| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
5. Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): What discussions he has had with his US and Russian counterparts following the conclusion of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference. [125208]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We continue to maintain close contact with both the United States and Russian Governments on nuclear non-proliferation issues.
Mr. Savidge: I congratulate my hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government on the role that they played in the success of that conference. May I urge the Government to work together with other nuclear weapons states to fulfil the spirit and the letter of the obligations entered into there, particularly on the test ban and anti-ballistic missile treaties and on progress with nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that Britain played a pivotal role in achieving a successful outcome to the non-proliferation treaty conference. We did so because after my speech in New York, I had discussions with the new agenda coalition--in particular the Irish, the New Zealanders and the South Africans--to say that we would work with the P5 nuclear states to try to achieve a common position. For the first time, an absolutely unequivocal declaration was given by the five nuclear states, Britain included, to work for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons, and for progress on all the other issues to which my hon. Friend referred,
including, crucially, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the fissile material cut-off treaty; and we will work vigorously to achieve entry into force of both treaties.
Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire): What is the Government's current attitude towards the United States national missile defence programme?
Mr. Hain: The Government's stance has been well stated. We are waiting to see what proposals the United States has for national missile defence and then we will make a judgment. I was, however, encouraged by the discussions between Presidents Clinton and Putin in Russia only a few weeks ago in which they agreed to discuss this matter and see whether they could find common ground. It is vital that whatever is done, the anti-ballistic missile treaty is not damaged but kept alive and in force, and that Russia and the United States continue to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and to co-operate, whether NMD--which is an untested, unproven system--develops or not.
Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): Does the Minister agree that while welcoming any Russian initiatives to bring about nuclear disarmament, we do not support Russia's plans to re-use plutonium taken from warheads to make so-called MOX nuclear fuel? Does the Minister agree that that would be both dangerous and environmentally damaging?
Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long and close expert interest in this matter. We remain very concerned about the use to which nuclear material is put in Russia, because a huge amount of it is available. It is important to world peace that the use of such material is properly monitored and regulated.
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): The Minister knows that on national missile defence, the American Administration have made an informal request to know what the Government's position will be on upgrading the radar tracking facilities at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. The House will want to know what the Government's response to that has been to enable the United States to deploy NMD if it decides to do so. Will the Government arrange to have an early debate in the House on this issue, which is of huge importance and comparable with the deployment of cruise missiles in the 1980s? The House will be keen to know on which side of the debate Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament members such as the Minister will be.
Mr. Hain: I remain on the Government's side of the debate. Indeed, I speak for the Government on these matters, and am doing so at present. As for the Government's attitude to national missile defence and any proposal that has not come in any specified form from the Americans so far, the difference between us and the Conservatives is that they will say yes to anything, even before they know what it is. The system has not been tested; it is vulnerable to decoys and all sorts of other technological devices. I urge the Conservative party to be cautious here. If and when the Americans decide to proceed with the system, we will consider it.
As I have said, we shall urge negotiations with the Russians to achieve consensus. How can we adopt an
attitude, as the Conservative Opposition have done, to a system and a policy that are not at all clear, and on which the Americans have made no decision?UN Security Council Membership
6. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): What estimate he has made of the time scale for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council to be changed to include a country from south Asia. [125209]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain continues to press actively for early enlargement of the UN Security Council to include permanent seats for countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as for Germany and Japan.
Mr. Prentice: That is good news; the UN should be reconfigured to reflect the realities of the modern world. There are those who believe that India is a strong contender for permanent membership of the Security Council. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that there can be no question of countries joining the Security Council as permanent members when they are in default, if that is the word, of UN resolutions? They must come into full compliance before they can even begin to be considered.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is right. As the second largest nation in Asia, India is a strong contender for any enlarged Security Council. It is ultimately a decision for the Asian group, and not one in which Britain will have the final say. Many matters will be taken into account when the decision is made, including those to which my hon. Friend referred. Other countries in Asia, including Indonesia and Pakistan, for example, will also put their names forward and make strong claims, and India's claim is undoubtedly strong.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): What is the Government's criterion for qualifying for permanent membership of the UN Security Council? Is it a country's population, its geographical position or its compliance with UN resolutions? Surely the Government must have some view about their role in putting forward the case for new countries becoming permanent members of the Security Council.
Mr. Hain: We have a very clear view, and we are leading the discussion in New York on enlargement of the Security Council. The present Security Council reflects a world that is long gone. It needs to be modernised and updated, and that is a policy that we are pursuing.
Our policy is to have five new permanent members--Japan, Germany, one from Asia, one from Latin America and one from Africa. There will also be four new non-permanent members, one from Latin America, one from Asia, one from Africa and one from eastern Europe. That is a clear policy, which would result in a Security Council that reflected the realities of the modern world.
Pakistan
7. Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Pakistan. [125210]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Britain has close and long-standing ties with Pakistan and we continue to urge General Musharraf to produce a complete timetable for the transition to democracy.
Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that members of the settled Pakistani communities in Britain, who had high hopes of a Labour Government, are concerned about the issue that was raised on the previous question, and feel that the legitimate concerns of Pakistan are being ignored as a result of our pressure that Pakistan, rightly, should move swiftly towards democracy? Does my hon. Friend agree that if they feel like that, and Pakistan feels isolated, that represents a real threat to peace in south Asia?
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that a Pakistan that feels isolated, embattled and beleaguered could find itself reacting accordingly, and that would be dangerous. I welcome the opportunity to place on the record the fact that we value our strong and historic friendship with the people of Pakistan. That friendship continues, although we rightly condemned the coup last year--there is no such thing as a good coup. Nevertheless, we want to see Pakistan develop, succeed and returned to democratic rule, and we will work with the Pakistani people and their representatives to achieve that, as we are now doing.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): When General Musharraf considers the franchise, would it not be appropriate for him to move towards a single electoral list for the restoration of democracy in his country? In that case, minorities such as Christians, Hindus, Ahmedis and Parsees may get a fair deal. Will Her Majesty's Government press for an early lifting of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which cause great offence to minorities and are often an incitement to violence against them?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend--[Interruption]--I mean, the hon. Gentleman; this consensus has gone too far. The hon. Gentleman raises important points, with which I agree, about minorities in Pakistan. We shall press for the lifting of the blasphemy laws--indeed, we already have--and we shall consider the proposals for a new electoral registration system. On that and other matters, we have offered the Pakistani regime co-operation to help eradicate corruption from the judiciary, and to modernise its system of government and the civil service, which has also been deeply corrupt and inefficient. Offers of assistance have been made, and we hope that they will be taken up. We genuinely want Pakistan and its people to succeed.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): The future of Kashmir is a burning issue for many Pakistanis in my constituency, and the vast majority believe that the Kashmiris should decide their own fate. Should we not use the United Nations to promote a plebiscite before we discuss whether there should be new UN representation?
Mr. Hain: As I have said, the issue of an enlarged Security Council is quite different from matters that may
or may not be occurring in Pakistan or India, even if those matters might influence the Asian group's decision about its representative. That is a matter for the Asian group, not Britain, to decide.The crisis in Kashmir continues, and we remain actively engaged in seeking to resolve it. We want India and Pakistan to resume the Lahore process, which resulted from the courageous decision of the Indian Prime Minister to travel to Lahore. The discussions provided a breakthrough, and it is unfortunate that the subsequent Kargil incident in Kashmir--the author of which was General Musharraf--has, along with last year's coup, set the process back. We continue to urge both Delhi and Islamabad to get together to resolve the matter. It cannot continue as a festering sore, threatening stability in the region and the human rights of those in the area concerned.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |