HC Deb 06 June 1956 vol 553 cc1071-5
35. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the recent discussions of the Security Council on the Secretary-General's Report on the Middle East.

41. Mr. Janner

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made with regard to the Security Council's deliberations on the Secretary-General's Report on the Middle East.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

I am glad to say that on 4th June, the Security Council unanimously adopted, with certain minor amendments, the draft Resolution submitted by the United Kingdom delegate. This was designed to follow up the Secretary-General's recent efforts to secure full implementation of the armistice agreements, to support General Burns in his task of supervising the cease-fire and to,call upon the parties to the armistice agreements to take steps to increase confidence in the area.

Mr. Henderson

The Secretary of State has not made any reference to the acceptance by the British representative of the proposal to delete the words referring to the need for a peaceful settlement on a mutually acceptable basis. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House why it was found necessary to accept that proposition? Will he make clear that, in spite of that deletion, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take further steps in order to secure a peaceful settlement, and may we know what are those steps?

Mr. Lloyd

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting that Question. It is quite true that Her Majesty's representative did agree to delete a certain paragraph from the preamble. The main purpose of that was to get a unanimous Resolution, which he succeeded in getting. On this very controversial topic I think it of some importance that we should try to proceed with unanimity, if that be possible. Regarding the content of that paragraph, in the view of the Government it is a statement of the obvious. There will be no settlement unless it is mutually acceptable, and that is the reason why we agreed not to make an issue of it. I think that the mission of the Secretary-General was a success, and when this Resolution is considered it will be seen that it consolidates it and calls for certain things with regard to freedom of movement for the observers and so on. If it is implemented, it will help us towards the next step, which will be the seeking of a settlement.

Mr. Janner

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider this a major amendment and not a minor amendment at all, and that it strikes at the very root of the situation prevailing in the Middle East? In the circumstances, is it not perfectly clear that the Arab agitation regarding the removal of these words is of such a nature as to indicate, not only that they are at war, but that they intend to continue to be at war and to do whatever they can to make effective the war against Israel? In those circumstances, does not the Minister think he should consult the other members of the Tripartite Declaration to see what is to be done?

Mr. Lloyd

I am sorry that the hon. Member has asked that question, and injected that matter. It is of tremendous importance that we should try to proceed on the highest common factor of agreement. The whole trouble with this problem is that it has been bedevilled by controversy. This Resolution is a measure of agreement which is a step forward. It is a consolidation of the Report of the Secretary-General, and I think that it was important to try to get unanimity.

Mr. Robens

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that there are times when the price of unanimous agreement is too high, even at the United Nations? Was not the paragraph which the British delegate withdrew, and which said, Conscious of the need to create conditions in which a peaceful settlement on a mutually acceptable basis of the dispute between the parties can be made very important? Is it not the case that the Syrian delegate indicated that there could be no question of mutual agreement which satisfied the State of Israel? Does he not feel that it would have been very much better for the British Government to have stuck to their guns and tested the United Nations on this particular qualification?

Mr. Lloyd

The right hon. Gentleman began by asking whether I felt that on occasions to give up something was too high a price to pay for unanimity. This paragraph was a statement of the obvious. There will be no settlement in fact—whether this is obvious or not to certain Governments—unless it is mutually acceptable. Certain Governments sought to make an issue of prestige of this Clause in the Preamble, and read into it the meaning that in some way it affected previous resolutions of the United Nations. They put a gloss upon it, which in my view it was not right to put. In all the circumstances, I think that it was right to try to get unanimity on the rest of the Resolution.

Mr. Henderson

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make this point clear? Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to take further action, together with other Governments, to secure a peaceful settlement as soon as possible?

Mr. Lloyd

Indeed it is, and the first step was the mission of the Secretary-General. The second step, we hope, will be what will flow from the Resolution. We shall continue trying to create conditions in which a settlement will be possible.

Mr. Gaitskell

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, in answering a Question on this Resolution last week, he spoke of further progress which he thought could be detailed, so he implied, in the Resolution? Is it not plain that in fact it was the proposal, this paragraph 6 referring to the need to create conditions for a peaceful settlement, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind when he was speaking of further progress? How can he describe the omission of the paragraph as a minor Amendment? Is it not also perfectly clear that the reason it was dropped was the strong opposition of the Arab States, who are not members of the Security Council, which was unfortunately supported by Soviet Russia, although the words of the paragraph were the very words used in the communiqué after the visit of Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev?

Mr. Lloyd

Whether this was a minor Amendment or not, the fact is that certain countries put a gloss upon these words, a gloss which I do not think the words expressly deserve. So far as the position of the Security Council is concerned, it was the representative of Iran—which is a member of the Security Council—who moved the Amendment to delete these words. We adhere to the position that it is necessary to have a settlement on a mutually acceptable basis That is the opinion of the Soviet Government, so far as we know, and as it was stated in the London communiqué. We adhere to that position. I still maintain, in view of all the controversy which has bedevilled this matter, that it was right for us, because there is a good deal of practical work which can be done following upon this Resolution, to get that unanimity.