§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that the secret Memorandum of Understanding on SDI research signed with the US on 6th December requires all activities that may be carried out under it to be compatible with:
whether they will undertake that their own activities under the Memorandum of Understanding will be compatible with the agreements, statements and policy listed above; and whether they will confirm that no intellectual property developed under the Memorandum of Understanding will ever be available for use in breach of the agreements and statements listed at (i)—(vii) above.
- (i) The Partial Test Ban;
- (ii) The Treaty banning the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space;
- (iii) Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty;
- (iv) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, strictly interpreted;
- (v) The Camp David "Four Points" of December 1984;
- (vi) The Shultz-Gromyko Joint Statement on future disarmament negotiations of January 1985;
- vii) The SU-US summit declaration of November 1985, where it textually repeated No. (vi) above;
- (viii) Their own view, frequently expressed by the Prime Minister, that treaties must be kept and an arms race in space must be avoided;
§ The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne)As reported to your Lordships on 9th December, the content of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on 6th December is confidential. However, the US Government have stated that the SDI research programme will be carried out within existing US treaty obligations, and the UK Government have made it clear that participation in SDI research will be fully in accord with UK treaty obligations.
As for the development of intellectual property, the UK will not of course endorse any action which cuts across treaty obligations or declared policy.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the status under United States law of the secret Memorandum of Understanding on SDI research, and whether it can be repudiated by this or a future Administration as the Quebec and Hyde Park agreements were repudiated.
1058WA
§ Lord TrefgarneMutually acceptable conditions are contained within the MOU to cover the possibility of termination by either party. It is not a treaty and does not therefore have the legal force of one.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements have been made for compensating United Kingdom firms and institutions in the event of the United States Congress running down the SDI programme for budgetary or other reasons.
Lord TrefgraneThe interests of British firms and institutions will be safeguarded in the relevant contractual arrangements.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will list the bodies engaged wholly or partly at public expense on analysis of the political and strategic advantages and disadvantages of SDI to Western Europe, distinguishing between those which will produce published and secret reports, with the intended date of publication of the former.
§ Lord TrefgarneNo analyses of the political and strategic implications of SDI have been commissioned by Her Majesty's Government from external bodies. Such studies as are currently being undertaken with Government departments are classified.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, during their negotiations with the United States on the secret Memorandum of Understanding which was signed on 6th December, United Kingdom negotiators were able to ascertain whether the concept which the SDI incorporates is the general defence of the relevant populations or the specific defence of individual targets.
§ Lord TrefgarneThe Memorandum of Understanding signed by British and United States Governments on 6th December is concerned with the nature and scope of British participation in the SDI research programme, and with establishing a clearly defined basis on which such participation might proceed. The United States Government has made it clear that the SDI is not based on any single or preconceived notion of what an effective defence system would look like.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the limits at which Strategic Defence research ends and Strategic Defence Testing begins (the latter being prohibited by the ABM Treaty) and what advice are they proposing to give to firms which may tender for SDI contracts.
§ Lord TrefgarneThe US have stated that the entire SDI research programme will be compatible with a restrictive interpretation of the ABM Treaty. The US Administration has set out its views on the meaning of the terms of research and testing on a number of 1059WA occasions—for example, in Appendix B of the Pentagon Report to Congress of April this year on the SDI. UK firms seeking advice on any issue concerning possible tendering for SDI contracts should approach the UK SDI Participation Office in the Ministry of Defence in the first instance.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider SDI work on "European Architecture" to be in accordance with the ABM Treaty.
§ Lord TrefgarneThe US has made it clear that SDI research will be conducted within existing treaty constraints, and these include the ABM Treaty. The UK will ensure that the SDI research work it undertakes in co-operation with the US, including research on a European Architecture Study, will be consistent with its support for the treaty.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will list those among the 18 "work-package areas" dealt with by the SDI Memorandum of Understanding in which the United Kingdom would be free to pass research results to the United States but the United States would be prevented by the ABM Treaty from passing them to the United Kingdom.
§ Lord TrefgarneUnder the ABM Treaty, the parties are prohibited from transferring to other states, or deploying outside their own national territory, ABM systems limited by the treaty. This prohibition has been agreed to include the obligation not to provide to other states technical descriptions or blueprints worked out for the construction of ABM systems and their components limited by the treaty. The treaty is silent on the transfer of technology to the US from the UK. The transfer of research results in all 18 areas of participation will be conducted within these constraints.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether SDI contracts entered into subsequent to the secret Memorandum of Understanding are to be interpreted under British or American law.
§ Lord TrefgarneDepending on the nature of the contractual arrangements applicable to each piece of work placed in the UK, either US or UK law may apply.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the new SDI office in the Ministry of Defence will include an international lawyer.
§ Lord TrefgarneThe detailed structure of the SDI Participation Office is still under consideration. The office will have access to whatever specialist advice it may require.