§ 4.30 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, first of all may I apologise for the fact that the Statement which I should now, with your Lordships' permission, like to repeat is being repeated rather late in the afternoon? The reason is that on a subject of this sort reports are coming in continuously from our posts overseas. The Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place is subject to constant change, and indeed was being changed right up to the moment he eventually made it. I hope, therefore, that in addition to accepting my apologies for the delay your Lordships will understand if there are any minor discrepancies still between the Statement I shall make now and the one that was eventually made in another place. The Statement begins:
"The House will have learned with deep concern that early this morning hostilities broke out in the Middle East. The situation is still unclear. There has been heavy ground fighting on the borders of Israel and the United Arab Republic. There has been extensive air activity, including attacks on airfields in the United Arab Republic and elsewhere. There has also been air activity over Israel.
"There are reports of fighting on other frontiers of Israel. Our Consul-General in Jerusalem reported earlier this morning that the city was 'engulfed in war'; although the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation arranged a cease-fire from 12 noon, 185 the latest information reaching me is that after some initial success, sporadic firing has broken out again.
"I cannot emphasise too strongly how much the Government regret this tragic development. It was indeed precisely in an attempt to avert the risk of such a development that the Government took the steps which I put before the House on May 31. As the House knows, we have repeatedly urged, by all means open to us, both on Israel and the Arab States to exercise restraint and seek a solution to their problems through peaceful negotiation.
"During this morning I have been in touch with the representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Italy and, of course, with our Mission to the United Nations. This afternoon I shall he seeing the representatives of the Arab States and we have also been in touch with the Embassy of Israel.
"Our immediate aim must clearly be to bring about an early and general cease-fire. The Security Council has been convened and is about to begin its emergency meeting. I hope that it will proceed immediately to the adoption of a resolution calling for this cease-fire.
"In this attitude I know the House will support me in saying that our interest is the same as that of all those in the area as well as the rest of the world—namely, to seek a peaceful solution to these problems.
"The House will wish to know that instructions are being given to our Forces to avoid any involvement in the conflict.
" The House will also wish to know the position of British subjects in the area. On May 23 British subjects in the United Arab Republic, Israel and the West Bank of Jordan were advised to leave unless their presence was essential. This advice was extended shortly afterwards to cover the rest of Jordan. British subjects in neighbouring countries in the area were advised to be ready to leave at short notice.
"My information is that following this advice most business visitors and tourists in Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic have left. But 186 the majority of permanent British residents have probably remained. The Government are in touch with our representatives in all the countries concerned about emergency evacuation plans.
"All merchant shipping due to pass through the Canal is being advised to delay transit for 24 hours. Advice will be kept under constant review.
"I have received reports of mob attacks on our Embassies in Benghazi, Tripoli and Tunis. I am maintaining the closest contacts with all our posts and shall be raising this with the Arab Ambassadors when I see them later this afternoon."
That is the end of the Statement.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for repeating the Statement, and I think that we all appreciate his difficulties in communications and in being unable to make the Statement as soon as we had hoped. I think that what he said—and he has not said very much; one does not expect him to do so, because so little is known of what is going on—at any rate bears out that we are in a very dangerous and difficult situation. It bears out, too, the very sombre speeches which many of your Lordships made last Thursday about the situation in the Middle East. The right thing to do, as I understand the Government are trying to do, is to stop the conflict, to arrange a cease-fire, at any rate to limit the fighting so far as possible; and this I understand they are seeking to do. It will be a real test of the United Nations as to whether or not they can achieve this object, and a great deal of the future of that Organisation will depend on their attitude and how they succeed in dealing with the present situation.
There are three questions I should like to ask the noble Lord. Perhaps your Lordships will have been a little surprised that no mention whatever was made of the Prime Minister's trip to Washington and New York. He has just returned from there, and we have had no statement, either from the Prime Minister or anybody else, as to what happened. Although, to a certain extent, his visit has been overtaken by events, he must have had this possibility in mind 187 when he had his discussions with President Johnson and with U Thant. If the noble Lord can tell us something of what went on during the Prime Minister's two days in the United States we should be very grateful. I wonder whether the noble Lord could also tell us what instructions the Government have given Lord Caradon at the United Nations. As the noble Lord says, the debate is now going on; I think it started at 1.30 or 2.30, London time. It would be for the interest of your Lordships if we could know what instructions the Government gave Lord Caradon in this debate.
Lastly—this is not really a question for the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—there arises the matter whether or not we should have a debate on the situation. We had a debate only last Thursday on the Middle East, though, of course, the whole situation has now changed, and it may he that your Lordships would like to have another debate very soon. Speaking for myself, I feel that it would be a little premature to have one in the next few days because we know so little of what is going on. But I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will bear in mind the fact that there may be many on this side of the House who, in the not too distant future, will wish to have a debate on this subject and will ask the noble Earl to give time for it.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, we all deplore the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East. At this stage I wish only to say that we on the Liberal Benches will give full support to the Government in any efforts they make to bring an end to the fighting. I would endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said. It is very important indeed that a cease-fire should be achieved, if possible through the medium of the United Nations. I would also endorse what he said about a debate. With the state of confusion in communications at the present time, I feel that we should do better to wait a few days before we have a full discussion.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, may I raise one other question? Public opinion crystallises quickly in these days, and public opinion will reach a conclusion as to which country is to be regarded as the aggressor. Would the noble Lord confirm that if it were the case that Israel 188 had started by attacking, under the United Nations Charter and under international law it would not necessarily constitute Israel an aggressor?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, for their forbearance in commenting on the Statement which has been made. In regard to the questions which have been asked, I may say that the Prime Minister's visit to Washington and to New York was, of course, made in a context which has now to a large extent been overtaken by events. The discussions which the Prime Minister had were principally in the context of attempting to prevent hostilities breaking out. Now that hostilities have broken out, the situation has tragically changed. I am not in a position to give detailed information about the talks which the Prime Minister had in the United States, but I think all your Lordships will agree that the situation has now changed out of all recognition and we are now faced with a new and agonising set of problems.
In regard to the instructions given to Lord Caradon, our representative at the United Nations, these are a matter of constant change, and he is receiving new instructions as fast as the situation develops. In giving him these instructions we have three major aims in view. One is that the Security Council should pass a unanimous resolution calling for a cease-fire. His instructions will be to press for that. The other idea which we have is that a personal appeal might go from the Secretary-General, or perhaps even from the President of the Security Council, who at the moment is the Danish statesman, Mr. Tabor. We feel that a personal appeal might go out, calling on both sides to cease hostilities and disengage as a preliminary to an official cease-fire.
Then we thought, as I mentioned in the debate last week in your Lordships' House, that the Secretary-General might send a high-ranking emissary to Tel Aviv and to Cairo to engage in urgent discussions with a view to mediation and, perhaps, to persuading the two sides to disengage. But of course all this will depend on the discussion in the Security Council. I can only say that the Government agree entirely with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that the first 189 and most important requirement here is a cease-fire, and we shall bend all our efforts in the United Nations and elsewhere to bring that about. So far as the comment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is concerned, I am grateful to him for making a point on this important matter. The Government will, of course, take note of that point coming as it does from such an eminent expert in international law.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords—
§ LORD CHALFONTI am sorry, my Lords—and perhaps the noble Marquess will forgive me—but I failed to answer the question about a debate. This is, of course, very much in the minds of the usual channels in the House, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House has assured me that if it is the wish of the House to have a debate at some stage on this matter, then it will be arranged through the usual channels.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I only wanted to ask one question, that is, with regard to the position of the United States. I realise that this is a new situation and that it has to be considered by the Government, but I should like to ask the noble Lord and the Government to bear in mind that it is very important, from the point of view of the whole policy of this country and the support which it gets among the public, that it should be known whether we are acting in the closest concert with the United States. Any fruitful policy must depend on that and I hope, therefore, that some indication can be given as soon as possible that that is the case, and that we are working closely together.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think I can assure your Lordships' House now that in this matter, right from the outset and even at this moment, Her Majesty's Government have kept and are keeping in the closest possible consultation with the Government of the United States, as of course we are with the United Nations and with other Governments concerned.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend a practical question following his reference to the United Nations Supervisory Truce Organisation? I understood him to say that it had been 190 active and, indeed, had secured a truce to date from 12 noon to-day. The question which I should like to ask my noble friend is this. Is he satisfied that, having regard to the new situation, with 800 miles of frontier separating Israel from the four or five Arab States, the Supervisory Truce Organisation has an adequate number of observers available to supervise any truce which may be arranged in the next day or two?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course it would be impossible at this stage to give any assurance that the United Nations organisation in the area is adequate in strength to deal with any situation which might arise. This situation could develop and could deteriorate in a most dramatic way. It is true that a truce had been arranged in Jerusalem at noon to-day, but we understand that since then the United Nations Truce Organisation has been under fire, and we have no official information yet as to the outcome of that incident. But certainly we shall be in close touch with the United Nations in New York and, of course, we shall be prepared to give what advice and help we can to ensure that if there is a truce there are sufficient observers, and that there is a highly efficient organisation there to ensure that it is observed.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, I think the noble Lord said in his Statement that advice had been given to British shipping to stop going through the Suez Canal for at least 24 hours. If these hostilities unhappily continue, then I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is more than a probability that the Suez Canal will be closed. When that happened ten years ago the diversion of shipping round the Cape was such that we sent a mission to help advise the authorities there in dealing with what might be called the "traffic jam" of shipping which then occurred. As it would be in the greatest British interest that everything is done to facilitate shiping going round the Cape, if that becomes necessary, will the Government contemplate offering advice and help in this regard as was done ten years ago, if it will he accepted?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think this is a question which has not yet arisen. It is a hypothetical question, and I think it is, perhaps, one which the 191 noble Lord might raise later if this eventuality should come about. At the moment we have no information that there are any British passenger ships between Gibraltar and Aden, bound for the Middle East ports and the Canal. But if this situation deteriorates, and if this position continues, then clearly we shall have to consider what other steps will need to be taken.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, surely the Government should be looking ahead in this situation, and not simply waiting for events.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course the Government are looking ahead in this situation, and have been trying to look ahead ever since the danger of these hostilities first appeared. But that is surely a very different thing from my saying in your Lordships' House what plans are being made, and I really believe that we should wait for events to develop before going any deeper into this.
§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORDMy Lords, in the course of his Statement the Minister made no reference whatsoever to Russia. Can he enlighten us at all as to what the position of Russia is, and what part they are playing in regard to the negotiations which are now taking place?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am afraid that we shall have to wait and see what developments take place in the Security Council. It is in the discussions which are taking place at this moment that the attitude of the Soviet Union towards this dispute will become clear.