Nuclear Weapons: Non-Proliferation (Hansard, 15 March 1993)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, we attach the highest priority to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We participate actively in international efforts to that end. The most important instrument of the non-proliferation regime is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As a co-depositary of the treaty, we are working to secure its indefinite extension in 1995.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. But why do the Government allow those admirable aims to be undermined by their nuclear weapons policy? How can other governments 1214 be expected to take seriously the views on non-proliferation of a government which are increasing the fire power of their strategic deterrent, designing a new additional nuclear missile system and opposing the comprehensive test ban treaty?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, we are not opposing the comprehensive test ban treaty. The non-proliferation treaty, as the noble Lord well knows, enhances the security of the parties by constraining the acquisition of nuclear weapons. That is why indefinite extension is in the interests of all parties, irrespective of a progress towards a comprehensive test ban. But the benefits of restraints on testing in countering proliferation must be examined carefully. I know that is an anxiety of the noble Lord.
In the past the ban on testing was seen as a means of restraining increases in the arsenals of superpowers. Those arsenals are now dramatically shrinking. The emphasis must be on preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. We must be exceedingly careful. As I said in this House only last week, a determined proliferator could still produce and deploy crude nuclear weapons without first establishing their safety or reliability through testing.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, in view of the Government's support of the non-proliferation treaty, perhaps I may ask this question. Why do they not do as their fellow nuclear superpowers do, with the sole exception of China, and give support to a comprehensive test ban? They say that they are not against it, yet they are not for it. Cannot the noble Baroness say that as from now Great Britain will join France, the United States of America and Russia in actively supporting and requiring a test ban treaty, and preferably one which will come into effect in 1996?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I made clear to the noble Lord last week that the Americans have not yet made up their minds. We are in close touch with them. I cannot add to what I have said. Many other critical aspects of the nuclear weapons question appear on our agenda, particularly North Korea's decision of withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty, which is of grave anxiety to us all.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, is it not absolutely plain that this problem, important though it is, is infinitely more complicated since the break up of the communist empire? So long as that remains the case, it must be in the interests of this country and the world that this country retains a cautious attitude towards rather quick-solving solutions.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We must be extremely cautious. However, we have sought to assist the former Soviet Union because the rapid and safe implementation of arms control obligations remains one of our highest priorities. We and our NATO allies were quick to offer our help with the elimination of nuclear weapons due for destruction in the former Soviet Union. We continue to seek to work with them. 1215 Last week I told the House about the expenditure of £30 million to assist Russia in securing transport and special containers for nuclear warheads. Of course, it is the Ukraine which continues to worry us greatly. We continue to urge them to honour their commitments to a non-nuclear weapon status at the earliest possible date.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what the Government are going to do about the Iranian Government signing agreements with the Moslem-dominated republic of Kazakhstan in the former Soviet Union to buy equipment to make nuclear weapons in the next couple of years or so?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. He will know that the Lisbon protocol to START I committed the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan to the ratification of START I. Kazakhstan has now ratified, but we share the noble Lord's concern that it must be not only committed to accede to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state but must actually put that into action as well.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned North Korea, and we must all share her anxiety in that regard. Will she confirm that it is the right of any signatory of the non-proliferation treaty to secede from the treaty if it feels that its national interests are threatened? Is it not the case that for many years past South Korea and the United States have mounted an annual military exercise called Team Spirit in which they practised in South Korea the invasion of the shores of North Korea? List year President Bush very wisely cancelled it and North Korea began to treat seriously with South Korea on reunification, and so on; but towards the end of his faltering election campaign, President Bush decided to hold an exercise this year—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, I am asking whether this is not the case and whether those facts are correct. Is it not the case that President Bush decided to hold an exercise this year, supported by bombers based in Japan and all the rest of it?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lori s, I am amazed to find that a Member of your Lordships' House seems to be in sympathy with North Korea withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty. The treaty states that a country announcing its withdrawal must provide three months' notice to all other parties. But we should examine why this has happened. North Korea agreed in April/May of last year to the safeguards. It then allowed six inspections, perfectly properly; but as soon as the IAEA spotted two sites—former villages—which were probably now military sites it refused to allow access. This is the very first time that the IAEA has attempted to make special uninvited inspections—because of the suspicions. That is why North Korea has taken this decision. The reason is probably that it has illicit nuclear testing sites. I should have thought that this was something that the noble Lord would actually protest against.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the Minister's answer. North Korea having given notice of its withdrawal, what can the world community actually do about it? Can she confirm that the IAEA will meet in Vienna this week to discuss North Korea's withdrawal? Does she know whether North Korean representatives will attend that meeting? Further, I understand that under the terms of the treaty, a withdrawal has to be reported to the Security Council. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the Security Council will meet? If the Security Council meets, what action do Her Majesty's Government propose that it should take?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right that the IAEA intends to meet this week in Vienna. I do not know whether North Korean representatives will be present. Given past experience, I rather doubt whether they would turn up, even if invited. That or no, I am quite certain that the Security Council will wish to consider the North Korean decision fairly quickly. Our position will be, with others, that because the United Kingdom is determined to maintain and strengthen the non-proliferation treaty, we will decide with our partners what steps should be taken at the Security Council meeting. I am not in a position at this moment to give details because we have not had consultations.