RHODESIA (SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION) (Hansard, 19 March 1970)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)
Hon. Members will recall that it was at our request that the Security Council was convened to discuss the illegal régime's purported assumption of republican status and the substance of our original resolution was incorporated in the Finnish Resolution which was finally adopted. Earlier disagreements in the Council led to the use of the veto by the Americans and ourselves on an extreme Afro-Asian Resolution condemning the United Kingdom for failure to use force and originally, calling for the extension of sanctions to South Africa and Portugal. However, the final vote is a clear indication that the world is not prepared to condone the rebellion.
It is always a matter for regret to have to cast a veto in the Security Council, but we have consistently made known our opposition to the use of force and to the extension of sanctions to South Africa and Portugal. The final Resolution, however, contains a number of practical and effective measures to increase the pressure on the illegal régime. These include the call to enforce more strictly existing economic sanctions, to sever the remaining consular, trade and other links with the régime, and to increase the powers given to the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, be taking appropriate steps to implement the Resolution where these are required.
With their purported assumption of republican status on 2nd March, Mr. Smith and his colleagues hoped for international recognition. Since then, the closure of 11 of the 13 consular missions still remaining in Southern Rhodesia has been announced and a comprehensive Resolution on Rhodesia has been passed by the Security Council with almost total unanimity. I do not claim that these events will in themselves create the necessary conditions for an honourable settle- 616 ment, but I think they show the determination of the world community to work consistently to that end.

§ Mr. Sandys
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask our representative at the United Nations to insist that those who in the name of freedom and racial equality have been clamouring for war against Rhodesia should also have their records examined? How much longer must we tolerate that African Governments which are themselves practising racial discrimination in the most extreme form against their Asian inhabitants and torturing Arab prisoners in Zanzibar, and Russia which has suppressed all liberty in Czechoslovakia, should sit in judgment on Rhodesia and pose as the champions of human rights?

§ Mr. Stewart
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues that go rather outside of his original Question. It is perfectly clear, and Her Majesty's Government have made it clear, first, that we could not assent to any resolution requiring the use of force. Secondly, as far as humanly possible in this world, we at any rate have striven to assert the importance of a single standard of humanity and justice—

§ Mr. Sandys
Double standards.

§ Mr. Stewart
—in all international questions.

§ Mr. Winnick
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Resolution passed by the United Nations is a very good one? Would he not agree that the closing of so many consulates in Salisbury since the so-called republic was proclaimed shows the total isolation of the régime? Is he aware that many of us on this side of the House are sick and tired of the continued support given to the illegal régime by Her Majesty's supposed loyal Opposition?

§ Mr. Stewart
Over recent weeks, I have had to answer a number of questions from certain hon. Members opposite who sought to show that there were a number of countries still in sympathy with the régime. The closure of the consulates now demonstrates that the rebellion is condoned only by South Africa, Portugal and a handful of hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. Hastings
Will the Foreign Secretary, well before the election, explain to 617 the country what precisely is the policy of this Government over Rhodesia, apart from the morass at the United Nations? What is it that they seek to achieve, and when do they expect to achieve it? The country has a right to know.

§ Mr. Stewart
I do not think there is any doubt. It is the duty of all parties before an election to make clear what their policy is, and I do not think that there is any doubt about the Government's policy. We believe, however long this may take, that we must reject and condemn the illegal régime; that with, as is now clear, the increasing support of the world community, we must maintain sanctions against it. One thing we ought to have clear. As I understand it, it is the policy of the Opposition to try to hold further conversations with Mr. Smith. I do not think that there is a great deal to be said for that anyhow, but it seems that it would be nonsense to say that one would talk to Mr. Smith, and in advance of that to take off sanctions. We ought to know beyond doubt —[Interruption.] I hope we shall know beyond doubt—[Interruption.]—that it is the policy.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Noise does not help the debate.

§ Mr. Stewart
It ought to be made clear that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition resolutely to maintain sanctions and to act according to the letter and spirit of the Resolution recently passed by the Security Council.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Without reverting to the promise given to the East African Asians by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), for the breach of which he voted in the Lobbies with the present Government, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, now that Switzerland has said that she will close her consulate, Portugal and South Africa are the only two nations with a mission in Salisbury? Since neither of those countries recognises the illegal régime, and therefore by implication must accept the authority and sovereignty of the Crown, is there any reason in law why we should not request both those countries now to withdraw their consulates?

§ Mr. Stewart
We have made it clear all along that we do not consider it desirable that any country should retain 618 consulates in Rhodesia. The steady reduction of the consulates week after week I think shows the way the whole of world opinion and, I trust, opinion on the benches opposite is turning.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
May I offer warm congratulations to the Government on the adoption of the Resolution without any vote being cast against it in the Security Council? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as many of us hope, the Resolution also made mandatory the ending of all means of transportation between Rhodesia and the outside world?

§ Mr. Stewart
My right hon. Friend may have noticed that my noble Friend, Lord Caradon's, explanation of vote on this matter made it clear that in view of a previous Resolution this clearly referred to road and rail transport. We have not taken the view, and I do not think that it would be maintained for a moment, that this Resolution would require a total communications ban between ourselves and Rhodesia, against which there are, as I think hon. Members on both sides know, very serious arguments.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
When my right hon. Friend says that there are many matters that we shall have to have cleared up in this respect, does not he agree that the best way of doing so is to have a debate so that the House and the country may discover whether there are any members of the Front Bench opposite who have now joined with some on the back benches in giving tacit support to treason against the Crown? Or does he think that it is unfair to ask that the Leader of the Opposition shall state his views on this subject before the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has definitely pronounced on it?

§ Mr. Stewart
The choice of debates is not for me. I should be very happy to see this question debated. Despite the bluster of the Leader of the Opposition, we are still without an answer. He told us a week ago—and we were all reassured to hear it—that the titular leadership of the Opposition at any rate condemns the rebellion. What we still want to know is whether it accepts the necessity for the resolute maintenance of sanctions. If we had a debate, these and other matters could be made clearer, but 619 that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Since the Private Notice Question which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is answering appertains to the veto in the United Nations, is it possible to put questions about that and not about a whole range of other issues which have been extraneously brought up? May I put two questions on the issue to the right hon. Gentleman? First, is it not clear that, whatever the pros and cons of this matter, the British delegation at the United Nations has led our country into a position of diplomatic humiliation? Second, is it not the case that Lord Caradon has no business to distinguish between what he describes as his personal view against the veto and his duty as a British Minister on instructions to exercise it? Will the right hon. Gentleman rebuke this Minister for purporting to distinguish between his personal view and his public duty?

§ Mr. Stewart
No, Sir. I shall do nothing so silly. [Interruption.] There are many very natural reasons that would lead any public servant to wish to resign from a Conservative Government. I should have thought that anyone who has regard for the authority of the United Nations and the growth of the concept of international law would regret it if it was ever necessary to use the veto. On this occasion the whole Government, of which Lord Caradon is a member, took the view beyond any doubt that it was right for us to use it, and I think that this is fully understood.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Is there any good reason why the Leader of the Opposition should not now say quite specifically whether or not a Government under his alleged control would remove sanctions? What steps are the Government now contemplating to increase and extend the scope of sanctions?

§ Mr. Stewart
There is very little more Her Majesty's Government need do to comply fully with the Resolution that has recently been passed. So far as it is necessary for us to take any further action, we shall gladly do so. I think that the first part of my hon. Friend's question is important. Since the Private Notice Question referred to the Resolu- 620 tion passed in the Security Council yesterday, I am glad to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will fully comply with that Resolution. We are all entitled to know whether that view is shared by the Opposition.

§ Mr. Tapsell
Would not it—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have never known being shouted at to affect a Member of Parliament in any way at all.

§ Mr. Tapsell
Would not it be more statesmanlike for the Foreign Secretary to recognise that the original five principles, first formulated by a Conservative Government, remain, as they have always been, the basic approach of both the great political parties in this country?

§ Mr. Stewart
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have always tried to believe that that was so, and that that was the view of the party opposite. Sometimes my faith in that has been shaken by some of the remarks that some of his hon. Friends have made. If we accept that the party opposite believes in the five—or now six—principles, I think that it is important to know whether they take the same view of the Resolution recently passed in the Security Council as Her Majesty's Government do. If they do not, it is a little difficult to believe in the sincerity of their devotion to the six principles.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Business Question—Mr. Heath.

§ Mr. David Steel
On a point of order. Could you guide us, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not it would be in order to put a Motion on the Order Paper seeking to reduce the salary of the Leader of the Opposition by £10?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I never advise hon. Gentlemen what to put on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman can just try and see what happens.

§ Mr. Molloy
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You called the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) to ask the business Question, but is it not customary to call the Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Hastings
On a point of order. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) accused my right hon. 621 Friend the Leader of the Opposition of extending tacit support for treason against the Crown. That is a monstrous accusation which, I submit, the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw forthwith.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that charges may be made from one side of the House against the other side which would not be acceptable if they were made by one hon. or right hon. Gentleman against another individual hon. or right hon. Gentleman. One of the points of argument between the two sides, or between some members of both sides, at the moment is the exact status of the illegal republic of Rhodesia.

§ Mr. John Lee
On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a question concerning the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937. As you will know, the terms of that Act constitute the post of Leader of the Opposition. As I understand it, that presupposes a degree of loyalty to the Constitution. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman has been condoning the near treasonable activities of some of his back-benchers, surely this calls into question his right to be Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I have just ruled, he will know that an hon. Member cannot make individual charges of that kind against hon. Members; and it was not even a point of order. The hon. Member will withdraw it.

§ Mr. John Lee
If you are directing me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, then of course I will do so in deference to your office, but not to others.

§ Mr. Hastings
On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the phrase "tacit support for treason" is, I believe, no light matter. May I ask you to consider it again?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have clearly ruled on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. This is a point of bitter difference of opinion between hon. Members of the House. I cannot comment on the differences. Different points of view are very sincerely held in the House as to what Rhodesia is; and there we must leave it.

§ Sir Knox Cunningham
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to your Ruling on that, surely this remark was with particular reference to an individual, to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and should not he have your protection?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Member does not seem to know that the remark has been withdrawn as far as an individual Member of the House is concerned. I would remind the House that some of us have quite a long night ahead of us and extra points of order take up time.

§ Mr. Gardner
On a point of order, on an entirely different matter, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, I heard the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. E. Griffiths) referring to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and I believe I heard the remark that the noble Lord was displaying his conscience. Is not it a long-standing tradition of this House that it is not the custom to refer to a distinguished public servant who by the nature of his title and office cannot possibly be here to defend himself?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman ought to know by now that we are in a place where political criticism is fierce and Ministers can be criticised by hon. Members opposite and even by hon. Members of their own party.