§ 3.46 p.m.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on my visits last week to Washington for the North Atlantic Council meeting, and to New York to address the UN Special Session on Disarmament. Copies of the NATO communiqué (with accompanying documents on the NATO study of East/West relations, and on the Long-Term Defence Programme) and of my speech to the UN, have been placed in the Library.
"The North Atlantic Council meeting took place against a background of concern about world economic problems and about the state of East/West relations. There was agreement that the strength of our defence in NATO is related to the strength of our economies, and on the need for the major industrial nations at the forthcoming summit at Bonn to stimulate economic recovery.
"Our discussion of East/West relations was based on a study undertaken since our meeting in London last year. The communiqué makes clear that we remain determined
to pursue as constructive and positive a relationship as possible with the Soviet Union and the other East European countries".We discussed the reasons for the decline in confidence since the Helsinki Conference in 1975. Among them are human rights and the unacceptability of continued Soviet and Cuban exploitation of particular factors of instability 1085 in Africa. I expressed my appreciation of the humanitarian operation which the French and Belgian Governments undertook to safeguard the lives of their and our citizens in the Shaba province of Zaire. But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa. Instead, we emphasised that situations of instability and regional conflict in the developing world should not be viewed exclusively in an East/West context, and we reaffirmed the importance we attached to encouraging peaceful settlements through negotiation by the countries and regional organisations themselves."In response to the unremitting growth in Soviet military capability, the allied leaders endorsed the results of work on the Long-Term Defence Programme which they had commissioned following President Carter's initiative at their London meeting a year ago. The Alliance now has a clear guide to the improvements on which its members should concentrate and co-operate in defence plans for the years ahead. In our own case, the Government's decision, in line with others, to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. in real terms in each of the next two years, enables us to play our full part in this programme, which should lead to greater co-operation in research and production between the allies.
"I emphasised that both our security and good economic sense give us the strongest interest in controlling increases in armaments and securing a measure of disarmament. The NATO countries are committed to following this approach. But progress depends on a positive attitude on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries. In this connection I proposed, and it was agreed, that we should be ready to give renewed political impetus to the MBFR negotiations by lifting these long drawn out negotiations to Foreign Minister level at an appropriate moment. It was also agreed, on my suggestion, that we should make fuller use of the Alliance machinery for consultation on arms control and disarmament issues. This will be valuable as a means of following up the results of the UN Special Session on Disarmament.
1086 "In my speech to the United Nations I made clear that so long as it is necessary to strengthen our defences in the Alliance we shall do so. But we should prefer and will work for maintaining security at diminishing levels of armed force by means of multilateral, balanced and verified agreements on arms control. We also need—and this can be done straightaway—greater restraint by Governments in the use of armed force as an instrument of foreign policy.
"I emphasised the need for renewed effort to bring existing negotiations to successful conclusions.
"As an earnest of our own intentions I was able to tell the Assembly that in the interests of achieving early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty we were ready to put forward new proposals in the tripartite negotiations in Geneva. In my view these should open up the way to rapid progress on the outstanding issues. I stressed the central importance of a SALT II agreement if the world is to be saved from the risks of an uncontrolled nuclear arms race. I believe such an agreement can be reached.
"I also gave an outline of the new initiatives which the Government consider could be taken. These include the provision, with other nuclear Powers, of far-reaching and permanent assurances to the non-nuclear States that nuclear weapons will not be used against them; the establishment of further nuclear weapon-free zones; the encouragement of those States which prefer not to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to accept full-scale safeguards on their nuclear facilities; and how to work towards restraint of nuclear armouries in Europe.
"I also put forward suggestions for improving the control of conventional armaments and for increasing regional security by such means as the further exchange of information and of observers, and technical means of surveillance; agreement on restricting conventional arms sales; and a United Nations study covering the problems of peace-keeping and of converting arms production facilities to civil purposes.
"Through these and other specific practical steps the members of the 1087 UN could put into effect a Programme of Action on which we should be called to account at a further Special Session which, I suggested, should take place in 1981. I found a wide measure of support for this approach, and not only from close friends and allies. Our delegation to the Special Session will now work to achieve a consensus on a final document which will mark our commitment, state our objectives and provide machinery for achieving a safer world."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ 3.55 p.m.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. I think all your Lordships who have read the Prime Minister's speech will welcome what he said to NATO. It sounded fine: I hope it was not just words. It is too easy to make fine speeches, and even easier to do nothing about it. But, my Lords, even if the Government spend 3 per cent. more on defence—and we shall look very carefully to see whether this is a genuine increase—they have a long way to go before we get back to the defence capabilities which this country had under a Conservative Government. Still, the sinner or the sinners opposite seem to be repenting, and that is something.
My Lords, so far as the Special Session on Disarmament is concerned. I think some small progress can be made, and I think we ought to welcome small progress. But do not let us assume that anything really significant can emerge from a session of this kind unless confidence and trust is created between the super-Powers and the two military treaty organisations; and it is, after all, ironic to notice, should anybody doubt what I have said, that the Prime Minister, in the week that he addressed the disarmament conference, made a point of reiterating that we were going to spend 3 per cent. more in real terms on defence. Of course, my Lords, no such confidence or trust is possible at the moment. We have only to look and see what is happening in Africa, and at the overt effort of the Soviet Union and Cuba to disrupt and to make trouble. We on these Benches have been warning 1088 of this for some time, and some of us have been particularly worried about some of the attitudes of the American Administration. I think it was a great pity that the Prime Minister should have spoken in what appeared to be such patronising terms about "new Christopher Columbuses" when Mr. Young, for the first time, has accepted, not that Cuba is a stabilising influence in Angola but is a real damage and danger to stability in the area as a whole. I think the Prime Minister was most unwise in what at any rate he appeared to say.
It may well be, as the Statement says, strictly speaking, that NATO is not going to be concerned and has no intention of being concerned with Africa; but if the West (and that, broadly speaking, is NATO) is going to ignore what happens in Africa, then I despair of its will or its ability to survive—and, thank goodness! there is someone in the West who has the courage to act. I applaud President Giscard d'Estaing for what he did. I hope very much that the Prime Minister did not mean what he appeared to say, and that he and the Government really do understand the importance of what is happening in Africa and are prepared to help to do something about it.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, speaking for those on these Benches I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this important, if to my mind slightly complacent, Statement. I have two questions to ask the Government. In the first place, I would not wish to give the impression of being at all defeatist, hut would the Government not agree that no real progress is likely to be achieved in the present disarmament talks unless there is some prior progress in SALT and, more especially, some change in the Soviet policy in Vienna on MBFR? For, if there is no progress here, will it not be inevitable that the two super-Powers will continue arming their various satellites?—in other words, that the wretched arms race will inevitably continue.
My second question is this. Do the Government believe that, pending some real progress in the establishment of what I would call a convincing Western conventional defensive system in Europe, the only way that NATO can, if necessary, 1089 defend itself successfully is by the first use of nuclear weapons, with all the appalling risks that that would of course involve? But if they have any doubts about this, would they think that an eventual East/West struggle, which we cannot dismiss as impossible, not involving the use of nuclear weapons is at least conceivable? If it is conceivable, is not this rather a compelling reason for pressing on with some common Community defence procurement policy within the framework of the North Atlantic Alliance?
§ 4.1 p.m.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who responded to this repeated Statement. Once more, I admired Lord Carrington's facility in damning with very faint praise what I regard as a very fine statement indeed of a very great achievement by our Prime Minister. It is a fact that his statement was received in a packed assembly hall with prolonged applause and practically universal agreement, not confined to our friends and allies but extending, very importantly, to the nonaligned neutrals and even into the ranks of the Eastern totalitarian countries. In that sense, I think that our Prime Minister has rendered a signal service not only to his country but to the cause of democracy.
The noble Lord referred to the question of words and then proceeded to prove that the words mean deeds when he referred to the genuine increase of 3 per cent. in real terms. This is the proof of the words. I agree with him, however, that confidence is of the essence and there must be confidence and, therefore, a feeling of balanced security, above all, between the two super-Powers. My right honourable friend said in his Statement that he expects that an agreement on SALT II will come about. I am delighted that he has used those words. Naturally, it is a point of anxiety among us all that the two super-Powers should come to an agreement on that vital point. I will not engage in any reference to my right honourable friend's friendly badinage about Christopher Columbus. All I will say is that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister so fortified the relationship between this country and North America during the period in which he has been Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister that that fortified alliance is well able to bear an occasional joke or two.
1090 In the first debate in which I engaged when I joined your Lordships' House, I tried to explain to your Lordships that as a consequence of the foreign policy conducted by another Party over the previous few years our relationship with the United States was not permanently imperilled. Nobody can make such a remark today, and the credit for that accrues mostly to Mr. James Callaghan. The noble Lord also referred to the question of ignoring Africa. Whoever thought of such a thing? We are profoundly involved in Africa. I take his point that NATO is not as involved as is this country. However, he will know that the Paris talks yesterday reputedly have resulted in a consensus as to policy for the future and, surely, we must all hope that the democracies of the West will, on the basis of those talks, be able to move together, and helpfully, in Africa. There is no question of ignoring Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rightly stressed that prior progress in SALT and MBFR, the talks in Vienna on conventional arms, are vital to the success of any move towards disarmament. This is very much a basis of my right honourable friend's Statement. He has expressed cautious optimism about the results of the SALT II talks. There are perhaps bases for optimism, equally cautious, about developments in Vienna in the talks on Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction. I believe that in the next few months, particularly if there is agreement about raising these talks to Foreign Minister level, we may see advances.
This takes me to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made. Indeed, if we can achieve something like a symmetical relationship of conventional forces in Europe—which after all is the major point of concentration of conventional and other forces—the climate for further advances in the grey areas, as they are called, the neo-nuclear and nuclear areas, will be clearly improved. I take both points. I do not think I am in any profound disagreement with him even on the second point. I am grateful to him for having made those two points.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend this: is it not obvious that the one thing that emerged from the Washington Conference, apart from the verbiage about disarmament, the revival 1091 of the SALT talks and balanced forces and all the beautiful and delightful phrases about humanitarianism, was the statement, clear and beyond any possibility of doubt, by General Haig that NATO is becoming comparatively weak against Moscow which is becoming comparatively stronger? That is the situation. When are we going to become realistic about this? It is not a question of unilateral action; that is out of the question. Anybody who has studied the problem realises that. This is a question of multilateral action vis-à-vis Europe and the United States.
Why does not the Foreign Office realise this? Why does not our new Foreign Secretary realise this?—he is still a bit of an apprentice, and I am not saying that offensively. He cannot help himself. Why does he not realise what is happening in the world at large? Why was it necessary to have emerged from the discussions at the Washington Conference that NATO would not intervene in the affairs of Africa? If ever there was a joke perpetuated in the context of military advance, that was it. There is an obvious reason why NATO would not intervene in the affairs of Africa which was demonstrated only recently when it was left to the Foreign Legion to intervene. They are not associated with NATO and not associated —so far as I know—with the Moscow Pact.
Will my noble friend realise that modern defence is terribly expensive and imposes sometimes excessive burdens on taxpayers, and that—apart from the possibility of nuclear war which I dismiss —with the possibility of conventional war, we, in Europe, have a larger population than the Moscow Pact, and combined with the United States could be overwhelming as far as conventional forces are concerned? Why do we not give our attention to the obvious facts of life? Is my noble friend aware that I am sorry that I have to speak in this fashion but that it is about time that we became realists and stopped indulging in shibboleths and beautiful phrases and got down to brass tacks?
§ 4.11 p.m.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I regret to note that my noble friend today believes that discussions about disarmament are merely verbiage 1092 and useless talk about humanitarianism. I was brought up in my young days to listen intently to him speaking in a very different tone of voice indeed.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I still listen with very great care and respect to my noble friend; but he must take it as well as give it. He referred to General Haig. The Prime Minister stated clearly in his Statement what are the intentions of this Government as a member of NATO in regard to defence. They are unequivocal and definite. My noble friend talked about realism and multilateral action vis-à-vis Europe and United States. This is exactly the basis of our foreign policy. I think that we have strengthened both political co-operation in Europe and our relationship with the United States. I wish to study his reference to NATO and Africa. There are other organisations more closely related to Africa, such as the Organisation of African Unity, to which NATO would quite properly give precedence in dealing with Africa, for the Organisation of African Unity is African. He described defence as expensive: indeed it is, but it is essential and should be effective. Expenditure on its own does not guarantee efficiency.
I do not want to detain the House by historical comparisons going back to Suez and similar incidents. It is not enough just to spend on defence, one must work very hard for it diplomatically. My noble friend accused somebody or other of shibboleths. We are all guilty of shibboleths from time to time. We are now, as the Prime Minister has made quite clear in a very realistic Statement, poised for a possibility of a new beginning in détente and disarmament, always basing those two objectives on the essentials of proper defence and security. It is in that sense that my right honourable friend's Statement should be welcomed.
§ 4.13 p.m.
§ Viscount TRENCHARDMy Lords, while one can only welcome very many 1093 parts of the Prime Minister's Statement however much one may believe that the kind of policies which he has enunciated should have been adopted some while ago, I feel that I must most strongly support my noble friend and leader, Lord Carrington, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. One had great sympathy with what one supposed was the Government's position in moving rather slowly in relation to the Soviet and Cuban initiative in Africa. One had a feeling that it was vital for this country to move in line with others and particularly with the United States. We now find in the Prime Minister's public Statement a condemnation—and it was a condemnation—of the very tardy—
Several noble Lords: Question!
§ Viscount TRENCHARDMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this very partronising remark to the effect that the United States should not overdo things in relation to its attitude in Africa is not helpful to the development of a realistic attitude, even though that attitude comes late in the day?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, with all respect, I cannot agree. I do not think it was a condemnation of anything said or done by our American allies. The remark was made in good nature and was received in that spirit—at least in the United States, if not in certain parts of this country. There is ample evidence of this and it is surely a proof of the firmness of friendship and, indeed, alliance that it will sustain good-natured remarks of this sort. As to the comments on the way to deal with Africa, there can be no doubt that there is total unity about the need to assert the Western democratic position and interest in Africa.
What my right honourable friend said —and it was right that he should do so — was that the East/West relationship, the presence of Cubans and Russians, was not the only factor which made the African situation one of difficulty. There are deeper historic, economic and social problems embedded in the African situation. My right honourable friend most sensibly recalled all those facts to our minds. Africans understand this. It was remarkable that when these remarks were made the greatest response to their wisdom came from Black Africa.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Lord HYLTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how the Government reconcile their proposals at the United Nations disarmament conference with their sponsorship of the military equipment sales exhibition which is due to take place at Aldershot later this summer? The Statement which the noble Lord repeated spoke about restricting conventional arms sales by converting arms production to civil purposes. It seems a little strange to take that line at the same time as promoting some kind of arms bazaar at Aldershot. Would it not be rather more appropriate for the Government to promote the sales of the tools of peace?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sure that we would all wish that to happen as quickly as possible. Contrary to certain impressions, this country's part in arms transfers throughout the world is very small indeed, particularly compared with that of the super-Powers. We have a role: it springs to some extent—and I speak in the presence of distinguished former Ministers of Defence and Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Affairs —from our obligation to certain countries on their accession to independence. It springs in part from our desire so to balance the position in certain points of potential explosion in the world that we feel that we should intervene in this sense rather than that others should.
It is a question of very fine judgment. I in no way pour any scorn on this and in no way minimise the importance of the point which the noble Lord has made. He will have noticed that one of the major proposals that the British delegation and our Prime Minister have made to the Special Session on Disarmament is for a constructive study of the ways in which arms production can be converted into production for civil use.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I would not have intervened in this exchange if it had not been for the speech of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. He knows that when I say "friend" I mean it. I am perfectly sure that the great majority of our Party take the view that the Prime Minister delivered in America a balanced, broad speech of depth. We all welcome that fact. Three months ago the Disarmament Conference appeared to be 1095 very hopeful. It has been prejudiced by human rights, by Africa and by Europe. But surely the Minister will agree that disarmament itself is the best solution to these three problems.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I entirely endorse my noble friend's statement. Of course it is, and we shall endeavour in every way to obtain constructive, verifiable disarmament on a balanced basis. I can personally bear out what he said about my right honourable friend's efforts. There are no other Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary who have exerted themselves and studied this matter with such close attention as have our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Indeed, the reception—and I repeat "reception"; we should be proud of this in all Parties—accorded to Mr. Callaghan's speech at the Special Session on Disarmament at the United Nations was one to warm the hearts of every Briton present on that occasion.