319
Debate on the Address
[THE EARL OF ARRAN]
[LORDS]
clear its requirement that Iraq should comply with Security Council resolutions. The aggressor cannot be rewarded for his crime.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon spoke of individuals seeking the release of hostages. While we warmly welcome the release of any hostages, we are firmly of the view that such initiatives serve only to help Saddam Hussein in his attempts to divide the unanimous international condemnation of his actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld all mentioned the Palestine problem. We all agree that the Palestinian problem requires strenuous efforts to achieve urgent solution. Saddam Hussein is the main obstacle to progress. We will pursue this with renewed vigour once the current crisis is over and we are ready to assist in the search for solutions.
Let me now turn to Europe, which has been the prime focus of our security planning for so many years and indeed about which so many of your Lordships have talked this evening. Europe is greatly changed from the continent we viewed when your Lordships last debated the gracious speech and it is almost unrecognisable comparied with the Europe of two years ago. Such has been the pace of change.
If one single dramatic event epitomised the transformation of Eastern and Central Europe it was surely the unification of Germany last month-an event which was barely conceivable 12 months ago but which throughout this year had to be brought forward time and again as the governments of the Federal Republic and East Germany sought to keep pace with popular pressures and with events. The rebuilding of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said is an event that we must not fail to seize.
A major factor in removing the final obstacles to unification was the decision by President Gorbachev to agree that a united Germany should be free to choose to belong to NATO: a proposition for which the Federal German Government and its allies had consistently argued. That the Soviet Union was prepared to drop its opposition to German membership of NATO reflected the very welcome extent of the changes that have taken place in Soviet thinking about security and the shape of the new Europe. The new thinking on security matters in the Soviet Government has followed a fairly steady path of convergence with Western ideas during President Gorbachev's time at the helm, and we warmly welcome his being awarded the Nobel peace prize.
Part of this is a changing perception of the role of NATO. It is hardly surprising that the clear image the Soviet Union and our public have had of the alliance is of a military organisation. Of course it still is, but it always has been, in addition, a political organisation; and as the military threat in Europe recedes we need to develop and give greater emphasis to NATO's political role.
The London Declaration issued by NATO Heads of Government following the summit in July this year set out clearly the direction in which we intend to
170 LD36/64 Job 10-4
(Fourth Day)
320
move. It reaffirmed the central point that NATO is a wholly defensive alliance and invited the Warsaw Pact states to join the Western nations in a joint declaration that we no longer regard each other as adversaries. We are engaged with our alliance partners in a review of NATO's military strategy and as Soviet troops leave Eastern Europe NATO will scale back the readiness of its forces. These and the other measures outlined in the London Declaration are already having the intended effect of helping to reduce the sense of suspicion of the West and its intentions that has been such a potent force in Soviet policy making.
We continue also to take the opportunity to build bridges with the Soviet Government and its armed forces. Manfred Woerner, NATO's Secretary General, has already visited Moscow; General Galvin, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe-I had the opportunity of meeting both of them in Brussels only a few weeks ago—and General Eide, the Chairman of NATO's Military Committee, are there now. General Moiseyev, the Chief of the Soviet General Staff, visited NATO last month and addressed the Military Committee, and we hope that President Gorbachev will address the North Atlantic Council in Brussels before the end of the year. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff will both address audiences in Moscow in the coming weeks. These contacts are vital if we are to break down the legacy of years of mutual distrust.
The signing of the CFE treaty in Paris next week, to which my noble friend referred in opening the debate, will be a major event in the process of building confidence between the West and the Soviet Union as well as an important step in improving security. To some extent the CFE negotiations have already been overtaken by events: they were envisaged as essentially a bloc-to-bloc negotiation, but one of the blocs has effectively ceased to exist.
That does not mean that CFE has no positive military advantages to offer the West. It will achieve the removal of massive amounts of military hardware from Europe, the destruction of many of the items removed and intrusive verification of those remaining. Moreover, there is an important political component of CFE in that the process of painstakingly negotiating these reductions and exchanging informa- tion about military capabilities makes yet a further contribution to increasing trust between the Soviet Union and the West-that trust and confidence which we all regard as so vital.
some
All these hopeful developments are interpreted by as having removed the rationale for the continued existence of NATO. If there is no longer a military threat in Europe, they argue, why should we need the military and political alliance that has existed to contain the Soviet threat? But although we can be justified in being optimistic, all in the garden is not yet rosy. The Soviet union faces immense difficulties in reforming itself and these difficulties are creating terrible strains. Such apprehension and fear of the future was very clearly outlined by my noble friend Lord Pym. They are anxieties we all share.