§ 2.57 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 how far they agree with the statement of USA foreign policy outlined by President Carter at Notre Dame University, Indiana, on 22nd May 1977.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in close touch with the Government of the United States on all aspects of international relations and we welcome the positive approach which President Carter is taking towards current international problems.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Would he agree that, despite some ambiguities, this speech was memorable because it recognised that we are now in a new world which is not just dominated by the confrontation of democracies and Communist countries? Would he say in particular whether Her Majesty's Government endorse the following points made in the speech: the rejection of dictatorships as allies of the West; the acceptance of the Third World to end the gulf between riches and poverty; the urging of the ending of nuclear rivalry and of the arms traffic, and the call for human rights everywhere and not merely in the Soviet Union?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sure that we would all agree that the four points which my noble friend has selected are all implicit—if not explicit— in the truly remarkable speech which the American President made at Notre Dame University on 22nd May. I know also that my noble friend and, indeed, the whole House, also will wish to refer to the very helpful and constructive statement on nuclear power which the President made in Washington on 7th April. I believe both papers are in the Library and one should check on this because the two documents taken together present, not only for the American people but all the democracies of the West, a very helpful, encouraging basis for a progressive foreign policy.
§ Lord CHALFONTMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in this remarkable speech President Carter made two basic propositions? One was that the Cold War was over. The other was that the greatest danger to the West was now the denial of human rights. Do Her Majesty's Government agree that perhaps the most vivid example of the denial of human rights in the world takes place in the Soviet Union? Would the noble Lord agree that the Soviet Union is the only country capable of posing a military threat to the security of the West? Would he therefore agree that there is a certain lack of logic in President Carter's reasoning?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, great as my respect is for my noble friend's expertise in this matter, 166 I doubt whether he has—I will not say fairly, but definitively—interpreted the speech of the American President. He said that he considered the Cold War was over. I believe it is. However, that does not mean—and my noble friend has constantly drawn the attention not only of this country but of the entire West to this fact—that the West can afford to neglect its own precautions or not to take the most careful notes and the most positive action with regard to meeting any possible threat to its liberty and its security.
As to whether one can single out any one country as being a threat to peace, I should not care to do so in an exchange of question and answer. I would prefer to join the American President and, on occasion, Mr. Brezhnev, in inviting all corners to make a concerted attempt to seek agreement on two outstanding questions: the control and proper use of nuclear power and the progressive reduction of armaments.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that Western political preferences, and particularly liberty, have been of doubtful value as exports, and that foreign affairs will be more comfortable when the President grows up a little and learns this? We have sought to export liberty to Africa. Every single African country has rejected it and has accepted one form of political dictatorship after another. Would my noble friend agree that the denunciation of other people's preferences is not really a satisfactory foundation for an exchange on foreign affairs?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sure the American President has long ago grown up, and he well understands what he is about. What he is about accords very closely with the purposes of this country and of the entire West. As to the export of ideas, I am sure it is a common purpose that there should be an increasingly free export of ideas as between East and West. What one is against, of course, is the imposition of systems either by the East on the West or by the West on the East.
§ Lord O'HAGANMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that these wide matters are hardly susceptible of discussion by question and answer—
§ Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
167§ Lord O'HAGAN— and since the Government apparently have little or no legislation for your Lordships to discuss, could we not have a debate soon on foreign affairs?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I always agree with the noble Lord, especially when he speaks such specific sense. I do my poor best. It is up to the noble Lord and others to initiate debates on these matters, and I am always responsive.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, although many of us have a great admiration for President Carter, and even think that his rather naive approach is very helpful at this time in our history, would not the Minister agree that we do not necessarily have to swallow the whole of that speech?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSOf course we do not, my Lords. Coordination, co-operation and a special relationship do not mean totalitarian subservience. We are both democracies and therefore, by definition, we exchange ideas and are very glad when the ideas are a matter of consensus.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, might I suggest to the Minister that while we would all welcome Mr. Carter's speech, it is always a good idea to attribute to your enemies the best qualities that you possibly can, and that whether or not the Cold War has disappeared, the atmosphere is slightly warmer?
Lord GORONY-ROBERTSYes, my Lords; it is a few degrees warmer and that is to be welcomed. The point is that any movement, however gradual and slow, towards détente is to be welcomed. It is the movement that is important, not instantaneous change; and a movement towards détente—not simply in Europe but everywhere else—is welcome because one cannot have détente in Europe and disturbance in Africa.