---

Nuclear Proliferation

My Lords, the tone of pessimistic urgency in this stark subject has been aired very competently already by the two previous speakers. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams for launching this debate and I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said. Surely, this is the moment of reality and truth for, particularly, the advanced west to consider these matters, stark as they are—and I think that there is general agreement about that. Despite the fact that we in the United Kingdom can claim to have made some impressive reductions here and there, none the less the task and the obligation for us is very considerable indeed. Yet, there is a continuum of complacency about these matters, an insouciance which is positively alarming. We have to think about the longer term too. The awkward questions facing us from people such as Bruce Kent—a very controversial figure—get the response, which more and more people tend to believe, that maybe there should not be a replacement for Trident after all. Even Sir Stephen Wall is quoted in his recent letter. And there are the other aspects of the immediate crisis looming up. I wish to save time by not repeating the points, with which I agree, of the previous speakers and by focusing mainly on EU3 and Iran. I have a few preliminary words. The problems facing the NPT are so serious that a complete rethink is necessary, and the sooner a new document is presented to the international forum the better. I think that that is the only solution now, bearing in mind the erosion that has taken place, primarily from the insouciance and, indeed sadly, the incompetence of the United States in allowing things to develop as they have done. Nothing was sadder than seeing in the autumn when the millennium targets were enunciated and the subsequent review meeting just what a shambles that crucial meeting was on future nuclear disarmament. It was so sad to see that the third world had very little confidence in what the first world, the advanced western nuclear powers, and, indeed, China, had to offer. What an example that remarkable country South Africa has shown in being the only country, apart from the ex-Soviet countries, to have renounced nuclear weapons. We need not just consider marginal gestures by the western powers, led by the United States, but substantial reform moves in the future. It is preposterous that Israel is not included in these matters. I believe that it has to be included in whatever NPT mark 2 might succeed the existing arrangements. Its arsenal is very considerable indeed, and it is protected by the United States as well as by the whole international community. It is the unbeatable military power in the Middle East, and there is no need for it to have a large and provocative nuclear arsenal in the future. India and Pakistan have already been mentioned, and I entirely agree with the points that have been made. North Korea is a special case of intransigence, but also of co-operation. Now we really do return to the idea, as President Clinton enunciated, of working with North Korea to get sensible solutions there. China has its own particular relationship with Taiwan, and that might have unfortunate nuclear implications in the future. Heaven forfend that it might, but anything can happen in this dangerous world. Against that background, what the European Union has achieved so far in its initial contacts and negotiations over a considerable period with Iran, which is a special case and a special problem at the moment, has stood it in good stead and showed that it can make that contribution. Although it was a special one-off, ad hoc, separate mechanism of the EU3 and not part of the overall collective Union effort, it has done Europe a whole host of good in the way in which it has been handled. I believe that more will now come. We have had Xavier Solana’s crucial visit to Iran yesterday and today, and we await the results of that visit and the offerings that he is bringing now to continue the process on behalf of the UN Security Council and the European Union, but representing the European Union in this context. Iran knows what its obligations are. They must be faced up to, which means that people in Tehran must accept the realities of the obligations that Iran has had for a long time under the NPT. I quickly repeat that the preamble to the NPT declares that the state parties affirm,"““the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States””." The whole world is now watching to see how Iran is handled by the west, by the UN Security Council and by the EU3. The questions for Iran are crucial, need repeating and need to be answered properly. Does Iran really want a nuclear bomb? The answer may, sadly, be yes. I hope not, but the resumption of the anti-NPT activities commenced a long time ago in 1985 during the dreadful war with Iraq. Will UN sanctions be imposed? I hope not. The EU3 has already made very generous offers, which will be repeated and augmented, I believe, by Solana’s visit yesterday and today. Iran’s economic structure makes it very vulnerable to economic and financial sanctions, as it knows. If Tehran persists in its nuclear activity, will the US intervene and strike? Why would this be necessary? Jack Straw quite rightly said that that would be nuts; indeed, tribute has been paid to him tonight. The US is now already effectively ruling out such an intervention, thanks to the efforts of Condoleezza Rice. The United States’ relationship with Iran has been very tragic and based on a built-in dilemma for the United States that Washington’s extensive diplomatic and military support for the Shah’s repressive regime was a cause of deep resentment for many Iranians. More recently, liberal American society and its dubious culture, including pornography, drugs, gambling and all the other activities associated with United States economic activity, was anathema to the powerful religious establishments under Ayatollah Khomeini, which considered the USA to be the Great Satan. A lot of bad blood has been shown on both sides, and now is the time for the United States, the whole western world and the UN to show common sense towards Iran. Now is the time for reconciliation and a future agreement that could be lasting. That is perhaps the most immediate reason for this crucial and urgent debate today, but many others face us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pointed out.