division_name: Britain's Strategic Interests
motion: <p>
   I beg to move,
  <p> 
   
    That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives; is concerned that the opportunities for a reduction in nuclear weapons have been prejudiced by the refusal of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and by the proposal that the United States should deploy a system of National Missile Defence, if necessary in breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; welcomes the 'unequivocal' declaration of the five permanent members of the Security Council that they will seek to eliminate all nuclear weapons in fulfilment of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to state, first, what its policy is towards the United States proposal for National Missile Defence and, secondly, what steps it proposes to take to fulfil its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons; congratulates the armed forces of the Crown on their successful military campaigns in Kosovo and Sierra Leone but expresses disappointment that in the latter case Her Majesty's Government has chosen to deploy UK forces independently of the United Nations peacekeeping force and not as part of it and thereby failed to strengthen the UN effort and to enhance its credibility; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to publish the policy criteria by which it determines that there is a need for intervention.
  <p>wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved.
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof
  <p> 
   
    "believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General."
  <p>no intrinsic merit in defence spending.
  <p>consigned to the memory hole.
  <p>consigned to the memory hole
  <p>the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action.
  <p>are normally best served through collective action
  <p>the permanent and abiding interest of England
  <p>ultimately being the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, which is the only body with the international legitimacy to decide on the use of force.
  <p>requires us to define our own objectives and to implement our own policies, and to use every resource to achieve them.
  <p>British NATO peacekeepers shot and wounded three Serb men in the Kosovan Serb enclave of Gracianica after a senior British officer was attacked in the town as he tried to calm a demonstration.
  <p> 
   
  "There was no question, my life was in danger, and our lives were very much threatened," said Brigadier Richard Shirreff, commanding of 7th Armoured Brigade, or "Desert Rats", after the incident at 11 am yesterday.
  <p>Five people were wounded in the attack in which two grenades were thrown from a passing car.
  <p> 
   
  A British military spokesman, Flight Lieutenant Rob Hannam, said the troops believed they and the brigadier, who is responsible for security in the town, were in imminent danger.
  <p> 
   
  He said troops fired warning shots into the air. When that failed to disperse the demonstrators, one or more of the soldiers fired into the crowd.
  <p>Every thoughtful leader in the region assumes he may do so again.
  <p>A hit squad from somewhere in the Middle East travels to New York City carrying a one-litre bottle filled with one of the several chemical weapons agents we have long known Saddam Hussein to be developing. Using a simple sprayer (like one that a gardener or house painter might own), they diffuse the contents into the air over Times Square on a Saturday night or into the main concourse at Grand Central Station at 5:30 P.M. on a weekday evening. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people die agonizing deaths as a result. Because of their own handling of the substance and the strategic concern to maintain ambiguity over the source of the attack, the terrorists may have to be prepared to die themselves.
  <p>The chemists had swabbed each of the pieces of metal to remove and collect the surface residues for analysis. As one might expect, they found a spectrum of substances on the metal surfaces, ranging from ordinary dirt to chemicals of various kinds. But there were also clear traces of a chemical called EMPA, short for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. It was this finding that had caused Horst Reeps to blanch. EMPA is a degradation product of one and only one known compound in the universe--the chemical VX, one of the most toxic substances ever made.
  <p>the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies?
  <p>the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it?
  <p>no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?--[ Official Report , 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 835.]
  <p>
  Those are important questions, but as other hon. Members want to speak, I shall leave it at that.
    <p>a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of the century--
  <p>I don't believe a 50 per cent. cut is either likely or a policy; nor has it ever been a policy.
  <p>Britain's Trident deterrent is a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible.
  <p>I remain wholly opposed to nuclear weapons. I remain of the firm belief that Britain could afford to get rid of its nuclear weapons tomorrow and would not suffer in consequence.
  <p>I never took the view that this country did not need an independent deterrent.
  <p>Unilateral nuclear disarmament offers the only hope of an end to the arms race and the only hope of any chance for peace . . .
  <p>a treaty on general and complete disarmament . . .
  <p>to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the arms race at an early date--
  <p>and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control . . .
  <p>If nuclear weapons had not existed, do they
  <p>honestly believe that the Cold War would have remained stalemated rather than boiling over into a third global conflict?
  <p>If nuclear weapons ceased to exist, what would prevent the first nation to cheat from using secretly manufactured devices before such a temporary monopoly of them was broken?
  <p>Why should a nuclear weapons-free world be achievable when, as President Yeltsin admitted in 1992, the Soviet Union completely flouted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by cheating for 20 years, while other countries disarmed?
  <p>How would nuclear-disarmed countries deter attacks from states with other mass destruction weapons, such as biological agents and nerve gases?
  <p>Is not the recommendation for a nuclear-free world . . . a recipe to make the planet safe for full-scale conventional warfare yet again?
  <p>The proponents of a nuclear-weapon-free world have long argued that, if some states insist on keeping nuclear arsenals for their security, other states are bound to seek such security for themselves through the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
  <p>I am not claiming that a nuclear-weapon-free world would be absolutely safe. There is no such thing as absolute safety. But there is no doubt in my mind that, of the two alternatives, a world without nuclear weapons would be safer than a world with them.
  <p>the tendency in the recent past has been to wage war more and more unrestrictedly, and to press it more and more to complete conquest. It is just possible that the atomic bomb may reverse this trend.
  <p>no nation can hope for such a chance unless it has power of retaliation against probable rivals, otherwise it will either have to surrender at discretion or accept destruction without even the satisfaction of damaging its enemy in return.
  <p>the reality is not living up to the vision.
  <p>Just because we can't do everything doesn't mean to say we can't do something.
  <p>We have seen the introduction of e-mail--[ Official Report , 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 10.]
  <p>They agree that the international community faces a dangerous and growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technologies, and stress their desire to reverse that process, including <p>through existing and possible new international legal mechanisms. They agree that this new threat represents a potentially significant change in the strategic situation and the international security environment.
  <p> 
   
  They agree that this . . . should be addressed through mutual cooperation and mutual respect of each other's security interests.
  <p>we respect the opinions of our partners in negotiations, we think that what they say has a certain logic and to a great degree we agree with that logic. There are new threats arising that we must address but our proposal is to answer them together.  <p>Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 40, Noes 229.
   