GOA (Hansard, 20 December 1961)

§ LORD COLYTON
My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I should like to begin by explaining that there is no British Consul in Goa; consequently Her Majesty's Government 739 have very little first-hand information regarding the situation there. We have, however, received a message from one of the British subjects in Goa saying that all British subjects are safe and well. We have also received assurances from the Indian Government that British lives and property will he protected. So far as we can make out, there is now no danger to British subjects and H.M.S. "Rhyl", which had been standing by in the vicinity of Goa, has now been withdrawn.

§ LORD COLYTON
My Lords, while we are all relieved to hear about the safety of British lives and property in Goa, has there not since then been a decision by the Security Council rejecting a proposal sponsored by Her Majesty's Government, calling for a cease-fire and for the withdrawal of the Indian forces behind their own frontiers? Does this mean that the United Nations can or will do nothing more in the face of this outrageous act of aggression? And, if that is so, will my noble friend say what further action Her Majesty's Government intend to take, short of military operations, to fulfil their obligations under the Anglo-Portuguese Declaration of 1899. Will they, for example, consult with the United States Government to see what practical steps can be taken to secure the restoration of the status quo in these three territories?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, there were two Resolutions proposed in the Security Council, one providing that nothing should be done and that Portugal should be asked to withdraw her troops and facilitate the end of colonialism in India. That resolution was defeated by 7 votes to 4, being supported by Soviet Russia, the United Arab Republic, Ceylon and Liberia. The other resolution provided that: The Security Council, Recalling that in Article 2 of the Charter all members are obligated to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Deploring the use of force by India in Goa, Damao and Diu. Recalling that Article 1 (2) of the Charter specifies as one of the purposes of the United Nations to develop friendly relations among nations based upon respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. 740

"(1) Calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

"(2) Calls upon the Government of India to withdraw its forces immediately to positions prevailing before December 17, 1961.

"(3) Urges the parties to work out a permanent solution of their differences by peaceful means in accordance with the principles embodied in the Charter.

"(4) Requests the Secretary-General to provide such assistance as may be appropriate."

For that Resolution the same seven Members voted, and the same four Members—Liberia, Ceylon, the United Arab Republic and Soviet Russia, voted against. As Soviet Russia is one of those who have the right of veto, both Resolutions failed and the Security Council was therefore not in a position to take any action.

§ LORD COLYTON
But my noble friend has not answered my question as to what Her Majesty's Government propose to do now—first of all, whether there is anything more that can be done at the United Nations; and, secondly, what Her Majesty's Government propose to do to carry out their own obligations under the 1899 Declaration.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, with regard to the future we are naturally remaining in touch with the other Governments concerned. With regard to the 1889 Treaty, I think my noble friend already stated the Government's position on that two or three days ago, or at any rate this was stated by the Commonwealth Relations Secretary in another place: that we had warned the Portuguese Government as early as 1954 that we could not engage in hostilities against India. We repeated this warning at the beginning of December, 1961, and the Portuguese did not in fact ask us to take such action. They have asked for full diplomatic support, particularly in attempting to dissuade the Indian Government from the use of force. We certainly did our best to help in that way. Before the invasion we made the strongest representations to the Indian Government that we should deeply deplore the use of force, and I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government deeply regret that their efforts proved to be unavailing.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, is it not quite clear that the United Nations 741 neither intends nor has the power to stop aggression anywhere?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lord Colyton the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, quoted certain passages from the Statement of the Commonwealth Secretary in another place yesterday. May I draw his attention to two other statements that he made. One is [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 651 (No. 35), col. 948]: We have long understood the natural desire of the Indian people to incorporate these territories in the Republic of India and their feelings of impatience that the Portuguese Government have not felt disposed to follow the example of Britain and France. The second statement was this: The attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this matter has been clearly explained to the Indian Government from time to time. What I want to ask the noble Earl and the Government is this: Is that the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government? Has it for some time been the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government? When was it expressed to the Indian Government, to whom it must have given considerable encouragement? In any case, if it was divulged to the Indian Government, why was it not divulged to Parliament, in view of the bearing which any such statement must have on the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty? That is the first question. The other one is: Was it necessary, at this of all times, for us to have made public these views which appear to justify the action of the Indian Government?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
Yes, my Lords. The fact that we stated these views many years ago and (as the Commonwealth Secretary put it, I think) understood the feelings of the Indian Government about Goa, and that we have never concealed them from anybody, does not in the least diminish our opposition to the settlement of this question by violence and not by peaceful negotiation.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, the point I was trying to make to the noble Earl was that, as stated, that attitude clearly was not in harmony with the views of the Portuguese Government, or with our natural moral obligation to them under the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty. Were these statements ever 742 made to the Indian Government that we sympathised with their desire to take over Goa; and, if so, why was that fact not divulged to Parliament?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I think it would be better, if my noble friend wants precise information about that, to put down a Question. In any case, I will send him written information about it. I do not think that we have ever concealed our ideas on the subject of Goa. But that does not in the least mean that we have ever sought to suggest, or to condone for a moment, that a question of this kind ought to be settled by force; it ought not.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, speaking as the only surviving member of the Mission to India in 1946 which led to the independence of India, I share the great sorrow which has already been expressed in your Lordships' House at the military action taken by Mr. Nehru's Government in order to achieve these particular objectives? We are exceedingly sorry. We understand the resentment of Portugal in this particular instance, but I do not think our action can depend upon an ancient Treaty with Portugal. I think we must remember that we have commitments to the United Nations, and that there is a standard of conduct laid down for Mr. Nehru as well as others in the United Nations Charter, of what ought to be the practice under the Charter, which we are sorry that Mr. Nehru has not followed. I think we should make that perfectly clear to him.

§ LORD COLYTON
My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition should know better than anybody else that these guarantees were reaffirmed in 1943, when we sought to obtain the use of the islands of the Azores to protect our merchantmen from sinking by submarine. These guarantees were specifically reaffirmed at that date, so it is not possible to talk about an "ancient Treaty". But the second thing I should like to ask my noble friend—

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
May I know—

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I think we are in danger of embarking 743 upon a debate at this stage. This ought to be a time for questioning my noble friend.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is not one thing he can do—namely, to make it known to the Indian Government that many old friends of India in this House, and outside, are horrified at the action of the Indian Government over Goa? May I also ask whether there was any consultation between the Indian Government and the other Governments of the Commonwealth as to the intentions of India in this matter?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, we are all well aware, and I am sure the Indian Government are well aware, of the sensations of shock—they were described in your Lordships' House as of "incredulous horror"—at this action. With regard to the noble Lord's second question, there was certainly no consultation between the Indian Government and any member of the Commonwealth about this action, which took us completely by surprise.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH
My Lords, I must put one point arising from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. The first point is that the Treaty or understanding of 1943 took place nearly four years after the war had started, and at the end of prolonged endeavours to get our Ally Portugal to allow us the use of the Azores. I have inner and very distinct recollection of all the facts connected with that. Let me just point out, also, that that understanding was more than two years before the agreement of this country to the General Charter of the United Nations.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government observed that the spokesman of the Indian Government at the United Nations has expressed his complete indifference both to the Charter and to any action that may be taken by the Security Council?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I have observed many things at the United Nations, and your Lordships will no doubt have read the comments of Mr. Adlai Stevenson upon the rejection of the resolution by the Security Council.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, I was actually referring to the statement made by the Indian representative—I think on the previous day—on the proposal to bring the matter before the Security Council.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend just one question on this matter? Does my noble friend not feel that the withdrawal of H.M.S. "Rhyl" from those waters may be viewed by some—and perhaps even by many—as a recognition of a final fait accompli? Also, would it not be possible for this frigate to return to those waters, so that it will not be felt by other countries that we consider the aggression on the part of India as a fait accompli?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, the only reason for sending "H.M.S. "Rhyl" to Goa was to secure protection for British lives and property. The reason why she has been withdrawn is because it is considered that they are not now in danger.