§ 2.52 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy 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 why, since they disagreed with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations calling for the use of force against Rhodesia, they did not vote against it.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK)My Lords, the General Assembly resolution on Southern Rhodesia of November 17 to which the noble Lord refers was identical with the draft resolution adopted in the Fourth Committee on November 10. During the debate in that Committee a separate vote was taken on paragraph 8 which inter alia called for the use of force. The United Kingdom together with seventeen other members voted against this paragraph and subsequently abstained on the resolution 236 as a whole. In the plenary sesion representatives were asked to limit their interventions to explanations of vote and the Assembly proceeded to vote on the resolution as a whole. Our representative therefore repeated our previous abstention.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I thank the Minister for his Answer? Does it not occur to Her Majesty's Government that to abstain on a resolution with substantial parts of which they disagree may lead to greater dangers than those which they seek to avoid?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point, but it would be equally illogical to vote against a resolution on the substantial points of which we agree.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, that is not, is it, a general principle for proceeding on resolutions? Surely the failure to vote on the merits is likely to lead both the Government and the United Nations into disrepute.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, as to the general principle in these matters, I should have thought that there was a principle which we should acknowledge and understand in the proceedings in this House; but the proceedings in the United Nations are somewhat different. There, we must have regard to the wider implications of the lesson, or conclusions, which might be drawn from our action by the world as a whole.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, the noble Lord has said that proceedings in the United Nations are somewhat different. But, in view of the publication by General van Horn of his book, Soldiering for Peace, which certainly brings out what ought to cause a great deal of disquiet as to the way United Nations affairs are conducted, does the noble Lord not think that, in order to avoid misunderstanding, it would be better if Her Majesty's Government register definite votes in cases where they have definitely stated their policy?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I cannot comment on the book, which I am afraid I have not read. But in this particular case we definitely abstained on a resolution with parts of which we agreed and with parts of which we disagreed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, may I ask one question? Supposing this matter came before the Security Council, with whom alone, I believe, executive power rests, would Her Majesty's Government use their vote against the use of force in view of their declaration that they were opposed to it?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Marquess will remember from his previous experience in another place that there is a very definite rule about hypothetical questions. I think that I will adopt that ruling on this.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend this? Is it not the case that the great substance of this I resolution was one with which Her Majesty's Government agreed, but there was a clause referring to force with which Her Majesty's Government disagreed and that therefore it was the logical attitude of Her Majesty's Government to abstain on this resolution?
§ LORD BESWICKI have no doubt that my noble friend has put more clearly the same point which I have been trying to make.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he remembers that a little less than twelve months ago, both at the United Nations and in another place, the Prime Minister quoted Dante with approval to this effect:
The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who are neutral in a moral crisis"?Can he say what has changed the Prime Minister's view? Is it perhaps the attitude of South Africa?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, in this context I am not quite sure of the nature of the moral crisis to which the noble Lord refers. In this case I should have found myself in an unsatisfactory position if I had been jockeyed into a situation of allying myself with only two nations who were voting against 89 other nations on the proposition that the African people in Rhodesia were entitled to freedom.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government, after abstaining, placed on the record an explanation of the reasons for that abstention so that when the resolution is read that explanation can be seen?
§ LORD BESWICKYes, my Lords. The position, as I have tried to indicate, is that our representative at the United Nations made it quite clear in the Fourth Committee why we voted against this clause and why we abstained on the resolution as a whole. No general debate took place in the General Assembly. It was understood perfectly clearly why we were abstaining.