N.A.T.O. (MINISTERIAL MEETING)

HC Deb 14 June 1966 vol 729 cc1247-51

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

55. Mr. HEFFER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals the Government have concerning the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 55.

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting which I attended in Brussels on 7th and 8th of June, agreement was reached on the essential changes in the military organisation of N.A.T.O. to meet the recent French actions. These are set out in the communiqué. The future of the Council will be discussed at a special meeting of the 14 Foreign Ministers in October. Meanwhile, possible new sites for it will be examined.

Other consequences of the French moves will now be studied by the Permanent Council in Paris. Its discussions will include consideration of the military missions and task of French forces in Germany and the French contribution to infrastructure and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Air Defence Ground Environment.

The Permanent Council will also study all possible ways of improving East-West relations, including questions of European security and German reunification, and will report to Ministers.

N.A.T.O., with its integrated defence system, is still essential. At the Brussels meeting action has been initiated to make it as efficient and economical as possible in terms of present requirements. It remains to be seen how the French announced intention to remain in the alliance can be expressed as an effective contribution to the common defence.

We shall certainly do all that we can to ensure this, but the 14 Governments are united in their determination that the alliance shall continue to be an effective and credible military organisation.

Copies of the communiqué have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Heifer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of his Answer will undoubtedly please myself and my hon. Friends, but that another part of it is most unsatisfactory? As there is now a fluidity in Europe, can he give us an assurance that before a situation of rigidity is reached in N.A.T.O. he will take into consideration the views of the Rumanian Government and the Poles, that there should be moves towards the ending of both the Warsaw and N.A.T.O. Pacts?

Mr. Stewart

The reason why my hon. Friend, and I think probably everyone, finds part of my statement satisfactory and part of it unsatisfactory is that part of the whole foreign situation is promising and part of it is still very difficult. This is the fact of the situation.

I shall study the Rumanian and Polish proposals, and I shall have the opportunity, when I visit Rumania later this year, to carry that examination further. I ought to say that I would not accept the Rumanian statement that N.A.T.O. is an aggressive bloc.

On the question of the disappearance of N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact, I do not think that the disappearance of these two alliances is a means whereby European security can be promoted. It is a result that can flow from the better establishment of European security. That is the significance of that part of the communiqué which deals with the importance of East-West relations. It comes to this—if, for the two alliances we now have in Europe, one were to substitute a Europe containing a score or more of countries, each deciding to make its own new arrangements about defence, I do not believe that it would be a safer Europe or a safer world than we have now. The problem is to see that our alliance holds firmly together, but at the same time, to seek better understanding between East and West. We are engaged in both of those tasks.

Mr. Sandys

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the great urgency of making two decisions on two questions, namely, the question of, as I believe it, the necessity for the removal of the Council from Paris so that it can join its military wings, and the question of the French forces in Germany? Does he also realise that there is a great danger that N.A.T.O. will lose the political initiative, and that it is immensely important that N.A.T.O. should place a great deal more emphasis upon its political role and should take an active part in trying to improve East-West relations and not leave it all to General de Gaulle and the Soviet Union?

Mr. Stewart

I fully accept the importance of the two question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. As I said in my Answer, they are being dealt with. The importance of the N.A.T.O. Powers taking a leading part in promoting better relations between East and West is fully understood and I laid emphasis upon this in what I said at Brussels. It is the view of the N.A.T.O. Powers.

Mr. Mendelson

With reference to my right hon. Friend's statement about improving relations between Western and Eastern countries, has he seen the concrete proposal discussed between Mr. Rapacki and the Swedish Foreign Minister during his recent visit to Stockholm, calling for a European security conference with the participation of the Soviet Union and the United States of America? Would he not encourage the holding of such a conference in the near future?

Mr. Stewart

I should like to see a conference of that kind get going, but one wants to be sure that sufficient preparation is done in advance, so that it does not merely arouse hopes which lead nowhere. Clearly, this is the direction in which we want to go.

Mr. Heath

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what view he put forward at N.A.T.O. about the location of the Council? Has he abandoned the idea of it coming to London so that it can be near the military forces if moved? Secondly, is it not desirable that the problem of the French forces in Germany should be settled with the minimum friction? Should not it, therefore, be worked out first at military level before coming before Ministers? Thirdly, was there any discussion, official or unofficial, about foreign exchange costs and the suggestion of a pool? Would the right hon. Gentleman help the House by publishing the figures of foreign exchange costs of each N.A.T.O. country, together with any offset payments obtained by the stationing of other N.A.T.O. forces in their own countries?

Mr. Stewart

I should like to consider that last request. This matter was not discussed to any extent at Brussels.

On the first point, the view which I put forward, and which I still hold, is that the Council could not operate efficiently divorced from any of its military accompaniments and that the decision about where the Council goes must take that fact into account. But when choosing a site we must put the efficient working of the alliance first rather than preferences which any of us may have for a particular site. As I have said, the study of alternative sites has already begun.

I do not think that the question of French forces in Germany is a matter which can be settled by military people until certain political questions are quite clear—that is to say, what are the tasks and missions of these forces and what actions would they be expected to take in certain contingencies? Those are matters which must be discussed at political level.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what is the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council to which he referred? Is it something different from the North Atlantic Council? Is it not important to keep clearly in mind the distinction between the North Atlantic Treaty and military arrangements under one of its clauses so that one does not find oneself, for example, talking about the political functions of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Stewart

Strictly speaking, the Organisation is something which flows from the Treaty, and one can think of them separately. But if we try to think of the Treaty without the Organisation, I think that we should be thinking about a very unreal abstraction.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I think that most people would agree that there is no case at present for ending the N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pacts, but would the right hon. Gentleman give rather more attention than he has done up to now to the various plans for the thinning out of forces, both conventional and nuclear, on the West German frontier? These held promise, and it might be that the Russians would now be more sympathetic than they have been.

Mr. Stewart

I think that that may be so. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given a great deal of attention to this matter, but he will realise that results in this field depend on the action of many Governments besides our own in both alliances. It is no good trying to talk in advance of what can be achieved.

Mr. Rankin

Will my right hon. Friend keep to the view which I understood him to express, that there is a first-class case for seeking to end pacts, because pacts register divisions, and divisions in Europe or anywhere else are a potential cause of war?

Mr. Stewart

We must get this the right way round. My hon. Friend says that pacts register divisions. It is, therefore, the division which one has to try to end. As I said, I do not believe that dissolving the pacts is by itself the road to agreement. It could well be the result of achieving agreement.