| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way again. I appreciate that he would like to see a world free of nuclear weapons. We are also signed up to article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which requires general and complete conventional disarmament as well. Does the Minister not accept, however, that the effect of having a nuclear-free world while retaining a conventionally armed world might be to make the world safe once again for prolonged all-out conventional warfare between large powers that are currently deterred by stable nuclear deterrents?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a nuclear weapons fanatic who presumably wants virtually every country in the world to have a capability. If we followed his line of thinking, that might well happen.
We shall continue to press for further deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, for entry into force of the test ban treaty and for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Progress on non-proliferation and disarmament may be linked to consideration by the United States of the possible deployment of a national missile defence system, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred.
Mr. Dalyell: Will we also press for deep cuts in the Israeli nuclear capability?
Mr. Hain: I have already said today that we want Israel fully to comply with and sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. That would be in Israel's interests and in the interests of peace and security in the middle east.
I was discussing national missile defence, which has been prompted by growing concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. We understand these concerns. They need to be addressed, but missile defence raises complex and difficult issues. The United States has made it clear that before it takes any decision on NMD, it needs to take a number of important considerations into account, including the need to preserve strategic stability. We welcome that.
We firmly believe that these matters should be addressed bilaterally with the Russians through calm, measured dialogue that leads ultimately to agreement. We therefore welcomed the agreement reached last weekend by Presidents Clinton and Putin to intensify United States and Russian dialogue on ABM matters, and on a START 3 treaty. Despite their obvious differences, we hope they can reach an agreement. We have made it clear to both sides that we continue to value the stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides, and we want it to be preserved.
This is not a safe or perfect world. Nations have the right to protect their people and British defence equipment can help them to do so. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife raised the question of arms sales, and the Labour Government have made arms exports more accountable and transparent than in almost any other country. We have established for the first time a tough code blocking exports of arms for either internal repression or external aggression. A European Union arms code is doing the same thing, and we initiated it. We have annual reports detailing the licences that we have agreed--one of the most open exercises of its kind in the world. We have nothing to hide, and many pressure groups have welcomed our transparency.
Britain is also leading the way on arms control by leading the way to ban land mines across the world, banning the sale of torture equipment, promoting a ban on small arms to conflict zones, and ratifying the nuclear comprehensive test ban treaty. Whether through our arms control policy or the promotion of our strategic responsibilities, we can be proud of the Government's foreign policy and our defence capability.
7.53 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for initiating the debate. The whole House will be grateful for the opportunity to debate these matters. We are blessed by the presence of two Ministers, from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence respectively, to provide a little light on the Government's foreign policy.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): United as always.
Mrs. Gillan: Methinks the Minister doth protest too much. During the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I felt that there was a great deal of unity between the Minister and the Liberal Democrats, but was pleased towards the end of that speech to hear at least some murmurs of sedentary dissent from those who sit to my left in the Chamber.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for North-East Fife--
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): The right hon. Member.
Mrs. Gillan: I do apologise to the right hon. Member for North-East Fife--[Hon. Members: "And learned."] I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but I was surprised to hear him arguing for more money to be spent on defence. It is of course a gentleman's prerogative to change his mind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman once called, in The Officer magazine of November 1991, for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure by 2000. Indeed, he went on to say that there was
- no intrinsic merit in defence spending.
I was grateful to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for setting out some of the Government's foreign policy, although I had heard it all before. Questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife seemed to slip past the Minister as he stuck carefully to his script. Perhaps when the Minister for the Armed Forces winds up we shall hear further and better particulars of the Government's foreign policy.
We entered the new century with a rapidly changing set of parameters against which the United Kingdom must position itself to steer a steady path in the interests of its citizens, wherever they may be. Technology and globalisation have brought more opportunity and information, and even greater threats than the relative stability of the cold war era.
As in the last century, we remain in a unique position. After the war, Winston Churchill placed Britain at the heart of three interlocking circles--north America, Europe and the Commonwealth. He and his generation had no concept of the global network world in which we now live, but his vision was perhaps more relevant and apposite to today's world than it was even to his.
A current audit of Britain's assets in the world reveals a unique collection and richness. First, there is our place in Europe and our membership of the European Union. Our transatlantic relationship is still very special, on security and military matters above all. We are central in the Commonwealth, an organisation that is potentially ideal as a network for the future. We have a permanent Security Council seat at the United Nations, and we are members of the G8 and NATO.
Our armed forces, so recently in action in Sierra Leone, are the envy of the world, and they have been much praised in the House. Our diplomatic service has a high reputation and extensive capability. We also have the English language, increasingly the lingua franca of the new world.
Mr. Spellar: How can English be the lingua franca?
Mrs. Gillan: I do not know whether the Minister went to Oxford or read classics. The words are lingua franca.
We are conveniently placed in a time zone that falls between north America and the far east. London is the pre-eminent international financial centre, which puts Britain at the crossroads of world financial markets. We are the world's fourth largest economy and second largest global investor. We have a unique combination of assets, giving Britain a vast global reach. In a world in which physical geography matters less and less, we should not think of Britain as being on the periphery of anything. We are not on the edge of some core vision of Europe; we are not an adjunct to the USA; we are not an island offshore of anywhere. Quite the reverse; today's network world places us right at the heart of the global system, and that should underlie the UK's strategic position.
There is no doubt that the main requirement of our foreign policy should be to protect and promote our interests, both immediately and in the longer term. We all have vested interests in stability and peace. However, with the speed of technological developments, our interests are even more vulnerable to developments around the world. Therefore, our strategic interests need to be served by an ever more complex set of requirements.
It is therefore sad that the Government seem to have only one hook on which to hang their foreign policy--namely, an ethical foreign policy. They enunciated that policy at the beginning of their term, but it has proved to be disastrous. They claim that their ethical foreign policy has been a roaring success, but the examples of the rocks on which that ship has foundered are littered over the three years of their governance. Whether it was the treatment of Chinese protesters during the visit of the Chinese President, the failure to sign the United Nations resolution condemning China's record on human rights, supplying weapons that have ended up in the hands of child soldiers, the leaking of Select Committee reports or diplomatic gaffes in Asia and Israel, no one can now believe in the Government's ethical and moral credentials, or even in their competence.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |