The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Bill Clinton

  • Mr Major’s Joint Speech with Bill Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint speech with President Bill Clinton, held at the Cambridge American Military Cemetery in Madingley on Saturday 4th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are here today to remember the Servicemen from America and Britain, from Canada and other Commonwealth and Allied countries who gave their lives for Europe’s freedom. As Winston Churchill reached the end of his own long life he encompassed their achievement with these words: “Our comradeship and brotherhood in war were unexampled, we stood together and because of that fact the free world stands”.

    Brotherhood was a word Churchill often used for friendship between the English-speaking peoples. On the very eve of D-Day he wrote to President Roosevelt of an absolute brotherhood between the forces. That spirit has served our countries valiantly over the intervening 50 years, in war and in peace. It is rooted in trust. And to quote Churchill again: “In common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice, and above all the love of personal freedom.”

    It is especially the brotherhood of airmen to airmen, soldier to soldier and sailor to sailor that we commemorate at this time. Here in Britain 50 years ago approaching D-Day there were over 1.5 million Americans on active service under the command of General Eisenhower.

    For a while every 30th person in Britain was an American Serviceman. In the European theatre more than 150,000 Americans, including 57,000 airmen, lost their lives. Nearly 4,000 of them, mostly young men who flew extremely dangerous missions, lie here in this Garden of Remembrance in the midst of the English countryside. Over 5,000 more are commemorated in the Wall of the Missing. Among them are a few who achieved fame, some who surely, had they lived, would have been destined for fame, many who were less well known and some who are unknown warriors. All their lives were cruelly cut short and to them all of us owe a debt too deep to pay.

    Some of you here today will have come to Madingley to remember close relatives, you will have endured the life-long pain of losing those that you loved. Some here today will be honouring the memory of wartime comrades, you too ran the same risks, you too were ready to make the same sacrifice. To all of you I offer the very warmest of welcomes.

    We remember today why those lives were given. Those who came here from America were not as we were, protecting their homes and families, America was not under direct threat from Europe, they did not come here for national glory, not for profit, not for material gain, they came, many of you here today came, above all to defend the values which Britons and Americans hold sacred, to defend freedom and democracy, justice and human rights, to help liberate the people of Europe from tyranny and to seek to build a better world thereafter.

    President Franklin Roosevelt wrote out for Churchill some lines from Longfellow which summed this up: “Humanity with all its fears, with all its hopes of future years, is hanging breathless on my fate.”

    Throughout the joint efforts of all the allies, the fate of Western Europe was resolved for the better in 1944 and 1945. But that mission did not end in 1945, we have continued since to work together for our common values in the United Nations and in the Atlantic Alliance. We have had to make further sacrifices, some very recently. In the Gulf War, for example, among those buried here is an American Serviceman from that combined action; or in United Nations peace-keeping operations, in many parts of the world; and the courage and the selflessness which you and all of your wartime comrades showed half a century ago are still vital in today’s troubled world.

    Mr President, there could be no more fitting time, or I believe place or company for your first official visit to the United Kingdom. On behalf of all my fellow citizens I would like to thank you and your fellow Americans for your friendship and your unstinting support throughout the last 50 years and more.

    Whenever the going has been hardest, Britons and Americans have stood together in unity of belief. The peoples of Europe owe their freedom and their peace to those we honour this weekend, both the living and the fallen. Here today at this tranquil memorial and a thousand more generations to come will give thanks for all that they did to give us this peaceful today.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Mr Prime Minister, Mrs Major, Mr McLean, Chaplain, Secretary Bentsen, thank you for your fine remarks, to our British hosts and to all the distinguished Americans who are also here, members of the Congress, the administration, the armed forces, we have come here today, all of us, on a journey of remembrance.

    For some, as for Secretary Bentsen, it was a journey to replace time, to go back fifty summers and more, when they took to airfields like these. For others it is a journey to honour those who fought and those who died for the world in which we came of age.

    At this moment all of us are joined in a sense of pride, in a sense of indebtedness, a sense of wonder and a sense of determination to carry on that work and never to forget. On these ancient grounds 3,812 Americans are buried, airmen, soldiers and sailors. More than 5,000 others are remembered on the Wall of the Missing. The names of some we honour echo still in our nation’s memory, names like Joseph Kennedy Jr, the brother of our late President, a young man for whom a distinguished political career was predicted but who gave his life for our country. Or Glen Miller whose wonderful moonlight serenades soothe the savage world and still make us tap our feet.

    In death all these people on the wall and buried behind us were equal, they came from every state of the union, they were of many races and religions, they had names like Koreo, Kaufman and Wood, they were all of them American. They fought to defeat a great evil which threatened to destroy our very way of life, what Winston Churchill called the great principles of freedom in the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English speaking world. For long months Britain bravely carried that fight on alone. In the Battle of Britain, night after frightful night, the people of this besieged island withstood the fierce attacks of Nazi bombers, it was their finest hour.

    Amid the horror the British looked West for help. Then the Yanks came, deepening one of history’s profoundest bonds. Overnight it seemed tens of thousands of GIs filled the streets and cafes across southern England. All these years later we find the memories of many of them still very vivid – smiling GI’s tossing packs of spearmint gum to British schoolboys, new faces and funny accents at the corner pub, lindy hops in London, kids from Milwaukee invited in for high tea, allied uniforms filling the pews at British churches.

    America gave to England an infusion of arms and men and material. The British gave our troops the feeling that they were not so far from home after all. The British gave us inspiration, the Americans gave in return hope. At every level Yanks and Brits worked together like family.

    American intelligence services built on Britain’s brilliant successes which were here chronicled in breaking the German codes; General Eisenhower chose British Marshals to be his deputies, of course Montgomery and Ramsay and Tetter. Roosevelt and Churchill, even as they led the assault on tyranny and rallied their own people to support the crusade encouraged each other with personal notes. All shared a sense of kinship that sustained them through the darkest moments of the war, all shared a faith that our people, nurtured on freedom, would rise to the call of history.

    Nowhere was our bond more important than in the air war launched from the green fields like this one. The Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps joined in countless sorties to cripple the Luftwaffe, to desolate the Nazi war machine, to soften the Atlantic wall. One British citizen remembered for 1,000 days the sky was never still.

    It was some of the most dangerous work of the war and the tales of valour still amaze us all. Pilots going down with burning flames to give all the rest of the crew just a few more seconds to get out, or the two crew members who shared the only parachute left on board as they jumped together from their burning plane over England. The Marauders, Liberators, Mustangs and Flying Fortresses, the Halifaxes and Mosquitos, they were all sturdy, but as one American remembered, the flack sometimes seemed so thick you could walk on it, the wild blue yonder above Europe could quickly turn cold and grey and lethal.

    In just the two months before D-Day the allied forces lost over 2,000 planes and over 12,000 men. Because of their sacrifice by 6 June 1944 the allies owned the air. Under the shield of that air supremacy our ships cross the channel, our men crossed the beaches. A few days after the Normandy landing General Eisenhower stood on the beaches of France with his young son, John, recently a graduate of West Point, and told him: “If I did not have the air supremacy, I would not be here.” After D-Day the Air Corps continued to fly towards freedom’s horizon until the entire continent was reclaimed and a world was set free.

    The victory of the generation we honour today came at a high cost, it took many lives and much perseverance. After D-Day it took freedom another year to reach the Elba, it took another 44 years to reach Warsaw and Prague and East Berlin. And now it has reached Kiev and Moscow and even beyond. The mission of this time to secure and expand its reach further.

    The airmen who flew these skies had a ritual, as Secretary Vincent mentioned, for signalling to their comrades on the ground at the end of a mission. If they were coming in for landing, if they fired off a red flare it meant there were casualties aboard, and if they fired off a green flare it meant some lucky pilot had just completed his last mission before shipping out. Well the generation that won the Second World War completed their mission, whether they walk among us or lie among us today. And after looking down in sorrow at those who paid the ultimate price, let us lift our eyes to the skies in which they flew, the ones they once commanded, and let us send to them a signal, a signal of our own, a signal that we do remember, that we do honour and that we shall always carry on the work of these nights born on wings. May God bless them and all our people.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Arrival Doorstep with President Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s joint arrival doorstep with President Clinton on Saturday 4th June 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Mrs Clinton. I would like firstly to welcome you here to the United Kingdom and to thank you for being here to commemorate the extraordinary operation of 50 years ago. Whatever the weather may turn out to be over this weekend I can promise you and Hillary and our very many other visitors from America the warmest of greetings throughout your stay, as warm and as friendly as the welcome that your Servicemen received in the dark days of the war.

    Just a few months ago I had the pleasure of being your guest at Pittsburgh, an area that has very strong links with my country. You fittingly this morning have landed in East Anglia, my home, and also a home to thousands of United States Servicemen for over half a century.

    In a short while, at a service near Cambridge, we will honour the memory of American Servicemen who fell in the Second World War, their courage will never be forgotten in this country by those they helped to protect and helped to liberate.

    Mr President, you arrive here this morning for your first official visit, but you arrive here as an old friend who has lived in Britain and who knows this country well. Over the next few days you and Hillary will see both the old and the new.

    At Chequers later today we will have the opportunity to renew our close dialogue that has taken place from the moment that you took office. During that period a number of international problems have consistently been with us, Bosnia being a prime example. Our negotiators are even today working intensively with the United Nations and the Contact Group to try and promote a settlement there. Some of the problems we faced have been resolved. Last year’s agreement in the world trade negotiations was an outstanding success and we are hoping to see it put in action as soon as possible. The remarkable progress in South Africa is another objective we have both strongly supported. But new problems inevitably arise and some of those we shall have the opportunity of discussing as well, North Korea this morning, for example, forces itself on the agenda.

    In all of this we know from long experience the immense value of working in close partnership as the United States and the United Kingdom have always done.

    Bill, this is a visit that we have been looking forward to for a very long time, you and Hillary are very welcome guests indeed and it is a very great pleasure to see you here.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister, Hillary and I are delighted to be here. I remember well the first time I arrived in the United Kingdom, I am deeply honoured to be here today representing my nation.

    Fifty years ago our two nations joined forces on the beaches of Normandy to turn back the Nazi army that had over-run Europe. This week I have come across the Atlantic to commemorate D-Day and the many other battles of the Second World War and to honour the sacrifices borne by the war generation in all the nations.

    Freedom continues to require our sacrifice and persistence and I would like to say on behalf of all the American people how very sorry we are and how we offer our condolences to the loved ones of those who died in the tragic RAF helicopter accident on Thursday. Freedom continues to require effort.

    When he visited the United States after World War II, Winston Churchill spoke of our two nations’s role in forging the post-war world, he urged the United States and Britain to walk together in majesty and peace. For he said: “It is in the years of peace that wars are prevented and that those foundations are laid upon which the noble structures of the future can be built.”

    I look forward to working with the Prime Minister and the British people as we work together to meet those challenges. The Prime Minister has already mentioned the many things that we will be discussing today. I am glad to be back in Great Britain, glad to be honouring the sacrifices and the triumphs of the World War II generation, glad to be about the work of honouring what they have done for us by trying to preserve the peace in the future.

  • US Background Briefing on Meeting with John Major and President Clinton – 4 June 1994

    Below is the text of the US background briefing held at Hartwell House on 4th June 1994.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Why don’t we begin by — we’ll talk about the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister and sort of divide up the main topics the President and the Prime Minister covered, a list of things they talked about.

    They first did a meeting that they held together before lunch with just a couple of advisors on each side. And then they extended the conversation over lunch for another 15 minutes or so with just the President and the Prime Minister and their wives. And then they came out and spoke with you.

    I guess just a couple of other issues mentioned — one is to come back to Haiti. The British government was very helpful in helping to kick off the process that led to our now having reached an agreement in principle with the Turks and Caicos to establish a migrant processing centre there. We hope within a very short time now to have worked out all of the final details on it.

    The local problem there I believe has proved — so we’re all ready to go. We would expect that it would be established by early July. We also, as I told a number of you on the plane, have reached an agreement with Jamaica for such a centre and it should be up and well started before early July.

    So we think we’re making a lot of progress there, and we are grateful to Her Majesty’s government for having supported it.

    Somebody asked me on the plane how many could be processed through, and in Jamaica, at least, we would expect it would be about 500 a day. We don’t know yet in Turks and Caicos. On Jamaica, as you’ll recall, it will be on ships. In Turks and Caicos it would be on shore.

    Ireland — the President praised the British government’s response to the questions that were put forward by Sinn Fein. The President said it remains our view that the IRA should put an end to violence and we hope that we can see progress towards a political settlement in Ireland.

    What else? On Bosnia, just one other detail. The President — there was a discussion of the role of UNPROFOR and the President expressed how important he thinks the work has been and will be in this continuing very difficult humanitarian as well as political and military crisis —

    QUESTION:

    Is it correct to construe from what the President told us earlier today that the United States government does not take the North Korean claim that sanctions would be deemed an act of war seriously? Is that correct, you do not take it seriously?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    No, I don’t think he put it quite that way.

    QUESTION:

    Well, that’s what I was asking you to —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Right. This is not the first time that the North Koreans have made statements like this. And in a situation as potentially serious as Korea, of course, one does not take such statements lightly. At the same time, they have been made before and there is no question that statements like this will not deter, intimidate the international community from proceeding at the Security Council.

    And as the President said, sanctions are not an act of war and we do not consider them to be so.

    QUESTION:

    What is the current state of play on consultations that have been going forward? Yeltsin said is that they’ll go on, sanctions is a last resort, he’d like an international conference first. Are we amenable to that? And what about the Chinese veto — do we think that they’ll at least abstain from —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, as you know, the President and Yeltsin did speak yesterday afternoon. Yeltsin laid out his ideas on an international meeting. They agreed that Secretary Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev will now be in touch with each other to discuss the issues that are involved in holding such a meeting.

    The President said that we believe that such a meeting could be useful at some point, but that the first task before us is to pursue the issue of sanctions at the Security Council. And that is what we are doing.

    As I said the other night, the Chinese have been unenthusiastic about sanctions and have said so on a number of occasions. But to our knowledge, they have not said publicly or privately that they would veto sanctions at the Security Council. Last weekend when we consulted among the Permanent Five members on what to do about Korea, the Chinese joined the consensus behind the President’s statement. And in that resolution it said that the Security Council — and these aren’t the exact words, but the Security Council would remain engaged on the issue, which implied for the consideration of issues like sanctions. So I think it would be both premature and possibly wrong to assume that the Chinese would veto. We’ll simply have to work it through with them, and we’ll be doing that.

    QUESTION:

    The President said that this is not a subject – – the President said he didn’t want to sabre-rattle on this issue, but the strategic situation in Korea is such that there is no margin for error. Will the United States quietly be doing things to increase the capabilities there in terms of air power —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I always love it when people ask me if we’re going to really do something from your side of the house. [Laughter]. No. We have been constantly reviewing what we should do prudently to make sure that we are doing everything necessary both to protect our forces in Korea and to help defend South Korea itself. And we have taken a number of measures, as you know, over the recent months, including the — most notably, the sending of the Patriots. And what I can tell you is that we will continue to review the issue as we go along.

    QUESTION:

    You were unable to or unwilling to say the other night what you thought might be or ought to be in the sanctions. Are you in anymore of a position now to say what sanctions ought to look like?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Not yet. I think we have to do a little in the way of consulting — or a good bit more, perhaps, in consulting, especially with the Japanese, South Korea — they’re being allies; the Russians and others to see what form the sanctions can most usefully take.

    There are two issues here: One is how do you design sanctions that will bring — convey the maximum amount of leverage with the North Koreans. And the other is that we have to build a consensus behind the sanctions at the Security Council and we’ve got to negotiate both at once, and we will be.

    QUESTION:

    Why is the U.S. not as enthusiastic about a conference as Yeltsin seems to be?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Clearly, the first focus has to be on the Security Council and the issue of sanctions. And it could well be that a meeting at some point can make a useful contribution there in pushing the North Koreans back towards the international community. But whether it’s a meeting like this or anything else, we want the focus to be right now on the Security Council and the pursuit of the issues.

    QUESTION:

    As a strategic matter or because of some principle having to do with not being willing to meet with them at this point?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    As a practical matter, seeking every — seeking the maximum leverage with the North Koreans that we can find to try to resolve the nuclear issue.

    QUESTION:

    So then you’d lose leverage through a conference? I mean, there’s the President stressing he wants to work this out, he wants diplomacy; and Yeltsin says there should be a conference — if that’s a good forum for that.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I think the diplomacy could take many forms. But the first issue — and we’ve been pursuing the diplomacy for some weeks now. We think we pursued it consistently and with some skill even, but it hasn’t produced the results; yes, the North Koreans have made their decision. And what clearly is need now is to convey to the North Koreans the seriousness of the choice that they have made and the importance in terms of their interests to their moving away from the path of confrontation with the international community and back towards trying to work with them.

    QUESTION:

    How can the Security Council and the United States government be sure that it doesn’t provoke North Korea into doing something that nobody bargained for with sanctions?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    We will devise sanctions that we think are both effective and — well, that are effective.

    QUESTION:

    Let me ask the question another way.

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Yes, try again. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Since the President began to convey the seriousness of the situation, have you seen anything in the last 48 or 72 hours to come from the North Koreans to suggest they’re getting the message?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    I don’t think we’ve seen from the North Koreans either that they’re getting the message or that they’re not. So we’ll have to see.

    QUESTION:

    The other question is, short of sanctions is there anything that can be done in terms of bilateral action among any of these countries?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, we have been talking to the Chinese, for example, both over recent weeks and even over the past week, urging them to convey to the North Koreans the seriousness of the situation and the choice the North Koreans need to be making. We hope that other governments are doing the same thing.

    And the President and other American officials have been finding opportunities to speak on the public record on the issue to convey exactly the same message to the North Koreans.

    QUESTION:

    The Chinese haven’t come back to you and said I’m getting the message, or no response from the Chinese about whether they’re —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    The Chinese are very careful to — not to tell us exactly what it is that they say to the North Koreans. They do tell us that they have been in touch with the North Koreans. If you look at recent Chinese public statements, there is no question that they are very unhappy with the position that the North Koreans are taking.

    If I can go now just off the record, because I don’t want to speak for the Chinese — but I would assume that the reason the Chinese won’t tell us what exactly they’re saying to the North Koreans is that once they tell us that then we can keep going back to them and saying, no, adjust your message this way, that way, and they lose a lot of their flexibility.

    But we, to come back on to background, we are quite confident that the Chinese have been urging the North Koreans to adopt a more constructive attitude.

    QUESTION:

    But if that’s true, how come they’re so resistant or seem so resistant to sanctions? I mean, what is it that I’m missing here? Why are they reluctant to take the step that you’re willing to take?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    Well, because China — I think probably for two reasons: One, China is North Korea’s greatest trading power; and secondly, China has an historic relationship with North Korea that they probably find constrain them.

    I think the Chinese see here two basic interests. One is I am convinced that they do not want to see a nuclear North Korea; that they would prefer to see a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And I think that is not only because North Korea is close to China, but also because if North Korea becomes an overt nuclear power, then the pressures in the region for other states to adopt nuclear weapons would increase. I am not — I repeat, not — saying the Japanese or others necessarily would develop nuclear weapons, but there would be that pressure. And that’s not in the interests of the Chinese.

    And the second major Chinese interest here is that they don’t want to see sanctions for the reasons I just stated.

    Therefore, it is and has been in the interest of the Chinese to try to persuade the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program, thus avoiding sanctions and, thus, serving both of the Chinese interests at the same time.

    QUESTION:

    Quick one. How insistent was Yeltsin on this conference in his conversation with Clinton? Was it something that’s going to screw up his vote in the Security Council? I mean, is he looking at this as a diplomatic —

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    No, he made the –I mean, clearly, he is very interested in the idea, but at the same time, if you look at the public statement he made three or four days ago, he has also been saying that in the end he believes sanctions are justified.

    QUESTION:

    Does it have to come after a conference like this?

    SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    They would have to work out that timing. I don’t necessarily — I can’t speak for the Russian government.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you.

    QUESTION:

    Does your Government [the British Government] favour sanctions?

    BRITISH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

    We believe that you can’t design an — to sanctions that would be effective in this case. And as my colleague says, it’s important to get the design right and consult on it. But we are very supportive; we’re working together with the United Nations on precisely that.

    You raised the question about provoking. If you’re worried about not provoking people, then you’d never do anything. But you’ve got to construct a path that gives them the maximum opportunity to move away from the policies and approach that they’re doing now. And we think that can be done, using all the — and we’re just available to the United Nations Security Council.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you both.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the US/UK Relationship – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom, made during an interview given in Washington on Tuesday 1st March 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the relationship between the US and the UK].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a very close relationship, it is a very hard-edged relationship. It is based on shared instincts, it is based on shared interests. There is a tendency for Britain and America to see international problems in the same way. Occasionally there are different points of emphasis and they are highlighted but overwhelmingly we tend to see the same sort of problems and seek the same solutions for them.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he felt President Clinton regretted his decision to give Gerry Adams a visa].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he has given us very strong support for the Joint Declaration and I don’t propose to traipse over old ground. What is important I think is the very strong support we have had from the United States for the Joint Declaration and for both the peace process and the talks process that we have established in Northern Ireland. Upon that, the President has been very resolute.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the President would give another visa to Gerry Adams].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going into the details of that. I think people saw what happened when he came, they saw what happened when he went back. The President would like to see some progress under the Joint Declaration.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he had asked the United States to send more troops to Bosnia].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We looked at what happens in the short-term and that is of course why we turned particularly to the problems of Sarajevo and decided to send a team there to examine what is needed to correct the obvious deficiencies in life there; there is very little water, very little electricity, very little proper health care, not sufficient, and we are sending teams there. I think these must be dealt with on an incremental basis. The first thing to do is to deal with the civil problems in Sarajevo and we spent some time discussing that and deciding how to proceed.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about Russian’s involvement in the Partnership for Peace].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We very much want them to join Partnership for Peace, I discussed this with President Yeltsin. Clearly, Russia is a very large and very important country but Partnership for Peace will vary with individual countries so clearly there would be a special position for Russia, we very much want them to take part.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked how the relationship with the US would change given Britain’s integration within the European Union].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would replace the word “integration” with the word “influence”. It is certainly true that it is helpful that we have a greater degree of influence in Europe. I believe we do have a greater degree of influence in Europe. What we are seeing is that so much of the European debate is now turning towards matters that we have regarded as important for some time. I think that is self-evidently so both in terms of social on-costs, the widening of the European Community and a number of other illustrations I could give.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the Scott Inquiry].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to anticipate the Scott Inquiry’s report. I set it up with very wide-ranging terms of reference, I told Lord Justice Scott if he found his terms of reference inadequate or found himself impeded he should say so and we would provide him with the assistance he needed. I think we must wait for his report. I have no judgements to make until then.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Clinton – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with President Clinton, held in Washington on Tuesday 1st March 1994.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We’d like to just make a couple of brief remarks and then we’ll answer some questions.

    First of all, I want to again say how pleased I was at this visit that the Prime Minister made, we had a wonderful time yesterday in Pittsburgh and it turned out to be a pretty good idea that just sort of grew out of a conversation we had last summer in Tokyo, and I am glad that he came and I am glad we had a chance to go there and to do what was done there.

    We have had an opportunity to discuss, as you might imagine, a lot of issues, I might just mention a few. First of all, with regard to Bosnia, we are committed to continuing to work for a resolution of the crisis, we are encouraged by both the on-going negotiations between the Bosnian government and the Croats and the willingness of the Russians to work with us and others in trying to bring the Serbs into a final peace agreement. So we are quite hopeful about that.

    Secondly, I wanted to particularly emphasise the commitment that we share for strengthening and broadening NATO through the Partnership for Peace and to having tangible evidence of that partnership coming forward this summer.

    Thirdly, with regard to Northern Ireland I want to reaffirm the support of the United States for the joint declaration, for the process it envisions and for an end to the violence. I wish the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Reynolds well as they seek to carry this out.

    Let me just mention a couple of other things. You knew yesterday I think that we sent a joint message to Mr Mandela and Chief Butholezi, we are looking forward to their meeting today, we hope it will be successful and we want to strongly encourage all the parties in South Africa to responsibly participate in the election.

    The last thing I would like to say is that we join the United Kingdom in their position with regard to Hong Kong in supporting Governor Patten’s efforts to have a genuine long term strategy for economic and political success in Hong Kong and I have been very admiring of what he has done and what the Prime Minister has done.

    QUESTION:

    Are all your differences wiped out?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Well, let me give the Prime Minister a chance to make some remarks first.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly say how enjoyable this visit has been and thank the President for his hospitality and also the people of Pittsburgh, it was a memorable day and a memorable evening yesterday and I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of it.

    I do not want to add a great deal to what the President has had to say, perhaps a word or two about Bosnia in general and Sarajevo in particular. One of the things we have agreed over the last couple of days is to send a joint civil planning mission to Sarajevo, the ceasefire there is holding, that has been a very successful operation, I think it has been universally recognised as such, but the circumstances that exist within Sarajevo are still very serious, the utilities are not working, the electricity, the water, so we have agreed to send a joint civil planning mission there to have a look at what needs to be done and then to see to what extent we can contribute and can encourage other people to contribute to deal with the civil difficulties that are actually faced there in Sarajevo.

    The President mentioned the message we sent yesterday to Nelson Mandela and Chief Butholezi, they meet today at Yalundi and clearly that is an extremely important meeting, it is our wish that everyone participates in the South African elections, it is a remarkable event, the first multi-racial elections across South Africa, and we wish to see everyone take part. We very much hope as a result of the message and more relevantly perhaps the meeting between Mr Mandela and Chief Butholezi today that that will certainly happen.

    We spent some time discussing trade matters as well as foreign affairs. I think there are two areas of that that I would just briefly touch upon. We agreed that it would be desirable to see if we could bring forward the start date for implementation of the GATT agreement to 1 January 1995, we will need to consult with other people to see if that is practicable but if it is practicable clearly an agreement has been reached and the sooner that agreement can be implemented the better it will be.

    We spent some time also discussing open markets, we both share a wish to support the growing measure of opinion that exists in Japan, for example, for the further opening of Japanese markets, this is a matter of concern to the United States, it is a matter of concern throughout the European Union as well and we spent some time discussing that particular issue.

    There were one or two rather more technical issues we discussed, a replacement of CoCom, that old relic of the Cold War, that needs to be replaced, there are official discussions to do that and we spent some time just looking at that.

    Beyond that I think I would simply wish to endorse the points that the President made both about Bosnia and about Russia. I think there is no doubt that we see the problems of Bosnia very much in the same light, our policy is heading exactly in the same direction and I think we have had a very useful discussion on that particular issue. I do not think for the moment I wish to add any more.

    QUESTION:

    How would you describe your relationship now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is a partnership of shared interests and shared instincts. If one looks at problems around the world overwhelmingly we are likely to take the same view of those, that has been the case in the past and is the case now, and I think it is those shared instincts and interests that actually underpin the long term relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I agree with that, I think it is a great mistake to over-state the occasional disagreement and under-state the incredible depth and breadth of our shared interests and our shared values. It is still a profoundly important relationship I think to both countries and I also believe to the future of the world.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us a little bit, in this country today the Senate is beginning to pick up on budget amendments, what is your view on that and where do you think it is going?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I don’t know where it is going but I hope that it will not be passed because if it is passed it runs the risk of endangering our economic recovery by requiring excessive tax increases, of very damaging cuts in defence, our investments in technology and job training, in Medicare and social security. If it is disregarded, there is a provision in there to disregard it if 60 percent of both Houses want to do it, it amounts to turning the whole future of America over to 40 percent plus 1 of each House of Congress, in an intensely partisan atmosphere that is a recipe for total paralysis. Also, unlike all these state and local balance budget amendments, this one makes utterly no distinction between a long term investment and annual consumption. So for those reasons I hope it will not be adopted.

    Finally, we are proving you can bring the deficit down, the deficit is now going to be about half the percentage of our annual income that it was when I took office if this new budget is adopted, so we are going to keep bringing it down. I think the administration has credibility on cutting spending, we presented the first cuts in discretionary spending since 1969 in this budget. So I think we have got a record, I think we are on the right track and I think this remedy, while it is a very serious problem what has happened to the deficit, this remedy is the wrong one and I hope the Congress will reject it.

    QUESTION:

    You have agreed to send some civilians to help monitor the ceasefire and are you still adamant you will not send ground troops?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Our position has always been that we would prefer to help enforce an agreement if we could work out a peace agreement, that in the absence of the peace agreement we would confine our involvement to the support we are giving through NATO and our air power and to essentially the technical personnel who are there now and others who might be able to do that kind of work. That is still our position. But let me say that I think we have a terrific opportunity here to try to build on what happened in the situation involving Sarajevo, to try to keep the Russians involved in a very constructive leadership way and to try to work on these talks now under way here in Washington between the Bosnian government and the Croatians. To move to that kind of settlement, if we can get that, then I think all the responsible countries of the world have got to try to help to make it work.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask the Prime Minister, has the President given you a promise about future conditions for the readmission of Gerry Adams? Will he have to renounce violence to get another visa to get into the United States?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think everyone has seen what has happened at the Ardfheis, I think the important issue is to look forward and see how we produce a solution to the Northern Ireland problem, I am not interested in looking back. And I think as one looks forward one only has to look at the very remarkable expression of opinion that we have seen over the last few days of support for the joint declaration. Now that joint declaration is there, it is now a living fact, it is a series of principles upon which we hope to base a solution to the problems that have bedevilled Northern Ireland for too long. Now that is the main issue that I want to address and those are the issues we have been discussing.

    QUESTION:

    Following on the progress that you have made in Bosnia, did you talk about any steps to end the fighting in other places beyond Sarajevo, perhaps extending the ultimatum to Tuzla or Srebrenica?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    We feel pretty good about where things are in Srebrenica now, we think that the troop exchange will be able to occur between the Canadians and the Dutch and we are working on Tuzla, we do believe that we should keep working to fulfil the commitment that NATO made at its last meeting in January to try to see what can be done to open the Tuzla airport, but there are on-going negotiations there now. Again we have sought the involvement of the Russians in this regard and we think that there is a chance that we will be able to have some success in Tuzla, we discussed what our options are, I think you will see more about that in the days ahead.

    QUESTION:

    Are you concerned about the recent NATO air strikes that resulted in increased bombing of the Tuzla area, your message is that you are not going to tolerate violation of the No Fly Zone but how do you reinforce that?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Right now our authority, beyond what is going on in Sarajevo, is consigned to enforcing the No Fly Zone and we did that. But I want to say again what I said yesterday, it was based on the authority vested through the United Nations last April, it was something done in the course of business to do what we are required to do, that it should not be read in any way as a departure of strategy or tactics because of what is going on now generally. And I think it should only serve to make people want to resolve this more quickly, to go on with the negotiations now, that is what I am hopeful of.

    QUESTION:

    If there is the need for other bombing missions and the attacks step up on these other areas outside Sarajevo what can NATO do to prevent the spread of this violence?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Right now, I will say again, the authority we had with regard to artillery, that is on the ground attacks, is the authority to remove artillery from around the Sarajevo area, to create the safe zone, all other authorities related to stopping the war from spreading into the air, and we are talking about what we can do in Tuzla now, that is what you will see I hope unfolding in a very positive way over the next few days.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what people have to realise is that what is developing is developing on a twin track, there is the track of seeking a political settlement and some progress has been made between the Muslims and the Croats here in Washington over the last couple of days. And then of course there is the second track of what is actually happening on the ground and I think one saw in Sarajevo a classic illustration of how an agreement can be reached on the ground that leads in due course to the corralling of weapons, so I think both those tracks will continue. But as far as the No Fly Zone is concerned, the incident that occurred yesterday, where I think it was entirely justifiable to shoot down the planes that were intruding in the No Fly Zone, could have happened at any stage in the last year, it certainly is not a departure from accepted policy, any time in the last 12 months that could have occurred.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the British/American Chamber of Commerce – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech, made to the British/American Chamber of Commerce in New York on Tuesday 1st March 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr Chairman, thank you very much for that very warm welcome. It is a pleasure to be here in New York and to be your guest today and to see such a magnificent turn-out at this luncheon. I am very tentative about looking at the size of the turn-out, I recall the advice that Churchill once had for a speaker who was over-impressed by the size of the audience: “Always remember”, said Churchill, “that if you were about to be hanged the audience would be at least twice as large”. As a politician I am not sure whether it would be the same audience but I am sure it would be twice as large.

    You mentioned a moment ago, Mr Chairman, C-SPAN and Prime Minister’s Questions. It occurs to me this is a Tuesday afternoon and so far as I can judge I have an audience in front of me that is unlikely to shout and answer back too much – we shall see when we come to questions.

    I went yesterday to Pennsylvania with President Clinton. We went there, amongst other things, to see how the state was changing, how Pittsburgh, once one of the heartlands of the steel industry, has taken on an entirely new life in recent years. That cannot have been a pain-free transition for Pittsburgh, it must have taken a remarkable effort to make the changes that have been brought about in recent years. And I say that with a certain degree of confidence because my country has been changing as well. And it is very easy to forget from this distance of 3,000 miles how partial a view we may have of one another, even though we believe we know one another extremely well, a view so frequently provided principally by the distorting lens of news priorities and soap operas.

    I wonder how many people in Britain think that all American life offers is either the glamour of Dallas or the mean streets of the cop movies that they see so frequently on television. And in precisely the same way I wonder how many people in America get a view of modern Britain either from downbeat films of inner city life or recreations of a bygone age, a world of Miss Marple or Middlemarch, a hidebound unchanging class ridden society.

    It is a view I think reinforced, reinforced by the story first told by the scientist, Arthur C Clarke. During the last century the Chief Engineer of the British Post Office was called to testify before a Parliamentary Commission on whether an American invention deserved any notice at all, and the particular American invention was a telephone. And when asked whether Alexander Bell’s invention would be “of any use in Great Britain?”, he replied! “No, Sir, the Americans have need of a telephone but we do not, we have plenty of messenger boys.”

    My more cynical advisers say to me; why not leave the image like that, let our American friends see us as still living in the Remains of the Day while we get on with running Brooks Brothers, Burger King or BP, making your shirts, grilling your burgers, pumping your gas, all by British companies.

    But I do not wish to do that because I wish the image of my country to match up with the reality of the changes in my country and Britain has changed out of all recognition in the past 15 years and it is changing again, and again at speed in the 1990s. So let me just try in the next few minutes to change a few perceptions and perhaps remove a few misconceptions, because the companies from over there are doing rather well over here.

    American figures show that British companies invested over 7 billion dollars in American business last year. We have 100 billion dollars worth of investments here in the United States and their exporters sell America 60 million dollars worth of goods each and every day of the year.

    Like you, we in Britain have come through a recession, but we have come out stronger than we were before. In manufacturing our productivity rose over 5.5 percent last year, our labour costs actually fell. Unemployment too has been falling, much earlier in the economic cycle than after the recession in the early 1980s.

    And this past year Britain’s economy has been growing twice as fast as forecast. And in the coming year, in the coming year we are again expecting the fastest growth rate among the main European countries.

    But what we are looking for is not just a fast growth rate for one year or two years, what I am seeking is sustained growth, not a single year of success, and that is what our policies are set to achieve in the 1990s. And in the quest for that sustained growth with low inflation we start now from very solid foundations. We have low inflation, we have a sound financial framework, an enterprise culture, a flexible labour market and above all an open economy, open to trade and open to competition.

    And let me expand on those virtues for just a moment. Last year our headline inflation rate dropped below 2 percent, our underlying rate is lower than we have seen for a generation. The inflation psychology, so damaging for so long to British interests, is at last in retreat and I intend to keep it that way.

    British industry has certainly got that message, there has been a crucial change in the workplace, Even in the 1980s wages continued to grow too fast, earnings never rose by less than 7.5 percent a year, even in years of no growth and recession. Today that has changed, today the figure is down to 3 percent, the lowest figure for a quarter of a century,

    And low inflation is important for many reasons, it has its own virtues and one of them I believe is that low inflation creates its own dynamic for investment and for growth, and because we have got inflation down and because the markets now know that it will stay low we have been able to cut interest rates from 15 percent to 5.25 percent in the last 4 years.

    In our recession borrowing by the government rose, with recovery it is beginning to come down again and we took some tough decisions in our budget to ensure that it will. But we have still managed to keep our direct tax rates low, they have helped over recent years to make Britain a magnet for enterprise and for investment, Our business taxes are the lowest in Europe, our labour reforms are the most far reaching in Europe. I wonder how many of you remember half-time Britain, how many of you remember strikes as the bane of our economy, But these days you do not see that problem, these days they have faded into history, today we have less industrial strikes than at any time this century.

    These are welcome changes but they are a platform upon which to build, they are not the be all and end all of what we are seeking. Because we still need more change, more change to sharpen our competitive edge, and that is why we are embarked on a fundamental review of all the factors affecting our ability to succeed in the global market place. Competitiveness is the key challenge for the 1990s and it is a challenge that the British welcome.

    Long-term competitiveness depends, above all, on the quality, the ability and the skills of the workforce, and for that reason education is at the top of our domestic agenda. When we are told, for example, and this is a statistic I do not like, when we are told that the average child in Singapore or Japan is 2 years ahead of their British or their American counterpart alarm bells should ring on both sides of the Atlantic, we have heard them in Britain loud and clear.

    So in Britain we are seeking to raise standards in our schools by developing a national curriculum and testing pupils’ attainment. Over the past decade we have doubled the number of young people going on to university. And over the three years immediately ahead of us, over those three years, we will treble the number of young people skilled as technicians, craftsmen and supervisors.

    These are continuing changes, let me tell you what they are aimed to produce. What we are working for is nothing less than the re-skilling of Britain for the 21st century, and when I set it out in that fashion l hope you can begin to see what I mean about the pace of change in the United Kingdom.

    We have taken exactly the same radical approach to science, to engineering and to technology. We are putting more into science and we are working to get more out of the science that now takes place and we are putting much more into supporting and assisting our export effort. Right here, for example, our “North America Now” campaign is an example of our new approach. We do not take our traditional markets for granted, we recognise that they have to be worked for and they have to be won, year after year after year after year in a world that is increasingly competitive.

    If we are to be competitive, increasingly competitive, as a nation, it is not just industry that must innovate, of course industry must innovate but on their own that is not sufficient, government must do so as well and that is why I have launched a 10 year programme of reform. In every service funded by the taxpayer we are publishing standards and league tables of performance, devolving decisions and bringing in competition. We are now opening up capital projects to private sector investment and expertise, not just tiny projects but great communications projects like the Channel Tunnel rail link or new motorways.

    There are huge opportunities here for national and for international investors in Britain in the years ahead. I believe that the days of monolithic government are over. The governments that will help their countries to be competitive will do less but they will do it better. All our government departments have been told to roll back the burden of regulation on business, if there is one British product I want to see less of it is our historical famous red tape, the sooner that can go the better it will be for all concerned.

    We look around and see remarkable changes in the world, not just in my country but elsewhere. Power and economics have become much more diffuse, more complex, more multinational. Trade, finance and technology have made national boundaries economically less absolute. Even if we wish to, and personally I do not, we cannot insulate old industries and old habits from global competition, we have to be as lean as the leanest, to work as hard as the hardest, to be at the cutting edge of learning and advance technology.

    It was put best I think by Professor Michael Porter of Harvard, let me quote to you for a moment what he said: “Innovation and up-grading result not from a comfortable home environment in which risks have been minimised but from pressure and challenge, from demanding home customers, from capable home-based suppliers, and most of all from local rivalry. The lesson to be learned is that competition works.” I am utterly sure that that is right.

    Britain and America share that commitment to open markets. It is never easy to do that in the face of political pressures and that is why we applauded so much the conclusion of the North American Free Trade Agreement, it did give America a moral leadership at a crucial time which enabled Mickey Kantor to build on the work that Carla Hills had done and to work with Leon Brittan together to drive through the most far reaching world trade deal in history.

    But that is I think a beginning, but not the end. Those tariff cuts need to be implemented and they need to be implemented fast. I agreed with President Clinton about that in our discussions in the last two days. And we agreed we should set an early target – 1 January 1995 – for bringing the GATT settlement into effect. There is much unfinished business, particularly on services, much still to be done to remove trade tensions.

    We understand and we share America’s impatience to see a freer flow of imports into Japan, we want to work for this within the GATT framework in which all countries take part. We must find a way of working together to open Japanese markets. Britain and American business, we can encourage the Japanese business community to support the forces of change in that country.

    We in Britain have long been the spearhead of a new European relationship with Japan, we have been open to Japanese investment and that investment has triggered a revolution in technology, management, skills and industrial relations in the United Kingdom. And what America for a long time, and Japan more recently, have both realised is that Britain is the ideal base for operations in Europe. It is no accident that nearly 40 percent of all United States investment in Europe comes to Britain and we intend to keep it that way.

    So that fight for competitiveness shapes our approach to Europe. There are still some, I fear too many, too many in Europe who wish to see it remain a narrow club, one which turns its back on the competitive challenge. I have said frankly to my European partners, and I repeat it here today, much of Europe is over-regulated, that costs jobs, there are people unemployed in Europe who would not be unemployed but for the burden of regulation in Europe over the last decade.

    And how could it be otherwise when businessmen calculate that social costs represent nearly 50 percent of the average wage bill in say Germany or France. That is twice the burden carried by employers here in the United States or in Japan. In Britain we have kept much closer to your levels and while in continental Europe the dole queues grow longer, our unemployment has been falling.

    We have said “No” firmly and finally to yet more social regulation and we will go on saying “No”. And it is not just an economic point, I think it goes beyond that. I believe it is morally wrong to give more support to people in work when doing so gives people out of work even less chance of getting a job in the future. The need for flexibility is a message I believe that Britain and the United States can jointly bring to the G7 job summit next month.

    In Europe I believe that our arguments are gaining ground. We will remain in Europe at the centre of the debate, working for a new Europe that is open, wider, prosperous and peaceful. I believe that opening our doors to new members is essential to those aims. The progress of European Union membership underpinned democracy in Spain and Portugal in the 1970s, it is now the best hope of future peace and prosperity in central and Eastern Europe.

    Mr Chairman, ancient hostilities still lie close beneath the surface of the new Europe. In the former Yugoslavia, as we see daily, they have broken through into tragedy. Every day on our television screens we see their effects in Bosnia. For the past 18 months or so, 2,500 of our troops have served bravely in the most difficult and the most dangerous part of Bosnia, thousands of people are alive today who would otherwise have died from hunger and privation because of their efforts.

    I have agreed this morning with President Clinton that Britain and the United States will take joint action to build on the Sarajevo ceasefire, we have agreed to send a joint British/American planning mission to see how we can help restore public utilities there, we are both encouraging the United Nations to take action on Tuzla and Srebrenica and to develop plans for the other besieged towns; we both believe in the firm action taken just the other day to enforce the No Fly Zone and to protect United States forces; and Britain is supporting the American-led diplomatic initiative to seek agreement between Bosnia’s Croats and Muslims. Strong, coordinated international action has brought a small glimmer of hope in Sarajevo. To develop a wider peace will be enormously difficult but if our two countries with other international partners can strengthen the hand of the United Nations we may yet turn the corner in Bosnia and that must be the aim for us all.

    Mr. Chairman, even in the United Kingdom we are not free from ancient enmities. I know that very many Americans care passionately about Northern Ireland; so, let me tell you, do I.

    I want to see peace in Northern Ireland, not just a ceasefire, not just a temporary peace but a permanent, long-term peace that can give the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to plan for the long-term future without the disruption and mayhem that they have had to suffer so consistently in the last quarter of a century.

    I believe we took a large step forward in December when the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds, and I signed our Joint Declaration. Our initiative calls for a permanent end to violence and offers Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing, an open highway to democratic life. It is there for them to take. The British and Irish governments, whose positions used to be so far apart, have united behind a common set of principles.

    Our Declaration has received overwhelming support. Last weekend, a poll of opinion indicated that over 90% of the people throughout the whole of the island of Ireland want Sinn Fein to seize the opportunity and renounce violence and yet they still continue to hold back from the peace process and perpetuate violence. There have been 17 attacks on the security forces since the Declaration.

    Lest anyone present should be unfamiliar with the realities of terrorism in Northern Ireland, let me give you just two statistics: the number of people killed in Northern Ireland last year by terrorists – 84; the number of people killed by the security forces – none. I hope that Sinn Fein can yet be persuaded to end violence and I believe that the strong support for peace coming from America can play an important part in this but in the meantime the British and the Irish governments will continue to work with the constitutional parties for a lasting political settlement and those constitutional parties represent 90% of the people of Northern Ireland.

    I know that across America there are many people – businessmen, churchmen – who would like to help in the cause of peace. You can help. The business community in particular can help by investing in Northern Ireland and providing new jobs. As I have seen for myself on many occasions in factory visits in Northern Ireland, investors in Northern Ireland have chalked up a string of successes and just before I left the United Kingdom for this visit the leaders of the four main churches in Ireland called to see me in Downing Street. They wanted my support for their call for fair employment and investment in Northern Ireland and they got it wholly and unequivocally. I warmly endorse that appeal and I know that it is supported by the church leaders here in the United States as well. That investment will play its part in providing jobs across different religious instincts in Northern Ireland and will play an important part in promoting peace.

    Mr. Chairman, change – difficult, demanding change – that has been the theme of everything I have had to say to you in the last few minutes. Technology has shrunk the world and calls for it to move and change at an ever faster pace. It has created a global financial market that never sleeps; it has made it feasible to design products in one corner of the world, manufacture them in another, assemble them in a third and sell them in a fourth; it has placed a higher premium than ever before on competitiveness. I won’t waste your time with cosy reminders of old friendships between our nations. Those friendships are part of our history and I believe part of our future as well but you who work at the sharp edge of our trading relationship know the realities of the market place: we work together when it is to our mutual advantage, we compete when it is not but we share an agenda for open markets, a healthy respect for successful competitors, an appetite for change. Mr. Chairman, in my belief those are the true guarantees of closeness and mutual esteem in the challenging years ahead. I have no doubt of our business and trading relationship; it is good and it will get better because of our shared interests, our shared instincts and our shared beliefs. [Applause].

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, exactly how strong do you expect the British economic recovery to be in 1994 and 1995? Specifically, Sir, can you tell us how much do you expect the GDP to grow and how much do you expect unemployment to decline?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take those two points absolutely directly:

    In the current year, we think GDP growth will be around 2.5%. That is a Treasury forecast, we see no reason to believe it will be less, certainly we would expect to reach 2.5%. It will be a little higher, we believe, the year after.

    The recovery is steady and spreading. It is not sensational but it looks secure and steady and it looks as though it is going to grow. Over the past year, we have had unemployment falls in ten out of the last twelve months, rather earlier as I said a moment ago in the economic cycle than on previous occasions. We tend not to forecast the future of unemployment. I can only say that it does look as though the trend is downwards, how sharply I think it is difficult, to be frank, to make an honest judgement about but I think we will see a continuing decline in unemployment throughout this year and I believe throughout next as well.

    QUESTION:

    When, Mr. Prime Minister, do you anticipate that there will be true peace in Northern Ireland and what specific steps can the US Government take to contribute to bringing about that peace?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The sooner the better, frankly. After 300 years it is a long time for people to realise that they can’t all sit in entrenched positions. There is a great will for peace in Northern Ireland, that is what has changed in the last few years. That will is manifestly there and those who dissent from that are being forced to the edges of debate on either side. How soon the peace will come, I would be very unwise to forecast. I believe there is every chance that it will come. The prospects for that are better I believe that we have seen for very many years. There will be setbacks. Nobody should imagine that it is going to roll gently ahead to a solution. Of course there will be setbacks, it is that sort of patchwork in Northern Ireland but I believe we are in a better position to try and secure it than we have had before though I would be very unwise to put a time frame on it.

    As to what can be done from here, I believe the repeated and unequivocal support for the Joint Declaration that we have had from the United States Administration is immensely helpful. I believe allied to that the point I made a few moments ago about investment in Northern Ireland is immensely helpful. That isn’t just a plea for investment for the sake of jobs; it is because it genuinely does make a contribution in bringing the community together. Increasingly, the fresh investment and the fresh employers are bringing the community together by employing both Protestants and Catholics. It has a much wider impact than many people externally may imagine and it is very warmly welcomed not just by the churches but by every part of opinion in the Province.

    QUESTION:

    What were the significant trade and economic issues that you raised in your talks with President Clinton and what was his response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were two really. The first was to look at the GATT deal. The GATT deal is a very remarkable deal. I think it is often not appreciated what a tremendous breakthrough it has been. It is infinitely the biggest and widest trade deal that the world has ever seen. It has brought whole sectors like agriculture into the GATT framework where previously they were outside. It is a remarkable innovation that GATT deal and it will become increasingly apparent I believe as year succeeds year that that is the case.

    We discussed bringing forward the implementation of GATT if it can be done. It is not of course at the gift of the United States or the United Kingdom governments but we will lobby and encourage others to bring the implementation date for GATT forward to 1 January 1995. That is the first of the issues we discussed.

    We discussed a range of issues to do with open markets and in particular the problems with Japan that I mentioned a moment ago. I won’t reiterate the points I made in my speech except to say that there is a wish I think across the industrialised West to see Japan accelerate the opening of her markets. There has been some movement and everyone is pleased about that but there is a very long way to go and we took the opportunity of discussing how we might assist in the opening of those markets.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, what is your appraisal as to how well or poorly progress toward a true Common Market is going now? Do you have any plans for re-entering the European Monetary System and what are the prospects for European Monetary Union by, say, the year 2000 and carrying on from that, referring to your remarks in the speech, in terms of opening the doors of the European Union to new members, which new members?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me take the last point first. We are in the last stages of negotiation with the EFTAN states Austria, Norway, Finland and Sweden and our expectation is, providing those negotiations are satisfactorily concluded, that they will enter the European Union within the next eighteen months or so – they will be very welcome.

    At the moment, the Community is a fragment of Europe, it is not truly a European Community. Beyond that and on a longer time-scale, we wish to see the Visegrad countries enter; they won’t do so until they are economically ready. That is clearly some years ahead. In the meantime, we will try and negotiate trade and cooperation agreements with them and seek to progressively open our markets to their exports but to bring them into the Community too soon would neither help the Community nor help those particular states for they would not be economically ready for the competition within the Community.

    As to how true a Common Market it is, truer today than it has been in the past. The Single Market has made a big difference. I wouldn’t pretend that it is perfect. There is just occasionally room for doubt as to how clearly all the regulations of the Community are enforced in some member countries. I put the point delicately here, I put it less delicately elsewhere so to that extent it isn’t a true Common Market and there is certainly more to be done.

    We have no immediate plans to return to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The likelihood of us returning in this Parliament think is minimal. I don’t believe that will happen.

    As far as Economic Union is concerned, by which I take it you mean moving beyond the Exchange Rate Mechanism to a single currency right the way across the European Community, there are very sharply differing views in the Community about the desirability of that and how speedily it can be brought about so the views I express you must accept as my views and that there would be widely differing views from other quarters.

    I don’t believe we will move to Monetary Union speedily and I don’t believe so because I don’t believe that the economic conditions right the way across the European Union will be appropriate for us to do so. If we were to attempt a single currency without a proper coordination of economies, I think we would give rise to very substantial structural unemployment in the southern states of Europe and as a result of that a political imperative for massive resource transfers from the north of Europe to the south. That would be politically impossible for the northern states, German, France and Britain, to persuade their electors to make so I believe on economic grounds that European Monetary Union ought to be treated very carefully and I do not myself believe that the economic circumstances to bring it about are likely to be there in the next few years. Others disagree but quite apart from the political and other arguments, economically early Monetary Union seems to me to be a folly we should avoid. [Applause].

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, finally, can you give us your views please on the prospects for peace in the former Yugoslavia and as a corollary to that what do you see as the future role of NATO and the specific British and specific US involvement in NATO? Do you think that NATO should take a more activist, armed role in policing the trouble spots of Europe or of the rest of the world?

    Do you see the entry of NATO forces into the Bosnian War as a precursor to a more activist NATO policy or is this just an isolated, perhaps one-time case?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO is changing at the moment. The nature of the Alliance is changing. I think it was set out perhaps most vividly in the Partnership for Peace agreements that were reached at the recent NATO summit and the plans for combined joint task forces that are now being examined and implemented at the present time.

    I think that does imply that NATO will become progressively more activist. Whether it will become dramatically more activist in the short-term I think is open to doubt but where there is a need for some intervention in a trouble spot around the world, frankly I see no other body other than NATO that would be remotely competent to undertake that role so although it has particular problems for the main contributors to NATO, I do believe over time it will increasingly become more activist.

    One sees this to a point of course in Yugoslavia with the decision being taken to enforce a no-fly zone, a Security Council Resolution passed very nearly a year ago that it was necessary to implement just a day or so ago and of course there are a substantial number of troops from NATO nations on the ground in Bosnia at the present stage.

    I wish I could tell you what the answer is to your first question about peace in Bosnia. I fear I can’t. What it does seem to me is that the present position is this:

    There are two strands towards bringing this frightful conflict to a conclusion. The first is the political process and the advances made over the last 48 hours in Washington with the negotiations with the Muslims and the Croats certainly are very welcome. I think that offers a glimmer of hope and I hope we can build on it and persuade the Serbs also to make political advances.

    The second element is what is physically happening on the ground. What happened in Sarajevo was a very remarkable exercise. The commander on the ground, General Rose, negotiated a ceasefire and agreed that the heavy weapons in the area would be corralled and effectively policed by United Nations troops. That, with the impact of the ultimatum and also I think the impact of the Russian involvement, meant that that was a very successful enterprise indeed.

    There are differing views about whether Russia should be involved and to what extent. I take the view very strongly that Russia does need to be involved and that we wish Russia to use her influence on the Serbs just as we wish the United States and the European Union to use their influence upon other combatants. That, I believe, is the way that we will move more speedily towards a settlement.

    There is a glimmer of hope now. We have seen it before and it has slipped and faded away. Agreements that were made have often been dishonoured almost before the ink is dry on the agreement so no-one can be certain that we are on a pathway to peace. I do believe the prospects are better now than they have been because of the success of Sarajevo and because of the success of the talks in Washington over the last few days.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Clinton – 28 February 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Clinton, held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on 28th February 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, do you think granting a visa to Gerry Adams paid off in terms of progress toward peace in Northern Ireland?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    It’s too soon to say. I’m supporting, very strongly supporting the initiative that Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Reynolds have undertaken in the joint declaration. I hope it will. It’s too soon to say. I’m pulling for them.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, you obviously saw it differently, or your government did, as far as Adams. — this weekend, Sinn Fein has not indicated any willingness to call for an end to the arms struggle. What is your reaction to that and what is the President’s reaction?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we both want the violence to cease. That’s what the joint declaration is about. It provides an opportunity for the violence to cease and for Sinn Fein to legitimately enter the constitutional talks. Now, I think that is a sensible way ahead. It’s a highway ahead that wasn’t there before. It is there now. And I think when you look at the opinion expressed by Irishmen right across the whole island of Ireland, by an overwhelming majority, they believe that that option should be taken. You have to wait and see whether it is.

    Thank you.

    QUESTION:

    Do you like that, Mr. President? [referring to the microphone]

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I wish there were a hunting season on these. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m going to wake up one morning and there will be one of those things on the pillow. [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    And what will you say? [Laughter].

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Whatever it is, it will be known to all of England. [Laughter]. That’s what I — I told the press once that there had been this raging debate for 12 years in America over the constitutional right to privacy and what it meant, whether we should keep it and what it should extend to, and all while, the boom mike had been abolishing it with no one noticing. [Laughter].

  • Mr Major’s Arrival Statement with President Clinton – 28 February 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s arrival statement in Pittsburgh, with the US President Bill Clinton, on Monday 28th February 1994.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Thank you very much, Senator Wofford, Congressman Coyne, Mayor Murphy, Commissioners Foster and Flaherty and my friends, I am glad to be back in Pittsburgh and I want to thank the band for their wonderful music and the scouts for your fine salute and your fine work, thank you, and I want you to join me in welcoming Prime Minister John Major back to the United States of America. [Applause].

    You know, it is funny how this trip came about. Last July, in Tokyo of all places, John Major and I were sitting around at night talking and he said: “You know, my grandfather worked in the steel mills at Pittsburgh and my father lived and worked there a while in the late 1800s before moving back to England!” so I thought the next time John Major came to the United States he ought to see America and come to Pittsburgh. [Applause].

    I want to emphasise to all of you here in the heartland of America how important the relationship between the United States and Great Britain is. We work together to support reform in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, in Russia and in all those other former communist states to try to give democracy a chance. We work together for a new world trade agreement, to bring down trade barriers and open world markets to the products that American workers make. We work together to make NATO stronger and more adaptable, to reach out to all those nations in the former communist world and give them a chance to work with us to unify Europe in peace and democracy in ways that will make America a safer and more prosperous place for decades to come. We are working together today to respond to the terrible tragedy in Bosnia, to try to bring an end to the killing and to bring peace and to keep that conflict from spreading in ways that could threaten the interests of the United States and Great Britain as well as the conscience of the civilised world. [Applause].

    We do have a great partnership as Senator Wofford noted right here in Pittsburgh between British Air and US Air [Applause]; it has been a good thing for the people of this town. Tomorrow, we will have a chance to talk about that and talk about some of the other tough issues that we face: the state of reform in Russia; the Prime Minister and I have both been in Moscow in the last couple of months. A struggle over the future of reform in Russia is under way, we have a vital stake in the outcome. We have to continue to encourage democracy, respect for neighbours and real economic reform in that country, it is in your interests and mine.

    We also hope we can continue to press for peace in Bosnia. Britain is the second-largest contributor to the United Nations troop effort in Bosnia and over the last years I want to say to all of you that the British have saved thousands of innocent civilians’ lives there by their presence. [Applause]. We intend to continue working with them until we get a just and fair peace in Bosnia.

    We are going to discuss what we want to do with NATO, we are going to discuss the political courage and the vision shown by Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Reynolds of Ireland in working for peace in Northern Ireland together. [Applause]. Their historic Joint Declaration offers new hope for that goal of peace and as the President of this country, a country full of Americans of British descent and full of Americans of Irish descent, I again urge an end to the use of violence as a means of solving political problems and achieving political aims – it has no place in that effort. [Applause].

    The next time I see John Major after this trip I will be visiting Britain in June to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D-Day and to affirm for a new generation of Britons and Americans the importance of our enduring partnership. We must continue to build on it economically, politically, strategically. We have benefited immensely from our ties to Britain and they have benefited from their ties to us. we are working together in ways that I think will benefit children in this audience. The agreement on world trade concluded at the end of last year is perhaps the most concrete recent example of what we are trying to do for future generations.

    In the months and years ahead, we will have to continue to work on our issues of common concern. Not very long from now, we are going to have a jobs conference with Great Britain and other European powers in Detroit to discuss the difficulties that the United States and all the powers of Europe and Japan are all having in creating new jobs in this difficult global environment and what things we can learn from each other to create more opportunities for all of our people.

    Now I am going to introduce the Prime Minister and say after he speaks we are going to look around Pittsburgh. [Applause]. When John Major’s father and grandfather were here, this city was the heart of America’s industrial might. Today, it is the centre of its high technology and economic innovation; it is a city of the future as well as a city of the past [Applause] and so in the spirit of renewal that is the story of Pittsburgh today, I ask you to join me in reaffirming the bonds between the American and the British people in welcoming to the microphone the Prime Minister of Great Britain, John Major. [Applause].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Mr. President, Mr. Senator, Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    The President told you most of the story of how I came to be here this evening. It is perfectly true that we were discussing the matter at the G7 summit in Tokyo late at night, we were relaxed. The conversation went pretty much as the President said but think the critical factor he didn’t mention was that it was the second whisky that did it [Laughter] and I am jolly glad we had it because I am delighted to be here. [Applause].

    “Come and have a look at a bit of Pittsburgh!” said the President, “Come and see a bit of real America!” and here I am. [Applause]. It may be my first time here but Pittsburgh way back from its inception has had some pretty close connections with the British, Indeed, its very name after one of our greatest prime ministers is the clearest possible illustration of the longstanding relationship between my nation and your nation. And then of course, as the President said, as the Senator said, there is this remarkable airport, a pioneering retail operation managed by the British Airports Authority and a relationship that has worked extremely well.

    The President mentioned some personal connections. I know those only by family repute, the stories that have come down from my grandfather through my father to my brother and my sister and myself as small children many years ago, stories of how my father remembers my grandfather being here working in the Carnegie steel plant way back in the 1860s and 1870s and how my father spent a period of his youth here. Heaven alone knows where. He spoke of the place with great affection but he didn’t indicate precisely where it was.
    More recently in those connections between Pittsburgh and the United Kingdom I would like to express my thanks to the remarkable surgeons, doctors and nurses of the Pittsburgh Children’s Hospital. [Applause]. Not all that long ago, they treated a sick young English child in a way that no other hospital around the world could have done and I have to say to you when they did that they caught the heart of my nation and they haven’t let go of it since. [Applause].

    So this seems to me a pretty fitting place for our discussions this evening and then on our way back to the White House later on this evening. There is a lot to discuss. I won’t reiterate the agenda that the President set out. There is a great deal of common interest that exists between our two countries and a great deal that we will wish to talk about that will affect our future, your future and the future of people in other countries around the world; a huge array of business and personal contacts that bind the British and the American people together.

    The President spoke of Bosnia. We are agreed on Bosnia that firm action is right and we will be looking to see how we can increase the pressure for the peace that every sensible person wishes to see in that war-torn and troubled land [Applause] and we will be looking to see what we can do to try and play our part in ensuring that Russia is able to carry its reform programme forward. A Russia that is a good neighbour to the United States and the West would be one of the finest things that this generation could hand down to the next and something that we all care passionately about achieving.

    Earlier today, we sent a joint message to South Africa, to Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi who are holding a crucial meeting tomorrow that may have great importance as the South Africans move towards their first multi-racial elections [Applause] and I think we might spend a bit of time talking as well about how to open up world trade even further and even faster because that is what is going to improve your living standards, the living standards of my people back home and other people all around the world. [Applause].

    So although I am looking forward first to seeing just a bit of your great city, we have got a lot to discuss tonight and a lot to discuss tomorrow and when we finish it, I will be able to look forward to my next meeting with the President at Chequers and perhaps at Oxford and certainly in the United Kingdom for the D-Day celebration in the middle of the year. I can tell you that when he comes over to the United Kingdom the President of the United States will be very welcome indeed. I look forward to returning the hospitality that you are giving me this evening. [Applause].

  • PMQT Written Answers – 25 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 25th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Kashmir

    Mr. Pike : To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had in the last six months regarding Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister : I discussed Kashmir at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in October with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. We regularly raise Kashmir in our discussions with the Indian and Pakistan Governments.

     

    Arms Supplies (Iraq)

    Mr. Kaufman : To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to ascertain who drew up the original draft of the letter about arms supplies to Iraq that he sent to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 17 February 1992 and who made deletions in that draft to alter it to the form in which the Prime Minister sent the aforesaid letter to the right hon. Member; what explanation he has received for the deletions; and what action he intends to take (a) in regard to responsibility for the deletions and (b) in regard to writing to the aforesaid right hon. Member to correct the false impression that he now acknowledges his letter gave.

    The Prime Minister : My Office has supplied Lord Justice Scott’s inquiry with the further information he requested. The issues arising are a matter for Lord Justice Scott. As will be apparent from my evidence to the inquiry, I do not accept that my letter to the right hon. Gentleman was misleading.

     

    Public Appointments

    Dr. Wright : To ask the Prime Minister which public appointments are handled by the No. 10 appointments secretary.

    The Prime Minister : My appointments secretary assists me over a range of appointments in Church and state for which I am responsible, particularly those where the appointment is made by Her Majesty the Queen on my advice.

     

    New Year’s Honours List

    Mr. Bayley : To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a list of the people included in this year’s new year’s honours list with their place of residence by standard region and their occupation.

    The Prime Minister : No. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

     

    British Empire Forces

    Mr. Mackinlay : To ask the Prime Minister where the records of all the soldiers of the British empire forces, who were sentenced to death during the first world war but whose sentences were subsequently commuted, are located; and if he will now arrange for them to be made available in the Public Record Office.

    The Prime Minister : The courts martial records of British service men who were sentenced to death during the first world war but whose sentences were subsequently commuted have regrettably not survived. The available evidence suggests they were lost when a German bomb hit the main war office and Army repository in 1940.

    The availability of the courts martial records of other British empire forces is a matter that should be pursued with each of the countries concerned.

     

    Government Successes (Criteria)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister what are the criteria by which Her Majesty’s Government will measure their success in 1994 Official Report, column 849 .

    The Prime Minister : By the success of our policies in all areas of national life.

     

    Back to Basics

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving details of the Government’s “back to basics” policy.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 January 1994 Official Report, column 849

     

    Ministers (Unsuitability for Office)

    Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the circumstances which render Ministers unsuitable to retain office.

    The Prime Minister : There can be a variety of circumstances but the main criterion should be whether the Minister can continue to perform the duties of office effectively.

     

    Engagements

    Sir Peter Tapsell : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.

    Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 January.

    The Prime Minister : 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.

     

    Iraq

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister if, when he next meets President Clinton, he will discuss the report of the Harvard medical school team on child malnutrition and disease in Iraq.

    The Prime Minister : I expect to meet President Clinton during my visit to Washington at the end of February. The situation in Iraq may come up in our talks then. However, United Kingdom and United States officials are in regular touch over Iraq, including the humanitarian situation.

    I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 January Official Report, column 814 .

     

    Health Promotion, Wales

    Mr. Morgan : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to place in the Library a copy of his efficiency unit’s efficiency scrutiny of the delivery of health promotion in Wales.

    The Prime Minister : Copies of the efficiency scrutiny of health promotion in Wales were placed in the Library of the House on 1 April 1993.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels – 12 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels on 12th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the NATO summit in Brussels, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

    On 10 January, the summit launched the “partnership for peace” programme with a framework document and an invitation to 22 states to participate. On 11 January, it issued a declaration. These documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

    NATO summits are not held routinely, but only for a specific purpose. This was only the 11th summit in 35 years. It met to carry forward the post-cold war evolution of NATO which began at the 1991 Rome summit.

    NATO’s core function is to ensure the security of its member states. It has been by far the most successful collective security organisation in history, and it was agreed that the alliance will continue to be the cornerstone of post-war European security. As this was the first summit attended by President Clinton and Prime Minister Chretien of Canada, a key objective was to renew the transatlantic relationship. President Clinton’s affirmation that the core of American security remained with Europe received a warm welcome. He confirmed his commitment to keep around 100,000 United States troops in Europe.

    Over the past five years, new democracies have been born to the east. A pre-eminent challenge for NATO is to develop its relations with those countries in ways which will enhance stability across the whole of Europe. There must be no new dividing line, no new antagonistic blocs. The “partnership for peace” programme is an imaginative response to that challenge. All states which were once within the Warsaw pact have been invited to join, and NATO may also invite other states within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

    The aim of the partnership is to bring Europe together by building practical military co-operation between nations in ways that reflect their different aspirations and capabilities. That could include joint exercises in peacekeeping, search and rescue or humanitarian operations ; it could include joint military planning, exchanges on defence budgeting and the democratic control of armed forces. Each partner will draw up with NATO an agreed partnership programme tailored to that particular relationship. Partnership will be an evolutionary process, and it will bring all partners closer to NATO. The summit has thus opened a clear perspective of the enlargement of the alliance. It is too soon to determine which countries will be able to meet the obligations of membership or when, but there are obviously strong candidates in the democracies of central and eastern Europe.

    A second challenge for the summit was to improve the alliance’s ability to mount new humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. During the cold war, NATO’s military structures were based predominantly on static regional commands and large-scale formations. Experience in recent years in the Gulf and in Bosnia has shown the importance of flexibility and of mobility.

    The summit endorsed the new concept of combined joint task forces. They will improve NATO’s capability to deploy task forces inside or outside the NATO area, but, because they will be available for purely and predominantly European operations, the combined joint task forces could also meet the requirements of the European security and defence identity. They will strengthen the European role within NATO without detracting from its transatlantic character.

    Partnership for peace and the combined joint task forces are changes of fundamental significance. The alliance will now begin to implement them. The summit discussed other important issues. It supported efforts by the United Nations and the European Union to secure a negotiated settlement in Bosnia. We discussed the recent intense fighting in Sarajevo. We reaffirmed our readiness, under the decisions taken last August, to carry out air strikes to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.

    We also considered ways to solve two other current problems. The United Nations command in Bosnia has recently been prevented from rotating the United Nations Protection Force contingent in Srebrenica and from using Tuzla airport. On a proposal from the United Kingdom and France, the summit asked UNPROFOR to draw up plans for the Netherlands contingent to take over from the Canadians in Srebrenica. We also decided to examine with UNPROFOR how Tuzla airport could be opened for humanitarian relief purposes.

    We would prefer not to have to use force, but those who are impeding UNPROFOR at Srebrenica and Tuzla must realise that force is available, if necessary, to support UNPROFOR and its ability to protect relief efforts.

    In all our discussions, we were conscious of the importance of closer relationships with Russia’s democratic leaders. Russia has a huge contribution to make to stability and to efforts to resolve international problems. I hope that the Russian Government will take up the invitation to partnership with the alliance. If they do, it will be another way in which we can enhance our support for reform and democracy in Russia.

    I should briefly describe individual meetings which I held during those two days. I met the Prime Minister of Turkey and welcomed her country’s continuing support for Operation Provide Comfort in Iraq. Mrs. Ciller expressed her commitment to settlement of the Cyprus problem, which is long overdue.

    I focused on Bosnia in my meeting with the French Prime Minister. We decided to call for the action in connection with Srebrenica and Tuzla which I have described. With the German Chancellor and the Italian Prime Minister, I discussed developments in Europe and further efforts to enhance relations with Russia and to support reform there.

    I thanked President Clinton for his support concerning Northern Ireland. We welcomed the decisions taken about Bosnia, and looked ahead to our next meeting in Washington at the end of February. I had a long meeting with the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Joulwan, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Sir Richard Vincent, and other senior NATO officers. We examined how “partnership for peace” would be put into effect, and the way in which the combined joint task forces would be set up.

    It was a timely summit. It has reaffirmed northern America’s commitment to Europe, and has shown that the allies stand closely together in maintaining their collective security. The summit has carried forward the modernisation of NATO’s military structures. It has launched a vital new initiative towards the east, opening the way to new relationships and new members. It has established the outward-looking character of the NATO of the 1990s, with a greater emphasis on operations in support of peace and humanitarian relief. I believe that the summit has successfully equipped the alliance to meet new challenges, and I commend its results to the House.

    Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East): We on this side of the House broadly welcome the declaration agreed by the North Atlantic Council yesterday in Brussels. We hope that it is the beginning of a process in which countries and institutions such as NATO seek to come to terms with the opportunities and challenges that result from the end of the cold war.

    I particularly welcome the general principles and direction of the “partnership for peace” concept. That offers the prospect of closer co- operation with former Warsaw pact countries, including Russia, and creates the circumstances for an expansion of NATO itself. Military co-operation designed to enhance mutual security is clearly desirable, particularly if it can be developed to encourage wider participation in United Nations peacekeeping efforts.

    However, may I suggest that the emphasis on military co-operation should be balanced by encouraging political developments within applicant countries? Ought not the criteria for involvement in “partnership for peace” and eventual NATO membership be expanded to include an effectively functioning multi-party democracy and an acceptable record on human rights, as well as strict civilian control of the military apparatus?

    On issues of arms control and disarmament, which were discussed at the council, we welcome the declaration’s stated commitment to the indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty, and are encouraged to see reference to the need for the negotiation of a universal and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty.

    Despite attempts by the British Government to continue nuclear testing, we welcome the US moratorium and similar action by France and Russia, which we hope will soon lead to a treaty being signed. Do the Government accept the target date of September 1996 for the successful negotiation of that vital treaty?

    Following the welcome agreement by the United States, Russia and Ukraine to destroy Ukraine’s nuclear weapons, will the British Government accelerate the promise made in 1992 to supply British-made nuclear weapons transporters to the Ukraine to help with the removal and to assist Russia in the disposal process?

    On the continuing and agonising situation in Bosnia, will the Prime Minister say whether the acceptance of the use of air strikes now is different from or stronger than the apparent commitment made last August, which resulted in no effective action or sustained improvement in the situation?

    Does the Prime Minister accept that repeated declarations that are not followed through risk undermining the credibility of both NATO and the whole UN operation, and only strengthen the hands of those who have become adept at defying the wishes of the international community? Will effective action now be taken to open the airport at Tuzla, allow the replacement of UNPROFOR forces in Srebrenica, and lift the siege of Sarajevo? Is it not wholly intolerable that a defenceless population in Sarajevo should be shelled so relentlessly and pitilessly? Was it not disgraceful that, during the so-called “Christmas truce”, Sarajevo was bombarded constantly?

    Finally, will the Prime Minister put an end to suggestions that British forces in Bosnia might be withdrawn once the winter is over? Do we not need a commitment to increase ground forces, as requested by the UN, to make a greater effort to bring some peace to Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister: First, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s general support for the declaration and the “partnership for peace” policy. I am sure that he is right to say that co-operation, both militarily and politically, with former Warsaw pact countries, including Russia, is vital to our own interests and security as well as to the development of democracy right across the continent of Europe.

    On political development and military co-operation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched particularly on human rights. I confirm that all countries entering NATO would need to be democracies and we shall certainly look at political developments, but not necessarily as an intrinsic part of the “partnership for peace” proposals. We shall be prepared to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as it is negotiated and settled, whether that is by September 1996 or some earlier, perhaps some later, date.

    Our offer to help the Ukraine with the removal of nuclear weapons has been there for some time. I do not immediately know whether it is practicable to accelerate it, but I have no objection in principle to doing so if that would be of assistance and if our assistance is required. The agreement reached between Presidents Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk, if carried through, is a remarkable advance in the reduction of nuclear weapons and I very much hope that it will be adequately carried out. To have nuclear weapons removed from Ukraine would be a great bonus.

    The declaration on the general level of air strikes as regards Sarajevo was a reiteration of what was suggested on 2 and 9 August. Of course, the practical decisions for that should not be made by politicians some distance away, but should best be made upon the advice of troop commanders near at hand. It is predominantly upon their advice that it would be right for NATO leaders to act. Reservations have been expressed by troop commanders from time to time, and we would be very unwise to sweep those to one side. It was determined that, in the light of advice that we might receive, the agreement in principle for military strikes exists. What is different in this particular declaration is that the two specific cases of Srebrenica and Tuzla are included under the broad umbrella. The position in Srebrenica is that the Canadian troops can probably come out–that is certainly possible–but it is not possible at the moment for the Dutch troops to get in.

    It is intolerable when UNPROFOR troops are inhibited from getting into Srebrenica to carry out the necessary humanitarian work. To be strictly correct in relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, Tuzla airport is technically open. The problem lies around the airport, because there is a danger of incoming aircraft being attacked. It is not immediately evident precisely what needs to be done on the ground.

    It is for that reason that the commanders are finalising the plans that they commenced some time ago with the determination to ensure that Tuzla airport is open–

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): When?

    The Prime Minister: As soon as possible. It should be open to assist the humanitarian relief. The right hon. Gentleman may shout, “When?”, but, yet again, if we are wise, we will not issue such casual edicts from afar, but will seek the advice of the military commanders on the spot. That is what we are committed to doing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the withdrawal of troops from Bosnia. We have committed ourselves to assist with humanitarian aid, and I must tell the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, at this stage, I am not prepared to extend that commitment until I am certain of the security of British troops working for the United Nations there. I have consistently taken that position, and it is also taken by the Heads of other Governments who have troops on the ground in Bosnia. Despite the remarkable work that they have done for humanitarian reasons, our first concern must be the security of the United Nations troops, and in particular those of our own country.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): If air strikes are authorised, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that contingency plans are in place to prevent British troops and United Nations troops from being sucked in to the conflict in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is part of the UNPROFOR determination to discuss with troop commanders on the ground the current position. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise why I do not go into details of what might have to happen in those circumstances, but I reiterate that the security of our troops would be given the very highest priority of all. The Secretary-General of the United Nations would have to approve air action by NATO on behalf of United Nations troops.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that the future peace and stability of Europe depend on upholding the principle of national integrity of borders, especially in volatile areas such as the new democracies of eastern Europe? If NATO, for very good reasons, has to treat the matter gradually, is there not a case for Europe and the Western European Union to be a little more bold? Specifically, does the Prime Minister accept that the WEU has a role to strengthen and complement NATO’s actions in creating a framework for peace in Europe?

    On Bosnia, does the Prime Minister recognise that, as he has been warned on many occasions, the bottom line credibility of the United Nations operation in Bosnia is now at risk? As President Clinton said, if we cannot show the determination to deliver our promises, we should not make promises. In that context, is not the opening of Tuzla airport central to that credibility? If the Prime Minister will not say exactly when that airport will be opened, will he at least give us an indication of the time scale in which he expects it to happen?

    The Prime Minister: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that the last part of his question was unreal. It does depend on what is happening on the ground and on the advice that we get from the troop commanders there.

    As for not making promises unless we can keep them, we have been very careful about promises we make unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has been shifting and manoeuvring throughout this whole operation, advocating everything from all-out war to, apparently, pulling out immediately. His opinions seem to have been moving rapidly on an escalator, so I fear that I am in no mood to accept lectures from him about Yugoslavia.

    On the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, there are practical reasons for adopting, and it is right in principle to adopt, an evolutionary approach to the possible extension of the NATO alliance. Of course the WEU has a role ; that is partly why we have combined task forces. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Western European Union also has a role as part of the European defence identity and as the European pillar of the NATO alliance. That is most certainly true, and it will remain so.

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster): I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurance about the priority given to the security of British and other United Nations forces in Bosnia. I also welcome the cautious approach that he and his colleagues have adopted towards the evolutionary process of bringing the former Warsaw pact countries under the NATO umbrella.

    May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about Cyprus? He said that he met the Turkish Prime Minister and obtained assurances from the Turks that they seek a peaceful solution. Will he also approach the Greek leadership and ensure that the Greeks do not adopt too aggressive a stance in attempts to reach that peaceful solution?

    The Prime Minister: On the latter point, the straight answer is yes : most certainly. That is a matter that we regularly discuss with the Governments of Greece and Turkey. What was encouraging in my discussions with Mrs. Ciller was her belief that the confidence-building measures were a proper basis for continuing discussions now that elections in the northern part of Cyprus are concluded. I hope that, under the aegis of the United Nations, it will be possible to move much closer to a settlement.

    This dispute has gone on for far too long. United Nations troops have been in Cyprus far too long, and I think that there is impatience on all sides that people should move towards a proper settlement of what we have for too long known as the Cyprus problem. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks about an evolutionary approach to the extension of NATO. I am sure that such an approach is right. For example, once a country enters the NATO alliance, it undertakes an inviolable commitment to defend the security of NATO’s borders.

    There has been a British Army on the Rhine for 25 years. Once NATO is extended, it is conceivable that, at some stage, there will be a NATO army, not on the Rhine but on the Vistula. We need to be careful about extending NATO; it must be done in an evolutionary fashion. That is right in principle, and desirable in terms of the practical way in which NATO should develop.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given his office notice? Are his NATO colleagues at ease about the continuing sanctions and actions against Libya, given the evidence from Edwin Bollier, the Swiss manufacturer of the timing mechanisms that were so crucial to the Lockerbie crime, and the evidence of his engineer, Ulrich Lumpert? Is it true that Lumpert’s evidence was given to the Scottish police three years ago?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his question about the Lockerbie bombing. Sanctions against Libya were not the subject of discussion at the summit. As the hon. Gentleman has said, new evidence has been reported in the press, casting doubt on Libyan complicity, but after five years, the inquiry into the bombing has not revealed any evidence that implicates any country besides Libya.

    Recent press reports notwithstanding, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains convinced that the evidence still justifies the warrants issued for the arrest of the two Lockerbie suspects. The inquiry remains open; if anyone has new evidence pertinent to the case, he should pass it to the investigating authorities without delay. But there seems no doubt at the moment that it is right for the two warrants to stand.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the accepted or agreed new stronger line against Serbian obstruction of humanitarian aid in Bosnia is welcome, provided that the operations are carefully limited, and that it does not lead to any uncontrolled escalation of outside troop involvement in the area? On the question of NATO expansion, did my right hon. Friend note the comment by the President of Poland, Lech Walesa, a few days ago that it would be a tragedy if Poland and other western and central European countries were not brought by some firm date into a new European security alliance of some kind? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that can be done without in any way isolating Russia and its neighbours, whose security needs are also great? Does he accept that that is the right way forward, and that it would allow us to have a Europe with a new security system, and not one in which many countries feel that they are still in a security vacuum?

    The Prime Minister: On Yugoslavia, I can do no other than agree with my right hon. Friend. In terms of the expansion of NATO, for the reasons that I set out some moments ago, it is right to take this matter carefully and to deal, firstly, through the “partnership for peace” proposals. Of course, in the case of Poland and the other Visigrad countries, it is expected that at some stage in the future–perhaps within 10 years or so–they will become members of the Community, the European Union. At that stage, via the Western European Union, it is highly possible that they would enter the alliance more speedily than others.

    Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South): The Prime Minister and the other Heads of State and Governments are to be congratulated on evolving NATO even further and, in particular, on confounding those who had hoped that NATO and the alliance were now superfluous. While the Prime Minister was discussing “P4P”, we were discussing “B2B”.

    I have three brief questions. First, if NACC–the North Atlantic Co-operation Council–is so important, was there any discussion about providing it with a staff and a budget, and perhaps an assistant secretary-general? Secondly, if Europe is to do more for its own defence, was there any discussion about how that could be done when defence forces and budgets are in near free fall? Thirdly, if there is to be more accountability of executives to legislatures in defence, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence may I ask whether we too may have a little more of that?

    The Prime Minister: We are, of course, moving on beyond NACC with what is actually proposed. On the levels of armed forces, of course the intention is that there should be joint task forces, for example, and joint disciplines. There would be more people coming in to be available to deal with peacekeeping and other matters. Of course, those countries that are in “partnership for peace” would also be able to play a role in the joint task forces from an early stage. Therefore, a good deal of practical action can be taken to prepare the countries in the “partnership for peace” proposals for possible eventual accession to NATO.

    Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his exceptionally strong support team on the important British contribution to this sound strategic plan for NATO. Does he agree that the worthy objective of the distribution of humanitarian aid in Bosnia requires the active co-operation on the ground of all the local troops manning control posts, be they Serb, Croat or Muslim? How could we be sure that that local co-operation would continue if we had previously taken military action against one of the sides?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points precisely to one of the primary factors that needs to be taken into account before determining whether any military action of any sort needs to be taken. It is easy to say that it is an easy decision, and that one has only to unleash an aircraft or two and all will be well. I say to those who readily advocate that course without careful thought that it may well not be a wise policy. It may be a necessary policy at some stage, but such a policy should be entered into with very considerable caution.

    Co-operation among the participating forces on the ground is very patchy. I think that great frustration is building up among Governments, particularly those which have troops on the ground, at what seems to be a complete double standard, with the participants saying in Geneva that they want peace, and acting on the ground in a fashion that denies every single word they utter in the peace negotiations.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The Prime Minister reiterates yet again the readiness to use air strikes. Can he explain how, over these many months, no action whatsoever has been taken where it has been desperately necessary, and all we have had have been the mumblings and the bumblings of the Foreign Secretary of this country, and of other western countries in Europe? How has he–or has he–the will to ensure that action will be taken to clear up the situations both in Srebrenica and in Tuzla and to mount action against the artillery–the Serbian artillery–which is continuing to bombard Sarajevo? Has he personally the will to do such a thing?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated, with very great clarity, I fear, how easy it is to make declaratory remarks without considering what is necessary on the ground to carry them out and without any understanding whatever of what we might be asking the commanders on the ground to do, and, if they have done it, what the subsequent implications of that would be, either for their troops on the ground, the humanitarian operation, or indeed the civilian population, who are there to be helped, if it became impossible to carry forward the humanitarian operation.

    The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. Every Head of Government at NATO had the will. What we need to be sure of is that it is wise to do so, and on that we must necessarily rely on the advice of the commanders on the ground, and, as the sanctions are in United Nations guise, the sanction of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. What we did was to indicate that, in the right circumstances, the will is there to take that action.

    Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington): In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, does he now feel that there is a key role for the Western European Union to extend the hand of co-operation to central European countries, with a view to furthering their defence and security?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I have no doubt about the present–and indeed the future–role of the WEU. We are at the moment actively considering what can be done, and how it can be done, to give the WEU a more effective and perhaps a larger role. As I told the House a moment ago, the WEU would be the vehicle effectively to provide the European pillar of the NATO alliance, through the European Union’s own proposals on defence.

    Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Would the Prime Minister care to elaborate on what obligations he might feel that some countries may not be able to meet in becoming members of NATO? Although I welcome the general thrust of the statement and the Council meetings, does he agree that it is unwise to make promises that may not be able to be fulfilled, and imply threats that are not carried out? In the end, that causes people to ignore the issues.

    When he thanks President Clinton for his co-operation in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister give us some information as to whether President Clinton is following advice from his embassy in London, or from Dublin, as there seem to be some confused messages?

    The Prime Minister: President Clinton has certainly given strong support to the joint declaration issued before Christmas, and he reiterated that in a meeting that we had in Brussels a day or so ago. I have no doubt that we will return to the general issue of Northern Ireland in the meeting that I will have with him on 28 February. There would be substantial obligations for countries joining NATO. They would, for example, need to join the integrated military structure. Fresh members of NATO would certainly be required to do that.

    One of the reasons why it is right in practice, as well as in principle, to have an interim approach via “partnership for peace” is that one needs to prepare the planning, organisation and management of defence in other nations, to look at a whole range of things, such as equipment interoperability and a proper legal framework for military forces, all of which, when the time came, perhaps, for a country to enter NATO, would need to be determined. During the period of membership of “partnership for peace”, it is hoped that, through those proposals, potential applicant members will begin to make those changes.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if the central and welcome aim of the summit–to enhance the stability of Europe–is to be achieved, it is essential that the conflict in the former Yugoslavia does not expand, and that the carnage is brought to a halt? If he accepts that, will he also accept that, hitherto, Serbia has never taken seriously threats that have been issued, from NATO or anywhere else, and that it is essential that it now understands that we mean business?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be desirable both to prevent the expansion of the present conflict and then to bring it entirely to a halt. What has happened has tended to happen frequently. There was no doubt at the outset of the conflict that the principal aggressor was Serbia and the principal victims were the Bosnian Muslims.

    Since then, the position has become not quite so clear-cut. Each of the three participants in the dispute has been, from time to time, a stumbling block in reaching a negotiated political settlement. Some of the fiercest fighting has been between the Muslims and the Croats, and has not involved the Serbs. In no sense am I seeking to defend Serbia. I am saying that, if it ever was, this is no longer a clear-cut case of one aggressor and one victim, but a most horrible dispute in which each of the participants has committed actions of which it should be thoroughly ashamed.

    Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): Will the Prime Minister accept that at the heart of the issues concerning the future of NATO are Europe’s community of interest and the understandable security fears of the Visegrad countries in central Europe? Therefore, will he make it clear this afternoon, as the Foreign Secretary did on the BBC’s “Newsnight” the other night, that any physical threat to the security of those countries, irrespective of when they become members of NATO, will be met by effective NATO action to defend them?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have put it in quite that crisp fashion. [Laughter.] My right hon. Friend is quite capable of doing almost anything, but I doubt that he spoke precisely in those terms. Of course the security of countries is of great importance to us. However, what the hon. Gentleman invites me to say goes further than he would find anyone going at the moment.

    The best way to ensure security for the future of Europe is to ensure that the reform process and the reformers in Russia are sustained and stay there. That is of vital interest not just to Russia but to the rest of central and eastern Europe. If there is one thing that would be of immense value for this generation of politicians across Europe to pass on to the next, it would be to have helped Russia to become permanently a good neighbour to Europe, and part of the general western system of democratic nations.

    Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes): Could my right hon. Friend elaborate on the integration of the French Government and French forces into future NATO planning and thought? That is crucial both in NATO and in the WEU.

    The Prime Minister: French forces have for many years not been part of the integrated command in the same way that other NATO forces have been. As to the joint task forces and the new proposals, France will play precisely the same role in terms of integration as each of the other members of the NATO alliance. France will take a full part, to deal with the point most pertinently, in the joint task forces that are proposed.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): While many of us will understand the caution being exercised by the Government and their allies in the context of the expansion of NATO, could the Prime Minister elaborate on the criteria that will apply to those who wish to move from partnership into membership, particularly in the context of the time scale that will be applied, not solely in terms of capability? What consideration is being given to the Baltic states, given that Lithuania is one of the applicants for full membership of NATO, as those states that are recently independent from the Soviet Union surely deserve our support?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, they certainly deserve our support, and we hope that they will take up the “partnership for peace” proposals. The Baltic states are among the countries that have had the offer, and I both hope and expect that they will take it up. The obligations placed on potential applicants for NATO are the same as those that are placed on existing NATO states–proportionate, of course, to their size and strength. The criteria, however, will be the same and will include, as I said in response to an earlier question, a democratic system of government.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend clarify how exactly the combined joint task forces are supposed to work? He said that they will be able to operate out of the NATO area, and that they will strengthen the European identity in the alliance. As the United States is the only country in NATO with a strategic airlift capability, and as only the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands of the European member countries have amphibious forces, how will such troops be deployed out of area?

    Will the Germans participate out of area, as to do so is against their basic law? Will there be integrated military staffs? Will there be pre-planning, and will combined operations be exercised in advance? To cobble together forces to meet difficult contingencies overseas is not necessarily a recipe for success, as we have seen with Somalia and the Americans.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend’s last point shows precisely why we need the new combined joint task forces. Many of his detailed questions are being considered by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who will report to the North Atlantic Council by the end of March. I suspect that I am able to anticipate most of the report, but it would perhaps be wiser to wait until he has delivered it.

    Although the command and control, for example, of NATO operations in Bosnia has been ingenious and effective, it has necessarily been ad hoc. It is intended to ensure that the alliance is capable of taking on a full range of likely future mission adjustments. The purpose of the combined joint task forces will be to ensure that a proper command and control structure is swiftly available, rather than it having to be provided when a crisis arises.

    It is a new concept that is being developed by SACEUR. Its intention is to provide more flexibility, specially earmarked personnel and personnel who are trained, used to working together and deployable, at home or abroad, at short notice under the command of NATO. As my hon. Friend knows, the concept has been employed with some success by some nations–the USA and the United Kingdom in particular–in deploying national forces, but it is a novel idea to use it in NATO.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Was not NATO set up in 1948 in answer to a perceived threat from the Soviet Union? Since that threat has now diminished and disappeared–if it ever existed–and since the Warsaw pact has been disbanded, what is the point of people spending time and a great deal of money looking around for something for NATO to do, simply so that the organisation remains in existence when it has no function and when eastern European countries need encouragement to develop militarisation and further to arm troops like a hole in the head? Why not accept the truth– that NATO is redundant and that we would be a lot better off without it?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries many Labour Members with him–he certainly carries few Members of the House as a whole, and almost no one in the country, with him. He assumes that there will never be a threat again. I do not know the basis on which he makes that assumption. It is certainly not made on any logical basis. He is saying, effectively, that he has an insurance policy and he has not had to claim on it this year, so he will cancel it and assume that he will never need it. The reality is that NATO has been the guardian of our security for more than 40 years. It would be folly beyond belief not to ensure that NATO is securely in place for the next 40 years.

    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath): In view of the isolationist tendencies in the United States, should not the President’s firm commitment to have 100,000 American troops on the continent of Europe be warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? My right hon. Friend will have read the reports of an era of estrangement between Britain and the United States. Will he and the Foreign Secretary make a new year resolution to do all in their power to ensure that the Anglo-American relationship, while it may be conducted more at arm’s length than 30 years ago, remains extremely cordial?

    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, I strongly welcome the re-commitment by the USA and Canada to NATO. President Clinton showed his commitment to the security of Europe in a most practical fashion by making it clear that 100,000 US troops will stay in Europe. I welcome that very much.

    As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, there was one area of disagreement some nine months ago, but apart from that, President Clinton called for the integration of a broader Europe and the integration of the former communist bloc with the rest of Europe. As the House will know, I have been advocating that course vigorously–for example, in calling for enlargement of the European Union. Since then, we have agreed in a series of statements and on a series of occasions. We agreed in Brussels, where President Clinton welcomed the action that I initiated with the French. As he said at his press conference, they agreed with my position, and I strongly agreed with theirs.

    When I next meet President Clinton in Washington at the end of February we shall have much to discuss : Russia, on which we have a common view; the free trade agreement; the GATT agreement, on which we worked together to ensure that it came about; the middle east peace process; Lockerbie; sanctions on Iraq. Those are all matters on which the United Kingdom and the United States are in complete agreement and upon which the two Governments have worked together. As I said a moment ago, I was able to thank him for his strong support over Northern Ireland. So the relationship between the United Kingdom and United States is in very good repair.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Does the Prime Minister agree that Tuzla airport has become critical precisely because the heaviest, severest and most barbarous fighting is between the Muslims and the Croats in the areas around Mostar and Vitez and is blocking the supply line from the port of Split? Was there no discussion at the NATO conference of the need for pressure to be put on the Croats and the Muslims? How on earth can a one-sided threat of air strikes assist in getting the three parties to sign a peace accord when they meet in Geneva next Wednesday?

    The Prime Minister: It is not just a question of signing in Geneva. Quite a lot of agreements have been signed in Geneva. What concerns me is whether the agreements signed in Geneva are honoured in Bosnia. That has been the principal difficulty.

    As for putting pressure on all the parties, that point was discussed, and it was agreed that, in terms of diplomatic political pressure, it is desirable to put pressure on all the parties, not only the Serbs. There are particular transgressions by the Serbs, where it may be necessary for us to carry out the air strikes we referred to earlier, but pressure undoubtedly needs to be put on all three parties to achieve a negotiated political settlement : the hon. Gentleman is quite right.

    Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): In view of the recent sale of North Korean long-range missiles to Libya, Iran and elsewhere, and as it is now known that the American Patriot missile was less successful in bringing down Iraqi Scuds during the Gulf war than was suggested at the time, what discussions took place at the summit on the need for global missile defence, particularly in view of the fact that the Americans have ended research and development on the strategic defence initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Predominantly, the summit endorsed comprehensive examination by NATO of responses to the particular problems of proliferation. The intention is that that approach will embrace the traditional non-proliferation policies and will also review the nature and size of any ballistic missile threat there may be to the alliance and, if and where that threat exists, what capabilities the alliance has or may need to counter it. Yes, there was substantive discussion on that point.

    Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness): The final communique at the summit referred to NATO intensifying and expanding its efforts to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what specific or new proposals he has in mind to achieve this desirable and important objective?

    The Prime Minister: It was one of the things that has occurred. It is not simply a matter for the United Kingdom ; that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, spreads much more widely. The agreement that was reached with the Ukraine, Russia and the United States is a further move forward. We need to make sure that START and other agreements are fully honoured. All these are elements of the non-proliferation programme. There is also the test ban treaty, which was mentioned earlier. There are a whole range of policies marching in parallel in the direction the hon. Gentleman wishes us to go.

    Several hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.