§ 2.46 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy 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 why their representative on the Security Council of the United Nations on September 29, 1972, on three occasions vetoed resolutions on the subject of majority rule in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia); why he abstained from voting on a resolution urging the U.S.A. to cooperate in the effective implementation of sanctions, condemning South Africa and Portugal for not doing so, and calling on Britain to convene a representative constitutional conference in Zimbabwe; what were the votes on these resolutions; and whether the full text of these resolutions will be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of this House.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the United Kingdom representative on the Security Council vetoed one of the two resolutions put forward on September 29 as well as two paragraphs in that resolution upon which separate voting was requested. One paragraph called for NIBMAR and the other suggested unacceptable conditions as to how Her Majesty's Government should carry out their responsibility towards Rhodesia.
The United Kingdom representative abstained on the sanctions resolution because it contained no proposals which were likely to advance the work of the United Nations Sanctions Committee. The voting on the first resolution on each occasion was 10 in favour, 1 (the United Kingdom) against, and 4 abstentions (the United States, France, Belgium and Italy). Voting on the sactions resolution was 13 in favour with 2 abstentions (the United 1672 Kingdom and the United States). Copies of the relevant United Nations documents have been placed, as is customary, in the Library of the House.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Do not these votes—of 10 to 1 and 13 to nil—indicate how the United Kingdom is becoming isolated in world opinion on this issue? Would he further explain why the British representative voted against the proposal for implementing sanctions fully by condemnation of the action of the United States of America, South Africa and Portugal in breaking them?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I suggest that the conclusion which should be drawn from the voting is that that was the way in which the Security Council and its members voted. It is, of course, for each country to decide in which way it should carry out such resolutions. In regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I would point out to him that the operative paragraph 3 of the United Nations Resolution No. 320 singled out the United States for criticism, and we were not prepared to join in such specific criticism while a number of other countries have continued to break sanctions with impunity. I would further point out to the noble Lord that the United States Administration had itself drawn the attention of the United Nations to the breach of sanctions which resulted from the resumption of imports of Rhodesian chrome, and therefore no action was required by us because it then became a matter for the United Nations.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in the light of those comments may I ask the noble Earl to indicate what specific action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations to make sanctions more effective, which is an obligation they accepted when they accepted a Resolution of your Lordships' House?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, this Government, as indeed was so with the previous Government, have always been of the opinion that every step should be taken to make sanctions effective. What is required is not new resolutions, or indeed condemnatory resolutions, but international co-operation by other members to make the sanctions effective.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I asked the noble Earl what specific action Her Majesty's Government had taken to make the sanctions more effective.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to force other countries to make sanctions effective. All they can do, as they have frequently done on previous occasions, is to express their desire that other countries will, like Her Majesty's Government, follow the United Nations resolution.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, reverting to the original Question, may I suggest that it is correct to assume that the United States can determine its own foreign policy without gratuitous advice from ourselves or from any other country?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the United States is entirely right to have its own foreign policy and to conduct it as it thinks fit.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is it not a fact that one of these resolutions proposed a constitutional conference representative of all sections of the community in Rhodesia? If it is not possible to hold such a conference in Rhodesia itself, why should not Her Majesty's Government invite to London representatives of the various Parties and communities in Rhodesia to prepare a future Constitution?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the United Kingdom representative made it perfectly clear in his speech that while Her Majesty's Government would endorse the underlying purpose of a constitutional conference, the call for a conference to be summoned from outside without the participation of the regime would be more likely to hamper than to help the future.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, does it not strike Her Majesty's Government as rather odd that since it was the United Kingdom Government which initiated the sanctions against Rhodesia they should now so conspicuously refuse to be in the vanguard of those who wish to implement them with greater force?
EARL FERRERSNo, my Lords. The United Kingdom was in the vanguard of sanctions, and I can only repeat what I said earlier: that it is the Government's desire and wish that there should be co-operation by all countries, internationally, to accord with this United Nations resolution, but we are not in a position to make other countries do that which they do not wish to do.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, might it not be better not to stand on the letter of the law but to show greater willingness?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, we have shown willingness; but we did not support a resolution that was wholly condemnatory and not constructive.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, can my noble friend say how many countries who were in favour of these resolutions are themselves in breach of the sanctions?