HC Deb 31 July 1998 vol 317 cc677-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

12.39 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate—the last business of the House before the summer recess. I thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) for delaying his holidays to respond to the debate.

Both India and Pakistan have rich histories and proud and diverse cultures. I have taken an interest in that part of the world for many years, and I am a member of the all-party groups on both India and Pakistan. I have a constituency interest also, as many who came to this country from India and Pakistan have settled in Leyton and Wanstead, where they have contributed enormously to the local community. Along with my wife, I have visited both countries and regard them and their people with considerable affection.

India and Pakistan are relatively young states, having spent generations freeing themselves from colonial rule. The independence struggle took place at a time when Britain had a very different view of its place in the world. One of my predecessors as the hon. Member for Leyton, Reg Sorenson—later Lord Sorenson—was a great advocate in this place of Indian independence.

The subsequent division between Pakistan and India at the time of independence in 1947—in which Lord Mountbatten, on behalf of the UK Government, played an important role—left many dead and destitute, and there is a continuing legacy of resentment between the two countries. That resentment has, on three occasions in the past, spilled into war. Any student of the area knows that it could easily lead to another.

Having gained independence, India and Pakistan were treated poorly by the rest of the world, being constantly patronised and belittled. They were regularly used as pawns in the cold war. That was no way to treat proud cultures.

As well as having a close interest in south Asia, I also oppose nuclear weapons around the world. I have repeatedly spoken in the House for nuclear disarmament and arms control, and I am currently the convenor of Parliamentary Labour CND. Nuclear weapons are immoral and wasteful of precious resources.

Hiroshima day is next Thursday, 6 August. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where nuclear weapons were used, was on a truly horrendous scale. Current nuclear weapons are multiple Hiroshimas. We should be working for a world free from nuclear weapons. That places an obligation on nuclear weapons states to reduce and eliminate their arsenals. By logic, that must mean that no new country should become a nuclear weapons state.

It made me immensely sad, therefore, when India carried out its nuclear tests in May. The tests were rightly and roundly condemned by the world and led to the imposition of a variety of sanctions by a number of states such as Japan and the United States, where there is law to make such action automatic when there is nuclear weapons proliferation.

The first test on 11 May took most of us by surprise, although hindsight shows that there were several warning signs, including some nationalistic comments by Bharatiya Janata party politicians, who form the new Government in India. The Indian Government stated that they had carried out three simultaneous test explosions, although there may in fact have been only one explosion, and a judicious politician's use of words to imply that three weapons had been tested.

It is difficult to carry out tests simultaneously, as the slightest mistiming in triggering any of the devices can mean that one or more could be damaged by the explosion of another, and not detonate or, worse still, scatter its contents over a wide area. Because of the technical difficulties, it has never been done by the United Kingdom, and the United States has tried it very rarely.

The Indians carried out two more tests two days later. Sadly and alarmingly, the Indian Government's actions were met with acclaim by the population: opinion poll after opinion poll showed that, in the initial few weeks, there was popular support for the tests, although that has since declined. At the time, I felt that that was misguided and misdirected nationalism—I still think so—and that such joy would be more than matched by bitterness and despair if the weapons were used. That may be reflected in the future in millions of individual personal histories, because the money wasted on these useless weapons could have been used to save lives or vastly improve the quality of life of whole communities.

The world's response was not all that it could have been. Sanctions were not implemented quickly or tightly enough, and many states delayed their decision on how to respond. Several of the major powers gave the impression that they might be prepared to soften their attitude and weakly accept the new status quo as inevitable. Pakistan was put in an unenviable position and it was perhaps inevitable that it would carry out tests of its own. Those happened on 28 and 30 May. Again, there is a doubt about precisely how many tests were carried out.

The tests are symptomatic of the regional security situation, which has been characterised by provocation and retaliation. Disputes, most notably over Kashmir, have brought the two states into conflict. As a consequence, their military bills represent a sky-high proportion of their national resources.

The Indians, especially, like to argue that it is not for outsiders to preach about what should be done about conflicts such as Kashmir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that the conflict should be resolved bilaterally, but has offered assistance that may be acceptable to India and Pakistan to help to achieve a settlement.

It is perhaps worth noting at this point the valuable help given by outsiders in our own seemingly intractable problems in Northern Ireland. Senator Mitchell of the United States was the most prominent, but not the only, outsider to be involved in efforts to bring peace, and his contribution is rightly applauded. India and Pakistan should not have a closed mind to outside assistance in resolving the problem of Kashmir.

The resolution of the tensions between India and Pakistan is primarily a matter for the states themselves, but the introduction of an overt nuclear weapons capability means that the rest of the world will be affected if anything goes wrong, so the rest of the world has a direct stake in what happens in the region. If India and Pakistan want to tell us that we should not interfere in their internal affairs, they should be left in no doubt that their holding of nuclear weapons is likely to lead to an opposite world reaction.

I am not saying that nuclear war in south Asia is an early likelihood. I am sure that the leaders of the two countries are too sensible to start a nuclear war deliberately, but the misapplied nationalism, of which there have been plenty of examples, could lead to a frenzy of hatred in which nuclear weapons just might be used. In a period of tension, there is always the danger of a misjudgment or an accident. History is littered with wars that everyone was confident would never happen.

The effects of nuclear war know no boundaries. A single nuclear weapon detonated anywhere in south Asia would have political and environmental effects a long way away. Some sheep in Wales are still controlled because of the effects of the Chernobyl accident 12 years ago. The work done on nuclear winter during the cold war proved that it was possible to cause major changes in the world's climate with only a small number of nuclear weapons.

Possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a global issue. The greatest threat to the 21st century would be proliferation of nuclear weapons until they were in the hands of many states, some of them unstable, or even in the hands of terrorists. Non-proliferation must be taken seriously in the other nuclear weapons states as well as in India and Pakistan. It is immoral for India and Pakistan to say that they will go non-nuclear when others do. They are making the great leap in proliferation. They are contributing to an immensely dangerous world in the next century. If proliferation is unchecked, they will not be unscathed.

Developments in south Asia put five other Governments around the world in a difficult position. Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China possess nuclear weapons, and their criticism of India and Pakistan is serious weakened by that. If the five want to stop proliferation to make sure that the world is safer, they must move unequivocally towards elimination of their own nuclear weapons. The Government have made some positive steps by reducing the number of operational warheads. Cuts announced in the strategic defence review were welcome. They offer an opportunity for dialogue with India and Pakistan, but we must pursue the theme of nuclear weapons reduction and elimination, not parity.

Sir David Gore-Booth, our high commissioner in India, has today decided to leave that post for a career in business. I fervently hope that our new high commissioner will play an active diplomatic and political role in pressing for the stop of nuclear weapons. There must be no weakening of that position. Will the Minister comment on how he expects the new high commissioner to argue against India's nuclear weapons policy?

The Minister appeared last week before the Select Committee on Defence. He accepted that Britain was poorly placed to complain because of our possession of nuclear weapons. He said that the key difference between the United Kingdom and India or Pakistan was that we inherit the situation that we are in rather than being in the process of creating it. That distinction is useful, but it does not stop the United Kingdom being serious about stopping worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must move ahead on our manifesto commitment to international negotiations on nuclear arms reduction.

As well as possessing nuclear weapons, the five states that I mentioned have permanent seats on the Security Council of the United Nations. It seems that one follows the other, but that should not automatically be so. In recent years, India has felt that a country of its size should have a permanent seat. I have always felt that the Security Council's composition, which is based on the winners of the second world war, is biased towards the west. It is archaic to have two western European seats. If the council had been updated, India, because of its size, population, role in the world and future significance, would have been a prime candidate for a permanent seat. The nuclear tests have changed that. India's aspiration for a permanent seat is forlorn for the foreseeable future. I could not support such a move. Other states that wanted such important influence at the UN might also develop nuclear weapons as their route to the Security Council.

Pakistan and India have proclaimed themselves nuclear weapon states—they are clearly states that possess nuclear weapons—but that is a specific term, defined in the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty to mean a state that tested a nuclear device before 1 January 1967; that date has long gone. There must be no redefinition of the term to accommodate India and Pakistan, as that would fatally weaken the treaty, making it near worthless in the face of any new nuclear testing state. There must be no alteration to the treaty.

As well as the immediate tension between India and Pakistan, wider issues are involved with China to the north and Iran to the west. India has had long-standing border disputes with China, the worst of which led to an invasion by China in the early 1960s. The poor performance of the Indian army at the time may well have been a deciding factor in the start of the drive for nuclear weapons development. India's relations with China have been improving, not least with the introduction of a series of confidence-building measures in the border areas in the past few years. Overt nationalism by India risks fresh disputes on a larger and much more dangerous scale.

China's closeness to Pakistan, including allegations of nuclear assistance, is clearly of concern to India. Pakistan may be encouraged in its relations with China by its fear of India's superiority in conventional arms. Those three countries need to get together and adopt a joint security pact. It is also time for them to consider a joint economic pact. It is time for direct action to avoid the use of the rivalries that flow from misguided nationalism in all those three important states.

Iran shares a border with Pakistan, whose test site was only about 80 miles away. While it is early days, how the tests will influence the Iranian Government remains an issue. Iran is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but it has been alleged—mainly by the Americans—that it has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons. It is impossible to tell how true the allegations are, but if any part of the Iranian Government has nuclear pretensions, its hand can only have been strengthened by the recent events. If Iran attempted to get nuclear weapons, what would be the impact on Israel? Clearly, nuclear problems cannot be contained, and they move between regions.

One other problem that has not been mentioned but could affect the rest of the world is that the economy of Pakistan is weak. There is a danger that the Government could collapse and we could be facing a situation similar to the one that occurred at the end of the cold war with the collapse of the Soviet Union—the potential for loose nukes. In such circumstances, nuclear weapons and their components may slip from Government control and end up on the black market. That may also be true of India as, last week, three people were arrested and 6 kg of uranium seized in Madras. The quality or grade of the uranium is not clear, but the incident should be taken as a warning of dangers to come.

The possession of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan increases the risk of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Both countries have extensive problems with poverty and corruption. Whenever aid projects in Pakistan and India are organised through non-governmental organisations, our Government should not hesitate to remind those countries that, while we favour money being spent to alleviate hardship and poverty, we will not allow any hidden subsidy so that the Governments of India and Pakistan can divert money to their nuclear weapons programmes.

As a vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives, I am concerned that India has more than 25 per cent. of the childbirth-related deaths in the world. I emphasise that I do not want any direct poverty alleviation work halted, but every diplomatic opportunity should be taken to remind the Indian and Pakistani Governments of their duties to their people. We should finance only non-governmental organisation projects and end all Government-to-Government aid such as military and police training.

What can be done? We must make concerted efforts to show that the world will not tolerate nuclear proliferation. We cannot let the 21st century turn into a century of proliferation. There are some encouraging signs of contact between the two states. Two days ago, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met privately during a regional summit meeting in Sri Lanka. By all accounts, it was a barely lukewarm meeting, but at least both promised that senior diplomats from each side would meet in the near future to arrange further dialogue. That should be developed more fully.

Other forms of contact, such as trade, must be encouraged. The Foreign Secretary told the House: At present, India and Pakistan trade only I per cent. of their gross domestic products with each other. In the modem world, where prosperity is based primarily on trade, external investment and the exchange of technology, that kind of barrier to trade makes no sense for the prosperity and development of those two countries."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 524.] Dialogue and trade must be encouraged between them, and between China and India.

It is clear that the pressure must be kept up. Last week, the Indian Defence Minister told his Parliament that there was no question of his country "buckling" under external pressure to review its nuclear policy. They must be under no illusions; there will be serious consequences. If there were no pressure or consequences, the Indian and Pakistani Governments would not buckle, but would continue with their dangerous nuclear strategies. Sanctions must be kept tight.

Worryingly, the United States is relaxing some of its sanctions on trade in grain after protests by American farmers. Talk in Congress is of loosening the law imposing automatic sanctions on proliferating states. That would be a step towards letting the nuclear proliferation genie out of the bottle. Any replacement policy must be equally punitive or the wrong signals will be given to India, Pakistan and any future potential nuclear weapon state.

We must ensure that no form of aid can be used to subsidise nuclear weapons programmes. Soon after sanctions were introduced, the Prime Minister of Pakistan called for Pakistanis around the world to send money to his country. We should examine whether currency restrictions or other measures could be introduced to ensure that the effects of sanctions are not reduced through such action. His appeal should be countered and discouraged. It is, after all, in their terms, an interference in our countries. If the money is not for direct support of family or alleviation of poverty, it should be discouraged.

Further sanctions could be implemented. Military training and co-operation with the two countries should be suspended by all states. All foreign involvement with the military in India and Pakistan should be prohibited. There should be an international regime to restrict foreign investment so that it does not allow any diversion of resources for military purposes. Perhaps postgraduate nuclear physics students from India and Pakistan in this country and others should have their studies suspended until the situation is resolved. Perhaps we should refuse to give visas to scientists, engineers and technicians known to have worked on the nuclear weapons programmes. I also favour support in various forms for the people in both countries who believe in, and will campaign for, a non-nuclear future.

As well as the sanctions for change, which are admittedly negative but necessary, a positive approach is needed. Direct aid to alleviate poverty via NGOs, not the Governments, should continue, but it should also be pointed out how much more both Governments could do if they did not waste their resources on weapons. A non-nuclear future and a settlement of the disputes would be rewarded with greater security and greater prosperity for both countries. I hope that the United Kingdom Government, with the rest of the world, will be able to present a clear picture of the costs to India and Pakistan of keeping nuclear weapons, and the enormous benefits of not having them.

India and Pakistan have made the world a much less safe place. Natural allies of the two countries, such as I, have been put in a difficult position. Many people with a natural inclination to support India and Pakistan are unable to support the spread of nuclear weapons. The world is more secure with fewer nuclear weapons, not more; it is more secure still with none at all. Pakistan and India would be more secure without nuclear weapons.

Pakistan missed a big economic opportunity when it responded to India with its own nuclear tests. That opportunity should remain available, accompanying a decision to abandon nuclear weapons.

It is immensely sad that the first of those tests was carried out by India, the country of Mohandas Gandhi, the Mahatma, and a country with so much potential for promoting good in the world, in accordance with Gandhian principles. Nuclear weapons are a betrayal of the Gandhi tradition of non-violence.

I hope that there will be a sensible rethink in both countries and that a non-nuclear approach to resolving disagreements will be re-established and reaffirmed in the interests of nuclear non-proliferation, a safer south Asia and a safer world in the 21st century.

1.6 pm

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate on the last day of the Session. It is incredibly important, but it poses a huge dilemma for the world and, in particular, for the British Government.

The hon. Gentleman has ably described the contrasts in India and Pakistan. In many ways, they are very industrialised and have a high standard of technology in some sectors, yet, in most of India and Pakistan, people do not have access to clean water. In India and Pakistan, there is a brilliant and ancient culture and superb universities, yet a huge proportion of the people in both countries are illiterate and have no access to education.

Medical technology is of the highest quality in both India and Pakistan in their medical schools and teaching hospitals. Indeed, this country has benefited tremendously over the years from Indian doctors and surgeons working in this country, yet, as the hon. Gentleman has described, in India, the figures on infant mortality and the perinatal mortality of mothers are appalling. Both countries are areas of huge contrasts that are to be deplored.

Nearly half of the world's poorest people live in India. India receives the largest proportion of overseas aid that we give. As hon. Members will know, this year's Department for International Development White Paper said that we were concentrating on alleviating poverty among the poorest people of the world, not the poorest countries. That is what presents us with this dilemma: how can we put pressure on India and Pakistan without endangering the aid that we give to the poorest people in the world?

It all boils down to whether there is peace in the area. All the time the hon. Gentleman was speaking, something that we used to sing at school was going through my head; I think that it is from Judas Maccabeus by Handel: Oh lovely peace with plenty crowned". The only solution to poverty is peace. I urge the Government to do everything that they can to stabilise the area and to encourage India and Pakistan to reach a peaceful settlement.

1.9 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate and on the way that he introduced it. I shall be brief so that the Minister has time to reply. I declare an interest as I hold a lifetime membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which I joined at the age of 16 and, I am proud to say, of which I am still a member. Indeed, I am a member of its national council. I passionately believe that the world would be a better and safer place if there were no nuclear weapons, and that we should set an example by not having any ourselves.

Next Thursday, 6 August, will be Hiroshima day; three days later it will be Nagasaki day. They are the only times that atomic bombs have been used in war—in anger—against people. People are still dying from cancers caused by the fallout from very small explosive powers compared with those that are available to this country, the United States, France, China, Russia and, now, India and Pakistan. The work of the peace movements around the world has at least focused attention on the possibility of getting rid of nuclear weapons.

In all the recent discussion and debate on the Pakistan and Indian nuclear tests, which I deplore, many people in Pakistan and India have felt that it is a bit rich to get lectures from Europe, the United States, Russia and China on why they should not be undertaking nuclear testing, when, for example, this country has just rapidly expanded our nuclear capability with the introduction of the Trident nuclear missile system. The 200 warheads have far more destructive power than was previously available under the Polaris system. Although I support what the Government have done in trying to persuade both India and Pakistan of the error of their ways, we would make far better progress if we were seen to be getting rid of our nuclear weapons.

The background to India and Pakistan's promotion of a nuclear capability and the vast arms race is, in part, a hangover from the cold war. The Soviet Union supported and heavily armed India, while the United States supported Pakistan; now, China is helping to develop nuclear missiles in Pakistan, while Russia—and many other countries—continues to try to sell nuclear material and technology to both countries. The bloodthirsty arms trade around the world is more interested in the profits that can be made from selling arms to both those countries than in dealing with the desperate and terrible poverty of people in India and Pakistan.

The running sore of the inability of the United Nations, since 1948, to deal with the issue of Kashmir provides the pretext in which the military establishments of both countries can put enormous pressure on their own Governments, who can then use the populist argument of the need to be fully armed in order to protect, invade, liberate—or whatever other word one cares to use—in order to resolve the issue of Kashmir. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did his best to promote talks on the issue of Kashmir. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give us some further news on that. Promoting a greater UN involvement in Kashmir, or any other form of mediation, must be the way forward.

Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead said about the fact that both Prime Ministers met at the SARC summit in Colombo a few days ago—it is good news that at least they met—unfortunately, no agreement was reached at the end of that meeting and both sides are still committed to building a nuclear capability. India has tested five nuclear devices while Pakistan has tested six. India appears to have the capability to build a modern day thermonuclear device, while Pakistan appears to be developing a uranium-based atomic bomb. The capability is enormous. India appears to have stocks of highly enriched uranium and about 300 to 400 kg of reactor grade plutonium. Official sources estimate that by the year 2000, India's stockpile of weapons grade plutonium could rise to 450 kg. Pakistan has slightly less such material, but it has sufficient to manufacture a significant number of atomic bombs. Perhaps more importantly, Pakistan now has a missile system capable of delivering those bombs to another country, making the situation more dangerous.

West Germany, France, Britain, Canada, China, Belgium, Libya, Holland and Switzerland have all supplied various parts of nuclear technology to Pakistan. The United States, France, Britain, West Germany, Canada, Russia and China have all supplied significant amounts of high-technology material to India, so that it would be able to develop its nuclear capability.

We have to look for a way forward. The gut reaction was that sanctions should be applied against India and Pakistan for undertaking nuclear tests. I should welcome anything that will stop further tests, and promote the peace process in both countries and the eventual removal of all those nuclear weapons. However, as India and Pakistan have such desperate poverty, high rates of infant mortality and communicable diseases, low levels of life expectancy and a lack of basic necessities—such as clean drinking water, never mind basic food and education—I am concerned that many of the proposed sanctions would not hurt the military, the hierarchy or those who are promoting the arms race between the two countries, but would punish the very poorest people, in some of the poorest states on earth. I am therefore concerned that nothing would be gained by imposing sanctions.

Sanctions would probably enhance the popularity of the Bharatiya Janata party, which promoted demonstrations in support of nuclear tests. We should therefore be extremely cautious about using a sanctions process that would hurt the poorest people in India.

I hope that we will hear in the reply to the debate what the British Government have been doing to try to deal with the Kashmir issue, which is the biggest running sore between India and Pakistan, and to promote universal adherence to both the nuclear test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. Adherence is the kernel of the issue.

Above all, we have to work towards creating a world in which the United Nations' authority is enhanced, and its ability to sort out countries' basic disputes and to promote a long-term disarmament process is increased. Nothing could be more obscene than a well-stocked and well-equipped military in a country filled with desperate poverty and people who are unable to gain a basic subsistence. Another obscenity is populist politicians saying, "We have to defend ourselves against the enemy across the border", thereby enhancing still further the military's role at the expense of the very poorest people in those countries.

We live a world that is deeply divided between north and south. Unless Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States do far more to reduce their own nuclear capability—I should prefer that we got rid of it in its entirety—lectures from us to poor countries about why they should not have nuclear weapons will fall on deaf ears. The likelihood of other states around the world openly developing a nuclear weapons capability will be enhanced if they do not know where nuclear weapons are currently targeted or at whom missiles are currently aimed.

As we come towards the end of the 20th century—in which so many millions have died in so many wars, many of which were entirely and utterly useless; and in which the arms trade is burgeoning as never before—perhaps we should stop for a moment and do our very best to disarm ourselves as a way of encouraging a disarmament process around the world. The alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is some mad colonel or general pressing the button that will start the thermonuclear war that we all grew up dreading during the dark days of the cold war.

1.19 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I had no intention of joining in this debate, but I was prompted to rise to my feet by the common sense that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen).

I recall that on the day Pakistan exploded its nuclear devices, I was speaking about Kashmir at a community centre in Brierfield in my constituency. I walked through the swing doors to find a party atmosphere, almost a celebration. People whose views I respect—members of the Asian community whom I know well—told me that it was a triumph that Pakistan had exploded those devices. I found that dispiriting and depressing, and said so in my speech. I said that it was madness to take that route, but I was told that nuclear weapons would help stability in the region. That is absolute nonsense. If nuclear weapons increase stability, why do we not give them to Turkey and Greece, to Iran and Iraq? Let us spray them around the entire middle east and then see long we survive on planet earth.

We need India and Pakistan to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the test ban treaty, and we in Britain need to wind down the nuclear arms race. We read in the newspapers today that the old Polaris fleet targeted 58 cities in the old Soviet Union, but no one knows what the Trident missiles are targeting—obviously, we are not going to hear that from the Minister.

The payload carried by Trident is being reduced. It was announced as part of the comprehensive spending review that we would save £100 million. I wrote to the Minister of State about that to say what a missed opportunity it was. Instead of making the announcement as part of the comprehensive spending review, why did we not say that we were never going to use our nuclear weapons, that they cost us an arm and a leg and that we would disarm progressively? That could have been our contribution, but we did not do it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, being the optimist that he is, said—I am paraphrasing—that he saw no prospect of an early nuclear conflict in south Asia. I do not know about that. The experts who pronounce on these matters tell us that it is possible for one or other of the countries to win a first-strike nuclear war. There are no hardened concrete silos containing missiles 50 ft underground there. Neither India nor Pakistan has the equivalent of the Trident fleet—they do not have their deadly nuclear weapons 300 ft under the Indian ocean. The experts say that there is a trip wire and that the mad people in India and Pakistan who think that it is conceivable that one can win a nuclear war might press the button. Is not that impossible? Are not the politicians and army leaders there too rational? Judged by the standards in the United Kingdom, are they not too rational?

I remember Pakistan's Foreign Minister appearing on "Newsnight" after India had detonated the nuclear devices. He made an incredible speech that was almost a come-on to India. He said that Pakistan's population of 120 million was dispersed in villages across a very wide area and could absorb a nuclear strike from India. I repeat that it was the Foreign Minister of Pakistan who was speaking in such a juvenile, infantile way. I have many constituents of Kashmiri or Pakistani origin and I find it appalling that people are prepared to embrace those sentiments.

My hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) described Kashmir as a festering sore. Since 1947, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan, but we still have not got to grips with the problem of Kashmir. Pakistan wants to internationalise the issue and bring in other countries to help broker an agreement, while India resolutely maintains that it is an internal matter, that Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian state and it will not brook any interference from outside.

I stand here in the House of Commons and I wish that I had an answer, but I do not. The problem has to be mediated in some way, through the United Nations or, as I say for the umpteenth time, by Britain as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a lead member of the European Union. Although we are a small country, we still have huge influence overseas. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.

I should like to see a nuclear-free world. There were five declared nuclear weapon states and there are now seven. God knows how many more could develop nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat—such as Brazil, Argentina and Israel—so the whole world is very unstable. If countries choose to become nuclear weapon states, there must be consequences. We cannot learn to live with the bomb. What I found so dispiriting after the explosions in India and Pakistan is the fact that we have all got used to the idea that there are no longer five but seven nuclear states. People think that it is no big deal, that it is all happening halfway round the globe and does not affect us. People are not as agitated, upset and angry about it as they should be. We are learning to live with it and we should not. We have to say to the people of India and Pakistan that there are consequences.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke about the deep poverty in that part of the world. It is a disgrace that 70 per cent. of the 120 million people in Pakistan are illiterate, yet 50 per cent. of the budget is spent on the military and on servicing debt. That is an absolute disgrace. There are comparable figures for India. I do not carry them about in my head, but the point has been made.

Finally, Britain can have an influence as an honest broker. Our history is tied up with India and Pakistan. People in my constituency say that Britain must act because we were responsible for what happened in Kashmir. My response is that we do have a responsibility, but it happened 50 years ago and the present generation in Britain cannot for ever be held responsible for decisions that were taken by politicians half a century ago. It requires good will on all sides and I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond positively to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead in his excellent speech.

1.28 pm
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for raising today's Adjournment debate. Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that the issue of consequences arose not with regard to the recent proliferation, but in respect of the seventh nuclear state, the state of Israel. We are in our current situation because we imposed no consequences on Israel for introducing nuclear weapons.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for two reasons. First, there are voices that have not been heard in the debate. He referred to the support of people in Pakistan and India for the development of nuclear devices by their countries. We have seen that in the media, but the voices that challenged that development went unheard, including those of many of our constituents, particularly those from Punjab. Many of those born in Punjab, deriving from there or with families still there, believe that the development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan could result in Punjab becoming a nuclear battle ground. They urge us to impress on India and Pakistan that not only should the nuclear devices be removed, but that Punjab should be fully demilitarised. Only in that way can they secure the future of their families, the region and, in some instances, their human rights. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that the British Government impress on the Indian and Pakistani Governments that the demand comes from the British Punjabis, who have a concern for their original homeland and for their families.

Secondly, I have listened to Defence Ministers informing the British people that unilaterally abandoning the use of landmines—we all whole-heartedly support the legislation that was given Royal Assent today—would give the British Government a moral authority to impress on other states that the use of landmines was abhorrent and should be denied to those states. The British Government should assume the same moral authority on the issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead has been campaigning for so long—the unilateral nuclear disarmament of this country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said, we are accused by the Indian and Pakistani Governments, and by many of our constituents who derive from those areas, of cant and hypocrisy when we call on those Governments not to develop nuclear weapons while we are stockpiling and upgrading them. I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and for the development of new systems of negotiation and representation at the United Nations so that we can start the debate. Now that the British nose has been rubbed into the issue of nuclear disarmament because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent, we can start the debate on reform at the United Nations and initiate the first steps towards the handing over of nuclear weapons to a central authority and eventually to the scrapping of all such weapons.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead for introducing the debate. He has given us an opportunity to voice opinions that have not been heard so far.

1.32 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd)

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on raising such an important matter in the last debate in the House before the summer recess. Hon. Members have referred to next week's anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Like many hon. Members, I have been to that city. Anyone who has seen the peace memorial in the middle of Hiroshima graphically understands the destruction caused by nuclear weapons there and the threat of small-scale and larger-scale nuclear annihilation. None of us can be sanguine about the existence of nuclear weapons. The Government seek the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

In that context, I should point out that India and Pakistan are tied to this country through history, culture, common populations and genuine friendship. Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents whose origins lie in India and Pakistan. The ties are indissoluble; they will be with us not just for years but generations to come. We therefore have an interest in these matters not simply as members of the same planet but as people who are much more intimately tied. Any remarks that we make are in the context not of hostility but our deep and abiding friendship.

The issue is important not just to the security of Pakistan, India and their immediate neighbours but to the future prospects for global non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which concerns us all. International reaction to the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan has been almost uniformly negative. Outside the sub-continent itself, it is hard to find anything other than condemnation. The tests caused deep-seated concerns for two reasons. First, they fly in the face of international efforts on non-proliferation and, secondly, they have undoubtedly heightened tension in south Asia.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House—the Opposition are very ably represented by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge)—will recall the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 14 May and 1 June, in which he told the House that we in Britain, with our long and close ties and as friends of both countries, were nevertheless appalled at the risks and costs to the peoples of the sub-continent of a nuclear arms race.

Hon. Members have asked what the Government have done since. Since the statements, Foreign Ministers of the Group of Eight countries have met in London on 12 June at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government. They were joined by Foreign Ministers and representatives of China, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, South Africa and the Philippines. All those countries viewed the tests as a major challenge to international security and were as determined as we were to encourage India and Pakistan to reduce regional tension and adopt non-proliferation measures, and to offer practical assistance wherever possible.

As a result of the meeting, it was agreed to set up a task force to take matters forward. Its composition demonstrates that the international consensus against nuclear tests goes beyond the five acknowledged nuclear weapons states. That is an important dimension which hon. Members should take on board. Apart from G8 countries, task force members include China, Australia, Austria, which currently holds the European Union presidency, and the Philippines, which is the current chair of the Association of South East Asian Nations.

Particular value is added by the membership of states that have renounced the nuclear option. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that Brazil and Argentina have a potential nuclear capability. I must firmly state that the role of Brazil and Argentina is significant because they formally renounced, in a mutually binding treaty, nuclear weapons development, and so ridded the continent of Latin American of nuclear weapons for—we hope—ever. I must add that the role of Ukraine, which has also renounced its nuclear weapons, is welcome and important, too. The three countries have valuable experience to offer in resolving regional security issues through political engagement rather than the nuclear option.

The initial focus of the group is naturally and rightly on non-proliferation, although it is also reviewing the wider security picture in south Asia to reduce tension and build confidence between India and Pakistan. The task force's first meeting produced a clear sense of common purpose among the diverse group of countries.

On arms control, the task force welcomed, as the House will, the moratoriums on testing announced by both India and Pakistan—but those were welcomed only as a first step to signature of the comprehensive test ban treaty by both countries. Clearly, that is what we must seek. Members agreed that it was a priority to press both countries to sign the treaty immediately and without conditions. There can be no question of amending the treaty, as that would serve as a reward for nuclear proliferation. I am pleased to say that there have been more encouraging signs from both countries that that may be one of the more readily achievable goals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked about the role of the British high commissioner. He, together with Britain's general diplomatic efforts and the other members of the task force, will be deployed in moving towards that ambition.

Task force members also agreed to press for a quick start on something important to the British Government—the fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations at the conference on disarmament in Geneva—and to call on India and Pakistan to announce a moratorium on further production of fissile materials in the meantime. Again, we are encouraged by the flexibility and constructive approach that both India and Pakistan are showing, and we hope that that will soon lead to results in Geneva.

High on the task force's agenda was how to avoid the further highly dangerous increase of tension that deployment of nuclear weapons would bring. The group agreed that India and Pakistan should be pressed not to assemble or deploy nuclear weapons. Clear definitions of what is meant by "non-weaponisation" and non-deployment are urgently needed, in the form of binding and verifiable confidence-building and security-building measures.

Mr. Corbyn

That is extremely important. Have either of the two countries accepted any form of international inspection of either the development or the potential loading of weapons on to missiles?

Mr. Lloyd

No; at this moment that is not the case. However, I was about to say that the international community stands ready to assist. We want to see binding and verifiable confidence-building and security-building measures. Those would give mutual confidence, and also confidence throughout south Asia.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about proliferation beyond India and Pakistan. Of course the task force discussed how to prevent further damage to global non-proliferation regimes being caused by exports of nuclear technology and know-how from India or Pakistan.

Both countries have made welcome statements on their respective export policies, but what is needed now is national legislation, incorporating the policy guidelines and control lists of the two major export control regimes—the missile technology control regime and the nuclear suppliers group. The first of those serves to limit missile technology and the second places limitations on the export of nuclear technology, as well as dual-use technology that could assist in nuclear development. The task force agreed to pursue ways of giving India and Pakistan practical help and advice to assist in achieving that goal.

Beyond the arms control aspect, there is the new and disturbing dimension to bilateral relations between India and Pakistan and their historic differences. The international community has emphasised the importance of India and Pakistan addressing, as a matter of urgency, the root causes of tension between them, including that raised by many hon. Members—the long-standing issue of Kashmir. We have urged both sides to make a fresh start in their bilateral relations and restore momentum to their dialogue.

In that context, we welcome the meeting between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in Colombo on 29 July. That was an important step forward in bilateral relations, and we hope that the follow-up talks now planned between senior officials will lead to early progress on the issues that divide those countries.

Only through bilateral dialogue will India and Pakistan find durable ways of solving the problem of Kashmir, but Britain has always stressed strongly the fact that, although we do not and cannot seek to internationalise the problem, we and the rest of the international community stand ready to help to look for practical solutions to the problems in Kashmir, if that would be helpful to India and Pakistan.

Kashmir inevitably remains a source of tension between India and Pakistan, and a solution must be found through the dialogue route that hon. Members have requested. To endure, any solution that is acceptable to both sides must take account of the wishes of those who live in Kashmir. Many people of Kashmiri origin live in this country and continue to take a strong interest in the future of Kashmir within the Indian subcontinent. Hon. Members have mentioned the need for both sides to behave responsibly, and we appeal to both India and Pakistan to ensure that the rhetoric is about seeking solutions, not creating tensions.

The regional security dimension of the tests was clearly recognised at the task force meeting. The group agreed to encourage implementation by India and Pakistan of existing confidence-building and security-building measures, to which hon. Members have referred. A great many of those measures have been agreed by the two sides over the years, but have not been put into operation. The best way to build confidence and reduce tension would be for India and Pakistan to take the non-proliferation steps urged upon them by the international community and make early progress in their bilateral dialogue.

Britain is actively seeking nuclear de-escalation, so we now have the authority to demand that others also examine their roles. Specifically, as my hon. Friends have said, the strategic defence review contains several points of real significance. We have reduced the stockpile of available warheads and there is only one Trident submarine on deterrent patrol at any time. It carries 48 warheads, which is half the ceiling announced by the previous Government. It may interest my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle to learn that the missiles will be de-targeted. No cities are targeted, which means that it would be several days before the missiles were ready to fire. That is a genuine confidence-building measure.

There is no need for Britain to buy more Trident missiles. We have declared missile levels—a declaration that is unique among nuclear weapons states—and our total stocks of fissile materials. We have also declared the limited amounts of material that will be held outside safeguards for defence purposes, and we are transferring into safeguards material that is no longer required for that purpose. Those measures are designed to build a climate and a framework in which transparency is the order of the day. We must make it clear to other nuclear weapons states exactly where Britain stands.

We also intend to pursue with considerable vigour several specific points. Mention has been made of the fissile material cut-off treaty. We believe that that is the logical next step, and we shall pursue it vigorously both because we want to see India and Pakistan involved in the negotiations in Geneva and because we are prepared to be involved in those negotiations. We want the United States, Russia and China to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, and we want India and Pakistan to sign the treaty, which would allow it to come into operation and, significantly, trigger the verification mechanisms that would span the planet. That is a massively important step forward, which is real and achievable.

We are exploring the possibility of improving security assurances to some non-nuclear weapons states beyond the existing nuclear weapons-free zones. We have already agreed to work on security assurances within the conference on disarmament. The British Government are taking practical measures that we believe will enhance the climate of confidence and make the world a safer place. In that light, we are in a position to condemn the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. However, we urge our friends in those countries to step back from the nuclear threshold, even at this late stage, and to join Britain in actively searching for ways of making the world safer, of decelerating the nuclear arms race and of seeking the mechanics of achieving a practical global elimination of nuclear weapons.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Two o' clock.