asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will protest against the decision to deport Dr. Lamont, Bishop of Umtali, from Rhodesia.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Deportation of Bishop.
20.
As I indicated in reply to an earlier question regarding Dr. Lamont's position on 10th November last, it is not possible for the Government to make representations to the illegal Rhodesian regime, as, in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions we do not recognise or have diplomatic relations with it.
At that time I expressed the hope that Dr. Lamont would remain free to continue with the good work which he has long carried out for the people of his diocese. I wish to make it clear that we deplore any action taken by the illegal regime which will prevent him from doing so. Such action, if carried out in the face of the protests it has aroused, will serve only to emphasise the necessity for the regime to agree without delay to a settlement acceptable to the international community.
The Parliamentary Secretary will note that I did not ask whether the Government would make representations to an illegal regime but whether they would protest at the decision to deport Dr. Lamont from Rhodesia. I take it from the reply that the Government have not made any protest, through any channel, in regard to this case.
That is correct. The Government's position is that a protest would represent a formal contact and this is precluded by reason of the UN resolution. As I told the Deputy in November last, before the decision to deport Dr. Lamont was taken, we made representations to other governments with which we are in friendly contact asking them to bring to bear on Rhodesia any pressure possible in this case.
It appears, therefore, that we are prevented from making any protest against regimes with which we do not have diplomatic relations even in cases where the rights of our citizens are concerned. Is that not a hopeless position as instanced by the Lamont case which concerns a man who represents the rights and freedoms of many people in Africa? Is there no way, through the UN or otherwise, that we could protest formally against the deportation order or are we to appear to acquiesce in the situation?
The Deputy will be surprised to hear that I agree that it is a difficult matter when one is limited by what is in effect a boycott resolution. A country that is party to such a resolution must take the consequences as we have witnessed in this case. We are limited in regard to the protest we can make to the regime concerned but in a way we are to blame for that situation.
In regard to whether we are acquiescing the Deputy will appreciate that a protest is merely an expression of feeling. The Rhodesian government, by reason of this exchange of views, if nothing else, will know our position in relation to Dr. Lamont.
How will they know?
Presumably they are alert to anything said in this regard.
Surely the Government are not so powerless as not to be able to relay their protest through a body such as the UN which are concerned with fundamental rights, and through every available international organisation so that we can be seen to bring pressure to bear on the illegal Rhodesian administration?
This is a long question.
It appears that we are deprived of the right to make any protest.
This is a situation we must live with.
It is ridiculous.
If we contrast this situation with the Father Rice case we will realise how different was the situation in respect of him. Because we have diplomatic relations with the Argentine we were in a position not only to have Father Rice visited every couple of days but to go a long way towards securing his release and subsequent return home.
In view of what Father Rice has said in recent days, that is a matter we shall pursue next week. However, it is hopeless to say that our Government can make no protest in a case such as that of Dr. Lamont.