Argentina (Talks) (Hansard, 20 July 1984)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the talks which took place in Berne on 18 and 19 July between British and Argentine representatives.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have consistently made clear to the House, we are not prepared to discuss with the Argentine Government the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. But it is plainly in our own interests, as well as those of Argentina and of the Falkland Islanders, that we should move towards more normal relations between Britain and Argentina. We therefore sought, in exchanges through the protecting powers over many months, to establish an agreed basis for talks which would achieve that end.
After careful and detailed discussions, a clear basis was agreed which would enable talks to take place. It was, of course, very clear to us that if the talks were not to founder at the outset on the issue of sovereignty, any such arrangements needed above all to meet the different positions of the two sides on that question. Accordingly, the specifically agreed arrangement on that point was that if the Argentine representatives raised the subject of sovereignty, as they clearly wished to do, the British representatives would make it quite clear in reply that we were not prepared to discuss it. Discussion would then move straight on to practical issues of concern to both sides and would continue on those subjects. This basis was plainly agreed and clearly understood by the Argentine Government. This arrangement was also confirmed by the Swiss Government.
When the talks opened in Berne, the British side complied scrupulously with this arrangement. As foreseen, the Argentines began by raising the question of sovereignty. We replied by making it plain, again as foreseen, that we were not prepared to discuss it. We went on to suggest a number of practical issues—such as the resumption of normal commercial and financial relations, the restoration of the air services agreement between Britain and Argentina and a visit by Argentine next-of-kin to the Falkland Islands—on which there could be some prospect of agreement.
We regarded this as the best way to start restoring confidence between Britain and Argentina, but the Argentine representatives were not prepared to continue the talks on this basis, although it had been agreed in advance. They argued that discussion of any of the practical issues put forward by the British side would have to be linked to discussion of a mechanism to address the question of sovereignty. Unless this new condition was met the Argentines were not prepared to continue the talks. This was totally at variance with the agreed basis and the talks thus came to an end.
Her Majesty's Government continue to take the view that it is in the interests of all concerned to seek the restoration of more normal relations between Britain and Argentina. I am sure that the House will share my sense of regret and frustration that, after many months of careful preparation, the Argentine Government brought the talks to an abrupt and premature end by failing to proceed upon the basis that had been clearly agreed.

§ Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)
I strongly support the Foreign Secretary's final words that it is 640 in the interests of all concerned to seek the restoration of more normal relations between Britain and Argentina. Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I deplore the breakdown of the talks and share the sense of regret and frustration that has followed so many of his recent initiatives.
I warned the Foreign Secretary some time ago that the long delay in opening direct talks with the new democratic Government in Argentina might mean that Britain had missed the bus, and so it appears to have proved. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether it is really the case, as reported in several British newspapers this morning, that the breaking point was the refusal of the Government to say that they were not yet prepared to discuss sovereignty—that the word "yet" was the breaking point? I hope that the Foreign Secretary will recall that it is unwise ever to use the word "never" in matters of this nature. He may recall the experience of one of his predecessors, Lord Colyton, in using the word "never" in the context of a Cyprus settlement.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that it would have been much wiser to take the advice of his immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who told the Select Committee on 11 June: It would be wrong to close the door on any option and that we must get back to a position where sovereignty could be discussed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously consider changing the basis on which the Government have so far sought to open discussions with the Argentines, recognising what everybody in the world knows to be the case — that some time or other the question of sovereignty will have to be discussed between the British Government and the Government of Argentina?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for my general statement of the position, although I regret that he succumbed once again to the temptation to couple it with a cheap and unworthy observation.
I repudiate absolutely the suggestion that there was any long delay in these matters on our part. I remind the House: that the Government have, from an early stage, taken a series of steps designed to move towards the restoration of normal relationships. In July 1982 we lifted the exclusion zone and replaced it with a protection zone. In September 1982 I initiated negotiations at the IMF to end financial restrictions. We have supported five European Community Presidency approaches to suggest the normalisation of economic and commercial relations. In May last year we proposed the restoration of the air services agreement. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are prepared to accept suitably prepared visits by bona fide relatives under Red Cross auspices.
Following the October elections we welcomed the return of democracy in Argentina, and on 10 December my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to President Alfonsin on his inauguration. In January this year we sent the first of a series of messages which initiated the months of subsequent negotiations to establish a mutually acceptable basis for official talks on the normalisation of relations.
641 We have always made it clear that we are not prepared to negotiate sovereignty. However regrettable it may seem from many points of view, the Argentines have to live with the consequences of the fact that they used force and invaded, at a time when we were negotiating on that question in good faith. The war and the casualties on both sides changed attitudes in Britain and in the Falkland Islands.
It was for all those reasons that we took such care to approach the business of restoring confidence between the two countries on a basis which could start with modest, practical, useful measures. That is what we thought we had secured and agreed—that is what we had secured and agreed — and I very much regret the fact that these events—

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
What about the word "yet"?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is no "injury time" for the previous debate, which must end after three hours. Therefore, I propose to allow questions to go on until 11.20.

§ Mr. Dalyell
What about the word "yet"?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)
We do not want to descend into mutual recrimination, so is there any way in which the intermediary in organising the talks can express a view on why there has been, to put it no higher, a misunderstanding? Or has there been a deliberate change of policy by President Alfonsin since the talks began? Can my right hon. and learned Friend suggest any other avenues which could be pursued in seeking the desirable objective that he has outlined?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I do not think that anyone but the Argentine Government could cast light on the reasons for what has happened. There is no doubt that the basis for the talks to commence and to continue was plainly agreed. Equally, there is no doubt that that basis was not, in the event, fulfilled. We can only speculate on why and in what circumstances there appears to have been a change of heart by the Argentines. Obviously, as I have said, we still wish to make progress towards the restoration of normal relations, but we shall need to assess carefully the implications of the attitude displayed yesterday by the Argentines, which caused the breakdown.

§ Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we on this Bench support the Government's refusal to discuss or negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands? Does he agree that, whether in the south Atlantic or nearer home, any sort of intrigue will always perish on the question of which nation the citizens wish to belong to?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
In the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I hesitate to extend the range of my responsibilities. However, I acknowledge that there is certainly some truth in the right hon. Gentleman's point.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)
Double talk apart, by "discussing sovereignty" does not Argentina 642 mean the transfer of sovereignty? Was my right hon. and learned Friend not quite right, therefore, to take the stand that he did, while wishing — as we all do — for an improvement in relations? Does not the unreasonable attitude of Argentina suggest that even the present Argentine Government have to defer to aggressive elements in Argentina?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
Plainly, the word "sovereignty" in this context implies the transfer of sovereignty. That is the point that has been expressed by the Argentines on many occasions. It is also clear that the Argentine Government's attitude and performance must have been influenced by some of the factors that my hon. Friend has in mind.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Who authorised the wrecking statements by Sir Rex Hunt before the conclusion of the talks? Did the Prime Minister know? Has not President Alfonsin taken great political risks with his infant democracy? Are we not playing into the hands of a better armed Argentine military? Is the article on the front page of The Sunday Times of last week to be believed when it speaks about Argentine missiles being put in position, with the possibility of an attack on our forces?
When the Foreign Secretary says that we should pause and reflect, are we also to pause and reflect on the £3 million a day at least which, according to The Sunday Times, is being spent on the Falklands, and, if so, for how long?

§ Mr. Speaker
Briefly.

§ Mr. Dalyell
How can we expect the Argentines to agree to the normalisation of air services and trade if the Government do not make promises on the sovereignty issue? Can we then sensibly expect them to be assured that we speak on sovereignty—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about the time available for questions. He has already asked more than three questions.

§ Mr. Dalyell
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that is enough.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The statements of Sir Rex Hunt were made to explain to the Falkland Islanders that there was no change in the frequently expressed position of Her Majesty's Government about negotiations on sovereignty. That newspaper report about missiles—

§ Mr. Dalyell
Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman know?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
That newspaper report about missiles had nothing whatever to do with this matter. The talks broke down because the Argentines were not willing to talk about the normalisation of relations without linking that question to the issue of sovereignty.

§ Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)
May I first congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on arranging the talks in Berne? It shows a flexibility on the part of the British Government which we had been led not to expect. Will he reassure the House that he is not being too rigid about the discussions on sovereignty? Clearly, negotiations could take place by simply listening to the Argentine position, while not negotiating sovereignty. Will he reassure us that he is not being rigid in a strict interpretation of those words?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
There is no question of rigidity or intransigence on this issue. As a matter of plain common sense, at this stage—a little more than two years after the unjustified invasion of the Falkland Islands, which took place in the midst of negotiations in good faith on the very question of sovereignty—our position must be as I have stated it, that we are not prepared to negotiate about that. Given that, our position equally—as the House will recognise — must be to try to find a way of identifying other topics on which talks can commence leading towards the restoration of normal relations. It was precisely with those factors in mind that, over months, we negotiated to get a clear framework agreed which would allow talks to commence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about the flexibility implied in that approach. I am sure he shares my regret that it did not lead to a more successful outcome.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Does the Foreign Secretary's experience of negotiations not lead him to recognise that they are never likely to succeed if one of the subjects of greatest interest to one side is wholly excluded from the discussions? Has the Prime Minister so little faith in her negotiating team that she cannot rely on it to uphold the essential interests of the Falkland Islanders while the issue of sovereignty is featured in those discussions?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My experience of negotiations leads me to recognise precisely that point. Indeed, it was for that very reason that we recognised that it would not be fruitful or helpful to see—as the hon. Gentleman puts it — that sovereignty was wholly excluded. We arrived at those arrangements so that the question should be raised, so that our response should be anticipated and understood and so that the parties could then move on to measures designed to begin rebuilding confidence. It was precisely with that point in mind that we reached those arrangements, and that is why I regret the outcome.

§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)
May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the formula that was used to get the talks going in Berne, which at that stage seemed to be perfectly sound and sensible? Does he agree that there is far more that unites our two democracies than divides them, and that both countries could gain tremendously from proper co-operation in the south Atlantic? During the summer, will he have a real go to explain to those on the Falkland Islands that the present position is artificial and that they will gain from closer co-operation between Britain and the Argentine?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As I said in my statement, it was because we believed that progress towards the normalisation of relations was in the interests not only of the United Kingdom and the Argentine but of the Falkland Islanders that we set about the matter in the way that my hon. Friend has commended.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
May I also welcome the fact that the precedent of direct talks has now been established? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, although the initial formula for dealing with sovereignty seems to have failed, there are other mechanisms—such as those that I have suggested to his Department — for sidelining the question of sovereignty and so on, which might be considered?
644 As President Alfonsin did us the honour of sending a message containing the British proverb Where there's a will there's a way", will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind a good Scottish saying, which Robert the Bruce learnt from the spider, If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"?

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison
That is what Neville Chamberlain said.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I fancy that there is a rather larger Welsh than Scottish community in Argentina, but I cannot instantly commend any Welsh proverb to the House. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the approach suggested by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). The failure of our approach, after so much effort had been put into it, is bound to influence the way in which we look at the matter in future. We had designed a method which took account of the interests of both sides, but we shall obviously need to assess carefully the implications of the Argentine attitude, which led to the breakdown of the talks.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue undiscouraged in his attempt to find the philosopher's stone and a solution which will at the same time safeguard the long-term interests of the Falkland Islanders and take account of the extreme fragility of the democratic Government in Argentina? The Argentine Government are threatened by military hard men who would like to reassert hard-line Argentine policies towards the Falklands.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I accept the encouragement given by my hon. Friend. One of the points that we made in our discussions with the Argentines is that, although the present Argentine Government were not responsible for what happened just over two years ago, they have to live with the consequences of that action. Of course, one recognises the importance of the establishment and maintenance of democratic government in Argentina in the context of the entire history of that country.

§ Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)
Did not the talks really collapse because if they start involving the question of sovereignty the cripplingly expensive Fortress Falklands policy, which exists mainly to bolster the Prime Minister's image, will be shown for the nonsense that it is? Is it not a fact that no agreement with Argentina will ever be reached as long as the Prime Minister continues in office?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
So far as I can detect, the hon. Gentleman made two separate observations, both of which are completely invalid. They have nothing to do with the subject. All questions of sovereignty were deliberately and carefully put to one side in the formula that we designed. This series of talks has come to an end because of the Argentine's failure to follow the agreed formula.

§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while the Argentine Government are completely to blame for this breakdown after such careful preparations—he has handled this matter with great skill — none the less, this is a tremendous tragedy? This country and democratic Argentina should have well-developed friendly relations. There are 180,000 people of United Kingdom origin in Argentina who want desperately to see a solution to all these problems. There is no question of conceding the idea 645 of the transfer of sovereignty if, in due course but not now, the subject of sovereignty is on the agenda if the Argentines wish to raise it.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I fully share my hon. Friend's views about the desirability of restoring more normal relations for human, social, commercial, economic and political reasons with the people and the democratic Government of Argentina. It was for that reason that we took so much care to allow the subject of sovereignty to be raised and to allow our response, as well and frequently advertised, to be made. I am sorry that that formula did not lead us to the other subjects which would have taken us in the direction my hon. Friend has in mind.

§ Mr. Healey
Is the Foreign Secretary telling the House this morning that Great Britain will never discuss the problem of sovereignty with the democratic Government in Argentina? If not, will he now answer what I put to him in my opening question: why were the Government not prepared to add the word, "yet", or words such as, "now" or "at present", to the statement that they were not prepared to discuss sovereignty?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The Government were seeking, upon the basis of a plainly stated position—that we are not prepared to negotiate sovereignty—to find a basis from which we could move towards more normal relations. The talks which started on Wednesday broke down not because of the absence of any such word in the formula, but because the Argentines, unfortunately, were not prepared to talk about normalisation without a linkage with sovereignty.