Chile (Hansard, 22 December 1976)

§ 12. Mr. McCrindle
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now prepared to reappoint an ambassador in Santiago.

§ Mr. Rowlands
My right hon. Friend continues to keep this matter under review in the light of our relations with Chile.

§ Mr. McCrindle
But is it not just possible that certain changes are overtaking the regime in Chile and that it would be wise for this country to be fully represented so that those changes can be properly assessed? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we cannot for ever govern our relations with this important Latin American country on the basis of the prejudice of some of his hon. Friends?

§ Mr. Rowlands
Our relations with Chile have not been based on the prejudice of any Members. The withdrawal of our ambassador from Chile, which received support from both sides of the House, as the House will recall, took place in circumstances which the House understood as a result of the circumstances that arose in the case of Dr. Cassidy. There have been releases of political prisoners, which we welcome, but there are still many more detained for basically political offences. We see no change at present in the basic nature of the regime to indicate that we should modify our policy.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
Is my hon. Friend aware that concern has recently been expressed about the slowness of admission of refugees from Chile to this country? As visas are a matter for the Home Office—at least, that is the case with entry certificates—will he discuss the matter with the Home Office to ensure that there is no hold-up or delay?

§ Mr. Rowlands
We have regular discussions with the Home Office about visas and entry certificates for refugees from Chile, as from other parts of South America, and we have done our best to speed up the processes.

§ Mr. Tapsell
Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether Her Majesty's Government still support the traditional criteria for the granting of diplomatic recognition—namely, the claiming of an advantage rather than the conferment of a compliment? If that is so, will he explain why it is that in Chile, where we have some thousands of British subjects who may at some time require the protection of a British mission, we have broken off diplomatic relations whereas, by contrast, in Cambodia, the scene of one of the greatest acts of genocide, running to perhaps 800,000 people murdered in recent months, we have established relations? What is the logic either in morality or in practicality behind such a policy?

§ Mr. Rowlands
We have not broken off diplomatic relations with the Chilean Government. We have diplomatic relations. We withdrew our ambassador because of a distasteful, dislikeable and terrible incident involving a British citizen. Before such action was taken we made tremendous efforts to persuade the Chilean Government, through diplomatic channels and through our ambassador, to do the right and proper thing. The fact that the Chilean Government did not do it forced us to take appropriate action, which was widely supported in the country at the time. That was the decision taken in relation to Chile, which was taken in the light of a specific incident and a specific problem and has no bearing on our relations with other countries or the way in which we conduct our affairs with other nations.