NATO Summit (Hansard, 17 July 1990)

§ 1. Mr. Allen McKay
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the defence implications of decisions taken at the NATO summit on 5 and 6 July.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King)
The purpose of the London summit was to preserve the fundamentals of NATO while adapting the alliance to the new circumstances in Europe and to reassure the Soviet Union that a NATO including a united Germany represented no threat to them. The agreement between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev yesterday confirms this success of the London summit.

§ Mr. McKay
Two lines of NATO's press release state that there are now circumstances in which nuclear retaliation in response to military action might be discounted. What is the difference between the new policy and the old policy of flexible response?

§ Mr. King
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the declaration makes a number of references to nuclear weapons. It states that none of the NATO weapons will be used except in self-defence and that we seek the lowest and most stable level of nuclear forces needed to secure the prevention of war. Nuclear weapons will have an essential role in the overall strategy to prevent war in the way in which the hon. Gentleman described. NATO added that the weapons will be truly weapons of last resort. That is a clearer definition of the nuclear strategy and emphasises the point that many Opposition Members still do not appreciate—that nuclear weapons are not for fighting a war, they are to prevent war.

§ Mr. Cormack
During this period of uncertainty for those in our armed forces, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to stress the nation's sense of gratitude and obligation to them for what they have done and for their contribution to the peace that we are now seeing in prospect? Will he also do everything possible to reassure them that this House will not forget them in their difficulties in the future?

§ Mr. King
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall certainly seek to do that. My hon. Friend has made an important point. I know that he did not mean this, and I do not say this, as some form of valedictory address. Although the position in central Europe has changed, our situation in needing to ensure a certain basic level of defences against the eventualities that we hope would not arise, but which could arise, mean that our defences will 845 have a continuing and important role and will offer a continuing and important career for those who give their lives and service to them.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell
If nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort and not for fighting wars, is not the Government's inclination to deploy the tactical air-to-surface missile on behalf of the United States a decision that should be scrapped immediately? Does not it also bring into considerable doubt the need for tactical air-to-surface missiles to be deployed by the NATO alliance?

§ Mr. King
After the manifest success of the NATO summit, I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to challenge head-on one of the statements of NATO policy, which is that the Alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary. He does so at the very moment when we are celebrating the success of the NATO strategy and on the day after one of the objectives of NATO strategy for 40 years—to seek a united Germany within NATO has been achieved. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should query the unanimous agreement on that strategy.

§ Mr. David Martin
Will my right hon. Friend continue to make clear the necessity for strong defence in the future not only for short-term foreseeable events but for long-term unforeseeable ones? Does he agree that it would be criminal folly to reduce our defences, including nuclear weapons, to a level lower than any eventuality, however unforeseeable, might demand?

§ Mr. King
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that in saying that, he also recognises that circumstances are changing and that one of the most important aspects is that NATO must adapt. One of the greatest strengths of recent events and one of the values of NATO that was shown yesterday is that after the NATO summit, after the NATO declaration and after the visit of the secretary general to Moscow, President Gorbachev felt confident enough to move because he knew that he was dealing with an alliance which had the strength to deliver.

§ Mr. Rogers
In view of the Secretary of State's description of the talks as unanimous and successful, does he intend to make a full statement to the House on the implications of the unanimous decisions made and of "Options for Change", or shall we have to wait for a statement to be made during the recess?

§ Mr. King
No. The House is well aware of the outcome of the NATO summit and the Leader of the Opposition has already made certain comments in the House about it. Indeed, I noticed that in New York the Leader of the Opposition, referring to the changes and the positive outcome of the NATO summit, said that it was a good time to be alive. I am not sure whether that spirit has spread to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).