SUEZ: IMMOBILISED BRITISH SHIPS (Hansard, 7 November 1967)

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, during his recent visit to Cairo Sir Harold Beeley suggested to the United Arab Republic authorities that in advance of the opening of the Suez Canal as a whole the southern part of the Canal might be cleared in order to enable the ships blocked in the Great Bitter Lake to leave. The United Arab Republic authorities undertook to examine the matter carefully, and we are reminding them about it.

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but is not the enforced detention of these ships a continued affront to British prestige? Why do not Her Majesty's Government insist 257 on their release as an absolute precondition before diplomatic relations are resumed?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, if it is an affront to British prestige it is also an affront to the prestige of France, West Germany, Sweden, the United States, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, all of whom have ships in that area. I do not think the noble Lord perhaps appreciates that the southern end of the Canal is physically blocked at this moment, and although the difficulties of clearing it are not purely physical ones, they are directly related to the conditions which exist along the armistice line.

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, is not the affront to British prestige far greater as we are the principal maritime Power involved and is there not less chance of securing agreement among the maritime Powers now, after five months delay, than there was in securing agreement to force open the Straits of Tiran last May in a situation of far greater emergency?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the reply I have already given.

§ LORD STRATHCLYDE
My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether any effort is being made to remove these physical obstacles?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I take it that the question is: is anybody physically engaged in trying to remove them at the moment? The answer is "No," for the reasons which were explained during our recent debate on the Middle East. It is claimed that while the present situation exists and there is firing across the Canal this cannot be attempted. What the political factors involved are I would rather not speculate upon at the moment, but I am afraid that no steps are being taken at the moment to clear the obstacles. In any event, it would take a little time to clear them.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, does the noble Lord insinuate by his reply that the prestige of Communist countries is of equal importance, since it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Segal, that before diplomatic relations are resumed there should be action in this matter?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I think the insinuation is on the part of the noble Lord. I merely stated, as a matter of fact, that a number of other countries had their ships blocked. The linking of this physical fact with measurements of national prestige in the international scale could perhaps be discussed on another occasion.

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, is not the clearing of the obstruction at the southern end of the Canal a comparatively simple procedure in relation to the clearing of the northern end of the Canal? What steps have the British Government taken to offer assistance to the Egyptian Government in clearing the southern end of the Canal?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I would ask my noble friend to appreciate that the possibility of British unilateral action in this matter is extremely limited. This is a problem which, like many other problems in the Middle East, depends for a solution on effective action at the United Nations; and it is there, in collaboration with other countries, that we are hoping for a solution. On the first part of the noble Lord's question, I understand that he is correct in saying that, relatively, it is a simpler job to clear the southern end than the rest. But I should like to check that further.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that the reopening of diplomatic relations between Egypt and ourselves is something for the United Nations?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I never said anything of the kind. The question related to the action taken with regard to the clearing of the Canal. I never suggested that diplomatic relations had anything to do with the United Nations.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, was not the question of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, to do with diplomatic relations?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I must say that I have no idea which particular question the noble Lord is talking about.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
But is no action being taken, my Lords? I quite understand that this is not a case 259 for unilateral action, but is no action being taken in conjunction with all the other nations who have ships held up in the Canal to bring this matter to the notice of the United Nations? I refer to the limited question of removing the ships, not to the full question of bringing the present unhappy situation to an end. Could not a joint approach be made to the United Nations on this limited question?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the noble Marquess has put his finger right on the point. It is, in fact, a matter for joint action. Representations have been made at the United Nations, and direct representations have been made to the United Arab Republic, not only by ourselves but by the other Governments concerned, both at the United Nations and elsewhere. Clearly, this is a matter in which united action, both direct to the United Arab Republic by the nations involved and at the United Nations, is most calculated to yield success.

§ BARONESS HORSBRUGH
My Lords, if these representations have been made, could the noble Lord say whether there has been any response?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, perhaps I should rather say that they have so far failed to bear fruit.

§ LORD HENDERSON
My Lords, is not the reopening of the Suez Canal part of the problems between the United Arab Republic and Israel, and can one expect to get a partial settlement without facing up to the real problems between the Arabs and the Israelis?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's point, which is absolutely valid to the general issue of the reopening of the Suez Canal, and this links with the whole problem of the Middle East. But my noble friend's Question related to the rather narrower problem of the ships that were actually held in the southern end, and I should have hoped, quite apart from the wider question, that it might be possible to obtain a limited arrangement by which at least the southern part of the Canal was opened and these ships were released. But I quite agree that one cannot separate the 260 Suez Canal and the whole issue of the right of free and innocent passage through international waterways for all ships, including those of Israel, until such a limited arrangement is achieved as part of a general settlement.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, since emphasis has been put on the importance of releasing the ships, and therefore, presumably, their cargoes also, is the noble Lord in a position to make any statement as to the fate of the cargoes in the ships? Statements have been made, for example, that the cargo of the Polish ship has in some part been removed, which appears to suggest priority for ships of certain origins as against our own.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion more than necessary, although it is an interesting point. I understand, however, as a general point, that it has not been considered worth the effort or the cost, or possibly the risk, of removing the cargo. Perhaps more important than the cargoes are the crews, and I may say that steps have been taken for their welfare and I understand that morale is very high.