Disarmament Negotiations

HC Deb 11 May 1983 vol 42 cc777-9

14. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government will make in the disarmament negotiations to the Soviet statement that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not use nuclear weapons against states which will not themselves make or harbour them.

Mr. Pym

A Soviet statement to this effect was first made in 1978. It clearly implied a nuclear threat to the Alliance. The United Kingdom itself gave an assurance in the same year that we would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states which were parties to the non-proliferation treaty or a similar international agreement except if they attacked us, our forces, our dependent territories or our allies in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. It would be welcome if the Soviet Union would give a similar assurance in the current discussions on this issue in the committee on disarmament.

Mr. Allaun

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask NATO to make a reciprocal offer to eastern European countries and thus create a European non-nuclear zone?

Mr. Pym

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the clear declaration that was made by NATO, and reaffirmed as recently as last summer, that the Alliance would not use any weapons, nuclear or conventional, unless attacked. That is the most forthcoming statement of its kind that has been made. I think that I have explained the response that we gave to the issue raised in the hon. Gentleman's main question.

Mr. Churchill

Would it not be the height of naivety to entrust the security and lives of the British people, not to the NATO Alliance and the independent deterrent, which has provided us with 38 years of peace with freedom, but instead to the good will and sense of honour of the men who from time to time may hold sway in the Kremlin, as the Labour party now proposes to do by its determination to end our independent deterrent and to cripple the ability of the United States to defend Western Europe by getting rid of nuclear bases in this country?

Mr. Pym

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Why should the reaction of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people to the deployment of cruise missiles in Western Europe be any different from the reaction of the American people and the American Government to the possible deployment of nuclear missiles in states in Central America?

Mr. Pym

I have often said that if we could reach the Soviet people in one way or another I feel certain that they would take the same view as the rest of us about nuclear weapons and disarmament generally. Unfortunately, they are not in a position to receive any messages except by permission of the Kremlin. That is one of the great weaknesses of the present situation. If we could get through democratically to the Soviet people, I am certain that we would have arms redactions.

Mr. Ward

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Afghanistan does not harbour nuclear weapons has done nothing to stop the systematic slaughter by conventional weapons in which the Soviet Union has been engaged for years?

Mr. Pym

However horrendous and unacceptable nuclear weapons are, and they are, they have come into existence and they have not caused any deaths since the second world war. On the other hand, conventional weapons have caused millions of casualties, among them the casualties in Afghanistan. As everyone knows, that brutal invasion was entirely unjustified. To keep the Afghans in their place, 105,000 Soviet troops are required to be present in Afghanistan. It is a disgraceful episode in history.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government's stance might be a little more persuasive if the Prime Minister did not so constantly resort to the stagnant language of the cold war? If the Government do not believe that our nuclear arms system should be counted within the INF talks, what objection is there to Britain making a contribution instead to START in respect of our own system?

Mr. Pym

The hon. Gentleman knows that our deterrent is considered by us and the Russians to be a strategic weapon. It is, however, only a minute part of the nuclear armoury of the super powers. It is the minimum force that can exist and be a credible and effective deterrent. Therefore, it cannot form part of START. As I said earlier today, and as I have said on other occasions, if there is a drastic change in the strategic situation and a willingness on the Russian side to reduce armaments, nuclear and conventional, which is put into effect, we would be prepared to consider our position.