UN Second Special Session on Disarmament (Hansard, 14 July 1982)

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, as was stated yesterday in another place, the United Kingdom played a full part in the work of the Special Session which finished on 10th July. Agreement was not possible on the substantive disarmament items on the agenda—namely, a review of progress since the First Special Session in 1978 and a Comprehensive Programme of Disarmament—but we believe that the discussions have been helpful in increasing understanding of the issues. Priority should now be given to making progress on the important negotiations under way elsewhere: on intermediate-range nuclear forces, strategic arms reductions, for mutual and balanced force reductions, and a convention banning chemical weapons.
The Special Session agreed on the guidelines for a World Disarmament Campaign, under the auspices of the United Nations, which we believe will help to ensure that the campaign can operate in all parts of the world.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, while I am surprised that the Government have not taken their own initiative about making a Statement on this important subject, may I thank the Minister for what he has stated? Has he seen the Statement of the United Nations Secretary-General expressing deep disappointment and frustration at the decisions taken at New York? Is he aware that that deep disappointment is shared by the 3,000 representatives of non-governmental organisations which were present, and by 76 of the Governments who took part in the session? Is he further aware that those of us who have attended some of the sessions and who had have read the detailed daily reports of the United Nations Association are deeply impressed by the fact that the majority of delegates demanded action, and that that action was obstructed by the representatives of the super-powers? I regret to ask—

Noble Lords
Speech!

§ Lord Brockway
—was it not mainly by the West, the United States of America and representatives of Britain? Did they not oppose—

Several noble Lords
Speech.

§ Lord Brockway
—any positive action for a comprehensive programme on the grounds that bilateral negotiations—

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, can bring his supplementary question to a conclusion as soon as possible, that will be a help.

§ Lord Brockway
But, my Lords, this is a very important subject affecting millions of people. May I ask the Government whether the West did not oppose the comprehensive programme of action relying on bilateral negotiations and the nuclear deterrent, and whether Her Majesty's Government have some very great responsibility for the failure which has occurred at this Assembly?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the fundamental reason that the talks broke down was the different perceptions of security of states. We seek a programme of balanced measures covering nuclear and conventional disarmament, and that is different from the approach of some non-aligned Governments which place undue emphasis on nuclear disarmament. Regarding the position of the United Kingdom Government, we believe that initiatives for measures of arms control and disarmament are best taken where there is a possibility of negotiating specific measures. If I may say so, I do not think that we should be too disappointed with the outcome of the Special Session because I think that it is upon this that delegates will now focus.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that possibly the most promising disarmament negotiations at present are those taking place in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions? Would he agree that although these have been going on for a long time, substantial progress has been made, and might it not be that if the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues now took a strong personal interest in these negotiations, success might come?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is able to say that there is progress in the talks on mutually balanced force reductions in Vienna is because the West has taken an initiative in tabling in Vienna on 8th July, in the form of a draft treaty, proposals for replacing the previous two-phase approach with one based on a single stage agreement. The value of this initiative is that it shows to the East that the allies are all serious in agreeing that they wish to combine together in achieving conventional force reductions in the talks in Vienna.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, in the light of the disappointing results in the Special Session, will the Government now re-consider their opposition to the working group on general and comprehensive disarmament in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva which they have been opposed to over the past year or two?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I was not aware that the Government had in any way been opposed to talks in Geneva.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that very many people who are desperately interested in this question recognise many of the difficulties that are involved in making disarmament a reality, and that one of them seems to be that when conventions, conferences and summits are called and they agree to certain decisions on reducing arms, the problem seems to be how can the one side or the other be certain that the others are playing the game and are actually carrying out the decisions of the conference and disarming? Can the Government pay a great deal of attention to that aspect and perhaps find a formula where any agreement could be seen to be implemented?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for asking that question, because the noble Lord shrewdly puts his finger 343 on the two main problems which have been outstanding for many years between the West and the Soviet Union: namely, data—that is to say, how many forces, weapons and troops have each side in their possession?—and verification. It is on both of those issues that Soviet Russia has, year in and year out, refused to agree.

§ Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we welcomed his rather more positive Answer to my noble friend's original Question? We found it a rather promising and positive approach. But with reference to his last answer to my noble friend Lord Molloy, the Government are surely aware that, for the first time, the Soviet Government has talked about acceptance of on the spot inspection, and what is the Government's response to that? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we hope we do not have the usual rather cynical reaction to that kind of offer from the Soviet Union.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it is perfectly true that, for the first time, the Soviet Union has mentioned verification. We very much hope that they are genuine in this proposal.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been very considerable disappointment at the relative lack of success of the Second United Nations Session, having regard to the unanimity which was achieved at the First Session? In view of this very great disappointment, will the Government see what they can do to take the World Disarmament Campaign very seriously so far as this country is concerned? Perhaps they will even go so far as to work together with my noble friend Lord Brockway who has this cause, as all of us have, very much at heart.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we hope that the guidelines agreed at the Special Session will ensure that the campaign, under the auspices of the United Nations, operates in all parts of the world. We see no call at present for any extra contributions, because we believe that the United Nations has the resources and the outlets that are required. We believe, therefore, that the campaign should be able to go ahead.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, if the Government are going to make a contribution towards the World Disarmament Campaign of the United Nations for educational purposes, is the noble Lord aware that, despite this failure at New York, the peace movement in the world is now becoming so strong that in 10 years, despite this failure, we will succeed in opposition to the militarist Governments of the world?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord represents a point of view which believes in unilaterilist disarmament. What is the point of unilaterally disarming and then expecting the Russians at the conference table to make sensible concessions in negotiation? This would not occur and unilateral disarmament would, in fact, undermine hopes for multilateral disarmament. It is those arguments on which 344 the United Kingdom and the Western Alliance pin all their hopes.

§ Lord Brockway
But, my Lords, the World Disarmament Campaign is not urging unilateral disarmament. We have urged carrying out the decisions of the First Assembly, and the British Government—

Several noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Brockway
—have been largely responsible for obstructing that at the second meeting.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, as I said at the beginning of this Question, the Western Alliance has not been instrumental in obstructing the work of the Special Session. The reason why the Special Session, as a general meeting, failed was that there was, from some Governments, undue emphasis on nuclear disarmament and nuclear disarmament alone. The matter goes very much wider than that and, as I have made clear this afternoon, the West have put forward important proposals for reductions in conventional forces. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, does not like hearing that the West is still striving in this way for peace, but the West is, and that is the truth of the matter.

§ Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his last remark to my noble friend Lord Brockway was scarcely fair? Is he aware that my noble friend does like to hear about progress?—we all do. Is the noble Lord also aware that, when my noble friend asked whether the Government would back the educational programme on disarmament, I felt he was a little unfair in directing the argument on to unilateral disarmament, when we all want disarmament of every single kind?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, may I respond to the noble Baroness? The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, believes in unilateral disarmament and in undue emphasis upon disarmament in nuclear weapons. For reasons which I have given on many occasions, other than this afternoon, the Government do not agree. What the Government do agree with the noble Lord on—and I think there is probably wide agreement in your Lordships' House—is that the one success which was achieved in the United Nations Special Session was agreement for the World Disarmament Campaign. We support it and hope that it succeeds.