HC Deb 26 November 1956 vol 561 cc20-3
8. Mr. Lewis

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in view of Her Majesty's Government having knowledge that a large-scale attack on Israel was being prepared by Egypt and other Arab States supported by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Her Majesty's Government did not refer this to the United Nations or move troops into Israel under the Tripartite Agreement.

Commander Noble

The Security Council were already seized of the Palestine question and were in fact discussing a Jordanian complaint of Israeli aggression when the attack on Egypt took place. There is no provision in the Tripartite Declaration for the forces of the signatory powers to be stationed in either Israel or the Arab States.

Mr. Lewis

Are we to take it that whilst Her Majesty's Government were discussing this matter under the auspices of the United Nations they moved troops in and took aggressive action against Egypt? Are we to take it that they did not want to go on with the discussions and negotiations which they admit were proceeding?

Commander Noble

I think that is another question. I have answered the Question which I was asked.

Mr. Robens

Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer mean that they did not invoke the Tripartite Declaration because the British Government were determined to put troops in?

Commander Noble

No. That is not the case at all.

Mr. Brooman-White

Can my right hon. and gallant Friend find some form of words which would convey to hon. Members opposite the fact that there was a war in the Middle East before we intervened?

17. Mr. Robens

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date, and in what manner, the Government of Egypt officially intimated that they would not accept the implications of the Tripartite Declaration.

Commander Noble

On 7th February, 1956, the Egyptian Foreign Minister told Her Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo that the Egypian Government regarded the Tripartite Declaration as a unilateral one which gave rise to no contractual obligation and which gave the three Powers no rights to interfere.

Mr. Robens

Was the Prime Minister wrong when he told this House that he had arrived at that conclusion in 1954?

Commander Noble

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put down that Question?

18. Mr. Rubens

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date, and in what manner, Israel, Jordan, the Lebanon and Syria officially intimated that they accepted the Tripartite Agreement as applying to them.

Commander Noble

The Prime Minister of Israel stated on 31st May, 1950, that, to the extent that the Tripartite Declaration was designed to increase security and peace, it would have the faithful support of the Israel Government. He expressed particular satisfaction at paragraph 3.

The Arab States, apart from Jordan, took note of the Declaration in a Memorandum from the Arab League handed to the Foreign Office on 27th June, 1950. At the same time, they reaffirmed that while anxious for peace they could not admit any act tending towards encroachment on their sovereignty and independence. The Government of Jordan associated themselves with this joint reply in a Note addressed to the British Legation in Amman on 5th July, 1950.

Mr. Robens

Then whilst the Government have been telling us week after week that we stood firm by the Tripartite Declaration, that it was one of the pillars of the Government's foreign policy in the Middle East, in point of fact none of these Governments had accepted the Declaration as being of any advantage to them?

Commander Noble

I think the House is well aware of the fact that the Tripartite Declaration was a statement of intent and was not negotiated with any outside country.

Captain Duncan

In view of the answer my right hon. and gallant friend has given to this Question, will he draw the attention of the other signatories to the Tripartite Declaration to the build-up of arms in Syria with a view to taking precautions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—of Russian arms in Syria, with a view to taking advance precautions against them being used?

Mr. Bevan

Is it not a most peculiar interpretation of a Declaration, the purpose of which is to restrain an aggressor, that it does not come into operation unless the potential aggressor has agreed?

Commander Noble

That is not my interpretation of it.

Mr. Bevan

Is it not a fact that we have had from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman today, Sir, as we had from the Prime Minister earlier, the statement that the reason the Tripartite Declaration was not invoked was that Egypt had not agreed with it?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Brooman-White

Is it not significant that, in view of the Tripartite Declaration, and the subsequent affirmation of Her Majesty's Government. Israeli forces made no move against Jordan though, in view of their success-in the Gaza battle, it was clear that they could also have secured success on that front by force of arms?

Commander Noble

Yes. Sir, I made that quite clear last week.

19. Mr. Robens

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date, and in what manner. Her Majesty's Government notified the other two signatories to the Tripartite Agreement, namely, the United States of America and France that the Tripartite Declaration excluded Egypt.

Commander Noble

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) on 22nd November.

Mr. Robens

But is it not the case that the Prime Minister went to Washington and, immediately afterwards, there was a statement from Washington indicating that arrangements had been made to carry out the obligations of the Tripartite Declaration if any of the armistice frontiers were violated? In view of that fact, why was not the United States consulted when the Egyptian frontier was violated by the State of Israel?

Commander Noble

I have nothing to add to the previous answer.

Mr. Gower

If the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) that we should have observed the Tripartite Declaration means that we should have treated Israel as the real aggressor, is not that a monstrous proposition?

Commander Noble

I think that what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to find out is what we said to America, and we have stated quite clearly that we are not prepared to disclose it.

Mr. Younger

Since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the reply which he gave me, in which he said that it was the impression of Her Majesty's Government that the Americans understood that we were making this exception about Egypt, is he aware that the President of the United States appeared to be under no such impression on 29th October, and that on 30th October, the day after the termination of the discussions, the State Department made a declaration regarding the Tripartite Declaration not indicating that it was aware of any such exception?

Commander Noble

All these points may well be, but my answer is that we are not prepared to give details of our discussions with our allies.

Mr. Bevan

Is the House aware of the seriousness of the statement now made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He now tells us that, although there is a Tripartite Declaration, the signatories of which include France, the United States and ourselves, he is not prepared to tell the House or the country what Her Majesty's Government said to the United States, one of the parties to the treaty. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.

Commander Noble

It is perfectly clear that discussions of this sort are never made public. There would be no point in having diplomacy if they were.