in his ideas of how the United Nations ought to work and how it ought to be changed. Personally I welcome the realistic approach of the United Nations towards international political parties, growing like national parties, representing interests, not just points of view, based on realities and solid, common interests, which bind groups of nations together.

I should have thought that the fact that the members of our Commonwealth are often able to work together is a very good thing. It is also good that India is able to lead a party of its own, a group of nations which is often able to mediate between the two major blocs of Powers. I should have thought that the United Nations is far more likely to be successful if it works in the existing setup, in the real world, with a realistic relationship to what is going on. I should not object to that. I do not agree with the idea of trying to turn the United Nations machinery into a judicial set-up. There is already an International Court at The Hague, to which legal issues can be referred, and indeed Britain often does refer disputes of that kind to that Court.

The hon. Member suggested that members of the United Nations which misbehaved should be expelled. Surely if that were the case we should all be expelled eventually. No human being is perfect, and sooner or later every human being would be expelled from an organisation, if expulsion were the penalty for misbehaviour. We should all help the police in catching a law breaker even though a nation assisting the police had misbehaved in the past or might do so in future. To get peace, or to try to get it, all available resources have to be used to stop the law breaker when breaking the law occurs.

I think that it would probably be useful to pursue the discussions which the hon. Gentleman suggests should be held in an effort to define aggression. He had some useful things to suggest, but I do say that it has to be made clear that provocation is not an excuse for aggression, although that is not always accepted today. I agree that the sort of rule of thumb which is useful is that of an attack by a large Power on a small one. But another thing which can help is to find out which side advances, because the aggressor will have chosen the time favourable to himself, and will be reasonably certain to be able to get the better of the fight in the earlier stages. Of course, what will happen later is where the aggressor's calculations may go wrong.

I would conclude by saying that I think it is a pity to spend too much time talking of the form of the Charter. Too many people seem to think too readily that there are deficiencies and defects in the Charter as it exists today. Let us examine ways and means of improving it; and in doing that, I think that we shall find the merits of the Charter as it stands. Let us use the machinery of the United Nations as it exists; let us learn to make the best use of the Charter and the organisation that we can.

11.17 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore)

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd) described the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) as too idealistic; I hope that neither hon. Gentleman will misunderstand me if I say that I thought it too legalistic. For example, I thought that the idea of a court, with military assessors, was going rather far, because by the time that the court had sat and heard the views of those assessors the aggressor would have gone a long way. However, I thought that his idea of a United Nations armed force was interesting, but I cannot go into detail about that tonight.

The other interesting part of his speech—and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West also referred to it—was the definition of aggression. I have already spoken on that subject in a former Adjournment debate, and I dealt with it at some length during Question Time last week; but it is worth going into in some detail.

The real trouble is that the attempt to define aggression—and it has not been much encouraged by Her Majesty's Government—has been going on at the United Nations since 1951. There has been a very wide divergence of views as to the type and scope of a satisfactory definition. Some member States have been in favour of a very general formula. Others have pressed for an exhaustive and detailed definition which would list as many manifestations of aggression as possible. Others again have favoured a "mixed" definition, which would include the other two varieties. There have also been arguments as to whether the definition should include economic aggression, ideological aggression, and indirect aggression. It has even been suggested that any definition should be wide enough to include any sort of interference in the internal affairs of another State.

As a result of these seemingly endless discussions, member States are coming more and more to share our view, which is that it is not possible to reach a definition which will serve all practical purposes, and that a defective definition might very well be dangerous. When we look at the various types of definition which have been put forward we find difficulties in each case. A general definition could leave such an important point as self-defence unelaborated, while, on the other hand, a definition which enumerated various types of aggression would appear to single out certain kinds of aggression for special emphasis. In a word, a general definition would almost certainly be too wide, while a more detailed definition would inevitably leave gaps.

I have mentioned this at some length because I should like to make it clear that it is not merely our traditional empirical approach which makes us chary of attempts to define aggression. We in fact remain very doubtful whether it is possible to find a satisfactory definition covering all those cases which are truly in the nature of aggression without at the same time prejudicing necessary measures which might have to be taken in order to resist aggression.

There is a real danger, we feel, that a definition could be distorted by would-be aggressors who could take advantage of loopholes. Thus the innocent might be trapped while the aggressors were allowed to escape.

Another point that was raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

rose —

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

I am sorry not to give way, but I have not got much time. I must deal with the points which have already been raised.

Many people have approached the question of the strengthening of the United Nations primarily from a legal point of view, by revision of the Charter, by agreement on the definition of aggression, etc. I think, however, that we should all agree that the best way of strengthening the organisation would be to find a means of giving it at least some of the teeth that those who drafted the Charter in San Francisco in 1945 contemplated that it should have.

The Prime Minister said, on 17th November: If the result of our action"— in Egypt— is to equip the United Nations with effective means to enforce its resolutions, then we shall be well rewarded. More important still, the United Nations would then emerge strengthened from the test which it is now undergoing. There is no need for me to rehearse here how Soviet opposition frustrated the efforts that were made, shortly after the founding of the United Nations, to give effect to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, which concerned the organisation of a force to be at the disposal of the Security Council; nor need I do more than refer in passing to what happened over Korea and to the establishment of the "Uniting for Peace" procedure.

Attempts under the machinery set up thereby to organise arrangements for an armed force to be at the disposal of the United Nations proved equally abortive, though that was not for want of support on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The United Nations Emergency Force is in being in Egypt, and many traditionally neutral countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden and India, have helped to make it a reality. We do not yet know whether that force will be successful, though we all hope it will be.

The question is whether it can give us some indication of the manner in which we might organise a permanent United Nations force which could be readily on call. The difficulties in the way of establishing such a force are, of course, formidable, but in the present world situation it seems worth trying.

We are, therefore, considering whether there are any practical proposals that we can put forward for the organisation of a readily available force in a form which would be acceptable to the majority of the members of the United Nations. It is not, of course, possible at this stage to give any details of the way in which our minds are working. The point is that a study has been put in hand. The issues which is exposes will need very careful consideration, and consultation with our friends will also be necessary before we can come forward with public proposals.

I am afraid that I have had time to answer only the two main points which my hon. Friend raised—the question of the definition of aggression, and the possibilities of setting up some kind of permanent force. I think I have been able to indicate what our point of view is on both those main topics.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery (Bristol, Central)

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) that the time has come when the United Nations organisation should be revised. We have had it in existence now since 1945, and very little has been done to strengthen it. In the light of the experiences of the past few months, the Government should take note of what the hon. Member for Epping has said regarding the necessity for the revision of the Charter, particularly having regard to some of the arguments which we have heard in the House this evening.

Some hon. Members opposite have argued against the United Nations, saying definitely that it is of no use. I am not of that opinion. I believe its organisation could be revised, and that it could be used for our—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.