§ 2.55 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy 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 is their policy on the licensing of arms sales to Argentina.
587§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, in accordance with our general policy, each proposal for the supply of defence equipment to Argentina is considered against all the factors involved, including the relevant political, strategic and economic considerations.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that this is very much the same as what Mr. Ted Rowlands said to me when I met him on 2nd May last year and what he reiterated when he wrote to me on 6th June and 14th July, but that since those dates the United States Congress has passed a resolution under the Federal Assistance Act 1961 prohibiting all sales of defence equipment to Argentina, and all credits for arms sales, and bringing to an end all military assistance? In those circumstances, would it not be an unfriendly act if a Government such as the United Kingdom Government were to connive at arms manufacturers stepping in to fill the breach created by this American policy?
Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether we could not take this opportunity, considering that the Americans have scaled down the sale of arms to Latin America as a whole, to try to get together with our American allies and bring to an end the arms race, which has proved so damaging to the economic development of the sub-continent and which has brought in its train the possibility of hostilities—as, for example, in the case of the Beagle Channel—which would be damaging to the future prosperity and survival of the inhabitants of the whole continent?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, on the first point raised by the noble Lord, of course our own approach to questions such as this is different. We apply certain well-defined criteria relative to the country and to the item proposed for exchange. This is not quite the American position, and I see no essential dichotomy between the American practice and the British practice. We certainly have the same objectives in mind; namely, to limit the transfer of arms from one country to another.
That brings me to the second point made by the noble Lord, and I very much welcome what he said. The Mexican 588 proposal to limit the supply of arms in Latin America and the Caribbeans is encouraging. Her Majesty's Government hope that the countries concerned will agree on a restrictive régime covering a range of arms of different kinds. Moreover, the United Kingdom would be willing to consider formally the question of participating in any discussions resulting from this initiative. There are a great many of us, in all parts of the House, who believe that the regional approach to the sale and purchase of arms is a very promising one, and the Mexican initiative deserves every support it can get.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether decisions of this sort by Her Majesty's Government are dependent upon their rating of the relative horribleness of the Governments of Chile and Argentina?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, as I said in my original Answer, a number of political, strategic and economic considerations are applied to the transfer of arms and defence equipment generally to any country. The situation in that country, its relation to us, our own proper economic interests and, of course, the question of human rights come into the general consideration. It is not a perfect set of criteria, but it has worked reasonably well and is reasonably applicable to different countries with different circumstances, and indeed to different items of proposed purchase.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, while warmly welcoming what the Minister has said about our response to the Mexican initiative, may I press him to consider again the possibility that we might harmonise our own policy with that of the United States, bearing in mind that it is going to be very much easier for the two Governments to reach an agreement on the limitation of arms sales and that, while our interests may be marginally different from those of the United States, the paramount interest that we both have is the prevention of military conflict in the sub-continent?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we are in constant and close relationship with the United States of 589 America. I am one of those who persist in referring to the state of affairs as a special relationship. Long may it continue! There is no reason why we should not discuss their policy in respect to a specific country—we are constantly doing this; and not just in respect of Argentina—or why they should not consult us about our policies. That goes on. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not detract from the value of the second part of his supplementary question. He knows as well as I that the previous Mexico initiative resulted in the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which had very important nuclear results and was a multilateral one. While there is scope for bilateral talks, discussions and decisions, we must never lose sight of the larger possibility of multilateral agreements resulting in definite covenants.