HL Deb 05 August 1975 vol 363 cc1455-7
Lord BARNBY

My 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 attitude our Representative at the United Nations is instructed to take should collective motions by members of the O.A.U. appear to aim at the disruption of international relations.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would certainly oppose any motion aimed at the disruption of international relations.

Lord BARNBY

My Lords, does the Minister recall the address of Dr. Kissinger at Wisconsin on 15th July, in which he put on record that if the poorer countries of Africa continue the policy of sabotage and blackmail the American public would be strongly disenchanted? Since the American public give more than anybody else in support of the United Nations, they might even withdraw. Can the Minister give an assurance that the British attitude would be equally strong?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

The British Government's attitude would be as I have stated in my substantive reply, that we would oppose any motion aimed at the disruption of international relations. Regarding the first part of the noble Lord's question, indeed I recall the location and content of the American Secretary of State's speech in Wisconsin last July. I think we would all agree with most, if not all, of the contents of that speech.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great concern of many people in this country on all sides, and also in other Western democracies, at the increase in General Assembly Resolutions which are being passed not in accordance with the general principles of civilised nations, but by a built-in majority of an increasing number of States which do not practise civilisation in their own countries? Has the Minister considered a new weighting for the effects of General Assembly Resolutions as part of the development of international law?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the latter part of the noble Baroness's question is one that would need to be taken under continuous advisement but I note what she has said. As to her assessment of the comparative civilisation of various members of the United Nations, we all perhaps have our own individual views on that. The first point she made in her supplementary question is of course a worthwhile one. It is essential that the generality of members of the United Nations should approach every question from an objective point of view, addressed only to the objectives of the Charter and not from either a racist or ideological standpoint.

Baroness GAITSKELL

My Lords, since when have the British Government instructed their delegates to take an attitude to any issue? Surely that is not what we have to deal with.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, my noble friend will notice that while the word "instructed" occurs in the original Question, I have avoided using that word. I have said what the attitude and policy of Her Majesty's Government would be. It may be taken for granted that our Representative in the United Nations would reflect that attitude and policy.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, when some nations are not taking what the Minister has described as an "objective point of view", when clearly their view is not objective, is there any chance of this nation's Representatives being clearer in the way they react to that matter?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, this is a matter of opinion; but I would ask the noble Lord to look at the statements made from time to time by our very able Representative in New York, especially on this kind of matter. I do not think, on reflection, the noble Lord will continue to believe that that expression has either been halting or unforceful. In fact, we have taken something of a lead in making perfectly clear what we consider to be the norm of practice in the international authority, and we shall continue to do that.