| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.56 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Earlier, the Chamber took on the air of a confession box as, for a while, Members on both sides of the House confessed to their membership, or otherwise, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I shall begin by making my own confession. I think that I am still a member of CND; I certainly would not have been seen dead without my CND badge when I was younger. More important, I was a member of an even better organisation--Doctors against the Bomb.
I am now a fully paid-up supporter of my party's policy on nuclear weapons but, deep down in the heart, a doubt lingers as to whether the male politicians in this world of ours have really got it right--I suspect that they are all stark raving mad, but enough of that.
I want to address an issue that has not been raised so far and on which the UK could really make some impact. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), this country is uniquely placed between the USA and Europe, with huge links to Commonwealth countries. We must thus be the nation best placed to influence the greatest number and to strengthen the United Nations. That is what I shall talk about primarily.
At the beginning of this week, I attended a lecture at Kew gardens in my constituency. It was world environment day. The lecture was given by Michel Batiste from UNESCO. He was speculating on whether the world had a future and on what we could do to influence the world's future. He presented two options, one of which was that the USA should rule the world; it was the strongest nation, and we all had to accept that and bow down under the yoke.
After making that suggestion, he argued strongly that the United Nations was the only truly world body that could do anything about securing our future. He called on everyone present to do all in their power to strengthen the UN.
Why does the UN matter so much? It is tempting to dismiss it as a powerless sideshow in global politics; it has to be supported, but those who are interested in it are mainly elderly academics and--dare I say?--anoraks. Why do we not, ask the hardliners, deal directly with the power brokers in the G7, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation? Let us deal directly with them, they say, so that the really powerful nations can get their own way. They suggest that that is a much easier and quicker way of doing things. The strongest wins every time.
The world must have a body of member states that can challenge each other on abuses of human rights, on rotten trade agreements and on the invasion of territory. We have to attempt to create such a world order. However, the United Nations was created 50 years ago and it desperately needs reform. It is constantly bypassed by the stronger countries, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. Its recent peacekeeping operations in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Bosnia--the list is not in the right chronological order--have all been a failure and everyone has deplored what has happened.
We want discussion on the reform of the United Nations. First and most important, its dues must be paid in full by every member country. The recent withholding of $300 million by the United States to win family planning concessions was outrageous. I am astonished that the British Government did not condemn that more strongly. We must all pay our dues--even the mighty United States of America. It is no good our complaining of weaknesses in the United Nations if we do not give it the resources to do its job. If it does not do the job properly with the right resources, we then have to spend more money clearing up the mess. Where are the economies to be made in that?
Secondly, the Security Council has the prime responsibility for international peace and security. However, there are two classes of members on the Security Council. There are five permanent members, any one of whom can veto decisions. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States can hold the world to ransom single-handedly. The structure must be revisited. Perhaps the General Assembly should be allowed to challenge it. The nine other members of the Security Council have to be elected every two years. Why are the permanent members so safe? Perhaps we should review who they are.
A constitutional conference needs to be called to discuss reform of the United Nations. Why do the Government not take the lead on that? To set an example, why could this country not refer a resolution that we wish to veto to the General Assembly for decision? Perhaps other countries would follow suit.
The General Assembly needs revision. It needs to have a more democratic basis and a better weighting of votes. The millennium summit of the UN will be held in September and I plead with the Government to try to pursue reform of the UN at that summit.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) criticised the United States for not ratifying treaties, but why are we not taking the lead on ratifying the treaty on the International Criminal Court? Why is that taking so long? It is five years since the Scott report was published and two years since the arms White Paper was produced, so why do we still not have legislation to control the arms trade and arms brokering?
The annual report is very welcome, but the phrase, "We only export arms if they will not be used for external aggression or for internal repression," sickens me. I do not know how Ministers can repeat it like parrots. They do not believe what they are saying; I do not believe what they are saying. Why are we not leading the world on that?
Why are we not finding ways to make the world financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, answerable to the United Nations? Why should they always get away with it?
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed, by our history and our treaties, to reform the United Nations and to lead the world. I was proud to be present in the Foreign Office when the new Government announced a foreign policy with an ethical dimension and, as a weak and feeble woman, I nearly cried when I heard those words; indeed, I get emotional just thinking about that now. We had a new Government who would give a new moral lead to the rest of the world. Sadly, however, that has not happened.
I am no dove, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife will tell the House. I fully supported the previous Government's actions in Iraq and this Government's actions in Kosovo, and I am proud of what they have done in Sierra Leone. However, they have left much undone, especially on arms sales. Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries all over the world have received arms from us, and they should not have done. All over the world, there are questionable trade agreements that may lead to environmental damage. We have had to make excuses because British companies, encouraged by the Government, have been involved in projects that have caused human rights abuses and environmental damage. We have to do something about that.
Why do not the Government stop being so timid? They are constantly looking over their shoulder because they are terrified of offending anybody, especially the United States, and of taking a stand. We are a great people, and the Government have a large majority. Why do they not show the world what we can do?
9.7 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their motion. However, I shall do so in classic Liberal Democrat form by combining damnation with praise in a strange admixture by adding the caveat that the inclusion of Sierra Leone was extraneous. It made the motion diffuse and was done simply to bring forth pedantic criticism.
Surely what we did in Sierra Leone was a successful action in support of a friendly, legitimate democratic Government with whom we have a special relationship because the country is an ex-colony and a member of the Commonwealth. Our action was in support of United Nations action, and troops, and by doing what we did we saved life and limb. Frankly, I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) commented that we went there to save diamonds. We went to save life and limb--in the most hideously literal sense, as some of the terrible pictures from that country show.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to check the Official Report, he will find that I did not say that we went to Sierra Leone to save diamonds; I asked how we would defend ourselves against the caricature that we intervene only when issues such as oil and diamonds are at stake. I did not represent the Government's position, which I have consistently supported, in the way that he has described.
Mr. Savidge: We defend ourselves with the fact that we went to Sierra Leone to save life and limb. We succeeded in doing so by going in quickly rather than waiting for a United Nations resolution, and we were correct to do so. We should congratulate our troops and our Government on that.
In any case, I regard that issue as a diversion because the crucial issue is weapons of mass destruction, which the Liberal Democrats were right to raise. I totally agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that since the cold war we have had a decade of inertia that has led to a great increase in our peril. Again, we should congratulate the Government, particularly on what they did in the nuclear non-proliferation review conference in New York.
We should remember the pessimism with which many of us went into the conference, and the acute apprehension that we felt during that conference, yet, at the end of it, there was agreement between the five nuclear weapons states--the five UN Security Council members--in the statement to which the motion refers. There was real meaningful dialogue between those five states and the members of the New Agenda Coalition. There was real involvement and discussion with the non-aligned countries. As a result, the conference came out with a successful agreed statement.
I believe that the British delegation played a crucial role in each stage of that agreement. That was an important success. Those on the delegation--particularly the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)--should be congratulated on their part in that.
Among the positive things in that statement were its positions on the comprehensive test ban treaty, the fissban treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Israel--I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that that was important--India and Pakistan, nuclear weapon-free zones, START 2, START 3 and the need to make further progress in reducing nuclear weapons, working towards the elimination of those weapons. However, we must now see delivery. Therefore, I accept that part of the motion and the Government's response to it.
We need to see delivery. Yesterday, the House debated Northern Ireland. I see a parallel with Northern Ireland. When paramilitary organisations say that they will disarm, I find that encouraging, but when they actually allow their weapons to be inspected, I find that more encouraging. When they start decommissioning, I find that most encouraging of all. I repeat the statement from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife: greater inertia, if anything, creates even greater peril because we are at a watershed.
I am pleased that the leadership of all parties in the House supports the comprehensive test ban treaty. My early-day motion last year showed that the overwhelming majority of Back Benchers from all parties support that--in fact, it gained more support than any early-day motion since the general election.
Obviously, it is encouraging that the Russian Duma has endorsed the test ban treaty. We await in particular the position of the United States and China because they will undoubtedly bring other states in with them. I endorse what the United States Administration are trying to do, but we must desperately seek to encourage Congress to take positive action on the matter.
In the United States, people say that they are worried about rogue states. Banning tests is one of the best protections against rogue states. If they are banned, it will mean that weapons are untested. Weapons that are untested are far less likely to work and weapons that are far less likely to work are far less likely to be used.
The test ban treaty is one of the most verifiable of all treaties, which is another reason to support it. The Government should do everything that they can to encourage our United States allies in Congress to endorse the comprehensive test ban treaty. The House should do
everything that it can to support the Government in that. Perhaps we should again support an early-day motion, or find some other way to encourage them.The fissban treaty is a matter of urgency. Only last month, a convoy of illicit nuclear weapons material was intercepted when being smuggled from the former Soviet Union into Afghanistan. What Russia has said recently about a preparedness to export nuclear weapons technology to other countries is worrying, although I suspect that that may be part of the bargaining that is going on in relation to NMD.
Talking of NMD, I pass on to the ABM treaty. I am glad that it was said that that must be preserved and strengthened, but NMD does cause concern, as does the attitude of the Clinton Administration and, even more, the Bush candidacy, which at times has almost the most naive and most frightening foreign policy since Goldwater. What perhaps causes even more concern is the thought that it could become an election issue and so might not be discussed on a totally rational basis, or be totally based on rational considerations of strategy.
I fear that that is very much a magic and Maginot approach to strategic problems: the sort of magic fix or Maginot line that is supposed to create a miraculous cure for all defence problems. It sounds wonderful until it is tested and found not to work. Not only may it not reduce danger--it could increase danger. If the ABM treaty is torn up, both Russia and China are likely to increase their weapons. It could also destroy reliance on all other treaties.
Even if agreement is reached with Russia, it must also be sought with China, which I know is not party to the bilateral talks. If China is not brought on board, there is the danger that it will increase its weapons and start exporting weapons. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred also to the danger of a domino effect across Asia.
Further points have been made. Does the United States believe in deterrence? If the Americans have billions of pounds to spend on national missile defence, might they not increase world security better by spending it on other things, such as helping to stabilise the states of the former Soviet Union and other states, or as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) suggested, putting money into the United Nations?
Even if NMD worked and could overcome decoy systems, what about the possibility of transporting weapons of mass destruction in lorries, in suitcases or by boat?
What if the United States goes for national missile defence? What should Britain's attitude be while we await a decision? Some people would say that the US is our ally, so we must go with whatever it wants. That seems to be the attitude of some of the Tory Europhobes, who are desperately worried about qualified majority voting in Europe, where at least we have a vote, but who do not worry too much about the United States making any decision that it wants, where we have no vote, and expecting us automatically to accept it. I took it that that was the reason for the extraordinary coyness of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she was asked what Conservative policy would be if the US decided to tear up the ABM agreements.
The United States may offer us other things. There is a possibility of our being offered dollars, jobs or cover. I believe that supporting NMD could bring greater danger not just to the people of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, but to global security. Therefore, as good allies of the United States, we should be constructively critical and urge caution. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, there is the danger of a new unilateralism in the United States which could completely undermine nuclear disarmament.
We must make progress on nuclear disarmament, through bilateral and multilateral action, as the Government amendment states. I would add "plurilateral" action. The word "unilateral" was not used, probably for fear of raising old slogans and past sterile arguments, which, surprisingly, were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, and which might get the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) over-excited, to the point of endangering his health.
However, there is a place for unilateral initiatives and unilateral reciprocal actions. That is particularly true in the case of the United States and Russia. If there is no treaty, the problem can be overcome by taking reciprocal unilateral actions, which do not have to be passed by an awkward Congress or an awkward Duma.
There is also a place for a unilateral response to a reduced threat, which is what has been made by both Conservative and Labour Governments in Britain in the past few years. We should not be frightened of the word unilateral. It has a place, along with other methods of seeking to reduce nuclear weapons, which we must get on with. Reference was made to comments by the Secretary of State for Defence. I believe that he said disarmament would not happen in weeks, days or months. He did not mention years, and I hope that he was not thinking in terms of years. I am certain that we must deliver far more quickly than that. I return to the comment about inertia and peril, and the basic point that, just as we are looking for action to take place in Northern Ireland, so the non-nuclear weapons states are looking to the nuclear weapons states for action.
There is no defence against disaster on a national basis. It must be on an international basis. The Palme commission said that we must have a common security. We can no longer have national security; we need a common security for all mankind.
Some people argue that if national missile defence were technically possible, it could be useful under the control of a United Nations agency in future, when nuclear disarmament was genuinely progressing. That view may be a little starry eyed. At least I am sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that we are considering a distant future. I suspect that all three aspects--the technology, a sufficiently trusted and efficient United Nations agency in an atmosphere of mutual international trust, and enough genuine progress on nuclear disarmament--are distant. However, in the meantime, we must make every endeavour to realise the promises of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and reduce what probably remains the greatest threat to the future of our species.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |