| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the dispute between India and Pakistan is, at root, a bilateral matter. However, as I made clear in the Statement, it is a dispute with potent international implications because of the potential scale of military action. That is part of the reason that there has been such intense diplomatic activity, which will continue.
My noble friend also asked whether it would be helpful to engage in some "blue skies thinking". I believe that what is needed at this point is the kind of sequenced approach that we and others in the international community have taken. We are engaged in dialogue with the two sides. As a result of that dialogue a number of commitments have been made by each side. We would like to see those commitments carried through. We shall continue to see what help and support we can give to both sides and, as appropriate, if we are asked to give any further support we shall consider the matter.
I agree with my noble friend that there is a great deal of inaccurate information. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the debate is held in as accurate an environment as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the very helpful Statement. It seems to me that during the days of the Cold War there were two main reasons why deterrence held. The first reason was the presence of a secure, secret, direct line, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Can the Minister give an assurance that in the step-by-step approach that she mentioned, which is quite understandable, the Government will keep pressing until there is such a secure direct line? The crisis over Kashmir will not go away and, sadly, it may be needed in the future.The second reason that deterrence held was a reality of what appalling destruction would be brought about by the use of nuclear weapons. One of the worst features of recent days has been the interviews with both soldiers and civilians in the Indian sub-continent giving the impression that nuclear weapons are weapons like any other weapons.
One of the good effects of CND in the bad days of the Cold War—I was never a member and to some extent opposed CND—was that it kept before the general public the appalling nature of these weapons. So far as I know, there is no equivalent to the CND in the Indian sub-continent. Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government might prevail upon, for instance, Japan which has had first-hand experience of these weapons to engage in an educational programme in India and Pakistan about the nature of such weapons? They are not like other weapons.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Nuclear weapons are not like any other weapons. It is important that awareness is raised within the populations of Pakistan and India of the possible effect of going down that terrible road. We shall do all we can and I shall take back to my colleagues the right reverend Prelate's specific suggestion.
The right reverend Prelate also raised the issue of a secure secret direct line, as did the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. As I said, we are engaged in trying to ensure that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan, and that there is a sequenced process. I shall take back both noble Lords' very good point that we should not desist until such time as we have agreement that such a direct line exists.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful for the Minister's encouraging Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke about the origins of this dispute. I was in the sub-continent of India in 1946. At that time it was clearly understood that those rulers with a majority of Hindu residents would go to India and those with a majority of Muslims would go to Pakistan. It is well known that the Maharajah of Kashmir, Hari Singh, opted to be, and was, independent for a few months, eventually opting to go to India. That is the origin of this dispute.
It was also suggested at that time—I do not know how true it was—that at the very last minute the boundaries between India and Pakistan were moved some 20 miles west which gave India a frontier with Kashmir. That again was a cause for concern at that time.
Although it is important that the American President should be actively involved, it is even more important that the United Nations should be actively involved. The United Nations resolution of 5th January 1949 states:
- "The question of the accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite".
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is not the only noble Lord in this House who has a great deal of detailed knowledge—a great deal more than I have, I confess—about the complex history of this dispute between India and Pakistan. We all recognise that the origins of the dispute are complicated.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to recognise the UN Security Council resolution. But it is also important to deal with the situation at present. It is important to move forward in a positive way. I shall bear in mind the noble Lord's offer to be present if by chance a plebiscite comes about.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate rightly reminds us that the world is forgetting the kind of weapons that nuclear weapons represent. The Minister rightly spoke about the information and education programme among communities in this country which have their origins in India and Pakistan. Should not that programme cover the nature of nuclear weapons? It has become clear in recent weeks that young people in particular who have grown up in this country but who have family links with India and Pakistan are ignorant of the nature of nuclear weapons and their effect. An education programme along those lines would be valuable.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I shall consider them with colleagues.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in the event of India being provoked into making a conventional military attack on Pakistan, and if Pakistan's territorial integrity appeared to be threatened by such an attack, does the Minister agree that it is unlikely that any Pakistan government would be able to resist the pressure to use nuclear weapons? I follow the reasoning of the right reverend Prelate. Apart from the catastrophic loss of human life on the sub-continent, the consequence would be seen as legitimising the use of nuclear weapons; and that would lead to their proliferation to an even greater extent. That would gravely undermine the security of the five permanent members of the Security Council which are the long-standing nuclear powers. As that is the fundamental objective of that part of the terrorist world represented by Al'Qaeda, it is probable that Al'Qaeda, as at present, is doing everything possible to
provoke such an attack on Pakistan. Do the Government recognise, therefore, that that is part of the international war against terrorism?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, despite the dispute being at root a bilateral matter, I believe I made clear in the Statement the potent international implications. Those are in part the result of the potential scale of any military action. Because in the post-September 11th world there have been new imperatives on member states having to take effective action to counter terrorism, we and our international partners recognise the dual elements of concern.
The noble Lord spoke about what might happen if India engaged in a conventional war. It is important that we do not speculate. At this time we are seeing some positive signs. The diplomacy upon which the whole of the international community is engaged continues. As I said in the Statement, the US Defense Secretary is expected in the region in two days' time. I agree with noble Lords that it is important to continue to raise awareness about the possible effects of the use of nuclear weapons, in particular with young people.
On proliferation, the experience of the United Kingdom, the United States and France is relevant. We in the West and the Warsaw Pact countries raised the bar against nuclear action. The result was that we resolved our differences by peaceful means. We recognise the potential implications. We must also take account of our experience, and the fact that our countries have been able to move forward—for example, only last week, we witnessed a NATO/Russia summit, an EU/Russia summit. In the midst of the Cold War, who would have believed that we would find ourselves in such a position today? I entirely take the noble Lord's point that there is continuing work that needs to be addressed. We must use our experience to ensure that proliferation does not become a reality.
Lord Paul: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the British High Commissioner in Delhi, Sir Rob Young, for the marvellous job that they, along with their counterparts, have done to reduce the tension that was becoming most frightening. We really need to get both nations to sit down together and find a solution to their problems, instead of going through the history, and so on. They are well aware of the historical background. As long as we continue to stress upon them that war is not the solution I believe that we shall make more progress than if we continue to discuss other matters. Will my noble friend the Minister kindly confirm that that is the direction in which we are trying to push the two countries forward?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page