§ 6. Mr. Whitneyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the present state of the Western Alliance; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. WhitneyDoes my right hon. Friend agree that a growing body of opinion in Britain and in other countries would not share the degree of optimism that he has expressed? If he agrees, will he give an undertaking that 356 Her Majesty's Government will use every endeavour to improve effectiveness in areas where the Western Alliance is clearly and increasingly deficient and unsatisfactory?
§ Mr. PymI have never been complacent about NATO, either as Secretary of State for Defence or in any other capacity, because there is always room for improvement. We know that recently there have been a number of strains on NATO. I have been exercising such influence as I have in recent weeks in trying to cure them. I shall do everything that I can to improve its effectiveness.
As my hon. Friend knows, Her Majesty's Government have taken a very positive attitude about defence from May 1979. We have a record of improvement in real terms that is better than that of all the other Allies, except, perhaps, the United States, and we are determined to adhere to that course. But that by itself is not enough. I do what I can to try to influence and persuade other members of the Alliance to take a similarly robust line, because the whole foundation of all our dealings with the East, and East-West relations and arms control, depends upon our being strong enough to deter an attack. Our defences are designed solely to preserve the peace. If there are weaknesses, they must be put right. That is very much the policy of the Government.
§ Mr. MarksIs not one main concern the failure of the United States Government to consult their allies before making crucial decisions affecting Europe? Will he tell the United States Government that unilateralism of that kind is most unwise if the Alliance is to remain united, and that the alliance is just as important to the United States as it is to Europe?
§ Mr. PymI entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was one incident which led to a decision being taken by the United States before there had been adequate consultation, and it has led to a great deal of complication. One of the purposes of the weekend that NATO Foreign Ministers had in Canada two and a half weeks ago was to try to repair that damage. It was a very successful meeting and at the end of it there was a profound degree of accord. It is true that we did not solve the problem that caused the immediate difficulty. Indeed, we did not seek to do that. What we sought to do was to make quite clear the basic principles of the Alliance and the job that it is doing, and ensure that the way that we are fulfilling it is adequate. There was a great deal of accord.
§ Mr. ChapmanDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the Western Alliance is made to look almost absurd if it cannot have a concerted and agreed response to any political, military or civil oppression organised by Russia? Does he agree that at best it makes us look foolish and that at worst it positively encourages the Russians to go ahead with civil and military pressures in other parts of the globe?
§ Mr. PymI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What we sought to do the other weekend in Canada and on earlier occasions, and are seeking now to do, is not to get into that position again. It is almost in that sole instance that there was a failure of communication and consultation. We must get this in proportion. Naturally, the matter has attracted a great deal of attention, and rightly so, but let us not get it out of proportion. Taking the whole range of work done by the Alliance, undoubtedly the cohesion and the health of the Alliance are in a very good state.
§ Mr. HealeyIs it not the case that President Reagan took unilateral action, after the banning of Solidarity, by deciding to deny Poland the benefits of the most-favoured-nation clause? Is it not also the case that President Reagan yesterday announced that he plans to triple the amount of grain that America is able to send to Russia, and also to obligate the United States Government to observe the sanctity of contract—something that he is punishing his European Allies for doing? Are not the hypocrisy and political opportunism of the American President in that regard a major threat to the Alliance, which, so far, Europe has done absolutely nothing to mitigate?
§ Mr. PymUp to a point I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I do, and those are the issues that we have been discussing among ourselves. The question of the United States increasing its exports of food to Russia is one that we have been discussing very much. The United States Government say that they are getting hard cash for it and that that will not be the position when gas is sold. That is part of the argument. We have set up a number of studies and are going in considerable depth into the economic relationship between East and West, to try to establish a framework within which we can all work, so that unilateral actions of that kind, taken by any Government, do not recur. The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is very important and we have attached importance to it. We regret that there should be a lack of consultation about a decision by any member of the Alliance, but it happened and we are trying to make sure that it does not happen again.
§ Mr. HealeyPresident Reagan said yesterday that in certain circumstances, which I would oppose, he would end the sanctions against European firms that are exporting goods for the pipeline. As he is now prepared to negotiate, is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to say to President Reagan "Yes, we are prepared to negotiate but you must suspend sanctions until the negotiations are concluded"?
§ Mr. PymI can assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither President Reagan nor Secretary of State Schultz are in any doubt about Her Majesty's Government's position or the Community's position.