§ 4. Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)What discussions he has had with his (a) Russian and (b) European counterparts since the US Administration decision to withdraw from the ABMT; and if he will make a statement. [31894]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)I last discussed missile defence with my European counterparts at the NATO Defence Ministers meetings on 18 December, and with the Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, during his visit to London on 20 December. The future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty is essentially a bilateral issue for the United States and Russia. We welcome the fact that they are continuing to work together to establish a new strategic framework based on openness and mutual trust.
§ Mr. ClaphamDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the difference in view between Europe and America comes about because American military strategists have placed too great an emphasis on the capabilities of their perceived enemies, and have not considered intentions or the fact that diplomacy can reduce the risk, whereas the Europeans look towards a more constructive engagement? When he next meets his American counterparts, will my right hon. Friend convey to them the European view and make it clear that although there is a place for smart bombs, smart diplomacy is much more important in creating world peace?
§ Mr. HoonI do not accept my hon. Friend's over-neat division between a so-called European view and an American view, not least because President Bush has made it clear, for example, that he wants the United States' friends and allies to be protected against the ballistic missile threat. That implies that the distinction between Europe and the United States is not as my hon. Friend might suggest. Clearly, differences of emphasis exist, as they do between all members of NATO. Each country looks at these questions in the light of its national interest, as it should. Equally, I find that there is a remarkable unanimity of purpose among NATO allies when these issues are discussed.
§ Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)The Secretary of State will recall that, 18 months ago, in response to a Foreign Affairs Committee report on weapons of mass destruction, the Government said that they believed in preserving the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Since then, the United States President has said officially that he will withdraw from that treaty. What is the Government's position now?
§ Mr. HoonI have set out the Government's position, which is that this is essentially a matter for the United States and Russia. At the time of the Select Committee's report, the United Kingdom's position was that we saw 10 some value in continuing the treaty. However, we recognise that it is up to the parties to the treaty to determine whether it has a role. What they have decided, which we very much welcome, is that there needs to be a new strategic framework, which the United States and Russia continue to discuss. We greatly welcomed and supported those discussions.
§ Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)In October 2000, the Government said that they
value the stability which the ABM treaty provides and wish to see it preserved".Last week, the Foreign Secretary dismissed the treaty as a 30-year-old "product of its time." Have the Government officially published their reasons for that complete reversal of policy, or, to use the Minister for Europe's phrase, is this a case of us being "a patsy" for the United States?
§ Mr. HoonI am sorry that my hon. Friend sees the world in such stark terms. Clearly, the world moves on and events require us to think through the policy implications of those changes. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his speech at King's college last week. He said that
we have to be open to new thinking. And this spirit informs our approach to Missile Defence…This treaty was a product of its time…But the world has changed.I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not appear to recognise that.
§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)The Secretary of State says at one moment that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is purely a matter for the two Governments concerned. The next minute, when reminded by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), he suddenly says, "Oh no. That is quite incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary changed that policy last week in his speech at King's college." However, the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, was asked at his daily press briefing on Friday:
Do you have any reaction to the comments of Jack Straw?Mr. Rumsfeld replied:Oh, I know who he is.At which point, his staff said, "Time to go, sir." Clearly, the Foreign Secretary's speech had little effect in America and, apparently, little effect here.Will the Secretary of State not accept that, in addition to the Foreign Secretary saying that the anti-ballistic missile treaty had had its day, he went on to say that he thought there was room, without question, for ballistic missile defence? Does that not constitute a fundamental change of policy by the Labour Government? Is it not proof that they are moving increasingly to what my right hon. Friend Iain Duncan Smith—[Interruption.] I am sorry. Are they not moving to what my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party said some time ago? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House, in words of one syllable, whether he supports the United States development of ballistic missile defence?
§ Mr. HoonI am pleased that the hon. Gentleman appears to know the name of his leader.
11 What my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said is something that I have said at the Dispatch Box at every Defence Question Time that I have done: missile defence could have a role to play as part of a comprehensive strategy to tackle the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The Government have said that consistently, and will continue to do so.