THE MIDDLE EAST

HL Deb 15 December 1955 vol 195 cc187-205

3.1 p.m.

LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the situation in the Middle East; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in his statement on Business, the noble Earl referred to the fact that on Wednesday of next week your Lordships are to have a general discussion on the international situation. I thought, and I found that some other noble Lords agreed, that it would be better to have a special separate debate on the Middle East, instead of leaving it to be dealt with in the general international situation. It was for that reason, in order that we could look at the situation in the light of recent developments, that I put down the Motion which we are discussing to-day.

The Middle East has become a crisis area. For a long time it has been be-devilled by internal tensions and dissensions. Now there has been injected the challenge of Communist intrigue under the guise of a "commercial transaction" for the supply to Egypt of tanks, fighter planes and torpedo boats. There is nothing of the Geneva spirit about this Soviet intervention, nothing that remotely relates to peace-loving action rather it is evidence of what Soviet Russia means by "competitive co-existence." I am afraid that slogan is going to be used to cover a lot of trouble-making for the West wherever the Soviet authorities can find, or make, an opening for it. Unfortunately, Egypt has given them an opportunity in the Middle East. While the position between the Communists and the free world has become more or less static for the time being, the Middle East has remained an uneasy and unstable region, harassed by just those unhealthy political and economic conditions which the Communists are so expert at exploiting. There are all kinds of political and economic complications. There is no real Arab unity, only a façade of unity in their common hostility to Israel. The Arab States are torn by jealousy, fears and dynastic feuds; there are prestige rivalries. Then Saudi Arabia, not content with receiving the largest oil revenue of all the Middle East States, has been prevented only by British firmness from annexing the oil rich Buraimi Oasis. We have not heard the last of that trouble.

British influence in the Middle East is less than it used to be and, while there is still great friendship for this country, there are also forces hostile to us; but we have special interests and obligations in that strategically important area. Through it pass vital lines of Commonwealth communication and within it are the oilfields from which we draw a vital economic and industrial need. Then there is the acute problem of poverty and low social standards. Economic development on a large scale is needed. Though some economic developments are being carried out, it is unfortunately true that urgently needed schemes, for the improvement of water supplies as, for example, the Johnson Plan for the Jordan Valley waters which would bring beneficial results to four States, irrigation, afforestation and other things, are being held up or slowed down because the cardinal condition for sustained action is lacking—I refer, of course, to an Arab-Israel peace. Here is a situation ready made for disruptive Communist intervention and for unfriendly intrigue against the free West. We may be sure that Soviet Russia will take full advantage of that situation if she is allowed to do so.

It is just as essential for the security of the free world that the Middle East should not fall under the domination of Communist imperialism as it is that a united Germany should not come under its control. We are fully alive to the second danger because the Soviet Union has been pursuing this aim for a long time; but the danger of Soviet designs in the Middle East—some of them traditional Russian ambitions—has not made the same sharp impact on the public mind, perhaps because the threat has been latent rather than active, and the scene is much further away. Turkey and Persia, which since the war have come under strong Soviet pressure, are far more conscious of the danger. It now looks as though the Soviet Union is becoming more active and it may be that she is preparing, by a policy of peaceful penetration, to enter upon a struggle for power in the Middle East.

In my view, therefore, the Baghdad Pact is a necessary security measure which meets a real need. The existence of a gap between N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. left an area of potential danger, a gateway through which a hostile Power might be tempted to seek to advance. That gap has now been closed by the northern tier of Middle East defence, which is a good thing. At the same time, we need to be cautious and realistic in assessing the present defence capabilities. Only two new countries have been added to those who were already members of the old defence partnerships. In terms of modern military defence power, neither Iraq nor Persia can be regarded as strong. The accession of Jordan if it takes place will be useful but that country is in the same category. Britain is a full partner and America supports the Pact; but both have enormous defence commitments already, and these are bound to limit their capacity to contribute to the building up of the defensive strength of the new alliance.

The need for caution is underlined by the unhappy situation which has arisen in Cyprus. I am not going to dwell on this problem, because it is at the moment fie subject of negotiations which I am sure we all hope will end in a satisfactory settlement. But it must be clear to all of us that failure to reach an agreed settlement would have serious repercussions on the political and defence positions from the Balkans to the Middle East. Moreover, the Middle East Treaty Organisation is far from being an all-embracing regional collective defence organisation. Most of the Arab States stand aloof from it or are hostile to it. This is especially true of Egypt, which has done so much to thwart previous attempts to create some effective form of regional collective defence in that area. Israel, on the other hand, is deliberately excluded from the Pact and will remain shut out—at least until there has been a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. Thus, while we have got a forward defence system, there is no defence in depth. The area at the rear is plagued by divisions and hatreds and is at the moment much more in danger of internal war than it is of external attack.

I am convinced that the key to Middle East political stability and economic progress, on the one hand, and to the building up of a strong collective defence system for the region, on the other, is to be found in the establishment of peace between the Arabs and Israel. This should now be "Priority one" among the aims of Western policy and efforts for the Middle East. As I see it, there can be no stability without peace, no peace without agreement, no agreement without negotiation, and no negotiation without Israel. The State of Israel is a political reality; it has come to stay. It is the one factor in the search for peace upon which there is no room for compromise. The acceptance of a living and viable Israel is an indispensable base of any peace settlement. To say that is not to be anti-Arab and pro-Israel; it is to be severely objective and realistic.

Britain has old ties of friendship with the Arab States. She helped to bring them into existence, and to attain their independence. As for Egypt, we have recently made a new treaty with her which recognised all her sovereign aspirations and led to the withdrawal of all British Armed Forces—to whom, it should not be forgotten, she owed her freedom from conquest by Nazi Germany in the last war. No one questions the right of these States to a free and independent existence. They, however,—but I think Egypt especially—seek to deny to Israel what they prize for themselves, and some Arab leaders have not hesitated to proclaim their intention of driving the Israelis into the sea. That is both a foolish and an unattainable aim, and the sooner it is discarded the better it will be for the future peace and peaceful future of all the peoples of the Middle East. It would be far more sensible for the Arab Governments to give de facto recognition to Israel with a view to the opening up of peace negotiations anti the settlement of outstanding problems.

The most grievous and vexatious of these is that of the Arab refugees. The long-continued postponement of a settlement of this problem can only be regarded as a blot on the civilised world. The consciences of nations should have been stirred to effective action long ago. After all, this festering sore has been with us for seven years. It is not a problem of nationality it is one of humanity. I remember visiting a camp of Stateless refugees when I was connected with the Foreign Office, some years ago. I was shocked by their unhappy condition and seemingly hopeless future. They were, of course, victims of man's inhumanity to man, but I wondered how many of them thought that God had forgotten them. When we think of the hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees, we should do well to recognise that the blame for forgetfulness lies upon Governments. I know, of course, that these refugees have been supplied with the elementary necessities and kept on a sort of care and maintenance basis. But the problem of their resettlement has never been properly tackled, not because of the lack of resources but because of the lack of willingness. By contrast, Israel has absorbed into her straitened economy, despite the Arab economic blockade and boycott, not only—to use Sir Winston Churchilll's words— more than half a million Jewish refugees hunted by terror, from Europe alone. but also over 350,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Yet the Arab States have two hundred times as much territory as Israel, while the density of their population is less than one eighth of that of Israel.

Moreover, it has to be remembered that while Israel has been struggling against the Arab economic blockade, the Arab oil-producing States have been receiving large revenues from oil—over 700 million dollars last year alone. Not all of these States are turning the bulk of their oil revenues to development purposes. In addition, since 1951, the United Nations have made available a capital sum of 200 million dollars to re-settle the refugees, and only a negligible portion of this sum has been used. Three things seem clear to me—that the problem of the refugees can be solved only by resettlement; that resettlement depends largely on economic development; and that the bulk of resettlement can take place only in the Arab countries where large open spaces are available.

I do not think that anyone can doubt that Israel, with her own bitter experience of the Jewish refugee problem, will be ready to play her part in helping to solve the tragic problem of the Arab refugees. She has repeatedly declared her readiness to pay compensation for certain types of abandoned property. She has declared her readiness to negotiate on all other issues connected with the refugee problem, either with the Arab States or with the United Nations, separate from, and in advance of, a general peace settlement. But, for myself, I do not see how Israel will he able to pay, or can reasonably be expected to pay, large sums of compensation so long as her strained economy is subject to the Arab economic blockade. Here, again, it seems to me we are brought back to the urgent need for peace between the two sides.

Let me remind your Lordships that Israel has made several offers of direct negotiation to the Arab States. These have always been rejected. I think the Prime Minister was right, therefore, to offer mediation as a means of breaking the deadlock and getting the two sides together, but I must say that I regret his reference to the 1947 boundary line. I still think it was unfortunate. What might have been has little relevance to to-day. Of course, there will have to be give and take by both sides. That is the only way to peace. But it must be obvious that negotiations for a full settlement must start free and unfettered from any prior conditions of the cession of territory. Mediation, if it is to be successful, must have no element of compulsion as was the case with pre-war Czechoslovakia.

I want to ask the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, what the Government propose to do to prevent an arms race from developing and to ensure that Israel gets a fair deal in arms supply. The Government believe that they have been able to keep a fair balance so far between the Arab countries and Israel, but we know that the balance is being tipped, and may be seriously tipped, against Israel by the intervention of Russia. What is going to happen now? The Government have repeated their opposition to an arms race and said that they are not going to try to balance Communist arms deliveries to Egypt by increasing the supply of arms to Israel. What, then, is to become of the Western policy of trying to maintain a balance? We have been told that efforts have been made to get the Russians to co-operate in a no-arms race policy, but that the Soviet Government will not "play". Are the Government going to renew their efforts to that end, either through the Security Council or through the ordinary diplomatic channels? If the arms situation is just allowed to drift, then this part of the tripartite policy will be frustrated and rendered futile, while, at the same time, if Israel is not to be given compensating deliveries, the balance against her will become more and more accentuated. If Russia will not co-operate, I think there is much to be said for the suggestion that the Western Allies should stop giving arms to Egypt and divert these supplies to other friendly countries, and in particular to Israel.

What chance are mediation efforts going to have so long as border incidents continue to inflame feelings? I recall that the Prime Minister said in another place a few months ago: The tragic thing is that whenever it seems that the atmosphere is slightly improved, when we think that something might be done by negotiation, an incident occurs and the whole thing flares up again. That is unfortunately only too true and too often. I myself believe that the first step, and perhaps are most essential step, is to get a stop put to border infiltrations and incidents. Each side claims that what it does is a reprisal for something the other side has done. Where is this chain of minor conflicts going to finish? Suppose one of these border incidents developed into renewed hostilities, where would the responsibility lie? Much depends on the answer.

Only three days ago the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Tripartite Declaration, paragraph 3 of which states: The three Governments, should they find that any of these Governments were preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would immediately take action, both within and outside the United Nations, to prevent such violation. The Prime Minister went on to say—I use his own worth: That would be action to assist Israel if she were attacked, or action to assist an Arab country, if she were attacked by Israel. That is a very important assurance, especially for Israel, in view of the fact that while Arab States have bilateral treaties with this country, Israel has been refused one. But it is an assurance to both sides, and each side can be in no doubt that if it commits aggression, the other side will be helped by the Tripartite Powers. Our main concern—indeed, I think the main concern of all—should now be to see that a situation does not arise which would call for the implementation of that pledge. We should endeavour to make its deterrent power effective.

I want, therefore, to press upon the, Government the urgent need for the provision of a United Nations Police Force, to be placed along both sides of the border and to patrol it for the prevention of incidents. General Burns, the chief of the United Nations Supervisory Commission, is working with a staff of only twelve observers. That seems to me to be utterly inadequate. I know that the Foreign Secretary has said that if General Burns make; a request for more observers, we will meet that request. But in my view we ought not to wait upon a request from General Burns. This is a matter of high policy, for decision by the United Nations and for initiative by the Tripartite Declaration Powers. Therefore I press Her Majesty's Government to say whether they will take steps to propose that an adequate United Nations police force be provided for patrol and preventive duties. I cannot but believe that the presence of such a United Nations police force would have a calming and a stabilising effect on the disturbed border situation.

This task could be greatly assisted by the active co-operation on the part of both the Arabs and Israel. After all, it is for their mutual benefit. They should be urged to prohibit border raiding from their own territory. They should also be asked to place sufficient of their own armed forces on their own side of the border to make the prohibition effective. Instead of facing the border, these forces should face inwards, with the specific duty of preventing raids from taking place from their own side. I believe that if these two deterrent and preventive steps were taken, the borders would soon begin to quieten down, tension would relax and there would be a better chance of creating an atmosphere favourable for getting peace negotiations started.

Finally, there is the question of the condition of the poverty-stricken populations of the Middle East. That is a major challenge which calls for energetic action, not only nationally but also regionally. Large engineering development projects are in hand in different countries. Some of them are nearing completion. But it is not merely a question of long-term capital development works; there have also to be short-term schemes that give evidence to the people that life is going to be better for them: schemes for a progressive satisfying of urgent social needs, such as housing, resettlement, health services, education and so on.

In all this necessary economic and social development in the Middle East, the West can play an important part. I think there should be a Middle East Plan to help that part of the world in the way the Colombo Plan is assisting South East Asia. Through it could be dealt with on a concerted basis the help that is needed and the help that can be provided—such as expert advice, technical aid and training, financial assistance and so forth, on the lines of the Colombo Plan and the American Point 4 Plan. All this should be looked at in the light of urgency. The Middle East is an essential part of the free world, and if it is to be made secure against Communist political penetration and economic attractions we must help these peoples in their struggle to win economic prosperity and social well-being. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is not only Southern Asia that is the target of the Soviet psychological warfare. That is going to be seen in the Middle East, also. It is all being done under the slogan of "competitive co-existence," and the West must not allow itself to be hoodwinked; it must press ahead with its own tasks and responsibilities in the Middle East. I beg to move for Papers.

3.32 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, your Lordships will realise that so short a time after the very full discussion of this topic in another place, in which both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary took part, there is not a great deal that I can add without resorting to some measure of repetition. Nevertheless I fully agree that it can only be of value that your Lordships should, in your turn, have the opportunity to express your views upon this complex and anxious problem and that Her Majesty's Government should be able to profit by your consideration of it. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in moving his Motion, has described the scenery against which this tense and too often sombre drama is set.

The Middle East, as a region, has behind it a long and crowded history. Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Mongols and Turks have in their turn flowed over it in a tempestuous tide and in their turn ebbed before the next incoming wave. If there was at any time a prolonged period of peace, it was too often the peace of exhaustion rather than the peace of contentment. The older among us have seen in our own lifetime vast changes in the area, when after the First World War new States sprang into being, charged with all the sensitive nationalism of freshly acquired independence. Having had much part in the events to which these States owe their creation, this country has naturally followed their evolution with deeply sympathetic interest.

For many years, as the noble Lord has indicated, the Middle East has been recognised as one of the great oil-producing areas of the world. But what is perhaps not so well known is the importance of Middle East oil, now and in the future, to our own developing economy and to the economies of other Western European countries. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has drawn attention to the vast expansion in production of oil in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf States over the past few years—an increase from some 16 million tons in 1938 to perhaps 160 million tons this year. This great increase could not have taken place had it not been for the expansion in the demand for oil by this country and by Western Europe. In 1954, consumption of oil in the United Kingdom amounted to 25 million tons, of which about two-thirds came from the Middle East. The oil companies have estimated that during the next twenty years the consumption of oil by this country will have at least to be doubled if the present increase in productivity is to be maintained and, with that increase of production, the standard of living of the British people. In making this calculation account has rightly been taken of other sources of energy, including that to be obtained from atomic power stations. Moreover, the demand for oil from Western Europe as a whole will in all probability increase to a similar extent.

For the bulk of these additional supplies of oil this country and Western Europe will together look to the great partnerships which have come into being through the various fifty-fifty profit-sharing agreements between the oil companies and the producing countries in the Middle East. But it is important, not only to the consuming countries but also to the producing countries, whose revenue depends not so much on the amount received for every ton produced but rather on the quantity of their oil sold in the world market, that the price of oil should remain stable. There are three main factors in the cost of oil: the cost of production, the payments made to the producing countries and the payments made to those countries across whose territory it is transported. Under the new arrangements which I have mentioned, the producing countries are entitled to half the profits on the production of oil from their territory. One of the happiest results of this new partnership is that the relationships between the oil companies and the Governments of the producing countries are now en a sound footing and there is increasingly fruitful co-operation between them to step up their output of oil.

As regards the countries through whose territory the oil is transported, it is a generally accepted principle of international trade that the payments made to them should be related not to the value of the commodity in question but to the costs and profits of the transit operation. In that connection, Her Majesty's Government welcome the recent ratification by the Syrian Parliament of the new Agreement between the Iraq Petroleum Company and Syria, under which Syria will receive, in return for transit rights, payments of some £6½ million a year. The half-share of the profits which producing countries receive is not by any means their only benefit from the production of oil. The companies invest on fie spot capital and technical knowledge; They employ labour on a large scale; they bring business which would otherwise not come to these countries, and they provide technical instruction of all kinds to numbers of local students.

The protection of an area so vital to our well-being, and indeed to our survival, must be to us a matter of constant vigilance, and it was in considerable measure in order to bar the way to this area that the concept of the northern tier of defence was worked out, and it is in order to give solidity and reality to that concept that the Baghdad Pact has, in its turn, come into being. The Baghdad Pact, however, is more than a defensive military grouping. Certainly a not less important aspect of it is the provision it contains for economic cooperation amongst the signatories. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred, towards the end of his speech, to the necessity of building up something in this area on the model of the Colombo Plan—an organisation with which I am not wholly unfamiliar. Under the economic clauses of the Baghdad Pact, I think there may well he room for greater economic co-operation towards the development of these various countries. But I would not have it thought that this country has done and is doing nothing in that direction in existing circumstances.

Again, I am not sure that how much is being done and has been done over recent years is as well known as perhaps it deserves to be. Her Majesty's Government have been criticised in various quarters for having given too little economic aid and technical assistance to the Middle East countries, and have therefore, to sonic extent, it is said, been responsible for the backward condition in which sonic of them may have been. I might perhaps not unusefully call your Lordships' attention to the fact that As long ago as 1941 Her Majesty's Government established an organisation in the Middle East known as the Middle East Supply Centre, the purpose of which was to help the countries in the region to stand on their own feet economically and to co-ordinate the imports on which they depended for their life in time of great shipping difficulties. The Centre succeeded in great measure in safeguarding the economic welfare to the Middle Eastern countries during the war, and constituted the first attempt to plan the economic development of the area on a regional basis. A large amount of research and investigation was undertaken by the staff of the Centre which has since proved to be of great value.

At the end of the war, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin decided to set up what was then called the British Middle East Office as a contribution by this country to the economic and social development of the area. The Development Division of the British Middle East Office is now situated at Beirut, and is still staffed by a group of experts who are available to advise all Middle Eastern Governments at their request and free of charge on social arid economic problems. The permanent advisers attached to the Division are highly qualified in economics and statistics, agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry and soil conservation, rural cooperation and labour matters—quite a considerable field. Other advisers in various fields not covered by the permanent staff of the Division are attached to it from time to time.

Apart from the advice which they give to the Middle Eastern Governments, the experts and the Middle East Development Division also assist the local Governments to co-operate with agencies such as the British Council, the United Kingdom Medical Research Unit and the United Kingdom Anti-Locust Research Centre. They keep in touch also with the Technical Assistance agencies and with the International Bank. This liaison work is. I think, particularly important, since there are a number of different organisations in the Middle East working in rather similar fields and the local Governments naturally welcome advice on how to derive the best value from all these organisations and to prevent duplication of effort.

Perhaps the main tasks which the advisers of the Development Division are undertaking at present are in connection with the flourishing Development Board in Iraq, the setting up of central statistical offices in Iran and Iraq—and, after all, it is on accurate statistics that proper planning must in the long run depend—and the Agrarian Reform Programme in Egypt. In addition to the activities of the Middle East Development Division, this country provides at the request of Middle East Governments, considerable numbers of experts and consultants to advise in specific undertakings, such as irrigation projects, housing, road engineering and transport. These experts are employed by Middle East Governments under contract. The Governments also recruit in this country, by their own direct means, experts of all kinds. The numbers involved are not in the least insignificant—indeed, there are at the present moment over 300 British experts of one kind and another in the employment of the Iraqi Government alone.

Your Lordships will, I think, derive satisfaction from the recollection that recently a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Salter, went out and spent a considerable time in Iraq advising the Government on the shape and future development of their schemes. It is sometimes said that the pace of development is too slow; and this country is also actually blamed for that fact. But, after all, these countries in the Middle East are independent sovereign countries. Of course we can encourage and advise, but we can provide experts only at the request of the Government concerned. We cannot force experts upon them, and we naturally have no control whatever over the speed with which the various recommendations are carried out.

Even so, I think that those, both in the Middle East and elsewhere, who take the view that, bearing in mind the enormous sums which some of these Governments receive from their oil, the Governments have only to rub an Aladdin's lamp in order to transform economic conditions, wholly under-estimate the difficulties which confront most of the Middle East Governments, at least. Great distances have to be traversed, over often indifferent roads; too much water flows in too few places; and too much desert prevails in too many others. Harsh conditions of life and under-nourishment have debilitated considerable sections of the population, and the number of technically qualified persons is, unfortunately, still deplorably small in proportion to the needs of the area. Some of the Governments at least know what has to be done, but so manifold are the problems they face that we cannot wonder if they find it difficult on occasions to decide to what to turn their hand first.

Nevertheless, much has been and is being done, and the tempo of development is quickening in some of the countries, even though there may be a notable exception. It is no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to spread dissension among the Arab countries. Our only wish is to see them move forward in harmony one with another, in prosperity, progress and peace. Yet if the whole region is to be stabilised and capable of taking the fullest advantage of all the opportunities which are now presented, it is surely essential to eradicate from it the hitherto insoluble problem of Arab-Israel relations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in his speech rightly attached what he called "Priority One."

So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they have been searching—I do not think this is true only of the present Government—with a rising sense of urgency throughout these past years, for signs that a settlement of this question might not be beyond the limits of possibility. The United States Government have also shown their constant preoccupation with the prevailing impasse, and not long ago Mr. Dulles propounded, in necessarily general terms, his ideas of an approach to a settlement which might commend itself to both sides. In that initiative he was strongly supported by Her Majesty's Government.

The latest application of the creed of what may be called dialectical imperialism which is to be found in Russian manœuvres in the Middle East has only stressed the dominant need to make a vigorous and sustained effort towards a generally acceptable settlement. It would be difficult to accept the situation that the incursion of Russia into the Middle East by the provision of arms to Egypt was, as has been contended on their behalf, merely a commercial transaction. It would be equally difficult for Her Majesty's Government to regard that particular line of ac ion on their part as consistent with the Geneva spirit. It does not seem even to reflect an afterglow of those deliberations. We recognise that the task of bringing together the two parties in that part of the world can only be accomplished, or indeed even begun, by mediation, and Her Majesty's Government are certainly very far from insisting that they shall be cast for what is likely to be at best a singularly exacting role. But they deeply and sincerely believe that it is a task that should be taken in hand without any more delay, not in the selfish or exclusive interests of this country but primarily in the best interests of those most immediately concerned, and also in the interests of all chose countries which wish genuinely to see the area of peace extended as widely as possible over the face of the earth and yet are only too conscious that a shark applied to the tinder of the Middle East cannot be guaranteed to be purely local in its destructive effect.

We have neither the wish nor the right to attempt to compel reluctant parties to accept the unacceptable. But perpetuation of present conditions can mean only that tempers will become increasingly frayed and incidents correspondingly frequent. Moreover, there is always the risk that one day an incident may be staged on one side or on the other upon a scale which approximates it so closely to an invasion that the consequences of what was designed merely as an isolated operation may be the outbreak of general hostilities.

The noble Lord said that it was an essential condition of any discussion of this matter of a settlement that there should be acceptance of a living and viable Israel, and from that view I in no way dissent. It was these considerations (to some of which I have referred), amongst others, which led the Prime Minister in his Guildhall speech to appeal to both sides to turn their minds away from rancour and reprisal towards the practicability of a settlement. In so doing, he indicated not what he thought the respective standpoints of the opposing parties ought to be but what in fact they were: and he went on to point out what is after all an inescapable conclusion, that if there was to be a settlement it could only be achieved at some point between those two positions.

Naturally, he was not so imprudent as to suggest, in however tentative a form, even the outline of the terms upon which the parties might be induced to negotiate. It is not Her Majesty's Government's business to publish what they might regard as a suitable basis for discussion, any more than it would be their business to seek to impose terms. There are at this moment certain indications—I put it no higher—on the Arab side of some readiness at least to contemplate the possibility of a settlement, a change of attitude in which is inherent a recognition for the first time that Israel exists and must be taken into account. And that, in itself, is an advance from the position of intransigence so far maintained.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, in the course of his speech, raised the vexed question of the preservation of peace upon the frontier, and pressed upon us two ideas: first, the establishment of some force of United Nations police whose function it would be to keep the opposing sides apart. With all respect to him, I think there are obvious difficulties in that suggestion. For one thing, it is a very long frontier and one would require a considerable force if one were going to keep it in position up and down the whole of that frontier, from Syria right down to Gaza. The noble Lord's other idea was that each side should keep a certain number of its troops facing inwards towards its own lines in order to prevent any infiltrations across the frontier into the territory of the other side. There, again, if one were going to do that with any thoroughness, one would almost have to employ so many troops facing inwards that there would be none left to penetrate their lines in an outward direction.

As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said the other day, we have to express our gratitude to General Burns, whose efforts in the extraordinarily difficult task which he has undertaken we must all regard with the greatest admiration. Nobody could have been more energetic, patient or understanding. As your Lordships know, he has been trying now for some time to produce a situation in which at least down in the Al-auja area in the Gaza strip certain steps would be taken which would give a better chance of keeping the opposing sides apart. We have said that, for any purpose for which General Burns on the spot thinks reinforcement of his observers necessary, we shall be only too glad to make every effort to supplement those which he already has at his disposal. So long as the matter is in his hands—after all, he is the appointed representative in this matter of the United Nations—I think we must leave it primarily to him to decide on the best means of handling the situation on the spot.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred also to this often-discussed and highly controversial subject of arms. There can have been few subjects which have caused the Government more concern and more thought during these past years. They have striven honestly and sincerely to hold a correct balance. That situation which they have worked so hard to preserve has now been disturbed by the arrival of large supplies of arms from Russia—a source from which presumably further supplies could in due course be obtained by the Egyptians, or perhaps by others. My Lords, would anybody recommend that in order to preserve peace in this area we should really try to build up the other side to the same level to which the Russians are engaged in support of Egypt? There, you have a full-dress arms race going at express speed. It is just this difficulty of arms which, above all others, in my view, makes it vitally important at this moment that a settlement should be reached which will, to a large extent, eliminate the need for either side to indulge in this great expenditure on arms.

Few people—probably none who have seen it for themselves—will question that in Israel a most remarkable work has been done. It has been achieved only with great labour, fortitude and endurance, and would never have been accomplished without the driving force of an ideal. But it has involved the allocation to military expenditure of a formidable portion of the national income, and has involved heavy sacrifices in many other directions. Hitherto, since 1950, the Tripartite Agreement to which reference has already been made has been in force, and its validity was, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, stated, unconditionally confirmed in the recent debate in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself.

But in my right honourable friend's Guildhall speech there was another most significant passage, to which less attention seems to have been paid than to the one in which he stated the two opposing views. He said: If there could be an accepted arrangement between them about their boundaries, we, Her Majesty's Government, and I believe the United States Government, and perhaps other Powers too, would be prepared to give a formal guarantee to both sides, and that might bring real confidence and security at last. And our countries would also offer substantial help, financial and other, over this tragic problem of the refugees. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said—tragic problem indeed it is. With such guarantees as my right honourable friend was referring to, surely real confidence and security might at last come about, and all that has been so painfully built up might be secured for the future and ampler resources might be freed for still essential developments.

The omens at this moment may not be propitious; but neither were they in the case of Trieste. With the pace of events to-day, yesterday's crises soon fade from our memories, but it so happens that I was in both Yugoslavia and Italy at the moment when that crisis was at its height, and I have not forgotten the atmosphere of bristling hostility that then prevailed. Yet after, it is true, prolonged and patient negotiation over many months, in which I am glad to remember that we and the United States played our part, a solution involving wide concessions by both parties was found, and to-day peace reigns over that so-lately turbulent scene. My Lords, peace does not come unaided or unsought; it conies, if at all, only when all those directly concerned are resolved, in their own interests and in the interests of the world at large, to seek peace and to secure it.