§ 25. Sir Dudley SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing the NATO "Partnership for Peace" proposal; and what practical military co-operation has flowed from it so far.
§ Mr. David Davis"Partnership for Peace" is developing very well. Twenty-five countries have become partners, many of which have already negotiated individual programmes of activities with NATO. Three PFP military exercises have taken place so far, with UK forces participating each time. An extensive range of practical co-operative activities, including 20 exercises, are scheduled for 1995. The United Kingdom hopes to participate in many of these.
§ Sir Dudley SmithIs my hon. Friend aware that many of the central European countries are carrying on apace where the "Partnership for Peace" is concerned, and that they are becoming closely involved in peacekeeping efforts? Will he and the Foreign Office continue to do everything that they can to encourage such activities?
§ Mr. DavisBefore I respond to my hon. Friend, may I take the opportunity to commend his activities in the Western European Union and other areas?
We are doing all we can to make "Partnership for Peace" productive, and to ensure that it gives a useful outcome to the countries involved.
§ Mr. WareingDoes the Minister agree that it would be much more appropriate to develop the "Partnership for Peace" among eastern and central European countries than to develop NATO further in that direction, as the enlargement of NATO would undoubtedly cause much more unease inside Russia? Would not it be better to have Russia and the eastern European countries together in a European security pact?
§ Mr. DavisWhile the hon. Gentleman has a point in saying that the matter must be treated with care, the "Partnership for Peace" process should enable the accession to NATO of those countries that wish to—that is the key point—at an appropriate point in the future.
§ Mr. JenkinGiven our declared policy of giving primacy to NATO in the formulation of a European defence policy, why have we just agreed with France to joint command of air services outside the NATO command and control system? Does not that send the wrong signals to the Americans, who are already thinking about disengagement?
§ Mr. DavisThe agreement to which my hon. Friend refers was made at Chartres in November last year, and relates to items outside the article 5 issues of NATO.