§ 4.5 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the Lebanese question is presently before the United Nations, independent national action can be justified; and what is meant by the words used on May 19 by Her Majesty's Government "the established rules of International Law"; and, further, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the proposal to extend the Lebanese President's term of office.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, the Lebanese President's term of office is a matter for the Lebanon. It is true that the Security Council have passed a resolution authorising the urgent despatch of an observation group to proceed to the Lebanon, so as to ensure that there is no illegal infiltration of personnel or supply of arms or other material across the Lebanese border, and some observers are now in position. It is Her Majesty's Government's policy to do everything within their power to see that effective Action is taken to implement this resolution.
Her Majesty's Government have stated that they will not intervene contrary to the Charter or the established rules of International Law. Exactly what rules would be applicable would depend on the circumstances, and I cannot answer in detail questions on hypothetical situations. Therefore, I would ask the noble Viscount to be satisfied with this reply. I repeat that this matter now rests with the United Nations, and the Government believe that all efforts and attention 352 should be concentrated on making the United Nations operation succeed in its declared purpose.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Earl's reply. The pressure of public opinion has undoubtedly changed the policy of the parties in this matter, so I make no apology for putting down this Question. As to the first part of the Answer, it is true that the election of the Lebanese President is a matter for the Lebanon, and if the demand for a second term is the cause of the trouble, clearly outsiders have no right to interfere. That is the relevance of that part of the Question, and therefore I could have wished that the Government could have given your Lordships their opinion about it.
So far as the words "the established rules of International Law", are concerned, what I should like to know is, who judges these rules and whether they are established? If, having weighed all of the facts, through their observers, the Security Council give a decision which does not please Her Majesty's Government, can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will not then bring into parade what they call the "established rules of International Law" and shatter the machinery of peace of the United Nations?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, as I have said in my Answer, we have set ourselves certain standards, and we shall stick to them and judge the situation in the light of them as it arises. What the noble Viscount has asked me is a whole series of further hypothetical questions, and I am afraid that in the present situation I cannot go beyond the Answer that I have given him.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government in Canada have made any representations to Her Majesty's Government here concerning the declaration of policy made by the Foreign Secretary in another place as regards Article 51 and the established rules of International Law?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I should need notice of that question. Of course, we are constantly in touch with all Commonwealth Governments on this matter and on all matters concerning our 353 policy in the Middle East. As to specific communications between Governments, it is not our usual practice to disclose them. I should need notice if the noble Lord has any specific question in mind.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, it is very convenient that the noble Earl is Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Did he consult Dr. Nkrumah, who was lately in Cairo, as to what he thought about such an expedition?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I am in close touch with Dr. Nkrumah, as I am with all the Prime Ministers and Ministers in the Commonwealth Governments, but it is not the practice to disclose the intimate conversations and consultations which we have with them, as they would lose a great real of their value if they were made public.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the Answer he has given. Is the noble Earl aware that the type of Question on the Order Paper to-day is educed from a good deal of fear and anxiety in the nation? On the other hand, is he aware that many of us are pleased with the announcement on the wireless last night about the measure of agreement between the Prime Minister and the leader in France in refraining from any special entry into the Lebanon?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. Naturally people are anxious about this question; it gives us all a great deal of anxiety. I think the great thing is that all nations who support the United Nations in their determination to maintain the independence of this country should try to make the United Nations operations a success and support the advice given by Mr. Harrimarskjoeld, the Secretary-General.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, my noble Leader made a statement which I had not heard until he told me. Is it the fact that the Government have issued a communiqué saying that, in harmony 354 with the United States, they have abandoned any suggestion they might have made for another military intervention?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I think that here I ought to say that I merely remember what was said on the sound radio last evening, to the effect that General de Gaulle and our Prime Minister were in agreement that now was not the time for an expedition to enter the Lebanon.