HL Deb 30 March 1982 vol 428 cc1276-81

3.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington)

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne informed the House on 23rd March, a group of Argentines, employed by a commercial contractor, Mr. Davidoff, an Argentine citizen, landed at Leith Harbour on South Georgia on 19th March from an Argentine naval transport vessel. Mr. Davidoff had been informed in advance of the need to seek the necessary permission from the British authorities at Grytviken to land and to carry out this salvage work. He conveyed to the British Embassy in Buenos Aires his intention to begin work in South Georgia but gave no indication that he would not follow the normal immigration procedures.

When the party arrived at Leith they did not seek the required documentation: and when requested by the base commander to proceed to Grytviken in order to do so, they failed to comply. Mr. Davidoff's commercial contract is straightforward. But it does not absolve him or his employees from complying with normal immigration procedures. Subsequently, the majority of the Argentinian party and the Argentinian ship departed: but about a dozen men remained on shore.

We therefore made it clear to the Argentine Government that we regarded them as being present illegally on British territory, and sought their co-operation in arranging for their departure, pointing out, however, that their position could be regularised if they were to seek the necessary authorisation. Meanwhile, HMS "Endurance" was ordered to proceed to the area to be available to assist as necessary. She has been standing by since 24th March.

On 25th March an Argentine vessel delivered further equipment to the group ashore. The Argentine Foreign Minister has said that the Argentine party in South Georgia will be given the full protection of the Argentine Government. Argentine warships are in the area.

The situation which has thus arisen, while not of our seeking, is potentially dangerous. We have no doubts about British sovereignty over this Falkland Islands dependency as over the Falklands themselves.

We remain of the view that the unauthorised presence of Argentine citizens in British territory is not acceptable. We have no wish to stand in the way of a normal commercial salvage contract, but the position of those carrying it out must be properly authorised. Further escalation of this dispute is in no one's interest. In these circumstances it is clearly right to pursue a diplomatic solution of this problem. This we are doing. I hope that the Argentine Government will take the same view. Meanwhile, the question of security in the Falklands area is being reviewed, although the House will understand that I prefer to say nothing in public about our precautionary measures. I can, however, inform the House that HMS "Endurance" will remain on station as long as is necessary.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, on my temporary return to the Front Bench I should like to thank the noble Lord for that measured and sensible Statement. I say "sensible" because if there is one thing that none of us would wish to do it is to exacerbate an already potentially dangerous situation. Clearly the noble Lord appreciates the seriousness in coming back from perhaps a fairly difficult time in Brussels and bound, I hope, for an easier time in Israel—although I rather doubt whether it will be easier.

Nonetheless, the situation is serious enough, and there are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord, while again echoing the importance of us all preserving a due sense of caution because now, of all times, is the time for the exercise of the maximum of diplomatic skills. The fact remains that the Falklands and South Georgia have been British for a very long period. I doubt whether until now there have been anything other than the occasional visiting ship from the Argentine on South Georgia; this beautiful and potentially island is important because it is the potential centre of krill fishing.

Does the noble Lord agree that the preservation of British interests in this part of the world—I appreciate his firm reiteration of our stand—concerns not only the protection of the wholly British people in the Falklands but could affect the peace of the whole of that area of the Antarctic? The Antarctic Treaty comes up for revision in 1991. As I have said before, the great strength of that has been that the Cold War has never come to the Antarctic, and it is important for conservation, and all sorts of measures, that we should retain our position in that part of the world.

It is gratifying that HMS "Endurance" is still there. For those who doubt the effectiveness of HMS "Endurance", one is bound to say that it is the presence of the White Ensign and the potential backing of our sovereignty that is important. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that the decision announced some while ago to cancel HMS "Endurance" must have encouraged the Argentines in their belief that the British were on the way out. Indeed, I was rung by a friend of mine in the Argentine Embassy to ask me to confirm that. I of course denied it vigorously. Allowing the settlement of armed men—not to mention pregnant mothers in Southern Thule, also in the Sandwich Islands, so that there should be an Argentine Antarctic citizen born there—and the absence of any strong reaction to that will have encouraged them.

I shall not press the noble Lord—and I think we ought not to—on the subject of the precautionary measures that the Government are taking. Nothing we say here of that kind, no bellicose statement, will help a situation which is difficult enough as it is now. But I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the British Embassy were actually informed that Mr. Davidoff's party was going, whether the governor was informed, because it seems to me that, if he was not, there has been some failing. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that. I am bound to make the remark that once again we see the whole argument between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, and whether in a situation like this Trident could be of any help as opposed to more conventional forces.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I too should like to thank the Foreign Secretary for making this Statement, more especially since I understand he has come rushing back from Brussels especially to inform the House of what is happening. I have only two short points to make. We must all hope of course that diplomacy will continue and will succeed in solving this dispute, but of course in the event of diplomacy failing, I imagine that we must all assume also that the Government have contingency plans for, if necessary, settling it by other means.

The second point I should like to make—here I speak with the greatest diffidence—is have we even in the course of this long wrangle considered the possibility of referring the whole matter to the International Court and abiding by the court's decision? I understand that sovereignty disputes are essentially legal matters. In the past many disputes on sovereignty, on border disputes, and so on, have been settled by legal means. If our case is as convincing as we believe it to be, I should have thought that we should lose very little and could gain a great deal by submitting it to the court. But perhaps it has been considered in the past and turned down for reasons of which I am not aware?

Lord Carrington

My Lords, I am sure that both noble Lords who have responded to the Statement are right in saying that diplomacy is the way to settle the problem. After all, that is why we have the Foreigh Office and diplomats, so we must solve it in that way. With regard to the specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I agree with him that the preservation of British interests is in the interest of peace in the area and, as he knows, the Government support the Antarctic Treaty and I believe that has been useful in keeping the cold war out of that area.

HMS "Endurance", as the noble Lord will have noticed from the Statement, will stay on station for as long as necessary. The review, which I mentioned is taking place on the security of the Falklands, will obviously include the long-term future of "Endurance". The British Embassy did not know the exact date on which Mr. Davidoff was going; they only knew he was going and had no reason to suppose he would not let them know in the proper way, and that is how this particular incident arose. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me on a Statement of this kind to enter into a debate on the merits of conventional or nuclear weapons.

As for the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it does of course take two to refer a matter to the International Court of Justice; I do not think they will accept a case unless both participants are prepared to put it to them. I have not looked it up, but my recollection is that we sought to do that quite a long time ago over one of the dependencies—not, I think, the Falkland Islands but one of the dependencies—and the Argentine Government refused. However, that will be one of the ideas which we shall be examining.

Lord Morris

My Lords, while I accept that matching might with might at this particular stage would probably be unhelpful, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government would consider seriously in the near future at least matching the considerable economic interest which has been shown in the area by virtually every developed country other than the United Kingdom?

Lord Carrington

I take it that my noble friend is talking about the economic development of the Falkland Islands and the dependencies, my Lords. That is obviously something which has been very much in the minds of successive Governments. The noble Lord opposite was concerned with that aspect in the report he made about the Falkland Islands. It is something we are always examining, but my noble friend will recollect that at the moment public money is short.

Lord Murton of Lindisfarne

My Lords, is there any truth that there is still an Argentine presence in Southern Thule?

Lord Carrington

Yes, my Lords; the position in Southern Thule is the same as it has been for a number of years.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is also fundamental for the Argentinians to recognise that the British Parliament is overwhelmingly in support of the endeavours of the British Foreigh Secretary and that perhaps there should be utterances in his support not only from our Parliament but from other free Parliaments who have interests in the area?

Lord Carrington

My Lords, I am grateful for those comments and I have no doubt that the Argentine Government, as a result of these exchanges and no doubt what will take place in another place, will be fully aware of that.

The Earl of Glasgow

My Lords, while welcoming the retention of HMS "Endurance" for as long as necessary, may I ask my noble friend whether the situation in the South Atlantic now might produce a slight reprieve for the surface fleet?

Lord Carrington

I did not know the surface fleet had been condemned, my Lords.

Lord Buxton of Alsa

My Lords, before putting my question, I would mention that I have been in the Argentine, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia within the last two weeks. That being so, I would say that in my view the reaction of the Government has been absolutely right and correct in the circumstances, taking into account that our two countries, our two Governments, are in continuous, respectable and honourable diplomatic relations, and the interruption to those by the reckless conduct of naval elements, particularly in South Georgia, is much to be deplored.

Since Argentina is very proud and jealous of her reputation, may I ask my noble friend to appeal to the statesmen in the Argentine régime to exert their influence and persuade the armed forces that untold damage will be done to Argentina's reputation in the long run by this reckless reaction in the middle of honourable negotiations? May I further ask my noble friend to convey to the statesmen in Argentina that the conduct of this enterprise—having been there, I regret to say that it appears to have been devious, carefully reccied, carefully planned and very carefully timed; there is ample and convincing evidence of that—is in danger of destroying at a stroke the plausibility and influence of those of us, both here and in the Falkland Islands, who have been striving to support the intergovernment negotiations and the search for an honourable settlement? Those negotiations are now in mid-stream. Does my noble friend agree—

Noble Lords

Too long!

Lord Buxton of Alsa

I know personally some of the Argentinians, my Lords, so may I appeal through my noble friend to them to take due regard of Argentina's future prestige and reputation in the world?

Lord Carrington

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making those points because he has deep knowledge of the area—I was going to say unrivalled knowledge, but the noble Lord opposite has knowledge of the area; they both have very specialised knowledge of that part of the world. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend for the help he has given in the matter. I certainly shall take note of what he said and, to make just one comment on it, it seems to me that what has happened in the last week or so has not improved the climate of relations for a settlement of the problem.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, while we do not want to prolong for too long questions on the Statement—and we are grateful for the firm statement made by the noble Lord—I would ask him to check on one point. It is my recollection that an attempt was made on more than one occasion to refer the question of the Falkland Islands to the International Court and that Argentina always refused to participate. It is important that that should be confirmed because this is a matter of international law and I have no doubt that the advice would have been that the British claims were valid.

Lord Carrington

My Lords, my recollection is the same as that of the noble Lord. I did not know about more than one case, but I will certainly look it up.