European Union and NATO (Hansard, 30 October 2003)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, as I emphasised in answering questions in your Lordships' House last week, Her Majesty's Government will not support any proposals in the European Union that we believe undermine NATO. The United States shares and understands our position very well. A senior US official, Bob Bradtke, said last week: The British will never do anything that might weaken or bypass NATO. There is no more dependable or devoted ally within the Atlantic Alliance".

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Why is it that the Americans are so unconvinced by the Government's honeyed words on this matter? Is it not the case that they remain profoundly concerned by what is proposed, and are the Government sure that they will be able to stem the tide against the rest of our European colleagues?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I should like to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, prepared his supplementary before I gave my Answer. The fact is that, in my Answer, I put forward a very strong position from the United States Government. Bob Bradtke used to be the deputy head of the United States mission in London towards the end of the 1990s. I negotiated with him often. He is a real toughie; he is not given to over-egging his pudding, and I believe that he means what he says.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the New York Times described the Pentagon's reaction to the British Government's agreement in Berlin as "paranoid"? If that is an American reaction it does indeed suggest "paranoid", and that the Pentagon was rather overreacting. Does the Minister agree with me that there is a slight danger that the Conservative Party risks becoming more loyal to NATO than some of the senior officials in the Pentagon?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, as I indicated to your Lordships last week when I answered this question, I believe that the remarks in question were uttered by Mr Nicholas Burns, who himself said that he had been quoted out of context in his interview with Radio Free Europe.
As for the noble Lord's point about the Conservative Party, I remind your Lordships of this quote: The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence". That was signed not by this side of the House but by the then government from the opposite side of the House when they signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Perhaps, on occasion, the collective amnesia on the opposite side of the House really does need rectifying.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, despite the Minister's reassuring words, is not the problem that is giving cause to renewed concern the fact that Article 1.15 of the draft constitution—although I agree that it is still to be negotiated—reinforces the idea of a separate European defence capability? We know that that is something that the French have always wanted. They are perfectly entitled to it, it is in their interest, and good luck to them. However, now that this new worry has arisen, can we be assured that in the negotiation the United Kingdom will strike out that clause? Will the Minister guarantee that we will resist any signature or commitment to a separate command structure or capability, which the French want and the Minister says that we do not?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we have been over this matter several times. The noble Lord is quite right: we do not want separate operational facilities. We have operational facilities that can operate either through SACEUR and SHAPE, as we discussed last week, or through national headquarters, as the French national headquarters were used for operations in the Congo.
I remind your Lordships of what the British Prime Minister said only two weeks. He said: Nothing whatever must put at risk our essential defence guarantees within NATO … and at the discussion we had last night"— on 16th October— I would say the vast majority of people spoke up for European defence but only on the basis that it is fully compatible with NATO … France and Germany … recognise, in the end, European defence has no future as a competitor to NATO". Those are the words of the British Prime Minister two weeks ago. I do not refer to what somebody might have said somewhere in France or what somebody anonymous said somewhere in Germany. I stand by what the British Prime Minister said.

§ Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, would it not be useful to remember that the major criticism that can be made of European countries is that they have not made enough of an effort on defence? In that context, America is already becoming over-stretched in some of its commitments. Whatever the wording of the constitutional treaty, the more that Europe can get together, get its defence up and running and become collectively more able to deal with issues from Macedonia to Iraq, the better.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Yes, my Lords, that is exactly the point, and it was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was the Prime Minister of this country. She also pointed out that there were some deficiencies with some of our European partners. We recognise that those deficiencies may still 435 exist. What we are talking about is structured co-operation. Again I quote from the Prime Minister's words, this time of 23rd October, when he said that, any structured co-operation, which we support in principle, has got to be agreed between all 25 of the countries, so it is important that it only goes and develops in a way that is fully consistent with NATO".

§ Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords—

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords—

§ The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
My Lords, I think it is the view of the House that they would like to hear from the Cross Benches.

§ Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, can I take it from that reply from the Minister a moment ago that there will be no reduction in the defence provision for the United Kingdom forces?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, as he knows, the noble and gallant Lord, with his great perspicacity, wandered somewhat wide of the Question. The noble and gallant Lord knows that I am in no position from this Dispatch Box to give him guarantees about future defence funding. I know how passionately he feels about that and, of course, those concerned with making those calculations will read his remarks in Hansard.

§ Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, is it not the case that there is less dividing Europe and the United States Administration on military capabilities and headquarters agreements than is sometimes apparent from the injudicious remarks of certain members of the United States Administration who give the impression that they regard other member countries of NATO not so much as independent states but as satellites? Their preference for cherry picking their allies is unhelpful to the development of the common political perception that has been the strength of NATO from the beginning.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, let us be fair over this point. The noble Lord referred to what he described as certain injudicious remarks from certain members of the United States Administration. I expect that our friends on the Conservative Benches will be able to point out certain injudicious remarks from some of our key allies in Europe. I have said that I do not think it is sensible for us to dwell on remarks from unattributed sources whether they be in the United States or the European Union. Let us look at what people are willing to put their names to. I have given your Lordships two excellent quotes from key figures in the United States Administration who support the United Kingdom's position on these crucial issues.