The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1990-1997

2025

Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Lord Lothian Lecture – 15 October 2025

The text of Sir John Major’s speech to the inaugural Lord Lothian lecture at the Global Strategy Forum on 15 October 2025.


When Clare and Mary asked me to deliver this inaugural lecture on behalf of the Global Strategy Forum, it was easy to say “Yes”.  

Michael and I became friends – and allies in politics – from the moment we met 50 years ago.  We came from different backgrounds, mixed in different circles, had different leisure pursuits ‒ but we shared the same political space, and beliefs about the purpose and practice of politics.  

Michael was an easy colleague.  Loyalty and moderation were at the very core of his politics.  He believed in the power of persuasion, and the essential decencies of human behaviour ‒ even when faced by adversaries that denied both of those virtues.

He was clever, compassionate, sensitive and intuitive and – where he saw wickedness or hardship – he felt an obligation to put it right.  

Michael carried his compassion as a shield against bigotry.  He preferred to offer a hand up not a put down.  He wished to understand rather than condemn, and to face up to challenges rather than pass them by.

His focus was progress, not regress;  the future not the past;  and his aim was to put right what was wrong.

When, in the early 1990s, I was trying to build a Peace Process to end violence in Ireland – North and South – I knew I would benefit from the abilities of Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram.  They were both custom made for the task, and never once did they disappoint.  

Michael and Paddy had extensive private contact with all the Northern Ireland Parties:  often a frustrating experience, but both had the gift of listening – amid, of course the occasional Paddy eruption ‒ and, slowly, progress was made and early trust established.

It was essential preparation for more challenging meetings that were to come.  When we reached the stage of face-to-face discussions with the IRA Michael ‒ as Minister of State ‒ was the obvious choice for the initial contact.  

This was at a time when such responsibilities carried great personal risk and thus ‒ before appointing Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office ‒ I would always ask if their families were content.

It is to their credit, and that of their families, that no colleague invited to serve stepped away from the challenge.  And so it was with Michael, who didn’t hesitate.  

There was deep suspicion of the Peace Process from many of the Northern Ireland Unionists, and their allies in Parliament and Press.  Michael was an arch-comforter, damping down Unionist fears of “secret deals” or “unadmitted concessions” to Sinn Fein or the IRA.  Progress was not easy.

I recall briefing John Smith, the then Labour Leader, in my office in the Commons.  Whisky in hand, John offered “help in principle” and chuckled as he added “but you do know there are no votes in it”.  Nor were there – but that was never the purpose.

A Belfast without bombs, with blood ties not blood flowing, a generation able to grow up without inheriting the hostility and hatred of community division.  That was the purpose.  And Michael’s instinctive character of peacemaker made him perfect for the job.  

His brief was tough as the IRA peered suspiciously at every proposal.  History was a bar to progress.  The memory of past grievances was ever present:  the Black and Tans, the Hunger Strikes and Bobby Sands ‒ these, and much more, were always a block to trust.  

But Michael’s efforts were brave and unrelenting.  The progress he made with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness paved the way for Paddy Mayhew to join him for more in-depth discussions.  

He, Paddy and I were hugely frustrated that we were unable to complete the Process ‒ but were comforted in the knowledge that – against all predictions – we moved the dial from conflict towards peace:  and delighted that Tony Blair and New Labour completed the work.  

Today, in Ireland – North and South – we are at a place where none of us dared to hope we would be.  

Michael truly deserves his place in the pantheon of Irish peacemakers.

* * * * *

There are times ‒ and now is one such time ‒ when change seems to come at a gallop.  Between Ancient Greece and the 15th Century no-one challenged the wisdom of the ancients until the Renaissance.  

A 10th Century European would easily have recognised 15th Century European life:  a child today would barely recognise the way of life 50 years ago.  

As we meet, our world is in an unsettled state.  Liberal Democracy is in retreat.  Autocracy is thriving and spreading.  Globalisation is fraying.  The post-war consensus is weakening at best and – at worst – may be on its way to breaking up.  

As for our own country, we now have fewer committed friends than once we had.  We need to remedy that.

As these trends thrive, I hope nation states recognise the risks, step up, urge conciliation and begin the repair of our failing institutions.  Leaders need to be proactive – not locked in a defensive crouch.

In our unsettled world, only an unpredictable America, and a hard-to-read China, are political, economic and military super-powers:  no other country comes close.  Their future behaviour and bilateral relationship are critical to us all.  

Both countries know they are destined to be rivals ‒ and allies only on individual issues.  The world needs them to find an accommodation with each other, while they must persuade their domestic audiences they are hard-nosed defenders of their own philosophy and national interests.

There are trip-wires ‒ most obviously Taiwan ‒ but, if diplomacy and self-interest prevails, with trade and regular contact uninterrupted by threats of high tariff impositions, then a long-term, and mutually beneficial relationship is entirely possible ‒ but only if they will it.

If they do not, and lapse into serious conflict, then they could set the world aflame.  

But I don’t foresee that.  Sensible diplomacy and pragmatic self-interest should be able to prevent full-fronted confrontation whenever – as is likely – frustrations and disputes arise.  

CHINA

Historically, China has been the victim of military conflict, not the aggressor.  That said, she has been dramatically increasing her military capability, at an extraordinary pace.  No-one should underestimate the scale of this, nor her growing capacity to enforce her will militarily.  

Events ‒ and American policy ‒ may determine the future:  if America withdraws from her post-war role in favour of more isolation ‒ will China step up and try to fill it?  The answer to that is likely to be “Yes”.

There is much we neither know, nor understand about China.  She is an enigma.  The first verse of her National Anthem is encouraging:  telling citizens to “Arise, you who refuse to be slaves”.  

It’s an enticing invitation, but not to be taken too literally.  Perhaps my view is cynical, but I have vivid memories of Tiananmen Square.  Those who did arise were soon silenced – and none too gently.  

As China has grown in power, she has begun to assert herself in Asia, and increase her influence worldwide.  She is an avowed opponent of democracy, which she considers an alien and inefficient form of government.

China is sufficiently self-confident to break international Treaties.  Persecute the Uighurs in Xinjiang.  Threaten Taiwan with a military assault.  Ignore promised freedoms to Hong Kong.  

All that ‒ and multiple cyber threats and industrial larceny – may be laid at her door.  These are the actions of an ambitious nation prepared to bend others to her will.

Her trade and investment grows each year.  A majority of countries around the world now conduct more trade with China than America ‒ in some cases, far more.  Apparently blind to the implications of this, current American policy on tariffs may widen that lead.

I have no doubt our government wishes to have a good relationship with China.  Who would not?  But it cannot be a subservient one.  China would not respect that.

AMERICA

For most of the post-war years, America has been the rock upon which democracy prospered.

Her influence was overwhelmingly benign when President Truman committed to:  “support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”.

So was it when, over a decade later, President Kennedy committed to confront: “the common enemies of man ‒ tyranny, poverty, disease and war.”.

The purpose behind these noble sentiments was to create a freer and safer world, in which the strong pledged their help to the weak.  No price was asked for this.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  

It was high politics in a harsh post-war world, when to help others was not seen as a business opportunity.  This approach, it seems, is now out of fashion.

Today, America has a less altruistic policy.  The President’s ambition is to “Make America Great Again” – although it is puzzling that being the richest and most powerful nation in the world is not already seen as an indication of greatness.

In the MAGA quest, America has embraced national self-interest.  The President ‒ with the support of the world’s richest man ‒ abruptly cut off aid to the poorest people in the world and those organisations whose role is to cure the diseases that most afflict them.  

Forecasts of the long-term implications of this are dire.

A Report in the Lancet tells us that US aid alone prevented over four million deaths ‒ one third of them children ‒ in every year of the first two decades of this century.  That support has gone.  

It is a harsh policy that ends such a benevolent approach, despite the pain and loss it will cause.  But America is not alone in turning her face away from the human rights of the weak.

Other countries, including the UK, have cut aid.  I know that times are tough for us and many others, but we are not facing mass hunger, and our sick are not going without medicine or care.  

In reflective moments one may wonder:  where is the Good Samaritan when he is most needed?  

I believe the scale of cuts to aid is wrong on practical as well as moral grounds.  In due time, whenever more people flee poor countries for richer pastures – as they will – we may regret how little we did to keep them settled where they are.  

President Trump has also imposed tariffs on imports from most of the world in pursuit, as he cheerily puts it, of:  “making America richer and richer by many billions”.  

This not only hurts allies, some wealthy, some not – but also countries that are poor and, in some cases, very poor indeed.

Apart from filling the US Treasury coffers, the tariffs are justified by the claim that they are imposed upon countries which had allegedly been “ripping off America” for years.  If that were so, they were remarkably unsuccessful given America’s economic pre-eminence.  

It may be ‒ when American consumers realise that the tariffs are raising prices in their own High Streets – that they might consider it is they who are being “ripped off”.  American taxpayers please note:  rising prices are a regressive tax.

I was brought up to admire America.  I still do:  there is much to envy.  But I don’t admire her present approach.  Nor should the American people.  It comes at a high cost to her reputation for free trade and sensible economics.

Many countries will be bruised by the new tariffs, and resentful that they felt forced to accept for fear of more severe impositions if they did not do so.  

In what passed for “negotiation” I do wonder what negotiating power smaller nations had to deploy?  “Little or none” is my guess.  They faced a choice of submitting – or a worse deal.  If nothing else, the tariffs showcased the raw power of America.

Our flexible English language has a word for pressure imposed by the powerful on those who are weaker.  It is a good old word:  we call it “bullying”.  We may fear the bully.  We may accommodate the bully.  But we never forget the bullying.

There is no doubt that America is a great power.  But with that power comes great responsibility about how it is used.  

The President needs to understand that any casual disregard of long-standing international mores risks undermining – to the point of destruction – the rules-based system of laws and behaviours that have been a shield and guardian to the world over the last seventy years.

Leaders who do not make that clear – preferably privately, but unmistakably – are betraying their responsibilities.

Allies and opponents alike are baffled by the President’s inconsistency.  

Such unpredictability may be a useful enforcement tactic in negotiations – as we have seen – but it carries a dangerous risk of misunderstandings and misjudgements that could be very damaging in the longer-term.  Trust and certainty matter in Statecraft.    

RUSSIA

I wish to turn – but briefly – to Russia.  She is a real and present danger to democracy.  The war in Ukraine is indisputably Putin’s war.

Putin has moved from being an authoritarian Leader to a totalitarian one.  There seems to be no domestic check on his behaviour.  Outspoken opponents disappear or die mysteriously.  Planes fall from the sky.  So do opponents from high windows.  National assets are looted to support Putin’s cult of personality.

In war, Russia shows no restraint.  The civilian is as much a target as the soldier.  Even Ukrainian children are stolen and indoctrinated against their own family and country.  Let me not mince words:  that is wicked to the core ‒ no other description suffices.

We should not be surprised.  Russia has become a repressive rogue State, hostile to democracy.  The controlled media feeds civilian Russia with untruthful propaganda that includes bare faced lies about the West.  The truth – in Russia – is whatever Putin wishes it to be.

Russian citizens – patriots by instinct – are fed untruths throughout their lives and, because that is all they hear, they believe it.   

By any yardstick, Putin is a warmonger, not a peacemaker, and little will change in Russia until he is gone ‒ at which time someone will be brave enough to list his many crimes.

It was revealing that, when Prigozhin, Leader of the Wagner group of mercenaries marched on Moscow, no-one of influence spoke up for Putin conscious that he ruled by fear ‒ nor against him knowing it would be life-threatening to do so.

I hope no Western policy maker forgets that Ukraine is our battle as well as theirs:  even though it is Ukrainian blood that is being spilled, our own interests are also at stake.  If Putin gains from war, his demands will grow and not diminish.  

The present outlook is that, unless America and Europe combine, in a far more powerful response to Russia’s aggression, the war will continue – perhaps for a long time.  

Hopefully, President Trump will see Ukraine through the eyes of his Western allies, and use America’s power to protect Ukraine and deter further Russian adventures.  If Russia loses, the world wins.    

And what a boost it would be to confidence and the global economy if wars in Ukraine and Palestine were to end.    

Conflict, of course, takes me to Gaza.  

GAZA

It would be a miserly mind that does not welcome the ceasefire that has been agreed.  The killing has stopped, the hostages freed and – I hope – aid will swiftly alleviate suffering in Gaza.  

I warmly congratulate President Trump, Qatar, Egypt – and, I suspect, contributors here in the UK – for this advance.  On this occasion, the President’s unconventional approach succeeded where others had failed, and a breakthrough to a better future may have begun. 

But – it is a beginning not an end.  A ceasefire – not a certain and continuing peace.  Ahead lie serious questions, the answers to which will require good luck, good intentions and a herculean effort over a long period.    

Wars have consequences that endure.  

The bombs may stop, but will Hamas surrender weapons?  Who will rebuild the bombed-out wreckage and pay for it – with years of construction at a cost of many billions?  

Will any Israeli Government accept Palestinian aspirations and, if so, can it be delivered against domestic opposition?

Is a “Two-State” solution still even possible if Israel sets her face against it?  If not, what is the future for Palestinians?

What, under any final agreement, will happen to the illegal settlements?  

Will land be returned?  Or compensation offered?  Will future settlements be prevented?  

Can Israeli-Palestinian relations be restored?  The Hamas attack on Israel killed 1200 people, and took many hostages – many of whom have since died in miserable circumstances.  It was an act of profound evil that led to an unrelenting response.

In pursuit of Hamas, Gaza was turned to rubble.  The stated objective was the complete destruction of Hamas, which was never likely, and has not been achieved.  

What was “achieved” was over 60,000 civilian deaths and many life-changing injuries that will not be easily forgotten.

Nor will the blockage of aid;  the harrowing sight of starving men, women and children;  the image of dead bodies in ruined streets;  or the displaced families being herded around from place to place.  

It will be hard for both sides to find forgiveness.  The Palestinians dreamed of a homeland.  Israeli Ministers wanted (I quote) to “bury the idea of a Palestinian State”.  

This is not easily reconciled.  The risk of a legacy of hate passing down to future generations is very real.  Over time, war damage can be re-built.  But can minds be changed?

Israel must also repair relations with much of the world.  Her approach – including the colossal misjudgement of banning the media from the war zones – lost the Israeli Government the benefit of any doubt over its actions. 

The whole world knows the history of the Jewish people.  They have been treated cruelly throughout the ages.  But some of the actions of the Israeli Government lost them the sympathy and understanding they had earned throughout the post-war period.

I have Jewish friends whom I cherish, and it is heart-breaking that antisemitism and fear has been returned to their lives so unfairly in so many countries ‒ not least our own.  

Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people around the world have shown their dismay at the conduct of the war.  They do not deserve to be treated as complicit in what has been happening in Gaza and the West Bank.

It is the Israeli Cabinet – and they alone – who must answer for their decisions.

LOOKING OUTWARD

As more nations look inward I see opportunities to look outward.  The UK’s relative “hard power” has fallen in recent decades and, even though events suggest that will be repaired – as it must – it is still wise to build up our “soft power”.

Our links to Europe and America may be looser now than once they were – and that is a loss – but it does free us up to be a far more independent voice in our troubled world.  

An Age of Reason is badly needed, and we can help usher it in.

Let what we say about international policy echo for its good sense:  let it have a clarity beyond pious statements issued for the sake of form.  I wish our voice to be heard and our nation to earn respect in a role that no other nation has taken up.

There is ample scope and appetite for such a voice.  Much of what should be said is held back ‒ and why?  Is it because of diplomatic niceties;  an unwillingness to stir controversy;  or common or garden plain funk?

Meanwhile, the post-war institutions are failing to deliver what the founders expected of them.  Self-evidently, hampered by its own rules, the United Nations is not delivering peace and security. 

The membership of the Permanent Five is out of date and needs reform.  A credible option is to enlarge it to embrace countries such as India, Germany, Brazil, and end the single nation veto on action that so often leaves the UN looking powerless when a powerful lead is vital.    

As a founding Member of the Permanent Five, the UK is well placed to argue the advantages of such a change.

Our worldwide reach and assets leave us in a position to be a candid friend, a conciliator, a conscience in support of those who have no voice of their own.

We should dust off our “soft power” assets.  Our voice, our global spread, our language, the BBC World Service, our Universities, our culture – especially our theatre.  Until recently, I would have added our leadership in Overseas Aid.  I hope, soon, to be able to do so again.    

I hear the objections ringing in my head.  It’s altruistic.  It’s pointless idealism.  It will come to nothing.  It will gain us nothing.  Perhaps not.  

But it will gain us respect.  Friendship.  It will help our voice resonate far and wide.  More than anything, it is also the right thing to do.  In our mercenary world, is that too naïve a reason?

We British are 70 million people in a world of 9 billion.  We are not the mighty power that once we were.  We cannot compel as once we could.  But we can offer the world an example, and speak out for the decencies and civilities that lie deep-rooted in the British instinct.

What do we stand for as a nation if not for that?

I will close as I opened.  

I spoke of Michael’s belief in the power of persuasion and the decencies of human behaviour.  I reminded myself that where he saw wickedness or hardship, he felt an obligation to put it right.  

I believe – throughout our world – there is audience crying out for such qualities of leadership.  

Let us show that it can be done.