§ 3.50 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT)My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to repeat a Statement Which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will know, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed by an overwhelming majority on the 12th of June a resolution commending the draft Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons which had been prepared by the Eighteen Nations Disarmament Committee and requesting that it be opened for signature and ratification at the earliest possible date. I hope that the Treaty will be opened for signature very soon.
"The Treaty contains provisions aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to those States which do not now possess them, for safeguards to ensure that nuclear material provided for peaceful purposes is not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, and for the potential benefits of any peaceful applications of nuclear explosives to be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty. Finally, parties to the Treaty undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on further measures of disarmament.
"The Treaty in its present form is the fruit of long and arduous negotiations, in which the United Kingdom was able to play a major part, and Her Majesty's Government believe that the Treaty is the most important and substantial measure of disarmament and arms control that has yet been achieved, and that it is the first essential step in achieving the end of the nuclear arms race and significant progress on the road to general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
"A connected question is that of security assurances to meet the con- 712 cern of some non-nuclear-weapon States about their security if they renounce the option of acquiring nuclear weapons under the Treaty. The three nuclear Powers who have taken part in these negotiations, the United States, the Soviet Union and ourselves, have therefore jointly put forward proposals for security assurances, in the form of a draft Security Council resolution to be supported by individual declarations. These proposals, which envisage immediate Security Council action in the event of a nuclear threat or nuclear aggression against a non-nuclear State, are at present being considered by the Security Council."
That, my Lords, is the end of the Statement.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, and I should like to say that my gratitude is more than a formality since it gives me the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on the active and distinguished part which he has played in these protracted negotiations. As your Lordships may possibly recall, we on these Benches do not necessarily approve of all the activities of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations. Be that as it may, I believe that this Treaty, albeit only a step, is indeed a step and an important one in the direction of nuclear sanity, and I think that all those concerned are to be congratulated on it.
There are, of course, a great number of issues raised by this Treaty which could perhaps better be explored by way of debate than by way of question and answer. May I meanwhile put three questions to the noble Lord? First, can he tell us what nations voted against or abstained in the vote on the relevant resolution? If that involves a lengthy list, could he make it available to us in some other form? Secondly, can he say anything about the position of the fourth and the fifth nuclear Powers in the world, France and China. Thirdly, can he tell us anything more about the position of those non-nuclear States who are concerned about their security, which has been one of the most difficult aspects of these negotiations? In that respect, since it is so important, would it be possible, if it has not already been done, 713 to make the draft Security Council resolution available to us, perhaps in the Printed Paper Office?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, may I reply to the noble Earl. He has asked three specific questions. First of all, may I say how grateful I am to him for his remarks about the role played by Her Majesty's Government in this matter, and I shall take care to pass on his remarks to the Minister, of State now responsible for disarmament matters. So far as the specific questions are concerned, I can quite briefly give the voting figures. In the General Assembly there were 95 votes in favour of the Resolution; there were four against. These were Albania, Cuba, Tanzania and Zambia. There were 21 abstentions. The abstentions were 12 African countries, which I shall not name in detail, and then there were Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burma, France, India, Portugal, Spain and Saudi Arabia.
So far as the other nuclear countries are concerned, the French representative explained before the vote in the General Assembly that France did not want to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that although for specific reasons of French foreign policy she would not sign the non-proliferation Treaty, she would in fact behave in the same way as States that did sign the Treaty. The Chinese will not sign the Treaty, and we have seen reports, which I have every reason to believe are authentic, that they have denounced the Treaty and have no intention of signing it.
As to those non-nuclear countries who are concerned about their security, there is the resolution now in front of the Security Council the effect of which will be that the nuclear countries that are signatories to the Treaty will provide —I am not using legal language now but the general effect of this will be—guarantees of the security of the non-nuclear countries against the threat of aggression, or aggression by nuclear countries from outside. If this is successful, then I think that the non-nuclear countries concerned will have a reasonable assurance of security against aggression even though they are signatories to the non-proliferation Treaty.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, may I, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches, associate ourselves with the 714 congratulations extended by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to the noble Lord for the great part which he has played in the achievement of this Treaty, which I need hardly say we are among the first to welcome. May I just ask him two supplementary questions. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether the Treaty embodies anything equivalent to what I think has been called "a European clause": in other words, a clause enabling any European authority that may be born in the future to possess nuclear weapons if it so desires? The second question is what is the general attitude of Western Germany, the Bundes Republik, towards this Treaty?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, may I say again how grateful I am to the noble Lord for his remarks. So far as his specific questions are concerned, the so-called European clause in this Treaty, as I understand it, does not rule out the possibility or any of the possibilities that are implicit in the formation perhaps in the distant future, of a European political entity, and all the implications that go along with that. As I understand it, the Treaty does not rule that out, although it does rule out the possibility of the proliferation of nuclear weapons inside Europe in any situation falling short of that.
The position of the Federal Republic of Germany is one about which I should not like at the moment to be too specific. Certainly they have taken a very great interest in this Treaty, and Her Majesty's Government have every hope and confidence that the Federal Republic in the event, be signatories of the Treaty.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, as one who has watched very closely the long and protracted negotiations that have taken place resulting in the achievement of this Treaty, I associate myself with the congratulations which I think are justly given to Her Majesty's Government for the conspicuous part they have played in these negotiations. World not my noble friend agree that it is another example of the value of negotiations, and that, apart altogether from differences over methods with regard to the vexed Rhodesian problem, it is another example of the value of talk, and talk, and talk, with a view to arriving at an agreed settlement one day?
715 Secondly, may I ask whether he would share my optimism that there is now a distinct possibility of moving forward, not only in the direction of general disarmament but in the particular sphere of nuclear experiment, and that it may be possible in the near future to obtain an agreement prohibiting underground nuclear explosions?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I again thank my noble friend for his remarks. As to his specific questions, I agree that this again shows the value of the civilised method of negotiating with people rather than shouting at them from a distance. The negotiations at Geneva have been, as he has said, long, protracted, highly technical and complicated; they have needed great patience and have required Her Majesty's Government to endure almost endless frustrations. I say this, not only on behalf of the present Government but on behalf of our predecessors, who, if I may say so, were as committed to this idea as we have been. This shows the value of a long, protracted and patient negotiation conducted by successive Governments of different political complexions. In regard to the second part of the question, I share the optimism of my noble friend that this will he a step towards further measures of disarmament; and I particularly hope that it will be a step towards the establishment and conclusion of a comprehensive test ban which will extend the Moscow Test Ban Treaty to cover explosions in all environments.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Treaty would extend considerably our personal responsibilities in regard to security over the world, or whether the operation of security clauses would come into operation only when the United States and the Soviet Union are in agreement?
§ LORD CHALFONTNo, my Lords. I do not think this can be said to extend our own individual national responsibility for world security or world policing. What it does in fact is to place this, as we have always believed it should be placed, in the context of the Security Council of the United Nations, of which the Soviet Union and the United States are members. I should like to regard this not so much as a guarantee by the nuclear 716 Powers, as a guarantee by the Security Council of the United Nations.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the very fair answer he gave to my specific questions. I also asked him whether it might be possible, in view of its importance, to make available in the Printed Paper Office the text of the draft Security Council resolution. I do not know whether that is possible.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I see no difficulty about this. I apologise for not having answered that question, and I will set about it at once.