§ LORD BROCKWAYMy 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 take the initiative in proposing to the United Nations Security Council the convocation of a conference at Geneva of representatives of Middle East Governments and involved Powers with a view to securing a settlement of the Israeli-Arab confrontation.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)My Lords, we remain ready to help in any way open to us to promote the search for a settlement. But we do not feel that it would be useful at this stage to propose a conference of the kind suggested by the noble Lord.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether she has seen the very impressive letter in The Times from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, making this proposal? In view of the frightening way in which the danger of war is mounting, and the ineffectiveness of ordinary methods of pressure and negotiation, is it not desirable that the world now begins a new and much more decisive approach than it has adopted so far? Would not this proposal meet the Arab objection to direct negotiations? Has not Israel said that she would now be prepared for indirect negotiations, and does this not give the opportunity of making a breakthrough?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I am aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, on this subject, and of course it is a very serious situation in the Middle East. But as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will be aware, the objections so far to this kind of conference have been that Egypt has first asked for an assurance from the Israelis that they would withdraw their troops, and the Israeli Government has always felt that there should be a direct settlement between the two without any preconditions.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that within the last week or two, in reply to the mission from the Organisation of African Unity, Israel has agreed to the proposal for indirect negotiations? Is the noble Baroness not also aware that both sides have accepted the unanimous resolution of the United Nations of 4 years ago? Could this not be made the basis for such a conference?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I am of course aware that both sides have accepted Resolution 242 of the Security Council. But as regards General Dayan's recent remark, that Israel would accept something on the lines of a Geneva Conference, he also put in a caveat to the effect that he wanted to be sure that there would be no imposition of a settlement by the four major Powers.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, if instead of the United Nations passing resolutions, either in the Assembly or in the Security Council, which are never implemented—and we are familiar with these resolutions and with their nonimplementation—the nations associated with the United Nations, and, in particular those in the Security Council, gave a firm pledge of guarantees for both Israel and the Arab States against any possibility of aggression, plus providing the necessary finance for an adequate permanent, or possibly temporary, peacekeeping force in the Middle East, would that not be more likely to lead to a solution of the problem than having stupid conferences and passing stupid, although unanimous, resolutions?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, the United Kingdom has always said that she would play her part in helping to guarantee any settlement, if necessary by contributing forces. But of course such a settlement must be based primarily on agreement between the two main countries involved. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will remember that this resolution—which was, after all, initiated by the British Government—was the means whereby Dr. Jarring was sent as a mediator to see what common ground existed.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that there was an occasion some years ago when the 326 United Kingdom Government, in association with the Governments of France and the United States, decided on a tripartite agreement providing what was called a guarantee, but that never was any attempt made to implement it? What is the use of the British Government indulging in that sort of thing? Why do they not understand that we want a unanimous guarantee from the United Nations and the Security Council in order to prevent aggression?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, as I said earlier, the British Government were very much in favour of Resolution 242, which, among other things, sought to guarantee any frontiers that were agreed; but first of all they must be agreed between the parties concerned.