941
Defence
13 MAY 1974
Where and what are
what are the possible threats at present to world peace? The correct answer to that, I suppose, is that they exist in every corner of the globe. My limited experience in the Ministry of Defence was that it was extraordinarily difficult to forecast where the next trouble would arise. Despite that fact, it is a truism that if we were to try to stand ready to intervene in every conflict any- where that it might happen we should -shortly bring ourselves to economic collapse and as a result would be unable to intervene anywhere. We should probably have to place ourselves on the footing of a war economy even if we set out as our aim, not immediately but after rapid expansion, to intervene in any part of the world. No one seriously believes that this is a sensible policy.
The first job of the Secretary of State, therefore, is to try to decide what commitments we intend to undertake and to concentrate upon those. It no longer makes sense to think of undertaking commitments east of Suez. I was rather; surprised by suggestions from the
Oppo- sition Front Bench that we should con- template the defence of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is totally indefensible. We are there merely by grace of the Chinese. They are jolly glad to see us there-for matters which have nothing to do with defence. To fight a rearguard political action to maintain garrisons in Hong Kong-garrisons as distinct from a police force-seems to be totally absurd.
Mr. Buck: Does not the hon. Gentle- man agree that our forces in Hong Kong are there to support the police force and that if there were serious rioting, such as occurred a year or so ago, we would need more than an ordinary police force to deal with it? Surely the hon. Gentleman would not consider it right to withdraw our guard ship, HMS “Chichester ", from Hong Kong. He is a man who is devoted to the Royal Navy. Such a withdrawal would affect morale to a very great extent.
Mr. Mallalieu : I do not think that our guard ship has an effect one way or an- other on our morale in Hong Kong. The one use that I have for Hong Kong in defence terms-it is a very dear use is that it provides a marvellous run ashore for seamen and provides a good time; but we do not need a garrison to ensure that.
8 D 41
Defence
942
Much the same thing applies to Singa- pore. We have only a token force in Singapore now. The snag of a token force is that it raises hopes that we can- not possibly fulfil. The bases in both Singapore and Hong Kong are bases from which we could withdraw. I shall not pretend that that would produce any vast saving. It would not. I shall come later to where some savings at least might be produced.
I come now, however, to the second principle, the extent of co-operation we can expect in any commitments that we undertake from our allies. Here we are still very much in the dark. On a num- ber of occasions in debates on Defence Estimates I have asked successive Gov- ernments to provide more and more infor- mation about NATO. We do not really know even the extent of the allied forces that are committed to NATO. I certainly do not know whether the NATO com- mand structure, military or political, is sufficiently effective to make possible speedy and effective action. I very much hope that in the White Paper that is to come that sort of consideration will be borne in mind.
I was a little amused by a Conservative back bencher who complained bitterly that we do not already have a White Paper before the House today. He felt that the present debate, which had been called for by the Conservative Party, was, therefore, valueless. It is not valueless at all. Although the present Government have moved extraordinarily fast it is a bit much to expect them to produce a complete defence review within two months. The value of the debate is that Members of the House of Commons can give advice to the Government on the guidelines and, indeed, the details the White Paper should contain.
If, with allies, we commit ourselves to dealing with what seems to be the principal threat and if we concentrate upon that, the threat in the West, how great and how immediate do we consider that threat to be? I would not deny that there is a threat, but the emphasis on the extent and the immediacy of that threat was exaggerated by the hon. Member for Haltemprice. However, it would be certain folly to deny that that threat, at any rate, lurks in the back- ground. A few years ago it was fashion- able to base one's defence policy upon
Page 135Page 136
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.