§ 3.47 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on the Middle East which is being made in another place by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:—
"The House will have heard with satisfaction that the Security Council of the United Nations has now adopted unanimously a resolution calling for a cease-fire. In this the House can rightly take pride in the outstanding contribution made by Lord Caradon in bringing it about. The Council's most urgent task will now be to get this resolution implemented. I was glad to see that the Israel Foreign Minister in his speech to the Council yesterday evening welcomed the appeal for the cease-fire, while pointing out that its implementation requires an absolute and sincere acceptance and co-operation of all parties. It is now for those other parties to make equally clear their acceptance of the call for the cease-fire so that this can come into force without any delay. I have seen a report that the U.A.R. and Iraq may have rejected the appeal. I hope they will think better of this very quickly. It seems to be much in their own interest to do so.
"Once the cease-fire has been implemented the Security Council will need to turn its most urgent attention to the further steps that are needed to secure a lasting peace in the area. It is too early to speculate in detail about the form that this might take, but I am convinced that there will have to be a thorough re-examination of all aspects of the root causes of the conflict.
"Prior to the implementation of the cease-fire, it is now very clear that the military struggle has been going in favour of Israel. It is evident that in the first twenty-four hours of the fighting the Israel Air Force established complete air superiority over the Air Force of the United Arab Republic and its allies. On the ground, Israel forces defeated United Arab Republic forces in the Gaza strip, and are 420 engaging Egyptian units deep in the Sinai Desert. There has been fierce fighting on the Israel/Jordan front and Israel forces captured a substantial area of Jordan territory on the West bank of the River Jordan. I am sorry to report that fighting has been particularly bitter in Jerusalem and still continues in that area. I have no reports of any serious damage to the Holy Places.
"The U.A.R., through Cairo Radio, has continued to broadcast the down-right lie that British and American air forces have taken part in the fighting on the side of Israel. I repeat that this is a lie. It not only did not happen, but it could not have happened, as they well know. In the light of the military situation I have described the reason for this lie is quite clear. The U.A.R. is trying to give itself an alibi for its own military failures and the extent to which its failures have let down its allies.
"The Government have taken every step open to them to deny this action. We have made statements in this House and issued statements to the Press. We have made both oral and written communications in Arab capitals and to Arab Heads of Missions in London. My noble friend Lord Caradon has spoken in the Security Council and had circulated a written denial to all members of the Security Council. The United States delegate to the United Nations yesterday offered facilities for U.N. observers to visit ships of the American Sixth Fleet to check the falsity of the story. I am equally ready to make a similar offer for U.N. observers to visit any of our ships in the area and any of our Royal Air Force stations, including those at Cyprus and our installations at the airfields in Malta. We wish to nail this lie once and for all.
"I am sorry to report to the House that the broadcasting of this lie has misled certain Arab countries into taking a series of measures against Britain. My right honourable friend informed the House of some of these yesterday. The list is now as follows, British Embassies and Consulates and British Council premises have been attacked and damaged in many Arab cities. The U.A.R. Government have 421 closed the Suez Canal to all traffic. The Governments of Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Syria and Lebanon have taken steps to interfere with oil supplies, either to the United Kingdom and U.S.A. only or in some cases on a wider basis. The Governments of Iraq, Syria and Sudan have notified us that they are breaking off diplomatic relations: relations were of course already broken with the U.A.R. and Algeria. It is my sincere hope that these Governments will reverse their attitude now that it is clear not only that the allegation was a lie, but what the motives of the Egyptians have been in propagating it.
"Nevertheless, the Government are having to make suitable arrangements for the protection of British interests if the countries concerned persist in breaches of diplomatic relations. We are in touch with appropriate Governments to act as protecting powers.
"I think that to break off diplomatic relations with us, and for this reason, is the most foolish possible action that these Governments could take. This has been put to them as forcibly as possible. If they insist, they will of course have to face the consequences.
"Arrangements are also going ahead to evacuate further numbers of British subjects from countries involved in the fighting and from countries which have broken diplomatic relations. However, in some of these cases a breach of diplomatic relations will presumably not extend to commercial relations, and I would expect that where there is no immediate danger to life and property many British subjects will still wish to remain.
"Urgent steps are being taken to readjust the pattern of oil supplies to this country. While there may well be temporary inconveniences for us, there should be no insuperable problem. The action taken against us has come at a time of oil surplus in the world and the countries which have taken it may find that they have done their own economic interests much greater harm than they have done to ours.
"On the question of arms shipments, we are continuing our efforts to achieve a suspension of the export of all arms 422 supplies to this area, and the call for a cease-fire reinforces the position we have taken up on this.
"However, I am bound to warn the House the situation at the moment is that we have had no response from the Russians and we understand the Americans are not placing an embargo. In this situation it makes it very difficult for Britain to maintain the suspension of supplies which we have already unilaterally imposed.
"In any long-term agreement which is negotiated, limitation and control over arms exports into the area will clearly be a very important factor."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement. I apologise for its length, but I am sure your Lordships will realise that, with a subject of this importance, these matters cannot be dealt with altogether briefly.
§ 3.54 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, which I think is generally very welcome to the whole House. We are all delighted to hear that the efforts of the Government have been successful in one respect, in that the Security Council has now suddenly reversed its opposition to the cease-fire, which was not accepted yesterday but which has been accepted to-day—a change which may not be wholly unconnected with military events. We hope that all the belligerents will soon be prevailed on to accept it.
But I am sure the Government will agree that the events of the last few weeks up till to-day have been entirely governed by power politics and not in any way by international justice. I think they will also agree that they have not increased confidence in the ability of the United Nations to prevent aggression or to exercise courage and boldness in trying to prevent it. Therefore, a cease-fire now, for which we all hope, will be of no real effect unless it is accompanied by effectual guarantees—not merely by aimless talk—for the opening of the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba to the shipping of all countries.
There are only two questions which I want to put. One is about the lie. I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken to counter this atrocious falsehood, but they will remember the 423 principle of Dr. Goebbels that any lie, however groundless, will be believed if repeated often enough. Although this lie may have been immediately countered it will go on being repeated, perhaps not at the highest levels but by hundreds of agents in the Middle East and by hundreds of broadcasts and by newspapers. I would ask the Government, when they say that they want to nail this lie once and for all, to remember that some lies are too slippery and to squamous to be subject to this kind of treatment with a hammer and a nail. I think they may have to go on taking measures to expose this falsehood, and to hold the originators of it responsible for their deliberate perversion of truth.
The other question which I should very much like to ask is this. The noble Lord mentioned that Iraq and the United Arab Republic had refused to accept the ceasefire. He did not say anything about Jordan, and he will no doubt have seen on the tape machines in the last hour or two that there have been reports that Jordan has accepted the cease-fire. I would ask the noble Lord if he can tell us whether or not these reports are accurate. Whatever our views may be about this outbreak of hostilities, I think we all wish to see the small country of Jordan left in a position which will enable it to go on continuing the peaceful development of its economy in which it has made such good progress in the last ten years, largely with our aid and with that of the United States. I should like to know whether there is any substance in these reports that Jordan has accepted the cease-fire.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, we on these Benches would certainly wish to be associated with the tribute which the Foreign Secretary has paid to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, and, indeed, to the work of the British team in the Security Council. We should also like to welcome very much indeed the fact that in this respect the Security Council has reasserted its authority.
I want merely to put three short questions. First of all, is there any news as to whether Nasser is still in control in Egypt? Secondly, could the Prime Minister use his influence, which he has, with Mr. Kosygin to bring pressure to bear on the United Arab Republic to 424 accept the cease-fire? Thirdly, at an appropriate moment should we not make it absolutely clear that the cease-fire is merely a prelude to a comprehensive settlement which guarantees Israel the right to live without being harassed by its neighbours?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, may I once again express my appreciation to the noble Lords opposite for the understanding and co-operative way in which they have received the Statement by Her Majesty's Government. So far as the remarks made by the noble Earl are concerned, I would say that of course there must always be an element of power politics, even in the affairs of the United Nations, but I think we should pay tribute to the fact that the United Nations Security Council has for once succeeded in getting a peace-keeping resolution of this sort through without the application of the veto by one of the Great Powers. I feel that this is a great triumph for the United Nations and should reinforce our belief in it and our determination to seek a solution to the problems in the Middle East through the United Nations.
So far as the nature of the disengagement that will have to take place after a cease-fire is concerned, it would be inappropriate to discuss the details of that now, but I think it is true to say that the cease-fire will be of no great value unless it is immediately followed by a military disengagement of some sort. But I hope we can agree not to pursue the details of that fully at this moment. As to the disgraceful lie about the participation of British and American forces, we shall, of course, go on denying it and broadcasting our denials of it. It is bound to be believed in certain quarters—a lie as big as this is bound to be believed by some people—but we shall go on denying it and, as my right honourable friend has said, we are prepared to demonstrate to anyone who wishes to come and see that it is a lie. We have, I fear, no confirmation of the wire-service reports that Jordan has accepted a cease-fire. I fear I can give the House no comfort in that respect.
So far as the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, are concerned, I am glad that he has associated himself and his Benches with the tribute to Lord Caradon. In answer to his specific questions, I may say that we have no news 425 from Cairo to suggest that President Nasser is not in control of the situation. The evidence, in fact, so far as we have any evidence, is to the contrary. Of course the Prime Minister will use his influence with everyone concerned in this affair to ensure that this cease-fire resolution is observed and put into effect at the earliest possible moment. So far as the noble Lord's remark about the right of Israel to live is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have made their position about that quite clear. That country exists and it cannot be blotted out; but I would ask your Lordships not to pursue too far the details of the sort of disengagement that must now take place.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will consider taking action further than that announced to-day, when he indicated that the Government were taking further steps to deny this malignant lie? Is it not the case that under the Charter of the United Nations the allegations which have been made by the Government of the United Arab Republic are allegations of aggression against the United States Government and the British Government? In that case, is it not the responsibility of the Security Council, under Chapter VI, to investigate any allegations of aggression? We know that the Egyptian Government are represented in New York. Why cannot the suggestion be made that the Security Council investigate these allegations—because they are of vital importance to both the United States and our own country—and invite the representative of the Government of the United Arab Republic to appear before the Security Council to substantiate these lying statements? That would enable greater light to be thrown upon the position than merely by unilateral denials made, whether by the United States Government or by Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I have the greatest sympathy for the views of my noble friend and, indeed, the greatest respect for his views in this matter. He is one of the greatest experts in your Lordships' House on the affairs of the United Nations. But I think we should possibly be wrong in giving too much credence to this type of allegation, and certainly we should be wrong to invite anybody to 426 substantiate such allegations. The best we can do in this case is to say that this is a monstrous and disgraceful lie, and that we are prepared, under the auspices of the United Nations, to demonstrate that it is a lie. But I will certainly take into account what my noble friend has said.
I think one of the most ridiculous things about this allegation is that, as was pointed out in a previous Statement, the two aircraft carriers in the area which are alleged to have taken part were both 1,000 miles away from the scene of operations. I should have thought that any reasonably well informed defence correspondent could have told President Nasser and his propaganda machine that it is difficult, if not impossible, for aircraft to operate from an aircraft carrier at that range.
§ 4.6 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two very short questions? It would seem from what he has said, and from what we have read in the papers, that the Arabs have suffered a major military defeat, and that their reaction has been, as a result, to turn upon the British and the Americans and also to tell this lie about British aircraft. I am glad that the noble Lord is taking such steps as he can to deny that lie; but I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will make it abundantly plain in Arab capitals that from the outset we counselled restraint on both sides, both on Israel and on President Nasser, because we believed that it was in the interests of both sides that restraint should be employed. Indeed, it certainly is being proved that it would have been in the interests of the Arabs to show more restraint. I hope, therefore, that it will be said in Arab capitals, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that it is no part of British policy or of British interests to watch an Arab defeat or an Arab humiliation. It certainly is not in our interests, and I hope that we shall make it plain to them that we never desired that such a thing should happen.
Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, this question? He mentioned that President Nasser has closed the Suez Canal, but he did not tell us what steps are being taken by the Government or by the United Nations to see that it is reopened.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, so far as the noble Lord's first question is concerned, of course it is of no possible advantage to Her Majesty's Government to gloat over the defeat of anybody in the Middle East. As he rightly says, we have enjoined restraint on both sides in this affair, and I should like to make it clear here and now, not only in Arab capitals but publicly, and in your Lordship's House, that we do not take sides in this disastrous affair in the Middle East. We did counsel restraint on both sides, and it can be only to the disadvantage of both sides and to the rest of the world that these counsels were not heeded.
So far as the position of the Suez Canal is concerned, President Nasser has announced that the canal has been closed. I think it would not be entirely profitable to speculate at the moment on what action he might take to enforce that statement, and what action we might therefore take in reaction to it; but perhaps it might be useful to state, very briefly, what the legal position is in the case of the Suez Canal—and we shall, of course, as always, be governed by the position in International Law.
Article I of the Constantinople Convention lays down that the canal shall be open in time of war as in time of peace to every vessel, and that the canal shall not be blockaded. Under Article IV, no acts of hostility may be committed in the canal. Article VIII recognises the possibility of threats to the security of the canal and the consequential need to take proper steps to ensure the protection and free use of the canal. Article X permits the United Arab Republic to take measures to secure their defence; and, as the noble Lord will know, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter also recognises the inherent right of self-defence against armed attack. But all this is subject always to non-interference with the free use of the Suez Canal. That is the legal position on which Her Majesty's Government will take their stand.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTERMy Lords, we have heard with great distress that bitter fighting is still going on in Jerusalem. May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any news about the safety not only of the Archbishop of Jerusalem and the staff at St. Georges, but also of the other Christian 428 patriarchates? Has the noble Lord any news about the safety of the Holy Places, which are Holy Places not only for Christians but for Moslems and for the Jews; and will Her Majesty's Government press with every force that Jerusalem should be declared an open city as soon as possible, and that as soon as possible, if only temporarily, it should be put under some form of international control?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am afraid that we have not very much detailed information of what is going on in Jerusalem except that there is still bitter fighting there. We are not able to say clearly and specifically what is the position about the safety of those people in Jerusalem. We have no information that there has been any damage, so far, to the Holy Places. So far as the suggestion that Jerusalem should be declared an open city is concerned, I think this would be covered by the immediate and urgent application of the United Nations resolution for a cease-fire, which would cover Jerusalem as well as the rest of the Middle Eastern area. I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure that a cease-fire is implemented at the earliest opportunity.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware how profoundly grateful we all are at the unanimous decision of the Security Council, and also how all of us accept without qualification the denial by the Government that British aircraft have been used, as has been alleged? May I also ask my noble friend this question? In his Statement he said that the United Nations would take some action if the cease-fire was accepted. Would it not be possible for the United Nations to take some action prior to that, and, even if in the first instance it is rejected, for the Government to appoint a commission of uncommitted nations, under the leadership of U Thant, to continue to press for a cease-fire in this conflict?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course there is no reason, why, because the Security Council has called for a cease-fire, we should cease our activities in New York or in the capitals of the world involved in this struggle. The possibility of the United Nations' sending some world figure, or some mediating 429 organisation, to the Middle East is by no means discounted. I can assure my noble friend that the Government have this very much in mind and that Lord Caradon has been instructed in New York to this effect.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, following on the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether, in view of the close and tremendous interest of Christians in the Holy Land, it would be possible to make representations to the participants in the warfare in Israel that there should be no bombing or shelling, not only of Jerusalem but also of Bethlehem and Nazareth? Secondly, may I ask whether thought may now be given to some international treaty or convention for the future to safeguard the Holy Places from the sort of very great danger that they are in at the moment?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have this very much in mind. Indeed we have evidence that those involved in the hostilities in the area of Jerusalem have themselves the safety and integrity of the Holy Places very much in mind. But I shall, of course, take note and report to my colleagues what the noble Lord has said about ways of safeguarding these places in future.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, have Her Majesty's Government any information regarding the plight of hundreds of thousands of refugees in UNWRA camps—I am thinking particularly of those in the Gaza Strip—and whether UNWRA is being allowed to carry on functioning there?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, it is very difficult to get any reliable information at the moment. There is still bitter and very fluid fighting going on in that area. We have this very much in mind, and as soon as we can get information of that sort we shall make it known.
§ LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDALMy Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, say whether there is any indication that the Israeli forces might give the raising of the blockade of the Suez Canal as a reason for continuing their advance? It could be that they might ignore a cease-fire on the grounds that, 430 because the Suez Canal has been illegally blocked, it is desirable and necessary that the blockade should be raised.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I understand the road that the noble Lord is following, but I think that it would be unprofitable to follow it at the moment and to speculate upon what the Israelis may do. I think that is less important than impressing on them the necessity of observing a cease-fire as soon as possible.