HL Deb 27 May 1965 vol 266 cc999-1017

5.24 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made to the Government of the United States in respect of its declared policy of intervening within its spheres of interest to prevent the establishment of régimes which it regards as Communist; and whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there are adequate opportunities for consultation before such action is taken. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I recognise that I am treading on delicate ground, and I will seek to speak with a sense of responsibility and without provocation; but I speak because I believe this House should consider the developments of American policy and how far they will affect the peace of the world.

I do not think there is any doubt that there has been a development of American policy of which we should take note. It has been described by the Washington correspondent of The Times as "the second phase in the cold war". I think it would be more accurate to say that it is the third phase. The first phase was that of the brinkmanship policy under Foster Dulles, which nearly brought the world to nuclear destruction on a number of occasions. The second phase was that under President Kennedy, who sought the policy of coexistence, which gave great hope everywhere that peace would be made secure. The third phase, upon which the American Government has now entered, I would describe as that of intervention; and I believe that our Government and both Houses of Parliament should look calmly and quietly at the implications of that policy.

My Lords, American policy has been based upon the Monroe doctrine. That doctrine was first elaborated by President Monroe as long ago as 1823. It is interesting to-day to read its objects. They were twofold. The first was to protect the American continent, and especially South America, from intervention by European Governments to re-occupy the Spanish colonies; and the second was a declaration against foreign intervention in the political affairs of independent American States. It was a warning against European colonisation of the American continent.

It may be worth while just reading the actual terms of the Declaration, because of their relationship to the present position. The terms were as follows: With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered"— that is, the United States of America— and shall not interfere; but with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European Power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States". The principle of the Monroe doctrine of 1823 was subsequently endorsed by other American States who became united in the Organisation of American States.

The American Government has now quite clearly extended that policy. It has now expanded the Monroe doctrine to the proposition that the United States will intervene to prevent any State in the whole of the Americas becoming what it regards as Communist. President Johnson said on May 3: The American nations cannot, must not, and will not permit the establishment of another Communist Government in the Western hemisphere.

I hope, my Lords, that I do not have to emphasise my opposition to all authoritarian and totalitarian régimes. I believe tremendously in personal liberties; I believe tremendously in political democracy; and I hope my record has been sufficient to indicate that my speech to-day is not made in sympathy with a totalitarian Communist regime. But I do say this: that the very principle of liberalism and the very principle of democracy requires that we accept the right of any people in the world to become a Communist society if that is their desire. The danger of this new development of American policy is that it will misinterpret Communism. The American Government is inclined to interpret as Communism any legitimate movement of commendable revolt against political and military dictatorships, against the economic oppression of the people and against social injustice.

I want to take the case of Santo Domingo as an example and I propose, if your Lordships will forgive me, to read a rather long quotation from Mr. Roy Perrott in the Observer of May 16. He wrote this regarding the people of Santo Domingo who revolted against the oppressive military dictatorship which then existed in that country: The United States forces may have landed in the Dominican Republic to prevent a takeover by a relatively small group of determined Communists. But the longer they stay the more they will become embroiled in a popular movement whose adherents can be numbered in tens or hundreds of thousands and whose main objective is an elementary social justice. They have never read Marx but, in many cases, they know all about hunger. There is no special indoctrination that binds the country together except that of hard experience. Whether they are country peasants, sugar factory workers, nickel miners, housewives, doctors, lawyers, teachers or shopkeepers they are, almost to a man, unutterably sick of a system which allowed swindling on a large scale, hallowed by tradition: which permitted a country, potentially prosperous by Latin-American standards, to wallow in stagnation with scarcely one new school or hospital built while a handful of generals and a few others took a cut of almost every major contract and pocketed large fortunes. This was the simple impetus, compounded of rage and frustration, which made the streets of Santo Domingo wild with revolution for a few days three weeks ago. The rebels must have known that the U.S. had been their benevolent uncle for a long time, doling out assistance in characteristically generous wads, but unable or unwilling to do anything about a system which was not even refined enough to be described as Fascist. The really significant thing about the revolution was its spontaneity and massive backing. It would be a pity if this central fact were obscured by the important argument about the legitimacy of the American landing. It was not the normal Latin-American coup d'état engineered by a few and affecting only a group at the palace. It was a shudder of indignation that went through the country and included nearly all but the richer classes. It was a grass-roots revolution that was about to succeed when the Marines landed.

America regarded that revolution as Communist. It rushed in its marines. The only evidence that it has given of Communist control is to name 54 Communists. Some of these have subsequently been revealed as dead and some of them have been revealed as not in Santo Domingo at all. The Americans are now retreating from their original position that the intervention in Santo Domingo was due to this Communist conspiracy. I think it should be emphasised this evening that Professor Juan Bosch, who was elected by an overwhelming vote as head of the Government of Santo Domingo and who was later overthrown by a coup of a militaristic junta, was a Social Democrat, exactly as are we who are members of the Labour Party. He has been endorsed by the Socialist International of which our Labour Party is a leading member. The Times said editorially on May 3: Most of those who support him"— that is, Professor Bosch— no doubt still wish above all, as he does, for an orderly civilian Government.

I find it very significant indeed that the Mediation Committee of the Organisation of American States does not share the view of the American Government that the insurgents are controlled by Communists. I think we should take into consideration when we are discussing this matter that Francisco Caamano, who is now head of what is known as the insurgent movement, has been elected President of Santo Domingo by the remaining Members of the Legislative Assembly. He has been elected President by 49 votes to 5; and what should be very important for those of us in the Labour Party, and who as Democratic Socialists are opposed both to the capitalist point of view and the Communist point of view, is that the Government is composed of 5 Social Democrats and two Christian Socialists.

I think that that analysis of the situation, which I do not want to extend, indicates that this development of American policy is very dangerous, not to Communist extension but to our liberal democratic ideas, and indeed that that policy will tend to extend Communist support. If the American Government takes the view that all who stand for liberal democracy, for social reform and for the liberation of people from economic exploitation are Communists, the American Government will become the greatest protagonist of Communism that there is in the world.

I want to recognise at once that the Government of the United States has now modified its policy. It is not now continuing its allegation that the insurgents in Santo Domingo are controlled by Communists, and it is seeking to make the Organisation of American States, rather than itself, responsible for peacemaking activities in Santo Domingo. The Governments in the Organisation of American States have been hesitant about accepting the American proposal that they should send forces to Santo Domingo. The necessary two-thirds majority was carried by only one vote, and that one vote was cast by a representative of the military dictatorship in Santo Domingo, against which the people, led by the Social Democrats, are now protesting.

There is not only the danger of the development of the American policy in suppressing democratic movements for social justice when they are not Communist at all, but the very great danger that American policy is now ignoring the United Nations. One has read almost with tears what U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been saying in recent days; that when conflicts occur, whether they be in Vietnam or in Santo Domingo, the United Nations is being ignored. It may be that in the case of Vietnam it was difficult to bring in the United Nations, because, unfortunately, China has so far been excluded from the United Nations. But there is no reason whatsoever why the United Nations should not function in Santo Domingo. The Americans want to keep it out. I was astonished when I read in this morning's newspaper of the proceedings in the Security Council yesterday. Let me say to the Government that I was very glad indeed that our representative on the Security Council supported—I am not sure that he did not actually propose—the resolution which was carried in favour of a cease-fire in Santo Domingo. But the American attitude towards the United Nations now is such that it abstained from voting yesterday in the Security Council because the resolution did not mention the Organisation of American States, which it believed should be responsible.

I need not this evening emphasise the importance of this issue. The United Nations itself is in the balance now. If it disappears it will be a disaster to the world. One does not know how the peace of the world will be maintained, and it is immensely important that every Government should support the authority of the United Nations wherever disputes occur, and particularly when disputes occur, as in Santo Domingo, where an external Government has assumed the responsibility of imposing its forces upon an independent country.

I want to add one point to the two points that I have made, about the danger of America misinterpreting democratic movements as Communist, and the danger of its ignoring the authority of the United Nations. President Johnson has at present applied the policy of intervention to countries which are in the Americas. He has sometimes used words which make one wonder whether the present policy of America is limited to that. He has spoken of American intervention wherever there are American citizens and where what he called "Communist aggression" may appear. He has claimed that America has the right to intervene where American interests are involved.

But, where are American interests not involved? They are now involved in every part of the world except the non-Communist world. Their investments dominate the economy of the world, and one's fear is that the American policy of intervention which has now been applied to the American continent, which previously was applied to Vietnam, about which I have spoken before, and about which I will not speak now, will be extended. It already recognises the whole continent of America as part of its sphere of influence, and is now recognising South-East Asia as part of its sphere of influence. The terrible danger is that this policy of intervention may spread to other parts of the world.

My Lords, my Question also asks: whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there are adequate opportunities for consultation before such action is taken. I am led to ask this because of indications in a number of dispatches from Washington that the American Government is now declining to give the consultation with our Government and with other Allies that one would expect in this kind of critical situation. I am almost reluctant to quote what the Washington Correspondent of The Times has said on this subject. If what I am going to read had appeared in the Daily Worker, everyone would have regarded it as incredible and irresponsible; but it is said by the Washington Correspondent of The Times—the organ of the Establishment in this country—and when he makes these remarks, one cannot ignore them. They appear in The Times in the issue of May 21, 1965.

The dispatch began by saying that our Ambassador had been to see Mr. Rusk, of the State Department, and had learned very little from him. Then the correspondent goes on to say that in foreign affairs there is now no pretence at consultation. In spite of the pious genuflections to interdependence, the President is no more prepared to consult with Allies than he is, say, to further the political careers of the Kennedy brothers. Alliance and special relationship are becoming obsolescent words, without much practical meaning. The relationship which Mr. Johnson is prepared to establish with lesser countries can only be described as alignment; that is, he expects them to fall in line behind the United States. Later in the dispatch he indicates that President Kennedy was always prepared to discuss with us when crisis in foreign affairs occurred, but not now. Much of this has now gone by the board. There is little exchange of information in times of crisis. It is no exaggeration to say that even common diplomatic courtesy is now rather uncommon. This distinguishes President Johnson's administration. It is not that he regards the Allies as a bunch of 'wogs', 'frogs', 'krauts', or 'limeys'; they just do not enter into his calculations.

A third quotation. The Times correspondent says that the Monroe Doctrine is being applied universally in the East—West dispute. This policy has been adopted, irrespective of the aims of the so-called allies. Super-power, provided by missiles, enormous fleets, and 16 active divisions are seen to make the doctrine universally applicable. The concepts of super-power, devised by an array of thinkers and tested on computers, have revolutionised alliance diplomacy To some extent it has got rid of a lot of cant and past assumptions no longer relevant. What is a special relationship when the computers find the allies wanting in terms of nuclear power, standing forces, and goals and capabilities? The answer is now found to be easy. If an ally does not share in the burden of carrying the doctrine round the world it has no right to be consulted or informed. If an ally does share the burden it does not have to be consulted or informed because agreement clearly exists.

I conclude by making this appeal to the Government. Many of us are deeply impressed by the steps they are taking to restore the image of our country as Great Britain; to restore its economy so that we are self-reliant, and to begin to establish a society in which poverty will be abolished and which will be an example to the world in its freedom and its social justice. Whilst our Government are doing that at home to make our country great, I would urge our Government at the same time to create an image of our country which is great for the world, which is great for peace, which is self-reliant, which is not prepared to be subservient to any country, even though it has the power of America, and which is prepared to give the leadership which the world so badly needs at this time for the freedom of the peoples and the peace of the earth.

5.52 p.m.

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, when I saw the question of the noble Lord on the Order Paper, I felt that I must say a few words. May I begin by saying how much I agree with him that the decision of independent countries as to the Government they should have should rest with them? But I make one qualification to that. The noble Lord said, "if it is the desire of the people". That is the whole point with Communism; it is not always the desire of the people. Only too often it is, or has been in the past, imposed upon nations.

I take as an example Czechoslovakia. where about four key posts were retained by the Communists, the President was brutally murdered and others were driven out of the country, and, as a result. Czechoslovakia became nominally a Communist country. But who knows today what proportion of the people really want that régime? And, for that matter, who knows what proportion of the Russian people really want Communism? The noble Lord described the revolution in Santo Domingo as being the result of extreme hardship and a totalitarian Government. I agree that a revolution there was to be expected, but the trouble with these revolutions is that they are occasions in which the Communist organisation will "cash in". They will show themselves as being the freers of the people and the bringers of salvation, and people who are very heated in their revolution will not stop to realise that what they are doing is merely exchanging one form of totalitarian Government for another.

While I agree with the noble Lord that consultation is desirable between nations such as the United States and ourselves, who hold similar ideas, before any steps are taken, there are occasions on which one simply has got to act before things get too far for action to be of any use. There is a habit to-day, when any crisis occurs, of saying that we must sit down and have some talks about it. We sit down and have talks and more talks and still more talks, and in the result nothing is ever really achieved, because nobody can agree. In international affairs I do not think that that is a tolerable position.

The noble Lord also mentioned the United Nations, and I think this might be a suitable moment for me to mention to your Lordships a book which I received a short time ago and which I have lent to the Library—I have it here in my hand—and it is there for any noble Lord who is interested to read. It is by an American author and it is called The Fearful Master: a Second Look at the United Nations. I must say that I was extremely shaken when I read this book. The author does not use his own prejudices or suspicions; he simply quotes historical facts. I will not go any further into the book, which your Lordships may read, but it shows that the United Nations is not quite the benevolent power we once thought it was. Therefore, if the United States decides to act without consulting the United Nations, I think she has every right to do so when she considers that the situation demands it.

I also think that it is not generally enough recognised that the Communist doctrine is a little different from other political doctrines in that the Communists are not willing to allow other political doctrines to exist side by side with it. For instance, in our country the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, though they may have arguments with each other, are all perfectly happy to let each other work side by side. But the Communist dogma insists, in its heart of hearts, that eventually the whole world shall be Communist, and they will go to any ends to achieve that purpose. Therefore, I feel that the Communist movement, whether in the Western Hemisphere, in Africa or anywhere else, is not to be trusted, and the United States is perfectly justified in taking the view that she does in acting without consultation with her allies, who might try to put the halter on her and prevent her from taking the action which she feels is necessary.

6.1 p.m.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, I am sure the whole House, or what is left of it, must have been deeply moved by the passionate plea of my noble friend Lord Brockway in support of his Question. I, like other noble Lords present, am anxious to hear the reply to be given by the Minister, and I do not wish to detain the House unduly. But arising out of the second part of the Question, whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there are adequate opportunities for consultation before such action is taken", I should like to ask my noble friend if adequate opportunities for consultation were afforded, also, by our fellow members of the Commonwealth on the action taken by the Australian Government in sending 800 Australian troops to South Vietnam in support of the American troops now engaged in that area. I fully realise the treaty obligations of our Commonwealth partners, particularly Australia and New Zealand, in that area, but may we have an assurance from the Minister that these 800 Australian troops were landed with the fullest support and approval of Her Majesty's Government? I believe that at this moment 200 New Zealand troops are either on their way, or are about to embark, in support of the 800 Australian troops.

I do not for one moment question the justification of this procedure. The only question I would ask of the Minister at this stage is: Were Her Majesty's Government fully notified in advance of this action? I am sure he will realise, as we all do, the deep desire on all sides of your Lordships' House, and far beyond this House, that the conflict in Vietnam should be contained as much as possible. If he can give an assurance to the House that this action in to-day's news is a step forward to containing the hostilities which are at present going on, I think it would have a reasuring effect on the country at large.

The other point I should like to make quite briefly is this. I do not attempt for one moment to draw a parallel, but I should like to recall to the memory of the House the action taken by General de Gaulle, to my mind an action of supreme statesmanship against strong public opinion in his own country, when he completely withdrew from Algeria. It was an action which, so far from detracting from his own prestige, I believe, enormously enhanced it. A great deal of national pride was involved, but the results I think have justified the action then taken.

The corollary of the withdrawal of French troops from Algeria was also shown in a spontaneous voluntary action on the part of General de Gaulle, despite the most extreme opposition within his own territory, as we know, in giving French economic aid to Algeria to enable that country to maintain a Government, rightly or wrongly—it is not for us to judge—of its own choice. Although I do not want to press this parallel too far, is it not conceivable that, so far from America to-day offering economic aid to these harassed and distressed territories while American troops are still in that area, that economic aid would be far more effective and far better received in that area if it was preceded by a withdrawal, or a partial withdrawal, of American military forces there? As I say, I do not want to press the parallel of Algeria too far, but I think it is a significant factor which the whole of the world, and certainly public opinion in this country, might do well to take note of.

6.5 p.m.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, may I just seek to formulate briefly two questions on which I think the House would be interested to hear the Government's view when the Minister comes to reply? The first one touches the validity of the O.A.S. decision about these troops. My noble friend Lord Brockway has already mentioned it. At the relevant meeting of the Security Council, at which I happened to be present as a spectator, the Soviet delegate said to the Americans, "How do you justify calling this an O.A.S. operation when you need a two-thirds majority and, therefore, have to rely on the vote of the Dominican Republic, and the whole point of your intervention was that there was no Government of Dominica?" The United States delegate answered, "We should have had a two-thirds majority even without the vote of the Dominican Republic. There would have been a two-thirds majority of those present and voting without the Dominican Republic"—and, indeed, there was more than a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. But I have heard the interpretation held that the O.A.S. Treaty requires a two-thirds majority of the members, and if that is the correct interpretation, then an achievement of this majority did indeed depend on the Dominican vote. My question to the Government is this. Do we accept that as a valid decision under the Rio Treaty? Do we hold that it is a real O.A.S. operation which is going on?

My second question is this. A week or two ago, in the other place, the Foreign Secretary was questioned rather closely about the Government's attitude to this intervention, and he said, "Yes; we approve the initial sending of marines in order to protect American lives". But he was careful not to commit himself one way or the other as to his approval of their continued presence there now that the initial purpose of protecting American lives had been achieved. I should like to ask whether now, two or three weeks after that statement by the Foreign Secretary, the Minister can go further and say whether Her Majesty's Government still continue to approve of the marines who have now been there for six weeks or a couple of months?

6.8 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for asking this Question and for the, as always, admirable and restrained but very feeling way in which he did so. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part in such a helpful manner in this short debate.

It may perhaps be simpler if, before embarking on the main points at issue, I answer quite briefly the specific question of my noble friend Lord Segal concerning the 800 Australian troops who have been sent to Vietnam. The specific question as I understood it, was whether there was adequate consultation with ourselves and other members of the Commonwealth. Australia, of course, is an independent country, and is free to do whatever she likes with her own troops. We acknowledge that. But there was ample consultation. We were informed in good time before this took place, and we have no complaint at all, quite apart from the fact of whether or not the troops should have been sent, as to the manner in which they were sent. It was a very fine example of Commonwealth consultation.

In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for allowing me (and I hope he will agree that I achieve the purpose) to clear up some misunderstandings about President Johnson's remarks. I confess freely that when I first read of these remarks in the newspapers I was horrified. Later I was able to get the exact wording of his speech, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, quoted. I do not for a moment suggest that he deliberately did not go on to quote other relevant parts of it, but I will do so because I think it puts this matter in a slightly different, in fact a very different, perspective.

As my noble friend said, President Johnson spoke on May 2 and May 3 about the situation in the Dominican Republic, and he then said, as my noble friend has quoted: The American nations"— and I would ask your Lordships to note the plural: it was not just "the American nation"— cannot, must not and will not permit the establishment of another Communist Government in the Western Hemisphere. But he went on to explain why this was so. He said: This was the unanimous view of all the American nations when, in January, 1962. they declared—and I quote: 'the principles of Communism are incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system'. Therefore, it was not simply the President of the United States saying what he felt with regard to the United States itself, or even what he felt the rest of the American nations should feel on it. He was merely reiterating an agreed policy statement agreed in January, 1962, at Punta de l'Este, when they all took this attitude concerning Communism. We may like it or we may not like it, but it is a fact that that is what the members of the O.A.S. agreed unanimously at that meeting.

LORD KENNET

My Lords I am sorry to interrupt, but may I do so for a moment? Is it not the fact that the President said that the American nations must not allow the establishment of another Communist Government in the Hemisphere, but the Punta de l'Este declaration said that the principles of Communism are incompatible with the inter-American system? That is not quite the same thing. There could be a Communist Government in the Hemisphere that did not belong to the inter-American system. Indeed, there is one already—I refer to Cuba.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, there is one in Cuba, but it is still against the unanimous agreement of the members of the O.A.S. The only point I wish to make, very clearly, is that the statement which has been attributed, by most people, solely to President Johnson was merely a restatement of an agreed policy. Whether that agreed policy has been fulfilled in certain places; whether or not there has been a difference in Cuba, is irrelevant to this point. I will not weary your Lordships with the actual quotations from the Punta de l'Este document but it spells out the position in a very clear manner.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am even more sorry to interrupt again, but it seems to me that it is not the same thing. What the noble Lord said is true only if the inter-American system is precisely the same as the Western Hemisphere.

LORD WALSTON

I am afraid that I cannot follow precisely the line of argument of my noble friend in this. To me—perhaps I am over-simple in these matters—the point at issue is whether the words stated by President Johnson, and the action taken by him in support of those words, were based solely on his own personal feelings, or of his country alone, or whether they represented the agreed views of the American States. I hope that what I have said will convince most noble Lords that the latter is the case. They do, I submit, establish very clearly the doctrine of the right of the American States, acting through the O.A.S. organ of consultation, to intervene to prevent the establishment of regimes which they regard as Communist.

But the matter does not end there, of course, because there is also, apart from the O.A.S., the United Nations. Therefore it is relevant to remind your Lordships that the Charter of the Organisation of American States specifically says, in Article 4, that the Organisation is founded to fulfil regional obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance also subordinates action under it to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore the first point, which I hope I have established to the satisfaction of most noble Lords, is that President Johnson was merely re-stating the agreed views of the American States; and, secondly, that the O.A.S. has no intention, and never has had any intention, of acting in contravention to the higher authority of the United Nations.

I would break off here for a moment to agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway in his remarks about what he described as commendable revolt. Of course, there are occasions when I think not only those of us on this side of the House but all of us in this country, with what we call, and I think rightly, our liberal traditions, are happy to see people striving to liberate themselves from oppression, and taking steps where necessary to bring about a régime of social justice, instead of one of injustice and oppression. Certainly we on this side of the House, as my noble friend so eloquently said, view such actions very strongly indeed.

I would also agree here with what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, quite rightly pointed out: that frequently such movements—and he specifically and correctly mentioned the example of Czechoslovakia—good though they are in themselves, may often be taken over by an even more oppressive, or at least an equally oppressive, régime. We must bear that in mind when we see any movement of this kind taking place; and we must do what we can, through the United Nations, to support the true movements against injustice and for a better society, but to protect those countries against the evils which may so well befall them if the movements are taken over by the Communists.

I come to the more specific questions of the Dominican Republic at the present time, and the consultations which the noble Lord mentions in his Question. It is, of course, very difficult to have adequate consultation when something occurs very rapidly indeed, as it did in this case. When this took place, the Americans acted rapidly and, on their own initiative, sent in their own marines to protect the lives of their own people. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Organisation of American States, and at the present time, as your Lordships well know, the troops who are in the Dominican Republic, although to a large extent composed of United States troops, are under the authority of the O.A.S., and not of the United States alone.

With regard to the specific question which my noble friend Lord Kennet asked concerning the two-thirds majority, I understand (and I am no lawyer in these matters) that the United States interpretation of the voting procedure was, as we understand it here, quite correct, and that the Russian objection to it was ill-founded in law.

In connection with the relationship between the United States Government and the authority of the United Nations, I should like to remind your Lordships also of the remarks made by Governor Stevenson on May 22 at the United Nations, when he said: The appropriate relationship between the United Nations and regional organisations such as this one, the Organisation of American States, can be summarised, I think, in terms of the following principles. I will not quote them all, but I will quote two of the relevant ones, using Governor Stevenson's words. One is: … the members of the United Nations, pursuant to Articles 33 and 52 of the Charter, should seek to deal with threats to the peace within a geographical region through regional arrangements before coming to the United Nations. This is precisely what the members of th OA.S. have done in the Dominican case. He further said: … the Security Council should at all times be kept fully informed of actions undertaken by regional organisations. The O.A.S. is keeping the Security Council fully informed—witness the report you have just had from Dr. Mora through Mr. Mayobre this afternoon—and the Council has also arranged to keep itself informed through a representative of the Secretary General. The Security Council has the competence to deal with any situation which might threaten international peace and security. That competence is not at issue here. But the Security Council should not seek to duplicate or interfere with actions through regional arrangements so long as those actions remain effective and are consistent with our Charter. That, I think, makes it clear that the United States Government's official representative at the United Nations is fully aware of the overriding authority of the United Nations and is not on behalf of his Government in any way attempting to circumvent it or take unilateral action in defiance of the United States' membership of the United Nations.

So far as the second part of my noble friend's Question goes, representations by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States, we have made it clear in private communications to the United States and other Governments, and also public state- ments in another place to which my noble friend, Lord Kennet, referred, and in the Security Council too, that Her Majesty's Government consider that in Latin America, as elsewhere, the use of armed force is subject to the obligations of the Charter, and that international security is the primary responsibility of the United Nations. These representations have been made, and made very clearly, and in re-stating these two principles. In the Security Council on May 13, on the express instructions of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Caradon said that he believed all members of the Council shared the conviction that it should rise to its responsibility and maintain its authority, and that those of its members who constantly preached the need for a stronger United Nations must be the principal protagonists of that cause.

A week later, on May 21, he told the Council The test of our words and our action in this Council should not be big power politics but always the interests of the people of the country we consider. Therefore, I hope that there can be no doubt in the minds of your Lordships, or of anybody else, that the United States Government, through its declarations, is in line with the obligations that it carries as a member of the O.A.S. and, above all, of the United Nations.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I intervene? How then can an explanation be given of the United States abstention from the Resolution of the Security Council for a cease-fire in Santo Domingo, and what is the explanation of the declarations of U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has expressed misgivings upon this matter?

LORD WALSTON

I think there are very many explanations of both those points, some of which I might be able to give and many of which I probably could not give very adequately. But, in any case, it would take too long to do so at this time—although this is an important question and time should not preclude us from discussing it. But there are, as the noble Lord knows, many technical reasons for abstentions on voting; even in another place that sometimes takes place. It does not mean you rebel against the authority once the decision has been taken. The United States has, through the words of Governor Stevenson, made it very clear that it is still adhering, as it has always done, to the United Nations. So I hope that that is clear to-day.

I hope it is also very clear where Her Majesty's Government stand in this matter. We are always prepared, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly, as seems to us best, to make our views known on these matters and, above all, on the overriding importance of the United Nations as a peace-keeping force. We are firmly convinced that peace in this world can come about only through collective security, through interdependence, and we do not believe that any Power, however great, has the right or the authority to force its will upon others, however small. We stand by that very firmly, and we believe that the great majority of our fellow members of the United Nations believe the same.

We are satisfied so far as the United States is concerned; we have consultations with them—we have many—and they are quite adequate. They are in no doubt as to what we feel and we are in no doubt as to what they feel. Finally, I repeat, we believe what they say and what Governor Stevenson on their behalf says: that they are still good members of the United Nations and of the O.A.S.