The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: New Zealand

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Auckland – 12 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Auckland, on Sunday 12th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about the last week, since I left the United Kingdom. We have had a series of unexpected and unusual events. What has been a consistent theme through the week has been the number of occasions one has been reminded of the price that people can pay for peace, for democracy and for freedom.

    At the beginning of the week I was in Jerusalem to attend the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered for seeking peace. This morning, Remembrance Sunday, I was at a small War Memorial in Arrowtown, it was a beautiful setting and a really rather lovely occasion, accompanied by both British and New Zealand veterans, the British veterans having travelled with me from the United Kingdom. At those two ceremonies I paid tribute to British and Commonwealth Servicemen who gave their lives for freedom in both the World Wars this century.

    And over the weekend, at the Commonwealth meeting, although we had many other things to discuss, a large part of our discussions were overshadowed by the issue of freedom and human rights and by the judicial murder of 9 people, including Mr Ken Saro-Wiwa. That was murder, callous and brutal. It was a direct challenge to the Commonwealth. It was not to be tolerated. The death sentences were confirmed on the very eve of the Commonwealth meeting. They were carried out in the middle of the meeting, despite pleas for clemency from Jim Bolger, the Chairman of the meeting, from Nelson Mandela, from myself and from many others, pleas addressed to the Nigerian regime, in public and in private, and all set aside and ignored by them. Neither was this a single incident, it followed a long series of abuses against human rights and democracy over many years.

    We have tried quiet diplomacy for some time with the Nigerians, and clearly it hasn’t proved sufficient. I believe the Commonwealth had no choice but to respond swiftly and decisively. It has done so by suspending Nigeria’s membership of the Commonwealth and making its readmission dependent upon a return to civilian democracy and the release of the political prisoners now held in jails there. If Nigeria does not comply, it will be not suspended, but expelled from the Commonwealth.

    I believe this action is merited. And I would go further than that. If the Commonwealth had not risen to this challenge, if it had not decided that it would make living the Harare Principles on good government, then it would have been apparent to people that those principles were not worth the paper they were written on. I think after the last couple of days people know that the Commonwealth are serious about those principles, serious in the short term and serious for the future.

    What we will now consider urgently with our partners is the most effective way of following up these immediate steps. Let me set out some preliminary thoughts for you.

    I think that there should be the widest possible embargo on defence sales to Nigeria. The policy we have in the United Kingdom is already highly restrictive. We shall now bring in an immediate ban, on a national basis, and we shall ask our partners to do the same.

    The Commonwealth has also put in place some permanent machinery for tackling violations of the Harare Principles. We have agreed upon a ladder of measures, of increasing severity, to encourage and persuade governments to return to acceptable behaviour. And those measures can result in suspension or expulsion from the Commonwealth. They are especially designed to tackle military regimes which have overthrown a constitutionally elected government, but of course they will be applicable in other circumstances as well.

    We have also set up a standing body whose job will be to monitor the implementation of the Harare Principles and make recommendations for action whenever that might be necessary.

    Before we had our discussions on Nigeria, we had an afternoon’s discussion on nuclear testing, and on this occasion we failed to reach agreement. I don’t think that was a surprise to anyone. I had spelled out on a number of occasions beforehand the principles upon which the British position rests: firstly, a recognition of our responsibilities as a nuclear weapon state; secondly, a determination to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996; and thirdly, a refusal to condemn France for the tests that it is carrying out. In the light of that, I was not prepared to endorse, or to stay silent on, a position which contradicts those principles and does nothing to achieve a test-free world.

    I believe that it is a measure of the Commonwealth’s resilience and maturity that after a crisp disagreement amongst friends on nuclear matters we were able rapidly to work together to take decisive action on Nigeria and the Harare Principles.

    So I think the outcome has been a good week for the Commonwealth. It has also been an outstandingly good week for British/New Zealand relations. And I would like to express my thanks to the New Zealand Government for this morning’s exceptional Remembrance Service.

    I will take back, as I think Norma will as well, a very deep impression of a friendly country, a prosperous country, a modern country, a country with very old links with the United Kingdom, but very close links today as well.

    Let me just tell you finally that this morning Commonwealth colleagues accepted my invitation to hold the next Heads of Government Meeting in 1997 in the United Kingdom, and we will take that forward over the weeks and months ahead.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    On the Ken Saro-Wiwa case, do you wish now that you had actually met his son for the image and impression that would have given to Nigeria?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Lynda Chalker actually did meet Mr Saro-Wiwa Junior and he was aware, even before that meeting, of the support that he had from us. If you recall, I set out my position some time ago. I also set out very clearly yesterday morning the action that I thought the Commonwealth ought to take over Nigeria, and I am delighted that the Commonwealth did take that action. But I think we now know that those sentences were confirmed some time ago.

    And I very much regret that the Nigerian government do not seem to have been open to any of the pleas made by myself, by Mr Mandela, by Mr Bolger on behalf of the Commonwealth Conference, and by many others. And what I should say is that we have been making representations to Nigeria over a range of matters, not just over the last 48 hours but over some time.

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds):

    I don’t know whether you can answer this question, having been locked up in Queenstown, but John Bruton, the Irish Prime Minister, has made a speech in which he said the support for the British government for a reasonable compromise on the remaining issues for all-party talks is now needed to move the process forward. Is that something you would favour?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends what is meant by a reasonable compromise. We had a position, before the summit that never was some time ago, that was an extremely good compromise, and it was not the British government that backed away from that compromise, it was the Irish government that did not proceed with that meeting because it came under pressure from Sinn Fein and from other people. So it is very frustrating for John Bruton, and for me, that we have not yet had a summit and that we have not yet been able to provide the conditions for all-party talks. And I know the Irish government have been under very considerable domestic pressure over the fact that they have not been able to make progress on those talks.

    Getting all-party talks is what all of us want. But there is no purpose whatsoever in launching all-party talks until we have a basis that will make sure that there is some chance that those all-party talks are likely to succeed. It is not the Taoiseach’s fault that we are not yet in that position. And neither is it the British government’s fault that we are not yet in that position. The problem, above all, lies with Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein’s complete reluctance to tackle the question, even with an international body, of how their arsenal of weapons and explosives are going to be taken out of commission. And that is important. That is not a semantic point.

    When we keep hearing from Mr McGuinness and Mr Adams that there is a fear of violence returning, I ask: from what source is that violence going to return? It is going to return from the IRA and that is effectively what they are warning. And when they are warning that they might return to violence, it is hardly surprising if other people say: before we will sit down with you in round table talks, we want some evidence that you are not going to return to violence. There is no point in Adams and McGuinness saying to us over months, we are set on peace, if a few days later they start making statements which suggest that unless they get their way, on each and every issue, with conceding nothing themselves, that they will return to violence, it is hardly surprising that the Unionists and others believe that we need to be more certain about what their long-term actions are.

    So I share John Bruton’s frustration that we are not yet ready to move forward to all-party talks, but the blockage to all-party talks is Sinn Fein and their reluctance to address the problem that must be addressed, of ensuring confidence in the community in the north and ensuring that there is going to be no return to violence. And when I hear Martin McGuinness and others warning that violence may return if parties don’t come to the table, he makes precisely the reason why the other parties will not sit down with him because they fear that that is the position that the IRA will take. So the blockage is theirs and no weasel words to the contrary will change that hard reality.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley):

    How many other Commonwealth countries do you see in danger of falling foul of the new disciplinary machinery? And with what the Commonwealth has decided on Nigeria, how worried are you about a backlash on British and European companies with large investments in Nigeria?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Upon the latter point, I cannot say what the reaction of the Nigerians will be. But Nigeria is an important country where there are very substantial human rights abuses. What we are seeking to do is to take action against them to persuade them to return to a proper democratic way of life where there will then be long term advantages both for Nigeria and for the companies trading with them. So I can’t judge what their response will be.

    As far as other countries are concerned, there is no country in exactly the same position as Nigeria or the same situation would have arisen over the weekend and they too would have been suspended. There are some countries about whom there are concerns and the Commonwealth will be seeking to persuade them to move to early elections and back to civilian governments and there was some discussion over that at the weekend. If they don’t then I think the Commonwealth would judge them in the same way, and with the same criteria and for the same reasons that they have acted against Nigeria over the last couple of days. But I don’t think that is imminent. we will look at the countries in difficulties

    [Small section indistinct]

    QUESTION (Simon Walters – The Sun):

    Do you fear that Mr. Bruton’s comments might be taken by some people as bolstering the case put by McGuinness and do you think it was rather inappropriate for Mr. Bruton to make these remarks in London while you are away on Remembrance Sunday of all days?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    John Bruton has worked very hard to try and promote the circumstances where we can move forward to all-party talks and get complete agreement. While I have been here, I haven’t had the chance to read the details of all he had to say. All I can say is that it is usually in character for him to try and find a way forward, not to frustrate a way forward, so I don’t quite know. Perhaps it was frustration that lay behind this particular speech but the important thing is for us to continue to work together and to make sure that the democratic governments and the democratic parties set the right sort of conditions so that we can have all-party talks.

    I have to make this clear: what is not a starter is for people make it clear that they would resort to violence if they don’t get their way in talks and then expect to be admitted to talks on that basis. That isn’t on, it isn’t on for us, can’t be on for the Irish Government, other governments that have an interest, the Unionists or any of the democratic parties. We need evidence of good faith and words suggesting a return to violence hinder the chance of talks, they do not add to them.

    QUESTION (Philip Johnston – The Daily Telegraph):

    Prime Minister, you are returning home to quite a critical time in the political calendar with the budget coming up and the Queen’s Speech. How do you propose over the next year getting out of the position you are in at the moment, 40 points behind in the polls and facing a likely election defeat at the hands of the Labour Party?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like to know which part of the political calendar isn’t critical. I’m open to suggestions as to when it may be. In the 16 years I have been in the House of Commons, I have never found a part of the political calendar that wasn’t critical for one reason or another and the last opinion poll I saw was nothing remotely like the one you just quoted, in fact it was rather half that and rather less than half of that and if one tends to look at what is happening in the local election results, you will see a different picture already beginning to emerge so the opinion polls will begin to change.

    What is substantially the basis of my confidence about the next election is when you look at the really big issues to see whether things are going well or badly. If you look at the economy, for example, I am not sure if any of the distinguished people here this afternoon can recall an occasion when we had inflation so securely under lock and key, interest rates so relatively low, growth at the upper end of the European level, unemployment having been on a downward curve for over two years and growth in the economy fuelled by investment and exports rather than a short-term artificial consumer boom.

    That position is becoming more apparent month after month and I could range over a series of other issues as well. I think in terms of other policies, European policy, there is now a much greater understanding of our policies that were criticised both abroad and at home some time ago and it is becoming apparent to people that the long-term position we have taken is right and not wrong so I am confident. I remain confident about the future position and I always enjoy the run-up to an election period even though it may be a lengthy run-up to an election period. We may well have another 18 months or so before the election but I shall no doubt enjoy every day of it.

    QUESTION (Ian Black):

    On Nigeria, Prime Minister, you talked about the widest possible embargo on defence sales. How will that differ from the existing embargo on defence sales? On punitive measures, there have been quite a lot of calls in the last 24 hours for tougher action against Nigeria including economic sanctions, oil exports and so on and so forth. Are you contemplating anything beyond what you have just referred to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I said there should be the widest possible embargo. Of course, I was speaking beyond the United Kingdom when I said that. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I went on to say there will be an immediate ban on a national basis. That differs from the present situation, which is highly restrictive but not a complete ban, so that is the extent to which it varies there.

    As far as other matters are concerned, we will look at the options. The High Commissioner has come home and we will have consultations with him over the next few days and make our announcements in due course.

    On the general question, traditionally with things like oil embargoes and trade sanctions, they tend generally to function only under a United Nations mandate when there are threats to international peace and security. The difficulty is that the judgement we have to make on things like that is whether within the Nigerian economy they would cause worse unemployment, worse poverty, worse misery and worse starvation that is already being suffered and those are judgements we would have to make.

    In the long term, what we seek is economic improvement for Nigeria, not economic destruction for Nigeria, not least for the reasons I set out a moment ago about the Nigerian people but at the moment we haven’t had a chance to consider these matters in detail and some of them, such as the one you raised, would need to be considered internationally in any event.

    QUESTION (Chris Buckland):

    Prime Minister, you have spoken about how well you got on with Mr. Bolger and how prosperous New Zealand is. Mr. Bolger’s government is well known for its drastic cuts in the welfare state. Have you learned anything from him on this and are you tempted down this road? Do you think it would be successful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will tell you what I did learn from Mr. Bolger, very much and it is probably relevant to the question Simon nearly asked but didn’t quite get in! There was a time before the last election when Mr. Bolger seemed a long way behind in the opinion polls and nobody thought he was going to win but he did win and that is a very useful thing for everyone to observe I think. We will look at control of public expenditure and we will make our announcements at the end of this month in the budget speech.

    QUESTION (Nick Wood – The Times):

    Prime Minister, you have been pressed repeatedly, I think, in the last months to rule a single European currency in the next Parliament. Do you see any prospect of you so doing at some point in the run-up to the next election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have set out our position and I have nothing to add to it today.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters – The Sun):

    The point I wanted to make was that you are that far behind – 40 points behind or 20 points behind on your figures – and the arguments that you put of inflation, the economy and other factors have been put for the last one, two, three years.

    The fact is it is having no effect whatsoever. Your deficit in the polls has stayed exactly the same, the election is now getting closer and closer and it is becoming harder and harder to see you overtaking the Labour Party and not least, look at the way that Keating is behaving; Blair is going there for Christmas and they are acting as though they think Tony Blair is Prime Minister in-waiting.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If you had had my conversations with Paul Keating, you would have been better informed.

    Let me deal with the question of the opinion polls. When you have two opinion polls within a week that are 23 points apart, I think you might have a certain scepticism about opinion polls. I have very great scepticism about opinion polls and you see that phenomenon occurring to a greater or lesser degree in places all over the world where opinion polls change very rapidly. To take a separate example, if you look at the referendum in Canada, at one stage the people in favour of separation were ahead by double figures within two or three weeks of the campaign, then they were 7 points behind and in the event it was almost a dead heat. That suggests not just in the United Kingdom but in other places as well – I will give you other examples if you wish – opinion polls are becoming an increasingly erratic and unsatisfactory guide and I think that is the case.

    I prefer to look at what has happened in the past, look at what is beginning to happen in the local elections which is beginning to show a marked improvement and also recall what happened in the last General Election where five days before polling day I don’t think there was a single newspaper represented here this afternoon who did not write off our chances of winning the last General Election. We were actually 7 points ahead on polling day. I think there may be one here that thought we would win but most of them didn’t. On the back of that, Simon, you will understand my scepticism over your assertions.

    QUESTION (Simon Walters):

    Is a dead heat the best you will get?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That’s not what I said, Simon. Even you can’t produce that headline out of what I said.

    QUESTION (John Deans – The Daily Mail):

    Prime Minister, will the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth have implications for British immigration or asylum policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will have to look at that. We will have to look at what all the ramifications are but at the moment they are suspended from the Commonwealth, they are not expelled from the Commonwealth. Let me make that point but I will need to look at precisely what the position is. I am not aware that it is likely to have an impact upon individual Nigerians and for this reason: our squabble is not with individual Nigerians, our squabble is with the Government of Nigeria so I think we would look with that in mind at any internal changes in the United Kingdom.

    QUESTION (Evan Black):

    Going back very briefly to the seminar, do you think that the behaviour of Patrick Nicholls asking questions and then asking for shares from the company concerned is helpful to your fight back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about. I have been in Arrowtown and I am not going to answer it on the basis of your assessment of it, Evan.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    Prime Minister, you mentioned the row over the French nuclear testing in the Pacific. There was a lot of puzzlement among people here at CHOGM that you played it as toughly as you did afterwards in the sense that Australians and New Zealanders felt that their leaders had been a little bit soft and maybe given away too much to you. Why were you so angry? Were you perhaps just deliberately picking a fight for presentation at home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was grandstanding to be blunt. I was angry because I think they were wrong. It was grandstanding. Britain has been seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty, they have encouraged other people to have a comprehensive test ban treaty but the world is not yet safe enough for the nuclear-weapon states not to have nuclear weapons. If you are going to have nuclear weapons, you need to make sure they are safe.

    Britain is in the position that it doesn’t have to test. France is not in the position that it doesn’t have to test. Am I to say to the President of France: “Throw away your nuclear weapon because you mustn’t test!” and diminish the security of Western Europe? I don’t think I am likely to say that and I also took the view, to be blunt, that there were a large number of people present at the Commonwealth meeting who in case of need would certainly look to Britain for support and help on matters military just as in the past when we needed help they came to our side so I thought there should have been a better understanding of the position.

    I looked at it as a matter of principle. It wasn’t a matter of tactics, it wasn’t a matter of picking a row or any of that nonsense that I read about, it was a matter of principle. It is not yet safe in my judgement for there not to be nuclear weapons. When it is safe, no-one will be more pleased that I am but the happy day hasn’t yet dawned.

    We didn’t need to test, the French did. I think the fact that there is a British deterrent and a French deterrent makes the world safer than it would be without them and if one looks at any of the less stable states who may be near to nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, I think you see the strong reasons why Britain wants to maintain its nuclear weapon and will retain its nuclear weapon until we consider it safe not to.

    What I found very striking in that whole episode was the way in which the British Labour Party jumps around trying to score domestic points that can have only one implication and the implication is that the British nuclear weapon would not be safe if there was a British Labour Government. It is another illustration where the gap between what they say and what they really think is very wide and when what they really think comes out, as it did in their attempts to be difficult on that issue over the last few days, you see that they have not moved nearly as far in policy as they have occasionally with their oratory. There is a great gap between what they think, what they really believe and what they say and that was exposed yet again over this issue.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley – BBC):

    If your scientists came to you tomorrow and said you needed to test, you would test?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    My scientists have come to me and told me I don’t need to test so it won’t arise but that wasn’t the happy position that President Chirac was in.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New Zealand – 10 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Auckland, New Zealand, held on Friday 10th November 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am happy that they acknowledge the other side of the argument but I think what they have got in their statement is factually inaccurate, intellectually inconsistent and unbalanced and I haven’t signed up to that and they know that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you sitting on the fence, Mr Major?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sitting on the fence on the question of nuclear testing. I have made it perfectly clear I think the view that has been expressed by our Commonwealth colleagues is just plain wrong, just plain wrong. That has been my position right the way through and it remains my position now.

  • Mr Major’s Speech in Auckland – 9 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Regent Hotel in Auckland, held on Thursday 9th November 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Prime Minister, Mrs. Clarke, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Perhaps first I may thank you both for your very warm and very pleasant welcome to Auckland. Norma and I have long wanted to visit New Zealand. As you both said, it is far too long since a British Prime Minister was here and nothing I have seen or heard since I have come is likely to delay my return though of course there are two or three days still to go! [Laughter]

    Some of you may be a touch surprised to hear me say this but I think the timing of this visit is exactly right. There are important issues that we need to discuss and I think we should discuss those issues face to face and not through the distorting prism of long-range soundbites and I believe that the United Kingdom and New Zealand have a longstanding relationship that will enable us to do that.

    Both of our countries have changed quite remarkably in recent years. In both, the economy and the structures of Government have been transformed and in each case our countries have emerged the stronger for it. Inevitably, our relationship has changed, it is now more modern, certainly more equal but that shouldn’t exclude ties of history, of personal friendship and of shared interests.

    Though we won’t always adopt identical positions, the New Zealanders and the British need to understand one another’s viewpoints and it is in that spirit that I wish to say something today about three issues that are in the headlines and which matter: the Middle East, nuclear weapons and Northern Ireland.

    I came here last evening not from London but from Israel and I would like to say just a few words first about Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

    He was a warrior, a man who fought and led in several wars in defence of his country’s interests, but as Israel’s Prime Minister he fought with equal courage for a lasting peace in the Middle East and for that a few days ago he gave his life.

    Whether we are from Britain or from New Zealand, it is in the interests of all of us to see a settled peace between Israel and her Arab neighbours. A peace settlement won’t remove all threats to stability in the Middle East, it will emphatically not resolve the problems posed by Iraq, posed by Iran, posed by Libya or the fragility of Algeria but it will defuse the sharpest issues in the region and allow new relationships to grow.

    In the Mount Herzl cemetery on Monday, leaders from West and East, and most remarkably from a range of Arab nations, shared the grief of the Israeli people. That could never have happened even a few years ago and it showed more powerfully than any words that could be uttered that a stable peace can be achieved if Prime Minister Rabin’s work is carried on, as I passionately believe it will be by his successor.

    I know that here in New Zealand you’d wish to join with me in remembering his life with gratitude and the achievements that he produced towards a lasting peace in the Middle East.

    Let me now turn to another issue of some importance mentioned both by the Prime Minister and by Mrs. Clarke, an issue that arouses strong emotions, the issue of nuclear weapons.

    It is not in the style of New Zealanders and the British to be other than direct and open with one another so let me tackle nuclear testing head on because to judge from some of the comments I have read and heard over recent weeks the British position is not properly understood here in New Zealand so let me set out the position for you.

    We, like you, wish to see a complete end to nuclear testing. We, the British, have no plans to carry out further tests or need to do so. We, like you, want a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We, like you, want to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and we are working for controls on fissile material and to eliminate chemical and biological weapons.

    We, the British, were one of the architects of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and were instrumental in achieving its indefinite extension earlier last year.

    In all this, I suspect Britain and New Zealand are united but there is a difference between us. Britain is a nuclear power and New Zealand is not. As Prime Minister, I have the ultimate responsibility for the use, the control and the safety of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. I hope and pray that it need never be used but until I am sure of that, sure of that beyond doubt, we will keep the deterrent and keep it in working order.

    Some say the world no longer needs deterrence. I must say I don’t agree with that point of view. Nuclear deterrence gave Europe security and stability. It would in my judgement by irresponsible to discard it before there is a better means of preserving stability to put in its place.

    Let me cite for you the example of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was developing – and might still be planning – nuclear weapons. He developed hideous forms of biological warfare and stockpiled enough biological and chemical weapons to wipe out the world’s population several times over. We cannot ignore such threats; that is one and there are others.

    As a Permanent Member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom is insisting on the full disclosure and elimination of these Iraqi programmes and strict monitoring to ensure compliance. We have at times come under pressure, often rather hard pressure, to soften our stance but we shall not do so. With the evidence that has now come to light, I believe we are right not to soften our stance. It is also right to keep our nuclear capacity and we will do so for as long as we judge it is needed for Britain’s protection and, if necessary, for the protection of our friends around the world.

    France, too, is a nuclear power whose weapons contribute to deterrence in Europe. Unlike Britain, France still needs to conduct some tests before signing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In this situation, it would have been very easy for me to come here this week and join the chorus of disapproval about French nuclear tests, I have no doubt it would have provided me with some easy plaudits and a very nice, free ride during my visit here to New Zealand. I could have done that. After all, we declared eight years ago that the United Kingdom would abide by the Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, we accepted the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and three weeks ago we announced that we would sign the Protocols in the first half of next year in the company of the United States and France and we, the British, worked for this triple undertaking at the specific request of the Governments of New Zealand and Australia, so I could have taken that free ride had I chosen to do so but I must say to you I am not prepared to do so because if I had, I believe it would have been hypocritical.

    I know the responsibility of being a nuclear power, I understand the difficulties that faced the President of France and I am not prepared to condemn him for discharging those responsibilities and if I had, I must say to you as friend to friend I would have fallen short of the honesty and frankness that New Zealand has a right to expect from the United Kingdom. Upon this issue, to my regret, we must agree to differ.

    Finally, Jim, you mentioned Northern Ireland, a matter very close to my heart and my Government’s policy. You, Prime Minister, are one of many in New Zealand with Irish antecedents.

    Northern Ireland has changed dramatically since Albert Reynolds and I signed the Downing Street Declaration just two years ago. Fourteen months of ceasefire have seen life there returning step by step towards the sort of normality which you in New Zealand can take for granted. As the threat of terrorism has diminished, we have been able to relax the measures necessary to combat it and now, throughout the Province, there are no military patrols, we have relocated large numbers of troops back to their home bases; there has been a surge in the economy, unemployment is dropping, trade and investment are rising and tourism has hit record levels.

    We now want to move forward as soon as possible to negotiations which will embrace all of the parties in Northern Ireland, including those parties previously associated with terrorism. Our aim is a lasting political settlement fair to all parties and fair to both sides of the community.

    Such a settlement can be achieved. With the active partnership of the Irish Government and valuable support from the United States, we have opened the way to a democratic future for all the people of Northern Ireland but there are still many problems to overcome. We still have to overcome the legacy of suspicion and the mindset of violence. Though shooting and bombing have ceased, the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries both retain their arsenals and continue the hideous practice of so-called punishment beatings.

    Let me say this to you today: a democratic society can neither accept muttered warnings by political leaders of a return to paramilitary violence nor the spectacle of thugs smashing teenagers’ legs with baseball bats.

    For the past ten months, through patient negotiation we have been trying to bring Sinn Fein into the democratic arena. Last Friday, we published new proposals for representatives of the paramilitaries to discuss with an international body how their arms and explosives could be taken out of commission while parallel talks took place to prepare for all-party negotiations. I hope that Sinn Fein will respond positively to our proposals. I hope they will catch the tide of peace self-evidently flowing so strongly amongst all the people of Northern Ireland.

    Once the paramilitaries start consigning their weapons to history, they can make a full contribution to Northern Ireland’s democratic life on precisely the same basis as all the other constitutional parties.

    Jim, when you next visit the land of your fathers, I hope you will go once again to Northern Ireland. You will find there an atmosphere transformed out of all recognition even since your last visit just two years ago.

    Let me return finally to where I began. My visit here today is about keeping in touch. For all our family ties, for all our connections in sport and education, in culture and in trade, for all the links which see 100,000 New Zealanders come to Britain each year and even more Britons come to New Zealand, we mustn’t take each other for granted because of those long historic links so I was delighted with your announcement this morning that more young Britons will be allowed to come here as working holiday-makers. We, for our part, are going to mount a special programme of events in 1997 to show young New Zealanders why the link with Britain remains relevant to them in the 1990s.

    You and I, Prime Minister, have worked together in a way that the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and New Zealand have traditionally worked together. We have spoken openly as friends, bluntly from time to time when that was necessary and we have listened to what the other had to say. We have a great deal to learn from each other. I believe that Britain and New Zealand, with that close link that has been there for ever, have both gained from that and will gain from it in the future.

    We have watched from the United Kingdom with interest and admiration the reforms of the public sector that you have undertaken, reforms whose implementation, as we have seen in our own experience in the United Kingdom, can sometimes be very painful but which are now bearing fruit in a revitalised economic performance.

    Whenever you asked me to take up issues on New Zealand’s behalf, I have invariably done so. Equally, let me say to this audience today how much I value your Government’s support over Northern Ireland and your decision to send a contingent to serve with distinction alongside British troops with the United Nations in Bosnia. We shall work just as closely together, I believe, over the next few days to ensure the success of the Commonwealth Meeting under your Chairmanship.

    The Commonwealth, as I have seen on countless occasions, generates a unique spirit and on this occasion it has provided the happy circumstance of bringing Norma and me here today to see you and Joan once again, to enjoy your generous hospitality, to meet friends old and new and to see a country we have always wished to visit. It is a visit we will cherish and we are delighted to be here and most grateful for your hospitality. [Applause].

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with New Zealand Prime Minister – 8 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, held in Auckland on Wednesday 8th November 1995. [Jim Bolger was Prime Minister of New Zealand from 2nd November 1990 – 8th December 1997]

    MR BOLGER:

    We do have to be short because I have to go across the road to escort Her Majesty through the building where the conference is going to be held.

    Can I just open these comments by saying that Prime Minister Major and myself have covered both bilateral issues and of course the CHOGM issues.

    On the bilateral front there is a warm reciprocity of views and we have no outstanding issues between us. We have agreed, however, that New Zealand will enhance the opportunity for young Britons to visit New Zealand on working arrangements. Currently that is limited to 500 per annum, we are going to quadruple that to 2,000 per annum, and that is in recognition that young New Zealanders of course can go to Britain on working arrangements with no limit. So it brings some reciprocity but clearly not to the extent that the British offer to New Zealand youngsters that go over there.

    On the issue of CHOGM, there is clearly the nuclear question where there are differences between the Prime Minister and myself, they are well known so I will not reiterate them here this morning. The issue of good government and how that might impact on some of the countries you described as [indistinct] states, that is going to be, I think, the most difficult thing at the conference – how do we respond as a group of 52 nations to assist countries to pursue the ambitions stated in the Harare Declaration. And that is where we will be putting substantial time during the conference.

    So that is what we have been discussing this morning and it has been a good morning.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add a word or two about that. As the Prime Minister says, there is a very close, very long-standing, very detailed bilateral relationship that I think is in extremely good shape and I am delighted at the Prime Minister’s announcement about extending the Young Persons Scheme this morning. That will be very welcome and I have no doubt that a lot of young British people will be delighted to come and spend a year in New Zealand. I am very pleased that it will be far more than did in the past.

    We have discussed a number of other CHOGM issues this morning. As the Prime Minister says, even amongst the best of friends there are sometimes points of difference and although we share a determination to see a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we do have one point of difference that is well understood by all of you here, it is a point of difference that between friends can exist and we both acknowledge that point of difference does exist at the moment.

    We also spent some time this morning discussing something else of concern to us both, and that is not just the general question of the Harare Declaration and good government in the Commonwealth, which will certainly be a key part of our discussions over the next couple of days, but I think both of us are very concerned indeed at the confirmation by the Ruling Council in Nigeria of the death sentences on Mr Saro-Wiwa and his associates. It seems to me, and I believe the Prime Minister shares this view, that that was a flawed judicial procedure. The sentences are not just.

    And I now speak for myself – the Prime Minister may wish to add his own thoughts – but I believe the Nigerians should exercise clemency, I very much hope they will exercise clemency, and I would be very surprised indeed if that were not a general view amongst colleagues in the Commonwealth.

    MR BOLGER:

    I am sure it will be a general view of colleagues. The local media here will be aware that I met the young Mr Wiwa yesterday, who asked me to see whether the Commonwealth could express a view to the Nigerian authorities to exercise clemency on behalf of his father and the other 8 who were sentenced with him. And the confirmation overnight that their sentence has been confirmed of course heightens our concern that the authorities in Nigeria may be moving to an early execution. That, we believe, would be quite appalling given that this is a key issue in the Commonwealth and to flout the Commonwealth in that way would certainly send all the wrong signals.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, do you believe that the bilateral relationship between New Zealand and Great Britain has been affected by the nuclear issue?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In countries that have been friends for a long time there is scope occasionally for disagreements. If there isn’t disagreement between countries then they have no great issues to discuss. Of course there is occasional disagreement. I don’t think that is going to affect the long term relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. There have been many occasions over the past 5 or 10 years when the United Kingdom, on behalf of New Zealand, have taken up matters in the international fora of the world. That will happen again in the future. I think we can stand the occasional disagreement without a great degree of difficulty.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] opposition to the British position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not the British position, I think we ought to get this correct. It is not Britain who are carrying out nuclear tests. Britain does not have to carry out nuclear tests. But we are a nuclear power. France is our next door neighbour. The French President has had clear advice that he should carry out those tests and as their next door neighbour I am not in the business of condemning them. That is the point.

    QUESTION:

    But do you understand that New Zealanders might disagree and might have expected more from Britain as a leading member of the Commonwealth?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I can understand how other people feel, it is a very emotional issue – nuclear weapons. But we are a nuclear power. We have a very close relationship with New Zealand, we also have a very relationship with France. I understand, perhaps better than non-nuclear powers, the particular problem faced by a nuclear power.

    The President of France has had clear advice, as I understand it, that it is necessary for him to test his weapons. I can understand that since I myself have responsibility for a nuclear weapon. And on that basis I am not in the business of condemning the French. That is the point of difference between us and I have repeatedly said so.

    QUESTION:

    Young people from this country died in your country when your environment was threatened, how can you come here when our environment is threatened and refuse to condemn the French testing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There have been over 2,000 nuclear tests over the last few years. We are a nuclear country, the United Kingdom are a nuclear country. We think that is necessary for deterrence and for security. That security is there for the United Kingdom, it is also there for our friends.

    MR BOLGER:

    We disagree on the issue, we accept we disagree on the issue, we are not seeking at this late moment to persuade each other to a different viewpoint. I think that is where it rests. Naturally Prime Minister Major would prefer that I agreed with him and I strongly would prefer that he agreed with me. But it doesn’t happen that way and that is where it is.

    And turning to Nigeria, obviously this is a key issue for the conference and I will be talking during the course of the day to leading African leaders – President Mugabe, President Mandela and others, Prime Minister Mahatir from Asia, a leading Asian leader at the conference, to see what the conference can do as a collective body to convey its concerns and to offer what assistance we can to get all governments to adhere to the principles set out in the Harare Declaration. That, I believe, is going to be the substantive challenge of this conference.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister Keating is heading over this evening and he says he wants to give you a slap on the knuckles. Are you concerned about that, will you be meeting him, do you want to talk with him about nuclear issues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have known Paul for many years, I have no doubt that we will be meeting during the course of the next few days and I shall look forward to our exchanges.

    MR BOLGER:

    I will meet him tonight.