HL Deb 23 March 1988 vol 495 cc180-2

2.45 p.m.

Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether in the light of Lord Trefgarne's reply (Official Report, 3rd March 1988, col. 282) that there will be "formidable practical difficulties" in obtaining the agreement of the Security Council to the proposed creation of a United Nations naval force in the Gulf, they will state which members they expect to disagree with the proposal.

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

My Lords, no properly formulated proposal has been submitted to the Security Council. However, those Western countries which already have a naval presence in the Gulf have given no indication of being willing to subsume their national efforts in a United Nations force.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Soviet Union made a proposal through the mouth of its Foreign Minister to the Security Council on 25th September last for a United Nations naval force in the Gulf? Do not the Government think that this may be a good opportunity—the first in 25 years when the Soviet Union has been prepared to touch the United Nations with a bargepole—to see whether a true international effort may serve better to bring peace to the Gulf, or preserve what is left of it, than the present disjointed and unco-ordinated presence of various navies?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord that certainly there is no question of a lack of co-ordination between those in the Gulf at the moment. We share the noble Lord's concern that the conflict should be brought to an end.

The Russians have put forward proposals, though they are vague and ill-thought-through proposals, in discussions among the five permanent members of the Security Council. I invite the noble Lord to consider that the proposals the Soviets have put forward may be aimed at reducing Western naval presence in the Gulf and increasing Soviet naval presence and hence influence.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is it not the case that the Soviet Union said that it would be prepared to support a UN naval force in the Gulf on certain conditions? Can the noble Lord say what those conditions were? Were they related to the Russians imposing an arms embargo on Iran; that is, observing the United Nations resolution? What view do the Government take on that? Can the Minister elaborate on his reply? What were the uncertainties or the unsatisfactory aspects of the Soviet offer to which the Government objected?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, my understanding is that these proposals were put forward in a way which is by no means complete. I do not have a categorical list of the various proposals with me; nor do I have a list of the views expressed about them. In no sense are the proposals formal in the way that perhaps I may have indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.

The fact is that, added to the difficulties which these proposals would introduce, as I have described to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, there are also serious practical difficulties involved with any UN naval force. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has previously elaborated on them.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the supplementary questions so far seem to bear no relation whatever to the Question on the Order Paper? As regards the Question itself, is it not highly dangerous to ask the Government to commit themselves on what another government may think in circumstances which cannot be identified?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, my noble friend is right in many ways. What we all want to see is a cessation of the conflict in the Gulf. Any ideas that can promote that and the implementation of Resolution 598 would be helpful.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House would support any initiative by the Government to bring this dreadful and unnecessary war to a rapid conclusion? Is it not also fair to say that Her Majesty's Government and our allies should take steps to find out whether or not it is possible to come to some accommodation with the Soviet Union which would lead to a co-ordinated effort to bring the war to an end?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, it is important that we try to achieve that result. Exchanges among the Five in New York are continuing. It is certainly true that the Russians have dropped the link with the work on the arms embargo. Perhaps the linkage was self-seeking and to some extent unrealistic. As I said in my original Answer, the fact is that there are no properly formulated proposals on the table.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, is it not the case that at the end of the day the Soviet Union has crippled the United Nations through an entire generation by not paying its dues and by torpedoing all its projects? It is now the United States that will not pay its dues while the Soviet Union does so. It is now the United States and its allies who are torpedoing the projects of the United Nations.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, with respect, I believe that that is another and wider question.

Forward to