HL Deb 21 July 1987 vol 488 cc1282-7

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about yesterday's Security Council Resolution No. 598 on the Iran-Iraq conflict which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"My attendance at yesterday's Security Council meeting, together with six other Foreign Ministers, underlines the importance which we attach to this resolution: as well as representing a united approach by the five permanent members it owes much to British initiative, and is the culmination of many months' work.

"This resolution, which was passed unanimously by the council, is mandatory, and demands an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of forces to internationally recognised boundaries without delay. It is carefully balanced and favours neither of the parties more than the other. Both should be able to accept it. In the event of non-compliance the council will meet to discuss possible enforcement measures.

"The Secretary-General will have a major role in the implementation of the resolution and with bringing the parties to a negotiated settlement of the conflict. This mandatory resolution reflects the gravity with which the whole international community views the continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq and the consequent threat to stability and peace. The resolution is a determined attempt to tackle the underlying causes of tension in the region.

"Attacks on shipping are at present the most dangerous symptom of that tension. I made clear in yesterday's Security Council debate the urgent need not only for a settlement of the conflict as a whole, but also for a halt to attacks on shipping in the Gulf. It is vital to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation, and the Armilla patrol continues to play its part by providing protection for British vessels.

"The world has never been more united in seeking an end to this bloody and senseless conflict. The international community yesterday made plain to the parties that it looks for a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement of the dispute through negotiation and diplomacy rather than by force of arms. The UN resolution offers both parties the right way forward. I am sure the whole House will join me in urging them to seize that opportunity"

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We welcome the initiative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the part he played in the discussions in the Security Council. The Iran-Iraq war has continued for almost seven years, and we understand that about a million lives have been lost during those years. Therefore, we welcome most warmly any initiative which attempts to resolve this dangerous situation and to end this cruel and pointless war.

Can the noble Lord say that although the resolution of the United Nations has been accepted by Iraq, Iran has not yet agreed to it? The Foreign Secretary is quoted in The Times this morning as saying that if either side does not agree, then, this Council will use all its powers under the Charter to make the resolution effective". Can the noble Lord clarify that point? What sanctions does the council consider appropriate and effective? It may be a premature question and perhaps we may have to come back to it later. However, if the noble Lord can say anything now we would be grateful.

The resolution which has been agreed by the Security Council calls upon all states to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to further escalation. Do the Government believe that the decision of the United States to re-flag Kuwaiti ships is affected by this part of the resolution? Do the Government further believe that the continued existence of the Iranian procurement office in London is compatible with that part of the resolution? That is a matter about which we have had a good deal of doubt for a long time, as the noble Lord knows. However, in the present critical position, perhaps further thought should be given to the matter.

As regards the reference to attacks on shipping, can the Minister say how many British protection vessels are now deployed in the Gulf'? Do the Government have any plans to increase that number? What ships will be entitled specifically to protection by British vessels?

Finally, the Gulf war has global implications as the House knows. The Iraq attack on USS "Stark", Irangate, the beating up of Edwin Chaplin and the cold relationship between France and Iran at the moment are all examples of what is a very dangerous situation. I agree that the resolution is balanced and fair. I am glad it is mandatory. As the Statement said, it provides an honourable solution which both these countries should be prepared to accept forthwith.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, on these Benches, we associate ourselves with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his part in obtaining the resolution, and also the British permanent representative and his staff in New York. It has been a long haul and it has been well done. It is clearly for the good of the world.

I have one question to add to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, which I ask out of real puzzlement and not in a critical way. Can the Government comment on the flagging of the Kuwaiti tankers? Is the Soviet proposal to lend tankers to Kuwait to be put under the Kuwaiti flag still going forward? Also, what is the meaning of the American plan, which is now in operation, to put Kuwaiti tankers under the American flag?

Why has the United States chosen to send the tankers in the following order; first, the 400,000 tonne-plus "Bridgeton", which is one of the biggest ships in the world, and, consequently, if lost in an attack by the other side will create one of the biggest fusses in the world; and secondly, a much smaller liquid natural gas carrier which, if hit, would result in the biggest possible explosion in the world possibly releasing a cloud of unexploded natural gas and constituting one of the major uncontrolled hazards imaginable in the world? What is the state of play of the Soviet plan and what is the meaning of the American plan? In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government how do the answers to those two questions reflect upon the likely success of this admirable resolution?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, for expressing their satisfaction with the achievement yesterday in New York. I am also grateful for the welcome they have given to the Statement of my right honourable and learned friend.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about acceptance of the resolution by Iran in particular. It is true that the Iranian Government have not yet accepted and we urge them to comply with it. The noble Lord asked about enforcement measures. We must first hope that they will not be required. There are various alternatives which can be used and an arms embargo is perhaps the most obvious and relevant measure in this case. I doubt whether other measures would be generally acceptable. The details remain to be carefully discussed, but at the moment we have to see whether the resolution will be adopted by Iran. Clearly it is a little early to say at the moment. There are a number of different possibilities for the enforcement measure which the noble Lord is thinking about.

As for reflagging, that is basically a commercial matter and does not affect us in quite the same way as perhaps the possibilities of enforcement measures. The changes which have been made in flagging are, I understand, commercial.

As regards the Iranian military procurement office in London, I am aware that allegations have been made concerning its activities. There have been various rumours and accusations of breaches of United Kingdom law. These have been investigated but they have not been substantiated. Any evidence of illegal activity will be investigated most thoroughly by the appropriate authorities. I cannot usefully add to the facts which in the past have been made plain to your Lordships by my noble friend Lady Young.

As for the Armilla patrol, at present it consists of three vessels, as I explained on an earlier occasion. It is in the area to offer reassurance and help to British ships in an emergency. We keep the operations of the patrol under constant review in the light of changing circumstances. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said last November that the patrol would be spending more time in the Gulf. In January of this year it was deemed necessary temporarily to deploy the third warship to the area to assist or substitute for Armilla ships as necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised a number of different questions associated with reflagging. He also asked for explanations about why the United States had chosen to send in vessels in a particular order or including a specific type of vessel. Those are matters for the United States to answer and not for me. In respect of flagging, while I understand the concerns raised, they are largely matters for commercial decision and not for the Government. In conclusion, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they gave to the resolution achieved in New York yesterday.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is a superb resolution? It is rather late in coming from the United Nations, but another good aspect is that for once the Security Council seems to have achieved a new-found unity and we in this Chamber most certainly should put on record that a magnificent speech was made by Sir Geoffrey Howe. I think it had a colossal effect on the thinking of the Security Council and we should acknowledge that.

What now is the possible danger? Is the Minister able to give some indication of the probability that the Iranian Government will step up their hostility towards Iraq? They might now use all kinds of obscene weapons and endeavour to wipe out the Iraqi nation, because they can compel even children to go to war for absurd reasons.

Despite this remarkable resolution and the tremendous contribution made by Sir Geoffrey Howe, can the Minister say that the Government are aware that other action may have to be contemplated not only if Iran does not agree with the United Nations resolution but, indeed, if it undertakes some form of action in direct opposition to it?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of my right honourable and learned friend's speech yesterday at the United Nations. The possibility of Iran either not accepting the resolution or, indeed, as the noble Lord suggested, perhaps escalating the conflict in some other way, is hypothetical. The important point surely, and our first priority, as I believe the noble Lord will agree, is to persuade the two sides—Iran and Iraq—to accept, or at least not to reject, the resolution. I am certain that the message which goes out from all in your Lordships' House is that both sides should comply with it at once.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, as one of the few surviving drafters of the Charter of the United Nations I need hardly say that I greatly welcome this possibly unique occasion on which the charter is apparently, largely owing to the splendid efforts of the Foreign Secretary, being applied in accordance with the original intention.

The present resolution, welcome thought it is, is presumably only a first move, or it may only be a first move. It seems doubtful, to say the least, whether it will be accepted by both sides and notably by the Iranians. Let us hope that it will be, but it seems doubtful.

What will be really important, and indeed epoch making, is if it is then followed by actual provisions for an enforceable prohibition of arms supplies to both sides. If such a resolution receives the votes of the five permanent members and a few others— there is no need for unanimity under the charter—then it will become legally binding on all members of the United Nations. In that event of course it will be the duty of the Security Council to take all means, including presumably first of all a blockade, to see that it is abided by.

I suggest that rather than in effect taking what might be the equivalent of enforcement measures on their own, the United States would be well advised, if possible, to wait and see, first of all, whether the present resolution is complied with by both sides and, if not, whether another resolution is passed on the enforcement issue. If it is passed we shall presumably do our bit to help the enforcement. If it is not passed and the present resolution is rejected, it is presumably open to all states to protect their vessels passing through the Gulf to the extent to which they are capable of so doing.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that the move to enforcement, if that proves necessary, must he very carefully thought through and it must be prepared. These are matters which will have to be discussed among the other permanent members. I feel that neither side in this conflict can expect to flout for long the wishes of the international community, as expressed by the Security Council, without serious repercussions. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we have to see what happens. An arms embargo is the most obvious measure. I note what the noble Lord said about protection of vessels.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, is it not particularly gratifying that the resolution was both unanimous and mandatory? Should we not be making a mistake if we were to anticipate the possible reaction of either of the two combatant powers to its mandatory character? Should we not be making a mistake also to pursue hypothetical questions about the protection of ships in the Gulf, which would become unnecessary if both parties accepted the resolution?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is quite right. He highlights two very important words, "mandatory" and "unanimous". I quite agree with what he says.

Lord Hankey

My Lords, this is an extraordinarily satisfactory development in what is a most dangerous situation. Can the Government give us any indication of how opinions can be brought to bear on the Iranian Government? So few of the great powers seem to have any effective means of talking to the Iranians now. Do the Government know how the Secretary-General of the United Nations is proposing to develop the resolution, because presumably he could go back to talk to President Khomeini if he was impressed by anything—about which one is not sure?

Finally, may I ask whether the Government agree that the rather quiet means by which the British have been convoying their ships seems not to have been very effective? Would it not have paid us to adopt a higher profile, as the Americans are now doing? If we had done that, might it not have discouraged the extremely dangerous development of the situation in the Persian Gulf?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I do not think that it is wise to consider hypothetical questions about how we might or might not have approached the task of the Armilla patrol in setting about its work over the last months. I am not sure that that is helpful. The important point is that the Gulf must be free for shipping of all kinds.

So far as monitorng compliance with the new resolution, the United Nations Secretary-General is charged to send observer teams, and he will be discussing the modalities of that with Iran and Iraq. Those teams, as I understand it, could be dispatched at very short notice. It is up to the Security Council on receipt of a report from the United Nations Secretary-General to determine whether the resolution is being complied with.

Lord Kilbracken

My Lords, may I put a question to the Minister about the British naval vessels in the Gulf? It was announced yesterday that these ships had been authorised to defend themselves if attacked. As a former naval officer I find that a most extraordinary thing to say. Surely the Royal Navy does not need any such authority to defend itself if attacked. Can the noble Lord give any further indication of the instructions to the captains of these vessels?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to what is known as the rules of engagement. We do not discuss these in detail, so I am afraid that I cannot tell him what he wants to know.