The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Iraq

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at The Kurdistan National Assembly – 29 May 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to The Kurdistan National Assembly on Sunday 29th May 2011.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I am immensely grateful to President Barzani for his kind invitation for me to visit Kurdistan. His invitation was issued a long time ago but alas, for various reasons, I have not been able to accept until now. The President – and the people of Kurdistan – have lived up to their reputation of being the warmest of hosts, with the most generous of welcomes, and I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for affording me the great privilege of addressing this Assembly today.

    It is a great honour for me to be here. I stand here with a sense of pride and pleasure. Pride in the role Britain has played in supporting Iraqi Kurdistan. And pleasure at seeing the progress you have made in developing a democracy, in building your economy, and in helping to stabilise Iraq as a whole.

    For me, this visit brings back powerful memories.

    At the end of the first Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein was committing genocide on the Kurdish people I looked on – we in Britain looked on – with horror, and pressed a plan to establish “safe havens” for the brave Kurds who were being attacked. The European Union, and then the whole international community, accepted our ideas. The “safe havens” were established, and a human tragedy of enormous proportions was avoided.

    The recent street demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa have shown the world that millions of people in this region want democracy. It is a demand for freedom and accountable Government. They want to influence how they are governed. Since the fall of Saddam, Iraqi Kurdistan – and Iraq as a whole – has led the way in taking steps towards democracy. You have confronted many of the challenges that others will now face.

    Every country is different and has the right to develop in its own way, with its own culture and traditions. It is not for the West to dictate the terms of change in the region. This is an Arab revolution, not a Western one. The United Kingdom’s approach is built on our longstanding respect for the dignity and aspirations of the Arab peoples.

    The Iraqi experience can guide the region. It shows that reform is not a threat to stability, but the guarantor of it. A repressive response by Governments only reinforces the calls for change, and the need for it. Libya and Syria have not learned this, and are brutally repressing protests. They must understand that the international community will not accept their abuses of power.

    The demonstrations, uprisings and demands for reform that have swept across the Middle East have, tragically, led to deaths. Sadly, that is also true in Iraqi Kurdistan: but here the circumstances surrounding those deaths are different: first, they are being investigated; and second, Kurdistan is in the process of passionate political debate about how to reform. The United Kingdom fully supports that debate – we welcome it – and we congratulate President Barzani and Prime Minister Saleh on the work they are doing to develop a reform agenda.

    The political upheaval in Egypt and Tunisia is the preface to an immense economic task. It will not be easy. There is bound to be tension between people’s hopes and expectations of immediate benefit, and the need for painful measures to open undeveloped economies to greater opportunity. The West cannot stand aside: it must do all it can to help entrench a better future across the Middle East and North Africa – MENA.

    The United Kingdom can help.

    – Through international organisations, in particular the G8

    – Through the European Union

    – And bilaterally – in 19 countries of the region – through our Arab Partnership.

    The route we choose to help does not matter: but the fact that we do help matters a great deal.

    The challenges ahead are huge, but so are the potential benefits. Prime Minister Cameron compared the Arab Spring to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. I agree: as Prime Minister, I saw that revolution at close quarters. It was one of the most dramatic events of the last century, as the Soviet Union shook off 70 years of tyranny. When I visited Moscow soon afterwards, there was a tremendous sense of euphoria, a feeling that oppression had had its last desperate throw. There was real belief that democracy was taking root. As it may be now – across the MENA region.

    The Arab Spring has affected countries with very different political and social systems. No single response is appropriate to them all. There is no easy transition from tyranny to freedom – or from an inefficient command economy to a free market. But the Kurdistan Regional

    Government and the Government of Iraq can take a leading role in this on-going revolution. You can set an example to your near neighbours. And the very fact that you are in a position to do that is a great tribute to all you have achieved in recent years.

    Of course, there is more to be done. The national debate on reform will succeed or fail in laws made here – in the National Assembly. You are the guarantor of popular will. That is a tremendous responsibility. As someone who served as a Member of the British Parliament, it is a burden and responsibility I know well.

    In any democratic political system, it is the majority that finally decides on policy. And that must be so. But the minority must also have its say. Democratic Opposition is a vital role. It holds governments to account: the best laws are those that benefit from a wide range of views. No-one has a monopoly of wisdom.

    That concept of a loyal Opposition is central to a democracy. The House of Commons is at its best when it is united: but it is at its most vibrant when members debate opposing visions of the nation’s future.

    As Iraqi Kurdistan fashions its own distinctive democratic system, I am delighted to learn that it is working with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

    The first joint work was on the role of the Opposition. How can it be defined? How can parties work together in the national interest? Such questions are the real meat of a vibrant, representative Parliamentary system. I understand that, over the coming year, the Foundation program will be looking at strengthening the links between electors and the elected; how to get Parliamentary messages out to the broader public; and how to strengthen Parliament’s ability to hold the executive to account. This is vital work that underlines how far Iraqi Kurdistan has come in such a very short time.

    I also know, from my discussions with the British Consul General, that – even prior to the Arab Spring – there was an on-going and vibrant debate in Iraqi Kurdistan about how best to develop democracy, and the UK will continue to support you in that endeavour. I can assure you that our support did not end with military operations in Iraq – it is there for the long-term.

    This was evidenced yesterday, when I officially opened the newly elevated Consulate General in Erbil. This Consulate represents a settled relationship. One based on political engagement, cultural exchanges, educational links and bilateral trade. You see evidence of this in the presence of British universities. You saw it last year when Sir Andrew Cahn led a high-level delegation of UK companies to the Erbil International Trade Fair, which was a great success. This year, I expect an even larger delegation to attend.

    This increased UK business activity can be seen across Erbil. It’s not only with respect to oil exploration, but across all sectors.

    The Erbil International Airport was designed by British architects, Scotts Wilson. They are now working on a master-plan for Suleymaniya airport.

    The most striking car showroom in Erbil displays Land Rover, Range Rover and now the latest Jaguar models: classic British designs, with represent the best of British tradition, innovation and engineering.

    British companies such as Jones Lang Lasalle and BTW Shiells are providing the property management advice that are making Erbil’s shopping malls the envy of the rest of Iraq.

    Parsons Brinkerhoff is working on a master-plan for electricity supply and generation.

    Heritage, Gulf Keystone and Sterling have made significant investments in hydrocarbons. The only two global banks in Iraqi Kurdistan – HSBC and Standard Chartered – are both British-based and are both increasing their activity.

    All of these are investments of strategic importance to both Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq as a whole. But there is still much more to be done to develop our bilateral trade.

    For our part, Britain will work harder at encouraging UK companies to invest in Iraqi Kurdistan. For your part, you must continue to improve the investment environment. President Barzani has spoken of the need to tackle corruption. That is vital in order to attract companies.

    You will need a stronger legislative framework to protect businesses; transparent processes to resolve contractual disputes in the courts; a banking sector to provide the kind of services offered by HSBC and Standard Chartered; and it is also important that you press the Government of Iraq to pass the Hydrocarbons and Revenue Sharing Laws.

    These improvements will allow British companies to access insurance guarantees, attract finance, meet legal obligations under UK law and permit exports in the hydrocarbons sector. Generally, it will allow International Oil Companies to invest across the whole of Iraq.

    It is self-evident that relations with Baghdad are crucial if you are to achieve all these aims. I believe you can engage more with the Central government, and – as a result – gain more from that relationship. The quality of democracy in Baghdad matters to you; so does the building of institutions; and establishing a dialogue on outstanding problems.

    I hope you will continue to see Britain as an ally. We are ready to help in this process of democratic and economic development. During difficult times, we were a friend of Kurdistan. During more peaceful times – as you move forward into a more prosperous future – we remain a committed friend.

    And we can help in practical ways, too. After the tragic Soma Hotel fire in Suleymaniya in which 33 people died, the KRG asked for international assistance. Our Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser was able to help. He toured the region and wrote a detailed report setting out his recommendations for improvement.

    As a result, your top fire rescue/civil defence officials have just returned from the UK where they have seen for themselves the training, organisation and equipment we can offer. There are many areas where similar co-operation can flourish.

    Let me return to politics. I have been enormously impressed by the brave and laudable progress Kurdistan has made on women’s rights. Kurdistan is one of the few places in the wider region where men are not allowed to cite so-called “honour” as a reason to kill their wife or daughter. I applaud this Assembly for passing that law which has led the way for the rest of the region.

    I was delighted to see that the report on improving implementation was written jointly by Kurdish experts and by Bristol University, and that the UK has deployed a prominent expert on human rights and women’s issues to work with key Ministries on reducing violence against women. I understand this Assembly has legislation before it that is aimed at providing appropriate punishment for domestic violence. I do hope you approve this new law: it is yet another opportunity for this Assembly to take the lead in forward-thinking within the region.
    I mentioned Bristol University – just one of the many UK universities reaching out to Iraqi Kurdistan.

    I have been struck by the appetite in Kurdistan to engage with the outside world. This is wonderful to see. The most visible demonstration of that is in the field of education. The Prime Minister’s Human Capacity Development Programme -which finances Master’s and doctoral scholars to study abroad – is far-sighted. So are the plans to make your universities independent and for doctoral programmes to include mandatory study abroad. Naturally, I am delighted that so many of your scholars have chosen to study at UK universities, and proud that the United Kingdom is helping educate the next generation of Kurdish leaders. I hope and expect these scholars to return home bursting with new ideas.

    I would like to conclude with remembering those who suffered under Saddam’s regime. I can think of few words or thoughts that could possibly offer any comfort to the survivors, and the families of those who did not survive. It was a truly terrible time in your history, and one which will never be forgotten.

    But, today, as I see all that has been achieved by the people of Iraqi Kurdistan – despite the heart-breaking sacrifices of the past – I am left with one very clear view: you should be enormously proud of what you have already achieved, and look forward – with great optimism – to all the exciting opportunities that lie ahead for your future.

    Thank you.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council Dinner – 13 July 2010

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Conservative Foreign and Commonwealth Council Dinner, held at Chelsea Manor Street in London, on Tuesday 13th July 2010.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    “Policy challenges in a changing world” – is a good topic.

    The inevitable challenge is change, which is brutally swift. Leaders of only a few years ago now seem distant history.

    One was Boris Yeltsin. I once asked Boris to tell me – “State of Russia” in one word. “Good” – “Not good”.

    Today, economically, we’re passing through in a “not good” phase.

    And, politically, although the world is safer from serious war than for decades, we face some intractable problems.

    The phrase “War on Terror” conjures up its own image: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, suicide bombers. And yet – the term is misleading. What we are facing is not really a “War”, still less on “Terrorism”, but the military fall-out from the chaos of failed, or failing, States and the battle between Muslims for the soul of Islam. This is not a short-term conflict, nor one capable of a clear-cut finite ending: the chaos is complex.

    Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will have a clear cut ending – or an early one.

    We need to understand the Muslim world is very different to our society. It embraces nations in which references to the Prophet Mohammed, or the Old and New Testaments, are part of everyday conversation.

    For some – the Salafists – Islam was perfect when founded and can neither be changed nor improved upon. Policy needs to understand the tensions between Christian, Muslim and Jew; Arab, Persian, Kurd and Turk; Shia and Sunni; between Monarchies and Republics; Secular and Islamic societies.

    It is a cauldron. It is not a liberal democracy. And therein lies reality.

    Let me turn to particular conflicts.

    Firstly, Iraq.

    When Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 the case for war was clear-cut. An innocent country was invaded and needed liberation.

    The second Iraq War was very different.

    Before it began, I made my reservations public but supported the war – because I believed what the then Prime Minister told us about weapons of mass destruction. When I was Prime Minister, everything I said in public was factually rock solid. I assumed that principle still applied. But I was wrong. It now seems there was little justification for the bellicose case for war that was presented. I was not alone in being misled. So was the Conservative Party. So was the United Kingdom.

    Today that war looks like folly. The defence of it has shrunk to the claim that Saddam Hussein was a bad man, who mistreated his nation, and the world is better off without him.

    That is true. But others are bad, too – and mistreat their nations – yet we don’t invade their countries or bomb them from 30,000 feet. It may be that the Labour Government acted in good faith. Judgement on that can be left to history.

    But, I observe now – there are lessons: war should be the last resort, entered into only when circumstances compel it. And secondly: we now have on-going responsibilities to help rebuild Iraq that we cannot ignore.

    Afghanistan

    We have now been at war in Afghanistan for eight years – with no sign of an ending. Inevitably there is war weariness – made worse by the depressing rise in casualties.

    Afghanistan isn’t a war that can easily be “won”, but nor can it be ignored: we are bound to it by necessity.

    And it is easy to see why.

    The war has spread into Pakistan – a Western ally and a nuclear power where Taleban and Jihadist influence has been growing.

    The Afghanistan campaign is now, arguably, not one, but several intertwined conflicts including a power struggle between Jihadists and the Pakistan Government.

    As the conflict becomes more messy and intractable, it is understandable that some feel we should bring the troops home – as Canada and the Netherlands plan to do in 2011.

    But not yet. Too much is at stake. We need patience and commitment for what could yet be a long military and civil campaign: the alternative is to lose the struggle, boost terror, undermine American and British prestige, and place Pakistan at risk. We did not seek this war, but we cannot – either morally or safely – walk away from it.

    The best exit strategy is victory. If that is unobtainable – diplomacy. We may yet have to talk to the Taliban.

    Iran

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

    Much the same could be said of Iran today. In the year since the flawed re election of 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 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. If she obtains a weapon, the risk of proliferation is high.

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

    Nothing is explicable without understanding that Iran is a nationalist and hard-line regime. 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 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.

    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 must deal with it. It is possible negotiations may improve relations; and we should continue to try. But, because of the threat she poses, we must supplement dialogue with incentives and sanctions.

    In any event, adding a third military conflict after Iraq and Afghanistan is very unattractive – even if we cannot rule it out. But, for the time being, the sanctions applied last month seem the right way forward. We can only hope they prove sufficient.

    Arab-Israel

    The Arab/Israeli dispute colours the view of the Middle East. It spills beyond its own borders and 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 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 inevitably 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.

    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, what then?

    Can the international community allow this dispute to run on and on forever – or will the time come when they have no choice other than to press 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 requires great political courage, especially in

    Washington.

    Let me turn to some unconventional challenges.

    Firstly, science.

    The first integrated circuit – invented by Jack Kilby in America 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 circuit there would be no Silicon Valley; no Internet; no laptop; no Google; no iPods; 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.

    As science changes how we live, medical science is changing the quality and length of our lives. A hundred 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 replace heart muscle cells.

    A few years ago, all this would have seemed like Black Magic. Soon, fantasy will become reality, with commercial challenges that are simply staggering.

    Many challenges also offer opportunities. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. It offers social threats and economic opportunities.

    These are just a few of the challenges in our post recession world.

    One certainty: many countries borrowing money – from markets, one another, International Financial Institutions. Not always straightforward.

    Inevitably, there are many challenges I have not touched upon: the danger of nuclear or biological terrorism; the insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan; the enigma of Russian policy-making.

    All are formidable – but let me add a little balance: pre-financial crisis, fifteen years of high growth improved the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of wars. Life expectancy is rising.

    China and the US have developed a peaceful relationship. Japan and China are repairing old scars. Democracy is expanding. Poor, forgotten Africa is growing. Europe has moved the free market eastwards and southwards.

    In a preface to some famous essays, an English philosopher flatteringly observed to his patron that “You have planted things that are likely to last”.

    So have we – in our own time. The Free Market. The Global Market. Democracy. A Union across Europe. The concept of supra-national co-operation. All gifts from the West to the world – with the UK as a principal donor.

    It is a record of which to be proud.

    But what remains to be achieved is greater yet, and the challenges will go on and on.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Tory Reform Group Dinner – 25 November 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Tory Reform Group Dinner, held at the Cavalry and Guards Club in London on Wednesday 25th November 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Here at Cavalry & Guards Club: moment to remember contribution of Cavalry, Guards and Services generally in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere as we sit here over dinner. We owe them a lot.

    You may think “British Foreign Policy in a Changing World” is an odd subject for someone who was Foreign Secretary for a mere 94 days.

    I partly agree: except – it seems to me – those 94 days were a golden age. We were at war with no-one. There were no “dodgy dossiers”. All was serene. A period on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office looks back with great nostalgia. All was serene. A period on which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office looks back with great nostalgia.

    This evening, I want to focus on the world as it is – only then can we make policy with a clear-eyed appreciation of what is happening elsewhere and where the British national interest lies. This means shedding the nostalgia and fantasies that so often bedevil British attitudes.

    Fifty years ago, no-one could have predicted the present social or geo-political landscape.

    The Soviet Union and the United States were the two super-powers. China was isolationist and something of an enigma. Japan had barely begun her post-war rise. Central and Eastern Europe fell under Soviet control. Germany was still divided. Latin America was a Continent of revolutions. The EU was in its infancy. Much of Africa was still colonised. Oil was $3 a barrel and no-one imagined an Islamic Revolution. Little of that world now survives. Huge changes – and yet the pace of change is accelerating.

    But old attitudes linger. Often, very old attitudes. Beneath a thin veneer, there are still strands of opinion that hanker for the days when Palmerston sent a gun boat. These days, there are no Palmerstons and – as it happens – not all that many gunboats.

    As we look forward, more than ever our military power will need supplementing by diplomacy, by soft power, by the intelligent use of foreign policy.

    Here, history helps us. Old alliances can be invoked. Old friendships re-asserted. But, self-interest suggests we should use the international institutions with more commitment. Our membership of NATO, of the Security Council, of the Commonwealth and of the EU can all help us. Some may dispute the last assertion but they are wrong – the EU is crucial to our foreign policy clout. Every American President I have known wants the UK to be a power inside the EU and would see us as diminished if we were outside it. America does not want us as the 51st State, but as a powerful ally within Europe.

    Of course, many recoil at shared authority within Europe but, often, intelligent policy can shackle our partners to policies we advocate. The Single Market is a case in point. So is enlargement to the East. These are two of the biggest changes in European policy since the birth of the Common Market – and both were British initiatives. Let me offer a further example.

    After the first Gulf War the Iraqis were murdering Kurds. It was genocide. I advocated a ‘Safe Havens’ policy and persuaded the EU and the Commonwealth to back it. Faced with this alliance, the US, initially reluctant, signed up to this too: troops were put in the field and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. On these occasions others accommodated British priorities. Sometimes we must accommodate theirs.

    The Lisbon Treaty is now law. Some of it is sensible. Some of it I don’t like. In particular, I am hostile to the idea of a President and a High Representative for Foreign Policy and – to judge from the appointments made – others have reached have reached the same view. Even so, David Cameron is right to accept that despite the denial of a referendum – our economic interests require us to remain an active Member.

    Some don’t agree. Britain, they proclaim, has surrendered so much power it has the status of a Parish Council. This is absurd, of course – what Parish Council runs its own tax policy, monetary policy, defence policy and foreign policy? None, of course. Nor ever will.

    But the ‘Better Off Out’ advocates – UKIP and their sympathisers, some within our own Party – magnify the frustrations of Europe and minimise its achievements. A war between European nations is now inconceivable and yet the sceptics see no relationship between that self-evident truth and the advent of the EU. Nor do they see that, if they achieved their aim of withdrawal they would downsize our role in the world. Less important to America. Detached from our European market. A less attractive home for investment from the East. The world would not applaud our Bulldog independence: they would think we had taken leave of our political senses. And – soon – we would, no doubt, take leave of our membership of the Security Council and our influence within the international financial institutions. We would not be seen as a serious nation: we would have emasculated our future. A Little Britain not a Great Britain. A stifled voice in a big and noisier world.

    It would be folly. A march towards irrelevance at precisely the moment we need all our confidence to compete in a world that is, perhaps, changing faster than it has ever done.

    The present economic crisis may slow down the exuberant change of the last decades but it won’t stop it. For sound economic reasons the East will outgrow the West for the foreseeable future: it has a lower cost base, more – and less expensive – labour, and it can build anew without first demolishing what existed before.

    In 1700, China and India were the greatest economic powers in the world: in terms of GDP they will once again – sometime in the next few decades – sometime in the next few decades – outstrip everyone, even the US and the EU. And, since economic power leads to political authority, it will pose an increasing challenge to Western diplomacy. Also, until science develops alternative fuels, nations rich in oil and gas will flourish. Over recent years, the world has looked enviously at energy rich nations – especially in the Gulf, but also Russia, of course, and the spending power of their Sovereign Wealth Funds. At an oil price of $75 – and it will soon exceed that once again – the Gulf alone adds $140 billion a year to their war chest for investment.

    We have a Government in the UK in the UK that inherited the best economy in Western Europe yet – in 12 years – has managed to near-bankrupt the nation. We are now the most indebted industrial nation in the world. Our fiscal deficit is – unbelievably – three times that of Italy and twice that of Japan.

    Labour bought the last two elections with a reckless economic policy and now the electorate that was deceived must pick up the bill. Labour now promise to halve the deficit in four years: but even if they did so – and it is unlikely – the deficit would still be twice as high as we have ever known before. And that relative poverty impacts on our foreign policy as well as our pockets.

    Since 1997, much of Labour’s foreign policy has been thoughtless and short-term. As for Afghanistan – which was embarked upon with the false promise that “not a shot will be fired” – no conflict in our modern history can have been sanctioned with less consideration.

    We had no objective. No idea of the scale of the commitment. No plan. No exit strategy and – for years – our servicemen and women have been in harm’s way with poor equipment and inadequate numbers. There is a case for this war but the political management of it has been shameful. I believe that was true, also, of the second Iraq War. Soon, the responsibility may devolve on a new Government.

    They must ask:-

    What is the aim of this war?

    What is the cost of failure?

    Can it be won by force of arms alone?

    What is the political/diplomatic strategy?

    And why – after eight years – is this still not apparent- after – is this still not apparent?

    Can a credibly non-corrupt Afghan Government be formed?

    How many troops are necessary?

    Does the use of unmanned drones which kill more civilians than terrorists aid or hinder the cause of winning hearts and minds?

    These questions – and others – should have been asked – and considered carefully – before the conflict began and it is a failure of commonsense, let alone good government, let alone good government, that they were not. The Nation is as right to be proud of the role of our Servicemen and women as it is to be hostile at the ineptitude of our Government.

    Good foreign policy also looks at inter-generational policy. One aspect of that is overseas aid – traditionally under the bailiwick of the under the bailiwick of the Foreign Office.

    One-half of the world will go to bed hungry tonight. They live on less than $2 a day while the rich nations spend many times more on agricultural subsidies for the already well-fed as they contribute to aid for 3 billion people who often have no food in their belly at all.

    And this will get worse. In the last 50 years, world population has grown from under 3 billion to over 6.5 billion. At the birth of Christ, world population was – probably – 300 million. By 1900 – 19 centuries later – it had grown by something over one billion. We now grow by nearly one billion every decade.

    World population is projected to reach 8 or even 9 billion by 2050 and over 95% of growth is in the developing world. This is like absorbing two more nations the size of China. We ignore this at our peril.

    The plight of the poorest is made worse by an issue that will impact on everyone: the price of food.

    Here, there is a real irony. As some nations grow and improve living standards, they drive up prices beyond the reach of the poorest. If one billion Indians – one-sixth of the entire world population – together with millions of Chinese, Brazilians and Malaysians – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand for food soars.

    That puts up prices – provoking panic and moving the politics of food to the front burner of controversy. The days of cheap food are gone.

    In the future the world will need all the food we can grow – even if nations such as Ukraine and Zimbabwe once again become the agricultural bread-baskets nature designed them to be.

    It is hard to overstate the importance of a cogent foreign importance of a cogent policy, and its wider impact, and its wider impact. Apart from those issues I have touched on it must deal with:

    The hotspots of Iran and Iraq;

    The Middle East Peace Process;

    The risks of nuclear or biological terror;

    The insecurities created by the arc of uncertainty from Syria to Pakistan;

    The enigma of Russian policy-making; and much else, not least the trade promotion of Great Britain PLC.

    We must make sure the Foreign Office is equipped for these tasks. It needs to be strengthened – not weakened. We need to stop cutting overseas posts and manpower. And we need to end the absurdity of requiring HM Ambassadors to become bloggers for Government PR purposes, and advisors on media handling for every report they submit. For Heaven’s sake, they are highly trained diplomats – not under-qualified publicists.

    There is an old sneer that the Foreign Office exists for foreigners. It is often trotted out to the applause of the ignorant and the ill-informed.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. The Foreign Office exists to represent British interests overseas in diplomacy and trade. Its job is to negotiate, to persuade, to identify a identify a problem before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes a crisis, and prepare the ground for solutions. In an increasingly inter-dependent world, its role will become ever more crucial.

    Let us hope we are soon returned to a Government that will re-establish Britain’s role in this new world and a British Foreign Secretary who will, once again, carry the weight of that Office as elegantly and intelligently as Peter Carrington, Geoffrey Howe, Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind.

    The world is in a constant state of change – and we need to put Britain back where she should be – ahead of the game rather than trailing in the wake of bigger beasts. The Foreign Office has the experience and the talent to do that. William Hague has all the qualities of leadership to deliver.

    But – first – we have an election to win. If we do so, we will return to serious Government.

    And then we can return to serious policy.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments on the Inquiry into the Iraq War (II) – 18 June 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments on the Inquiry into the Iraq War in an interview with ITN held on Thursday 18th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Frankly I find it quite inexplicable, utterly baffling, that anyone could ever have thought than an inquiry of this nature, with the level of public concern, and frankly, the obligation we owe to the families of the servicemen and women who lost their lives and were injured, that anyone could have contemplated that this could be predominantly held in private. It is an extraordinary belief that it could have been that way.

  • Sir John Major’s Statement on the Inquiry into the Iraq War – 18 June 2009

    The text of Sir John Major’s statement on the Inquiry into the Iraq War, issued on Thursday 18th June 2009.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    INQUIRY INTO THE IRAQ WAR

    The Government’s decision to hold the Inquiry into the Iraq War in private is inexplicable – not least in its own interests. Any material which puts our national security at risk must, of course, be withheld but if, as the Government proclaims, its position will be wholly vindicated, then it should welcome maximum publicity on all other disclosures. It should also engender confidence in its findings by taking evidence under oath. Only then can witnesses be bound to offer full and frank responses.

    The arrangements currently proposed run the risk of being viewed sceptically by some, and denounced as a whitewash by others. I am astonished the Government cannot understand this.

    There are other, wider reasons for a Public Inquiry:

    – To settle – once and for all – the continuing debate upon whether the war was legal, or not.

    – To explain how, and why, we went to war on a false premise, with the public apparently being misled on the cause of the war, and the missile capability of Saddam’s Iraq.

    – Last – but by no means least – the Government needs to provide some kind of closure for the families and friends of those who have perished, or been maimed, in pursuit of this policy.

    If the Government is seen to obfuscate on this issue, lingering doubts will always remain. It is imperative that, when next any British Government commits our armed forces to war, that Government’s word is trusted beyond doubt. For this reason, and for the sake of all those who have either risked, or given, their lives in Iraq, nothing but an Inquiry with full disclosure – under oath – will do.

    THE RT HON SIR JOHN MAJOR, KG, CH
    18th June, 2009

  • Sir John Major’s Article on 42-Day Detention – 6 June 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s article on 42-day detention, published by The Times on 6th June 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Government’s legislation to permit 42 days pre-charge detention brings to the fore the wider question of civil liberties. In their response to the security threat ministers have dragged us ever closer to a society in which ancient rights are seriously damaged. I doubt this is the Government’s intention, but it is the effect. It began with Iraq.

    The invasion of Iraq was justified by over-egging the threat of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction – perhaps that error was genuine.

    But the case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York – for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam’s Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.

    These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home – on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London – they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.

    We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or – to put it in plain terms – the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.

    Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.

    I don’t believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to.

    That is no longer theoretical: we now have home-grown terrorists – born in Britain, not in Waziristan. Will they be encouraged or discouraged to rally to militancy if we bypass the sober rituals of law with which we are familiar?

    The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular – and no less violent – assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.

    After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days. To appease opposition, the Government is cobbling together face-saving compromises. If the measure is passed, it will be a pyrrhic victory that owes more to political survival than principle. Even so, it is hard to justify: pre-charge detention in Canada is 24 hours; South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and America 48 hours; Russia 5 days; and Turkey 7½ days.

    There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge. This is a slippery slope. Assertions that it “might be useful” simply will not do. If we are to curtail the liberty of the individual, we must have more certainty than that.

    But it is not only the case for 42 days detention that is bogus. So is the case for identity cards. They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity.

    The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” This is a demagogue’s trick. We do have something to fear – the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies.

    This is not a United Kingdom that I recognise and Parliament should not accept it.

    Nor do I believe that anyone can defend another government innovation: a national identity register containing the DNA of tens of thousands of people who have never been charged with an offence. Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database – far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian.

    So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.

    The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires – as it should – the sanction of a High Court Judge. Francis Pym once spoke of the democratic deficit of any government having too large a majority. He was right. In a Parliament with a more balanced representation, the undermining of personal privacy, lengthy detention before charge, identity cards and a DNA register would have never been passed.

    I understand – and sympathise with – the complex dilemmas of security and crime that face the Government. But, while I understand their motives, their remedies are too stringent and not wise.

    No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity – but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and – once in place – will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 16 December 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 16th December 2007.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now of course one of the big events from the past year was Tony Blair’s exit from office.

    Already the histories and political obituaries have been written, but so far his predecessor in No. 10 has been virtually silent on the New Labour years. John Major joins us now to look back over the last year. Welcome, thank you very much for coming in.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Let’s start with the economy, because some people might say it’s a sense of déjà vu, house prices under pressure, coming down again, the kind of outlook that we haven’t maybe had since the immediate days around Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well that of course was exactly what I inherited when I became Prime Minister, there were some similarities with now, we were going into a recession, it was clearly going to be very deep. And it took a long time to get out of it.

    But if you recall, when we left office in 1997 I think we probably left the best economy any government has left for the last 50 years. We had had five years of consistent growth every quarter, falling interest rates, falling unemployment, increasing growth, for a long period.

    It wasn’t created by the present Labour government it was there in place when they took office. But of course they have always used Black Wednesday to mask that.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I mean it has to be said that they then picked up that ball, as it were, and ran with it for a long time?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes they did, to a certain extent and the fact that they haven’t wrecked the economy is something one can give them credit for. But I think it’s now beginning to unravel in quite a serious way.

    If you look at what has happened over the last ten years, there were going to be no tax increases, specifically there were going to be no tax increases on pensions. In fact a specific tax increase on pensions has wrecked final salary pension schemes and wrecked the security of many pensioners.

    But you now see over the full ten years we have dropped significantly in competitiveness, productivity is down over those ten years. We have had a tax increase almost every month for the last ten years, on average. We’ve had 111 tax increases over that period.

    The economy is now clearly running into some significant difficulties, and there are two events, two events that are specifically related to the government policy that have caused huge problems. One of them you’ve referred to them already this morning, Northern Rock, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

    The other of course was the then Chancellor’s decision to sell gold. He sold gold quite gratuitously, something like 395-400 tonnes of gold at an average price of, I think, about $275. The loss to the exchanges from that decision is now in excess of the loss to the exchanges on Black Wednesday, in excess of the Black Wednesday costs.

    ANDREW MARR:

    From your point of view, Golden Tuesday or whatever it was, is worse than Black Wednesday?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well in terms of the loss to the exchanges most certainly it’s a different political damage. But in terms of the loss to the exchanges it most certainly is. And I hope it will stop the Prime Minister talking about ten successful years because they haven’t been entirely successful. And that absurdity that he sometimes turns to, that he appears to blame David Cameron who was a bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday, as though David was at all responsible, for he wasn’t.

    The second point of course is Northern Rock. We don’t yet know what the cost of Northern Rock to the Economy will be. But it is quite likely, not certain, but quite likely that it will exceed the cost for the taxpayer of either Black Wednesday or of the sale of gold. And that runs specifically from changes to the system introduced by the then Chancellor in 1997.

    ANDREW MARR:

    The regulatory system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The regulatory system.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Right. I wondered in the final film that Tony Blair made about looking back over, looking back in part, over his ten years, what you felt when he said maybe he’d been a little bit rough in going for you over sleaze?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I didn’t watch it, I didn’t watch the film, but I read about it. But I think there is a clear-cut distinction between what was called sleaze in the 1990s and what has happened since 1997. Lots of people misbehaved in the ’80s and in the ’90s, but they were all individuals, it was never institutional, it was never related specifically to the Conservative Party or to the Conservative Government.

    ANDREW MARR:

    You don’t think there was a culture of overseas business people putting money in, sort of behind the back of the political system?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think there was a culture. I mean I devolved responsibility for party fundraising when I became Prime Minister, so I had no direct hand in it. But, no I don’t think so. But what happened in the 1990s, there was a deliberate attempt to portray the Conservative Party as an institution, it was almost McCarthyite frankly, as though it were sleazy, and it wasn’t.

    The distinction is that sleaze has seemed to be systemic since 1997. I mean, I can see a clear pattern, you probably remember the Ecclestone affair in, I think, November 1997. We have Abrahams in November 2007, and serial offences in between those two dates. 2002, when I think they were taking money from Mr. Desmond, the Labour Party set up a committee and decided they would vet every future donor. Well it clearly wasn’t very successful vetting, from what we’ve seen subsequently.

    So I do think that they have every reason to regret what they did in the 1990s, but I must say I was sorry when the Prime Minister apologised for the fact that it had bounced back on the Labour Party. I think he should have apologised for the fact that it wasn’t true what he was saying in the 1990s. And to accuse people in the Cabinet, a Cabinet that had people like Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Malcolm Rifkind, Ken Clarke, Gill Shepherd, Virginia Bottomley, John Gummer, Peter Brooke – to accuse them of being part of a sleazy government is just unscrupulous.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Do you think that Tony Blair has presided over a corrupt government?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think it’s corrupt, no I don’t use the word corrupt, I think they have been careless. I think they have had a huge majority and they have been careless, I think that’s what it is. I don’t accuse them of corruption and I wouldn’t accuse them of corruption. I don’t think most politicians, occasionally there’s a bad apple in the barrel. We are in parliament a microcosm of the nation, there are bad applies. But I don’t think that. But I do think it was institutionally careless in the grand manner.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And why do you think that happened, simply because they thought when Tony Blair said I’m a pretty straight kind of guy, he sort of believed it therefore?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think if they were to say today, whiter than white or purer than pure, I think people would just laugh. And I think that is sad for the sake of the whole system. But there were of course a whole series of slogans then that look pretty stupid now – Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime – well we now have prisoners being let out early, gun crime up, violent crime up, total crimes up.

    It really hasn’t lived up to the billing and you could say that in the National Health Service, 24 hours to save it, well it’s a lot longer than 24 hours. And you don’t have to take my word, take Derek Wanless’s word, we are not on our way yet, to a world class health service despite huge extra taxation going into it.

    ANDREW MARR:

    I imagine that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would say we’ve all had the same problem with party funding, it’s something that’s bedevilled British politics in Margaret Thatcher’s time, in John Major’s time, and now in our time too. And there does need to be a better way of dealing with this?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I don’t think a better way is more money from the taxpayer, I know there seems to be a communal view that it is a good idea from all the parties, I don’t personally agree with it. And I don’t agree with it specifically for this reason – I think, apart from the fact I don’t think it’s right for the taxpayer to pay, but let us even put that to one side, there’s another practical reason. If too much of party funding comes directly from the taxpayer a great deal of the activity at the grass roots that brings a party together, that makes a party, that keeps the politicians in touch with the grass roots, gets swept away.

    And I think politicians are remote enough already from the electorate as a whole, I wouldn’t wish to see them made even more remote, and my fear apart from the undoubted desirability of the principle, my fear would be that if party funding too much came from the centre that it would diminish grass roots activity even more, that would be a thoroughly bad development.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. I mean you were swept out of power by Tony Blair and the Labour Party saying that you were sleazy, that your government was riddled, if not with corruption but certainly with sleaze which was the slightly politer way of saying corruption, as I recall. The old Chinese saying about if you wait long enough the bodies of your enemies float past, does it occur to you?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, just a touch. But I mean, what they did at the time was absolutely unscrupulous. I don’t think that’s what cost us the election, frankly we’d been there so long if the leader of the Conservative Party had been the Archangel Gabriel and the Cabinet had been a choir of angels, I think after 18 years we would have lost.

    I think what their pretty unscrupulous use of facts did, was to magnify the defeat, to turn a defeat that was always likely into a much bigger defeat. And I think that they did do very successfully but I think in a manner that scarred politics in the long term.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And turning to your party now, it strikes me that what we said about New Labour back in the mid-1990s could apply to the Conservatives now, which is terribly inexperienced. Very, very successful in the polls at the moment, beginning to look like a party that could win an overall majority at the next election, long way away and all the rest of it. But nonetheless, is that a worry, the inexperience?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think the government are pretty inexperienced, in this sense. I mean half the Cabinet were special advisors two or three years ago.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Everybody’s only been a special advisor in politics these days.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I know, it’s a great mistake to get to the top of politics that way in my judgement. But if you look back in Margaret’s time there were always three people who could have been Prime Minister. When I became Prime Minister, if I had been run over by a bus and some people rather wished for that, there were several…

    ANDREW MARR:

    Depends who was driving the bus?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There were several people who could have taken over – Douglas Hurd, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind – who may well have done a better job, maybe people thought they would have done. If Gordon Brown were run over who would be Prime Minister?

    There was one very senior member, Jack Straw, beyond that nobody with any experience whatsoever. It is the most inexperienced Cabinet that I can remember. So I don’t think the relative inexperience of the opposition is a problem. Particularly, if I may say so, because of the way David Cameron is now going abroad regularly.

    I’ve just returned from China, I was in China last week and I met some senior Chinese there and David Cameron is going there next week, and we were talking about his visit and they’re very much looking forward to seeing him. And I think these overseas trips are very important for him to do and I’m delighted he’s doing them.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One of the younger members of the Cabinet, David Miliband, I was just talking to in Basra. It is all’s well that ends well, is it finally over down there, how do you read that?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well, I’m uncertain. I mean, if you take an audit, we went into Iraq on what turned out to be a false premise. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein I think undoubtedly is a bonus.

    Everything else looks pretty bleak to me. If you look at life within Iraq at the moment, most of the major decisions that needs to be taken haven’t yet been taken by the Iraqi government. If you look at life in Iraq, inflation is 70%, unemployment is 50%, about 3,000-3,500 Iraqis over recent months have been killed every single month.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Was it worth it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    That doesn’t look to me like a stable situation as a result of policy over the last few years. I don’t think this is going to be looked back on with any pride by the policymakers. I think the Army were given an impossible job which they did as well as it could have been done, but it was almost impossible and the outcome is bleak.

    ANDREW MARR:

    For now, John Major, thank you very much indeed.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Foreign and Commonwealth Office Association Event – 29 November 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at an event run by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Association, held at the Locarno Suite at the Foreign Office in London on the morning of Wednesday 29th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’m delighted to be back at the Foreign Office this morning.

    Foreign Secretary 94 days: golden age: went to war with no-one.

    My time here was too short: I wish it had been longer. Today I can speak as an individual – nothing I say should be regarded as anyone’s policy other than my own.

    We live in a world that is changing comprehensively and rapidly. There are short term imperatives that cannot be ignored: and long term issues that should not be ignored.

    Today – nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.

    Economically, the world is turning to the East which – for the first time since 1820 – now produces the majority of world growth. No-one should be surprised at this return to the past: for 1800 years, China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.

    Now, China is re-asserting the old order.

    Some people worry that China will be a threat to the West. Economically, of course, she already is. Politically, she is becoming more influential. But neither politically nor militarily is China a threat in the sense of the former Soviet Union. China’s focus will be on internal problems – widespread unemployment, pollution, water scarcity, public resentment of the growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; the appetite for more self-government.

    Their hands are full.

    INDIA

    Behind China – perhaps 10-15 years behind – comes India, who once had nearly one-quarter of the output of the whole world.
    Today, once more, she is in the midst of an explosion of ambition and has cornered a large part of the market in knowledge-based industries; in R&D; in IT; in Bio-technology and Molecular Biology. But India’s potential for manufacturing and engineering is also enormous and she is now more cost competitive than China.

    LATIN AMERICA

    Nor is Latin America the “old” Continent of lost opportunities.

    Between 1986-96 – inflation in Latin America was 180%.

    Today – between 6-7%.

    Budget deficits and country debts are falling.

    AFRICA

    Even Africa – poor, forgotten, disregarded Africa – is benefiting from high commodity prices and growing faster than for many years.

    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them.

    Moreover, over the last two years, every emerging economy in the world has out-performed every mature economy. As a result, growth in the world economy is becoming better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news for future economic stability – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread. As the world economy re-configures, so does politics.

    So, too, has the mode of political thinking. In the last 25 years – in the UK and the US – political thought has seemed to move away from the gravity-based centre and become more ideological.

    I am suspicious of ideology. Policy is often at its best when compromise and pragmatism are seen as virtues – not a betrayal of the true path.

    The tabloid certainty of ideologues is a fiction for the ignorant.

    Before I turn to some pressing problems, let me make some brief assertions that, hopefully, may stimulate questions.

    Britain is a medium-sized, relatively rich country, in a world whose growth is outstripping ours. To protect our future political and trading interests, alliances and diplomacy will be vital.

    I, therefore, consider it an extremely bad policy to cut our overseas representation at a time when we should be increasing it. If that seems like special pleading to this audience – then so be it. It is what I believed as Prime Minister. Budget cuts for the Foreign Service mean people. We should be increasing our profile not preparing to diminish it. I travel 4 months in every year to every part of the world and I don’t like the reductions I see. They are not in Britain’s interest.

    Secondly, international bodies.

    There is a mode of neo-thinking that dismisses the UN as if it were an irrelevance. Frankly, this is madness. If we didn’t have the UN we would have to invent it. Our British interest is to make it more efficient, eliminate its short-comings – not pander to the mode of thinking that undermines it. The UN is our servant: it can be as relevant as its Members choose to make it.

    EUROPE

    On Europe, I’m not sure what British policy is at the moment. Certainly it is in flux.

    For over 30 years – with a few exceptions such as the Single Market and Enlargement – we have been on the back foot in Europe. The growth to 25 – soon 27 – Members offers an opportunity to put that right. Our great phobia over too-deep-an integration seems less likely now.

    I think we should be looking for policies to help Europe work more efficiently – at a time when we are not under pressure over a new currency or a new Constitution (although the latter, I think, will come back in diluted form after the French Presidential Election). Greater economic competitiveness is vital for all Europe: we should be developing the case – and arguing for it.

    Some issues are very pressing now.

    Much of the Middle East is in conflict. Our task in this generation is to ensure that future generations do not have to re-live the extra-ordinary number of problems that have come together in our own time: terror, Iraq, Iran, MEPP, Afghanistan, Lebanon. North Korea is a dilemma too, but of a different nature.

    We need a dose of reality, too. We had better accept that may be no ideal solution. We may have to compromise.

    And we should recognise that every situation will require diplomacy and statesmanship to be enlisted alongside military power.

    Our preferred outcome may be un-achievable. But, sometimes, even compromise solutions are a triumph.

    It may be unfashionable – and dare not even be spoken of in some quarters – but it still seems to me that the core issue remains the Arab-Israeli conflict. The lack of a serious peace process has left a vacuum which has been filled by bloodshed and mayhem. A Peace Process – however difficult – offers hope and we badly need that. If benign neglect remains the policy, then this problem can only get worse.
    It is unprovable – of course – but I suspect that neglect of a credible peace process has done more to encourage Muslim militancy than Iraq.
    In Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to be clear about the mission, and we need an exit strategy. If I asked everyone in this room to write down what they thought that mission was, I would get a wide variety of different answers.

    Iraq is messy and getting messier. Those who predicted the coalition would be greeted as liberators on flower-strewn paths are wiser now.

    We are not – alas – remotely where we had hoped to be.

    Both casualties and civil violence are mounting especially in the 30 miles radius of Baghdad. As American soldiers clean up districts, the insurgents move to neighbouring areas. As the troops move on, the insurgents move back in, because the Iraqi armed forces cannot hold the ground. This failure to hold the territory gained, means that to some extent, policy is simply chasing its tail.

    At the same time, the Iraqi Government refuses permission for troops to enter the most violent areas, on the grounds that it would be inflammatory. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland decision, that provides a haven for militancy.

    Decisions that are fundamental to the future of Iraq are not yet made. We do not yet know how oil revenue will be shared. The boundaries of the future Federalist system are not known. The future of Kirkuk is still uncertain. The new Police Force is – to put it kindly – inefficient and with divided loyalties.

    For the average Iraqi, life is dire. Many are killed each month. Unemployment is huge. Inflation is at 70%. Electricity supplies – in Baghdad for example – fluctuate wildly during every 24 hour period: a few weeks ago it was 3-4 hours only; more recently, I believe they had the luxury of 10 hours power. All of this, in turn, creates instability – and a deep resentment of the coalition forces on the ground.

    Many Iraqis are arrested and detained a long time without charge. You will never build a democracy without rule of law and due process is badly needed. So is money. The Chancellor’s £150 million is welcome – but petty cash: General Dempsey has US$5 billion a year to spend.
    In the US and Britain there is pressure to leave.

    Yet – if we did so prematurely – our departure would create a double-dilemma: not only would it be humiliating for us to leave without stability, but if Iraq was then torn apart by civil war, the implications of a militant Islamic Government emerging scarcely need to be spelled out.

    From where we are today there are no simple solutions, but it is clear we need diplomacy and statesmanship alongside military power. And – it would help in the future – if we factored in the lessons of history.

    AFGHANISTAN

    Much of this is relevant to Afghanistan.

    To promote democracy and destroy terror is a noble mission but the justice of the cause doesn’t lessen the need for a clear-cut objective, good planning and adequate resources.

    The Afghan mission is uncertain.

    Is it a peacekeeping mission?

    Or a nation-building one?

    Is it to catch Bin Laden?

    Or to defeat the Taliban; drug barons; warlords; Iraqi infiltrators; Pakistani bandits; and the local population fearful of their poppy crop being destroyed?

    Or is it all of the above – and more?

    History tells us Afghanistan is a very tough place to be. In the Afghan Wars – during the height of the British Empire – Britain did not even come a poor second. And, more recently, between 1979-1989, the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan: 120,000 troops, ten years on the ground – and then defeat.

    We have 5,500 soldiers in Helmand Province of whom less than 2,000 are – in the terminology – men with bayonets. Most are logistical support. We are under-resourced in men and equipment. We are bastardising helicopters to make others airworthy. We are short of armoured vehicles. Our NATO allies are slow to help and have different “rules of engagement”. This is lamentable.

    It is a woeful tale for young soldiers who – when we sent them there – were told they may not have to face a shot! Now, they find themselves in a shooting war.

    The conclusion I draw is that there must be a political as well as a military strategy. A senior British General warned recently of the danger of an aggrieved population turning back to support the Taliban.

    From our perspective of the Taliban – as a brutal force with a medieval culture – that seems absurd. But the local population see the UK and America painted each day as invading interlopers – much like the Russians over twenty years ago. It is a crude untruth – but an effective one.

    Moreover, as we destroy the poppy crop – an evil trade, but the only way of earning a livelihood for many Afghans – we need to put in place alternative sources of income. If we fail to do this, we will simply turn the population against us – and back into the arms of the Taliban.

    There is a common thread that runs through Iraq and Afghanistan: both are ideological conflicts that must be fought by intellectual as well as martial force.

    TERROR

    One continuing problem is terror. It pre-dated Iraq and it will post-date present conflicts. It has been rising for a long time – Iraq is a focus but not the cause although I suspect it has been a recruiting tool. If we are to render terror impotent – we must win the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.

    Without an intellectual victory, there will be no lasting military victory, and no respite. If we are to safeguard our way of life we must mobilise our best instincts as well as our military might.

    The West must counter the malign way in which it is misrepresented. We will not be able to persuade the hard-line militants but we can siphon off their support. We can dry up their recruitment. We can isolate them. We can ensure our allies are active in our support, and not passive.

    All around the world, even in the grimmest of circumstances, people hope for something better. Hope for something better is the most powerful antidote to anti-Western propaganda. And to gain the allies necessary to isolate and defeat terror, we must offer that hope.

    This is not some impossible dream. We saw hope triumph when the free market defeated communism. Now it must do so again, to help democracy defeat terror.

    We have one great advantage. The on-rush of the free market is delivering material benefits to nearly every part of the world. Politics must offer hope too.

    This will mean dialogue. It will mean enlisting other nations. It will mean working with regimes of whom we strongly disapprove.

    Some say this can’t be done. I say it can. Tough – yes. Long-term – yes. But it can be done.

    Sixteen years ago, I began a dialogue with the IRA when they were still bombing Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Many in our own Party opposed this. More doubted it would ever succeed. Some said it was folly. Others were less kind.

    And yet it began a peace process that has transformed Northern Ireland.

    The same principles apply, even to the core disputes in the Middle East, and the ideological divides that are so dangerous today. Dialogue can be productive. But that dialogue cannot be with a megaphone. It must be face-to-face.

    The alternative – a lack of dialogue – enables an enemy to distort our motives and mis-represent our policies. This is folly.

    CONCLUSION

    I know it sometimes seems as if there are a vast array of insurmountable and daunting problems.

    Well, there are – but we should put all of them into context.

    None is as dangerous as the nuclear confrontation that preceded the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Today, the free market has comprehensively won the battle of philosophies that scarred most of the last century.

    Our long-term ally, America is – and will remain – the most powerful political, economic and military power in the world.

    Future generations will see the growth of democracy in Europe as a huge achievement.

    The growth of emerging economies will give more nations of the world a greater stake in a peaceful future.

    Ahead of us is a new world, with many intractable problems. We must see this new world as it really is if we are to help shape how it could be.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Sir Edward Heath Memorial Lecture – 14 November 2006

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Sir Edward Heath Memorial Lecture, held at the British Embassy in Paris on Tuesday 14th November 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:
    This is the last of a Series of Lectures to commemorate the life’s work of Sir Edward Heath. It says much about the current political mood in Britain that these Lectures are in Paris.
    Ted Heath had many passions – sailing, music, art – and, in politics, the binding together of Europe and Western relations with China. They remained consuming interests until the end of his life.
    And upon such matters he was resolute and immovable.
    Very little is immovable today. We live in a world changing more comprehensively than ever before. In politics and economics, we can no longer rely on many of the assumptions we have lived with for generations.
    Old disciplines once available to Government – exchange controls, for example – are redundant. Common standards and specifications are often international, rather than the prerogative of the Nation State. Even tax policy must bow to the need for competitiveness and, in small and medium sized economies, can be determined by the demands of footloose international capital.
    In recent years, corporate leadership has given us the global economy, the cellnet revolution, the internet and e-commerce. The landscape of investment has been changed by Private Equity and Hedge Funds.
    In the face of this revolution, Governments often fall behind, out-paced, as the private sector and the free market set the agenda.
    In the future – more than ever before – the influence of the private sector will be a key factor, not only in the prosperity of nations, but also in our way of life. As politicians diminish; the private sector grows. It is merging our tastes and shrinking our planet.
    When Kipling wrote those famous lines:
    “East is East and West is West
    And never the twain shall meet”
    he had not factored in the global market.
    Today – nothing is as it was: nothing will be as it is.
    CHINA
    Economically, the world is turning to the East which – for the first time since 1820 – now produces the majority of world growth. No-one should be surprised at this return to the past: for 1800 years, China had the largest economy in the world: then in the early 19th century, the West had an industrial revolution – and the East did not.
    Now, China is re-asserting the old order. The Chinese were making silk and pottery before the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and before the ancient Britons built Stonehenge.
    Today, China is utilising her natural advantages. She has space, and an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour. The lure of her gigantic market attracts US$ 60 billion of foreign investment each year. This combination has made her hugely competitive.
    She does not have energy – and so she is buying up oil fields, petro-chemical facilities, technology, mineral and natural resources whenever she can. She is short of many commodities and – as a by-product of her huge purchases of food, soya, rice, wheat and minerals – she is making political alliances around the non-aligned world.
    As her economy grows, so does her political influence. It is a sight I never thought I’d see: a once closed Communist economy challenging the Capitalist world.
    But not all is rosy for China. She is not El Dorado. Accepting the advantages of the free market means she must face the problems of it as well.
    Unemployment in China is huge. Hundreds of millions of workers from rural areas are migrating to the cities, in the hope of finding work. China faces serious problems of pollution, lack of water and shortage of energy.
    Ironically, even her 9½% annual growth brings political problems. Greater economic wellbeing leads to greater expectations: resentment of a growing disparity of wealth; demands for a social welfare system; an appetite for more self-government. Shanghai does not wish to be micro-directed from Beijing.
    Some people worry that China will be a threat to the West. Economically, of course, she already is. Politically, she is becoming more influential. But neither politically nor militarily is China a threat in the sense of the former Soviet Union. China’s focus will be internal for many years to come.
    Some of their problems are unexpected. The divorce rate in China has tripled as women exercise an independence they have never known before.
    Above all, China must overcome a paradox that will challenge Communist rule: to retain popular support, the Government need successful economic growth, but to obtain that they must loosen their grip on the regions. This is alien to their philosophy, but essential to China’s well-being.
    INDIA
    Behind China – perhaps 10-15 years behind – comes India, who once had nearly one-quarter of the output of the whole world.
    Today, once more, she is in the midst of an explosion of ambition and has cornered a large part of the market in knowledge-based industries; in R&D; in IT; in bio-technology and molecular biology. But India’s potential for manufacturing and engineering is also enormous and her employment costs are now more favourable than China. Within twenty years or so, she is likely to be one of the four biggest economies in the world.
    Although China and India are the biggest single ingredient in the economic shift from West to East they are not alone. Japan is an established economic giant but all SE Asia is growing.
    There is even a North-South movement as Latin America ceases to be the “old” Continent of lost opportunities.
    Between 1986-96 – inflation in Latin America was 180%. Today – between 6-7%.
    Budget deficits and country debts are falling. Prospects are rising.
    Even Africa – poor, forgotten, disregarded Africa – is benefiting from high commodity prices and growing faster than for many years.
    Other countries, too, are in phoenix mode.
    RUSSIA
    Politically, Russia under Putin is regressing. Economically, she has problems with corruption, with the Russian mafia, with bureaucracy, but business performance is strong with many niche opportunities for investors – if the right partner can be found.
    The reason for economic growth in – by our standards – a lawless background, is that Russia is blessed with natural resources. She:
    – Can lift as much oil as Saudi Arabia;
    – Has one-third of the world’s supply of natural gas; and
    – By any yardstick – has enormous scope for future growth.
    There are concerns about internal democracy.
    – President Putin has re-claimed too much power for the Kremlin.
    – The judicial system is neither swift, just nor independent.
    – The free press has all but disappeared.
    I am, in no sense, a Cold War warrior, but we do no favours to Russia if we overlook this authoritarian, anti-democratic trend.
    Externally, Ukraine and Georgia might also welcome the West letting her disapproval be known, so that Russia is aware there will be a price to pay if she slips back into her old ways. But – even as we watch political developments – it is time to recognise that the “New” Russia is not the “Old” Soviet Union.
    Even within the EU, there is a drift from the mature democracies of Western Europe to the new European nations. It is easy to see why: the cost of a skilled engineer in Slovakia or Romania is 14,000 Euros a year, whereas in Bonn, Paris or London it is 92,000 Euros a year.
    The free market has many virtues – but it is ruthless in pursuit of competitiveness, and mature economies must recognise this.
    Let me pull all this together:
    For the last quarter of a century, the principal engines of world growth have been the US, Japan and the EU. Soon, China, non-Japanese Asia and India will join them.
    And, added to the economic mix, is a new ingredient: over the last two years, every emerging economy in the world has out-performed every mature economy. As a result, growth in the world economy is becoming better balanced than ever before – which is excellent news for future economic stability – but the price for the democracies of the West is that political power will be more widespread.
    POLITICAL CHANGE
    We can see this new phenomenon taking shape. As the world economy re-configures, so does politics. The political map of the world is fluid.
    The battle between Communism and the Free Market has been comprehensively won.
    But the conflict between competing religious ideologies – so long dormant – is re-engaged. Radicals wish to unite Islam and pit that religion against the rest of the world.
    Much of the Middle East is in dis-array, as an extraordinary number of problems have come together in our own time: Oil; Terror; Iraq; Iran; MEPP; Afghanistan; Lebanon.
    Although these problems may seem insoluble – they are not. But it is essential to focus on the objectives we seek and then set out a route to achieve them.
    Every situation will require diplomacy and statesmanship to be enlisted alongside military power.
    We need a dose of reality, too. We had better accept there may be no ideal solutions. We may have to compromise.
    Our preferred outcome may be un-achievable. But, sometimes, even compromise solutions are a triumph.
    IRAQ
    In Iraq – and Afghanistan – we need to be clear about the mission, and we need an exit strategy. If I asked everyone in this room to write down what they thought that mission was, I would get a wide variety of different answers.
    Iraq is messy and getting messier. Those who predicted the coalition would be greeted as liberators on flower-strewn paths are wiser now. If they had known their history, they would have been much wiser much earlier on. We are not – alas – remotely where we had hoped to be.
    Both casualties and civil violence are mounting especially in the 30 miles radius of Baghdad. As American soldiers clean up districts, the insurgents move to neighbouring areas. As those troops move on, the insurgents re-occupy the area, because the Iraqi armed forces cannot hold the ground. This failure to hold the territory gained, means that policy is simply chasing its tail.
    At the same time, the Iraqi Government refuses permission for troops to enter the most violent areas, on the grounds that it would be inflammatory. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland decision, that merely provides a haven for militancy.
    Decisions that are fundamental to the future of Iraq are not yet made. We do not yet know how oil revenue will be shared. The boundaries of the future Federalist system are not known. The future of Kirkuk is still uncertain. The new Police Force is – to put it kindly – inefficient, and with divided loyalties.
    For the average Iraqi, life is dire. Many are killed each month. Unemployment is huge. Inflation is at 70%. Electricity supplies – in Baghdad for example – fluctuate wildly during every 24 hour period: a couple of weeks ago it was 3-4 hours only; this past week, I believe they had the luxury of 10 hours power. All of this, in turn, creates instability – and a deep resentment of the coalition forces on the ground.
    The situation is full of ironies. The Iraqi Government is weak and unstable. It is possible that only the presence of the coalition prevents a coup.
    And yet – to buy domestic popularity – the Government may be tempted to tell the coalition to leave.
    But such a departure would create a double-dilemma: not only would it be humiliating for the coalition to be asked to leave, but if they did so, and Iraq was torn apart by civil war, the implications of a militant Islamic Government emerging scarcely need to be spelled out.
    From where we are today there are no simple solutions, which is why I spoke of the need for diplomacy and statesmanship alongside military power. And – as we consider policy – we should factor in the lessons of history.
    AFGHANISTAN
    All of this is relevant to Afghanistan. The catalyst for democracy’s response to terror was the attack on New York five years ago.
    To promote democracy and destroy terror is a noble mission, but the justice of the cause doesn’t lessen the need for a clear-cut objective, good planning and adequate resources.
    In Iraq, the most dangerous place is Baghdad, where American forces take the lead. In Afghanistan, it is Helmand and Kandahar Provinces, where British and Canadian forces are in the front line.
    The Afghan mission, as seen from the UK, is uncertain.
    Is it a peacekeeping mission?
    Or a nation-building one?
    Is it to catch Bin Laden?
    Or to defeat the Taliban; drug barons; warlords; Iraqi infiltrators; Pakistani bandits; and the local population fearful of their poppy crop being destroyed?
    Or is it all of the above – and more?
    History tells us Afghanistan is a very tough place to be. In the Afghan Wars – during the height of the British Empire – Britain did not even come a poor second. And, more recently, between 1979-1989, the Red Army was defeated in Afghanistan: 120,000 troops, ten years on the ground – and then retreat – as they were beaten back to Moscow. And this was when Russia was still, herself, a superpower.
    A senior British General warned recently of the danger of an aggrieved population turning back to support the Taliban.
    From our perspective of the Taliban – as a brutal force with a medieval culture – that seems absurd. But the local population see the UK, America and Canada painted each day as invading interlopers – much like the Russians over twenty years ago. It is a crude untruth – but an effective one.
    Moreover, as we destroy the poppy crop – an evil trade, but the only way of earning a livelihood for many Afghans – we need to put in place alternative sources of income. If we fail to do this, we will simply turn the population against us – and back into the arms of the Taliban.
    There is a common thread that runs through Iraq and Afghanistan: both are ideological conflicts that must be fought by intellectual as well as martial force.
    TERROR
    If we are to lift the curse of terror from the next generation – or, more realistically, render it impotent – we must win the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured.
    Without an intellectual victory, there will be no lasting military victory, and no respite. If we are to protect our way of life we must mobilise our best instincts as well as our military might.
    The West must counter the malign way in which it is misrepresented. We will not be able to persuade the hard-line militants but we can siphon off their support. We can dry up their recruitment. We can isolate them. We can do more to encourage our allies to be more active in our support.
    All around the world, even in the grimmest of circumstances, people hope for something better. Hope for something better is the most powerful antidote to anti-Western propaganda. And to gain the allies necessary to isolate and defeat terror, we must offer that hope.
    This is not some impossible dream. We saw hope triumph when the free market defeated communism. Now it must do so again, to help democracy defeat terror.
    We have one great advantage. The on-rush of the free market is delivering material benefits to nearly every part of the world. Politics must offer hope too.
    This will mean dialogue. It will mean enlisting other nations. It will mean working with regimes of whom we strongly disapprove.
    Some say this can’t be done. I say it can. Tough – yes. Long-term – yes. But it can be done.
    Sixteen years ago, I began a dialogue with the IRA when they were still bombing Northern Ireland and the British mainland. Many opposed this. More doubted it would ever succeed. Some even said it was folly.
    And yet it began a peace process that has transformed Northern Ireland.
    The same principles apply today, even to the core disputes in the Middle East, and the ideological divides that are so dangerous. Dialogue can be productive. But it must be dialogue – not monologue – and it cannot be with a megaphone.
    The alternative – a lack of dialogue – enables our motives to be distorted, and our policies to be mis-represented. It would be folly to allow that to happen.
    CONCLUSION
    The political and economic challenges arising from the Near and Far East are more complex and far-reaching than any we have faced before. They will not fade away.
    I’ll read you a poem you may know and I learned as a child:
    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
    For the want of a rider the message was lost.
    For the want of a message the battle was lost.
    For the want of a battle the war was lost.
    For the want of a war the kingdom was lost.
    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
    Benjamin Franklin, 1758
    It is the classic illustration of how a chain of events can follow on – one from another.
    If that was true in the world of Benjamin Franklin, how much more true it is in the integrated global world of today.
    Our task in this generation is to look at our world with a critical and honest eye and see how it is – so we can try and shape how it could be.
    We have the ability to do so. Only time will tell whether we have the wisdom – and the will – to channel that knowledge into policies – to safeguard our future.

  • Sir John Major’s Comments at Chancellor Kohl’s 75th Birthday Celebration – 11 April 2005

    The text of Sir John Major’s comments made at Chancellor Kohl’s 75th birthday celebration, held at the German History Museum in Berlin on Monday 11th April 2005.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Helmut Kohl is one of the towering figures in German history. He served as Chancellor for 16 years; entrenched Germany at the core of Europe; ushered in reunification and fathered a new currency.

    During the time I knew Helmut, I came to know the intense human man behind the public image. It is that Helmut, the private man, sometimes the rather emotional man, the man with a gift for friendship, who brings so many people here this evening.

    My meetings with Helmut were never dull. Nor did they focus only on business. Before we turned to any agenda, we exchanged jokes, discussed friends, dissected opponents and considered events: our conversation was wholly relaxed and occasionally scurrilous. Certainly it doesn’t bear repeating this evening.

    But I can take you behind the curtain a little. There are some cameos of politics with Helmut that I shall never forget.

    EU Summit in Birmingham

    The British Government had recently closed down a large number of unprofitable coal mines. The miners, understandably, were furious.

    Thousands of them marched to the EU summit, surrounded the Hall and began chanting “Coal for ever.”

    Helmut, in the Conference Hall, heard the chant and was delighted … he was confident that Anglo-German relations had reached a new high. “There you are, John” he said, “they love the Euro.”

    Three way conversation

    Helmut and I were meeting in Bonn when we heard reports of atrocities in The Balkans War. We phoned Boris Yeltsin and got him at the end of what had obviously been a very good lunch.

    Neither in Germany, nor in Russia, did we have appropriate interpreters with us. Each contribution to the conversation passed through a second language long before it reached the recipient in German, Russian or English. It was chaos.

    Helmut and Boris were shouting – one in Germany, the other in the Black Sea – and, frankly, they could have heard one another without phones. Our Ambassadors looked on horrified. When we put the phone down – confident we had saved the day – we learned the original report was false and no conversation had been necessary. We consoled ourselves with a glass of wine. The Ambassadors needed something stronger.

    Kurds

    Much more productive was the exchange at the end of the first Gulf War. The Iraqis were murdering the Kurds. I went to the European Union Summit with plans to establish a “Save Haven” for the Kurds.

    I put the plan to the meeting. Helmut agreed “Yes, John, very good. We’ll do it.” Francois Mitterrand said “France will do her duty.” The policy was borne. As a result, tens of thousands of lives were saved.

    That is the measure of the man we honour tonight. On behalf of us all Helmut, I wish you a very happy Birthday.