§ 2.48 p.m.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support an embargo on the supply of arms both to Iran and to Iraq.
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, we are committed to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 598 and would support an arms embargo against either Iran or Iraq, or both countries, if they fail to comply.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, may I ask what action the Government are taking to ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry actively discourages investment in South Africa—
§ Lord Brockway—and in particular the sale of oil to South Africa indirectly? I apologise to the House. I withdraw the question which I have just put and ask instead this question. Is it not more likely to end the war if an embargo is imposed on both participants? Is this not especially the case in view of the fact that the Soviet Union is more likely to support it?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, I think that what the noble Lord suggests is covered by the Answer that I gave, and it very much hinges upon the success of the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution No. 598. I stress that we would support an arms embargo against either Iran or Iraq, or against both countries, if they fail to comply with the resolution.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that, since the main obstacle to such an embargo appears to be the position on the Security Council of the Soviet Union, the noble Lord might ask his noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney to use up some of his Brownie points at the Kremlin to persuade them to support the arms embargo?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, perhaps that is something that my noble friend might exploit privately with the noble Lord.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, may I be permitted to say on behalf of all of us how delighted we are to see my noble friend in such excellent form on his 99th birthday? Furthermore, may I take the noble Lord a step further than his first Answer to my noble friend when he mentioned his support for an arms embargo? Did the noble Lord mean that he would support a mandatory arms embargo, which is the point that we ought to make now?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, that of course depends on others than ourselves; the Soviet Union, for example. So far as we are concerned we already have detailed guidelines which were set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in October 1985. They remain in force and they are rigorously applied, and they will remain in force whether or not there is also a United Nations embargo.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, I must ask the noble Lord for a clearer reply. Since the events to which he referred in 1985 there has been United Nations Resolution No. 598. What I am asking is whether Her Majesty's Government at the appropriate moment will support a mandatory arms embargo.
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, the fact is that at the moment we have a Security Council resolution and we await its implementation. If the resolution is not complied with, then we would support an arms embargo. I cannot conceive that that would be anything other than mandatory.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, is it not a fact that Iraq is prepared to have a cease-fire agreement and Iran at the moment is not? Therefore, if there is going to be an arms embargo surely it must apply to Iran and not to Iraq?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, Iraq, as the noble Lord said, says that she accepts and will implement Security Council Resolution 598 if the Iranians do. What she seeks therefore is implementation of the elements in strict sequence. Iran has neither accepted nor rejected the resolution. It has agreed to discuss 783 implementation with the United Nations Secretary General and wants a cease-fire linked to establishment of a body to investigate the conflict. I think that that spells out the differences.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, is it not a fact that the United Nations Secretary General made absolutely no progress whatsoever during his recent visit to Teheran? In view of that, how much longer are the Government prepared to wait to see whether the Security Council resolution is to be implemented? Would it not be appropriate now for the United Nations Secretary General to take the next step and invite the major arms suppliers to consider a date for an arms embargo in which there would be much better prospects, would there not, of the Soviet Union joining now that she is more ready to take part in UN peace-keeping initiatives?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, what is of crucial importance is what each side does and not what it says. Both sides have a legal obligation to implement Security Council Resolution 598, in particular a cease-fire, and to do that immediately.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, bearing in mind the statement that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which is important—namely, that Iraq is quite prepared to accept the United Nations Security Council resolution that he mentioned—can the noble Lord confirm or otherwise that statements have recently been issued by the Soviet Union that it too is becoming more amenable to having some form of international force to see that these resolutions are implemented? Not only does it support the resolution, but is it not asking whether we and the Americans will support it in making it a reality?
§ Lord GlenarthurMy Lords, the noble Lord is returning to a Question that I answered last week. I think he will find that it goes rather wide of a Question on the supply of arms.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that last week the Soviet Union in fact confirmed its readiness to join in a mandatory resolution and in mandatory sanctions, but I am inclined to doubt whether this was due to my influence?