HC Deb 18 July 1966 vol 732 cc9-12
8. Viscount Lambton

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the provisions of the 1959 and 1964 Treaties with the Federation of South Arabia.

70. Sir J. Eden

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to uphold the 1959 and 1964 Treaties with the Federation of South Arabia.

5. Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government abrogated unilaterally the Treaty of Friendship and Protection, Command Paper No. 665, made with the South Arabian Federation, which under Article IX cannot be amended except by mutual consent of the contracting parties.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley)

Her Majesty's Government have not abrogated unilaterally the Treaty of 1959. It remains in force as amended by two further Treaties concluded with the Federation of South Arabia on 13th January, 1963 (Cmnd. 2451) and 12th August, 1965 (Cmnd. 2976).

As regards Her Majesty's Government's policy towards these Treaties, I would refer the questioners to the reply which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 1st July.

Viscount Lambton

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he give a straight answer to a question which was asked previously in debate, whether or not the Treaty of 1959 can be amended except by mutual consent of both parties?

Mr. Padley

When South Arabia becomes independent the treaties will be terminated since their terms are incompatible with independence. It is not appropriate that protection should continue to be extended after independence, or that the independent State should continue to be bound by the treaty obligation to accept Her Majesty's Government's advice.

Sir J. Eden

Is it not quite clear from the set of documents concerned, certainly the earlier ones, that it was fully understood that it was Her Majesty's Government's declared intention that whether or not independence subsequently occurred we would continue to maintain an effective position to defend this area? Why have we abrogated unilaterally this agreement?

Mr. Padley

This matter was fully debated on the Defence White Paper a week ago and has been the subject of exchanges across the Floor of the House. I have no such evidence.

Mr. Zilliacus

Will my hon. Friend accept the assurance that on this side of the House at any rate and in the country there will be overwhelming support, in view of the present economic situation, for cutting our commitments in the Middle East and that the Opposition are showing their total incapacity to govern if they want us to go on with these military commitments?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Apart from the moral commitments, would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has in fact consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on the terms of this treaty? Will he do so, because we have reasons to believe that a legal interpretation would say that this treaty can be abrogated only by mutual agreement?

Mr. Padley

The legal position as understood by Her Majesty's Government is that which I gave in my original reply.

Mr. Sandys

The Minister said that this treaty will lapse on independence. Does he realise that the request for independence was coupled inextricably with a request for the continuance of British protection by means of a defence agreement? Does he think that he can force independence unilaterally upon South Arabia whether they want it or not? It is quite clear they do not. Will he also confirm that in the recent talks the South Arabian Ministers once again accused Britain of breach of faith? Why did the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have speeches at Question Time.

Mr. Padley

I have nothing to add to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to original Questions which dealt with breach of faith.

Mr. Sandys

A twisted answer.

12. Mr. Fisher

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the recent arrangements made for the supply of defence equipment and financial assistance for the defence forces of the Federation of South Arabia are acceptable to the Federal Government in lieu of a defence treaty and/or the retention of the Aden base; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Padley

In the course of recent defence talks with Ministers of the South Arabian Federal Government Her Majesty's Government reaffirmed their intention to withdraw from the Aden base and not to have any defence agreement with the Government of South Arabia after independence. Against this background I have no reason to believe that the Federal Ministers are dissatisfied with the additional financial aid for their forces that we have been able to offer them.

Mr. Fisher

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that South Arabian Ministers told me very recently indeed that they consider the assistance we have offered is totally inadequate to maintain their territorial integrity and they feel themselves completely let down and betrayed by the Government? Surely Britain should honour her obligations and support her friends?

Mr. Padley

I answered the last part of that question when replying to Questions Nos. 8 and 70. Of course it is true that the federal rulers would like a comprehensive defence agreement—

Mr. Sandys

You are breaking your word.

Mr. Padley

—but in view of our withdrawal from Aden—

Mr. Sandys

Shame.

Mr. Padley

—which has been scheduled for 1968, the real issue is whether a contribution is to be made to the defence of the newly-emerging State. With that no one can disagree.

Lord Balniel

The real issue is one of good faith. I ask the hon. Gentleman how he expects that the Federation will he able to stand up to the aircraft which are operating in this part of the Middle East when it has achieved its independence?

Mr. Padley

This argument began as one of legality and it has now got to one of good faith. Hon. Members opposite have been unable to sustain either claim in two full-scale debates and in exchanges at Question Time over the last two months.