§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement regarding the arrangements for a high level meeting to discuss the Middle East.
The House will realise that not only do we have to consider our own decisions in these matters, but we have to try to have the maximum possible consultation with our Allies and with other Commonwealth Governments. This necessarily means some delay between the receipt of a letter from Mr. Khrushchev and our reply.
On this particular occasion, I have had to weigh this consideration together with the natural wish of the House of Commons to be informed as to the character of our reply before they adjourn. Although, therefore, our own conclusions had, in fact, been reached yesterday, I have thought it right to accept the short delay inevitable in making our consultations not merely a perfunctory exercise, but a reality.
There is one other consideration which I have tried to bear in mind. I feel that it is courteous, as far as possible, to keep to the rule of not publishing the reply to a letter until it has been delivered. For this reason, I have arranged that our reply should be delivered to the Russian Government at 3 o'clock our time this afternoon. In view, however, of the forthcoming adjournment of the House I propose, with your permission, to read my reply and thus to make it fully available to Members before the adjournment.
§
Following is the text of the message:
I have received your letter of July 28.
I will not reply to its many accusations against Allied policy in the Middle East. None of these has any foundation in fact.
In my letter of July 22, I proposed a special meeting of the Security Council to be attended by Heads of Government. On July 26, I elaborated this proposal. I said that I was glad that it was acceptable to you and I suggested that the necessary arrangements should at once be made through the Permanent Representatives of Members of the Security Council. I hope that, on reflection, you will agree that this is the best course; I am encouraged in this hope by the passage in your last letter where you call for a return to my
1591
original proposal. From this proposal I have never departed.
In addition to meetings of the whole Council under Article 28, it would, of course, be possible to arrange less formal meetings of Heads of Government on the questions which the Security Council is considering. The procedure would thus be flexible and should promote the chances of making progress.
As I said in my message of July 22, it would not be our intention that any resolutions should be put forward at this special meeting of the Security Council unless they arose out of previous agreement.
Of course, this meeting would not preclude the holding of the Summit meeting for which we have been working for some time.
I am now instructing the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations to propose to the President of the Security Council a special meeting to take place under Article 28 on August 12. Meanwhile, the Permanent Representatives should discuss arrangements for the special meeting, and decide where it will take place. If this meeting is agreed I shall be there on August 12; I hope you will be there, too. So far as I am concerned New York, Geneva, or any other place generally agreeable will do.
§ Mr. GaitskellIt is the desire of my right hon. and hon. Friends that arrangements should be made as speedily as possible for the Summit Conference. We therefore warmly welcome and support the proposal that 12th August should be fixed and agreed now. I am glad to notice that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is willing to go to either New York or Geneva, or anywhere else which is agreeable—[An HON. MEMBER: "Moscow."]—including Moscow. Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the American Government are also willing to have the conference in either Geneva or New York?
Further, it seems to me enormously important that there should not be any unnecessary delay through the discussions of the Permanent Representatives on the Security Council. It is important to convince Mr. Khrushchev that there is no intention that there shall be any delay. I would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention, when he speaks of the arrangements for the special meeting being discussed by the Permanent Representatives, that they should consider, for instance, the question of the agenda of the conference and who should be invited to it, or whether, as I very much hope is the case, it is his view that the question of the agenda and of those who should be present should be left to the Summit Conference itself to decide.
§ The Prime MinisterThe reply of the United States Government has not yet been published, I think, but I have no reason to suppose that the President would not be willing to go to either Geneva or New York.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I agree; we must see how we get on. I do not want the meeting to get confused and delayed by discussing anything except to have the meeting and when and where to have it. But, of course, if progress can be made about some other matters, it would be a mistake not to make that progress. That should be taken as it goes.
§ Mr. GaitskellThere is no question of insisting that the meeting of the Permanent Representatives on the Security Council must first decide the agenda or who shall be present at the conference itself?
§ The Prime MinisterI think it is perfectly clear that this meeting will come about only if everybody is agreed. We certainly do not want to interpose anything which would make it more difficult to reach agreement.
§ Mr. A. HendersonIn view of the apparent differences between the three Western Governments over the arrangements for the conference, could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the three Governments will go into the conference in agreement on the broad lines of a constructive Middle East settlement?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that at this stage we have to consider calling the conference. We then have to use our time to the best of our ability to produce constructive policies to put before the conference. Although there has been some difference between the three Western Powers about the method and place of the conference, I do not think that we ought to put too much weight on that. In almost every one of Mr. Khrushchev's letters there has been complete face-about of what he said before.
Mr. Gresham CookeIn view of the difficulty in getting this conference going, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that millions of people will think it a great personal triumph if he can bring the Americans and Russians together at 1593 the highest level? Will he further state that it will be the Government's policy at the summit talks, if they are held, to maintain the independence and integrity of all Middle Eastern States, including Israel?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes, Sir". In answer to the first part, I would say that Lord Palmerston once observed that it was not given to men, still less to party leaders, to please everybody. Having obtained some degree of that unusual felicity, I should like to leave the matter there.
§ Mr. StonehouseI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is a general hope that he will be successful in persuading the great Powers to meet. I should also like him to look at Question No. 49 and to ask him whether, in view of the great need to establish long-term stability in the oil industry in the Middle East, he would try to reach general agreement on the question of the establishment of an international oil authority?
§ The Prime MinisterI should have answered that. Of course, I will consider all questions which are put before us with a view to reaching an agreed conclusion. Perhaps I may add this, that I think we have probably got to try to got some short-term arrangements, but we ought not to rule out—indeed, we ought to be thinking specially of—long-term arrangements. One of the reasons why I think that this conference, if it meets, is so much better arranged within the general framework of the United Nations is that it makes it much easier to proceed from one point to another. What we all must face, because our people face it, is the fact that we do not want a conference which lasts a few days, on which high hopes are built, and which then collapses completely. If we keep it in this framework it is easier to build up, perhaps set up a committee, and go further and continue the work.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanIt is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not say that on an earlier occasion.
§ Mr. RoyleIn all the correspondence we have seen London has not been mentioned as a possible venue. Would it not be a fine gesture if we made it clear 1594 that we are quite prepared to suggest holding the Summit Conference in our capital city?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is always very agreeable to have a conference in London, but in the United Nations establishment in New York there are all the facilities, communications, for instance, which are very important in these matters, and there is what one may call the European branch of those facilities, which are very important in the work of a conference, established in Geneva. I should think that that really is better than trying to improvise arrangements, which need a good deal of working out if the conference is to take place quickly.
§ Mr. PagetThe personal triumph which has been ascribed to the Prime Minister, could he tell us over whom it is—the Americans or the Conservative Party?
§ The Prime MinisterNow the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his usual röle, is trying to detract from my felicity.