SOUTH AFRICA: UNITED KINGDOM ARMS EMBARGO (Hansard, 12 December 1967)

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)
My Lords, it is our intention to continue to consider all South African requests for equipment in the framework of the policy which we have been implementing since November, 1964.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, in view of that Answer, which seems to indicate that the door is now ajar for the resumption of certain exports hitherto banned under the embargo, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the estimated 1006 immediate cost of the arms embargo is in the region of £150 million sterling and that the long-term loss is incalculable, in terms both of money and of good will? In reconsidering this matter will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the enormous effect which these hundreds of millions of pounds will have upon our ability or otherwise to bring our balance of payments out of the red?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I should not like the noble Lord to think that the door is now in any different position from that in which it has been since 1964. But in answer to his question I can say that of course we bear in mind the factors he has mentioned. It is the policy of the Government to implement an arms embargo against South Africa in line with a series of United Nations resolutions. Of course, that must lead to a certain loss of trade, and this the Government are prepared to sustain.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our embargo, which was imposed at the end of 1964, has not had the slightest effect on the domestic policies of South Africa? And since we try to encourage the export of arms to other countries, such as China and Russia, which do not recognise human rights, what is the sense of maintaining such an embargo towards a country like South Africa, which could be of advantage to us in times of emergency?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I am not aware that there is any demonstrated proof of the effect which United Nations resolutions in regard to arms to South Africa has had on the policies, present or future, of that country. Furthermore, I think it right to point out that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the supply of arms about the world, but is merely to take part in the normal export of military equipment that takes place between certain States. As I have said, this is the subject of three quite clear United Nations resolutions, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in line with those.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord's answer to my supplementary question seems to contradict what 1007 he said in the original Answer, perhaps he would clear the matter up. I gathered from his original Answer that the Government were reconsidering the question of the embargo on arms exports to South Africa. His answer to my supplementary question would seem to make it quite clear that they are not. Perhaps he can clear up this point for me.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I shall be delighted to clear it up. There was no suggestion in my Answer to the noble Lord's original Question that anything is being reconsidered. Since 1964 we have considered all South Africa's requests for equipment, in line with the policy we adopted then, and we shall continue to do so. There is no change of policy.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, may we take it from that answer that there is a complete embargo on the supply of arms equipment of any sort to South Africa?

§ LORD CHALFONT
No, my Lords. I must beg the noble Lord not to oversimplify what is not a simple matter. The fact is that we operate an arms embargo against South Africa in accordance with, and in consequence of, the spirit and letter of a number of United Nations resolutions. This means that every request for equipment coming from South Africa is considered in the light of that policy. The noble Lord will know that there are certain other items of equipment which were the subject of agreement before the embargo was introduced and which we have supplied since 1964, and we shall continue to act in that way.

§ BARONESS HORSBRUGH
My Lords, the noble Lord said in answer to the Question that the Government are "continuing to consider," whereas at a later stage he said that they would reconsider. What is the difference between "continuing to consider" and to "reconsider"?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I will do my best to clear up this matter. It has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government since 1964 to consider every request for arms equipment for South Africa in accordance with the policy adopted in 1964. We shall continue to do so. Therefore we are not reconsidering that policy.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, would the noble Lord be able to clarify this matter? Since his reply stated that there has been no change in policy since 1964, and in view of the critical state of our national economy, does it not appear that it is now opportune to change from the plea, frequently stated, that moral principles are of more importance than employment to the population of this country? Further, would he not agree that the closing of the Suez Canal has changed the position a good deal? Should not South Africa, which is now permitting the passage of all ships to the West and to the East, be permitted to get from this country the arms which would enable her to carry out the mission which we are now imposing on her?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I fear I find myself in some confusion as a result of the noble Lord's question. The simple answer is that the Government do not consider that it is time to reconsider this policy, although we take into account the trade factors which the noble Lord has mentioned. So far as the Suez Canal is concerned, although this is, strictly speaking, outside the scope of this Question, I agree that the closing of the Canal has reinforced and underlined for us the importance of the Simonstown base facilities in South Africa which we continue to enjoy under an agreement with the South African Government. I fail to see how that has any effect on our policy of observing the United Nations call for an arms embargo on South Africa.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that before 1964 we prohibited the export of such weapons to South Africa as were likely to be used for the suppression of domestic riots, on the principle that we would not supply anything which could be used to suppress civil disturbances which might be caused by the apartheid policy? But does he not agree that our present wider ban on a much wider range of exports, which could not possibly be used for this purpose, is quite irrelevant?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I cannot agree that there is any irrelevance. I am aware of the attempt that has been made to distinguish between arms and ammunition that can be used for the 1009 suppression of civil disturbances and those that cannot. I confess I find the distinction very difficult to make. Perhaps I could show to the noble Earl's satisfaction that there is no irrelevancy simply by quoting a few words from the Security Council resolution of June 18, 1964, in which the Security Council reaffirms its call upon all States To cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms and ammunition of all types, military vehicles and equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa. I cannot see that our policy is at odds with that resolution.

§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway has several times attempted to speak. No one from this side has spoken. I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I think it would be fair to let my noble friend make his point.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I was about to ask a point arising out of Lord Chalfont's last reply: whether the resolution he referred to is being implemented by France and other European countries.

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, it is for foreign countries themselves to decide their attitude to United Nations' resolutions. We have decided upon ours.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the United Nations' resolution was not adopted because of the system of apartheid in South Africa, to which all the civilised nations of the world are opposed and to which one thought all the Parties in this country were opposed; and whether it is not the fact that South Africa itself is engaged in a heavy rearmament programme and that it is desirable that our Government should refrain from participating in that, in view of the very dangerous situation which there is in South Africa?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I can only say, in answer to my noble friend's question, that I think everyone, on all sides of this House, is aware of the reasons that lay behind the United Nations' resolutions of 1963 and 1964. I should expect that most noble Lords 1010 would be in sympathy with the spirit behind those resolutions and therefore with the Government's action in following policies that observe them. So far as the future policies of the South African Government are concerned, I think I can best answer my noble friend's question by saying that we intend to pursue the policy we are pursuing now.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, thank the noble Lord for his admission of a partial and limited change in circumstances, if I correctly understood him?

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)
My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that that is not a question in the ordinary sense.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House say that that was not a question? I was on the point of proceeding to a question.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD
My Lords, I think to ask leave to thank a Government spokesman is not a question in the ordinary sense.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, may I appreciate the words of the noble Earl? I think it is unusual to ask the indulgence of the House to comment on the correction of a Minister; at least that is my experience. Without presuming to go against the Rules, may I say that the noble Lord, if I understood him correctly, said that it was for each member of the United Nations to make a choice. But surely other members of the United Nations are providing South Africa with some arms. Does he not now agree that it would be for the better if a change were made from moral principle to factual employment?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I really feel I must impose upon your Lordships for one moment simply to put the record absolutely straight. I do not accept the implication of the noble Lord's question, because I have not indicated any change of policy. I must make that quite clear to your Lordships.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a real question? Does he take into account in this matter the help which South Africa is giving to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I think that is outside the scope of the original Question. I would say that we take all relevant factors into consideration.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, we shall have an opportunity of reading Hansard to-morrow, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the answers he has given to-day will certainly lead to considerable confusion as to what is the Government's policy in regard to the export of arms to South Africa. We obviously cannot pursue it at the present time, but it will have to be pursued at a later date.