Disarmament Programme: Consideration by UN (Hansard, 30 January 1984)

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

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)
My Lords, the Committee on Disarmament has been unable to conclude its consideration of the comprehensive programme of disarmament since this ambitious programme does not appear to enjoy the necessary support at present. The 38th United Nations General Assembly (1983) decided by consensus that the committee should renew its work on this subject when it considers it would be propitious to do so.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Baroness agree that the delay is due to the wide range of subjects in the proposed comprehensive disarmament programme; that the separate subjects have been referred to working groups in the committee at Geneva; and that there have been differences in those working groups which have caused delays? Does she agree that it is also due to the fact that the American and British Governments opposed the proposal for setting up a working committee on nuclear weapons? Did not the United Nations also say that the committee should make recommendations at the General Assembly next year? Will the Government give priority to this subject and see that the comprehensive disarmament programme is considered without undue delay?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the British view is that we believe in a practical step-by-step approach to disarmament rather that in wide-ranging declaratory programmes such as the one which is implicit in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. But if further development of the comprehensive programme seems to offer a practical means of advancing disarmament, the United Kingdom will join others in supporting it. On the noble Lord's supplementary question as to whether it was the Western powers which might be accused of being responsible for the lack of progress, it was evident from the discussions in the Committee on Disarmament during 1983, and from recent United Nations General Assembly debates, that many delegations had reservations about the programme.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that all constructive measures and steps towards disarmament should be supported by Her Majesty's Government? Will she state whether or not Her Majesty's Government were in any way responsible for the suspension of these United Nations talks? On the general question of disarmament, to which she has just referred, would she clarify the apparent misunderstanding which arose during Question Time last week in connection with the Stockholm talks and the START and INF talks at Geneva? She appeared at that stage to give the impression that any progress on START and INF were dependent on progress at Stockholm. This is a subject 449 which is of interest to Members in all parts of the House. Would she be good enough now to make it abundantly clear that START and INF can make clear progress notwithstanding what happens at Stockholm?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I hope that I have made the position of the British Government on this debate in the United Nations quite clear by saying that we believe in a step-by-step approach to disarmament rather than in these general declaratory statements. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, will know, we are deeply committed to the search for disarmament. We are, of course, closely associated through NATO with American attempts to reduce strategic and intermediate-range missiles and we have participated in the Vienna talks on balanced conventional force reductions. On the noble Lord's last point about the Stockholm conference, I looked again at what I have said. I am sorry that there should be any misunderstanding on the point, but, of course, we would hope that, while the negotiations which may arise from the Stockholm conference go on, that in no way precludes or prevents other negotiations from continuing at the same time.

§ Lord Boothby
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether Her Majesty's Government realise that the best chance of obtaining a real reduction of armaments by international agreement will come when the burden of expenditure on defence becomes unendurable; and that this will happen to the Soviet Union sooner than it happens to the United States or to the countries of Western Europe? Meanwhile, does the noble Baroness realise that the best hope of avoiding a third world war is the achievement and maintenance of parity between NATO and the Soviet Union, both in nuclear and in conventional weapons, which are interdependent?
May I finally ask the noble Baroness whether she realises that the vast majority of the British people have not forgotten what happened in the 1930s and 1940s and are determined that it shall never happen again; and that this accounts primarily for the heavy defeat of the Labour Party at the last election? Can she give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not let them down?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, on the three points that the noble Lord has raised, I am sure that he is right to draw attention to the importance of the cost of nuclear arms to the United States, to the Soviet Union and to ourselves, as well as to the importance of maintaining our proper level of defences; and, of course, it is for this reason that as a Government we have supported the deployment of cruise, at the same time saying that we shall continue our negotiations. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the lessons to be drawn from the 1930s and 1940s.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposal for a comprehensive disarmament programme is supported by all the parties in opposition in the British Parliament with the exception of the Ulster Unionists? Will she, therefore, seek at the United Nations General Assembly to expedite the consideration of the proposal before 1986, as is now proposed?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about the strongly held feelings of the opposition parties in the United Kingdom; but, as I have indicated, our view as a Government is that it is better, and more likely to achieve results, to have a step-by-step programme on disarmament negotiations. I have indicated some of the negotiations in which we are currently taking part, rather than these very broad principles which in fact do not have the support of many countries in the United Nations for the reasons that I have given.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned the MBFR talks in Vienna, may I ask her whether she can confirm that all the NATO countries are in full agreement on the questions of data and verification?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, on MBFR, we have participated in the Vienna talks, which we expect to be resumed shortly, once the Russians, of course, agree to return to the negotiating table. We are playing our full part in these.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it would reinforce belief in the Government's commitment to disarmament if they were to take an initiative in the matter?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, again we believe that the best way to get disarmament is through the various talks that are going on. Reference has already been made to the decisions coming out of the Stockholm conference. As I have already indicated, we are associated through NATO with American attempts to reduce arms—both strategic and intermediate-range missiles—and we are involved in the talks on MBFR. In a whole range of ways the British Government are either supporting talks or actively taking part in them.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that from time to time she herself has acknowledged the horrendous threat to mankind that nuclear weapons pose; and that, although step-by-step negotiation is all right, it seems to the majority of people that the steps are going backwards? We are abolishing nothing. Is she aware that the reason for that seems to be the recalcitrance of, on the one hand, the USSR and, on the other, the United States of America; and, with their vast experience, the British Government could try to bring those two together, both in Geneva and in the United Nations, so that they can start with some semblance of agreement which could lead to the steps going forwards and not backwards?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, as I have already indicated, we remain committed to seeking a balanced and verifiable agreement in MBFR. The first stage of the CDE complements what is happening in MBFR. May I say that NATO cannot be accused of stimulating a new arms race. In October 1983 NATO defence Ministers announced reductions of 2,000 nuclear warheads in Europe, following reductions of 1,000 in 1980.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, with reference particularly to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is the noble Baroness aware that I was one of the generation who at least for two minutes every year between the wars in silence said to themselves that this must never, never happen again—and it did happen again? Now it is 40 years since it happened again, and the difficult question as to whether more armaments make war more likely or less likely has ceased to be one which has any electoral relevance at all.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, has drawn attention to an important point. The fact is that since 1945 we have had the longest period of peace in Europe this century, and there is no doubt at all that the NATO alliance is one reason for it.