Venice Declaration and Arab-Israeli Dispute (Hansard, 21 May 1986)

Lord Chelwood
My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Venice Declaration now has the support of all EC countries; what reservations the USA still has; and whether the Prime Minister will urge the Israeli Government to accept it as an essential first step before negotiations to end the Arab-Israeli dispute can begin.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, we and our European Community partners fully support the principles of the Venice Declaration and consistently urge the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute to build on them. The United States Government have not accepted the Palestinian right to self-determination.

Lord Chelwood
My Lords, will the Government take full advantage of our presidency of the European Council to try to breathe some badly needed new life into the Venice Declaration, which we inspired during an earlier presidency? At the same time may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware of the point of view that the West seems to have been less than even handed in demanding major concessions from the PLO in advance of international negotiations while making no such demands of Israel?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the Venice Declaration, to which my noble friend has referred, set out fundamental and balanced principles for a just settlement. We believe that these principles are still valid and that there would be nothing to be gained from a new statement at this time. Of course, in co-operation with our European partners we are reviewing the prospects for new steps forward and we are in close touch with the parties.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, while I fully support the principles of the Venice Declaration, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would agree that there is very little likelihood of a permanent settlement in the Middle East unless the great powers sit around 297 a table and come to some agreement about it? Is it not the case that in the Geneva-Conference, towards the end of last year, there was talk of setting up some mechanism between the great powers and others to discuss this possibility? Can she say whether any progress has been made, and whether it was that to which she was referring in her reply?

§ Baroness Young
No, my Lords; in my answer to my noble friend I was referring to the point as to whether or not there should be another, as it were, Venice Declaration. However, we believe that those principles still hold good and that they are the basis on which a settlement would be formed.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has raised is a separate one. So far as the United States is concerned, we believe that its role is indispensable. It has special ties with both sides. We keep in touch with the United States' thinking on these matters and share the same broad aims. But the fact is that there are differences, for example, on the question of Palestinian self-determination.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, while I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, may I ask whether the Government agree that there is unfortunately no chance of the Israeli Government accepting anything like the Venice proposals as a basis for negotiation unless the United States Government are prepared to exercise some pressure on the Israeli Government? If experience is any guide, that is the last thing that I should think we might expect them to do.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, there is much in what the noble Lord says. He will note what I have said about the attitude of the United States in these negotiations.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, with reference to her first Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, may I ask the noble Baroness to whom our Government made representations vis-à-vis the Venice Declaration and when was that last done? Will she agree that Britain's name is still good in the Middle East, and that there are many Israeli and Arab groups who fervently believe that the Venice Declaration is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said, a vital first step to restoring a valid peace?

§ Baroness Young
Yes, my Lords; we stand by the Venice Declaration. But it depends on the attitudes of the parties concerned.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, while I appreciate her original Answer, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that there is a sad contrast between the positive part played by Britain in the Middle East at the time of the Venice Declaration, when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was Foreign Secretary and the negative and one-sided action of the Government in supporting a clumsy reprisal raid by the United States of America?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I think that the second point made by the noble Lord is completely wide of the mark. However, as he will be aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is to visit Israel 298 shortly and will be looking forward in her talks with Mr. Peres and his colleagues to a discussion on a wide range of bilateral and international issues, including the problems of the Middle East.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not the case that while many of us at the time of the Venice Declaration—which was originally in 1980, or even earlier—felt that the balance of right in this matter was on the Israeli side, events over the period are moving us towards finding that the cause of the delay and failure to agree is not to be found on that side? In these circumstances will it not be appropriate for the Government to make fresh representations to the United States Government?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, we keep in close contact with the United States. We have made our views quite clear, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed the Middle East with President Reagan in Tokyo.