Jordanian/Palestinian Delegation (Hansard, 15 October 1985)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, at the end of her visit to Jordan, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in Aqaba on 20th September her agreement that my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would receive in London a joint Jordanian/Palestinian delegation. Our objective in issuing this invitation was to assist the search for peace in the Middle East and to demonstrate in a practical way our support for King Hussein's courageous initiative of 11 th February in which he challenged the Palestinians to join him in a joint approach to peace negotiations with Israel. We intended to use the meeting to explain at a high level our strongly-held view that a peaceful settlement must be based on the fundamental and balanced principles of the right of Israel to exist in peace and security and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
It was agreed that the delegation would be led by the Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Majali, and the Foreign Minister of Jordan, Mr. Masri. The names of the two Palestinian delegates, Mr. Milhem and Bishop Khoury, were put forward on the understanding that they personally supported a peaceful settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and were opposed to terrorism and violence. We received unambiguous assurances that the two Palestinians would make this clear publicly during their stay in London.
Last week our ambassador at Amman negotiated with the Jordanian Prime Minister the text of a statement which it was agreed would be issued by the delegation after their talks with my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. This stated that: the members of the joint delegation reiterated their personal support for a peaceful settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, including Resolutions 242 and 338 of the Security Council. They stated that in accordance with these resolutions a settlement should recognise the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination within the context of a Jordanian/Palestinian confederation, as well as the right to secure existence of all states in the area, including Israel, within its 1967 borders. They confirmed their opposition to all forms of terrorism and violence from whatever source". The two Palestinians arrived in London on 12th October for a meeting with my right honourable and learned friend yesterday, 14th October. On the afternoon of 13th October, the two Palestinians said that they were not, after all, willing to associate themselves with this statement. We stressed to members of the delegation our fundamental requirement that they should confirm their personal commitment to a peaceful settlement which recognised Israel's right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries and their opposition to all 479 forms of terrorism and violence. One of the Palestinian members of the delegation was unwilling to accept a specific reference to Israel's right to exist. We concluded that in these circumstances the meeting with the joint delegation could not take place.
We have kept in the closest touch with King Hussein and his government who I know share our disappointment at this setback. My right honourable and learned friend had a useful talk with the Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister yesterday. He reaffirmed our firm support for King Hussein's initiative, which offers the best prospect of further progress. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will also have an opportunity to discuss all these issues with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Peres, whom we look forward to welcoming here in the New Year.
The international community must be ready to encourage those who are working for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. We have shown that we are ready to do so. There can be no lasting settlement until all others are ready to do the same. We have made plain our deep disappointment that the opportunity offered by our invitation to the joint delegation has been missed.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for responding so readily to our request for a Statement about this unhappy affair, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for making it this afternoon. We note that the arrangement for this meeting was made by the Prime Minister during her visit to Jordan last month and this was, as we thought, in the spirit of the 1980 Venice Declaration, which recognised that the PLO would have to be "associated"—that was the word used—with Middle East negotiations. There was a general expectation that it might provide that start of progress towards a solution based on King Hussein's peace plan. We recognise, of course, that recent tragic events—for example, the Israeli bombing of PLO headquarters at Tunis and the hijacking of the "Achille Lauro"—have increased the tensions considerably and made things more difficult. However, will the Minister agree with us that these events emphasise the need for positive forward action?
The Foreign Secretary yester described the matter as "a surprise and a setback", and we must all agree with that. At one fell swoop, the Government appear to have succeeded in offending everybody. It still appears that failure may have been due to lack of detailed preparation by the Government, notwithstanding what the Statement says. We are told that the PLO representatives refused to give certain assurances yesterday about the use of violence, which led to the Foreign Secretary calling off the talks. But was not their position clarified at the very start, and certainly well before the meeting was finally arranged and the date of the meeting and the time of the meeting fixed? Can the noble Baroness say who, in fact, gave the "unambiguous assurances" which are referred to in the Statement which she has just made?
480 Further, the Statement appears to be contradictory. It says that on the afternoon of 13th October the two Palestinians said that they would not sign the statement. Later the Statement says that one of them was unwilling to subscribe to Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, we are now told by the most reverend Primate's representative, Mr. Waite, that the Bishop of Jerusalem, one of the two representatives, renounced, and renounces, violence but that he could not subscribe to other assurances demanded from him. In the light of this, was there any amendment or change to the agreed wording of the statement to which the noble Baroness referred which prompted the two representatives to demur at the very last moment?
If so, if there was an amendment, whether large or small, what was it? Was the reference to Israel, for example, inserted later on after the agreement made by the Prime Minister? It is important to get this point absolutely clear. Further, did the Bishop of Jerusalem and Mr. Milhem go back on the terms of the precise statement agreed with the Jordanian Government and Her Majesty's Government, or was it Her Majesty's Government who insisted on a late change to which the two representatives could not subscribe?
Finally, can the noble Baroness say whether there was any consultation with the Government of the United States of America before the meeting, or with the Israel Government or indeed with any other government, including our partners in the European Community? The Foreign Secretary has said that the setback is not fatal. He has referred to further talks with Mr. Peres. Can he say whether there will be urgent consultations with anyone else, in addition to Mr. Peres; for example, with the signatories of the Venice Declaration?

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, we too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement——

Noble Lords
For making it.

§ Lord Gladwyn
For making this important Statement, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I thought that the House of Commons was back, and of course it is not. However, there are some things which remain rather obscure in this extraordinary and, I must say, highly regrettable affair. Is it a fact, for instance, that the general formula on the basis of which the PLO representatives had apparently agreed to participate in the talks, which was reproduced in the Statement made by the noble Baroness, was publicly repudiated only a few hours before the talks were supposed to take place by only one—as the noble Lord who has just spoken said—and not by both of the Palestinian representatives? Next, was it really agreed, when the PLO leaders were invited to take part in the talks by the Prime Minister, that this formula, on the basis of which they agreed to participate in the talks, should only be published immediately after the talks had ended? If so why? If agreed, in principle, why was not the formula published when the invitation was actually issued? After all, if it had been formally and publicly agreed by the Jordanians and the Palestinians then it could hardly have been repudiated later. Are we consequently obliged to assume that the talks were at 481 least in part abandoned because of pressure brought to bear on the Government by President Reagan and by the Israeli Government as the result of the "Achille Lauro" affair for which, of course, the PLO must bear some and perhaps all of the responsibility?
First, is it not evident—this is a point arising from the mishap generally—that the illegal hijacking of the PLO terrorists responsible for the outrage—however comprehensible—is seriously endangering the regime of President Mubarak on whose continued existence in power the whole Western system of defence in the Middle East undoubtedly depends? What therefore do the Government now propose to do in order to recreate a situation in which negotiations will still be possible, the latest attempt to accomplish this end having gone so very sadly wrong?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I can agree with the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made when he said that the recent events in the Middle East emphasise the need again for us to try to see a way forward in these difficult circumstances. I cannot however accept the tenor of the subsequent questions that he put to me. I will go through those in detail and at the same time answer the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
In fact the Government throughout this whole negotiation have behaved with prudence and with care. First, we made clear the terms on which the meeting could take place. Then we took the precaution of getting the statement expected of the Palestinians set out on paper well in advance of the meeting—we believe that this was the right thing to do—and to get agreement by the Palestinians on the statement which I have included in full in the Statement that I have made to your Lordships. The precise sequence of events was as the Statement makes clear, that the Palestinians came to London on Sunday and it was at that point that they felt that they could not accede to the conditions set out beforehand. One of the Palestinians could not accept the statement on Israel's right to live in peace and security within her own boundaries, and as a consequence of that my right honourable and learned friend thought that it was right to break off the consultations. May I make it absolutely clear that there is no truth at all—I make it unequivocally clear—in the suggestion that the negotiations were abandoned because of pressure by the United States Government, or indeed pressure by any other government. The reason why the talks did not take place is precisely as I have set out in the Statement to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord asked whether or not the formula for the agreement which I have quoted in the Statement was repudiated just before the talks. It was in fact repudiated after the Palestinians came to London.

§ Lord Gladwyn
Why was it not agreed before?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough just to listen to what I have to say, I will do my best to set out what the position is. I think this is a very serious and disappointing setback to a very brave endeavour to try to make progress in the Middle East. I have no wish to hide anything from your 482 Lordships because we believe that we have acted in a very responsible way in a difficult situation. We set out the conditions for the talks and it is disappointing that conditions which were previously agreed before the Palestinians came to London were not agreed on their arrival here. It is for that reason, and for no other, that the talks did not take place.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to clarify the situation on one of the questions which I asked her? The Statement says that negotiations took place with the Jordanian Prime Minister about the text of the statement which in fact she read out. It also states that Her Majesty's Government received unambiguous assurances that the two Palestinians would make clear publicly that they accepted the statement. But, as I understand it, the two representatives were not involved with the drafting of the statement. From whom, therefore, did Her Majesty's Government receive unambiguous assurances that the two representatives had in fact subscribed to the statement and would be likely to do so when they came to London?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I am sorry that I did not answer that important question that the noble Lord asked earlier on. The negotiated assurances were made with the Jordanian Prime Minister and the statement was cleared with the Jordanian Prime Minister and with Bishop Khoury. But we understood from the Jordanian Prime Minister that Mr. Milhem would agree to the statement.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, however disappointed many of us are that the characteristically gallant efforts of King Hussein and of our own Prime Minister to achieve progress in this ghastly Middle-Eastern situation have failed, most opinion in this country will be clear that the British Foreign Secretary could not sit down to discussions with people who are not prepared to repudiate violence and terrorism?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the point that he has made. It is a very important point. The reason why the talks did not take place was because one of the Palestinians did not accept Israel's right to exist in security within her own borders. I am very glad that my noble friend has recognised the courage of both the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in trying in a difficult situation to assist the peace process.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, may I——

§ The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, may I——

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, I yield to the right reverend Prelate.

§ The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, may I too thank the noble Baroness for her Statement on this matter? In view of the unusual circumstances in which an Anglican bishop was a representative of the PLO, perhaps I may make a short comment and put a 483 question. I recognise to the full the diplomatic delicacies of this situation, but Bishop Khoury is an Anglican bishop and it would bring great comfort and help to his many fellow Christians in the Anglican communion if it were possible to confirm that he has at all times and consistently renounced violence in this matter.
It is also reported in the press today that Bishop Khoury made a visit yesterday to Lambeth Palace. Perhaps I may be permitted to make it clear that it is entirely consistent and conventional, when Anglican bishops visit this country, for them to visit privately the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is in that context, I am sure, that Bishop Khoury's visit should be viewed.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, in answer to the two points raised by the right reverend Prelate, Bishop Khoury had denied allegations of complicity in terrorism. It is worth recording that he had never been prosecuted by the Israeli authorities for terrorism.

Lord Paget of Northampton
Because he ran, my Lords.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I recognise that in this situation, Bishop Khoury has himself acted with courage.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, leaving aside the gravity of a missed opportunity, because the difficulties in the Middle East are such that any missed opportunity is an extremely grave matter, the noble Baroness has just said that she has no wish to hide anything from the House. I believe it is true that when a government undertakes an enterprise of this kind in the full glare of publicity they must expect to end the enterprise also in the full glare of publicity.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two very specific questions, following upon those asked already by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Can the noble Baroness confirm—and I believe this was clear from her last answer—that the assurances received from Amman that the Palestinian members of the delegation did accept the long form of words were received by the Prime Minister of Jordan and not direct by the Palestinians who were intended to be on the delegation?
Secondly, to whom did the Palestinian members of the delegation express on the afternoon of the 13th October their unwillingness after all, in closed quotes, to go along with the proposed wording? Thirdly, if those words were not acceptable to the two men, what words would have been acceptable to them? Can the noble Baroness spell out, syllable by syllable, the words objected to by both of the men, if possible? We know that there was a difference of opinion between the Anglican bishop and the Moslem politician. Can the noble Baroness say also what words would have been acceptable instead? Only then can Parliament and the public judge where the fault—for there has been a fault—lies.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord 484 Kennet, I can only repeat what I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that the assurances were negotiated with the Jordanian Prime Minister. In answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary as to whom the Palestinian delegation members' unwillingness to embark on the talks was expressed, it was to officials of the Foreign Office.
As to what wording would have been acceptable, the importance of the words was that they underscored the essential preconditions for any kind of discussion on this matter. We were not prepared to negotiate forms of words which did not meet those two requirements. As I have said, one member of the PLO delegation was prepared to accept the proposed form of words but one was not.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and my right honourable friend on their very courageous initiative, even if it was something of a gamble. It is surely now clear beyond any peradventure that unless there is justice done to the displaced Palestinians in the Middle East, the Middle East problem will either not go away, at best, or at worst will lead us all into war.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister took a gamble of great courage. She was trying her level best to make the Palestinians help themselves. May I please have an undertaking from my noble friend that this process will continue? While we are on the subject of terrorism, is it perfectly acceptable not to speak to a bishop who may or may not have smuggled the odd rifle across the border in Jerusalem but totally acceptable to talk to a Prime Minister of Israel who orders the bombing of a neutral capital and who sets up terrorist militias in the south of Lebanon?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for saying that this was a courageous initiative. The Government believe that it was and regret very much the outcome. The outcome is a setback but the Government will persevere in their search for a way to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. I will not add anything to my noble friend's last remark. We must concentrate on the best and most constructive way to go forward.

§ Lord Stewart of Fulham
My Lords, it is clear from what the noble Baroness has told the House that these vital assurances were given by the Palestinians, not to the British Government directly but to the Jordanians. In view of the importance of the whole issue, and since the assurances were absolutely vital to holding the conversations at all, was it not imprudent to be content with anything less than a direct face-to-face commitment by the Palestinians before they came here?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, we believe that the agreements reached and the assurances given by people acting responsibly, who also had an interest in pursuing the process of peace and who also wished for a successful outcome, were satisfactory. It is a matter of regret that that was not the case. I believe that the Jordanian Government share our disappointment at that outcome.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Minister tell the House whether commitments were made and clearly understood at the beginning of these talks? If so, in what way did they differ from the talks which have taken place at other times and which ended in disagreement?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I believe that there may be a misunderstanding of the position by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley. Before the talks were to begin at all, the British Government had negotiated the form of words in writing, which we understood all members of the delegation were prepared to agree to and which were to be issued as a statement at the conclusion of the talks. It was only after the delegation had arrived in London that it was made plain that the delegation was not prepared to support the very essential assurances.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, perhaps I may first express my sympathy for the Foreign Office for having been placed in this ridiculous position, apparently without consultation by the Prime Minister. Was it not in any case absurd to accept as one of the emissaries of peace the bishop of Jerusalem, who has been charged with gun-running to the assassins, who has only evaded trial by successfully absconding, and who is still absconding from his diocese?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I cannot accept for one moment that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been put in a ridiculous position.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, all the press tell us that is so.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the Government and my right honourable and learned friend have pursued a courageous initiative with care and prudence. It is a matter of regret that the initiative has ended as it has. Nor can I accept the noble Lord's statement concerning Bishop Khoury. I have already said in answer to a point made by the right reverend Prelate that Bishop Khoury denied allegations of complicity in terrorism at the time, and he has done so again recently.

Lord Paget of Northampton
Then why does he not face a trial, my Lords?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, he has never been prosecuted by the Israeli authorities, although it is true they are now claiming that he admitted awareness of transporting for others a package which contained explosive. This was apparently later used in a bombing attack. What is important now, I think, is to concentrate on the present. The past record is important, but it does seem that the present commitment is even more vital.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, I hesitate to prolong the exchange much further and certainly have no wish to embarrass the Government in what is an extremely complicated situation. But I wonder if I may ask the noble Baroness to clarify something which has puzzled me throughout the whole of this unfortunate affair.
486 Were the assurances demanded from these two representatives meant to be assurances on their own personal behalf, or on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organisation? If on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, was this not an extremely optimistic line to take, in that the PLO is clearly and fully committed to violence and to the destruction of Israel? On the other hand, if the assurances were given on behalf of these two men personally and did not in any way commit the Palestine Liberation Organisation, what on earth was the point of having negotiations with them?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is that the assurances were to be given on behalf of the members of the delegation. This was made quite clear, and it was part of an initiative which was proposed by King Hussein to advance the course of peace in the Middle East. The two members of the PLO could not be described as representatives of the PLO. I think it is very important to recognise that the PLO in a sense is a set of initials which embraces a wide cross-section of opinion apparently enjoying the support of most Palestinians in the occupied territories. I think it is also important to recognise that not all Palestinians support terrorism and the armed struggle.

Viscount Tonypandy
My Lords, while I join with other noble Lords in regretting the unfortunate breakdown of the talks, and am in no way seeking to join with those trying to find out which side has the most terrorists in the Middle East, is it not clear that the line Her Majesty's Government have declared to the world is that Britain insists on the right of Israel to exist at peace within her own boundaries?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I am glad to confirm to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that that is indeed one of the conditions that have been set by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. The right of Israel to exist in security within her own boundaries, and the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, are of course part of Security Council Resolution 242.

§ Lord Caccia
My Lords, one further question, if I may, to follow up one put by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. As I had understood it, this peace process was started in February by the initiative of King Hussein in which we were given to understand that Arafat had accepted and concurred in the general move forward. Therefore, when considering which elements in the Palestine Liberation Organisation might be covered by the two representatives, or quasi representatives, was not the important point for Her Majesty's Government that they did apparently represent the views of Arafat, who was, in the initial stages, part of the initiative of King Hussein in February?

§ Baroness Young
Yes, my Lords, I entirely see the point which the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, is making. As the Statement makes clear, this initiative does arise out of the initiative of King Hussein. It was thought and hoped that having a delegation so composed 487 would enable the peace process to be advanced. It was hoped that, given the assurances that were necessary, it would be possible for a constructive meeting to take place.