URANIUM IMPORTS FROM NAMIBIA (Hansard, 23 April 1980)

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, imports of uranium from Namibia began only recently. The contract between Rossing Uranium Limited and British Nuclear Fuels Limited, approved by previous Governments, conflicts with none of our international obligations. United Nations decisions on the subject are not binding in international law.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, in two respects is not this importation of uranium from the RTZ Company at Rossing illegal? First, is it not the case that there is a partnership with the South African Government which has been declared illegal and an action against international law? Secondly, did not the United Nations General Assembly, on 13th December 1974, adopt a decree for the protection of the natural resources of Namibia, which declared that no natural resources may be removed from the territory without the consent and permission of the Council of Namibia set up in 1966 to replace South Africa administratively?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I am sorry to say that the noble Lord is mistaken on almost every count. The trade is not illegal. There is no international obligation on us to prevent trade of this kind with Namibia. As for the so-called 758 decree, that, too, is not binding. We do not recognise the Council of Namibia's claim to be the administering authority of Namibia or to take decisions binding on the international community, as we do not accept that the United Nations General Assembly acted within its competence under the UN Charter in setting up the council. May I add that mandatory sanctions, such as I think the noble Lord thinks exist, can in fact only be imposed by the Security Council after a finding under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that there exists a threat to international peace. In this case no such finding has been made.

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I shall not retort by saying that the Minister is wrong in every respect. However, is it not the case that the Hague Tribunal declared the South African Administration illegal and that partnership with it—even paying taxes to it—should therefore be considered illegal? Secondly, despite what the noble Lord has said, has not the Assembly of the United Nations but also the Security Council endorsed the decree to which I have already referred?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, the noble Lord started talking about taxes. The Question on the Order Paper is to do with the trade in uranium. The Security Council resolutions in this matter are only mandatory when they are coupled with a finding under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS
My Lords, could my noble friend proffer to the House any explanation as to why any Member of this House would want to denigrate this country's adherence to legal procedure in international affairs—as did the noble Lord opposite—on such flimsy grounds? Can he give any explanation for wanting to do such a thing?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I hardly think that that question is directed to me.

§ Lord HALE
My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that decisions of the United Nations were regarded by Her Majesty's Government as not binding upon them in this connection? Does that not raise a very complex and important question as to the efficacy of international law which has always been regarded as a 759 matter of some doubt by many Governments? Is this not a matter that must be cleared up, whether it concerns Namibia or the international relations of Governments with the United Nations? Was any protest made to the United Nations at the time it made this decision to the effect that it was acting ultra vires?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, there is no question of any contravention of international law in this matter. The position is quite clear. The resolutions which we are talking about are not binding upon members of the United Nations.

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, is it not a fact that for many years—indeed, since the South African Republic took on itself the occupation and, therefore, the administration of former South West Africa—this country, like other countries, has refused to recognise that situation? Nevertheless, as the noble Lord says, is it not also a fact that the mandatory content of the United Nations response to this situation is as he has said? The third question that I should like to put to the noble Lord, and indeed to the House, is as follows: Do not these exchanges reinforce the argument for pressing ahead with every possible speed to secure for Namibia an orderly and democratic procedure into independence on the analogy of what we have achieved in Rhodesia?

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, as regards the last point the noble Lord is quite right. We are doing what we can to push forward with the negotiations for a settlement in Namibia. As regards the present position, to which the noble Lord referred at the beginning of his remarks, it is true that we regard South Africa's presence in Namibia as unlawful, but we are working towards a South African withdrawal and, as I have said, Namibian independence.