Syria (Hansard, 12 May 1986)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the request by Her Majesty's Government to the Syrian Government to withdraw three members of the Syrian embassy from London.
This action followed a meeting between the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Antony Acland, and the Syrian ambassador, Dr. Haydar, on 1 May. Sir Antony raised with Dr. Haydar allegations about Syrian involvement in certain terrorist activities in this country. On behalf of the police Sir Antony asked that the ambassador should waive diplomatic immunity of three attachés on his staff to enable the police to ask them questions about these allegations. On 5 May, the ambassador replied that the Syrian Government were not willing to allow diplomatic immunity to be waived but would permit interviews with members of his staff on Syrian embassy premises.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed the Metropolitan police of the terms on which the Syrian Government were prepared to allow questioning to be carried out. After careful consideration, the Metropolitan police concluded that interviews under such conditions could not result in evidence which might be used in court, and could not assist their investigation. When the ambassador called on 10 May, the Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Ewen Fergusson, therefore told him that the refusal of the Syrian authorities to meet our request for a waiver of diplomatic immunity, to allow the allegations against three members of his embassy to be fully investigated, was unacceptable. The ambassador was then told that the British Government required the withdrawal of the three attachés within seven days.
Yesterday, the Syrian Government requested the withdrawal of three members of the diplomatic staff of our embassy in Damascus. This retaliation is regrettable and totally unjustified.
We are now considering whether there is cause for any additional measures against Syria. It will be necessary to take into account all factors affecting our bilateral relations with Syria. These include the level of the diplomatic staff whom the Syrians have asked us to withdraw, and the need to protect British subjects in Syria. We shall of course bear in mind the commitments entered into by EC Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg and by the economic summit in Tokyo. We shall also take account of the continuing investigations into the responsibility of various countries for terrorist activity.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)
We do not, of course, have access to the information on the E1 A1 incident upon which the Government have relied, but we do not seek to dissent from the actions relating to the expulsion of those diplomats. However, how carefully did the Government scrutinise the information on the E1 A1 incident that was derived from MOSSAD? The Israeli intelligence machine has a well-deserved reputation for information, and disinformation too. Clearly the Israelis have their own motives for seeking to turn the West against Syria. It would be helpful if the Minister told the House 448 whether the special branch has an independent source of information about the attempt on E1 A1, which is the reason for the expulsions.
Does the Minister agree that the evidence which is now emerging about the Berlin bomb incident points in the direction of Syria rather than Libya as the directing Government? If so, were we at the time sufficiently sceptical of the information which we received from the United States—that it used the outrage in Berlin as a justification for its bombing of Libya and used our bases for that purpose?
The Minister concluded his statement with the words: We are now considering whether there is cause for any additional measures against Syria. That suggests that the mutual expulsions may not be the end of the story. Will the Minister now distance us from the growing anti-Arab feeling in Washington which has been shown, for example, in the congressional attitude to the Saudi arms deal? Will he avoid falling into the trap which has been set by those who wish to use the terrorist threat as a possible cover for military action against Syria, and also caution the United States Administration, the Israelis and the Syrians about the excalating threat to regional and possibly world peace posed by the confrontation between the Syrian and the Israeli armies both on the Golan and in southern Lebanon?

§ Mr. Renton
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our police are perfectly capable of doing their own leg work and their own investigations on this incident. The police received no information whatsoever from the Israeli sources. The action taken was on the basis of allegations made to the British police. I have noted the reports of the German police investigations into the bombing of the west Berlin discotheque. We have no reason to doubt our earlier conclusions about the extent of Libyan involvement in the placing of the bomb in the west Berlin discotheque.
As I said in my statement, we are considering whether any further measures are necessary. We do no wish to see any escalation of military action. Rather, the incident highlights the need for the peace process between Arab countries and Israel to be continued. In that context, I look forward to the Prime Minister's visit to Israel in the near future.

§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)
Is this not yet another example of the bad behaviour of the Syrian embassy? For example, there was the case on new year's eve 1977 when two Syrian diplomats blew themselves up with a car bomb in central London. If the Minister is considering further action, will he at least try to limit the size of the Syrian embassy in London to the same size as the British embassy in Damascus?

§ Mr. Renton
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. He is interested in such matters. We do not wish to enter into a tit-for-tat between ourselves and Damascus. Clearly the relative sizes of our embassy in Damascus and the Syrian embassy here is a point to be taken into consideration.

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
If the Syrians are shown to have been involved with the Libyans in the Berlin bombing incident, and if the Syrians are shown to have been involved in any way in the E1 A1 attempt to place a bomb, will the Government give an assurance that they will take diplomatic and economic sanctions and will take firm action, even to the extent of 449 closing the embassy, in co-operation with our European Community colleagues? Will the hon. Gentleman make a clear and categorical statement that the Government will not support retaliatory punitive action by the Israelis against Syria, even if Syrian involvement in the E1 A1 incident is established?

§ Mr. Renton
We shall not hesitate to act firmly and appropriately if Syrian state involvement in terrorist activities is established as a result of our continuing investigations. Obviously, each situation must be rigorously examined on its merits. We wish to look at the full range of peaceful measures agreed by the Community and agreed at the Tokyo summit to ascertain which measures should be followed if Syrian involvement in terrorism is clearly established.

§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)
Although I support the Government's action and recognise that it is especially difficult for a country like Britain to have good relationships with the Syrian Administration, will my hon. Friend keep in mind that Syria has a key role to play in any future peace-making process in the middle east and that Syria is perfectly justified in trying to regain its territory, the Golan heights?

§ Mr. Renton
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. He is right in what he says about Syria's key role in the peace process. It is notable that President Assad met King Hussein in Amman at the end of last week, doubtless for further consideration of how that peace process could be carried forward.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down)
Would the Government he prepared to waive diplomatic immunity if a corresponding request were made to us by another country such as the Soviet Union or Syria?

§ Mr. Renton
I must confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I find that question surprising. The point is that, in the light of the refusal to waive diplomatic immunity, Syrians were exempt from the obligation to give evidence in court, and in criminal proceedings written or hearsay evidence of interviews would not be admissible. That was why we insisted on diplomatic immunity being waived, and, if it was not, we required the three attachés to leave the country.

§ Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision is wholly justified in terms of the activities which many British people regard as not just unacceptable but monstrous? To what extent are inquiries being conducted into the activities of so-called diplomats in some other embassies? Will my hon. Friend give a reasonable assurance that no legitimate and passive Arab diplomat or representative has need to fear some Arab witch hunt?

§ Mr. Renton
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I can certainly give him the assurance which he seeks—that no Arab diplomat need fear a witch hunt. However, where a clear connection with terrorism is established we shall act extremely firmly in dealing with it.

§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
With regard especially to the evil of the attempted outrage and the unparalleled barbarity of the alleged proposed method of carrying it out, I thank the Minister for not falling into the trap of anti-Israel paranoia which seems to afflict many people.
450 I should like to ask three questions. First, was one of those who were asked to leave a military attaché? Secondly, what was the involvement of Georges Shiha? Thirdly, if and when any relationship is re-established with the Syrians, will the hon. Gentleman tell them that it would be a great help if they gave information to the Red Cross or some other organisation about the whereabouts of Zachary Baumel, whose parents are in London asking for him, and his three colleagues?

§ Mr. Renton
None of those who has been asked to leave the country by the end of this week is a military attaché. I have noted in the newspapers the reference to Georges Shiha, but there is no evidence to support the description of Shiha's duties which has been given in some parts of our national press. Furthermore, Shiha was not one of the members of the Syrian embassy staff whom the police wished to question.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's last humanitarian question, I think that he already knows that the matter has been raised by me and others with Syrian Ministers. They say that they are not able to give us any information about the whereabouts of those soldiers who disappeared. Whenever an opportunity arises, we shall continue to press for any information available about them.

§ Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's prompt and vigorous response. Will he confirm that, whatever the issues it the middle east, state-sponsored terrorism is unacceptable and that that is the real reason for the Government's action.

§ Mr. Renton
I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, indeed, "prompt and vigorous" is the image of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I agree with him that, under whatever guise and from whatever source it appears, state-sponsored terrorism is one of the evils that the world has to face today, and we, in conjuction with our Community and other partners, will seek every means to combat it.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
Do not these apparently incorrect charges about Libyan responsibility for the Berlin disco bombing and these even more convenient charges about Syria as a precursor to an Israeli attack on that country, which seems not unlikely in the next few months, call into question the reliability of both CIA and MOSSAD intelligence, upon which the British Government apparently lean for some information'?
In view of the likelihood that Libya will be proved to have been not responsible for the disco bombing in Berlin, what compensation do Her Majesty's Government intend to pay to the Libyan authorities?

§ Mr. Renton
In his anxiety to make a dramatic point, the hon. Gentleman appears totally not to have listened to the answer that I gave earlier. I said to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that our evidence of Libyan involvement in the west Berlin bombing remains incontrovertible and that we have seen nothing whatever to contradict it.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Syria, I should like to point out to him, in case he missed it, that the Israeli Prime Minister said in an interview on 9 May that Israel has no intention of attacking Syria and that there is no indication, either, that Syria is about to attack Israel. I understand that these comments by the Israeli Prime Minister have been repeated in an even more recent speech.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Mindful of the fact that when Abu Nidal attacked Shlome Arlov in this country in 1982 this was used as a pretext for the barbaric invasion of Lebanon by the Israelis, will my hon. Friend the Minister of State answer the question of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), on the basis of the allegation about the Israeli airliner, to confirm categorically that there is no justification whatsoever for an Israeli invasion of Syria?

§ Mr. Renton
On the involvement to which my hon. Friend has referred, I can go no further than I went in my statement. This matter is the subject of police inquiries and I cannot make any further comment.
On my hon. Friend's other point, I must repeat to him what I said earlier, that if the involvement of Syria in state terrorism were to be firmly established, we should not hesitate to act with the utmost rigour, particularly along the lines that have already been agreed for Libya by the European Community and in Tokyo.

§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)
Will the Minister help the House by confirming, if possible, that the action of the Syrian ambassador in resisting the claims put upon him by the Metropolitan police was within the terms of the Vienna convention and that the Metropolitan police were attempting to extend their rights under the same convention? Does the Minister accept that our role is to look after British nationals in Syria? Is he able to say how many are involved, because they might be in danger in this tit-for-tat operation, and what advice his Department is giving to them?

§ Mr. Renton
On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I can assure him that there are approximately 250 British citizens in Syria. At the moment we are considering with our mission in Damascus whether any further advice needs to be given to them. On his earlier point, it is not quite right to say that the Metropolitan police attempted to extend the provisions of the Vienna convention. However, it is quite right that the Metropolitan police, through the Foreign Office, sought a waiver of the diplomatic immunity that is given by the Vienna convention. It was this that the Syrian ambassador refused to allow.

§ Viscount Cranborne (Dorset, South)
Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the surveillance of diplomats who are accredited to London and attached to the embassies of Governments sympathetic to terrorism? If he is, is not such surveillance expensive, and is not that a good reason for reducing the representation of those diplomats in London?

§ Mr. Renton
That is primarily a matter for the Home Office. I agree that surveillance is expensive. I take my hon. Friend's point on reducing the size of the diplomatic community here. However, there is, almost inevitably, reciprocity in that. If we require embassies in Britain, for whatever reason, to reduce substantially the number of their staff here, it is always likely that they will ask us to do the same in the countries to which our people are accredited. We try to operate near the minimun that we think is reasonable to give the sort of service that the British public, business men and others require.

§ Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)
In my hon. Friend's opinion, do circumstances exist today which would justify an attack by Israel upon Syria?

§ Mr. Renton
I repeat that the Israeli Prime Minister has already said categorically that Israel has no plans to attack 452 Syria, nor is he aware of any plans of Syria to attack Israel. I hope that the peace process can be carried forward, and one factor in that is the continuing occupation by Israel of a substantial part of the Golan heights.

§ Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the firm response announced in his statement this afternoon is justified and necessary but that terrorism will continue to be with us until its root causes have been tackled? In that context, will he urge my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to impress upon the Israeli Government the importance of making progress on matters such as the Palestinian issue and attending to human rights violations during her forthcoming visit?

§ Mr. Renton
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will wish those two points, particularly the carrying forward of the peace process, to be on her agenda when she meets Mr. Peres at the end of the month.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East
Is my hon. Friend sure that the three Syrians who have been removed are the correct three, or may there have been more? Secondly, is it not time to serve notice on the Syrian ambassador that in Britain men must behave as gentlemen and that if it is proposed to remove diplomatic immunity and the Embassy wishes its members to remain they should co-operate? Does he agree that, if there is to be bloodshed in the streets of Britain, Syrians who threaten Britain should be removed forthwith?

§ Mr. Renton
Obviously, the three for whom the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office requested the ambassador to waive diplomatic immunity were the three, and the only three, to whom the police wish to address inquiries. It was because of the refusal to waive their diplomatic immunity that they have now been asked to leave Britain by the end of the week.
The purpose behind my hon. Friend's next question was, I think, to ask what will happen if they do not leave. We have every reason to believe that the Syrian ambassador will agree to their going, but if they do not go we shall have to declare them persona non grata.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)
I endorse entirely the action taken by my hon. Friend and his Department, but, nevertheless, will he tell the United States Government that, despite evidence of Syrian terrorism, it would be utterly wrong for the United States to undertake any punitive raid against Syria and that, although the Soviet Union may almost certainly have given the green light on the Libyan raid, it definitely would not do so on a Syrian raid?

§ Mr. Renton
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and there is no doubt that his remarks will be carefully studied and noted in Washington.

§ Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)
Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the actions which he has taken, of which I fully approve, are the result of a quarrel with Syria about terrorism, not a quarrel with the Arab world, and certainly not with the moderate Arab states, whose friendship we value and must take care of?

§ Mr. Renton
My hon. Friend makes an important point which I am happy to endorse. The lesson of these incidents is that it makes it even more important that the peace process should be carried forward speedily and with the help of the moderate Arab states.