HC Deb 24 November 1958 vol 596 cc181-90

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

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

It is a long way from Scotland to South Africa or even to New York and the United Nations, but I want for a short time to draw the attention of the House to something which I regard as of desperate importance. Since I requested that I might introduce this subject on the Adjournment, Questions have been asked about the subject on 17th November. The replies then given by the Foreign Secretary only reinforced my determination to raise the question tonight. It can be dealt with, even in the course of an Adjournment debate, at a little greater length than is possible by way of question and answer. I hope it may be possible to express oneself—and, perhaps, others will express themselves—on this important matter.

I want to discuss the resolution, debated in the Political Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which was sponsored by 33 nations and which, in short, called on all members of the United Nations to bring their policies into conformity with the Charter obligation to promote human rights. It expressed regret and concern that the South African Government has not yet responded to the Committee's appeals to reconsider governmental policies which impair the right of all racial groups to enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms. That resolution was carried by 68 votes to five, with four abstentions. To our utter shame, the United Kingdom was one of the five, and I want to use this occasion to dissociate at least this hon. Member and, I am certain, many others from that vote.

I am sick to feel that the United Kingdom Government have not sufficient guts—excuse the term, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but. I can think of no other which really means what I want to say—to declare that they regret the policy of Apartheid. The resolution did not "condemn" that policy but merely "regretted" it. In fact, the Government voted against a resolution which regretted the policy of Apartheid in South Africa.

This decision has both a foreign affairs content and a Dominion and Commonwealth one. We need to show in no uncertain manner how we stand in these matters to the rest of the world. What possible criticisms can we offer to Communist nations on questions of human rights when we are so weak-kneed ourselves?

In the Commonwealth there is a majority of coloured people, and very recently in this country we have seen racial disturbances like those in Notting Hill. What are the coloured people of this Commonwealth thinking of the decision of the Mother Country's Government? It is not without significance that four out of the five countries which voted against this resolution were nations with colonial territories themselves. I suggest that the distress of the people of the Commonwealth, particularly the coloured peoples, must be increasing day by day, particularly as a result of that decision on this vote.

The Foreign Secretary told the House only last Monday that our representative at the United Nations made it clear that we accept the principles in the first operative paragraph of the resolution. This paragraph read: The General Assembly … declares again that in a multi-racial society harmony and respect for human rights and freedoms and the peaceful development of a united community are best assured when patterns of legislation and practice are directed towards ensuring equality before the law of all persons regardless of race, creed or colour, and when economic, social, cultural and political participation of all racial groups is on a basis of equality. That is fine, but I would not for one moment have thought it possible that acceptance of that wonderful principle could be accompanied by a vote for the rejection of the resolution on what was nothing but a legal quibble. Lip-service to such a principle, I suggest, is sheer hypocrisy when a vote against it is cast.

On all previous resolutions of this kind, and there have been several, the United Kingdom Government have abstained. On this occasion we sink lower; we now vote against it, and in so doing we hide behind paragraph (7) of Article 2 of the Charter, which says: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. The Times suggested that the operative words were "intervene" and "essentially". What exactly does "intervene" mean? Does it mean that we are intervening in the affairs of South Africa because we are prepared to express ourselves in the United Nations by a vote regretting the methods which she has set up? Is Apartheid essentially within the jurisdiction of any State? This is a great human problem. It is not a question for a legal quibble.

I saw the other day—I wonder whether it is the answer—that it has been confirmed that Britain's investments in the Union are £864 million. Is that the answer? Are we doubtful about expressing our regret about the policy which is carried out in South Africa because of that investment programme? It is a vast programme; but I am ashamed if that is the reason why we are failing in the United Nations to express our regret about what is going on.

The Foreign Secretary spoke the other day of our consistency in this matter. If we are consistently bad, for goodness' sake let us change what he called the annual legal argument on these matters. South Africa should know in no uncertain terms exactly what the masses of the people in the United Kingdom think about the question. Only a future vote, I suggest, in a further meeting of the United Nations and in favour of a resolution of this character can prove that this country will not tolerate the application of Apartheid beliefs and practice anywhere.

I conclude, because of the lateness of the hour, by registering my own personal disgust that there is cast in our name a vote which is aimed at preventing a resolution which only mildly protests against the shocking and cruel things which are being perpetrated in South Africa. I welcome the opportunity of saying these things and expressing myself about them even in these circumstances. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations has come here at this late hour to answer what I have had to say. I want him to appreciate that what I have said comes from the very depth of my soul in this great human problem, and I hope that ere long this country will be saying in no uncertain terms exactly what it feels about the things that are going on.

11.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)

Although the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) has introduced this subject in a somewhat intemperate manner, I welcome the opportunity of making clear what was the meaning of the United Kingdom's vote at the United Nations General Assembly on the subject of South Africa's racial policies. The hon. Member read the relevant section of Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter, and I should like to repeat it. That Article says: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. It has been suggested that the question of South Africa's racial policies is not a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Union of South Africa in view of the existence of two other Articles in the Charter, Articles 55 and 56. Under those Articles, members of the United Nations in effect undertake to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. At the same time, those Articles are an integral part of the Charter, and Article 2 (7) states categorically that nothing contained in the Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in the internal affairs of a member country. Therefore, neither those Articles nor for similar reasons, Articles 10, 13, or 14 could be properly invoked to provide justification for intervention by the United Nations General Assembly over the question of South Africa's racial policies.

Quite independent of such Articles in the United Nations Charter, there are no precise treaty obligations which could be invoked to support the argument that South Africa's racial policies are a breach of specific international obligations which limit her freedom of action in her internal policies. The International Declaration on Human Rights, as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) knows, has sometimes been invoked in this connection. That Declaration is a statement of principles to which Governments should aspire and is not and is not intended to be a legally binding instrument.

When it was drawn up, the intention was to translate its provisions into precise legal obligations by subsequent covenants. This was essential since, as the House will know, nothing is particularised in the Universal Declaration itself. The human rights themselves are undefined and their exact content is the subject of widely divergent views among the member States of the United Nations. The General Assembly has made prolonged attempts to agree the final texts of covenants on human rights, but, because of the divergence of views, it has so far been unsuccessful, with the exception of one in 1952 concerning the political rights of women, and another in 1956 concerning slavery. But, apart from those Conventions, there are at present no specific United Nations instruments in the field of human rights to which any member Government could adhere.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

The Minister was saying that there are no treaties with the South African Government dealing with these matters. In the first place, did not the Constitution of South Africa, which set up South Africa as a sovereign State, make quite clear declarations on these matters? Britain entered into that treaty. Secondly, when Indian indentured labour went to South Africa, did no the British Government declare that the condition must be the absolute equality of the Indian population with the European population?

Mr. Alport

The hon. Member is referring to two separate things, quite distinct from the point that I made earlier on. I was referring to the tendency to invoke the Declaration of Human Rights in relation to this point, and the point I was making—and which I thought I made quite clearly—was that apart from the two Conventions of 1952 and 1956, to which I referred, in my own words, "there are at present no specific United Nations instruments in the field of human rights to which any member Government could adhere." I know that the hon. Member was referring to other—

Mr. Brockway

No, I was referring to the hon. Member's earlier point about treaties.

Mr. Alport

The hon. Member was referrng to two other agreements, but I want to make it clear that those are not agreements in the normal sense of bringing in international obligations and. therefore, do not come within the specific sphere that we are discussing this evening.

I go on to mention another misunderstanding which seems to arise—and which I think is passing through the minds of hon. Members opposite—in regard to general international concern. It is essential to differentiate between these two conceptions. In a sense, practically everything a country does, even within its own borders, is liable to be of concern to others outside. If, however, one were to argue that, should a country or group of countries declare that the actions of a particular country are a matter of concern to them, this automatically gave them the legal right to intervene, on that basis practically nothing would be within the Government of that country's domestic jurisdiction. Surely, however, there can be no question but that a country is free, for example, to pursue economic and financial policies as it pleases, subject only to any specific treaty obligations which may have been undertaken.

It is pretty clear that any other interpretation would place an intolerable strain on the United Nations. As the United Kingdom representative pointed out in the Special Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, there are many situations in which the domestic policies of a member State are, for one reason or another, in conflict with the views of other member States.

I have no doubt that in the minds of hon. Members opposite there are examples which are perfectly clear to them when this circumstance arises, but the fact remains that although member States may strongly disapprove of certain domestic policies of some other members, these issues have not been raised in the United Nations General Assembly, as international disputes, for the simple reason that to do so in all those circumstances would impose an intolerable strain on the Organisation and, in the long run, make its operation as a body for the conciliation of international disputes almost unworkable. Consequently, there is general recognition of the principle to which I have referred in Article 2 (7) which prevents the General Assembly from intervening in the domestic affairs of any particular member State.

It has been argued that discussion in the General Assembly, and the passing of a resolution calling upon the Government of the Union of South Africa to reconsider its policies does not constitute intervention in the sense in which it is used in Article 2 (7). There is, or so it seems to the Government of the United Kingdom, a very important distinction between a discussion in a general way of, for instance, the principles embodied in the United Nations Charter—a discussion which leads eventually to general recommendations applying to all the members of the United Nations—and a discussion on the other hand which is intended to lead, and does lead, to the adoption of a resolution directed against the internal policies of a particular member State.

In the latter event, such discussions and resolutions are specifically and admittedly intended to produce reactions and influence events in the territory concerned, irrespective of the views or wishes of the Government of that territory. Their whole object obviously and clearly amounts to intervention, and the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West was clearly to dissociate himself from policies with which he does not agree. One can understand that; he is perfectly entitled to do that, but by so doing he would bring pressure to bear upon the Government of the Union of South Africa to change its policy in relation to racial resolutions.

The truth of the matter is that, as I have already said, the object of a resolution of this sort which would apply to the particular policies of a particular country can only, in the light of Article 2 (7), be an intention to intervene in the domestic policies of the country concerned.

It is in these circumstances that Her Majesty's Government have consistently taken the view that the raising of the question of South Africa's racial policies in the General Assembly of the United Nations is a direct contravention of Article 2 (7), and the result of that has been that the United Kingdom delegation has consistently opposed any such action. The vote of the United Kingdom delegation on the resolution which concerned South Africa's internal policies was solely a vote on this question of the competence of the United Nations General Assembly. It was a vote, as we in Her Majesty's Government believe, in defence of the United Nations Charter; in defence of an essential principle of that Charter.

The meaning of Article 2 (7), in our view, is quite clear. It is primarily there because it was regarded by those who originally drew up the Charter as an essential feature of that Charter without the existence of which it is probable that many of those who first supported it, and have subsequently done so, would not have been prepared to do so; they would not have been prepared to envisage circumstances in which their own domestic policies could be interfered with as a result of reforms taken under the Charter.

To interpret this other than literally would mean a tacit agreement for revision of the Charter and Her Majesty's Government is, frankly, not prepared to accept such a proposition. It is not correct, as the hon. Member for Salford West said in his opening remarks, to suggest that the United Kingdom's action implied an expression of opinion on South Africa's racial policies.

It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to express views on the internal policies of other Commonwealth countries. The United Kingdom representative in the Special Political Committee expressly stated that in opposing the resolution concerning South Africa's racial policies Her Majesty's Government were not expressing any opinion on those policies. The hon. Gentleman alleged that Her Majesty's Government were actuated in this matter by material interests connected with investments, or something like that, in South Africa. That is the sort of far-fetched allegation to which we have become accustomed in these rather desperate days for the Opposition. It does not help the case which the hon. Gentleman is sincerely advancing, nor the work of the United Nations and those concerned with it, to to make that sort of allegation.

Mr. Brockway

Is it denied?

Mr. Alport

Certainly, categorically and completely.

It would be incorrect to suggest that voting against the United Nations resolution as a whole, both in Committee and in Plenary, implies that the Government have any reservations regarding the admirable principles set out in the United Nations Charter. To dispel all misunderstanding on this point it was specifically dealt with in the Political Committee by the United Kingdom representative.

The Government are fully aware of the fact that under Article 56 of the Charter they have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action and to cooperate with the U.N.O. for the achievement of the purposes set out in Article 55 which, in section (c), refers to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government are fulfilling this pledge in all the territories for which they hold responsibility, and we will continue to do so. We interpret Article 56 of the Charter as a pledge to maintain our own standards and to co-operate by mutual agreement with other member States in forwarding the principles embodied in Article 55. But we do not regard it, and in fact are prevented from doing so by Article 2 (7), as an undertaking to intervene in the internal policies of other Governments.

Because the United Nations resolution was specifically concerned with the internal policy of a member State, the United Kingdom delegation could not vote in favour of the earlier operative paragraphs of the resolution. But we made clear that we wholeheartedly endorsed the principles stated in the first operative paragraph of the resolution, and this was made plain by our spokesman in the Special Political Committee. I submit to the House—

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-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.