§ 3.47 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. It is as follows:
"As the House is aware, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, yesterday presented a draft resolution on Rhodesia to the Security Council. I will circulate the text of that resolution in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained our general position on these matters to the House in his Statement of the 14th of March and in his speech in the debate on the 27th of March. The draft resolution put forward by my right honourable and noble friend Lord Caradon follows the lines indicated by the Prime Minister.
"The first operative paragraph of our draft resolution requires all Member States of the United Nations and other countries to whom the resolution applies to place the same prohibitions on trade with Rhodesia as we have applied to our own trade. This paragraph of our draft specifically catches imports of Rhodesian goods even if they are only in transit or in what are called 'free ports'; this is designed to block some methods of evading sanctions which experience has shown to be of importance.
"The second operative paragraph similarly requires other countries to 653 take measures similar to those which we have been applying through our Exchange Control system.
"The parts of the draft resolution dealing with travel require States to deny entry to persons relying on a Rhodesian passport as well as to known sanctions breakers and active supporters of the illegal régime. The main point which I would wish to make here is that many countries would find it impossible to deny entry to their own citizens, and we would not propose to do so except in the closely defined circumstances in the draft resolution.
"The House will note that several of these provisions contain exceptions on humanitarian grounds.
"The remainder of the draft resolution is concerned with the implementation of the proposed decisions which I have just described. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is charged with a wider supervisory role than under the existing resolution and a Committee of the Council would be set up to evaluate his reports.
"As has been made clear on many occasions our objective remains the achievement of a just and honourable solution of the Rhodesian problem. I believe that the adoption of this resolution by the Security Council will be a valuable and important step to that end.
"When a resolution has been passed by the Security Council Her Majesty's Government will introduce any legislation, probably in the form of an Order in Council, required to give effect to it so far as this country is concerned. There will of course then, as on previous occasions, be an opportunity for Parliament to express its view on that legislation.
"Finally, I should like to assure the House that, as the Prime Minister said in the debate on the 27th of March—and I use his words—we are:
' … prepared to have talks with any responsible persons in Rhodesia who are prepared to discuss with us a settlement on the basis of our agreed Principles—people, that is, who can be trusted beyond the letter of a legal agreement to make these Principles effective. We shall be prepared to talk, be it soon or later, when those conditions exist'.654 My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
§ Following is the text of the Resolution referred to in the Statement:
§ TEXT OF DRAFT SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION TABLED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM
§
"THE SECURITY COUNCIL:
Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 216 (1965) of 12 November, 1965, 2 7 (1965) of 20 November, 1965, 221 (1966) of 9 April, 1966, and 232 (1966) of 16 December, 1966,
Noting with great concern that the measures taken so far have failed to bring the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia to an end,
Deploring the recent inhuman executions carried out by the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia which have flagrantly affronted the conscience of mankind and have been universally condemned,
Reaffirming that, to the extent not superseded in this resolution, the measures provided for in resolutions 217 (1965) of 20 November, 1965, and 232 (1966) of 16 December, 1966, as well as those initiated by member states in implementation of those resolutions, shall continue in effect,
Reaffirming its determination that the present situation in Southern Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Acting in accordance with Articles 39 and 41 of the United Nations Charter,
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having repeated that Statement. As the noble Lord knows, we on this side have always deplored the actions Mr. Smith took in declaring U.D.I., but I do not think that any of us would agree that the problem is a threat to international peace, as was stated by the resolution in the Security Council. Is the noble Lord aware that there are a great many of us who feel that a resolution of this kind can do nothing but harm? It will almost certainly be ineffective; and, if it were effective, it would be likely only to strengthen the determination of the Rhodesians. I, for one, think it a very great pity that this should happen at a time when Sir Alec Douglas-Home's visit, and the news that he brought back from Rhodesia, had made a resumption of talks possible, I think, and probably desirable—indeed, certainly desirable. May I ask the noble Lord one specific question on his Statement? Is the restriction on travel designed to prevent Rhodesians from coming to this country, except in the most closely defined circumstances, and, if so, what are those circumstances?
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, will the Government confirm that a threat to international peace and security in fact exists if the Security Council decides that it does exist; and that, whatever we may individually think, that is the legal position? Does the noble Lord also believe (I believe it is the case) that if this resolution is passed by the legal majority—that is to say, the five Permanent Members and the necessary additional members—it is then legally binding on all member nations? And —point 3— does he really think it likely that the five Permanent Members will all be agreed in supporting this resolution?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I fully understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to this very sad problem that we have in Rhodesia. He has always made his point of view, and I think that of most of his colleagues, perfectly clear. I should not have thought that anyone would challenge the fact that we in this world are living to-day in a period of very grave, and increasingly grave, racial strife, and the presence of this illegal régime in Rhodesia has only added in Africa to this racial strife. I think that most of us would agree that many of the countries, if not all the countries, in Africa have shown remarkable restraint in this racial strife and the possibility of bloodshed in their territories between one colour and another. Therefore I do believe, and I think most people would accept, that there is a fear of warfare, struggle, in Africa arising from the illegal presence in Rhodesia.
In regard to sanctions, as the noble Lord will know, his right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place, in speaking about the proposals that Sir Alec Douglas Home had brought to London, did say even, despite those proposals, that in the meantime sanctions would have to continue.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONExisting sanctions.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThis resolution now makes it possible to apply the added sanctions in regard to travel to all countries within the United Nations, and others to whom the resolution applies—similar sanctions to those that we ourselves have imposed up to this moment on our own people. In regard to travel, the humanitarian reasons I think are generally known. I do not want to specify them out at this moment, but they are well known by those officials at airports and at our ports who are confronted with these problems, and are treated with considerable flexibility.
In regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I think it is true that the Security Council believe that a threat to peace does exist, and that this is their view is shown by the fact that they passed the previous resolution. It is binding on all members of the United Nations and also on those countries to 659 whom, as I say, the previous resolution applied.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, would the noble Lord answer my point about the five Permanent Members?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, that is a hypothetical question. We shall have to wait and see.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, may I ask the Minister three supplementary questions? I have studied the text of the draft resolution as produced in The Times to-day. I have three questions and it is necessary to read the words of the resolution in order to ask the Minister to give an affirmative interpretation or otherwise. The resolution says that, States members shall:
Prevent the entry into their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, of any person travelling on a Southern Rhodesian passport, regardless of its date of issue …".Does that mean that farmers who emigrated many years ago to Rhodesia and who hold Rhodesian passports would in fact now be prevented from coming back to their home country? That is my first question.Secondly, the resolution also says that States members shall:
(B) Take all possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily resident in Southern Rhodesia and whom they have reason to believe to have furthered or encouraged or to be likely to further or encourage the unlawful actions of the illegal régime …".Anyone who has voted in support of Mr. Smith's Government can be said to have given encouragement. So how are the Government going to differentiate between what I call the sheep and the goats in Rhodesia: those who will be allowed to come here because they have not encouraged, and those who have encouraged because they have voted?Thirdly, the resolution says that the Security Council:
Decides that State members of the United Nations shall prevent airline companies constituted in their territories and aircraft of their registration or under charter to their nationals from operating to or from Southern Rhodesia and from linking up with any airline company constituted or aircraft registered in Southern Rhodesia".There is at the present time a reciprocal service between Johannesburg and 660 Rhodesia, with Rhodesian aircraft and South African aircraft. Does that in fact mean that B.O.A.C. will at once have to stop flying to South Africa when this resolution is passed, because their services at Johannesburg may be linked up with Rhodesian-registered aircraft?
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, perhaps I may reply to those three questions before other noble Lords rise to speak. In the case of the passport, if the farmer to whom the noble Lord referred was of British origin and had dual nationality but had been travelling on a Rhodesian passport he could come to this country on a British passport which he would be entitled to obtain because of his dual nationality. He would be able to enter this country, subject to the proviso (to which the noble Lord referred in the second part of his question) that he had not been actively engaged in sanction-breaking or in support of the illegal régime in Rhodesia. I do not believe that a person who had voted would be construed as having encouraged the régime.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, clearly we could not find out how a person voted, even in this country. That is something we can only surmise.
In regard to the third part of the question, if this resolution goes forward countries will be called upon to prevent their airline companies in their own countries from operating to Rhodesia and from linking with an airline company that is of Rhodesian origin. If the resolution were accepted by all the countries in the United Nations it might well be that there would be a total ban on flying into Rhodesia.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEYes, my Lords, but would there be a total ban on flying to South Africa, because South Africa links with Rhodesia? That is my point.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, if the noble Lord will study the resolution he will see that we have not put any particular sanction upon South Africa. Whether South Africa will still permit its airline to travel through Rhodesia is a matter for South Africa itself to decide.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may someone from this side of the House put a question? First, while not accepting the view that because the Security Council says there is a threat to peace there is necessarily a threat to peace, is it not the case that the alternative to ending the present minority régime in Southern Rhodesia is the very great danger of guerrilla warfare spreading in Southern Rhodesia itself and over South Africa, leading to a disastrous racial war over the whole southern area of that Continent? Secondly, if the new proposals (which one welcomes) are not carried out by all nations, particularly Portugal and the Republic of South Africa, may I ask what the intentions of the Government are in regard to proposals to the United Nations to see that the decisions of the Security Council are carried out?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in regard to the first question which my noble friend asked, the answer is clearly, Yes. In regard to the second question, we have made it perfectly clear that we do not intend to have a trade war with South Africa or with Portugal, but if the noble Lord will study the draft resolution he will see that countries will be required to make reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who will have power to ask for further information, if he so wishes, and those reports will be available to the United Nations.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I believe the House will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had considerable difficulty in finding words to justify the view of the Government that a threat to peace is constituted by the existence of the present Rhodesian Government, and I think, too, when he reads his words to-morrow morning he will find them singularly unconvincing. However, I do not wish to carry that matter further because we know that this is an occasion for questions and not for a debate. I want to ask the noble Lord one question. He has said that these new sanctions will require an Order or Orders in Council: will they require the approval of both Houses of Parliament?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, if I was unconvincing to the noble Marquess it was due entirely to my inadequacy. I 662 am myself quite convinced in this matter. With regard to the question raised by the noble Marquess, clearly the Orders are for affirmative procedure.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Loris, may I put some brief questions to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? Does he agree that what he has referred to as the "illegal régime" is in fact the only de facto Government operating in the territory concerned? Secondly, does he agree—and I think his statement implied this—that what is now proposed is directed against that de facto Government? If his answer is "Yes" to both those questions, may I take it that Her Majesty's Government will support the request of that régime that they should be heard by the Security Council?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I will answer the noble Lord to this effect: that there is only one apparent Government in Rhodesia but it is illegal in the view of the British Parliament. We are taking action to bring that Government and that country back to legality and constitutional rule.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Loris, if I may, I should like to repeat my third question: whether Her Majesty's Government will support the request made to the United Nations by the Government against whom these sanctions are directed that they should be heard by the Security Council. In saying this, I have in mind both what is stated in the Charter and the requirements of natural justice.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the answer is simply "No", because they are not a legal Government and cannot be recognised as such.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I clear one matter? In answer to my noble friend Lord Salisbury the noble Lord said that all these new sanctions will require Affirmative Resolutions to go through both Houses of Parliament. Is it clear that the Government will take no action to impose any new sanction until Parliament has approved by an Affirmative Resolution?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, before replying to the noble Earl may I first remind the House that we are to have a 663 debate on May 6 when this matter will be ventilated.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, that debate will not now take place.
§ LORD SHACKLETONWe are to have a debate on the Orders, my Lords.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I understand from my noble friend that we are to have the debate on the Orders, and perhaps that will be more appropriate.
As to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, may I say that the new sanctions that we are enforcing will require an Order in Council to be approved by both Houses, but clearly we shall be voting and supporting our own resolution at the Security Council. However, that does not become operative so far as we are concerned until the Orders in Council have been passed by both Houses of Parliament.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend one more question on this matter of the British passport, to which reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. As I understood my noble friend's answer, if somebody living in Rhodesia who is entitled to a British passport claims that passport and comes to this country, he will be allowed to enter. Will he then be free to travel where he likes throughout the rest of the world and then return to Rhodesia, if they wish him to enter the country again, and then repeat the process ad infinitum?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, if a person obtains a British passport, all the privileges and obligations that go with it will apply.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although I am quite certain he has quite honestly persuaded himself that Rhodesia is a threat to the peace, in the opinion of an increasing number of people the real threat to the peace of Southern Africa is coming from the machinations within the United Nations—not from Rhodesia nor from South Africa nor from Portugal.
§ LORD SHEPHERDThe noble Lord is going a good deal wider than the immediate Statement I have made. Clearly my noble friend the Leader of the House can hardly intervene, since I gather he is 664 here to make the next Statement; it might look as if he had a degree of self interest in the matter. We shall have an opportunity for further discussion on the whole problem of Rhodesia. Perhaps we may continue now with this important debate.