§ 2.53 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy 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 why, in view of the Prime Minister's statement in favour of smaller nuclear weapon armouries, they voted against United Nations nuclear disarmament resolutions on thirteen occasions last year.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)My Lords, our approach to disarmament resolutions at the United Nations has frequently been made clear in this House and in another place. We remain committed to supporting initiatives at the United Nations and elsewhere from 163 any quarter which are genuinely likely to advance the search for security through negotiated arms control and disarmament measures. We are not prepared to support those resolutions which serve only to divert attention from serious negotiations. Our voting record underlines our opposition to such tactics and our commitment to making a positive contribution to the process of disarmament.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is it not the case that the Government have frequently found themselves in a minority in this matter? And is it not also the case that their persistence in voting always the same way as the United States has led to a widely held belief that they are more subservient to the United States than Romania is to the Soviet Union?
§ Baroness YoungNo, my Lords. We judge United Nations disarmament resolutions on their potential contribution to negotiated arms control measures.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, will the Minister confirm that an analysis of these 13 occasions reveals that some of the resolutions would have resulted not in smaller armouries but in larger ones; and others would have resulted not in smaller armouries but in the abolition of nuclear weapons which, so long as the Soviet Union retains an overwhelming conventional superiority, is not acceptable to the West? Also will she confirm that none of the resolutions would have resulted in verified balanced arms control? That, as every serious person knows, is the criterion for real arms control agreements. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will continue to vote against any agreement or resolution which does not meet that criterion?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. In fact over half the 13 resolutions dealing with nuclear issues which we voted against were sponsored or co-sponsored by members of the Warsaw Pact. The remaining were unsatisfactory because they were contrary to our position on key issues such as the comprehensive test ban, nuclear freeze, no-first-use and deterrents.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is not automatically the case that every resolution which happens to be sponsored or co-sponsored by the Soviet Union is wrong in itself? If that were the case, then no agreement would ever be possible. Is she further aware that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, tempts me to ask her whether she also appreciates that the Government voted against a condemnation of nuclear war as contrary to conscience and reason; voted against a freeze on nuclear weapons; and voted against cessation of all nuclear test explosions?
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is that the reason we did not support the Soviet proposal for the condemnation of a nuclear war was that we need to prevent all war, not just nuclear war. On the question of a nuclear freeze, the freeze in INF at current levels would be unacceptable given the massive Soviet superiority.