The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 1991

  • Mr Major’s Statement on the Gulf War – 17 January 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s statement on the status of the Gulf War, made in London on Thursday 17th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought you might care to know the information that I have thus far. As you almost certainly will know, Allied forces attacked military targets in Iraq and Baghdad last night.

    The operation began just before midnight our time and is a very large and continuing operation. The attack was carried out by a four-nation force – United States forces, British forces, Saudi Arabian forces and Kuwaiti forces – and it was, of course, carried out under the authority of United Nation Resolution 678.

    Early indications are that it has been a very successful operation. I have just received an initial report this morning from the Secretary of State for Defence, Tom King, and from the Chief of the Defence Staff. I am pleased to tell you that at the present time I am not yet aware of any British casualties. We will provide further information on the detailed success of the operation at a later stage when that is available.
    Tom King will hold a press conference later on this morning and I shall myself of course be making a Statement to the House of Commons this afternoon.

    I know that everybody would share my feelings at the moment that our principal thoughts and prayers are with the troops who have been carrying out this operation and with their families who must be so concerned about the matter at home. Immense trouble has been taken of course to ensure that it is military targets that are the target of this attack and an enormous amount of effort and care has gone into ensuring that there are the minimum possible number of civilian casualties.

    If I may, I will take what questions you may have and answer them insofar as I am yet able.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, may I ask you first of all would you consider a pause to allow for negotiations to take place?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. This is an ongoing operation. If Saddam Hussein were prepared to start withdrawing from Kuwait, then that is a separate matter but for the moment this is an ongoing operation. I am not prepared to risk the potential lives of British forces – and I am sure the other commanders feel the same – by a pause that would allow Saddam Hussein to regroup his forces and perhaps launch a substantial attack. I do not think that would be right and I think the security of our forces must be a matter to which we will give overriding concern.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you tell us a little bit about your conversation with President Bush before this began? What was the sort of mood of the discussion that you had with him and what the format that you agreed, the context in which you would all work?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one enters into an operation of this scale or of this nature lightly. I have had a considerable number of conversations with President Bush about the possibility of us needing to use force at the end of the deadline over a considerable period of time.
    The final decision that we would use force if Iraq did not remove themselves from Kuwait was taken very shortly after the conclusion of the House of Commons debate on Tuesday.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you honestly believe that you have used force as a last resort and that there was no other way of getting Saddam Hussein out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. That has been our position for a long time.

    Of course, the United Nations Resolution was set some time ago with a particular deadline so that there was no doubt that in international law there was a proper authority to use force after the expiry of the deadline on the 15th. I do not think Saddam Hussein could have been in any doubt at all from what has been said over recent weeks that at the expiry of that there was authority to use force and that we would find it necessary to do so to expel him from Kuwait. I am myself satisfied that that was necessary and I hope this will be a speedy and successful operation.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you have any assessment at this stage of how long military action might have to continue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. There can be no assessment of that at this stage. We have some preliminary assessments of the damage that has been done but we will need a considerable degree of extra information before we can be precisely clear about that.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thus far, the assessments are that a considerable amount of damage has been done but they are very preliminary assessments and we will have a good deal more information later.

    QUESTION:

    When did you first hear about the attack?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I, of course, have known about the timing of the attack, as I said a few moments ago, from consultations I had with President Bush at the conclusion of the House of Commons debate on Tuesday. I therefore was aware of the time the attack would take place.

    QUESTION:

    How have you spent the night and what are your feelings now that war has started?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No-one wanted this conflict. No-one can be pleased about the fact that this conflict has been necessary and I regret that as much as anyone. I have been up throughout the night; we have had an open line to the White House and there has been very considerable consultation throughout the night.

    I hope now that it is clear to Iraq that the scale of the Allied operation is such that they cannot win. I hope that Saddam Hussein will now make a very swift decision that he must do what he has been invited to do by the world community for a long time – that he should get out of Kuwait and enable this matter to end swiftly and decisively. I hope that he will do that.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, could the war be over in a matter of days?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I cannot forecast that. We will prosecute this war until it comes to a successful conclusion. There is no doubt at all what the world community wants: it wants Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait and Kuwait to return to its rightful government. When that matter is concluded, the war will end but there should be no doubt about our determination to prosecute it to that end. International will is very strong; international law is quite clear; and it has been made absolutely clear by the Allies over recent weeks that that is our determination and our intention — it remains so.

    I will now leave you if I may but I will report to the House of Commons this afternoon.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Gulf War – 15 January 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s statement made in the House of Commons on 15th January 1991 regarding the Gulf War.

    Mr. Speaker Before I call the Prime Minister, may I say that a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in this very important debate. I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 6 o’clock and 8 o’clock, but I ask those who are called before that, particularly if they are Privy Councillors, to bear that limit in mind.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there have been two debates on the Gulf in the past few months, may I ask whether you will give preference to hon. Members who did not speak in those debates?

    Mr. Speaker I shall seek to balance opinion in the House.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) There is overwhelming concern in Parliament and in the country about the situation in the Gulf. That concern is shared by everyone, but must self evidently be most acutely felt by the families and friends of our troops at present in the Gulf.

    The position has been brought about, first, by Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait and, secondly, by its continued and blatant refusal to implement the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and to withdraw wholly and unconditionally from the country which it invaded in early August. It is now five and a half months since the first of the resolutions and the deadline for Iraq to comply runs out today. Therefore, the Government thought it entirely right for the House to debate the situation.

    Since we last discussed these matters on 11 December last year, there have been important diplomatic and military developments. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have both visited the middle east to discuss the position with the rulers and with the Governments there. I have recently met President Bush, President Mitterrand, and Secretary Baker for the same purpose and my right hon. Friend has been in constant contact with his European Community colleagues and many others. Yesterday, upon his return from Baghdad, I also spoke at length to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I intend to cover those developments shortly, although I shall not on this occasion go into the detailed background to the present crisis, which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) with characteristic clarity last September. I shall, however, report on the various discussions that my right hon. Friend and I have had. I shall then explain why the Government regard full implementation of the United Nations resolutions as being so crucial. Finally, I shall set out to the House how we intend to act.

    Before I do so, I should like to make one general point. I hope that this debate will not in any way be seen either here or, perhaps more appropriately, beyond here as a party-political or partisan occasion. With the clear danger of hostilities looming, through no wish of anyone in this country or the House, it seems to me acutely important that our forces in the Gulf should feel that they have the united support of the vast majority of the House and of the country. It will be in that spirit in which the Government approach the debate.

    Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) rose –

    Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) rose –

    The Prime Minister I should like to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentlemen will forgive me.

    Since the invasion on 2 August the international community has collectively and repeatedly called on Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait, 12 Security Council resolutions have been passed, either unanimously or with very substantial majorities, and dozens of visits to Baghdad and appeals to Saddam Hussein have been made by international statesmen from many countries. Most recently, the United States Secretary of State, James Baker, has met Tariq Aziz in Geneva and the Secretary-General of the United Nations has met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

    Despite all this, Iraq is still in Kuwait and shows no imminent signs of leaving. I fear that the contrary is the case. In recent weeks Iraq has continued to increase the size of its forces in and around Kuwait. There are now nearly 600,000 troops, more than 4,000 tanks and more than 3,000 artillery pieces. Its defences are continually being strengthened. Chemical weapons, already used by Saddam Hussein against his own people, have been deployed. Contrary to international agreements, Iraq has produced and threatened to use both chemical and biological weapons, the use of which would be wholly contrary to international agreements. Iraq also continues to develop a nuclear weapon, although we do not believe thus far that she has succeeded in doing so.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) rose –

    The Prime Minister If the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress, I shall give way to him later.

    At the same time, Iraq has constantly and, in my view, cynically changed the pretexts given for its invasion of Kuwait. At various times we have been told that the invasion took place for different reasons: first, because Kuwait had artificially depressed the world price of oil; then because Kuwait had failed to pay compensation to Iraq for lost revenues; and then because it had occupied territory on Iraq’s border. We were then told that there had been a coup d’etat in Kuwait and a new Government established that had appealed for Iraqi support. That absurd untruth soon disappeared without trace. Then we were informed that Kuwait had been wholly absorbed into Iraq, and the Iraqi information Minister told the world ‘to forget that a place called Kuwait had ever existed.’ It was even suggested that Kuwait had been attacked because it posed a threat to Iraq’s security – a notion so absurd that the whole world dismissed it with contempt, and dismissed it immediately.

    Finally, we were told, least credibly of all, that the purpose of the invasion had been to bring about a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question. In my discussions in the Gulf, I have found that non-Iraqi Arab leaders are particularly contemptuous of that excuse and have made that crystal clear to me and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The real fact is that Iraq’s action has made a settlement of that longstanding and very real problem infinitely more difficult. Only when Iraq has withdrawn from Kuwait shall we be able to resume efforts to find a solution with any hope of success – and that, of course, we shall seek to continue to do.

    Rarely in history can there have been a more cynical catalogue of lies and deceits. The reality is clear for all to see: Iraq has used military force to wipe Kuwait off the face of the map and to plunder its resources. Nor is that all. Intimidation, torture and murder of the Kuwaiti people have continued without respite. The appalling details have been carefully and shockingly catalogued in the report by Amnesty International, which should be compulsory reading for everyone who expresses a view on this issue.

    What the report reveals is truly shocking: people executed – in my view, murdered would be a better word – for failing to display a photograph of Saddam Hussein in their homes; teenage boys murdered in the sight of their mothers and sisters, their bodies then left on the street as garbage and their families forbidden to take their corpses home to give them a decent burial. This is literally horrifying, a tale of unbelievable and sickening cruelty since last August.

    Those who caution delay because they hate war – hate the very thought of war, as all hon. Members must surely do – must ask themselves this question: how much longer should the world stand by and risk these atrocities continuing in Kuwait?

    Mr. Cryer rose –

    Mr. Strang rose –

    Mr. Nellist rose –

    The Prime Minister We are talking not only of atrocities. Hundreds of thousands of Kuwaitis have been forced to leave their country as a part of a systematic effort to change populations, to expunge records and to erase national identity itself. At the start of August, there were 700,000 Kuwaitis in Kuwait; today there are 250,000, a fall of two thirds. Organised robbery has taken place on a gigantic scale, with everything from cars and buses to medical equipment – even incubators for use in hospitals – being taken away: stolen, ransacked and taken as spoils of war to Iraq.

    What we are seeing is not just a simple dispute or everyday difference of opinion. What we are witnessing in Kuwait is an attempt to eliminate an entire state by a dictator who has shown himself to be a thorough force for evil in his actions over recent years.
    Despite all this, neither we nor our international partners have given up our efforts to find a peaceful solution on the basis of full implementation of the United Nations resolutions. The United Nations, the European Community, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference have all separately tried to persuade Iraq to comply with the Security Council resolutions. Many individual countries and Governments have made their contribution. And yet, what happened last week when Secretary Baker met the Iraqi Foreign Minister in Geneva to try yet again to bring about a peaceful solution? Tariq Aziz refused even to mention Kuwait or to discuss withdrawal. He showed no flexibility or, shockingly, any remorse for the crimes that have been committed in Kuwait since the beginning of August. And an invitation to Tariq Aziz to meet the European Community was brusquely and immediately rejected and ignored.

    Subsequently, as the House knows, the United Nations Secretary-General travelled to Baghdad to offer his good offices. We welcomed that unreservedly. Even at that late stage we hoped that reason would prevail. Mr. Perez de Cuellar’s mission had the full support of Britain, of the United States and of the European Community and, I believe, the full support of the whole world community which holds him in such continual respect. Yet his involvement demonstrated, perhaps more clearly than anything else could, that the confrontation is not just between the United States and Iraq or the west and Iraq, but between the United Nations and an aggressor that has overrun a neighbouring small and innocent country.

    But I am sorry to report that the Secretary-General’s efforts, too, were crudely and brutally brushed aside. When I spoke to him yesterday he told me, without any doubt or hesitation, that there was nothing favourable to report from his meeting with Saddam Hussein; not the slightest sign of willingness to comply with the Security Council resolution either now or in the future.

    Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) In the event of an unprovoked attack on Israel in the days ahead, what would be the British Government’s response and what consultation has there been with other Governments about that possibility?

    The Prime Minister Of course that possibility is one which we have been considering, not least because Saddam Hussein has made it clear on a number of occasions that he may seek to involve a nation at present standing wholly adrift from this particular dispute in the way described. I hope very much that that will not happen and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not speculate on what would follow, but I feel sure that the international community, at present part of the allied force, would regard that as a wholly unacceptable way for Iraq to behave and would respond accordingly. I hope very much indeed that the restraint that has been shown by the state of Israel will continue in the weeks ahead. That restraint has been extremely helpful.

    In the past 24 hours the House will have seen reports of a French initiative put forward just a few hours after the European Community Foreign Ministers had concluded that the conditions for an initiative no longer existed. It would be more accurate to say that what is involved is an appeal to Saddam Hussein to reconsider and to withdraw even at this late hour, and that is something which we all wish to see. But what I believe we cannot do is to water down the existing Security Council resolutions. We have supported those for a long time. They call for total and unconditional Iraqi withdrawal. Nor can we be party to extending the United Nations deadline or in any way reward Iraq for its aggression.

    Those are the criteria on which we would judge any proposal. Saddam Hussein must be given no false expectation that peace can be had without complete and full implementation of the Security Council resolutions.

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) I think that the whole House agrees with the Prime Minister that there can be no question of a watering down of existing United Nations resolutions, but, according to the report in The Independent today, the French initiative calls on the Security Council to ask Iraq ‘to announce without further delay its” – ’ Iraq’s – ‘intention to pull out of Kuwait according to a set timetable and to begin now with a rapid and large-scale withdrawal.’ Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he regards that as being a watering down of the terms of the United Nations resolutions?

    The Prime Minister Let me reiterate the point in order to put it in its proper context. We fully subscribe to the idea of a last appeal to Saddam Hussein to obey the Security Council resolutions. We have no difficulty with that point. But we do have considerable difficulty with the French text. All along we have supported the Security Council resolutions and we must judge the French text by two criteria: whether it is wholly consistent with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and whether it is likely to lead Iraq to comply with those resolutions or simply have the effect of taking the pressure off Iraq at this very late stage. In our judgment, it fails those tests and it is for that reason that, although we are content with the idea of a last appeal, we cannot accept and cannot support the particular proposition put forward by the French.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) It would appear that one of the major reasons why the Government reject the French initiative, which I certainly welcome, is the matter of linkage. But is the Prime Minister aware that when the war begins a linkage denied in the conference hall may be established on the battlefield within hours and if Israel is drawn into the conflict the two issues will come together? Is he also aware that, when the war is over, the proposal made by President Mitterrand will be the basis of the peace conference? Why cannot we have the peace proposal before the bloodshed instead of afterwards?

    The Prime Minister As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), I did not share the view put forward by the French that their proposal is wholly consistent with the United Nations resolutions as we have thus far known them. Perhaps I may elaborate on that point. The French text only calls on Iraq to announce its intention to withdraw according to a timetable. The Security Council has called for an immediate, total and unconditional withdrawal. There is a distinction. But equally relevant is the fact that I do not think that we would be wise to place much faith in an indication of Iraq’s intentions against the background of the lies, deceit and treachery that we have seen in the last six months. There is no basis of trust and therefore we must rely on an appeal either from the Security Council or from the Secretary-General that is wholly and completely consistent with the resolutions that we have supported for so long.

    If I add in reply to the right hon. Gentleman a word about my discussion with President Mitterrand, he may find it useful. My clear impression from my discussions with President Mitterrand yesterday is that, like all of us, he hopes and prays that hostilities can be avoided. But particularly in the wake of Iraq’s totally negative response to the United Nations Secretary-General, President Mitterrand sees no realistic prospect that Iraq can now be persuaded to take the essential step of withdrawing from Kuwait.

    No one, anywhere, can claim that the international community has not tried for peace. If it turns out that we shall have failed, we shall have failed only because Iraq has rejected every attempt to reach a diplomatic solution.

    Mr. Dalyell Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    The Prime Minister Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to make a little more progress.

    In parallel with those diplomatic efforts, the international community has, with very few exceptions and contraventions, applied economic sanctions against Iraq. As the House knows, they are among the most sweeping sanctions ever agreed by the United Nations. They have interrupted 90 per cent. of Iraq’s foreign trade and have caused widespread dislocation of its economy.

    What is the real test of the sanctions? It is not just whether they cause economic misery in Iraq. The real test is whether they bring about Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait. So far, they have failed to achieve that. [HON. MEMBERS: “Give them time to work.”] I will deal precisely with the points that Opposition Members want to raise, if they will give me a moment. It is clear that the sanctions will not succeed by the deadline set by the United Nations for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, or for a very long time after that.

    There are those who argue – and I understand their concern – that we should give sanctions more time to work. But at what price should we give them more time to work? Allowing more time for sanctions to work has other implications.

    Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East) The Prime Minister has again referred to the tragic plight of the people of Kuwait, of whom perhaps 2,000 have already been killed since the beginning of August. What does the right hon. Gentleman think would be the effect on the people of Kuwait of a war to reconquer Kuwait? Has he read the report in today’s Financial Times in which one of the leading members of the al-Sabah family, speaking from the comfort of his luxury hotel in Dhahran, hundreds of miles from the fighting line, said that he would be quite happy to see the “flattening” of Kuwait if it meant that he got back sovereignty of the territory? Does the Prime Minister really think that that sort of war will do anything to help the people of Kuwait?

    The Prime Minister The liberation of Kuwait is an important principle. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, other important principles are at stake in this dispute and in a few moments I will deal with them at some length. If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall return to the point about the time taken for sanctions to work. [HON. MEMBERS: “Answer.”] I will return to the points raised earlier about sanctions, to which the House is entitled to a reply. The point that was concerning the House was whether we should give sanctions more time to work. I said that more time for sanctions has other implications. It also means more time for Iraq to continue to extinguish Kuwait. It means more time for Iraq to prepare its defences against allied troops and perhaps a greater subsequent cost in the lives of allied troops. It means more time during which Kuwaitis will be tortured or killed. Because sanctions are not having their intended effect, we would, in addition, in practice be extending the deadline for Iraq’s withdrawal while relaxing pressure on Iraq to comply.

    Mr. Strang rose –

    The Prime Minister If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue.
    To do so would destroy the credibility of the international community’s response to Iraq’s aggression and that is why I do not believe that we have the time, nor would we be wise, to let sanctions run a lengthier and fuller course. That is the situation we face.

    Several Hon. Members rose –

    The Prime Minister If hon. Members will forgive me, I shall make a little more progress.

    Mr. Speaker Order. I think that every hon. Member who is rising to intervene is anxious to take part in the debate. They will not be able to do so if there are constant interruptions.

    The Prime Minister The situation that I have just outlined is the situation we must face. Throughout recent months the Government have taken great care to consult their allies, the United States, Europe and – perhaps most important of all in many ways – the Arab world. Last week I met the Emir of Kuwait, the King of Saudi Arabia, the Sultan of Oman and President Mubarak.

    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just returned from visits to other Gulf states, as well as Jordan and Turkey, on which he will report in his winding-up speech. Earlier this week I spoke to Mr. Mulroney, Secretary Baker and President Mitterrand –

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) Blood on their hands.

    The Prime Minister I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show as much concern for the blood in Kuwait City in the past few months.
    Throughout my visits I found a rock-solid determination to make Saddam Hussein withdraw. Among our allies there was no talk of compromise, no talk of concessions, no suggestion that the United Nations’ deadline should be extended and no inclination whatsoever to weaken or back down in the face of Iraq’s intransigence. [Interruption.]

    Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) rose –

    Mr. Speaker Has the hon. Gentleman a point of order for me?

    The Prime Minister The resolve of our Arab allies to see the United Nations resolutions implemented remains unshaken and unshakeable – [Interruption]

    Mr. Blunkett Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us agree with what he has just said about the need to stand rock solid over the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, but we would be better able to assess for ourselves the effectiveness of sanctions if we had before us an assessment of how sanctions had worked, the loopholes that existed and what might be done to close them? Does he accept that people like myself, who are willing to agree that there should be greater caution today of all days, are also clear that, if professional troops have to be used to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, we would back it if we had the information that he has to enable us to make the judgment that he is making? Will he give the elected Parliament that information so that we can make that judgment for ourselves?

    The Prime Minister I have two points to make in reply to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal in his winding-up speech specifically with the details of the impact of sanctions. Secondly, the overall purpose of sanctions is to ensure that Iraq leaves Kuwait. So far they have failed in that respect and show no sign of imminent success.

    Mr. Nellist Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make some progress.

    It is to restore the independence of Kuwait, to defend Saudi Arabia and to back up these diplomatic efforts and the peaceful pressure of sanctions that more than 30 nations have contributed to the multinational effort in the Gulf. Over the past few weeks, the scale of those forces has grown steadily. They now contribute an awesome assembly of military power, on a scale not seen since the second world war.
    Britain’s contribution to that force numbers more than 35,000 service men and women. I was able to meet a number of them last week while I was in the Gulf. I can tell the House with no equivocation that their morale is high, their professionalism obvious and their confidence impressive. They have the equipment that they need and the determination that we would expect of them. They are working well with their American and other allies.

    Mr. Dalyell Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

    I explained to those service men and women while I was there why we had to ask them to be there and what might lie ahead. I told them, too, of the great concern felt for them by everyone at home, as well as the tremendous pride here in their performance in the Gulf. I am in no doubt whatever that they understand the risks and the dangers, as professional service men. They know what they may be asked to do.

    Mr. Skinner You are not going to risk your life, are you?

    Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make accusations of that kind from a sedentary position. It does not add to a debate on such an important matter.

    Mr. Skinner Yesterday, my hon. Friends and I demanded a vote on whether we go to war – [interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

    The Prime Minister Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that, whatever he may think, I would have been proud to be there with those young men and women. As professional service men, they know what they may be asked to do. They left me in no doubt that they are both able and ready to do it.

    Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) As one who has a son in the Gulf, may I ask my right hon. Friend to explain the exact chain of command from the President of the United States through General Schwarzkopf to the British commanders in the field? Is he satisfied that the British Government are able to make their contribution to that chain of command?

    The Prime Minister The troops in the Gulf are under British command and under American tactical control. The degree of liaison in the relationship between both commanders and men in the Gulf was – on the evidence of my own eyes – very high and very impressive. My hon. Friend would have been perfectly satisfied with it had he been there.

    Mr. Nellist Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have given way a number of times. I am conscious that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to express their own views, and I want to leave them some time in which to do so.
    Peaceful means of persuading Iraq to withdraw – the diplomatic efforts, the sanctions and the allied military presence – have been tried for six months now, but without success. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it has been drawn – not hastily by us or by any one state, but deliberately and collectively by the United Nations Security Council with resolution 678.

    From tomorrow the situation changes. We continue to hope and to look for a peaceful solution, but from tomorrow we shall also be justified in using all necessary means of bringing about Iraq’s withdrawal; and that includes the use of force. That is not a pleasant prospect, but, as we face it, let us never forget that the decision to use force was first taken by Saddam Hussein entirely of his own choosing when he chose to invade Kuwait.

    The principles at stake are crucial and we must uphold them. First – I hope that this is not too simplistic, but I feel it deeply – there is a clear dividing line between what is right and what is wrong and what Saddam Hussein has done in Kuwait is, in the simplest and clearest terms, just plain wrong and unforgivable.

    Mr. Cryer rose –

    The Prime Minister I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has so little interest in the principles at stake in this matter that he is unwilling to listen to them.

    Secondly –

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) rose –

    The Prime Minister Secondly – [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is seeking to take part in the debate. He will not be able to do so if Saddam Hussein behaves in that way.

    The Prime Minister Secondly, if Saddam Hussein were to get away with his aggression and gain from it, other small countries in the vicinity, and those elsewhere in the world with large and potentially aggressive neighbours, will all too likely face similar problems and similar dangers. That is the second reason why there can be no deals, no partial withdrawal and no artificial linkage to solutions of other problems – nothing but absolute commitment to implement the Security Council’s resolutions in full and without delay.

    Thirdly, the failure to secure Saddam Hussein’s withdrawal would have grave implications for the balance of power throughout the middle east. It would mean putting off difficulties today at the expense of greater difficulties in the not-too-distant future – greater difficulties made more intransigent as Iraq acquires even more devastating and dangerous weapons and as its appetite for success and conquest grows.
    But there is a fourth, overriding point. We have made progress, particularly over the past 12 months, towards establishing in many ways a more peaceful world in which there is greater respect for the United Nations and its resolutions. At last it has seemed that the United Nations might live up to the aspirations of its founders. All our hopes for that would fall away if we were to allow Saddam Hussein to get away with swallowing up Kuwait in the way that he proposes. It simply cannot, must not and will not be permitted. So, if we are to have that safe world, we must demonstrate conclusively that aggression cannot succeed. If we fail to do so, when nearly the whole world is united against Iraq, we will face a heavy penalty ourselves for any future aggression. Much of the responsibility would rest with us.

    For all those reasons, we have all made it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must withdraw. We have also made it clear that if he leaves Kuwait and returns within the borders of Iraq, force will not be used against him. Let me reiterate that point: if he voluntarily retreats and withdraws into Iraq, he will not be attacked there. But if he does not leave, force will be used and he will be expelled from Kuwait.

    Mr. Dalyell rose –

    The Prime Minister Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me?

    I hope that Saddam Hussein understands the sheer weight of the forces that are ranged against him and the scale of armour and equipment which the multinational alliance has at its disposal. If he realises that, he will also realise that he cannot win and that the only consequence of failing to withdraw is to bring about the destruction of his armed forces and great damage to his country.

    We do not want a conflict. We are not thirsting for war, but if it comes I believe that it would be a just war. However great the costs of such a war might be, they would be less than those that we would face if we failed to stand up for the principle of what is right, and to stand up for it now. I believe that if Iraq does not withdraw, the time has come to make a stand.

    But even now it is not too late for Saddam Hussein to relent and to pull out his forces. We have always seen the possibility that he will do that at the very last moment, but I must tell the House that we see no sign at present that that is likely. None the less, we must hope that he sees sense. We must hope that he does not force the allies to fight. But let him be under no misapprehension at all: if necessary, we will commit our forces to fight. From tomorrow, we are ready, with our allies, to do whatever is necessary to implement the resolutions of the United Nations in full to ensure that Iraqi forces leave Kuwait without condition, without delay and without reward.

    Over the months, we have worked for peace and we have hoped for peace; but we are prepared for war, and the choice must be Saddam Hussein’s.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 15 January 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Government Achievements

    Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the achievements of Her Majesty’s Government since 1987.

    The Prime Minister : Since 1987 the Government have continued to build upon the changes begun in 1979, to strengthen the economy, foster a spirit of enterprise and improve living standards. Sterling has been brought into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, reinforcing the Government’s strict anti-inflationary policy. Output is 8 per cent. higher. Investment has grown faster than at any time since the second world war. Taxes have been reformed. Privatisation of 29 more major businesses has taken place and 24 per cent. of the adult population now own shares. The Government have exercised strict control of public expenditure–general Government expenditure has been brought below 40 per cent. of GDP for the first time since 1966-67. Almost £30 billion of public debt will have been repaid by the end of the current financial year. Over 2 million more people are in work than in 1987.

    In the public services we have improved efficiency, safeguarded quality and enhanced safety. Key themes, reflected in the reform of the health service, in housing policy and in education have been to increase choice and to encourage people to take personal responsibility for their well-being and that of their families. The Government have striven to improve the quality of life of all the British people. A number of special initiatives have focused on those living in inner cities. The Government have played a leading role in developing environmental protection, nationally and internationally.

    The Government have maintained a firm commitment to national defence and the NATO alliance. We have supported and contributed to NATO’s efforts to establish closer relations with the Soviet Union and with the countries of eastern Europe. The United Kingdom has played an important role in securing firm reaction of the United Nations in dealing with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. We have played a positive role in the building of the single market in the European Community.

    Common Agricultural Policy

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) Official Report, 18 December, column 165, what further investigation of the common agricultural policy he expects the EC to make ; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : The common agricultural policy is likely to be subject to a period of further reform as a result of renewed production and expenditure pressure and the outcome of the current GATT negotiations. The Commission’s 1991-92 price proposals are likely to incorporate a first instalment of these reforms.

    GATT

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement on 18 December, Official Report, column 157, whether the remit for the EC negotiations in the GATT talks has been altered by the recent Heads of Government meeting.

    The Prime Minister : The meeting of European Heads of Government asked the Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the Community, to intensify its contacts with other participants in order to resolve outstanding problems.

    Minimum Wage

    Mr. Chris Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 13 December, Official Report, column 1108, on what basis he calculates the figure of a loss of three quarters of a million jobs through the establishment of a national minimum wage.

    The Prime Minister : Officials in the Department of Employment have estimated that a national minimum wage set at half male median earnings will result in the loss of about three quarters of a million jobs. This estimate uses earnings information from the new earnings survey and information on the relationship between real wages and employment set out in the published Treasury paper “The Relationship Between Employment and Wages : Empirical Evidence for the United Kingdom” (HM Treasury, January 1985).
    A detailed explanation of the method was placed in the House of Commons Library on 2 February 1990–“Estimating the Effect of a National Minimum Wage”.

    Publicity and Advertising

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply on 17 December, Official Report, c. 15, if he will list the Government conventions regarding the use of paid publicity and advertising within which expenditure on advertising in the press, television and other forms of publicity is a matter for departmental Ministers.

    The Prime Minister : The conventions on Government publicity and advertising have already been published. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 28 June 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) at column 311.

  • PMQT – 15 January 1991

    The text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 15th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Arnold : In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend spare a thought for the Kuwaiti people who are now in the sixth month of brutal occupation? Does he agree that if British forces have to go into action, they will be fighting in support of the United Nations for the principle that small nations may live in freedom and in peace?

    The Prime Minister : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I shall of course, seek to deal with those matters in the course of my speech later this afternoon. If we are to have a safe world–and, clearly, that is our objective–we need to safeguard the positions of small countries with large and potentially aggressive neighbours.

    Mr. Kinnock : In view of the brutality– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Kinnock : In view of the brutality against unarmed people in Lithuania and in Latvia in recent days, will the right hon. Gentleman today make direct contact with the Soviet Government to make it clear, beyond all doubt, that for Britain and the European Community any improved relations with the Soviet Union will relate directly to the extent to which the authorities conduct affairs peacefully and with proper respect for basic human rights in all parts of the Soviet Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman give notice that continued violence will severely deter support for economic development in the Soviet Union?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I can confirm that we have already made such representations to the Soviet authorities. I deeply deplore the actions in Vilnius and, of course, their tragic consequences. I regard them as unnecessary and undesirable, and I hope that they will never be repeated. I will be happy to pass the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks direct to the Soviet authorities.

    Sir Trevor Skeet : May I ask the Prime Minister a direct question? In the event of poisonous gas or bacteria being used in the middle east in the event of war, will he reserve the option to use a nuclear device if that is necessary for the protection of our own troops?

    The Prime Minister : We have made it very clear to the Iraqis that we would take a very serious view indeed of the use of any chemical or biological weapons, but I must say to my hon. Friend that we have a wide range of weapons and resources at our hands and I do not envisage needing to use the sanction that he suggests.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does the Prime Minister realise that he has the overwhelming support of the people of this nation and of this House in his determination to ensure that international law is upheld by the enactment in full of the United Nations resolutions requiring Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait? But does he also realise that, consistent with those terms, it is right to pursue every last possibility for peace? Notwithstanding the fact that the French initiative no doubt has very little chance of success, would not it be wiser to pursue rather then reject it?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support today and for his strong support in recent weeks, which has been most helpful and much appreciated. We certainly subscribe to the principle of a last appeal to Saddam Hussein to obey the Security Council resolutions and leave Kuwait, but we have considerable reservations about the particular wording proposed by the French, which seems to us materially to weaken the Security Council resolutions and to have some other drawbacks as well. While we subscribe to the principle of a last appeal, I fear that I cannot agree with the precise wording proposed by the French.

    Mr. Conway : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Iraqis’ ability to avoid the effectiveness of sanctions will be aided by the £4 billion worth of gold and foreign reserves looted from Kuwait? Will he assure the House that if we discover that any country breaking sanctions is in receipt of United Kingdom aid, that aid will be stopped immediately?

    The Prime Minister : We certainly take a very serious view indeed of sanctions-breaking, when one considers that sanctions have been working and, to a degree, effectively–although, alas, not remotely effectively enough to achieve the end that we wish, which is the removal of the Iraqis from Kuwait. I will certainly bear in mind the advice that my hon. Friend has given me.

     

    Q2. Mr. Nicholas Brown : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Brown : When the right hon. Gentleman met President Mitterrand, was he told the details of the French initiative and, if not, why not? If he was told the details, did he have any proposals of his own to make?

    The Prime Minister : I am bound to say that I think that the substantive part of the hon. Gentleman’s question would be more appropriately directed to President Mitterrand than to me.

     

    Terrorism

    Q3. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the United Kingdom’s contribution to international co- operation against terrorism.

    The Prime Minister : We condemn all acts of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed. We shall maintain our firm stand against terrorism at home and overseas. We remain in very close touch with our partners and allies in these matters.

    Mr. Hunter : As so many terrorist organisations have declared their support for, or received support from, Saddam Hussein’s ally the Palestine Liberation Organisation, can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be effective international co-operation against acts of terrorism which may be committed in support of Iraq and will he ensure that there will never be any surrender to terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm the last point to my hon. Friend and I very much hope that his earlier point is also the case. I can also assure him that we take the threat of terrorism very seriously indeed and have taken the appropriate cautionary measures. In particular, we have been urging other Governments to improve security at their airports. Very great vigilance will be required both at home and abroad and we are making it clear to everyone that that will undoubtedly be necessary in the weeks ahead.

    Mr. Madden : In view of the gathering support for the French initiative–

    Mr. Speaker : Order. This is a definitive question about terrorism.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that we take a firm line on terrorism, but in the light of the two recent kamikaze bombings in Londonderry and Fermanagh is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he is getting full co-operation from the Republic of Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : The Irish Government have made clear to us their continuing commitment to cross-border co-operation against terrorism. We will, of course, continue to discuss improvements to that cross-border co-operation, through the mechanism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

    Mr. Ian Bruce : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we now have better relations with Syria, urging Syria at the end of this conflict to make peace with Israel would be an extremely good way of ensuring that international terrorism is dealt with?

    The Prime Minister : As my hon. Friend knows, we have restored our relationship with Syria and we hope that that will herald a greater degree of co-operation between our two countries. I hope that in future Syria will turn away from any form of terrorism.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Galbraith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Galbraith : During the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Scotland he re-emphasised his position on the poll tax that nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in. Yet in the previous week, when interviewed by David Frost, he said that proposals for the abolition of the poll tax would not arise. Can he explain the apparent contradiction?

    The Prime Minister : First, the whole House is pleased to see the hon. Gentleman back in the House and looking a good deal fitter than he was. On his remarks about the community charge, we have repeatedly made the position clear. It is a fundamental review and until it is concluded we cannot be precisely certain about what will emerge. I offered a contingent thought in my early interview with Mr. Frost. What the reality will be, we shall have to see.

     

    Q5. Mr. Butler : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Butler : What urgency does my right hon. Friend give to compensation for coal mining subsidence?

    The Prime Minister : I confirm to my hon. Friend that that is an important matter. He will know that the Government have been considering it for some time. I can now confirm to my hon. Friend that it is the Government’s intention to bring forward a Bill in the current Session. The Bill will improve the arrangements for compensation and the repair of houses for those affected by mining subsidence and provide for quicker settlement of disputed claims.

    Mr. Livingstone : Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government have not issued any contingency orders for the printing of call-up papers for men aged 18 to 25 who are unmarried?

    The Prime Minister : We have no such arrangements in hand.

     

    Q6. Mrs. Currie : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Currie : Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted the unanimous vote in the Iraqi National Assembly backing Saddam Hussein in his efforts for war? Does he agree that a unanimous vote in this House today would also demonstrate the determination of Britain, if it must, to put Saddam Hussein to flight and obtain justice for the Kuwaiti people?

    The Prime Minister : I most certainly did notice the vote in the Iraqi assembly. I share my hon. Friend’s view that the largest possible degree of support from the House for the Government’s position would be most welcome, not only as an indication of international solidarity but, perhaps more importantly, as the clearest possible indication to our troops in Saudi Arabia that they have the full and united support of the House.

    Mr. Leighton : Having invaded Kuwait to grab the oil, is it not true that Saddam Hussein has been unable to sell a single pint of it and has been unable to sell Iraqi oil either? While the two pipelines are closed, do not those effective sanctions render his position untenable in the long run? Would not it be better to maintain those effective sanctions, rather than resort to the early use of force, which could have unforeseen consequences?

    The Prime Minister : I can only say that I wish that the hon. Gentleman was right. The reality is that sanctions have been in force for a considerable period of time. They may have caused some economic harm to Iraq. What they have not done is cause Iraq to remove itself from Kuwait and end the terrorism that is continuing there day after day.

     

    Q7. Mrs. Gorman : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mrs. Gorman : Does my right hon. Friend agree that on a cold day such as today, young people should not be sleeping in our streets when they could be in the ample bosom of some kindly landlady who, but for the twin bogey men of the Rent Acts and the taxman, could be encouraged to let spare rooms? On such a cold day as this, we should be concentrating our minds on removing all the obstacles that prevent people from letting rooms in private houses.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend puts the matter most colourfully and is undoubtedly an encouragement to us all. As my hon. Friend will know, we reformed the Rent Acts in 1989 and we believe that the legislation now strikes a better balance between landlord and tenant. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend that further measures are necessary to increase the supply of rented accommodation. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be examining that matter.

     

    Q8. Mr. Trimble : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Trimble : We applaud the Prime Minister’s determination that aggression in the Gulf shall not be rewarded and we only hope that the same determination is applied here as well. I refer the Prime Minister to recent press reports about indirect negotiations and contacts between the Northern Ireland Office and Sinn Fein. I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that there will be no such contacts, direct or indirect, and to ensure that the aggression and terrorism of the IRA and Sinn Fein are not rewarded.

    The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken a consistent view that Irish terrorism, or terrorism of any sort, should not be rewarded. That has, been, is and I assure the hon. Gentleman, will continue to be our position.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 14 January 1991

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 14th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Hereditary Baronetcy Awards

    Mr. Rees : To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy with regard to the considerations which he takes into account before making any recommendation for the award of a hereditary baronetcy; when this policy last changed; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : It was the policy of my predecessor to consider recommending hereditary honours in exceptional cases. I propose to follow a similar practice.

    European Community

    Mr. Allen : To ask the Prime Minister what treaty amendments are being considered for submission to the European Community.

    The Prime Minister : The Conclusions of the Rome European Councils on 27 and 28 October and on 14 and 15 December listed a number of areas where treaty revision would be considered in the context of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and EMU.

    Rural Housing

    Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the Montgomery constituency to receive representations concerning housing for young people in rural areas.

    The Prime Minister : I have no present plans to visit Montgomeryshire. Close partnership between local authorities, housing associations and the private sector is essential in securing appropriate housing for young people, as for others, in rural areas. Housing for Wales is giving strong assistance by devoting 25 per cent. of its programme to rural areas; its survey of housing and young people in rural Wales will help to target future investment.

    Export Licences

    Mr. Cohen : To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to change the procedure for applying for export licences where there is a defence implication; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 29 November 1990 at columns 1060-61.

    Publicity and Advertising

    Mr. Michael : To ask the Prime Minister, further to his reply on 17 December, Official Report, column 15, if he will publish the guidance given to departmental Ministers regarding the use of publicity and advertising paid for by public funds.

    The Prime Minister : The conventions on Government publicity and advertising have already been published. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 28 June 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) at column 311.

  • Mr Major’s Statement after Meeting the Sultan of Oman – 9 January 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s statement after meeting the Sultan of Oman on 9th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I just say that I had lengthy discussions last evening with His Majesty the Sultan both on the present difficulties that exist in the Gulf and, of course, in view of his particular remit from the Gulf Cooperation Council, on how security matters might fall out at a later stage. I took the opportunity in those discussions of saying how much we valued the very long and very close friendship between our two nations and I am delighted to say that the Sultan expressed precisely the same interests. I have no doubt at all after our discussions that those very close relationships will continue and it will be a matter of concern to both of us to ensure that they do.

    In the discussions that we had, the Sultan was as resolute as he has been in the past on the subject of the resolution of the particular crisis in the Gulf though, like the rest of the Allies, he hopes that there will be a peaceful settlement and that the talks that are taking place in Geneva will be fruitful and that the Iraqis will withdraw, but I found a very considerable resolution here in Oman, as elsewhere, to defend the position that has been taken under the Security Council Resolutions and it was very encouraging to find that in all the meetings that I have had over the period of the last few days.

    Insofar as the future security arrangements are concerned, we had some interesting preliminary discussions and I hope that those talks will continue at a later stage. There is clearly a great deal to be done though no decisions about any of these matters can be reached in any form at all until after the present crisis is resolved. At that stage, of course, His Majesty The Sultan has an obligation to report back to the Gulf Cooperation Council and he will be considering what report to make to them over the period of the next few weeks and months.

    It was a very worthwhile visit to Oman – worthwhile but brief – and I very much look forward to the opportunity of coming back again at a future stage.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at London Airport – 9 January 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s statement, made at London Airport on Wednesday 9th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have only just heard the outcome of the talks today. Let me say I think it is extremely disappointing that no progress has been made in these talks in Geneva. Saddam Hussein has now had a considerable period of time – some months in fact – in order to reverse his aggression and to leave Kuwait. I think it is a very great shame indeed that he has chosen not to do so. The fact that he has not done so makes the position, I think, quite clear: it still is that the Security Council Resolutions are perfectly plain and they are still there for the international community to operate on.

    Saddam Hussein knows very clearly and has known for some time that after 15 January the military option remains to be used if necessary. It was perfectly clear to me in my talks with our Arab Allies over the past few days in the Gulf that they remain very firmly behind those particular Resolutions.

    There is, of course, still time for Saddam Hussein to rethink and to withdraw from Kuwait – I very much hope that he will be wise and that he will do so.

    Thank you very much indeed!

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Given what Saddam Hussein has said lately, Prime Minister, do you not now think that war is inevitable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not think war is yet inevitable. Saddam Hussein still has time to rethink. He knows the resolution of all the Allies; he knows the force of the Security Council Resolutions; he will have heard that reinforced yet again over the last few days. I hope very much that when Tariq Aziz goes back to Baghdad and reports to Saddam Hussein, that he will realise that he cannot win a conflict and that he will withdraw. I very much hope that that is the case and I do not yet regard war as inevitable.

    QUESTION:

    Will this mark an end to diplomacy before the deadline?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We must wait and see precisely what happens. I don’t think there are negotiations to be had. That has been the position for a considerable period of time. There were no negotiations today. The position is perfectly plain and has been for a considerable period of time. Saddam Hussein has broken international law; he has invaded an innocent country; it is time for him to withdraw. The international community have set out their position perfectly clearly. I hope he will acknowledge that and I hope he will withdraw.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Cairo – 9 January 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s press conference in Cairo, made on Wednesday 9th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    May I just say firstly how pleased I am to be able to be here today and how worthwhile and enjoyable I have found the discussion with President Mubarak, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.

    We have had the opportunity today, at a particularly important time, to review a range of matters but of course most noticeably the present crisis that exists as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

    I am delighted to say in our discussions that it is perfectly clear that the position of the British government and that of the Egyptian government is precisely and absolutely the same. I found an absolute determination amongst my Egyptian colleagues here that Saddam Hussein would have to withdraw from Kuwait and that the Security Council Resolutions would need to be implemented in full and speedily and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that that is the very firm and resolute position of the Egyptian government.

    I would like to add. if I may, having spent in the last few days some time with the troops that are gathering together in Saudi Arabia at the moment, I would like to say how much the international community appreciates the very remarkable contribution that Egypt has made towards that international force, it was speedily delivered, was resolutely delivered, it is a very substantial contribution and I know on behalf of all the partners in these allied forces I would like to express my gratitude to the Egyptian government for the way and the speed in which they responded to the crisis that has arisen.

    I hope that these discussions we have had today will be a further indication on a very important day whilst discussions continue, as I understand they still are continuing, in Geneva, a further indication on a very important day that Saddam Hussein is entirely on his own in his defiance of world opinion and his continued occupation of Kuwait. I think the discussions we have today have reinforced that particular view and I am delighted that I had the opportunity of coming here to have them.

    We were also able to look at a number of bilateral matters in general terms and President Mubarak was kind and generous enough to suggest that at an appropriate time I might care again to make a further and longer visit. And the bilateral relations at the moment between Britain and Egypt are excellent, I am very keen for us to build upon those and I hope at a suitable time I will be able to take up that most generous offer.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Barney Mason – BBC):

    Prime Minister, you have been quoted as saying in Saudi Arabia that it would be better to deal with Saddam Hussein now rather than further down the road when he has got nuclear weapons. In view of that and in view of the dangers that have been stressed by and taken seriously by some experts recently about an ecological disaster if there is a war, I am talking about the reports of deep mining and oil wells and the consequences of that, do you think that that makes it much more difficult to go to war now, is that a constraint?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing is that I should make it absolutely clear that nobody wants to go to war now, we want the matter settled by Saddam Hussein withdrawing out of Kuwait and going back to Iraq, that is the way ideally we would have it settled and it can be settled that way providing he is prepared to do it. The impediment to peace is Saddam Hussein and not the allies who are there. Clearly if it came to a conflict there would be ecological difficulties, it is undeniable that there would be some difficulties. But I think that those assessments of them that I have thus far seen have been very dramatically over-stated indeed. I think that is undoubtedly the case.

    But nonetheless there is a difficulty, as a result of what has happened in Kuwait, that needs to be dealt with and I think that is generally understood. So although one is concerned about the environmental impact of any conflict anywhere, not just here, any conflict anywhere, it is necessary to deal with this problem and the sooner it is done the better. I hope very much that it can be done peaceably, but that alas is not in our hands.

    QUESTION (ABC News):

    Do you think a change of alliances would happen in the Middle East if Israel was involved in the Gulf crisis or any military confrontation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not believe Israel is going to be involved in it, Israel have kept well clear of it, I think that is right, the matter is going to be dealt with by the allied forces who are here if it is not dealt with by Saddam Hussein voluntarily withdrawing. So I hope and believe the situation that you envisage will not arise.

    QUESTION (Pat Neil, CNN):

    What have you and Mr Mubarak worked out or discussed about Post-Gulf crisis arrangements for security in the Arab region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have not worked anything out because that is a matter for discussion with a large number of Gulf rulers as well. I have had the opportunity in the last few days of discussing with a number of Gulf rulers the position that will apply at the end of this crisis, for clearly there will be difficulties however it ends, and I think there is a general understanding that the Gulf Cooperation Council will need to examine what the security needs of the area are and they will then wish to examine no doubt with other powers as well the way in which the security of the area can be guaranteed.

    But there is a great deal of discussion and consideration to be developed before we can make any positive judgment as to how the matter might be dealt with. And of course the lead in that must necessarily come from the Arab nations themselves and that is a matter I discussed this morning with President Mubarak but because of the fact that this is only very much in its preliminary stages we did not reach firm conclusions as to what the outcome will be.

    That there is a matter to be discussed we are agreed upon and think that is the view of the other Arab leaders as well and it is something that will in my judgment become a matter of increasing importance and attention as the year progresses.

    QUESTION:

    As a follow-up, what role would the United States play in the broad area?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a matter to be determined after the Gulf Cooperation Council and others have considered the matter, it is far too early to say what anyone’s role is, either the host Arab nations or the role of any other non-Arab nation at a later stage, it is far too early to contemplate that. What it is not too early to do is to identify the problem, identify the difficulty and make sure that the work is actually put in hand and the thinking that needs to be done is under way.

    QUESTION (Arab News):

    Dr Meguid [phon], I would like to ask you, in case of war has Egypt stated its position if Israel takes part in the war, will they withdraw their forces or will they actually fight alongside the Israeli soldiers?

    DR MEGUID:

    I am sorry but I think we have agreed that this press conference is the privilege of the Prime Minister so I will not answer questions.

    QUESTION:

    May I direct it to Mr Prime Minister, have you discussed this with President Mubarak?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think as I said a few moments ago, that is not a circumstance that either we or anybody else envisage happening, I do not think the Israelis are going to become involved in this conflict, certainly not unilaterally, I hope they are not going to become involved in this conflict in any way. That has been the position thus far and we hope very much the matter is going to be settled either peaceably with Saddam Hussein withdrawing or by the allied forces.

    QUESTION:

    If I may press, Sir, have you discussed the possibility?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    You may press but I have nothing further to say.

    QUESTION:

    In view of the Labour Party’s increasing emphasis on the importance of not rushing into a war, do you think that British public opinion is behind military action soon after the 15th?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think British public opinion has been very resolute so far and not only British public opinion, opinion in the House of Commons as well. It is after all only a few days ago that we had a debate in the House of Commons on the subject of the Gulf, after the Security Council Resolutions were passed, and the impact of the Security Council Resolutions were known and the majority in the House of Commons for the government’s posture was a majority of over 400, an almost unprecedented majority. So I think that not only is there a very secure majority for it in the House of Commons, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that that very strong opinion is held in the country at large.

    QUESTION:

    For early military action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Security Council Resolutions are quite clear, the Security Council Resolutions say there will be no action before the 15th, after that it is a matter to be considered and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind as to the resolution of the allied nations.

  • Mr Major’s Statement made on the VC10 from Cairo to London – 9 January 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement made on the VC10 from Cairo to London on Wednesday 9th January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very disappointed that no progress has been made. Saddam Hussein has had months to reverse his aggression. I am extremely sad that he has not done so.

    The position, therefore, is that the Security Council Resolutions remain to be met. The Iraqis can be in no doubt that after 15 January the military option exists. It is clear from my discussions in the Gulf that those Arab Allies I met are firmly behind that option if it is necessary.

    There is still time for Saddam Hussein to rethink – I hope that he will.

  • Mr Major’s Address to Sailors on HMS London – 8 January 1991

    The text of Mr Major’s address on HMS London, given on 8th January 1991 to troops in the Gulf.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Beginning of speech inaudible]

    …and how much I appreciate your hospitality while I have been here and how very impressive I found your demonstration over the last few moments. I only wish that those people who wish us ill at any time could have seen it, I am sure it would have scared the pants off them.

    I am sorry these remarks have to be brief but I need to leave for Muscat very speedily. I know over the last few weeks you have been at sea for some time and it is quite a while before you get back home again. I dare say it has been a frustrating period for you but I would like to express my thanks for all the splendid work that you have done here over recent weeks and that I know you will do over the weeks to come.

    One always gets a curious perception when you see people very briefly, but the perception that I have had this afternoon is not only that you are an extremely professional outfit but that you seem to be doing the job with a great will, a great vigour and seem in extremely good heart and I am very pleased indeed to hear that.

    I wish you the very best of luck in the next few weeks and I hope these uncertainties that we now face will soon clear away. Thank you very much for your hospitality this afternoon and the best of luck in the future.