The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: France

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Bosnia Peace Agreement Signing Ceremony – 14 December 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Bosnia Peace Agreement Signing Ceremony, held at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Thursday 14th December 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I join others in thanking Jacques Chirac and the French Government for their hospitality.

    This is a fitting place for the Signing Ceremony.

    French forces, with those of the United Kingdom, have formed the backbone of the United Nations operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina over the past three years.

    Our troops have worked together in the hazardous tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief. And they have suffered losses together.

    So it was especially heart-warming for us to see the release of your two brave pilots. Your firm stand was entirely vindicated.

    Mr President, much of Central and Eastern Europe has moved successfully from authoritarian rule to democracy.

    But of course such a profound change has produced areas of tension, instability and disorder. In the former Yugoslavia, sadly, it led to war.

    The international community could not prevent that war from breaking out. But it has worked patiently for peace.

    That peace has been won at a terrible price. One in twenty of the former inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been killed. Over a quarter of the population have had to flee from their homes – homes which are mostly now in ruins.

    The conflict is over, but the job is only half done.

    Ahead lies hope but not yet fulfilment.

    Success will depend crucially on respect for the fundamental principles of this Agreement:

    – maintaining Bosnia and Herzegovina as a single multi-ethnic state;
    – providing for the safe return of refugees and turning away from the abomination of ethnic cleansing;
    – ensuring that the human rights of all the people of Bosnia fully and equally respected;
    – and bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity.

    The Agreement signed today places clear and detailed obligations upon each of the parties. In their own interests, they must respect and implement them scrupulously.

    But the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be alone in carrying through this Peace Agreement.

    From the time of the first London Conference in August 1992, the international community has made a huge commitment to them.

    Successive teams of negotiators – Lord Carrington and Cyrus Vance, Lord Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt, the United Nations and the Contact Group – did not spare themselves in laying the groundwork for the peace finally achieved.

    Without a massive relief operation through UNPROFOR, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international and national agencies, the war’s dreadful toll would have been far higher.

    We must now make no less massive a commitment to the implementation of peace. 13,000 British troops will join the implementation force of some 60,000 overall – the biggest land operation undertaken in half a century of NATO’s existence.

    With the backing of the Peace Implementation Council set up last week, Carl Bildt will coordinate the vital task of re-establishing legitimate political structures and restoring normal civilian life.

    And the groundwork is now being laid for economic reconstruction, as a joint effort between Europe, North America, other interested countries, and the people of Bosnia themselves under, the coordination of the World Bank,

    It is now up to all of us – to the governments and peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of Croatia, and to the external powers and international organisations – to turn ceasefire into peace, peace into a lasting settlement, and the countries of the former Yugoslavia into a stable and prosperous part of the European family.

    It will not be easy.

    But I profoundly believe it is possible.

    We must turn that possibility into reality.

    And today’s ceremony is an important landmark in that process.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 30 October 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Chirac, held in London on Monday 30th October 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Can I firstly welcome you to this press conference. This has been my seventh meeting with President Chirac in the last 6 months and on this occasion he has brought a very powerful team of his Ministers with him.

    This morning our Foreign Ministers, Defence Ministers, Finance Ministers, Transport Ministers, have all held separate discussions and subsequently reported to us about them. Collectively we have reached a number of wide ranging decisions.

    Let me just firstly say that this morning the President and I visited RAF Strike Command at High Wycombe. And we did so for two special reasons. Firstly, to inaugurate the Franco-British Air Group; and secondly, to present decorations to General and General Rose who worked so successfully for so long together in Bosnia.,

    I think that that ceremony, both the inauguration of the Air Group and the joint award of Honours, illustrates the increasingly close partnership that is developing between France and the United Kingdom. It is a global partnership and that theme of global partnership has been the dominant theme throughout this summit. Let me set out precisely what I mean by that.

    Britain and France are both European countries a worldwide outlook. We are the only nuclear powers in Western Europe. We each make a huge contribution to the overall defence of Europe. We are the largest European contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. We are Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and participants in the Economic Summits. And we both have obligations to parts of the world, like Africa, where we have long-standing and historic ties.

    In defence, upon which we spent a great deal of our time this morning, the President and I have concluded that the vital interests of one could not be threatened without the vital interests of the other equally being at risk.

    Step by step in defence, our approaches are moving closer together. In defence procurement, Britain has a wider range of joint projects with France than with any other country. We are discussing together the most effective structures for European defence, drawing on the lessons that we have learned In Bosnia.

    The Franco-British Euro-air Group is one bilateral dimension. We have decided on another – new arrangements for the Royal Navy and the French Navy to exercise and to train together.

    We have made important progress in deepening our nuclear cooperation. Our aim is to strengthen deterrence whilst retaining the independence of our nuclear forces. This deepening of cooperation will strengthen the overall European contribution to deterrence.

    Our Armed Forces, taking all aspects together, are closer today than at any time in the last 50 years, and the President and I shall look for yet further defence cooperation.

    We discussed the full range of European questions. We have a different approach to some of those questions, but we agreed to work together on a number of aspects at the Intergovernmental Conference. Subsidiarity is an area where we have a shared interest and concern. Subsidiarity – that is keeping or returning decision-making to the national level. We discussed, and have a common interest, in a more effective common foreign and security policy based on an intergovernmental agreement. We have a common approach to justice and home affairs matters and for the role of national parliaments. And we agreed to continue discussion on these and a number of other aspects that we are likely to face at the Intergovernmental Conference.

    We spent some time discussing the removing of regulations and red tape. We both agreed that small businesses had a vital role to play in our economies as generators both of employment in the future and of growth. And we have decided therefore to launch a joint initiative to reduce burdens on business and will invite businessmen from both countries to contribute to that work.

    Both of us have long, historic and very strong interests in Africa. We are launching today a joint initiative on conflict resolution and peacekeeping in Africa. We shall help African countries to develop their own capabilities and shall invite Western European Union partners to join us in sending advisory teams to Africa.

    You should, I hope, find on your chairs a detailed note of further joint approaches which we will take in Africa. These include a number of matters which you may wish to raise in questions but will not detain you with now.

    Let me just highlight four others of the many subjects we discussed.

    The first of these is Bosnia. We will continue working closely together on Bosnia and will both make a large contribution to the peace negotiations and the implementation of a peace settlement.

    Second, terrorism. I deplore the recent bombings that there have been in France. I have promised President Chirac every possible assistance and we have agreed on specific steps to enhance cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in dealing both with terrorism and with organised crime.

    On United Nations reform, about which we both spoke at the UN meeting just a few days ago, we both want to see effective follow through to the work of the G8.

    And finally, on a very positive note, we are launching the Entente Cordial Scholarship Scheme. This is an imaginative scheme that will be privately funded to help young people in Britain and in France to study in each other’s language and in each other’s country.

    Those are just the sketchy headlines of what has been, I think we both believe, a particularly productive summit.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I have nothing to add to the substance of what the Prime Minister has said, I have nothing to change in what he has said.

    As to the specific details, we shall be happy, both of us, to take questions from the press and I am very happy to welcome members of the British, French and other press corps as well.

    But let me make one comment, if I may, to start with. I have been attending French/British meetings for many years now and I have followed how these meetings have progressed and I am most struck by the sea-change which has occurred in our discussions. In Franco/British relations today there is no trace whatsoever of a gracility of ill humour. I think it has become quite natural for us to talk about everything, to discuss everything frankly and openly, to discuss matters which bring us together as well as matters which can divide us. But there is no drama about it, it happens quite naturally and openly.

    And on an increasing number of subjects all the time we have increasingly convergent views on these issues which are the challenges for our countries in the future. In other words, we have a greater and greater awareness all the time of the increasing solidarity of the destiny of our two countries, and that is extremely pleasant, this friendly atmosphere, this atmosphere of friendship which goes beyond us politicians but which concerns our countries and our systems. And I am very struck and impressed by this increasing closeness between France and Britain.

    QUESTION:

    President Chirac, particularly on the point of terrorism, do you think the British government is doing everything it can to prevent a spill-over from the Algerian war taking place in Britain and to stop Britain being used as a haven by Islamic radicals?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, I do not think, I am absolutely convinced that the British government is fully determined to do everything it can. I am convinced that there is excellent cooperation between the British and French services involved. And I have only thanks to express to the British authorities on these two scores.

    I would add that the Prime Minister wished to go beyond even that and proposed to me a strengthening of our cooperation in the fight against terrorism, and he also proposed to me that we should strengthen our cooperation in the fight against drugs, and I thoroughly agree with him on those two counts.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask you both what the significance to Anglo/French relations, and indeed to nuclear cooperation, you find in the British decision to back French nuclear testing over the protestations of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that point first. President Chirac had scientific advice about the necessity to test the French nuclear deterrent. I think on the back of that scientific advice it would have been extremely difficult for the head of any country not to have accepted that scientific advice and tested, as advised, his own nuclear deterrent. Upon that basis, I have offered the President my support for the action that he has taken. If one is a nuclear power there are certain obligations. Some of those obligations involve ensuring that the nuclear weapon is in proper order, that it is working as expected. And one does need in those circumstances to test, if that is the advice one is given. That is the advice the President was given, he accepted that advice. Frankly, I believe he had no choice and upon that basis I have offered him my support.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Support for which I am most grateful and which is also part and parcel of the solidarity of countries of the European Union. But I would also like to say that I was fully aware of the reaction that international public opinion would have when I took my decision. But the decision was absolutely inevitable for the safety and the reliability of French nuclear weapons. It would have been irresponsible of me not to take that decision. That is the negative answer to your question if you like. But there is a positive answer to your question too, which is that I am now in a position to confirm that France, as the United Kingdom, will sign the full Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and that France and the United Kingdom have both said that they will support the zero option on on-site controls, no small tests, no tests whatsoever, that France and the United Kingdom have just signed the Protocols of the Ruratonga Treaty which next spring will make it possible to declare the South Pacific a nuclear-free zone. And therefore there will be no further problem of nuclear testing.

    The United States, as you know, have agreed too to the zero option. In my recent discussions with the Russian President I understood him to say that that would be Russia’s position too. I am not answering in Russia’s place of course but I understood that would be his position. And I would not rule out China taking the same position too, and that would be a very optimistic and positive conclusion to the whole affair.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President, on behalf of France, the Americans and the British have agreed to sign the Protocols to the Ruratonga Convention. I think that is very welcome. What we can actually now see, not very far in the future, just a few months away, is an end to nuclear testing and the signature of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That is now, with luck, just a matter of months away and I think that is great progress and I am delighted about that.

    QUESTION (Jon Snow, Channel 4 News):

    When you became President, one of the earliest public pronouncements you made, or one that was recognised worldwide, was the offer to send French troops to save the people of Srebrenica. The Dutch government has today published its findings over what happened in Srebrenica and sad reading they make. The Dutch Defence Minister says that the whole concept of the so-called safe areas failed dismally. Could I ask you both whether as members of the Permanent Five Security Council of the UN you accept any culpability, any blame, for what went wrong and the fact that we are now sitting in a situation in which 8,000 citizens of that area are either dead or missing?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    You are referring of course to events which occurred as I became President. I believe that the United Nations forces were not able to fulfil the role that they were supposed to play. And I think it was wrong in the past to accept that confusion between a military role and a humanitarian role and the result was that events of that kind did occur. Who was responsible? Certainly not the United Nations because the United Nations was not given to proper mandate to act. I think it was a collective responsibility, I think that the British and French governments realised that when they decided together to react to what happening, to change their policies and to set up together the Rapid Reaction Force. And a lot of observers made fun of the Rapid Reaction Force when it was announced initially, but it did make it possible to give the troops the resources they needed to attain their objective, which was a peacekeeping objective and which was I think behind the positive developments that we have witnessed since.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is perhaps sometimes a little too easy to overlook the reality that it is the British and the French, and their troops on the ground, who have played the biggest single role of turning what looked like at one stage a trans-Balkan war, and at another stage like the mass genocide and slaughter of huge numbers of people, into a position where across central Bosnia there is peace and where we can now look forward to the possibility of a peace right the way across Bosnia. That would not have happened but for the action of the British and French governments who sent the largest number of troops and sent the troops not only in the largest numbers but sent them earliest. There were also those countries who participated predominantly in the conferences that were held and that determined with the Rapid Reaction Corps to respond to some of the events that were occurring. So, no-one doubts the horrors from the early genocide and subsequently what occurred in the former Yugoslavia, but I think the British and French troops played the predominant role in mitigating the slaughter and saving lives. And I do not think it an exaggerated claim to say that but for the activities of British and French soldiers and their commanders, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people alive today who would otherwise have been dead. And I think in the scales of who did what and what the outcome was, that is something that should weigh heavily.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could you clarify this statement where you say you do not see situations arising where the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened – is that like the NATO declaration that if one country is invaded, could you tell us what it means?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I don’t think I need to elaborate a great deal on this. We are very strongly linked politically, economically, culturally and geographically, and I am not referring to the Channel fixed link. I am referring quite clearly to the fact that we are very close to each other. But clearly one cannot imagine a situation where in the immediate future or in the foreseeable future a conflict might occur in which France and Britain would not be on the same side, we will clearly be on the same side, and I think we must draw some conclusions from that strategically speaking?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think really the point is quite straightforward. Neither the President nor I can conceive of circumstances in which in any way France was threatened militarily, in which the interests of the United Kingdom would not be seen to be similarly threatened. And equally the President can conceive of no circumstances in which the United Kingdom was threatened militarily that would not equally threaten the vital interests of France. And we thought it appropriate to make that point crystal clear on this occasion to exemplify the increasingly close cooperation we have in all aspects of defence.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, 50 years ago, referring to somewhat complicated relationships with General de Gaulle, Winston Churchill said: “Of all the crosses I have to bear, the cross of Lorraine is the heaviest”. I would like to ask the successor of General de Gaulle, whether this is a heavy cross to bear on your shoulders? I am referring to the increasingly Euro-sceptical policy of Her Majesty’s Government or if that policy is a relief and a comfort for you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I must say I don’t know what Euro-scepticism is – is it a fad. And in every country of the European Union, not only the United Kingdom, there is such a phenomenon. So let us be realistic about this and if one is realistic, what does one see? What one sees is that there is considerable progress in European construction. There are areas in which France and the United Kingdom have a somewhat different approach. We discuss these differences and I say we discuss these differences quite equably and openly, it is certainly not a heavy cross to bear. And there are other areas in which our views are perfectly convergent, and the Prime Minister has told you what they are, everything which concerns the construction of a Europe which is closer to its citizens, on enlargement, on other issues. On these issues we have no conflict of views whatsoever. So let us not be ideological, we are pragmatic people. We are moving ahead at our own pace but very positively and without there being any misunderstanding between us.

    QUESTION:

    To come back to terrorism I have three somewhat distinct questions. First of all, the French government has stated that it is concerned about the fact that some Islamic fundamentalists may have taken refuge in the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is information to the effect that the SIS might open an office in London, the BBC announced this this afternoon. And thirdly, Abad Anas [phon], one of the founder members of SIS, is supposed to be in the UK and has made a request for political asylum. Can you comment?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first question, my answer is no. There is no difference of view between us on that. On the other questions I have no comment to make. But I would refer you back to what was said earlier on which is that I consider that cooperation between France and the United Kingdom in the fight against terrorism is absolutely first class, it is efficient and I warmly welcome it.

    QUESTION:

    Could you tell us about what concrete steps have been taken to strengthen cooperation between the French and British governments in the fight against terrorism?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    When it comes to the fight against terrorism, it is not customary to announce publicly exactly what one is going to do, and I am sure you will understand that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will just add one point to that. Although the President is entirely right in saying that we do not announce publicly what the cooperation is, let me just say two things to you. Firstly, the cooperation is already close; and secondly, the President and I agreed this morning on ways to make it closer yet. Terrorism is a scourge to all countries and we will work very closely in dealing with it, but I am afraid that we are not going to tell people precisely what we shall be doing.

    QUESTION:

    Did you talk about who might be the next Secretary General of NATO, whether it is clear that there will be a British candidate, and if there is not then can you both tell me what you think of the candidature of Ruud Lubbers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me respond to that first. We did consider the possibility not of one, I saw one British name being floated in the press, there were in fact a number of British names that we considered. But we also looked at other names that were already in the field. Dr Lubbers is not yet a formal candidate, I should make that entirely clear. But were Dr Lubbers to be a formal candidate for the Secretary General of NATO, I think he would receive strong support from the British government.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And you will hardly be surprised to hear me say that there again we share the same view.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    Prime Minister, do you agree that Euro-scepticism is a fad?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are many ways to describe Euro-realism, Euro-scepticism, Euro-philyism, Euro-phobism, there are all sorts of names. I think what is important is that one looks at the problems related to Europe with a clear and open mind and decides what is the answer most appropriate to the British interest and the European interest, and that is the way the government examines them.

    QUESTION (Tom Carver, BBC TV):

    Can both Presidents tell us what this new rapprochement that seems to exist is going to do for the much vaunted Franco-German axis that we have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am grateful to be promoted to President but I fear it is not a title I can accept. I will leave the President to answer that.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The Franco-German friendship, let me put it that way, is part and parcel of our destiny for reasons of history and geography that I don’t need to elaborate on here. But also because we are two countries at the very heart of Europe it was always clear that Europe would never get anywhere unless there was a clear understanding between France and Germany. If there is no understanding between France and Germany, there will be no Europe, full-stop. But Europe is not only France and Germany, Europe is also a number of other countries and a leading country of course is the United Kingdom with its traditions, with its history. And the United Kingdom cannot be on the sidelines. Therefore the cooperation between France and Germany, the understanding between France and Germany is absolutely essential but it is not enough, there has to be something else and that something else is the British presence. Clearly that is a reflection of British interests. And I think France is in a position to facilitate that necessary synergies between the British view of things and say the German view of things. One always tends to imagine that there are very considerable differences of view, but when one gets down to them and when one looks at them very closely one realises there is no difference which cannot be reduced. And I believe that Franco-British cooperation, which is going from strength to strength every year and is gaining in strength at each one of our meetings, is one of the important points for a vision of a sound stable Europe developing strongly into the future.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Quebec referendum and what is the position of Paris and London?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    The referendum is going on this very day and you will hardly expect me, nor the British Prime Minister, to make any comment on that.

    QUESTION (Magreb Press):

    Why has it taken so long for the former dominant powers in Africa to launch the present initiative, that is conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and what prompted the move?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I suppose one could always have done a good thing earlier. I think the fact that the President and I have discussed this on more than one occasion. We both in our own backgrounds have a direct interest in parts of Africa, it was a matter that naturally arose in our conversations some time ago and that we have subsequently taken forward. It clearly is important. If you look at what has happened in Africa over the last few years there are some people who will say, well it is very depressing to look at the problems in Africa. I think that is at best a half truth, and at worst a complete untruth. Because many of the changes that have taken place in Africa have been very beneficial. Many of the African governments are struggling very hard to turn away from bad economic policies to sound economic policies. Many of the African countries that were not democracies are moving towards being democracies. Of course there are some areas where things are not yet right, but a great deal of progress has been made and both the President and I would like to lend a helping hand, where we can, to that process.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    And I would just add one further point to that. There was reference earlier on to Euro-sceptics, now we are talking about Afro-pessimists. But I am neither one nor the other. And as far as Africa is concerned, I think that Africa is moving ahead in the right direction. And I fear that a lot of Afro-pessimists are in fact people who are trying to withdraw from Africa and trying to shuffle off the efforts which are necessary for the development of Africa. But I am optimistic for three reasons: firstly, Africa is moving ahead in the right direction; the rule of law is gaining ground; the management of public affairs in Africa is improving every year and that is I think clear when one looks at the increasing number of agreements which are entered into with the international financial institutions; thirdly, today African nations have understood that there are two things they must do – first of all they have to take into account regional interests and they also have to be involved in conflict resolution in order to avoid conflicts as far as that is possible. And those three developments I think are liable to give greater confidence to African peoples but also to Europeans who wish to participate in the development of Africa and that is why I am an Afro-optimist.

    QUESTION:

    You talked about advances in European construction thanks to excellent Franco-British cooperation, particularly on defence matters. But when you discuss matters like the EMS, the single currency, the IGC, is that not likely to hold back European construction, is that not pragmatism too?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I mentioned some of the areas in terms of what is loosely called European construction. I am always wary when people talk of European construction, it means different things to different people.

    As far as the Intergovernmental Conference is concerned, I set out a series of areas where it is clear already, before the Intergovernmental Conference begins, that there is a broadly common interest between the British position and the French position. There will not be unanimity on every issue between Britain and France, or indeed I suspect between almost any two countries in the European Union, total unanimity is a very rare proposition. But there is a good deal of unanimity and we will try and build on that in the Intergovernmental Conference. There will be some things that will be unacceptable to some nations and that is a matter that will need to be determined in the conference when it begins next year.

    As far as Monetary Union is concerned, the British position on that is well known, our position has not changed. I set it out pretty clearly in the Maastricht negotiations when I obtained for the British the right to opt-out of a Single European currency if that is formed and if it is not thought to be in the British interests to join. That was the position and that remains the position.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Just one comment as far as France is concerned. Let me first of all point out, if I may, that each time a debate of this kind gets going we are told that things are going very badly. But I think it is quite beyond challenge that Europe is progressing. Some people find that Europe is not moving ahead as quickly as possible, some people say not as well as possible, but basically it is moving ahead. Soon after I became President, France was the President of the European Council and I hosted a meeting in Cannes of 15 Heads of State and Government, plus 11 Heads of State and Government of countries which may one day become members of the European Union, and I have no recollection of there ever being a venture of this kind in history. Nobody thinks today that there could be such a thing as a war in Europe, if one excludes the unfortunate affair of ex-Yugoslavia. So I think that is real progress.

    Once you have got that far, you have of course other issues to deal with – the Intergovernmental Conference, the need to adjust the European institutions to an increasing number of member countries. That is necessary. Well we shall be tackling that issue and we shall be thinking pragmatically once again about the ways in which we can succeed in that reform. And on several points France, the United Kingdom, Germany, see eye to eye, on other points there are differences. Fine. But that is what diplomats are there for and that is precisely why we agree on a certain period of time necessary to come to an agreement. But I don’t doubt that eventually we shall come to an agreement on the best institutions which are best suited to the principles of each country and I hope that Europe will be enlarged, that it will be closer to its citizens thanks to the application of the principle of subsidiarity on which both British and French and Germans fully agree.

    Then you raised the issue of the currency, a big debate on the currency. You are familiar with the position I took during the French debate on Maastricht, I came out in favour of [indistinct] today I have made it very clear that whatever efforts need to be made and of course those efforts have to be properly distributed in France, but France will meet the conditions which will enable it to become a member of the single currency on 1 January 1999 – that is the French option. And I don’t think anybody can challenge today that France has the political will to do that because it is in our interests and we believe it is in our interests because it requires us to reduce our budget deficit and it is only by reducing our budget deficits that we shall be able to rise to the challenge of unemployment, and that is my objective, to fight against unemployment. Clearly fighting against unemployment means sound management and sound exchanges. France being what it is, I believe the single currency is a positive thing for France, it is something which will enable France to fight effectively against unemployment and to maintain social cohesion, which is something also which I have stated a great deal. And I would also say that it is a great French tradition, the single currency basically is an assertion of the stability of exchange rates, that is the objective of the single currency. And France’s objective, France’s view of things, has always been in favour of the stability of exchange rates. That was one of the major hobby-horses of General de Gaulle, whom you referred to earlier on, and it remains France’s unwavering position on monetary issues.

    The British Prime Minister has just recalled his position, which we are amply familiar. The United Kingdom, which does not have the same characteristics, the same constraints as France does, does not wish to have its hands tied. It wishes to keep full freedom to take that decision if and when it feels it is in its interests to do so. And I would observe that the UK will fulfil the criteria for monetary union if it wishes to embark upon it because its economic management is sound and reasonable. So the UK will have its hands entirely free to take the decision it feels fit to take and it will take that choice when it feels appropriate to do so. I am sure we will discuss it beforehand and I am sure the British government will discuss it with its British partners. We must respect the freedom of choice of the British government in this respect.

    QUESTION:

    Could you clarify something the Prime Minister said about global partnership. Does that mean that it is easier to have common foreign policy between countries which have a worldwide presence than within the 15 countries of the European Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that was not what it was intended to convey. Though a common foreign policy, agreed by unanimity and not imposed by qualified majority vote, is a very attractive proposition for Europe.

    Clearly collectively if the whole of Europe agrees to a foreign policy then we are in a stronger position than if any one or two countries themselves agreed. But the remark I made about global partnership was not particularly geared to one aspect of policy like foreign policy, but geared to the range of interests that I set out, and the President set out, that are common both to France and the United Kingdom. We are the only two European nations that are nuclear powers, that have a worldwide interest, that sit on the United Nations Security Council, that have long-standing historical interests in large parts of the world like Africa and it is upon that basis that we have a common outlook on many problems. And it was that common outlook, based on common background, common history and common interests, that led the President and I to conclude that there was ample scope for a global partnership. And as we have indicated in defence and other areas, there are large areas that illustrate in very practical terms the extent of partnership that already exists today between Britain and France and we have both reiterated our determination to sustain those areas of agreement and to build on them wherever and whenever we think it appropriate.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Chirac – 10 June 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Jacques Chirac, held in Paris on Saturday 10th June 1995.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank the British foreign and defence journalists who are present here today following our conversations and I would like also to begin by saying it is very pleasant to have such conversations among friends.

    I will not surprise you in saying that our conversations were very cordial and allowed us to raise a certain number of issues. First of all regarding the Cannes Summit preparations and a number of European issues, in particular the preparation to the run-up of the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996. It is true to say that we have a number of approaches and views in common, in particular with respect to the role of the Council and that also of the association of Parliament in contributing to the work being done in Europe. So on those issues we have common approaches and common ground.

    [small section inaudible] and indeed the recent initiatives have been taken in common and, as you know, were approved yesterday by the Fifteen. We request the immediate release and freeing of hostages; we want considerable diplomatic efforts to be deployed and in particular with respect to the appointment of a mediator, Mr Carl Bildt; and in particular also the setting up of the Rapid Reaction Force which will allow for additional support to be given to the peace-keepers in the field. As you know, the Rapid Reaction Force will be made up primarily of British and French troops, to which will be added a Dutch contingent and possibly contingents from two or three other countries.

    With respect to transatlantic relations we were thinking along the same lines, namely the strengthening of Euro-American relations with respect of course for the identities of both sides.

    Regarding bilateral matters, there are no major difficulties there, we both want to strengthen our cooperation in a variety of different fields, in particular the military field.

    With respect to future meetings we have decided that we will meet on 29 July, probably in France, on the occasion of a visit that the Prime Minister will be paying to France at that time. And on 30 October next we will hold the next Franco-British Summit, which will be convened in London, and preceded by a dinner and some evening entertainment on the evening prior to the 30th.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Jacques, thank you very much. The President has set out much of the detail of our discussions this morning and I will simply say that I share the views that he has expressed.

    We have had some two hours of talks and my expectation that they would be very wide-ranging and very worthwhile have not been disappointed, they were an excellent exchange.

    Let me turn particularly to the area of Bosnia where we both have a very great concern about present events. Throughout the last three years, Britain and France together have assumed the lion’s share of UNPROFOR’s burden in Bosnia. In Bosnia British troops serve under French command, French Marines and French Legionnaires serve under the British command, and that is the true reality of European defence cooperation. And I would like to pay my one tribute to the 39 French troops who have lost in Bosnia over the last 3 years. We admire what they have done very much and I very much respect also the very brave action of French troops on the bridge at Sarajevo.

    Let me remind you once again precisely why British and French troops are in Bosnia. We are there for humanitarian reasons, we are there to save lives and feed the starving. We are also there for strategic reasons. I believe it is a vital role for British and French troops to help contain a conflict which, if it is not contained, has the potential to ignite the whole of the Balkans.

    That is why, for so long as British troops can carry out their duties without undue risk to their lives, I shall want to see them continue to play their role in UNPROFOR. But let me add also, if the warring parties make it impossible for the United Nations to carry out their mandate, then of course we would have to consider withdrawal. But that is not, emphatically not, our wish.

    Let me make it very plain. If it became necessary for the United Nations Protection Forces to leave, and I repeat I very much hope that will not be the case, but if it were to happen then I think everyone in Bosnia, Serb Croat or Muslim, would suffer as a result of their withdrawal.

    Britain and France are now cooperating very closely indeed, the cooperation is on a daily basis at political level, at military level, at diplomatic level and at other official levels. And we have three immediate tasks. Let me set out all of them;

    – the first of them is to use the reinforcements which both our countries are sending to help UNPROFOR do its job more effectively. And I announced yesterday that the 5,000 troops of our Airmobile Brigade have now been given orders to deploy. They will take effect as soon as some logistical problems with the United Nations are concluded;

    – secondly, let me make it clear that they are not going there as an aggressive force to make war, they are going there to keep the peace. But British troops have always responded robustly if they are attacked and they have responded robustly to provocation. They will continue to do that. The second task is to make clear to the Bosnian Serbs that they need to release all of the hostages unconditionally and they do their cause no good whatsoever by hanging on to them;

    – and the third task of course is to stay focused on the overriding objective and that must remain a negotiated settlement.

    Let me just briefly indicate the other areas that we discussed. We had a very worthwhile exchange on the forthcoming European summit at Cannes. We discussed a range of matters – unemployment, subsidiarity, deregulation, competitiveness and the launch of the Study Group. There were no difficulties of any significance between us in those issues.

    The one area of difference that the President mentioned is an area we are examining and I hope and expect we will reach an agreement before Cannes. We have shared objectives on aid flows and different mechanisms to meet them but we will reach an accommodation about that I hope.

    We found ourselves in agreement on the objectives for the G7 summit at Halifax and similarly we found ourselves in agreement on a range of matters related to transatlantic relationships.

    So let me just say, before we invite your questions, how much I have enjoyed this visit and how much I appreciate the hospitality that has been given. It has been a very good occasion for Britain, a very good occasion for France and I think rather a good occasion for Europe as well.

    QUESTION:

    I have two questions. You talked about the convergence of British and French views with respect to the 1996 conference, but I would like to know whether there are no divergences here. In particular I am thinking of the issue of qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers? My second question has to do with the issue of transatlantic relations, I would like to know what you feel about the proposal made, in particular by Sir Leon Brittan, with respect to a transatlantic free trade zone?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    Taking your question on voting and the qualified majority system, these are matters that have to do with how to implement the decisions that will be taken at the IGC and I think it is too soon for us to consider them here. In fact we did not talk about such matters, it will be up to our experts to give consideration to these issues. However, having said that I do not expect there to be any difficulties, in fact I would go so far as to say that we will be in agreement on that.

    On your question with respect to the free trade zone mooted by Sir Leon Brittan, anything we feel that can facilitate trade is necessarily positive, is necessary to be supported. France of course is paying great attention to the proper establishment, the getting going of the World Trade Organisation before any free trade measures are taken along the lines of those suggested. That being said on the general principle, there is certainly no objection and no disagreement.

    QUESTION:

    I wonder if I could ask President Chirac, and perhaps a special request for a response in English if that would be all right? Did the two of you agree that the judgement is that the Rapid Response Force is now the last chance for keeping the UNPROFOR troops on the ground in Bosnia? And secondly, what sort of representations will you be planning to make to President Clinton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think anyone is in the business of saying the Rapid Reaction Corps is the last chance, that is not the purpose of the Rapid Reaction Corps, the Rapid Reaction Corps is there to facilitate the work that goes on, to protect the troops that are there to enable them to carry out the work that they are doing. It is not there to wage an aggressive war. It is there to protect people, to respond where appropriate and to try and ensure the work that goes on. So, far from being the last chance, it is intended to ensure that the present work continues for some time. The solution to the problems of Bosnia is not going to be found on a battlefield, the solution is going to be found in a political settlement and a search for a political settlement will go on.

    The advent of a Rapid Reaction Corps and the reinforcement of the United Nations troops is a very important event indeed, in keeping the work that is going on on the ground in Bosnia in being and ensuring that it continues. But I don’t think either of us would see that as a last chance at all. We will continue to seek for both the diminution of fighting, the maximum amount of humanitarian aid, the maximum amount of protection for our troops and we will continue to push very hard for a sensible pragmatic political outcome to this dispute.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    We share the same point of view on these matters. The issue of the objectives and aims that have motivated the establishment of this Rapid Reaction Force is something we totally agree on. I note furthermore that neither President Clinton nor President Yeltsin have expressed any reservations about this initiative. You see there was a situation that simply could not last, The UNPROFOR troops have been deployed throughout the territory and they are stretched very thin with relatively limited military means at their disposal and we have seen the emergence and rise of a certain number of phenomena, aggressive phenomena and situations in which these troops have had to face humiliation and that is something we could not accept. The Rapid Reaction Force is a means of ensuring that our troops never again find themselves in a situation whereby they are humiliated. They can fight, they may unfortunately be injured or even sadly killed, but one thing they will never have to face again is humiliation.

    QUESTION (Reuters):

    Prime Minister, in the light of your discussions this morning and what we have heard from both of you, do you feel that you have a new ally in Paris, particularly on European Union affairs, and that perhaps Britain is not as alone on those affairs as it was in the past.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Paul, if I didn’t know better I would think you were being mischievous. I have always found in my relationship with the French government and with the President of France that both sides to the discussions speak their mind plainly and clearly. We are concerned about the way Europe develops and we are concerned about the individual interests of Britain and France in Europe. I think that was the case with President Mitterrand, I think it is the case now with President Chirac, I have found our discussions this morning very amiable. There are many areas of very great agreement, some of them have been very evident I think in the discussions we have had this morning and in the questions indeed that you have asked this morning. There may be areas at some stage in the future where there are divergent views, as there are between any two countries you care to name in the European Union. But I do think that the relationship between Britain and France is a very ancient relationship. On the really important matters we tend to be on the same side more often than not. I think that is going to remain the case, I cannot promise you we will agree on every issue and neither can President Chirac.

    I can say the relationship is very good and where we differ it will be on matters of political substance, it will not be a matter that will bite deeply and damagingly into the British/French relationship.

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    I would like to add one thing in respect to the construction of Europe. I believe that the construction of Europe, in other words the strengthening, the permanent constant strengthening of the links between European countries, is a sine qua non for the future existence of Europe. Franco-German relations are therefore necessary for the construction of Europe but not in themselves sufficient. We cannot possibly build Europe without Britain. It is therefore essential that we understand the specific problems that Britain faces. And I believe that France can play an important role in finding the necessary impetus and synergy which is necessary to the building of Europe between all European partners and of course in particular France, Germany and Britain.

    QUESTION (James Robbins, BBC):

    President, in the discussions at Cannes on technical preparations for a single currency, should the matter of a name for the single currency be discussed, should a name be decided at a fairly early stage so that European citizens have an idea of what this thing would be called. What would be your preferred choice? The Prime Minister told the House of Commons in London this week that arguably circumstances might never arise in which it would be right for Britain to join the single currency, was that a disappointment to you?

    PRESIDENT CHIRAC:

    On the first point I would say that we are not on the agenda of the Cannes Summit intending to discuss the name of the single currency. And on your second question, I know and I understand the British analysis and view of the single currency. And there is at least one point on which John Major and myself agree. In other words, the consequences of a single currency, the impact of a single currency which would bring together perhaps 5 or 6 or even 7 Community country members, on the economic situation and status of the Union as a whole, in other words the Union as made up of member states that would not have a single currency, have been insufficiently thought about and insufficiently studied. And therefore it is necessary to examine the situation very objectively and as speedily as possible. I for one of course am in favour of France respecting and upholding the commitments it made under Maastricht and France will of course make all necessary efforts to meet these commitments and indeed meet the terms set for the launching of a single European currency under the Maastricht Treaty and under the provisions of the treaty, in other words by 1st January 1999.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me add just a point about this because this is a matter that the President and I discussed at some length this morning. The unspoken presupposition in much of the early thinking about a single currency was that everybody would be able to join at the same time. But of course the European Union is changing and it is expanding and there are new members coming in, so it is no longer a practical proposition to assume that every member of the European Union would be able to enter a single currency, if it wished to, at the same time. And as the President said, one has to look at these realities and see what they might mean. They raise very important questions, not just for monetary union itself but for other aspects of working of the European Union as a whole. And I personally find it a breath of fresh air that these important matters are finally coming to the fore and will be examined, and I look forward to the examination.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on Bosnia – 31 May 1995

    Below is Mr Major’s statement on the situation in Bosnia, made on 31st May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): In the three weeks since the House last debated Bosnia, the position has qualitatively changed. Conflict has grown. The shelling of Sarajevo has intensified. UN soldiers have been deliberately targeted and killed by both sides. UN personnel, including officers and men of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, have been taken captive by Bosnian Serbs.

    The Government have decided to reinforce our contingent in Bosnia, and the diplomatic pace has quickened. For all those reasons, I thought it right to seek the recall of Parliament to set out the Government’s response to this tense and dangerous situation. Let me recall for the House the evolution of this crisis. The dispute in Bosnia began to crystallise in the spring of 1992, when Bosnia declared its independence. War broke out, and the country split into three parts. I believe that it would have been wrong for us to stand and watch Bosnia burn, and we did not.

    In August 1992, I convened the London conference which brought the parties together in search of a political settlement. We set up the Sarajevo airlift, and we were instrumental in establishing the United Nations protection force’s Bosnia command. The first British troops arrived in Bosnia in November 1992. Let me remind the House why we sent them. First is the humanitarian case. I believe that we have a duty–a moral responsibility if one likes–to play our part in the relief of suffering. Soldiers were being killed, but we also saw civilian suffering in Bosnia on a massive scale. There was ethnic cleansing–cold-blooded and racial-based murders. There was widespread rape and brutality. As winter approached, there was the clear prospect of widespread starvation.

    There had been nothing like it in Europe since the second world war. The aid agencies were doing their best, but they needed protection if the convoys bearing food and medicines were to get through. So we decided to play our part in providing that protection.

    Bosnia is close to the borders of the European Union. Even so, precisely the same case for help was seen by countries as far away as Canada, Malaysia and New Zealand, all of which have joined us in the task. Service men and women of 19 nations have stood with our relief agencies and our troops to help alleviate suffering. Many who would have died are alive today because of that effort. We should understand that many alive today would die if that effort were to end.

    Secondly, we sent our soldiers there for strategic reasons. The Balkans have often enough been a tinderbox in history, and war memorials throughout the United Kingdom testify to the price paid in British blood for past Balkan turbulence. The Bosnian war by itself might not directly affect our interests, but a wider conflagration across the Balkans–leading to a wider Balkan war–most certainly would affect our strategic interests.

    If unchecked, the fighting in Bosnia could have ignited not only a Serb- Croat war in Croatia, but unrest in Kosovo and Macedonia. That could easily have dragged Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey into confrontation with one another. The Bosnian dispute has always contained within it the seeds of the nightmare of a wider Balkan war.

    The consequences of a wider Balkan conflict would be disastrous for Europe as a whole. In my judgment, it is unquestionably in our national interest to prevent that if we are able to do so. The United Nations protection force and British forces may not have extinguished the fighting in Bosnia, but they have contained it and they have prevented it from spreading. That is a remarkable tribute to their efforts. Had they not been there, the circumstances we face today might have been incomparably more serious than those that we are debating this afternoon.

    If it is in our national interest to avert a greater calamity in Bosnia and the Balkans, so it is for other members of NATO and the European Union. The strategic case and the humanitarian case were the twin reasons why I thought it right to commit British troops in 1992. Both those cases apply in equal measure today–which is why I expressly do not wish to see the United Nations protection force withdraw until or unless the risks become wholly unacceptable. I will describe in more detail the developments of the last three weeks. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary warned the House on 9 May that there was a real risk of a relapse into substantial war, in place of the ragged and uncertain peace of previous months. Since then, my right hon. Friend’s words, sadly, have been borne out. There has been a chain reaction of attack and counter-attack by Bosnian Government and Bosnian Serb forces. Both parties have violated the Sarajevo exclusion zone by firing heavy weapons on to the confrontation lines and into the city itself.

    On 24 May, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative and the protection force commander made a further attempt to stop the escalating bombardment. They issued an ultimatum that certain heavy weapons should be returned to the collection points and other heavy weapons be removed from the exclusion zone. When the Bosnian Serb army ignored that ultimatum, NATO carried out a successful air strike against an ammunition store near Pale. It did so at the United Nations’ request.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Were the Russians consulted about the ultimatum? Were they consulted about the strike against the ammunition dumps? If not, would it not have been wise to do so?

    The Prime Minister: That was, as it was intended to be, a decision on the ground. No individual national Government were directly consulted. There is a proper procedure for determining how such strikes are approved, and that procedure was followed. The troops are there as United Nations troops, with a United Nations commander who happens to be a British general, and they proceeded at the request of the United Nations. I believe that they proceeded correctly.

    Shortly afterwards–in deliberate escalation–the Bosnian Serbs launched artillery attacks against the populations of Srebrenica, Gorazde and Tuzla. In the bombardment of Tuzla, 70 people were killed and 130 were injured. They were, I understand, for the most part innocent civilians in a marketplace–men, women and children going about their daily business. They were not armed combatants in the conflict.

    Following a second NATO air strike against the ammunition storage complex on 26 May, the Bosnian Serb army began to take United Nations military observers and members of the protection force as hostages. Hon. Members will have seen, in the press and on television, that some of these hostages, in an outrageous breach of international law and of their status as United Nations peacekeepers, were chained to potential targets as so- called “human shields”.

    On 27 May, the Bosnian Serb army attacked and captured a French observation post at Sarajevo. The post was subsequently retaken, but one French soldier was killed, 11 were wounded and 10 were taken captive. On Sunday 28 May, United Kingdom and Ukrainian soldiers were taken captive at Gorazde. Some of the Ukrainians were taken by Bosnian Government forces.

    I have set out in this brief summary only the bare facts of the situation confronting the United Nations and NATO commanders on the ground, but there is no doubt in my mind that these events mark a qualitative change in the conflict, and one to which we and our partners have no choice but to respond very firmly.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): The House is listening intently, obviously, because of the British soldiers who are being held, but can the Prime Minister tell the House how he reconciles humanitarian aid given by British solders in blue berets with bombing attacks by American pilots in blue berets? Is it possible to combine humanitarian aid with a combative role? Is that not the question to which he should address himself?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows precisely what has happened when the NATO attacks–not necessarily American: they are NATO planes–in these circumstances have been used, and they have been used as a deterrent to persuade the Bosnians that that sort of activity is not acceptable to the international community in any way whatever.

    It is not very long ago–as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, for he will have hated this as much as anyone else did–that the nature of atrocities that we saw at the beginning of this war spread a darkening stain right the way across the conscience of the whole of Europe and the whole of the world as well. I believe, in these circumstances, that we have not only a right but an obligation to take the action that has been taken, to try to bring this conflict to an end and to end the suffering that so many people have faced in Bosnia.

    Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Does the Prime Minister agree with the French Prime Minister that the preparation of those air strikes was not good, and that it led to putting the peacekeepers at risk in a thoughtless way?

    The Prime Minister: I said just a moment ago that I thought that it was right for the commanders on the ground to proceed as they did, and I have to say that I do not believe that I am prepared to second-guess the decisions of the commanders on the ground to whom those decisions were delegated, and I do not wish to do so. Let me now turn to the response that I believe we should make, and first to the matter that I believe is most upon the minds of the House this afternoon: the British and the other United Nations troops who have been taken captive and held hostage.

    The situation is that more than 350 United Nations personnel–who, I remind the House, have been serving in an impartial humanitarian and peacekeeping role in Bosnia–are now being illegally held by the Bosnian Serb army. Of these, one is a Royal Air Force officer serving as a United Nations military observer, and 33 are officers and men of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who were taken captive last Sunday from observation points around the town of Gorazde, where 336 British solders are based.

    Six–not five as previously reported–of the soldiers have apparently been injured in a road accident and are in hospital, although none of them, we believe, is in a serious condition. The fusiliers are thought to be in Visegrad and in both good heart and good health. The taking of United Nations peacekeepers as hostages is a despicable act, which has rightly been condemned around the world. It is without a shred of justification. It will win the Bosnian Serbs no favours and gain them no friends. It will guarantee unremitting hostility to them, and the certainty of pariah status and international isolation.

    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mon): The Prime Minister will be aware that the whole House and those outside it–particularly in Wales–will be very concerned about the safety and welfare of the 33 young soldiers who have been taken hostage by the Serb aggressors. Will he tell the House today that whatever action he proposes to take will in no way endanger the safety of those young men, and that he will ensure that that action will be taken to secure their early release?

    The Prime Minister: I will have something to say in a few moments about what we propose to do. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be neither wise nor prudent for me to say too much about the matter at this time.

    Within hours of the capture of the British troops, we took steps to make it clear, directly and unequivocally, to the Bosnian Serb leadership that the safety of our troops in Bosnia is of vital British interest. We have told Mr. Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, that we shall hold him and General Mladic personally responsible for the well-being and the safe return of our troops. These words are not lightly spoken, and, as I shall explain, we are reinforcing our protection force contingent.

    No one should doubt our resolve to secure the safe return of our soldiers. Yet, as we embark on the moves towards such a result, I hope that the House will understand if I do not go into detail about the courses that may be available to us.

    Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: In a moment. With the lives of British soldiers at stake, there will be a need for patience, a time for restraint, perhaps at times a need for silence. But if the silences are long, and if the requirement for restraint and patience becomes frustrating, no one in the House should imagine that those soldiers will be forgotten. The work to secure their release will be unremitting.

    Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that eight members of the Royal Welch Fusiliers are at present unaccounted for? Does he appreciate that there is considerable concern among their relatives back home about their safety?

    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the observation post near Gorazde. I understand entirely the points that he has to make. Let me turn to the reason why our forces are in Bosnia–and to what they are not there to do. Our troops have not gone to Bosnia to wage war, but even on humanitarian duties we have seen that they need protection. If they are attacked, they must be able to defend themselves robustly.

    The protection force commander in Bosnia, General Smith, knows that he has our complete support. The protection force must be able to take whatever action is necessary in justifiable self-defence. When it does so, it will have the unqualified backing of the British Government–and, I believe, of the British nation. To improve the protection force’s capacity to defend itself, the Government on Sunday night decided to enhance the equipment and manpower available to the force.

    At present, we have some 3,400 troops in Bosnia, protecting convoys and monitoring local ceasefires. A further 3,000 men and women from the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are engaged in the airlift from Italy to Sarajevo; in NATO operations to police the air exclusion zone; in the joint enforcement by NATO and the Western European Union of the arms embargo and trade sanctions; and as contingency reinforcements on a carrier task group.

    Anyone who has had the privilege of visiting any of those units, as I have, knows that they have carried out their peacekeeping tasks with scrupulous fairness and with a cool resolve–often in the face of provocation. I believe that we can be truly proud of them. But despite their military professionalism, the troops on the ground in Bosnia now need more protection, and the safety of those troops is, as I said, of vital national interest.

    So we have decided to dispatch two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron to Bosnia, totalling around 1,000 personnel. The first detachment, from 19 Field Regiment, left for Bosnia yesterday. Those units will increase our contingent’s armoured capability. Crucially, they will provide artillery. They will be equipped with 12 105 mm light guns. That will provide the protection forces, for the first time, with the artillery that is now necessary as a deterrent and response to bombardment.

    That does not mean that we are taking sides in the conflict. The protection force remains neutral, and it remains impartial. But, to defend itself, it now needs a capability to fill the gap between machine guns and air strikes.

    The Government have also announced that 24 Air Mobile Brigade has been placed under orders to prepare to deploy to Bosnia. The order to move will be given unless there is a clear and rapid improvement in the situation. We have proposed to the United Nations that the brigade, as United Nations troops, should come under the command of General Rupert Smith in Sarajevo. We are now discussing the details of the deployment with the United Nations.

    Let me say a little more about 24 Air Mobile Brigade. It is a flexible, self-contained force of over 5,000 personnel. It is, as its title suggests, able to deploy very rapidly within theatre. Its equipment includes Army and Royal Air Force helicopters, Milan anti-tank weapons, artillery batteries, an air defence battery and engineer and medical support. We have constantly said that the safety of British troops is crucial; our readiness to deploy the Air Mobile Brigade is ample testimony to that.

    Let me emphasise one point that I know is of concern to the House, which should not be misunderstood in the House or beyond it. The protection force is in Bosnia as an humanitarian and peacekeeping force. It is not there to impose peace, and it is not equipped or configured to fight a war. Those points are fundamental, and we do not intend that they should be changed.

    Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Does the Prime Minister accept that there will be widespread support, both in the House and outside, for the concept that not just serving the British flag but serving the United Nations is among the most honourable of tasks for our armed forces?

    Although some may react by saying that, as soon as there is particular danger, the troops should be withdrawn, it is also true–given that these are among the best armed forces in the world, equipped to deal with particular danger–that many in those forces will regard the job they have started as a job that they would rather continue, if that is possible. Not necessarily success, but the attempt to bring about peace on behalf of the international community, is the reason why the forces are there, and the reason why the Government are right to support them in the way that the Prime Minister has announced.

    The Prime Minister: I have indicated that I wish our forces to stay there, and I wish the United Nations protection force as a whole to stay there to carry out the job for which it was sent. That job is not yet concluded; I hope that it will be possible for it to remain. We see a strong case for reducing the vulnerability of United Nations personnel– particularly the United Nations military observers, who have been in the most exposed positions. Some may need to be withdrawn, others concentrated and others given stronger protection. The commanders on the ground are best placed to determine precisely how that should be done, in consultation with the Secretary-General and, through him, with the Security Council. I understand that the Secretary-General will shortly be making his recommendations to the Security Council on the future role of the protection forces.

    Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): Will the Prime Minister give way?

    The Prime Minister: May I make a little progress? Our decisions have been warmly welcomed by the protection force and by other Governments. The contact group agreed on Monday that the protection force should have a rapid reaction capability. France, which at present has the largest contingent in Bosnia, has sent reinforcements to the Adriatic. Some other troop contributors are also thinking of strengthening their contingents.

    Madam Speaker, those decisions are intended to help carry UNPROFOR through a dangerous phase. We hope that they will make it more secure, will help it to fulfil its tasks, and will deter further escalation. If we can damp down the level of violence and make progress towards a lasting cessation, at that point the protection force would no longer need the enhanced protection.

    However, success for the protection force rests ultimately with the warring parties. I believe that, at this moment, Bosnia is at a turning point. It must be made clear to the parties that, if they turned to all-out war, the protection force would not be equipped to remain. It would be unable to carry out its tasks, and the risks to the troops of all nationalities would be unacceptable.

    Withdrawal is not our objective; but our ability to handle withdrawal, if it is forced upon us, would undoubtedly be helped by the further deployment that I have announced to the House today.

    Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): Before we commit more troops to that theatre who may suffer the same fate as the troops who are already there, will my right hon. Friend comment on the report that the Serbs have said that, if we agree to cease bombing, they will release the hostages? Is that report accurate? If it is, what are we doing to make NATO give us that assurance?

    The Prime Minister: I yield to no one in my wish to have those troops returned safely to their units, but I am not entering into that sort of blackmailing deal.

    Madam Speaker, in taking those decisions, we have unequivocally signalled our serious intent. We wish to see the protection force remain in Bosnia and continue its work. We wish to restore equilibrium to a situation that has become dangerously unstable. We continue to believe that only a political settlement will end the conflict. There can be no satisfactory and lasting military solution.

    The way ahead may yet be rocky and painful. I know that many people, for good and understandable reasons, may advocate withdrawing the forces and, as I have said to the House, circumstances could arise in which that would become inevitable. But withdrawal is not a policy. No one should believe that leaving Bosnia would end the United Kingdom’s interest in the conflict.

    Mr. Morgan: I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister on behalf of the families of the 30 Welsh soldiers who are being held in Bosnia. Was it primarily the responsibility of the British Government or of the United Nations to have secured in advance some means of escape for those soldiers who were being held in the very difficult pockets of the further extensions of Bosnia in case things got extremely difficult–as they have done–and there was hostage taking? Whose responsibility was that?

    The Prime Minister: I think that we have a joint interest in securing their release. Of course, their deployment is a matter that must be determined on the ground, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the soldiers themselves would well know. Let me turn to the possible consequences of withdrawing the protection force. If the United Nations left, what would be the likely outcome?

    The first likely outcome is that the Muslim areas, including the eastern enclaves, would be likely to come under immediate threat. The bloodshed and loss of life could be massive. Before we sent troops three years ago, Bosnia was on the brink of genocide–of atrocities far worse than we have yet seen. If we depart, I remind the House that those dangers return. Could the west stand idly by and let such actions take place in south-eastern Europe? I doubt it; I truly doubt it. Would we ignore the threat of an all- out Balkan war? Again, I do not believe that we would or should ignore such a threat. Leaving Bosnia–if the protection force is forced to do so–is neither an easy nor a pain-free option. The threats would return if the United Nations protection force withdrew, and we and our allies would have to find other ways of responding to them–ways which could conceivably impose a greater financial and military burden on us than we are now carrying. Those who contemplate withdrawal must think very carefully about the humanitarian consequences and the strategic implications for European security.

    At present, UNPROFOR is holding the ring. It must try to continue to do so, while we seek a political solution. Despite every effort by Governments and individuals–notably Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg–the search for a negotiated settlement has been extremely frustrating. For months, progress has been blocked by the intransigence of the Bosnian Serbs.

    Over the past week, we have been in close touch with our partners to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts and maximise the pressure on Pale. I have spoken to the Presidents of Russia, the United States and France, the German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has attended meetings of the contact group, NATO and the European Union, and this morning had further discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister.

    As a result of those meetings, there is a renewed unity of purpose among contact group Governments. The Russian Government condemned the behaviour of the Bosnian Serbs in the strongest possible language. We wish to see an equally clear stance from President Milosevic. The contact group’s emissary is in Belgrade today. If the contact group can secure the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the former republic of Yugoslavia, fears or ambitions of a greater Serbia should be laid to rest, and the message to the Bosnian Serbs would be absolutely unmistakable.

    I have tried to set out the situation as I see it. It is stark and it is serious, but we cannot avoid it. So I hope the word will go out this afternoon from all parts of the House that British peacekeepers, United Nations peacekeepers, must be released unharmed and unconditionally.

    Let us show our forces, whether they are on land, at sea or in the air in the former Yugoslavia and the Adriatic, that they have the total support of the House. They have saved many lives. They have brought peace and hope and a semblance of normality to central Bosnia. They have prevented the spread of war. They are defending British interests and international security. Their courage and professionalism have earned the widest admiration. They deserve our wholehearted backing, and I commend it to the House.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Paris – 8 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Paris on Monday 8th May 1995.

    INTERVIEWER:

    What is your first reaction to the election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Firstly, let me say that I have enjoyed working with President Mitterrand for a number of years now; he is a man of very great courage, he has made a very formidable contribution to his country over many years and I think people will recognise that.

    Of course, I look forward to working with Jacques Chirac. I have known him for a number of years. I like him. I think he is a man of very great qualities and I think he will be a fine President of France.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Now that in Europe we have many more prime ministers, presidents or heads of state who did not really participate in the War, do you think that the arrival of M. Chirac with you and other men of your generation is going to change anything in Europe?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Both our countries have a very strong sense of history, there is a continuum and although we are essentially post-War – we didn’t go through the War as adults – I think the impact of the War has been built into the nations since then so I wouldn’t expect any stark and sudden changes but of course policy evolves, the direction of individual countries evolves and of Europe of a whole so of course things will change.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think that in Europe you are going to have a better understanding with M. Chirac than with M. Mitterrand and his team?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have enjoyed working with President Mitterrand; we have occasionally had our differences, they have always been dealt with with great charm but I think there are many ways in which Jacques Chirac and I will see Europe in the same way and I very much look forward to working with him.

    INTERVIEWER:

    What kind of man is M. Chirac in your opinion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He is outgoing, he is warm, he is witty. He cares very much about what he does and he acts in response to the things that he most cares about so I think it will be a very exciting time. Working with him will be fun, of that I have no doubt at all.

    INTERVIEWER:

    With regard to the commemoration which is taking place today in Paris and the role of your country compared to our country during the War, what kind of thoughts do you have?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think what everyone will be thinking about today is that here we are in France, the day after the election of a new President of France, and if Britain, France, the United States and the Allies hadn’t worked together, hadn’t fought together, hadn’t won together, then we would not today, be celebrating the election of a new democratic President of France so I think we will look back at what the previous generation achieved in order that this generation and subsequent generations can live the sort of democratic life we have become used to. We owe a very great deal to that generation.

  • PMQT – 1 December 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 1st December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

    Mr. Coombs: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the speech made by the French Prime Minister, Mr. Balladur, on the need to resist centralism and federalism in Europe? Is not that speech evidence that the entente is especially cordiale at present, and that the British Government are winning the arguments over the right kind of Europe for the future?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly did read Mr. Balladur’s speech. In fact, we discussed what he was likely to say when we met at Chartres a short while ago. I would have been pleased to make the speech that Mr. Balladur made–I nearly did at Leiden. He is right to reject federalism in favour of flexibility, say that we should avoid the encroachment of European institutions on national institutions, and talk of the need to look again at European policies as well as institutions, to keep costs down as we examine the question of enlargement. That is clear confirmation that the arguments made by the British Government for some time are increasingly gaining ground across Europe.

    Mr. Blair: As to value added tax on domestic fuel, given that it is now clear that eight and three quarter million pensioners will not even be eligible for cold weather payments, and given the Prime Minister’s specific promise at the last general election that he would not raise VAT, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to Labour’s amendment next week, so that the House can vote on whether he has kept his promise?

    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have already had four votes on VAT. He neglected to mention that, in real terms, even after last year’s VAT increase of 8 per cent., fuel prices actually fell. The position of the 15 million people who receive compensation for the VAT increase is, in real terms, better than it was before VAT was imposed on domestic fuel.

    Mr. Blair: I gather that the Chancellor is in one-to-one meetings with the Back-Bench rebels over VAT. Would not it be better if all Conservative Members of Parliament had one-to-one meetings with their constituents so that they could know of their anger at the promise betrayed?

    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends might care to discuss carbon tax with their constituents and explain to them– [Interruption.] Clearly they do not wish to discuss anything with their constituents, such as why they oppose VAT because it is politically expedient for them to do so, and why they propose a carbon tax that would have precisely the same effect on fuel prices.

    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend outline briefly his Government’s policy on the deployment of troops in Bosnia and confirm the House’s support for the actions of General Rose?

    The Prime Minister: I most certainly and unequivocally reaffirm the House’s support for the actions taken by General Rose. He has had an extremely difficult job. I believe that he has done that job as well as it could have been done by any commanding officer anywhere in the world. If I may say so, I believe that most hon. Members and most people in this country will bitterly resent the criticism of General Rose voiced in some United States newspapers. I have seen the arguments and comments about the position in Bosnia. There is no doubt that the position in Bosnia is serious at the moment. I have no doubt about that at all, but I have to say to the House that, if the embargo was lifted and UNPROFOR was forced to withdraw, the position would be even worse, and particularly so for the Bosnians. The belief that that would produce a level playing field is not, in my judgment, right. It would produce a level killing field.

     

    Q2. Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

    Sir David Steel: During the past couple of days, the Prime Minister and his colleagues have tried to persuade us that all their tax increases are something of a temporary aberration from Conservative instincts. Even if that were so, how does he explain the fact that, under this Government, the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers received tax cuts of something like £47,000 on average, while the low-paid have seen their taxes increase by about £400 a year? Is not that a permanent feature of Conservative instincts?

    The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is a permanent feature of Conservative instincts: the fact that real, disposable net incomes, at all levels, have risen. That, of course, is what affects people’s living standards. Post-taxation, they have more spending power in their pockets than they had before. That is undoubtedly the case right the way down the scale and, I believe, will remain the case.

    Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to get the unemployed back to work is to give them incentives and training, and not to bash business men with a minimum wage and a training levy?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. Priority is given to getting the unemployed back to work. We have seen unemployment fall more dramatically in this country than in any other European country. There was a wide range of measures in my right hon. and learned Friend’s Budget which will add to that return to work.

     

    Q3. Mr. Connarty: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

    Mr. Connarty: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice of the all-party group on pensions that, despite the Government’s compensation package, the individual pensioner will be 56p a week worse off if VAT on fuel rises to 17.5 per cent? In the light of that, will he tell his hon. Friends who are committed to defending pensioners against that attack to stick by their principles next week?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say to the Leader of the Opposition just a few moments ago. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the consistent position that we have taken about VAT on fuel and the consistent position that the House has endorsed on at least four occasions.

    Mr. Stephen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern expressed by many of our constituents about people who are not ordinarily resident in this country coming here to litigate their disputes in the English courts at the British taxpayers’ expense on legal aid? Will he consider withdrawing civil legal aid from such people in future?

    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly seek the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am aware of the concern that has arisen. As my hon. Friend knows, the matter is very complex, but it raises a great many concerns among many people in the country. I shall draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

     

    Q4. Mr. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

    Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is still committed to the Rio environmental targets, and in particular to efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If he is committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, how will that commitment be financed? Does he accept that the Government’s policy was to use the Energy Saving Trust, and that so far the trust has virtually no money with which to reach its targets?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question.

    We are currently considering a range of options for funding the trust, including the involvement of private sector finance and input from the energy consumer. We remain totally committed to meeting the targets to which I signed up at Rio, and with that in mind the trust has already prepared a plan setting out how it intends to proceed towards its contribution to carbon emission reduction as part of the climate change reduction programme.

    I would add that our decisions regarding VAT on fuel have a strong environmental impact.

     

    Q5. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

    Mr. Arnold: What does my right hon. Friend think of the trench warfare being conducted against grant-maintained schools by Labour- controlled councils, particularly Kent county council? Kent has vetoed the only application for a new nursery unit in Gravesend because the school is grant-maintained.

    What does my right hon. Friend think of a man who is prepared to reject all the schools in his Labour-controlled borough, and to sneak his son eight miles across Greater London to a grant-maintained school?

    The Prime Minister: I have no comment to make about any right hon. or hon. Member who seeks the best for his or her children; I am sure that we would all do that. My only criticism would be that the policy for everyone should not be to remove the same choices from millions of other people.

     

    Q6. Mr. Byers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

    Mr. Byers: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the latest figures, the average household fuel bill in Northern Ireland is 27 per cent. higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he explain why the VAT compensation package announced on Tuesday failed to take that difference into account?

    The Prime Minister: As Northern Ireland would be the first to accept, we are a united kingdom as a whole, and our legislation stretches across the United Kingdom: that position is taken very firmly by Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. It is also true that we see from Government support across the United Kingdom–I take these figures broadly from memory –that the degree of underlying public support for Northern Ireland is substantially higher than that for other parts of the United Kingdom. The figure for Scotland is substantially above that for Wales, and the figure for Wales is substantially above that for England. It is in that way that we seek to ensure a proper equity of support for services and people throughout the United Kingdom.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Following my right hon. Friend’s talks with the Republican leader Senator Dole, will he confirm that he made it clear to the senator that, whatever the differences may be over Bosnia, they should not be allowed to undermine the commitment of his country and ours to the Atlantic alliance?

    The Prime Minister: I had an extremely useful exchange with Senator Dole. We spent some time considering the Atlantic alliance and there is no doubt whatever about Senator Dole’s whole-hearted support for NATO, both now and in the future.

     

    Q7. Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Morris: The Prime Minister has been asked three times this afternoon to justify his policy on VAT; three times he has failed to answer the question. Does he accept that, no matter what he says, pensioners do not believe him, because they know that an extra £1 a week will not pay their bills? Why has the Prime Minister betrayed the pensioners of the nation?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady may have repeated a question that has been asked before, but she should have listened to the answers. In reality, we have put in place a generous package to compensate not only pensioners but others for the effects of VAT.

    Mr. Connarty: Not enough.

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shouts, “Not enough,” and that is just another illustration of the fact that the Opposition claim that they would not put up taxes, they oppose every tax increase, but they would choose to put up expenditure and have no idea how they would fund any one of their policies. That is not new Labour: it is the old Labour that the electorate have rejected time after time.

    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend think that many people in this country would support the legalisation of cannabis or the party that advocates it?

    The Prime Minister: I certainly would not support the legalisation of cannabis, and I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country would support it either.

     

    Q8. Mr. Hutton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hutton: Why has the Prime Minister sanctioned the dismissal of 600 uniformed front-line customs officers this week? Does he agree with the Paymaster General that the dismissal of those 600 officers will compromise the Government’s fight against illegal drugs and pornography?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) asked that question on Tuesday and I told him then that it will not. Since then I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the chairman of Customs and Excise and she confirms that it will not.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference in Chartres – 18 November 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand, held in Chartres on Friday 18th November 1994.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I will start by giving you some elements of our conclusions and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will then add to these remarks.

    This was the 17th Franco-British summit. This Chartres summit was mainly geared to a certain number of European questions which are important, some of the really important international problems, on the development of the war in Bosnia, for example, and also matters of defence. That is not a comprehensive list, there is more, but I am telling you what the main themes were.

    On the European matters, we ran through the main issues of the day, the preparation of the Essen European Council meeting, the European summit, also the orientations of the up-coming French Presidency. Of course work has started, in fact in depth thinking has been started too and representatives of the Prime Minister and myself have discussed these matters at length and therefore we are completely ready to start the next phase on 1 January next.

    And we think it is essential to inform our British partners of this and of course our British colleague added his own remarks. The preparation also of the intergovernmental conference in 1996, this is a very important date and the preparation for this has been somewhat delayed by a series of political events in the domestic area. And lastly, but I repeat this is not an exhaustive list, we also talked about the future enlargements of the Union.

    I think we agreed in considering with the Prime Minister that the urgent thing was to consolidate what we had already achieved. That does not mean that we refuse to examine the way documents should be changed, that text should be changed and practices and customers too, each time that is necessary. But it would perhaps be a mistake to try to move yet even further forward without having consolidated what we had already achieved. That being said, we remain entirely open to suggestions from our partners.

    On international affairs, as I said before, the discussion was mainly-on Bosnia. I imagine that you have questions on that, therefore I will keep my explanations for later on.

    On defence, first we have clarified a decision which I think is very important and significant for the future, on the setting up of a Franco-British Euro-air Group. The purpose of the exercise is to train, to prepare in other words, our Air Forces to work together, to get them used to this, and in particular with regard to humanitarian operations and peace-keeping and peace-making operations. For example, there was a statement made in [indistinct] by the Western European Union in which these points were mentioned. And I think this project, because we want to move forward in pragmatic terms, a Europe .of defence, this group will be established in the UK at High Wycombe. The first Commander of the group will be a French Air Force General.

    And then another subject was the prevention and settlement of conflicts in Africa. But I have noticed, and I was very happy to note, Prime Minister, if I may say so, I was delighted to see that we have to some extent emerged from the situation that we were in in 1904, it is a bit late in the day but we have made progress. So we decided anyway to pursue cooperation between the two countries and with particular regard to preventive diplomacy. The idea is to give logistic and other support to the African countries which in the framework of action carried out in particular by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), on the basis of a mandate from the United Nations, or to the extent the OAU would ask for this, we have just emerged ourselves from a meeting with our African partners and I am delighted to see the cooperation among us, among these two countries which have great experience in Africa, that such cooperation is moving forward, and I particularly appreciate the contribution of the UK in this respect.

    Next, cooperation as far as armaments are concerned, well you are already informed of this, the tripartite frigate with Italy, the UK, France, the so-called new generation, also known as the Horizon Project. That is the vocabulary, our British friends are always at the front of the pack, but these are important things. So this is very satisfactory, I think more forward, than the military for the future FLA, the future large aircraft. Here obviously transport capacity has to be developed and on a European basis. This aircraft is the object of the project and several other countries are already associated, including Germany, Italy and Spain.

    It has been agreed to set up a study group, trusted with the task of looking specifically at the possible participation of the UK in this project. But I want to emphasise in speaking to our British friends, and in their presence, the precise importance that we attach to this project.

    In the nuclear field we have reasserted the intention of both sides to strengthen cooperation between our two countries. I made a remark earlier which is not a restrictive remark, because I personally very much intend to see the development of more and more cooperation, which will be the very foundation of European security, because can you imagine European security without the support of nuclear forces, that would be illusory. Nuclear deterrence remains an essential element of our defence policies and the more our defence policies are one single defence policy the better that would be.

    In economic and financial affairs I just mention in passing, the most striking feature was confirmation of the economic recovery under way. It appeared necessary to emphasise the implementation of the measures decided in Naples on the debt of the poorest countries, 67 percent was the figure mentioned.

    Also, because curiously there is some talk of this, the question of the ratification of the GATT agreement, a discussion of this. It is not that we have become less enthusiastic spectators of all this, but what has been achieved has been achieved and has been done. And our officials have spent enough time and trouble to get these agreements through, it would really be rather a pity to have to come back on all this, I think it is in everyone’s interest.

    So those are the few remarks I wanted to say at the outset before asking Mr Major and Mr Balladur if they would like to add a few words which would add to my brief summary of what we have done.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be apparent from what the President of the Republic has said that we have had an extremely productive summit, not just in the discussions that I have been privileged to have with the President and Prime Minister, but those which my colleagues have had with their counterparts in a range of different areas.

    Can I firstly say how grateful I am to the President, to the Prime Minister and to the people of Chartres for their hospitality on this occasion, it has been a delight to be here and also extremely useful.

    Let me pick up some of the points that the President has made. What has been apparent from our discussions today is that the interests of Britain and France coincide in a very wide range of areas, we have reached specific agreements today on a number of matters. Let me add a point to some of those that the President has mentioned.

    We have agreed today on the formation of a Franco-British Euro-Air Group. This is a natural development I think from our long-standing defence cooperation. The group’s headquarters will be at High Wycombe in England. The first Commander of the Group will be a French General and thereafter command of the group will alternate between British and French officers.

    Britain and France are the only two European members of NATO with the capability significantly to project military power overseas. And the new group will allow us to coordinate our Air Forces so that we can set up more speedily combined operations in peace-keeping or in humanitarian missions.

    We have also agreed to work together in another area where we have a self-evident joint interest, and that is of course in peace-keeping in Africa. In September in the South African Parliament I announced an initiative to help African countries develop further their peace-keeping capabilities. The French government, quite separately, had put forward very similar ideas. What we have agreed today is that our approaches are compatible and that we will now take them forward together with our African partners.

    We discussed also military matters, as the President has said. Specifically on military transport aircraft, I explained to the President and to the Prime Minister that British requirements fell into two quite different parts. The first was that part of our present Hercules fleet is very near the end of its operational life. We shall need to decide very soon whether to refurbish these aircraft or to buy a number of Hercules 0130J replacements to meet our immediate needs. But secondly, and as a quite separate matter, we shall need to consider our longer term requirement for similar aircraft and we are interested in exploring whether participation in the future large aircraft project would be a possible way of meeting this longer term requirement. And so to help in this I have today agreed with our French hosts that a group of senior experts from both our governments should be tasked to study possible British participation in the future large aircraft, it is without commitment but I think it is entirely right that we should examine it carefully to see the extent to which our military and our economic needs might coincide, and the extent to which, provided they do and a satisfactory agreement can be reached, that we may proceed together in this particular project.

    In the fairly wide ranging discussions we had on Europe I underlined one very high priority for Britain and was delighted to find that this was fully shared by the French government. I refer to the absolute necessity to crack down on fraud, waste and mis-management in the European Union that has been set out so clearly in the Court of Auditors Report over recent-days. Fraud in the European Union is not a fresh problem, it is not a concern that has just suddenly arisen for us, we had examined it before, we have looked at it before. The Maastricht Treaty gave the Court of Auditors new powers to uncover fraud and we intend to back the Commission fully, and the Court of Auditors fully, in using those powers. There is no doubt, following the Court of Auditors report, that there is a job to be done. First, we would like to see the Commission step up its flying inspection squads to detect fraud and fraudsters. That is an area where there should be no qualms whatsoever in any quarter about backing the Commission in the work that it has to do. And secondly, as I set out in my speech in Leiden some months ago, the European Parliament as a whole needs to act on fraud and I propose to pursue this with the President of the European Parliament. And third, we will insist at Essen that the Council acts on the Court’s special reports on particular areas of the budget and we wish to see member states cooperating in taking tougher action against criminal fraud, and I believe that is very much in the interests of taxpayers right across the European Union and particularly of course in Germany, France and Britain, the three largest net contributors to the European Union budget. And fourthly on this issue, we are in fact already in touch with the German Presidency to see how we can use the Essen European Council to add yet further momentum to the war against fraud, and I was delighted to discover today that our French colleagues not only agree with us on the need to take action like this, but also will regard this as a matter of importance to them in the French Presidency that begins on 1 January next year.

    We discussed, as the President said, a wide range of other domestic and international matters, the President mentioned Bosnia, there were many others he could have mentioned as well. I think rather than deal with all those at this stage, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in a few moments time. So I will end my comments at this point.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I asked Mr Balladur, the French Prime Minister, whether he would have anything to add, he said not for the time being. We will therefore proceed to the traditional exchange of questions and answers. But I would like to say, not simply for reasons of courtesy, how grateful I am to the British delegation and to Mr Major, the British Prime Minister, for the way they have approached and undertaken the Franco-British talks. I have found that the climate that has prevailed today has been of the best that I have seen in the past few years and I wish to thank them for that. I wish also to thank Chartres, Mr George Le Moin [phon] its Mayor, for the welcome they have extended to us which has placed the summit in a context which, despite meteorological difficulties, has been particularly pleasant, and maybe accept our expression of gratitude.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, with reference to Bosnia, following the American withdrawal of the embargo monitoring unit, it would appear that the Americans are considering therefore the possibility of lifting the embargo on weapons to Bosnia. Do you subscribe to this or are you thinking about whether French troops should continue to be part of UNPROFOR?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You may be right, you may be going a bit faster than events but if it is true that the Americans have announced that they wanted to change their line on Bosnia, in other words they are moving towards lifting the embargo and in that direction, it is by no means certain that they will actually go as far as providing weapons. According to some information we see in the press that would appear to be the case but that being said it is by no means certain, it may not happen at all.

    It is very difficult to talk with you about information which we actually don’t have and at present there is a curious ambiguity between the reality of what the American forces are doing there as American forces and the same American forces as members of NATO and therefore at the disposal of the UN. This sort of dual use of troops, will this last or not? I don’t know.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    As the President said, part of the question is based on information we don’t at the moment have. It is certainly the case that we do not favour lifting the arms embargo, that is undoubtedly the case, we think lift is a last resort: We are determined to ensure that it does not come to the situation where the embargo is lifted.

    We are in Bosnia as indeed France and other colleagues are in Bosnia to do a particular job; we are there to escort humanitarian aid and UK troops will stay there while they can do a useful job without unacceptable risk.

    What concerns us about lifting the embargo is that the logic of lift is that there will be more war; the consequence of that is that there will be more suffering. It is our judgement that a settlement will only come from negotiation. What concerns us is that lifting the embargo would unravel the approach that we have followed so we hope that it will not come to that.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I can but confirm what has just been said. I didn’t go into an explanation myself but we already had occasion to talk about this; with the French press, France is very much against – and the Foreign Minister has been explicit on this – the lifting of the embargo and it is difficult to announce conclusions and decisions that we don’t yet know about but it is certain that the problem of the presence of French forces – and we want them to stay with the international forces – will arise inevitably if there is a lifting of the embargo and maybe we will have to talk about this at a later stage.

    QUESTION:

    A question to you, President, and the British Prime Minister as well:

    Ultimately, given the information you have today, have you not reached the conclusion that you will not be able to withstand the American decision for much longer and will you take on the responsibility of keeping troops there, be they French or British, in situ especially if they are likely to come under fire from both sides?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think I had already answered that question before you asked it. Will we be able to hang on for long? I don’t know. Our position is that we are certainly not going to leave our soldiers there caught between the two fires which you were mentioning.

    There is a question of principle; will that situation arise? We don’t know. Secondly, if it does arise, obviously the logistic and technical implications are quite considerable but now we are talking about the political aspect of the military options. It is clear that it doesn’t seem to us to be compatible to be on the one hand encouraging the people who are making war to make more intense war and then at the same time to leave our Loops in between them as sort of buffers which would be a purely fictitious situation. This in fact simply adds to what John Major said really on our behalf in a way and it is a difficult embroglio and obviously the answer is negotiation and we haven’t finished our negotiation yet.

    QUESTION (Nick Gowing, Channel 4 News)

    Could I ask you both what pressure you now plan to put on both the American Administration and the new American Congress to ensure your worst fears do not come to pass, that you are forced into this position of deciding whether to keep your troops in Bosnia or not?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    This isn’t a new problem or a new position. The position the British Government have taken over the lifting of the arms embargo is not a novel one, it has been known in Washington and known to Congress for a long time. That is the position and we will continue to sustain that position for the reasons I set out a few moments ago.

    We sent troops to Bosnia to do a particular job. It is very easy to look at the difficulties that still exist in Bosnia and forget what those difficulties might well have been if British troops, French troops and other troops had not been in Bosnia over the past two-and-a-half to three years. It is difficult to estimate what might have happened to the fighting, difficult to estimate how it might have spread, difficult to estimate how many people alive today might not have been alive but for the activities of the UN protection forces as a whole so clearly we sent them to do a particular job. I wish to see them complete that job.

    Self-evidently, we must look at the safety of the troops and their capacity to do their job in future. The right way for us to address that is for us to continue to argue what we believe is the rational case for proceeding with negotiations to try and find a settlement and for not lifting either collectively or unilaterally the arms embargo and we will continue to argue that case.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We are awaiting confirmation. There is no divergence of interpretation between the British and the French but there is a certain amount of information that we haven’t really got yet that we need in greater depth. It is clear that it is easier for the Americans to withdraw their troops from Bosnia than us because they haven’t got any there anyway!

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC):

    Prime Minister, given the uncertainties surrounding America’s future role in NATO and given the announcement today of the Anglo-French initiative, do you believe the time has come for urgent action in developing a European defence identity as something that should happen perhaps before the 1996 IGC, what form do you think it might take and do you have fewer reservations about a European defence dimension that you have about a European social dimension?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    Let me pick up that point in some detail – uncertainties about the American position in NATO. I don’t believe there are any uncertainties about the American position in NATO. NATO remains the bedrock of our defence in the West and I think it is going to remain the bedrock of our defence in the West. Only within the last year or so President Clinton has re-confirmed his determination to leave 100,000 American troops on the mainland of Europe for the defence of Europe so I think nobody in looking at other areas of collaboration should doubt the primacy of the NATO Alliance, the permanence of the NATO Alliance or the importance of the NATO Alliance; it is absolutely fundamental to our future defence in the West and I do not believe anything can shake that.

    What does not follow from that is that there is not separately and in alliance with NATO – of which Britain, France and other western European countries are members – a capacity for further collaboration between western European NATO allies and that is what we have been doing in Bosnia of course, Britain and France in particular. It is what we anticipate we may well be called upon to do in the future in areas of peacekeeping and humanitarian aid; it is what underlies the decision today to establish the joint structure that we proposed.

    But defence is not a zero sum game. Because Britain and France are able to make greater cooperation wholly desirable – improved cooperation in my judgement – that does not in any sense detract from either our individual commitment to NATO or our joint commitment to NATO. It isn’t zero sum – it is a better use of our collective capability to defend ourselves within NATO and in some aspects as NATO partners bilaterally.

    QUESTION (Paul Taylor, Reuters):

    Mr, President and Mr. Prime Minister, how close are you would you say on the future of European institutions as they will come to be discussed at the 1996 intergovernmental conference and do you believe that 1996 should be a new re-founding act for Europe or a rather more modest incremental development of what was agreed at Maastricht?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think that there would not be much point in repeating what has been said in Maastricht; the important thing is to do what we are supposed to do. If you look at the progress made in reality concerning the decisions at Maastricht I don’t think that we need an order of priority there but I think it is more important to implement what has been decided than to think up yet new ideas. Of course, any interesting suggestion will be looked at with interest by France but I think the priority is to first of all implement what we have already decided.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I entirely agree with that – the President made that point earlier in his remarks – that one needs to consolidate and deal with what was decided at Maastricht. I know there are some people who believe that there is – if I may borrow a Chinese phrase – likely to be a great leap forward in 1996. I don’t believe there is going to be a great leap forward in 1996 and I don’t know of any European head of government who does.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Mind you, it would be quite a leap forward to put into practice what one has decided to do! [Laughter]

    QUESTION:

    President and Prime Minister, I would like to come back for a moment to Bosnia. Do you not think that your public opinion will be surprised that President Clinton should have taken such a decision without informing you in some way or another insofar as you are often in touch with him, he is a privileged ally of yours, and the US is part of the Contact Group or do you explain this decision only in terms of American domestic policy?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    You know as much as I do about that, probably more on the problems of internal political affairs in the United States. It is clear that Mr. Clinton is faced with a new situation; he has a Congress that has been very clear about its intentions on Bosnia so I think the two issues can’t be separated from each other. It is difficult to say that because for months, even years, this debate has been going on and I think no-one was presumably taken by surprise in learning of the decisions taken in Washington but it is true that things have taken on a sort of new course and it seems to us to be a rather sort of brutal, sudden change of course, it is perhaps even a dangerous turning. It hasn’t been decided collectively, that is true, but that is the way things are and I am trying to be as clear in my answers as you were in your question.

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    I think much of the question spreads beyond “Sharpguard” and perhaps looks at other things that haven’t been decided so to that extent the question is based upon a premise that at the moment is not reality and in my experience the relationship and the consultation between the United States and her western European partners has been very good, is very good and I have no doubt is going to remain very good in future and I think, frankly, people have made rather too much of the particular issue of “Sharpguard”

    The work that “Sharpguard” was doing continues, other Western European Union navies are participating, there are eleven countries currently involved. The decision made by the United States has been overdramatised I think in some areas. It won’t significantly the operation and there were only two United States ships involved. I think to draw, as perhaps the questioner had in mind, rather wider conclusions from that is to draw conclusions that are not justified by the reality of what has happened.

    QUESTION (Richard Dowden, The Independent):

    Are the announcements made today about defence cooperation simple bilateral cooperation in interesting important areas but of no more significance than that or could they be the foundations and building blocks of a future possible European defence force?

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    If I may pick up the point that underlies that question, Richard, it would be a suggestion that suddenly, uniquely and extraordinarily, Britain and France had decided to cooperate on some defence matters. I have to say to everyone present that that isn’t the case. The cooperation on defence matters between Britain and France is very substantial and has been very substantial for a very long time. We perhaps have more joint ventures and collaboration with France on defence matters than anyone else; that has been the case for a very long period. These are important developments but to draw the conclusion that these are developments of a wholly different nature from what we have seen before is I think going too far.

    We are looking as far as the future large aircraft is concerned at the possibility, all other things being equal, of a venture in which we will collaborate; we have done that before, there are other ventures going on at the moment that the President mentioned and that is very good. Certainly the establishment of the air group is a new but entirely rational development building on the cooperation that we have had before so rather than regarding it as some startling innovation I regard it as a further example of a growing level of defence cooperation that we have been privileged to enjoy with France for a long time and. I hope it will continue to grow.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    And in that respect I pointed that many of these projects have already been agreed to by a number of European countries so this isn’t always a specifically Franco-British approach in all fields. That being said, there is something specifically Franco-British in expressing the hope that it will serve European defence.

    QUESTION:

    A question, Mr. President, that may be of interest to your prime ministerial guest but to do with domestic policy. It has been suggested that a new referendum be held before we move on to economic and monetary union in 1997. I would like to hear your views on the matter.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Do you only mean mine?

    SAME LADY:

    And the views of the British Prime Minister which might be interesting as well but not the French Prime Minister. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR:

    It would be an impertinence to comment on French internal politics – not now nor in the future – but it was a very good try.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I think as far as referendums go, one mustn’t overdo these things. On that in particular, the decision has been taken by the French people themselves so I don’t really think that the matter is open for discussion quite honestly and as this concerns the very distant future anyway and I will certainly refrain from getting too much involved in that particular debate.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with French Leaders – 26 July 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Balladur, made in London on Monday 26th July 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had this morning a series of discussions. I have had the opportunity this morning of discussions with President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister. During the time we have held those discussions eight of our Ministerial colleagues have been discussing their own particular areas of responsibility. At the conclusion of their discussions the whole team came together for a plenary meeting and then had the opportunity of discussing matters again over lunch.

    When I became Prime Minister some time ago one of the particular objectives I had was to develop relationships between Britain and France. It seemed to me that our countries had a substantial pool of common interests, there was a great deal of scope for cooperation waiting to be tapped. I think what today’s summit shows, with a much larger participation I think than we have ever had before amongst other Ministers, is that we have travelled a very long way down that road of cooperation.

    Today’s summit follows months of intensive work, Prime Minister Balladur’s visit to London in early May, my own visit to Paris at the invitation of President Mitterrand later on that month.

    Let me set out in very brief terms prior to your questions some of the results of those discussions.

    May I turn first to foreign policy. I think it is undeniable that we are working more closely today on international problems than ever before. We have discussed Bosnia at different meetings today, we have agreed that the key points that support the efforts of Dr Owen, and Mr Sholtenberg to reconvene the negotiations in Geneva this week. We clearly are concerned to help Sarajevo, to support UNPROFOR’ s efforts to create a ceasefire, to restore water, to restore power and to secure access for the relief convoys. We also want to sustain the humanitarian relief efforts as long as conditions permit and to accelerate the implementation of the safe areas resolution, including the provision of air support.

    We discussed a number of matters relating to the European Community, including of course the joint Franco-British exercise on subsidiarity. France and Britain have now agreed a list of 24 items of Community legislation, many of them substantial, that need to be repealed, withdrawn or amended. Examples of that include tax directives on stock exchange transactions, directives on drinking water and pollution which in our judgment are much too detailed and much too prescriptive. Both our countries will also be collaborating with Germany which has drawn up a list of substantial items of its own. The aim of this work is to present the results of it, jointly, to the European Commission in the autumn as part of the preparation for the December European Council decisions.

    We have had some discussions this morning also on joint defence interests. We set up last autumn the Franco/British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine, the objective is to coordinate our approach to deterrence, to nuclear doctrines and concepts, anti-missile defences, arms controls and non-proliferation. We have decided today to make this Joint Commission a permanent standing body with a substantial amount of work to continue into the future.

    We have looked also at joint defence projects, we reviewed collaboration in defence projects, Britain and France at the moment are working together on 21 separate projects, some of them also involving other countries as well. We have more British projects with France than with any other single international partner.

    We discussed also briefly the Channel Tunnel and I am pleased to announce that Her Majesty The Queen and President Mitterrand will jointly open the Channel Tunnel on 6 May 1994.

    We discussed also science and technology, we have decided to reconvene a Franco/British conference to explore fresh approaches to science policy. I think it will be a wide ranging conference, it will look at questions such as technology transfer, how to ensure that research leads to better product development and far better public explanation of scientific questions.

    We also looked at the question of D-Day and its 50th anniversary. Next year is a very remarkable part of our joint history with the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Britain and France are planning to commemorate this historic event in an appropriate way, there will be very substantial celebrations to commemorate that and Ministers have been appointed in both countries to supervise the preparations. Those Ministers will be meeting shortly in order that we can bring those preparations to fruition. I expect we will be able to announce details of the commemorative events in the autumn.

    We have covered a range of other issues but rather than running through them in great detail I will try and pick up any points of interest to you in the question period we will have shortly.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I will not add anything really to the list of issues that have been discussed, what you have heard is a very complete list and this gives you an idea of the subjects we have talked about. It will be for you to ask the questions you want to ask.

    So I think it is more a question of the general spirit and atmosphere that I would like to talk about. We have had great pleasure in coming here to London and meeting our British partners and exchanging with them our positions and thinking and arguments on the problems on which we have diverging opinions and also we have been able to note that there were more and more points on which our views were the same.

    In the field of foreign policy where our two countries have very long standing experience going back many many years, in Europe in particular, well there it was easy for us to reach common conclusions. On the new problems that are coming up, new in relation to this generation, in relation to history, in other words the setting up of the European Community and its consequences, its impact, its effects, and the development of world trade, on those matters we still have to define more closely our actual positions but we are delighted with the efforts that have been made successfully by the British government in order to enable the development of the Maastricht agreement. Of course each country will operate according to its own style and on the basis of the text which is the basis of the European Agreement.

    What has just been said about the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-Day, well we all know what we owe to the United Kingdom and on the French side we will do all that should be done in order that people representing political and military spheres should meet with the warmest and the most grateful welcome possible. It is an important date, it was an important date in the relationship, as you know, which have become now very friendly relations, which became very friendly relations between our two countries at the beginning of the century.

    M. BALLADUR:

    At this stage I have got nothing further to add to that, thank you.

    QUESTION (La Tribune):

    Did you talk about the EMS this morning and has Mr Major any views on the chances of its survival and has Britain any particular interest in the EMS? On the French side, can we be told if the chances of escaping shall we say the British model with a more competitive currency at a lower rate of interest with more creation of jobs, is that likely to happen, or are the markets going to impose the same thing on France as it imposed on Great Britain last year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We certainly spent some time discussing this matter this morning and I think the statement issued this morning by France and Germany, the Franco-German statement, reaffirms support for the existing parity and close cooperation within the European Monetary System. I do not think it is in anyone’s interest to have continuing currency turbulence in Europe, it damages the prospect for economic recovery in everyone’s export markets so I hope the possible turbulence will settle down, but I have nothing further to say than that.

    M. BALLADUR:

    I would like to add something on that. Firstly, you asked the question in a way to elicit a certain response, I have never heard of a more competitive currency, a reference to that, what is important is that economies be competitive with one another. In France we have achieved good results on that, we are very much attached to monetary stability, we do everything we can to try and ensure it, and I note that the Prime Minister has just said that the English too want this monetary stability maintained in Europe and that they do not consider that there would be any advantage in greater instability.

    QUESTION (….Liberation):

    What did you discuss on GATT? How did both sides look to the future in the negotiating process on trade agreements?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We had some discussions on the Uruguay Round this morning and our Agriculture and Trade Ministers also spent some time discussing it; it is clearly a matter of immense importance. All of us are agreed on the importance of the GATT Round and of a successful outcome on agriculture. We know that France has some particular difficulties with the Blair House Accord and it must be examined in more detail by the Community, hence the request for a Joint Council in September and I think in particular the constraints which Blair House would impose on internal management of the CAP, on growth in EC exports, erosion of Community preference, those are problems that France have raised and that the Community will have to discuss.

    We all agreed that a durable and balanced agreement is necessary. I know in the discussion between Agriculture Ministers that Gillian Shepherd emphasised that in our view the Blair House Accord was a good one for the Community but these are matters we need to discuss. What is a matter of agreement between us is the overall desirability of a satisfactory and balanced GATT agreement.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    We come back to an idea which already has been expressed at least a hundred times but I think should be reiterated with strength and that is that the GATT negotiations – world trade negotiations – are not only on agriculture. I think that one of the mistakes made by people who started the discussions – I have in mind particularly our American friends – way back in 1985 was that they were totally obsessed with agriculture and that gave the impression that people wanted to get agreements which would be good agreements where it was possible for that particular country to find that beneficial leaving out areas where one might not be able to reach such favourable agreements for oneself. This was Mr. Reagan’s sign of the times – the way we interpreted it anyway. That is why France is talking about a global comprehensive agreement.

    To come back to agriculture itself, the important thing is that the agreement should be a balanced agreement. You can’t have an agreement which is one-sided. If there is a compromise solution found, it must be beneficial to all the parties concerned.

    Concerning Blair House, this is a point of friction naturally because we think that the agreement needs to be revised because it happened under conditions which we think questionable. In any case, the only thing that really counts is the political decision, the actual political decision taken by the countries concerned; that carries much more weight than the purely technical discussions that take place beforehand.

    That is why we are quite prepared to say and repeat that an overall balanced and lasting agreement would be a good thing for international trade but it would be a bad thing if it turned out that those agreements were based on a grave injustice that we just don’t want which I think people can easily understand.

    QUESTION:

    Can I just add a further question? Can one say that there has been progress today on GATT?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    It seems to me that there has been progress on two areas, firstly I feel that we better understand one another – at least I for my part better understand the British position and secondly I think we agree and consider that a meeting of Foreign and Agricultural Ministers should be held in September which will be very important and it will be there that we will be able to discuss agriculture and the general organisation of world trade so we must prepare very actively for that meeting in September. Our British friends have agreed that that would be an important date.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    I wonder, in view of the reported comments in the Sunday papers this weekend, if Mr. Major could tell us how much longer he thinks he is going to be able to cohabit with some of his Cabinet and what advice the President and M. Balladur would give on cohabitation with ideological opposites. [Laughter].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It seems to work very well.

    QUESTION (David Langton, Bureau of National Affairs):

    Of course, no illegitimate questions from me at all!

    On GATT, last week we had the Director-General, Peter Sutherland, hoping to knock out a conclusion by the end of this year. Have you got any good or bad news for him?

    Secondly, the French Foreign Minister, Alan Gerait [phoentic], was calling for trade policy instruments to be strengthened. Did you discuss the strengthening of trade policy instruments today, particularly in relation to, say, US anti-steel dumping provisions?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    Yes, we did. Mr. Major asked me questions about that and I gave him a certain amount of detail about what we would wish. The problems, as I said, will be dealt with in the documents that we will send to Brussels in the forthcoming weeks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have to find a solution to anti-dumping and countervailing actions – there is no doubt whatever about that. I expressed the view this morning that the long-term solution to problems of international trade in steel lies in the conclusion of a multilateral steel agreement and we will continue to stay in touch to discuss that particular matter.

    QUESTION (Tony Bevins, The Independent):

    Have you apologised to the bastards, Mr. Major?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have been discussing Anglo-French matters this morning, Tony, Anglo-French discussions.

    QUESTION (Keith Rockwell, Journal of Commerce):

    Mr. Balladur and Mr. Major, was there any discussion of the EC’s policy with regard to the import of Japanese cars and was there any discussion at all of Britain’s role in all of that, whether British-made Japanese cars might be subject to any further restrictions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, that wasn’t discussed in our discussions this morning and don’t believe it was raised when the Trade Ministers met.

    QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC TV News):

    Given the attack on the French base in Sarajevo, was there any further discussion about the possible use of air strikes?

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    It is a subject that we started to deal with several weeks ago when the so-called “safe areas” were decided upon within the UN and the point being made that respect for such safe areas is for mainly Muslim citizens in Bosnia and that the protection of such zones could require means that would be used in order to protect the populations if they were threatened and this is what is happening right now in Sarejevo in particular.

    QUESTION:

    I would like first of all to ask you about the latest escalation in the Lebanon and the latest Israeli aggression of the sovereign state of Lebanon. How do you see the effect of this on the peace process in the region?

    My second question is addressed to the French President, M. President, changes in immigration in France have created an atmosphere of uncertainty among the immigrants in France and in particular among Arab immigrants and North African immigrants. Are you aware of this new atmosphere in the immigrant community and do you envisage any change that would take account of this situation which is unstable?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, we did not discuss Lebanon this morning. On the second point, I will let the President respond directly.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    I would have preferred to have answered the first question as a matter of fact but when people fight each other on both sides of a frontier you can’t expect the sovereignty of each country to be fully respected and once that situation obtains then it is very natural that both sides have to accept the consequences of such a conflict and that conflict will necessarily make the peace process more complicated. There is an inherent contradiction in all this which is pretty obvious.

    On the immigration legislation, you are talking about French political affairs there and I have not come here to London to talk about internal French political matters – that is rather the same as Mr. Major’s answer a moment ago when there was some mention of the necessity of talking about our Franco-British meeting and avoiding a sort of British-British discussion or a discussion internal to Britain as we say Franco-French on our side. You say the same thing? Anyway, I don’t think that the immigrants in France when they are in a completely lawful situation that is accepted, when they have been legally admitted to France following a certain number of procedures which on labour matters come under the Ministry of Labour and it can be the Ministry of the Interior when it is a question of permits and so on so foreigners who are living in normal conditions, when they are legally present on French soil, must be treated normally.

    If they are not present legally on French soil – if they are illegal immigrants – then they can hardly expect to be treated exactly in the same way so it is their natural fate to be taken back home sooner or later. Now there the discussion does start of course within France and with other countries to see what safeguards and guarantees should be granted to these men and women because they deserve respect even if they have gone against the law and we have to see with other countries too what should be done in order to respect their own individual human rights but this is an internal French affair quite honestly and there is no point in having a discussion among ourselves here in Great Britain.

    QUESTION (France Two):

    Mr. Prime Minister, have you discussed the future of the EBRD and is Britain going to support a French candidate to support M. Atteli [phoentic]?

    M. BALLADUR:

    The future of the EBRD for the moment is a matter of choosing a president for the institution. As you know, France has an excellent candidate and for the rest you must ask Mr. Major what his views are.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    If Mr. Major allows, I will recall some memories perhaps which are more personal memories for me than for him because at the time when the various seats and headquarters and offices were negotiated among a number of international bodies, including EBRD, it had been understood that if the headquarters were to be in London then at least the first presidency and the first term of office would be a French presidency. If it isn’t the same president nevertheless I think it would be right and only natural that it should be the same country and this would be accordance with the original agreements.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    [Inaudible] excellent candidates. The Community are seeking a unified candidate. We have expressed our view to the President of the Community and I hope will reach a conclusion shortly.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Could I ask the Prime Minister and the President, given what looks like the imminent collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and all the turmoil there has been in France over Maastricht and in the British Parliament, whether they think the treaty is still relevant or should probably be torn up and the Community should start again on a more realistic and perhaps lowered-expectation treaty for European union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think the treaty should be torn up. The British Parliament has passed the treaty, it is now an Act, it has got Royal Assent subject to one outstanding court case which I hope will be swiftly cleared away and it will come into effect and I welcome that fact self-evidently since we have just taken it through Parliament. I think there is much in this treaty that is good for Europe and good for the United Kingdom and I believe it was right to take it through the House of Commons.

    PRESIDENT MITTERRAND:

    On my side, of course, I submitted the Maastricht Treaty to a referendum in France, in other words it is the French people that voted and who chose finally what to do and there was a political battle which was a pretty difficult one where some important and very often excellent arguments were expressed on both sides. This was a national debate of considerable magnitude but the rule of democracy was applied and France adopted the Maastricht Treaty by popular vote and now the Maastricht Treaty is our rule. I was in favour of it, as you know and therefore I was delighted that this was the decision taken and the decision that was taken I would not say was more important than a vote by Parliament because I am very much in favour of representative democracy – France is a representative democracy. Because under our legislation a referendum was perfectly possible, it was a very important way of getting this really firmly established in our history and this has been done and is behind us and the government also very much hopes that the agreement will be successful.

    Your somewhat hasty definition, if I may say so, of the fact that now the time had come to tear up the treaty and that the EMS is completely excluded I think is subject to examination. We are precisely working through this and it is difficult but France’s determination is unquestionable and we think that the future of Europe is important. We have different conceptions very often on this but we certainly will coordinate our efforts to the same goal and in my view at any rate it would be very harmful and very sad if the remarkable progress made among the Twelve should be into question whereas the prospect before us is that in a few years now we will have a single currency.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Anglo-French Relations – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Anglo-French relations, made during an interview held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the UK and France were becoming closer].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Our relationship with Paris has been improving over some years and I am very pleased about that. It is very good now. I think the relationship between the United Kingdom and France is as good at the moment as I can remember for very many years and I am delighted at that and I wish to see the extent to which we can extend that. I know that is the Prime Minister’s view; it is also the President’s view and a matter we have discussed in the past, so I’m very pleased with the relationship. It is good and it is getting better.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if it was easier with a French Conservative Prime Minister].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am very much at ease with Prime Minister Balladur. I was very much at ease with his predecessors as well. Pierre Beregovoy in particular was a friend of mine and so I was very much at ease with him.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked in what areas could the French and British work closer together].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think across a whole range of issues. We have discussed this morning areas where we might do work to examine the common position in the interests of the European Community as a whole. We are looking together for example at subsidiarity, what it means, how to develop it, where to apply it. Certainly, we have a joint interest as members of the Security Council – the Permanent Five – a whole range of issues there where I wish to work very closely with France. In terms of defence co-operation, France and the United Kingdom are the only two nuclear powers in Western Europe so we have a very real series of areas where we need to work very closely and that is what we are seeking to do.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if the Anglo-French relationship would become as strong as the Anglo-German relationship].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are not seeking to change in any way the relationship between Paris and Bonn. It is very close, it is very good, it is historical and it is a good thing for the whole of Europe, but I am seeking to make sure that we have a very close relationship as well with Paris and also with Bonn. I think that is in the interest of the Community.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he thought the French would agree to sign the GATT agreement on agriculture].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there was great progress made amongst the agriculture ministers the other day and I congratulate all of them on the part they played in ensuring that happened. It looks to me like a very balanced agreement. It has to be confirmed in the next few days – I think early in June – and I very much hope that it is. I think that does help us move towards an agreement on the Uruguay Round as a whole though there are still many obstacles to overcome. Some of those obstacles of course don’t relate to the Community, don’t relate to agriculture. There are problems to be overcome for example with Japan and American problems as well but I think it is a step forward and I welcome that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with M Balladur – 28 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the French Prime Minister, M Balladur, held in Paris on Friday 28th May 1993.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, I would simply wish to echo what you have said over the last few moments. We have had the opportunity over the last couple of hours of covering a very wide range of matters, bilateral matters, some quite detailed matters, some matters with a very long term concern indeed. We had the opportunity of looking in particular at the Copenhagen summit, not very far away now, and what we might seek to achieve there. We have looked at problems we wish to address together like subsidiarity. We discussed the desirability of a GATT settlement and some of the difficulties that have arisen there, and we looked of course at the problems there have been in Bosnia upon which our two governments have taken a very similar view from the beginning and in which of course both of our governments have committed quite substantial numbers of troops.

    That is by no means an inclusive list of the matters we discussed. A good part of our discussion were not matters requiring immediate decisions today, they were looking at problems and difficulties and opportunities that lie on the horizon both in the short and the long term and deciding how we might work jointly to seek to address those particular problems.

    I think the Prime Minister might agree with me in saying that the relationship and the extent of bilateral cooperation that exists at the moment between the United Kingdom and France is as good, if not better, as it has been for many years and I personally am delighted about that and very pleased to have had the opportunity of continuing our discussions this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Have your talks touched upon the question of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and whether by appointing a pro-European Chancellor that improves the chances of Britain re-entering the ERM?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We did discuss the monetary affairs across Europe this morning, yes we did discuss that for a while. The government’s position on the Exchange Rate Mechanism was set out some time ago by Norman Lamont, that remains the position. The circumstances for Britain to re-enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism do not exist at the moment, they do not exist in terms of the relationship between British and German monetary policy and are unlikely to do so in the near future. That point was made quite clear by Norman Lamont, it has been made clear in the past by Ken Clarke and others, and it is the government’s collective position.

    QUESTION:

    If the policy has not changed, why has the Chancellor?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have a full press conference this afternoon and I will address domestic issues on that occasion, not now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the social chapter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I argued against the social chapter in the Maastricht Treaty not just on behalf of my country but on behalf of all the European countries. And I did so for reasons that are as relevant today, if not more relevant, than the reasons when I discussed them in Maastricht. Firstly I believe that some of the provisions of that chapter would destroy jobs and not create them, and we had then, as we have now, a very high level of unemployment across the whole of Europe; and secondly, because we cannot just look at the situation within Europe, Europe has to compete with the United States, with Japan and with the Pacific countries. If Europe has costs upon their employers and consequently therefore costs upon the products that they produce, they will render themselves; less competitive with Japan, the United States and the Pacific Basin, and that will cost further jobs in Europe. And it was upon those bases that I argued against the social chapter. We have differing views in the European Community about this and I respect the views of my European partners, but those are the views I held then and hold now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but about the situation in the former Yugoslavia]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read when I flew in yesterday evening the remarks by M. Juppe on the question of former Yugoslavia and I endorse exactly what he said, the position and concerns that we have expressed in the United Kingdom are very closely mirrored in France and the Prime Minister and I hold very similar views about them.

    QUESTION:

    On Bosnia have you, the French and the rest of the Western allies come to the conclusion that the Serbs have won the war and if you have not come to that conclusion what are you going to do to roll back their lands gained by force?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have made it clear right from the start that we do not accept Serbian gains by force, that was made clear by the Foreign Ministers again just a few days ago, we do not accept Serbian gains by force. But you have to address the question that M. Juppe put yesterday: are you prepared to put 200,000 troops into Bosnia in order to force them back by force of arms? And we know the answer to that, people are not prepared to do that, but we will maintain sanctions, we will maintain diplomatic pressure and we will not accept the land gained by force.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    [In French]

    M. BALLADUR:

    [Spoke in French]

    QUESTION:

    Could you spell out what you hope to achieve at the Copenhagen summit and what your discussions this morning touched on about that matter?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can spell out some of those things, certainly. We will clearly want to discuss the particular economic problems that exist within the European Community, the problems of unemployment in particular at the Copenhagen summit, that would be our wish and I think it will be the wish of all our partners as well. We will want to look in some detail at how we carry forward the proposals on subsidiarity, work is proceeding on that at present, we would like to see that work carried forward. We will certainly wish to carry forward the discussions on enlargement of the Community and precisely what that may mean. Those are some of the detailed matters, by no means all, but they are some of the detailed matters we discussed this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you what assurances you were able to give M. Balladur about the future economic policy of Britain, whether there would be any change and how it will affect the preparations for Copenhagen?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I set out our economic policy about the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which I assume is what you have in mind, a few moments ago, it has not changed in those few moments, it is as it was and as it will remain.

    QUESTION:

    And has it changed since 24 hours ago?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I just said no.

    QUESTION:

    With a new Chancellor can the British expect accelerated interest rate cuts?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No British Prime Minister or Chancellor discusses interest rate policy and monetary policy on occasions like this and I have no intention of starting now. As ever, we will take the right judgments on the basis of what is necessary for the British economy in terms of the inflation prognosis, that is what we have done in the past under previous Chancellors, it is what we are doing now, it is what we will do in the future.

    M. BALLADUR:

    [In French]

    QUESTION:

    We have witnessed some gradual changes in the British position on the Uruguay Round in the last few weeks, could we have your comments on the style and substance of these moves?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I welcomed what was agreed the other day in the Agriculture meeting, we have to see what happens when we come to the further meeting at the beginning of June, but I have nothing further to say about the Uruguay Round as a whole, I hope we will be able to reach a satisfactory agreement on the Uruguay Round, I think that is in everyone’s interest and I think that is generally agreed.