§ 2.54 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what "close consultations" they are having with the United States Government about President Reagan's declaration on space warfare, in view of his express recognition of the need for such consultations.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, in our regular bilateral meetings with the United States Administration and at NATO consultative meetings we shall have extensive opportunities to consult the United States Government about strategic defence and the suggestions made by President Reagan on 23rd March. These consultations began in the course of the briefings on START which General Rowny and his deputy, Ambassador Goodby, gave to the North Atlantic Council on 30th March.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, in using these extensive opportunities, will the Government concentrate particularly on two problems? What is to happen during the period between the time when the United States achieves a space-based beam weapon system against incoming ballistic missiles and furnishes one to the Soviet Union (according to the United States' expressed intention) and ourselves and America's other allies around the world achieving it—a period during which they will be protected and Japan and ourselves will not be protected? The second problem is this. Given that everyone knows that the development of such a system will take at least 30 or 40 years, will the Government press President Reagan's Administration for their present timetable on disarmament talks—
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, may I, by leave of the House, quote the President of the United States? Given the President's statement that the elimination of the threat of strategic nuclear missiles by this system
would pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves",99 does the United States really mean that strategic arms control must wait for 30 or 40 years?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I should like to underline the fact that the President has not proposed any change of strategy in the short term. He is initiating a major review of the future of defensive systems, on which he intends to assess whether alliance security—and I underline those two words—can be based on such an approach. Therefore, for the noble Lord to ask me about a period of time when some particular defensive system might be brought into effect for some countries and not for others is not a matter to which the President addressed his remarks.
The answer to the noble Lord's second question is very brief. While these researches are going ahead, the alliance will continue to pursue the path of peace through trying to achieve balanced and verifiable agreements on disarmament.
§ Lord BishopstonMy Lords, does the Minister recognise—I am sure that he does—the great importance of this Question on space warfare? Will he accept that the Oscar-winning film "Gandhi"—and I am sure that noble Lords congratulate all concerned with the film—is a recognition of the example and the life of Gandhi, which many people see as being in direct contrast to international defence policies that seem to be hurtling the world towards destruction? Will the Minister express to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister the sincere hope of, I am sure, many millions that she and other world leaders will take stock of defence policies so that, in due course, she and others may, like Gandhi, be the subject of international acclaim?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this Question relates to President Reagan's proposal. Anything that contributes to East-West strategic stability can only be in the interests of the alliance as a whole and, indeed, of security as a whole. When the noble Lord asks a question making clear that what he wants is peace, my reply on behalf of the Government is: Yes, peace based on security. Security can only be based upon balanced and verifiable agreements on arms reductions.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, are the Government really saying that we must take these fantastic ideas of space wars in 30 years' time seriously in the context of negotiations for the elimination of nuclear armaments?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, this is long-term research. It does not touch on the specific proposals being put forward in the disarmament talks at the present time.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the President may be less of an embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government in outer space than he is in the Middle East?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I think that the President's proposals were far-reaching and I think they were put forward in good faith. It is a pity that, 100 very often, the President's proposals on matters of arms control are not treated in that way by the Russians.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, will the Government clearly say whether they are in favour or against the ending of weapons in outer space in view of the fact that last December, in the United Nations Assembly, they failed to support a motion for ending weapons in outer space?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, we operate within the outer space treaty of 1967, which prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction in space. In December last year we supported a United Nations resolution calling upon the Committee on Disarmament to consider the creation of a working group to study possible arms control measures in space.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, as in other contexts President Reagan has always insisted upon the necessity of private discussions between the USA and the USSR before public statements, there is a strong suspicion that this particular statement is made for propaganda purposes and is not intended quite as seriously as he suggests?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, a suspicion that is unfounded.