In May 1957, in connection with a naval exercise carried out by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the Mediterranean, a Piasecki HUP-2 helicopter from the French aircraft carrier Bois Belleau lands on the flight deck of the British aircraft carrier HMS Albion.

In 1957, to mark the fourth anniversary of the activation of the Allied Forces Mediterranean (AFMED) and the eighth anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, (from left to right) British Vice Admiral Robin Durnford-Slater, Commander South Eastern Mediterranean; British Admiral Sir Ralph Edwards, Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet; Major General Sir Robert Laycock, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the island of Malta; US Vice Admiral Cato D. Glover, Acting Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces Mediterranean; Air Marshal Sir Gilbert Nicholetts, Deputy Commander-in-Chief; and D. S. Stevens, Legal Secretary representing the Lieutenant Governor, take part in a flag-raising ceremony at AFMED Headquarters in Malta. To contribute to defence in the Mediterranean, the United States, France, Greece, Italy, the United Kingdom and Turkey have assigned some of their air and naval forces to AFMED.

In April 1961, naval forces from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) gather in the bay of Sliema on the island of Malta to participate in the Medflex Invicta naval exercise in the Mediterranean. From 16 to 21 April, nearly 50 US, British, Italian, French, Greek and Turkish warships take part in this large-scale military exercise.

On 2 October 1962, in preparation for a forthcoming Cabinet meeting, Lord Dundee, British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, issues a note on the supply of defensive ground-to-air missiles to Israel and Arab countries. The document reviews the present state of missile equipment of the Middle East countries, the scope for increasing it and the political and the economic implications of such a decision. This general review should enable the United Kingdom Government to consider the terms in which it might announce its readiness to supply defensive missiles to Middle East countries.

On 24 March 1965, Michael Stewart, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, issues a note on the Middle East for the next Cabinet meeting in which he analyses the United Kingdom’s interests in the region, namely the pursuit of peace and stability, the countering of Soviet penetration, the preservation of an East/West balance, the protection of UK material interests, the question of transit (Suez Canal) and the overflying and staging of military aircraft. Despite diplomatic efforts, there is no sign of any progress towards a peaceful settlement of the Arab–Israel dispute. The memorandum concludes with a proposed list of policies that the UK should pursue in handling some of the complex Middle East problems with which it is confronted.

At the 281st meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 4 November 1965 in The Hague, the delegations discuss the situation in the Middle East. As rivalries continue to plague the Arab world, British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart states that a complete disengagement of the UK from the region could lead to a serious period of troubles. The French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Michel Habib-Deloncle notes that the Arab states are moving towards a closer perception of reality. He advocates a resumption of dialogue between the countries of Europe and those of the Middle East and North Africa.

On 29 June 1967, the Sub-Directorate for the Levant in the French Foreign Ministry draws up speaking notes for the ministerial meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) held on 4 and 5 July in The Hague on the issues surrounding the Middle East crisis. Following the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab League states from 5 to 10 June 1967, the Africa–Levant Directorate sets out the French Government’s position on the conflict. It emphasises the fact that lasting peace in the Middle East must be based on solutions that have been freely negotiated between the interested parties, accepted by all parties concerned and enshrined by the international community, particularly by the United Nations (UN). It remarks that the difficult relations between the United States and the USSR on the UN Security Council are not making the situation any easier to resolve. These speaking notes are adopted in full by the minister delegate, André Bettencourt, at the meeting of the WEU Council.

At the 324th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 4 and 5 July 1967 in The Hague, the delegations discuss the situation in the Middle East. Following the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab League states from 5 to 10 June 1967, Lord Chalfont, a British minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, sets out the British Government’s position on the crisis. He emphasises that the accusations levelled by Egypt, on the basis of which the United Kingdom and the United States would have intervened militarily in the conflict, are all false and calls for a greater United Nations presence in the region. The French minister delegate, André Bettencourt, underlines the fact that lasting peace in the Middle East must be based on solutions that have been freely negotiated between the interested parties, accepted by all parties concerned and enshrined by the international community. He remarks that the difficult relations between the Unites States and the Soviet Union on the UN Security Council are not making the situation any easier to resolve.

At the 329th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 12 and 13 October 1967 in London, the delegations discuss the situation in the Middle East. Following the Six-Day War between Israel and a coalition of Arab League states from 5 to 10 June 1967, Lord Chalfont, a British minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, sets out the British Government’s position on the situation in the region. The United Kingdom believes that the United Nations (UN) is the only practical instrument for a settlement to the conflict. On the matter of the closure of the Suez Canal and oil supplies, the British Government considers it vital that all Western European countries demonstrate their solidarity in the defence of their common interests. The French minister delegate, André Bettencourt, emphasises the fact that lasting peace in the Middle East must be based on solutions that have been freely negotiated between the interested parties, accepted by all parties concerned and enshrined by the international community. However, he comments that, although the UN Security Council would seem to offer a framework that would facilitate the search for a solution to the conflict, the difficult relations between the United States and the USSR on the Security Council are not making the situation any easier to resolve.

On 4 February 1969, the Sub-Directorate for the Levant in the French Foreign Ministry draws up speaking notes for the ministerial meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) due to be held on 6 and 7 February in Luxembourg to discuss the issues surrounding the Middle East crisis. The note emphasises the tensions in the Middle East owing to the activities carried out by Palestinian resistance organisations and to the fact that Israel has still not clearly accepted Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council. Regarding the Soviet plan to settle the conflict, the Sub-Directorate for the Levant believes that it contains several ambiguities; it points out that, unlike the USSR, France is not seeking partial solutions but wishes to resolve all the problems. On 16 January 1969, in a bid to make headway on the crisis, France submitted a proposal for consultation to the other three members of the Security Council (the United States, the USSR and the United Kingdom). These speaking notes are adopted in full by the French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Jean de Lipkowski, at the ministerial meeting of the WEU Council on 6 and 7 February in Luxembourg.

In anticipation of the 361st meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) at ministerial level, which is due to take place on 6 and 7 February 1969 in Luxembourg City, the British Foreign Office drafts a background note for the British delegation that will be taking part in the meeting. The note focuses on the situation in the Middle East and outlines the United Kingdom’s position on the various points that will be raised in Luxembourg. The document also emphasises that the British authorities are keen to hold a WEU meeting in London on the question of the Middle East and notes that it may be better to mention this topic to the representatives of the other delegations individually after the meeting in Luxembourg.

On 11 February 1969, the French Foreign Ministry issues a circular in which it expresses its disagreement with the British proposal to convene a meeting on the Middle East under the aegis of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) at permanent representative level. The ministry argues that this matter has already been discussed at the ministerial meeting of 7 February and emphasises that France will maintain close diplomatic contacts with the European states directly interested by the situation in the Middle East. The British initiative is seen as an attempt to hold regular consultations on the Middle East within the WEU Council in order to establish the principle of compulsory prior consultations on specific subjects, a principle rejected by France at the ministerial meeting in Luxembourg.

At the 361st meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU), held at ministerial level on 6 and 7 February 1969 in Luxembourg, the delegations debate on the situation in the Middle East. As tensions worsen in the region, the French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Jean de Lipkowski, outlines the French Government’s position on the crisis and notes that the Soviet plan for the settlement of the conflict contains several ambiguities. France wishes to promote a global solution for the region in cooperation with the UN Security Council. Robert Michael Maitland Stewart, British Foreign Secretary, shares France’s views.

On 12 February 1969, at the urgent request of the United Kingdom delegation, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) convenes a meeting of the Council on the situation in the Middle East. The French Government is hostile to the British proposal and refuses to take part in the meeting, held in London on 14 February. France’s decision to boycott the meetings of the WEU Council leads to an open crisis between French President Charles de Gaulle and WEU. This WEU ‘empty chair’ crisis lasts until 1970.

On 12 February 1969, the Secretary-General of Western European Union circulates two letters that it has received from the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom expressing France’s disagreement with the British proposal to convene an emergency meeting on the Middle East on 14 February. The Ambassador’s main arguments are that this matter has already been discussed at the ministerial meeting of 7 February and that France is maintaining close diplomatic contacts with the European states directly interested by the situation in the Mediterranean.

On 12 February 1969, the French daily newspaper Le Monde outlines the reasons for France’s opposition to the proposal made by British authorities to convene a meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) on the situation in the Middle East, a proposal that would ultimately lead to the WEU ‘empty chair’ crisis, which lasted until 1970.

On 13 February 1969, the British daily newspaper The Guardian reports on France’s decision not to take part in the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) in London, where, following a British proposal, the representatives are to discuss the Middle East. The article outlines the reasons for this snub by French diplomatic circles, a decision that signals the beginning of WEU’s ‘empty chair crisis’.

On 14 February 1969, the Permanent Council of Western European Union (WEU) meets in London — in the absence of France, which refuses to participate — to discuss Middle East issues. The French Foreign Ministry disagreed with the British proposal to convene a specific meeting on this topic After the WEU Council meeting on 14 February, convened by the United Kingdom but opposed by the French Government, France decides to boycott all future WEU Council meetings. It believes that the London meeting was held in breach of the statutory rules governing the WEU Council and that the British initiative is an attempt to institutionalise the holding of regular consultations between the Six and the United Kingdom on foreign policy issues.

On 15 February 1969, the day after the meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) on the Middle East, to which the French Government was opposed, French Foreign Minister Michel Debré sends Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel the text of a letter that he is planning to send to WEU Secretary-General Maurice Iweins d’Eeckhoutte. In this letter, he announces France’s decision to suspend its participation in all Council activities until further notice. This decision signals the beginning of WEU’s ‘empty chair’ crisis.

On 17 February 1969, Geoffrey George Arthur, British Ambassador to Kuwait, sends a telegram to United Kingdom main diplomatic missions in the Middle East, in Western Europe and in the United States regarding the anxiety caused in the Arab world by the motives of the recent Western European Union meeting on the Middle East held in London on 14 February. The British authorities reassure the United Arab Republic Ambassador that there was nothing special about the meeting except for the French refusal to attend it.

On 19 February 1969, Leslie Fielding, a British diplomat at the United Kingdom’s Embassy in Paris, sends a note to the Foreign Office in London giving details of a conversation with Luc de Nanteuil, Deputy Director for Middle East Affairs at the French Foreign Ministry, regarding France’s policy towards Western European Union (WEU), especially concerning Middle East issues. The note throws an interesting light on the development of the French attitude over the recent WEU meeting in London on 14 February.

On 19 February 1969, the French Foreign Ministry circulates a memorandum containing various questions and answers on France’s decision to suspend its participation in the activities of the Council of Western European Union (WEU). After the WEU Council meeting on the Middle East on 14 February, convened by the United Kingdom but opposed by the French Government, France decided to boycott all future WEU Council meetings. The ministry emphasises that initially the WEU Secretary-General was also opposed to the meeting and refused to chair it. The French authorities believe that the meeting of 14 February was held in breach of the statutory rules governing the WEU Council and that the British initiative was an attempt to institutionalise the holding of regular consultations between the Six and the United Kingdom on foreign policy issues.

On 25 March 1970, Arthur Michael Palliser, a Minister at the British Embassy in Paris, sends a letter to John Percival Waterfield, Head of Western Organisations Department at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in which he gives details about a conversation he had with Philippe Cuvillier, the Assistant Private Secretary of French Foreign Minister Maurice Schumann, on Western European Union (WEU) and a formula that would enable France to return to the organisation.

On 27 October 1970, the British delegation to the Council of Western European Union submits a new version of the first paragraph of the draft reply to question III, 5 put by the General Affairs Committee on the subject of Palestinian resistance organisations. The draft British reply emphasises that none of the main organisations that claim to represent the Palestinians recognises United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which has been accepted by the international community — including those states directly involved — as a basis for all the efforts towards a settlement.

On 3 November 1970, at the 405th meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) in Luxembourg, the General Affairs Committee reviews questions from Members of the WEU Assembly, including the question put by Lord Gladwyn of the United Kingdom. Lord Gladwyn asked the Council whether it agreed that arms deliveries by WEU member countries to the Middle East should be organised in accordance with a plan acceptable to the Council as a whole. The German Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to London, Karl-Günther von Hase, says that the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) has abstained from making any arms deliveries in this region, while his French counterpart, Ambassador Geoffroy Chodron de Courcel, explains that France has proclaimed an embargo on arms supplies to all the countries in the battle area since the Six-Day War.

On 11 February 1971, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply prepared by the United Kingdom delegation to Recommendation 202 of the WEU Assembly on the situation in the Middle East. It notes the efforts made by the international community to reach a peaceful settlement of the hostilities between Israel and the Arab countries in the region, while emphasising the usefulness of ministerial meetings on the subject to identify common interests and the means by which European countries can promote these interests through consultation and coordination.

On 24 February 1972, the Sub-Directorate for the Levant in the French Foreign Ministry draws up draft speaking notes for the ministerial meeting of the Council of Western European Union (WEU) due to be held on 3 March 1972 in Bonn to discuss the issues surrounding the Middle East. It provides details of the situation in each country in the region. Concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, given the deadlock in the negotiations led by Jarring (the United Nations Special Envoy), the ministry proposes that the four powers on the Security Council (the United States, the USSR, France and the United Kingdom) should put aside their rivalries and work together to use their authority to find a political solution to the problem.

On 17 October 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, French Foreign Minister Michel Jobert addresses the National Assembly on France’s Middle East policy since 1967 and details its current policy in light of the recent events taking place in the Middle East.

Photo from 18 October 1973 showing Israeli soldiers brandishing a Syrian flag captured 40 kilometres from Damas in fighting during the Yom Kippur War.

On 8 February 1977, the Secretariat-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply, prepared by the French delegation, to Assembly Recommendation 296 on western Europe’s policy towards Mediterranean problems. The draft reply sets out the WEU Council’s position on the situation in the eastern Mediterranean and emphasises that the defence of that region is currently the responsibility of the Atlantic Alliance. The establishment of a programme to strengthen Europe’s role in the joint defence of the eastern Mediterranean is scarcely within the realm of the WEU Council’s tasks.

On 17 September 1978, in Washington, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat, US President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin sign the Camp David Accords, which are designed to bring the conflict between Israel and Egypt to an end.

On 27 August 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply by the British delegation to the WEU Council to the question by Sir Frederic Bennett, a British member of the Assembly, on the contribution of the Camp David agreements to the settlement of the Middle East conflict. The Council believes that these agreements represent an achievement that must be built on. It also considers that, in the context of an overall settlement, an agreement on full autonomy for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that could be accepted and implemented by the Palestinians could serve as a useful interim stage towards full self-determination for this people.

On 29 September 1980, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the draft reply prepared by the French delegation to written question 221 put to the Council by Sir Frederic Bennett, a British member of the Assembly. The British member is keen to find out who are ‘all the parties involved’ who ‘should be called on to participate in working out and implementing’ a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East conflict. The draft reply indicates that the parties directly involved in the conflict should participate in the negotiations.

On 16 October 1980, the French delegation to the Council of Western European Union (WEU) proposes a series of amendments to the draft reply by the Council to Assembly Recommendation 349 on the impact of the evolving situation in the Near and Middle East on western European security. The points to be amended particularly include the case-by-case assessment of the desirability of arranging Atlantic consultations on matters outside the scope of the Treaty of the Atlantic Alliance, but the amendments are only partly taken into consideration in the final version (C(80)140).

In this interview excerpt, Francis Gutmann, an official in the French Foreign Ministry from 1951 to 1957 and Secretary-General of the External Relations Ministry from 1981 to 1985, emphasises France’s traditional position on the ‘out-of-area’ operations led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

On 7 June 1962, believing that the interests of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) extend outside the geographical boundaries of the Alliance, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 78 on defence outside the NATO area. The Assembly believes that greater coordination of the political and military policies of NATO partners outside the NATO area is desirable.

On 27 September 1962, the Council of Western European Union (WEU) holds a meeting with the Defence Committee to discuss whether to support Recommendation 78 on defence outside the area of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Although the Council does not contest the fact that the interests of the Atlantic Alliance extend outside the defined geographical area, it recognises that this question does not come within its terms of reference, but rather within those of NATO. French member of parliament Jacques Baumel suggests that the Member States should harmonise their views within WEU before a subject is dealt with in NATO. The Chairman of the Council reassures the Committee that effective political consultations do take place within WEU but notes how dangerous it could be for the seven countries to appear to form a bloc within NATO and emphasises that major decisions should be taken within the latter organisation.

On 6 November 1962, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 78 on defence outside the NATO area. The Council recognises the soundness of the view that the main object of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is the preservation of a way of life and that it cannot therefore be limited to the defence of a geographical area. In the course of their political consultations, the WEU Member States, as members of NATO, closely follow and discuss all international developments wherever they occur.

On 4 December 1962, following the successful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 88, encouraging the WEU Council to initiate discussions in the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on defence outside the NATO area and the interpretation of Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Assembly believes that the Cuban crisis has clearly shown that actions by NATO powers outside the NATO area have a direct impact on the fate of all the allies.

On 20 March 1963, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 88 on defence outside the NATO area and the Cuban crisis. The Council notes that WEU Member States have always taken an active part in the political consultations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and emphasises that on a number of occasions they have been the prime movers of such discussions. In the light of the events that occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Council notes that the Assembly has asked it to initiate discussions in the North Atlantic Council with a view to re-examining the geographical concept set out in Article VI of the North Atlantic Treaty.

On 1 June 1965, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 121 on defence outside the NATO area. Realising that the interests of the WEU countries extend outside the area of Europe and the structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Assembly recommends to the WEU Council that it review the individual military commitments outside Europe of the nations within the Brussels Treaty so as to establish which of them are in the interests of all Member States and to what extent.

On 3 June 1965, the French daily newspaper Le Monde reports on the dispassionate debates held in the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) on the question of defence outside the area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and particularly mentions the request by the British representatives for a more equitable distribution of military and economic costs and those incurred by aid between the WEU Member States.

On 27 September 1965, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates a draft reply by the WEU Council to Assembly Recommendation 121 on defence outside the NATO area. The Council emphasises the role it plays through its quarterly meetings, which provide an opportunity to discuss situations in all the areas across the world where WEU Member States have military commitments. The aim is to improve understanding of the respective problems of the Member States and to identify how they can give each other mutual assistance and demonstrate solidarity. The Council reaffirms the need to harmonise policy on financial and economic aid granted outside Europe and welcomes the measures taken in this field in other international groups and through bilateral consultations.

On 15 June 1967, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 157 on the situation in the Middle East, requesting that the WEU Council meet immediately as a matter of urgency in order to consider the humanitarian measures which should be taken and seek a political and economic solution to the deadly conflict in the Middle East. From 5 to 10 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. This brief conflict, known as the Six-Day War, resulted in a decisive victory for the Israeli army over its Arab neighbours.

On 15 June 1967, following the Six-Day War, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 158 on the situation in the Middle East, urging the WEU Council to promote the conclusion of a peace treaty between Israel and its neighbouring states so as to guarantee lasting peace in the region. The Assembly also reaffirms the importance of working out plans to prevent a new arms race in the Middle East and asks the Council to establish a humanitarian aid plan. From 5 to 10 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. This brief conflict resulted in a decisive victory for Israel over its Arab neighbours.

On 3 November 1967, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s replies to Recommendations 157 and 158 of the WEU Assembly on the situation in the Middle East. The Council shares the Assembly’s convictions on the serious nature of the crisis in the Middle East and on the urgent need to support all forms of humanitarian action on behalf of victims of hostilities. The WEU member governments are determined to continue their efforts to help find a peaceful solution, and the Council believes that the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, could be an appropriate framework for searching for means of establishing a lasting peace between all the countries concerned in this area.

On 6 December 1967, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 164 on political responsibilities of WEU countries outside Europe. The Assembly believes that WEU constitutes one of the most appropriate institutional frameworks for comparing the views of European countries on their foreign policy and for cooperation in this field. The Assembly is of the view that there is a de facto community of European responsibilities and interests outside Europe and it provides the Council with a series of recommendations so that it can continue consultations between Member States on international questions and work towards closer European cooperation, including in other international organisations.

On 2 May 1968, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s reply to WEU Assembly Recommendation 164 on the political responsibilities of WEU countries outside Europe. The Council outlines the various activities and consultations, particularly concerning the Middle East, Africa, East–West relations and the action of non-aligned countries. These consultations and exchanges of information on the international situation reveal a common approach on several aspects of the questions discussed. Although the progress in European integration may lead governments to work towards closer political collaboration, the Council emphasises the importance of pursuing consultations on such issues.

On 19 November 1970, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 202 on the situation in the Middle East. The Assembly believes that the countries of Western Europe can make an effective contribution to the economic and social development of the Middle Eastern countries and recognises the need for effective guarantees for any peaceful settlement. It calls on the Council to pursue its discussions at ministerial level on the situation in the region so as to contribute to a just and lasting peace between Israel and neighbouring countries. The Assembly also emphasises the importance of economic and humanitarian aid for refugees and the countries hosting them.

On 18 March 1971, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the Council’s final reply to Recommendation 202 of the WEU Assembly on the situation in the Middle East. The Council particularly focuses on the difficult negotiations for a peaceful political settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict.

On 26 February 1975, the Secretariat-General circulates the reply by the Council of Western European Union (WEU) to written question 153 put by Paul de Bruyne, a member of the Assembly. Paul de Bruyne asks the Council about the framework in which the seven WEU member countries gave consideration to possible threats to peace in the Indian Ocean in 1973 and 1974. In its reply, the Council informs the Assembly member that, under Article VIII of the modified Brussels Treaty, nothing prevents the Council from discussing any situation that may constitute a threat to peace, in whatever area this threat should arise. But in answer to his question, it confirms that possible threats to peace in 1973 and 1974 were not considered by the Council; the matter was discussed among member governments in other contexts.

As tensions run high between Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) puts a series of questions to the WEU Council on the possibility of placing an embargo on arms deliveries to the opposing countries in the region and the role that the countries of Western Europe might be able to play in restoring peace to the Middle East.

On 17 June 1982, following the Israeli military intervention in Lebanon, the Assembly of Western European Union (WEU) adopts Recommendation 386 on the situation in the Middle East. The Assembly recommends that the WEU Council express Europe’s determination to uphold Lebanon’s sovereignty and that it condemn this Israeli aggression unreservedly. The document also emphasises the fact that the Council should recall that peace in the Middle East can only be maintained by ensuring the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination within a national territory and recognising the right of the state of Israel to exist within secure and internationally-recognised frontiers.

On 15 November 1982, the Secretary-General of Western European Union (WEU) circulates the final reply by the WEU Council to the Assembly Recommendation on the situation in the Middle East. In view of the cycle of violence currently prevailing in that area of the world, the Council unreservedly condemns the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and particularly deplores Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. The Council is convinced that the Middle East can only enjoy lasting peace and true stability through the participation of all parties in a comprehensive settlement which should be based on the principles of security for all states, justice for all and the renunciation of force. The Council therefore welcomes all the peace initiatives adopted with a view to resolving the Palestinian question and reconciling those parties involved.