Disarmament (Hansard, 27 May 1988)

§ Mr. Mellor

I assume that the recommendations referred to are those in the paper submitted by the United Nations Association to the chairman of the UNSSD III preparatory committee on 14 January. We share the UNA's belief that disarmament and security are indivisible. The United Kingdom is committed to the search for increased security at lower levels of armaments. We look to the United Nations special session for a balanced and constructive discussion of all aspects of arms control and disarmament. We support the United Nations as the leading forum for worldwide international co-operation. We seek to make the maximum use of the United Nations to promote the settlement of disputes, to preserve peace and to spread the rule of law. We have always supported the United Nation's peace-keeping efforts, and have supported the increased use of the secretary-general's "good offices".

Militarily significant, verifiable and politically binding confidence-building measures can contribute to breaking down barriers of mistrust and to reducing the risk of miscalculation, and as such are an essential pre-requisite for meaningful arms control. However, we see no value in purely declaratory measures.

We have warmly and publicly endorsed the central message of the Brundtland report that the way forward lies in sustainable development based on economic growth.

We are committed to the search for balanced, equitable and verifiable measures of arms control. Without such agreements, however, the Government do not believe that a case has been made for conversion which would require any Government action at present.

We played a full part at the conference on disarmament and development; we are committed to both disarmament and development each for its own sake. However there is no simple, automatic link between the two goals. In particular we do not believe that progress in one should depend on progress on the other. Our reservations about the final document were expressed in our closing statement at the conference.

369W

On a United Nations verification agency I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 23 May.

Under chapter VII of the United Nations charter the Security Council is empowered to take measures (for example. arms embargoes) to maintan or restore international peace and security. The imposition of such measures is, of course, subject to agreement in the Security Council.

We believe that an arms sales register complied under the auspices of the United Nations could in principle establish a means of monitoring, in a universal and non-discriminatory manner, measures taken to restrain the accumulation of conventional arms. But to be effective such a register must be universal and not simply based on the production, import and export of arms of the western countries alone. We do not believe that the imposition of timetables on arms control negotiations is a useful of effective way of conducting them.

The Government are fully committed to implementation of article VI of the non-proliferation treaty. We have consistently urged and worked for constructive arms control negotiations. But we firmly believe that the first step towards nuclear disarmament must be effective bilateral negotiations between the superpowers, who possess 95 per cent. of the world's nuclear weapons. We therefore strongly support the United States—USSR arms control negotiations at Geneva whose objectives are wholly consistent with the obligations assumed under article VI.

Our policy towards a comprehensive test ban treaty was outlined in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to two questions by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 30 November 1987.

An effective verifiable global ban on chemical weapons is a United Kingdom priority, and we are working hard at the Geneva negotiations to achieve this.