ARMS SUPPLIES TO ISRAEL (Hansard, 3 July 1969)

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

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT)
My Lords, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the speech of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in another place on June 17. He explained there the principles on which our arms policy is based and why it is not possible to give details about arms supplies which we may or may not make to other countries. My right honourable friend also made it clear that it is not our policy to apply an embargo to any country; nor is it our intention to see any country in the Middle East at such a disadvantage as to tempt an aggressor.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the noble Lord, first, when a decision on this question of tanks—which is urgent—is likely to be reached by Her Majesty's Government; and secondly, how the supply of arms to Libya and Nigeria, and the refusal to supply arms to Israel and South Africa, square up with the principles laid down recently in another place by the Secretary of State for the guidance of Parliament?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, as I say, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any detailed information about a decision on this subject, as it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to give details of arms supplies that they may or may not make to other countries. So far as the second part of his question is concerned, I would point out that these are all individual cases. He mentioned Libya, Nigeria, South Africa and Greece. All these are different cases. In the case of Greece, for example, there have been no substantial supplies of arms since the present régime came into power. They are all different cases, and as my right honourable friend said, we examine all these cases on their merits. We make 659 decisions in individual cases having regard to the circumstances at the time and our overall policy. It simply is not possible to lump all these together.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
My Lords, may I ask one more question? In making those decisions, will Her Majesty's Government have some regard to the principles already laid down by the Secretary of State?

§ LORD CHALFONT
Of course, my Lords. We shall have very close regard to the principles which he laid down.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, is the Minister able to give some indication of the formula, for guidance? Because in the case of South Africa it was indicated clearly by the Government that there was dictation by the United Nations in disregard of our civilian trade. Did I misunderstand the noble Lord when I thought I heard him say that the Government had no embargo on arms in any direction? Is there not an embargo on arms of some classes to South Africa?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, there is a United Nations' resolution on the subject of South Africa to which Her Majesty's Government accede. As we voted for the resolution, we naturally take account of its provisions. The questions of South Africa and Greece are entirely separate matters. The question of arms to Israel, which I may remind your Lordships' House was the subject of the original Question, is far removed from either of them.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether advantage could not be taken of the meeting of representatives of the four Powers on the Middle East to impose an absolute embargo by those Powers on arms to either side in the confrontation in the Middle East?

§ LORD CHALFONT
My Lords, I may have misunderstood or not properly heard the first part of my noble friend's question, but I am not aware that the four Powers have made any recommendations that are yet public; but certainly we should be very happy to see a multilateral agreement concerned with the supply of arms to this area. I merely make the point that this is not a matter in which we can act unilaterally, or in which we should act unilaterally.