The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: Prime Minister (1990-1997)

  • Mr Major’s Statement in Vietnam – 4 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement after a visit to the Vietnamese Boat People in Hong Kong on Wednesday 4th September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one need expect me to deal with matters of policy at the moment or matters of that kind. Nobody can have a look at the camps and see the concern of the people who live there and hear the stories of why they came without being moved.

    There is a twin tragedy, the tragedy of course for Hong Kong that alone of all the countries in the region has operated a policy of first asylum and faces a problem that it is incredibly difficult for them to deal with and that they have faced with great bravery and courage for a long time; and then the tragedy of the individual families who are here who felt compelled to leave the homes they had before to seek something better.

    Tonight is not an occasion for statements of policy. I wanted to come and see the camps for myself, to talk to the people who were here, to discuss the problem with the Administration in Hong Kong, to talk to the people, many of them volunteers, who work in the camps, to look at the facilities that are here, see the schools, the shop at the moment of course is closed, to learn at first-hand what the recreational and other facilities are like.

    However much sophisticated briefing you can obtain, it is always necessary to see for yourself what is happening and that of course was why I principally wanted to come this evening and I am very glad that I did.

    Thank you all very much. There will be a press conference tomorrow and I will take questions on that occasion.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Hong Kong – 4 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview given on his arrival in Hong Kong on Wednesday 4th September 1991.

    QUESTION (Brian Barron, BBC TV):

    What sort of message, Mr. Major, do you bring to Hong Kong from Peking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first message I bring to Hong Kong is that I am very pleased to be back in Hong Kong. It is many years since I was last here; I am very pleased to be back. I am much looking forward to the discussions I shall have, to what I shall see in the next day or so and to the opportunity to listen to the views of the people of Hong Kong. I think it is an important time to do that and I am very pleased to do it.

    I come here directly from Peking. The visit to Peking was in the interests of the people of Hong Kong, to ensure that we could sign the Airport Agreement and that that could proceed both in its own right and because of the impact that will have on the future prosperity of Hong Kong; and I also had the opportunity there of advancing work in the Joint Liaison Group – it previously was getting stuck, I think it will now advance and think that is very much in the interests of Hong Kong too.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    Is the detainee going to be released in Hong Kong and even if he isn’t, is that a good gesture by the Chinese?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have something to say when it has actually happened. I discussed that matter yesterday; I made my views about it quite clear. I very much hope that we will see some movement; when we have the movement, when the detainee is back here in Hong Kong, I shall feel free to comment.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    But they have said that they intend to release him. Do you regard that as a helpful gesture?

    PRIME MINISTER

    Yes, it is a helpful gesture but I would like the detainee back here in Hong Kong with his family where he belongs and when that happens I will be very pleased but let us wait and see it happen.

    QUESTION:

    And what do you hope to demonstrate by going to the Vietnamese boat people camp?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to see the problem for myself. Since my period as Foreign Secretary and onwards, I have been familiar with the problem. I have lived with it, not in the same way that people in Hong Kong have lived with the problem but it is one that has been there. It is a serious problem for the people of Hong Kong. It is serious for the Vietnamese people themselves who have come here in the wholly false belief that there is a place for all of them in the West; that isn’t the case. I wish to go and look at the camps for myself and judge the problem; I think it is wise to do so while I am here.

    QUESTION:

    Tell us a little bit about how you hope to return them to Vietnam.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think I had better go to the camp. I will have a full press conference tomorrow and we will discuss all these matters on that occasion.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITN):

    There are a lot of fears here, as you know, that China is playing as it were too great a role already. Do you come from China reassured that that is not now the case?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not the case and is not going to be the case. In the communique we issued yesterday, we reaffirmed fully the Joint Declaration; we reaffirmed the fact that between now and 1997 Hong Kong people are going to run Hong Kong – I explicitly made that point at the signing ceremony of the Memorandum of Understanding – that is the position. The arrangement is exactly as it was negotiated in 1984 and hasn’t changed.

    QUESTION:

    But Peking will have a say in borrowing requirements, we have been told.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are many things that go on and extend way beyond 1997 in which it is in the interests of Hong Kong to have a stable situation that will survive after 1997. We have to deal with these things on a practical basis. All that was foreseen in the theory and the clauses of the Joint Declaration; we have reaffirmed that again. We have reaffirmed explicitly yet again that after 1997 Hong Kong will continue for 50 years at least in the same capitalist tradition that has made it such a remarkable success in recent years. I went to Peking to make sure all that was re-confirmed; it was re-confirmed; it was re-confirmed in the communique; both China and Britain have put their signatures to that communique so upon that point I am here to reassure Hong Kong but predominantly I am here to look, to listen and to see how we take policy forward.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on China – 3 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on China, made in an interview held in Peking on Tuesday 3rd September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the talks with Li Peng broke the usual formalities].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe that it does. Our discussions today were about bilateral matters, about international matters in our shared responsibilities as members of the Security Council and specifically about human rights. There are very strong feelings about human rights and I think it is necessary to express those not discourteously but bluntly and clearly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for how long in advance he had intended to raise the matter of human rights].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In my discussions today with Premier Li Peng I not only expressed my concerns, not only detailed the cases and the events that were of concern to me, but we agreed that this was a matter that would be discussed further between us. So a dialogue has been established, that is a new set of circumstances.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked when the decision had been made].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The issue of human rights, the fact that I was going to deal with that was in my mind from the moment I decided to come to China, it was one of the reasons for coming. It was necessary on its own to come to sign the Airport Agreement, I had no doubt in my mind about that, it was in the interests of Hong Kong, it was right to come and I would have come just for that. But having decided that I was coming for that, the opportunity was clearly there to discuss human rights and to register the concerns that I feel and that I believe people around the world feel about many matters in China.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Peking – 3 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference, held in Peking on Tuesday 3rd September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The main purpose of my visit to Peking has been to sign with the Chinese Prime Minister the Memorandum of Understanding on the new Hong Kong Airport. The Memorandum was widely welcomed in Hong Kong and abroad. Without that Memorandum the airport project would not have gone ahead and without the airport Hong Kong would have been hamstrung. With it Hong Kong can be sure of having the airport it needs to ensure its future as a world financial and trade centre. For that purpose alone this visit was necessary and worthwhile.

    My talks today with Chinese leaders have shown that although we do not share common values, we do have shared interests – Hong Kong foremost amongst them. The airport agreement opens up new prospects of cooperation in Hong Kong’s interests and that has been reflected in my discussions today.

    Today we have also confirmed that Hong Kong should be able to open negotiations to include its own investment promotion and protection agreements, an important right if Hong Kong is to enhance its role as a centre for international trade and investment.

    Hong Kong is a unique achievement, anyone who has ever been there will tell you that. Its continued success after 1997 will be a precious achievement for its own people, for China and for the rest of the world. The success of Hong Kong requires a dialogue with China, much of that dialogue is carried on directly between the Hong Kong government and the Chinese government. But the British government is responsible for Hong Kong until 1997 and it is our responsibility to conduct the dialogue at whatever level is necessary to achieve results.

    My visit here today secures the implementation of the very important Memorandum of Understanding and has enable us to make the other progress that I have reported to you.

    China is one of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council and as such we have a shared responsibility for handling many of the world’s most sensitive issues. We touched on a number of those issues in our talks today, we discussed arms control issues, in particular China’s commitment to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I urged China to support our initiative for an arms control register to ensure transparency of supply and therefore prevent the kind of build-up which allowed Iraq to invade Kuwait. The response from China was encouraging.

    I was able to brief the Chinese leaders on my visit to the Soviet Union and on developments there. One lesson that I drew from that visit in my discussions with Premier Li Peng was that there is a global trend to more open and more accountable government, that trend is inevitable and growing.

    It is against that background that I raised human rights. I told Premier Li Peng of a letter which I had received from a British opposition Member of Parliament, Bob Parry, who knows China well. I raised that letter to illustrate the strength of concern about human rights that exists across all strands of opinion in my country.

    Specifically in our discussions I raised the situation in Tibet, I raised the treatment of religious believers in Tibet and elsewhere and I raised the detention of people in China for exercising the freedom of expression, predominantly student demonstrators. I also raised the cases of four detainees from Hong Kong. In our exchanges I made it clear that we will continue to pursue all these matters vigorously in the future.

    I also raised with the Chinese leadership a number of individual cases which Amnesty International had particularly asked me to take up. These included members of the 1989 pro-democracy movement and five employees of a car factory, one of whom is reported to have been sentenced to 20 years in prison, the heaviest sentence known to have been imposed since June 1989. I asked Premier Li Peng to take a personal interest in all these cases.

    Britain and China have strong commercial ties. I drew the attention of Chinese leaders to the important areas – energy, transport, telecommunications, aerospace, airports and petrochemicals – where British companies can offer the best quality at competitive prices.

    The world has not forgotten the events of June 1989 but we face a choice, on the one hand we can make ourselves feel better by armchair denunciations of China, for which Hong Kong pays the price; on the other hand we can talk to Chinese leaders, in the interests of Hong Kong, in the interests of human rights and for the sake of a more peaceful world. I have no doubt which is the right choice to make.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Mike Brunson, ITN):

    As you know, the Chinese dismiss the right of people to raise human rights issues with them, but in their press conference today they were saying there was no greater human right than to be able to feed every person in this country. Can you therefore give us just a little more detail of as it were the status on which you based your right to raise these issues with them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a world-wide concern about human rights in a number of countries and amongst them China. I made the worldwide concern perfectly clear in my remarks today, they were free, frank and forthright exchanges. We agreed at the end of those exchanges that that dialogue between us on this issue would continue. Our Ambassador in Peking will pursue the matters that I raised today with Premier Li Peng. I shall continue to take a personal interest in those matters and ensure that they are pursued.

    This is a dialogue that has begun with China, it will not go away, it will continue with us and I believe it will continue with other people as well. The world has a deep, a genuine and a continuing concern for human rights and that applies in China as elsewhere in the world.

    QUESTION (Brian Barron, BBC TV):

    As the leader of one of the Western world’s oldest democracies, is there any advice or words of wisdom you could offer to democracy supporters and activists in China at present?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The world is changing, we have seen that in the most dramatic way over the last two or three years and perhaps most especially over the last two or three weeks. There is a movement across the world for democracy and economic and political freedoms, That, like the world’s concern over human rights, is a movement that is not going to go away. Each country must find its own route in order to enshrine that democracy and to enshrine that freedom of expression and those economic and political freedoms. It is not for me to determine what the right way ahead is in China, but that there must be a way ahead I think is beyond doubt and that was clear from our discussions today that that is my opinion.

    QUESTION (Sally Blythe, RTHK):

    Bearing in mind the differences you have had with Chinese leaders over human rights would you as a result of your visit now say that relations with China are now back to normal, to their pre-1989 status?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have discussed today some matters that are of important and very great interest both bilaterally and also particularly of interest to Hong Kong. It is not possible simply to step aside and say one will not deal with these important matters, if one were to seek to do that one would betray the interests of Hong Kong and that is not something that any British government, certainly not my British government, would ever do. We are concerned about the interests of Hong Kong and so it was necessary to have these discussions and reach the agreement that we have reached today.

    But I have expressed my concern about a number of matters, that is well known and well understood in Peking and that dialogue will continue. But if I wish to express my concerns, if I wish to press those concerns, if I wish to make known to people the areas where I agree with them and the areas where I disagree with them then I must have a proper contact in order to do so. I believe that is the right way ahead.

    QUESTION (Philip Stevens, Financial Times):

    Premier Li Peng seemed to make it clear this morning at the signing of the Joint Declaration that he sees the Airport Agreement as a way to intensify Chinese influence and control over events in Hong Kong before 1997. If you don’t get deals on the outstanding issues, how are you going to prevent that increasing influence and control by China in Hong Kong?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As you will see from the communique that we have issued, we have specifically reaffirmed the Joint Declaration and the responsibilities that exist for Hong Kong with the British Government and the Hong Kong Government in advance of 1997. It has always been envisaged that there will be consultations on matters that straddle 1997; that was clearly understood at the time of the Joint Declaration, it is clearly understood now. The position remains now as it was then and has been expressly confirmed in the communique jointly signed by both of us today.

    QUESTION (Andrew Higgins, The Independent):

    Your predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, described Mikhail Gorbachev as a man with whom she could do business. How would you describe Premier Li Peng?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have today agreed with Premier Li Peng the Airport Agreement; I have done so for the reason I set out. I think the answer therefore is self-evident.

    QUESTION:

    As you are the most senior Western leader to visit China in the last two years, do you think that it will have any kind of impact on China’s relations with the Western world or Western nations in general?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I came here to discuss both international matters and direct bilateral matters but I return to the point that I made a few moments ago: you cannot make an impact upon people by not expressing your views to them. I have expressed my views. Time will tell what impact that has had. I hope it has had a positive impact.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major you mentioned earlier today that the signing of the Memorandum marks the beginning of a new phase of the bilateral relations between China and Britain. What plans or measures are you going to take to increase that relationship between the two countries?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are seeking to do of course and the extent to which it particularly moves events forward is it that it moves forward the work in the Joint Liaison Group; it moves forward the work that was getting blocked and that was in danger of damaging the position of confidence in Hong Kong. That has now been unblocked by the Memorandum of Understanding we have signed today and also by the decisions we have taken, particularly on the Court of Final Appeal, a matter of immense interest and importance to ensure the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong and also the agreement that we will accelerate the work in the Joint Liaison Group to deal with the other matters that are as yet undetermined. We have also agreed that if matters stay in the Joint Liaison Group and there is great difficulty in reaching agreement, then the matters will swiftly be resolved to the two Foreign Secretaries of China and the United Kingdom for them to examine the matter at a political level and reach a conclusion.

    QUESTION (Jim Munson, Canadian TV):

    There may be some critics who feel that you have played into China’s hands, that you have come here and that you are playing around with the Chinese leaders today, that after two-and-a-half years you are the first Westerner who comes. How do you look upon those critics who say that you are playing into China’s hands? You have mentioned before and talked about dialogue on the question of human rights. Is dialogue enough? Don’t you want answers post the Tiananmen Square massacre? Don’t you want some sort of concrete answers on those dissidents who are languishing in Beijing prisons who spoke out on behalf of democracy the way that you speak out on behalf of democracy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take those points, starting with the second one:

    The purpose of asking the questions is to get those answers and as I expressly stated a few moments ago, our discussion today on human rights is not the end of the matter; the ambassador will follow the matter up; I have asked the Premier to take a personal interest in the matter; I intend to follow the matter up. The purpose of asking these questions is to precisely achieve what you ask, the answers to the questions that we and other people in the west are asking.

    On the first point about whether coming here plays into Chinese hands, you say some critics might say that. I suspect they are exactly the same critics who would say! “Why are you abandoning Hong Kong?” if I had let the Airport Agreement fall away, confidence drain away from Hong Kong and all the problems that would follow from that but when you have responsibility, you have to take action and not strike attitudes and that is what I have done today.

    QUESTION (CB News):

    Did you discuss with the Chinese about ways of admitting China back into the international community?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We didn’t specifically discuss that but China of course is a member of the Permanent Five of the United Nations. The previous questioner said I was the first Western leader to come but he neglected to mention that Prime Minister Kaifu was here a short while ago, Mr. Andreotti will be arriving within a few days, Mrs. Thatcher – a very distinguished Western stateswoman – will also be here within a few days and no doubt others will as well. The world is seeking to express its views to China on a range of issues in the ways I believe that I have done today.

    QUESTION (Chris Moncrieff, Press Association):

    Prime Minister, you said your views on human rights were frank and forthright. How did Premier Li Peng respond? Was he angered or irritated?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a question for the Premier and not really for me but he listened to the points carefully that I made; he made a careful note of them. I am handing this evening, via the ambassador, details of the cases I raised to the Premier; he undertook that he would examine them. We must now wait and see what the result of that examination turns out to be.

    QUESTION (Hong Kong Commercial Radio):

    Mr. Prime Minister, in your statement tonight and the speech this morning, you reiterated the importance of Sino-British cooperation. Does it mean that there will now be cooperation with the Chinese, that the British type of government could not effectively administer Hong Kong?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course we can administer Hong Kong but we have to look to the medium- and long-term interests of Hong Kong. The airport, for example, is critically important to the future of Hong Kong; it involves investment that straddles 1997; the investors therefore need to know that there will be a satisfactory climate after 1997.

    There are all sorts of perfectly legitimate matters that are commenced now that have a very long time frame in which it is very desirable from the point of view of investors to have an agreement. Those were the points that we were discussing.

    But there are wider issues as well, of course. China and Great Britain have very substantial joint interests through the United Nations; we are both members of the Security Council; we therefore have a particularly sensitive responsibility for many of the world’s trouble spots. We have to liaise on difficulties to do with the problems in the Middle East. There were matters of liaison necessary over the war in Iraq. We cannot ignore those realities; they are areas where there is a degree of joint cooperation necessary and we have been cooperating and in those circumstances we must cooperate.

    QUESTION (Barbara O’Neill, Sunday Times):

    Prime Minister, do we yet know who will appoint the members of the independent Judicial Committee and will it be Chinese or English law?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t give you the names of the people who are actually going to appoint those; I can tell you they will be independently appointed and it is English law that continues after 1997 and the appointments will be made independently under English law.

    QUESTION (BBC Radio):

    On the question of human rights, you said that yourself, your Foreign Minister, your ambassador in Peking will be pressing for answers from the Chinese Government. If you don’t get the answers you want, what action are you prepared to take?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you have to go back to what has happened on other occasions elsewhere in other parts of the world. Continually, people are pressed in other countries on the question of human rights and that pressure has yielded results as it continues and that is actually what we wish to see. We wish to see results, so it is the unrelenting, unremitting continuance of pressure that often yields results on human rights, so we will continue to press but don’t expect me to set out precisely the form of that. I am just going to make it clear to you that these are not matters that we will let drop, neither in my judgement will anybody else let them drop as well.

    I suppose one example I could most usefully have given you is the example I was able to announce the other day and that is the release of Mrs. Gordievsky and her family from Moscow. That is something we have been pressing the Soviet authorities for for some years. I myself raised it first I think in 1989; Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, has raised it repeatedly; I have had a number of discussions with the Soviet leaders over the years; and now we have a decision that Mrs. Gordievsky and her family can be released so this pressure does work and that is but one high-profile example of large numbers that could be given.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    Prime Minister, you described the Chinese response to your proposals for a UN register of arms sales as encouraging. Does that simply mean that the Chinese didn’t say “No” at this stage or does it mean you expect actual support for a UN Resolution and did Premier Li Peng give you any idea of a date for Chinese accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, we discussed that this morning and there was a degree of vagueness. It is being pursued this afternoon between the Foreign Secretary and the Chinese Foreign Secretary and it is probable that a decision for the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be before the end of this calendar year.

    On the point about arms sales, there are two related matters: there is the arms register which will simply clarify who is selling what arms to whom and although we have not got a firm commitment I think there is a realistic prospect that we will get support from China for that proposition. Then, behind that, there are wider propositions that the United Nations are looking at concerning the sale of arms generally and they raise very serious and complex problems that have not yet had the expert or detailed discussions either in China or elsewhere that are necessary, so dates and conclusions on that are less clear. The Foreign Secretary may wish to add something on one or both of those points.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY: [Douglas Hurd]

    I think the Prime Minister has covered the first point.

    On the second point, the Chinese made the argument, which is understandable, that any restrictions on arms sales have to be non-discriminative, they have to apply to everybody and as they argued, to a complete range of weapons but that is a different point from the immediate one which is support for the Prime Minister’s initiative in having a register so that there is transparency, openness, and everyone can see what is happening and on that, as the Prime Minister said, the Chinese response without being wholly definite was reasonably encouraging.

    QUESTION (Associated Press):

    Mr. Prime Minister, did you invite Premier Li Peng to make a reciprocal visit and if so, how do you think that would be accepted in Great Britain? And if not, why not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That matter did not come up at all in our conversation today and was not discussed.

    QUESTION (Julie Maplish, ATV News – Hong Kong):

    Prime Minister, I understand from your comments that ties between Britain and China haven’t been normalised as far as you are concerned. Under what circumstances would you normalise relations or have relations with the current leadership that ordered the June 4th crackdown been permanently fractured?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me make that clear because I think you may have a false impression. There is a lot of normal traffic going through in terms of the relationship between China and my country and indeed China and all the Western countries but because that normal commercial and political traffic continues does not mean that we have withdrawn our concerns or that we cease to express our concerns either about the past events that caused such a rupture in our relationship in 1989 or the humans rights or arms sales problems that have been the subject of frequent discussion between our two countries, but we have to live in the world as it is and we have to do business – and I don’t mean business necessarily in the commercial sense. We have to deal with large countries like China where we have joint interests and the illustration I gave earlier of our joint interests through the United Nations is in any case the best illustration I can give you. It is in everyone’s interest that we pursue those joint arrangements and that we normalise arrangements on this matter and they have been normalised and the fact that that is so puts us in a better position to continue to express clearly and bluntly the concerns that we have on those issues that have been raised so frequently by questioners this evening and that is what we are doing. There is a general normalisation of relations.

    QUESTION (Geoffrey Crowther, South China Morning Post):

    I was just curious, Mr. Prime Minister, why is there no mention of human rights in the joint communique you have issued this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The joint communique is an agreed document. The observations that I made about human rights were my observations to the Premier which he is considering and responding but the joint communique is an agreed document to which we have both put our names. The question therefore would be more aptly directed to the Premier than to me.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Speech with Premier Li Peng of China – 3 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint speech made with the Chinese Premier, Li Peng, in Peking on Tuesday 3rd September 1991. The speech was made following the signing of a memorandum of understanding for a new Hong Kong airport.

    PREMIER LI PENG:

    Honourable Prime Minister John Major, Ladies and Gentlemen present:

    The Memorandum of Understanding concerning the construction of the new airport in Hong Kong and related questions between the Chinese and the British Governments has just been formally signed into force. This is a delightful major event as a result of the common efforts from both the Chinese and the British sides; it not only contributes to the maintenance of Hong Kong’s status as an international financial trade and business centre but also provides favourable conditions for our sides to intensify cooperation in the future on the question of Hong Kong.

    One country/two systems and the maintenance of the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong are a firm policy of China which we resolve to carry out. The Chinese Government will, as in the past, continue to earnestly abide by and fully implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the question of Hong Kong and is committed to closer consultation and cooperation with the United Kingdom on that basis. We are convinced that in the second half of the transitional period of Hong Kong, as long as our two sides enhance mutual trust, consult fully with each other in a spirit of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation and intensify cooperation in compliance with the spirit and provisions of the Joint Declaration, the smooth transfer of government in Hong Kong in 1997 can be fully guaranteed and the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong truly maintained. In this regard, the Chinese and the British sides share a common interest. We have every reason to be fully confident of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

    The Chinese Government always attaches importance to long-term stable relations and friendship and cooperation with the United Kingdom. True, the two countries are different in social system, history, culture, heritage and values but these differences should not become obstacles to the development of our bilateral relations; recognising and respecting them and striving to seek common ground while putting aside the differences, we can be friends. We believe that there exists a solid foundation for maintaining and developing good relations between our two countries. Hong Kong is one question that binds us together. Both China and the United Kingdom are Permanent Members of the UN Security Council with major responsibilities in international affairs. Our two economies are mutually complementary, holding out great potential for mutually beneficial cooperation. In the present complicated world situation, the further improvement and expansion of Sino-British relations and closer bilateral consultations and cooperation not only serve the interests of our two peoples but also contribute to world peace and prosperity.

    This morning, I held friendly, businesslike and frank talks with Prime Minister Major on Sino-British relations including the question of Hong Kong as well as international issues of common interest. As long as we respect each other and seek common ground while putting aside differences, Sino-British relations will have a broad prospect for development.

    May the visit by the Honourable Prime Minister John Major be crowned with complete success. [Applause].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Mr. Premier:

    We have been able to discuss many matters last evening and this morning but on this occasion we are here to sign a vitally important document. This Memorandum of Understanding provides a firm basis for building a modern airport to meet the expanding needs of Hong Kong; it is the fruit of arduous negotiations; it meets the principal concerns of all parties; on its initialling and publication two months ago, it was widely welcomed in Hong Kong and internationally.

    The airport at Chek Lap Kok together with its supporting infrastructure is a massive project. I am delighted that we have with us today the Governor of Hong Kong and some of the senior members of the Hong Kong Government; it is they who have the overall responsibility for it. Work will now forge ahead. The first main call for tenders has already been issued; all such tenders will be open to international competition. I know that Hong Kong’s overriding concerns in the interests of Hong Kong taxpayers are cost efficiency and reliability; I know, too, that some first-class and experienced British companies are showing keen interest; I very much hope that they will be able to meet Hong Kong’s criteria and be able to make a substantial contribution. I am glad to hear that Chinese enterprises are also closely interested.

    The construction of this new airport is vital for Hong Kong’s future stability and prosperity but it is more than that; it is also a key factor in the preservation and enhancement of Hong Kong’s role as a centre of regional and international civil aviation but I see this understanding on the airport as having a still wider significance in that it marks a new phase in the relationship between Hong Kong, Peking and London.

    Seven years ago, in December 1984, the Joint Declaration was signed here in Peking by my predecessor, Margaret Thatcher. Much progress has been made towards ensuring the smooth implementation of the provisions of this historic Agreement. At first, our good relations and joint purpose ensured that progress was smooth and relatively fast. More recently, this has not been the case and we have encountered difficulties. It is, however, a tribute to our common responsibilities as Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and our shared commitment to the people of Hong Kong that despite these difficulties we continue to talk to each other and seek a solution to them.

    These contacts have now been productive; thanks to them, we have been able to reach the good Agreement on Hong Kong’s new airport which we have signed today and now we look to the future. As we do so, it is clear that the Joint Declaration remains the strong corner-stone of both British and Chinese policy towards Hong Kong. In our talks today, we have confirmed our determination to implement both its letter and its spirit. Britain is wholly committed by treaty to cooperate in the restoration of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty from 1 July 1997.

    For its part, China is equally committed to maintaining Hong Kong’s existing systems for 50 years thereafter. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defence affairs. We are agreed that Hong Kong people will run Hong Kong.

    We have also solemnly confirmed our approach to the transition period. Up to 30 June 1997, the British Government are responsible for the administration of Hong Kong with the object of maintaining and preserving its economic prosperity and social stability; the Chinese Government will give its cooperation in this connection as we are agreed there is no question of the Chinese Government seeking any veto, condominium or joint administration. Instead, what is happening is what the Joint Declaration laid down clearly – the intensification of our cooperation during the second half of the transitional period.

    Mr. Premier, this is a good Agreement. When Douglas Hurd was here in April, General Secretary Jiang Zemin talked about the transitional period before us; he used an old Chinese proverb about how people travelling in the same boat need to help each other whatever difficulties may come between them. I think that is a good metaphor. Our shared objectives have always been clear – Hong Kong’s continuing prosperity and stability. The Joint Declaration set our course; the Memorandum of Understanding helps us on our way; now we must redouble our efforts for the common benefit. That is what the people of Hong Kong will expect from both of us and that, today, is what we have committed ourselves to do. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Soviet Situation (II) – 1 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Soviet situation, made in an interview held en route from Moscow to Beijing on Sunday 1st September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether Mr Gorbachev and Mr Yeltsin could work together].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a requirement for them to work together. There is clearly a great advantage for the whole of the Soviet Union and the republics if they can. They will have to work out a new relationship; they are in the business of doing that; but I believe on the basis of the discussions I have had today that they will both attempt to work together in the future.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what he thought of Boris Yeltsin, who had come across as powerful].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As you say, a very powerful personality; a man of clear ideas, clear views and he expresses them very trenchantly.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for an example].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He was perfectly clear about the need for a reform programme, that it had to be a reform programme that was much more radical than anything that had been seen before; he didn’t equivocate about that, he said it. On nuclear arms, he was perfectly clear there had to be central control, he said it. There are a whole series of matters like that upon which some people might have equivocated, but he didn’t.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Soviet Situation (I) – 1 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Soviet situation, made in an interview held in Moscow on Sunday 1st September 1991.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he had learned about the expectations in the Soviet Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe I did. Clearly the situation in the Soviet Union is evolving very rapidly indeed, but the chaos just a few days ago is beginning to sort itself out and the centre and the republics are beginning to determine the relationship that they will have in future. I suspect from the discussions I have had today that that will be clarified greatly at the Congress tomorrow.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what economic help would be offered to the Soviet Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think one needs to look at economic assistance at two levels, firstly, the short-term economic assistance that may be needed to assist perhaps with food and humanitarian assistance this winter; and also the economic assistance, the Know-How Fund, the technical assistance that will be needed to help the reform process along. Both those forms of assistance are available very speedily. Beyond that we will wish to see a very credible reform programme in place. We are entirely content to help a reform programme that will work but we do wish to see that it is a credible reform programme and one that is in the interests of the Soviet nation as a whole.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked that now he had met Yeltsin and Gorbachev, how did he see them working together].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They certainly have in common the fact that they need to work together in the interests of the Soviet people as a whole, they both have power, they both have responsibility, they both have that power and responsibility at a turbulent time when much needs to be done. I believe they both understand that, that they will be prepared to work together and try and find the solutions that are necessary to ensure that both the political reform programme and the economic reform programme can continue. There is a very great deal hanging on the fact that they work successfully together.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if they would be likely to both participate at the next European Summit].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not a matter that has been a subject of discussion today and neither have I discussed that with other European Heads of Government.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked what his view would be].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not know that an offer has yet been made, but I think I ought to discuss that sort of thing before expressing an opinion, I have not done so, so I have no opinion to express tonight.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Moscow – 1 September 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Moscow on Sunday 1st September 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER

    I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to come to Moscow and to have a whole range of discussions throughout the day. And I want first to express the very genuine relief that I feel, and that I believe people throughout Britain and the rest of the world feel at the failure of the attempted coup and at the restoration of President Gorbachev and the legitimate government in the Soviet Union.

    One of my first acts today was to lay a wreath to the memory of the few who gave their lives to the benefit of millions and I would like to pay tribute to them and to the courage of all those who risked their lives to preserve the Union’s new found liberty. I want also to express my very deep admiration of President Gorbachev and of Raisa Gorbachev who showed the most enormous strength under tremendous pressure. The failure of the coup is I believe a measure of what President Gorbachev and others have achieved over the last few years.

    I was able also to convey to President Yeltsin the admiration of the British people for the stand that he took and the stand that those also with him in the White House took just a few days ago. It was above all his determination and staunch bravery which faced down the perpetrators of the coup. President Yeltsin’s leadership was essential then and will be crucial as he and the other leaders shape the future of the Soviet Union and the republics. I have invited President Yeltsin to pay an official visit to Britain and he has accepted though it will take us a little while to determine appropriate dates.

    I have also had the great pleasure today of a meeting with the Prime Ministers of the three Baltic Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. As you all know, Britain never recognised the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the Soviet Union, the European Community recognised their independence last week. Douglas Hogg, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, will be visiting the Baltic republics this week and we shall be establishing a permanent diplomatic mission in the Baltics as soon as practicable. It was very moving for all of us today to be able to raise our glasses in welcome to them as part of the international family of free nations. We will be sponsoring their entry into the United Nations and will support their entry into other international organisations.

    The Soviet Union and the republics face momentous decisions and only they can take those decisions. At President Gorbachev’s request I had a second meeting with him this evening. At that meeting he was able to give me a detailed account of the intensive discussions he has been having today with representatives of the republics. Those discussions have focused on the relationship between the centre and the republics. I cannot go into detail now but the outcome of those discussions will become clear at tomorrow’s congress.

    Those people I have spoken today have expressed their wish for democracy with stability, that is our interest in the West as well. The republics have to live alongside one another and to trade with one another. In all my talks today I was encouraged that people were aware of the need of the republics to work with each other and with the centre, this need exists in both the political and the economic spheres.

    I have also discussed the question of nuclear weapons in my meetings today, I sought assurances from both President Gorbachev and President Yeltsin that the utmost care would be taken to ensure that nuclear weapons are kept under strict central control and that responsibility is not fragmented. They told me that they both fully endorsed this need. Stable conditions are also essential for the economic reform programme to take root and for a successful transition to a market economy.

    Fifty years ago this week British ships began to bring food into Murmansk at a time of very great need for the Soviet people. Again this winter we may face the need to help the Soviet people through a period of acute difficulty. If necessary we will do so. The current requirements are for immediate assistance with food supplies and distribution but in the longer term there must be a programme of radical economic reform, we have already launched the British Government’s Know-How Fund and encouraged it to launch a major project for the complete reform of the food sector in Kiev.

    The Minister of Agriculture in the United Kingdom will be chairing a meeting this week of those already involved so far, notably the British Food Consortium and of others, particularly companies involved in the distribution and marketing of food on a large scale. We hope that shortly thereafter British experts will travel to the Soviet Union as part of a lifeline team.

    President Gorbachev and Mr Yeltsin have welcomed this initiative, it is one that I discussed with President Bush and I know the United States has similar projects in mind. The European Community has already earmarked 85,000 tons of food for distribution in the Soviet Union this autumn, it also has an extensive programme of food credits and technical assistance in this area. The European Community will be in touch urgently with the Soviet authorities and the republics to ensure that the food reaches those most in need. In particular I shall be urging the Community to look urgently and swiftly at the possibility of financing the purchase of food produced in Eastern Europe for distribution in the Soviet Union, this will be of mutual benefit to the Community, the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

    While food aid is essential and will satisfy immediate needs, the process of economic reform requires more fundamental changes. This will involve liaison with the international monetary fund and other international financial institutions. At the meeting of the G7 summit in July we agreed that the Soviet Union should have special associate status with the International Monetary Fund. We now need to make that a reality and I have urged both President Gorbachev and President Yeltsin to nominate an individual or group who can work with the IMF. As Chairman of the G7, I have been in touch with the Managing Director of the IMF who is keen for this substantial contact to begin as soon as possible. I am confident that progress in this area will be achieved quite quickly. To speed this along I have arranged that Nigel Wicks, the Second Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, will remain behind tomorrow for official discussions.

    There are welcome signs of progress in other areas. The Foreign Secretary is at this very moment engaged in an historic meeting with the new Head of the KGB. The first sign of these changes was the announcement that Mrs Gordievskya and her family will soon be free to leave the Soviet Union. My wife and I were delighted to meet her this morning and I have asked the Foreign Secretary to press tonight for the necessary formalities to be completed as soon as humanly possible.

    The Soviet Union and the republics face difficult choices, but the future is infinitely brighter than it looked barely two weeks ago when the world awakened to news of the coup. The people of the Soviet Union have chosen the path of freedom and chosen it decisively. That brings enormous responsibilities and opportunities. I feel privileged to come here today as the leader of one democratic country talking to the leaders of a vitally important country which is on its way to becoming the world’s newest democracy. It has been a day that has been most useful and one I believe that will have contributed to greater understanding of what is happening here.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Presentation with President Bush – 30 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint presentation with President Bush at Kennebunkport on Friday 30th August 1991.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Might I just say what a pleasure it has been to have the Prime Minister here, I hope the Major family has got a little rest, I am afraid that we have done an awful lot of business here talking about the future. The Prime Minister now gets home for just a very short period of time and is embarking on a trip to Moscow and then on to China and Hong Kong, so he has been busy at work. But for us it has been a great pleasure, John, to have you all here and I wish you Godspeed on your trip, we will stay in close touch.

    I think the consultations we have had on the Soviet Union and indeed on other troublespots around the world has been fruitful from the United States’ standpoint, and so thank you for coming here and have a very pleasant trip back.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    George, thank you very much indeed and perhaps I may say thank you again to you and Barbara for your hospitality, I enjoyed it enormously, so did Norma, so did James, so did Elizabeth. We have had a great couple of days and it has been a very memorable occasion indeed.

    If I can just say in addition to that, not only has it been a memorable couple of days here, but the relationship and the matters we have shared over the last year or so have been I believe quite remarkable, it has been a tumultuous period and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the leadership that you have given over that last year, not just to the United States but I think to the whole of the free world as well. It is the sort of year you see very rarely indeed with the remarkable events we have seen, but I think with the leadership that you have given in the West we have been in very safe hands indeed and I know that is a very strong feeling in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and I would like to thank you for that.

    I have also a couple of small gifts. One of them I am passing on to you with the request that it is passed to you for onward transmission to the Library at Congress. It is a very remarkable book indeed produced by the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund to commemorate the battles in 1940, the Battle of the Few one of the most remarkable battles I think in the history of warfare, and I think as an ex-pilot it is something that you will like. It was commissioned last year to mark the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Britain and to raise funds for charity, for the Benevolent Fund, and they have asked me to present this, I think you will find it a rather beautiful book for you to have, to look at and then I hope to pass on to the Library of Congress. I hope you will enjoy that, it is certainly absolutely magnificent and I am happy to give it to you with the compliments and admiration of many people in the United Kingdom.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Thank you, sir, very much for that most beautiful book and I will see that it gets to the Library of Congress so that it can be shared with the American people.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And we have another more personal present. We are very pleased with the relationship we have with the United States and have had for many years, but there is one small defect in it that I think we are going to correct. We in the United Kingdom have two national games of soccer and cricket. The United States is of course a member of the International Cricket Conference, we started playing cricket in England round about 1300 and indeed I think the first English cricket team ever to leave our shores and go and play abroad was in the 1850s when they came to the United States. But I think one occasion you beat us so we have not been back too often since then, but I would like you to accept this in the hope that we can encourage you to add to the golf, the swimming, the fishing, the tennis, in any spare time you have with a little cricket. And it is in fact signed by the England cricket team that won the test match at Lords just a few days ago, they did it with very great pleasure and they said that at some stage not only do they hope to see you watching a test match somewhere in the United Kingdom, but if you seem to be as good at that as you are at some other sports we would just like to review our selection procedures to see if you might play for us.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Thank you, thank you, that is very nice John. Now wait a minute, you cannot escape without a retaliatory gift here. They may not realise this, but the Prime Minister’s dad spent his youth in the United States and it emerges that he was a baseball player of sorts so we asked the Louisville slugger people to send this up to commemorate your visit so give it a whirl and may your eyes be safe from that curve ball and mine free of googlies.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There should just be room on the Chequers lawn, many thanks indeed, thank you all very much.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Bush – 29 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bush on Thursday 29th August 1991.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Over the past few months, ever since he has been Prime Minister, he and I have exchanged views, we have stayed in very close contact regarding a number of fast moving events on the international scene, I appreciate his counsel and his wise judgment. And in like manner we have had extremely useful talks on the current situation inside the Soviet Union and these exchanges are particularly important since he is off on Sunday to Moscow and will be able to share with the Soviet leadership our views and hopes for the Soviet peoples in a direct manner.

    We stand united, as do other Western partners, in our commitment to help Soviet reform. The industrial democracies have already undertaken steps to aid the economic process, the programme that we established at the G7 meeting under John Major’s chairmanship in London was a flexible programme, adaptable programme, as a matter of fact today the G7 sherpas are meeting in London to review the situation and exchange views on any further steps that can be undertaken.

    But we must remember that the Soviet Union is undergoing a major political change and the Prime Minister and I also had a discussion about the Baltics. The US is a strong supporter of Baltic independence, we have so notified the Soviet Union and we have urged the Soviet leadership not to stand against the will of the inevitable, the winds of this inevitable change. The Baltics want freedom, clearly the United States and the UK want them to have freedom and clearly the Baltics will have freedom. So let the Soviet leadership on this one act accordingly, that is our message.

    And again, Mr Prime Minister, I really enjoyed our conversation today and we are just delighted you and your charming wife, Norma, are with us.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much Mr President. I would like firstly to thank the President and Mrs Bush for their invitation to join them here today. Norma, Elizabeth and I have had a great time and we are very grateful to you for making us feel as much at home in New England as we do in our England and we are grateful to you for that. I have discovered over the last few months that the President is not only a man I can do business with him, I have discovered this morning he is a man I can go fishing with, we have done more successful business than we have fishing this morning, I must tell you that, but we have managed to reach an agreement on a number of things on dry land in our discussions thus far, both on shore and out there fishing this morning.

    We certainly agree absolutely on our objectives in responding to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, we need to support democracy, we need to encourage the economic reform that they so badly need in the Soviet Union and we need also to respond compassionately to the urgent needs that the Soviet people have at the present time. We will go on talking to the Soviet authorities, the central authorities, and also building on the existing relationships and the developing relationships with the new leaders in the republics. We are already in touch with the leaders of the Baltic states and I hope when I visit Moscow on Sunday that I will be able to meet some, if not all, of them as well as Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin and some of the other key figures out there at the moment.

    We agreed this morning on the principles governing aid to the Soviet Union. There is a window of opportunity at present for the speeding up of the economic reform process and that is absolutely vital for the Soviet Union, the need to speed up that is urgent and we agreed this morning that we need to support the effort. Our judgment is that what the Soviet Union and the republics most need is emergency humanitarian assistance, practical help in converting their economy into one that works. And that means that aid must be linked to a clear and comprehensive and practical reform plan, that it must go to those people who are in need, including directly to the individual republics, and that it needs to be linked to the Soviet commitment to further reduce defence spending.

    And we were able to identify in our discussions this morning a number of points, six particular points worthy of action:

    – The first is to implement existing food credits;

    – the second is to assess the need for food aid during this winter;

    – the third is to produce some lifeline teams, teams to travel to the Soviet Union to help achieve efficient food production and food distribution, that may well be a public private partnership and it is an area where we and the United States will be moving ahead in the days and weeks immediately in front of us.

    – we agreed also we needed to implement the Know-How programmes and the technical assistance that we discussed at the G7 and the bilateral agreements we already have to assist the Soviets on that front.

    – we also felt that the time was right to get the IMF and the World Bank involved urgently in helping to work out practical, structural reform plans and technical assistance for the Soviet Union;

    – and sixthly, we agreed that it would be right to accelerate implementation of special association to the Soviet Union with the IMF with a view to full membership in due course for those who qualify and by qualify I mean as well in terms of effective reform plans.

    Now that help with food aid and food distribution and technical assistance will require a good deal of international collaboration if the effort is going to be as targeted as it deserves to be, to avoid duplication and be as successful as we would want it to be. And that does necessarily mean that we need some mechanism involving the principal countries and the principal groupings involved. I will take the opportunity as current Chairman of the G7 to keep closely in touch with the other G7 members to help ensure that we coordinate our activities.

    All the members of the G7 have been providing some very useful and constructive input for my meetings in Moscow this weekend and when I have had that meeting I will be writing to them to discuss what needs to be done and to report to them on the judgments I reach there and the discussions that I had.

    I think it is worthwhile making the point that we do have a very urgent need for better information about what is happening there than we yet have. All the members of the G7 have agreed to pool their findings by the end of September on what needs to be done to meet the most urgent food and medical needs in the Soviet Union.

    So that is the basis of the discussions we have had this morning and they have been very useful and very constructive. And I would like to thank the President again for the very timely opportunity we have had to share our thoughts on the remarkable events that are taking place at the present time. We cannot dictate the ending of what is happening in the Soviet Union but neither are we mere spectators and I think what has happened in the West in the last few days and the discussions we have had this morning indicate the way in which we can contribute to assist the Soviets and I believe that this morning we reached a new and better understanding on the supporting role the West can play so I am very grateful for the opportunity to have those discussions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, the Supreme Soviet has been meeting for most of this week, you said you were hoping to get a clear picture of the Soviet Union’s political future emerge from those sessions, yet things seem about as confused today as they did 48 or 72 hours ago, are things moving a little bit too slowly on that front for you or do you see things falling into place?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I think the changes are so monumental that it is going to take time to sort it all out with finality, every day there are new announcements, some new dramatic step taking place, so that is for them to sort out, we cannot affect it particularly.

    I think the Prime Minister is right on target when he says we want to help, we are not just bystanders, we have a tremendous stake in what is taking place, but these changes have moved with such rapidity that well put it this way, if two weeks ago somebody had predicted this everybody would have said he had lost it. And so changes are going on, but again all the cards are not on the table when it comes to what the United States’ role should be or the UK role in further assistance of one kind or another. But I do not worry about that, there are enormous problems in the republic, in the centre, and then the other republics as well, not just the Russian republic. So it is moving fast, we are watching, we are learning, and we stand ready to be of assistance because what is at stake here is democracy and freedom and our countries are clearly committed to that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you still expecting some kind of action on independence for the Baltics today or tomorrow?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I do not think it will be today or tomorrow, it could well be Monday, but we just are not certain of that. I will leave it right there.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, most of the measures that you say you have discussed today involved speeding up things that were already in train, do you not have any sense that given the momentous changes that we have seen in the Soviet Union some more fundamental reconsideration of Western policy might be necessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We identified some time ago what was most practical and of most assistance to the Soviets, that has not changed, the dimensions of that have changed, the need, the speed for it has changed, perhaps the volume of it has changed. What we have actually done this morning is agree a very practical way forward. People are suggesting all sorts of things that ought to be done but the priorities are to deal with the problems of food and food distribution, to deal with the ways in which we can help the Soviets maximise their own capacity to produce both food and other mechanistic and hardware produce and we need a good deal of information in order to do that. There is no point in going beyond that until we can see precisely what the need is.

    I understand the wish that there is in some people’s mind to do something fresh, entirely different and entirely dramatic, but we have to consider what would be practical, what is deliverable and what would actually help. And it was actually quite striking earlier this week that one of the Soviet spokesmen was saying that the problem is not really a question of large scale money, we actually need technical advice and know-how and we need food. This is what we are providing and we are potentially doing it on a very substantial scale and across a very wide field.

    I would envisage that we would send some of these lifeline teams not just to the centre but to a number of the republics in order to go there, to see what needs to be done, report back and enable us then to put in hand the practical measures that are needed to help. I think that is what is most in the interests of the Soviet Union and that is what we have agreed this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, does the break-up of the Soviet empire raise any concerns in your mind about who controls the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the Ukraine for one which wants to break away has nuclear weapons there, how do you want this matter disposed of?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I want to have it disposed in the way that nuclear weapons safety is totally guaranteed and to date we feel very comfortable about that, we had a group as knowledgeable as one can be about Soviet procedures taking a look at this and I want to reassure the American people that at no time has there been any official concern about inadvertent use of nuclear weapons or something going awry.

    But that is a matter that needs to be sorted out and I am confident that everybody in the republics and everybody in the centre understands that the last thing that the world needs is some kind of nuclear scare to say nothing of a nuclear confrontation. So I would like to use that question, Terry, to calm any fears that the American people have, we did not notice any untoward movement of nuclear forces and so we feel comfortable now that whoever is in charge will do the right thing in safeguarding these nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps the Prime Minister would want to add to that because he is knowledgeable in this field.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would only add to it to agree with it. We see no reason for concern about what is happening in nuclear weapons in the short term, the army command still has the same controls, there is a certain degree of stability, we see no reason to worry. But clearly it is a matter that we will want to address and discuss with the Soviets at an early stage and the sooner we can get positive answers and positive assurances the happier we will be.

    QUESTION:

    The republics like the Ukraine will not be allowed to keep these weapons will they?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    No I doubt that, but whatever happens I think wise and sane heads from whatever republic or whatever the centre proves eventually to be will recognise that safeguarded nuclear weapons programmes are absolutely essential. By safeguarded I mean guarantees to see that things cannot inadvertently go wrong are not only what the world demands but I think the people inside the Soviet Union will demand it and they have always felt that way and we see no reason to escalate the fears that might exist by any other response here.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, are you prepared to spend British Government money on helping the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are already doing that. We crossed that bridge some time ago with the implementation of the know-how schemes and they, of course, go not to the central Soviet authorities but out in the republics and in the majority of cases to individual companies and individual enterprises so we crossed that Rubicon some time ago.

    QUESTION;

    Are we now going to spend more?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to assess the need first. If and when we have assessed the need, we will do what we can in concert with our partners to meet that need. Nobody should doubt that we believe that is the right thing to do, the right thing to do on humanitarian grounds and I think the right thing to do on political and strategic grounds as well.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, speaking of spending money, Les Aspin is going to recommend that Congress take a billion dollars out of the defence budget and put it into some kind of Soviet aid programme. What do you think of that idea?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Technically that would require a change in the existing budget agreement. As you know, Jim, many people, many politicians, have tried to change the budget agreement for one reason or another, some wanted to spend more on one programme domestically or some wanted to spend more on another. It is ironic that just a few days ago when this coup was under way, there started a debate about “Are we spending enough on defence?” almost at 180; now the debate comes: “Well, maybe we have got too much in defence!” I would say let us take a little time and sort this thing out intelligently.

    Certainly, we want to live within our budget agreement; we owe this to the American people. We have got to get this economy going and more and more government spending is not the answer. His suggestion, as you say, doesn’t result in more but you have got to accommodate a lot of domestic interests that would like to see more money going somewhere. It is ironic that I was attacked prior to this coup about being too much concerned about money for the Egyptian debt or money for the Soviet Union and now suddenly, before the cards are all laid down on the table, we have people saying: “Hey, what we have got to do now to prove that we are interested is send more money, send more dough for something!”

    I couldn’t agree more with what our G7 Chairman, John Major, said about helping people, whether in the republics or in the centre, wherever, in terms of food aid. We also want to be sure it gets there; we want to be sure that the distribution system works, so we have got a lot to do but I think it is way too premature. Les Aspin is a very creative thinker and I give him great credit for thinking about this but there will be a lively debate in the United States Congress and I for one will be sure we get all the information that we possibly can by mid-Fall, by mid-September, whenever it is the debate will be joined; then, I will have a strong recommendation. Right now, I simply cannot endorse that and I notice so many people are jumping up and saying: “What we must do now is cut defence spending more!” I think we have cut defence spending a lot and I want to be sure that our forces are properly structured to meet the needs that we were talking about just twelve months ago standing in this very same place. How soon, how quick we forget! So I think it is a little premature his suggestion but again, with respect, I think it is good he is thinking about this and yet I am not going to go out there and say we can afford to cut defence. Where is it going to come from? What account do they want to take it out of, for example, and what will that do to our readiness and our disproportionate responsibility to stand up against terror and aggression wherever it may be coming from?

    But I do think that out of this change in the Soviet Union, if we handle it properly and if things keep going forward instead of slipping back, there is an opportunity for a vastly restructured national security posture but it is way too early to get into that.

    QUESTION:

    How do you tell those who are unemployed right now, given all the events over the past couple of years in Eastern Europe and what is going on in the Soviet Union right now, that there appears to be no peace dividend? I take it that is what you just said.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    What I have said is that we have dramatically cut defence; that was part of a commitment I made and that is a commitment we have kept but somebody is always coming in and saying: “Cut defence more!” They weren’t doing this a week ago is my point, Jim. When that coup started, I didn’t hear one single proposal like this; in fact, I heard a few tom-toms beating in the woods saying: “Hey! Maybe we have got to turn around the defence cuts we have already made!” My point is that it is not going to happen all at once. Let us deal from strength, get the facts and then make the decisions, not try to get out and have an instant solution to a problem when you don’t know the major parameters of the problem.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said that you want to see significant Soviet defence cuts. What sort of level are you looking at as a share of, say, GNP, and what sort of time-scale are you looking at?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We want the commitment to extend the defence cuts they are committed to already. The first part of the equation is to make sure that they continue with those cuts to which they are already committed and we have no reason to suppose that is not going to happen but even when they have done that, they are still spending a quarter of their central government expenditure on defence. I don’t think it is a tolerable proposition for them to sit upon that level of defence expenditure at a time when they are seeking very substantial assistance in one form or another from the west. We don’t expect them to do it overnight; we expect them to agree to make further defence reductions and to begin to put those in train but defence reductions necessarily on very practical grounds have to be phased, they can’t be done overnight, but we want the commitment and we want the programme to begin to start. I don’t think that we could realistically be expected to require less of them in the circumstances in which they find themselves at the moment and with the assistance that they would wish to see from us.

    QUESTION:

    Is this one of the subjects on the agenda when you see Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think you get commitments of that sort in a single meeting. I will certainly make it clear in the discussions we have on Sunday that that is the way we are thinking at present.

    QUESTION:

    The Soviets have announced within the past half-hour that they are suspending the Communist Party throughout the Soviet Union. Are you concerned about actions they are taking that may not be necessarily democratic, banning parties?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    They have got some democratic authority; some of these people were elected into this parliament. I frankly rejoice at that. I don’t see anything but good news in that in terms of the West and certainly in terms of America. The demise, the fall of a totalitarian non-democratic party effort, I think that is a good thing. I don’t see any bad news in that at all. Rejoice! Cheer!

    QUESTION:

    Mikhail Gorbachev has also criticised Boris Yeltsin today for going too far with decrees this week that he says may not be constitutional. He says last week that was all right, but the decrees that Yeltsin is continuing with, Gorbachev is now criticising. Do you think that there is a danger now that Yeltsin may be going too far?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Let them sort it out. I keep making the point. I made a comment the other day that when they appoint a new public works manager in down-town Kiev, that is their business. I got incidentally turned in for being testy; I thought that was highly amusing but obviously some didn’t. I thought it was very funny but it also has a serious note to it when it comes to personnel.

    I don’t know, John, if you have been asked that every time some guy is in and someone is out, a new person is appointed that nobody has ever heard of in the West, I am supposed to be reacting! They are sorting out an enormous complex set of new relationships so if President Gorbachev has something to say about President Yeltsin, knowing President Yeltsin he is apt to hear back something but that is the way the system is evolving. As you are struggling for democratic processes, these things happen and I really think it is counterproductive for the United States to have to have a view on every statement by every leader about what is happening inside the soviet Union and in the republics.

    What we want to do is adhere to certain values and as the process moves to total acceptance of these values, whether it is free elections, whether it is democracy generally or the whole broad concept of freedom, we rejoice but there are going to be some ups and downs in all of this and they can sort it out without a lot of second-guessing from the President of the United States or telling them where they ought to be the day after tomorrow.

    These are monumental changes that have taken place and the whole world is excited about it and there is going to be a hiccough here, there is going to be a criticism there, there is going to be a move that we didn’t expect over here, for example, but it is moving in the right direction.

    It has been fantastic. I am wondering what we are going to do for an encore next August, John, because last year, as you know, it was the Gulf starting and just ending. I want to identify myself on something here on a question asked to the Prime Minister – the way that this Prime Minister handled the G7 meeting. It has been obscured by events now but you go back and look at what he did and the programme we all came out with as a result of his chairmanship and it is just as relevant today, given this monumental change that has taken place, as it was the day that he fashioned the compromises between very strong European leaders and the leaders of North America. Go look at it! Look at what we, collectively, thought then was best for the Soviet Union and its economy or whatever and I think you will find enormous relevance even though these tremendous changes have taken place.

    As he said, we are going to fine-tune it. We are going to step up attention to urgent humanitarian assistance for food but there are other things we can do. What he fashioned there – and we all would like to now take credit for because it appears to be right on target – what happened there was very very relevant today when you look at the kinds of assistance they really need and you hear what Mr. Levitsky (phon) said yesterday or the day before and then lay that down against the agenda that Prime Minister Major sorted out and led us to reach agreement on and you will find that this programme is very sensible.

    So we will do our part in the West but as for the United States, I am not going to be jumping into the middle of what is going on. I leave that to the editorialists, I leave that to the Sunday talk-shows; I don’t leave it to the policy-makers of the foreign policy of the United States. If we see something that we think takes them off this track to democracy, freedom, openness and reform, we will speak up on it but when you have internal things going on of the nature you asked about, I really think it would be counterproductive for each country to weigh-in and tell one or the other of these two strong leaders how to do things or to tell the republics exactly how they ought to do their business. They know what the principles of the US are and the principles of the UK and we are not departing from them; if we see something against them we will have that to say but I am not going to comment on every personnel change or every comment by one leader or another as they sort out these enormously complex problems from inside.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was just reflecting that if commentators in the Soviet Union asked the Soviets to comment on every political exchange in the United Kingdom between political parties and political personalities they would be jolly busy. I think they would answer as the President did. We are wise to keep out of it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] rest of your forthcoming trip which will cover China and Hong Kong and has the President given you any assurances of help with the problem of the boat people because it will require a nod and a wink from the United States before the Vietnamese are willing to accept the idea of internationally-managed centres?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We haven’t finished our discussions. We are going to have lunch together. We have got some more things to talk about. We have touched on China, we have touched on GATT, we have touched on a number of matters but we haven’t concluded our talks. There are issues like that still to be talked about.