---

Nuclear Proliferation

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for introducing this debate today. Once again, the international community has cause to be profoundly concerned by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is also important, however, that the word ““nuclear”” should not be cast in a completely negative light, because although nuclear weapons remain a threat, nuclear energy may prove to be our salvation. This debate on the proliferation of nuclear weapons is constantly evolving. Three years ago, we were worried by developments in India, Libya and Iraq. Today, we find that our attention is preoccupied by developments in Iran and North Korea. However, although the focal points of our concern may be changing, I believe that the most sensible course of action remains the same. It is simply this: Her Majesty’s Government should support the worldwide adoption of a clear, unambiguous and straightforward policy, and stick to it. Furthermore, Her Majesty’s Government should use their influence in Washington—I am pleased that the Minister has already mentioned Condoleezza Rice—and we need to work hard to ensure that the United States does the same. It is my belief that many of the problems that we face today have arisen as a direct result of uncertainties and misunderstandings caused by a general failure to apply our stated policy equally across the board. We have sent mixed signals, mistrust has spread, and we are now confronted with an uncertain and potentially dangerous future. The essence of the NPT was unequivocal. The treaty stands on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to use nuclear technology peacefully. I repeat all this to underline the view that, 40 years on, the treaty continues to represent a sound basis for international agreement to control the development of these deadly weapons. Sadly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has already said, the major contributors to the NPT have failed to keep their side of the bargain. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, recalled that South Africa was the first and only country with nuclear capability to willingly dismantle its nuclear programme and accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As every speaker has said, particular concern is focused today on Iran and North Korea. There is no doubt that both countries are in breach of the NPT. The west’s relationship with Iran is nothing if not complex. Relations have certainly deteriorated since the recent election of President Ahmadinejad, who seems to personify a general mistrust of western powers. His statements on Israel are clearly offensive and inflammatory, and his Government’s refusal to answer questions of the International Atomic Energy Agency suggests that Iran is determined to pursue a uranium enrichment programme. Now the west is faced with a choice: either we meet force with force in Iran, as we did in Iraq, or we seek to alleviate the mistrust and negotiate a calmer, lasting agreement. The second option is clearly preferable. A similar situation has developed, as has already been mentioned, in North Korea. It has been clear for four years that North Korea has pursued a programme to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. North Korea is generally accepted to have produced enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons, although some estimates range between five or six. Those are obviously areas of grave concern, but it would be quite wrong for us to fret over developments in Iran and North Korea, and turn a blind eye to Israel and India. It bears repeating: if the NPT is to mean anything, it must surely be implemented clearly, unambiguously and equally across the board. The US has always opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but United States policy and, by extension, United Kingdom policy, seems to have been determined by whether the countries concerned are broadly supportive of or antagonistic to US interests. US and, for that matter, UK officials have considered that since there are no conceivable circumstances where Israel or India would pose a threat to us, our opposition to their nuclear weapons development has rarely been sustained. Today, US/UK policy has evolved into tacit acceptance. Obviously, turning a blind eye to countries which we happen to like does not represent a clear, unambiguous implementation of the NPT, and our selective approach undermines the treaty. It is not enough for us to sit back and casually point to the fact that neither India nor Israel ever signed the NPT, so they cannot be held to be in breach of the treaty. We must deal with the reality. What is wrong in Tehran and Pyongyang must be wrong in Tel Aviv and Delhi. If we develop an international treaty, we cannot simply apply it to countries of which we do not approve. As one commentator put it, the US and UK look as though they are preaching temperance from a bar stool. So, what now? As my noble friend Lord Hannay mentioned, the seventh NPT review conference was held at the United Nations in May 2005, but it may be time for a renewal and affirmation of the treaty and a new global commitment, particularly from the US and the UK, to implement its terms equally. Such a declaration would help to address concerns in Iran and North Korea, and to defuse the current situation. I believe that this is the best way forward.