| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): I apologise for intervening, but I spoke on this matter last night and I feel strongly that we should remind ourselves of the reason for NATO. It was set up, first, for collective security, but also looking forward to the day when new democracies could
emerge in central and eastern Europe. That is happening. A historic window of political opportunity needs to be seized.
Miscalculation is one of the tragedies of our foreign policy this century. We need to recognise the rights of the people of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and some other states, for instance the Baltic states. Certainly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be admitted into NATO in the first tranche. It is a matter of right, apart from our self-interest in terms of collective security and the fact that Poland, with its large land mass and significant army, can contribute a great deal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. The hon. Gentleman did speak last night and he is having another go this afternoon.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes:
I apologise for missing the hon. Gentleman's speech last night, but I suspect that I heard a rerun of it just now. I have a certain amount of sympathy with what he says, but I hope that he will realise from what I have said that it is a question of getting the right balance. Of course one wants to back up democracies that have developed so marvellously in former eastern European countries, but we should not rush headlong into expanding NATO without thinking about the implications, particularly in relation to Russia.
In the context of collective security, it is not difficult to identify potential flashpoints throughout the world. For instance, there are large and significant proportions of ethnic Russians--most of them, I think, holding Russian nationality--in the Baltic states. The middle east is going through yet another period of increased tension. Islamic fundamentalism has spread to as near as north Africa, within close range, given modern armaments, of the United Kingdom. Lastly--I do not pretend that this is an exclusive list--further flare-ups in the Balkans are possible.
There are at least two major anomalies in NATO's relationship with Europe. First, neither France nor Spain is yet fully integrated into the NATO structure. Obviously, we all welcome the positive and now speeded-up moves to bring about that integration, but it is and has been a problem. Secondly, there is the bizarre anomaly of European countries such as Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland preserving, for different historical reasons, their neutrality, which makes their accession to NATO unlikely. I was delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary confirm that NATO membership is equivalent to WEU membership and that a country cannot be a member of one and not of the other.
Those two points will underlie any further discussion about the development of NATO and of the EU. Surely the yardstick of any development or reform--however we put it--must be the question: would we get unanimous and speedy military decisions on matters of collective security, whatever and whenever threats might arise? We need look no further than the different and often conflicting interests of, for instance, Turkey and Greece to realise what complications could arise if, willy-nilly, we expanded NATO.
By all means, let us co-operate militarily with former eastern bloc countries and develop "Partnership for Peace". It is extremely healthy that we are planning--for, I think, the end of this year--military operations in Poland
and the Ukraine. I am not certain whether that has been confirmed, but, rather than any organic development, it represents the best way in which to get to know and understand each other and build trust.
Clearly, Poland is vital because of all its historical, emotional and geographical aspects. The Ukraine is an especially interesting example because, as far as I know, it has not applied to join NATO and will always have a special relationship vis-a-vis Russia. In any future balance of power in Europe, the Ukraine will always play an important part.
Those are important, confidence-building measures without organic change. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence not--and I am putting words into his mouth here which he will probably reject--to support NATO's enlargement for enlargement's sake, or to view such an enlargement as a substitute for broadening the EU, which many Conservative Members believe should be the prime aim and, in many ways, should take precedence over any possible NATO enlargement.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East):
We have been told that the forthcoming general election will be characterised by far greater participation than ever before of theatrical and sporting personalities. Even so, none of us was sufficiently prepared for the shock of hearing the Foreign Secretary praying in aid the sayings of Mr. Tommy Docherty to make a political point. Mr. Docherty is better known for his football than for his philosophy, but I suppose that we must all find our aphorisms wherever we can.
I wish that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) had been with me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) when this morning we called on the President of Poland, who is visiting the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman would have been made aware of the strength of Poland's desire to participate in not only the European Union but NATO, as a way of receiving recognition for the enormous changes in Poland. That country is understandably endeavouring to ensure that change is firmly rooted in the country's internal democracy and in membership of external institutions that is conditional on the maintenance of democracy.
NATO has succeeded in relation to Greece and Turkey. If one or both countries had been outside NATO, I suspect that the nature of the relations between them in the recent past might have resulted in not only disagreement but active conflict. NATO has in that sense accommodated countries that substantially disagree, allowing pressure to be imposed to resolve their disagreements by peaceful means, not conflict. The observations of the hon. Member for Wimbledon were not entirely well placed. He has much more practical experience of being a soldier than most right hon. and hon. Members, but on this occasion I must part company with his analysis and logic.
I do not part company with the analysis and logic of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in his remarks about the influence of and role played by the British Council and the BBC World Service. I suspect that he was speaking for virtually every right hon. and hon. Member--I was about to say with the exception of Government Front Benchers, but perhaps one can include even them. The economies made in relation to the British Council and the World Service are of small intrinsic value but have had an unfortunate and regrettable impact on those organisations, which ensure more than anything else that the United Kingdom's cultural and political values receive the widest possible audience.
It is said that there are no votes in foreign affairs--I do not know whether Mr. Tommy Docherty was the source of that quotation. That sentiment is generally accepted, although sometimes it is expressed differently. President Clinton did so rather negatively when he said, "It's the economy, stupid." Foreign affairs do not always command great interest in relation to electoral success. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister's contribution yesterday did not make any mention of any foreign affairs issue. The Prime Minister addressed the House on the opening day of the debate on the Loyal Address without once referring to any of the foreign affairs issues raised in the Gracious Speech.
The Queen's Speech stated:
The Indonesian Government are systematically abusing human rights in Indonesia and East Timor. We do not need to know whether Hawk aircraft have been used against persons offering resistance in East Timor. It is enough to know the nature and extent of abuse by the Government of persons who seek to maintain publicly any opinion other than that of the Government. We know enough from the award of the Nobel peace prize to Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos Horta for their campaigning against repression in East Timor.
Mr. Nigel Evans:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
"My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law."
Those words will have a particularly hollow ring in Nigeria and East Timor. During last week's debate on the defence estimates, I asked what possible moral justification the United Kingdom has for supplying arms to Indonesia. How does the UK
"promote respect for human rights"
by supplying arms to Indonesia? In foreign policy, we must exercise judgments about the countries that are entitled to benefit from relations with the UK. Countries that permanently flout human rights or have oppressive regimes should not enjoy that benefit.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |