§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the unequivocal statement, made on their behalf in this House, that it would as a matter of general principle be improper for the United Nations to interfere in the internal domestic affairs of the Congo, why they do not apply the same principle in the case of the neighbouring territory of Angola.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not accept that there has been any failure to support this principle in the case of Angola. There is, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, an important difference between the position of the United Nations as regards the Congo and its position as regards Angola. 714 The United Nations are operating in the Congo both at the specific invitation of the Congolese authorities and because the situation there has had international repercussions which are of international concern. In so far as this invitation involves the United Nations in Congolese internal affairs, they must work with the consent of the Congolese authorities. The arrest of Mr. Tschombe was, as I tried to explain on June 13, a mater of domestic Congolese jurisdiction.
As regards Angola, the United Nations have received no invitation from the constituted authorities there to concern themselves in the affairs of that territory. Nevertheless, the reports of current events in Angola have greatly perturbed Her Majesty's Government and many other members of the United Nations, and we are most anxious about their possible international repercussions. Statements made by the Portuguese themselves in the Security Council have alleged that the disturbances in Angola have been caused by outside interference. If these allegations are correct therefore, the disturbances in Angola would have an international character. The United Kingdom representative at the United Nations was therefore instructed to make it clear that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Portuguese Government should co-operate with the sub-committee of inquiry set up by the General Assembly on April 20, the purpose of which was to ascertain the facts and report back to the Assembly.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, as I understand it from what the noble Marquess has said, the point which Her Majesty's Government make is that what has happened in Angola might lead to international repercussions. They have not, so far as I know, led to any international repercussions as yet, and it is an internal affair of the Portuguese Government to keep order in their own territories. That being the case, I still do not see why Her Majesty's Government did not oppose the motion moved in the United Nations.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I apologise to my noble friend; I did not make myself clear. The point surely is that the Portuguese themselves referred to outside interference, 715 and it was for this reason that Her Majesty's Government supported the idea that the Portuguese should co-operate with the sub-committee to ascertain what the facts were. It was the Portuguese themselves who drew our attention to the possibility of the existence of outside interference.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYBut, My Lords, did the Portuguese Government ask for an inquiry by the United Nations?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENo, My Lords.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that only yesterday a London newspaper carried nearly a page report from the missionaries in the Portuguese territory of the shocking disasters to the native population which are resulting from the action of the Portuguese Government authorities; that there are tens of thousands of refugees who have already gone into the Congo, and that the general effect, implicating, of course, the opinion of all African races with regard to the white man's rule on the rest of Africa, is simply shocking? Is it not correct, therefore, for the Government to say that there were great dangers of international repercussions?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, there is another question on this subject down on Monday, and I think the noble Viscount's question really constitutes another point.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, may I ask, arising out of the noble Viscount's question, whether the letter to which he referred made any mention of the atrocities which were done by the subversive elements on the Portuguese population in Angola, long before any action was taken by the Portuguese authorities?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not believe it did. But why should not the proper kind of action by the United Nations be the inquiry which has been recommended.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, I was very properly reprimanded by the Under-Secretary of State on the last 716 occasion for asking why the British representative had not intervened in Leopoldville to protest against the inducement to Mr. Tschombe to go to wherever he went and where he was arrested. I was told that it would be most improper. With great respect, I would ask him whether that is the kind of thing, this cat and mouse business, that has the approval of the Government. However reprehensible that action was, and however likely to lead to more difficulties in one of the more orderly parts of the Congo, if it is true that it would have been quite wrong for Her Majesty's Government's representative to have taken any action in that case, why then is it right for Her Majesty's Government to take action in Angola? That is without prejudice to the merits of the case. But really, can we have two entirely different policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in two different places?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, with great respect, I think the noble Earl has asked the original Question a second time, and I am afraid I can give no further explanation than the one I gave to my noble friend Lord Salisbury.