HC Deb 23 July 1957 vol 574 cc230-5
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the situation in Central Oman.

I undertook yesterday to inform the House of any further developments in the situation there. I have received little further information about the situation on the ground, but the military preparations to which I have referred have continued.

It will, perhaps, help the House to form a judgment on these matters if I remind the House about the nature of the area in which the disturbances have taken place. The Central Oman is a mountainous area, the highest mountains rising to 9,000 feet. It is surrounded by desert where the present temperatures are up to 120 degrees. There is no front line, but rather a constantly shifting pattern of tribal allegiances and defections, with minor armed skirmishes. There is no question, therefore, of large-scale operations by British troops on the ground.

As I said yesterday, discretion has been given to our local military authorities to take any necessary action on their own initiative within certain limits. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, this includes leaflet dropping on behalf of the Sultan together with action against certain forts in the area held by dissident tribesmen. These forts, manned by tribesmen equipped with modern arms smuggled in from outside the country, are capable of intimidating both loyal and wavering tribes. I would emphasise that action has only been authorised against certain military targets.

The real issue is not the scale of the military operations, but the fact that Her Majesty's Government intend to give full support to the Sultan.

Mr. Bevan

I could not help thinking, when listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that in some of his language he was describing the Parliamentary situation—when he said that the present temperatures were up to 120 degrees, that there was "no front line but rather a constantly shifting pattern of tribal allegiances and defections, with minor armed skirmishes."

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether outside intervention has yet been formally established and, if so, from where? For example, Saudi Arabia has been suggested. If it is from Saudi Arabia, what steps has the right hon. and learned Gentleman taken to approach the American Government with a view to bringing pressure to bear on Saudi Arabia, as Saudi Arabia recently received supplies of arms from the United States? Is it not, therefore, necessary to take all the steps we possibly can, with the forces over which we have some diplomatic control and influence, before we ourselves take too strong a line with our own armed forces?

Mr. Lloyd

We know that certain arms must have been smuggled into the country from outside, because modern arms have been found in the possession of the dissidents. From where those arms come, we do not know. We have certain suspicions. The most effective method of dealing with the situation is to see that the means of entry for further arms are closed off, and that we propose to do. I am not yet in a position to say anything about allegations against a particular foreign country. As for discussions with the United States Government, they have been kept in close touch with the situation.

Mr. Bevan

Would it not be desirable, even if no more could be done, for the American Government to prevail upon the Government of Saudi Arabia themselves to make a statement deprecating violence in this matter? Is it too much to ask of the United States that they approach Saudi Arabia with a view to that end? As these incidents arising in the Middle East from time to time give rise to anxiety and to interventions by this or that Government, has not the time arrived for us to take the situation more firmly in hand with a view to having arrangements among ourselves, the United States and other countries so that we may avoid these collisions, which are becoming increasingly dangerous?

Mr. Lloyd

We are in touch with the United States Government about these matters. I do not think that any useful purpose is served by making allegations against particular Governments at this moment. I agree that we have to seek to stop the movement of further arms into this area and to induce other Governments or individuals not to supply those arms. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should take firm action about the matter. We have taken and propose to take firm action in the case of Muscat.

Mr. A. Henderson

Is it not true that the Government of Saudi Arabia have been supplying arms to the dissident elements in Oman and is not that in contravention of their obligations under the Charter? If so, would it not be desirable to send United Nations observers into the area to investigate and report?

Mr. Lloyd

That is obviously an aspect of the matter which we have to discuss with our allies. It has been discussed with our allies, but I certainly have no further statement to make upon it. We are continuing to do our best to see that the area is sealed off and that no further arms get in. I do not think that United Nations observers will serve a useful purpose in this case.

Mr. Grimond

The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he would consider setting out in a White Paper, or in another way, our obligations under the treaties. Has he considered that matter any further and, if so, is he proposing to make a statement on our obligations under existing treaties? Will he consider clarifying our obligations to various Rulers around the Gulf and possibly negotiating new treaties which define them more clearly?

Mr. Lloyd

I will certainly consider that matter further, but I would point out to the House that the action Her Majesty's Government have taken in this ease is not novel. There are precedents for it. In 1930, when there was a Labour Government, British naval vessels were authorised to bombard the Northern Muscat coast where the Sheik of Khassab had defied the Sultan's authority. That action took place and the Sheik submitted to the Sultan's authority. Similar action was taken under another Government, in 1932. So there are precedents for action in support of one who has been throughout a firm and loyal ally of this country.

Mr. Benn

What is the position of British airmen who may be shot down on reconnaissance flights, or leaflet dropping flights, or strafing flights by Royal Air Force aircraft? Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not inform the House yesterday that armed reconnaissance flights had taken place, when his noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary was courteous enough to inform noble Lords in another place? It would have totally altered the character of our discussion yesterday had we known that British airmen had been flying over foreign territory on reconnaissance raids.

Mr. Lloyd

I said that certain authority had been given within limits to the military authorities on the spot. I very much hope that airmen will not be shot down. I do not understand the purpose of the question. Such airmen are acting in the armed service of the Crown. If, through misfortune or hostile action, they become casualties, that is a matter which all quarters of the House will profoundly regret.

Mr. Paget

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that we are giving all assistance to the Sultan and then says that it is apparently too hot to do anything. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that assistance to the Sultan is likely to be effective? Is he aware that our prestige in that part of the world will hardly stand another exhibition of the Government's military futility?

Mr. Lloyd

It would be an example of military futility to seek to employ ground forces in those temperatures in desert areas. What has to be done is to seal off this area of disaffection—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] By blocking the means of entry into it.

Mr. Paget

Where from?

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. and learned Member is getting very excited. If he would look at the map, he would sec the means of entry into this place, the way in which the roads run and where blocking action could take place. That is one side of the operation, to seal off the area of the disaffection. The second side of the operation is the air action which has been authorised.

Mr. Peart

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is not a question of making serious allegations against other Governments but rather that we must bear in mind that this happened before in the Buraimi Oasis and that it is important to know what Aramco, an American oil company, is doing there, because it was said on a previous occasion that it gave support against British interests? That must be borne in mind. It is vital, therefore, that there should be consultation with the United States Government on this issue.

Mr. Lloyd

Those consultations are taking place.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This matter can be pursued further in the debate that is to follow in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Benn

On a point of order. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I sought to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to raise what I thought to be a definite matter of urgent public importance, which was the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in which he said that British troops had been given permission to go into action. You, Mr. Speaker, decided that this did not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and you invited one of my hon. Friends to take what action he thought necessary to criticise your action and to do so in the normal way.

I beg to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that, after further consideration, one of my hon. Friends and myself have decided to pursue this matter in the way that you quite correctly directed us to do: that is to say, to table a Motion regretting the Ruling that you gave yesterday.

Mr. Speaker

I have no objection to that at all.