HL Deb 11 July 1995 vol 565 cc103-4WA
Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they consider the interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty embodied in the Presidents' joint statement permits either the United States or the Soviet Union to set up what they describe as "theatre ballistic missiles" in such a way as to have a "strategic" effect (such as nullifying the deterrent role of Britain's Trident missiles).

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

It is not for us to comment on the detail of a statement reflecting discussions between the Presidents of the United States and Russia. The Trident System will provide the United Kingdom with a credible minimum deterrent against all foreseeable developments well into the next century.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is their understanding that the "transparency" referred to in the joint statement issued after the summit meeting between Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton on 10 May 1995 is to apply between themselves, or between themselves and the international community, including the US' NATO Allies and OSCE Associates.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

The statement issued by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin was the result of bilateral contacts between the United States and the Russian Federation. It did not refer to any wider multilateral agreement.

Lord Kennet

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What meaning they attach to that part of the Clinton-Yeltsin joint statement where it is said that "tactical missile defence systems shall not be developed by Russia and the United States to use them against each other"; what the implications of this are for the deployment of such systems against the UK, France or China; and what "the development of bilateral co-operation in the development and use of efficient tactical missile defence systems" implies for other states.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

The passages quoted by the noble Lord refer to proposals for confidence-building measures in the context of a bilateral treaty, to which the United Kingdom is not party. We continue to monitor these developments and are in close touch with the United States. But it would not be appropriate for us to seek to interpret these statements or to comment publicly on their possible implications for third parties.