HL Deb 16 June 1980 vol 410 cc842-55

3.39 p.m.

Lord CARRINGTON

With your Lordships' permission, I shall make a Statement on the European Council.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I attended the meeting of the European Council held in Venice on 12th and 13th June. The Summary of the proceedings issued by the Italian Presidency has been placed in the Library of the House. The Venice meeting was a series of general discussions between the Nine Heads of Government about the fundamental problems we all face within the European Community and outside. They had in mind the need to prepare a common European view for the Economic Summit which is to be held next Sunday and Monday.

All the nations of the European Community have similar problems of inflation and unemployment and a number now have an adverse balance of payments. The Heads of Government were agreed that the major short-term objective must be to contain inflation by means of appropriate monetary and fiscal policies. They were concerned that the 100 per cent. increase in the price of oil over the last year would lead to a recession in world trade. They were therefore disturbed by the pressure for further oil price increases at the recent Algiers meeting of OPEC. Such an increase can only make worse the economic problems of the industrialised countries and give rise to intolerable burdens for the developing countries. The European Community remains willing to enter into a dialogue with the oil producers.

Having noted the budgetary settlement reached by the Council of Ministers at the end of May, the Heads of Government had a useful but necessarily preliminary discussion of the need to put in hand and carry through urgently a review of the Community's financial position. The nine Heads of Government also took the opportunity to have a first, informal, discussion about the choice of the next President of the Commission.

The European Council issued three declarations, on the Lebanon, on Afghanistan, and on the Middle East. With permission, all three texts will be circulated in the Official Report. Those on the Lebanon and on Afghanistan reaffirmed the concern felt by the Heads of Government about the position in the two countries. The declaration on the Middle East restates the two principles which have for many years been the basis of the European position: the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to existence and security: and justice for all peoples, which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. A comprehensive settlement requires that all the parties concerned should be bound by these principles.

Beyond that, the European Council decided to make contact with all the parties in order to ascertain their position—and I quote— with respect to the principles set out in this declaration, and in the light of the result of this consultation process to determine the form which an initiative on their part (that is on the part of the Nine) might take". The diplomatic activity which the Nine will undertake over the next few months is intended to be complementary to the Camp David process on which the United States, Egypt and Israel are still engaged. We hope and believe that in this way the Nine can contribute to the work which will have to be done to prepare for a peace settlement in the Middle East.

Following are the texts referred to:

EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECLARATION ON THE LEBANON

The Nine affirm once again their full and complete solidarity with the friendly country of the Lebanon whose stability remains dangerously threatened by confrontations in the region, and renew their urgent appeal to all the countries or parties concerned to put an end to all acts liable to damage the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon or the authority of its Government. The Nine will support any action or initiative which could ensure the return of peace and stability of the Lebanon, which constitutes an essential stabilising factor in the region.

The Nine stress the important role which UNIFIL must play in the southern part of Lebanon. The Nine recall their Declaration of 22 April 1980 at Luxembourg and stress that it is essential that all the parties concerned permit UNIFIL to carry out the tasks with which it has been charged, including the control of the territory up to the international frontier.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECLARATION ON AFGHANISTAN

The European Council has noted with deep concern the intensification of the military operations conducted by the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

These dramatic developments increase still further the sufferings of the Afghan people. They emphasise the genuinely national nature of the resistance offered by an entire people. They threaten to jeopardize the climate of international relations for a long time to come.

In these circumstances, the European Council wishes to reaffirm its conviction that it is necessary to find without delay the means of reaching a solution which, in keeping with the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, would ensure the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the free exercise by the Afghan people of the right to determine their own future. It reiterated its view that a solution could be found in an arrangement which allowed Afghanistan to remain outside the competition among the powers and to return to its traditional position as a neutral and non-aligned state.

It recalls that it proposed in Luxembourg, on 28 April, that the great powers and the neighbouring states should undertake the necessary commitments to this end: in particular, they should agree to respect the sovereignty and integrity of Afghanistan, to refrain from any interference in its internal affairs and renounce any stationing of troops on its soil or any form of military association with it.

The European Council shares the concern expressed and the conclusion drawn by the 11th Conference of Foreign Ministers of Islamic States on the continued Soviet military presence in Afghanistan and has noted with great interest the creation by this Conference of a Committee to seek ways and means for a comprehensive solution of the grave crisis in respect to Afghanistan.

The Council repeated its readiness to support any meaningful initiative designed to promote a solution of the Afghan crisis.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECLARATION ON THE MIDDLE EAST

1. The Heads of State and Government and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs held a comprehensive exchange of views on all aspects of the present situation in the Middle East, including the state of negotiations resulting from the agreements signed between Egypt and Israel in March 1979. They agreed that growing tensions affecting this region constitute a serious danger and render a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict more necessary and pressing than ever.

2. The Nine Member States of the European Community consider that the traditional ties and common interests which link Europe to the Middle East oblige them to play a special role and now require them to work in a more concrete way towards peace.

3. In the regard, the Nine countries of the Community base themselves on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the positions which they have expressed on several occasions, notably in their Declarations of 29 June 1977, 19 September 1978, 26 March and 18 June 1979, as well as in the speech made on their behalf on 25 September 1979 by the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs at the 34th United Nations General Assembly.

4. On the bases thus set out, the time has come to promote the recognition and implementation of the two principles universally accepted by the international community: the right to existence and to security of all the states in the region, including Israel, and justice for all the peoples, which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

5. All of the countries in the area are entitled to live in peace within secure, recognised and guaranteed borders. The necessary guarantees for a peace settlement should be provided by the UN by a decision of the Security Council and, if necessary, on the basis of other mutually agreed procedures. The Nine declare that they are prepared to participate within the framework of a comprehensive settlement in a system of concrete and binding international guarantees, including on the ground.

6. A just solution must finally be found to the Palestinian problem, which is not simply one of refugees. The Palestinian people, which is conscious of existing as such, must be placed in a position, by an appropriate process defined within the framework of the comprehensive peace settlement, to exercise fully its right to self-determination.

7. The achievement of these objectives requires the involvement and support of all the parties concerned in the peace settlement which the Nine are endeavouring to promote in keeping with the principles formulated in the Declaration referred to above. These principles are binding on all the parties concerned, and thus the Palestinian people, and on the PLO, which will have to be associated with the negotiations.

8. The Nine recognise the special importance of the role played by the question of Jerusalem for all the parties concerned. The Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem and that any agreement on the city's status should guarantee freedom of access for everyone to the Holy places.

9. The Nine stress the need for Israel to put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967, as it has clone for part of Sinai. They are deeply convinced that the Israeli settlements constitute a serious obstacle to the peace process in the Middle East. The Nine consider that these settlements, as well as modifications in population and property in the occupied Arab territories, are illegal under international law.

10. Concerned as they are to put an end to violence, the Nine consider that only the renunciation of force or the threatened use of force by all the parties can create a climate of confidence in the area, and constitute a basic element for a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in the Middle East.

11. The Nine have decided to make the necessary contacts with all the parties concerned. The objective of these contacts would be to ascertain the position of the various parties with respect to the principles set out in this Declaration and in the light of the results of this consultation process to determine the form which an initiative on their part could take.

3.44 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making that Statement, although I would personally have wished to have had a little more definition here and there. However, it is good to think that there will be a European view put forward at the Economic Summit at the end of this week, and we look forward to seeing what that common view proves to be.

On the question of oil, one does, of course, welcome the emphasis on the serious impact on the world economy made by the recurrent and somewhat abrupt and substantial increases in oil prices—an impact which is perhaps particularly deeply felt in developing countries as well as developed countries. One finds a certain lack of clarity and urgency in the single sentence in which future action is described. It says: The European Community remains willing to enter into a dialogue with the oil producers". Personally, I should have wished to have detected a stronger note of urgency about the need to get to the bottom of this problem which is affecting the whole world. As I have said, it is affecting not only the developed, but the developing countries as well.

On the budgetary settlement, the Statement speaks of,

the need to put in hand and carry through urgently a review of the Community's financial position". One welcomes the word "urgently", in that context. Herr Schmidt, the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, is reported as saying that the review should be ready by the middle of next year. That was a statement made after the meetings, but it has been quoted and perhaps the noble Lord can confirm that it was, in fact, said.

I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government take the same view as the German Chancellor. It would seem to many of us—to most of us, I think—that this review should, in fact, be ready as a precursor of actual action by at least the middle of next year so that a more durable and equitable structure can be assured for the budget from 1982 onwards. Our own position is reasonably taken care of up to and including 1982, but the review is necessary for a continuation of the better thoughts that have come into the negotiations of the Nine in the last few months on the question of the budget.

Will the review also include a radical reappraisal of the Common Agricultural Policy? I expect that it will do so. I should think that it would be impossible to restructure the budget without, in fact, reappraising, in a very radical way, the CAP.

The second important section of the Statement refers to the Middle East. May I say in passing that we all welcome the repetition of our attitude as a Community on the serious situations in Afghanistan and in the Lebanon.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, what does my noble friend mean by, "we all"?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I would hope that we all agree that it is necessary to repeat the attitude of this country and of the Nine towards what has happened and is happening in Afghanistan and in the Lebanon—

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, that is different.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

I would hope so. On the Middle East, I should like to ask whether the reference to the declaration being, intended to be complementary to the Camp David process on which the United States, Egypt and Israel are still engaged", means that there will be effective and close consultation with the United States with a view to correlating whatever initiatives the Nine take in regard to the Middle East and certainly with the view to avoiding any dicotomy as between American, Egyptian and Israeli policy on the one hand, and European efforts on the other.

We would welcome the emphasis in the declaration on the United Nations' Resolutions 242 and 338. They still remain the fundamental basis for a comprehensive solution in the Middle East and one welcomes the reference to them in the declaration and also to the prospective role of the United Nations in the effective implementation of any comprehensive settlement that may be attained in the Middle East. I think that that part of the declaration is sound.

This is not the time for us to canvass the nature of any meetings and the constituents of any meetings that may prove feasible or necessary in the future. Suffice it to say that the main need at the moment is a concerted European attitude to the Middle East aiming at a comprehensive settlement, but one which is truly complementary to the efforts or the American President, the Egyptian President and the Israeli Prime Minister.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for making this Statement. I propose to comment on only one aspect of it. Is the noble Lord aware that, to many of us, the proposal that the PLO should be a party to negotia- tions with Israel is totally incomprehensible? I should like to ask him whether the Nine, when they drew up their communiqué, were aware of the statement which had been issued before the Venice Meeting by the PLO from Damascus, to the effect that it was their aim to liquidate Israel politically, economically, culturally, ideologically and in every other way; and whether, if they knew that that statement had been made, it did not at least have some influence upon their decision to incorporate the recognition of the PLO as a party to Israeli negotiations? How can anyone expect Israel to negotiate with a group that is bent on her total destruction? I believe that there is now a real danger that proposals such as these will undermine not only Camp David, but the efforts of the United States.

3.50 p.m.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said about the problem of oil. There is no doubt that the continual increase in the price of oil leads to almost impossible problems for the developing countries of the world. It is open to question whether the right forum in which to solve these problems is a meeting between the European countries and OPEC. I do not think that there is any point in having a meeting just for the sake of a meeting. When one has a meeting one wants to be sure that it will lead to some kind of useful end. But nobody in any sense disputes the importance which the noble Lord attaches to that particular aspect.

On his question about the budgetary settlement, I also agree with him that there is a very considerable urgency that the restructuring of the budget—which must, of course, take account of a revision of the CAP—should be carried out as quickly as possible. There is a great urgency for it to be carried out, but whether it can be done by the middle of next year, I do not know. However, the sooner it can be done the better. It will not only have to take account of the Common Agricultural Policy, but it will also have to take account of the enlargement of the Community; consequently, the quicker it is done, the better. I do not think that any of us ought to be under any mis-apprehension about the difficulties that such a radical restructuring will bring, and we must only hope that reality will make it possible for us to do this quicker than happened last time, when the original financing of the Community was achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, also asked me about the Middle East initiative; he asked to be reassured that it was complementary and would not cut across the American autonomy talks and the Camp David talks. I give the noble Lord that reassurance. That is why the initiative was phrased in that language. I think that it is vital that it should not cut across the American process. Of course, we shall be talking not only to the Americans, but to the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Palestinians about all this. I hope that we shall go hand-in-hand in anything that we do. I believe that Europe has a particular role to play here in that, in political terms, there are certain obvious difficulties facing the United States over the next months, and in the meantime, perhaps Europe can do something to help matters along.

I turn to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked about the PLO. He will see that in the Communique it is said that the PLO must be associated with the talks. There is no baulking the fact that the PLO is an important ingredient in the Middle East, and to shut your eyes to it is to deceive yourself into thinking that it is possible to reach a solution without taking the PLO into account. Naturally, the PLO will have to accept the principles which the Nine have enunciated in their Statement, which include recognition of the State of Israel, as, indeed, Israel will have to take account of the principles in the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people. This is, and seeks to be, an even-handed situation. Nobody disapproves more than the Government of the language used by Al Fatah—it was not used by the PLO—in Damascus. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, it is a different wing of the PLO.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, no.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, nobody deplores that language more than I. and it is totally unacceptable when it refers to the destruction of Israel. However, the principles of the declaration of the Nine make that abundantly plain.

Lord JANNER

My Lords, I should like to endorse the points which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. The statement was made by the Al Fatah, the head of which is Arafat who is the leader of the PLO. The statement, which was referred to in terms by the noble Lord, also says: The armed conflict must be escalated across all borders of confrontation with the Zionist enemy"— which, of course, means Israel— The strategic alliance with the socialist countries, led by the Soviet Union, must be strengthened". Are we not blind to the fact that by encouraging the PLO we are creating a further enemy in the Middle East?—that the PLO is in constant contact with the USSR? What on earth are we talking about when we talk about defence—against whom? Another state in the Middle East which would be controlled by the allies of the USSR and Libya? What on earth is the matter with us? Do we not remember what happened to Czechosolovakia in 1938, and what happened at the time of the Munich Agreement? Cannot we take those experiences into consideration? Does the European set-up really expect Israel—that small state—to depend upon promises of contracts made with the PLO?

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, I have already said that if the PLO is to be associated with any talks on a settlement, it will have to acccept the principles that the Nine set out—I hope that the noble Lord will read the Statement. I have said that what Al Fatah has said is totally unacceptable as regards the destruction of Israel. If the noble Lord really imagines that just because one does not like something, one can ignore it, then he is not living in the real world.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify one point in his answer to me? Can he say whether the Nine will insist, before the PLO is associated with negotiations, on the acceptance by the PLO of the right of Israel to exist? This is a very important point.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, no negotiations are taking place at the moment.

Lord BYERS

My Lords—

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to finish before he interrupts me, he might be the wiser. I was saying that no negotiations are taking place at the moment. The Nine are proposing that there should be contact—soundings, if you like—between all the parties concerned, to see whether we can get any further forward. Those soundings will take place on the basis of the principles which have been enunciated in the Communiqué.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his attitude and that of his colleagues in Venice, in recognising that the PLO are a factor, must be taken into account in achieving peace in the Middle East? Is he also aware that the anxieties of the Israelis—which are well understood—should cause the Israelis to remember what has been achieved in their relationship with Egypt? Is he aware that it was not so very many years ago that the Egyptians were swearing that their one objective was to exterminate every Israeli from Israel? It is possible to change your mind if you bring people into the general comity of nations. Is my noble friend aware, therefore, that the attitude which he and his colleagues have taken seems, at any rate to many people, to be a very constructive one?

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, I must say it seems so to me too, and I am most grateful to my noble friend. Before the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, jumps up, in passing I would only say that I have spent a good deal of the last 16 months sitting down with either terrorists or past terrorists.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, is the Foreign Secretary aware that when he talks about the European desire to promote peace in the Middle East, what they have done by intervening in the Middle East affair is much more likely to provoke another war, much sooner than many people anticipate? Is the noble Lord aware that I have been associated with the subject of defence ever since I came to your Lordships' House, and that my purpose has been to create an organisation in order to deter and prevent war? But if the British Government change their sense of direction over the Middle East situation so far as defence is concerned, you can "include me out", as the great Samuel Goldwyn said upon another matter. I will have no association with it at all.

When they were discussing the Middle East affair, were they discussing the motives of each of the nine countries in coming to the decision that the PLO has to be recognised? Were they aware that even King Hussein, on behalf of Jordan, refuses to recognise them, and is also definitely opposed to a Palestinian state being situated on the West Bank? I do not want to raise a debate at this time, and certainly not with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who I must say dismayed me by what he said. I can hardly believe that a person of his moral attitude on general matters could consider speaking as he has done about the situation there.

May I ask a final question? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, apart from the declaration that was made unequivocally by the Palestinians immediately before the meeting that he attended, and about which there can be no doubt, their attitude was clear? A document has been published on behalf of the Palestinians by an Arabian Professor—I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the document—which makes it clear beyond any possibility of doubt that the intention of the Palestinians, no matter what the Europeans or what the noble Lord or Lord Nugent or anybody else may say, is to destroy the state of Israel. So far as I am concerned, I am going to have no part in it, and let the British Government understand that.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in almost every respect, particularly when he says that he thinks that the European initiative will make things worse and lead to war. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has any idea what is happening on the West Bank at this particular moment, and whether or not he has any understanding of how the Palestinians on the West Bank are feeling at the moment in circumstances which are not due to the PLO but due to the Israeli Government in the settlements they have created there. The situation there is extremely grave. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has any idea about what the ordinary, moderate Arab feels about the situation with regard to the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinians?

What the Government and the Nine have sought to do is to introduce an evenhanded resolution, one side of which says that the state of Israel must be recognised and must live within secure boundaries, and for the other part to say that there should be a recognition by the State of Israel of the rights of the Palestinians, and then to go on to say that in the light of these principles they are going to approach all parties and contact them. If the noble Lord thinks that that kind of resolution is more likely to lead to war than anything else, I think he had better have a look and read it.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that his Statement today will bring great relief and great satisfaction to those of us who believe that the Israelis alone can give freedom to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians alone can give security to the State of Israel, and that until they both do just that there will he no hope of peace in the Middle East?

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, that is precisely what the Nine were saying, and I am grateful to my noble friend.

Lord HATCH of LUSBY

My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary away from the Middle East for a moment? I understand that it was reported in certain sections of the German press before the Venice meeting that Herr Schmidt intended to raise the issues arising out of the Brandt Commission Report. Could he tell us whether this was discussed at Venice and, if so, what line the British Government took there?

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, it was discussed, not at great length but at some length. It will of course be discussed at greater length at the Venice summit this weekend. In the meantime the British Government's view is being set out clearly today by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal and my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development in two major speeches in another place, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would be content to read them tomorrow morning.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on one point of detail in regard to his Statement about the budget of the Community? As I understand the position following the Brussels conference, some £300 million to £320 million was to be repaid to the United Kingdom via the financial mechanism under Title 4 of the Commission's budget. However, the remainder of the £400 million to £420 million was to be subject to some specific regulations under Article 235. Can the noble Lord give any indication as to whether the regulations proposed under Article 235 were given any discussion at the Venice meeting and, if so, with what result?

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, not specifically, but the agreement reached in Brussels on 29th and 30th May was accepted by the Heads of Government, and the noble Lord is perfectly right in explaining the methods by which the repayment to this country will be made.