§ 2.46 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the Security Council that the United Nations should seek an end to the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, in view of the United Nations resolution on the constitutional relationship of the two territories.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the Government favour a negotiated settlement to the Eritrean dispute. Any consideration of the dispute should take into account past United Nations involvement. The Government would favour recourse to the United Nations if sufficient international support were forthcoming. The Government do not, however, believe that a proposal to refer the question of Eritrea to the Security Council would receive the necessary international backing at this stage.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask whether the United Nations did not declare that there should be a federation between Ethiopia and Eritrea? Is it not a fact that ever since the time of Hailé Selassié, internal autonomy has been destroyed in Eritrea? In view of the fact that three Eritrean groups are now prepared for talks, which is even backed by the Soviet Union and Cuba, would it not be a suitable opportunity for the United Nations Security Council to take some action?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, my noble friend is substantially correct about the background to this. It is a fact that in 1950 the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for autonomy for Eritrea. For a time this was implemented by the Ethiopian Government. However, since 1962, as he has reminded us, this has been taken away and there has been a situation of tension ending in actual conflict. We are cautious about the possibility of 1303 maintaining that the United Nations has any continuing legal standing in the Eritrean question arising from the General Assembly resolution of 1950, although in our view any solution of the Eritrean problem would have to take into account that fact of the United Nations involvement in 1950. Certainly the fact that there may not be a legal basis continuing from that resolution for involvement would not preclude raising the matter at the Security Council if—and I repeat "if"—there were sufficient international support, and particularly support from Africa itself.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, as I have said before, is it not illusory—an illusion—to speak as if the United Nations was the seat of world government? Is it not highly dangerous to go on speaking as if the United Nations is the seat of world government? It simply diminishes the role of the United Nations, rather than strengthening it.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it may be illusory to refer to the United Nations as a world government at the present time. It is, I suggest, constructive and hopeful to say that it ought to develop in that direction.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, do Her Majesty's Government accept the right of the Eritreans either to independence or to some degree of autonomy, since the Eritrean resistance movement has now been engaged in fighting for its rights for something like 20 years?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The Eritrean liberation movements have been agitating and indeed fighting for something like 20 years for consideration of their national rights, as they see them. There is a certain difficulty here in that it is an internal problem of a sovereign State and a member of the United Nations—that is to say, Ethiopia. Questions of autonomy and devolution are, for all States, internal questions in which external Powers should be very careful not to intervene unless there is an overwhelming necessity to do so.