§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the present state of negotiations on the Middle East.]
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, in early February Dr. Jarring submitted proposals to the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel asking for conditional commitments from them on peace and withdrawal respectively. Her Majesty's Government welcomed this initiative. The United Arab Republic Government's reply gave the commitments for which Dr. Jarring had asked on the nature of the peace they would undertake to keep. Dr. Jarring still seeks from Israel a matching commitment on withdrawal within the terms of Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November, 1967.
Recent developments have made it more necessary than ever that the negotiations under Dr. Jarring's auspices 649 should be enabled to make progress in an atmosphere conducive to the achievement of a settlement. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do everything within their power to promote and assist efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement in accordance with the Security Council resolution. They are maintaining regular contact with the parties, and with other interested Governments, and with Dr. Jarring himself. They are also, of course, playing an active part in the Four Power discussions in New York on the subject of guarantees for a settlement.
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that reply, and I should like to ask him a question on one particular point. As I understand it, mostly by reading what appears in the newspapers, the immediate problem seems to be narrowing itself down to an area known as Sharm el Sheikh. Would not the Government—and I speak as one who had something to do with Resolution No. 242—consider making it quite clear to the parties that the interpretation of Resolution No. 242 as applied to Sharm el Sheikh must provide not only for Egyptian sovereignty of that area, but also safeguards for Israeli security, and in particular security of passage of ships through those waters? As I understand it, the present publicly stated official position of Israel is different, but we all understand that there may be many reasons for publicly stated official reasons. Would it not be a very good thing if somebody made it quite plain that that is in fact the interpretation of Resolution 242 relating to Sharm el Sheikh? If that were done, might we not make some progress?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, as the noble Lord says, he had a great deal to do with the drafting of Resolution No. 242. I am quite certain that Her Majesty's Government will study what he has said with the very greatest interest. I also hope and have no doubt that both the Governments of Israel and the U.A.R. will also do so.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, in any future talks which the Government may have will they consider impressing on both sides the strong desirability, not the 650 necessity, of their accepting some kind of neutral force at Sharm el Sheikh? I do not know whether the Government will agree, but it seems to me that this would be the way, in the long run, to get over the difficulties on both sides.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I do not think the noble Lord will expect a direct answer to that question to-day. I feel that in a matter of great delicacy such as that which is now going on the less we say at this stage in this House the better. I will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, would it not be desirable to allow Dr. Jarring to continue his valiant efforts with patience and understanding, instead of allowing so-called "experts" to intervene with fantastic and bizarre ideas—in particular, those experts who believe that they know all about the situation in the Middle East, but when they had a responsibility failed to achieve anything useful? Is it not desirable that Dr. Jarring should continue his efforts in the hope that direct negotiations should develop which are the only chances of reaching a successful conclusion?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, of course I agree that we all hope that Dr. Jarring will be allowed to continue his efforts to achieve a lasting solution. It is comforting to feel that he has at least got off to a better start this time so far as the U.A.R. are concerned. It is certainly our hope that there will be a matching response from Israel.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess to consider whether it is unrealistic to expect Israel to go to boundaries which are insecure? Is it not obvious to anybody that her previous experience will prevent her from accepting any terms unless she is in a position to defend herself? Is it not ridiculous at this stage for suggestions to come forward, without Israel being consulted, as to what those secure boundaries should be?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I am quite sure that the Government of Israel will make their position perfectly plain to Dr. Jarring on these points.
§ LORD ST. HELENSMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether any coordinated military planning has yet started between the four Powers in order to preserve the peace if agreement is reached by Israel and the Arabs?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice. At the moment, the thinking seems to be more on the lines of a possible United Nations' Force. I will certainly look into the matter.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether we are to understand that the dominant intention of Her Majesty's Government is to get the two sides together round the conference table? Secondly, are we to understand that the situation is made much more difficult because of the constant changing and inconsistent attitudes of the four Powers—the difference between their own relationship and the main problem? Thirdly, is it not as unlikely that Russia will give up Egypt, the supervision of whose military forces she now controls, as it is that she will give up Berlin or the Eastern European countries that she dominates?
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, do Her Majesty's Government associate themselves with the statement which I believe was made at the beginning of this Session by our Foreign Secretary, requiring Israel to withdraw to the frontiers determined by the cease-fire in 1948? If the Government do not associate themselves with that—and it seems to many of us a rather irresponsible statement—is it not time publicly to say so?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, I would not dream of dissociating myself with anything that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said. In reply to my noble friend Lord Barnby, I would agree with him that what we want to see are negotiations between the two parties concerned and Dr. Jarring.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I ask the Government why some people expect the Israelis to behave in a way in which they themselves would 652 never behave in the same circumstances; that is, to withdraw before any terms are agreed, let alone any negotiations begun—withdrawal before guarantees?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANMy Lords, these are matters which I hope will be put to Dr. Jarring by the Israeli Government. I have no doubt that they will do so.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, Lord George-Brown's Question was framed in very wide terms, and understandably so. The supplementary questioning has also been going wide—perhaps understandably so. I do not believe that this is the type of discussion which is really susceptible to answer by question and answer. I would suggest that after a pretty fair round of questioning we may leave it where it is at the present time and come back to it in debate, or in an Unstarred Question, if that is the wish of your Lordships.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD JANNERMy Lords, will the noble Earl indicate whether, in view of the importance of this matter, we shall shortly have a debate on the subject of the Middle East?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, that is a very proper question and, of course, we shall be very glad to consider that suggestion through the usual channels. I should not for one second seek to minimise the great importance of the issues which we have just been discussing.