The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: 2004

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Sue Ryder Care Centre Lecture – 29 October 2004

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Sue Ryder Care Centre Lecture, held on Friday 29th October 2004. The speech was titled “A World for Our Children”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    In the 17th century, the English poet, John Donne wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself”.

    That is even more true today: true of life, true of international affairs; true of the sick; and especially true of those who suffer from progressive degenerative diseases.

    Sue Ryder recognised this over 50 years ago and devoted herself to the care of those who could not be “entire of themselves”. Countless numbers – at home and abroad – have reason to thank Sue Ryder for her vision. Her remarkable innovation has grown and the high quality nursing care that is the hallmark of Sue Ryder Centres has become a practical illustration of man’s commitment to man.

    We are lucky, most of us: we are fit, healthy, not crippled in mind or body and we have a life in which hope is always there – even in the darkest moments.

    It is not so for everyone. Around the world there are millions upon millions who lead a life without hope – through sickness, or poverty or depression. To them – if only they did but know – the life of Sue Ryder is a beacon of what can be done.

    The demands of life can be pitiless. Too many individuals assume Governments can foresee problems and solve them. They can’t. Nor can they cut taxes and spend more on services; or deal with today’s frustrations and prevent tomorrow’s arising; or focus on domestic issues yet, at the same time, keep the world’s problems at a distance.

    Governments are not omnipotent: far from it. What Harold Macmillan once memorably called “Events, dear boy” shape the agenda more often than not with Governments limply following behind.

    Sometimes they are too far behind – as they are with the two great social problems that may shape the world our children will inherit: Poverty and AIDS.

    POVERTY

    Poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair, can motivate crime and even be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. In some parts of the world it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    Often you can see why.

    A few months ago, the world was rightly horrified at the slaughter of the terrorist bombs in Madrid. But at broadly the same time, Uganda lived through a comparable loss of life. The so-called Lords Resistance Army attacked a large refugee camp in Northern Uganda and killed over 300 people. They seized children between seven and fifteen: the boys were taken to be trained as soldiers and the girls were taken for the soldiers. Publicity was minimal. It was almost as if no-one cared and the atrocity could remain unknown. But suffering exists and is no less tragic if the television cameras are not there to record it.

    As we look forward, we will have to assess the political, social and economic implications of the rich developed nations continuing to get richer, whilst the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem. So, they did it – it’s their problem”. Well, may be – but they can’t cope with it. And who suffers? Just those who make the bad decisions? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: many of them suffer yet in no way can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live. And, if one looks at the larger picture, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US $2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US $1 per day. I daresay no-one here this evening would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of these three billion people with the life of someone in America or Britain or Germany or France even if that someone was on the lowest levels of social support.

    The rich nations do much to help – but do we do enough? I think not: far more is needed. Collectively we – the rich nations – spend US$50 billion on overseas aid – an enormous sum: but less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone.

    A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the possibility of poor nations selling their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, we help ourselves. In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. In helping broken economies, we help build a future market.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, or only a little, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion. Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. And many of them will be in areas of urban deprivation. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    But if we act early, act out of conscience – not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come, but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    AIDS

    So too with AIDS.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    It is a worldwide epidemic. The Caribbean, India, Europe East and West, China, Latin America – everywhere – has the problem. No part of the world is untouched but the poorer countries bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In parts of the Commonwealth, the problem is acute. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40 – but for AIDS it would be over 70.

    In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it.

    In South Africa, one in eight has the virus. Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease. It is a truly desperate situation.

    The horror statistics roll on. AIDS is the bubonic plague of our Age and – despite all that has been done – more is vital.

    AIDS has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    What can be done? Much is in hand through the WHO, individual Governments, and the work of charitable organisations. It would help if the disputes between some of these bodies could be resolved – particularly over the efficacy of generic drugs as opposed to patented drugs.

    This squabble reminds me of the legend of Buridan’s Ass. An Ass, faced with two equally desirable bales of hay, starves to death because he cannot find a reason for preferring one to the other – yet either bale would have saved him.

    We must solve these disputes speedily and decide whether generics are effective. For while the squabble continues, the sick suffer and the sick die.

    Money is the root of all progress but is insufficient. Education on preventative care, medical treatment, and support, is vital but so is a comprehensive approach. The G7 Industrial Nations should put this problem alongside poverty as a priority for all nations, and work with the UN to hold back and then reverse the tide of misery that is the legacy of AIDS.

    Much is being done: but not enough. The world must focus on this problem or risk being overborne by it.

    Let me turn to the political revolution that is already changing our world.

    The most significant event of the last fifty years was the collapse of Soviet Russia.

    At the time we all believed the world was safer. It was: the threat of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers had fallen. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability and foreshadowed a shifting map of the world.

    Let me put flesh on that: if the Soviet Union had not collapsed – and Tito had not died – would we have had the bitter civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo? Probably not?

    If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, would the EU have just admitted to membership ten more Member States – many of them formerly Iron Curtain countries – that have spent the last 50 years effectively under Russian domination? Certainly not.

    If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed, would we now be engaged in a War Against Terror knowing that – if we are to win it – we must force out terrorist cells from their safe havens in countries that were once in the Soviet sphere of influence. I doubt it.

    IRAQ

    In 1915 Britain invaded and occupied Mesopotamia to protect oil interests in Persia.

    The British created “modern” Iraq out of Mesopotamia and the Governates of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. It was nation building and yet we were regarded as “foreign occupiers” and faced widespread rebellion before we were able to establish an indigenous Government – and leave.

    And, behind us, in a War Cemetery in Baghdad, we left the price of occupation.

    Today in Iraq, we now have an interim Administration planning to hold an election in January to create the democratically elected

    Government that must take Iraq into the future.

    Many problems lay ahead, none of them easy.

    The first is – whether the elections can be held in January?

    To do so, we need:

    – boundaries for constituencies
    – electoral registers of who can vote.

    And, above all, we must have law and order on the streets.

    If there is chaos in Najaf or Fullujah – can they vote?

    If not, would the elections be seen as legitimate?

    Would the Presidential election be valid if Texas and California were disenfranchised.

    An election in January is the right aim – but there are many operational problems to be overcome and it is by no means certain it can be done on schedule.

    But – even if held, what then?

    Who wins? Probably Shi’ites (70%)

    Will Kurds accept that?

    Will Sunnis accept? They have feared and distrusted one another for generations.

    So – will there be a Government that is welcomed or will the election of an unwelcome Government lead to civil disturbance, even civil war?

    If the Kurds are aggrieved – will they annex the oil city of Kirkuk and declare a homeland?

    And, if they do, how will Turkey react?

    These are questions to which we do not yet know the answer.

    Any new Government’s first job will be to draft a New Constitution.

    The dilemma here is evident:- if the Constitution is a federal one – with power devolved to the regions – and Shia, Sunnis or Kurd governors running their own regions – will Iraq break up?

    – alternatively, if the power is held centrally, will any Government obtain the consent to govern?

    And then: of course – the concern in most people’s minds.

    WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF COALITION?

    Can they leave Iraq? They are on the Morton’s Fork of a dilemma.

    If America and Britain go – what if chaos breaks out after the leave?

    What will they do then?

    And, if they stay, will this radicalise Islam even more?

    I set these questions out – to emphasise we are not yet near the end of this saga – or even near the beginning of the end.

    Our children’s world will have a different economic perspective as well as social and political.

    CHINA

    The economic event of the age is the rise of Asia. It began

    – with Japan.
    – then Asian Tiger economies.
    – then China.

    We should not be surprised at the change unfolding before us.

    One thousand years before Europe, China invented an iron plough for agriculture and modern paper for writing.

    In the 10th century, China developed inoculations for smallpox. Europe got there – eventually – in the 19th century. China manufactured steel from cast iron 1,800 years ago: Europe, only two centuries ago.

    The Chinese were making silk – and using a potter’s wheel – before the Egyptians built the Pyramids and before ancient Britons built Stonehenge.

    They perfected suspension bridges when the British still lived in mud huts, and North America was undiscovered.
    China’s decline as a world power started in the early 19th century when she failed to have an industrial revolution. Now, she is having one, and we are seeing the re-emergence of a once great power.

    Over the last eight years, China has accounted for one-quarter of all the world’s growth: rather more than America at one-fifth or non-Japanese Asia and 18%.

    China has space, raw materials, an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour, and is importing technology skills daily. She is becoming the manufacturing centre of the world, easily more cost-effective than her closest rivals.

    She is buying up oil fields, petro-chemical facilities, technology, mineral and natural resources and is buying in Western expertise wherever she needs it.

    It is therefore no surprise that Asian countries will no longer take any important decision, without considering how China will react. For China is a rising power and – if China slows down – so too will much of Asia.

    It is a wondrous sight: a once closed Communist economy marching out into the Capitalist world.

    But all is not rosy. You cannot adopt quasi-Capitalism without facing Capitalist problems and – for all its success – that is what is now facing China.

    RUSSIA

    And, of course, Russia. The 20th century was a nightmare for Russia. Tens of millions were killed in the First World War: millions more in the Revolution and the Civil War that followed.

    Then came the famine of 1921; Stalin’s terrors of the 1930s; and the Second World War – which alone cost 30 million lives including 70% of young men between 18 and 22.

    Post-war came the Cold War; then stagnation, farce and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The 1990s began reform but was marked also by crime; the Russian mafia and economic collapse. It was a bleak Century even in Russia’s turbulent past.

    Today the Black Sea fleet may be rusting – but the Russian economy is beginning to perform. The Russia of the past – has gone – largely unlamented.

    Russia – now has Parliament supporting the President.

    Very novel.

    – lifts more oil than Saudi Arabia.
    – has large hard currency Reserves.
    – the best performing Stock Market in Europe.

    It is time to look again at the Russia that will be – and to put aside old stereotypes.

    The economy is now doing far better. Growth averages 7% and foreign investment is rising sharply. Reform is continuous. Taxes are being reformed. So is housing, pensions, education, health care and privatisation is on the agenda.

    CHANGING WORLD

    Wherever we look, there is change.

    We have a global economy. The political map is fluid. It is difficult to keep up with new developments in technology and communications.

    The speed of medical advance is as bewildering as the demand for medical services in infinite.

    There is a pattern here in all aspects of our life. Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    If we look at our own past – we can judge what this might mean for our future.

    Two years ago, I attended the funeral of Her Majesty the Queen Mother and, as I sat in Westminster Abbey, I pondered upon the remarkable advances the world has seen during the 100 years of her life.

    At her birth, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Vacuum cleaners and household detergents still lay in the future.

    Marie Curie had not discovered radium – nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity.

    As a child, the Queen Mother would have remembered the amazement – possibly even disbelief – at the news of Count Zeppelin designing a machine that would fly. It would be twenty-seven years before Lindburgh would pilot the “Spirit of St Louis” to Paris.

    When she was a child, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface.

    The United States was still a debtor nation – financed largely by the City of London.

    How things have changed.

    The Ottoman Empire has gone.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone.

    The French Empire has gone.

    The British Empire has gone.

    The Russian Empire has come – and gone.

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China – after 3,000 years of isolation – on course to become her greatest rival.
    Europe is building unity on the back of 1,000 years of war, and establishing a free trade area from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation.

    They will see deserts bloom.

    See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    CONCLUSION

    Against the enormous changes that are taking place, we need what I call “grown-up” politics. For one small gesture can create a global impact. We need an end to “sound-bite politics”.

    The events of September 11th are giving us a masterclass in consequences. We need politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities. We need joined-up commonsense politics.

    I will read you a poem you may know and I learned as a child:

    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.

    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.

    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.

    For the want of a rider the message was lost.

    For the want of a message the battle was lost.

    For the want of a battle the war was lost.

    For the want of a war the kingdom was lost.

    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

    Benjamin Franklin, 1758

    It is the classic illustration of how a chain of events can be triggered by one single incident.

    If it was true in the world of the 18th century, when Britain had to wait months for a ship to sail home and tell them the French had helped America become independent – (and often they regret it – so do we, but we’ll be back!) – it is even more true in the global world of the 21st century.

    We have, heaven knows, enough long term domestic problems.

    How to improve health care and education.

    How to modernize our infra-structure.

    How to provide security in retirement when people retire earlier and live longer.

    These are big issues – but only a part of the wider patchwork. Our children will be affected by the world beyond our shores far more than any earlier generation. We must prepare for that.

    Our world is competitive. Complex. Confusing. Sometimes it is brutal. But it is our world, and we would be wise to understand how it is so we can shape how it could be.

    We have the ability to do so – let us hope we do not lack the wisdom or the will.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the National Lottery – 22 October 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s comments on the National Lottery which were published on 22nd October 2004.

    QUESTION:

    Are you concerned that the “additionality” criterion of the Lottery has fallen by the wayside. In other words, the Lottery was set up to do what Government does not provide for?

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Sport, Arts and Heritage play a vital part in the daily lives of most people and yet can never compete with the demands of health, education and defence for Government funds. I established the Lottery to provide the good causes with large sums of money with the express will of Parliament that this funding would be in addition to whatever sums the Government themselves had been able to allocate. This “additionality” criteria was fundamental to the establishment of the Lottery, yet has been seriously undermined by the present Government.

    Since 1997, the Labour Government has increasingly ignored the additionality principle. First, by cutting back on even minimum levels of support; and second, by raiding the Lottery Fund for programmes that historically have been met out of central taxation. Overall, their behaviour has amounted to nothing short of grand larceny.

    QUESTION:

    Do you worry that 50% of the Lottery will now go to health, education and environment, which are areas that Government traditionally pays for?

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I am concerned that a huge amount of Lottery funding is now being used for purposes for which Parliament did not vote in the original Lottery Bill, and which at the time was felt to be inappropriate by both the Conservative Government and Labour Opposition. Although for the purposes of accuracy, I understand that somewhere between 70% and 75% of lottery revenue still goes to the original Good Causes, because the Big Lottery Fund uses half of its budget – about 25% of all lottery revenue – to fund charities and the voluntary sector, the remit of the former Community Fund.

    QUESTION:

    Have the original good causes been cast aside?

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I do not believe the original Good Causes have been entirely cast aside – after all, they still receive around 75% of all lottery revenues. But they have been very badly treated and given the Government’s dismal record thus far, there must be concern about the future.

    The Lottery is now being used blatantly for substitute funding and this is wholly unacceptable.

    QUESTION:

    Is the setting-up of the Lottery one of your proudest achievements?

    JOHN MAJOR:

    I am very proud to have established the Lottery as I believe it adds to the quality of life for many millions of people. However, when looking at the principal achievements of the previous Conservative Government, I would list the Lottery behind the establishment of the Northern Ireland Peace Process and the total sea-change in our economic prospects.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Europe – 20 October 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s article in the Conference Magazine – Conservative Group for Europe, published in October 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are at odds over Europe. There are Cabinet splits about the offer of a referendum. Dissent lurks on the backbenches. An anti-European fringe party threatens to elevate European policy into Party warfare while a largely hostile-to-Europe Press licks its lips, hungry to magnify the fall-out. This is European policy under a Labour Government in 2004. How hauntingly familiar.

    There are essentially three contrasting points of view upon Europe:

    (i) It can do no right – which is the view of extreme sceptics such as UKIP and the former Referendum Party – whom we might call the Ultras to distinguish them from those of more moderate scepticism;
    (ii) It can do no wrong – Federalists, extreme euro-philiacs; or
    (iii) That it is, on balance, favourable to the UK but that elements of policy frustrate and irritate. Like most of the British nation, I belong to the third – and majority – school of thought. I for one would like to make the EU more popular: but can it be done?

    Nothing, I suspect, will change the views of the Ultras – who are beyond arguing with over Europe: the worry is that they have begun to shift the centre of gravity towards arch-scepticism. This has the potential both to divorce the UK from Europe – which, for the Ultras, is the ultimate goal of their scepticism – and wreak havoc upon the British political system (especially the Conservative Party). Much the Ultras care: even those who call themselves Conservatives subordinate the Conservative Party’s interests to those of their anti-European cause.

    Indeed, some of the most prominent UKIP Members are former Conservative MPs who helped ferment the rebellions that crippled the last Conservative Government. No Conservative should expect help from them – and no Conservative should do any deals with them. Since nothing can be done with this group it is necessary to ignore their shrill message and direct policy to reassure the bulk of the electorate.

    What can be done to achieve this? It would be beneficial to have an honest debate among adversaries, but that is unlikely.

    It would be desirable to have a fair and balanced media, but that is unobtainable. The written Press especially, is as deeply entrenched in the dispute as the political adversaries. The pro-EU Press has an air of sanctimony in which all dissenters – and their arguments, even when valid – are grandly dismissed. And the anti-EU Press is relentless in its campaign and careless of the implications of it.

    If reason and commonsense could heal the rifts over Europe they would have been mended long ago. But words alone cannot do it; suspicion and unease have grown continually since the Single European Act in 1986 and nothing has assuaged it. Indeed, it has worsened since most European Treaties are the natural father of the successor Treaty.

    I recall that, throughout the negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty, I was constantly reminded that Margaret Thatcher had signed up to “ever closer Union” and a large extension of qualified majority voting (thus reducing the British veto). So why, I was asked, was I so obstinate over the Euro, the Social Chapter and a further extension of QMV?

    As a result of the growing collective influence of successive Treaties, the public tend to see European policy as a juggernaut that cannot be stopped and which tramples over every sensitivity. This is the most damaging perception of all and the root of much suspicion over Europe.

    Europe has now enlarged its membership to 25 Nation States, and when Giscard D’Estaing’s Committee was established to make recommendations that would update the practices and administration of the EU, I welcomed it. Europe needed reform to accommodate enlargement and many prizes loomed: consolidation of existing complex treaties; a more effective form of European administration and – above all – whispers that the recommendations would finally set out in Treaty form the limits of European imposition upon the authority of National Government. Against this yardstick, the European Constitution makes some helpful moves, but overall it is a lost opportunity for those of us who wished to minimise the existing suspicions about the direction of policy.

    Pro-Europeans should not fool themselves. It will not be easy to turn around the present hostility to the EU. For too long foolish myths have been, if not unchallenged, at least undestroyed. The reality is our European Partners are not concerned with “doing Britain down”; they do not all have a federalist agenda; they are less and less in the Franco-German camp. All this is true, but it’s hard to persuade a majority to agree. Indeed, among Member States, the Anglo-Saxon view of the EU has more supporters now than ever before, Margaret Thatcher and I would have warmly welcomed such reinforcements in earlier disputes. Europe can be made more acceptable to the British view, but only if the Ultras are put to flight. Since their myths are often the stuff of tabloid fancy, this will be hard pounding. Nor is it made easier by those criticisms of the EU that are well justified.

    What is the case for Europe for those prepared to be persuaded? It remains powerful. The EU is the largest, richest free trade area in history and spreads from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East. In years to come, one can see those borders increasing ever further – to take in Turkey and, perhaps, other nearby States, and possibly even to reach an accommodation with Russia herself.

    But it is not just valuable for free trade. It has made a major European war inconceivable as the entangling of trade and investment build up common interests. It can provide an economic counter-weight to the power of the United States and the potential power of China. It offers opportunities to the rising generations that their forbears never enjoyed. These may be grand themes but they are indispensable to the well-being of individual Europeans.

    The fundamental problem, it seems to me – as a wellwisher who believes there is a limit to integration and that we are close to it – is that Europe’s true failings and its over ambitious agenda encourage any myth about it to gain currency.

    The wise European would be cautious about entering the Euro zone (which is plainly not in our short-term interest); very sniffy about parts of the new “Constitution” (which is a step too far in its present form – although it does have some good aspects); and would be determined to make an onslaught on fraud and mismanagement.

    Much is going our way in Europe and we need to rebuild domestic confidence in our membership of the European Union. To do so, we must neither fear to build upon developments in tune with our British instincts nor to resist those that go too far.

  • Mr Major’s Book Review of “William Pitt the Younger” – 15 September 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s book review of William Hague’s “William Pitt the Younger”, published by The Mail on Sunday in September 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    When I appointed William Hague to the Cabinet at a tender age, I did so because he was, and is, the outstanding political talent of his generation. His political career suffered a setback as Leader of the Conservative Party when he was unable to overcome the hostility of the metropolitan media and the turbulence of a parliamentary Party prepared to squabble but not to be led.

    He will, I hope, return to the front rank of politics but, if he does not, a consolation is at hand: for William Hague can write and his first book “William Pitt the Younger” is one of the most enjoyable biographies for years.

    Pitt was a wise choice of subject for he is one of the most interesting of Premiers. Son of the Earl of Chatham, his childhood was a prolonged preparation for Government as private tutors – and his father – honed the Young Pitt’s precocious talents for later use. It was a secluded life and even when William left home for University at the young age of 14, it was to Pembroke College which had a mere 50 students.

    Pitt’s psychological make-up of a chilly exterior in which only a favoured few were admitted to his private thoughts, was in place from the beginning: he was no parliamentary back-slapper but earned political support by merit. In his private life, he had little affinity with women which then – as now – caused critics to wonder but the truth is probably that politics so overwhelmed his attentions that no time was left for frivolities.

    Even with natural gifts, his tale is extraordinary. These days, no talent – however remarkable – could enable a young politician to be Chancellor of the Exchequer at 23 and Prime Minister at 24. But, for Pitt, events took over. Crisis upon crisis drove more senior politicians from Office. Lord North fell as the war with America was lost; his successor died amid disputes over the peace agreement; eventually an unnatural alliance between former Premier Lord North and would-be Premier Charles James Fox took office notwithstanding years of hostility between the two men.

    Fox was one of the greatest of Parliamentary orators and he and Pitt had begun as friends in sharp contrast to the enmity that existed between their parents. The friendship could not survive – and did not; it became a life-long parliamentary duel. Fox weaves his way throughout the narrative as William Hague brings vividly to life one of the most historic rivalries in British political history.

    Pitt’s rise in Parliament was based on his lineage, his talent, a handful of well received speeches and the fact that the majority of political talent was in the Lords and effective spokesmen, however young, were needed in the Commons.

    He was lucky, too. King George III loathed Fox and was determined to oust the Fox-North coalition: he needed Pitt as an alternative Prime Minister. Nor was the King scrupulous in his campaign as he acted vigorously (and improperly) to drive the coalition from power.

    Pitt took Office in a hopeless position in Parliament but the wholesale misuse by the King of his powers of Patronage (awarding honours and pensions) soon brought Pitt many supporters. For week upon week he was defeated in the Commons but declined to resign until the tide of public opinion – always suspicious of the cynicism of the Fox-North partnership – turned in his favour. At the age of 24, he was triumphant in an election that gave him a large majority.

    For the next two decades, Pitt dominated British politics. He faced many crises: when George III lapsed into temporary insanity his Administration was at risk as the Prince of Wales, a close ally of Fox, prepared to dismiss him and appoint his rival. With great cunning, Pitt delayed parliamentary approval of the Prince as Regent and, with the King’s recovery, the Pitt Administration survived.

    But his luck had its limitations. Events took over. Ahead of him lay battles to abolish slavery, failed attempts to create peace in Europe, the reform of National finances, the domestic impact of the French Revolution, and a long and debilitating war with France, made more dangerous by the rise of Napoleon. Nelson’s victories at Cape Vincent and the Nile were bright spots that sustained Pitt at a bleak time.

    During these travails Pitt’s health and popularity suffered but splits among the Fox Whigs left him with a huge Parliamentary majority and only a rump in opposition. After 17 years of domination of the political system there was wholesale shock when he left office at the age of 41 in a wholly avoidable row over Catholic emancipation. He and the King had opposing views and neither would give way: fatigue too, must have played a part and Pitt resigned.

    For a while his successor, Addington, prospered although allies of Pitt were never slow to deride him. William Hague’s description of Pitt’s behaviour is a classic of political observation. At first Pitt offered strong support to Addington but then moved inexorably to opposition: hubris, regret, real and imagined slights, reports from fawning acolytes all played their part in feeding bitterness and growing hostility. Time after time Pitt acted to undermine his successor until Addington resigned and Pitt returned to Office.

    The story of Pitt – ungainly, awkward, unprepossessing but magisterial – is one of the most compelling in political history. In William Hague, Pitt has found the modern biographer he merits: the youngest Conservative leader of the last 200 years has written a fine biography of the youngest Prime Minister of them all. If you buy only one political biography a year then buy this for it will not be bettered.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Event – 3 September 2004

    The text of John Major’s speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Event held at Harewood House, in Yorkshire, on Friday 3rd September 2004.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Most of us are parents or grandparents or both.

    Not only have children … brought them up.

    Seen their vulnerability – shared their small triumphs and disasters; hopes and fears.

    Even when they’re adults we still care for them – emotionally and, often, financially (against a Government that wishes to tax their inheritance out of its value).

    Even so – our children are lucky.

    But hundreds of millions are not … and it is children like these that Hope and Homes for Children cares for.

    What are we doing for these children now and what will be the legacy of this generation to the next.

    Before I turn directly to that, let me offer a sketch of the world as it is.

    In the 17th Century, the English poet, John Donne, wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself”.

    Today, in the 21st Century, we are all inter-dependent. There is no hiding place from events – even from those in the farthest corners of the world.

    And our world is turbulent. We can foresee some of the changes to come. Others we cannot. But we can be certain the world of our future will be vastly different from our world of today.

    We now live in a world without economic boundaries: once crumbling they are now gone.

    As globalisation spreads, the command economy has all but disappeared. As the unfettered power of Government diminishes, the power of markets increase. As technology grows, markets never sleep.

    Nor does the march of politics.

    In the last few years, we have seen a political revolution that is reshaping the political map as surely as globalisation has transformed business and economies.

    The most significant event of the last fifty years was the collapse of Soviet Russia.

    At the time we all believed the world was safer. It was: the threat of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers had fallen. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability and foreshadowed a shifting map of the world.

    For example, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed – and Tito had not died – would we have had the bitter civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo? Probably not.

    If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, would the EU be about to admit ten more Member States – many of them formerly Iron Curtain countries effectively under Russian domination? Certainly not.

    If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed, would a coalition of nations now be engaged in a War Against Terror knowing that – to win it -the coalition would have to force out the terrorist cells from their safe havens in countries that had been in the Soviet sphere of influence? I doubt it.

    We are also in a world in which economic growth is tilting from West to East and yet – India and South East Asia apart, – the new wealth may be bypassing much of the under-developed world. The tilt from East to West is certainly not mirrored by a tilt from North to South, where the disparities in wealth and living standards continue to grow with Africa falling further behind.

    If one looks around our world, what are the problems that stand out?

    IRAQ

    Of course. I don’t intend to delve into this contentious issue tonight, except to say that it may cast a long shadow for many years. Similarly, Palestine seems impossible to solve and sets Nation against Nation. These disputes unsettle relationships far beyond the Middle East. In particular, they divide Moslems around the world – Arab and non-Arab Moslems alike – from America and Britain and (to a lesser extent) other developed Nations too.

    But these are issues for another time and place. This evening, I want to touch upon two great social problems that are more costly in lives than Iraq or the Arab-Israeli dispute combined. They are both germane to the work of Hope and Homes: I refer to poverty and Aids.

    POVERTY

    Poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair and can be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. At minimum, it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    As we look forward, we should assess the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer, and the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, that’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem.” Well, may be – but is it really just their problem? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live? Of course not.

    And, in any event, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US $2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US $1 per day. I daresay no-one here this evening would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity of existence in the undeveloped world with the life of even someone on the lowest levels of social support in the developed nations.

    I saw it first forty years ago when I went to work in Nigeria during the Biafra war. The poverty and hardship was unimaginable as people lived in filth and squalor and without hope or help. I still see it in many parts of the world.

    The rich nations do much to help – but not enough: far more is needed. Collectively they spend US$ 50 billion on overseas aid – an enormous sum: but less generous than it seems when you realise that the EU and America also spend US$ 350 billion on subsidies for one industry alone.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, we help ourselves. In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion. Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    In the 1940s/50s – after a different sort of War – the US launched a plan to deliver aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of that conflict. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    Not even the wealth of America could do that these days. But, in a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations collectively must soon consider another such “un-sordid act”.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when? Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come, but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    I am conscious that many may say – but you (that is me) could have done more when you had the chance. I agree. I did a certain amount – especially in reducing third world debt – but not enough.

    There are pleas I can make in mitigation – I inherited a recession, there was no money to spare and it was difficult to make the advance we did, I was distracted by squabbles over Europe and squabbles in my Party – but none of these is a sufficient excuse.

    As I look back, I should have done more. I wish I had. But the chance is gone. Now I am an older and wiser man and I hope to persuade my successors to raise their game. The cause is good, the need is very great, and action is imperative. That is why the work of charities like Hope and Homes is so necessary.

    AIDS

    A related problem worsens the situation immeasurably – AIDs.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now. So tragically do millions of innocent people: adults, children and babies.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    It is a worldwide epidemic. The Caribbean, India, Europe East and West, China, Latin America – everywhere – has the problem. No part of the world is untouched but the poorest bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In parts of the Commonwealth, the problem is acute. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40 – but for poverty and AIDS it would be over 70.

    In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it.

    In South Africa, one in eight has the virus. Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease. It is a truly desperate situation.

    The horror statistics roll on. AIDS is the bubonic plague of our Age.

    It has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    What can be done? Much is in hand through the WHO, individual Governments, and charitable organisations and it would help if the disputes between some of these bodies could be resolved – particularly over the efficacy of generic drugs as opposed to patented drugs.

    This squabble reminds me of the legend of Buridan’s Ass. An Ass, faced with two equally desirable bales of hay, starves to death because he cannot find a reason for preferring one to the other – yet either bale would have saved him.

    We must solve these disputes speedily and decide whether generics are effective. For while the squabble continues, the sick suffer and the sick die.

    Money is the root of all progress but is insufficient. Education on preventative care, medical treatment, and support, is vital but so is a comprehensive approach.

    I have run these two problems – poverty and aids – together because they afflict the same people: especially they afflict children.
    Governments can’t cope alone. They need help. They need the commitment of charities.

    Hope and Homes is one of them. It is why they deserve all the help we can give them.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Cancer Research UK Event – 2 September 2004

    The text of John Major’s speech at an event for Cancer Research UK, held at the Paris Restaurant, in Woburn, on Thursday 2nd September 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    When Steven Dixon invited, I was delighted to accept. Steven’s parents – Ian and Valerie – were good friends and Ian fought so bravely against the cancer that overwhelmed him.

    And it was such a waste of a man who could – and did – contribute; who made friends and cherished them; who cared about matters beyond his own interests; and who had a loving family – and left much sadness behind him.

    Ian was a vibrant man and someone you don’t forget. A poet once wrote: “no man is gone while his friends remember him”: on that premise, Ian is with us tonight and always will be.

    Cancer has touched nearly everyone. It took my mother-in-law; my brother-in-law; my son-in-law (a young doctor aged only 30), and a very close friend and my brother are being treated for the disease now but with real hope of recovery.

    And that, of course, is the purpose of research: lives can be saved that otherwise would be lost. It is why I’m pleased to be here amongst donors who have given generously to the charity.

    We are making progress – but no room for complacency. Another close friend, a public figure, was diagnosed with a fatal cancer and given 6 months to live. That was 4 years ago: he received treatment overseas where more funds were available and more research done. We need to match that quality of treatment in the UK and that requires money – money is the root of all progress.

    But, everyone here knows that, acts upon it and I need not labour the point.

    Many years ago, there was a financial journalist, Patrick Hutner, who used to argue that “improvement means deterioration”.

    One can see what he meant. Last week, my wife bought two volumes of the letter Elizabeth Barrett wrote to Robert Browning and his replies. Often they wrote twice a day and the letters were delivered the same day. Today – if we’re lucky – first class post takes two days. Likewise, the NHS often falls far short of our expectations.

    So do politics in a grander scale. The League of Nations and the UN were founded to solve international problems and yet they’re as prevalent today as ever. It is ironic that it was the US who effectively founded the UN and yet these days Congress refuses to pay its subscription and the Administration bypasses it when it can.

    Nor – if I may stick to a health theme – have we made the progress we would have hoped to make.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US $2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US $1 per day. I daresay no-one here this afternoon would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of even someone on the lowest levels of social support in the developed nations.

    The rich nations do much to help – but not enough: far more is needed. Collectively they spend US$ 50 billion on overseas aid – an enormous sum: but less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the possibility of poor nations selling their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, surely we help ourselves as well. For, in removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion. Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    In the 1940s/50s – after a different sort of War – the US launched a plan to deliver aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of that conflict. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    Not even the wealth of America could do that these days. But, in a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations collectively must soon consider another such “un-sordid act”.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when? Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come, but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    I am conscious that many may say – but you (that is me) could have done more when you had the chance. I agree. I did a certain amount – especially in reducing third world debt – but not enough.

    There are pleas I can make in mitigation – I inherited a recession, there was no money to spare and it was difficult to make the advance we did, I was distracted by squabbles over Europe and squabbles in my Party – but none of these is a sufficient excuse.

    As I look back, I should have done more. I wish I had. But the chance is gone. Now I am an older and wiser man and I hope to persuade my successors to raise their game. The cause is good, the need is very great, and action is imperative.

    Because poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair and can be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. At minimum, it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    As we look forward, we should assess the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer, and the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, that’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem.” Well, may be – but is it really their problem alone? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live? Surely not – and, in any event, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Much the same argument applies to AIDS.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    No part of the world is untouched but the poorer countries bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40. In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it. In South Africa, one in eight has the virus.

    Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease.

    The horror statistics roll on.

    AIDS has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    We live, therefore, in an imperfect world. We cannot expect our Governments to solve all our problems.

    Individual endeavour is important. Sometimes – as in research – it is the most important thing of all.

    We cannot solve all the ills of the world in our time. But we can ease many of them which brings me back to where I started.

    Cancer is one of the great scourges of our time. It induces private terror in those who fear they may have it.

    We owe it to them to do all we can to find a solution: let me end by thanking you all for what you have done (and are doing) to bring this about.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Ireland – 15 August 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s article on Ireland, published in Future Ireland in August 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Once more the Irish Peace Process is stalled. The blame game will be back in vogue – so has all the hard work of the last decade been for nothing? I don’t think so.

    From the moment I arrived at Number 10, Northern Ireland was a priority for me: the issue kept bubbling to the front of my mind. And during my 6½ years as Prime Minister, it never fell from the top of my agenda. I held meetings beyond number at Westminster and in Belfast. Some were interminable. Some were friendly. Some were raucous. Some were hopeful. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress.

    Invariably, I was struck by the distinction between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland troubles lie deep in history and have been exacerbated by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots may be ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning steadily. Until the Northern Ireland Assembly was formed, politicians were literally irresponsible – they had no responsibility for decision-making at all – there was nothing to force them to reach a pragmatic rapprochement. The need for that was vital, which is why elections and the establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly was so important and its suspension such a setback.

    Despite continuing difficulties, I have always been an optimist about Northern Ireland. There will be a settlement because there must be. If one looks back through the avenue of the past three decades or so there are many positive moves to justify that optimism. The clamour for normality has grown ever louder.

    Of course, “the troubles” are not just political, and nor is the solution to them. There are those within the IRA and the Protestant Groups for whom the nature of the political settlement is all important: but there are many others for whom criminality, sheltering behind a political cause, is a way of life. Such men (and women) have no wish for a settlement, no wish for peace, will do everything in their power to frustrate it and, if it were achieved, might peel off to join ever-more extreme splinter groups. Certain in the knowledge they will be isolated by a political settlement, they will continue to oppose it. These people – forever arguing, disputing, deceiving and distrusting – are one of the fundamental reasons why political agreement in Northern Ireland has been so hard to achieve. But when that political agreement is finally reached – and it will be – these remnants of humanity will be seen for the violent criminals they are and be isolated, caught and punished.

    To many it is baffling that – so long after the Peace Process began – there is still no settlement but this should not be surprising: first, because of the people working from within against a solution; and second, because that elusive solution is wrapped in a mille-feuille of complexity.
    There are two words that bedevil a settlement: “distrust” and “decommissioning”. Historically, in Northern Ireland politics, nearly everyone has distrusted nearly everyone else. Distrust breeds fear. More especially, it breeds a fear of making concessions and encourages everyone to hunker down in their established positions.

    By far the biggest stumbling block is decommissioning: the removal of weapons from the political debate. For the paramilitaries this is complex. The Loyalists – whose very name is a misnomer for their loyalty is more to anti-Catholicism, anti-Republicanism and anti-Southern Irish sentiment than loyalty to the British Crown – embrace many splinter groups often at war with each other. When they offer decommissioning, it is primarily as a lure to the IRA. In practice, any disarming is a token gesture since any weapons surrendered can be replaced easily.

    The IRA has a deep-rooted conviction that equates disarmament with surrender. Their philosophy is that “the movement” never surrenders. They argue that no paramilitary group has ever given up its arms unilaterally, and many in the IRA bitterly oppose any move to do so. I once tried to make it easier for them by suggesting they could destroy their own weapons. No-one was insisting they should be handed over to the British Army or be destroyed in public. I would have been content for there to have been independent verification of destruction and would not have objected if they had used the twisted metal to fashion a statue of Eamon de Valera. But the IRA’s suspicion is deep-rooted and ever-lingering: the response from them has been minimal.

    Even so, the IRA – like the Loyalists – toy with token decommissioning for public relations purposes. Such gestures are helpful but much more will be needed – not least to convince Unionists to return to the Northern Ireland Assembly and remain there. The underlying situation is not easy: the paramilitaries of the IRA have a psychological block to de-commissioning and Unionists have no reason to trust them until they have disarmed. Decommissioning is, therefore, essential though movement towards acceptance of this truth has been as though one were viewing events through a slow motion camera.

    To achieve a final agreement, we need the end of all preparations for paramilitary activity by Loyalists and Republicans alike. The end of paramilitary will being enforced on the streets. Above all – again and again – the restoration of trust.

    This latter requirement means all may yet hang upon the destruction of Arms. When a family has suffered a loss of life the psychological effect is profound: often there needs to be a period of “closure” before life can resume its normal pattern and peace of mind be restored.

    The Irish peace movement needs “closure” too: in this case “closure” is the destruction of Arms. No-one knows how many weapons there are – especially in the hands of the IRA – but the sum total is significant. It is probable that there are many tons of explosives in secret caches, together with heavy weaponry, rifles and handguns. All are a threat to peace of mind as well as peace on the streets and must be verifiably destroyed or surrendered. Tokens are helpful – but insufficient.

    For the people of Northern Ireland, we must continue to hope that their desire for peace will soon become a reality. But the question still lingers – will the paramilitaries deliver?

    We have yet to hear the answer.

  • Mr Major’s Tribute to Goh Chok Tong – 15 July 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s tribute to Goh Chok Tong after he left office as the Prime Minister of Singapore. The tribute was published in July 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and I both took office on the same day in 1990, since when he has steered Singapore successfully for nearly a decade and a half. He soon became a firm friend and one that I continue to cherish.

    I have always valued my exchanges with the Prime Minister and his balanced and lucid views. Although around the world it has been a difficult period – politically and economically – Singapore has always been in safe hands under his leadership.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Royal Commonwealth Society Dinner – 20 May 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s speech at the Royal Commonwealth Society Dinner on Thursday 20th May 2004. The speech was entitled “Priorities for a Changing World”.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Delighted to be invited here this evening and especially pleased to be speaking under the Chairmanship of my old friend, Emeka Anyaoku.
    Over the years, the Commonwealth has had many advocates but none, I think, more persuasive or more consistent. Both as Secretary General for 10 years – and since – the Commonwealth owes a great deal to him.

    It’s not easy to explain the attributes of the Commonwealth: part historic, part commercial, part blood ties, part romantic and yet, overall, rather ethereal. But – whether the attributes are ethereal or not – the attraction of the Commonwealth is very real: once captured, it never goes away.

    I came under its spell in the mid 1960’s when – as a young man barely in my 20’s – I went to work in Nigeria during the Biafran War. It was an odd introduction. I worked then for SBWA – now Standard Chartered – and, in the midst of the war crisis, they needed replacement staff. I volunteered and – as I was considered eminently disposable – was selected to go. Frankly, I loved it. I was stationed in Jos which was spoiling as it is lovely but I travelled the country and felt, at first hand the invisible ties of the Commonwealth.

    Some say the Commonwealth is a rag-bag cast-off of the Empire and of little value. I could not disagree more. Such people believe our world is just about Balance Sheets, Treaties and Alliances; but it is not – it is also about tangible and intangible links, and the friendly relationships of nations with a shared history. That is why – even in the hard-headed world of today – the Commonwealth retains the special affection of those who understand what it is and what it signifies.

    One indisputable fact about the Commonwealth is that it is very diverse – from powerful nations to weak, from highly developed to under-developed, from rich to poor.

    Sometimes the poorer countries face their problems in virtual anonymity: they do not hit the headlines.

    The other day I lunched with a senior Army Officer who told me a tale I should have known – and didn’t.

    A few weeks ago, the world was rightly horrified at the slaughter of the terrorist bombs in Madrid. But at broadly the same time, Uganda lived through a comparable loss of life. The so-called Lords Resistance Army attacked a large refugee camp in Northern Uganda and killed over 300 people. They seized children between seven and fifteen: the boys were taken to be trained as soldiers and the girls were taken for the soldiers. Publicity was minimal.

    Commonwealth leaders should consider how they can help with such problems.

    Let me now look at our world as it is – and as it will be.

    In the 17th Century, the English poet, John Donne, wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself”.

    Today, in the 21st Century, we are all inter-dependent. There is no hiding place from events – even from those in the farthest corners of the world.

    And our world is turbulent. We can foresee some of the changes to come. Others we cannot. But we can be certain the world of our future will be vastly different from our world of today.

    We now live in a world without economic boundaries: once crumbling they are now gone.

    As globalisation spreads, the command economy has all but disappeared. As the unfettered power of Government diminishes, the power of markets increase. As technology grows, markets never sleep.

    Nor does the march of politics.

    In the last few years, we have seen a political revolution that is reshaping the political map as surely as globalisation has transformed business and economies.

    The most significant event of the last fifty years was the collapse of Soviet Russia.

    At the time we all believed the world was safer. It was: the threat of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers had fallen. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability and foreshadowed a shifting map of the world.

    For example, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed – and Tito had not died – would we have had the bitter civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo?

    Probably not.

    If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, would the EU be about to admit ten more Member States – many of them formerly Iron Curtain countries effectively under Russian domination? Certainly not.

    If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed, would a coalition of nations now be engaged in a War Against Terror knowing that – to win it -the coalition would have to force out the terrorist cells from their safe havens in countries that had been in the Soviet sphere of influence? I doubt it.

    We are also in a world in which economic growth is tilting from West to East and yet – India and South East Asia apart, – the new wealth may be bypassing much of the under-developed members of the Commonwealth. The tilt from East to West is certainly not mirrored by a tilt from North to South, where the disparities in wealth and living standards continue to grow.

    If one looks around our world, what are the problems that stand out?

    IRAQ

    I don’t want to delve into this contentious issue tonight, except to say that it is very divisive and may cast a long shadow for many years. Similarly, Palestine seems impossible to solve and sets Nation against Nation. These disputes unsettle relationships far beyond the Middle East. In particular, they divide Moslems around the world – Arab and non-Arab Moslems alike – from America and Britain and (to a lesser extent) other developed Nations too.

    But these are issues for another time and place. Tonight, I want to touch upon two great social problems that are more costly in lives than Iraq or the Arab-Israeli dispute combined and will cause great long-term instability unless we do better in the future than we have in the past. I refer to poverty and Aids.

    POVERTY

    Poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair and can be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. At minimum, it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    As we look forward, we should assess the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer, and the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, that’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem.” Well, may be – but their problem? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: in no way can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live. And, in any event, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US $2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US $1 per day. I daresay no-one here this evening would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee at Starbucks. It is hard to imagine the disparity with the life of even someone on the lowest levels of social support in the developed nations.

    The rich nations do much to help – but not enough: far more is needed. Collectively they spend US$ 50 billion on overseas aid – an enormous sum: but less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the possibility of poor nations selling their agricultural produce into developed markets.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, we help ourselves. In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion. Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    In the 1940s/50s – after a different sort of War – the US launched a plan to deliver aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of that conflict. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    Not even the wealth of America could do that these days. But, in a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations collectively must soon consider another such “un-sordid act”.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when? Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come, but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    I am conscious that many may say – but you (that is me) could have done more when you had the chance. I agree. I did a certain amount – especially in reducing third world debt – but not enough.

    There are pleas I can make in mitigation – I inherited a recession, there was no money to spare and it was difficult to make the advance we did, I was distracted by squabbles over Europe and squabbles in my Party – but none of these is a sufficient excuse.

    As I look back, I should have done more. I wish I had. But the chance is gone. Now I am an older and wiser man and I hope to persuade my successors to raise their game. The cause is good, the need is very great, and action is imperative.

    AIDS

    So too with AIDS.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    It is a worldwide epidemic. The Caribbean, India, Europe East and West, China, Latin America – everywhere – has the problem. No part of the world is untouched but the poorer countries bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In parts of the Commonwealth, the problem is acute. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40 – but for AIDS it would be over 70.

    In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it.

    In South Africa, one in eight has the virus. Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease. It is a truly desperate situation.

    The horror statistics roll on. AIDS is the bubonic plague of our Age and – despite all that has been done – more is vital.
    AIDS has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    What can be done? Much is in hand through the WHO, individual Governments, and the work of organisations such as the Clinton Foundation. It would help if the disputes between some of these bodies could be resolved – particularly over the efficacy of generic drugs as opposed to patented drugs.

    This squabble reminds me of the legend of Buridan’s Ass. An Ass, faced with two equally desirable bales of hay, starves to death because he cannot find a reason for preferring one to the other – yet either bale would have saved him.

    We must solve these disputes speedily and decide whether generics are effective. For while the squabble continues, the sick suffer and the sick die.

    But much more is needed. The world must focus more on this problem or risk being overborne by it.

    Money is the root of all progress but is insufficient. Education on preventative care, medical treatment, and support, is vital but so is a comprehensive approach. The G7 Industrial Nations should put this problem alongside poverty as a priority for all nations, and work with the UN to hold back and then reverse the tide of misery that is the legacy of AIDS.

    I don’t wish to disparage what is already being done but piecemeal contributions could be made more valuable by a co-ordinated policy.

    CONCLUSION

    Sometimes – when we look at current problems we forget what has been achieved – not least in the field of human relations.

    I was brought up in Brixton in the 1950’s – a time of mass Commonwealth immigration mainly from the West Indies. I lived in a multi-occupied, multi-racial home and I saw the fear of the unknown that affected so many people at close quarters.

    How wrong they were. Now, 50 years later – despite the presence of the BNP, despite occasional unsavoury incidents, despite progress that still needs to be made – the whole social flavour is different. We now have non-white icons in business, television, politics, the arts and we take them for granted. Prejudice and fear is in retreat.

    There is hope in that: and the Commonwealth can rightly claim much of the credit.

  • Mr Major’s Article on the Mull of Kintyre Crash – 13 May 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s article on the Mull of Kintyre crash, published in The Times on 13th May 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Some events are etched in the memory and return again and again, often unexpectedly. Early on the evening of 2nd June 1994, I remember being told of reports that a Chinook Mark 2 helicopter, ZD576, was believed to have crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. Soon afterwards, the crash was confirmed as was, a little later, the number of victims and their identities. Many of the 25 dead were significant figures in intelligence and security. It was, as Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten noted “the largest peacetime tragedy the RAF had suffered”.

    All this is ten years ago but, as I was Prime Minister at the time, the horror of the incident has never left me. From time to time the issue has resurfaced and, I think, for a good and valid reason: immediately after the accident, the RAF convened a Board of Inquiry and its findings were controversial.

    Under the existing rules of such Inquiries, negligence by the crew piloting the helicopter could only be found “in cases where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever”. The Inquiry convened speedily and took oral and written statements as well as detailed evidence from the Air Accident Investigation Branch. Their verdict was delivered in February 1995. They concluded that the “most probable” cause of the accident was an “inappropriate rate of climb over the Mull” but that no evidence existed that either pilot – both of whom died in the crash – was negligent. This seems to me to be a fair judgement. Indeed, I do not see how any other conclusion could be justified since, if the cause could only “probably” be determined, then there were no grounds for a verdict of negligence which necessarily required proof of pilot error. The cause could have been something quite different and beyond any pilot control.

    When, as is the customary procedure, the findings were reviewed, a more senior officer disagreed that an inappropriate rate of climb was the cause of the crash. He believed that this was pure conjecture. Nor did he accept that the pilots were negligent.

    But this was not a universal view. In the final part of the Board of Inquiry process, an overview by two senior Air Vice Marshals accepted the Investigation Board’s conclusion as to the probable cause of the crash but did find both pilots grossly negligent. Although there is no doubt these senior officers acted in good faith, it is not difficult to imagine the distress such an outcome must have caused to the families of the pilots and – no doubt – those of other victims as well.

    The matter did not lie there. In 1996 a Fatal Accident Inquiry was held at the Sheriff’s Court, Paisley, that took detailed evidence over sixteen days. The Sheriff, too, concluded that it was not possible to be certain of the cause of the crash, nor that it had been caused by an inappropriate rate of climb. Once more, upon this verdict, no blame could properly be attributed to the crew.

    A report by the House of Commons Defence Committee considered wider implications of the crash – but not the cause. However, in evidence the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Dr John Reid MP, set out the MOD’s justification for the negligence finding. A subsequent Public Accounts Committee Report examined the finding of negligence, found it unjustified and recommended that it should be set aside. The reason for this recommendation by the PAC was that it had serious doubts about the quality of the helicopter’s upgrade, its technical abilities and its software. However, the Committee’s powerful case, and its conclusion that “it is impossible to prove gross negligence”, was refuted by the Government, and the Board of Inquiry verdict of gross negligence was upheld.

    Prior to the Government’s response, the House of Lords too – after considerable manoeuvring – had set up a Select Committee of five Members to consider the crash. They decided to limit their Inquiry specifically to the justification for the verdict and took evidence from the members of the Investigating Board, experienced Chinook pilots, other experts and the parents of the deceased pilots.

    The Lords Select Committee unearthed new evidence about unforeseen malfunctions in the helicopters, about the weather conditions which suggested the pilots would have seen the land mass (the contrary was believed at the initial Inquiry) and about simulations of the behaviour of the helicopter: all of these developments cast doubt on earlier assumptions and were not available to the Air Marshals when the original verdict of gross negligence was reached.

    In light of the additional information, the Select Committee found unanimously that the standard of proof necessary to sustain a verdict of gross negligence could not be justified.

    We may never know what truly caused this tragedy. It follows therefore, that there is no justification for blaming pilot error. To let posterity do so would be a harsh verdict that is not justified upon the evidence and is cruel in its impact upon the families of the pilots who perished. Soon, the tenth anniversary of this crash will be upon us: it is time to set aside the original verdict and bring comfort to the memory of the pilots and remove the burden that has lain too long upon their reputations and their families’ peace of mind.

    We owe justice to the dead. I am not persuaded they have had it.