Saudi Arabia: Foreign Secretary's Visit (Hansard, 17 November 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, my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary went to Saudi Arabia in his capacity as President of the Ten in order to talk with Saudi leaders about Crown Prince Fahd's eight principles, and other issues of mutual interest. The Ten have welcomed the principles as a positive contribution to the search for Middle East peace. He was encouraged by his constructive discussions with the Saudis, who are committed to the search for progress towards a peaceful settlement.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, is the Minister aware how deeply many of us admire the initiative and statesmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his visit to the Middle East? Would he confirm that, following his visit, and largely because of it, Jordan, the Gulf States and even the Soviet Union have now endorsed the proposals of Saudi Arabia for a peace plan and, according to The Times this morning, not only the PLO but the Syrian Government have agreed on recognition of Israel with the establishment of a Palestinian state? In view of that consensus of opinion, is it not desirable that an international conference should be called, if the Arab summit also endorses these proposals, in order to bring about a settlement?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that these principles have received widespread acceptance, not only among the Arab world but also elsewhere. As for a conference, it may well be that a conference will be appropriate at some stage, but I would say that it is a little early to be thinking in those terms at this moment, not least because it is so necessary that any such conference should be properly prepared.

§ Lord Byers
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear up a point. It was reported in The Times this morning that the Saudi Government had officially said that Israel is not included in those states which were entitled to live in peace in the region. If that is correct, does it not mean that Israel will be under a very serious threat in the future, and how can we possibly welcome this plan if that is correct?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the seventh of the eight principles says that all the states in the region should be able to live in peace, and we most certainly regard that as including Israel. We have no reason to believe that this is not the Saudi point of view as well.

§ Lord Byers
My Lords, can the noble Lord comment on the disavowal by the Saudi Government of their representative at the United Nations when they have said that he was in no position to make a statement that Israel was included in that list?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can only reflect the discussions of my noble friend when he was in Riyadh recently and repeat the words that I used just now—that we have no reason to believe that the Saudi point of view is not as I described it.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although one would not wish to place any obstacle in the path of any peace proposal whether it emanates from Saudi Arabia or from any other quarter, there is, nevertheless, something that must not be disregarded; namely, that although the Camp David agreement in April developed merely into the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Sinai, that agreement also provides for continuing negotiations? Those negotiations are of supreme importance. Will those who are talking about Camp David being finished say no more about that and allow Israel, Egypt and any other nation to sit down at a conference or in any fashion and try to work out a proposal which can produce peace?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, nothing in the Saudi eight points, or for that matter in the European Venice Declaration, is intended to cut across the Camp David process. The Camp David process has a number of important achievements to its credit, not least the institution of peace between Israel and Egypt, the forthcoming withdrawal from Sinai by the Israelis, and the talks to which the noble Lord referred. But one needs to look ahead a stage further than the Camp David process, and I think that the various initiatives to which I have referred—the Saudi initiative and the European initiative—can be seen in that light.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Saudi régime has invested a great deal in this plan, which has received wide and well-deserved support, and that nothing could unsettle the Gulf more seriously or help the Russians more than if this plan were simply brushed aside by the Israelis or by any other Government?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is unhappily the case that the Israelis have not so far felt able to accept the main thrust of the Saudi points, but I hope that on reflection they will be able to reconsider their position.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—as, indeed, he must be—that there is no chance whatever, either now or at any time in the future, of Israel agreeing to give up East Jerusalem, which this plan requires? Would it not be as well to accept this instead of raising false hopes about the Saudi plan? 402 Secondly, will the noble Lord confirm or deny press reports last week from an unnamed British official in the Middle East who said, "Of course, we are having continuing discussions with the PLO"? Is it now the policy of the Government to have negotiations with this international terrorist organisation before they agree to the existence of Israel?—because, if so, this represents a change from assurances which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has given us and which, indeed, the noble Lord has given us.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, perhaps I may just deal with those two points. First, on the question of Jerusalem, I suggest that it is "unconducive", if that is good English, to taking forward the peace process in the Middle East if one side or the other takes up some position set in concrete on some point which they know very well is unacceptable to the other side. That most certainly applies to both sides in this discussion. As for the position of the PLO, as my noble friend has said on several occasions, it is unrealistic to imagine that progress will be made in the Middle East without some acknowledgment of the position of the PLO as representing a very important segment of Palestinian opinion. But certainly it is essential for the PLO to recognise the existence of the state of Israel and the right of the state of Israel to exist, and we hope that they will do so.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, with respect, that is not good enough. Is it a fact that the Government are negotiating with the PLO before that organisation has agreed to the existence of Israel?—because, if they are, this is going back on what the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has said. Have the Government changed their view on this?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is inevitably the case that the PLO at various levels come to hear of the various proposals that we have to make in these matters, but we most certainly do not have formal discussions with the PLO in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister another question which was raised during the visit of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Has any agreement been reached regarding the participation by Britain and European nations in the peace-keeping force in Sinai?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, no agreement has yet been reached on this matter.