Middle East: Search for a Settlement (Hansard, 22 July 1987)

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, we shall continue to work to ease tension in the Middle East and for a just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Does he not agree that the Middle East has been destabilised by the Israeli-Arab conflict and that one of the most appalling features is what is known as the terrible territorial dimension whereby, if one power occupies another power's land, killing and maiming can go on from one generation to another? That can only exacerbate the situation. Should not the Government try to increase the efforts they have already undertaken and make this point clear to all those involved in the Middle East dispute?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that both the United Kingdom and the EC are committed to search for a peaceful settlement along the lines of the basic principles which the noble Lord will know. Perhaps the most practical way forward is an international conference along the lines of that which, as the noble Lord will know, has been suggested. That is, I believe, the most promising way forward.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that it is quite impossible to decide which tribe or which nation is the original owner of land in the Middle East? Is it not an exercise in futility to pursue that line? Surely one should be prevailing upon those who resort to terrorism as a first line to reflect very much before they proceed?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, yes, the matter of terrorism is in any dimension a very serious one. The question of the noble Lord tempts me into a historical minefield which it may not be profitable for me to follow.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, is it not a fact that the land gained by Israel was the result of a war waged against it in order to destroy its state? Syria—where there is no threat—has occupied land in the adjoining Arab country of Lebanon. Is not the answer to my noble friend's Question really that all genuine peace-loving countries should accept the recent decision of the Security Council of the United Nations?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the important thing is to search for a peaceful settlement. I agree entirely with that. There is, of course, Security Council Resolution 242 which is very much the basis for where things stand at the moment. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I believe that perhaps one of the best ways forward would be through the international conference which has been suggested.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, I am fascinated to know who my noble friend had in mind when he spoke of the original owners. We start with the Phoenicians. Then we come to the Philistines, the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Romans; then the Franks and the Turks. The only people who have never owned or ruled Palestine at any time are the Arabs.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, that was precisely why I suggested that it would not necessarily be sensible for me to get involved in the history of it all.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, after a meeting in February the EC Foreign Ministers called for an international conference on the Middle East. Will the noble Lord say what progress has been made on that? Following the recent Security Council meeting, the results of which we welcomed yesterday, it seems that the USSR is prepared to take part in an international conference about the Middle East and certainly about the Iran-Iraq war. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that and does the United States agree?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, on the latter point it is not necessarily wise to draw absolute parallels between the two issues. They are distinct and I cannot go further than I did yesterday when I repeated the Statement in relation to the Iran-Iraq conflict. As regards progress towards the international conference, we support an international conference as a framework for negotiations between parties who are directly concerned. The EC ministerial statement on 23rd February was re-affirmed on 13th July. We remain active in encouraging and assisting parties to reach an essential measure of common ground which will be necessary if the conference is to have a real chance of success. We stand ready to play an appropriate role in whatever arrangements the parties work out.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. But does he not agree that in order to achieve a final solution any conference should include both the United States and the Soviet Union as well as Great Britain and other countries?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, we certainly have no objection if the parties can agree that Soviet involvement in the conference is appropriate and we welcome recent signs of improvement in Israeli-Soviet relations, such as the current Soviet consular mission to Israel.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, while associating myself very largely with what some of my colleagues on this side of the House have said, I should like to ask the Government whether they agree that if the approach recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, was successful it would presumably mean the fusion of Armenians living in Turkey with Armenians in the Soviet Republic; a similar fusion of Azerbaijanis in Iran with co-nationals to the north; the creation of a large Kurdish state against the will of Iran, Turkey and Iraq; and the possible secession of Khusistan from Persia? If so, does the noble Lord suppose that all that would diminish tension in the Middle East?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the noble Lord's question certainly points to all the difficulties in trying to resolve this issue.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I wish to put down the following question. The British Foreign Secretary made recently in my judgment a superb speech on international action to try and resolve the problem. He did not rule out the possibility of involvement with the super powers. Is the Minister not aware that 1391 we have to take full cognisance of what the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, has said? There are certain boundaries which must not be invaded. The boundaries of the state of Israel were created by the United Nations. Does not the noble Lord therefore agree that the words of Sir Geoffrey Howe should receive our support and that we should wish him well in his endeavours even if that means involving super powers' activity?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I am grateful to him for what he says about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that I need go any further than that.