Nuclear Weapons Elimination: US Report (Hansard, 9 July 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, we and our NATO allies believe that nuclear deterrence continues to make an essential contribution to preserving peace and stability in Europe. Nevertheless we have made a number of significant reductions to our own forces, reflecting the improved security environment.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that the conclusion was reached that to secure the ultimate aim of the elimination of nuclear weapons demands serious political conviction. Can the noble Baroness assure us that her Government have that serious political conviction as regards the absolute need to eliminate nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I think the whole House knows that the Government are totally committed to working for the non-proliferation treaty and for the comprehensive test ban treaty. I know that many of your Lordships will agree that abolishing nuclear weapons in the simplistic terms expressed in a number of reports by academics is not a realistic short or even medium-term objective. Before nuclear disarmament can be a practical objective the international community needs to have developed much more effective solutions to a number of problems. One cannot disinvent nuclear weapons. The problems will therefore continue because we have to avoid the dangers of a renewed arms race in the future and counter the existing threat of proliferation as well as getting a CTBT.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why the UK departed company from the initial position taken by the US and France, and instead lined up with Russia and China in refusing to ratify the test ban treaty unless India and the other threshold states signed it too? Will the Government not accept that a compromise allowing the ban to come into force before India ratified 170 it would be a vitally important step in progress towards nuclear disarmament, which the generals and other military experts at Stimson are now backing?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is being a little unrealistic. We are certainly not blocking the treaty in any way. We have no more plans to test. We want a comprehensive test ban treaty but we want one which will be effective in preventing proliferation. It therefore seems logical and sensible that in addition to the five, the three threshold states, India, Pakistan and Israel, should also sign up to this. I recognise that France and America may for their own reasons have different views on the best ways of achieving this. We shall be discussing the entry into force provisions over the coming weeks, along with the rest of the text. We are looking for constructive consensus to move forward.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Baroness really saying that after all the work that has been done on reaching an agreed text on the comprehensive test ban treaty, this country may refuse to sign it? Is that what she is saying.?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I cannot repeat exactly word for word what I said because I was speaking as I went along and not reading a text. However, I certainly did not say what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has just accused me of. We want a treaty. Let that be clear beyond peradventure. We shall continue to work for the earliest possible agreement. That is why we have been working on it as hard as anyone. I realise that to some the text which came before us in June was broadly acceptable, but we should like to see it strengthened in a number of places. We are not alone in that.

§ Lord Carver
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the report to which she referred as if it was produced solely by academics was chaired by a distinguished US Army general who is one of the most distinguished former Supreme Allied Commanders Europe in NATO, General Goodpaster, and that the body that produced it included another senior Army general, two senior US Air Force generals and a former US Defense Secretary? The report concluded unanimously that the total elimination of nuclear weapons, provided that it was carried out in stages and properly verified, would be in the security interests of the United States.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I certainly did not intend to imply that only academics were involved in the Stimson Centre report. Certainly there were a number of eminent US academics involved. There were a number of former politicians as well as former leading members of defence forces.
However, the clue to what the noble and gallant Lord said was in his last remark. This agreement will be of use to the free world only if it is properly verifiable. Although the report is not specific about the timescale of the 171 reductions that it advocates, and suggests that it might happen over one or two generations, I believe that it can occur safely and securely only if it is properly verifiable.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, we are all agreed that any agreement reached must be verifiable. It is easy to lose sight of the real horror of weapons of mass destruction. Is the noble Baroness aware that unless the instability of the present situation is carefully borne in mind, the Government give the impression that they do not take the matter seriously?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that really is nonsense and the noble Lord knows it. We have always made it clear that we have been negotiating for a test ban treaty, not a treaty banning nuclear weapons, however much the noble Lord is after that. One can put the point briefly. Most responsible governments are working for ban the bang and not ban the bomb. I believe that that is absolutely right. Of course we want a test ban treaty. We have worked towards that for a long while. But we cannot link CTBT to wider issues. I believe that we shall be making a perfectly correct sacrifice, but nevertheless a sacrifice, in order to contribute to non-proliferation.

§ Lord Wyatt of Weeford
My Lords, will the noble Baroness say what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the United Nations eliminates the nuclear weapons which it is now revealed Iraq has before it starts testing them?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, we still have the team in Iraq doing its best not only to find but also to give us the information that we can use with Iraq to make those weapons non-effective in the future. But you cannot do it until you have compliance in other countries as well.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, I genuinely ask for information. Is the position this: unless the three countries named by the noble Baroness sign the draft treaty, Britain will not sign it?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, in answer to an earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I believe that I used the phrase "looking for constructive consensus". I said that the text before us at the end of June was broadly acceptable at first sight. We would like to see the text strengthened. We are not saying that we cannot sign up to anything but we do not have the right text at the moment.