Middle East Peace and Security

HL Deb 06 March 1991 vol 526 cc1465-86

7.59 p.m.

Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the means by which they, and the other governments who have made use of the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, intend to "restore international peace and security" in the Gulf area and in the Middle East in general.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I was a child my father often visited Baghdad. I did not like it because I thought it might be a place where they bagged dads. He was chairman of the Iraq Currency Board which reinvented the Iraqi dinar. Later he was chairman of the Kuwait Investment Board and of the British Bank of the Middle East. So my youth was full of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran, and I understand how closely involved in their fate this country has been. I put this Question down because I gathered from the Minutes of Proceedings that the House was not to be given the opportunity to discuss the peace after the war for five weeks. By that time, all the decisions would have been taken and we would only be able to discuss accomplished facts.

The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on going to Kuwait and Riyadh today. Facing him are some of the gravest decisions over which he will ever have to preside. With the cold war finished, it is now, this week, that we shall decide whether we should put our authority and experience, and to some extent that of the European Community too, behind the United Nations system and found a new order on that; or whether we should remain where we were under the previous Prime Minister, spear-carriers in ordinary to the United States.

Resolution 678 speaks of peace and security, and they depend on justice. This we have learnt in our own countries in Western Europe and we now hope in the whole of Europe. Peace and justice in the Middle East will be conditioned partly by the kind of war it has been and partly by the injustices which were there before the war. The war itself has been remarkable for its justification under Security Council resolutions. That will make a just peace easier. However, it has also been remarkable for the one-sidedness of its fatal casualties. Most estimates available to the press say that casualties on the Iraqi side were perhaps 100,000 military and another 100,000 civilians; on our side, about 140 military. That is a ratio of about 1,500 to one. To give one more figure, it is more than 1 per cent. of the population of Iraq. It is easy for any of us to scale that up for countries with larger populations.

It may well be that time will show that some military decisions on our side led to unnecessary slaughter, as well as on Saddam's side. Those we already know well. There were 110,573 bombing sorties flown. Were they all necessary? This balance of death will he remembered around the world and will affect relations among all states for a long time to come. The negotiations must be undertaken in full knowledge of this.

The worst prospect before us is that Iraq should become like the Lebanon with Shia cantons backed by Iran, Sunni cantons, Kurdish cantons and others, all at each other's throats. What can we non-Arab victors do to avoid this? We can only support the Arab victors in the best of what they can propose, working with what we hope will be a newly clubbable Iran and, as soon as possible, with reasonable Iraqis. For any of us to try to take control of the Middle East oil on which Western Europe and Japan depend would make it impossible to do this work.

Then there is Israel. The Arabs see a long lasting injustice: an alien Israel was forced on them. The Israelis see the opposite injustice: their neighbours refuse to acknowledge their internationally agreed right to exist. A settlement must be found because all UN resolutions have the same weight and UN members are obliged to enforce all of them equally. The resolutions about Iraq have been enforced with ferocious speed. The resolutions designed over the past quarter of a century to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute even-handedly are not enforced, and the injustice continues. Of course the existence of Israel must be accepted by her neighbours. The question is, what Israel? The nuclear power under US protection? Of course Israel must withdraw from her occupation of foreign territory and allow self determination to the Palestinians. Her willingness to do so would presumably be affected by conditions that could be attached to the enormous loan she now requests of the United States and by other subventions in the future.

Can there be a knight's move? Can the Arabs and the Israelis start to collaborate on some huge United Nations-sponsored, Gulf-financed international scheme for the economic benefit of all? Surely the Weizmann Institute has plans up its sleeve that could provide a start. Then what a glory Israel could become in the world, turning her immense resources of wisdom and skills to the good of the whole Middle East.

There is then another injustice which afflicts the Arab world—an economic one. It is that the revenues of the oil-rich, people-poor states are not used to develop the oil-poor, people-rich ones, but invested abroad to earn interest which shores up anachronistic monarchs, some of whom torture and mutilate women and criminals. Unless the brotherhood of the Arab nation stretches across all its lands, the present monarchies will simply go the way of Iraq and Libya before them.

We must also decide in the United Nations whether we want the world to continue treating its arms industries and arms trade simply as one remunerative branch of the various economies. This week, the US magazine Aviation Week already reports: Following their successful demonstration in the Gulf War, high technology weapons, especially precision-guided munitions, are expected on military shopping lists round the world". The magazine goes on to advise investors how to find the firms most likely to profit from the new arms races. Is that what we want?

Arms exports are attractive because they enable us to produce arms for ourselves at a lower unit cost. But the arms race is largely what incapacitated the Soviet Union: so much wealth and skill going into unproductive activity. It is also what sent the United States into such colossal internal and external debt. The United States will never again be able to go round the world, mammoth begging bowl in hand. This time they have been promised 53 billion dollars; but they have of course received far less. On another occasion, those who are required to pay the piper are likely to be choosier about the tune. They are likely to feel that a more honourable channel for sharing the costs of UN actions is to be found through the UN itself.

The settlement, whatever it is, will have to be negotiated and defined in the UN, promulgated by the UN and, if necessary, enforced by the UN, using troops under UN command. The countries that must take part in these processes are first the Arab states. It is excellent news that Egypt and Syria have today set up a joint peacekeeping force, financed by the Gulf states and intended to be the nucleus of an Arab force. Apart from the Arabs, Israel must take part in the settlement procedure and Iran.

After that, the ability to help and the duty to try to help diminish as we get further away. Four of the big five are far removed from the Middle East, but the Soviet Union is not. It is fortunate that it now follows a scrupulously pacific and UN-orientated policy. The states which can usefully try to take the lead in the Security Council and the General Assembly will not be those which are strongly identified with one side or the other in the Arab Israeli wars, and not those which, like the United States, are in arrears with their United Nations dues, which reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and do not accept, for instance, the Geneva Convention on Indiscriminate Weapons. The new order in the Middle East has to be an Arab-Israeli-Iranian one embedded in the UN. The UN role must embody justice. It will be most effectively upheld by law abiding states.

As I have said before, the settlement must rest on arms control. In fairness, we should remember Iraq's proposals of 2nd May last year in the Preparatory Committee for the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that the Middle East should become free of weapons of mass destruction. At that time I asked the Government their view of those proposals, but they replied in relation to some Egyptian proposals. Iraq had already become invisible to them. Israel is partly invisible to the Government even now. Ministers feign to know nothing of Israel's nuclear weapons programme, and thus to have no opinion on it. However, their knowledge and opinion of Pakistan's programme are expressed freely enough, and are sound.

Iraq's arms cannot be limited unless those of Iran and the nuclear state of Israel are also limited. We must remember the Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981. Israel's arms cannot be limited unless Syria's arms are limited, and so it goes on. The agenda is an agenda for the whole world. That being so, a sharp reduction is required in the general hypocrisy level of the arms exporting nations: principally the five permanent members of the Security Council, then Germany, Brazil and Argentina.

That is what I think. What does Her Majesty's Government think?

8.12 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I, and I am sure other noble Lords, will wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for enabling us to debate this subject this evening. It is a timely opportunity to consider the post-war situation. The noble Lord has eloquently posed some of the problems and mentioned important factors. I hope to add to the debate my thoughts on some other matters which arise. I particularly welcome this opportunity to debate this matter because it is four weeks since my Motion in your Lordships' House on collective security and how best to deter potential aggressors in future through Chapter VII of the Charter.

In the Gulf the United Nations has successfully put into effect Chapter VII, which authorises measures including armed force, to counter and reverse aggression. Since 2nd August the action prescribed in the Charter has been carried out on the lines contemplated by its authors. As in the case of Korea 40 years earlier, much depended on the immediate and massive response of the United States. I have observed with interest and supported what has been happening because I was in the United Kingdom mission in New York in the early days of the United Nations when we were examining and trying out for the first time the sections of the Charter. In that capacity I participated in the emergency meeting of the Security Council on the Sunday morning in June 1950 which was the day after North Korea attacked South Korea.

Our admiration and gratitude goes to the British forces in the Gulf and to our allies in the coalition for what they have achieved. We should especially congratulate the commanders in the field. Collective security has been upheld under Chapter VII. In the difficult task now before us—the noble Lord, Lord Kenner, described that task—Chapter VIII of the Charter is also applicable. Chapter VIII authorises regional arrangements and regional agencies to work with the Security Council when necessary. That may well be needed in restoring and maintaining peace and stability in the region. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Hurd, stated several weeks ago that he would be aiming for such regional arrangements after the Security Council resolutions had been complied with and Kuwait had been liberated. I hope to hear the Government's thinking on that matter this evening.

The countries of the Middle East must themselves take the main parts and accept responsibilities in reaching settlements. The United States and the United Kingdom with their allies may have to be initiators and catalysts. I hope that our forces can be withdrawn as soon as it is clear that the danger of further hostilities has passed. There may however have to be some form of United Nations peacekeeping force in some area or areas. That would preferably be composed of smaller members of the United Nations which had no direct interests in the region.

The overall authority of the United Nations should be maintained through the Security Council. The recent co-operation among the five permanent members is a welcome augury for the future and could be a helpful influence upon the Middle East countries. The United Nations is only as good as its members. Its success depends particularly on the efforts and cohesion of its leading members. It would be a mistake to think that the Secretary-General and his staff are more than the framework by which the world organisation enables its members to assemble, reach conclusions and take decisions. When decisions are taken by agreement within the Security Council, the United Nations can be a powerful force—this has just been demonstrated in the Gulf crisis—despite the belittling criticism that has come from some quarters in the past.

I hope that the Soviet Union will play a role in the Middle East in the work that lies ahead. It is certainly entitled to do so as a neighbour of the Gulf countries although it has preoccupations within its own borders. In the past we would have been worried that the Soviet Union might wish to make trouble in the Middle East, particularly for the Western countries. I believe that that risk is much less evident now. It would be wise to try to include the Soviet Union in the arrangements.

Much negotiation and work on regional arrangements in the Middle East is now before us. To deter aggression and keep the peace there and in the rest of the world, we must still depend upon Chapter VII. I urged that in the debate on 6th February. We should build on the success that has now been achieved. There are ways in which the readiness of the United Nations to act can be improved, for example financial and medical contributions, where appropriate, can be considered as contingency arrangements. We do not have to spend six or seven months in a crisis before bringing such arrangements forward.

We must make the best use of the Charter as it stands rather than try to rewrite it, even though it is 46 years old. Such a step would reopen controversies which might take years to settle. Within its terms more contingency planning should be carried out in preparation for breaches of the peace. Improved readiness that was clearly visible would help to deter any country contemplating an act of aggression. I believe that if Saddam had known that the United Nations would react so efficiently and effectively, he would not have embarked on his unfortunate invasion of Kuwait. The deaths of his own citizens and the damage to their property and cities—the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to that—could have been avoided.

In the post-war situation the arrangements may be complicated by calls for war crimes trials. I should like in closing to say a word on that issue because I believe that some clarification is needed. War crimes can be divided into three categories. The first is responsibility for the original aggression. That usually applies to the leaders of the nation concerned. The Nuremberg tribunal was set up to deal with Hitler's gang and a few of the top people associated with it. It was a special tribunal. The International Court at the Hague does not deal with such issues. It has two main duties: to deal with disputes between nations and to give advisory opinions on international law.

The second category governs the rules of warfare for combatants. Those have been built up in the Hague and Geneva conventions. They deal with the treatment of prisoners and wounded and a whole range of matters relating to humanitarian issues. The conventions have proved to be worth while. In World War II, even in the greatest confusion, in the height of battle with high explosive and metal flying around, it was helpful to have a code which the combatants recognised. Wounded and prisoners on both sides benefited as a result. We do not yet know whether there have been breaches of those rules, but that does not appear to be one of the serious allegations arising from the Gulf war.

The third category is crimes against humanity, meaning civilians. That was a new category which was introduced at the end of World War II in order to deal with crimes committed at the concentration camps and with the elimination of huge numbers of civilians. That was not something which had been considered a war crime in 1939: it was something new and dreadful and was treated as a crime against humanity.

It appears likely that in the conflict which has just ended and during the past seven months atrocities have been committed in Kuwait in the form of killings and torturings. If such atrocities are confirmed there may be a case for trials in Kuwaiti courts. Presumably that is the jurisdiction in which such alleged criminals would be dealt with.

It is necessary to clarify the distinction between the three categories of war crime, and I hope that we shall not find the post-war arrangements that we are discussing this evening complicated by problems of that kind.

It is a relief that Kuwait has been liberated and that Saddam's aggression has been reversed. I am sure that everyone in the country is relieved about that. However, there remains the task of building a lasting peace in the Middle East. That will not be easy and it deserves the concentrated attention and understanding of the rest of the world.

8.23 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for raising this important issue at this very apposite time. It would be a dereliction of the duty of Parliament not to debate the affairs of the last few weeks for a period of five weeks.

Before considering how the United Nations can operate during the post-war period we need to consider what has happened since 15th January and to draw up a balance sheet of the gains and the losses. A major gain is the fact that the Iraqis have left Kuwait. Everybody who is concerned with international law has always put that as their first demand despite the fact that a good deal of Iraq, as we forecast, has been devastated in the process.

Secondly, the defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations has been met head on, as it should be once that international body has expressed itself so clearly on the subject of the aggression against Kuwait.

Thirdly, the United Nations itself as an organisation has been pitchforked into the forefront of international politics. I shall express some reservations about that later. It has become one of the major players in the international game and is bound to remain so. Fourthly, there has been at least a faint sign of some degree of co-operation among some Arab nations which holds out hopes of further co-operation in the area in the future which has been so lacking in the past.

Finally, I am certain that we are all thankful for the small number of allied casualties, although every single casualty represents a tragedy and we feel for the relatives of those who suffered in that way.

On the other side of the balance sheet, what are the losses? Following my noble friend Lord Kennet, I suggest that the first is the inhuman massacre of both Iraqis and Kuwaitis. The reduction of civilian life in Iraq to a point of savagery is bound to have a profound effect on the world community. It is tragic that in this war, as in the invasion of Panama, there has deliberately been not even an estimate of the casualties suffered on the other side. We still do not know how many civilians were killed in Panama. There has been a deliberate reluctance to use what the Americans call a body count of the casualties inflicted during this war.

A barbarous disregard of human life has been shown. I was in the United States for a considerable period during the Vietnam war. I remember very distinctly the effect on both the participants in the war and on the spectators. It was devastating and tragic. It continues. We have seen a coarsening of public consciousness and a dehumanising of public discussion, fuelled by nauseating headlines in the tabloid press. I shudder to think of the effect of those events on the children of today, not just in this country but all over the world.

One should remember that these actions have been carried out in the name of the United Nations under Resolution 678. I venture to suggest that the resolution was never intended to be used in that way. Indeed, one can argue that the carrying into effect of Resolution 678 was in itself illegal because the Chinese had abstained. According to Chapter 27, Clause 3, of the charter there has to be concurrence of all five permanent members of the Security Council. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly spoke of the Geneva conventions. Surely the Geneva conventions do not allow the bombing of cities that took place during the past few weeks.

I repeat that that was carried out in the name of the United Nations. What is the effect on most of the world, and in particular on the third world? The effect has surely been to show the rest of the world that that is the method chosen by the powerful members of the United Nations when they identify an issue which they consider to be against their national interests.

To most of the world over the past few weeks it has seemed that the first world—the developed world—has been devastating a third world country, and that it has been selective action. There have been many similar aggressive acts on which the United Nations has not acted. That has not been because of the Cold War but because they have involved one of the permanent members of the Security Council. We have seen the imposition of United States policy with the use of the United Nations.

Thirdly, and in some ways in the long term most tragically, the peaceful means of resolving conflict through the United Nations, devised during the period in which economic sanctions were applied and backed up by military defence of Saudi Arabia, have been sabotaged. Never again, or at least for the foreseeable future, can one expect the United Nations to be able to say, "We have the peaceful means to solve an international conflict without military force".

What has been left from the devastation? It is hardly international peace and security. We are left with a jockeying for power in the Middle East between Iran—the Iranians were the enemies and after the deposition of the Shah became the enemies of the West and the excuse for arming Saddam Hussein—Turkey, Syria (have we forgotten Lockerbie and the detestation expressed toward the Syrians in this country and the West?) and Israel with, on the sidelines, the complicating factor of the Kurds and their desire for Kurdistan.

Meanwhile, the central issue in the Middle East remains—the issue of Palestine. Hopes of settlement in Palestine have been undermined as a result of the Gulf action. They have been undermined partly through the attitude of the PLO but also—this is where I fear for the future—because the Jewish lobby in the United States is so powerful throughout both Houses of Congress, as we all know. The subsidies that go into the elections within Congress are so dependent upon the Jewish lobby that it seems doubtful whether that lobby will ever allow an equitable settlement so far as concerns Israel and the Palestinians.

Finally, the consequence of the war has been a renewed and accelerated drive to a new arms race. As I pointed out, it was we who armed Saddam Hussein as a buffer against the Iranians. We in the West provided him with the weapons that were used against our forces. Now every country in the Middle East is sending IOUs to the United States, France, Britain and Germany for renewed provision of arms. The Syrians, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Turks, the Kuwaitis and the Israelis have all been promised extra subsidies to renew their military machines. What a terrifying prospect! Over the past few weeks we have seen what armaments do. We have seen that once they are destroyed the vultures gather in order to replace them. As a result of the way in which the coalition was put together the IOUs are now coming in, with a terrifying prospect for any future peace and any hope of a peaceful world in the Middle East.

I should like to make four short suggestions. I do not make any of them with great confidence. The United Nations has to play a part. I do not agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the secretariat of the United Nations. I believe that if there had been a Dag Hammarskjöld as Secretary-General over the past 12 months, the actions of the United Nations would have been vastly different. Dag Hammarskjöld would not have allowed himself to be used as Perez de Cuellar has been used in order to further United States policy. But however long it takes, the United Nations must play a crucial role in the search for peace.

As mentioned during the debate a month ago initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we must resuscitate the Military Staff Committee. With the military representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council there is there the opportunity to use the United Nations as a military means of peace-keeping based upon the consensus of the Big Five. That is my first suggestion.

Secondly, we must upgrade the Sanctions Committee. That committee should now examine what happened during the period in which sanctions were imposed. What were the effects not just on the economy of Iraq but on the military machine of Iraq? How long would it have taken to undermine that military machine? That is a job for the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations and it has never been allowed to do it.

Thirdly, and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Kennet, not just armaments control but disarmament is essential if we are not to have a repeat of the war under which we have suffered during the past two or three weeks. That means control and control of the market forces which emanate from the armament producers, the armament builders, to sell and to persuade to buy. Those are the market forces and they must be controlled centrally by the United Nations but also in the case of each government. It is no good leaving it to voluntary control by the armament makers.

Finally, there has to be a peace conference. Again I feel little confidence that in the near future such a peace conference can remove the causes of war in the Middle East, still less bring peace. However, the United Nations was set up in order to remove the scourge of war. It has a responsibility and a duty immediately to find the means to hold some kind of peace conference at which people can talk to each other across national boundaries in the hope that some understanding can arise out of this tragedy and that people can learn that the only alternative to its repetition is to talk peace to each other.

8.40 p.m.

Lord Butterfield

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing this vitally important subject to our attention by initiating the debate today. I wish to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. He spoke of our need to find ways and means of supporting the prime efforts of the United Nations to cut out wars. Noble Lords will forgive me for reminding them that I am a physician. When I was a professor I had the privilege of visiting medical schools. I visited them on occasions in Jerusalem and in various countries in the Gulf. I believe that if we had the right imaginative spirit from the Mediterranean to the Gulf it is not impossible that a new order could begin to emerge.

My reason for saying that arises from my visits to Oman where I had the great privilege of meeting His Majesty the Sultan on several occasions and of being a close confidant of his mother, the Queen Mother of Oman. She once made a remark to me which encourages me to believe that we may be able to encourage a spirit of collaboration and reconciliation. The prophet Job is buried not far from Salalah, which is the Queen Mother's tribal country. When she realised that the tomb was in serious disrepair, she arranged for it to be resuscitated. I went in one of the Omani motor cars—sadly it was a Mercedes—up the mountain to the tomb. I found two Omanis in prayer. I returned and said to Her Majesty, "It is of great encouragement to me, your Majesty, that you, a great Arab lady and great leader, have refurbished the tomb of an Israeli Jewish prophet". She is a very remarkable woman. Her reply through her first-class interpreter was memorable. She said, "We have to learn rapidly in this part of the world that we must always respect the efforts of good men".

I hope and pray that the emergence of such a spirit of reconciliation, and appreciation of good, in particular among the women in that part of the world, may be caught up in the peace conference that must come. The authority of women in that part of the world is rising. When I go to medical schools I am astonished at how many posts are being developed by women doctors.

I am sure that I reflect the views of many millions who have friends in both Israel and the Arab states when I say this. If there is anything that the Foreign Office would like any of us with intentions of helping reconciliation to do, do not hesitate to call on us. We should all be greatly honoured to help in any servile way in the most menial tasks in any important peace conference. It is an opportunity that I hope and pray the United Nations will seize, and show their real moral ethical authority to the world.

8.44 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, whose eloquent plea for reconciliation I am sure struck a chord on all sides of the House. I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for a number of constructive suggestions about the future in the Middle East which I know will be warmly endorsed by my noble friends on these Benches.

The position now in the Middle East is so changeable and uncertain that it is dangerous to make predictions or to suggest or recommend lines of policy. What is the future in Iraq? Will Saddam Hussein stay? If so, he will certainly not have his old capacity for making aggression against his neighbours. But if he stays, it will be a terrible tragedy for the Iraqi people and perhaps most of all for the courageous Kurds and Shiah who are trying for a change of regime in Iraq.

On the other hand, he may be overturned. I imagine that that would be welcome to all in this Chamber. But it would be a bleak prospect for the unity of Iraq as a state and thus for stability in the Middle East. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to possible Iranian ambitions in southern Iraq, and Turkish ambitions in Northern Iraq. The situation could be chaos and anarchy.

A few years ago I stood in the centre of Baghdad and surveyed those monstrous architectural tributes to Saddam Hussein. I could not resist saying to my companion, My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair! That was only a few years ago, and already the lone and level sands are stretching far away in Iraq. It is an extraordinary vindication of a great poem written about the Middle East.

While Iraq is in turmoil, it is very hard to sketch out with confidence a new security system for the Middle East. It is encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, that so quickly and with such decision eight Arab governments have come together at Damascus and formed a treaty. We have to ask, "How does Iran fit into that?" We also have to ask "How does the new Iraq fit into it?" Will all the emirates survive the shock of the Gulf war, and if not, will Saudi Arabia allow the emirates to succumb?

Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly a great achievement so quickly to have reached a promising beginning. The Middle East is so full of formidable problems, to which no solutions are clearly visible at this stage. However, I submit to the Minister that there are one or two certainties from the point of view of Western countries.

First, their contribution to security in the Middle East cannot be made directly. They can be made only through the United Nations, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said, in support of Arab initiatives and with the co-operation or at least the acquiescence of the Soviet Union. That must be implanted as a basic principle of Middle East policy for the Western countries in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, suggested that perhaps the United Nations may produce its own military force under the military staffs committee. I remember that when the United Nations was formed—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I have this in common—we all thought that wars were going to be abolished by the Security Council, acting if necessary with armed force organised by the military staffs committee. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, still maintains some hopes in that direction; perhaps more than I do. I am torn as to whether that is the way forward for the Security Council or whether we should regard the Security Council as a legitimising organisation such as it was in fact in the Gulf war.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, as the noble Lord will remember, the Soviet Union decided that the military staffs committee should never get going even though it agreed to it in the charter. Therefore, that has been more or less a dead letter for the past 45 years. However, I do not believe that the agreements laid down in the charter are necessary. But as I said in my debate four weeks ago, I believe that provisional work could be done on contingency planning without necessarily doing everything which is in Chapter 7 of the charter.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, it may well be as the noble Lord says. I confess that I am agnostic. However, as a legitimising organisation the Security Council has a major part to play in military sanctions against those who offend against United Nations resolutions. Certainly, as I say, the future for western governments must be action through the United Nations in support of Arab initiatives, with the co-operation or at least the acquiescence of the Soviet Union.

Next—and this was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch —there must be a concerted effort to cut off the supply of arms to the Middle East. I believe that it is almost too much to hope for a complete worldwide embargo, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned Argentina and Germany. However, we should bear in mind that virtually all the weapons in the Middle East today were supplied by one or other of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Therefore, at least those five countries could agree to cut off those supplies. If they fail to do so it would be an outrage. I am not quite as pessimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. I am inclined to believe that the large sums of money paid to countries which were harmed by the war or which helped in the war will not be used directly for the purchase of arms. Nevertheless, the problem is urgent and important. Responsibility lies firmly with the five permanent members of the Security Council.

The third certainty for western powers is that there will be no peace in the Middle East unless and until justice is done for the Palestinians. Many people have said that for many years. I am on record as saying it as long ago as 1948. Since then there have been five wars directly or indirectly concerned with the Palestinian problem. I say again, as I said in 1948, that if that problem is not solved there will be other wars. That must be of the utmost importance.

At first sight a peaceful settlement is further away than ever. Arafat's close association with Saddam Hussein has been a deadly blow to the PLO and to the Palestinian cause. It has gratuitously alienated from the Palestinians many of its strongest former allies and supporters in the Arab world and outside it. Simultaneously, Israel is enjoying greater prestige and influence and the Shamir government, apparently with solid public support, are maintaining their adamant refusal to trade land for peace.

The Foreign Secretary analyses that problem extremely well and has done so on more than one occasion in the past few weeks. For example, last week he sail: A settlement will have to balance guarantees of Israel's right to exist within secure borders with a withdrawal from the occupied territories. But the Palestinians must be brought in from the cold and means devised for the exercise of the right to self-determination". He declared that it was imperative to search hard for progress over an issue which has been allowed to fester for too long. He continued: Israel cannot in the long run rest her security on the occupation of Arab lands". The Foreign Secretary has made a lot of true and important statements of that kind recently and is to be congratulated on that. He is to be congratulated also on foreseeing, if not encouraging but perhaps encouraging, the agreement at Damascus of the eight Arab governments. However, his statements are silent on the point which matters; namely, how much pressure the Americans are prepared to exert on Israel to trade land for peace and to withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for security guarantees. That is the question which matters. We can all analyse the problem, but that is the question that needs to be answered.

Can President Bush somehow be encouraged to follow the example of President Eisenhower in 1956? He warned the Israelis that unless they withdrew from territory which they conquered at the time of Suez there would be a falling away of economic aid from the United States. That line was immediately successful. It is a question of whether President Bush can successfully withstand pressures from Washington which are stronger than ever and do something of the same kind in the interests of reaching a settlement.

Now, as then, there is no need to talk of sanctions against Israel. All that is required is a willingness to reduce the abnormally high level of United States aid to Israel. We must hope that the Security Council, under the lead of the United States, will now apply to the Israeli occupation something of the firmness of purpose which it applied with such success to the occupation of Kuwait. We must hope that the British Government, together with the European Community and acting as a member of it, will encourage the Security Council in those efforts. In spite of enormous uncertainties in the Middle East, I believe that those are lines of policy which Western governments can pursue with confidence, and I hope that this Government will do so.

8.57 p.m.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating the debate. I believe that it is worth while to look at the possibilities for a settlement in the Middle East in the immediate post-war period. If we had had to wait for five weeks, that may have been too long.

Secondly, I believe that we have had a useful debate. I have found some of the contributions to be quite noteworthy. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the workings of the UN and I shall return to that matter. I thought that the tour de raison of my noble friend Lord Kennet—if I do not mix my metaphors too much—was a very good preliminary canter round the course.

I agree with a great deal of the thrust of what my noble friend Lord Hatch said, although I did not find myself in such close agreement on some of the specifics. As regards the Chinese abstention, perhaps I may point out to him that the phrase "the concurrence of the five permanent members" has since 1946 been construed as the absence of a veto by any of the five permanent members. The argument that all five must vote in favour of a resolution to achieve that concurrence is no longer valid.

My noble friend mentioned the Chinese. When I was in New York they invented a fourth vote: one could vote in favour of a resolution, one could vote against it, one could abstain or one need not participate in a vote on a resolution, which is what they tended to do. As far as I know, it was never argued that non-participation was not concurrence in the passage of a resolution. Therefore, I fear that that point is bad.

I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said about the possibility of arms coming back into the area. However, I should like to offer the House a reflection. If I were a Saudi Arabian and if Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq, I should wish to have the proper means for my own defence. The dilemma faced by countries is how one trades defence, which in this case means arms, for legitimate, rational and reasonable security. As yet the world has never resolved that dilemma. As regards the Middle East, it may well be that the only way to deal with the problem is by the somewhat crude and blunt instrument of saying that there must be a total embargo and nobody should sell arms to countries in the area. I shall return to that point later.

In considering the situation post-war in the Middle East, if I may offer the House one or two reflections before I get on to the specifics, the future well-being of the area in the end has to depend upon the people living in the area. It is a truism, but the funny thing about truisms is that they are very often true, and no external non-indigenous power will be able to safeguard peace and security in such an explosive part of the world.

The conclusion I draw is that I want British forces and all Western forces withdrawn from the Gulf as soon as is reasonably practicable. They went there to achieve a specific purpose; namely, the liberation of Kuwait. They have achieved it with brilliance and, that now having been achieved, their early departure is essential.

In particular we must avoid the temptation into which all governments, especially victorious governments, frequently fall of staying on too long because we believe that if we stay on a little longer the situation will get better. International experience seems to show that if you stay on the situation will probably get worse. The danger is that we then become the focus for the discontent which will assuredly arise.

One possible example is democratic rights in Kuwait itself. I suspect that the path to full democracy in the Gulf countries will be difficult and quite lengthy. If Western troops are still in position in Kuwait at a time when agitation for what we would consider normal democratic rights is taking place, and if those pressures are not met, we will get the blame and will be told that we are not using our power properly. We will be told that we are not doing enough; we will be told that we should be pressurising the existing government with greater vigour. So our purpose was a narrow one. Our purpose has been achieved and we should withdraw our soldiers from the Gulf as soon as we can.

Secondly, perhaps I may disabuse the House of what I detected in some speeches, that the United Nations can solve the problem. It cannot. The United Nations cannot actually solve anything. The United Nations can give countries and peoples of the area time within which they can solve it. One also has to say that, very frequently, time bought in an international crisis or a difficult situation is moving the problem in the direction of a solution. But all that the United Nations can do is to provide a framework within which rational and sensible discussions on both sides can take place and provide guidelines which will assist. But one cannot look to the Security Council for immediate solutions, particularly for long and deep-seated problems.

There is a tendency in international affairs for countries to try to solve a problem themselves; it then proves to be intractable, as it may well have proved to be over many years past; and when they have failed to solve it they throw it at the United Nations. Perhaps, understandably, the United Nations finds that considerable difficulties are attached to it and also fails to solve the problem, so the UN gets blamed for it. Therefore I ask your Lordships not to expect too much from that institution.

When considering what might be possible in the Gulf we have to recognise right at the outset the limited nature of what we can realistically expect to achieve, and we should not become too disappointed if it does not happen very quickly. I do not think we are on the verge of an era of peace, concord and tranquillity in the whole of the Middle East. I wish I could believe that, but past experience seems to lead us in the direction of believing that peace, concord and tranquillity in the whole of the Middle East will not come quickly or without great difficulty.

Thirdly, it is essential—and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said on this—to preserve the quite remarkable unanimity that has been achieved among the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council. If that were to break, the UN as an instrument of sensible progress would be shattered. But to preserve that unanimity requires effort and imagination. If we start playing power games again, trying to keep the Russians out because we think that it ought to be a Western preserve in the Middle East, or if the Russians attempted to preserve and re-arm Saddam Hussein, if we relapse into that sort of tit-for-tat game, the unanimity of the Permanent Members will go and we will find our task much more difficult.

Against that background, what can we do and what can we legitimately hope to achieve? There are some short and medium-term measures which are perhaps obvious and some longer-term ones which are more difficult. First, a peace-keeping force along the border between Iraq and Kuwait seems to be sensible and justified. Some countries, as we know, are already thinking in these terms but it will require a vote of the Security Council; it will require contingents from various countries and it will have to be under the control of the UN Secretariat.

Perhaps I may sound one word of warning. If there is to be a peace-keeping force along the border between Iraq and Kuwait, none of the Western belligerent countries can conceivably be a member of that force. It will have to be composed primarily of Arab countries, together with some third world countries, and if there are Western countries they will have to be neutrals.

Secondly, there is a need for a review of the 12 existing resolutions of the Security Council, particularly Resolution 661 on sanctions. In that context, the continuation of the arms embargo is sensible, at least as a short-term measure, and I do not see any reason at all why there should not be a convention, a declaration, an agreement or whatever diplomatic phraseology one likes to use, by which the Five Permanent Members themselves pledge collectively not to re-arm their old client countries in the Middle East. The queue of arms salesmen that now seems to be lining up in order to re-arm those countries that have so recently fought a war I find obscene.

Thirdly, the mess has to be cleared up, and again the United Nations and some of the agencies can play an important part in this. The use of the UN disaster relief organisation for immediate humanitarian assistance in the war areas is something which should not only be considered but should be actively promoted by the Government. In the longer term, there will be a major task of reconstruction. It may be that one can use agencies such as the UN development programme or other aid organisations for it. The only point I would make is that the Government should be generous when they consider what we can do in order to aid that task of reconstruction in the fighting areas. It is particularly important that we should be seen to be generous in the light of our frequent assurances throughout this conflict that we indeed have no quarrel with the people of Iraq itself, and that our quarrel has been primarily—indeed almost solely —with Saddam Hussein.

As a longer-term measure I suppose that the question of reparations will have to be considered. Prima facie it seems to me that this is a matter for direct negotiation between Iraq and Kuwait, but frozen Iraqi assets should perhaps remain frozen until at least some resolution of this issue has been achieved.

Those are all perhaps localised suggestions for the immediate problems of the Gulf area and the war area, but, if all we do is concentrate on that and ignore the other great issues of the region, then I fear that we shall not be dealing with the problem with the seriousness or comprehensiveness that it deserves.

I entirely agree with what has been said by noble Lords in this debate tonight that central to a settlement—if that is the right word—or a resolution, or even an amelioration of tension in the Middle East is some progress on the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Resolution 242 was passed in 1967. Resolution 338 was passed in 1973. Resolution 681 was passed as recently as 1990, and the statement by the president of the Security Council then concerning an international conference is an extraordinarily important statement.

Such a conference has to take place. The only possible forum within which this discussion can acceptably take place —acceptably to the Arab countries—will be one which is under the aegis of the United Nations. It is perfectly true that the Israelis will not like it. One can understand that. They will be put under intense pressure if they go to a peace conference. But whatever pressure they will be put under if they go to a peace conference, I would agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew that pressure should be put on them now to get them to that peace conference where these issues can be seriously addressed.

It seems that Lebanon is firmly on the back burner. We should not ignore it. It is a problem of a small, rather attractive country before its present difficulties, which has been torn by religious and political divides inside and exacerbated by intervention from without. I hope that in looking at the Middle East as a whole we shall not forget the problem of the Lebanon, nor indeed that of the Kurds.

The international agenda is therefore full. I am quite convinced that in the present climate of international relations these matters have to be addressed in an international context. A reversion to bilateral efforts to settle them will, I think, be no more successful in the future than such efforts have proved in the past.

There is, therefore, I believe a genuine and deep change taking place in the world in the way in which the United Nations is perceived and is now used. It would be foolhardy in the extreme not to continue along what has so far proved to be such a fruitful course. I see, if not resolution, at least improvement in some of the problems I have been talking about tonight, firmly set in the context of action by, and within, the United Nations.

9.12 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I have listened with interest to noble Lords' speeches this evening. Valuable points have been made and I will study Hansard carefully. There is of course no more important subject in the world today—today and tomorrow. Having won the war we must now seek to win the peace. The best memorial we can build to those who died tragically as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait is a just, lasting and secure peace in the region.

Before addressing the noble Lord's Question directly, I should like briefly to review the remarkable achievements of the last seven months. On 2nd August last year Iraq invaded its smaller and weaker neighbour. The invasion was in direct defiance of all Iraq's international obligations both as a member of the United Nations and of the Arab League. The response was unprecedented. The United Nations Security Council adopted no less than twelve resolutions, each passed either unanimously or by an overwhelming majority. Some 30 countries dispatched forces to the Gulf, first to defend the other Gulf states from further Iraqi aggression and then to enforce the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and bring an end to Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw despite the peaceful pressures brought to bear on him by the whole international community. Finally, and reluctantly, the coalition against him was obliged to eject him by force, acting under the authority of the United Nations Security Council. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to the marvellous professionalism, courage and dedication of our armed forces. We can be justly proud of their remarkable performance in securing the defeat of a ruthless aggressor.

The aims of the coalition were laid down by the United Nations in successive resolutions: first, to secure Iraq's full and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait; secondly, to restore Kuwait's legitimate government; and thirdly, to restore international peace and security in the area. The first two of those objectives have been achieved. Some of the foundations have already been laid for the third objective. Iraq's offensive conventional capability has been largely destroyed. Her nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic production capabilities have at least suffered very serious setbacks.

An enormous task lies ahead. There is a good basis on which to build—the steadfast unity of purpose shown by the international community over the past seven months. The first priority in building a fair and durable peace must be to ensure that Iraq complies with the requirements set out for a formal and permanent cease-fire. Then we must turn to devising a lasting peace.

It would be presumptuous to come before the House today with a blueprint for the region. It is not possible to define rigidly now the terms of a settlement. But what we can do is to establish the principles on which we would wish to build. Those principles should include, first, a recognition that we cannot impose structures or models from elsewhere on the region—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Our role will be rather to assist and reinforce the process that must be initiated by the regional states themselves. Their views must be paramount. Secondly, there must be acceptance that, to have the best chance of real progress, those issues need to be discussed widely. Many other countries will have a useful contribution to make in the search for peace. Thirdly, there must be a willingness to explore with an open mind all the possibilities. We should not approach the search for peace with preconceived notions as to the outcome. Fourthly, we need to promote practical co-operation not only within the region but also more widely by, for example, building upon the links which already exist between the European Community and the region.

We need also to be clear what we do not seek. We do not seek the dismemberment of Iraq. We do not seek a vendetta against the Iraqi people, with whom we had no quarrel. We sought to minimise civilian casualties and to avoid damage to sites of religious or cultural significance. We have made clear throughout that our argument is with Iraq's leadership. It is not for us to prescribe who should govern Iraq. But Iraq clearly needs a leadership which can be trusted to respect her commitments as a member of the United Nations and the Arab League.

We must seek wider agreement on the aims and objectives. And we must rapidly address a number of vital tasks. The first will be the reconstruction and security of Kuwait. The Kuwaiti people have suffered terribly under Iraq's brutal occupation and their country has been mercilessly looted. Their determination now to rebuild their country is clear. I believe that Britain will have a significant part to play in that reconstruction. The countries of the Gulf are already looking at what new structures will need to be put in place to enhance their security. We and their other friends stand ready, if asked, to do what we can to help. But any Western help must be a contribution to, rather than a cornerstone of, a coherent security structure.

A second task is to address wider Middle Eastern issues, and particularly the long-standing problem of the Palestinians. I should emphasise that progress on this is not a precondition for progress towards peace and security in the Gulf, any more than it was when Saddam Hussein tried to introduce misleading linkages.

The Gulf conflict has not made a settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute any easier. Israel was subject to disgraceful provocations by Iraq. Her citizens were killed and injured, but she reacted with commendable restraint. For its part, the PLO leadership has damaged its credibility by supporting Iraqi aggression and showing no concern for the self-determination of the Kuwaiti people. On the practical level, however, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have suffered from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by seeing their income and livelihood destroyed. We need to return to the Arab/Israel question with renewed urgency and vigour. It remains a chronic source of instability in the region. The basis for a settlement is set out in UN Resolutions 242 and 338. The principle is "land for peace". Israel's withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 should be balanced by a guarantee of Israel's right to exist.

We have long supported the Palestinians' right to self-determination. That right and Israel's right to secure borders must be respected in a comprehensive negotiated settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute. We seek to persuade Israel that security can be achieved only through peace with her Arab neighbours. That will not be possible without progress on the Palestinian problem.

We must seek to minimise the dangers posed by the stockpiling of arms in the region. Countries have a legitimate right to self-defence but it is important to exercise restraint in the supply of armaments. In particular we must prevent the sale of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons or of essential components. Restraints on Iraq's present and future capability are essential. But wider restraints will need to be considered. These restraints will have to be effectively and rigorously policed. However, the fundamental political reasons which lie behind the large-scale possession of armaments need to be resolved, as I have already outlined above, if we are to maximise the chances of real arms reductions.

Some have suggested that an international conference is necessary for the resolution of these various issues. We have long supported the idea of an international conference on the Arab/Israel problem, and that support continues. But we must not lose sight of the wood for the trees. We must not become obsessed with means and mechanics. There is no point, for example, in an all-embracing conference if the will to reach settlements is absent. Any such conference would need careful preparation.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about Western arms supplies to Iraq. Ninety per cent. of Iraq's arms were from Soviet sources. It is not we who armed Iraq as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said. It is a folk myth to suggest that. We are traditionally very careful about who we sell armaments to. We have not sold arms to Iraq for very many years. We have very strict controls. We stopped sales to Iraq because we did not think that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were suitable to receive arms exports. We shall certainly encourage other countries throughout the world to be more discriminating about those to whom they sell arms.

I entirely agree with the positive contribution from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy concerning the United Nations Charter. We must build on it as it is and not try to rewrite it. My noble friend raised the question of war crimes. We have made it clear that anyone who breaks the provisions of the Geneva Convention may be held liable, and that remains the case. That will not be a decision for the United Kingdom alone. Machinery already exists under the Geneva Convention 1967 for prosecuting grave breaches. The Kuwaiti Government intends to establish a commission to catalogue war crimes, which we welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to the batbarous disregard for civilian life in the conduct of the war. I do not think there has been any war this century in which there have been greater attempts to avoid civilian deaths. Allied aircraft returned with full bomb racks when the risk to civilians was unacceptable. Many identified military targets were not attacked at all because of the risk to civilians. The noble Lord asked if the bombing of civilians was not contrary to the Geneva Convention. The answer to that is no. We attacked targets accepted as legitimate in international law. Iraq's stationing of military targets in civilian areas was contrary to the rules of war.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? He will recall that not very long ago I asked him if it was Her Majesty's Government's policy that Iraqi forces that were withdrawing would not be attacked. I was assured that that was the policy of the Government and the allies. I was assured that there would be no attacks on Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait or the scene of battle. In my speech I was making the point that I was concerned not just with civilians, but above all with the attacks being made on Iraqi forces withdrawing from Kuwait. That has been described in disgusting language in a prominent newspaper of this country as a "turkey shoot".

Lord Reay

My Lords, I understood the noble Lord in his speech to be making references to civilian casualties. That was the point I was trying to answer. He also referred to the use of Chapter VII, which he said had been selective. In our view it was not a selective use of it. The aggression was the first serious act of war that had occurred since the end of the cold war which permitted the United Nations to act as it should. It was the first attempt since 1945 to annexe a sovereign, independent state.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned the meeting of the Gulf Co-operation Council with Egypt and Syria in Damascus today. We welcome their evident determination to put new security structures in place. I look forward to studying in detail the text of today's declaration. The noble Lord also referred to the role of the Soviet Union. There is no intention of excluding from the region the Soviet Union by Western hegemony or, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, put it, by creating a Western preserve. That is why we seek an Arab solution.

I agree that restraint by the permanent five on the supply of arms must be pursued urgently but without prejudice to the country's legitimate rights of self defence. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, speaks with unrivalled authority in this House on the subject of the United Nations. I thought that his warning that we should not expect the United Nations to do everything was sound and sensible advice. We do not exclude an eventual decision by the Security Council to deploy United Nations observers or peace keeping forces to the region if this is what Kuwait and the other regional states wish. But it may conclude that some other format is more appropriate to its needs; for example, a force drawn from Arab members of the coalition.

Peace and security in the Middle East is of vital interest to us all. Now that the fighting is thankfully over we must use the peace well. Britain as a permanent member of the Security Council, as one of the Twelve, as a close ally of the United States, as a major contributor to the Gulf effort and as a traditional friend of many Arab states, will do all it can to make sense of that peace.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.