South Africa: Arms Embargo (Hansard, 7 March 1985)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)
My Lords, the Security Council Resolution 418 of 4th November 1977 forbids the provision of arms and related material to South Africa and also the provision of equipment and technical knowledge for their manufacture. The resolution is mandatory, and the Government's policy is to comply fully.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him to elucidate a rather obscure situation that appears to have arisen? If the Government are holding to this United Nations mandatory resolution as he said, how is it that the South Africans are able to keep in the air aircraft which are dependent solely on spare parts provided in this country? I should like to refer to the Buccaneer, but I believe that that might be considered to be sub judice. Certainly there are other aircraft, such as the Impala, which use Rolls-Royce engines. How is it that the South Africans can keep their aircraft in working order when the only place from which they can get their spare parts is this country?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that I do not know the precise answer, since there is no precise question. If he likes to furnish me with more precise details, I shall look into it. There could be a number of sources. Aero-engines, for example, might be bought from countries which dispose of aircraft and there is a certain amount of cannibalisation of parts. However, in this country we take due regard of the end-use, and indeed of the end-user, of any material contained in the resolution. We control this through the Export of Goods Control Order 1981. We believe that this works well.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, are the Government aware that there is a widespread impression, which is doubtless false, not only in South Africa but also in Namibia, which is illegally occupied by South Africa, that the British Government are helping South Africa in a military manner in general? Will they consider taking a suitable opportunity—perhaps in a speech to be made in the United Nations—to spell out in some detail all the measures which are no doubt in operation to ensure that this country and those who fall under the law of this country are abiding by the 1977 resolution?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that there is a widespread understanding that Her Majesty's Government are helping South Africa in this way. I had hoped in my original Answer to dispel that feeling. So far as making speeches in the United Nations is concerned, I can only say to the noble Lord that I take note of what he has said in that regard.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is it not time that we began to reconsider our policy towards South Africa in the light of the new circumstances? We perceive an Africa which is starving and a union in which the people of all races are well fed. Does that perhaps lead us to the thought that the South Africans may be better acquainted with the needs of their country than we or indeed the United Nations are—

Noble Lords
Speech!

Lord Paget of Northampton
There is another factor. Is the noble Lord aware that the Soviet Union and her allies are poaching the fish off Namibia on a huge scale? Are we really going to refuse South Africa assistance in providing weapons to protect those fisheries which are so urgently needed by the African populations?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I shall confine my response to the first supplementary question that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, asked: would we reconsider our position with regard to this embargo? Since the embargo is by virtue of a resolution of the United Nations to which we are a signatory, it would be necessary to get everybody else to agree. To turn to the noble Lord's other string of supplementary questions, I suggest that they are sufficiently wide of the original Question for me to avoid answering them.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, it will at least teach us not to sign such silly resolutions.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the original Question dealt with initial arms, and the supplementary question dealt with spares? Is it not true that the French are supplying spares for the submarines which they provided to South Africa, and that the Germans are providing spares for the radar which they have supplied to South Africa? Is it not reasonable when armaments have been supplied that at least one should honour the contract and provide spares so that they can be utilised in an emergency?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I understand what lies behind the question of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. I think that I have answered this in sufficiently wide terms in an earlier response.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister make it quite clear that the original resolution of 1977 included spares, and also included trade in any kind of military items? May I ask him to go one stage further? Is he aware that there is widespread support for the Government's action in December last year in giving their support to Security Council Resolution 558, which refers to the purchase of military equipment from South Africa? Can he say how the Government are intending or have begun to implement this resolution which is supplementary to that of 1977?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will know that Security Council Resolution 558 of December 1984 is not mandatory. We take regard of it within the general context of the United Nations Security Council resolution.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, it is true, is it not, that Her Majesty's Government have supported that resolution and supported it at the United Nations?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I think that in my Answer I said exactly that.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that several of us here have the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, thinks that the "Belgrano" was on a pleasure cruise? How can he possibly withdraw the tanks from South Africa, which are probably used as taxis for poor farmers around the Kruger National Park?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the impressions which noble Lords may have of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, are not within my competence. I would prefer that noble Lords receive the right impression from the answers which I gave to the noble Lord.