| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis: That is a common myth put forward by unilateral nuclear disarmers. Article 6 does not require us to get rid of our nuclear weapons unless or until there is a global agreement by all countries to get rid of all nuclear weapons.
Llew Smith: By sheer coincidence, I happen to have the relevant passage from article 6 of the NPT. It states:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Dr. Lewis: That means the whole world.
Llew Smith: I have set out what article 6 states, and I shall now elaborate on that. By refusing to negotiate away our nuclear weapons, this country remains in breach of UN resolutions dating back to 1968, yet Iraq was illegally invaded on the pretext that it was in breach of UN resolutions since 1991.
Next spring, the NPT comes up for review at the UN. It is certain that many nations will rightly press the nuclear weapon states to explain their inaction in respect of carrying out nuclear disarmament, given that two members of the UN Security Council—the UK and the US, which bristle with their own nuclear WMD—prosecuted an invasion of Iraq to disarm that country of nuclear weapons that it never possessed.
Not only does the UK not participate in nuclear disarmament, but Ministers plan to escalate the nuclear arms race. They intend to extend for another 10 years the bilateral agreement with the US that allowed the purchase of Trident and continued nuclear weapons co-operation with the Americans. I objected to that in early-day motion 1407, which I tabled on 24 June and which deals with the US-UK mutual defence agreement renewal and the NPT.
International lawyers at Matrix chambers in London have examined the text of the 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement, in relation to the text of the NPT that was drawn up 10 years later. In a recent report, they concluded that the bilateral nuclear pact with the US was a breach of the NPT, and thus confirmed what many of us have argued for many a long year.
As I have pointed out before, the Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction system was bought from the United States and its warheads were tested in the United States, which also provides targeting technology
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1091
and command-and-control support. By any independent judgment, that constitutes an indirect support of nuclear weapons of mass destruction by one state for another, which is also not permitted under article 1 of the non-proliferation treaty.
Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government or any future Government were minded to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons in succession to Trident, they would be in direct breach of the NPT?
Llew Smith: I very much agree, and I would elaborate on that point if time allowed.
Having invaded Iraq, the US now threatens its neighbour, Iran, over its atomic aspirations. However, as a detailed article on nuclear proliferation in the Financial Times on 9 September pointed out, doubts persist over Iran's true intentions regarding its nuclear programme. Inspections have not brought proof that the Iranian regime has military intentions. John Bolton, who is President Bush's hawkish under-secretary of state for arms control and security, said:
"The Bush administration is reinventing the non-proliferation regime it inherited, crafting policies to fill gaping holes, reinforcing earlier patchwork fixes, assembling allies, creating precedents and changing perceived realities and stilted legal thinking. The frontlines in our non-proliferation strategy must extend beyond the well-known rogue states to the trade routes and entities engaged in supplying proliferant countries."
"We are just at the beginning, but it is an extraordinary beginning. Not only are we meeting this ultimate of threats on the field, we are advancing on it, battling not only aggressively, but successfully. And so we must, for the outcome of this battle may hold nothing less than the chance to survive."
It is clear that despite it being illegal under the UN charter, the US is prepared to implement regime change wherever and whenever it chooses. I am saddened that our Prime Minister was prepared to go along with regime change in Iraq. We have the right to know whether the Government believe that regime change is legal under UN provision.
I was told in a written reply earlier this month, again by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that
"Issues of compliance with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) form an integral part of our dialogue with a number of Governments and other bodies . . . the Foreign Secretary is confident that the United Kingdom continues to fulfil all of its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Treaty."—[Official Report, 4 October 2004; Vol. 424, c. 1839W.]
I doubt that many NPT members would agree. It is not diplomatically credible to say to other countries, "Do as we say, not as we do." That is what this Government have said for too many years.
Fingers will rightly be pointed at us at the NPT review in New York next spring. Luckily, a positive motion will be tabled by countries such as Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon free world: Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments." My hon. Friend the
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1092
Minister will be aware of the motion and he should tell the House whether the Government will put their name to it. If they do so, we can begin to recover some of our lost credibility—lost as a result of the war in Iraq, which we were told was about weapons of mass destruction. It is ironic to hear some of the people defending that war—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
4.29 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright), who made an excellent speech. I hope that he will not just regard this topic as the one on which he made his maiden speech but that he will continue to take an interest in defence matters. I wish him a long and successful career in this place.
"A great country such as Germany and such lesser ones as Spain, Belgium, Holland have by their budgetary actions shown that they reject the principle accepted by every serious society for centuries, that it is impossible to have an effective foreign policy without a credible defence policy and plausible forces."
So said Sir Max Hastings, during an after-dinner speech recently. He went on to say that Britain was not yet at that stage. However, our armed forces, especially the infantry, are being asked to do more and more at a time when the Government are intent on reducing that highly overstretched arm by 10 per cent.
Our debate is entitled "Defence in the World". We have heard about Britain's unique position in its commitment to the UN Security Council, NATO, the EU, the Commonwealth and the G8, but we should take this opportunity to debate a more thorough review of where Britain should be in relation to defence in the world: whether we concentrate on being policemen and peacekeepers; whether we can be a reactive as well as proactive force; whether we should get involved in pre-emptive strikes and regime changes. Might our close ally, the United States, be growing too reliant on us and be asking us to do too much?
We have not intellectually and thoroughly thought through the world post the cold war era—the fact that armies are no longer conventional, the real and everyday concern about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the proliferation of weak and failing states, with all that results from that. We continue to spend vast amounts on equipment in our determination to keep up with our American allies, with an expensive air force and a costly carrier fleet. At the end of the exercise, unless we are careful, we shall have an enormous amount of expensive equipment but no one to operate it.
I am grateful to my constituent, General Sir John Waters, a former General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, for bringing to my attention the speech from which I quoted earlier. In the post-Falklands era, it was Sir John who came up with the maxim that defence policy has to deal with probabilities, not possibilities, adding, "You never can tell." That is fine, but what we know—what we can tell—is that we shall always need troops on the ground. What we know is that those troops must be highly trained and professional, and that our regimental system, developed over centuries, is the best proven system in the world to
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1093
ensure that that happens. It is tried and tested, the envy of many. What we cannot afford to do is to threaten that system at a time when it is stretched to the limit.
Today, we heard from the Secretary of State about the surge requirement in the run-up to the elections in Iraq. There are Members on both sides of the House who regard the deployment of the Black Watch as mission creep, although I think that that is questionable. However, I question the Prime Minister's wisdom in promising at Question Time yesterday that the Black Watch would be home by Christmas. Home to what exactly?
My constituent, Major Duncan Bengough, late of the Black Watch, has raised with me time and time again the threat to his old regiment. Having read through the submissions that I have received I am in agreement with much that he says. I leave it to Scottish Members to argue the case more forcefully, as I am sure they will, but surely the key point is that the creation of a large regiment, such as the proposed Royal Regiment of Scotland, would inevitably mean the end of the existing small regiments. I am concerned that the Chief of the General Staff apparently has a relaxed view about the realignment of infantry battalions, not least as regards my old regiment, the Grenadier Guards.
I want to spend the remaining time allocated to me arguing the case for the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment. The regiment, and its predicament, has attracted much attention in my constituency and the west country in general, not least from the Conservative spokesman in Teignbridge, Stanley Johnson, who has mounted an excellent campaign and has proved to be an assiduous campaigner on the regiment's behalf. Neither Stanley Johnson nor I can understand the irony that a Government who are keen to push a regional agenda, with regional assemblies and regionalisation, simultaneously fail to appreciate the strong and logical regional aspects of county regiments in terms of both history and recruitment. The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment enjoys the freedom of 15 towns, cities and boroughs across the two counties and two more towns are queuing to grant it freedom.
I shall not get involved this afternoon in what I think would be the best option if a merger were to take place, but I know what is desirable and what is not. There might be an opportunity to bring the men of Devon and Dorset together with their fellow west country men of Somerset and Cornwall in the Light Infantry. That suggestion would have much merit and would create the opportunity to form a new and regionally distinct regiment from Wales, the midlands, the west and the south-west in an equitable and balanced way.
Our county regiment faces a critical time. If regiments such as the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment lose their long and deep associations with counties, and the associations that counties have with them, they risk being irreversibly damaged. Some 85 per cent. of the regiment's recruits come from, or live in, the two counties, or were educated there or have another close association with them. If the regimental identity were lost or submerged in a wider entity, the long-term viability of the unit would be put into question, irrespective of the cosmetic solutions proposed.
Following our recent conference in Bournemouth, the shadow Secretary of State articulated the fact that an incoming Conservative Government will increase
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1094
defence spending on front-line services by £2.7 billion. Perhaps more importantly, however, I was heartened that he said:
"As a result of this settlement we will retain the infantry regiments that Labour propose to do away with".
When we discuss geopolitical matters, as we tend to in the House, and talk about the threat of international terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, we do so in the knowledge that we will have to face up to and deal with that sooner rather than later. However, the bottom line is that unless we have faith in our existing infantry battalions and the regimental system, and unless we can show that we care about their past and future, we will place them in an invidious position. It is worth considering that as we send the Black Watch into a new sphere in Iraq, so that those who serve in it realise that we are thinking about them and those in other local regiments. They should know that their regiments will not necessarily be merged or disbanded on their return. We need to put our faith in them, and show good faith in them, when asking them to do jobs that many of us would be incapable of doing.
4.38 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |