§ 2. 52 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 what action their representative took at the United Nations Security Council meeting on 19th October 1976, when a resolution was submitted calling for a mandatory embargo on all arms sales to South Africa, and how the delegates on the Council voted.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the UnitedKingdom Acting Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in company with his French and American colleagues, voted against a resolution which would have paved the way for a whole range of mandatory sanctions. Italy and Japan abstained. For the convenience of the House, and my noble friend, I have had the British Explanation of Vote placed in the Library.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that the British action on this vote has shocked many of us in this country? Is it not contrary both to Labour Party policy and TUC policy? Is it not the case that this counrty is now being regarded in a large part of the world as collaborating with South Africa? Was not this indicated by the vote of the General Assembly on 5th November when, by 93 votes to nine, a resolution was carried condemning this country and the West? Is this not a deplorable situation?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am indeed aware that my noble friend does not always share the views of Her Majesty's Government on these questions. Nevertheless, the Government believe that their way of doing things is the best way. I deeply deplore my noble friend's reference to
10 the word, "collaboration" on the part of this country with South Africa. Many many times we have deplored the racial attitudes of the South Africans, very many times we have sent démarches and messages to them; we have combined with other United Nations countries and with the European Community in urging the quick peaceful independence of Namibia. I very much hope that my noble friend will reconsider what he said about collaboration with South Africa.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONEMy Lords, whatever may be the policy of any particular party, group of the General Assembly, would not the noble Baroness agree that the real test of these matters is the Charter of the United Nations? Before we make allegations against Her Majesty's Government, would it not be wise to see how far their policy is in conformity with that Charter rather than with any particular policy?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEI have a new and doughty champion, my Lords.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONENot new, my Lords; really very old.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I maintain that Her Majesty's Government are acting in conformity with United Nations policy. We take our arms embargo on South Africa very seriously indeed and we always act on these questions in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
§ Lord DERWENTMy Lords, is it not a fact that the form of the Question is quite out of order? Standing Orders lay down that Questions should be asked for information. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said he knew the answer.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am quite prepared to take the advice of the Clerks at the Table and enjoy answering any Question my noble friend puts to me.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, when this matter came before the Security Council, was any reference made to the provision of arms by the Russians, Chinese and other members associated 11 with the United Nations to countries other than South Africa? Was there any condemnation of the Russians, Chinese and the others?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I have not read the reports of the full debate in the Security Council, but to the best of my knowledge that was not in the resulotion. The sad thing about this is that there was a unanimous resolution, No. 385, in January which I think put pressure on the South Africans. We agreed with the main parts of most of the resolution which in the end we had to veto. We want a free Namibia soon. We want a single electoral process; we want it under United Nations supervision and we want the political prisoners freed in Namibia. All these things were there. We could have agreed with nearly all of it, but we could not agree with mandatory sanctions.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I did not suggest that this country was collaborating with South Africa? I said that that was now becoming a view over a large part of the world. May I ask my noble friend to agree that the Security Council asked that South Africa should withdraw from Namibia by the end of August? As that has not happened, is not some action necessary?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am very glad that it was not my noble friend who thought so and I hope he will support his Government in helping to deny any such rumour. To answer the second part of his supplementary question, time and again we have urged on the South African Government that time is running out. We do not think that the Windhoek Conference—the two and a half years transition period proposed there—is nearly soon enough. We have urged it on them and we cannot do it single-handed, but we are in spirit with my noble friend in trying to get a free and independent Namibia.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, what is the purpose of prohibiting the sale of strategic weapons systems to South Africa while we rely on the security of the maritime routes around the Cape of Good Hope?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I really think that, when it comes to answering one's own question, the noble Lord can answer that best himself.