The text of the letter sent by Sir John Major to The Times newspaper on 18 April 2026.
Sir, I am pleased but not surprised that George Robertson (Thunderer, Apr 17) has opened up a serious discussion about the readiness of our armed forces. Defence cannot be an optional expenditure. The world has changed: it is more dangerous and less predictable. There is a war of conquest in Ukraine, a war of choice in Iran, and we cannot know how they will develop or what they foreshadow.
The future of Nato is uncertain, and the European members of the alliance must face the possibility of conflict without the full-hearted support of the US which, for decades, has been the rock upon which democracy prospered. This was a heavy burden for America to carry, but we can no longer — with absolute confidence — depend on her now. We must deal with the world as it is.
We are living in a belligerent environment, which may worsen. The UK — and Europe more generally — must be sufficiently equipped and able to defend itself. The argument that “we cannot afford it” will be irrelevant if Putin succeeds in Ukraine — and then, perhaps, moves on into Nato territory. If we and our European allies are not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to protect our people and our sovereign territory, it will be a betrayal of our history and our future.
The Attlee Foundation Lecture 2026, delivered by Sir John Major at King’s College London on 18 March 2026.
ATTLEE FOUNDATION LECTURE 2026
A PIVOTAL YEAR FOR DEMOCRACY
First of all, I would like to thank the Attlee Foundation for inviting me to deliver this Lecture. I am privileged to be here this evening, and delighted to be at King’s, where I feel very much at home.
It is a quarter of a century since I left front line politics, but I still have an observer’s interest in our world and our country. Both are in an uneasy state, and actions – or in-actions – this year may be pivotal to the future.
Let me do a little ground clearing.
Some may be surprised that a former Conservative Prime Minister would deliver a lecture in honour of a former Labour Prime Minister.
They shouldn’t be and, in a world of grown-up politics, they wouldn’t be.
It is easy to admire Clement Attlee for his record of achievement; his political courage; his resolute defence of our country’s values; his creation of the NHS; his commitment to public service; and the manner in which he put the interests of his country before his own – or those of his Party.
Of course, were he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy. We are political opponents. But mark this: Opponents, Yes. Enemies, No.
Democratic Parties do have enemies in politics, but they are populist insurgents who seek to divide and not unite.
They are careless of the strife they cause. They trade on grievances in our society. Where ills exist – they exaggerate them.
They then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion. It is ugly politics that deserves no place in our country.
Our political system would work to better effect – and be more honest – if mainstream politicians acknowledged that their priorities – I emphasise priorities – have far more in common than they wish to admit.
That may surprise you, but consider this: all our three main Parties are in favour of greater economic wellbeing; secure defence; decent public services; thriving health provision; affordable housing; flourishing education; and healthy employment.
This is what we expect in our liberal democracy, and when these priorities are not delivered the nation becomes disenchanted ‒ as it is now.
We are not alone.
Over the last two decades, democracy has been retreating around the world.
Nearly three-quarters of our world live outside democratic protection.
Autocrats undermine democracy to entrench themselves in power. If we do not recognise the dangers of that, and protect ourselves against it, autocracy may, one day, overwhelm us.
At my age I have a limited lease on the future, but let me say with all the force I can muster: if we were to cast aside our mainstream politicians – as polls suggest we may do – then a gap would open up, and that gap may not be filled by democrats.
So – if you rejoice at the dire polling of Labour and the Conservatives ‒ beware of what you wish for.
If they were to fall, who knows what will rise: you may find that autocrats-in-power do not share the democratic instincts of the politicians you have discarded.
Many people worry about what lies ahead. Some are bewildered, even frightened, by the changes in our world. It would be a self-inflicted wound if they turned to the extremes of politics because democracy was not speaking for them.
We know democracy can succeed in the most unpromising circumstances: the Attlee Government proved that eighty years ago.
After a crippling war, our country was near bankrupt. The War had enhanced our reputation for courage and persistence, but left our immediate prospects in tatters. Six years of conflict had left families bereaved, cities destroyed, and the Exchequer bare.
The British people had endured years of hardship. The age of deference was on its death bed – and our battle-weary predecessors demanded a brighter future.
In retrospect, 80 years on, the 1945-50 Government, and its Prime Minister, are held in high regard. The problems they ‒ and their successors ‒ faced, and overcame, should be an inspiration for what could be achieved today.
But there is no room for complacency. No reason for the careless assumption that democracy is so entrenched it cannot be undermined. Itcan – and around the world – it is.
Electors should treat with suspicion rash promises from infant Parties that have never experienced the complexities of democratic government.
Our liberal-democracy is not perfect, but it is far preferable to any of the alternatives. It has checks and balances unknown to other systems. It has the ability to dismiss the inadequate, and haul down the over-powerful.
It exists to serve the nation. It does not compel the nation to serve the State.
Our political system is an enabler. Its policies enable peace, resists war whenever possible, and promotes justice, wellbeing, growth, care where needed, enhanced life expectancy, and transformation of life opportunities.
Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.
But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.
People have faced higher costs and rising taxes. They have seen no real increase in their post-tax income – nor in their standard of living.
When – over a period of many months – our three mainstream Parties collectively register barely 50% in opinion Polls it is time to be concerned over what may lie ahead.
In a bid to reassure electors, politicians talk of “reform” to come. It’s a useful word – reform. It can mean everything or nothing. Reform means change. Change means upheaval. Upheaval provokes opposition.
Upheaval may be necessary but – sometimes – it is better to make progress on the everyday issues of politics.
Is policy strangling initiative or encouraging it?
Are tax levels deterring savings and investment?
Is planning holding back housing for the homeless and the would-be home owner?
Does the benefit system encourage or discourage unemployment?
Can the triple lock be targeted to pensioners who really need it?
Can Parliament act more strongly against the misuse and abuse of social media and, if so, how?
Can we fund the Armed Forces we need?
Will this mean more spending – or savings elsewhere?
There is certainly no shortage of issues to settle. But it is not only policy that needs updating: so does our political system.
Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy.
We need a spring clean.
Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?
Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence? I believe the answer is – yes.
Should the House of Lords be elected or appointed? An elected Upper House would meet democratic aspirations, but would be a monumental mistake. It could – and would – challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion.
It would not retain the wisdom and lifetime experience to enable it to discharge its primary function of revising legislation. It would not be a partner to the Commons: it would be a rival.
Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.
As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results. The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.
Should Members of Parliament who defect to a different Party be compelled to face a by-election? Constitutionally, no – as they are deemed to be elected as individuals.
But, in the real world, they are elected as representatives of a political Party. So – yes: logic and common decency suggest they must face the electorate again in a by-election.
If the House of Commons wishes to regain the respect it has lost, it must justify the status-quo – or change it.
And one further thought: is it not time to recognise that Brexit has failed to deliver its many promises, and the loss, each year, of £100 billion of European trade, and £40 billion of tax revenue is doing enormous damage to the lives and livelihoods of the British people – and their future?
Money is the root … of good public services. Imagine how much better they – and our military power – might be if that money was still available to the Exchequer, instead of being thrown away with such a casual disregard of the consequences.
I do not believe we can fully rejoin the European Union in the near future. But economic wellbeing tells us we should re-build relationships with our closest neighbours as swiftly and as comprehensively as possible.
When we left the EU, we broke up a European alliance of 500 million people. We did so as America – with its 340 million citizens – pivoted away from us towards the East.
Suddenly, our closeness to the European and American power blocs was reduced. This left the UK more solitary and vulnerable.
My father was brought up in America, and taught me to admire the virtues of that great Republic.
Our two countries saw the world through similar eyes, and had much in common. But our relationship, once rock solid, is now more nuanced – and more distant.
After WWII, the Marshall Plan helped rebuild shattered European economies and – in the post-war years – America was the rock upon which democracy prospered.
America’s influence was overwhelmingly benign when President Truman committed to “support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”
America’s purpose, echoed by later Presidents, was to secure a freer – and safer – world, in which the strong pledged their protection of the weak. No fee was asked. No deal demanded. No investment or payment expected. It was altruistic policy in a harsh world.
It was what made America great.
I saw this first hand at meetings in the White House and Pentagon, when the most senior Military personnel of both countries were present. Their mutual respect and friendship was self-evident. Trust was instinctive and total. Nothing was held back.
Our political and military relationship was one of shared values – on every issue from human rights to free markets. So I know what we had, and deeply regret that it seems to be falling away.
Since the turn of the century, America has economically out-paced both the UK and the European Union. At the millennium, the GDP of America and the EU was similar. Today, America is half as big again.
There is now a new tone from America. President Trump argues that America is being “ripped off” by trading partners and – without consultation – he raised tariffs on imports from wealthy and poor countries, whether friend or foe.
When the Supreme Court ruled these to be illegal, he reimposed a 15% general increase using different powers not yet tested in Courts.
Uncertainty was reinforced by the President’s dismissive attitude to Europe, his demands for the ownership of Greenland – the territory of a NATO ally – and his expressed view that the incursion of Ukraine by Russia was solely a problem for Europe.
This is not the America we have known.
Vice-President Vance also accused Europeans of being a greater threat to freedom in Europe than Russia. That was offensive and absurd in equal measure.
It was President Putin who sent Russian troops to invade Ukraine ‒ not vice-versa. It is Russia and Putin that conducts a “shadow war” of mis-information; takes cyber action aimed against Western Europe; and murders political opponents within Russia and – as we saw at Salisbury – in other territories, too.
When President Zelensky visited the White House to seek support, he was “ambushed” – no other description suffices – by President Trump and Vice-President Vance. It was Zelensky – not Putin – who was accused of “gambling” with World War III. This turned truth on its head.
Yet when President Putin arrived in Washington, he was greeted with full honours. Putin revelled in his red-carpet reception, and appeared able to persuade President Trump that black was white.
President Trump’s priority is set out in two alluring slogans: “America First” and “Make America Great Again”. This explicitly puts self-interest before the wider international interest, and has begun to further pry apart the “rules based” system that was built and led by America herself.
That system was fraying ‒ but is now fracturing. If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation breaks down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle with which no country should be content – and in which no country is safe.
My fear is the risk of stepping into a world in which “might is right”, and the mighty behave in an unprincipled and lawless manner.
In such a world the rights and prosperity of weaker nations are subordinate to the will of the strong; greater powers are deferred to – not because they have justice on their side – but because they have the power to compel acceptance of their will.
Such a concept is truly terrifying.
How different that is from our expectations. In 1949 – one year after the Marshall Plan was put into action – the NATO Treaty was signed.
The Treaty included an Article 5 Agreement that an attack on one Member will bring all others to their defence.
But is that still so?
Will America – with all her military power – still be willing to come to the defence of a NATO ally? NATO is, of course, a defensive – not an offensive alliance.
I hope so. But the Vice-President is on record as saying “I just hate bailing out Europe again”. The American Defence Secretary added: “I fully share your loathing”.
Were these remarks merely frustration? Or were they voicing future policy?
It is striking that neither comment was disowned by the President.
If America did resile from Article 5, it is hard to see how an American could remain as Supreme Allied Commander. Yet it is inconceivable – given America’s great military power – to imagine anyone other than an American leading NATO, as it is currently constituted.
I suspect that, underlying all this, is America’s determination that Europe should bear a higher share of NATO’s overall costs. That would be fair. The burden has fallen too heavily – and for too long – on America’s shoulders.
American power was vital in winning both World Wars in the last century, although history tells us that she joined World War I only in 1917 after German submarines sank American ships.
And, in World War II, only after Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbour in 1941.
The worry for the future – to voice the private fear – is that past American Presidents only gained the support of their public to enter the two World Wars after America herself was attacked. In future, without that imperative, can we be utterly confident of American participation?
President Trump – against his own campaign oratory – has shown himself prepared to use America’s muscular power on overseas missions.
I am conflicted by the American-Israeli attack on Iran.
In one sense, this was a wholly understandable response to Iran’s behaviour over many decades.
I have no illusions about the distasteful nature of Iran’s clerical leadership. They unleash terror ‒ and fund murder and mayhem through their proxies.
This brutal regime has shown it is willing to murder any of its own citizens who are brave enough to protest at the mis-government that scars their lives.
So ‒ why am I conflicted?
It is because of what was not done ahead of any military action and ‒ crucially ‒ the wider implications beyond that.
There was no diplomatic attempt to obtain a UN Resolution to give legality to the war. No nation – other than Israel – was even consulted.
This was despite the fact that the war was bound have much wider repercussions across the Middle East – and beyond.
Many nations will pay a price for this war.
Hostilities will not end when bombing stops. Old hatreds will linger. New hatreds will have been born. A new generation may have been radicalised. Retaliation may be deferred – but it is likely to come.
This war will have a long tail.
Its aims have never been clear and – since the conflict began – they have been changing by the day. No exit strategy is known.
The President demanded surrender. He is unlikely to get it.
For Iran, one should think Persia, and remember her history.
Persia was a dominant world power when America and the UK were still living in mud huts. She will not admit defeat.
Neither America nor Israel were prepared to put “boots on the ground”. This comforted their domestic audiences, but made regime change – always unlikely ‒ completely impossible.
Whilst they restricted conflict to the air, American leaders encouraged Iranian citizens to take to the streets and confront well-armed Basij volunteers. These are part of the Revolutionary Guard, which murdered 30,000 demonstrators only weeks earlier.
Unless – and until – the regime is seriously tottering, that encouragement to rise up is an invitation to suicide.
In due time, the war will end.
What will it have done for the rule of law and the protection of the rules-based-system of behaviour that has served the world so well in the aftermath of World War II?
The American Defence Secretary was contemptuous of …. “vague notions of international law” and the “…. stupid rules of engagement”.
Such disregard of law is a shameful example for a law maker to set.
If the international rule of law is dismissed so casually, what are we left with?
I can only speculate, but I believe we will be left with a more fearful world, in which wars may be more numerous and alliances less secure.
A world in which disputes are settled ‒ not with diplomacy or adjudication or agreement ‒ but by force: the victor being the most militarily or economically powerful.
This heralds a playground for the strong, perhaps Russia or China – or even America ‒ and a future of unease, even fear, for the weak.
That would be a wretched legacy to pass on to the next generation.
The mercurial nature of President Trump upends the accepted norms of diplomacy.
But the message for the UK and Europe is clear and unmistakable: we must plan and enact policies to improve self-dependence.
This will require us to raise budgets to enhance our military capacity for defence and offence. That effort must be within NATO and not separate from it.
It will be an expensive and long-term commitment. After decades of peace, Governments must now persuade their electorates that military spending must rise – perhaps at the expense of social expenditure or higher taxes?
Assuming that can be done, countries must agree to purchase arms collectively. And, in doing so, the weapons must be inter-operable on land, air, sea – and below the sea. That will mean purchases from national suppliers may be less easy.
Matters such as these – complex as they are – cannot be left undecided if NATO is to be battle ready and a credible deterrent to any hostile intent.
Do not misunderstand me. I do not – in any way – wish to push America aside. She remains the most important ally to the whole of Europe.
For the UK, the Trans-Atlantic partnership is key to our security and intelligence. It is in our national interest to sustain this relationship even if we are in dispute on other issues.
At No10, during Gulf War I, I experienced first-hand what could be achieved when working closely with one of the finest foreign policy teams America has had: George H W Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. President Bush and I never held back from speaking truth to each other, and never once did that impair our relationship.
But today, there is a tendency to tip-toe around the President to avoid upsetting him. Although I understand that, I do not agree with it.
Sovereign States that demean themselves will be seen as subordinates and not allies. That is not a role for the UK.
If we disagree with American policy we should say so – as a friend that cares for the wellbeing of an ally. Statesmen do this in private ‒ not in public.
Our frankness may cause uncomfortable interludes, but we must never lose sight of what is morally decent and right, and stand up for what we believe.
In all our years of history, this is what the UK has done: it was right then – and it is right now.
Let me return to the words of Clement Attlee:
“…. peace does not come about through wishful thinking. Peace is not just a negative absence of war; peace means that you get rid – as far as you can – of the causes of war.”
What do we mean by “Peace”? It seems an easy question – but is not.
To fully enjoy peace, men and women need to be free. By free, I don’t only mean to be at liberty. I mean to be free of war; free of fear; free of want. I mean freedom to worship without persecution, and freedom to speak against injustice and oppression.
The concept of peace is wide-ranging. Peace of mind is very precious but ‒ in the 21st Century ‒ a majority of people in the world don’t enjoy it: the growth of stress, of pressure, of mental health, tell us that we are far from that ideal.
There has been progress. Many diseases that killed or crippled have been overcome. Child mortality has fallen dramatically.
Hundreds of millions have moved out of dire poverty; similar numbers now have fresh piped water and electricity.
But, as rich nations reduce their aid budgets, poor nations continue to struggle – and the international liberal order loses its attraction … and its potency.
There is an ancient responsibility upon every generation to leave behind a better world than they inherited. We are not doing well on that front.
Our young generation has no direct experience of war. They have grown up in a better environment. They travel more. Intermingle more. Inter-marry more. They are blind to colour and ethnic background. They are free of many of the inhibitions and prejudices of their forebears.
They do not view ancient enmities through the same eyes as previous generations. They welcome communal action on issues like climate change that can only be overcome by working together.
“Peace” ‒ said Attlee ‒ “does not come about through wishful thinking …”
Indeed not….. not in any form.
It comes about by working together – with civility, respect, fortitude, and mutual understanding – to diminish the causes of dispute and strife.
If we truly wish to create a safer world, that is the route we must take.
The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the John C Whitehead Lecture, held at Chatham House on Thursday 10th November 2011.
SIR JOHN MAJOR:
When Chatham House invited me to deliver this lecture, I was delighted to accept.
I was brought up with an affection for America. My grandfather was a Master Builder who lived and worked in Pittsburgh from the 1860s and helped build the Carnegie Steel works. My father was a dual citizen, who lived in Pittsburgh from his birth in 1879 through his teenage years. His philosophy was simple: if America and Britain were as one, all was well.
Three hundred years earlier, in 1587, Virginia Dare became the first child of English parents to be born in the New World. On the coast of North Carolina, links to her ancestral home were all around her.
She grew up amid place names familiar to every Briton: the road between early settlements at Roanoke and Jamestown passed through Suffolk, Gloucester, Portsmouth, York and Surry (sic): all quaint reminders of 16th Century England. Subliminal links, perhaps – but evocative ones.
Our modern generation has grown up with the Atlantic Alliance.
For all our lives, the Alliance has been solid and reassuring: so familiar is it, that we take it for granted. We shouldn’t: like every relationship it is flexible; and, as it evolves, it changes. It is doing so now in ways that are liberating, but which reflect the ambitions of two Sovereign nations.
When David Cameron became Prime Minister he set out a dictum of a “solid but not slavish” relationship between the UK and the US. This is now taking practical shape across a wide swathe of policy.
Economically, the UK is pursuing austerity, while the US searches for stimulus.
Commercially, as a reminder that even the best of friends are economic rivals, Coalition Ministers have been boosting trade ties around the world.
Militarily, a Defence Treaty, agreed with France, has acquired more than symbolic meaning with the close Cameron-Sarkozy response to the uprising in Libya.
And diplomatically, the Government has taken a harder line than The White House in criticising Israeli policy on building settlements deemed illegal by the international community.
Some will worry about these distinctions in policy. They need not. One of the strengths of the UK/US Alliance is that, over many years, it has been able to withstand irritants, squabbles and even fierce disagreements: Suez in 1956; the cancellation of Skybolt; and Dean Acheson’s disparaging Westpoint speech, in which he asserted that: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role”.
Britain’s global role, he added, “is about played out”. There have been differences over Vietnam; and arms embargoes in the Balkans – but none of them caused a permanent rift.
In looking at policy between Atlantic partners, it is a mistake – a simplification that deceives – to focus only on the US and the UK. For a long time, a third partner – Continental Europe – has been material to the relationship.
Today, in a world of global transition, so is Asia – especially China and India – and the dynamic of new growing centres of power impacts inevitably upon the Anglo-American relationship.
These days, America looks increasingly to the Pacific. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, I expect this shift to accelerate. Both Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton have explicitly foreshadowed this new focus.
It is not difficult to see why. The Pacific is the growing centre of gravity for future global growth; it is an area of exploding population; and it is the essential force driving global trade.
This has changed its profile, and every nation – most certainly the United States – must take account of that. The fact that China is now the owner of over 25% of American Government debt, simply illustrates a reality few believed they would ever face.
The point is simple: no-one can ignore Asia. However well disposed any US President may be to his ally across the Atlantic, he must be concerned primarily with the wellbeing of his own nation.
As wealth and financial power move to the Pacific, new trade and political relationships will be forged, hopefully friendly ones. In China’s case, America will also have a wary eye on regional ambitions and military capability.
No-one should be surprised at this evolution. Nor should we shrink away from nuance in policy, and sometimes outright disagreement.
The tide of history can point friendly Sovereign Nations to different conclusions: it is inevitable and healthy. The Anglo-American relationship is a living entity. It would be a mistake to preserve it in aspic. It is about self-interest and mutual regard, and to drape it in sentimentality is to undervalue it.
Too often, people talk of a “special relationship”. Every President is advised to use the phrase and courteously does so but – although not intended to be so – it is rather a patronising term.
President Obama – a post-War child and a post-Cold War politician appears – to the British and European eye – to be less Atlanticist than his predecessors. I don’t say that to criticise; I merely observe it.
The President can’t ignore the changing world. He would be failing in his duty to America if he did. He is likely to be followed by many Presidents who must take account of strategic realities, however bound emotionally they may be to the ties of the “special relationship”.
It is time to consign this phrase to history. We don’t need it.
Despite self-interests that may be diverging, what binds Britain and America together is tangible and reassuring.
We do a lot of business together. The United Kingdom is the largest single foreign investor in the United States. We are huge trading partners. Our citizens are familiar with each other: millions of tourists travel back and forth across the Atlantic each year.
We have strong cultural ties. Our shared tastes in music, film, theatre and television keep us close together – emotionally and psychologically. This comes so naturally we’re barely conscious of it.
I wonder what proportion of people protesting outside the US Embassy at any given moment, head home via Pizza Hut or Kentucky Fried Chicken, stopping off on their way to pick up a Budweiser beer, before settling down to watch yet another re-run of “Friends” on their television sets.
These shared cultural tastes are mirrored by shared political views. Our outlook on the world – our ambitions for it – are not identical, nor could they be, but they are strikingly similar.
Security and Intelligence co-operation is profound, vital and deep. When I first attended meetings between British and American military commanders I was astonished at the free and easy exchanges between them. Secrets they would fiercely shield from third nations were discussed without inhibition.
Our Anglo-Saxon sensibilities place great importance on respect for the individual, the rule of law, the virtues of prosperity and the liberty of progress for all. Instincts like these are made policy flesh; they are what – one hopes and expects – will guide our relations with the new communities coming forward in Tunis, Tripoli, Damascus and Cairo.
These are not dissolvable links – they are solid. We can continue to rely on them. And yet ….
It is the “And yet” I wish to focus on: the divergent issues that could strain – even weaken – the relationship, if we permit them to do so.
“My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, declares an old Arab proverb, reflecting a basic tenet of human behaviour. But what happens to friendship when the enemy is no longer a threat?
There is no longer a Soviet threat to bind us together. What does this mean for NATO?
For 62 years, NATO has been the guarantor of security and freedom in Europe. Since the Soviet Union fell apart twenty years ago, its role has been problematic. We know we need NATO, but can’t quite identify why: this has led to a progressive diminution of the European input into the Alliance.
Understandably, the US is alarmed at this and frankly, the Europeans should be shame faced about it. The future role of NATO may be opaque, but it remains the most visible and tangible military bond uniting Britain and Europe with the US. Europeans would be wise to focus on the comments of former US Defence Secretary, Bob Gates, who warned Europe over relying too much on America. Mr Gates is surely right.
His discomfort with an alliance where member nations all enjoy the benefits of the grouping, but only a few deal with the “hard” military graft on the ground, is entirely reasonable. It is simply not acceptable for some countries to put limits on their operational commitment to NATO.
Mr Gates warns correctly, and I quote: “ If current trends in the decline of European defence capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost …. there is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance.”.
That could not – would not – have been said before the collapse of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. And it would not have been said publicly by the cautious Mr Gates if it were not being thought privately by policy makers in Washington.
Since, after the Presidential election, it is likely the US will cut total defence spending, it is a warning that it would be very unwise for Europe to ignore.
One threat to NATO countries is growing: the danger of cyber-attack. It is probable that more damage is being done to our interests through cyber theft of military, scientific and technical secrets than through any other form of sabotage. To combat that, the UK alone has already spent hundreds of millions in improving our cyber defences. Even so, this is an area that requires the closest possible co-operation between NATO members.
We know that NATO needs to change. But we need to agree how. To let it wither through neglect would be reckless policy. Although a present threat to the European Continent is highly unlikely, that could change.
Europe needs to lock America into NATO, not allow policy drift to diminish her commitment to it. It is simply not credible for Europe to sit back, cut defence budgets and blithely expect the US to bear a wholly disproportionate cost of defending her.
A new settlement on NATO: its role, its funding and fairer nation state contributions, is long overdue. Mr Gates expresses American frustration, but, as American eyes are drawn increasingly to the East, it is Britain and Europe – in their own interests – who ought to be arguing most for early and definitive decisions on NATO’s future.
There are other potential fissures we should not ignore. In America, I detect a contempt for what they see as feeble European policy. In Europe, I see a similar disregard for aspects of American policy, as well as a lofty disdain for its criminal justice system, with its harsh penalties. Some disagreements may be peripheral, but the mutual distaste is tangible.
Economic management is a damaging area of friction that could get worse.
The US blames the global slowdown in large part on the on-going Euro crisis. Mitt Romney attacks President Obama, saying his “answer is to borrow money …. just like Europe. Europe’s answers are not the right solutions”. This is not intended to be flattering to Europe. Indeed, it is dismissive, and – perhaps – with reason. A series of top-level meetings have failed to damp down a crisis that is having a world-wide impact.
This disregard is two-way traffic. Europeans point derisively at Lehman’s collapse, and its aftermath. When US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Europe to get its act together over Greek debt, he was met with a mixture of public indignation and private scorn. There was much talk of “pots” and “kettles”. Yet it is telling that no-one reacted so dismissively to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he made a similar assessment of the Eurozone.
Does this mutual disdain between the US and Continental Europe matter to the UK? Yes, it does.
If it continues, bilateral relations may be weakened. Why so? It is a truth expressed too rarely that the US expects the United Kingdom to use her Anglo-Saxon influence within the European Union. She wishes our shared views on free trade, on deregulation, on low taxation and on fiscal responsibility to be presented within Europe.
If US links with the EU weaken, if her interest wanes, if she looks elsewhere, the British value to America weakens too, and so, potentially, does an elemental part of the Anglo-American alliance.
Some will see this differently. They argue that, if the US is disillusioned with Continental Europe, and the UK is frustrated within the EU – both of which propositions are true at the moment – that the solution is simple: the US and the UK should move closer together.
Some Atlanticists and extreme Euro-sceptics go further: they argue that enhanced collaboration with the US is an alternative to the UK-EU nexus. This is sheer fantasy. The US does not want the UK as a proxy 51st State. It is the sensible, pragmatic Anglo-Saxon voice in Europe that the US welcomes: remove that, and the value of Britain to America diminishes.
What virtues do the UK and the US separately bring to the relationship? It is – in terms of crude economic and political power – an Alliance of Un-equals. America’s contribution is evident and massive: what does Britain bring to the table?
I would say a lot: although there is one area – to which I will turn shortly – where we could do better.
First and foremost, in addition to Britain’s trade and investment role, she is the principal military ally of the US. With her immense military capability, the US could manage without us: but she prefers not to do so. Militarily, we are her first – and most reliable – partner.
The UK has historic knowledge and niche abilities that complement American influence. As American author, John Updike put it: “America is a land whose centre is nowhere: England one whose centre is everywhere”. On 9/11, I was staying at the British Embassy in Washington.
That night, most of the British intelligence hierarchy were flown in from the UK to brief and consult with their American counterparts.
And the UK has a wide diplomatic reach. American diplomacy is more persuasive and compelling if it has British diplomacy alongside it. Any superpower, acting alone, can seem isolated, can be characterised as the bully on the block. With a strong ally, arguing from conviction for the same policy, that risk is diminished.
There is one further role the UK can offer: that of the candid friend. A candid friend is more valuable than an unquestioning echo.
We shall never know for sure but, perhaps, if the UK had been more candid in expressing doubts about the second Iraq War, events may have unfolded differently.
At the outset, the general assumption was that Saddam did have WMD. I’m sure that was the intelligence served up to the then Prime Minister.
But the real questions were: what sort of WMD? Were they deliverable? How imminent a threat was Iraq? And did any threat require action against such a tight deadline?
Several facts are relevant. On the basis of an IAEA assessment, the UN Security Council almost closed its file on Iraq’s nuclear programme in the late 1990’s. And, as we now know, the British Government were advised in 2002 that Saddam’s nuclear programme was frozen – and Iraq was at least five years from producing a useable nuclear device.
With this information, a candid friend might have cautioned against precipitate – I emphasise precipitate – action. But they did not.
Upon mature reflection today, I would argue that the UK’s apparent unquestioning support for the US, did not serve either country well. We could have done better.
Close as we are, we do not have to march in lock step. Our relationship is such that we can – and should – sometimes strike an independent stance as in the recent air campaign over Libya. The US was heavily involved, but it was the British and the French who took the diplomatic and military lead.
We might want to get used to more independence – especially in our dealings with the Muslim world. It may be helpful – and prudent – for the US to “lead from behind” in some circumstances. We cannot – and must not – place the burden of leadership unfailingly on her. Others should share responsibility where they can.
I believe the UK and Europe could also take a more pro-active role in the MEPP. The Quartet has not made advances. Indeed, after a total of twenty years of negotiation, we seem as far away from a solution as ever.
But it seems to me – as I look forward – that Israel needs a settlement every bit as much as the Palestinians. The present sour atmosphere, worsened by Israeli settlement policy, is isolating Israel and – if the Arab Spring leads to more democratic governments in the Middle East – will isolate her further and, perhaps, dangerously so. This is unwise policy.
In the last few days we have seen the IAEA report confirming that Iran is most probably developing a nuclear weapons capability. I believe this justifies a tough international response. I would suggest upgrading the present sanctions on proliferation to incorporate more financial sanctions, sanctions on oil and gas as well as designation of named individuals involved in the weapons programme.
Ideally these would be UN sanctions but, if China or Russia block that, EU sanctions as a fall-back. It would be a tragedy if hostility to Israel inhibited that: Israel may feel alone but in truth she is not – but she does need to mobilise international support, not alienate it.
There are many reasons why we need progress on the MEPP.
UNESCO’s decision to admit Palestine as a full Member State – despite diplomatic pressure not to do so from America and the loss of the US sixty million dollar budget payment – is an indication of widespread unease over the present impasse. Entry into UNESCO is likely to be followed by Palestinian applications to the World Health Organisation and other UN bodies.
This rejection of American policy – for that is what the UNESCO decision is – is an indication that much of the world blames the present stalemate, in part, on internal politics within the US. No doubt, because of US power, this point is put only sparingly to American policy makers, but it is put scathingly to third parties. Once again, the candid friend should tell America this.
We might too, be more candid with Israel. At present, their policy – and that of the Quartet – is not to engage with Hamas who, as senior Israeli Ministers correctly point out, fire rockets into Israel.
I understand this view – especially with the present polarisation of opinion in the country. But here, I think, the UK can offer valuable advice from direct experience.
The IRA bombed Northern Ireland and the UK mainland for many years. For as long as we held the position of never negotiating with terrorists, the bombs kept coming. It was only when we engaged the IRA directly – albeit initially through intermediaries – that we began a process that led to peace. Talking and talking and talking – continually, and without huge gaps in time for backsliding – can bring together the most intransigent positions.
“We won’t negotiate with terrorists” is clear-cut policy and, one could argue, high-minded. But it makes it easy for the rocket attacks to continue. The more difficult decision is to try to negotiate, even against provocation and domestic criticism: it may be the unavoidable preamble to settlement.
After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya I doubt there is much appetite – except as a last resort – for more military involvement. We may be moving into an era where diplomacy and soft power will take a higher profile. If so, I welcome that. It plays to British strengths. And, since UK and US objectives are so often the same – or similar – it should help both our countries.
I would like to see the UK extend our diplomatic reach and our ambitions for diplomacy. As our “hard” power softens, our “soft” power must increase.
I claim – immodestly for the British – that embedded in our national character is a gift for diplomacy. We should use it, encourage it, enhance it – both for trade and political purposes. We live in a tough world. We should use all our assets to advance our interests.
I don’t view “soft power” as a “soft option”, nor as some ill-defined “third way” that exists only to soothe the conscience of liberal elites. Diplomacy requires patience and determination, and is characterised by intelligence, pragmatism, empathy and the transparent rule of law.
It should be backed by stick and carrot: by a willingness to use economic and political pressure in pursuit of our objectives. “Soft power”: Yes. “Soft attitude”: No.
This is an area that can achieve so much – for Britain and America. Where it fails, it doesn’t exclude military action in appropriate circumstances. But if it precedes military action, it helps justify it.
In our inter-connected world, it is through “soft” power – and painstaking negotiation – that the really big challenges will be resolved – most obviously in making international bodies relevant to the modern world, and in the areas of energy security, climate change, aid policy – and peace-making as opposed to peace keeping.
Soft power will embrace new alliances that unite the dominant global players. At the foundation of those alliances, Britain and America – with their common view of the world – will be likely to stand shoulder to shoulder.
They will do so – not as the by product of a “special relationship” – but as pragmatic colleagues and candid friends who can bring others along with our shared vision for progress and prosperity – for all the 7 billion of us, and rising – who share the same resources of the same planet.
And, if this comes about, perhaps even Dean Acheson will finally be confounded: Britain will have found a role.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening address to the London Peace Implementation Conference on Bosnia, held at Lancaster House in London on Wednesday 4th December 1996.
PRIME MINISTER:
Could I begin by extending a warm welcome to the fifty-six delegations of the Peace Implementation Council assembled here today.
This is the fourth time in as many years that I have had the pleasure of welcoming many of you to London for a key international conference on the future of Bosnia.
So to all of you who are returning, it is excellent to see you again. And to those of you here for the first time, it is very good to have you here.
When we last met here in Lancaster House a year ago – for the first ever session of the Peace Implementation Council – the conflict in Bosnia had just ended. It had claimed over 200,000 lives; and it had forced more than two million people to flee their homes.
At that meeting, we set ourselves the task of ensuring that the guns remained silent. And we embarked on the massive task of implementing the peace settlement and rebuilding a shattered nation.
One year on, we should not understate the achievements:
– the guns have stayed silent. The armies have disengaged and have returned to barracks. Heavy weapons have been put in cantonments;
– national, entity and cantonal elections have been held;
– reconstruction has begun, with hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last twelve months;
– a quarter of a million refugees have returned to their homes;
– Sarajevo, for so long a city under siege and a symbol of the Bosnian war, has been transformed;
– the new Presidency has begun its work and agreement has been reached on the structure of the Council of Ministers.
This is a substantial record.
It would be easy to claim that we should have done better, that more refugees should have returned, or that the new central institutions are not yet working.
But that would be to undervalue how much has been achieved. And it would fail to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of so many different organisations and individuals over the last year:
– the drafters of the Peace Agreement who, under American leadership and with Contact Group support, drove the negotiations to a successful conclusion;
– the 60,000 strong NATO-led implementation force, drawn from over thirty nations, which represents the biggest such effort that NATO has ever undertaken. It proved itself a success – and has provided an historic turning point in NATO-Russia co-operation;
– the OSCE, which has organised elections involving about two million people;
– the World Bank and European Commission which have together led the reconstruction effort;
– the 1,500 plus members of the International Police Task Force who have been active throughout Bosnia, monitoring, training and improving police standards;
– and the UNHCR, who have been taking forward the difficult and complex task of refugee return.
I should like to pay a particular tribute to Carl Bildt, who as High Representative, has presided over the civilian side of peace implementation with exceptional energy and dedication, and formidable political skills. He has cajoled the international community and Bosnia’s leaders in equal part, driving forward the peace process.
Could I therefore say to you, Carl, on behalf of all at this Conference, how much we have admired and appreciated your efforts over the last 12 months. No-one could have done more than you to consolidate peace in Bosnia: and we all welcome your agreement to stay on for a few months into 1997.
Last month’s meeting in Paris set the framework for action to consolidate peace in Bosnia over the next two years. Today’s conference focuses in on the next 12 months:
– on the priorities for Bosnia’s leaders;
– and on the tasks and commitments of the international community.
Just before coming here, I was glad to have the opportunity of a talk with Bosnia’s new Presidency. I would like to underline to this wider audience a little of what I have just said privately.
None of us at this conference underestimate the task you face. You are rebuilding a nation, only a few months after a bitter war, with the wounds and divisions not yet healed.
But you were elected by the Bosnian people as their investment in and commitment to a brighter future.
They have placed their trust in you.
They want you to help them restore their homes, reunite their families and recreate the communities in which they once lived in peace.
And they want, above all, to be sure that the war which disfigured Bosnia’s past will never return.
This is a heavy responsibility. And none of it will be easy:
– it will require difficult decisions, difficult compromises, difficult concessions;
– it will require the statesmanship to put the wider interests of your people above short-term or factional concerns;
– and it will require concentration on the substance – on the establishment of your Council of Ministers and of your Central Bank for instance – not on the trivia of protocol.
Over 50 states and international institutions have come to London with one objective in mind: to decide how we can best help you in the future.
We are united in our wish to see Bosnia and Herzegovina succeed, so that you are able to assume in full your rightful place in Europe. The UK has devoted huge resources, both financial and human, to Bosnia over the last few years. We are now planning, with our allies and partners, to maintain troops on Bosnian soil into 1998.
I am sure I am not alone in saying that a peaceful and secure future for Bosnia is a key foreign policy objective – and that our relations with Bosnia’s neighbours will be conditioned by their support for this objective.
But the international community’s efforts in themselves will not be enough. There has to be a real commitment to peace and reconciliation within Bosnia.
And as representatives of the different communities, the people of Bosnia and the international community look to you to lead the way.
What precisely do we look for? The recent agreement on the structure of the Council of Ministers represents excellent and very welcome progress. I know that you are working to nominate individuals to their Ministerial posts as soon as possible. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of your establishing quickly a fully-functioning government with which the international community can deal.
Economic regeneration also has to be a key priority.
In 1996, the international community took the lead in kick-starting the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dedicated efforts by thousands of technical experts, NGOs and IFOR soldiers have restored some of the basic infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people will benefit from the return of electricity this winter. Thousands of children have restarted their education.
But there is a limit to what the international community can do.
It is most important that next year, Bosnia and Herzegovina should accept the primary responsibility for your own economic development. Judging by my own visits, at least, what ordinary people want more than anything else – there as elsewhere – are jobs and a decent standard of living. These modest aspirations can only be achieved by establishing effective institutions and sound, market-based economic policies.
But such policies can only work if people, goods and capital move freely throughout the country. There will be no economic revival while a businessman in Banja Luka cannot pick up the telephone and call Sarajevo.
Moreover, without the right legal framework, the inward investment so crucial to economic recovery will tend to stay away.
The international financial institutions stand ready to help. The international community will continue to provide support. But we look to you to take the lead:
– to set up the Central Bank;
– to pass the necessary legislation;
– and to recognise that in today’s open trading environment, economic cooperation is not an option but a necessity.
We look forward to 1997 also being the year in which large numbers of refugees start to return. In 1996, we achieved a great deal for those already living in Bosnia. But there are hundreds of thousands more in neighbouring states or further afield, who want to return but are unable to do so. We must address their fears and problems.
We need a comprehensive approach, which recognises the linkages between the various refugee groups in the region.
And we need to create conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which refugees feel safe to return. This means:
– full respect for human rights;
– police forces working within international democratic policing standards;
– and genuine freedom of movement. One year on from the signature of the Peace Agreement, ordinary Bosnians are still afraid to cross the line between the two entities. This cannot continue.
I will identify one further priority among the many for 1997. This is full implementation of the arms control commitments in the Peace Agreement, within the agreed deadlines.
The achievement of a sensible balance in armaments in the region is self-evidently necessary for future peace and security. Everyone recognises this: that is why it was agreed at Dayton.
But follow-up has been less than whole-hearted. This cannot be allowed to slip. The international community is determined to maintain pressure on this issue until we have achieved our objectives.
How can the London Conference help with these priorities?
The aim in the next day and a half is to have a detailed debate on all aspects of peace implementation, drawing on the extensive expertise of those around this table.
I suggest that we need to identify precise, practical, tasks and targets in all areas, and commit ourselves to accomplishing them.
So, within the framework of the Peace Agreement, we shall be looking for a series of detailed political undertakings from Bosnia’s leaders. We hope that the representatives of the Entities at this meeting will be ready to make commitments on areas within Entity competence.
The international community will in turn undertake to provide substantial further help and resources, both human and financial. But this international help will be conditional on the willingness within Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement all aspects of the Peace Agreement.
If we can work together to meet these shared goals over the next 12 months, we shall have taken a crucial and irreversible step towards securing Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future, as a nation able to stand by itself, and to look after its own affairs.
Later in this conference, we will hear from Hans Van den Broek about the European Union’s support for the peace process.
This is a key aspect, because Bosnia and Herzegovina’s destiny lies in Europe. All of us look forward to the day when Bosnia and Herzegovina can take its place in European structures and institutions as a successful independent nation based upon the principles and values that we all support.
Much must happen before this vision can be realised. But if we can achieve our objectives for this conference – and then, crucially, carry them through on the ground over the next twelve months – we shall have laid solid foundations for a peaceful and prosperous future for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Jose Maria Aznar, in London on Wednesday 27th November 1996.
PRIME MINISTER:
I would like first to say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Prime Minister here to Downing Street today. He is in no sense a stranger either to me or Downing Street, we have met on a number of occasions when he was Leader of the Opposition and I have been delighted to welcome him here today as Prime Minister.
Over the last two and a half hours we have had the opportunity of covering a very wide range of subjects. We have had a complete run through the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference. On many areas we have a firm agreement, on some areas we are close to agreement, on some areas we still have a difference of view. I was particularly able to welcome the Prime Minister’s decision on full participation in NATO. We also spent some time discussing a range of international matters. Spain has played a distinguished role, for example, in Bosnia and we were able to discuss the prospects there. We discussed of course NATO, we look forward to the OSCE Conference and a range of other matters.
We also discussed a range of matters of bilateral interest. Spain has developed remarkably in recent years and is becoming a growing industrial power within Europe. Our bilateral, industrial, commercial and trading relationship is excellent and is improving. We discussed all this and ways to improve it further.
We also discussed the on-going discussions that have been carrying on for some time over Gibraltar in the Brussels Process. These will be carried forward with an Officials Meeting within the next few days and the next meeting between our Foreign Ministers in late January. We also discussed other matters of mutual bilateral interest – fishing and related matters.
All in all it was an extremely friendly discussion, a very worthwhile discussion and I am delighted the Prime Minister was able to join me. We have agreed on greater bilateral coordination of our position in European matters and will both be keen to take that forward.
So I am delighted both with the nature of the meeting, the conduct of the meeting and the extent of agreement within the meeting and I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister again shortly.
SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:
Thank you. I am delighted to be here and I can simply say that I agree with the statement of the Prime Minister. This meeting has been held in a spirit of confidence and trust and both of us have agreed that what we want for our countries is to increase the trust-based relationship between the two countries and further it and we have worked very hard towards that goal today to establish this enhanced framework of cooperation and friendship between our two countries which has been very useful to discuss many issues.
There is wide agreement on many of those issues and it is also a useful framework in order to discuss those issues where some [indistinct] to come about.
QUESTION:
[Not interpreted].
SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:
There are lots of people in the world who speak English, many people speak English. I am sure Spanish fishermen too can learn to speak English. But that is all [indistinct].
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, are you close to agreement on quota-hopping?
PRIME MINISTER:
No we are not. We were not discussing the details of that, that is a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference and we have set out the protocol and that will be discussed at the IGC.
QUESTION:
[Not interpreted].
PRIME MINISTER:
On the position between the European Union and Spain and Cuba, we wholeheartedly support the Spanish position. I don’t think the way the Cubans treated the Spanish Ambassador was a tolerable way to behave. We agree with the common position that the Spanish are seeking and we will give them our support.
SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:
[Inaudible].
QUESTION:
From the Spanish perspective, it is difficult to understand why quota hopping is not part of the Common Market. I noticed that the Spanish government said the other day in London that there were politics behind the attitude of Britain towards fishing, will you elaborate upon that?
PRIME MINISTER:
It is a dreadful proposition that politics should be behind governments attitudes, I agree that is disgraceful. I cannot imagine what will happen to international affairs if politics intervene, they will have to start from the beginning again and I just don’t know what we will do. We are concerned about the impact upon the fishing villages of the catch that traditionally went into those fishing villages. For every fish at sea, for every boat at sea, there are a large number of people on shore whose livelihoods depend upon the catch being landed on shore. And of course if the catch is taken and then landed elsewhere there is a great deal of difficulty in that respect, so that is one of the problems that has arisen and these are problems that we will address in the Intergovernmental Conference.
QUESTION:
On the same issue of quota hopping, do you think it would be helpful of having a measure which ensured that quota hopping vessels had English speaking crews to enhance understanding?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think there is rather more, that is an element, but there is a series of things I think that Tony Baldry said and we set out our position in a protocol that we have tabled for the IOC.
QUESTION:
[Inaudible].
SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:
[Inaudible].
QUESTION:
[Inaudible].
SPANISH PRIME MINISTER:
[Inaudible].
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t really have much to add to that. We have a mature relationship with Spain. When we meet we don’t only discuss the things upon which we are in agreement, we discuss the things upon which we are not yet in agreement, and it was in that spirit that we discussed Gibraltar and quota hopping.
QUESTION:
[Indistinct] full agreement for the IGC unless you can get agreement on the issue of quota hopping?
PRIME MINISTER:
You are assuming we are not going to get an agreement on quota hopping. We have made it clear that we will negotiate very toughly at the IGC on the issues we have set forward. We have certainly made it clear we expect to have agreement on some issues before there is general agreement. Don’t invite me to stir the pot even more. We will fight very hard for our agreement and I expect that we will be able to reach a conclusion.
Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech, held on 23rd October 1996.
Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the State Visits of His Excellency the President of Israel in February and of the President of Brazil in December next year. We also look forward to our visit to Canada in June and July and to our State Visits to Thailand later this month and to Pakistan and India in October next year, the fiftieth anniversary of their independence.
National security continues to be of the highest importance. My Government will continue to play a major role in NATO’s adaptation and in decisions on its enlargement, and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Kingdom’s minimum nuclear deterrent will be maintained.
Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction remains a priority. Early provision will be made for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. My Government will pursue negotiations on a Convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.
In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union’s competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
My Government will promote the further global liberalisation of trade, in particular at the Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation, and will continue to work for transatlantic free trade in this context.
My Government will continue actively to support peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, encouraging full compliance with the Peace Agreement and promoting reconciliation between the former warring parties.
Support will continue for the search for a durable peace in the Middle East.
My Government will continue to work for a successful transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. They will work on behalf of its people to preserve their way of life and to promote the territory’s continued stability and prosperity, founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law.
Preparations will be made for the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held in Edinburgh in October 1997, and for the second Asia-Europe Meeting in London in 1998.
Support for the United Nations remains a priority. My Government will continue to work for a United Nations that is more effective, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.
The fight against terrorism, organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority as will action to protect and improve the environment.
My Government will continue to promote respect for human rights and the international rule of law.
A substantial aid programme will be maintained to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.
In Northern Ireland, my Government’s priority will be to maintain progress towards peace, prosperity and reconciliation, based on a comprehensive political settlement commanding widespread support. They stand ready to introduce legislation to provide for the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives in Northern Ireland. They will maintain close and friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.
Members of the House of Commons,
Estimates for the public service will be laid before you.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
My Government will continue with firm financial policies designed to support sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, while maintaining low inflation. Fiscal policy will continue to be set to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. My Government will reduce further the share of national income taken by the public sector. They will continue to promote enterprise and further improve the performance of the economy with the aim of creating the strongest industrial economy in Western Europe in the medium term and doubling living standards over the next twenty-five years. They will promote fewer, better and simpler regulations to reduce unnecessary burdens on business.
My Government will continue to support competitiveness through advancing knowledge, improving educational and skill levels and promoting a flexible, efficient labour market. Legislation will be introduced to widen choice and diversity, improve discipline and raise standards in schools.
A Bill will be introduced to reform the sentencing and supervision of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders so as to provide greater protection for the public. Legislation will be introduced to support the fight against organised crime, including establishing a National Crime Squad. A Bill will be introduced to strengthen controls on the ownership of firearms.
Legislation will be brought forward to strengthen the powers to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. A Bill will again be brought before you to authorise the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel.
Legislation will be introduced to improve and develop primary health care services. A Bill will be brought forward to combat social security fraud.
Legislation will be introduced to implement proposals contained in the English and Welsh Rural White Papers in relation to parish and community councils and to provide rate relief for small village shops.
In Scotland legislation will be introduced to abolish automatic early release from prison and to make other changes in the criminal justice system to improve public protection. A Bill will be brought forward to enable the transfer of publicly-owned crofting estates to crofting trusts.
My Government will introduce legislation to enable reform of the procedures of the civil courts, and other measures of law reform.
Other measures will be laid before you.
My Government will also publish Bills in draft for consultation on the introduction of voluntary identity cards and on measures to help people make better provision for their long term care needs in old age.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Florence on Saturday 22nd June 1996.
PRIME MINISTER:
Firstly, I apologise for the fact the Foreign Secretary isn’t here. He is still representing the United Kingdom in the plenary session that is still continuing.
Let me just say a word or two about the weekend. I think it has been a very satisfactory weekend both for Europe as a whole and for the United Kingdom. We reached yesterday a satisfactory resolution of the dispute on beef, a resolution that meets the objectives I set out, and now provides a concrete way of moving forward with the ban being lifted in stages, and with each stage firmly based, as we wished it to be, on objective criteria and science. So I am more than content with that. I know what a difficult issue this has been, not just domestically in the United Kingdom, but a very difficult issue as well for some of our European partners. And I am grateful to the Commission and to the Presidency for the work that they put into helping us ensure a satisfactory way forward.
Over the remainder of the weekend we have made quite a lot of progress in different aspects of European policy. We believe very strongly that the sort of Europe we should be building is a Europe that works as a partnership, a Europe that recognises that there will be no success unless enterprise is given a pride of place in European policies. I think that is gaining ground as a European concept, though not yet universally accepted.
There was agreement yesterday about the need to improve the performance of Europe as a whole on job creation and competitiveness. And self-evidently, if one looks across Europe, the problems of creating jobs must be amongst the first of the difficulties that we all face.
There is an increasing recognition of the need for more flexible open markets, the importance of supporting small businesses, precisely because it is from the small business sector that the new jobs will come in the years that lie immediately ahead.
Some of our partners in Europe prefer to present these policies within their own familiar context of social partnership. Well we have different traditions in the United Kingdom and we have made clear again, unsurprisingly, to our colleagues that the United Kingdom will not be bound into institutional structures of centralised social partnership. We think those would inhibit rather than help businesses and we have reiterated that view this weekend.
We have also made some progress on developing the agenda for the Intergovernmental Conference to reflect the matters we think are of most importance. In the conclusions they specifically refer to the need to review the workings of the European Court of Justice, we strongly welcome that, and to further entrench subsidiarity as a treaty item, that also is very welcome, with a full report on progress at the next summit in Dublin.
There are other items in the agenda which, to be frank, we are rather less keen on. We made clear in the White Paper on our negotiating position in the IGC that we remain opposed to future extensions of qualified majority voting, for substantial extensions of the power of the European parliament or to the removal of national controls in areas of cooperation like justice and the foreign affairs pillar.
One other aspect that I think is worth mentioning, is the fact that within the Intergovernmental Conference we will be insisting that changes are made to ensure that the health and safety provisions of the treaty are used for health and safety, and not used more widely to undermine the social chapter opt-out that the United Kingdom agreed with its partners at the Maastricht negotiations. That is a matter of some importance. We reached an agreement on the social chapter opt-out. We cannot accept that agreement being broken by the use of a different treaty head to pursue the same sort of legislation.
We will also be looking at the Intergovernmental Conference for a resolution of some of the important issues under the Common Fisheries Policy. One very important outcome from our discussion that I very much welcome, was the decision to seek to bring forward a draft treaty text for discussion at Dublin in December. I very much welcome this, and for this reason. I think the sooner we can actually see the substantive detailed points everyone proposes to put in the treaty, the sooner we can get down to genuine debates rather than some of the shadow boxing that occurs in advance of detailed treaty discussion. And I think it would be useful to have that information both for an informed debate across the European Union, and also of course within the United Kingdom about the importance of our arguments on the future development of the Union.
Let me touch just very briefly on one or two other matters. One important area of our discussions covered justice and home affairs. And we agreed in that discussion to build on our cooperation in the fight against drugs and organised crime, and that follows on from the British joint initiative with France to combat the drugs trade in the Caribbean, so much of the drugs that reach northern Europe come actually from Latin America, using the Caribbean as a staging post.
We also reached a conclusion on the establishment of Europol that reflected the concern we have had about maintaining the independence of the United Kingdom courts. That of course was the sticking point that caused us to block progress at the Cannes Summit a year or so ago. We have now reached an agreement in the protocol that the UK will not be subject to ECJ jurisdiction in this area. That is a good result and I think it is an illustration, not the only one, but an illustration of how a more flexible approach to Europe will enable us to deal with matters much more satisfactorily in the future.
We discussed the progress on the enlargement of the European Union and agreed a number of policy declarations on external relations, including former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Russia.
I think that the Council ended with relationships in good repair across the European Union, and with attention now able to focus on the important issues that lie ahead. We look forward to the debate on those issues. We have set out very clearly the particular vision that we have of the development of the European Union and I look forward to engaging in debate on that in the Intergovernmental Conference and in the two summits that we will have in the second half of this year, both in Dublin, one I think in October, an interim summit in October is likely, and then the usual half-yearly summit in Dublin in the middle of December.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION (Reuters):
Mr Clarke has said that he sees circumstances in which it would be in Britain’s interest to join monetary union, and also sees circumstances in which it would be in Britain’s interest to be in the first group of countries going into that. Do you agree?
PRIME MINISTER:
What the Chancellor has done is repeat what he and I have said a hundred times in the past. We have an option to enter – to opt in or opt out. Self-evidently since we have an option to go in or an option to stay out, there is a possibility of exercising both options. That has been exactly the position since the Maastricht Treaty. I don’t know exactly what the Chancellor said but that is precisely the position, it remains that and has been that way for a very long time.
QUESTION:
Are there any circumstances in which you would ever envisage employing the tactics of non-cooperation again, or was that just a one-off, never to be repeated?
PRIME MINISTER:
We faced a unique situation. I cannot recall an occasion in the European Union in the past where on a matter that was of vital national interest for one nation, in this case the United Kingdom, the other 14 members were not actually engaging in cooperative discussion with us. I hope that will not occur again.
But on this occasion what happened was that we put forward repeated ideas of how we might deal with this, and instead of there being a constructive dialogue about that, in essence people said very interesting, now go away and produce something better. Well I just have to say to you that is no way to treat the United Kingdom, it is no way to treat any member of the European Union. And the second element that led to the policy you refer to was the fact that the European Commission had unanimously recommended the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives, the scientists had recommended it and then it was blocked, clearly as a political decision, by not all, but a minority, of our partners. Now that clearly was not a tolerable circumstance. So providing the normal canons of goodwill apply, I would see no need for such a policy again, but of course it is dependent upon the canons of goodwill. Where non-cooperation was not extended to us, we did not extend it to others and that was the genesis of this dispute.
QUESTION:
A number of member states have said they are now going to be seeking sanctions which carry out what Dick Spring called serial vetoing in the future, within the context of the IGC. Will you support or oppose that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Of course I am not going to support that. The IGC is agreed by unanimity. I don’t believe that is correct and if there were a proposition of that sort, the United Kingdom would not accept it, it would not accept it whether it was aimed at us, and it would not accept it if it was aimed at any other member state of the European Union either. Each of the members of the European Union is an individual nation state, whether a large one like Germany, France or Britain, or one of the smaller members. And they cannot just, in important areas, be told that they are going to tag on behind the rest of the European Union if it is not in their national interest to do so. So of course I would not agree to anything like that and, in case you ask, neither would I agree to the abolition of the veto.
QUESTION:
What is the British position on a possible Europeanisation of NATO, and what is the British position regarding the enlargement of NATO to central European countries and the Russian veto on it?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are two elements to that question. As far as what you call the Europeanisation of NATO is concerned, well I don’t see that. I do see Europe playing a larger role in NATO using as its arm the Western European Union. I see the Western European Union developing as the European arm of NATO, I think that is now on its way to being established policy and I welcome that. It is time for the big European nations to play a larger role in the sum total of NATO’s commitment and I think that is happening and we have long wished to see that.
As far as the expansion of NATO is concerned, we are in favour of the expansion of NATO, but I think it has to be done gradually and it has to be done in a non-provocative fashion and I think that is eminently achievable. The expansion of NATO, of course, is a two-way project. Not only does NATO expand its membership but the new members must accept obligations from NATO, it is a two-way street. But I do favour the expansion of NATO, I think it will expand but I think it will do so at a leisurely pace.
QUESTION (Chris Buckland, Daily Express):
Do you see any possibility that the next Conservative manifesto will rule out the UK joining a single currency in the lifetime of the next Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER:
We have set out the position, Chris, on a number of occasions and I see no reason to suppose that it is going to change.
QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):
Listening to your fellow Heads of government in the last 24 hours, I think all of them that have spoken have said Britain could have got a beef deal earlier had it been less tardy in producing an eradication policy and a framework agreement. They also all seem to echo what the Swedish Prime Minister said last night: “The British government will pay a very, very heavy price for what it has done”. How do you react to that?
PRIME MINISTER:
As to the second point, if anyone thinks they can threaten us in that fashion they are in for a very nasty shock. Neither do I think that is the view of our European partners, neither do I think that is going to happen. As far as the first part of your question is concerned, I am bound to say in the immortal words used some years ago – they would say that, wouldn’t they. But the reality is that if a deal was available earlier, why was there no cooperation on a deal, why was there 8 weeks with no progress whatsoever and only progress latterly after we had imposed the non-cooperation policy? I didn’t do that lightly, it isn’t in my nature to go out and lightly confront unless there was a reason for doing so. And there was a reason for doing so. There was a reason because we were not getting the sort of cooperation we were entitled to from our European partners, and there was a reason for doing so because the people who ought not to be forgotten in this dispute are also the 650,000 people in the British beef industry who needed to know what was going to happen to the future of their livelihoods. And for those reasons it was necessary to reach a constructive debate. We were not reaching a constructive debate. I sought another method of ensuring we got one and I am delighted to say we have.
But as to suggestions that there are going to be reciprocal measures – well, nonsense.
QUESTION:
[Indistinct] price of staying in the government, the non-cooperation?
Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Prague with Prime Minister Klaus, given in Prague on Thursday 18th April 1996.
MR KLAUS:
Good Morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Allow me to use this opportunity to thank Prime Minister John Major for his visit to Prague. We have had very long, very substantial and indeed very friendly, important, talks which took several hours. I believe we both are convinced that meetings like this are indeed very important in terms of building of confidence, in terms of development of mutual knowledge which is of very great importance, especially in today’s Europe. And my last news, the great majority of the content of our talks was concerned with international policy, foreign policy, although we also informed each other about our domestic affairs. We have talked on such subjects as the European Union and NATO. I believe the United Kingdom is one of the countries which supports our admission to these organisations and with which we also share our ideas about the time schedule of these admissions.
PRIME MINISTER:
Can I firstly thank the Prime Minister and the Czech nation for their hospitality not just to me over the last day, but to the enormously warm and friendly reception that The Queen received on her recent visit. I know from my conversations subsequently to that visit how much she enjoyed coming here and what a remarkable experience she found it. We regard the Czech Republic as an old and valued friend and I think that visit helped to cement the relationship.
The Prime Minister and I have met on a number of occasions in recent years and the opportunity for lengthy discussions over the last 24 hours has enabled us to look in detail at several areas of particular interest, most obviously the Czech Republic’s determination to become a member of the European Union and also of NATO. As the Prime Minister indicated, we look forward to the Czech Republic joining us in both these organisations, and we took the opportunity over the last day of discussing in detail what that might mean and in particular, as far as the European Union is concerned, what is likely to come out of the intergovernmental conference and what that will mean for the organisation when negotiations for new membership begin. Although other issues sometimes seem to dominate the European Union agenda, there is no doubt that the prospect of widening the European Union and carrying it across central Europe towards East Europe is the most important issue facing the European Union at the present time, and an opportunity that has not occurred in the past, and may not occur in the future, unless the present opportunity is taken to widen the Union. And the sort of matter we discussed was how we could look at the individual stepping stones from the application to join, to the date of joining, to steadily meld together the interests both of the Union and the Czech Republic.
Although we spent most of our time on those two subjects, we did also look at a number of bilateral matters as well. We both noted with some satisfaction the growth in trade between our two countries and we both agree that the scope for further improvement still remains. This was very much a working discussion, not in broad generalities but looking at the details of matters that will concern both of us in the future. I found it a very useful and worthwhile occasion and I hope that the Prime Minister did as well.
Let me just say finally that the only disappointment on this trip is that President Havel, whom I have met on many occasions in recent years, was abroad on this particular occasion and I was unable to see him, but I hope that will be rectified before too long.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION:
With regard to the fact that you are travelling to Moscow, and with regard to another fact that Moscow would like to promote something like participation in the political part of NATO, are you of the same opinion as Mr Solana that there is no such thing as a political participation only in NATO?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think the purpose of NATO expansion is perfectly clear. We are looking at NATO expansion, but of course NATO expansion is not going to come rapidly over a long distance, clearly that will concentrate in the first instance on central Europe and I think will concentrate on the Czech Republic and adjacent countries. And we will need to take that in a measured and cautious way. NATO will expand, of that I am certain. But it will need to be taken in a measured and cautious way for two reasons. Firstly because the expansion of NATO involves obligations by NATO that cannot lightly be entered into, it cannot just be a paper exercise. If NATO is going to expand, the same obligations to new members must be extended as are extended to the present membership of NATO. And secondly of course, the new members have their own obligations to NATO as well and they will need to be discussed and examined. So I think discussions beyond that on other matters, political elements of NATO, I think they are really not remotely for the present time.
QUESTION:
Prime Minister, can I ask you for your reaction to the IRA bomb that went off in London last night? And also [indistinct] Mr Santer today on the continued ban on British beef?
PRIME MINISTER:
If I can turn to the IRA bomb, at least I assume it was an IRA bomb but I don’t believe they have yet confirmed that that is the case. It seems to have been an exercise for no apparent purpose other than to remind people that they still have the capacity to mount terrorist exercises. The implications of the bomb are clear. It is an indication from the IRA that they continue to be prepared to threaten the peace process and to threaten the prospects of a better future for all the people in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
The implications for them are equally clear. Unless there is a ceasefire, a verifiable ceasefire, that is clear cut, then there will be no part in the peace process for Sinn Fein.
It seems to me to be a very odd time to have mounted this exercise when at this very moment in the United Kingdom we are introducing the legislation that will lead to elections and will lead to the prospect of all-party talks on the question of Northern Ireland, a particularly futile time for them to behave in this fashion. But what they must understand is what we have done – the British government, the Irish government, political parties – in the process we have set in train, is to open up the possibility for Sinn Fein to join the democratic process. But if they thumb their noses at the democratic process, they will not be able to stop it. The legislation will go ahead, the talks will go ahead, the process of seeking a permanent peace in Northern Ireland will go ahead, and those discussions will go ahead without the participation of Sinn Fein and those people who support bombing exercises like last night. That must be crystal clear to them and I hope that they don’t misunderstand that in the slightest.
And I think there is just one other point to make. All around the world people recognise what has been done to try and bring a permanent peace to Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein and the IRA want to turn themselves completely into pariahs in every part of the world, then this sort of continued exercise is precisely the way to do it. But they will not derail the plans that we have in mind.
On the second point about BSE and the European ban, the European ban is unjustified, there is not a shred of doubt in my mind about that. The national bans were imposed, then a European ban was imposed, and since then we have the evidence of the scientists that British beef is safe. We have the assertion from the World Health Organisation that British beef is safe; we have the assertion from the Agriculture Commissioner that he would eat British beef and British beef is safe; we have the same assertion from President Santer that British beef is safe. And on the back of that it defies logical belief that the ban continues in the way that it does. And I will express to President Santer and my other European partners, whom I will see in the next few days, precisely the sentiments that I have expressed over the last few moments.
QUESTION:
[Indistinct] NATO and the EU [indistinct] was it an exchange of information or are there any concrete results?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, it was not just a question of exchanging information, it was a question of looking at the practical measures that will need to be taken as the Czech Republic move towards membership of the European Union. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding about precisely what needs to be done and how we move from the present situation, where the Czech Republic is an aspiring member of the European Union, and the date when they become a full member. And the sort of thing that the Prime Minister and I looked at in detail was how we can deepen and improve the relationship in that intervening period. Are there ways in which the European market can progressively be opened to the Czech Republic? That is but one illustration of a number that we looked at. How can the economic and political dialogue between the Czech Republic and their partners in the European Union be improved before full membership. So these were practical issues.
It was a working meeting, it wasn’t a meeting to take final decisions, that is a matter for the European Union as a whole, not just for one member state. But it was an opportunity to exchange views on how the United Kingdom, who strongly supports the widening of the Community and in particular the membership of the Czech Republic, how we can help to play a role to speed that up, to bring that about, and how we can work with the Czech Republic to deal with improving the relationship between the European Union and the Czech Republic in the interregnum before there is full membership. So very much a working meeting along those lines.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Prague with Prime Minister Klaus, given in Prague on Wednesday 17th April 1996.
MR KLAUS:
[Not translated].
PRIME MINISTER:
Let me just add to some of the points the Prime Minister has just made. We have a very close relationship between our two countries, no bilateral problems. And so we have been able to spend the majority of our time this afternoon discussing two subjects of great importance to both of us. The first is future developments in the European Union and in particular what is likely to emerge from the intergovernmental conference that has now begun; and what implications that will have for future enlargement of the European Union and in particular the entry of the Czech Republic into the European Union as a full member.
I expressed the view that the widening of the European Union remains the most important European issue to be discussed. I think there is an historic opportunity, with the widening of the Union to bring the Czech Republic and other countries in fully to the Western family of democratic nations, and I believe it is attractive both for the existing European Union and the applicant members for that to happen as soon as it is economically and politically desirable for it to be done.
The Prime Minister and I discussed many of the matters that will be at issue in the intergovernmental conference, and then the likely timetable for discussions with the Czech Republic and the European Union about subsequent membership.
There will be a number of applicants to the European Union. It is our British view that however many we may begin to negotiate with at the same time for future entry, entry itself should be discriminatory in the sense that those countries should enter the European Union when they are economically ready to do so, and no-one should be delayed so that there may be a particularly large entry at a later date. And we discussed those and a number of other detailed matters relating to Europe over the last hour or so.
We also spent some time discussing the development of Partnership for Peace and the defence relationship between the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. For example, at the moment there are Czech troops serving with British troops in Bosnia as part of the IFOR contingent and they have a very close and very deep working relationship.
At the moment, as you will know, NATO is considering enlargement and clearly the Czech Republic is one of the prime candidates to join NATO as and when that enlargement proceeds. I am confident it will proceed. I think it will need to proceed at a measured pace. There is much to be decided upon with enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. One has to look both at the obligations that NATO will take on with enlargement, the obligations to the new members, and equally the obligations of the new members to the organisation – NATO – that they are joining. And again we looked at those and what those obligations might be in some detail over the last hour or so.
We anticipate continuing this discussion over dinner a little later and I have no doubt then we will wish to discuss other foreign policy matters, certainly Russia, and other matters of that sort. I think the delights of those discussions lie a little ahead over dinner in a few moments.
I think the Prime Minister is content for us to take any questions on our discussions – it is questions on our discussions – if there are any.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION (Newsweek Magazine):
Mr Klaus, recent polls show that Mr Major is one of the least successful leaders in post-war history. I wonder how can his presence possibly boost the chances of your party in next month’s elections?
MR KLAUS:
It is a very strange question. First, I don’t agree with your analysis of the position and of the success of Prime Minister Major, I definitely don’t agree with that. And I know that the situation in the United Kingdom, is not yet over and I am looking forward to seeing an improving position of John Major’s government. So that is quite clear. And secondly, we are quite happy that John Major is here. Definitely I suppose he is not coming here to boost anyone in the elections, so it is absolutely unnecessary to put it in such a simplified form and way.
PRIME MINISTER:
It is possible perhaps that the questioner did not hear what we have been talking about, two matters of some importance I think to the Czech Republic insofar as NATO is concerned and the European Union is concerned, but perhaps you missed that.
QUESTION:
Do you mind me asking a follow-up to that question? Does that kind of question and that kind of analysis annoy you at this stage?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think it is just silly. I can’t be responsible for silly questions from journalists, that is a matter for the journalists, and the editors and the readers of their journals. But what I am here to discuss with the Prime Minister are matters that we have been discussing in Europe for some time, and we have been discussing with the Czech Republic for some time. The most critically important issue in European politics at the moment is enlargement of the European Union. That is an historic opportunity, as I said a few moments ago, that never occurred in the past and may not readily occur in the future if we don’t take the opportunity. One of the elements of taking that opportunity is the discussions and the decisions that will be made in the intergovernmental conference. And that will be so for this reason: the intergovernmental conference will look at institutional matters related to the future of Europe, once those institutional matters are decided in the conference they will be a matter of fact and that will be the nature of the European Union that the Czech Republic and others will then be negotiating to join. So it is crucially important to the Czech Republic and very important to the interests of the United Kingdom that those decisions are right in the intergovernmental conference so we can take this opportunity to enlarge. And that of course is what we have been discussing on a number of occasions over recent years and in our discussions this afternoon.
QUESTION:
[Indistinct] to EU membership, is there any advice within your gift to Czech people?
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes, there is, but I would give it privately and have done so.
Below is the text of Mr Major’s questions and answers session following his speech to the Western European Union (WEU) Assembly, held in London on Friday 23rd February 1996.
QUESTION (Mr Naulius, Estonia):
Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for sharing with us your vision about European security in future and also for your support for enlargement of the European Union and spreading stability and prosperity to the East. However, for smaller associate partners like the Baltic States their own future is of primary concern and therefore I would ask what is the United Kingdom’s position on NATO and western European enlargement concerning the Baltic States or how do you it is possible to increase security in the area of the Baltic States and the whole Baltic Sea area in this context?
PRIME MINISTER:
There are many aspects to that question. Let me try and take as many of them as I credibly can.
As far as NATO enlargement is concerned, I am in favour of NATO enlargement. I think we have to take it at a practical level. I re-emphasise the point I made a few moments ago: enlargement of NATO is not a one-way option; enlargement of NATO is an obligation for NATO to the new country and it is an obligation for the new country when it joins NATO, so there is a twin obligation there so I think we will take NATO enlargement steadily but securely. The order in which NATO will enlarge I think is a matter yet to be determined, I don’t think there can be any immediate progress over the next few months but I hope towards the end of this year we can begin to look seriously, after we have examined the practicalities of enlargement which are enormous, at what sort of order the enlargement will come in and I think we can say no more about that on this occasion.
As far as the western European Union is concerned, we have of course, including the Baltic States, an associate partnership position at present. What is the best way to develop that?
The associate partner status is unique in the Western European Union and the purpose of it is to give the Central Europeans and indeed the Baltic States a direct involvement in the work of the organisation. I think we can make a good deal more of that than we have thus far.
What we are looking to explore is ways of involving the associate partners more directly in the operational work of WEU. We have work such as mine-clearing, work in Bosnia. I think absorbing increasingly the associate partners into that element of work is the first step. Beyond that, I think it is for the Western European Union to look at the question of further enlargement and I for one would wish to put no impediment in front of that but the first option I think is to increase the absorption of the associate partners not just in conferences and assemblies but in the practical work, including the military work that we hope increasingly is going to be done by the Western European Union.
QUESTION (Mr Van der Linden, The Netherlands):
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that in order to conduct an irreversible process in Europe as was referred to by Federal Chancellor Kohl, we must have a European common defence policy which in the long term must ultimately be part and parcel of the European Union. We cannot have a European political union without defence being a part of that union. May I ask the Prime Minister for his reaction?
PRIME MINISTER:
I think I gave my reaction a few moments ago to that. The British are a very large part of the European defence component in NATO and in the Western European Union. I have to say to colleagues here present that when British troops are on active service I cannot conceive that they would be subordinated to anything other than the British Cabinet in the United Kingdom. I don’t see that there is a circumstance that I can foresee in which the determination and decision-making about British troops in action is going to be available to the European Union or the European Parliament, I cannot foresee that being accepted by this British Government or any other conceivable British Government. I don’t know what time-scale other people have their ambitions in, I tend to deal in practical slabs of time and I cannot foresee at any stage in the future as I see it that we are likely to reach a position in which British troops would have their effective decisions taken for them by the European Union rather than by the British Government, I do not believe that would be acceptable to the British Parliament, it would not be acceptable to me, I cannot believe it would be acceptable to any other British Government and I do not believe it will happen.
QUESTION (Mr Jack Thompson, United Kingdom)
Prime Minister, first of all may I make a remark about your comments earlier about the role of the WEU and say that as far as I am aware, the British Parliament, not only the British Government, supports your view on the role of the WEU so there is unanimity in the British Parliament.
Bearing in mind that in the United States we are running up to presidential elections, there is a Congress which tends to be rather isolationist these days and the situation in the former Yugoslavia is moving into a time I understand when at the end of this year the Americans are saying they are going to pull out of there. As Britain has the chairmanship of the Council of the Western European Union, what role do you think the WEU can play in terms of former Yugoslavia post the Americans leaving, if they do?
PRIME MINISTER:
On the first part of your comments, Jack, let me thank you for what you had to say. I think it is always good for all our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to see on very vital issues there is often cross-party agreement in the House of Commons and I am grateful to you for endorsing the fact that as far as the Western European Union is concerned that is one of those occasions. I think it is useful that our colleagues realise that that is the position on such a fundamentally important issue.
As far as the Implementation Force in Yugoslavia is concerned, it is the general expectation that the force collectively would be able to leave by the end of the year. I don’t think the concept of the Americans leaving unilaterally is one that is acceptable to the other European partners and I think the Americans would understand that when the time came. We hope that we will be able to have had the work done by the end of the year; I very much hope that that is the case. If the work isn’t done, then we will have to examine what needs to be done to ensure that the work can be done but I do not foresee it being a position that the Americans would unilaterally leave; that is not the basis upon which other troops from Europe are presently serving in the former Yugoslavia either from the United Kingdom or from other countries so I hope the circumstance will not arise.
QUESTION (Mr Parisi, Italy):
At a summit held on 6 December 1995, a joint declaration was issued on the WEU within the context of European security at the end of the Italian presidency and the beginning of the British one. What progress has been made in order to apply this joint declaration and has the Ministerial Council of the WEU approved a document referring to WEU’s contribution to the IGC where there are at least three alternative options? Minister of Defence, Mr. Portillo, last December at a WEU meeting said that the British Government considered the debate on this matter as closed within the WEU as this has become within the frame of competence of the IGC. Does the Government then consider that it is easier to arrive at a compromise in future between the 15 members of the European Union rather than the 10 of the WEU?
PRIME MINISTER:
The last part of your question sounded as though it was coming from a blizzard somewhere on the other side of Venus so I am not entirely sure what the last part of your question was but let me deal with the general points.
For some time, Britain has had extremely good defence cooperation with Italy. You mentioned a particular declaration in Florence, I can think of other occasions over the last few years where we have agreed bilaterally with Italy certain matters on the question of defence. As far as how those are developing, we are seeking to develop them as rapidly as possible. There are a whole series of elements in the agreement that was announced to which you refer some time ago, some are now in the process of being implemented, some are not, there is still some way further to go.
As far as the last part of your question is concerned, with your President’s permission, if you would like to repeat the last part I will try and answer it. It was quite impossible to hear on the translation.
QUESTION:
Thank you, Prime Minister. I was referring to the fact that the British Defence Minister, Mr Portillo, last December at the WEU Assembly said that the British government considers that the debate on constitutional matters is close within the WEU whilst the matter will be referred to the IGC. Do you think that the British government is tending towards a compromise which is easier to deal with the 15 European Union countries or is it easier to do this within the 10 member countries of the WEU?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I think the point that Michael Portillo was seeking to make is a reflection of what I was saying a few moments ago, that we do not wish to see the Western European Union subordinated to the European Union in its decision-making capability. Of course the WEU must work very closely with our European Union partners, we agree with that. But the point that Michael was seeking to make was that we don’t want institutional changes that subordinate the decision-making process of the Western European Union to the European Union with obvious future knock-on implications for the Western European Union Assembly and its relations with the European Parliament. That would have been the point that Michael Portillo was seeking to make. We do not favour unhappy changes to the Western European Union.
QUESTION (Leader of French Delegation to Assembly):
The Brussels Commission has made proposals with regard to establishing a Common Market for armaments. Is it the best body to do that and is the British government prepared to participate, given the concentration of the American output in armaments?
PRIME MINISTER:
When it comes to European armaments, the UK defence industry of course is a very major player, amongst the most important in Europe. So we are well attuned already to the benefits of collaboration with our European partners. And we see obvious benefits in extending this cooperation in the form of the European armaments agency, self-evidently that is the case. So we would certainly support continuing work in the Western European armaments group towards that particular end. What we do not see, of course is the European armaments agency simply existing as a body to prevent armaments purchases from elsewhere. There are occasions where a particular weapon is particularly suitable for a particular need, and if it comes from the United States we would buy it from the United States, if it comes from Europe we would buy it from Europe. But that there are undoubted advantages in cooperation and coordination of what our weapons actually fire – it is ridiculous that some of our guns in Western Europe fire different sorts of bullets, that our mortars are different, that our gun barrel sizes are different on heavy weapons, a whole series of things where there is a great deal of coordination that could and should take place. We are very much in favour of that and we see great advantage in the European armaments agency, but not as a protectionist model.
QUESTION (Mr Pavlidos, Greece):
First of all, I would like to congratulate you for the speech you have made to us this morning. And I think you have led us to believe even more strongly that the Western European Union can play an important role in developing security matters in Europe. However, very recently we have seen on two occasions that whenever a crisis breaks out, for example in former Yugoslavia, and just a few days ago in the Aegean, and I am referring to the now famous islet of Imia, and of course I am talking about an area which has very close historic links with your country, I am talking about the area of the Dodecanese and the period of British administration between 1945 and 1947, before you handed those islands, including Imia, over to Greece. And in this crisis we have seen again that Europe did not intervene. I would be interested to hear your views on the subject. How do you see European organisations intervening in such incidents and such cases when there is a threat to Europe’s borders, and I would be grateful if you could state for us what role you think your country could play in such incidents?
PRIME MINISTER:
The two incidents you mentioned, of course, are of a different dimension. But I understand what impels you to link them. On former Yugoslavia, Europe as a whole has had a good deal of media criticism for the way it reacted. Some of that criticism is justified, I have to say a good deal of it is not justified. If the Europeans had not acted as they did, one forgets the beginning of the dispute in former Yugoslavia, I remember very plainly the nightmare we had at the beginning of the former Yugoslavia, the nightmare we had was that the dispute would move southwards to Kosovo and beyond and that we would drag in the areas beyond and that we would have a full scale Balkan war. That was the fear at the beginning and I think some of the European nations, and since you ask for the role of Britain, I think from memory we were the first actually to send troops there to try and damp down the difficulties and prevent the danger that then existed of the dispute moving to the south and beginning to involve other nations. So we did act very speedily. I recall coming back from my European holiday as it happens, I think I was in Portugal, in order to make the decision to send British troops there, and as I say I think that was the first. So that was the role we took because we saw the danger.
I think Europe has learned a lot about cooperation as a result of what actually happened in former Yugoslavia. The only point of difference that I have with some of my European colleagues is that I believe we have to do these things by a better mechanism for cooperation, rather than by centralising a decision-making process within the European Union. That we should cooperate, I am very much in support of. That we should have a common foreign and security policy, I very much agree. What I do not agree is that that common foreign and security policy should be centrally determined against the wishes of major players. They cannot ask any European troops, against the wishes of their sovereign government, to do something and in practice I don’t think it would work. So we have to build on the common foreign and security policy and improve it. And in many of the European matters I think the mechanism of the Western European Union is also an appropriate mechanism to use. That is precisely why we want to improve its operational capability during the period of the British Presidency and immediately afterwards. We think the Western European Union can become a much more effective European arm of NATO than it is at present and we ate keen to give it the assistance that it needs to ensure that it can do so.
As far as the second incident that you mentioned, the now famous Isle of Imia, I think it was more a matter for diplomatic intervention than military intervention and certainly that is an area where there is a European Union member involved where I think diplomacy can play a considerable role. And we will have some proposals to make at the Intergovernmental Conference as to how that might be improved. Our position will be to make some positive proposals in that respect and to try and persuade our European partners that we can improve the cooperation of European common and foreign policy by agreement.