SALT II: United States Policy (Hansard, 6 June 1986)

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

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 3rd June, it is important that the SALT II agreement continues to be observed, and observed by both sides.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Minister for that reply. Of course, one can only agree with what the Prime Minister has said. But there now seems a danger in so far as both super powers are accusing each other of breach of SALT H and the IBM treaties, which have been a sensible advance in the control of nuclear weapons, so that this country ought to use its influence to persuade President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev to cool down a little and look at what is happening. Would not the noble Minister agree that if we could present both sides with a system of examination and verification these charges and counter-charges could be thoroughly and properly examined?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lord, the United Kingdom, of course, is not a party to the SALT II treaty, but we can and do make our views known and will continue to do so. As for resolving the questions which have been raised by the United States about Soviet compliance, it is now for the Soviet Union to respond to those observations. There is a proper machinery for doing so—the Standing Consultative Commission in Geneva—and we look to the Soviet Union to do that.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter was raised only on Monday morning with the President of the USSR, Mr. Gromyko, by the delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union and it was emphasised quite clearly that this could be one of the biggest blunders in connection with world security? They hope that the British Government will use their initiative with the United States President, but emphasised quite clearly that there is no desire whatever for Britain to worsen its relations with its own friends in America. Should not the Government move in this matter?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we certainly very much hope that the United States will not depart from the SALT II limits, but the way for that to be achieved would be for the Soviet Union to respond to the anxieties which the United States has expressed and, as I said earlier, there is a proper machinery for that.

§ Viscount Mersey
My Lords, is it not the case that the SALT II treaty was never ratified owing to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Is it not rather more important that the United States might renege on the ABM treaty owing to the Russian infringement of that treaty by the erection of a large radar station at Krasnoyarsk?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the question of the radar to which my noble friend refers is of course not strictly relevant to the SALT II agreement, but the siting and orientation of the large phased-array radar under construction there gives rise to serious questions in connection with obligations covering early warning radars in the AMB treaty. We have raised this matter with the Soviet Union on a number of occasions. and clearly it will be necessary to resolve these questions if the ABM treaty is to be protected from erosion and if the necessary confidence is to be created for concluding new agreements.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I believe that our country does not want to be taking sides particularly on this issue. We want to stress the vital need to maintain SALT II, and we must realise that many of the allegations against the Soviet Union carry very big question marks as to their veracity and whether they are really adhering to the treaty. While we also acknowledge that the United States dismantles two Poseidon submarines one month and in the next increases the cruise missiles on the B52 aircraft, it is this sort of thing that makes the situation difficult. Perhaps the role of our country should be to intercede and ask that there should be frank and full discussions, not in any way to destroy the possibility of a successful summit in December. One way to do that, if I may reiterate it, is to concentrate on a foolproof system of verification to present to NATO, the Warsaw Pact countries and the United Nations.

§ Lord Trefgarne
Yes, my Lords, it is the case that the President has announced the dismantling of two Poseidon submarines when he could of course have authorised their continuance in service. He has not yet authorised an increase in the number of B52 ALCM launch aircraft, but has pointed the way in that direction if he does not get a proper response from the 1203 Soviet Union. The ball is now in the Soviet Union's court. They have the machinery, they know what they have to say and we look forward to hearing from them.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether there has been any move recently on the Russian stand on the issue of verification?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, there have been some Soviet proposals in a number of areas recently, but generally speaking—and I am speaking in general terms—Soviet proposals with regard to verification fall some way short of what is required.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, can the Minister please tell us what is the sticking point on the charges made to the Soviet Union and the charges that they make against the United States? Can we not examine what those charges are, so that we can make a contribution to finding a solution?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the charges which have been made by the United States about Soviet noncompliance in this area have not been answered at all by the Soviet Union except by a bold denial. They will have to do better than that and we hope that they will do so.