§ 15. Mrs. MahonTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the defence implications of the Soviet proposal to thin out front-line forces in Europe.
§ 17. Mr. PatchettTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the defence implications of the Soviety proposal to thin out front-line forces in Europe.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonReductions in the Warsaw pact's massive concentrations of forces in Europe would be very welcome. However, its current zonal proposals would make it very difficult to sustain NATO's strategy of forward defence. Nevertheless, we are studying them with care.
§ Mrs. MahonI find that a disappointing answer. Is it not time that the Minister took President Gorbachev's offer to thin out front-line defences seriously? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] With safeguards and verification, could it not mean a much lower level of forces all round? Should not NATO be thinking anyway of replacing its forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—defence with one of defensive defence?
§ Mr. HamiltonAs my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, a forward defence is an essential part of NATO strategy and has been agreed by NATO for some time. It is also a policy of great importance to the Germans.
§ Mr. PatchettShould not NATO agree with President Gorbachev to thin out front-line troops in Europe, as we are reaching a situation in which we do not have the troops 696 to fulfil the commitment to a forward defence policy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Could not vast sums of military expenditure be saved without sacrificing security if NATO were to drop what, in reality, is an outdated and offensive posture?
§ Mr. HamiltonWe are rather moving ahead of the game. It is important that we wait for the outcome of the CFE negotiations that are going on now and have a co-ordinated response to the Soviet proposals, as well as seeing what the Soviet response is to NATO's well-tried proposals, before we start trying to replan our strategy.
§ Mr. DunnDoes my hon. Friend agree that we must be careful and cautious in giving any response to any proposal emanating from the Soviet Union, especially as the Soviet Union is likely to be successful in neutralising public opinion in West Germany?
§ Mr. HamiltonYes. One certainly has to acknowledge that the ability of the Soviet Union to mobilise public opinion in the West has been impressive. We must bear in mind that the Soviet Union is going through a period of dramatic change and it does not necessarily follow that that change will always take the same direction. We may see marked reversals as well as changes in the right direction.
§ Mr. Ian TaylorWill my hon. Friend put any proposals by the Soviets for marginal reductions in their forces into the context of their budgetary situation, as outlined by their Prime Minister last week, which suggested that they will have considerable difficulty in reducing their defence expenditure to below 15 to 18 per cent. of GDP? Some sources suggest that Soviet expenditure on defence and security could be as high as 25 to 33 per cent. of their total national income.
§ Mr. HamiltonI totally accept that my hon. Friend is right. We are grateful for the first, or the second, shot that the Soviet Union has made at assessing its defence expenditure, but we need to see a much greater breakdown of those figures to know exactly what they mean. In the meantime, we must be careful to keep up our own defences until we have seen positive reductions on the Soviet side.