UN Security Council Meeting: The Middle East (Hansard, 11 June 1981)

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

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Security Council is meeting tomorrow to discuss the attack by Israel on nuclear installations in Iraq. This is clearly connected with wider conflict in the Middle East, notably the continuing Arab-Israel dispute. We support all constructive attempts to resolve such conflict, but doubt whether a conference on the lines suggested by the noble Lord would at present have much chance of success.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask: does not each of the issues listed in my Question reflect the danger of war? Would it not be far better, in view of the width and complexity of this frightening situation, that they should be comprehensively and successively discussed at an international conference over which the USA and the USSR might preside, rather than by dealing with each separate question as it becomes urgent, leaving the closely related questions unsettled and still continuously explosive?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not certain that it would be wise for a conference to have such a wide-ranging agenda. On the Arab-Israel front we need to establish the basic conditions, in terms of Israeli and Palestinian acceptance of each other's rights, for example, which would allow negotiations on a comprehensive settlement to take place. It is worth mentioning, of course, that there is on the table a Soviet proposal for an international conference which 318 would not the Government, on reflection, agree that has been given a cautious welcome by some of the Arab side but rejected by the Israelis. This perhaps demonstrates some of the difficulties.

§ Lord Goronwy-Roberts
My Lords, while strongly agreeing with my noble friend Lord Brockway that the need for international action to defuse, if not to solve, the situation in the Middle East is now of acute urgency, may I put the following points to Her Majesty's Government in preparation for tomorrow's meeting of the Security Council? First, are consultations being held with other member countries of the Security Council with a view to united and significant action by the Security Council or by the appropriate agency of the United Nations Organisation? If so, do those consultations include not only our friends and allies, whom I hope are naturally being constantly consulted in these flatters, but also the Soviet Union and China? Thirdly, in view of the conflicting reports as to the purpose and the capability of the Iraqi Bagdad installation, ranging from what Prime Minister Begin has had to say about its being a matter of a few weeks in which atomic bombs might be produced and used from this base to create another holocaust in Israel, to rejections of such a view within Israel itself by certain leaders, and also reports of new information, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they themselves, or with other countries concerned, will initiate a swift review of the workings of the inspectorial—I may say the review will be swifter still if I am not interrupted—

Several noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord Goronwy-Roberts
—the inspectorial functions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, especially in regard to the implementation of the nonproliferation treaty? These are very important questions which ought to be discussed tomorrow in the Security Council.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, Iraq is, of course, a party to the non-proliferation treaty and has accordingly undertaken not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. All her nuclear facilities are subject to international safeguards and she could only develop explosives by breaching or withdrawing from her nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations. I can tell the noble Lord that her facilities were inspected by the IAEA as recently as last January and found to be entirely in accordance with the undertakings that had been entered into.
On the question of consultation prior to the meeting of the Security Council tomorrow, I can assure the noble Lord that consultation is going on but, as the meeting has only very recently been arranged and is taking place as soon as tomorrow, of course that cannot be very detailed.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, whatever may be the legal justification for the Israeli action—and some people maintain that there is still a state of war existing between Israel and Iraq—world opinion seems quite rightly to be unanimous in condemning it. This being so, and in view of the obvious dangers arising, 319 there is a strong case for promoting—if not in the United Nations, which, no doubt, will take some decision in condemning Israel—in the near future, and in some other forum, some kind of conference on the Middle East, preferably in Geneva, which must obviously include the Russians who, in my view, are just as alarmed and concerned at the desperate gesture of Mr. Begin as the Americans are?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, of course we are all deeply concerned about what has been happening in the Middle East. I should not want to prejudge the outcome of the meeting of the Security Council which is to take place tomorrow. But as for the question of international law, we say quite clearly that the Israeli actions were contrary to the prohibition in the UN Charter of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, reverting to the original Question, would my noble friend not agree that these proposals for a seemingly limitless conference are a familiar propaganda ploy? Would he not also agree that this long and complicated agenda resembles nothing so much as a dog's breakfast?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the agenda suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was indeed a comprehensive one, and a conference as wide-ranging as that would, I fear, run into some of the difficulties that I have outlined.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Brockway is asking for a solution to the Middle East problem, would it not help if Syria, Iraq and some of the other Arab countries made a declaration that they are no longer in a state of war with Israel? Would not that be the first and desirable step? On a certain aspect of my noble friend Lord Brockway's Question about a recent event which has caused quite a lot of fuss in this and other countries—particularly in this country, recently, for some unaccountable reason—may I also ask about the action of Israel in destroying a nuclear plant in Iraq? Would the noble Lord who has answered the Question like, some day, to see British air pilots emulating the Israelis?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is a somewhat academic question. But on the earlier point that the noble Lord put to me about a declaration from the Israelis or from the Arab countries, it is certainly the case that there are difficult positions for each side held by the other and, no doubt, all of them can make the appropriate declarations in the context of an overall settlement.

§ Baroness Gaitskell
My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend on his absolutely outstanding and fair question on this matter, may I ask the noble Lord this question: While there has been universal condemnation of Israel, would we feel very happy if the French put some nuclear reactors on the Normandy coast? Would we feel quite as secure as we do now? As I say, there has been far too much condemnation of Israel in this matter and, after all, the Syrians and the Iraqis are the 320 greatest enemies of Israel. So we should surely not have quite such a harsh attitude towards the Israelis.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am aware, of course, of the feeling among the various nations of the Middle East about some of the others. But as for the noble Baroness's question as to the possibility of French missiles being sited on the Normandy coast, that would depend on whom they were aimed at.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, in view of the discussion at tomorrow's meeting of the Security Council, would the Government support the idea of a nuclear free zone in this area which would meet the suspicions about developing nuclear weapons both in Iraq and in Israel? Would the Government also seek to end the supply of arms to both sides, Israel and the Arab countries, which is increasing the danger of military rivalry and the likelihood of the destruction of this explosive area?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we certainly approve the concept of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, but I doubt whether it can be attained outside the context of an overall settlement in that part of the world. As for the supply of arms to the various countries, we need to consider each and every case on its merits.