§ 25. Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement concerning the negotiations for a balanced reduction in forces in Europe in so far as they affect the British Army of the Rhine and the Royal Air Force, Germany.
§ Mr. HealeyAs I told the House in the Defence debate, N.A.T.O. is working hard to develop an approach to mutual arms reductions which will guarantee both sides at least as much security as they enjoy today. The form that such reductions might take can only emerge from actual negotiations, and so far I regret to say that there has been no response to the open invitation issued by N.A.T.O. to the Soviet Union and its Allies at Reykjavik in June, 1968.—[Vol. 797, c. 422.]
§ Mr. GoodhewIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who would have to bear the brunt of any attack feel that the balance is heavily weighted against them already, and that any reduction on our side would be disadvantageous?
§ Mr. HealeyNo, Sir. Since I see perhaps more representatives of the German people who are no doubt in the position to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can say that their view, on the contrary, and I share it, is that peace in Europe would be safer if we could organise mutual force reductions and maintain the balance at lower levels of expenditure and risk.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes my right hon. Friend really expect a favourable response from the Soviet Union and those responsible for the Warsaw Pact? In view of the obvious change of opinion in the United States—the attitude of the Congress and Senate there—is there not a likelihood that there will be some substantial withdrawal of American forces from Europe in the near future? In those circumstances, do we not require a reappraisal of the military situation required in the West?
§ Mr. HealeyIf my right hon. Friend is saying that unilateral arms reductions by Western Powers, whether the United States, Britain or Germany, would make mutual force reductions less likely, I entirely agree with him, and I hope that I can count on him to support me in resisting pressure from any quarter for unilateral reductions before we get these negotiations started.
§ 37. Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he now has for increasing the size of the British Army of the Rhine in view of the present proposal by the United States Government to reduce the size of United States conventional forces in Europe by 25,000.
§ Mr. HealeyThe United States Government have made no proposal to reduce the size of their forces in Europe.
§ Mr. GoodhartWould the Secretary of State care to wager one week's salary that the Americans do not withdraw 25,000 conventional forces in the next year? As the Americans clearly will 401 withdraw a very substantial number of men in the next couple of years, does the right hon. Gentleman plan to increase the size of B.A.O.R. or modify the plan for a graduated response?
§ Mr. HealeyI bet only on certainties, but I am prepared to take the wager that there will be no reduction of 25,000 in the next 12 months.
§ Mr. ShinwellAlthough the United States made no definite proposal for the withdrawal of forces from the West, is not my right hon. Friend a little anxious about the position in the light of existing circumstances? Does he not consider that it might be desirable to review the position in the West with his colleagues associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation'? He said in reply to a question of mine that he hoped to gain my support in the event of a substantial withdrawal of American forces from the West. I give him the assurance that he will get all the support he requires.
§ Mr. HealeyI am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I feel immensely fortified by his support. I have recognised for many years—and I have said this in the House many times—that some readjustment of the burden inside N.A.T.O. between North America and Western Europe was inevitable in this decade. I started discussing this matter with my European Defence Minister colleagues in N.A.T.O. two years ago, and our discussions have been immensely valuable, not only to ourselves, but to the American Administration. N.A.T.O. as a whole is discussing all the potential implications of this trend as a result of President Nixon's speech some months ago. But I remind the House that he also gave a guarantee in that speech that America could no more disengage from Europe than from Alaska, and that no reduction would take place at least before the middle of next years, and that no reduction had been decided after that date.
§ Mr. RipponIs the Secretary of State aware that both sides of the House welcome the assurance which the President of the United States gave to Congress in February this year when he guaranteed that there would be no withdrawal before mid-1971? We are probably agreed that it would be wrong to assume that any reduction will be made in the United 402 States forces, although Europe may have to bear a greater share of the burden. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is just as important for America to defend Europe against Communism as it is for America to defend South-East Asia against Communism?
§ Mr. HealeyI do not know what implications the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to drag into his last remark. If I may treat the rest of his contribution with the seriousness with which he made it, I do not think that there is any disagreement between the two Front Benches in this House about the need to take this problem seriously and how to handle it. This should be understood by our allies as well as the British people.