The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: George Bush

  • Sir John Major’s Tribute to George H.W. Bush – 5 December 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s tribute to George H.W. Bush, published in The Times on 5 December 2018.

    Very few leaders have been as qualified for high political office as George HW Bush [obituary, December 3].

    His early career as a navy pilot left him, at the end of the Second World War, a 21-year-old veteran who had seen death, faced death, and thus achieved the rare balance in perception that such experiences bring.

    I came to know and admire him during his presidency. We were allies, we became friends, and that friendship lasted to the very end of his life. As a human being he was one of the most gentle, wise and deep-down decent men I have ever known.

    A politician, yes — but not at all costs. The dark side of politics was not for him. George Bush had an open heart and an open mind. He was always more comfortable acknowledging the virtues of opponents rather than abusing them.

    And if you were lucky enough to become his friend — and yes, I mean lucky — you were a friend for life. George’s gift of friendship was as remarkable as it was deep. He was a true citizen of the world, and his friends came from every corner of the world.

    At Walker’s Point, Kennebunkport — the Bush family’s coastal home in Maine — guests would feel the full force of George and Barbara’s warm embrace. Family members, young and old, would come and go throughout the summer months. Children would run riot on bikes and go-karts, and dogs would scamper over the rocks in pursuit of seabirds that would never be caught. But there were some things that were taken very seriously indeed: sport and games. George was very, very competitive. Taking part was important, but winning was all, be it golf, tennis, horseshoes or fishing. Fishing was normally the one sore point. George was always on the lookout for bluefish, but alas, they also seemed to be on the lookout for George — more often than not they proved elusive, even for the presidential fishing rod.

    This gave George another idea for water sports, Kennebunkport-style: he would take the wheel of his motorboat and head off at speed into the open ocean in an attempt to outrun his Secret Service escort boat. Discretion prevents my revealing which boat won.

    Life was certainly never dull at Walker’s Point. But it was real. And always, for George, his balm and refuge. On his 80th birthday George gathered some guests: Brian Mulroney, Mikhail Gorbachev, myself and many others. The weekend-long celebrations included a country and western concert and a parachute jump — by George, of course. He suggested that I might like to join him in the jump, an invitation that I had little difficulty in declining.

    Over the past two decades I have travelled extensively to every corner of the earth. Wherever I have gone — and especially in the Near and Far East — I have found an affection for George HW Bush that exceeds that of any other political leader I have known. That is due partly to his policies — he reached out to every country and every continent — but also, on a more personal level, to the friendships he made, and kept. The telephone was almost umbilically attached to George. He would call family and friends at the drop of a hat, often for no other reason than to simply say hello. When I became prime minister his was the first call I received. After my election defeat in 1997 he was, once again, the first to call, with comforting words and an invitation to Kennebunkport: “Get yourselves over here, John,” he said, “the bluefish are biting.”

    Yet despite his own generosity of spirit, he could still be hurt. After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait he said immediately, “This shall not stand”, and subsequent events proved that he meant it. Margaret Thatcher’s remark, “This is no time to go wobbly, George”, was unfair and wounded him without cause. Even so, in later years he spoke of Margaret only in terms of affection and respect.

    Notwithstanding the public offices he held, even that of the most powerful man on the planet, there was nothing in George Bush’s life that was more important to him than family. He and Barbara were married for 73 years. If George was the high chief of the clan, then Barbara was the maypole around which they all danced. It is impossible to overstate Barbara’s role in George’s life and career, or her ferocity in defending his interests against all-comers. Theirs was the most extraordinary partnership.

    George and Barbara Bush would forever mourn the loss of their daughter Robin, who died of cancer at a tragically young age, but they looked on with pride and joy as their other five children carved their own way in the world.

    George W and Jeb took to politics, becoming governors of Texas and Florida respectively. George W, of course, became the second Bush to call the White House his home, and his parents lived through every moment — every high and low — of his presidency. Neil, Marvin and Doro led less public lives, but no less impactful.

    Each one of their children has been true to the Bush family maxim of giving far more than you receive, and their personal dedication and commitment to so many noble causes is already being mirrored by their own children. Of all the legacies of which George and Barbara would be proudest, this would be the one.

    In a world that so often admires the cheap and tawdry, it is not easy to find the words to sum up the life of such a good and gentle man who at his core was devoted to public service. But one mighty pen has done it. As Shakespeare put in the mouth of Hamlet: “He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.”

    Indeed, we shall not.

  • Sir John Major’s Statement Following the Death of George H.W. Bush – 1 December 2018

    The text of the statement made by Sir John Major on Saturday 1 December 2018 following the death of George H.W. Bush, the former President of the United States.

    George H.W. Bush was above all else a family man and, for him, the American people were part of that family.

    In public office he served as he lived, with compassion, courage, dignity and grace. As President, he saw America’s obligation to the world and honoured it – and he remained committed to public service until the day he died.

    I feel privileged to have worked with him, and even more privileged that he became a lifelong friend. He was, quite simply, one of the most deep down decent people I have ever known.

    Our hearts go out to his family, but they will take great comfort in the knowledge that their brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather is now reunited with his beloved wife Barbara, and their daughter Robin.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Yale University – 30 November 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Yale University, held on Tuesday 30th November 2010. The speech was entitled “Fantasy to Reality : The World That Lies Ahead” and was the annual George Herbert Walker Lecture held at the university.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m doubly delighted to be here at Yale this afternoon: firstly, because I am in the company of my old friend, Ernesto Zedillo.

    I’ve known President Zedillo for many years. He is one of a too rare breed: a man who gives politics a good name. So it is always a pleasure to see him and it was a delight to accept his invitation to visit this famous old University once again.

    And it is also a special delight and privilege to deliver the George Herbert Walker III Lecture. In my years in politics George Herbert Walker Bush was a close ally – notably during the first Gulf War – and became a life-long friend to cherish. George Bush is a citizen of the world and respected in every part of it. When I became Prime Minister – George Bush was the first to phone me up from Air Force One. There was a slight glitch, he got my brother and the conversation went slightly awry. My brother was wondering who he was and said to the cook in the kitchen there’s a Mr Bush on the phone, “do we know him?” and I was dragged out of an adjacent room to speak to the President.

    When I ceased to be Prime Minister, George Bush was pretty much the first person on the phone yet again, with an invitation to Kennebunkport. George, like Ernesto, is a friend for all seasons.

    For George and Ernesto I would do almost anything – but I do draw the line at jumping out of aircraft on my birthday – even for George.

    My theme this afternoon is the quite extraordinary ways in which the world is changing – and what that means for the future. Let me try and put it in some sort of context.

    My father died nearly 50 years ago. Since then, the world has changed beyond recognition. Fifty years ago, the Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe were still under Soviet control. Germany was still a divided nation. Latin America was a continent of revolutions. The European Union was in its infancy. The Gulf was undeveloped. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one foresaw an Islamic Revolution.

    Little of that world now survives – and the pace of change is accelerating within the span of one lifetime. My father, were he here, would simply not recognise today’s world. And neither would people who left politics much more recently. Someone both George Bush and I knew very well was Boris Yeltsin.

    Now Boris Yeltsin who ruled Russia just over a decade ago, but now seems part of a bygone age. Boris had a great gift for brevity and irony. I remember walking with him once in the Kremlin, this would have been in the mid 1990s, I said to him, “Boris in one word what is the state of Russia?”, he said “good”, I was surprised, it was falling to pieces, I said “tell me in two words”, he said “not good”.

    Even since then, the world has moved on.

    Nothing is as it was. In the future, nothing will be as it is. The great challenge is to identify the changes that are to come and use them and to try and take advantage of them.

    You may say: but we don’t know what is to come. In fact, we know a good deal more about the future than we realise. When Shakespeare put the words: “Nothing comes from nothing” into King Lear’s mouth, he spoke an eternal truth. Change rarely comes as a bolt from the blue, it’s the result of trends we have overlooked or, sometimes, policy we have implemented.

    As evidence, I offer the economic problems we’ve been facing in the last couple of years. They are the result of an unrestrained boom.

    Business and political leadership failed us. We enjoyed the boom but did not prepare for the aftermath.

    As a result, the outlook for all the mature economies – America, Britain, the Eurozone and Japan – is at best sluggish. Consumer demand is fragile. Banks are cautious about lending as they repair balance sheets. Public spending is anaemic. Unemployment is stubbornly high.

    This is a result of policy failures that brings into stark relief a trend that has been developing for decades: other economies – in what we quaintly and rather patronisingly call the ‘third world’ – and I have myself in forty years of politics never discovered what the second is – are catching up on the dominance we have enjoyed for so long. China, India, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, Indonesia are all coming into much greater prominence and will continue to do so in the decades that lie immediately ahead.

    As Westerners, we may regret our shrinking pre-eminence but it does create a better balanced – and very probably a safer – world than we have previously known. And one that helps us: emerging markets will help re-float the Western economies. It has led to something I certainly never expected to see in my lifetime – China funding the American deficit.

    But you and I had better get used to such novelties because the growth of emerging nations has passed the point where it is likely to be reversible: and our future world will be different, wholly different, as a result of it.

    I don’t intend to focus on economic changes this afternoon but we should note them: the flow of wealth from West to East: the growing role of Sovereign Wealth Funds, which is huge; the scramble for commodities, especially perhaps in Africa, and the price inflation that is very likely to follow. All these trends are signposted for the future.

    I do want to touch on the inter-dependence of nations where there is one mini-trend I hope is not going to develop.

    Over the last two decades the concept of free trade has become almost universal. Countries that once were collectivist, even communist, embraced free enterprise – and prospered as a result of it.

    The impact of the financial crisis has put a very large question mark on that development in the minds of some of the people running these economies. A body called Global Trade Alert has reported a very significant growth in trade protection – not serious yet but sufficiently widespread to be worrying. A growth in protection that needs watching.

    If more countries adopt protectionist measures, particularly if they are big countries, more particularly of all if they happen to be the United States, their trade rivals will retaliate: this could snowball and have a significant effect on world trade.

    We should remember it was not the Wall Street Crash that caused the depression of the 1930s – it was the policies of Protection that followed the Wall Street Crash that caused the damage.

    Let me now look at the world that is to come – and start with the most basic issue of all: mankind itself. In the 41 years since America landed a Man on the Moon, world population has doubled. Doubled in 41 years. It now grows by as much every twelve years as it grew in the nineteen hundred years from the birth of Christ to the dawn of the 20th century. Startling, isn’t it?

    The trend is accelerating, by 2050 – not far away in planning terms – population will soar to over nine billion souls: this is an increase from today that is equivalent to the population of two more Chinas.

    These are not just statistics: they are people. Men, women and children with hopes, fears, ambitions and needs – for food, water, clothing, education, housing, jobs and every basic of life. As we meet today, pretty much about one-half of the world goes hungry, ill-educated and often without hope: how much worse will the problem be with an additional two billion to care for, 95% of whom will be born in countries who are very poor? Planning for this world needs to begin now: again one illustration will suffice.

    Already, many parts of the Middle-East and North Africa face water shortages; water shortages for families, for agriculture and for industry.
    In North Africa the Nile River has been its supply of water since the dawn of time – but the demands on the Nile will one day become insupportable. In 1900, five million Sudanese depended on the Nile – today it is over 42 million and by 2050 it is forecast to be a minimum of 50 million. Similar statistics apply to every other country alongside the Nile.

    The relevance of this is that action is required now to ensure water supply thirty to forty years ahead. But if no-one acts in time, it will be too late when water shortages become immediate and acute.

    These population projections aren’t fantasy. They’re reality. But they could become a nightmare unless we prepare.

    As population changes so does the future of our world, so does technology. My grandfather – who was in Pittsburgh helping to build the Carnegie Steel Works in the 1870s – never conceived of the combustion engine, let alone aeroplanes. Or the telephone, let alone mobiles. Now rockets and satellites in space arouse little interest amongst the populous as a whole. So what will life be like for our grandchildren?
    We can’t know: but we do know the trend of change. Technology is moving ever faster. It’s getting smaller and more powerful. Cheaper and more accessible. It took the telephone 50 years to reach one quarter of America. It has taken Facebook and Google less than 3 years to reach every corner of the world.

    Science isn’t emotional. It deals in facts. Several hundred years ago it told us the Earth was not spherical – and was not the centre of the Universe. At the time the Christian Church killed men for such heresy – but science was right.

    Now science and technology is the unstoppable motor that is changing every aspect of our lives.

    Consider what it has done. The first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments in 1958 – proved to be the fore-runner of silicon chips containing – literally – billions of microscopic circuit elements.

    Nothing in the 20th century has so accelerated change; it led to the computer revolution; to the Digital Age.

    Without that crude circuit board there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; no iPads, no Blackberrys, no Playstations – and none of the hundreds of millions of jobs they have created. Who knows what challenges lie ahead? – perhaps as a result of the particle beams circulating in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland.

    A few days ago, scientists captured anti-matter for the first time – although only a few grains and only for one-tenth of a second. This may – I emphasise may be a new frontier. It was anti-matter, you may recall, that powered the USS Enterprise in Star Trek – fantasy is becoming reality.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and the length of our lives. 110 years ago, no-one knew of blood groups, hormones or barbiturates. Since then, medicine has given birth to whole new industries. New technologies are delivering better drugs, healthy food, new pesticides, the control of pollution, and advances in forensic medicine.

    Technology and medicine are old partners. The first man to assert that blood circulates and is pumped from the heart was William Harvey. But not until the invention of the microscope in the 1650s was this verified by the discovery of the tiny connections between arteries and veins.

    In a modern parallel, scientists are examining how to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research so they can target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine – for example – chemotherapy with only minimal side-effects.

    Such science is leading a revolution in medical care: advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for sufferers of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon be possible to produce artificial heart muscle cells.

    Stem cell research may enable us to grow replacement body parts – experiments in San Diego have already grown a human bladder. We can expect further advances.

    A decade ago, scientists mapped the human genome system. We are daily learning more about how we live and why we die. On the day the mapping was announced, I was lunching with some eminent medical surgeons at one of Britain’s great teaching hospitals.

    What does this mean, I asked? It means – they told me – medicine may determine in a child how that child may die as an adult and, knowing that, they can determine the treatment that may delay death. The life-span for a new baby, born in a country with an advanced medical system, that uses the science that is now available, may rise from the 79/81 years of today to well into the 90s. Consider the social implications of that.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Very soon, fantasy will become reality, in a world we are only barely beginning to glimpse.

    Change is almost always two-faced: sometimes it brings danger.

    Consider our Earth: our blue and green planet has altered. Continents have drifted; Oceans have been formed; Africa and South America have split asunder; species have evolved and become extinct.

    These changes happened over literally hundreds of millions of years … but a few thousand years ago – like everything else in our modern life – it all speeded up. Agriculture began. Vegetation changed. The growing population began to deplete raw – and rare – materials.

    Now, in the last few decades, we have begun to emit radio waves from television, radar and cell-phones, and carbon dioxide emissions have absolutely soared. Planes have filled the skies, and missiles, satellites and space-craft have been propelled beyond our biosphere into orbit.

    For the first time in the long life-time of the Earth, our way of life can affect the future of our planet.

    This is the defining challenge for the future: can we utilize the science that has given us so many innovations to protect our way of life from the effects of those innovations? Once more, a single contemporary example may suffice.

    Science tells us the risks of climate change are real. Arctic summer ice is disappearing faster than we thought: without it, the sea absorbs the sun and melts the permafrost that keeps the lid on Greenhouse gases.

    The burning of fossil fuels continues to raise dioxides. Most – not all, but most – scientists expect this to lead to global warming of between two and five degrees. Does this matter? Yes – it does.

    NASA tells us that when temperatures last rose 2-3% (which they did 35 million years ago) sea levels rose by 25 metres. Even 5 metres would swamp large parts of London, New York, Sydney, Vancouver, Mumbai and Tokyo. Regions of Florida, Louisiana, Bangladesh and the Netherlands would vanish. Singapore would sink. No wonder green energy is such a growing business.

    But here is the dilemma for the policy-maker : we must have energy.

    Our modern world is powered by energy. It is indispensable for economic and political stability. A world without readily available energy is a world that cannot power industry, light homes, cook food, drive cars – it would be chaotic.

    Without energy, we return to life before the industrial revolution: it is unthinkable and it is unimaginable. We have been shamefully wasteful of our energy resources in the past half century and are now paying heavily for it. Oil has risen from $3 a barrel to $80 and rising, as demand has grown and grown.

    And it will not slacken – demand cannot slacken, as Latin America, Africa and Asia continue to industrialise and as population increases.

    So the role of science is going to be pivotal. It must mitigate the impact of fossil fuel degradation and prepare for the post fossil fuel age: this is still many decades ahead of us but, one day, it will come.

    Already science is far advanced in effective methods of capturing and storing carbon before it leaks into the atmosphere although many of the worst polluters around the world don’t yet utilise this technology.

    Alternatives are being developed – solar energy, advanced bio-fuels, fusion, other renewables: all of them have a role to play. So does the safe expansion of nuclear power, probably a bigger role than any of the others, which an increasing number of nations – not least in the Middle East – see as essential to future prosperity.

    We also need science to finalise the electrical car to reduce CO2 emissions. As an estimated 100 million cars are sold each year there will, by next year, be an incredible one billion cars on the planet. An electric motor can make a big contribution.

    Challenges such as these are daunting – and so is the cost but no-one dare ignore them. If we take no action, my generation will not be seriously inconvenienced, but our children/grandchildren may face a disastrous scenario.

    As we look ahead there are acute political and social challenges in nearly every country of the world. The rising cost of caring for more elderly people. The provision of pensions for them. Sufficient leisure and work to keep minds occupied and life worthwhile. Such challenges will alter more than the number and the length of lives: they may change nearly everything that is familiar to us.

    As we prepare for what lies ahead it is re-assuring to recall the past challenges that have been met. For most of my lifetime the world was at risk because NATO and the Warsaw Pact were facing one another with nuclear arsenals that, if unleashed, might destroy much of life as we know it. Reason – and wise politics (not least from past American Presidents like George Bush) prevented such a catastrophe.

    Today, inter-continental carnage on that sort of scale scale is very, very unlikely but – if the world is safer – the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons, of regional conflicts and of terrorism loom much larger as viable risks.

    Iran

    Winston Churchill once referred to Russia as “A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”.

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. Since the flawed re-election of President Ahmadinejad, there has been widespread internal dissent by hundreds of thousands of individual Iranians. There have been marches, coded speeches, intellectual dissent, as liberty has raised its voice.

    The regime, as we might have expected, has responded with repression but, like others before them, they will find that the demand for change, for something better, for a free and open society, is impossible to smother forever. You cannot arrest freedom and keep it in jail.

    The fear of a nuclear Iran is real. So is the effect of it. If Iran obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is very, very high indeed. Iran worries everyone – and destabilises much of the Middle East.

    Why is Iran doing this? The economy is in a mess. The currency is weak. Inflation, interest rates and unemployment are all very high. It’s a very sad comedown for a nation that was a great Empire, when the British and Americans lived in mud huts.

    Nothing is explicable in Iran without understanding the nature of the regime. It is nationalist and hard-line. The real source of power is the Supreme Leader, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Army, the Intelligence Services and the Police.

    The President, Ahmadinejad – so often the face of Iran – is in truth a secondary figure. He is not the decisive decision-maker. Too many people over-react to his provocative remarks without realising his subordinate position. He is the Apprentice, not the Sorcerer. The monkey, not the organ-grinder.

    What should we do? First, remember the regime is not the nation – as the internal dissent vividly makes clear. Even so, while the clerical regime survives, we have to deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and of course we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions.

    Some advocate military conflict – and, unattractive though it is in every conceivable way, we cannot emphatically rule it out. But, for the time being, sanctions and political pressure seem the right way forward. We can only hope that they are sufficient.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and it has scarred politics for decades. And is it not absurd that we know the two-State solution we seek, but cannot turn it into reality? Morality, as well as practicality, says we need a solution.

    After several decades, a bilateral negotiated settlement is still far away: many wonder whether if it will ever be possible. Attempts at incremental agreements – “confidence building” in the jargon – have failed again and again. Peace negotiations resemble nothing so much as the mating of the Black Widow Spider. Once the dance is over, death and destruction invariably follow. How often we have seen that, and how damaging it is.

    The present situation is close to stalemate. Palestinians are split. Secular Fatah control the West Bank. Islamic Hamas rule in Gaza. Hamas deny the right of Israel to even exist. They will not renounce violence nor accept previous agreements made by Palestinian negotiators. Meanwhile, Israel builds settlements the world deems illegal.

    Is there a solution? Yes, of course – the obvious one, a negotiated settlement. But, if that cannot be achieved, if negotiators from Israel and the Palestinians cannot – or will not – make the concessions necessary to compromise because of their internal politics, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when, in the wider interest, they have no choice other than to press more firmly their own ideas for a settlement?

    Understandably, the protagonists would hate this: but, if both sides take positions that impede progress, what alternative exists?

    Will this be difficult? Of course it will. It is a gamble, a high risk toss of the coin, and one that will require great political courage with all concerned. But in the Middle East, as much as anywhere and more important than in most parts of the world, statesmanship is essential to enable the region to fulfil its potential, without fear of conflict.

    One conflict is now worldwide. It is important to understand that terror – Al Qaeda being an example – threatens Muslim societies as much as, and in some cases, more than, Christian societies. Al Qaeda hate the Saudi Arabians more than they hate the Americans and the British. The Taliban, too, would change societies back to pre-enlightened days with a rigid approach to religion and to civil life that is abhorrent to most people. We have seen vivid – and terrifying – examples of that intolerance recently in both Iran and Pakistan. The concept of stoning a woman to death, or executing another because she advocated Christianity, is something that to us seems to come out of an age many centuries ago, but still exists in parts of the world.

    This battle against intolerance and unreason is one in which every State has an interest. It is not a short-term conflict, nor one capable of a clear-cut finite ending: it is too complex, too chaotic for that.

    But it is one from which no nation can safely exclude itself – we all have an interest in the outcome.

    One final thought about the future. Sometimes in politics – and in life – it is necessary to stand back and take stock. Now is such a moment.

    Our world has many complexities, but far more opportunities. If we arrange our affairs to take advantage of them, our future can be so much more promising than even the most pessimistic can believe.

    Sometimes I think we should be more aware – more self-confident – of what we can do. Young men and women today will see things, do things, know things, be things, that their parents and grand-parents would never have dreamed of. We must make sure that they can take advantage of those opportunities.

    As much of what I have said is about science, let me conclude with a quote from the man Voltaire called “the Father of modern science”.

    In the preface to his essays, Francis Bacon – a philosopher in Elizabethan England – observed, and I quote, that: “We have planted things that are likely to last.”

    So have we, in our time, planted things that are likely to last.

    Throughout history, change has been an ally. In the future – if we are wise – it will continue to be so.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Association of American Correspondents – 30 June 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Association of American Correspondents, held at Brown’s Hotel on Wednesday 30th June 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I want to know is, when they shoot the wounded, why do they miss so often. I was just leaving Downing Street forty five minutes or so ago and a parcel arrived. I opened it and inside was a watch and it had an inscription on the back but discretion has taught me that you don’t read out inscriptions in future.

    We’ve been talking casually over lunch and as part of the conversation, one of my visits to Kennebunkport came up. I remember going there. They were marvellous hosts, George and Barbara Bush. Extremely good company, you never knew quite what was going to happen. But they were extremely good company in every respect.

    One evening at the end of a long day, we went in a lounge there, a huge lounge and the whole of one wall converted to a large screen, a large cinema screen. And they showed a very remarkable film. Some of you may have seen it, called Patriot Games. It was a great piece of diplomacy. It’s the story of a plot to kill a British minister and I was sitting there watching it with my Private Secretary and Press Secretary. And of course the villain, the murderer, turns out to be the Private Secretary and the terrorist was a man named O’Donnell. So I said to the President that I think he scored double top on that particular occasion.

    Let me just take you back a while, just test your memory as we slip away from some of the extraneous matters that have intruded into politics over the past few months. There has been something of a frenzied atmosphere in Capitals all round the world, not just in the United Kingdom. I think, dare I say it, from time to time there has been a slightly frenzied attitude in Washington, Tokyo, in Bonn, in Paris, in Rome and perhaps in any number of other countries I might mention. But in the midst of that in the United Kingdom, some fairly important things have happened.

    If I had come here just fifteen months ago and said to you on that occasion, let me make a few predictions: I will come back and see you at the end of June in 1993. And when I come back and see you at that time, interest rates will be down at 6 per cent. Inflation will be down at 1.3 per cent and our exports will be growing faster than we’ve ever seen before and faster than anywhere else in the European Community. We’ll have the most competitive exchange rate we’ve had for a very long time. We’ll have potentially the greatest growth rate in the European Community this year. The greatest growth rate forecast for next year. Unemployment will not reach three million. And by the time I come and see you in June 1993 it will be falling for four successive months when right the way across the rest of Europe, in our principal markets, unemployment is rising, growth is falling and so many of them are heading into recession.

    Now if I had said that to you, you might perhaps have called for the men in white coats to have me carted off to the funny farm. If I’d added to that, and said in the Parliamentary Session drawing to a close in June 1993, we would have carried all our legislations, often against little local difficulties. Hugely important and reforming Bills on housing, on education, on lotteries, on asylum, on the de-nationalisation, forget that ugly word privatisation, it’s de-nationalisation of British Rail. And also, despite the occasional tiny split in my own Party, the Maastricht Bill would have gone right the way through the House of Commons and would be receiving average majorities of over 150 on the votes it faces in the House of Lords. If I’d added that, you would undoubtedly have said, this guy has taken leave of his senses.

    Yet that is the reality when you strip away the nonsense that has be-devilled so much of our national interest over recent months.

    That is the reality of what is happening.

    And then, there’s another fundamental change that has taken place.

    Out there, all the way around the United Kingdom, if you tap people on the shoulder they’ll say of me. Why does he spend so much time on foreign affairs? Why is he bothering about Europe? What about our problems here at home? But the reality for our country now, as it has been for some years, and will be in the future, is that the European market is our own home backyard in terms of exports, in terms of investment and in terms of prosperity.

    And what has happened in the last two years in Europe has been very profound, very striking.

    I believe the whole nature and tilt of European policy has begun to move. And it has begun to move in a direction that we British have been pushing for, for some time.

    Try and put it in context for a moment. For so much of the 1980’s, the European Community was bouncing along, 3 per cent plus growth a year. It’s not all that long ago in two of the European countries, Portugal and Spain, that the countries were actually led by men in dark glasses and epaulettes. And one was worrying as to whether they would actually be safe for democracy when they headed the community in the early 1980’s. And yet they are.

    Spain, despite its present difficulties, has immeasurably improved its position over the last decade and so has Portugal.

    We have now seen in the last couple of years some changes in European policy profoundly important for Europe and profoundly important for this country.

    The first of them is the enlargement of the community. The Community has now agreed, the British have pushed it and pushed and pushed it and the Community has accepted, that the four EFTAN countries can enter the community, subject to negotiations being satisfactory, by 1 January 1995. A good deal earlier than many people anticipated. Many would have pushed it aside for their own domestic reasons. We have won that argument, they are coming in, subject to their own domestic approvals, they’ll be in the community by 1 January 1995.

    Four extra countries enlarging the community from twelve to sixteen and all of them net contributors to the community budget.

    For the first time ever in the European Communities history, about one half of all the member states will be net contributors to the budget, not net beneficiaries from the large contributions of the Germans, the British and the French.

    And that begins to change the tilt and balance of interests in the community in a more sensible and pragmatic way in terms of looking at its own financial future.

    And then of course there is the remarkable change. The new realism that I think was very evident in the debates we had in Copenhagen. Alas, in this country rather overshadowed by domestic matters. The debates there were at Copenhagen were about the future direction of European economic policy.

    I make no secret of the fact, that I believe we have to look ahead for a decade or more and address a problem that has been getting steadily worse right the way across Europe.

    Unemployment is a huge problem. We all know it. There’s been a huge hump in unemployment right the way across the community in the last two or three years. Seventeen million Europeans unemployed. In two years time it is likely to be twenty million Europeans unemployed.

    But that isn’t just a function of this current recession. Unemployment in Europe has been rising steadily, growth or not, for over twenty years. And it has been rising steadily for twenty years because Europe has become relatively less competitive over twenty years to the United States, Japan and of course to the Pacific Basin. Though I think separate criteria apply there.

    I won’t weary you with lots of statistics. Just let me give you one that is a start. Over twenty years the growth in Europe and the growth in the United States is pretty much the same. It should have produced the same number of jobs. But in fact for every single job created in Europe over twenty years, the United States have created four. I think the underlying reason they have done that is the flexibility of the United States’ economy and a lack of additional on-costs that has be-devilled the cost structure of so much of employment in Europe.

    So it isn’t a question of just being beastly and holding back on social costs, it is fundamental to the prosperity of the future of Europe, that the whole of Europe, not just the United Kingdom, grasps that nettle of competitiveness for the future. If they don’t, they will remain powerful and relatively rich. But relatively, over time, they will become less powerful, less influential and less wealthy. Unless across Europe they have the courage to actually address those problems.

    And it is for that I have been arguing in the European Community over recent years. And it is for that I will go on arguing.

    The other point, I think that has changed, very much in the direction we have wanted it to, is the size and shape of the Community, even beyond the growth of the EFTAN states.

    I see the European Community at the moment as, in truth, just a fragment of European community. It doesn’t yet take in our old friends in Central and Eastern Europe. Hungary, Czechlands, Slovak, in due course Romania, Bulgaria, Poland. In due course they must come into the community.

    In the last two years the British have managed to persuade our European partners that will happen. It won’t happen perhaps for a decade, but it is now agreed as a matter of European policy that in due course they will enter the Community. And for military, social and political reasons, I believe that is the right way ahead for the community to go.

    Let me move on to one or two other issues and skim over them just lightly so that I may leave the maximum amount of time for you to ask the questions you wish to ask rather than simply listen to what I wish to say.

    I think the United States were right to attack Baghdad. What I said publicly is what I believe privately. I have not a shred of reservation about it. The attempt to assassinate, in the way that occurred, a former President of the United States with the potential death of hundreds of other innocent people, who would just have been in that area, is an act of international terrorism. An act of international terrorism sponsored not by a group of international terrorists but by the Government of Iraq and by the dictator of Iraq.

    Faced with that I think the United States were absolutely right to retaliate and to attack in the way that they did. And they certainly have my wholehearted support. And I regret that support doesn’t spread, as it deserves to, across every strand of British politics.

    Let me just say a word about the G7 Summit that’s just coming up. There are a number of important issues that I think we have to address at the G7 Summit. Certainly I think we find it in our interests, as well as in Russia’s interests, to try and help the Russians as they go through the second Russian revolution this century. I wonder at the right way to do it.

    There is more than one way to do it and in many ways I think the most effective way is a wide-range of micro-economic assistance rather than macro-economic packages with no clear guidance as to what it will be used for or over what timescale it will be available.

    If one goes these days to Moscow and compares it to two years ago, you are beginning to see embedded in the system, the roots of private enterprise. Whereas there was once just a black market, there are now lots of little stalls selling goods that they’ve brought in from overseas. Things that simply wouldn’t have been available in Russia just two years ago are now available.

    Go into the stores where you wouldn’t have brought anything a few years ago, except perhaps as an illustration of how rotten everything they had was. You now find a wide range of, in many cases, quite high quality goods.

    There is a buzz, a feel, a moving place. Despite all the difficulties they have, it suggests that there is a realistic chance, and it will take a long time, it will take a long time, but a realistic chance that their hopes and aspirations to move to a mixed market economy may be beginning to take shallow root in Russia. And it is in our interests I think, on every count, to try and assist them.

    Then of course I think we must look at the desirability of settlement of the Uruguay Round. For some years, Heads of Government have gone to the G7. They have solemnly sat down and agreed at the end of that year they would have a GATT settlement. And the next year they have gone back and agreed that at the end of that year they would have a GATT settlement. It is beginning, frankly, to get a bit thin and I know the difficulties there will be only too well.

    Few have been in a better position to see what the difficulties are. But I do believe it is profoundly important that we begin to make progress with that agreement.

    If we find ourselves in a stand-off between any of the great trading nations to the extent that you then get protectionism and counter-protectionism and trade wars, there will be no winning for anyone. That will be a defeat for everyone and at this moment, when the thing the world economy most needs is confidence and the growth of trade, it would be folly for us not to bend every wit and will we have to try and find a settlement to the Uruguay Round.

    Maybe positions will have to be changed, people will have to take a long-term view and in many cases face difficulties in their own countries. But I think we need to address that very seriously and see what can be done.

    The other thing I just briefly want to touch on is the world economy. It is pretty sluggish. Indeed, in Europe, the United Kingdom is coming out of recession. Many of our European partners are going into recession. In some cases on a far greater scale than they could remember at any stage in the postwar period.

    If you look at Japan, the signals are conflicting. In Japan the Japanese economy is certainly not bounding along as one of the great entrants to the world economy in the way it has so often in the past.

    The United States looked as though it was coming sharply and clearly and powerfully out of recession a few months ago. It looks a good deal less like that now. And so one has, amongst three of the great engines of the world economy, the United States, Japan and Germany, none of them exactly giving that powerful pull out of sluggishness and recession that ideally we would wish to see to get trade going and see growth return to put more and more people back to work.

    So I think there are areas there. I don’t anticipate that we can sit round at the table in Tokyo and decide a new world economic order that is going to correct us. Nobody should imagine that is remotely going to happen. But I think we do have to look and see what the policies in different countries, that will lead to sustainable non-inflationary growth, that will, during the 1990’s, the most competitive decade we will ever have lived through, which ever part of the world we’re in, to see what is the best way to lift the economy up and out and back towards prosperity.

    Those are some of the things that I think we will be discussing, by no means an exclusive agenda, at the G7 in Tokyo.

    There are many other issues I could stray into. Many of them are lengthy and I think dealing with them trivially would perhaps be a mistake. What I will do, with your consent, is just leave it at that and answer any questions you may have either on the subjects I have raised or if you wish on any other subjects.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Tom Penther, CBS News):

    Prime Minister, if I could ask a broader question. As the United States withdraws from Europe and seems to be advocating its boardroom leadership, Bosnia is the obvious example. Who or what in Europe is going to build this back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, there are two premises there. If I may examine them both.

    That the United States militarily is reducing its commitment to Europe. I think that’s probably right. Given the changed military and security structure in Europe, there isn’t the same land based threat that there once was from the Soviet Union. We haven’t got Russian troops on the very borders of West Germany anymore. They are right the other side of Russia and they’ve got an army that’s collapsing, and in the most appalling difficulties. The threat has wholly changed. But there will still be a very substantial United States presence in Europe. I would guess around 100,000 troops will remain. And I know of no suggestion that this administration or any alternative administration has any imminent likelihood of reducing below that 100,000.

    So it is a reduction in their physical presence in Europe. But I don’t believe it is an abdication of their instinctive and traditional role as part of European defence. I don’t believe that is the case, though you perhaps may feel you know your own fellow citizens better than I do but I don’t believe it is.

    As to America’s world role. The United States finds itself in a difficult position at the moment. Difficult in the sense that it is now the only superpower.

    When the United States had the old Soviet Union, there was a counter balance. People instinctively rallied to it, or they rallied against it. Now the counter balance is gone and in a curious way it leaves the United States much more exposed. It hasn’t got an enemy, I’ll put the word in inverted commas if I may, that it can push against in difficult times. It has actually got to exist in popular fact, solely upon its own policies without that limited aspect that so often helps Governments when they face difficulties.

    The present administration has got two problems on its plate. Neither of them of its own making, both of them hellishly difficult to deal with. Bosnia is quite literally a problem from hell and it is difficult to see quite what the United States could do to provide effective leadership.

    As far as the world economy is concerned, economies take a long time to respond to action. This one showed signs of being very powerful and has now fallen away. And it will take time for the administration to begin to put that right.

    I think that is an extraordinarily unfortunate conjunction of events for a new President to inherit. And I hope and believe that America will grapple with those immediate difficulties that it has. For I profoundly believe that it is very much in the interests of the free world, of the West in particular, that America, as the single great superpower, does exert a powerful leadership in the western world. I hope and expect that it will do so. I don’t believe there is any information to abdicate that role and I profoundly hope that there isn’t.

    QUESTION (Keith Brockwell, Journal of Commerce):

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the importance of getting an agreement in the Uruguay Round at the G7. When you arrive in Tokyo you will find there is no Japanese Government, the French have a pretty large chip on their shoulder and most of the other leaders that are there are looking at opinion polls that frankly they must consider to be pretty grim. How can these leaders summon the political will to make difficult choices, to change positions as you said, in very strategically, or in politically sensitive sectors that are needed to make to make a deal? And if this year after the last four years, the leaders are unable to do so, do you believe that the momentum can possibly be summoned to have another go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the answer to the first part of the question is, look at what will happen if they don’t. I don’t expect that these matters are going to be easily solved and I’m certainly not saying they must be solved at Tokyo next week. Things rarely operate in that fashion. We must make sure the momentum goes on up to Tokyo, during Tokyo and through Tokyo. But nobody can expect that if they aren’t all solved at Tokyo, as I suspect they will not be, that is the end of the matter. We just have to continue.

    But despite the difficulties that you’ve set out more vividly than I might have done in public, the reality is that unless the leaders of those seven large industrial nations actually move towards a GATT agreement, there will not be one. And if there is not one, what lies the other side of that hill is potentially immensely damaging. And the closer one gets to those difficulties, the greater one sees the prize already there in those areas of GATT already agreed. The loss in losing that and the potential damage that could then come about if the whole Uruguay Round itself was not able to move forward.

    It was put very vividly to me the, the moral case for an agreement, by the President of one of the [inaudible] group countries, who came to see me, a relatively small country, and said: “what are you Americans and you Europeans playing at. We reached our agreements in the GATT round five years ago. The world has changed since then. We haven’t squealed and complained. We’ve stuck with it because we want a GATT agreement, we’re a relatively small nation. A few months ago the Americans and the Europeans struck a deal and now they’re both wondering whether they’re going to stick to it. Where does that put us when we have already stuck to the deal that we made four or five years ago?”

    Now I have to say to you that I have a lot of sympathy with that argument. And it isn’t just a question of the position of America and the position of Europe.

    A GATT deal is of acute importance to countries all the way round the world. There is no morality in saying to many of the small nations of the world, we Americans, we British, we French and we Germans are going to be frightfully generous with all this overseas aid. And while we’re giving you this overseas aid, a good deal of it tied to trade, we will actually close off our markets to your goods. So you can live off this overseas aid, today, tomorrow and for as far ahead as you can see.

    I believe that is a self defeating policy. At some stage we have got to liberate world trade, open markets and enable these smaller countries themselves to provide themselves by their own endeavours and not have a hand to mouth existence with aid from the rich countries in the West.

    And unless we do that, we will simply find that the rich countries of the West, over time, will not be rich enough to help these other nations.

    So although this argument is largely couched in economic terms, I have to say personally, I think there is a powerful moral case. If that is not a dangerous thing for a politician to say in public these days. There is a powerful moral case for a settlement of the GATT round in the interest of weak nations in Latin America, in Africa, in South East Asia and in many other parts of the globe and I think that is an argument that will need to surface at Tokyo and elsewhere in terms of discussion on the GATT round.

    QUESTION (Carla Rappaport, Fortune Magazine):

    I was very interested in your comments on employment. You praised America’s labour flexibility. The UK actually has one of the most flexible labour systems in Europe. Yet when I talk to economists about the recent [inaudible]. What more does Britain have to do, what is left to help the unemployment problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things that need doing. I certainly think there are some more supply side changes that we could make to free up unemployment.

    I think as a whole, the economy is too heavily over-regulated. That largely, politicians push that out and they say well that’s wicked Brussels sending lots of nasty directives over here. Up to a point that’s true. They do send lots of nasty directives over here. But on top of that we often tie a cap and bells to them when they get to Whitehall.

    We have some accident, and then there will be an inquiry, and then whoever conducts the inquiry makes 480 recommendations as to what might be done to ensure that such a thing never occurs again. They are faithfully enacted.

    If one asks a businessman, go out there and ask all the people running small and medium sized companies what inhibits them from growth, one of the things they will come back, almost invariably, and say to you is, the degree of regulation is too great.

    It is in this country less than in other European countries, but that is not the right measure. The question is, how does it compare with the United States and with Japan. That is the question. And the answer to that question is very badly. So I think there is a good deal more of supply side changes that still need to be carried through.

    I think the trade union changes have worked immensely successively and I think that is very good. But there are other changes. I think there is a good degree of deregulation. Like every other nation in Europe we have to look at our social on costs.

    We in the United Kingdom have seen a social budget that has absolutely soared and people rather say, well that’s unimportant. Up to a point, but only up to a point. If you strip all the unemployment costs out of our social budget and then look at the rest of our social security budget, I’ve put health to one side, just social security, social security rises year on year, almost inexorably by between three and three and a half per cent a year over and above the rate of inflation.

    Now that is the equivalent each year of about a penny ha’penny on income tax.

    Now that is happening, it’s happening all over Europe, in Germany, in Holland and Italy. All sorts of countries that are politically attracted to high social provision are finding it is necessary to trim back within what they can afford. And that is true here. That is why we have set in train with these fundamental expenditure reviews that we need to examine. So I think some of those are the things that we still need to do.

    There’s one other that I would touch upon. One of the other clear pieces of evidence from examining unemployment across Europe, is to look at the people who are unemployed. And predominantly the people who are unemployed for a long time are relatively unskilled males. They are the people who are unemployed for a long time. I’m not now talking just of the United Kingdom, I’m talking right the way across western Europe. And that argues to me firstly the on-cost argument. The same on-costs on someone of less economic value to a company, means they’re less likely to be employed. Straight economic facts. So one has to look at those on-costs.

    Secondly it argues that all across Europe we need to look more carefully at the nature and style of trading.

    Thirdly in terms of the United Kingdom it argues very powerfully to me that I very much want to expand both the service sector, where most of our future jobs will come, but also the manufacturing sector. Not because I think the manufacturing sector of itself will be a large net producer of additional jobs, I doubt that it will. But I think the suppliers of some of the secondary impact of the wider manufacturing sector will give us jobs. And a wider manufacturing sector of its own will be benevolent addition to the British economy. So those are some of the things I think will go to address the point you made.

    QUESTION (Rick Salinger, CNN):

    You mentioned Bosnia as a problem from hell, perhaps a case can be made for saying that Northern Ireland’s is the Prime Minister’s problem from hell. Are you discouraged by the lack of success in bringing about a political solution and an end to the terrorism there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I’d like to have had a complete solution of course. But I think it would be unwise to look at the extent to which progress has been made in the last two or three years. Let me illustrate that with some practical points rather than just the assertion.

    Who would have contemplated two or three years ago that we would have managed to get all the political parties talking in the way that they have around the table. It has never happened before. Large measures of agreement reached in strand 1 and strand 2 of the talks. Agreement, without an explosion in either side of the Ireland, that there should be regular bilateral summits between the Irish Government and the British Government. Huge improvement in cooperation on security matters between the Irish Government and the British Government. Huge increase in the relationship between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

    And perhaps above all, if you go to Northern Ireland and go out on the streets and talk to the people of Northern Ireland, there is a huge instinctive will for the politicians to talk and to try and reach an agreement.

    They don’t say anymore this or that political slogan when you talk to them. What they do say, though they may not put it quite in these terms, is that they don’t want another twenty three years like the last twenty three years. They do want us to push ahead for some progress and the reason for that is quite clear.

    If you walk around Belfast it’s a different city from ten years ago. The difficulties are highly publicised, magnified all the way round the world. The successes aren’t. There has been a huge amount of investment in Belfast and a great change in the city. One only has to go there to see it.

    But it is just a drop in the ocean and this is what explains the public attitude. Just a drop in the ocean to what could happen if the bloodshed and the terrorism stopped.

    You could triple tourism. I was in Northern Ireland over the weekend. The first Prime Minister to spend a weekend there I think for fifty years. I opened the tourist agency in Larne, a brand new agency. They could triple tourism in Northern Ireland but for the fact that all the rest of the world knows about Northern Ireland is when you get terrorist incidents. So they don’t go. They think it is far worse than it is.

    And secondly inward investment. Northern Ireland is a hugely attractive place to invest in. I went, the previous time I was there, to a great cotton factory where they got some investment from the United States. They’d merged and they were producing Fruit of the Loom t-shirts. Everybody there was hugely successful. Much more competitive than anywhere in the Pacific Basin.

    And the amount of inward investment that would flood into Northern Ireland because of the attraction of Northern Ireland as a place to live, and also its competitiveness is huge, provided it had a better terrorist overhang.

    Now the people of Northern Ireland know that. They know that there is a prosperity deficit in Northern Ireland because of terrorism. And I think they are getting heartily sick of it.

    So I think there is quite an agenda of reasons for positive hope. I don’t think it will be easy, I don’t think it will necessarily be quick but I think inexorably we are moving in the right direction in Northern Ireland and that is something one could not have said for much of the last quarter of a century.

    QUESTION (Linda Albany, ABC News):

    Recently someone quite close to the talks on Bosnia indicated that they were quite surprised by the lack of preparation which the Americans came overseas to talk about what it was they wanted done, and said something about this administration being worse than even the Carter administration [inaudible]. What was the reaction of Europeans, would you say, behind closed doors to some extent, to what the US’s position was and how they handled it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I’m always rather suspicious of anonymous quotes, having spent a year living through them. So I tend not to react too well to anonymous quotes.

    I can only say on the occasions that I have spoken either to President Clinton or the Secretary of State, I found immensely well briefed about realities. Nobody is in any doubt that we have produced different prescriptions as to what is appropriate from time to time. But I think they’re very well briefed. I think they do understand the problems involved and I sometimes find it bizarre when I read afterwards what has allegedly happened at a meeting I attended. Either I wasn’t there at all or there’s been some misapprehension in the way it has subsequently been passed on for reporting. So I have no criticisms to make on that score.

    It’s a very difficult problem. The United States have to grapple with it in the same way that we do. In some areas we have reached different conclusions but I think the objectives we have in mind are the same objectives and I think that will become apparent again when we talk about it in weeks ahead.

    QUESTION (Maureen Johnson, Associated Press):

    Prime Minister, when you were saying fifteen months ago we wouldn’t have believed the achievements of your administration if you’d listed them, would you yourself have believed one of us if we had said where you’re poll ratings would be now and how candid or permanent do you think these are?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have someone whose word you trust implicitly with me. Namely Gus O’Donnell. And Gus will tell you, if I ask him to, won’t you Gus. “Yes Prime Minister” [GUS]. He used to write a very famous show as well of the same title.

    What I said to him the day after the last election. On the Friday after the election he sat upstairs in my flat. There were four of us there: Chris Patten, Gus O’Donnell, Sara Hogg and myself. And one of them said, ‘well, election’s over, we’ve won it’. And I said, and I hope Gus will recall the incident, that in a year I would be the most unpopular Prime Minister that this country had known for a very long time.

    I did not quite envisage how it would come about. I freely confess that. But I was well aware of the intrinsic difficulties that lay ahead and I had no doubt that it would lead to a considerable amount of difficulties.

    But I’m bound to say, asking me about poll ratings is not wildly productive. If I had believed poll ratings I wouldn’t have had any of these problems, because I wouldn’t have won the last election. None of them said that we would, I didn’t believe them then. I disregarded them then and I have no intention of letting them get in the way of what I’m doing now.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Exchange Rate’s only part of competitiveness. Don’t make too much just of the Exchange Rate. That’s short hand for a range of other things as well.

    If you look, for example, at the other components of competitiveness in the United Kingdom: unit costs, productivity growth. You’ll see all of them are now strikingly better than most of our European competitors and strikingly better than we’ve seen previously in this country. So I wouldn’t make too much simply of the Exchange Rate problem.

    There are a whole range of other things that are making our exports very competitive. And I am delighted about that and also delighted that we have quite a degree of spare capacity, with proved production in this country in order to continue to export.

    The problem that we will face, I think, will be a slightly different one. The problem that we are going to face over the next year is that so many of our principal markets are themselves in recession or are heading towards recession. So we are likely to get a larger share of our improved competitiveness. A larger share but perhaps of a smaller market. And if I had to worry about the trade deficit, I would worry about that aspect of the trade deficit rather than the one that you raised.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think that question is capable of more than one interpretation. I hope we will be able to reach a settlement that is satisfactory for each of the three parties.

    Even if that were true, the probability is, I state this is a probability not a certainty, but the probability is that there will need to be some international presence in the former Yugoslavia for some time to come. I don’t know what form that presence will take. I don’t know what form any guarantees that might be required would be. But I would be very surprised if there wasn’t firstly an humanitarian presence in Bosnia for some time.

    Secondly a presence aimed at the reconstruction of the former Yugoslavia, and very possibly what I might call the guardian presence, that’s small g, of troops under a UN guise to help in one form or another.

    So I think if any of the world’s big nations had ambitions that they may be able to wash their hands of the Yugoslavian/Bosnian problem in the near future, then I think that is very unlikely. I don’t myself foresee it. I hope we will get a settlement. I think that would be a great step forward.

    The other problems would be rather more agreeable to have. But even if that occurred and we did get a settlement and that settlement were satisfactory and it looked as though it was going to last, there would still be a need, I think, for a continuing involvement.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, for thirty five years I’ve been trying, to explain British cricket. Unsuccessfully of course. Now I have to explain whether there is actually a decline in British cricket in its appearance of British Cricket and County Cricket, a lot of my audiences are waiting expectantly for my answer.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have many responsibilities and I am prepared to take the blame for most of them which on balance is a jolly good thing. Let me try and respond to that question.

    As for explaining cricket it is quite simple. Two men go out to the middle of the field, they put in six pieces of wood, two men in white coats come out and it starts to rain. That is really all you need to know.

    I tried to explain to President Bush what a leg breaker was, several times, and he got it. Ah, he said, it’s a curved ball that doesn’t bounce.

    There is a serious point underlying your question. And I think it deserves a slightly more serious answer. County Cricket isn’t the force it was. School cricket, the lack of school cricket, is really I think where the roots of the difficulties cricketers have actually spring from.

    That is the negative side of the equation. The positive side of the equation is that the great County sides have recognised that and they are now organising on a scale we’ve never seen before in this country. Club Cricket and Youth Cricket actually organised by Lancashire, Surrey, Yorkshire and Middlesex. So they are seeking to get youngsters with some form of cricketing talent at a very young age and exposing them to a higher class of cricket.

    That will take some time to work its way through. But if you look at the Surrey team, which I mention only because by far the most important public appointment I hold is that of life vice-president of Surrey County Cricket. A large number of the present Surrey County side actually came through those youth arrangements.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Iraq – 13 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on Iraq, made at Downing Street in London on Wednesday 13th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As you know, Royal Air Force Tornadoes and tankers have today taken part in a limited Coalition attack on surface-to-air missiles and their associated command and control facilities in southern Iraq. There have been no Allied casualties. All our aircraft have returned safely to base and preliminary information – and I emphasise that, preliminary information – indicates that the aircraft accomplished their mission satisfactorily.

    Let me say that we did not take this action lightly. Last year, we established a no-fly zone over southern Iraq and the purpose of that was quite clear – it was to stop Saddam Hussein from the repression of his own people. Over the last few weeks, our aircraft in that no-fly zone have come under increasing threat, threat from Iraqi aircraft themselves entering the no-fly zone and from missile batteries installed in Southern Iraq.

    Over recent days, the Iraqis have been ample warning. The action that we have taken tonight has deliberately been both limited and proportionate but we believe it will be effective in establishing the conditions which will enable our aircraft to operate in the no-fly zone with safety.

    The Iraqi regime are in breach of Security Council requirements on a number of fronts. They pose a threat to aircraft protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq, they are impeding the actions of the UN inspection teams, they are illegally entering Kuwaiti territory. Each and every one of those breaches needs to stop. If they don’t, we shall have no hesitation – again with our Allies – in taking the necessary action to enforce Security Council Resolutions.

    The Secretary of State for Defence will be making a statement to the House at 10 o’clock.

    I will take one or two questions.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, have you spoken to President Bush about your next action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I shall be speaking to President Bush again within a few minutes.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have any idea of the level of Iraqi casualties that might have come from such missions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not at this stage.

    QUESTION (Michael Brunson, ITV):

    How long can this cat-and-mouse game with Saddam go on? People are saying he should be taken out once and for all.

    PRIME MINISTER:
    I think he has had a very clear indication today of the fact that people are growing increasingly intolerant of his defiance of the Security Council Resolutions. I hope that he will learn from the lesson.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, BBC TV):

    Do you expect this action to put an end to violations by Saddam Hussein and are the Allies prepared to step up action if he continues to defy UN Resolutions?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are prepared to make sure that the Security Council Resolutions are enforced. I hope this will put an end to the infringements. We have hoped that before and it has not. If he infringes again, he must expect us to retaliate again and we have made it entirely clear to him that we will certainly do that.

    QUESTION:

    Do you regret not dealing with Saddam Hussein tougher two years ago?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I think the decision that was taken to stop the fighting at the time we did was the right decision at the time. One has to recall we were operating under a UN mandate; that mandate had been enforced; we had no legal authority to do more and I believe it was right to stop when we did.

    QUESTION:

    Are you prepared to take the same tough action against the Serbs since many Muslims may feel that Christians in Europe are applying double standards?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think people know the action that we have already taken in humanitarian aid in Bosnia and we have a substantial number of troops on the ground and you will know the very sad news indeed that one of them was killed this morning.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Statement with President George Bush – 20 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint statement with President George Bush on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, issued on 20th December 1992.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER JOHN MAJOR AND PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH:

    The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have agreed as follows.

    The objectives of our policy are:

    (a) to work for a peaceful and just settlement in the former Yugoslavia;
    (b) to prevent the spread of the fighting in particular to Kosovo and Macedonia;
    (c) to maintain the humanitarian aid effort which includes over 2,000 British troops and without which many more lives will be lost this winter.

    The President and Prime Minister paid tribute to the work of the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia and to the courage and dedication of the troops who are ensuring that convoys get through. They welcomed the success of the UN and its agencies, despite all the odds, in delivering large quantities of aid to those in need. They agreed on the importance of enabling that effort to go ahead.

    The United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to cooperate on a Resolution in the United Nations to enforce compliance with the ‘no-fly’ zone for Bosnia should violation of the existing ban continue. The aim of the resolution would be to prevent flights taking place other than those specifically authorized by the United Nations.

    The President and the Prime Minister:

    (a) agreed that steps need to be taken to prevent the spread of fighting into Kosovo and Macedonia;
    (b) welcomed the decision to deploy UN troops in Macedonia and hoped that this UN presence would be stepped up over the coming weeks;
    (c) agreed also to press for the very early increase in the numbers of observers in Kosovo;
    (d) agreed that our attitude to sanctions would depend on a rapid and radical change of policy by Serbia;
    (e) confirmed that they would be ready, depending on Serbia’s response, to impose new sanctions. They could initially include cutting postal and telecommunication links and could lead to closing the borders and complete diplomatic isolation for years to come.

    The President and the Prime Minister paid tribute to the work of Cy Vance and David Owen in trying to negotiate a peaceful settlement in the former Yugoslavia. Both Governments will continue to give the negotiators their full support.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Bush – 20 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President George Bush, held in Washington on Sunday 20th December 1992.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Let me just say that once again we have had a very good meeting with the Prime Minister up at Camp David, I expect this will be my last such meeting but I will tell you that it was fruitful and I feel as strongly as I ever have about the strength of the UK/US relationship, it is vital to our own interest, I know the Prime Minister feels that way and the talks just could not have gone better. We covered a wide array of subjects, almost every area of the globe, we did it in a relaxed atmosphere, it was a special joy to have Mrs Major with us at this Christmas season, we inundated them with Christmas carols and I think as far as I am concerned it was a very wonderful visit with a distinguished world leader.

    We did spend a lot of time talking about the former Yugoslavia and we spelt out some objectives for our policy, nothing particularly new in it, but we agreed that working for a peaceful and just settlement in the former Yugoslavia is essential. We agreed that there is a risk and we must prevent the spread of fighting, in particular in Kosovo and Macedonia.

    Then I saluted the British leadership role in the humanitarian side of things, they have forces on the ground in harm’s way and those forces are doing the Lord’s work in terms of bringing relief, so we talked about maintaining the humanitarian aid effort which includes the British troops and without which clearly many more lives would be lost in the winter.

    So we spelt these objectives out and Prime Minister I enjoyed the visit, I do not want to monopolise it, maybe you would care to add something, Sir?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, thank you very much. Can I just echo what the President had to say about the discussions we have had over the weekend. But further than that, as the President said, this may be the last meeting we have of this kind and I have found the last two years especially fruitful in those discussions, there has been a lot happening in the last two years, I think it has been remarkably good not just for the United Kingdom but for Europe to know we have had such a good friend here in the White House and I think there are many people across the world who will have good cause to say thanks for the work that President Bush has done in the last four years. And I believe I speak not just for myself but for many millions when we wish him the best of futures after he leaves the White House in a few days time.

    We had not only a very enjoyable weekend, I think we had a very productive weekend. The President has set out the objectives that we discussed as far as Yugoslavia is concerned, we looked at some of the details to underpin those objectives as well, we did agree to cooperate in a resolution at the United Nations to enforce compliance with the No Fly Zone. The aim of the resolution will be to make sure we enforce the resolution previously agreed and to prevent flights taking place other than those that have been specifically authorised to do so.

    We looked also at the possible need for measures to prevent the spread of fighting into Kosovo and into Macedonia and that clearly is a matter of immense importance in the future. With that in mind we both agreed that it would be wise to press for an early increase in the number of observers in Kosovo and we also looked at the question of present and future sanctions and the present and future relationship with Serbia, we agreed that our attitude to sanctions would depend on rapid and radical change of policy by Serbia and concern that we would be ready, depending on Serbia’s response, to impose new sanctions on Serbia. The sort of things we had in mind of course were initially cutting postal and telecommunication links, but going on of course to the closing of borders if necessary, and if it proves necessary complete and total diplomatic isolation not just in the short term but making it clear to them that that would apply for a very long time indeed.

    Both of us wished to see a political settlement, the President was very sensitive to the work done by the British troops and by the UN agencies there and I am most grateful for his kind words about that this morning.

    Amongst a number of other issues we also looked at the problems that have arisen in Iraq in the last few days in the delivery of humanitarian aid by the United Nations to the Kurds in Northern Iraq. That has come to a halt temporarily as a result of the Iraqis placing bombs in a number of the trucks that were delivering that aid and we agreed that we were determined to ensure that that aid does get through to Northern Iraq and that is a matter that will have to be developed over the course of the next few days.

    So those were some, not an exclusive list, but some of the issues that we discussed this morning and I would just like to end by yet again thanking the President for the nature of these discussions and for the relationship between our two countries.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, would US planes be used to enforce the No Fly Zone?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    This is a little ahead of where we are going and we do not discuss how we are going to do things, especially before we have decided what they are going to be, so I would just have to duck that one right now.

    QUESTION:

    Is there a 15 day deadline?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I saw those stories in the press this morning about a 15 day deadline, certainly that was nothing we discussed this morning, nothing we discussed over the weekend, that is a matter that is not just for the President and for I, not just for the United States and for the United Kingdom, that is something that would have to be agreed in the Security Council resolution so I do not know where these 15 day stories come from but they have no credibility at the moment.

    QUESTION:

    Would you be prepared to see British involvement if necessary in enforcing the deadline?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have got a lot of discussing to do before we determine how the deadline is going to be enforced. We have agreed that it is necessary to enforce the No Fly Zone, there is more than one way of doing that but we have to discuss that with a lot of other interested parties as well before we can agree the Security Council Resolution.

    QUESTION:

    What steps would be taken to protect the forces already on the ground protecting the humanitarian effort if there were to be retaliation as a result of the enforcement of the No Fly Zone?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have always made it clear, right from the start, that we were concerned about maintaining the humanitarian assistance that is going to Sarajevo and other centres, that clearly is of critical humanitarian importance and so is the paramount importance of preserving the security of the United Nations agencies and the British and other troops that are assisting in the delivery of that humanitarian aid. So clearly that has to underpin any resolution and any progress we make and these are the matters that will be discussed further over the next few days with our colleagues and allies.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    May I simply add to that that on behalf of the United States we are very sensitive to the fact that the sons and daughters from other countries are serving on the ground in Sarajevo and trying to facilitate the relief in the former Yugoslavia. The United States has done a fair amount, a good amount I would say, in getting relief supplies in but when it comes to taking decisions that affect the lives of troops, I would view British soldiers the same as I would if these were United States soldiers here, we must do that, we owe them prudence in making these decisions and the fact that these are Brits serving there in no way lessens the feeling I have that we must be very careful we do not needlessly put young men and women who are there in harm’s way more than they are. And I just want to say that particularly to the parents of the young people that are wearing British uniforms in the former Yugoslavia today, they must know that that is the way the United States views these things.

    QUESTION:

    Do you anticipate any problems from Russia in terms of getting an enforcement resolution?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    No we do not anticipate any, as a matter of fact they have not raised it, I talked to Boris Yeltsin for 35 minutes this morning on other matters and had that been on his mind I expect he would have raised it, he is a very frank interlocutor, as the Prime Minister knows, and so I do not anticipate difficulty. But the way we avoid that is to do exactly what we are doing, the ultimate in consultations at the United Nations.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have nothing to add on that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you ready to sign the START treaty?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    We discussed that and I can tell you it is not agreed totally, we have made some real progress.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have a figure of some sort for these other sanctions that you have mentioned down the line, is there something that the Serbs would do to make these happen or is it just the passage of time?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    The answer to your question is no, we do not have a trigger time.

    QUESTION:

    Do you want the UN resolution to stipulate that planes which violate the No Fly Zone will be shot down?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not think that the UN resolution will stipulate anything of that sort, not in those terms. But the UN resolution is not yet decided, there is a lot of discussion, we need to get the agreement of the Security Council and others, there is some way to go before we get the resolution.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel there is pressure to get it through quickly?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think I want to put a timescale but I doubt it will be too long.

    QUESTION:

    If Mr Milosevic is elected how would that affect things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think commenting on elections is a dangerous hazardous business, especially on the day of the election.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    So do I, that is a good way to end this I think, thank you all very much.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in London – 4 November 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London, held on Wednesday 4th November 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Good morning! I have the Sultan of Brunei arriving in just a few moments but I would like before he arrives to say a word or two about the presidential election.

    I have this morning sent a message of congratulations to Governor Clinton on his stunning victory in the American election yesterday. I have no doubt from what I know of the Governor’s policies that the United States and Britain will continue to work together very closely in foreign policy and that the special relationship we have had for so many years will be maintained. I hope to have the opportunity of meeting President-elect Clinton in the course of the next few weeks.

    Perhaps I might also take this opportunity to say a word or two about George Bush. He has, I believe, been an extraordinarily good friend to this country and to Europe as a whole. At the time of the invasion of Kuwait, he provided very strong, very wise, very consistent leadership for the Western World. He has managed to negotiate some of the largest arms reductions the world has ever seen between East and West and added very substantially to our security and in his relationship with the former Soviet Union he has managed, through his diplomacy and his skills, to turn old enemies into new friends, I believe they are very substantial contributions for any president to have achieved and I believe history will record those and his presidency very favourably indeed.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (John Sergeant – BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, how important to you is the vote tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will win the vote tonight and I think that will be apparent. The substance of European policy is very clear. The most important matter of all is the consistency of British foreign policy in Europe and abroad and there is no doubt in my mind that Britain’s place is in Europe and there is no doubt that since it is in Europe, we need to play a leading part in Europe and help ourselves to shape the Europe of the future. That means we can’t hide behind other people. We have to make our own decisions, we have to stand by them, and we have to build on them and that is our policy.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    Prime Minister, what will you do if you’re not successful this evening?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe it is going to arise. I believe we are going to win the vote this evening.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant – BBC TV):

    Would you consider, Prime Minister, resigning if you lost the vote tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe we are going to lose the vote tonight.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton – Sky TV):

    Could we then ask you about GATT?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I had a number of conversations in recent days both with members of the Community and the Commission and also with the United States. I spoke twice yesterday to Jim Baker during the course of discussions. Many of you may know that the Minister of Agriculture has actually been there near to the negotiations to offer what advice and assistance he can to Commissioner MacSharry. John Gummer will be reporting back to me later on today and I will have a clearer view then of precisely what the cause of the breakdown was. I would prefer to avoid substantive comment until I have that.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Bosnia – 8 August 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Bosnia, made on 8th August 1992.

    [The Prime Minister was asked about his telephone call to President Bush].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I did have the opportunity of discussing a whole range of matters with President Bush. We have been looking at a series of options for some days. We’ve been looking at them with the Americans, with the French and with some of our other allies. That work collectively – collectively I stress that word – that work is still going on, when we’ve concluded it, we can reach decisions about what needs to be done.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Bio-Diversity Agreement – 7 June 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the bio-diversity agreement, made in the United States on 7th June 1992.

    [The Prime Minister was asked whether he has persuaded President Bush to sign the Bio-Diversity Agreement on behalf of the United States of America].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have problems with the bio-diversity convention as well as the United States. We have problems with some of the financial proposals and some of the other allied projects as well.

    I think we will probably be able to solve them, but the difficulties that we instinctively see with them are a great deal less than those the United States sees.