HL Deb 28 October 1971 vol 324 cc845-6

2.40 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how their representative voted on the resolution adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations by 13 votes to none on October 20 agreeing that the World Court finding that South Africa's presence in South West Africa (Namibia) is illegal and calling on South Africa to withdraw from the territory immediately.]

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's representative to the United Nations abstained on this resolution. The reasons were stated by Sir Colin Crowe in the Security Council on October 6 and were referred to in his explanation of vote on October 20. Copies of these statements are available in the Library of the House.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that this resolution was nevertheless carried by 13 votes to nil, with only two abstensions, the United Kingdom and France? While something can be said for British abstention earlier, when impracticable proposals were made for taking over South West Africa, was not this only a resolution agreeing with the World Court's finding? Why did Sir Colin Crowe say that the British Government did not agree with that World Court's finding?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the resolution was of course only a recommendation and was not binding on any of the Governments. The reason why it was not agreed to by Her Majesty's Government was that it was an advisory opinion given by the Court and, as such, is not binding. While the greatest respect is given to such an advisory opinion, it is up to the Government to come to their own conclusions. It was the belief of Her Majesty's Government that the premises on which that finding was made were not acceptable.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, what is the reason for all this appeasement of the South African Government? Is it British financial interests that are in Namibia?

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, is it not clear from the statement by Sir Colin Crowe on October 6, which is in the Library, that the British Government had substantial legal grounds for the line which they took? May one humble lawyer say that he believes—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Question!

LORD CONESFORD

—that the legal grounds given by Her Majesty's Government certainly had substance?

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, with all deference to my noble friend, I think he was not in the interrogative sense.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, this is a very complicated matter. It goes back to the granting of the Mandate to South Africa, and, as the Court recognised, any power of the United Nations to terminate the Mandate could only have been inherited from the League of Nations. That is the beginning of the problem, and it is one of some considerable legal complexity.