§ 3.53 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, on his visit to New York. Perhaps I should say before beginning this Statement that it is a long one and it will take me several minutes to read.
The Statement reads:
"During the five days that I was in the United States I addressed the Emergency Session of the United Nations General Assembly; I had long and valuable talks in Washington with President Johnson and in New York with Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko, with Mr. Rusk and M. Couve de Murville, and with the Foreign Ministers and other representatives of almost all the countries directly concerned in the Middle East crisis.
"The main theme of my speech to the General Assembly was to emphasise the urgent need to begin to deal at once with practical problems—the things we could do and ought to be doing now. I spoke also about some of the elements which had to be included in any final settlement. In particular I referred to the provisions of the United Nations Charter which 30 call for all countries to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any other country. I made it clear also that in our view all States in the Middle East had a right to live in genuine independence.
"Speaking on the lines of my Nottingham speech, I said that territorial aggrandisement as a result of war was contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and that other elements in a final settlement must be a long overdue solution of the refugee problem, the necessity for free and innocent passage through international waterways for the ships of all nations and the urgent requirement for an agreement on arms limitation. All this would, no doubt, require long and difficult negotiation and it is too early to see the outcome. Meanwhile there were certain practical steps which should be taken now. These included nomination by the Secretary-General of a representative, of unquestioned standing, who should go at once to the area and advise on the whole range of problems resulting from the ceasefire. In particular, he could make recommendations for strengthening the work of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation and upon the form which a new United Nations military presence in the Middle East might take. There were a range of urgent problems also relating to those who had had to flee from their homes as a result of the war. Not only must they be allowed to return to their homes, but UNRWA and the voluntary organisations must be provided urgently with the means of relieving their distress.
"Apart from these problems I spoke of the urgent need to get the Suez Canal open again and I dealt very firmly with the vicious allegations about British involvement in the fighting. I ended my speech with a solemn warning that if the United Nations made no progress in solving these problems, there was a very real danger that it might go the way of the League of Nations.
"I had been the first speaker to emphasise the need to tackle urgent practical problems now and I was encouraged by the degree of support 31 that I received for this from subsequent speakers. The speech was, I think, well received in the United Nations itself and in newspaper, television and radio comment in New York. I gather that it has had a more mixed reception in this country. I must emphasise that we must at all costs avoid falling into the trap of applying a double standard. Would a similar line have been taken if the war had gone the other way—if the Arab Air Force had got in its strike first and if Arab armies had occupied significant parts of the territory of Israel? What would then have been said about the permanent retention of territorial gains made by conquest?
"As for the status of Jerusalem, may I remind the House of the attitude of successive British Governments in the past? The Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 left the city divided between Israel and Jordan, and this de facto partition persisted until the recent hostilities. But a General Assembly resolution of December 9, 1949, provided that there should be a unified city under international control. Her Majesty's Government, along with most other Western Governments, have always withheld recognition of the claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem by both Jordan and Israel pending a final settlement. For this reason our Embassy in Israel, like those of most other countries, is in Tel Aviv and not in Jerusalem. Our Consul-General in Jerusalem is subordinate neither to the Ambassador in Tel Aviv nor to the Ambassador in Amman but directly to the Foreign Office.
"I therefore went on in my speech in New York to warn the Israel Government not to inject another complication into the situation—which is already more than sufficiently complicated—by purporting to annex the old city. This is not simply a problem of religious administration of the Holy places. It is not simply a problem of access to the Holy places. Of course we are in favour of free access by all—Jews, Christians and Moslems—to their places of worship. The problem is one of sovereignty over territory and the Israel Government would in my view be very 32 unwise indeed to attempt to prejudge the form of an eventual settlement. I am not asking for the return of a divided Jerusalem. Nor do I want to forecast what the eventual arrangements may be, except to repeat that any lasting settlement of which they form part must among other things clearly recognise the right of all States concerned to live in true dignity and real freedom.
"I spent the rest of my time discussing the Middle East crisis and bilateral problems with those who had come to New York to attend the Assembly. It would not be proper to go into details of confidential discussions, but the House may take it that I left the three Arab delegates concerned in no doubt about our attitude to their completely unjustified interruption of our oil supplies and to the closure of the Suez Canal. This is an important matter in which we must of course work with our friends who share an interest in getting the Canal reopened. I might add that this interest is not all one-sided; the United Arab Republic itself is a heavy loser as a result of the closure of this international waterway. I also had valuable talks on matters of mutual interest with representatives from areas other than the Middle East.
"As regards the future, much will depend on the outcome of the talks which took place between President Johnson and Mr. Kosygin. I would expect the debate in the United Nations Assembly to continue for at least a week and maybe longer. During this time there will be much discussion on the floor and behind the scenes of the kind of resolution which would command a majority vote in the Assembly. Her Majesty's Government are of course taking a full part in these discussions. It is too early to say what will be the outcome.
"My visit to New York enabled me to urge upon all in the United Nations the vital necessity of tackling the immediate practical problems. I was also able to make clear in my speech and in my numerous private discussions that the main interest of the United Kingdom was in a lasting settlement acceptable to all parties: equitable and justifiable."
That, my Lords, is the Statement.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I have no doubt that all your Lordships will at once have realised that the Statement is primarily an explanation and justification on the part of the Foreign Secretary to the critics on his own side in another place. I think we can safely leave him to them, for I do not think it would be either fair to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, or profitable to your Lordships to question him about some aspects of what the Foreign Secretary has been doing in the United Nations.
I must say that I am disappointed that the Statement does not show Her Majesty's Government taking a rather more constructive view about the two issues upon which we in this House are most concerned: that is, the closure of the Suez Canal and the problem of the refugees. The noble Lord repeated the Foreign Secretary's words that it was urgent that the Suez Canal should be opened, but we have no idea what he is doing about it. He has said nothing about any constructive proposals which he has made for achieving that end. I think your Lordships would like to hear from the Foreign Secretary something more than just a pious expression of the urgent need for opening the Suez Canal. What are Her Majesty's Government doing about it?
Secondly, we should like to hear a little more about what the Government propose to do on the refugee problem. Have the Government taken a lead in offering any money or in proposing to set up any organisation in order to cope with this terrible problem which exists in the Middle East? If your Lordships could be helped on these two matters, we might be a little further forward.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Foreign Secretary's re-interpretation of his New York speech, but is the noble Lord aware that many of us feel that it was unfortunate for the Foreign Secretary to lecture Israel about territorial aggrandisement and permanent retention of territorial gains? Surely it is unrealistic to expect a country which has to fight for its life to give up anything without a guarantee that it will be allowed to live 34 in peace in the future. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is any sign that the Arab countries are willing to negotiate a reasonable settlement, or even to negotiate at all.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, so far as Lord Carrington's comment on the Statement is concerned, he said that he could leave the Foreign Secretary to his critics, and I am equally sure that I can leave the Foreign Secretary adequately to defend himself. Therefore I will confine myself to the two questions which he put. First of all, on the question of the closure of the Canal, as noble Lords will know, the Canal is believed to be blocked physically; but in any case it seems that the attitude of the Arab Governments is—and they have said this—that the Canal will remain closed as long as Israeli forces are on the Canal. We have told the Governments of the United Arab Republic that this is an intolerable situation. We have repeated our view that under the Constantinople Convention this is an international waterway which must give free access to all shipping in times of war as well as in times of peace. As regards taking further action, we must, as my right honourable friend has said, consult all our friends who are in a similar position. We must concert our action about this matter, and before we do anything we first must find out what is the real central and final position of the U.A.R. Governments on it. We are not idle in this matter, but we must do a good deal more by way of discussion and co-ordination before we take any further action.
In regard to refugees, we are keeping very careful watch on the situation and are taking part in the various discussions which go on about the subject in the United Nations. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord and other noble Lords to be patient until later this week when we shall have a debate on the refugee problem and when I shall hope to set out in full the position of Her Majesty's Government.
As to the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, it would be quite wrong of me—and, in the truest sense of the world, impertinent—to try to place any further gloss on what the Foreign Secretary has said in his Statement. It was not a question of lecturing one country in this dispute or of taking 35 sides, but simply pointing out the principle that territorial aggrandisement should not be allowed to result in permanent gain—in a case of this sort, that territorial aggrandisement should not result from military operations—and to hope that the final solution would be just and equitable for all concerned.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, my noble friend did not answer the latter part of the question put by the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. Could he give us any indication as to the prospects of peace negotiations between Israel, on the one hand, and the Arab States, on the other? What we have today is a situation of cease-fire, which I should have thought justified the Government of Israel in standing in their present positions until they enter into negotiations. What territorial or boundary readjustments will follow or be the outcome of peace negotiations is another matter. What we have today are speeches at the General Assembly under Article 11, but the real issue depends upon whether there can be peace negotiations leading to a final settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and he is right in saying that the essence of all this is whether we can get some real, effective, final peace negotiations under way. But I am afraid that I cannot foresee what is likely to happen in the United Nations, which is the forum in which these discussions are being carried out and, in my view, the right forum.
§ LORD SOMERSMy Lords, I noticed that the Foreign Secretary used the phrase, "If, for example, the Arabs had struck first …" May I ask the noble Lord what proof exists that they did not?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I do not think that the Foreign Secretary was making any value judgments or moral judgments in this case. We know from the now well-documented accounts of the war that the Israeli air force struck at the Arab air force and virtually destroyed it. What he was asking was what would have happened if the reverse had been the case.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us 36 greatly appreciate the report which has now been given of what the Foreign Secretary said in the United Nations? Is it not clear that he was the first speaker at the Assembly to put forward a series of constructive proposals dealing with immediate problems and that that was recognised in the subsequent discussions? And is my noble friend also aware that whilst that speech was reported in our Press on two particular controversial points which led to some criticism, many of us strongly endorse the view which he expressed that military action should not determine the peace which, if it is to be enduring, must express principle, and also that Jerusalem, which is so important to the world, should become an international city?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I believe it is true that the Foreign Secretary was among the first in the United Nations to put forward proposals for practical steps to solve the immediate problems, and I believe that this action was widely appreciated. I certainly agree—and I believe Her Majesty's Government, and indeed the Opposition also would agree—with the proposition that military action should not be allowed to be the determining factor in a crisis of this sort.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, on the point as to who started the war, is it not a fact that before the Israeli strike took place President Nasser informed the world that the United Arab Republic intended to exterminate the Jews?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I believe that statements of that sort have been made from time to time in the past, but I think it would be unprofitable now, and indeed rather dangerous, and also, if I may use the word, counter-productive, to go into arguments about who started the war. What we must now do is to see that it remains ended and that a peaceful and just solution is brought about.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, is it not equally counter-productive to prejudge the Israeli action before any negotiations have taken place?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, of course it is counter-productive (I am 37 sorry now that I used that word) to prejudge anything in the present situation. If I gave any indication that Her Majesty's Government are doing so, I certainly had no intention of giving that impression. We shall prejudge no issues, but will do all we can to help all the other countries concerned to seek a permanent solution.