German Unification (Hansard, 4 April 1990)

§ 8. Mr. Andrew Smith
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with Chancellor Kohl concerning the prospect of German unification.

§ 13. Mr. McWilliam
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Chancellor Kohl; and what issues will be discussed.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd)
Together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I met Chancellor Kohl at the 1188 Anglo-German summit on 30 March. We had a good discussion on subjects that included the external aspects of German unification.
We welcome Chancellor Kohl's commitment to resolve the external aspects of German unification before unification itself takes place, and to continued German membership of NATO.

§ Mr. Smith
Does the Secretary of State accept that the imminence of German reunification makes nonsense of the Prime Minister's insistence on pointing short-range nuclear missiles at the people of East Germany? In the interests of European and world security, will the Cabinet now get the Prime Minister to change her mind on that?

§ Mr. Hurd
The position was made pretty clear in the joint press conference that Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister gave. That NATO will continue to need a sensible mix of conventional and nuclear weapons in future is agreed generally in the alliance, and certainly between us and the Germans, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard what Chancellor Kohl said about needing full protection. We need to decide what that sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons on the continent of Europe should consist of—an important task, which has not yet been completed.

§ Mr. Cash
Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that whereas we wish to have and hope to continue good Anglo-German relations, the concentric circles proposals, which would tend to marginalise the United Kingdom in the context of our relations with the rest of Europe and with Germany, would not be acceptable to the United Kingdom, that we would not accept Mr. Christophersen's proposals on economic and monetary union, which were tabled recently at Ashford castle, and that we do not intend to move towards the political union currently being put forward through the European Commission?

§ Mr. Hurd
We are certainly opposed to any definition of political union in Europe which includes a central executive or a central Parliament removing powers from this Parliament. That is clear. As regards economic and monetary union, there was a meeting of Finance Ministers in Ireland last weekend which was the first stage in something for which we have always argued—full and adequate preparation. As my hon. Friend knows, we are in favour of beginning and completing stage 1 of the Delors plan, but we do not believe that stages 2 and 3, which have been debated in the House, should point us in the direction of central institutions in that sphere. That is a substantial discussion under way among the right people.

§ Sir Russell Johnston
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a great many people take a different view from that which he has just expressed? In particular, Chancellor Kohl, when at Koenigswinter, indicated that he saw German reunification in the context of accelerating economic and monetary union within the European Community. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that?

§ Mr. Hurd
We are in favour of and committed to moving towards economic and monetary union. It is just that, as the hon. Member knows, we have a different route for that process which we regard as a more liberal and open route. As was clear from the press comments on the meeting in Ireland, a substantial discussion is under way. The only people who would be surprised that we were 1189 taking a substantial part in that substantial discussion would be those who have not listened to what we have been saying on the subject.

§ Mr. Robert Banks
Given that the uniting of the two Germanies is a natural desire of the German people and is unstoppable, is not the prospect of a united Germany nevertheless a chill reminder of two world wars? Would it not be appropriate to discuss with Chancellor Kohl the establishment of a ceiling on the military forces and types of equipment that Germany may use in future?

§ Mr. Hurd
As my hon. Friend knows, the present discussions in Vienna deal just with the limits on Soviet and American manpower. We have to harvest that agreement, which may not be entirely easy, and get it in the bag. After that, it is possible that all of the allies may wish to go on to a wider discussion including troop limits not just for the two super-powers but for others, possibly the Germans and possibly ourselves. As the Prime Minister said in Cambridge, we do not exclude the possibility of reductions. That is the next stage. The first stage is to get the agreement which is on the board and which is a possibility at Vienna.

§ Mr. Kaufman
The right hon. Gentleman was less than straightforward in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). In view of the fact that Chancellor Kohl, when in this country last week, publicly joined all other sensible NATO leaders in opposing modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons—that is what he said—and in view of the fact that Britain is completely isolated on this issue, will the Foreign Secretary say which enemy the short-range nuclear weapons are aimed against? Is it the President of Czechoslovakia or the Prime Minister of Poland who were entertained at No. 10 recently? Is it the voters of East Germany or the voters of Hungary who have just defeated communism? Is it the Soviet troops who, as the Prime Minister herself says, should continue to be stationed in East Germany for the sake of European stability? We realise that the Prime Minister is totally irrational on this issue, but if the Foreign Secretary—

Hon. Members
"Speech."

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is rather a long question.

§ Mr. Kaufman
If the Foreign Secretary is to be at all credible as a candidate for the Tory succession, will he take the side of a sensible Chancellor Kohl against a loopy Prime Minister?

§ Mr. Hurd
The House was a little unkind to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He needs a little time to disentangle himself and we must show him some tolerance.
The purpose of all force, be it conventional or nuclear, is to deter an aggressor.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Which one?

§ Mr. Hurd
The point of the existing doctrine and of any future doctrine is to deter any possible aggressor. What is particularly agreed between Chancellor Kohl and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is that to achieve that in the case of Germany, Britain and the rest of the allies, there must be a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. That is what Chancellor Kohl said at his press conference, and that much is entirely clear.