Israel-Arab Dispute (Hansard, 1 December 1988)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)
My Lords, we shall continue to work for an international conference on the Arab-Israel dispute as a framework for direct negotiations between the parties. The principles stated in the Venice Declaration and the proposal for a conference command widespread international support but modalities for a conference have yet to be agreed. The United States has not accepted the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

Lord Chelwood
My Lords, have the Government yet decided whether to invite Mr. Arafat to come to this country? In any case, will it please be borne in mind that five Prime Ministers of Community countries have already met him? Further, will my noble friend give the House an explanation of the extraordinary position in which the Government found themselves in the General Assembly last week when only one country abstained and all 11 Community countries voted for the resolution, as was more or less the case with the previous General Assembly resolution when we also abstained? That seems odd when the Government have given advice to other Community countries and said that we should all try to work together to find an agreed solution.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question, there are no plans to issue Mr. Arafat with an invitation to visit this country. On his second point as to why the United Kingdom abstained on the more recent resolution, we agreed with the substance of the resolution but its language was too strong. We agree that the United States should respect the United Nations; but the United Nations should likewise respect the United States. As my noble friend suggested, we and our European partners suggested amendments which would have allowed us to support the resolution without affecting its substance. Unfortunately they were not accepted. To pick up my noble friend's last point on the earlier motion, the resolution of 3rd November to which he referred was unbalanced and our efforts to rectify the draft resolution's deficiencies did not succeed and so we abstained.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, merely means that the maiming and slaying of Jews and Arabs should cease; that the Government should cease to be not only an ally but 406 a sycophant of the United States Government; have the courage to join nearly all the other members of the United Nations and tell the Americans that we want to see the killing and the maiming stop; and that they should have the courage to join us, as outlined in the proposition?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that in many respects we regard the PNC decisions as positive steps. We welcomed acceptance of Resolutions 242 and 338 as a basis for an international conference. Another aspect of the matter is that the explicit rejection of terrorism is also important and I hope that that will be reflected in the PLO's actions. The noble Lord is going too far when he suggests that we are sycophantic with regard to the United States. That is absolute rubbish, with respect. The PNC decisions included important steps forward. Moderate Palestinians deserve encouragement, as he will agree. A shift in perception is needed, not least in Washington, but our abstention must be seen in that context.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, has the letter to The Times written by a distinguished diplomat, Sir John Barnes, been brought to my noble friend's attention? If so, might not his proposals afford a sensible solution in Her Majesty's Government's view?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I regret that I have not yet seen that letter, but I shall study it.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I note that the Government are in favour of Mr. Arafat addressing the United Nations. Will the Minister say what further steps the Government and our allies have in mind? Is there a possibility that a meeting of the United Nations might be convened somewhere outside the United States, say, in Geneva? Are the Government in favour of that proposal? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will talk to Mr. Bush, before he becomes President, so as to ensure that there is United States support for the proposed conference which the Government support?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, with regard to a further debate outside New York, it is important to find an opportunity to clarify the remaining ambiguities in the PLO policy. We believe that Arafat should be heard. If the General Assembly meets in Geneva, as has been suggested, we shall of course be there; but our vote on any resolution will depend upon its text. In respect of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary meeting Mr. Bush, I am certain that should the opportunity present itself, he and Mr. Bush will take the chance to discuss the matter.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, does the Minister seriously believe that by refusing Mr. Arafat a visa the United States Administration have increased the force of moderation within the PLO? Does he agree that that should be the object of our policy? Does he further agree that by abstaining we appear to have aligned ourselves with the negative and unconstructive attitude which the United States Administration have adopted?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, no, I think that the noble Lord is confusing two different points. The first matter is that of the visa to the United States. It is our view that Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly. We should have liked to have heard him confirm that the PLO supports the idea of an international conference on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and rejects terrorism. The draft resolution, which we did not feel was right because of the language in which it was written, is a separate matter which I have explained.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, is it not unrealistic to expect the Israeli Government to attend an international conference without conditions? In the past the Israeli authorities have always been prepared to meet Palestinian representatives provided that they denounced violence and terrorism and acknowledged the existence of the state of Israel. Should not the Government consider supporting that request?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the important point is to try to achieve an end to this very long lasting and bloody conflict. I do not think that it is possible to pick on any one aspect and say that it is right or wrong. Each side will have its own views on the details of the principles. All I can say to the noble Lord is that the status quo is in nobody's interests and the deadlock we see only encourages extremists on both sides. That is what should be ended.

§ Viscount Allenby of Megiddo
My Lords, has the Minister noted the recent editorial which appeared in The Times about the refusal to grant a visa to Mr. Arafat as harming both the image of the United States and its strategic interests?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, yes, I did. As I said, we feel that Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly and we should like to have had confirmation of the points which I listed earlier.

§ Lord Sandys
My Lords, have the Government borne in mind the need for diplomatic discussions which could take place in private rather than in the blaze of publicity? It is the stridency—of which we have had evidence this afternoon in your Lordships' House—that does so much damage to a delicate situation.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, yes, I very much agree with my noble friend. There is always the risk, particularly on this issue about which a great many people feel very strongly, that such stridency might make it difficult to achieve the ends for which we all search. That is why we believe that the status quo is not satisfactory and we do our best to help bring about the international conference which we all agree and hope is the solution to the problem.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Government welcome the PNC decision and think that Arafat should have been able to address the General Assembly. Can it therefore have been right for this country to take a lone stand and isolate itself from the European Community and from some 150 other governments on the difference in the communique between the words "regretting" and "deploring"?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, the noble Lord has picked on one word. There were others in the draft and it is not right to try to redraft the communiqué at the Dispatch Box. The fact is that we did not believe that the language was right; we felt that it was too strong. I do not honestly think that it is right in considering this matter for our abstention to be seen in any context other than that of the PNC decisions being important steps forward, and we need to achieve a change of perception, particularly in the attitude of the United States towards the whole performance.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords. is there not something commendable and not deplorable in standing alone, if need be, in favour of restraint and moderation in this extremely bitter dispute?

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, like my noble and learned friend, I think that it is right that we should do precisely that. The object of the exercise is to try to achieve the best and most satisfactory result. That is what we are striving to achieve.

§ Lord Hankey
My Lords, in supporting the important point made by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, do the Government agree that in order to have a useful international conference the PLO must he there? That means Arafat. The United States must be there as well as a viable Israeli Government with an agreed policy. An immense amount of diplomatic preparation will be required before a conference can usefully be held.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, yes, I think a great deal of work will be needed in order to make the necessary arrangements for the conference. There is a consensus on the need for UN auspices for the conference and the participation of the parties and the five permanent members. But it is for the parties themselves to work out mutually acceptable arrangements. I think it would be wrong to try to dictate terms from outside.