Tag: Mikhail Gorbachev

Below is the text of the joint press conference with Mr Major and the Soviet President, President Gorbachev, in London on 17th July 1991.

---

PRIME MINISTER:

Firstly, my apologies for arriving a little later than you had expected, our discussions went on a little longer than scheduled and I apologise for that short delay.

Let me say at the outset, as many of you will know, that this morning President Bush and President Gorbachev solved the remaining impediment to a START agreement, I think that is a very remarkable achievement, it was very well received by all the G7 Heads of Government and commenced our meeting this afternoon in an extremely admirable way.

Our summit theme over the last few days has been building world partnership and to follow up those words with deeds we have today I believe established our partnership with the Soviet Union on a new and better footing. It is an historic occasion, it demonstrated the importance the summit participants attach to cooperation with the Soviet Union and to helping integrate it into the world economy.

And I think it reflects something else as well, it reflects the recognition of new attitudes and new thinking in the Soviet Union. In keeping with the summit style the emphasis has been on informal, frank and very direct discussions. Our exchanges have been workmanlike and practical, they have been across the table with questions put and answers given and not simply formal exchanges around the table, it has been a very positive meeting indeed. It has not been the occasion for specific negotiations or empty rhetoric, there has been an absolutely excellent climate and atmosphere throughout the whole meeting this afternoon.

Our discussions focused primarily on economic reform, but we all recognise behind that the importance of the political dimension, both national and international. President Gorbachev explained to us all the important changes under way in the Soviet Union, including the proposed new division of powers and responsibilities under the draft union treaty. Everyone agreed that these political and constitutional reforms would help to provide the necessary basis for a successful and irreversible economic reform.

President Gorbachev also set out the plans of the Soviet and Republican authorities for reform of the Soviet economy, he did so fully and frankly. All summit participants had been following the evolution of economic reform plans with a particularly close interest, we were all especially interested to hear how they would be implemented in practice, about their sequence and the comprehensive nature of their coverage.

We very strongly welcomed President Gorbachev’s commitment to practical measures of both political and economic reform and pledged both our support and our encouragement for that process. We discussed in particular crucial areas for reform: property rights; market prices; control of government finances and money supply; the breaking up of monopolies and privatisation; and the establishment of a legal infrastructure.

Everyone around the table recognised that these moves are all in the best interests of the Soviet people themselves and that only the Soviet people themselves can achieve those changes. As I put it during the discussion, the challenges the Soviet leadership faces are formidable but the opportunities, if they are successful, are limitless.

We therefore all agreed to work together to promote the integration of the Soviet Union into the world economy. But we also agreed that our help would not have a lasting effect unless there was a clear political will in the Soviet Union to create the right environment for change. Our objective must be to help the Soviet Union mobilise its substantial resources, outside assistance can make a contribution, it can help catalyse the process, but it is the Soviet Union itself that must mobilise its resources. The primary contribution should come from inward private investment, the key is to create an environment, legal, political, economic, social, in which investment would be attracted and could flourish. Against that background, we reached agreement on six specific points.

The first relates to a special association with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Summit participants very much welcome a special association for the Soviet Union with the IMF and with the World Bank, We believe that will be an enormous step towards helping the Soviet Union become more closely integrated into the world economy. It will bring many benefits to the Soviet Union, it will enable the Fund and the Bank to offer expert help and advice in all the difficult areas of economic policy where President Gorbachev is working for reform. Both the Fund and the Bank have a wealth of experience in helping governments to work out their own economic reform programmes and especially have a wealth of experience in the crucial areas of fiscal, monetary and structural policies.

Secondly, we reached agreement on the need for continuing cooperation. The summit participants are therefore asking all the international institutions – the OECD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as the IMF and the World Bank – to work closely together and intensify their efforts in their support of the Soviet Union. They can provide the Soviet Union with practical advice, with know-how, with expertise to help create a market economy. There are all sorts of areas to which this will apply, for example price decontrol, creating the conditions for much greater private sector investment including investment from outside the Soviet Union into the Soviet Union, and all the difficult processes involved in privatisation.

Thirdly, we talked of technical assistance, we agreed on the importance of intensifying our technical assistance for the Soviet Union. We believe there should be greater cooperation and in particular greater cooperation in the following sectors; energy; defence conversion; food distribution; nuclear safety; and transport. Other areas suggest themselves as well but those were the key areas that we were able to discuss today. And we believe this technical assistance will be given both by governments directly, bilaterally and also through the international institutions.

Fourthly, we discussed trade. As President Gorbachev said during his remarks this afternoon, he was very conscious that trade had collapsed between the Soviet Union and its immediate neighbours and it would be desirable to re-establish it. We also wish to see improved trade access to markets for Soviet goods and services and we believe that would help to attract more inward private investment and that will govern our policies.

Fifthly, and vitally I think, we discussed the follow-up to the meeting we had this afternoon. This afternoon is not a one-off occasion, it is not an occasion in which we come together just to examine the problem, consider it, go away and then let things go on as they were before. So we discussed how we would follow the matter up to ensure there was a continuing over-view and follow-up to the matters that concern us both. And we agreed after discussion that the Chairman of the G7 summit, on behalf of all summit colleagues, should keep in close touch with developments on behalf of the whole of the G7, There was a general wish following that, that as the current chairman I should visit Moscow before the end of the year to meet President Gorbachev, discuss with him the matters of mutual concern to us all and to review progress. I am happy to do so and I look forward to that visit. Next year my successor as Chairman of the G7, Chancellor Kohl, will liaise and will undertake similar visits. Both of us will report back to the G7 as part of a continuing over-view.

Sixthly, we decided to take this contact a little further. We will encourage our Finance Ministers and Ministers for Small Businesses to accept invitations to go to the Soviet Union and to discuss a range of matters with their counterparts in the Soviet government. We see this as a part of widening and deepening the continuing dialogue between the Soviet Union and the G7 governments.

As I said a few moments ago, this has been a day, I believe, that history may well see as a landmark. It will, I believe, be seen as a first step towards helping the Soviet Union become a full member of the world economic community. It was clear from this afternoon’s conversation that that is what President Gorbachev wants, that is what we want, it is what we will all work for and it is what we have put in train today. It was, I have no doubt, a very successful and historic meeting. I will now invite President Gorbachev to make a few observations to you and then we will be happy to take your questions.

 

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. My task I think is very simple after your comprehensive statement.

Ladies and Gentlemen, today has meant a lot. We began at 8.00 this morning with talks with President Mitterrand which were very important and then we had a very intensive and productive dialogue with Prime Minister Kaifu, the Prime Minister of Japan.

And then there took place one of the most important meetings of our time, we completed a very complicated job which has taken ten years, the Agreement on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Weapons – the START Agreement. The last issues were solved on the basis of constructive cooperation and you will understand what we have been doing all these years and how difficult it was to proceed to such a positive result. But now I can say, once again, as we have already said it, that everything that has been done and will enable us to submit this treaty for signature and to put it before the Supreme Soviet. At the same time we have agreed with President Bush to have a meeting in Moscow at the end of July, I have invited him to come to Moscow.

I think this is good news, not only for today, and it is evidence of the fact that in the world, despite all the difficulties and dangers and troubles there is taking place important changes which bring such results which a few years ago we could not even have been thought possible.

And in the same spirit, I would like to say that the present meetings of the Seven, and we have already reached agreement on the machinery for follow-up, are also unique events and in this sense I share the views of Mr Major, the chairman of this meeting, he has done a lot to ensure that it was well prepared and proceeded in a good and constructive spirit and I would like to thank him for that and at the same time to thank the government of Great Britain for their welcome and hospitality and everything that they have done that has enabled us all to work well and to produce good results.

And like many of you, I have said this already in Moscow and I would like to confirm today, what has been happening in recent years has enabled us to achieve much and these achievements are unprecedented political dialogue and a successful outcome on disarmament negotiations which have produced these major documents; the development of the Helsinki Process, and I am referring in this case to the Paris Charter and this the resolution of many ancient acute conflicts; and what we have really succeeded in taking the road to perestroika, we have rejected the methods of the Cold War and we have realised that we are living in one civilisation and we have moved from confrontation and opposition to a search for this kind of achievement.

This is the basis on which it will be possible to build so that we can extend this process and extend these positive trends, so that on the basis of this we can have new processes and we can build on these big changes and get rid of everything that causes concern and alarm. And it is very important that no-one should be tempted to try to use this for not in the interests of the process itself, that we expect the process that will lead to new international relations.

So the discussions about this have begun today and taking into account the declaration that we have, I read it and I think in the coming days these topics, the global topics and regional arrangements and everything that is happening in the real world, everything will be the focus of attention at this kind of meeting.

This really has been a unique meeting. We are ready to cooperate and to bear our responsibility together with all peoples in this case with the peoples who were represented here in the Group of Seven, in order to ensure that this positive process continues and that despite all the difficulties we can move further towards agreement and the development of international relations and their improvement.

But thinking about this at home, about everything that is happening now, we reached the conclusion that this process will be more stable and reliable and predictable if both the spheres of economic cooperation are taken into account, they must be carefully thought out and restructured and much that we have been talking about has been taken into account.

These are matters that we have to take account of all the time and think about them and what comes up inbetween countries in bilateral relations and in regions, everything that develops in the Third World, I know that this is an old-fashioned term now but will still use it, we must find a way of systematising these procedures and among these problems that we include and which must be solved if we are to restructure international relations, we think one of the key problems is the organic integration of the Soviet Union in world relations. We do have relations with the world economy, we trade with the whole world, and we enjoy the fruits of the labour of our peoples. This is trade, this is good.

This is the implementation of various projects, it is also good, but we are working in various approaches, we do not consider ourselves an organic part of the world economy, it would be better to talk about economic relations. Of course we are part of the economy and to a considerable extent we are on the margin of this, we are an autarky if you like.

This is our approach in a few words and we have put forward a concept for the way in which the Soviet Union might move towards and be integrated’ in the world economy, This means far reaching reforms, not just economic but also political reforms which is what we are now engaged in, so that we may be capable of adopting rules of the game, let us say, that are practised and preached in all countries of the world.

This organic integration of the Soviet Union into the world economy will not work if we continue to be seen from the standpoint, from the point of view that grew up during the years of confrontation, and there was a great deal that was piled up over those years of confrontation so there is a need to remove the road blocks, there is need for a movement from the other side.

There are very many of those roadblocks, I could read out to you, I shall not do that now, but I could read out a list of dozens of projects which have been elaborated by business people in our country, from other countries, that have been brought to the stage of general understanding but which were not able to be implemented because they came up against barriers of various sorts, obstacles, impediments. There are customs barriers, there are requirements of the International Monetary Fund, there are GATT requirements, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and on and on.

I have summarised this but there are whole tons of this material. So there is need for movement from the other side, these are the two essential points which we put to our colleagues. We have put our plan of action to our colleagues as to how we intend to proceed in terms of political reforms and how we intend to act now at this stage within the framework of our economic reforms of the federation and on that basis the hope has been expressed for understanding.

I put the emphasis on that word – understanding – that is how I started my book on the new thinking, we want to be properly understood. I have been cooperating with my colleagues for many years and I think that without any exaggeration I could look in their eyes today and say to them: inasmuch as we have now been understood this has opened up the possibility of joint action and as a result of the new political thinking we have now come to that level of cooperation, to a degree of trust, and the possibility of the sort of discussions that we have been having lately and that we had this afternoon.

I have also said it should be understood that it is our choice that is to be made, we shall proceed along the path that we have chosen because we wish through the reform of the economic system, through the union, through reforming our property relations, to provide a powerful impetus for the action of political, democratic, economic, social forces of our people. We wish to move away from the predominance of the command administrative system and away from the system where we are state-ownership predominant, we wish to provide vital oxygen for society, that is as necessary for society as it is for individuals and when we propose new thinking in external and foreign policy, just as we today offer cooperation on the basis of movement from the other side of accommodation, that is something that we all need and this will constitute a major contribution to stabilisation and further encouragement to all the Positive processes that are now going forward in the world. That is what we hope for, that is what we look forward to.

We are going through a difficult time now, we shall find our way through this, we shall extricate ourselves, whether you help us or not. That is not the point, and we are not even talking about assistance, we are talking about the new quality of cooperation when colleagues, I am most grateful that what I had to say was received openly, directly, and honestly, that great interest was shown, everybody spoke up after I had my say, we had ten contributions and there was a lively conversation that then ensued. I tried to be brief, I have to say, although I did not altogether succeed, I tried to practise some self-discipline but this is an enormous subject that we had to address and I would say that we have reached the first stage of understanding which will enable us now to move to the start of a process, a new form, a new kind of cooperation, and I think that if we move along the lines indicated by Mr Major, these six conditions, then we will not say that we simply come together, we have had a talk and then we have gone our ways, but that we have come to some important political conclusions and that we have reflected on a mechanism for ensuring our cooperation, our joint action in following up on those important political conclusions.

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

EDWARD STURTON (ITN):

The Seven were apparently not satisfied with the original reform proposals that were put to them by Mr. Gorbachev. Can I ask Mr. Gorbachev whether he brought anything new in terms of reform proposals today and the Prime Minister whether he heard anything new that convinced him that reform will really happen?

PRIME MINISTER:

Let me start with that, Edward. The great advantage this afternoon was that we were actually able to talk across a table; not just look at a document but actually speak face-to-face, actually ask detailed questions about a document and make an assessment of how that document was going to be carried forward. That is just not an opportunity that the G7 collectively have had before with President Gorbachev; it was a very valuable opportunity.

Not all our problems were solved today; none of us expected that they would be. What we did expect would happen today was that we would begin the process of a dialogue and would decide a proper way in which we could carry it forward. That is in practice what we have done and I really cannot overstate the value of that. I think it is vitally important that we are now engaged on this dialogue and that it will be a continuing dialogue.

The reforms that the Soviet Union are engaged in are enormous reforms. One only has to go back and look at the immense interest and difficulties there were just in some elements of the privatisation programme for example we had in the United Kingdom over the last ten years and then match that against the scale of the changes that the Soviet Union are seeking to put in place at the present time. So of course we did not solve all the problems today and of course there will be many matters that we will want to come back to but what we did satisfy ourselves about today was the intensity and direction of reform the Soviet Union are engaged on and the necessity of following that through with a continuing dialogue.

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

(NOTE: LONG GAP BEFORE INTERPRETATION BEGAN)

….the need for constructive cooperation with all democratic forces between the Republican authorities and the Union with a view to successful implementation of radical reform in all areas.

QUESTION (SOVIET TV):

A question to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as well as to the President of the USSR: can we consider that after today’s meeting London will have represented a start on a new relationship between East and West?

PRIME MINISTER:

I believe I can answer that question very briefly and very directly. Yes, I believe it has. I believe it is a new start and I believe it is a very valuable one.

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

Yes, I take the same view. London has represented a start on movement towards a new quality of cooperation.

BRIAN HANRAHAN (BBC TV):

Mr. Gorbachev, there has been much talk from some of your envoys of the need for large-scale funds to assist the Soviet Union out of its current difficulties. Are you disappointed you have not received them? Do you think it will have an effect on the progress of the reforms, possibly causing social instability as Mr. Primakov mentioned the other day and Mr. Major, is that an argument you have taken into account?

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

I already gave a reply to this question in Moscow; that it was not a meeting of Finance Ministers but rather of Heads of State that was expected in London and I think that that has taken place and as we take stock of the political results, we can see that this goes rather beyond what was being discussed in the press recently.

What we are talking about here, as I have said before, is cooperation and cooperation presupposes re-thinking and moving on to qualitatively new forms of cooperation in all areas.

QUESTION (NOVEVRIMIA (PHON) MOSCOW):

A question to the Prime Minister and to the President:

Here in London, both of you were participating for the first time for various reasons in a meeting of the G7 and again for various reasons you found yourselves the focus of attention. I would like to know what you think about the G7 process and what the future prospects are. What do you think will happen in two or three or let us say five years? How do you see the relationship between the seven most industrialised countries and the Soviet Union, looking ahead a few years?

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

First of all, let me begin by saying that Mr. Major and I have already had an opportunity to meet. He has visited us and it really did not take long for us to reach an understanding on the most important matter and to initiate a very active dialogue and I welcome the fact that we did not waste any time.

The Soviet-British dialogue has reached a very high level now and I may say that it is continuing, it is on-going; it is continuing thanks to our joint efforts. In particular this is also true of our meeting today, the Gorbachev-Major meeting today, so I think we may say that we find ourselves in a very good situation and I look forward to tomorrow’s visit and I am sure it will be even easier for us to reach understanding on our bilateral relations.

As concerns our view of the future development of this process, the Seven-plus-One as I have called it, I think it will develop. There was Paris, there was Houston and then there was the talk about inviting Gorbachev to come and meet the Seven. Well now the English are our hosts; I am here and it has been a very important event and an important meeting. You have already heard from Mr. Major an outline of what he thinks is going to happen in the future. Once again I say that a start has been made on future developments.

The ice has started moving, as somebody put it and the ice-breaker is on its way towards renewal.

PRIME MINISTER:

When we invited President Gorbachev to come and join the G7, it was of course with the expectation that this would play a part in deepening the process and continuing the process in the years to come so of course we extended this invitation never with the intention that it would be a one-off occasion but that in one form or another we would continue to widen and deepen the closer relationship there has been between the Western industrial nations and the Soviet Union in recent years.

We take a very great interest in the changes there have been in the Soviet Union in the last few years and we admire very greatly the way in which those changes have been brought about so of course we see a dialogue continuing; that was our intention; happily it has proved possible for that intention actually to be turned into a systematic form through the chairmanship of the G7. I think that is going to continue.

ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

Clearly, this was not the occasion but do both of you accept that to make the Soviet Union that organic part of the world economy, at some point there will have to be large fund transfers from the G7 countries to the Soviet Union?

PRIME MINISTER:

Let me answer that first, Adam. There is a great deal that needs to be done and we discussed the whole range of those things today. Today was not the occasion to address the question of large-scale nation-to-nation funding. A great deal of the help and encouragement that there will be for the Soviet economy in the years to come will, we hope, be generated quite naturally by the levels of private sector investment that the present reforms will encourage to come into the Soviet Union and I was very encouraged today by the emphasis that President Gorbachev gave that in our discussions, but we were not today in a dialogue about the transfer of large-scale funds. As the President said a moment or so ago, that was not the subject for today and it lies a little way ahead.

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

Let me add to that! The USSR is an enormous market and a very promising one with an enormous potential and to a considerable extent not yet opened up, not yet developed. That is the first point.

Secondly, if the obstacles to which I made reference are removed then it is possible that major projects can be deployed in the field of energy, transport, food, petrochemicals and many other areas and these are multi-billion projects I am talking about and that would be very mutually advantageous.

This process will go forward even more successfully if we do not delay decisions on vital problems such as the problem of rouble convertibility. This is a problem which has been discussed today, the convertibility of the rouble, and there is a mutual understanding that this problem has got to be resolved.

QUESTIONS (IZVESTIA)

I would like to come back to the formula 7 plus 1. I imagine that the plus sign is very symbolic here. Could I ask Mr. Prime Minister and Comrade President what this plus is going to lead to? What is the significance of that plus for both parties?

PRIME MINISTER:

The seven Western industrial democracies have decided that it is in our interests and the interests of the Soviet Union for us to have a continuing dialogue. What that leads to institutionally other than the nature of dialogue I have set out it is too early to say but that there will be a continuing dialogue in this forum is beyond doubt. What that dialogue may develop into, I can’t say at the moment and neither can anyone else; we must await events, I am afraid, for that.

PRESIDENT GORBACHEV:

This dialogue is on-going. The Group of Seven has existed for seventeen years but for the last six years other fora have also come into being outside the G7 to help resolve problems but the fact that today it has been possible to move on to this “plus” Comrade Ojenko (phon), this is symbolic of great changes, I think. It is a symbol of the move from confrontation to cooperation which was a “minus” and worse than a “minus”. Now the “plus” means that we are going to unite our efforts in the quest for dialogue and that we are going to come up with a mechanism, and that “plus” means that we are going to move on to projects and results so I think it is a very very promising process.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments made regarding President Gorbachev on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

---

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he felt reforms would continue under President Gorbachev].

PRIME MINISTER:

He clearly faces very great difficulties in carrying them forward but I was left in no doubt that he thinks they are desirable, that he wishes to carry them forward and that it is his intention to carry them forward. What I don’t know, of course, is how successful he will be in doing that.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked how he could support both President Gorbachev and independence for the Baltic states].

PRIME MINISTER:

We have supported the reforms in the Soviet Union which have been carried out under Mr Gorbachev’s leadership very strongly over the period of the last few years. Mr Gorbachev the reformer, we have supported, and Mr Gorbachev the reformer we will continue to support.

I made our disapproval of what happened in the Baltic States very clear indeed.

QUESTION:

[Mr Major was asked if he was concerned about the Soviet’s economic policies].

PRIME MINISTER:

It is not so much the policies in force that we are concerned about; it is the policies that we wish to see put in force that are not yet off the ground. It is all very well setting our your aspiration for a market-based society but you actually need practical action to bring it about and that that is what we wish to see.

Below is Mr Major’s press conference held in Moscow on Tuesday 5th March 1991.

---

PRIME MINISTER:

Perhaps I might firstly apologise to you for the fact that we have kept you waiting a few moments. I am afraid the day rather overran in one or two meetings but I hope it has not caused you too much inconvenience.

I have had a very full day here today and I think a very worthwhile one. I began with a meeting over breakfast with representatives of the Baltic States; later on I had a meeting with some prominent liberals and radicals; beyond that I had a meeting with President Gorbachev and thereafter lunch with President Gorbachev and a number of his colleagues. This afternoon I had meetings with Mr Pavlov and then with Marshal Yazov. Later on this evening I have a meeting with Mr Shevardnadze.

The centrepiece of the day was a lengthy meeting and lunch with President Gorbachev. We had an excellent talk, a long talk around four hours in total, including the discussion over luncheon. It was I think a very thorough discussion, at times an intense one, but it was good humoured and I believe producing useful and worthwhile results.

We gave priority in our discussions to the Middle East and in particular to the form of a post-war settlement in the Gulf. The most encouraging point was the willingness of the Soviet Union to go on working with the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council in the next phase of the peace. I think that is very welcome indeed and I know will be very welcome in the West. We agreed that it was basically for the countries of the region themselves to decide what form security arrangements should take. I explained to President Gorbachev that we did not plan to station ground forces permanently in the area. I also asked for Mr Gorbachev’s help over securing the release of all British citizens held in Iraq and he kindly undertook to give me that help. We agreed on the desirability of restraint on exports to the area of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and also on caution of the export of conventional arms. And finally we agreed that Foreign Ministers should meet soon to discuss these matters.

On more general arms control issues we discussed problems on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and I explained to President Gorbachev and later to Marshal Yazov where we saw problems with that. Mr Gorbachev agreed we must find solutions jointly or, as he put it, there is no alternative.

We discussed of course the situation in the Baltic Republics. I explained to President Gorbachev the dismay that I felt and that the West generally had felt about the events in January of this year and I expressed also our hope that the way forward would be through negotiations. Mr Gorbachev contested some of the statements and decisions and comments that had been made in the West and emphasised the difficulties that he faced. He also emphasised in our discussion that he believed in a constitutional process to solve the problem of the Baltics. He emphasised also that if the Baltics followed that process then independence was a possible outcome.

In addition we discussed a number of bilateral issues and over lunch President Gorbachev gave me a very full and very interesting account of political and economic reform in the Soviet Union. He emphasised very strongly indeed that he was personally committed to continue with that reform despite the difficulties and setbacks that inevitably there have been and will be.

During our discussions I invited Mr Gorbachev to visit the United Kingdom and I hope he will be able to do so soon, he was happy to accept the invitation. He also returned the invitation by inviting me to return on an official visit to the Soviet Union so I think there will be plenty of opportunities in the future for more bilateral contacts and I welcome that without reservation.

To sum up therefore I think we have had a very worthwhile day and some very good discussions which opened the way for us to work together on a future political settlement in the Middle East and also to resolve the remaining difficulties over the Conventional Forces Agreement. I believe on the back of that, and I hope this belief is reciprocated, that it has been a worthwhile day. Our personal relations were easy, I found it both an enjoyable as well as an interesting day and in short I believe we can say that the united Kingdom can continue to do business with Mr Gorbachev in a very satisfactory manner and I hope our future contacts will remain as cordial as they were today and that they will come about frequently.

That I think summarises what we have been talking about today but I will endeavour to answer any questions you may have for a few moments.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTION:

Mr Prime Minister, what was the conclusion as to the situation in the Middle East and what is your vision of the mechanism to solve this problem? And what is your view concerning the security situation in that region and will there be a need for guarantees from great powers?

PRIME MINISTER:
I think in terms of the Middle East our first agreed conclusion was that we had to take into account first and foremost the views of the states that actually existed in the region so that we could see in what way we might meet their own security concerns.

It was in that context that I emphasised that I certainly did not see a standing British or indeed Western army in the region though it was entirely possible at the end of discussions that the Arab nations themselves might have their own standing army. But we did agree that that was something that could only be determined after there had been greater discussions with the Middle East countries and after we could take into account the wider interests of the region. So we cannot yet reach a final conclusion on that but I think we are agreed that all members of the Permanent Five must continue to work together to ensure that we do find a satisfactory conclusion. The mechanism for reaching an agreement remains open. Certainly there will be a good deal of bilateral contact, there will also be discussions of Foreign Ministers that will take place in the not too distant future and certainly at the conclusion of the conflict the Security Council no doubt will wish to express its own views. But the mechanism for reaching a settlement in the Middle East remains to be determined and cannot be determined until we know more about the individual views of member states in the area.

QUESTION:

What did you talk with Mr Yazov about conventional arms in Europe, what explanations did he give about this subject and did you talk with Mr Pavlov about his accusations to the Western banks and did you discuss the Palestinian issue with Mr Gorbachev?

PRIME MINISTER:

On the third point first, the question of a Palestinian settlement, we did discuss that in our talks this morning as part of our general discussion on the Middle East and we agreed that now the Gulf conflict had ceased it was a priority in that area to try and find a settlement to the Palestinian problem and one that all countries would wish to pursue. There are a variety of ways in which it can be pursued, none of those are yet entirely clear as to which may turn out to be the best. But that it is a priority and that the prospects for a settlement are brighter today than they have been for some time was something we were able to agree about this morning.

The discussions I had with Marshal Yazov about the CFE Agreement largely related to the problems we have seen about resubordination. We discussed that at some length, I expressed my concerns, the Defence Minister set out his response to that and I think it was a most useful and worthwhile exchange.

I spent most of my time with the Prime Minister, Mr Pavlov, in discussing the economy rather than the individual comment that he made some time ago which I think has not been repeated. And so I felt it more prudent to discuss the wider issue of how the economy is being run, what needs to be done to carry reform forward, and I found that a most worthwhile exercise.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, could you say which parts of your talks were most intense and why?

PRIME MINISTER:

There were several parts of my talks with President Gorbachev that were intense. There were intense discussions over the Baltic States, a matter of very considerable importance; there were intense discussions over a number of other matters – I don’t think I want to elaborate all of them.

When I say “intense”, I do not mean ill-humoured; I mean there were some frank and free exchanges; it was a candid but good-natured discussion.

QUESTION (NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE):

On the question of the Baltics, did Mr. Gorbachev have any reaction to the referendum that was carried on there over the weekend and when you say that he seemed committed to the constitutional path in allowing the Baltics to leave in a constitutional manner, did he say what he means by that? Did he mean the law that takes several years and several votes by several different parliaments to get out of the Soviet Union or did he seem to see a more flexible way?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think Mr. Gorbachev saw that as an immediate outcome. He pointed out that a constitutional path could lead to independence for the Baltic States and we discussed that at some lengths.

QUESTION:

And the referendum?

PRIME MINISTER:

We touched upon that; it is a matter of fact that the referendum has taken place and the outcome of the referendum is known; there was not a great deal more that could be said other than to acknowledge that fact.

QUESTION (IN RUSSIAN):

For how long do you plan to continue your occupation of the Iraqi territory and how does it correspond to the European civilisation? That is my first question.

Second, will the Security Council take a decision to use force against Israel in order to liberate the Syrian and Lebanese territory?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t regard us as occupying the Iraqi territory – it was the Iraqis who occupied the Kuwaiti territory; they declined to leave the Kuwaiti territory despite the Security Council Resolutions, despite having innumerable opportunities of doing so between August and January 15 and despite having opportunities to do so after January 15.

The British forces will leave Iraq very speedily. As I indicated a few moments ago in my Statement, we have no intention of occupying Iraq, no intention of doing that whatsoever. There will be no standing army and the British forces and other Allied forces will leave. Neither is there any suggestion of changing the boundaries of Iraq – they are sacrosanct and they will remain so.

So I do not agree with the way in which you put your question but the answer to it is that Western forces will not be there for a very great deal of time. There is an immense amount of clearing up and preparation to be done but they are not going to remain there as an occupying force. The parallel. I think you draw is not one that I would accept.

QUESTION:

My second question is is there any possibility of the Security Council calling for the use of force against Israel so that it liberates and withdraws from all Arab territories?

PRIME MINISTER:

The question of the Palestinian problem in the wider sense is one of the matters that hope to be dealt with during the discussions on the Middle East and the position is that it will be discussed and dealt with in terms of Resolution 242 on the basis of peace for land. That was and is the situation.

MR. WHITE (GUARDIAN):

Prime Minister, you seem to be encouraged by what you have learned from the Soviet Prime Minister in your talks [indistinct] Soviet Union continued to play a constructive part. I wonder, on balance, on one or two of the main areas of discussion – the Baltics and economic political reform in the Soviet Union – have you come away more encouraged or less encouraged? You seemed to be suggesting there is quite a gap between what the Baltic States themselves want in terms of the negotiations and what Mr. Gorbachev has said that he was willing to [indistinct].

PRIME MINISTER:

There is still a gap, of course there is still a gap but I think there is agreement as to how that gap should be bridged. It has to be bridged through negotiations and Mr. Gorbachev did indicate today that at the end of the negotiations through a constitutional process the prospect of independence was there. That, I think, is a worthwhile and welcome reassurance – I hope the Baltic States will accept it as such. I think to that extent I do find myself encouraged about it.

On the question of the economic problems and perestroika in the widest aspects, there is absolutely no doubt in what Mr. Gorbachev said today that he is committed to the continuation of the economic reforms. Clearly, they are going to be lengthy and they are going to be difficult and I have no doubt there will be setbacks but I must say he was compelling in his assertion that he was determined to press on with those reforms. That certainly is encouraging though I don’t think anybody would have any doubt at all about the difficulties that lie ahead in doing so.

QUESTION (CANADIAN BROADCASTING):

Did you get any guarantees from President Gorbachev that the Soviet Union will not resume arms shipments to Iraq? Also, the Soviet peace initiative was met by criticism in some quarters in the West; has it raised questions in your mind as to Moscow’s motives and has it damaged Moscow’s relationship in any way with your country or with the West or with other members of the coalition?

PRIME MINISTER:

The straightforward answer to the first question is “No!”. The answer to the second question is: No, it has not damaged the relationship with the West. Whenever the Soviet Union went back to the Security Council, it supported the Security Council Resolutions right up to and including the last few days and that was very welcome and I think the nature of discussions we have had today, the fact that I have invited Mr. Gorbachev back to the United Kingdom and he has invited me to come back to the Soviet Union again, illustrates that our relationship remains good.

ROBIN OAKLEY (THE TIMES):

Prime Minister, did Mr. Gorbachev agree with your frequently-expressed opinion that Saddam Hussein’s continuation in power would gravely hamper efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East?

Secondly, will you be making any attempt to restrain both Saudis and Kuwaitis now in their treatment of Palestinians in the interests of a wider settlement in the Middle East?

PRIME MINISTER:

President Gorbachev did not express a view in the terms you put it to me about Saddam Hussein but I think there is no doubt that he recognises where the majority blame – the complete blame in fact – for the conflict in the Middle East has itself arisen over the period of the last few months.

Of course, there is a necessity for everyone to make sure that there is no ill treatment of Palestinians at the conclusion of the conflict. That is a point that we have already made to everybody in the region and we will continue to make it.

ALISTAIR CAMPBELL:

Prime Minister [indistinct] chances of Mr. Gorbachev’s political survival?

PRIME MINISTER:

He is a very formidable man, Mr. Gorbachev, no question about that; a formidable politician with a huge range of achievements behind him. I knew that before I came, I know it now. I think he is no less formidable having talked to him for four hours than I did before I came.

THE IRISH TIMES:

I notice you said that you met some radical leaders this morning but clearly Mr. Yeltsin was not among them. Would you care to say how you see Mr. Yeltsin’s role in the political evolution here in the Soviet Union and did you consider it impolitic to meet him today?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, I did not consider it impolitic to meet him and I hope at some stage in the not too distant future that I will have the opportunity of meeting him. As you saw from the programme I set out this morning, it was fairly crowded and because of other events I am only able on this occasion to stay here for one day and must be on a plane very shortly. That is the reason I did not meet Mr. Yeltsin. I think I had better express views about Mr. Yeltsin after I have met him rather than before.

QUESTION (JERUSALEM NEWSPAPER):

Are you going to support a Palestinian state after the Gulf war?

PRIME MINISTER:

We are certainly keen to see that there is a settlement of the Palestinian problem and as I said a few moments ago, that will be on the basis of Resolution 242. I hope that will be something that will enable all the appropriate parties in the Middle East to negotiate satisfactorily and reach a conclusion. I do not presuppose that that will either be easy or necessarily speedy but I do repeat what I said a few moments ago: I think the prospect of getting a settlement now is better than it has been before and we must pursue it vigorously – that is certainly what we intend to do.