§ 3.10 p.m.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy 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 which of our NATO allies have either a naval or defence attaché at their embassy in Chile.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, of our NATO allies the United States, 1381 France and the Federal Republic of Germany have naval or defence attaches at their embassies in Chile.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I am asking this Question in the interests of our own country and the general NATO defence system? I gather that the number of our staff in the Chile embassy is very meagre indeed. Is there any hope of it being improved?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the position is kept closely under review in the light of the circumstances which my noble friend the Chief Whip described so well in previous exchanges with the noble Baroness. We are represented by an excellent charge d'affaires in Santiago, and he has an adequate staff to assist him in the discharge of the full duties of the embassy.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, could the noble Lord explain to the House why his noble friend said on that occasion, in his unavoidable absence, that the ambassador had been withdrawn from Chile because of the British Government's disapproval?—and yet the next day, in answer to a Question about Mr. Orlov and the Soviet Union, his noble friend said that it was absolutely imperative to keep:
all avenues open…—cultural, economic, and every other kind—in the hope of influencing them [Soviet Russia] on the human rights issue". —[Official Report, 24/5/78; col. 958.]What is the difference between our policy towards the Soviet Union and that towards Chile, other than perhaps in the Government's standards?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the previous British ambassador to Chile was withdrawn at the end of 1975 as a protest against the disgraceful way in which a British subject—Dr. Sheila Cassidy—had been treated in detention. We can point to no such identical case in the Soviet Union. In any case, the larger point raised by the noble Lord is covered by the answer that I have given from this Box from time to time; that is, that we look at each country and each case on its merits. The position in Chile is different from that in the Soviet Union.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, the Government would not then agree with 1382 the noble Baroness that it is important that:
we should keep all avenues open…—cultural, economic and every other kind—in the hope of influencingcountries on human rights?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the Government are keeping all possible avenues open in order to influence the Government of Chile in the direction which the noble Lord has described. The avenues in one country differ from those in another country, and differ from time to time. In fact, the Government would very much agree with my noble friend in the answer that she gave.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, the noble Lord referred to keeping all possible avenues open. How does that square with keeping the embassy in the charge of a chargé d'affaires and not an ambassador? Surely that is short of all possible measures.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, with all respect, it is not. The possible avenue, diplomatically, in the circumstances that I have described, is the presence of a chargé d'affaires and the withdrawal of the ambassador to mark our strong resentment and condemnation of the way in which a British subject was treated. That is the possible avenue in those conditions.
§ Lord CHALFONTMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that one defence attaché, or military or naval attaché or any other kind, has certain functions which are outside the normal processes of diplomatic representation? Is the noble Lord aware that one of the main points upon which we must base our attitude to any other country is accurate information? Are we not denying ourselves one of the most important channels of accurate information in not having defence, military or naval attaches in Santiago?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, with every respect to what my noble friend has said, as he has considerable knowledge and experience of these matters, both militarily and diplomatically, I would say that we are not disadvantaged from the point of view of getting all the necessary information 1383 in this area, as in others, by the fact that our representation in Santiago is as I have described.
§ Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEINMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Chilean Navy was founded by a Scotsman, that it was modelled on British lines, and that very close connections between the two Services have existed ever since? These must be debilitated by the lack of a naval attaché in Santiago.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am well aware of our traditional friendship with the Chilean people and the close ties between our two Navies. We look forward to an early resumption of those close ties with a free and democratic Chile.
§ Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that we have been given a considerable amount of employment in producing naval vessels for Chile over the years? Surely it would be of great benefit to this country—and to employment in this country—if we did at least have naval attaches there to encourage orders similar to those which we have had in the past.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I do not say that the presence of a naval attaché—whose functions have necessarily been reduced by the circumstances and developments I have described —would in any appreciable way assist the motivation which the noble Lord mentioned. We continue to discharge our contractual obligations in this field to the Chilean Government and other interests there. What we have said is that we have banned new arms sales to Chile since the supplanting of the democratically elected Government and the assassination of its Prime Minister in the presidential palace.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, this morning the newspapers reported that we were not fulfilling our contractual obligations with regard to parts for aeroplanes.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I understand that an application has been made for the export of those parts, and the matter is under consideration.
§ Lord BROWNMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that the type of argument being used by members of the Party opposite—and indeed by those on the Cross-Benches- if accepted in principle, would place Her Majesty's Government in a position of being unable, by their acts, to disapprove of acts of any other country, and would deprive them of the right to show their disfavour in all cases?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think that my noble friend put it very well. I would say that this or any other Government would need to be able to judge, as I have said, from country to country, from case to case, and from time to time, precisely how to react to certain actions by certain Governments.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that diplomatic representation has got nothing to do with showing favour, or pleasure or displeasure, or disfavour, between one country and another? It serves British interests.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it is a British interest to make absolutely clear to a Government of this sort—this Fascist junta—what the British public and the great mass of Members of both Houses of Parliament think and feel of what has happened in Chile.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, why not the Communist countries?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it is equally in the British interests appropriately to make our views known in regard to actions in any other country, of whatever political colour.
§ Lord HANKEYMy Lords, will the Government bear in mind that many people are anxious that we should retain our markets in these countries, so far as we can, in spite of ideological differences of opinion? In this connection, has the Minister noticed, from his own reply, that the French and the Americans appear to have kept their service attaches there? I have no doubt that they get the orders which we might otherwise have been having.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I have no evidence to confirm what 1385 the noble Lord said in the latter part of his question as to the action of others of our friends and allies in the Community. I am not responsible for their actions. As I said in my substantive Answer, two of the Nine and the United States have naval or defence attachés to their embassies in Chile. I would not venture the observation that the rest of the Nine are somewhat in default of their own national interests for that reason.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, is the Minister aware—and perhaps it would be to the advantage of this House to know this—that in Chile their own Church (Chile being a Catholic country) and the Episcopalian Conference, about a year ago, condemned the Government for everything that had been going on for some time?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it is a fact that the Christian Church in Chile has taken a very courageous stand against the enormities perpetrated by the Chilean Government.
§ Lord KENNETMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is possible in any case to exaggerate the cultural influence of this country on the Chilean Navy, given the well known fact that they have been marching with the goose step since before the First World War?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I would not venture to dispute the cultural achievements of naval attachés.