HC Deb 06 April 1960 vol 621 cc375-82
33. Mr. Swingler

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, having accepted the Security Council's right to discuss the South African policy of apartheid and its consequences, the United Kingdom representative abstained from voting on the ground that it was an internal affair of the Union of South Africa.

35. Mr. Grimond

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative abstained during the recent vote at the United Nations on a resolution on South Africa.

36. Mr. Brockway

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate on the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation voted on the resolution on the subject of apartheid in South Africa; what were the terms of the resolution; what was the voting on the resolution; and which delegates voted in favour, which against, and which abstained.

38. Mr. Callaghan

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom delegate at the United Nations Organisation Security Council voted on the resolution deploring the recent incidents in South Africa on Friday, 1st April, 1960; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo)

The representatives of the United Kingdom and of France abstained from voting on the resolution in the Security Council on the situation in the Union of South Africa: the other members of the Security Council voted in favour of that resolution. The text is available in the Library.

The reasons for the action which Her Majesty's Government took were given by Sir Pierson Dixon in his explanation of vote, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and they were dealt with in considerable detail in a speech made in the country last Saturday by my right hon. and learned Friend.

I am arranging that copies of this speech are made available in the Library.

Mr. Swingler

Is the Minister of State aware that this act of evasion and failure to vote on the question of apartheid in the Security Council is totally unrepresentative of British and Commonwealth public opinion? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed of it?

Mr. Profumo

No, Sir, I am certainly not ashamed of it and I do not regard it as an act of evasion. We abstained for two reasons: first, because we thought that the resolution went beyond the scope of the Security Council, and secondly, because we did not think it was the most effective way of alleviating the situation.

Mr. Grimond

Does the Minister really say that these events in South Africa and the repression by the South African Government of one race simply because it is of a different colour are purely and essentially a matter for the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa only? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this public washing of our hands at the Security Council will have a disastrous effect and also will probably mean that the full force of world opinion, which appears to be the only thing that may stop this disastrous progression in South Africa, will be thereby weakened?

Mr. Profumo

No, Sir. There has been no question of washing our hands or of our being too cautious. This is certainly a question of judgment. We have spoken quite plainly, but it is obvious that certain actions would only be counter-productive. We must abstain from action which is likely to make things worse. What we want to do is to try to alleviate the position and I believe that our action was towards that end.

Mr. Callaghan

Which part of the resolution did the Government regard as going too far? Was it the part which deplored the policies of the South African Government, the part which expressed regret that the disturbances should have led to great loss of life, the part that recognised that the situation had led to international friction, the part which called on the South African Government to initiate measures aimed at bringing about racial harmony based on equality, or the part which requested—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—I am asking a question—or was it the part which requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the South African Government, to make practical arrangements to uphold the principles of the Charter? Which part of the motion was it that the Government regard as being outside the scope of the Security Council?

Mr. Profumo

The motion has to be taken as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman reads the explanation of vote by Sir Pierson Dixon and the speech which my right hon. and learned Friend has made, it will be clear to him that if we had taken action in voting for the resolution, the result would have been counter-productive.

Sir G. Nicholson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great mass of the people in this country are in no doubt whatever where Her Majesty's Government stand, and that general public opinion feels that the greatest contribution which this House can make towards a happy solution of these tragic and perplexing events is to exercise restraint and leave Her Majesty's Government to use their own judgment as they think best at this delicate time?

Mr. Callaghan

Is there not also world opinion to be considered here? Has the Minister of State seen the references in the Press to the effect that the British Commonwealth delegates to the Security Council were the most disconsolate body of people to be seen in the lobbies and corridors? Can the Minister of State, as he did not reply to my earlier question, tell me this? Why is it right for Her Majesty's Government and other Governments individually to state their point of view about the policy of apartheid, but wrong for them to do it collectively?

Mr. Profumo

My right hon. and learned Friend, as a Minister of the Crown, is not bound by the same regulations as is the United Nations acting as a whole under the Charter. I must point out to the House that Article 2 (7), which has been much quoted, is one of the basic articles of the United Nations. I am absolutely convinced that the action which Her Majesty's Government has taken has been right. We have made it absolutely plain, both through the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in South Africa, from the Answers which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday and from the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend in the country, just where we stand about this. In the United Nations, we had a very delicate situation to deal with, which, if the hon. Gentleman does not understand it, I am sure that his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench do. We made it possible to have a full and frank debate on this matter, and in my view we now have to see what will flow from it. What really matters is that there should be an alleviation of the situation.

Mr. Brockway

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the correct authority to decide what is within the jurisdiction of the United Nations is the United Nations itself, and not one member State? Is it not a fact that during the last Session, by 65 votes to three, the United Nations decided that this subject came within the terms of reference, and if that is so, is it not cowardly of Her Majesty's Government to express in speeches views which they are not prepared to carry out in deeds?

Mr. Profumo

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is fully seized of the delicacy of the situation. I recognise that he is quite genuine, and I mean with sincerity that I do not think he is fully seized of the situation. Before hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite go any further, I ask them, please, to read carefully the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend—the whole speech—and I am having the whole speech placed in the Library. That puts the matter in the right perspective, and I am not prepared to add to it today. We have to see what the result of our action in the United Nations will be, and I am far more concerned, as I know hon. Members are, about the tragic situation in South Africa today than I am about continuing supplementary answers.

Mr. Callaghan

What we cannot understand, and what we have failed to get an answer to, is why the speech of the Foreign Secretary should not have been followed by a vote at the United Nations? I should like to repeat my question, whether the Minister of State wishes to answer supplementary questions or not. What I want to put to him is this. If he refers us to Article 2 (7) of the Charter, does he not recognise that what takes predominant place is the fundamental Article 1, which refers to the purposes of the United Nations as— promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. If there is a conflict between that fundamental purpose and the machinery as contained in the second Article, does he think that he is behaving in the best interests of British public life by allowing legal pedantry to take precedence over that Article?

Mr. Profumo

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he sometimes runs away with himself in the remarks he makes. It is all right for the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Callaghan

Stop moralising and give us an answer.

Mr. Profumo

It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to do that, because he is not in a position of authority. I prefer to be careful. He asked me about the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It has been the privilege of those who have been elected to this House for many years to listen to statements with which they do not necessarily agree, and to exercise some self-restraint while it is going on. Let the Minister now continue his answer.

Mr. Callaghan

On a point of order. I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, but I must point out to you that we have not had any answers at all to the three questions I have put.

Mr. Speaker

All this may show how unwise it is to attempt to debate matters at Question Time, but let us hear the answer.

Mr. Profumo

I presume that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have something of an answer to his last supplementary question. With regard to the Articles in the Charter, which he has mentioned, I should remind him that Article 2 (7) says: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to interfere in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter. It is on this that we had to take a broad view.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that it is unwise to attempt to discuss this matter now. There is no question before the House.

Following is the explanation of vote:

Extracts from the United Nations Security Council's Verbatim Record

March 31, 1960

Sir Pierson DIXON (United Kingdom): I should like to begin by quoting the Government motion which was tabled the other day in the House of Commons with regard to the tragic incidents which have given rise to our discussions here. It reads as follows: That this House, while recognising that it has no responsibility for or jurisdiction over the independent countries of the Commonwealth, at the same time wishes to record its deep sympathy with all the people of South Africa in the recent tragic events which have taken place at Vereeniging and Langa.

It is against the background of this expression of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that I wish to set my intervention in our proceedings here.

The first point which I must make is that Her Majesty's Government recognises the indisputable right and the duty of any Government to use the forces at its disposal to maintain law and order within its own territory. I believe that every member of the Council will agree with this proposition.

Equally, we are very conscious of the strong feelings of deep concern which the events of 21st March have produced in many parts of the world, including the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom itself bears responsibilities for territories in Africa where more than one race have their home, and the whole question of race relations in these territories closely touches the thoughts and the conscience of my country. There can be no doubt about our own policy.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, speaking in the General Assembly on 17th September last, stated it in words which were quoted by the Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan in Capetown on 3rd February—words which have already been referred to round this table. They were as follows: In those territories where different races or tribes live side by side, the task is to ensure that all the people may enjoy security and freedom and the chance to contribute as individuals to the progress and well-being of these countries. We reject the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. Our policy therefore is non-racial; it offers a future in which Africans, Europeans, Asians, the peoples of the Pacific and others with whom we are concerned, will all play their full part as citizens in the countries where they live and in which feelings of race will be submerged in loyalty to new nations.

In stating what our own aims are, we neither underestimate the difficulties of others nor make exaggerated claims for our own policy. The problem of racial adjustment can never be easy. Essentially, the problem is a problem of relationships between human beings, and success in solving it cannot be achieved without the common endeavour of the many individuals who make up any society. Obviously, there is much that Governments can do to give a lead and to build up the framework in which mutual respect between individuals can flourish.

To turn now to what faces us here in our deliberations. It is our view that the Security Council must approach the question before it with a strict regard for the limitations within which it can legitimately express its opinions. It is also our view that, in our consideration of this exceedingly difficult problem, we should be guided by the effect which our deliberations will have on the situation which we are here considering and on the people who are affected by it.

Quite apart from the legal limitations within which the Council can properly act, it is a matter of history that any attempt to impose from outside changes in the internal policies of a Government—particularly a Government of strong nationalist feeling—is only too likely to produce an effect contrary to the one intended.

April 1, 1960

Sir Pierson DIXON (United Kingdom): I stated in my intervention yesterday the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom towards the general problem. I have nothing to add to what I then said. I made it plain in the course of that intervention that in our view there are limits within which the Council can properly and usefully act.

In the view of Her Majesty's Government, this resolution goes beyond the scope of the proper functions of the Council. In our view, it would have been wiser and more effective for the Council to have contented itself with leaving the weighty discussion we have had to make its own impact. It was for these reasons that I abstained on the resolution.

Forward to