55
933
Oral Answers
22 DECEMBER 1982
However, it must be an objective to resolve the problem altogether and comprehensively. If the Namibia question offers an opportunity for the wider resolution of problems in southern Africa, it will be a great mistake to ignore the opportunity.
Hong Kong
2. Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the discussions in Peking about the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): Following the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to China in September, meetings to discuss the future of Hong Kong have begun through diplomatic channels in Peking and are continuing. For reasons that will be obvious to hon. Members, the content of these meetings must remain confidential. Their agreed aim is the maintenance of the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that an urgent objective in the talks must be to restore international confidence in Hong Kong and in its currency?
Mr. Pym: We wish to maintain confidence in Hong Kong and prepare the way for maintaining it beyond 1997 when the lease of the New Territories ends.
Mr. Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend understand the sense of insecurity felt in Hong Kong because it is not possible to divulge anything so far about the process of the discussions? In that context, has consideration yet been given to the arrangements for consulting the people of Hong Kong on the outcome of the discussions?
Mr. Pym: International negotiations are not normally brought to a successful conclusion unless they have been conducted in confidentiality. I think that the people of Hong Kong understand that. We are aware of their anxiety about the future. What matters is that our talks with the Chinese should be brought to a successful conclusion. We are closely in touch with the Government and other important figures in Hong Kong, and I wish to make it clear that the views of the people of Hong Kong will be taken fully into account in our talks with the Chinese.
Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the uncertainty in Hong Kong is caused by the people of the colony who have deluded themselves into believing that there will be a quick and easy answer to the problem? We all hope and intend to do our best to ensure that a solution is arrived at as quickly as possible, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done that will cause detriment or harm to our relations with the People's Republic, which in the long run are more important to the House and the country than our relations with Hong Kong?
Mr. Pym: We are seeking to achieve the continuation of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, which is important to the people of Hong Kong and to China. It is important also that the talks in which we are engaged should produce a successful result, and Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to that end.
Date : 22.12.82 Column: 933
484
Oral Answers
H k ko 40 5
оч
*North Atlantfe Counčiko
DESK OFICE
1034
3. Mr. Frank Allaun asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comingowealth Affairs, whether 'huclear weapons were discussed at the meeting of the North Atlantic Counction 9 and 10 December which he attended.
$43.
Mr. Pym! Yes. "Nuclear arms control was a major subject of discussion at the North Atlantic Council as I explained in the debate on 15 December.
Mr. Allaun: What is wrong with Mr. Andropov's offer that Soviet missiles in Europe should not exceed those of Britain and France as at present deployed? Secondly, does today's refusal even to negotiate that offer mean that cruise missiles are bound to come and that the nuclear arms race will finally get out of control, or will it need a change of Government in Westminster to stop that?
Mr. Pym: The understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union on the INF talks is that of parity between the United States and the Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman has referred to Mr. Andropov's speech yesterday, which is the first public statement of the Soviet Union's position. Full details of it are not yet available, but I have no doubt that they will be when negotiations resume in Geneva at the end of January. The difference between the Soviet Union and the West-between the Soviet Union and the United States is in the equation and nature of the nuclear balance. It seems vital that the parties concerned agree upon the facts before they can make progress.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is "No". It is not certain or inevitable that the missiles will come to Europe at the end of the coming year. If arms control negotiations succeed and if it is possible for the two sides to negotiate an arrangement that is verifiable and balanced, and if the armament is reduced on both sides even-handedly, we shall have to review the decisions that we took.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Andropov' proposals come close to inviting Britain to trade his apple for our orchard? Will he insist on the British Government rejecting all ideas of unilateral disarmament when Mr. Andropov himself has entirely ruled out such an absurd policy for his own country?
Mr. Pym: We have always rejected the notion of unilateral disarmament precisely because it would throw away our defences and bring arms control no nearer. The only reason why the Russians are at the negotiating table is the decision that we took in NATO three years ago. That is why they are there discussing the possibilities of a reduction. My hon. Friend has referred to some of the obvious weaknesses in the plan that has been put forward. However, it is for the negotiators to come to their conclusions when the next round begins.
Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us welcomed his recognition that Mr. Andropov's proposals were a step forward? His readiness to negotiate on them is a welcome contrast to the complete rejection of the proposals by President Reagan, which many of us deeply deplore. As the right hon. Gentleman said on television last night that the west must examine Mr. Andropov's proposals as part of what he called the “overall balance of security", how can he refuse to take account of French and British nuclear forces as part of the overall
5
Volume:
34
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.