§ 3.34 p.m.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I shall make a Statement on the New Hebrides.
As the House is aware, the Condominium of the New Hebrides is the joint responsibility of Britain and France. Yesterday evening in Paris my honourable friend the Minister of State (Mr. Peter Blaker) met with his French colleague, M. Dijoud, the Secretary of State for Overseas Departments and Territories, to review recent events on the island of Espiritu Santo.
M. Dijoud and my honourable friend agreed we must discharge our joint responsibility to maintain law and order in the territory. They agreed that we must re-emphasise our joint support for the democratically-elected Government of the New Hebrides, our commitment to the independence constitution agreed by all parties in Vila last year, and our determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of the condominium.
They further agreed that the authority of the legitimate Government must be restored on the island of Santo as soon as possible, and condemned the actions of those responsible for the armed insurrection on the island.
M. Dijoud and my honourable friend agreed that we must jointly make one 1273 further effort to persuade both sides to renew in a true spirit of compromise the discussions begun in London in March and which have continued until recently, in order to find a peaceful solution to their differences.
In making this appeal, and in urging the Chief Minister to pursue a policy of national reconciliation, it was recognised that an essential prerequisite of constructive negotiations must be the reimposition of the authority of the legitimate Government on the island of Santo. In short, those responsible on Santo must agree to return to the legal and administrative position obtaining before the insurrection of the 28th of May.
M. Dijoud informed my honourable friend that France was now prepared to agree to the 30th of July independence date proposed by the New Hebrides Government. In accepting this date, which is a mere two months away, it was recognised that the present problems must be urgently resolved. If no progress is made towards reconciliation, Britain and France would decide jointly on what further action to take.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for making that Statement, but we have to say, of course, that the situation which has developed in Santo, in the New Hebrides, must fill us all with profound concern. Here we have a dependency on the verge of independence, by agreement and having followed the proper constitutional procedures, now with its integrity effectively breached by an indigenous maverick backed by the most obnoxious and predatory interests in America and France. The Statement is of course full of good intentions as to what the condominium is going to do, what the Governments of France and Great Britain would like to do, but surely it is time that effective action was taken. The threats to the integrity of this dependency date back a number of years, and we have been aware of them. Jimmy Stevens and his backers have signalled their intentions for quite a long time; and, indeed, Ministers assured Parliament as early as last November, if my memory serves me rightly, and certainly as recently as March, that effective action would be taken if the integrity of this dependency, on the eve of independence, was seriously threatened.
1274 My Lords, it has been more than threatened; it has been breached.
Espiritu Santo (and, for all I know, in the next few days Tana) may well be in the hands of the usurpers. In the meantime, the Statement said that we shall have another talk with Jimmy Stevens. I wonder whether the advice that Ministers are getting meets the gravity of the situation. While we talk, he takes over; and the time has come when we and the French must fulfil our clear obligations to the United Nations to preserve the integrity of a dependency in the process of handing it over to independence.
Finally, may I make the very strong suggestion (no doubt Ministers have considered it, and may be acting on it) that we should have very serious talks, not only with the Government of France, with whom we are acting very closely as part of the condominium, but with the American Administration, and that we should ask them effectively to take action in Washington to restrain the activities of those elements in the United States which are intervening in the New Hebrides for the worst of possible reasons, in so doing not only shattering the territorial integrity of this new, almost independent country, but, it may be, imperilling the broader interests of the West in the security of the area.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. Following upon what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said, may I take it from the Statement— I think it is a legitimate inference— that if shortly before 30th July, which is the date that we, the French and the local Government have decided will be the date for the declaration of independence for the whole of the New Hebrides, the island of Santo is still in a state of rebellion, the Governments of the United Kingdom and of France will take all suitable steps to suppress the revolt including, if necessary, physical force? Secondly, is there reason to believe press reports that this revolt has been primarily fermented by financial interests in America whose chief object is to create a tax haven?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. The implication of the remarks of the noble Lord, 1275 Lord Goronwy-Roberts, was, why were we not using force now? In answer to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I want to say that we and our French colleagues are loath to contemplate the use of force except in the last resort. Even after the insurrection had taken place on 28th May Father Lini, the Chief Minister, appealed for new negotiations with those responsible; but if his efforts to achieve reconciliation are ignored, we and the French will have to consider what steps we shall take to restore the authority of Father Lini's Government on Santo. It will have to be long before 30th July if that date is to be achieved for independence, as I know it will.
On the position of the American interests, it is clear by the Phoenix Foundation's own admission that it has been involved in the insurrection. Indeed, at our request the US Government have agreed to investigate whether any US laws have been infringed by involvement of United States citizens. Yesterday the US State Department issued a statement signifying their intention to prosecute should there be any violation of American laws, making it clear that they do not condone the reported interference by US citizens in the internal affairs of the New Hebrides in support of these secessionists.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we should be most loath to make the Government's task more difficult than it is. Nobody knows better than I how difficult can be the operation of a condominium even with one's best friends. But the situation is beyond the last resort. From the facts that have come to me in the last few minutes and from new evidence, I think that we are faced with the possibility that this territory may be so shattered by the actions of the authors of this takeover in Santo that long before the date agreed for independence we may be faced with total disarray. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I would jointly urge in the most co-operative and friendly way is that action should be taken quickly. The American assurances are gratifying. One would hope that they would add to a study of the legal implications of this action the immediate possibility of political action among their own nationals where they are involved in this operation.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we certainly agree that the situation is very grave. But, all the same, the use of force would be a regrettable step that we could only contemplate as the very last resort. That last resort is not quite with us yet but will be very soon.
Lord DE LA WARRMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, although we should not like to see the use of force, except as a last resort, it would be prudent to be ready to the extent of having perhaps a British and a French frigate ready on the spot to deal with this matter immediately? Would it not help to influence these brigands in the negotiations that we are about to have with them if we produced a little display of good old-fashioned force just a few miles out to sea?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am reluctant to embark upon a new policy of gun-boat diplomacy, but I can tell the House that contingency plans are fully prepared.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I tabled a Private Notice Question yesterday on this subject but gladly withdrew it when I heard that a Statement was to be made today. May I say how totally I welcome the Statement made from the Conservative Front Bench, not only the original Statement, but also the statement about the American interests which the noble Lord added. Is it not a sad comment, after 76 years of administration by Britain and France, that this situation should have arisen in the New Hebrides within three months of its independence? Have not both Governments failed in seeking to reconcile the divisions which exist— even separate jurisdictions, even separate education, even separate control of the police? The statement from the Government Front Bench is so welcome because the party led by Father Lini has had massive majorities in the two last contested elections. Is it not the case that the plantation owners on the island of Santo and the American business interests behind them are fearful because the new party has declared that it will end the privileges of the old colonialists on the island? I hope that discussions will go on between the French and British Governments and the Administration in the New Hebrides and those who are in 1277 rebellion, so that force will not be necessary. But I welcome the forthright statement of the Government that they are behind the legitimate, elected Government on this issue.
§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGERMy Lords—
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, may I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brock-way, before dealing with any other points The noble Lord referred to the root causes of this problem. I fancy that they are rather simpler than the noble Lord suggested. The constitution was agreed, the elections were held; and we seem to have a disgruntled man who lost the elections. That is perhaps the distinction (if I may mention it to your Lordships) between the condominium and Anguilla, which has so often been referred to as a similar case. This man lost the elections, his supporters did not gain the acclaim of the electorate, and that is why he must not be allowed to succeed.
§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGERMy Lords, may I remind the House that under Standing Orders a debate on a Statement may not take place unless the House has so resolved. I am not aware that any such resolution has been put.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, may I pose one question to the noble Lord? There are a number of territories in the South Pacific that are in a similar situation in the sense that they are countries made up of many islands, with many tensions. May I ask the noble Lord, in the light of the situation in the New Hebrides, and while the responsibility is that of Her Majesty's Government and of the French Government, whether there is consultation with the Governments of Fiji, the Solomons, Gilbert and Ellice— although their names have been changed? I am concerned about consultation with the Governments and the peoples within the Commonwealth in the South Pacific.
§ Lord TREFGARNEYes, my Lords, the other countries in that part of the world have a deep interest in this matter and are being kept fully informed.