UNITED NATIONS (POLICE FORCE)

HC Deb 30 July 1958 vol 592 cc1518-25

11.25 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

I am very proud, even at this late hour, to be able to take advantage of the historical process by which the House has grievances redressed, or, at any rate, listened to by the appropriate authority, before Supply is granted to the Crown.

The particular grievance to which I wish to draw attention is one which affects my constituency and the constituencies of many other hon. Members who have constituents who are not always thinking of parochial affairs, but know that they are intimately affected by concerns of a more general nature. The grievance to which I call attention is that Her Majesty's Government seems to have done nothing, as distinct from saying things, about the setting up of an individually recruited permanent United Nations police force.

For very many years now there has been a good deal of talk about the necessity for setting up this force. Those people who advocated it were almost always looked upon as dangerous illusionists, wildly unpractical, or woolly idealists. Since the Suez affair, to use a neutral expression, it seems that there has been a very great change in the attitude towards people who wish to have this force established. People in Government circles and outside seem to want to have a force permanently in existence which can do the sort of work for world peace which the United Nations Emergency Force has been doing in Egypt and Palestine. If we have this force, it is thought by many people that we have every chance of preventing the starting of trouble, and, even if we do not prevent the starting of it, of preventing a spreading of a small fire into a world conflagration.

There have been debates in another place and in this House recently which have shown the extent to which this idea, only recently considered utopian and impractical, has gained acceptance in the last two years. Earl Jowitt, in his last speech in another place, spoke in support of the establishment of this force. On 25th July, 1957, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations made this remark, which shows what a change has come over Government thinking on the subject: … we are in favour of the principle of an International Police Force—let there be no doubt about that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th July, 1957, Vol. 205, c. 219.] What consternation that statement must have brought to the lunatic wing of his own party. But he had the courage to make it.

The Minister of Defence, on 10th June this year, outlined his idea for the setting up of a world security authority backed by an international police force of paramount authority, which I took to mean an authority with a strength greater than that of any force which it was likely to encounter. That was going further than many people who urged the setting up of an international force.

On 2nd July this year the Foreign Secretary himself, replying to a Question by me—and we know that he is in favour of the principle of this force—said that he was not in favour at present of making specific proposals to United Nations for the setting up of this force until the report in the autumn of the Secretary-General's commission which is discussing this very subject.

On 10th July, 1958, The Times reported that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary had received a delegation containing, among other people, a most practical former Member of this House—one might almost say a hard-boiled former Member of this House—Lord Attlee, as well as Lord Beveridge and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). They were asking for immediate action towards the setting up of this force, and even went so far as to ask that the Government should be prepared to offer a Commonwealth territory—an island or some strip of territory—to the United Nations so that it might form a base for the force when it was set up. No doubt they had it in mind to do anything which would start the ball rolling.

For my own part, I look forward to the time when a good many parts of the world will be handed over for just this purpose, particularly territories nearby to international waterways—for instance, Sinai, Gibraltar, Panama, and many others that I could mention. Those places were not specifically in the minds of that delegation. But they made this suggestion, that some definite territory should be handed over—a very great advance on anything that had been done until about two years ago when this matter came to be regarded as so much more practical.

According to the Manchester Guardian of 26th July, the United States State Department has now come out in favour of the principle of a permanent international police force—even if, said its spokesman, it should mean that the United States would have to bear very much more than its normal proportion of the cost.

It seems that the idea of the force has been widely accepted recently. Meanwhile, we have had the bombshell of the Iraq revolution on 14th July, the United States landing on Lebanon on 15th July and our own landing in Jordan on 17th July. I feel that Her Majesty's Government must bear a very heavy share of the responsibility for the necessity for these landings—if necessity it was—having regard to the fact that they have done nothing towards the setting up of a United Nations permanent force which could have rendered both those landings unnecessary.

Our Government gave as one of their reasons for landing in Jordan the fact that there were no United Nations troops to do this work. Now we are told that the troops must remain there until there are some United Nations troops who can do the work for them. Is it not obvious, in those circumstances, that we simply must always have in existence a permanent United Nations force—unless, of course, we are prepared to take the risk of seeing these local fires turn into world-wide conflagrations.

I submit that there cannot be any difference between the two sides of the House, or even among the parties, on the principle that there should be an international force. There can be all sorts of arguments as to what type of force it should be—whether, for instance, it should be a lightly-armed force, highly mobile, or a big force with all arms, whether it should be under the Security Council or under the Assembly of the United Nations. All these matters could be the subject of argument, but on the principle I submit there should be none at all.

In one of the recent foreign affairs debates which followed the occurrences of 14th July, it was asked by hon. Members opposite, "How could we have a force of this sort? Who would control it? Has not Russia the veto? Would that not spoil the whole idea?" On that point, may I say that one of the greatest international lawyers in this country, Lord McNair, has given it as his opinion that this force could be set up now, without any alteration of the United Nations Charter, and could be under the control of the Assembly where the veto would have no effect.

Whether that is so or not, I believe that it would be possible now to initiate successful negotiations with a view to setting up this force and to passing a statute laying down the conditions upon which it should act. I believe that we could get general agreement to the setting up of a force which would go automatically to the help of any country which demanded its presence in order to deal with external interference.

I hope that it will be a lightly armed force, consisting of about 20,000 men individually recruited, and will not consist of separate contingents from different nations, because I do not believe that if contingents separately contributed by nations were sent to the danger spots of the world they would be sufficiently trusted to do their work adequately. On the other hand, I believe that after a very short time it would be possible to bring out a loyalty, in individually recruited forces, for the United Nations which would make them respected where-ever they went.

A force had to be improvised after the Suez affair. The landings in the Lebanon and in Jordan would never have been necessary, it seems to me, if such a force as I have described had been in existence. We have now a further short breathing space in spite of our failure to learn the lesson of Suez which surely was that in these matters nationally contributed forces are no substitute for a permanent United Nations police force, individually recruited.

Therefore, I submit that immediate action must be taken by the Government to initiate the setting up of such a force. Twice in two years we have come to the edge of Armageddon, and I do not think that we have any right to assume that we shall also be lucky a third time.

The grievance which I wish to impress upon the Government tonight is that in spite of the apparent movement of public opinion nothing seems to have been done by the Government to set up this force. Cannot we even have a small beginning which can later lead, in the course of its natural development, to the paramount authority to which reference was made by the Minister of Defence in his speech the other day?

I submit that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give a lead in the matter. The State Department of the United States has given its lead in its own way. Cannot our Government now initiate international discussion with a view to setting up this force and agreeing upon a statute which will arrange for the conditions under which it can work?

11.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey)

The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has deployed tonight, in what, if I may say so, was a most interesting speech, a subject which is of profound interest to the House. I hope that neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor the House will think me discourteous if I do not reply at any great length at this hour on that subject. Nevertheless, there are one or two things I should like to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to this matter and about the measures which are, in fact, being taken at this time.

The first aspect of the hon. and learned Member's speech with which I should like to deal is the question of the principle of such a force. He has rightly said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has indicated his approval, in principle, of the force. Indeed, I think that, in principle, there is general agreement with the idea. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has, in fact, put in hand a study of this problem, and it is not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, a study which is based on no action at all.

There is a United Nations Emergency Force in existence, and it is upon the experience, and the very important experience of that force in practice that the findings of this study are to be based. I suggest, with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, in a way, he has rather contradicted his own argument. If I followed him aright, he suggested that under modern conditions national initiatives were no longer in place. What he is now suggesting to Her Majesty's Government—and I fully understand his reasons for doing so—is that, in this realm, we should take an individual initiative.

Looking ahead, and at the various divisions of opinion that exist in the world, I would have thought that that would not be a productive course, in view of the action that has already been taken by the Secretary-General; that the wise and practical course was to await the report that is, after all, I understand, to be forth-coming in September; and that, in a sense, to take an initiative before the publication of that report was really discourteous to the Secretary-General and to those who are working on it, having full regard to the experience available to them—

Mr. Mallalieu

Surely it would take time for any initiative by Her Majesty's Government, even if started tomorrow, to come to fruition in the sense of a conference being held. By that time, the report would be out and could be considered. I merely suggest that there is urgency about this matter.

Mr. Harvey

If I may say so, there are occasions when that sort of action defeats its own ends. The right source for the initiative here is the United Nations and the United Nations has through the Secretary-General, taken this initiative.

If we, simultaneously and before the report was published, started on our own investigations, there is, I suggest, a serious danger of duplication of effort. And, as we are talking about a date in September, I think that the urgency is fully appreciated by the United Nations. I would recommend to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we await the report of the Secretary-General. However, I fully agree with him that once the report is published we should seek to act upon it with the utmost speed, in collaboration with the other members of the United Nations.

During the course of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman rather dismissed as very small the gap between principle and practice. I think that that is a dangerous thing to do, particularly when dealing with a subject of such great implications as this one. It is very often by assuming that principles can swiftly and without difficulty be put into practice that many of our difficulties arise.

There are, as he said—and I will not follow him in all his arguments, which are, of course, very valid—the intricate problems of command, organisation and recruitment. At this stage, I do not wish to say whether it is better to recruit individually or by nations. Obviously, that is one of the things that will have to be argued in due course.

I should like to refer to what was, perhaps, the one moment of controversy which he permitted himself—the events in the Middle East. We fully accept responsibility for what we have done, but I would draw his attention to this small practical detail. The Soviet Union, until now, has not been willing to contribute to the U.N.E.F., and refused, at the last General Assembly, to arrange for its continued financing. I should have thought that, in this respect, a very considerable responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Mallalieu

Have we paid our contribution?

Mr. Harvey

Yes, we have.

All I would say, in conclusion, is that, whether it is an international force or a national force, defence is always the instrument of policy. It must be, of course, in the realm of policy that we have to seek greater degrees of agreement, because there the matter starts. While fully accepting the importance of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would, with respect, submit to the House that there are aspects of policy which are of greater importance at this moment than the provision of a defence force to implement the policy. Nevertheless, I agree that this is a subject of the first importance, with implications reaching far into the future.

I do not accept that Her Majesty's Government have held back. We have played our full part in the experiment, and, as for the immediate future, we await the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.