House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jan 1991

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) : There has been the stench of hypocrisy about this debate, and also the stench of racism. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) who spoke about Lithuania. The British Government have said that Lithuania is a free and independent country which is not part of the USSR. The USSR has sent troops into Lithuania. Therefore, the British Government should do what it has done about Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Kuwait : it should get the United Nations to send troops to throw the Russians out of Lithuania. There is one reason why they will not do that--the colour of the Russians is different from the colour of the Iraqis and that is a fact.

I spent eight days in Iraq as leader of the peace mission organised by the British branch of the Afro-Asian Solidarity Movement. We were there to find out what the Iraqis thought because the media over here had not been putting the Iraqi point of view. If we are to believe what we hear from President Bush, our own Prime Minister and the gutter press, Saddam Hussein is a half-mad dictator--a devil who rules by brutality alone and does not care about

Column 807

his people. But the fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein is not mad--he is ruthless, yes, but he is not mad--and he cares about his people. When I was in Baghdad, the Iraqi people told me that they had the greatest respect for Saddam Hussein. The same is true in Jordan. The reason is that Saddam Hussein has made his people feel that the Arab people should be proud of their ethnicity and race. The west takes no account of that.

President Bush says that there should be no linkage. I will tell the House about linkage. I remember when the Americans called a conference to discuss Namibia after the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, at which the South Africans were defeated by the Angolans and the Cubans. The first thing that the Americans said was that they had to have linkage : if they wanted the South Africans out of Namibia, the Cubans had to leave Angola. It had nothing to do with the issue. The Americans are nothing but a load of hypocrites if they think that we will accept the policy of no linkage.

The present situation could be resolved easily if Israel said that she was prepared to go to a conference to discuss the Palestinian issue. Why will the Israelis not do that? It is because Israel wants to maintain her expansionist policy in the middle east--and Israel is allowed to get away with that because the Americans want one power only in the region, and that power must be Israel.

I am opposed to much of what has been said tonight and to sanctions against Iraq. I think that there should be an Arab solution. If the Arabs got together without any pressure from the west, they would be able to resolve the issue. The Palestinian issue must be an integral part of any conference. I believe that there should be a discussion on secure borders for Israel, too, but I certainly feel that unless there is linkage there will be no prospect of peace in the middle east.

If there is war tomorrow, the effects on third-world countries will vastly outweigh the effects within the region. The Minister for Overseas Development has already told us that there will be no extra money for the starving millions of Africa because of the amount of money that will have to be spent on war in the Gulf. That is only one aspect. There will be hunger and starvation the like of which has never been seen before in the oil-importing countries. A report of the United Nations committee on trade and development has already stated that if the price of oil goes to $30 per barrel, $26 billion will be taken away from third-world countries and put back into the coffers of oil-producing countries, including this country. It is clear to me that the world, around America and its allies in the Gulf, is heading for war for one reason and one reason only : it wants control of the middle east.

There is also a subsidiary reason : the people involved are people of colour. I end as I began : if we are talking about white people invading a white country, United States and British forces would never be involved as they are in the Gulf today.

9.3 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : As we approach what may be the gravest turning point in post-war international history, it is right that this House of Commons should remind itself of the nature of the crisis that we face. Parallels have been drawn with other crises in

Column 808

which this country has been involved--with Suez, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and with the Falklands. Those comparisons are faulty.

Suez was a conspiracy among three countries of which Britain was one. Britain was party to an aggression that violated two United Nations General Assembly resolutions and involved a British veto of two Security Council resolutions : it was Britain against the United Nations. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), from whom we heard again today, should remember all this very well ; he was the Government Chief Whip at the time and he had the responsibility of delivering a majority to sustain Anthony Eden's violation of international law. Although Suez had serious international implications, it fundamentally affected only the four countries in dispute. In Britain the Prime Minister was overthrown and the country's imperial role was ended for ever.

In the Falklands there was an act of aggression by a fascist dictatorship which, tired of negotiating what it regarded as a valid case, invaded the islands which it claimed and so violated the United Nations charter. Again, although important principles of international conduct were involved, it was a dispute between two countries, each with supporters of its case, which did not involve the United Nations directly. The solution of the dispute by the United Kingdom exercising its right of self defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter affected only the two countries involved. Argentina was expelled from the islands and the Argentine junta was ousted soon afterwards.

The Gulf crisis that we have debated throughout today is very different. Although one country has invaded and consumed another, the dispute is not simply between those two countries. Immediately after the invasion took place on 2 August, the United Nations Security Council intervened. It took a series of unprecedented measures intended to force the aggressor to disgorge his spoils. If those spoils are not disgorged, the repercussions will affect not merely Iraq and Kuwait, but the entire world community.

If the most stringent measures ever taken by the United Nations fail, the United Nations will in future be worthless as an institution created and designed to maintain international order and security. That is why we in the Labour party have been determined that the will of the United Nations must be upheld and implemented. It was a Labour Government who were involved in the creation of the United Nations 45 years ago. It is the Labour party which has a constitution requiring us to support the United Nations. We have invested too much faith and hope in that organisation to stand by and see it shattered by the recalcitrance of one country.

Ever since 2 August the Labour party has been clear in its view of how the crisis should be solved. We have based that view insistently and inextricably on support for the authority of the United Nations. It is based not on support for any individual Government, including the British Government, but on the firm rock of the United Nations. We advocated economic sanctions and naval and air blockades to enforce them. We advocated diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful solution fully within the United Nations resolutions. We said that if an option

Column 809

of force was to be available to provide backing for the sanctions and the diplomacy, that option must have what in the House on 7 September I called

"the clear and unquestionable authority of the United Nations".--[ Official Report, 7 September 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 892.]

Mr. Dalyell : Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us would be much more comfortable if, to establish the firm rock of the United Nations, we went back not to the Security Council but to the General Assembly and asked a specific question? We should ask whether it is the will of the General Assembly of the United Nations--all the member countries--that we should embark on a human and ecologically catastrophic war. If that question were put and answered, many of us would be much happier.

Mr. Kaufman : My hon. Friend is well aware that such questions are referred to the General Assembly only when the Security Council is stalemated. That is precisely what happened during Suez when the British Government's veto of two Security Council resolutions placed the matter in the hands of the General Assembly. We welcome the diplomatic efforts that have been made and are still being made. I hope that they will continue, whether they are made by

France--although it appears that the latest French initiative has failed-- the Yemen or anyone else who feels ready to try. But let us be clear that every diplomatic effort that has been attempted has been the initiative of the countries or international organisations united against Iraqi aggression.

It was President Bush who proposed the talks in Baghdad and Washington, which never took place, and the talks in Geneva that failed. It was the European Community that proposed talks with Tariq Aziz, which he spurned. It was a senior French emissary who went to Baghdad and it is the Prime Minister of Yemen who has gone there. It was the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who represents us all, the Security Council and the General Assembly, who went to Baghdad and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) reminded us, was left cooling his heels for six hours before Saddam Hussein deigned to meet him.

Let us be blunt. The senior statesmen and women of the world have danced attendance on Saddam Hussein while he, the initiator of the aggression, has not taken one step to resolve the situation that he has created. He has frustrated the efforts of those who have sought an outcome through diplomacy. Mr. Perez de Cuellar said, after their meeting eventually took place :

"He never mentioned the word withdrawal".

As all of us in the House agonise about how to resolve this crisis peacefully, let us be clear that the crisis could be resolved peacefully in one moment if Saddam Hussein withdrew from Kuwait and if he decided to undo what he alone did--if he simply got out. Instead, as resolution 678 puts it, he is in "flagrant contempt" of the United Nations. He says that he has no grievances, but he knows that UN resolution 660 urges that those grievances be resolved through direct negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred to those negotiations today, but they can take place only if there is a Kuwait--an entity whose existence Saddam Hussein denies--and if there is a legitimate Kuwaiti Government restored to authority as resolution 661 laid down.

Column 810

Saddam Hussein claims that he is concerned for the Palestinians, who indeed continue to suffer under Israeli occupation. If they continue so to suffer, Saddam Hussein must bear a full share of the responsibility, because since the House last debated the Gulf crisis, the Security Council has passed resolution 681 which, accompanied by a statement by the Security Council president, provides the basis for the international conference which Saddam Hussein says he wants to deal with the problem. The statement says that such a conference should be held at an appropriate time. It is an historic and unprecedented resolution. Not for nearly a quarter of a century has the Security Council passed a comprehensive resolution aimed at securing a middle east settlement and justice for the Palestinians. If the Security Council's authority is flouted over 12 resolutions dealing with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, how can an appropriate time--I should like it to be very soon, for I have advocated such a conference for many years--be fixed for that conference when it can only be convened through the authority of the United Nations? If Saddam Hussein cared as much about the Palestinians as he rhetorically claims, and as much as many hon. Members genuinely care, he would immediately withdraw from Kuwait for that reason alone. However, he shows no sign of getting out. The whole of the UN awaits the decision of one man who holds all of us to ransom.

We all agree that Saddam Hussein's aggression must be reversed. What is causing anxious debate in the House and the country is how it should be done. The Labour party advocates diplomacy and we believe that that should continue as long as there is any point to it. However, diplomacy should not reward Iraq--there can be no reward for aggression--nor should it do a deal with Iraq. The Security Council resolutions insist that withdrawal must be unconditional. Diplomacy should explore, until success is reached or there is no further point, the possibilities of persuading Iraq that withdrawal is in its interests as well as in the interests of the international community.

The Labour party advocated economic sanctions. They have been in operation for 166 days. I am sure that when the United Kingdom Government embarked on those sanctions they did so in good faith. I am not sure whether the Government hoped or expected that the sanctions would succeed in 166 days or fewer, but two things are clear : first, the sanctions have had a considerable effect ; secondly, they have not yet had the effect of inducing Iraq to leave Kuwait.

That sanctions have had an effect is clear from impeccable sources. By November the United States State Department had reported that 97 per cent. of Iraq's oil exports had been cut off, that imports of machinery, industrial goods, semi-finished goods and raw materials had declined by 90 per cent. and that some food prices had increased eightfold.

Mr. William Webster, director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, gave evidence to the House of Representatives armed services committee last month when he provided further information. He said that more than 100 countries are observing sanctions, that sanctions have all but shut off Iraqi exports and that imports into Iraq have been reduced to less than 10 per cent. of the pre-invasion level. He said that many light industrial and assembly plants have been affected, as has Iraq's only tyre manufacturing plant. He revealed that sanctions have

Column 811

deprived Iraq of $1.5 billion of foreign exchange every month and that Iraq will have nearly depleted its foreign exchange reserve by the spring. He said :

"Reduced rations, coupled with rapid inflation will compound the economic pressures".

He said that even with favourable weather Iraq would be able to produce less than half the grain that it needs, and that the effect of sanctions will be felt first by the Iraqi air force and then by its army.

The Iraqi industry Minister has admitted that 60 per cent. of factories are closed due to lack of spare parts or raw materials and that almost 80 per cent. of Iraqis are unemployed or under-employed. No doubt on the basis of that or similar information, Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine, the commander in chief of United Kingdom air forces and joint commander of the British forces, stated that by the end of October--I have no reason to think that he has changed his mind since--the refinement of crude oil into aviation fuel and lubricants for tanks and other vehicles was already becoming more of a problem for Saddam Hussein. He said :

"If we can enforce the embargo more effectively life must get more difficult for him."

The air chief marshal summed up :

"We have obviously got to give several months or longer for sanctions to work. We are pinning our faith on sanctions. There is evidence they are starting to bite."

That is clearly an important view. Equally clearly, I would be the first to insist that judgments on policy must be the responsibility not of service officers, however senior or distinguished, but of elected politicians. The House should take that evidence into account. Because sanctions have not yet succeeded does not mean that they are bound to fail.

The House should take into account, too, that the date of 15 January, inserted into resolution 678, is, as the Foreign Secretary explained when the resolution was going through the Security Council,

"not the date upon which military action starts"

but

"It is the date after which member states will be authorised to take action in pursuit not of their own objectives but of the specific requirements of the Security Council".--[ Official Report, 28 November 1990 ; Vol. 181, col. 869-70.]

That interpretation was endorsed a week ago when President Bush stated :

"January 15 is not a date certain for the onset of armed conflict."

It was reinforced yesterday by General Brent Scowcroft, President Bush's national security adviser, who said :

"Every day we're closer to Saddam Hussein's deadline. We don't have one, but he has one."

It was with those considerations in mind that I told the House in our debate five weeks ago on 11 December :

"Stipulation of the date does not necessarily trigger the use of force on or immediately after that date. We in the Labour party repeat our position that the option of force should be invoked only after the maximum time has been given for sanctions to work". I continued :

"We should not be hemmed in by the date of 15 January. We should not be boxed in by the compulsion of the desert timetable and the effects of the weather on the ability to wage war. If a longer haul is judged likely to achieve the effect of sanctions, we should not rely on other considerations to reject the longer haul."--[ Official Report, 11 December 1990 ; Vol. 182, c. 837.]

Column 812

That has been our position from the start and it remains our position today. We still hope that it will prevail.

We appreciate that as an Opposition we can warn, advise and recommend, but not decide. The prerogative of decision lies with the Government. Therefore, the question arises as to what the Labour party's attitude should be if the Government's decision is contrary to what we recommend and early use of force is decided on. Here, my judgment is very much affected by what has become of the position the Government held at the outset of the crisis.

I have reminded the House tonight that in the first of our debates on the subject on 7 September 1990 I insisted that if there was to be an option of force standing behind sanctions and diplomacy, it should have what I called,

"the clear and unquestionable authority of the United Nations." I said :

"We believe that any further operations found necessary should be clearly and unequivocally authorised by the United Nations." Much of that debate in September was dominated by discussion of whether article 51 of the United Nations charter was sufficient authority for the use of military force against Iraq. I said : "It is not enough to be able to argue a technical case under article 51"--[ Official Report, 7 September 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 892.]

That was not the Government's position at that time. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), opening the debate as Prime Minister, spent a large proportion of her speech advancing a view quite contrary to the view of the Labour party's spokesmen. She spoke of what she called the right of individual or collective self-defence under article 51, which she claimed was affirmed in resolution 661. She said :

"To undertake now to use no military force without the further authority of the Security Council would be to deprive ourselves of a right in international law expressly affirmed by Security Council resolution 661."

She continued :

"I have full legal authority for everything that I say on these matters, and for those reasons I am not willing to limit our legitimate freedom of action My views have been approved by the topmost legal opinions that we can get."--[ Official Report, 6 September 1990 ; Vol. 177, c. 737- 38.]

If that had continued to be the Government's policy, I might have been in considerable difficulty tonight when contemplating my attitude to the use of force should the Government decide, as I hope they will not, to go ahead with force earlier rather than later, if at all. But what the right hon. Member for Finchley stated as the Government's policy on 6 September is no longer Government policy. That policy was abandoned in the most explicit terms on 9 November when, after talks with Mr. James Baker, the United States Secretary of State, the right hon. Lady came to Downing street as was her wont in those days and announced that she had given her approval for the United States to seek a United Nations resolution authorising military action in the Gulf.

The then Prime Minister could not have been more open about this change of policy. She declared :

"We do not believe one"--

that is, a resolution--

"is necessary for legal reasons. We already have the legal authority. The only question is how best to keep this coalition of opinion together and that, of course, we consider."

The Government changed their mind and I am glad that they did. They supported the Security Council resolution when previously they had rejected such a resolution. That

Column 813

resolution went through on 29 November. It is a resolution for which the Labour party pressed and on which we insisted. We are very glad that the Government came round to our way of thinking. We ardently believe that the option in resolution 678 ought not to be taken up until sanctions have been given a better and further chance, but if that view is rejected we have to be consistent. We must accept that such action will have been taken in accordance with a resolution for which we pressed long and hard, a resolution which is now United Nations policy embodied in that resolution. That is why I remind the House of our long- stated view that sanctions should be persisted with over the longer haul-- [ Hon. Members :-- "For how long?"] Neither the United States when it drafted the resolution nor the United Kingdom Government when they supported it wanted a deadline at all. It was inserted at the insistence of the Soviet Union. The United Nations, having slipped into the error of one deadline, ought not to slip into the error of another.

Ms. Short : I have heard my right hon. Friend say on a number of occasions that the 15 January deadline, which I considered a major error, came about at the insistence of the Soviet Union. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said today that he understood that the Soviet Union asked for that deadline because it was later than the deadline that the Americans were pressing for. This deadline is a major error in the west's strategy in the Gulf, and I should like to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say about the point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

Mr. Kaufman : I can give my hon. Friend two pieces of evidence, one of which is on the record and one of which is not. I assure my hon. Friend that I obtained the latter in the past eight days on the highest and most authentic authority.

The first piece of evidence was provided by the Foreign Secretary who, in Hansard on 28 November, specifically confirmed that this was done on the insistence of the Soviet Union. As for the other piece of evidence, I have been told by other parties involved in the negotiations that the deadline was inserted at the insistence of the Soviet Union ; and there could be no better authority for that information than those parties. If the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup disagrees, he will have to produce evidence contrary to mine, but I cannot imagine any evidence that could controvert the evidence that I have.

I say again that sanctions should be persisted with over the longer haul. I also say to the House that if the British armed forces are sent into action under the authority of resolution 678 and in accordance with an objective that we support, the Labour party will give its unswerving support to our armed forces.

On 11 December I told the House that at the end of that debate I would be voting not for the Government but for the policies that the Labour party has advocated since the invasion of Kuwait. I said that I would vote to send a signal to Saddam Hussein that the Labour party is unequivocal in its support of the United Nations.

I shall vote tonight in the same Lobby and for the same reason, not for the Government, not to urge or encourage war, but in support of the United Nations. I want Saddam Hussein to know that the Labour party is impregnable in its support for the United Nations ; that the United

Column 814

Nations demands that Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait and that leave Kuwait Saddam Hussein will. I pray that he leaves Kuwait peacefully. 9.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : This has been a sombre debate, rightly, because the country may stand on the edge of war and it is right that the House should look into these deeps. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) spoke of his memories and experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) mentioned his family anxiety. Such speeches were deeply moving because of the personal feeling behind them.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked a key question about our aims if there is a war, and they are clear. They are contained in the Security Council resolutions. They are to get Iraq out of Kuwait--all of Kuwait--to restore the legitimate Government of Kuwait and to uphold in that way the collective security and authority of the United Nations. Beyond that, there is no hidden agenda. There is no intention to dismember Iraq. There is no intention to impose on Iraq a Government or, indeed, a president of our choice. We have not added to or sought to add to the requirements of the Security Council. The international community has been clear about those aims from the beginning.

I will pick up one or two of what seem to me to be the important points raised during the debate before I return to the main theme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred, as he has done before, to his interpretation of Security Council resolution 660 and what it says about negotiation between the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) picked up the point, as did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) just now. Resolution 660 was passed on 2 August, the day on which the Iraqis moved into Kuwait and before they had secured all its territory. We and all members of the Security Council wanted to see negotiations between the Government of Kuwait in Kuwait and the Government of the invading force, just as we wanted the invading force to withdraw, but it is a very different matter to expect the Kuwaiti Government in exile to take on the full burden of negotiating with the Iraqis on the restitution of their rightful territory, particularly with a Government, one of whose Ministers says that there is no such thing as Kuwait.

Of course there is an agenda. My right hon. Friend is right. There is an agenda between those two countries, not least because it is certain that the Kuwaitis will want substantial reparations from Iraq. But these negotiations can only take place between two Governments who control their respective states. Therefore, before that part of resolution 660 becomes realistic, we must bring about the return of the territory in Kuwait to its legitimate Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) mentioned in passing the position of Jordan. I was there two days ago. A large part of Jordan's economy is theatened or being damaged by the sanctions against Iraq which the Jordanian Government are now attempting to implement. Two days ago, I again had talks with the king, crown prince and Ministers of Jordan, and I came away

Column 815

feeling sympathy for their predicament. I hope that they find a way through. None of my right hon. and hon. Friends nor I agree with the political analysis that the king has adopted throughout the crisis, but the Jordanians seek compliance with the Security Council resolutions. Their standing and place in the region has been seriously damaged. I and other right hon. and hon. Members have talked about that situation to others of Jordan's traditional friends in the region, and we would like to see the resumption of the traditional friendly links between Jordan and countries such as Egypt and the Gulf states.

Mr. Nellist : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd : Perhaps I can get on a bit.

Mr. Heath : Perhaps I may return to my right hon. Friend's point about paragraph 3 of resolution 660. In fact, the Kuwaiti royal family left Kuwait before the Iraqis went in and are now established in Saudi Arabia as the Government of Kuwait, so there is nothing to prevent the Kuwaiti Government from negotiating with the Iraqi Government. To start picking and choosing paragraphs from United Nations resolutions at this stage is neither justifiable nor tolerable.

Mr. Hurd : I do not think that the House considers that it is justifiable to expect a Government in exile--whether in London 50 years ago or in Saudi Arabia now--to start negotiating with the people occupying their territories.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) spoke, as he has done before, of the horrors to come if there is fighting. All fighting is a horrible business, of course, but the right hon. Gentleman has been uniquely inaccurate in his past prophesies. In 1982, he predicted that any opposed landing in the Falklands would inflict intolerable casualties on the Falkland islanders, and that the result of a successful British action would be that the Argentine Government would be replaced by a regime far more nationalistic, and far more determined to secure revenge, than that of General Galtieri.

I could not check the accuracy of all the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East as he spoke of some things that I knew not of, but when he remarked on matters about which I do know, he was wrong. In particular, he was wrong about the Soviets, and about the position that the European Ministers adopted in Brussels yesterday when they all--including the French--decided that the Community and its member states would regretfully have to conclude that the conditions for a new European initiative do not exist as of this moment. I fear that that has proved to be the correct conclusion.

Mr. Nellist : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. Hurd : No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Many right hon. and hon. Members raised the question of the Arab-Israel situation and linkage. Once the aggression against Kuwait is reversed and Iraq is out of Kuwait, it will be possible and necessary to return to the other problems of the middle east. Everyone concerned--President Bush, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the European Community--have made that clear.

Column 816

We have been working on a solution to the Arab-Israel problem since the foundation of the state of Israel, and even long before then. In recent years, the Security Council has charted the way. It is a conflict of competing claims and rights, and not exactly comparable with any other problem. The territories in question were occupied by Israel in 1967 as a result of an attack planned against Israel which it pre-empted. We do not agree with Israel's occupation of those territories, and we do not believe that it provides a legitimate basis for Israel's security, but the historical basis for it is different from that of the Gulf crisis, and the Security Council resolutions are also different.

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West) rose --

Mr. Hurd : I shall continue with this point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I shall press for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, balanced by Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. Resolution 338 called for direct negotiations.

For many years there was no general Arab readiness to accept either resolution, but we have repeatedly stated that recent steps by the PLO and the Arab League have placed the onus upon Israel to respond. We support self-determination for the Palestinians. We support a direct dialogue between Israel and representative Palestinians, and we believe that an international conference is the right forum for negotiations between all parties concerned, at the right time. That is our policy.

Saddam Hussein has not helped forward this policy, and he has not helped forward the peace processes--he has hindered it and held them up. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made clear, Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait to help the Palestinians ; he invaded Kuwait to help himself. It is absurd to argue that one can end one occupation by imposing another.

I should just tell the House that-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. Would the Foreign Secretary carry on, please ?

Mr. Hurd : Iraq's standing in the Arab-Israel question is that of one Arab state, not as a spokesman for all Arab states. That point was made clearly and insistently to me by the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud, when I was in the area the other day.

Iraq's recent aggression makes it much more difficult, for the time being, to work towards a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute, but once Iraq is out of Kuwait we shall have to return to this, and we shall have to bring fresh energy and imagination to the issue. Fresh thinking will be needed from the Arab states, which are still technically at war with Israel, by the Palestinians, by Israel and by the international community.

I entirely agree, and I am sure that most hon. Members would agree, that the suffering and injustice brought about by this problem must spur us on.

Mr. Ernie Ross : I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it would be wrong to link the two issues, but no matter how hon. Members or people in the west may feel, the majority of people in the Arab world see a linkage, if only because of our failure to deal just as efficiently and effectively in international law with the Palestinian question. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the word linkage, what about the term parallel endeavours?

Column 817

Since Iraq invaded Kuwait, 72 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli defence forces. As the Foreign Secretary knows, last Wednesday four Palestinians were deported from the west bank and Gaza. Until we deal with those issues just as effectively and firmly--that is in no way linkage, but a parallel endeavour--people will not accept that we are serious about the middle east.

Mr. Hurd : As the Leader of the Opposition said, by invading Kuwait Saddam Hussein has held up and prevented any possible progress on the Arab- Israel question. That is the fact of the matter. Once he is out of Kuwait, as I have said, we shall have to return to the subject with vigour and with fresh ideas.

I have been asked about the French proposal--

Next Section

Home Page