§ 2.44 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new treaty of friendship between the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic is consistent with the letter and spirit of the agreement reached in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in recognising East Germany's unfettered right to self-determination and the pursuit of independent domestic and foreign policies; and whether it conflicts in any way with four-Power rights and responsibilities in Germany as a whole.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)My Lords, the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic are signatories to the Final Act of the CSCE. It is the task of each individual participating State to ensure that its bilateral treaties and agreements are compatible with that Final Act and, as the Act itself makes clear, to respect and put into practice the principles guiding their mutual relations with all other participating States, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems. As for quadripartite rights and responsibilities, the three Powers made it clear in a statement issued in Bonn on 14th October by the British, United States and French Embassies that these can in no way be affected by any treaty concluded by any of the Four Powers with a third State. I am arranging for a copy of that statement to be made available in the Library of this House.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, with respect, I very much regret that the noble Lord has not answered the main part of my Question, so may I please put it to him in another way? Is it not disturbing to Her Majesty's Government that, so hard on the heels of the signature of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference, the Soviet Union should not only cynically reiterate the Brezhnev doctrine, but should even go quite a long way beyond the position which they took up in 1968, when they sought to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, with all due respect to the noble Lord, who always speaks with knowledge and great thoughtfulness on these rather sensitive matters, I am bound to say that perhaps that is an exparte judgment. I suggest that we wait a little longer to see how the implementation of the CSCE, in this particular as in others, proceeds. I need not remind the noble Lord and the House that we are watching the situation very closely indeed. I repeat that we expect all signatories of the Helsinki agreements to honour their signatures ill practice. We shall seek proof of genuine implementation by the 35 countries, without exception, who affixed their signatures to this hopeful agreement.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware, after the 30 years that this State has been in existence, of the impracticability in German 1667 politics of ever having a united Germany? Is it not nonsense now to refuse to recognise Eastern Germany as a State, and bring it within the community of nations?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we have in fact recognised the German Democratic Republic, as we have recognised the Federal Republic of Germany. We have taken the sensible and practical view that my noble friend, as I would expect, has supported. Beyond that, we make no exception among all the other 35 signatories of this agreement as to implementation. We are examining how much more we need to do than is our historic practice to implement these agreements, and we therefore have every right, historically and perspectively, to expect all the other signatories to live up to their signatures.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, while taking note of the Minister's interesting information regarding the note of the three Powers the other day, can he kindly inform the House whether or not this Treaty is in conflict with the quadripartite agreement of 1971 concerning Berlin?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we do not see that it is. It makes no reference to the quadripartite agreement and we assume, because of that lack of reference, that the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic accept the position in regard to the rights and responsibilities which emanated from the conditions at the end of the Second World War applying to all four Powers engaged in the quadripartite agreement. Put more concisely, we do not see in this Treaty an assertion of change in the quadripartite agreement and, if there were, we should most strongly resist it.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, if words have not lost their meaning, may I ask the noble Lord what possible interpretation can be put on the preamble to the treaty and on articles 1, 4 and 9, other than that the Soviet Union is still claiming the right to intervene, by force if necessary, to keep their minions in power in the 1668 formerly independent countries of Eastern and Central Europe?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that is an interpretation, as I have said, for which I have every respect. However, if one examines the terms of this treaty closely one sees that, while it refers to other countries within the Eastern Zone, it also explicitly refers to agreements between the Soviet Union and the GDR. It is early days to decide whether this treaty is incompatible with CSCE. I think I ought to add that CSCE, as has been abundantly pointed out from all quarters of the House, is not a legal instrument; it is a political agreement. For that reason, the question of implementation and of retrospective revision as to performance is all-important. I would caution a little less haste in assessing the relationship of this treaty and the terms of CSCE at the present time.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is there not a contradiction in the assertion which we have just heard from my noble friend? Is it not a principle well established in the United Kingdom, a principle that has been in operation for many years and a principle that remains, that we do not recognise the use of force by one country over another or, if force is not actually used, control over another country established by virtue of the force that can be utilised as and when it is regarded as necessary? Therefore, are we not violating the principle by not asking the United Nations to express an opinion on the relationship between the Soviet Union and the GDR?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, we are not violating any principle that has been laid down in CSCE, because we arc implementing CSCE. It remains to be seen whether all countries will, like us, implement CSCE to the fullest possible extent. As to referring this matter to the United Nations, I doubt very much whether it could effectually be so referred, in view of the fact that one is faced with the ostensible fact of two willing partners reaching an agreement.