§ 4.29 p.m.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON)My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place on the present situation concerning United Nations finances and peace-keeping arrangements.
A United Nations Peace-Keeping Committee was set up in February this year to review the whole question of peace-keeping operations and the present financial difficulties of the United Nations. As the House is aware, we played an active part in setting up this Committee and in its subsequent work. So far, however, no agreement has been reached on the settlement of the constitutional or the financial problems of the Organisation. It is clear that the financial problems can only be solved eventually by the voluntary contributions from member States.
In these circumstances, we have decided that it is essential to make a voluntary, unconditional, financial pledge to the United Nations. My noble friend Lord Caradon has therefore informed the Secretary-General to-day that we pledge a sum equivalent to 10 million dollars. This decision arose from discussion with a number of other countries, and in the 318 course of to-day several other delegations will make similar voluntary unconditional pledges to the Secretary-General. This contribution is designed to help restore the United Nations to solvency and improve the atmosphere for further discussions in New York. In this improved atmosphere there is a better chance for some compromise on the peace-keeping problem to be worked out before the autumn. Our pledge represents, indeed, an act of faith in the United Nations. It is made entirely without prejudice to our position of principle, and we are fully aware that it does not immediately solve the constitutional problem.
There have been gloomy voices recently hinting that the United Nations has been going the way of the League of Nations. I am not on any account going to accept this. It is the policy of this Government to work to strengthen and support the Organisation, and one of the practical ways in which we have demonstrated this earlier was our offer of logistic support for peace-keeping operations for up to six battalions last February. We shall continue to do all in our power to ensure that the United Nations, far from being allowed to wither and die, emerges strengthened from its present difficulties and better equipped to serve the cause of international peace.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I would thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. Ten million dollars is a very large sum of money, at a time when the international finances of this country are not very strong, and I wonder whether it is wise to give unsolicited gifts when the total reserves of this country are some £1,000 million, of which we 319 owe £900 million to the International Monetary Fund. The noble Lord has said that gloomy voices have recently been hinting that the United Nations has been going the way of the League of Nations and that he is not going to accept this. I am very glad to hear that. But, of course, one of the gloomy voices has been that of U Thant himself, and I think we ought to pay attention to what he says.
Nobody in this House wishes the United Nations to fail, and everybody wishes it to be more effective. But it does not necessarily follow that the United Nations will be more effective if those who already contribute more than their share—that certainly applies to us, in particular in regard to Cyprus—pay once again, while those who fail to contribute can get away with their refusal to pay. Postponing a situation that, in the end, has got to be resolved is not necessarily wise. I suppose that if the situation is still not resolved in six months or a year's time the Government will once again give an unsolicited gift—I do not know. But it may well he that a gesture of this sort may make the settlement of this problem seem rather less urgent in New York than it does at the present time. May I ask the noble Lord who else has contributed and how much they have contributed?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, to deal first with the last two questions of the noble Lord, I think it will be better to wait until the actual announcements have been made by the other countries, rather than possibly cause them embarrassment by slightly premature announcement. The total amount that we have reason to believe will be forthcoming as a result of our initiative in this will be in the nature of 20 million dollars. That, I think, answers the first two questions. In other words, we shall be putting up at this stage one half of the amount that we expect will be announced within the next day or so. But we certainly hope that our example will be followed by many other countries in the weeks to come, and that very considerable progress may be made in providing the total amount which is required.
With regard to the more general points made by the noble Lord, all I would say is this. I do not believe that it is suffi 320 cient simply to make pious expressions of hope and faith in the United Nations, or in any other organisation: those expressions of faith and of hope have to be backed up with actual concrete acts. I do not think it is right that this country should lag behind. We have a great part to play, which we have played so far, and we are here taking the initiative, being the first to make this contribution. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is the right thing for us to do, rather than sit and wait for other people to make the first move.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that in the past we have been lagging behind in our contributions to the United Nations?
§ LORD WALSTONNo. What I said was that I hoped the noble Lord would not suggest that we should now, in this crisis of the United Nations functions and finances, lag behind and wait for some other country to take the lead. And I hope that he will agree it is right that this country should take the lead in this matter.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I should like on behalf of my noble friends and myself to welcome this step. I think the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is quite right. There comes a time when men who believe in world peace and international security have got to stand up and be counted. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on this resolve. I hope that many more countries will follow the example. But unless we make an example, there will not be anything to follow.
There is one question that I would ask the noble Lord. As he knows, on many occasions I have urged both this Government and the previous Government to try to get a command structure and staff formed by the United Nations for the peace-keeping force. I believe this to be most important. In the debate that we had, as the noble Lord will remember, in 1963 (I think it was in February), there was widespread support in this House for that suggestion. I would ask him now, as we are putting up this very handsome contribution, whether Her Majesty's Government would try to get set up at least a beginning to the command structure and staff of the permanent international force.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome to this initiative. With regard to his question, I would remind him of what I said in answer to a question of his some months earlier. At the present time it is Her Majesty's Government's view and that of the Secretary-General that the time is not right for any advance on the lines he has mentioned. I hope, however, that if this example of ours is followed and the immediate financial problems of the Security Council's peacekeeping force are solved, it may then be a more apt time at which to reopen this question.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, I should like to associate myself very much with the doubts expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. Is not this decision going to have precisely the contrary effect of that intended? Is it not in fact a deliberate attempt to flout the decision of the International Court at The Hague, which decided last year that all members of the United Nations must contribute pro rata towards the peace-keeping activities? Is this not going to be regarded as disrespect on the part of Her Majesty's Government towards the decision of the International Court?
§ LORD WALSTONNo, my Lords, it certainly is not. We fully accept the advisory opinion of the International Court, and our pledge of this assistance, we have made it quite clear, is unconditional and without prejudice to our views on Article 19. There can be no misunderstanding on this point. I would remind the noble Lord and other noble Lords who may have doubts that there are always many reasons for not doing anything. That is something from which we have suffered much in the past. If we continue with it we shall simply sit on the sidelines and complain. We believe the time has come to do something positive and set an example.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, speaks, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not think it is a very odd thing that in our desperate international financial position at the present time we should put up half the amount for the United Nations, which has never done us any good of any sort of kind, ever? May I ask the noble Lord these ques 322 tions: first of all, how much the French are putting up; secondly, how much are the Germans putting up; and thirdly, how much are the Japanese putting up?—never mind the Communist countries. I should like to know why he thinks we should impose such a burden on ourselves, to pay for an organisation which has never done us any good for the last twenty years.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I was gratified at the noble Lord referring to me as his noble friend, but I was not quite so gratified by some of the comments he made later on. I repeat my original answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with regard to other countries. They will announce it in their time, some of them shortly, possibly today, and some of them we hope eventually; and some of them undoubtedly will give nothing at all. With regard to the value that we get out of the United Nations, this is not the place to enter into a long discussion of this question, but I would remind the noble Lord of certain occasions, such as in Korea, when the United Nations has, I believe, prevented world war from breaking out. That, I think, is a debt we owe them.
As for this sum of money, 10 million dollars is a large amount of money. I would, in passing, say that the majority of it will be spent in the sterling area and therefore will impose no strain on our balance of payments. It is, however, money going out. But look at that in comparison with the £2,000 million plus which we spend on armaments and defence. Looked at in that light, I think most noble Lords will feel that this is not an unreasonable amount.
§ LORD CARRINGTONBut is it not a fact, my Lords, that the reason why the United Nations are in financial difficulty is that a number of other countries have defaulted on their legal obligation to pay and contribute? As I understand it, Her Majesty's Government are now, in effect, paying a proportion of those monies due to be paid by other countries. Is that not likely to have the effect of slackening the urgency of settling this matter, and making it less urgent to settle it? It will make it less urgent to settle it. Far from making things easier, Her Majesty's Government will, in effect, be giving a lead in postponing any decision.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, in spite of the urgency, this is after all, a matter which has been going on for many months; and faced with the situation as it is today we had the alternative either of the United Nations possibly rather rapidly following the fate, as the Secretary-General warned us, of the League of Nations, because we stick to the legal situation and say that we will not make any payment other than that to which we are legally bound, or of passing beyond the strict legal interpretation, still making quite clear where we stand legally, and taking a practical course which we believe will ease the present situation.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, may I associate myself with those noble Lords who have welcomed this Statement? It is of particular interest to me, because I am Chairman of the British Committee for International Co-operation Year, which groups more than 300 organisations, voluntary and otherwise, in support of the United Nations during this year of its 20th anniversary. I know all our organisations will be glad to know of this decision that the Government has taken. May I go on to ask whether the noble Lord will take a suitable opportunity in future to make a fuller statement on the background of this decision, or, if it is possible, to publish a White Paper relating the sum we have undertaken to pay, half of 20 million dollars, to the amount undertaken by other countries; stating whether this settlement was endorsed by the Committee of Thirty-three and whether the Committee of Thirty-three sends a resolution to the Assembly in September; and giving all these background details which, although I am convinced that the decision has been a right one, will yet be of the greatest interest to the public of this country to read?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said, and I thank him for his support.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the 10 million dollars is being provided to support the peace-keeping operations of the United Nations, and therefore is conditional; or whether it is to be paid to the General finances of the United Nations? 324 Can the noble Lord also tell the House how many British troops are at the present moment serving under United Nations auspices on peace-keeping operations; and what has been the average over the period of, say the last year?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, the 10 million dollars is being paid into the general funds of the United Nations. The second and the third questions I am afraid I cannot answer without notice. The noble Lord can put down a Question.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, I apologise for going on with this, but I should like to ask my noble friend—if he will allow me to call him that just once again—when the Government are going to come to a decision to cut down our overseas defence expenditure; and, above all, when they are going to bring back from Germany the troops, who are serving no useful purpose there whatsoever?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, as the noble Lord will know, this is a matter which is being pursued with a great deal of care, and it is, I expect, an entirely different question.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, would the noble Lord make quite clear that the 10 million dollars which is being paid into the general funds is being paid in, as I understand it, to make good the deficiency that is due largely to the failure of other countries to pay the contributions which they are liable to pay under the decision of the International Court? And is he really suggesting that the payment of the 10 million dollars is likely to accelerate the discharge by these other countries of their liabilities?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, as I have already said, this is what I believe is called in legal circles an ex gratia payment, without prejudice, and therefore it does not in any way alter our legal position, which we have made abundantly clear. We do not believe that this is going to accelerate the payment by other countries—certainly not; but we do think that it is going to make it easier for the United Nations, which is an organisation in which we believe, to carry on its work, which we believe is highly important.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood 325 me. I was not asking the legal character of our payment, whether it was ex gratia or anything else. What I was asking was whether this payment of 10 million dollars into the general fund, was being paid in because other countries have failed to discharge their liabilities. I gather that this is so, and I gather that the noble Lord will not quite say so; but what he seems to be implying is that he does not expect that payment by other countries will be accelerated by the example set by us.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I say, frankly, that I do not expect that the countries which are at present defaulters will be influenced, one way or another, by our action. But I hope that other countries which are not defaulters will follow our example and also make ex gratia payments. The object of this is not to shame the defaulting countries into making their payments: it is simply to enable the United Nations to carry on in its job, and to give a practical as opposed to a simply hortatory indication of our belief in the United Nations.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, will the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government have given up any hope of keeping to the Charter and the arrangements that are being made for the various member countries who support this organisation? Are they going to give up hope of ever having that again? And is anything to be done about the voting rule, now that we are told that certain countries have not paid, and since we apparently regard it as very improbable that they will ever pay?
§ LORD WALSTONWe have not given up hope. We always have hope that even the most difficult people will become less difficult as time goes on; and we have, as I say, faith in the United Nations as an organisation. That is why we have made this act of faith.
§ LORD BROCKETMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord can state the total sum of money which will be required to put the United Nations on a sound financial basis? Secondly, might not the rule of clubs, that members who do not pay their subscriptions do not have very much power in future, be applied to the United Nations?
§ LORD WALSTONThe total amount of money which is owing to the United Nations at the present time on the peacekeeping operations is, depending on what method of accountancy is used, somewhere between 80 million and 110 million dollars.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)My Lords, as there is another Statement coming, and most noble Lords have had a pretty good go in regard to this matter, and as we are in the middle of a debate, perhaps the House might feel that it is now time to move on.