315
Debate on the Address
[LORDS]
[LORD RICHARD] Government will know, that issue seems to be raised more and more, in particular in the United States. I gather that Senators Nunn and Moynihan may have been questioning the trend of American policy up to now. As we all know, they are very senior politicians in the United States. If that emerges as an avenue which the Arabs themselves wish to explore, as a non-indigenous foreign country, can we really say no to it? If indeed such exploration were to be successful, should we then be in a position to say no to a possible settlement along those lines?
I venture to suggest that it would be extremely difficult, even if the United States were as firm in its position now as it appears to have been at some stage in the past, for an Anglo-Saxon alliance of that kind to deny validity to an Arab settlement. I do not expect the Government to give us any firm declaration of their views on this tonight. It is obviously not a matter for overt politicking. I merely ask the Minister to comment on the reports coming out of the United States. Its views are entitled to be treated seriously.
I wish to press the Government on their position now on the possible use of force and their view on the need for a further Security Council resolution before embarking on a war. Perhaps I may say at the outset of this part of my speech to the House that it is not a question now of whether it is under Article 51 or Article 42. I have my own views, but perhaps it is no longer a legal issue. The question now seems to be much more a political than a legal one. Does it make sense for us to embark on war without the international stamp of approval that a Security Council resolution would give? I have to tell the Government why I think it would not make sense for us to do that. We all agree that it is essential to maintain as great a degree of international solidarity as possible. We all know that in his journey last week to various capitals, Mr Baker, the United States Secretary of State, seemed to be attempting to line up precisely that kind of international solidarity which is needed. I must therefore press the Government on this.
According to the press, the Prime Minister last week accepted-albeit, it is said, reluctantly-that before force is used there will have to be further recourse to the Security Council. Is this so? Is this the position of Her Majesty's Government tonight? If it is, it is a major shift in the Government's position and it is one upon which we are entitled to a greater degree of clarity. Can the Minister give us that assurance tonight? The House and indeed the country should not have to learn of a change of policy of this gravity and magnitude through a series of inspired leaks. It may be that an enabling resolution of the Security Council would do. The Chinese Foreign Minister in Baghdad yesterday apparently said that China would not veto a United Nations resolution authorising the use of force. So there is some ground for believing that Security Council action would be attainable.
The attitude of the Soviet Union on this issue is of course crucial in the Security Council. Can the Minister give us an indication of what the
168 LD36/62 Job 9-9
(Fourth Day)
316
Government expect the Soviet attitude to be in the event of the matter going back to the council? Last week Mr Shevardnadze said that they did not rule out the use of force. Is this the message he is conveying to Her Majesty's Government? If so, we would like to know.
In short, I think we need from the Government tonight some indication of their current thinking as to the
way forward. Standing pat at the moment is hardly a policy, if I may say so. It is more an excuse for the absence of one. I must press the Minister on this, we cannot just drift into war. The British people are entitled to have the issues clearly presented to them. So far, as the Government know, the Opposition have given the Government our support. We have not given them a blank cheque, but we have broadly given them our support. I think that the time has come for a little more openness on the part of the Government.
I have listened to most of the debate today. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, will not be surprised to hear me say that I agreed with a great deal of what he had to say about the intricacies of operating within the Community context. In considering the Government's European policy, the difficulty that one feels they have is in grappling with the problems of a world in which multilateral diplomacy has overtaken the bilateral pursuit of national interests. More and more, those national interests can only be safeguarded and accommodated and can only prosper by operating in a multilateral context and through multilateral institutions. That is true whether we are talking about the EC, NATO, the United Nations, GATT, the Commonwealth or the many other international institutions in which we operate. The inexorable trend of the last two or three decades has been the inability of nations, large as well as small, to defend their national interests on a bilateral basis only. National freedom of manoeuvre has declined inevitably as international events have become more and more soluble only on a multilateral basis.
A very distinguished former American ambassador to NATO, Mr. Harlan Cleveland, recently made a study of what American ambassadors do. He talked to American ambassadors in capital cities, analysing their day and seeing what occupied their minds. He discovered that approximately 75 per cent. of their time is spent not on relations with the host country but on multilateral issues, trying to decide how the host country will behave when an issue comes up in New York, Brussels or any other multilateral context.
If that is so, what does it mean in practice? It means that one has to operate in an atmosphere and environment in which consensus is the goal. One has to operate in an environment in which the winner in the game is the country which can gain a consensus nearest to the direction it wishes. However, in turn, consensus also means, first, that one has to be ready to listen to the other side's argument, and, secondly, that one has to be prepared to compromise. In addition, one has to show a decent respect for the institutions within which one operates and the direction in which they are moving.