HC Deb 21 January 1974 vol 867 cc1202-7
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the Middle East.

Despite the cease-fire agreement, the Egyptian and Israeli armies have remained in close contact and precariously interlocked. This dangerous situation has posed a grave threat to the ceasefire and has made it impossible for the peace negotiations at Geneva to proceed to the issues involved in a permanent settlement.

Honourable Members will therefore have learned with great satisfaction that agreement has now been reached between the Egyptian and Israeli Governments through the good offices of the United States upon the disengagement of the opposing armies and their separation by a substantial zone to the east of the Suez Canal in which the troops of the United Nations Emergency Force will take up their positions. A copy of this agreement has been placed in the Library of the House.

The House will applaud the tireless work which Dr. Kissinger has put into the achievement of this major step towards peace. For that is what it is. I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss all these matters with Dr. Kissinger early this morning.

The present situation provides an opportunity to establish a permanent settlement of the dispute between Israel and the Arabs. It is an opportunity that must not be missed. Above all, it is essential that the disengagement of the Egyptian and Israeli armies, which we welcome with such relief should be seen not as an end in itself but as a promising starting point which makes it possible to press ahead with negotiations towards a full and permanent peace settlement. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to help through the Security Council or in any other appropriate way.

I should add that this latest development obviously has a bearing on the question of the supply of military equipment to the parties to the conflict, about which hon. Members' expressed much concern during the period of the fighting. While the disengagement agreement is far from being a guarantee of lasting peace, it will certainly reduce drastically the dangers of military confrontation, and the Government have decided accordingly that we need no longer continue to suspend delivery of the military supplies to the battlefield countries which we held up when the fighting broke out on 6th October. We will, of course, continue to scrutinise any future requests with the same care and against the same criteria as we have consistently applied in the past.

I hope that all concerned will now use this hard-won agreement as a foundation on which to build the durable peace that has for so long been denied to the peoples and countries of the Middle East.

Mr. Callaghan

The House will welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, in which he very properly paid tribute to the tireless work of Dr. Kissinger. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are united in supporting what the right hon. Gentleman said about that matter. May I take this opportunity of saying, I hope on behalf of everybody in the House, that we welcome the constructive approach of President Sadat to the negotiations and the realism of the Israeli Labour Government of Mrs. Golda Meir, because without either of them Dr. Kissinger's work could not have succeeded.

I echo the Foreign Secretary's statement that this is no more than a promising starting point when one remembers that what lies ahead are negotiations about the Palestinians' future, secure borders, Jerusalem and the Suez Canal. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the Suez Canal, which seems to be one of the least controversial points?

Turning to the question of arms, this has not been a very glorious episode in our history. We have now made a new start, and I do not suppose that anybody is very happy at the prospect of our engaging on releasing arms in such a situation as this. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us which arms supplies will be released? Will it be those which were in the pipeline when the stop was put on, or will fresh applications have to be made by the Governments concerned?

Everyone must have watched with horror the way in which the United States and the USSR poured arms into the Middle East at a most dangerous period. What is the Foreign Secretary's view about any initiative which he can take to secure some form of arms control in the whole area which would involve not only the United States but the USSR, and preferably under the auspices of the United Nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about Dr. Kissinger. America has the power in this area, and we must realise that, but Dr. Kissinger's personal contribution has been very great. There is, I think, a new realism in the area and President Sadat and Mrs. Meir have played their part. The question of the Suez Canal is not dealt with in this agreement. More items will follow, and I shall put details about them in the Library as they arrive.

The lifting of the arms embargo means that orders in the pipeline can now go forward—in other words, those which we cancelled which were due to go. Where licences were cancelled, we shall, if necessary, accept fresh applications.

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the question of arms importation into the area. I should like to see an arms rationing system introduced in the Middle East area which was subscribed to by the United States, Russia and other countries. I hope that that might be part of a general settlement.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

May I add to the praise which has been expressed to Dr. Kissinger? I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the idea, which was put forward very successfully by Sir Anthony Eden at one time, of an agreement being made between the major Powers on the question of arms supplies to the whole area. Sir Anthony Eden was successful in the 1950s when there was control of the amount of arms going to all sides. This is a most important target which should be aimed at, irrespective of any deals which we may wish to do on our own with the Arab Powers. It is important to achieve a balance of armaments such as was achieved in the 1950s as a result of Sir Anthony Eden's activities.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I agree. As I said, I hope that that might form part of a complete agreement.

Mr. Russell Johnston

Naturally, we echo the congratulations which have been expressed to Dr. Kissinger—

Mr. Skinner

Speak up. You are not in Strasbourg now.

Mr. Johnston

One of the advantages of being at Strasbourg—

Mr. Skinner

—is the money, £120 a time.

Mr. Johnston

If I may, without interruption, ask a question, may I from this bench echo the compliments already paid to Dr. Kissinger on the important and successful result that he has achieved? Will the Foreign Secretary say something more about arms? It seems to be contradictory, that the very first step we take in a new and, as he said, promising situation is to announce the recommencement of the sale of arms. I do not quite understand what are the commitments. I understand the responsibility the Government feel for the commitments they have already entered into, but what attitude will they adopt towards new requests for arms?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Arms which we contracted to supply and which were ready for shipment can now be sent. We are in complete control of requests for new arms under our licensing system. We shall use the criteria we had before, that is to say, broadly speaking, we shall not supply arms that could escalate the danger of war in the area. If there is to be a complete agreement, everyone must be a party to it, and we shall work towards that.

Mr. Walters

When my right hon. Friend saw Dr. Kissinger and congratulated him on his achievement of disengagement on the basis that it will lead speedily to a lasting peace, did he also point out to him that it would be a mistake for the Americans to believe that they can pursue policies in the Middle East without the advice and support of Britain and Europe?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Dr. Kissinger has been assiduous in keeping us informed all the way through, and asking for our comments on the action he was taking. I have no doubt that he has kept in close touch with our European allies.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Instead of rationing arms to both sides, would not the next step to peace be to get America, Russia and France completely to ban all arms supplies to both sides? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whilst the export of British machinery to the Arab countries is welcomed, the supply of arms, for obvious reasons, is not?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

The hon. Gentleman is a bit optimistic if he thinks that we can go straight to a ban on the supply of all arms. I find it difficult to believe that the Soviet Union would contemplate that. Nevertheless, we can try to make progress in that direction. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of any deals between this country and Arab or Gulf countries. I assure him that we have not linked the supply of oil with arms.

Mr. Goodhart

Will my right hon. Friend say what representations we have made to the Syrian Government about the fate of Israeli prisoners of war in Syrian hands, as the fate of these prisoners is likely to prove a major stumbling block in the next stage of negotiations about disengagement on the Golan Heights?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

We have made our position quite clear, that the prisoners should be returned and should not be used in any way as a bargaining counter in the peace settlement. It is now a matter for discussion between the Israeli Government and the Syrians.

Mr. Faulds

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the Government's present attitude towards Resolution No. 242 which requires the abandonment of occupied territories, as there seems to be no reference to that in the recent agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

It is proper that the reference in the recent agreement should be to Resolution No. 338 which is concerned with disengagement of the armies. Resolution No. 242 is concerned with the final settlement. As I said in my statement, we hope that this is the first stage towards a final settlement, which must be concerned with Resolution No. 242.

Mr. Mather

Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of the size of the peacekeeping force that is involved, in particular the size of the Soviet contingent?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I had better not speculate on the numbers involved—although I have some ideas—until the rest of the agreement comes out. It is clear that quite a major decision has been taken. For example, I understand that the area occupied by the United Nations forces is to be 10 kilometres wide and on either side of that is to be another 10 kilometres where arms are strictly limited. This is done by agreement between the Israelis and the Egyptians.

Mr. Loughlin

Although I accept that the Foreign Secretary will have extreme difficulty in persuading other nations to cease to supply arms to these countries, does he not accept, in view of the serious danger of a further outbreak of hostilities in this part of the world, that it would be in the best interests of the British people if we said that we at any rate were not prepared to supply arms to either party?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

We must keep strict control of the arms we supply, but if there is to be a rationing of arms to the area, every country must be a party to that arrangement.