HL Deb 13 October 1981 vol 424 cc256-8

2.40 p.m.

Lord Brockway

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 Her Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the cease-fire in Lebanon, to which both Israel and the PLO are indirectly parties, they will initiate a discussion within the UN Security Council on methods of securing a settlement in the Middle East.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, the present cease-fire between Lebanese and Israeli territory, which Israel and the PLO have accepted, is an achievement which must be built on, both to preserve peace and stability in Lebanon and to help progress towards a wider Middle East settlement. However, we do not believe that discussion in the Security Council offers the best hope of making progress at this stage.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, while recognising that there must be some pause after the tragic death of President Sadat, would the Minister not agree that there is now a most encouraging consensus of opinion for a settlement in the Middle East on the basis of the security of Israel and self-determination of the Palestinian people? Would he confirm not only the initiative of the European Community but the extraordinary number of Arab nations which have now accepted this—Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the five Gulf States—and has he noted particularly the statement of the Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko, to the Israeli Foreign Minister that the Soviet Union also accepts the security of Israel?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I fear, with respect, that the noble Lord is viewing the situation in the Middle East through somewhat rose-tinted spectacles. There are two fundamental difficulties which remain to be resolved, the first being that the PLO must accept Israel's right to exist and the second being that the PLO must themselves be incorporated into the consultative and negotiative process.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, have the Government noted with pleasure, nevertheless, the statement by two American ex-Presidents that, subject to the qualifica- tion just made by the noble Lord, it would now be necessary to negotiate with the PLO?

Lord Trefgarne

Yes, I had noticed that, my Lords.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I am sure the House would like to acknowledge the remarkable contribution (perhaps the most significant contribution of all Western statesmen) that has been carried out by the British Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I think his remarkable endeavours ought to be put on record. But if we have just acknowledged that the PLO and Israel have come to an agreement, there could never have been an agreement unless the PLO had existed; and if we look at our own history, all sorts of organisations that were part of the British Empire helped to contribute and make the British Commonwealth of nations, right up to the creation of Zimbabwe itself. Therefore, would the noble Lord not agree that perhaps a contribution could be made if we were to acknowledge the existence of, and recognise, the PLO?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I acknowledge the appreciative words of the noble Lord about my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. But the noble Lord went on to suggest that agreement had been reached (I think he put it) between the PLO and Israel. That is, I fear, going too far. That really is not the case yet, although I hope it will be one day.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, in view of the consensus of opinion to which I have drawn attention, will the Government suggest to the Security Council that an international conference representing all the Governments involved should be called to seek a solution of this problem?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am not sure that the consensus to which the noble Lord refers actually exists in reality. I doubt whether such a consensus would be achieved among the members of the Security Council to whom the noble Lord suggested in his Question this matter should be referred. As for the wider international conference, the problem is that there are two fundamental differences to which I referred earlier. I believe these at least should be resolved in the context of moving the matter forward.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is a consensus among the Arab states?—because until they reach a consensus among themselves they are not likely to be able to agree with anyone else.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I think that one needs to be wary of over-simplifying the issues in this matter. Naturally, the Arabs are a crucial part of this negotiative process and we have noted the eight points which were put forward by the Saudi Government recently, some of which seem to offer at least part of a way forward.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, while the PLO has not yet withdrawn its threat to Israel, prominent people who have met Mr. Arafat are convinced that if Palestinian self-determination were granted he would be prepared to withdraw that threat?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, when and if that happens we shall indeed have made progress.

Baroness Gaitskell

My Lords, would it not be true to say that it has never happened? I myself heard Arafat eight or nine years ago asked, "Is it your intention to destroy Israel?" and he replied, "This is the first step." That was after his terrific debut in the United Nations. It has never happened.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in what she recalls of the words of Mr. Arafat at the United Nations some years ago; but the hope is that their position will change and move forward.