HC Deb 17 January 1967 vol 739 cc18-20W
Mr. G. Campbell

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the United Kingdom voted on the resolution on Rhodesia, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17th November by a large majority, which called upon the United Kingdom to take all necessary measures, including the use of force, to put an end to the regime.

Mr. George Thomson

We abstained.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent other States members of the United Nations Organisation, and other foreign powers, are applying sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs said in reply to similar questions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) this afternoon.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds Her Majesty's Government have accepted decisions of the United Nations Security Council made without the concurring votes of all its permanent members; whether they will take steps to seek an interpretation of Article 27(3) of the United Nations Charter from the International Court of Justice; and, pending such interpretation, if they will press for the observance of the letter of that Article.

Mr. George Thomson

Her Majesty's Government are in no doubt of the validity of the Security Council's Resolution of 16th December, 1966, on Rhodesia. As long ago as 1947, the then President of the Security Council stated: "It is now jurisprudence in the Security Council—and the interpretation accepted for a long time—that an abstention is not considered a veto and the concurrent votes of the Permanent Members mean the votes of the Permanent Members who participate in the voting". This has been the consistent practice of the Security Council ever since. There is no difference of view among the Permanent Members or other Members of the Security Council on this question, and accordingly Her Majesty's Government see no need to move the Council to seek an interpretation of Article 27(3) from the International Court. The last part of the Question does not arise.