§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy 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 what is their considered opinion of the American arbitrator's scheme for settling the dispute between Guatemala and British Honduras, in view of the condemnation of that scheme by both political parties in British Honduras.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place on May 20 that the Government of British 678 Honduras had asked Her Majesty's Government not to accede to the mediator's proposed treaty and that this request had been unanimously endorsed by the House of Representatives of British Honduras. We have consistently made it clear that the dispute with Guatemala would not be settled on a basis which was not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras. Since the draft treaty is not acceptable to British Honduras, it is not acceptable to the British Government either.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very welcome Answer. May I ask him two supplementary questions? Do the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government realise that the long delay in the production of the mediator's report has imposed a severe strain on those responsible for the running of the political and administrative affairs of British Honduras; and that the uncertainty of this particular Sword of Damocles has been further aggravated by each sign of weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in other parts of the world such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Secondly, in view of his statement, could the Minister Rive the House a more positive explanation of how the freedom of Belize is to be guaranteed after independence, bearing in mind the irresponsible reduction of the Armed Services of this country?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think I should say, first, on the question of the length of time it has taken to produce the mediator's draft treaty, that it was an extremely difficult and complicated problem. I think your Lordships will agree that we should be grateful to the mediator for the hard work he has done and for the valiant attempt he has made to solve this problem. I realise that while the mediation process has been going on there has been uncertainty in this area. The noble Lord will hardly be surprised to hear that I cannot agree that there has been weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Nor can I agree that those actions that we have taken to re-deploy our Forces overseas are in any way to be categorised as irresponsible. In the light of the fact that we have declared the mediator's proposals as unacceptable, I think there is no point in commenting 679 on the substance of any proposed treaty or of speculating on what might happen in the future.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, as I negotiated our Treaty with Guatemala and Puerto Rico in 1962, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that at that time and ever since the people of British Honduras have made it absolutely clear through their representatives and Prime Minister, Mr. Rice, that they do not want political association with Guatemala and they want complete independent sovereignty within the Commonwealth? May I also ask him this question?—I am sorry I have not had time to give him notice as I should have liked. Under this Treaty of 1962 it was agreed that a tripartite conference between Britain, Guatemala and British Honduras should meet at intervals to discuss matters of mutual economic interest. May I ask whether this conference has ever met, and, if it has never met, is not its failure to do so entirely due to the failure of the Guatemalan Government to send representatives, which Britain and British Honduras were both willing and anxious to do?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course we are aware of the wishes of the people of British Honduras in this matter, and we have made clear as consistently as they have that we will not arrive at any settlement against the wishes of the people of British Honduras. We stand by that position. So far as the tripartite arrangements are concerned, I must confess that the noble Earl has taken me rather by surprise with this question. There is no reason why I should not be. I should like to point out—and this is relevant to his question—that Guatemala broke off diplomatic relations with us in 1963, and this may have some effect on the possibility of conducting tripartite negotiations with them. For our part we would be very ready to resume diplomatic relations with them if they made a request to do so, and this may facilitate this kind of consultation. I should also say—and this is certainly relevant to the noble Earl's question—that although this particular phase in the mediation is over, we do not by any means accept that mediation itself on this particular issue is finished. There 680 are still possibilities of going forward on a basis of mediation to find a solution.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Would he please look at the Treaty we signed in April, 1962, to see whether anything has ever been done under it?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I will give that undertaking. If the noble Earl signed the Treaty, I am sure it will be well worth looking at.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while congratulating the Government on their decision and welcoming it, may I ask two question arising from it? The first is on the economic viability of British Honduras. Are steps to be taken now to attempt to secure co-ordination with the ex-British spheres in the West Indies? The second question is in relation to the defence of British Honduas, which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. In view of the Monroe doctrine, it will be difficult to arrange for the defence of British Honduras. May I ask whether any negotiations are going to take place in order that this very small territory may have a sense of security?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am always prepared to be more than usually indulgent with my noble friend, knowing his interest in these matters, but I really think that this is entirely another question. If my noble friend would put a Question down, I will answer it.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the non-acceptance by British Honduras of the mediator's scheme for that country will delay their independence in any way?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, this is also another question. The future arrangements for British Honduras are outside the actual field of this Question. As I say, we have agreed that because the Government and all political Parties in British Honduras have turned down this draft Treaty, it is of no interest to us. But I repeat what I said in answer to the noble Earl opposite, that we do not think this has really brought mediation to an end and therefore it would not be profitable for me to speculate on the kind of question the noble Lord has raised.