HL Deb 26 July 1966 vol 276 cc680-5

2.45 p.m.

LORD ROWLEY

My 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 recent judgment of the International Court on the case of the Mandatory Territory of South West Africa, whether the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations will be instructed to propose that the International Court of Justice be asked to give an advisory opinion on the legal obligation of the Government of South Africa under the League of Nations Mandate of 1920 in relation to South West Africa.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON)

My Lords, the proceedings against South Africa were brought by Ethiopia and Liberia. I understand that they and other African States are now considering how they should proceed in the light of the Court's judgment. They may well wish to urge the General Assembly of the United Nations to seek a further advisory opinion from the Court. We feel at this stage that the initiative for such action should rest with them.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him this: is not the main issue whether the 1920 Mandate expired with the dissolution of the League of Nations in 1945, as maintained by the Government of South Africa? Is this not a legal question which justifies the United Nations in requesting a legal opinion under paragraph 65 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice? Would not such an advisory opinion assist the General Assembly in carrying out their charter responsibilities to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the 450,000 indigenous Africans who inhabit South West Africa?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question is, in essence, "Yes", though possibly it is somewhat of an over-simplification of the problem. With regard to the second part, as I said, we consider that this is primarily a matter for those countries who are interested in this subject at first hand, and in particular Liberia and Ethiopia. But I am quite sure that they, the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government will take full note of what my noble friend has said.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask my noble friend whether it was not the case that the British Government were one of those mainly responsible under the League of Nations for this Mandate; and, in those circumstances, have they not a direct responsibility, whatever the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia, and other African Governments, may decide on this issue?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, we have a direct responsibility not only for the reasons that my noble friend has given but also as a member—and, I may say, a prominent and very whole-hearted member—of the United Nations. But I still feel that it is appropriate that, in the first instance, the initiative should be taken by the countries who took the initiative originally in bringing this matter before the International Court, and that it would be inappropriate for us at this stage to do anything about it ourselves.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was a follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision of the International Court of Justice that a judgment on the mandatory administration of South West Africa by the Government of the Republic of South Africa can be given only following a collective application by the United Nations, they will take the initiative in asking the United Nations to make such application.]

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I think the answers I have already given to previous questions cover the point raised by my noble friend.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, and appreciating what he has said, may I ask him whether he is not aware that the decision by the International Court at The Hague has created a situation, not only in Liberia and Ethiopia but in the whole of the Continent of Africa, with the exception of Southern Africa, which is terribly dangerous; and whether it is not increasing a feeling in Africa of disillusionment in Western Governments, in the United Nations and in the establishments which have been created by the United Nations? May I also ask whether Her Majesty's Government would do something in this very critical situation, which may lead to racial antagonism and even eventually racial war in Africa, to save that Continent and the world from this disaster?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am fully aware of the sentiments to which my noble friend referred which have been raised not only in Africa but in many other parts of the world. I would assure him that Her Majesty's Government are always prepared to do, and are always active in doing, to the best of their judgment, whatever lies within their power to reduce racial tension and to minimise the risk of racial trouble. But I would point out to my noble friend that it is somewhat misleading to assert that the recent judgment has given rise to disillusionment with the Western countries, since many members of the Court—who are independent individuals of the highest judicial standing and who, therefore, do not represent their own countries—in fact come from countries not normally known as Western countries.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, could the noble Lord explain how it is that hundreds of thousands of Bantu are seeking to get into the Republic of South Africa because of the excellent conditions there, and the South African Government is having considerable difficulty in preventing them from doing so, while in marked contrast, in Communist East Germany a wall is erected around that Western country to prevent the people from leaving it because of the intolerable conditions there? Perhaps he could explain that situation.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I could certainly explain that situation. It is an extremely interesting point, but I do not think it arises from any action of the International Court.

LORD MILVERTON

My Lords, lest these questions take too one-sided an implication, may I be allowed to ask Her Majesty's Government two questions? I should like to preface them by saying that I am delighted to hear their refusal at the behest of misguided prejudice to take even more misguided action. However, when this matter arises again in the United Nations, as it undoubtedly will, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind two unquestioned facts? The first is that for the first time in their history the ten tribes who inhabit South West Africa have enjoyed peace and, under the Odendaal Report, if they are not hampered by outside interference, the South African Government propose to spend literally hundreds of millions on bringing plenty to add to their peace.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! order!

LORD MILVERTON

Is the noble Lord willing to say that that will be borne in mind?

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)

My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think he is straining the interrogative form about as far as it can be decently strained.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, if the noble Lord has finished his question, I can give him that assurance. We will bear in mind all the relevant factors which may arise.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, is not the decision of the International Court merely a decision that Ethiopia and Liberia had no legal right to put forward the claim they were making, and is it not the case that the decision of the International Court is not a decision on the merits or otherwise of that claim? Is it not therefore very wrong to suggest, in any Question or in any other form, that there are political implications resulting from that decision which are likely to cause disturbance?—because there surely should not be if the effect of the decision is properly understood.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct in his assumptions, as one would expect him to be. I think it is also perfectly true to say that, if and when the decision is undersood by the experts, there can be no problems of the kind he has described arising. But as realists we must face the fact that there are many people with very strong feelings about this who are not lawyers of such eminence as the noble and learned Viscount and who may draw other conclusions from it.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, in view of what was said from the opposite Benches—and I exclude what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—would Her Majesty's Government remember that all Parties in this country, including the Conservative Opposition (which was under the inspiration of Mr. Macmillan's "wind of change" speech in South Africa) are opposed to the system of apartheid in South Africa; that that system is being imposed on South West Africa; and that we look to our Government to express a moral opinion against this vicious racialistic system?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, that also is another factor which will be, and is borne in mind continuously in this matter, as also is the fact that Her Majesty's Government—and, I believe, people in this country—believe that all disputes and all disagreements should wherever possible be settled by rule of law and the International Court of Justice.

LORD MILVERTON

My Lords, are the Government willing to admit that what is really at stake and the major issue is the welfare of the people of South West Africa? In addition, may I ask the Government one more question? Is not this, and most of what was said by the mover of this Question, just another attempt to turn The Hague tribunal from a court of justice into a political forum?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, if I may be so bold as to correct the noble Lord in what I am sure was a verbal slip, I do not think it would be correct to refer to the "mover" of this Question, but to the "asker" of this Question. The point of both the Questions on the Order Paper, as I understand them, is to elicit information through answers to genuine questions. I do not think I need go any further than that.