HL Deb 24 January 1984 vol 447 cc155-9

4.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

"Last week I attended the opening meeting in Stockholm of the Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, known as the CDE. It is the first of the follow-up conferences agreed at the CSCE review meeting in Madrid last September, and the opening was attended by the Foreign Ministers or their equivalents of all 35 participating states. On Friday (20th January) I delivered an opening speech on behalf of the United Kingdom. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

"This is the first time that so many states have met together specifically to tackle some very basic questions affecting the security of Europe. The aim is to lower tension and reduce the risk of war, by finding practical ways of improving mutual confidence and trust.

"Together with our allies, we are today tabling proposals which, as the terms of reference of the conference require, are militarily significant, politically binding, verifiable and applicable to the whole of Europe. We are proposing measures designed:

  • "firstly, to reduce secrecy by the exchange of information and by the observation and inspection of military activities;
  • "secondly, to make clear provision for the advance notification and reporting of military activity;
  • "thirdly, to promote stability and to inhibit the use or threat of force for political purposes;
  • "and, fourthly, to facilitate crisis management in periods of tension and to reduce the risk of surprise attack.
"If we can secure agreement on measures of this kind, I have no doubt that Europe will be a safer place. We should then be in a position, as I told the conference, to consider moving to further stages of negotiation, providing for the restriction of military activities and for reductions in force levels. The first job must be to build a basis of confidence, by measures of the kind I have described.

"I emphasised that arms control negotiations alone cannot and should not have to bear the full weight of East/West relations. The dialogue between East and West needs to be broadened and given more substance.

"My meeting with Mr. Gromyko on Thursday (19th January) thus gave me the opportunity to discuss with him, not only arms control, but East/West relations more generally, as well as the Middle East. I also raised with him the question of Soviet fulfilment of its international commitments in the field of human rights. We agreed that arrangements should be made for a further meeting between us.

"The opening of the Stockholm conference came at a difficult time in East/West relations. The difficulties remain. But I hope that I shall be proved right in seeing in the events of last week signs of a new determination to tackle them. We must look to the causes of tension and try to reduce them. At Stockholm and elsewhere, that remains our purpose."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and we welcome its constructive nature and the four proposals which she has just read out. Would the noble Baroness agree that, in spite of what one newspaper called the "angry rhetoric" of some of the speeches, notably Mr. Gromyko's, there are grounds for believing that both sides are, in fact, seeking a genuine dialogue? Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that it was hoped that a date for the resumption of the START talks would soon be announced and that the date for the resumption of the MBFR talks in Vienna had already been set. We welcome both these causes for optimism.

However, can the noble Baroness give us any information about the INF talks? Would she not agree that a realistic nuclear disarmament programme must co-ordinate the reduction of all forms of nuclear weapons and that we cannot discuss the reduction of one type without discussions about the other types, especially given the differentiation between the Soviet and American stockpiles?

Is the noble Baroness aware that an article in a recent edition of the Sunday Times concluded: Unlikely though it may seem, there is at least a chance that by 1986, thanks to Stockholm, the world could be a marginally less dangerous place". In the CSBM talks which are to follow, can the noble Baroness say which areas Her Majesty's Government intend to concentrate on so as to validate this conclusion by the newspaper?

Finally, is she aware that we warmly welcome the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's remark that the dialogue between East and West needs to be broadened and given more substance and also the announcement that the Foreign Secretary is to meet Mr. Gromyko again?

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement, but speaking, I hope, with the agreement of noble Lords on these Benches I am afraid that the general impression created by it, in my mind anyhow, is that Western Governments at the Stockholm Conference were, to some extent, whistling to keep up their spirits. Nothing in the statements by the Eastern bloc participants, more particularly the Soviet Union, seems to give rise to any particular hope that the admirable measures recommended by the allies are likely to be generally accepted in the foreseeable future. I hope that is not so, but I should like the noble Baroness to say whether this gloomy impression is at all justified.

Moreover, the Statement says, unless I misunderstood it, that these four excellent measures should be agreed before we can, consider moving to further stages of negotiation, providing for the restriction of military activities and for reductions in force levels". As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said, the Soviet Government has, as I understand it, agreed to resume the long-drawn-out negotiations on the mutual and balanced force reductions. Do the Government therefore now believe, as the statement would lead us to suppose, that no progress can there be made until effect has been given to the proposals which have just been tabled in Stockholm?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their responses to this Statement. I was particularly pleased with the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in which he welcomed the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the need for the dialogue between East and West to be broadened. Perhaps it might be helpful to say that my right honourable friend believes that his talks with Mr. Gromyko showed a wish on both sides for further contact. He has agreed that he will in any event meet Mr. Gromyko at the United Nations in September, but both agreed that it would be a good idea to see each other earlier if this can be arranged.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked me where we are currently on the INF talks. The present position is that we stand ready to resume these talks at any time and we hope that the Russians will return to them. If we compare where they are in relation to the CDE (a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn), I should make it clear that we see the discussions which follow under CDE as complementary to the other discussions which would go on under MBFR or the START talks when they are resumed. There is no reason why both lots should not continue concurrently because each set of talks is concerned with a different subject. I should perhaps expand that further. The CDE talks, as set out in general principles in the Statement, are designed to establish a pattern of verification which both sides would understand—I believe the technical term for it is known as military transparency. The INF talks are concerned with nuclear arms in Europe and the MBFR talks are concerned with reductions in conventional weapons. Each has a different function to fulfil and there is no reason why both should not continue at the same time.

The noble Lord also asked whether we feel there are any grounds for hope at the end of the introductory talks at CDE. We have welcomed the speech of President Reagan on 16th January which gave a reaffirmation of the need to: establish a constructive and realistic working relationship with the Soviet Union", and we feel that this is a good basis for the conduct of super-power relations.

The Soviet reaction to President Reagan's speech and their initial response was cool. Mr. Gromyko's speech at CDE on 18th January had some harsh things to say, but we believe that probably this is not the Soviet's last word and we believe strongly that in all our interests we must work to reduce tension and so work for a safer world.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene on one further point of clarification. I will read what the Statement said: If we can secure agreement on measures of this kind, I have no doubt that Europe will be a safer place. We should then be in a position", to go on with such discussions at MBFR. However, what she said just now makes clear that that is not so, and that we shall hope that there will be progress towards the achievement of these four measures at the same time as we resume negotiations at Vienna. Is that so?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I am sorry if I have not made the position quite clear. I will try again. What is contained in the Statement is what has been tabled by ourselves and our allies at Stockholm as a negotiating stand. This will now be considered by officials. As I have indicated in further elaboration, it is designed to establish the patterns of military forces which both sides can understand. We believe that this is the first stage towards verification and it is a confidence-building measure. If it is successful and we build up confidence then we could move on to other matters. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, the Soviets have agreed a date to return to the MBFR talks and there is no reason why those talks should not be continuing at the same time as these talks are going on. We may make progress on one and progress on another. They are not mutually contradictory. What we really hope to see coming out of the CDE conference are these confidence-building measures.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, if nobody else wishes to intervene, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would be good enough, perhaps tomorrow, to give further thought to the point which my noble friend Lord Gladwyn raised, because those of us who heard her comments can understand how the Statement should be interpreted. But those who read the Statement flat, without those comments, are much more than likely to come to the conclusion to which my noble friend Lord Gladwyn and I came by the Statement saying that if you do so-and-so, you can then move on to something else—meaning that if you cannot do so-and-so then you cannot move on to something else. The noble Baroness has been good enough to explain that that something else could be moved on to, indeed, is going to be moved on to; and it would be helpful, therefore, to those outside this place who take a great interest in statements of this kind that there should be the opportunity of the Statement being published in the press, or in some way like that, to make quite clear that the interpretation put on this important Statement is the one which the noble Baroness has expressed.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has made his intervention in order to get clarification and, I hope, to help what we all want to see achieved, which is some measure of advance in these confidence-building measures. If I may I will read tomorrow in Hansard what has been said, and if I feel that there is some misunderstanding as to what is the correct position I will undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and of course to copy the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Gledwyn.

Lord Renton

My Lords, cannot the Russian attitudes be explained only by ambition or fear? If they maintain that it is not ambition, could they be asked why they have this prolonged military occupation of Afghanistan against the wishes of the people? If it is fear, could they be assured that there is no Western country that has ambitions against them?

Baroness Young

; My Lords, I do not think that it is for me to speak on what motivates the Soviet Union in foreign policy. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we have made quite plain our view of the Russian intervention in Afghanistan. This has been raised on five occasions at the United Nations. We have always made it clear (and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions) that NATO is a defensive alliance, that it was formed as a defensive alliance and remains as a defensive alliance in Western Europe.