§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD BARNBYMy 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 whether they will instruct their representative at the United Nations to correct the unfortunate impression created by his implication that administration of South-West Africa by any Government other than that of South Africa is possible, and so guide the United Nations towards recognition of the economic realities existing in the area, and also improve relations between this country and South Africa, which his previous intervention has endangered.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)No, my Lords, and I do not accept the assumptions in the Question.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, in view of the amount of movement taking place in the Chamber I could not hear the noble Lord's Answer. I wonder whether he would kindly repeat it.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course I shall be delighted to do so. The Answer was: No, my Lords, and I do not accept the assumptions in the Question.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the brevity of his Answer, may I ask him this further question? Since it appears impossible for the Committee to reach agreement, would 956 it not be helpful if the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations were requested to emphasise, in the interests of our trade with South Africa, which is one of our largest customers, the futility of this impracticable assignment?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the ad hoc Committee discussing the possibility of alternative administrations is due to report to a special Session of the General Assembly later this month. Therefore it would be wrong to anticipate what that report will be and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. I think I should say, too, that most noble Lords in this House will agree that we should not compromise with our principles on this matter for reasons of trade or any other reason.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether one of the principles to which he, and perhaps others in the House, might adhere is that a good way to make friends and influence people is to understand their point of view, if you want them to understand yours? Does he not think it a fact that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, expressed in New York and in this Parliament, towards South Africa is inimical and unfriendly, and that perhaps the best way to encourage a point of view widely held in this country would be to recognise that South Africa is at present moving, however slowly, along an agreeable line? If he thinks this a good principle, would he suggest to any Minister who makes a speech in New York or in Parliament that he should not go out of his way to assault, attack and denigrate this best friend of Britain, but, on the other hand—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE—should recognise that there is much that is good and friendly in South Africa?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I would point out in the first place that the view expressed by Her Majesty's Government's representative in New York, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, is a view which is unanimously shared by the General Assembly. Indeed, most delegates at the United Nations went much further than Lord Caradon in their criticism of the South African Government. In regard 957 to the matter of understanding other people's points of view, the view of Her Majesty's Government that South Africa has forfeited the right to administer the mandate is based on South Africa's own statements and actions; namely, the disavowal of obligations under the mandate, and in particular the refusal of the South African Government to accept the principle of international accountability.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend Lord Caradon has twice said in New York that there is no way of enforcing a change of administration in South West Africa except by a general blockade, or possibly even a war? In view of that fact, is it consistent for him to hold out hopes that a change can be made?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, that is a very free rendering of Lord Caradon's remarks at the United Nations. However, I would say, as I have said before, that the ad hoc Committee are considering these matters—and Her Majesty's Government agree that any alternative administration is going to be extremely difficult to find and to formulate—and I suggest that we should await the report of the ad hoc Committee to the United Nations.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, could the noble Lord clarify this point? Since the Government have stated that the supply of arms to South Africa, which could bring much money to this country, is to be sacrificed to our idealism and other principles regarding the United Nations, how does this square with the supply of arms to countries such as Saudi Arabia which are in the firing line area at the moment, with our troops and civilians involved?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, we should all agree that that is well wide of the original Question. If the noble Lord will put down a Question on the arms trade, I, of all people, shall be pleased to answer it.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I think a question from this side of the House might be in order. While recognising all the difficulties of applying the decisions which the United Nations has reached may I ask my noble friend this question? In view of the fact that not 958 only the Parties in this country but nearly all the world take one view upon the issue of apartheid, may I have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they will persist in every possible measure to end this system in South Africa, which is a betrayal of all the principles of belonging to the human family?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I should like to say that the interventions of my noble friend on these subjects are always constructive. I should also like to say, as I pointed out before, that the view which has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Caradon in the United Nations is one which is unanimously shared by the General Assembly of the United Nations, and supported by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have talked about principles to which we are all agreed. I do not know of any principles to which we are all agreed. But I would ask them whether to insist on the full enactment of unyielding principles has not been shown by history to be the one way to lead in the end to religious wars, which, of all wars, are the bitterest and cruellest?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I must protest that I did not suggest there were any principles to which we all subscribed. What I suggested was that I think we all agree that we should not wish to compromise our principles for reasons of trade; and I stick by that remark. So far as the noble Lord's comment is concerned, I agree with him that bigotry can lead to wars and to conflicts. But this is not a question of bigotry; this is a question of standing by a principle which we believe to be of fundamental importance.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have ever known a bigot who thought he was a bigot?
§ LORD MILVERTONMy Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would agree, as I imagine they would, that in answering a question like this the major consideration must be: What is the best thing for the welfare of the people of South West Africa? May I also ask this supplementary question, 959 in view of the answer given? It may be that the Assembly in New York is unanimous, but surely Her Majesty's Government, before being anxious to go in with the majority, would consider whether that unanimity was based upon racial prejudice or, perhaps, political prejudice, with a complete ignorance of what is best for the welfare of South West Africa.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course the welfare and what is best for the people of South West Africa must be at the front of our minds in deciding this agonising problem. But although Her Majesty's Government have said that the legal position, as we see it, is that South Africa has forfeited the right to administer the mandate, this does not impose upon us the obligation to suggest or formulate alternative methods. This is being done by an ad hoc Committee of which we are not a member. We did not become a member of it because we considered its terms of reference too restrictive. I think, therefore, that we should await the report of that Committee to the United Nations.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord explain what he means by "the legal position"?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I said earlier that we believed that South Africa had forfeited the right to administer this mandate. We believe that the right has been legally forfeited by the actions and statements of the South African Government.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEWhy "legally"?
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, when the Committee has reported, will the noble Lord be able to say whether Her Majesty's Government still believe that an alternative to the administration of South Africa is a possibility?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the noble Lord will be perfectly aware that I cannot answer a question based upon that sort of hypothesis. Until the Committee has reported it would be quite wrong to anticipate its report or the Government's attitude towards it.