HL Deb 10 July 1975 vol 362 cc907-9
Lord CHELWOOD

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask what plans Her Majesty's Government now have for the United Kingdom to play a more active role in the search for a peace settlement in the Middle East in the light of the recent visits of the President in Office of the EEC Conference of Foreign Ministers to Arab countries and Israel; and whether the EEC favours a reconvening of the Geneva Peace Conference or the continuation of the present efforts by the United States to arrive at a peace formula step by step.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, we remain ready to play a constructive part in the search for peace, but so long as the prospects for progress through the United States initiative seem good we believe the Americans should continue to play the major role. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in Rome on 3rd July, the Middle East is an issue on which we intend to strive for a unified approach by the Nine.

Lord CHELWOOD

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Nine Community countries agreed in 1973 to speak with one voice in the search for a peace settlement in the Middle East involving Israel's withdrawal to the pre-Six Day War armistice lines and the recognition of Palestinian rights. Is that still the case? More specifically, are the Community countries individually, and as a whole, willing to underwrite any international guarantees that are necessary, including perhaps the policing of buffer zones in the second phase of the settlement?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in stating that the December 1973 Statement from Copenhagen supported Resolution 242 and the subsequent Resolution 338, upholding the principles he has just mentioned. As to the Nine participating in any guarantee, presumably military, in support of a settlement, I think that it would be premature for me to pronounce on that suggestion. I would add that it is obviously a suggestion that will, among others, be carefully considered.

Lord JANNER

My Lords, in the course of the discussions which take place, will my noble friend appreciate that there are some people who put a different interpretation upon Resolution 242 from the one that the noble Lord is trying to enforce, that people believe that Resolution 242 meant what it said and, as the Government said at that time, that Israel should have satisfactory and secure boundaries?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I do not think there is any serious diversity of opinion as to what Resolution 242 means. It means territorial withdrawal, security for Israel, and a recognition of the rights of refugees, and today we add to that, of course, the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, now that we are firmly in the EEC, that perhaps the most constructive thing the Government can do is to seek to get closer together on foreign policy?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I very much agree, and that is the long-term intention of Her Majesty's Government. There are economic and social matters on which the Nine can increasingly co-operate. Obviously, there are the fields of disarmament and peace and foreign affairs generally, on which the Nine could very much co-operate increasingly to make an effective contribution. I therefore very much agree with the noble Lord.

Lord PARGITER

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that we would have some sympathy with Israel's idea that they should have a properly defensible line that does not depend so much on guarantees which may or may not be effective?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

Yes, my Lords, and the phrase "secure boundaries" means just that.