| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long and consistent commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country, but let me give an example that shows that matters are not as simple as he thinks. Imagine two nuclear powers, one of which has the capability only to retaliate using large strategic nuclear weapons against cities, and the other the capability to initiate a much more precise and accurate attack against troop and military formations. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, unless the systems are balanced, there is a danger that one of those nuclear powers might think, wrongly, that it could attack troop concentrations with impunity, because the other side would not retaliate in the only way that it could, against cities, and thus risk losing cities in return? The situation is not as simple as he suggests.
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The lesson of Kosovo is that a response is more likely if troops suffer, so nuclear exchange is more, not less, likely if we start to nuke troops. The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be in favour of bombing a non-city area. Where is his constituency? It is not in London, is it?
Mr. Cohen: Exactly. If the Russians bombed the New Forest as a sub-strategic warning, what does the hon. Gentleman think the Government's response should be? That shows the nonsense of his argument.
I refer the House to a parliamentary briefing from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which makes a series of points about disarmament negotiations: basically, such negotiations are all stuck. The briefing refers to the conference on disarmament in Geneva, the CD. It states:
The briefing goes on to talk about five proposals:
CND states:
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
I am sorry to be unable to apologise to the Secretary of State in person for not having been here for the beginning of his speech. I was detained representing Parliament on the political committee of the Western European Union in Paris, in which we discussed many of the matters that have been raised this afternoon. I would have apologised to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) if I had missed his speech as well, but I was fortunate enough--if that is the right expression--to be present to hear it.
It is disappointing that today--European election day--has been chosen for the debate. To hold those elections today was not a sudden impulse--we have known for some years when they were coming--yet the debate was scheduled on 24 March, despite there being time and flexibility enough in our timetable to have it on another day. For it to be held on a day when so many Members are distracted with other matters is a great disappointment to the House and to Members unfortunate enough to be unable to attend. I am sure that there will be no repetition in future and that lessons have been learned.
The debate gives us an opportunity to discuss many matters, but hon. Members who have already referred to Kosovo will not blame me for expressing my thoughts on that subject as well. The Secretary of State brought us the good news which will be universally welcomed, that the Secretary-General of NATO has ordered that bombing should stop. I hope that it is the first of many steps to establish a lasting peace, but achieving that end will probably involve a campaign far more difficult than the 10-week air war carried out over the former Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, we should give a big vote of thanks to the men and women of our armed forces who have done so much, both in the air and on the ground, to bring about what has so far been achieved. We should not forget the enormous commitment of our service men and women to alleviating the plight of refugees in Macedonia, Albania and elsewhere in the region.
I also offer my compliments--I am sorry that Conservative Members do not feel able to do likewise--to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. [Interruption.] I understand that Opposition Members congratulated them last night, but I think it is nice to thank them again today. They have played an important role in showing the determination and leadership that was sorely lacking in some aspects of the run-up to the campaign against Serbia.
We can learn many lessons from this action, not least regarding the lack of military intelligence before and during the campaign.
It appears that few people had any informed knowledge about the reaction of, first, the Serbians and, secondly, Milosevic. No one seemed to grasp his difficult personality and the likely outcome of a bombing campaign against him. We slipped up badly in that area. I am sure that committees throughout NATO and the Parliaments of countries involved in the campaign will be quick to seize the opportunity to learn those lessons and take steps to clarify those matters for the future.
"After almost four months of negotiation the CD has still failed to agree a work programme for its current session and, as a result, has failed to begin negotiation of a Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) i.e. a treaty that would ban the production and use of the two crucial nuclear explosives--plutonium and highly enriched uranium--that make up nuclear weapons."
The Government say they are in favour of a fissile material treaty, but negotiations are being blocked in Geneva.
"The South African proposal for an Ad-Hoc Committee to 'deliberate upon practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons as well as to identify if and when one or more such steps should be the subject of negotiations in the conference'.
None of those proposals meets with the favour of the Governments of the UK, the United States and France, who have suggested merely that:
The Egyptian proposal to 'commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament with the objective of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.'
The Belgian proposal (supported by Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Norway) to establish an Ad-Hoc Working Group to 'study ways and means of establishing an exchange of information and views within the Conference on endeavours towards nuclear disarmament'.
The Canadian proposal to establish an Ad-Hoc Committee for 'the substantive discussion of nuclear disarmament issues with a view to identifying if and when one or more such issues might be negotiated multilaterally'.
The G-21 proposal (proposed on their behalf by Cuba) for an Ad-Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament to 'start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapon convention'."
"the President of the CD consults 'on ways and means of establishing an exchange of information and views . . . by holding informal, open-ended consultations . . . by consulting with delegations'"
and other such means. Presumably, all that can be done at any time. There is no practical programme of action, nor even a programme for a programme of action. That follows two years in which nothing was achieved except agreement that negotiations could begin in 1999 on a fissile material treaty.
"The CD has negotiated all the major multilateral international arms control agreements to date and is the only UN body that has a mandate to negotiate and agree such agreements. If it cannot agree a means to begin the process of ridding the world of nuclear weapons then no one can."
The CND report concludes:
"without a fully implemented Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, without an FMT, with the CD in deadlock and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty lacking any future direction, no hope of START II ever being ratified and no prospect of START III being agreed and NATO re-emphasising the importance of NATO retaining nuclear weapons as an essential part of their military structure, one has to conclude that there is no hope whatsoever currently of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.
10 Jun 1999 : Column 828
The UK Government in their strategic defence review report, and NATO in its Washington press release on the deliberations on its strategic concept, shirk the issues of nuclear weapons reduction and seriously attempting to stop nuclear proliferation. That do-nothing approach does not mean that the status quo will last for ever. Instead, proliferation drives us down the road of shirking action--for example, when India, Pakistan and other countries develop nuclear weapons--and of increasing military intervention, albeit only when it suits us. That makes for a far more dangerous world. Defence in the world is not helped by the current nuclear weapons policy. The Government must return to the subject seriously and with a will.
Whatever window of opportunity existed upon the end of the Cold War has now firmly been slammed shut and the deadlocks and bars been put in place."
3.17 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |