North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Hansard, 13 May 1980)

§ 1. Mr. Latham
asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers are intending to discuss widening the spheres of territory covered by the Alliance to include areas outside Western Europe.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Deence for the Army (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf for his absence this afternoon. He is today attending the NATO Defence Planning Committee's regular spring ministerial session in Brussels. NATO consults on all matters affecting Western security interests and is keenly aware of the need to consider the global nature of the threat to Western peace and security. There are, however, no plans to extend the area covered by the North Atlantic Treaty.

§ Mr. Latham
As the Alliance has successfully contained the Soviet Union since 1024 it was formed in Europe, and as the threat may now be said to be in other areas, such as the Middle East, is it not time to consider whether the Alliance, collectively, should give territorial guarantees, at least to friendly Powers, where the direct interests of the West would be fatally affected if those countries were invaded?

§ Mr. Hayhoe
Certainly the matter can be considered, and of course all matters affecting Western security will be under consideration.

§ Mr. Russell Kerr
The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
Notwithstanding the fact that there is no intention at present to change the boundaries of the Alliance, will the Government give much more active consideration to creating air and naval forces that are flexible enough to intervene wherever they may be required? Battle tanks in Germany are all very well, but they are best suited to meeting the armoured threat in Central Europe.

§ Mr. Hayhoe
We intend to maintain the capability of our forces to operate flexibly worldwide. However, that does not entail, or require, the creation of a specific new force. If my hon. Friend refers to paragraph 409 of the White Paper he will see that matter spelt out. No doubt these matters will be considered more widely by the partners in the Alliance, who are meeting in Brussels.

§ Mr. Rodgers
Quite apart from the question of cost, which must be of great concern to the House, will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be extremely cautious about extending the sphere of operations of NATO? NATO has had a remarkably stabilising effect in Europe for 30 years, and for that reason it is important not to undermine that stability in any way by requiring members of NATO to be involved in spheres of operation and interest outside the NATO area.

§ Mr. Hayhoe
I agree about the need not to undermine the unity of the Alliance, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look behind him and argue with his colleagues in support of that thesis.

§ Mr. Buck
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is need for caution. However, does he agree that there is 1025 probably a need for NATO to be more closely allied, for example, to Australian and New Zealand forces—and other forces—which clearly represent and defend free democratic societies?

§ Mr. Hayhoe
I think that the United Kingdom is a valuable bridge, in that we maintain cordial co-operation with the armed forces and Governments of the countries to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Has the Minister seen the report on page 7 of The Guardian today, which states that Mr. Harold Brown said, in an interview in Il Tempo in Italy, that it was part of NATO's responsibility to patrol—with Japan, incidentally—the Persian Gulf because the United States intended to spend more money in South-East Asia? Do the Government know anything about that report?

§ Mr. Hayhoe
I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.