Russia (Hansard, 22 January 1997)

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government co-operate with Russia in organisations of which Russia is a member, such as the Council of Europe and the International Monetary Fund, and support Russia's closer engagement with others such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In addition to encouraging Russia to play a full part in the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and Partnership for Peace, NATO is willing to build a new relationship with Russia which reflects her essential 686 role in European security. This could include the establishment of a joint body overseeing political consultation and military co-operation, perhaps enshrined in a charter.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, Mr. Solana, the Secretary-General of NATO, has, within the last week, been talking about a relationship with Russia which involves a permanent Russian mission within NATO headquarters and a permanent NATO mission in association with Russian defence—in effect, country membership of NATO. That seems to be in the business of transforming NATO into a European security organisation. As I understand it—and the Minister may be able to help me—we are talking about the same sort of relationship with the Ukraine. Do the British Government accept that we are in the business of changing the whole nature of NATO as we make these arrangements with the Russians, the Ukrainians and other non-members?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, there is no question of negotiation with Russia about NATO enlargement. However, it is right not to ignore Russian security concerns. NATO does need a close and trusting relationship with Russia.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been any discussion to the possible end that Russia itself should acquire membership of NATO? Would that be acceptable to NATO? Further, has the matter been considered by Russia?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, at present Russia continues with an anti-enlargement line in public. However, the Russians now seem willing to work with NATO on developing some form of relationship. I do not believe that we are anywhere near the situation where it would be considered appropriate by this Government, or indeed by Russia, that Russia should become a full member of NATO.

§ Lord Quinton
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree that the raison d'etre of an alliance is a common enemy; indeed, something to be against? Surely the obvious candidate is China, the last one of the three great mass murdering despotisms of the 20th century. Has not Russia as great an interest as the existing members of NATO—perhaps a greater one—in standing up firmly to Chinese aggression and preparing for it?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, that is a matter for Russia rather than for us. We continue to observe what is going on all around the world.

§ Lord Carver
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government and NATO have their priorities wrong? Should they not give priority to establishing a satisfactory security relationship with Russia over the enlargement of NATO?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. However, I do not think I agree with him in this situation.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, following the question by the noble and gallant Lord, can the Minister say whether the Government support invitations to the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to join NATO, which I understand are likely to be made at the NATO summit in Madrid this summer? Can the noble Lord say whether the Government support such invitations, despite Russian concern? Further, can the noble Lord tell the House what the implications of their membership would be for the defence budget? For example, would the additional costs be covered by the defence budget or would other programmes have to be cut in order to accommodate them?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, it is too early to be discussing individual countries which may or may not receive such an invitation as a result of discussions at a meeting which is to take place on 8th and 9th July in Madrid. Therefore, to pre-suppose whether certain countries will receive an invitation is wrong. Finally, I do not have details on the costings involved, but I shall write to the noble Baroness in that respect.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, can the Minister say how a close relationship with Russia can be established without negotiation?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I have not suggested that there is no negotiation; indeed, negotiations are going on with Russia and the Secretary-General of NATO at present. However, they are not negotiating whether Russia will be joining NATO.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the project to enlarge NATO eastwards will be overshadowed by the different national interests of Germany and Russia, particularly the Oder-Neisse Line?

§ Lord Chesham
No, my Lords; I do not believe that that is an appropriate question for today.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent Her Majesty's Government have been able to evaluate the extent to which vast amounts of Russian armaments are under the direct control of the Russian Government? Is the Minister satisfied that negotiations can proceed on a satisfactory basis without such an evaluation being made, particularly in the light of press reports? I do not know the accuracy of such reports but the noble Lord probably does. Such reports suggest that there are very considerable amounts of armaments in Russia which are being sold abroad without the apparent consent of the Russian Government.

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I do not have details with me on the latest situation regarding armaments within Russia. I suppose that a response might be that if such items are being sold abroad without Russian Government knowledge—and I have no knowledge whether they are—it is unlikely that we would be receiving such information. However, it also means that there are less arms in Russia.

§ Lord Hylton
My Lords, the Minister mentioned a framework for co-operation with Russia. Will the noble Lord accept that one of the first tasks for such a body should be to provide help for clearing obsolete Russian nuclear submarines adjoining the Arctic Ocean?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, it is for Russia to ask for help on that matter if she wishes. We cannot force help onto Russia.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that NATO has been a hugely successful organisation—certainly more successful than the European Union? Can he say whether NATO has ever had to resort to the qualified majority vote to achieve any of its decisions, and whether it is likely to have to do so in the Question as posed?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, that, again, is wide of the mark. However, I am not privy to decisions made within NATO.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the latest NATO review contained an opinion poll on American attitudes to NATO enlargement which indicated that 52 per cent. are in favour of NATO enlargement to Russia, and a rather larger proportion say they are in favour of enlargement to several other central and east European countries? Does the noble Lord also agree that NATO works differently from the European Union because the Americans run NATO and tell us all what to do, and that is perhaps not the way we wish to do things in the European Union?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, I am not sure I agree that NATO jumps when America decides what it wants it to do; but there is no US influence on the EU.

§ The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the enlargement of European institutions, both NATO and the European Union, is just as important a question as integration in monetary affairs and monetary union? Why do the political parties and the Government not take a lead in informing public opinion on their position in these matters?

§ Lord Chesham
My Lords, there is a little confusion whether we are talking about the EU or NATO. We are talking about NATO and not the EU, which was the subject of the first Question. However, considerable overlap between membership of the two bodies is likely. It would be totally wrong to insist that countries must 689 be members of both the EU and NATO, or of neither. That would risk creating exactly the new dividing lines that we are trying so hard to avoid.
business of the House: Debate this Day

The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl of Gowrie set down for today shall be limited to 3½ hours and that in the name of the Lord Campbell of Alloway to 2½ hours.— (Viscount Cranborne.)