Iran-Iraq Conflict (Hansard, 3 March 1988)

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we have no plans to arrange a multilateral meeting of the type envisaged by the noble Lord. We keep in close touch with allies with naval forces in the Gulf, and maintain contact with Iran and Iraq.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that there has been a 281 massive escalation of the war; an increase in the attacks on commercial shipping, and that British sailors' lives are in danger on British and foreign ships? Ought we not to make some endeavour, since the United Nations has not made much of an impact in bringing about a cease-fire and subsequent peace? Should not the idea at least be examined by our Government and a proposition made to other governments who have naval vessels in the area?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, there has in fact been a reduction in the level of attacks on shipping in recent weeks which is of course a welcome sign. However, there has been an unfortunate escalation of the attacks between the two capital cities of Iran and Iraq—a fact which we deplore. A United Nations Security Council resolution some months ago called for a cease-fire. We believe that the right way forward is for both parties to recognise and implement that resolution.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has just said about the welcome reduction in the number of attacks upon shipping, have Her Majesty's Government any proposals to scale down our naval forces in the Gulf? Furthermore, will he say whether there are any prospects of an agreement between the five permanent members of the Security Council for an arms embargo against Iran?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as regards our naval presence in the Gulf, I expect the noble Lord will be aware that we recently announced that there would be a reduction from four to three in the number of minesweepers that we have in the region. We have no plans for any other significant changes in our naval presence in that area for the time being. As for the implementation of the resolution calling for a ceasefire (Resolution 598), we think that the time has come for a further resolution to secure the implementation of the earlier one. We believe that such further resolution should be in the form of an arms embargo on Iran.

§ Lord Rodney
My Lords, does my noble friend think that it is within the realms of reality to suggest that our Government should call a meeting between the governments of Iran and Iraq?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, for reasons that I am certain he can well understand, we think it would be difficult to proceed in the way that my noble friend suggested. We think that the best way forward lies in the implementation of the earlier Security Council resolution. We wish to give all our support to the Secretary General of the United Nations in achieving that implementation.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord has said regarding the possibility of a further resolution. However, can he say what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in that matter?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are actively canvassing support for such 282 a resolution among all the members of the Security Council. The permanent member who is dragging his or her feet is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has accepted in principle the idea of a resolution to achieve an arms embargo, but has so far not agreed to the means of implementation.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any progress has been made towards removing the obstacles to the creation of the United Nations naval force in the Gulf which has been proposed by the Soviet Union? The noble Lord recently told the House they were mainly to do with difficulties in regard to co-ordinating rules of engagement. Can he also say between which members of such a force would those difficulties be most pronounced?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we continue to see formidable practical difficulties in the way of any such idea under present circumstances. There are not only the problems in relation to the rules of engagement and operational instructions (to which I referred on an earlier occasion); but there are also those of actually obtaining the agreement of the Security Council for such an implementation; and, for example, equitable costs and burden sharing.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to explain to me how it would be possible for the British Government to have conversations with Ayatollah Khomeini when the only person he is talking to at the moment is Allah?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the difficulties of having a sensible conversation with people of influence in Iran. But I hope that in due course they will see the force of international opinion which is behind the implementation of the United Nations resolution in this matter and will enter into proper conversations; for example, with the United Nations Secretary General.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a serious side to this Question? Tens of thousands of people are being slain and maimed almost weekly. The increase in missile alerts augurs a horrendous escalation. Although Chapter VI of the United Nations charter says that mandatory sanctions cannot be imposed on anyone, the Minister said that Resolution 598 inspires hope. Would not that be fulfilled by a ban on the sale of arms to both sides?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is what I have been trying to say. We now think it right that the United Nations Security Council should move to a further resolution imposing an arms embargo. We are supporting moves to that end. We hope that the Soviet Union, which of course plays a major part in this consideration, will also reach that conclusion.