HC Deb 28 February 1973 vol 851 cc1494-6
27. Mr. Judd

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with NATO and EEC partners concerning the future of the United States military presence in Europe.

29. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with NATO and EEC partners concerning the future of the United States military presence in Europe.

Mr. Amery

The content of ministerial discussions is of course confidential. But I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the communiqué published after the NATO Ministerial Meeting in Brussels last December.

In this the United States reaffirmed that, given a similar approach by other countries of the Alliance, the United States would maintain and improve their forces in Europe. They would not reduce them unless there was reciprocal action by the other side.

Mr. Judd

Will the Minister take every possible opportunity of emphasising that the British Government have their faces firmly set against the principle of an emergence of an independent Western European defence system, perhaps with its own Western European independent deterrent?

Mr. Amery

I am glad to register the hon. Gentleman's support for a continuing American presence in Europe.

Mr. Marten

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude which the Common Market countries take towards America in the forthcoming GATT negotiations and, indeed, in relation to America's problems generally, could have a very serious effect upon the American defence presence in Europe?

Mr. Amery

I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the statement by Mr. Secretary Rogers at a Press conference on 15th February when he was asked about a possible connection between trade and monetary matters on the one hand and the maintenance of American troops in Europe on the other. He replied. "There is no linkage between the two".

Mr. Allaun

Does not the American Congress proposal for a withdrawal of troops from Europe present a great opportunity for pressing for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Europe, including Soviet troops from Eastern Europe and BAOR from Germany? Is this not infinitely preferable to the Government policy of opposing the American proposal and having instead a joint nuclear force, or to an increasing burden on existing European countries, or to having a build-up instead of a reduction of world forces, thereby increasing the arms race?

Mr. Amery

I do not know of any contradiction between American and European policy in this matter. Soviet defence expenditure has increased by 5 per cent. in each of the last five years, whereas Western expenditure has remained static. Our moderate increase this year is mainly in respect of wages and salaries, and not of equipment.

I read, of course, with care—as I always do—the hon. Member's contribution to The Times this morning, but he will appreciate that the kind of reduction he proposed would make us more dependent on a nuclear response and not less.

Mr. Wilkinson

Will the Minister remind our European allies of the importance of maintaining Europe's naval strength, particularly in a fairly fluid political situation from which force level reductions on the mainland of Europe may ensue?

Mr. Amery

It is essential that all of us in Europe should maintain and, to some extent, increase our contribution to defence. It is only natural that as we grow more prosperous as a result of the European Community we should carry a larger share of the defence burden.

Mr. Jay

Is there not a real danger that if the EEC continues to be too negative towards the United States' proposals for liberalising trade, the United States' views on defence might begin to change?

Mr. Amery

That is not my impression. It is certainly not what Mr. Secretary Rogers said in the Press conference to which I referred.