Nuclear Tests (South Asia)

HC Deb 01 June 1998 vol 313 cc21-32 3.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook)

With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the recent nuclear tests in south Asia.

The Government of Pakistan have declared that they carried out six nuclear tests—five on Thursday and a further one on Saturday. We recognise that the Government of Pakistan were under immense pressure to conduct those tests to match those initiated by India, but we are dismayed by the decision to respond in kind, and believe that the interests of Pakistan have been badly served by their decision to do so.

Pakistan's foremost concern is its national security. That security has not been strengthened by the tests. Long-term security for Pakistan can come only from lowering tension with India. It cannot be built on the unstable foundation of an arms race, which will only raise those tensions. Already, it can be seen from news reports from the region that the voices that have been encouraged by the recent confrontation are the voices of extremism.

However, Pakistan's loss is wider than its own reduced security. Pakistan had the chance to win international support and respect for its restraint. That opportunity has now been lost. As with India, the effect of the nuclear tests by Pakistan has been to diminish, not to enhance, the status of that country within the international community.

We have made clear to the Government of Pakistan our dismay at their decision. The Pakistani high commissioner was summoned to the Foreign Office the day after the first tests to receive a message for his Government of our concern. I have recalled the British high commissioner from Islamabad for consultation in London.

We have already taken a number of measures to bring home to the Government of India the strength of our concern at their nuclear test programme. Last week, we cancelled the visit by the Indian Chief of Naval Staff and we have also cancelled a forthcoming visit by its Chief of Army Staff. At the meeting last week of the General Affairs Council of the European Union, we obtained agreement to a presidency text that invited the Commission to review India's preferential trade treatment. Having taken such steps against India, I would expect comparable measures to be agreed by European partners against Pakistan for similar action by it.

Britain's aid programme, unlike that of some other countries, is directly targeted on providing help to the poorest people in the poorest regions. We remain convinced that it would be wrong to penalise the most vulnerable citizens in either country by suspending that aid programme. However, no one, least of all the Governments of both countries, should understate the economic price that they will pay for isolation within the international community. Already, the value of the Indian rupee has fallen. Last week, the Indian Government offered $1 billion of Government bonds and got no takers. In May, there was a net outflow of foreign institutional investment and, last week, the World bank deferred three loans to India for energy and highways projects of almost a billion dollars as a result of member states' objections, including Britain's.

The adverse impact of those economic developments will make it more difficult for India or Pakistan to reduce poverty. That is why it would be a tragedy if both their Governments were to persist in an arms race to acquire the most expensive weapons, which would do nothing to help the millions of their citizens who live in poverty.

A regional arms race would have an impact that would stretch far beyond the region. Other states that have already demonstrated their interest in acquiring nuclear weapons technology will watch closely to see how the international community responds to the precedent set by India and Pakistan. Their nuclear programmes are not, therefore, merely an internal matter for India and Pakistan, but a legitimate matter of concern for the world.

At the suggestion of the United States, the permanent five members of the Security Council of the United Nations will meet in Geneva on Thursday to discuss the security implications of the nuclear test programmes and the heightened tension in the region. As President of the G8, Britain has called a meeting of the group's Foreign Ministers in London next week to co-ordinate the response of the leading economies to the nuclear test programmes, and to consider how best to promote dialogue with India and Pakistan, and between India and Pakistan.

There must be two strategic objectives in our dialogue with the two countries. First, we must press India and Pakistan to sign up to the global regime against nuclear proliferation. The best ways to reduce tension in the region would be for both India and Pakistan to sign up to the comprehensive test ban treaty, to join negotiations at Geneva, without conditions, and to halt production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Neither the interests of Pakistan and India nor those of any other country in the world are served by encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons.

The second objective must be to tackle the roots of tension between the two countries. There must be a meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan on the issues that threaten stability in the region. Their security would be much better promoted by confidence-building measures than by nuclear testing programmes.

We must seek a balance in our approach to the issue. We must confront firmly the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but without seeking confrontation with the peoples of India or Pakistan. Britain has a long history of close ties with both countries, and millions of people in Britain have community links with relatives throughout the sub-continent. Britain does not voice its dismay at the recent nuclear tests out of hostility, therefore. On the contrary, it is as a friend of both countries that Britain is appalled at the risks and costs to the peoples of the sub-continent of a nuclear arms race. I ask the whole House to show our united resolve in condemning the nuclear tests and in calling on the Governments of India and Pakistan to stop testing and start talking.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

The Foreign Secretary is, of course, right to emphasise the extreme seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves. Nuclear proliferation is one of the greatest dangers to face humanity as we move towards the millennium. When the Foreign Secretary last made a statement on the matter on 14 May, he urged the leaders of Pakistan to show restraint. I share his dismay at their actions since then, and at their failure to respond to his call.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that these events represent a definitive crisis for the international community and its policy towards non-proliferation? If the actions that he has identified do not have the consequences that he seeks, will not the approach thus far taken by the international community to the range of problems posed by non-proliferation have failed? Does not the failure of the consequences for India to which he referred to deter Pakistan suggest that the omens for the continuation of this policy are not good?

We wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to participate in a resolute response by the international community to this grave state of affairs, but I hope that he accepts that what has happened thus far in the sub-continent, to the dismay of those who are friends of both India and Pakistan, means that the task that he and his colleagues face is immensely serious.

Mr. Cook

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what I take as support for my statement. If we look back over the past decade, the history of nuclear non-proliferation is not one of failure. What is so depressing about the decision by India and Pakistan to proceed to nuclear tests is that, over recent years, a large number of countries have renounced the nuclear weapons path. The Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, emerging from under the Soviet Union, explicitly rejected the nuclear option and asked for removal of nuclear weapons. Brazil and Argentina have signed treaties that gave each other the confidence not to proceed to nuclear weapons. Throughout Latin America, countries that could have gone down that path have chosen not to do so. Perhaps most encouragingly of all, South Africa, with the change of Government and constitution, has dismantled its nuclear weapons programme.

The tragedy of India and Pakistan is that they are not going with the trend of the rest of the world but against it. For that reason, I would not at all dissent from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's description that this poses us with a critical challenge to the international response. It is up to us all to make sure that the international community rises to that challenge.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that to condemn the tests carried out by Pakistan is an especial duty for those of us who for many years have regarded ourselves as friends of Pakistan, and continue to do so? Is he further aware that the world now faces the greatest danger of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis, that such a war between India and Pakistan almost took place in 1994, and that there was a danger of a war only last week? Is he aware that the danger of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which would not be a regional war, will continue until Kashmir is solved between India and Pakistan? Will he therefore consult the United States Secretary of State, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and other people of good will actively to bring the parties together to prevent what otherwise will be a global catastrophe?

Mr. Cook

There has been no stouter friend of the people of Pakistan in the House than my right hon. Friend. His words therefore carry particular weight when he criticises this decision by the Government of Pakistan. I agree entirely with him and I said in my statement that the best way to build security for both countries is to tackle the source of tension between them. Any such meaningful dialogue, to be comprehensive, must include their disagreement over Kashmir. I agree that that must be part of the overall solution to the crisis. It is, of course, primarily for the parties concerned themselves to find the solution, but the search for it must now be all the more urgent, and a solution to the tensions over Kashmir would do far more for the security of both countries than 100 nuclear test programmes.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

There is nothing in the Foreign Secretary's statement with which I would disagree. I suspect that many hon. Members are in that position. Notwithstanding what he said in response to the shadow Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is it not the sad, harsh and incontrovertible fact that the efforts of the declared nuclear powers under the non-proliferation treaty to discourage nuclear proliferation have failed? The five declared nuclear members—who are, of course, the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations—have to take some responsibility for that failure, because they did not implement vigorously their responsibilities under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty.

Ten days ago, when I raised the question of the level of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent, the Foreign Secretary said that that was a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. Has he had time to reconsider that position? If we are to persuade India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and to become signatories to the comprehensive test ban treaty, should we not demonstrate some restraint ourselves? In that respect, will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm his Government's manifesto commitment to deploy no more warheads on the Trident nuclear missile system than there are on the Polaris system it replaces?

Mr. Cook

To repeat a point I made to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we have to keep in perspective any failure of the non-proliferation regime. After all, 150 countries have now signed the comprehensive test ban treaty and 180 countries have signed the non-proliferation treaty. It is India and Pakistan which are very much in the minority and on the margin of the international community, not the five permanent members of the Security Council, which have all played a leading part in negotiating those treaties.

As for the record of this Government, since coming to power we have withdrawn the free-fall bomb, the WE177, so there is now only one nuclear weapon system currently in deployment. In April, we, along with France, were the first countries among the nuclear weapon powers to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty. We are playing a leading part in Geneva in negotiating the fissile material cut-off treaty and we very energetically observe the moratorium on nuclear tests.

I said to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) last week, not that what became of the British nuclear deterrent was nothing to do with me, but that he had invited me to make a statement that would come best from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend will be making his own statement about the disposition of our nuclear forces come the response to the strategic defence review. When the hon. and learned Gentleman hears that, I think that he will find confirmation that our plans for nuclear arms control are both ambitious and practical.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

How seriously does my right hon. Friend take the danger that Pakistan might be tempted to use battlefield nuclear weapons first, using weapons technology given them by the Chinese and North Koreans, with the escalation that might follow from that, if, in any future armed conflict—he will know of the three armed conflicts since independence—the Pakistani armed forces were to be worsted because of the disparity in the armed forces of the two countries? What confidence-building measures does he envisage in the short term, especially in trying to get some form of hotline communication between the two countries?

Mr. Cook

Our objectives must be more ambitious than a hotline; in particular, we must put every possible pressure on both India and Pakistan to make sure that they do not proceed from tests of nuclear devices to deploying those devices as weapons in deliverable systems. My hon. Friend is right to say that there will be particular interest in those countries in battlefield nuclear weapons systems. Over the past few days, I have been dismayed to read what I think are dangerous analyses suggesting that the European experience can necessarily be replicated in south Asia, but if people want to learn from our experience, we in Europe took the deliberate decision to dismantle the theatre and battlefield systems first, precisely because they were the most dangerous systems and might have been used first. I therefore very much hope that that is not a line down which south Asia will now go.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the analysis of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that not only is this a most critical situation and the worst since the Cuban missile crisis, but there is a real risk that the events of the past week have given the impression that we might have been extremely close to nuclear conflict of some sort? At such a time, of such urgency and with such a need for leadership, is it not clear that there is not much question of where that leadership lies? This country has the presidency of the G8 and of the European Union, and a role in the Commonwealth. Should I read into what the right hon. Gentleman said about the meeting of the G8 and about opening a dialogue that an effort will be made to send, under this country's leadership, emissaries to both countries immediately to start negotiations and discussions? That could be done as well as withdrawing ambassadors and using conventional means, which, I understand, may be necessary in the protocol of such matters. Is it not now necessary to make a much greater impact in a very grave situation?

Mr. Cook

I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he does not disagree with our decision to recall our high commissioner for consultation. Not only is that a way of bringing home our concern, in Islamabad as in Delhi, but it is of practical benefit, in that it enables us to have the advantage of the experience and direct knowledge of those high commissioners.

On leadership, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the point of summoning the special meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers, as with that of the Foreign Ministers of the permanent five, is to consider how, together, we can re-strengthen dialogue with India and Pakistan and encourage dialogue between them. That will be at the centre of our discussions. As to the precise method by which we shall choose to pursue that—whether it is by special envoy, by inviting their representatives to meet us or by another method—we shall be considering that until those meetings take place. We are all seized of the critical importance of this matter, and the world must act together to respond to it.

Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath)

I concur with what my right hon. Friend has said and I, too, condemn the Pakistani Government's decision to conduct nuclear tests. I welcome his statement that until the main issues that separate India and Pakistan are resolved, there will never be peace in that region.

On Kashmir, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, in the past, bilateral discussions between Pakistan and India have not, sadly, achieved a resolution of the dispute? Does he agree that it is incumbent on him, at meetings of European Foreign Ministers and of the G8, and on Britain, as a member of the Security Council, to bring Kashmir to the top of the international agenda, because without a resolution there will, regrettably, never be peace between India and Pakistan?

Mr. Cook

The House will be aware that, conventionally, I am criticised for paying too much attention to Kashmir rather than for paying insufficient attention. I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but, ultimately, the solution to the problem of Kashmir can be found only with the concurrence of India and Pakistan. The countries that wish them well and organisations such as the G8 and the permanent five members of the Security Council, which are now exercised about the tension between India and Pakistan, might have a role to play, but that role is to encourage the two main parties to find the solution with which they can both live.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)

Will the Foreign Secretary consider examining the number of military students in Britain who are from Pakistan and India—he will find that there are quite a number of them—and whether it continues to be appropriate for them to undergo military training in this country? Secondly, will he consider following the model used in the discussions between the Palestinians and the Israelis, whereby a country that is quite dissociated from the area, such as Norway or Sweden, could take on a role that may be appropriated by the G8 to oversee a series of talks that would go on until they came to a conclusion?

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman's latter point will certainly be under examination when we meet. The role of mediator may not be appropriate, but perhaps there will be a role for a facilitator.

On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I shall consider what he said and inquire about the numbers of such students. As I have said, we have already acted to stop high-level military contacts and we are being particularly vigilant about any contact with nuclear scientists from either country. I would not necessarily wish to rupture the ties to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We can resolve the situation only by reducing the tension through dialogue between those countries. We need to achieve the right balance between conveying our dismay at the decisions and promoting our contact with the countries, to avoid creating a sense of isolation and to encourage them to be drawn into, not to shy away from, the obligations of the international community.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall)

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, it is the moral duty of the five big powers to reduce their stockpiles of dangerous weapons to a level that encourages India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty? Does he further agree that countries such as China and America have in different ways helped Pakistan to develop its nuclear technology and that that has been a folly in American foreign policy?

Mr. Cook

Of course I would agree with my hon. Friend that the permanent powers, which happen also to be the nuclear weapon powers, have a special obligation under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. As it happens, Britain has reduced its nuclear stockpile within the past 12 months. Much more progress would have been made if the START 2 treaty had not been blocked in the Duma. I hope that a healthy consequence of the current international anxiety over south Asia will be to prompt some rethinking in the Duma as to whether it is doing its best for Russia's interests by blocking the progress of that treaty.

On the question of collaboration with Pakistan, America has been vigilant over recent years in its relations with Pakistan. There are obvious links between Pakistan and China, but if India reflects on the Chinese reaction to the nuclear test programme, it will realise that it is difficult for anybody in India to convince himself that he now has greater security in relation to China than he had before. Relations with China are now at a 20-year all-time low.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

I am sure that the Secretary of State realises that more than half of the world's poorest people live in India and Pakistan and that 5 million people suffer from AIDS in the Indian sub-continent, where the epidemic is totally out of control. Nearly 1,000 people died recently, simply from the effects of drought. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an obscene recent example of countries not getting their priorities right? How can he make his ethical foreign policy work without jeopardising the poor in those countries?

Mr. Cook

I have to say bluntly to the hon. Lady that there is no way in which we can impose any form of economic sanctions without having an impact on some of the poorest at the margins of those societies. Of course that is one of the guiding principles that we are trying to apply, to make sure that we soften the impact as much as we can. That is why we do not propose, unlike some other countries, to withdraw our aid programme and why we are trying to target measures, such as reviewing trade preferences, in ways that may make some senior business men recognise that perhaps they should speak to senior politicians about the effect of the nuclear test programme. I cannot deny that if those measures were put into effect, they would worsen India's economic position and, therefore, that of its poorest people.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about mistaken priorities. One of the great ironies of the Indian nuclear test programme is that on the day that the tests were greeted with demonstrations of support in the streets, there were riots resulting in the smashing of electricity sub-stations because of dissatisfaction with the poor quality of India's electricity grid.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

May I welcome my right hon. Friend's desire to promote discussions between India and Pakistan? I do not think that the process will be helped in any way if we introduce measures that will penalise either India or Pakistan. Such a process would be totally counter-productive. Given our special relationship with the peoples of those two countries, our function is to get in there, using friendships that have been built up over many generations, and ensure that they sign the necessary treaties as soon as possible.

Mr. Cook

I have great sympathy with the objective that my hon. Friend mentions, and I sought to make it clear in my statement that we are giving a balanced response that seeks to bring home our concern about the nuclear tests, but not to drive the peoples of those countries into a sense of isolation that might encourage them to support their Governments in the steps that they have taken rather than to be critical of them. Therefore, I am very conscious of the point that my hon. Friend makes, but if we do nothing, there is a real danger that the wrong lesson will be taken—that we do not really care about the fact that those countries have broken the world's non-proliferation regime. That is why it is important that we act in a way that cannot be portrayed as hostile to the peoples of those countries, but which brings it home to their Governments that we view this serious step with the greatest gravity.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that no hon. Member could have any quarrel with anything in his statement—indeed, we support all of it—but I suspect that he will also understand that everyone here is concerned that there should be some movement towards resolution of the issues that divide India and Pakistan and that, of all the countries in the world, neither Pakistan nor India has a better friend than the United Kingdom.

What we should like to hear is this. Of course the work that is done in the G8, the Security Council of the United Nations and the European Union is invaluable, but the UK, as the best friend of India and Pakistan, has a particular role. It would be interesting to hear whether the Foreign Secretary is prepared to signal to both India and Pakistan that quietly we are always willing to help to act as a facilitator, if India and Pakistan ever felt that that would be helpful. As has been said, the experience has been that it is only when a facilitator has been prepared to help that India and Pakistan have made any great progress. Of course, these matters have to be resolved between the two of them bilaterally, but they need help, and the UK is in a unique position to offer such help.

Mr. Cook

I have said to both countries that Britain is willing to offer its good offices if both countries are willing to accept them. Some of the recent statements of support for that view would have been welcome at the time that I expressed it, but the offer is on the table and I welcome the fact that there is now increasing recognition of the importance of the issue and of the need for action to tackle it, particularly by the two parties concerned.

Of course, Britain, with long historical and close community ties, is well placed as a friend of both countries, but with that friendship and understanding, perhaps the best role that we can play is to ensure that the international community also understands those countries and acts with us in a way that helps to produce a solution and to reduce tension between them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it gives those of us who marched the streets from Aldermaston to Hyde park and elsewhere, to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament, no comfort to know that the nightmare scenario that we talked about at that time has come about? Does he appreciate that the sad thing is that Britain does not have the same moral authority as many other countries that do not have nuclear weapons? Will he take a suggestion from me not to call on people in America, Russia and other countries that possess the bomb to intercede? Perhaps the best person to do the job would be Nelson Mandela, the President of South Africa, which has renounced nuclear weapons. He could take charge of some kind of mission to intercede on behalf of the big powers, because he commands more moral authority in this affair than we do.

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend speaks with great consistency. However, I do not think that Britain can be accused of speaking falsely on this issue. We do, after all, have the capacity to carry out nuclear tests. We have chosen not to do so. It would have been better for south Asia if both India and Pakistan had shown the same restraint.

My hon. Friend is right that South Africa's international stature and respect have grown immensely because it renounced its nuclear weapons and wound down its nuclear weapons programme. That may make it an acceptable interlocutor with India and Pakistan, but I hope that the Governments of both those countries will reflect on the fact that they, too, could have gained the same respect that South Africa now commands if they had shown the same restraint and the same responsible approach to nuclear weapons programmes.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

May I inject less of a doomsday scenario into the discussion? I remind the Foreign Secretary that he, like me, is old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. I respectfully suggest to him that comparisons between that incredibly tense situation and what is happening now are overblown hoo-hah. May I also remind him that two years later, in 1964, the Chinese acquired the bomb and first exploded it? At that time, there was an hysterical reaction and people said that it would lead to an uncontrollable arms race and to disaster, but it did not. May I finally suggest that it was inevitable that, once India had exploded its bomb, Pakistan would do likewise? Their actions will not be affected by empty moral gestures by Labour Back Benchers or by a Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman suggesting that the explosion of such weapons has something to do with the number of Trident warheads held by the British.

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman obviously believes in the theory that nuclear weapons at all times and in all places are a good thing. It is not clear to me from what he said where exactly he would draw the line or who he would suggest should not have nuclear weapons. The responsible attitude—which was also taken by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—is to seek to prevent the proliferation and escalation of nuclear weapons.

I am not sure that I take it kindly to be reminded that I am old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, but I remember it very well and how glad we were when it was all over. I would not wish to visit such a hair-trigger situation on the peoples of south Asia, and I hope that we can avert such a crisis.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

When my right hon. Friend visited India and offered to mediate, he was absolutely right about the issue of Kashmir, despite what some of his critics have said. He is right now to say that that is the root of the problem between India and Pakistan. A strong body of opinion believes that a free and independent Kashmir would perhaps be the answer. Would he consider raising the issue of a plebiscite, so that the people of Kashmir can say what they want?

Mr. Cook

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind words. The matter that she raises is the one issue which could unite Delhi and Islamabad, because neither is enthusiastic about an independent Kashmir. We have consistently taken the view that, to be just, the solution must be acceptable to all the peoples of Kashmir—Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. Finding a solution that would be acceptable to all is a difficult task. Many of them will have a different view of where their future lies. They must be involved in finding a solution, and it must be acceptable to them.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain's primary role as a good friend of both India and Pakistan is to urge restraint? Such restraint would be much more likely if a potential solution to the Kashmir problem could be found. This problem has existed since 1947: three wars have been fought and more than 1 million people have been killed. Is it not high time that Britain and America exercised some real leadership and sought a Security Council initiative to determine whether a solution to the problem of Kashmir is forthcoming? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that merely adopting the position of meaningful dialogue between the two countries is no longer acceptable?

Mr. Cook

The hon. Gentleman highlights one of the ironies of India's actions. For 30 years, India has sought to prevent Kashmir from being an issue provoking international attention, but its nuclear test programme has achieved what has been the objective of its policy to prevent for all that time. As to the hon. Gentleman urging us to be more proactive on Kashmir, I repeat to the House that our offer of good offices and to work with other countries and multilateral organisations to find those good offices is on the table if both parties are willing to participate. However, when I last made that offer, I do not recall his congratulating me on it. Those who now recognise the gravity of the situation in Kashmir should perhaps reflect on how much humbug they spoke last autumn when I raised the matter.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary Pakistan group and as a friend of India, although I understand the pressure on Pakistan to carry out nuclear tests following the tests by India, I believe that Pakistan's decision is regrettable and should be condemned. I strongly support my right hon. Friend in that respect. Unless we solve the tensions that simmer between those two countries, I fear that there will be a fourth war between them. Whether it is nuclear or non-nuclear, it will solve nothing.

I respect my right hon. Friend's views, and I completely understand that India and Pakistan must take the lead on the Kashmir issue, but we still need to spell out to them, time and again, that the only way to unblock the logjam is to get those two countries to sit down at a table and sort out the problem.

Mr. Cook

I agree absolutely: a solution can be found only with the co-operation of the two parties. That is why any willingness to help from outside must proceed with their agreement. But we would urge India and Pakistan to find a solution consistent with their own agreement at Simla and with the UN resolutions.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

While I agree with the condemnation of India and Pakistan, does the Foreign Secretary agree, after many years of the covert development of nuclear weapons by both countries, that there are now overtly seven nuclear weapons states? Is it not time that the five members of the Security Council called an urgent meeting with those two overt nuclear weapons states to discuss what they and some other countries have hitherto regarded as unfair and discriminatory treaties? I do not accept that argument, but it is used by India in particular. In that way, we can ensure that the process is not extended to the middle east and elsewhere.

Mr. Cook

I, too, reject the argument that my hon. Friend has outlined. The non-proliferation treaty has been signed by 180 countries, and it is difficult credibly to argue that it is an unequal treaty, when nearly every country in the world, with the exception of a few such as India and Pakistan, has signed up to it.

As for inviting the two countries to sit down with the five nuclear weapons powers as new nuclear weapons powers, I would urge extreme caution. In the wake of the tests, we must be careful not to appear to reward those countries for carrying them out. If we did so, I fear that that would encourage other countries to follow suit, secure in the knowledge that there was a precedent for them, too, to be treated as de facto nuclear powers.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I speak as a friend of Pakistan with thousands of Kashmiris in my constituency. Is it not sick madness when a country such as Pakistan, 70 per cent. of whose population is illiterate, spends 25 per cent. of its national budget on defence? Should not that be unreservedly condemned?

When the button was pressed last Thursday evening, I was speaking in my constituency to a reception held by the Kashmir Welfare Association, where my message was the same. Many of my Kashmiri constituents, moreover, were very exercised by the line put out by the Pakistan authorities on Thursday as a pretext for the explosion—that the Indian Government were at that moment preparing to launch an attack on Pakistan's nuclear installations. Does the Foreign Secretary have any intelligence to confirm or reject that?

Mr. Cook

If I had, it would be most unwise of me to share it with the House. I notice that the Indian Government have denied any such intentions, and I have no reason to doubt their word on that.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks; I know his constituency and his constituents, and I know that he speaks with genuine affection and concern for the peoples of Pakistan. It is deeply tragic that a country where combating illiteracy should be a real national priority carries a defence budget that so greatly outstrips its education budget.