TNAG-0476-FCO40-541-Strength-of-garrison-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 140

971

Defence

13 MAY 1974

[MR. BLAKER.] peaceful, to read that letter. In the face of a régime like that which is described so magnificently by someone who has suffered at its hands, the West, including this country, would be mad to reduce its forces by several hundred billion pounds a year more than it has already.

In my experience, we shall not achieve any relaxation of tension with the Soviet Union by giving things away in advance. I am not opposed to negotiation, despite my criticisms of the Soviet régime. I support the MBFR negotiations and the CSCE. But the right technique in nego- tiating with the Soviet Union is to decide what is right and to stick to it, and, before we make concessions, to get matching and guaranteed concessions from the other side. One of the most serious criticisms

of the Labour Party manifesto for this election is that it weakens the chances of a successful result from these negotiations.

A further point about negotiating with the Soviet Union is that it may be true that at the present time it wants relaxation but that this situation could change very rapidly. That is true of any dictatorial régime. It could change in the time that it takes the order to be given for Soviet tanks to roll into Prague. But whereas détente could disappear overnight, it would take years to rebuild our forces once we had dismantled them.

The Western world is in enough trouble at present without the extra trouble that the Labour Party manifesto threatens to cause it. Wherever we look in Western Europe or in the United States, we see a condition near turmoil. Into this situa-

tion has been catapulted a Labour Gov- ernment-by luck, as the Secretary of State for Employment put it the other day.

Increasingly in the past couple of months, my party has begun to fear that this Government not only have a dan- gerous policy in Europe but that they have not really thought it out. We have formed the impression that they have not thought out their policy on defence and that where they have done so it is more calculated to rock the boat than to hold it steady. Therefore, to the extent that the Secretary of State has made a robust speech, in parts, I very much wel- come that. But, as for the Labour Party manifesto, where stability is needed it is

CA

Defence

973

de-stabilising, where a firm negotiating stand is needed it is weak, and instead of setting an example of resolution, I believe that if it is followed through it could lead to a crumbling of the will of the West to defend itself.

I have no doubt that I shall be criti- cised for being too alarmist. I shall be told that Russian policy has changed, at least for the time being, and that the Soviet Union needs the help of the West too much to be so foolish as to attack us. That may be so-for the time being. But let us not be so foolish as to tempt them.

In any event, this is a circular argu- ment. If the resources of Western Europe are so important, would not it be very convenient for the Soviet Union to have them under its thumb? If it had only the resources of Western Germany under its thumb, it would be incom- parably the strongest nation in the world.

There are other ways in which the West could fall under the thumb of the Soviet Union, apart from military attack, and the Secretary of State was right to refer to them. If our defences fall below a level which the people of Western Europe consider to be safe or sufficient to deter aggression, we risk a crumbling of the will of the peoples of Western Europe to defend themselves and a pro- cess of "Finlandisation" of one country after another.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to this question? Does he think that it makes a contribution to the freedom and preservation of Western Europe to spend so much on arms that we permanently enfeeble the economies of the countries concerned?

Mr. Blaker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He is talking com- plete nonsense.

I am sorry to see that the hon. Mem- ber for Salford, East is not in his place. at the moment. I told him that I intended to refer to him. He wrote a letter last week to The Times describing himself as chairman of Labour Action for Peace. I do not know that organisation. It seems rather an Orwellian title. In his letter, the hon. Gentleman made two propositions. He said that the country could not afford the current level of defence spending, and he went on to say