§ 2.58 p.m.
§ 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 reconsider their provision of arms to Iran in view of its denial of democratic and human rights.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we keep all defence sales under constant review. As my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place on 6th November:
At the moment we think it right to continue our support for the Shah and for the CENTO Alliance. However, we shall have to consider each arms sale as it comes along".
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that, while many of us admire the service which the Foreign Secretary is giving in other spheres, we think he made a great mistake in supporting this supply of arms to the Shah's régime, which for 14 years has been 653 denying human rights, banning Opposition Parties, condoning corruption within the Royal Family and condoning torture by the army and police? Is he aware how shocked we were when we saw on television British Chieftain tanks with their guns directed against the demonstrators for democracy?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I certainly join with my noble friend in upholding the right to peaceful demonstration for change. It is unfortunately the case that when such demonstrations take on the nature of chaotic and indeed destructive disturbance certain counter-measures are taken. We are ourselves conscious of the attack on the Chancery of the British Embassy in Tehran. I am very glad to assure the House that nobody was seriously hurt—nobody in fact killed—in that demonstration. It would have been a great help to us, as it was to our American friends, whose embassy was perhaps not quite as exposed to demonstration as our own was, if there had been certain means of protecting our fellow nationals on the spot on that night.
As to the supply of defence material to friendly countries—and Iran has been friendly for very many years to this country and of immense importance to the life and livelihood of our people in this country and to the West generally—we scrutinise these requests for arms very carefully indeed. We are by no means the major suppliers of arms in this world, although in the debate the other night I was almost under the impression that some Members thought we were. Quite 70 per cent. of these arms are supplied by the two super Powers, shared equally between the Soviet Union and the United States. We supply a little under 5 percent. and that under very rigid scrutiny indeed, as I know is the case, equally in regard to Iran as in regard to any other country. Nobody can say what turn events in Iran may take in the next few weeks or months.
What we can say is that, largely under the influence of friends, the Shah and his authorities have declared to be clearly in favour of a policy of liberalisation and indeed of free and fair elections between now and next June. We believe that he means this. In the meantime, therefore, we think that we ought to support the 654 existing Government of Iran and encourage them as much as we can to fulfil their undertakings.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, would the noble Lord and the Government not agree on the importance to the West of a stable and friendly Government in Iran, not just because of the West's economic and strategic interests in the area, but also because of the future of the Gulf States and beyond? Would he not also agree that the successor Government, which I suppose would be the Opposition Party, will hardly be likely to advance the cause of human rights and democracy, and would be far less likely to do so than the Shah?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I will not be drawn by the noble Lord into a comment on the latter part of his supplementary question. I prefer not to comment on the policies of any possible successor régime in Iran. We shall have to deal with them if such a régime comes into being. As to the first part of what he said, he has expressed much more succinctly than I managed to do the immense importance of Iran to this country and to democracy, with which I equate the Western World—no other part of the world appears to be standing for democracy—in the context of the Near East and Middle East; that part of the world between Turkey and the frontiers of the Indian sub-continent which have traditionally been the object of attention from their North and the subject of immense strategic and economic importance to the West. On that basis, British self interests and the interests of Western democracy are best served at the present time by encouraging support for the liberalising policy of the Shah.
§ Lord MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that our friendship with Iran has been invaluable, both to Iran, Great Britain and indeed the cause of the Free World; that an alternative to the rule of the Shah might involve much greater dangers to human rights in Iran, as has happened in other places where revolutions have taken place, and might involve great dangers in that part of the world for the peace that all of us are seeking?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, as I said, I prefer not to speculate on the virtues and viability of alternatives, but I take note of what my noble friend has said which joins with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. I am in absolutely no doubt as to the importance of the friendship of the people of Iran. The future of Iran and of this entire area lies with the West, with democratic values. The pace at which these are fulfilled is a matter for local management and concern, together with external encouragement.
§ Lord HANKEYMy Lords, would the Government agree that it is desirable also to take a somewhat broader and longer view of the enormous services which the Shah has rendered to Iran by vastly increasing literacy and education at all levels, by producing a much greater state of social equality than there was when I was in Iran 30 years ago, and by modernising his country in an active way with so much liberalisation as is possible among people where it is extremely difficult to do things effectively? In any case, would the noble Lord not agree that to intervene in the manner suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would be to interfere undesirably in the internal politics of Iran?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway is entirely right to intervene in this matter and to point out to us the fundamental importance of our being very careful indeed not to do anything politically, militarily or otherwise to subserve any repressive régime. What I have said to my noble friend, with great respect, is that we see in the present posture of the Shah's Government a genuine intention to liberalise and democratise, believing that we ask him and others to join us in encouraging the Shahanshah on this path. As to what my noble friend Lord Hankey has said, naturally I will consider with very great care everything he says with his great experience. Once more I ask him, like others, not to ask me to speculate about the future.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords—
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords, I think that noble Lords have had a very good innings on this Question. I hope my noble friend who has raised this Question will 656 accept that. We have taken over 31 minutes for Questions, and Question Time should not be monopolised in that way.
§ Lord PEARTI hope that my noble friend will understand.