HL Deb 14 February 1991 vol 526 cc211-3

3.10 p.m.

Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they were informed in advance of the United States' intention to state jointly with the Soviet Union, a non-combatant power, the conditions on which the United States would cease fire in the Gulf.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, the US-Soviet joint statement of 29th January reflects what has been our agreed policy for a very long time.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the statement we are talking about is the so-called Baker/Bessmertnykh statement of that date. It says in part that a cessation of hostilities would be possible if Iraq would make an unequivocal commitment to withdraw from Kuwait backed by immediate concrete steps leading to full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. Does the noble Earl agree that it is therefore a constructive, forward-looking and helpful statement? But would it not nevertheless be wise to ensure that the United States consulted us about statements of this importance before they were made in case the next one is less constructive and forward-looking?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, there is no need to have prior notice of a statement that is simply a reaffirmation of what is agreed policy.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, as our involvement in the Gulf conflict is expressly authorised by the United Nations, is the noble Earl aware that we warmly welcome the current meeting of the Security Council? Can he indicate what new initiative, if any, the Government will be proposing at this important meeting and whether the point raised by my noble friend Lord Kennet will form part of the discussion which takes place today?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that this is an important meeting of the Security Council. It is equally important that the Security Council should not blur in any way the signal being sent to Iraq that it must abide by the 12 powerful resolutions. That we shall seek to endorse today.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the White House had some objections to the statement of 29th January? Can the noble Earl say whether or not the Government agree with those objections?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I do not think that is a matter for the Government.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, does the noble Earl seriously say that if there is a disagreement between the White House and the Secretary of State in the United States the British Government have no view on it?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that is not what I said.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, will the noble Earl be so good as to tell us what he did say in response to my question? I said that I understood that the White House had repudiated some aspects of the statement of 29th January. I asked whether Her Majesty's Government agreed or disagreed with those reservations.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, that is what he thought. As I understand the situation, the statement did nothing but reaffirm existing policy.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, does the Minister agree that at a time of great international complexity the asking of questions designed to illustrate problems among our allies is not in the best interests of the joint effort?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I shall try to answer the questions put by Members of your Lordships' House.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that since we are a belligerent we are at least entitled to have our views taken into account about the objects of the war?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, no one said otherwise.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is it not true that relations between the British Government and the President of the United States are close and continuous and that the two are permanently in consultation? There seems to be no rupture or disagreement among them, which is to the credit of both parties.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my noble friend is partly right. That is the case not only with the President of the United States but with every other member of the Administration.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, when I asked the noble Earl the same question regarding the American/Soviet statement and whether the Government agreed with it, he refused to answer. Do I now understand him to say that that agreement reflects the policy of the British Government? If so, will Her Majesty's Government say categorically and publicly that their policy now is to cease hostilities the moment a commitment to withdraw is given by Saddam Hussein?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I repeat that the statement is simply a reaffirmation of our agreed policy.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a commitment by anyone who consistently breaks his word is valueless?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that is very true.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we are now in a very valuable position? If we endorse the statement, we shall not be demanding an actual withdrawal but saying that we shall be satisfied with steps leading to and commitments to withdrawal. That is a substantial advance and the Government are to be congratulated on it.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, there has been absolutely no change in the Government's position which requires the fulfilment of the 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions.