IRAN
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about Iran.
President Carter has asked the friends and allies of the United States for their help and support in the serious situation over the continued illegal detention of the American hostages in Tehran.
This illegal act by Iran is now in its sixth month. The United States Administration and the American people have exercised remarkable patience and restraint in the face of the greatest provocation. Time and again their reasonable hopes of progress have been dashed. It has become clear that the prospects for the early release of the hostages through diplomatic action have markedly diminished. The United States Administration have put up with the flouting of international law and established diplomatic practice by Iran for several months in the hope of securing the release of the hostages. Naturally they now feel obliged to demonstrate that the continued detention of their people will carry increasing penalties. They understandably expect solidarity from their allies and we, for our part, have been giving and will continue to give them our utmost support.
At an early stage in the crisis we agreed on certain measures in the financial and commercial fields, on which we have been co-operating with the United States. These remain in force. No arms or defence equipment has been sent from this country to Iran since the hostage crisis arose in early November. In December we made a substantial reduction in the size of our embassy is Tehran.
The European Foreign Ministers met in Lisbon last week. The Foreign Minister of the Nine expressed their solidarity with the United States and the American people and instructed their ambassadors to make an immediate approach to the President of Iran to urge the release of the hostages and to seek precise assurances about the dates and methods by which their release would take place and then to report back in person. Our ambassador, Sir John Graham, is due to arrive in London to report this afternoon. [column 791]
The Americans have asked us to consider a wide range of measures. These include applying the economic sanctions that the Russians vetoed at the United Nations in January. They also include an eventual break in relations with Iran if there is no progress. It is important that whatever we do should be effective and should be capable of commanding a broad measure of international support.
We are now in close and urgent consultation with our European partners as well as with other friendly countries about how best we can together respond to President Carter's appeal to us to intensify our efforts. When the Foreign Ministers of the EEC meet on Monday of next week, I hope that the necessary decisions will be taken. This, therefore, can be only an interim statement, and a further report will be made to the House after next week's meeting, or sooner if required.
Mr. James Callaghan
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making a statement today about what is becoming an increasingly serious situation. Let it be made absolutely clear from the House, as the Prime Minister has already done, that the holding of these hostages—innocent men and women in the employment of the United States—by the militants in Tehran is a violation of international law, that it is in defiance of an order of the International Court of Justice, and that it ignores the resolution of the United Nations, and, therefore, that there can be no acceptance by us of any situation short of the release of these men and women.
I am glad to learn that there is now a strong proposal for further discussions in the light of the President's message. I do not question the right hon. Lady on whether any time limit has been set for a reply to the message by the President. That is a matter of minor significance against the issues that we have to resolve. What is necessary is solidarity not only between the European countries but between European and like-minded countries and the United States. If there is to be a co-ordination of our tactics, that demands the maximum consultation between us all. It may mean that we shall not be able to follow certain sources that others would like to follow. It is important that we should get the [column 792]highest common factor, and that means giving the utmost support to the United States in this matter.
I draw attention to the fact that the United Nations resolution, to which the right hon. Lady and I have referred, called upon the United States and Iran not to resort to military action. That would be no solution. It would give point to the most chilling comment that was made by Chancellor Schmidt over the weekend, when he said that in some respects the present situation is not dissimilar to the situation that existed immediately prior to Sarajevo, when no one wanted war but we driften into it. If we are to avoid that—and we must avoid it—it is necessary that there should be the maximum co-ordination between European countries, like-minded countries and the United States.
If the Foreign Ministers are unable to come to a satisfactory agreement next Monday, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will not rule out the opportunity for the Heads of Government to take it up a week later and for there to be a summit conference at an even higher level, involving, if necessary, the President of the United States.
I ask the right hon. Lady to pursue the course that she seems to be pursuing at present. We should not be seen, as apparently we are at present, to be reacting to the situation. There should be a positive policy agreed between us. We should decide on the limits of action economically and diplomatically. This should be made known clearly to the United States and to all those who are concerned. I hope that the right hon. Lady's statement and other comments that come from the House this afternoon will reassure the American people and the American Administration, which are under a very great strain, that we fully understand and comprehend the strain and frustration that they feel and that we shall do our best to remove them.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition. Our objective is to show our support for the American people and President Carter and to do everything possible to secure the release of the hostages. It is plain that, so far, diplomatic action has not worked. Therefore, after his hopes have been dashed on a number of occasions, [column 793]the President feels that we must now go a stage further with political and economic action, and we are anxious to get maximum international support for that.
We have not been set a date by which our American friends want us to act. Any guidelines that have been given have been given by reference to events in Iran, and have given a reasonable period for any new measures to take effect. The Americans have made clear that they do not contemplate the use of force now. I believe that asking us to go further in political and economic matters and measures is designed to avoid anything in that regard. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that any contemplation of that would be an extremely serious step.
I hope that the Foreign Ministers will be able to reach a decision next Monday. There will, of course, be urgent consultations in the meantime. The European summit is on the following Monday. We would not rule out any steps for further consultation designed to achieve the objective, which is twofold, namely, our support for the American people and the release of the hostages.
Mr. David Steel
I agree with the attitude that the Prime Minister has adopted, but does she not agree that it is unfortunate that President Carter has had to ask the European countries to intensify their efforts in this matter? Does she not also agree that diplomatic relations cannot be maintained without absolute acceptance of the principle of diplomatic immunity and that if we allow this precedent to stand without an adequate response from the international community it will be an open invitation to all dictatorships of the Left or Right to use diplomats as hostages as part of their power struggle?
The Prime Minister
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his comments are a little unjustified. As he knows, there have been a number of diplomatic moves between the United States and Iran, which aroused hopes, first that the hostages would be removed from the custody of the students and placed in the custody of the Government. It was when those moves failed and there did not seem to be any hope of achieving a solution within a reasonable time that President Carter naturally asked his friends to consider [column 794]further action. That further request came comparatively recently, and it is our wish to respond to it as definitely and as soon as we possibly can.
Mr. Rippon
I welcome the firm and positive note of the interim statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Will she impress upon our European allies—who have for so long, together with us, sheltered under the umbrella of the United States military strength—that they must now be prepared to share the burden as well as the benefits of the alliance?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. A number of us feel that way but now that the United States has asked us to take action we must do our utmost to respond, both because of our friendship and alliance with her and because of the appalling situation in which diplomats, after some six months, are still hostages in Iran.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell
Will the right hon. Lady make it perfectly clear that the Foreign Ministers of the EEC collectively have no right or power whatsoever to issue instructions to ambassadors, that the communiqué to that effect was wrongly phrased, and that this right rests wholly with national Governments?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, but they can agree at a meeting that each of them will issue instructions to ambassadors, and that, in fact, is what they did.
Mr. Whitney
I note the measures already taken by Her Majesty's Government, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that the totality of the collective Western response to the threat posed to international peace and security by the events in Iran and Afghanistan has been inadequate and unsatisfactory so far? Will she therefore consider the possibility of proposing an urgent and immediate date for a small summit between the President of the United States and, perhaps, four or five representatives of Western nations, because the need now is for speedy and positive action?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, the statement that I made was about Iran in particular. As he knows, we have been extremely active in urging a more definite [column 795]and more co-ordinated response in relation to Afghanistan. Certainly this Government have not been backward in giving a lead about what we should do in the light of events in Afghanistan. On my hon. Friend's other point, regarding a smaller summit, we meet in Venice in June for what is normally called an economic summit. I believe that all of us feel that at this time we really must consider world events, especially on the first day. Of course, if that is not soon enough I do not think that any of us would rule out the possibility of an earlier meeting.
Mr. Dalyell
Will the Prime Minister answer a question that was put to President Carter by Mr. Fred Emery last night and was not answered? Will not any kind of economic blockade tend to throw the Iranians into dependence on the Russians?
The Prime Minister
That is one factor which all of us have to take into consideration, but there are also other factors. The patience of the United States in this very difficult situation is not inexhaustible, and diplomatic action has so far not succeeded even in transferring the hostages from the control of the students into the control of the Government. Therefore, we have to consider what next to do, and beyond that the next step must be either political or economic action, or both.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Is it not the case that some time ago President Carter proposed precisely the measures that he is now taking, and is asking his allies to take, but desisted from applying them because his allies asked him not to, so that the Waldheim initiative could first be attempted? In those circumstances, may I impress upon my right hon. Friend—either at the summit in Venice or before—to do what she can to strengthen the position of Mr. Bani-Sadr, who is the best hope in these circumstances, and to demonstrate to the United States that we stand together in this matter, because apart we shall undoubtedly fail?
The Prime Minister
It is quite true that after the United Nations resolution was vetoed it was hoped that diplomatic initiatives could secure some furtherance of the cause of the hostages and secure their release. As my hon. Friend knows, the Waldheim commission was not successful and there was the later initiative, which we expected to produce something but [column 796]which was suddenly dashed. That being so, we must return to consider the steps for which many of us voted in the Security Council on the United Nations resolution that was vetoed. I agree with my hon. Friend that there have been people in the Government in Iran who seem to have been very anxious to help, believing, as they do, that to keep hostages is no way to conduct international relations. They do not wish to flout international law, but their hands have not been totally free. I also agree that we must show solidarity with the United States in this matter.
Mr. Norman Atkinson
Referring to the answer that the Prime Minister has just given, should not British advice to the Americans be based upon a return to the Security Council, because is it not a fact that conditions have now changed and the Americans are unable to concede the original demand of the Iranians which was the return of the Shah to Iran? Is there not also a further development, in the sense that the Shah could now either ask for political asylum or be faced with extradition proceedings, both of which courses would be very embarrassing if this Government, together with the Americans, now tried to mobilise world opinion behind sanctions of the kind about which the Prime Minister is now talking?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the time that resolution went before the Security Council international law was being flouted by the Government of Iran and yet Russia used the veto in circumstances that surprised many of us, because we thought that Russia, too, was concerned to see that international law was observed with regard to her diplomats and diplomats all over the world. I believe that the United States feels that it has gone to every international forum, and in a way it has achieved a result in its favour in every international forum, but so far it has had no effect on securing the release of the hostages or even their custody under the Government of Iran. Therefore, I believe that the United States is justified in feeling that further measures are now necessary.
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side.
[column 797]Mr. David Price
In view of the highly religious nature of the Iranian revolution, will my right hon. Friend consider inviting someone of very high standing within Islam to act as an emissary to the Ayatollah Khomeini before we resort to sanctions? As she will appreciate, Waldheim does not stand high in the Islamic pecking order.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will know that many of the Islamic nations that are non-aligned voted in another connection against Afghanistan. However, I think that a number of people within Islam have been active in this matter and have not yet secured any result. Therefore, I do not think that it would be wise to wait for something else to fail.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk
Does the Prime Minister accept that it is extremely important that she does everything possible to meet the reasonable demands of the President of the United States in the action that he proposes to take against international terrorists, not least so as to avoid the likelihood of the United States feeling compelled to take military action? As an interim measure, will she consider expelling from this country those Iranian nationals who are currently undergoing military training here?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his comments. There are very few Iranian nationals concerned. I think that the number is about 28 or 30. That is a factor that we shall have to consider.
Mr. McCrindle
In the emotional circumstances of a religious revolution, is it not just conceivable that economic and political sanctions might prove counter-productive? In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend carefully note the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr Price)? If a leading member of Islam is not to be called upon to mediate, will she take note of the initiative by His Holiness the Pope and, remembering that we are dealing here with a religious aspect, perhaps suggest that before the politicians go too far there should be an initiative on a basis such as that?
The Prime Minister
I think that it would be wrong to assume that members of Islam have not been active, because [column 798]naturally they are very concerned that anyone should conclude that what is happening is characteristic of Islam. Many prominent Islamic people would say that it is not.
With regard to my hon. Friend's question whether economic sanctions would be counter-productive, there are a number of people who are very doubtful about sanctions, but the fact is that all other methods have so far failed, and it would seem that this is the only possible next step.
Mr. Cryer
Will the Prime Minister accept that there is an additional factor in this delicate situation? We all want to see the hostages released as soon as possible. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the fact of the American elections looming quite close could result in unacceptable pressure being placed on the Government to make decisions that might subsequently prove untenable? Will she, therefore, assure us that before decisions are taken she will ask the House for its approval of those decisions?
The Prime Minister
With regard to any possible measure of sanctions, in the absence of a United Nations resolution I believe that we should have to ask the House for the necessary legislative authority. A Government have no powers under international law just to break contracts that are valid in international law, unless there is a mandatory resolution of the United Nations, which automatically becomes embodied in our law, or unless we take specific legal action. Of course, if we were to do so, we would need widespread support from other countries.
There is only one third possibility, which is that some of these things are within the competence of the Community. It may be possible to carry out some of them under Community law, but I think that the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that before any further action on economic sanctions could become effective we would have to come back to the House.
Mr. Haselhurst
All other niceties apart, is it not a fact that if the special relationship is to mean anything, Britain must stand as one with the United States in this deepening crisis, and that failure to do so will have the gravest implications for the Atlantic Alliance, which is the basis of Western European defence?
[column 799]The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. We also want wide international support. If sanctions are to be effective, they must command wide international support. They cannot be effective if applied by only one or two nations. From that arises the need to consult widely and to take action together.
Mr. Ennals
Does the Prime Minister agree that while there have been some differences about what sort of action should be taken, it should be clearly known and understood in the United States that the House of Commons is absolutely united in condemnation of what has been done by the terrorists in Iran and in the right of the United States' President to come before this House and ask us to co-operate? Secondly, would it not be helpful if further initiatives were taken in those other countries that voted in the United Nations in condemnation of what has happened?
The Prime Minister
We would. of course, expect the President of the United States, in his great difficulty, to ask his friends for their support. In the same circumstances, I believe that we should do the same thing. He is naturally entitled to expect us to respond, as we should be entitled to expect him to respond to us. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this matter. I am very grateful to him for making it perfectly clear that we are so.