TWELFTH REPORT
The Defence Committee has agreed to the following
Report:—
THE ADAPTATION OF THE TREATY ON CONVENTIONAL
FORCES IN EUROPE
BACKGROUND
1. In November 1999, at the Istanbul summit of the
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 30
states signed an Agreement on the Adaptation of the 1990 Conventional
Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.[8]
There have long been treaties and agreements to contain the potentially
more disastrous use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The original CFE Treaty, signed in Paris in November 1990 and
ratified in November 1992, was however a landmark arms control
and confidence building measure for conventional forces. It followed
the decades of the Cold War, during which escalating Soviet and
NATO forces faced one another in Europe (as late as 1981 the 'Nott
Review' had noted the Alliance's continued concern about 'the
increasing reach and quality of Soviet conventional capabilities').[9]
To ease such East-West tensions, the CFE Treaty limited the numbers
of tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery and aircraft held by the
NATO and Warsaw Pact blocs. That treaty was rapidly overtaken
by events with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, and
its adaptation to the new political geometry of Europe became
a necessity.
2. The recently signed Adaptation Agreement puts
obligations on individual countries (rather than the two blocs),
with 'national ceilings' on equipment belonging to each country
and 'territorial ceilings' limiting where forces can be stationed.
It also entails further overall reductions in the ceilings for
conventional forces (Figure 1 on the following page) and provides
for more stringent inspection measures. However, the Agreement
has been made against a background of incomplete adherence to
the treaty obligations it amends. Russia in particular is failing
to meet its commitments under the CFE Treaty.
3. The Adaptation Agreement was presented to Parliament
by the Foreign Secretary on 25 February 2000. (In this report
we refer to the new proposals as "the Agreement" and
to the CFE Treaty currently in force as "the Treaty".)
The revisions to the Treaty that the Agreement contains have to
be ratified by each state before they come into force. We are
committed[10]
to examining on the House's behalf treaties falling within our
remit, before they are ratified. The House's Procedure Committee
is currently examining parliamentary scrutiny of treaties and
other similar agreements. The limited control that is currently
available is exercised through the so-called Ponsonby Rule, which
allows at least twenty-one days for Parliament to consider such
treaties.[11]
Last year, we tabled an Early Day Motion under the terms of the
Ponsonby Rule to allow us to examine the treaty to put the European
Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, 'OCCAR', on a legal
footing.[12]
We followed the same course—EDM 433—with the Adaptation
Agreement to amend the CFE Treaty laid before Parliament in February.[13]
Our aim in this report is therefore to inform the House about
the implications of this Agreement before it is ratified by the
UK government. Before examining the main features and implications
of the changes introduced with the Adaptation Agreement, we review
the obligations of the original CFE Treaty and the extent to which
they have been met by the Treaty's signatories.
8 Cm 4630 Back
9 The
United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward,
Cmnd 8288, June 1981, paras 1 and 11 Back
10 Third
Report, Session 1997-98, NATO Enlargement, HC 469 Back
11 Erskine
May summarises the so-called Ponsonby Rule as follows: 'When a
Treaty requires ratification, accession, acceptance or approval,
the Government does not usually proceed with this until a period
of twenty-one days has elapsed from the date on which the text
of such a treaty was laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's command,
a practice which allows Parliament the opportunity to consider
commitments which the Government is proposing to enter.' (See
Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and
Usage of Parliament, ed. Limon and McKay, 22nd Edition, p
226) Back
12 First
Report, 1999-2000, The OCCAR Convention, HC 69, para 2 Back
13 EDM
433 of Session 1999-2000 Back
|
