§ 3.13 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy 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 on what grounds the British delegation at the United Nations General Assembly abstained from voting on the resolutions relating to Rhodesia and South West Africa.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON)My Lords, the reasons for our abstentions in the voting on the General Assembly resolutions were fully set out by Lord Caradon in his speech on Rhodesia on October 22 and in his explanation of vote on South West Africa on October 27. It 691 would not only be difficult, but also might be misleading, if I were to condense these reasons into the confines of an Answer to a Parliamentary Question. I am therefore arranging for copies of the relevant documents to be deposited in the Library.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that I have read the speech of Lord Caradon? May I ask him this question? While I recognise that it is futile for the United Nations to adopt resolutions which it cannot apply, could not the fact that this overwhelming majority, with only three dissentients, in the General Assembly passed resolutions on these subjects for action be an occasion when our Government should challenge the United Nations to establish an international force and apply the example which our Government have given as a contribution to that force, in order that resolutions may be implemented?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I rather suspected that my noble friend had in fact already read in full my noble friend Lord Caradon's speech, but there may be other noble Lords who are interested and who have not done so, and I hope that they will avail themselves of this opportunity to read it.
With regard to the second part of my noble friend's O[...], he and I both have the same [...]ctives at heart; namely, that the United Nations should be in a position to enforce its decisions, collectively taken, on any recalcitrant member; but I do not think that a challenge to the United Nations, which was the word he used, is the best way of achieving this objective. I think the best way is by the various means which we are pursuing, rather more quietly and less dramatically, in the United Nations and elsewhere.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, would the noble Lord also say whether Lord Caradon fully supported the reasons he was asked to give to the United Nations?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Caradon is an extremely honest and honourable man, and undoubtedly would not make a speech with which he personally disagreed.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, when the noble Lord places papers in the Library, will he include the speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, on December 1 last year, in which he said that trade would be affected by the implementation of any resolution of this kind; that the balance-of-payments position would be jeopardised, and that nothing short of a major blockade could enforce the wishes of the United Nations in relation to matters of this kind such as South West Africa? Was it not therefore quite obvious that Lord Caradon had to abstain? Indeed, it is a pity he did not vote against such an emotional and foolish outburst.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, the noble Lord's question was whether I would see that a copy of that speech was placed in the Library. I will certainly see that that is done.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is good practice, if Lord Caradon proposes to abstain, for him to make a violent speech? Would it not be better either to make a violent speech and to vote; or, if he is going to abstain, not to make a violent speech? It seems to me that he put Britain, due no doubt only to the instructions of the British Government, in an extremely foolish position.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I cannot agree w[...]e noble Lord that we have been [...] an extremely foolish position. I [...] agree with him had he said that we are in a difficult position. We are frequently in difficult positions—
§ LORD WALSTON—not all of them of our own making. But I think it only right that, when one is in a difficult position, one should state the difficulties quite frankly and then act, as in this particular case we did. I think that it would have been extremely wrong of Lord Caradon simply to make no speech and to abstain, without giving reasons. Now the world knows how we stand and how we feel on this matter.
§ LORD HARLECHMy Lords, does not what happened the other day at the United Nations rather indicate that the Government were foolish in saying they 693 would like to take the whole situation in Rhodesia to the United Nations after November 30.
§ LORD WALSTONNo, my Lords, I do not think that in any way follows. We are dealing here with two questions, one relating to Rhodesia and the other to South West Africa. There can be no dispute on either side that the problem of South West Africa is one with which the United Nations must properly concern itself very directly. I do not think the noble Lord would suggest that that should not have been discussed in the United Nations. I take it he refers solely to the Rhodesia problem; and there, with the situation as it now is and has developed over the last six or nine months, I feel that Her Majesty's Government were absolutely right, while still maintaining their own responsibility in the matter of Rhodesia, to have the matter ventilated and discussed in the United Nations as the proper forum.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, arising from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is my noble friend aware how many of us welcomed his statement on Monday, that on matters like this we put principle before commercial interest? In connection with that, is he aware that, even though trade and financial interests in South Africa were lost, loss of trade and financial interest in relation to the rest of Africa might be equally serious? Would the Government bear that in mind?
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, on a point of interpretation, is it not a fact that what was said on Monday was that we put practical considerations, or realistic considerations, before principle—entirely the other way about?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, in view of some of the statements that have been made in the course of this question and answer, would the noble Lord, Lord Walston, make it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the great difference in the legal effects of a resolution in the Assembly and of a resolution in the Security Council?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I shall deal with the last of those questions first, that being the simplest, and the answer to that is: Yes, my Lords, we do. With regard to the various interpretations that 694 have been put upon what I said last Monday, I think it is far better to rely on the Official Record and let noble Lords draw their own conclusions. But I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, having regard to what the noble Lord opposite said about my question, might I ask whether it is not a good principle to survive? It is not much good having a heart if you have no blood or means to sustain the heart.