The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Northern Ireland Peace Process

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Irish Assembly – 10 May 2018

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Irish Assembly on 10 May 2018.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    This History is a magisterial undertaking and it’s a privilege to be here on this special occasion.

    We are living history at the moment.

    This evening’s focus on Ireland comes at a moment when I view the emerging situation between our two countries with a great deal of trepidation.

    England and Ireland have endured a turbulent relationship for nearly 1,000 years. It has been studded with unrest, repression, rebellion, reprisals, mistrust, betrayal and violence. In times past, there is much to repent.

    Now, today – we are again at a moment when decisions made might once more unsettle our relationship.

    During the 1990s, the Peace Process prospered as the construct of many hands: governments, politicians, the Church, peace movements, whilst war weariness – and the recognition by the men of violence that armed conflict would never achieve their aims – also helped forge the search for agreement.

    The whole Peace Process was spurred on and cemented by the obvious wish of Irish men and women – North and South – to work together to end violence.

    No-one wished to see the lives of yet another generation damaged by “The Troubles”.

    When commonsense, and common humanity triumphed, the Good Friday Agreement ushered in two decades in which the British/Irish relationship moved to a higher and more co-operative level than at any time in our joint history.

    And this is how it should be: the UK and the Republic of Ireland are one another’s nearest neighbours, and the relationship should be one of mutual consideration and harmony.

    And – as one of millions of Britons with Irish antecedents – I was delighted to see our relationship mature and grow closer.

    Brexit – depending on the final deal – may now put this in reverse. When Tony Blair and I went to Ireland together to warn of the implications of the UK leaving the EU – for the whole island of Ireland – we expected opposition from Brexit supporters.

    What we didn’t expect was a complete failure of understanding about its impact by leading Brexiteers.

    There are serious issues to address:

    How the UK can minimise the damage to Ireland of Britain leaving the European Union.

    Whether a new Customs border between Northern Ireland and the Republic will divide communities that are now united, and complicate bilateral trade with the UK, which totals over one billion pounds a week.

    Whether such a border could – I emphasise could – yet be a focus for both Unionists and Nationalist fringes to recreate violent friction.
    If one of the British ambitions after leaving the European Union is to “go global” to increase our trade and influence, distancing ourselves from our nearest neighbours and largest trading partners is a curious way to begin.

    I, myself, deeply regret that Ireland will feel the impact of the UK’s departure more negatively than any other European State.

    A former Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, put it more bluntly noting that: “Brexit is the greatest economic and social challenge to [Ireland] in 50 years”. Sectors like agri-foods and fishing, tourism and energy, are among those that face particular challenges. The UK Government neither can nor should ignore that.

    I don’t believe for a moment that the British Government wishes to hurt Ireland: far from it. I simply observe that preventing collateral damage to Irish interests doesn’t appear to feature prominently in the concerns of those who press for Brexit. I believe that the obligations of history – and sheer good neighbourliness – suggest that they should.

    It is not only the Border question – or the need to avoid impediments to the trade flow. Many other issues must be considered. Some can, at least in part, be solved.

    I have in mind the Common Travel area, where I’m sure an agreement will be reached. There is also the scale of co-operation set up under EU frameworks where both Governments are committed, in principle, to maintain co-operation –although there must be doubt whether it will be fully replicated post-Brexit.

    The problem of the North/South border is more intransigent. Once a hated symbol of division, it was abandoned without regret under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It may yet return as the border between the UK and the European Union.

    At the very least, a new Customs border will harm trade: East-West as well as North-South. Ten thousand commercial vehicles travel back and forth across the North-South border each day, carrying a vast range of goods.

    Were there to be a Customs Border, this weight of commerce is bound to face delays, queues, and administrative obligations that will lead to higher costs for companies and consumers, North and South.

    No doubt many goods can be cleared in some invisible, frictionless way – as yet unidentified – but not all. Some, such as animals and animal feed, which cross the border every hour of every day, will probably have to be examined for health and safety reasons, in order to avoid infections and diseases such as BSE.

    If so, a physical border seems unavoidable. And, since the border winds through over 300 miles of countryside, this may require a number of border posts to be erected.

    The very words “Customs Union” seem to have become toxic in Brexit circles. They do not seem to understand what is at stake for the Irish economy and Anglo-Irish trade flows.

    The benefits of a Customs Union are crucial to trade. It abolishes tariffs on goods between Member States. It offers common rules of origin, and common standards for products.

    It has ancillary benefits: a common tariff for third country exporters, and no customs checks at borders – all designed to simplify trade between Member States. No sensible alternative exists.

    Ingenious options – well-meaning options – have been proposed but rejected by Cabinet sub-Committees, with the limp promise that further ideas will be sought.

    No doubt the search will intensify – but I doubt it will be successful.

    There has been talk of “frictionless” trade to avoid a physical border. But, so far, the delivery of this has proved illusory.

    There is no “frictionless” trade model anywhere to copy. The only certain way to avoid border checks is a Customs Union.

    Of course, a Customs Union isn’t perfect. It does have ancillary downsides although, in my view, these are heavily exaggerated. But it does soften some of the economic fallout of Brexit, and remove the need for a North-South border in Ireland.

    That alone is a significant gain – but even full membership of the Customs Union will not compensate for leaving the Single Market, or retaining full membership of the EU.

    A new Border may carry a further risk. There is a complacent belief that, because violence has largely disappeared over the last 20 years, it is unlikely to return. I hope that is true but am not wholly confident that it is.

    I do agree that it may not return on the scale of “The Troubles” – but I do not agree that we can be sure it is banished for good.

    The introduction of a “hard” border – with all its unpopular symbolism – may provide a focus for protests from fringe groups – either Unionists or Nationalists.

    What if demonstrations against a new border are followed by attacks on it? Would it then be protected? If so, how? Would security be brought in? If so, what? What would be the reaction to that? Would it re-activate old disputes and begin a downward spiral towards violence?

    Past history warns us how this might play out. I don’t wish to overplay this but, at the very least, it increases the potential for conflict.
    Some Brexit supporters dismiss this as scare-mongering; an anti-Brexit tactic. It emphatically is not. It is simply trivial to suggest so.
    Sir Hugh Orde, the former Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, has warned that the political consequences of Brexit may: “play into the hands of those who are still determined to destroy the relative peace we have enjoyed…”.

    He added that customs posts “could be a target for dissident para-militaries”. And that risk cannot be blithely dismissed.

    There are also other risks to long-term stability.

    The British Government’s deal with the DUP for Westminster votes must surely be seen by Nationalist opinion to destroy their impartiality as an independent “honest broker”. This will weaken the Government’s hand in dealing with disputes between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, and healing fractures in the Peace Process.

    The collapse of the Northern Ireland Power Sharing Executive, if not re-established soon – and it won’t be – may also be a provocation to dissidents – and will lead to campaigns for a border poll. There is no Executive. No direct rule. And the Civil Service hold the line. Despite all Parties claiming they want an agreement, none is making concessions to achieve one. The risks are obvious.

    I have never hidden my view that leaving the EU – for all its frustrations, which are many – is an historic mistake.

    The negotiations to leave were always going to be hugely complex and expensive – and are ever more proving to be so.

    Thus far, progress is modest at best. Every advance seems to involve retreat, and every agreement delivers less than expected.

    The costs are mounting. The exit bill is likely to be £50 billion. The costs to industry are incalculable. The staff costs to the Civil Service – and, therefore, the British taxpayer – are huge.

    Yet, as the bills mount, and the negotiations falter, the advocates of Brexit become more entrenched.

    Some of them – let us be frank – would be quite content to see the talks fail and no agreement reached. That would be the worst possible outcome.

    That said, there is goodwill everywhere to solve the “border question”, and that is a hopeful sign.

    But to do so, originality and flexibility are essential – together with mutual respect and understanding.

    This is much more than a political squabble between Brexiteer and Remainer; it is a battle for the future direction of a policy that will affect all the people of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    Its resolution may help us grow closer – or drift apart. There is no doubt in my own mind which is the best outcome for both our countries.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech in Northern Ireland – 9 June 2016

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major in Northern Ireland on 9 June 2016.

    Let me start by saying how pleased I am to be back in Northern Ireland, and with you this morning.

    Tony and I are here to talk about the European referendum, and why it matters for you, for Northern Ireland, for Anglo-Irish relations,
    …and for the future of our United Kingdom as a whole.

    In a moment, Tony will talk specifically about Northern Ireland, but I want to take a step back and ask: what’s this referendum really all about?

    First, it’s about the economy, jobs and the wellbeing of everyone in the UK.

    Just like Prime Ministers before us and since, Tony and I fought hard to persuade our fellow European leaders to continue to build the Single Market: we did so because it is of huge benefit to Britain. It is the richest free market in the world and we have full access to it: that is enormously valuable for our prosperity.

    To risk losing it – or reducing our access to it – seems to be pure folly.

    Secondly, our security and strength on the world stage is also vital.

    If we work with our partners in Europe we can achieve things in the British interest that we cannot do alone.

    I know that immigration remains a concern for people – but, in my view, that would remain a contentious issue whether we were in or out of Europe.

    It is a difficult and complex problem, but there are no simple answers to it, no magic bullets that solve it.

    But – this morning – I want everyone here to understand something else – something that is critical in this debate – and for all our futures.

    This referendum is also about the people in every part of the United Kingdom, and the union that we have built together over generations.

    That’s important to all of us – it’s about the ties of friendship, family and affection that bind us together.

    Men and women; friends and neighbours; workmates and classmates…

    …all of us living together side-by-side in a union of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    And I say without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that the wrong outcome on June 23rd will affect our union; and will jeopardise that unity.

    That means the unity of the United Kingdom itself is on the ballot paper in two weeks’ time.

    Let me explain.

    First, Scotland.

    Two years ago, on the eve of the Scottish Referendum…

    …thousands and thousands of people gathered in Trafalgar Square to wave Union Jacks and sing songs together – imploring the Scottish people not to vote for independence.

    It was a last-ditch appeal, an emotional plea, from the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish to stick together, to stay together – to preserve the most successful union in history.

    Wisely, the Scots did so – against the advice of the SNP.

    I believe that, with one qualification, the matter is now settled for a generation and beyond.

    But it is a very big qualification.

    Because if Scotland votes to stay in the European Union, but the UK as a whole chooses to leave, there is a serious risk of a new referendum…
    not straight away, perhaps– but ultimately nationalist pressure for another shot at leaving the UK could prove to be uncontrollable and irresistible.

    And in those circumstances – if the UK was outside the EU – I can well envisage a different result.

    That is the risk … that a British exit from the EU could re-open the whole question, and tear apart the United Kingdom.

    So I say to everyone who is undecided, everyone who is wavering: please understand the potential – even the likely – consequence of a vote to leave the EU.

    Not just a shrunken economy, not just a diminished United Kingdom on the world stage; but a smaller country in a very real and literal sense.

    The most successful union in world history would be broken apart for good.

    That appalling outcome could follow the wrong choice on June 23rd.

    But of course there is also the question of Northern Ireland – itself a vital part of the Union.

    Tony and I know more than most how carefully the peace process was stitched together over many years.

    We met the families of the victims, whose pain when their loved ones were murdered was raw and real – and, I imagine, still is.

    We know about the stops and starts of that process; the setbacks; the compromises and the contradictions that are inherent in building a peace that can endure.

    I think back to working with my friend, Albert Reynolds, and the breakthrough that was the Downing Street Declaration, sowing the seeds for the IRA ceasefire and then the chance – in time – for a negotiated and peaceful constitutional settlement. I carried this forward: Tony completed it.

    Throughout my years as Prime Minister, no issue consumed my thoughts and my attention more than the goal of peace and stability here.

    I was convinced that, however intractable the Troubles seemed…

    …however routine the daily cycle of violence became…

    …however deeply the hatred was felt….

    …that a solution could and must be found.

    That with patience, care and hard work, we could find a way. Many people, both well-known and unknown, helped in that endeavour.

    I pay tribute to Tony for all that he did, to the Irish government…and to all parties here in Northern Ireland for having the strength and commitment to see the Process through. And to the communities, here and in the South, who were sick of violence and wanted a better future.

    And it is an incredible achievement to see a successful power-sharing executive working in Northern Ireland – a dream thought impossible 30 years ago.

    Indeed, it is a mark of the progress made in Northern Ireland that, today, elections are now conducted with more courtesy and good humour than many other campaigns I can think of.

    So I believe it would be a dreadful mistake to do anything that has any risk of destabilising the complicated and multi-layered constitutional settlement that underpins stability in Northern Ireland.

    But that is what a British exit from the EU would do: it would throw all of the pieces of the constitutional jigsaw into the air again, and no-one could say where they might land.

    We can all be proud at what Northern Ireland has achieved … but we should never take the very good state of Anglo-Irish relations for granted.

    Today, relations between the UK and Ireland have never been better.

    And though I’ve no doubt – whatever happens – that they will remain cordial, I do worry about the prospect of a British exit, which would leave Ireland on the other side of the table in a new negotiation between Britain and 27 other EU countries.

    I fear that would have a totally negative effect on the relationship between our two countries.

    And there is also the severe economic damage that leaving would cause in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland alike.

    And all of the issues that we thought were completely settled – like the Common Travel Area – would suddenly be thrown into real doubt.

    In a moment, I will hand over to Tony to talk in more detail about Northern Ireland but, before I do so, let me end by saying this: here you have two former Prime Ministers from two different parties. Rivals on many occasions, but never over the Peace Process for Ireland; never on the unity of the UK; never on the importance of our relationship with Europe.

    It’s not a coincidence that every living former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, shares the same view about Europe.

    We know, because we have sat at the top European table that despite its many frustrations, our membership of the EU magnifies Britain’s influence in the world, and significantly improves the living standards of the British people.

    And we are in no doubt of this: our membership is also an absolutely vital part of our finely-tuned and carefully-preserved union.

    Throw away the membership of Europe, and don’t be surprised if – in the end, as a consequence – we accidentally throw away our union as well.

    Please don’t put that at risk.

    Make a positive and patriotic choice to remain – choose to fight for the UK’s interest in Europe, and in so doing, safeguard the UK’s interests at home as well.

    That’s the right choice for our country, and for our future.

    In two weeks’ time, I hope it is the choice we will all make.

    And with that, let me hand over to Tony.

  • Sir John Major’s Contributions on ‘Who Won the War’ programme – 29 September 2014

    The transcript of the contributions made by The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH on BBC Northern Ireland’s ‘Who Won the War’ TV programme on 29 September 2014. The programme was broadcast on the 20th anniversary of the 1994 ceasefires and the presenter, Peter Taylor, reflected on the troubles in the province.

    PETER TAYLOR

    [Asked why he made Northern Ireland such a priority?]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    People were killing one another. If that had happened in Surrey or Sussex or any part of the mainland nobody would have tolerated it for a moment. It seemed to me to be equally intolerable in Northern Ireland.

    COMMENTARY BY PETER TAYLOR

    [Talking to terrorists was anathema to Conservatives but John Major reluctantly accepted the only way forward was to engage with the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries. Three days before secret talks with MI5 were due to take place the IRA bombed Warrington, killing two little children. Incredibly the meeting went ahead although John Major himself was not aware of it at the time]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    The angry part of me said I would never sit down [for discussions with the IRA], the pragmatic part of me of course would have done so had I thought that there was going to be an outcome from any such meeting that would carry the process forward.

    COMMENTARY BY PETER TAYLOR

    [The Government’s key point of contact to establish whether the IRA was seriously interested in calling a ceasefire was Martin McGuinness]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    If he couldn’t deliver the IRA then there would have been no point in talking to him……..

    PETER TAYLOR

    [Asked about the IRA and loyalist ceasefires in 1994]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It gave a great boost to the belief in many people’s minds that there was a deal that could be done. Many doubted it but then there was a glimmer of hope.

    PETER TAYLOR

    [Asked about the war in Northern Ireland and the current situation]

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    It’s been an exemplary journey in many ways and when one looks at other parts of the world, where the conflict looks irresolvable, one can realise that it is possible to bring together those who seem implacably opposed to one another for ideological reasons and it is a gift of human nature that that is possible.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on the Andrew Marr Show – 5 February 2012

    The text of Sir John Major’s interview on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, broadcast live on 5th February 2012.

    ANDREW MARR:

    We were looking at that extraordinary Irish visit there. And of course the process began when you were Prime Minister, although Tony Blair picked it up and went further forward with it. How conscious were you when you were doing that, that this might be difficult for the Royal Family? They’d lost Lord Mountbatten, they’d seen these terrible scenes of carnage not very far from Buckingham Palace in the old days.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well of course when we began it in the early 1990s with Albert Reynolds, who was then the Irish Prime Minister, of course I discussed it with the Queen at our private meetings. I have no intention of telling you how it went, but of course the Queen was aware of what we were doing. And we had two objectives, both of which I think the Queen approved of. The first was to stop the slaughter that we were seeing in Northern Ireland, the indiscriminate murder that had gone on for far too long; and, secondly, to normalise relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland and North and South within Ireland. And I think the Queen approved of both of those. And the visit she made to Ireland, I think set the final seal on a relationship that has wholly changed in the last twenty years. Ireland are our nearest neighbour, they should be a close and enduring friend, and I think that is the circumstance we now have.

    ANDREW MARR:

    One of the things that certainly I came across a lot was people talking about the Queen’s religious side of her character, and therefore forgiveness being absolutely central to what she is for.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    The Queen’s a wise lady. She understands different views. She’s never been perturbed by people who’ve had different views to her. She understands them, she has her own clear view, so certainly she would have understood that point very well. And I think the fact she is Head of the Church in the United Kingdom, she would fully understand other people’s convictions in a different church. That wouldn’t phase her in the slightest.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So she understood and in fact she was encouraging those very, very difficult early talks with the IRA?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I’ve no intention of telling you what was said privately. Let me simply say the Queen was fully informed and you have seen from the visit and what others have said how she feels about the outcome.

    ANDREW MARR:

    A lot of people are very interested about not what is said during those meetings, but are they really useful to Prime Ministers? David Cameron said that you know it was a chance during the week to really ask himself what he was up to in a sense because he was just in front of one person.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    They’re very useful. I mean where else can you talk to one person in total certainty that it’s entirely secret; that nobody is going to talk to anybody else about what is said? So they’re very free, they’re very frank, they’re very useful. And of course the Queen has been there for sixty years, her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill. Most of the present cabinet weren’t born when the Queen became monarch. So there’s very little she hasn’t seen and very little she doesn’t understand, and anyone who doesn’t listen to her view and consult her where necessary is missing a huge opportunity.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Well we’re allowed just a little clip of you with the Queen. I think you’ve just come back from Russia at this moment. Let’s look at that.

    [Clip from Elizabeth R shown which was broadcast in the 1990s]

    ANDREW MARR:

    A nice little clip there. So these things are terribly important. You know she’s obviously very interested in her constitutional role, so that’s the Irish side. What about Scotland now because you know we’re at the edge of some difficult decisions about Scotland? I mean whatever happens, she will be Queen of Scots. I just wondered what you thought of Alex Salmond’s kind of comment that the United Kingdom would carry on because the union of crowns would carry on?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I’ve no intention of mixing the Queen and politics and I think you know that, but I think I heard Alex Salmond say last week that whatever may happen in Scotland – and I have my clear views about what should happen, that whatever may happen in Scotland, the Queen would remain Queen as far as the Scots are concerned, and I think that is absolutely the view of, I would imagine, the vast majority of Scots.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Unlike any other country, we have someone therefore at the apex of the system who’s been there for sixty years. Does she have a sort of reasonable recall of the previous crises, all the ups and downs? I mean she’s been through the Cold War, she’s seen all this you know.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Andrew, you don’t forget crises, believe you me. You don’t forget crises and neither does the Queen.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    She remembers them very well. And in some cases within the Commonwealth, I mean she has this special affinity for the Commonwealth, and I think for two reasons. Firstly because King George VI, her father, to whom she was evidently very close indeed, was significant in setting up the Commonwealth in the first place. And, secondly, because she has grown up with the Commonwealth. When it began, it had eight members. It now has fifty-four. So she’s very close to it. And often when we discussed, she would not only know something about the country in the Commonwealth we were talking about or the head of state, but their father or their mother and often there were occasions where background information was extremely useful.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Yes. We saw Prince William in that quote, in that clip earlier on there, speaking very, very eloquently about the Queen and Ireland. He’s of course now down in the Falklands in his helicopter. But you’ve in some respects watched him grow up because you were involved when he was younger. Just give us your sense of how he’s evolving in the role that he’s got now.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Oh I think if you travel abroad, you can see a different perspective and you can see that the Duke of Cambridge and the Duchess are becoming iconic around the world. I think they’re a tremendous bonus for the Royal Family at the present time and I think the way they have conducted themselves has been absolutely without fault, and I think most people can see that. Clearly his career is very important to him, as it is to Prince Harry. He’s carrying out his role extremely well and I think that’s what people admire and respect.

    ANDREW MARR:

    But for all those people who kind of perhaps rather glibly open the papers and say “Oh well, can we not have him as our next King?” …

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no.

    ANDREW MARR:

    As a constitutionalist explain why not.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    No, no. Constitutionally not. The Queen took an oath at the Coronation that she would remain as Queen for the rest of her life. When, hopefully many years hence, the Queen is no longer with us, Prince Charles will become King. There can be no question of skipping a generation. It simply isn’t going to happen. It’s a piece of newspaper sophistry from time to time. After the Queen will come Prince Charles. After Prince Charles will come Prince William. That is I think a matter that is settled and is beyond doubt.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Now tomorrow I think, you are going to be launching a huge charitable project: the Diamond Jubilee Trust. Can you tell us a little bit about that? I don’t want to spoil your fire for it, but tell us a little bit about it and what you hope to achieve.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    We’re establishing tomorrow the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. It was agreed that it would be set up by all the Heads of Government at the Commonwealth at their recent meeting in Australia, and I’m greatly honoured to have been asked to chair it.

    The purpose of the trust is to raise money across the whole of the Commonwealth, I hope governments, companies, individuals will all contribute. We will raise this money just for a single year and then we will spend it on appropriate projects across the whole of the Commonwealth, including of course the United Kingdom. We’ll enter I hope into partnerships with people, so that we can leverage, so we can increase the amount of money we have had donated, to use it for the sort of projects I think that most people would approve of.

    ANDREW MARR:

    So we’re talking about projects involving children and disadvantaged groups?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Yes, no detailed decisions have been taken, but that sort of project. And it will all be there specifically as a legacy to the Queen and her long reign and her long service to the Commonwealth. I don’t think people who haven’t seen her with the Commonwealth, heads of government, can possibly understand what it’s like. There’s a very good relationship, she is iconic to them. And she and the Duke of Edinburgh – and the Duke has been quite superb of course throughout her reign – she and the Duke of Edinburgh are enormously popular across the Commonwealth and it’s unsurprising that when there was a suggestion from the heads of government of a tribute that the Queen would like the sums raised to be dispersed across the Commonwealth, including – as I say – the United Kingdom.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Of course the Falklands are part of the Commonwealth. Prince William down there at the moment and a huge amount of kind of jumping up and down and shouting in Buenos Aires.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there’s bound to be a certain amount of shouting. I think that’s what it will amount to – shouting and no more.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And no more. Alright, for now thank you very much indeed, Sir John Major.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    My pleasure.

    [Break for news]

    ANDREW MARR:

    Sir John Major is still here and we’re going to talk a little bit just at the end about Syria because we’ve used enormously strong language at the United Nations yesterday, as have the Americans, about the Russians and the Chinese. I just wanted you know your perspective on actually what can happen, because it seems that the international community is now badly stuck.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    I think there are two things that are happening. Certainly we’ve seen the enormous changes across the whole of the Middle East. The democratic genie is out of the bottle and I don’t think it’s going to stop at the borders of Syria. So I think this is an issue that is going to continue. I think two things are happening at the moment. First, we are moving perilously close to a full-scale civil war. Secondly, I think Syria is becoming a pariah state. And if I can add a third thought. I don’t think in these circumstances that the Assad regime will survive. How much damage it will do in the short-term, I can’t say. How long it will survive is unknown, but I don’t think it will be a credible government for all that much longer. It has no support, except no doubt for Iran and for China and for Russia, beyond that no-one can possibly sanction what they’re doing.

    ANDREW MARR:

    And is there anything more do you think that a country like Britain can do, you know to avoid the break-up and the fall of the regime – if that’s what’s going to be happen – being too bloody, being too disruptive – not least I suppose to Israel which is next door, of course?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Well I think there are several thoughts related to that. Firstly, I think those in China and Russia might search their consciences about their veto. They are effectively giving a green light to a pretty bad regime to murder people, and I think one needs to put it bluntly so they understand what they have done and so the world understands what they have done. As far as what other nations can do, it’s possible to apply sanctions through the European Union, it’s possible to apply sanctions through nation states, it’s possible to use diplomacy. I think all those measures should be used and used as a matter of urgency and I don’t think the United Nations should leave this matter. If China and Russia have vetoed it once, let us see if they will at some stage veto it again as public pressure and international condemnation builds up.

    ANDREW MARR:

    Good final thought. Sir John Major, thank you very much indeed for joining us today.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Freedom of the City of Cork Presentation – 20 June 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Freedom of the City of Cork Presentation, held in Cork on Friday 20th June 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    There are some days that are indelibly printed in the memory: today is one. I shall always treasure the memory of this honour, and the delightful poem by Thomas McCarthy. All that, and lovely Irish music too! My only regret is that Michael Flatley was not dancing to it!

    It is an especial pleasure that this honour is in company with Albert Reynolds. Albert and I first met as Finance Ministers, and became Prime Minister and Taoiseach at almost the same time. From the moment we met, we both decided to put the Northern Ireland Peace Process at the top of our agenda.

    It looked hopeless: decades of mutual suspicion/recriminations/injustice/ violence. Few thought success was possible.

    Albert and I believed in politics of reason/persuasion: we believed that violence would never reach a solution: but dialogue might.

    But dialogue without agreement between the British and Irish Governments would simply sow confusion. That appreciation was the root of the Joint Declaration.

    Others had tried: others had cared – but only a joint Government agreement was likely to attract widespread support.

    The Joint Declaration not easily agreed. Went through many versions / much discussion / a lot of frustration – and the occasional squabble.

    But Albert and I got there in the end. Albert took political risks – for which I will be forever grateful – and so did I. It was worth it.

    What was the Joint Declaration?

    a powerful symbol of Anglo-Irish determination;
    a set of principles both Governments could accept;
    the essential bedrock of an agreement.

    It was not itself an agreement – but without it no agreement was possible.

    It offered reassurances essential to negotiation:

    To Nationalists:
    their traditions/aspirations would be respected;

    To Unionists:
    a United Ireland would not be imposed;

    To Paramilitaries:

    a way into democratic politics was open if they gave up violence.

    The Joint Declaration was the beginning of what we knew would be a long process. The Irish Peace Process was like a Rubiks Cube in Gaelic – never easy to solve.

    The Joint Declaration:
    Agreed objectives for London/Dublin;

    Addressed contradictory ambitions and fears.

    After the Joint Declaration, Albert and I were confident an agreement would be reached: my only regret was that it took so long.

    It was that path that has brought us here today: let me echo what Albert has already said: that we are proud to be your guests today, and that I am proud to be honoured alongside one of Ireland’s finest sons.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to Trinity College Dublin Historical Society – 21 November 2007

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made to the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society on Wednesday 21st November 2007.

    Mr Chairman, Mr Auditor, Provost, Ladies and Gentlemen of College Historical Society, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    My privilege to propose “that the Best Thanks of the Society are due to the Auditor for his Paper”.

    Well done, Tim.

    Chancellor, Provost, Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin and doubly so to be at this famous University.

    As you know, Albert Reynolds is unwell and can’t be with us this evening. However – the good news is – he’s recovering and will be out of hospital in a few days. I visited him this afternoon and he was in fine form. I know I speak for Albert Reynolds as well as myself in thanking you for the privilege of receiving this Award for our work on the Irish Peace Process. Timothy Smyth has presented a Paper full of insight and I am delighted to respond to it.

    Let me begin with a disclaimer: many people – some acknowledged, many not – contributed to the Irish Peace Process. They came from the Civil Services – I am delighted to see Roderic Lyne and Martin Mansergh here this evening – both of whom were pivotal figures in the whole process. They were crucial. When tempers heated, they cooled them. Tempers cool – they backed us in a way that rose them. They were magisterial. So were members of the Catholic and Protestant communities; the Churches; as well as figures from local and national politics.

    Paddy Mayhew, Peter Brooke, Dick Spring, John Bruton come to mind, as significant contributors. So – in different ways – do Jim Molyneaux and John Hume. And – it must also be acknowledged – individuals within the paramilitaries on both sides who realised violence was failing and opened their minds to a political settlement.

    Before I arrived at Downing Street, I had very little contact with Ireland – North or South – despite the presence of an Irish grandmother in my family. But, once there, Northern Ireland became a priority, and for long periods the priority. I held meetings beyond number in Westminster and in Belfast. Some were friendly. Some were rancorous. Some were full of hope. Some were interminable. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress. I knew from the outset that progress would be two steps forward – and one back: and so it proved.

    Invariably, I was struck by the disparity between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland Troubles lay deep in history, and were made worse by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots were ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning fiercely.

    And that loathing had led to carnage that, by the early 1990’s, seemed a permanent and irreversible way of life in Northern Ireland, with violence spinning off to the British mainland. Another atrocity. Another hooded victim. Another soldier dead. Such violence seemed to be so common-place, it often lost its place in the daily news. Shock receded to acceptance. Familiarity stilled the horror of butchery.

    But I did not believe the situation was irreversible. Nor, when I met him, did Albert Reynolds. I will now embarrass Albert. I’m sorry, Albert, but what I’m about to say is true. When I met Albert, I liked him instantly – not always the case among politicians. The man I came to know was a pragmatist with convictions – never an ideologue. He was a deal maker: a man who would offer something to gain something. It felt as though I was looking in the mirror. There was hope.

    At our very first meeting in No. 10, Albert and I agreed to put a peace process at the forefront of our political agenda. We knew we might well face hostility. Deep-rooted scepticism was certain. Political setbacks were likely. At worst, our careers might end. But at best, innocent people would no longer be killed. During the nearly seven years I worked on the Peace Process, that was the easiest decision I had to take.
    In his Paper, Timothy Smyth observed that there were lessons learned that might offer sign-posts to solving other conflicts. He is right: there is one, above all.

    Any Peace Process means dialogue: dialogue with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and dialogue – indirect at first – with the paramilitaries. That point about peace making is absolute: you cannot reach an agreement with someone to whom you do not – or will not – talk.

    That was my view – and Albert’s too. Yet it was not received opinion.

    For years, the IRA had sought a political objective through violence. For years, they had been resisted. It was a dance of death -interminable and pointless. It was also a stand-off that was convenient to the warriors of each side. The IRA could say they were not cowed by the power of the British – and would fight continuously for a United Ireland. The British Government could parade its strength by refusing to talk until the IRA disarmed which, without progress, they would never do. These so-called “strong positions” – these “positions of principle” – merely served to entrench the violence and the killing. And – as Mr Smyth observes – there was a cumbersome baggage of ideology on every side.
    Albert Reynolds and I approached the problem in the belief there would be a settlement because there must be. That ideology must give way to common sense. Some thought that was a triumph of hope over experience: we did not.

    It seemed to me the groundwork for a settlement was obvious:-

    (i) We had to agree objectives between London and Dublin for – if the two Governments had opposing agendas – the chance of a settlement was minimal.

    (ii) We needed to get inside the mind of the paramilitaries. People would be astonished at how many hours I spent trying to think myself into their minds – particularly those of the leaders of the IRA. What were their motives? Why did they act as they did? What constraints did they face within their own organisation?

    (iii) We knew we had to address the grievances that made it so easy for mischief makers to stir up hatred and foment disputes between the two communities.

    (iv) And we had to offer an end product that would encourage those within the paramilitaries, who had begun to realise violence would never succeed and were looking for a political settlement.

    (v) We also had to address contradictory ambitions and fears. Unionists feared a united Ireland. Nationalists favoured it. Both communities needed reassuring.

    Returning to Mr Smyth’s observation about lessons learned: the above approach, with modifications, has to be the bed-rock of any approach to end violent conflict.

    Putting together a Peace Plan in the early 90s was like playing multi-dimensional chess. It was a Rubik’s cube in Gaelic. What pleased London often worried Dublin. What was acceptable to the Unionists was anathema to the Nationalists. What was welcomed by some in Parliament was condemned by others. A peace process was never going to be a smooth ride – and it wasn’t.

    The Joint Declaration

    In his Paper, in a masterpiece of under-statement, Mr Smyth refers to “elements of mistrust” on both sides. He is absolutely right. Mistrust was a serious impediment to progress. Time and again committed advocates on both sides used leaks to the Media – often half-truths – to highlight fears and submerge progress. Everything that emerged from a Republican source (or was welcomed by Republicans) was poked at suspiciously and denounced by Unionists. The reverse was also true. The history of the Joint Declaration is a classic illustration of this tendency.

    In retrospect, the Joint Declaration stands out. But – in the early 1990’s – other avenues were being considered too.

    There was, of course, the three-stranded talks between the constitutional Parties; London and Dublin and North and South. They had many frustrations and deficiencies and ended up as a blind alley, but they were a source of ideas to determine what was acceptable to all sides, and what was a show-stopper. One point we learned was crucial for later: the political Parties would talk to the British Government but not to each other – yet we learned they would do so if elected to the same body. Years later, that led to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the unexpected partnership of Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness. In the 1990’s that would have seemed impossible, yet it is only when extreme positions are isolated, or neutered or brought together that a solution is possible.

    There was also the “back-channel” communication between the British Government and the Provisionals – a crucial clearing house and test bed. It was politically risky for the British Government, but also – let us not forget – for the Provisionals as well. When a newspaper “leaked” the existence of this channel, many were affronted by its existence – but making peace is a messy business and neither then nor now do I have any apologies to offer on this score: it advanced the Peace Process; it spelled out to the Provisionals what was – and was not – on offer; it removed misunderstandings; it helped save lives. To my mind, that is ample justification for it.

    It was in February 1993, through this “back channel”, that I received the following message:

    “The conflict is over but we need your advice on how to bring it to a close. We wish to have an unannounced ceasefire in order to hold a dialogue leading to peace. We cannot announce such a move as it will lead to confusion to the volunteers, because the press will misinterpret it as a surrender. We cannot meet the Secretary of State’s public renunciation of violence, but it would be given privately as long as we were sure that we were not being tricked.”

    In London, we gave this message a very restricted circulation. Even so, amongst close colleagues, some were suspicious. Some saw a political trap to lure the British Government into concessions. Few thought it would yield anything worthwhile. Doubt, as well as distrust, was ever-present on all sides throughout the process.

    The advice I received from the Security Services was that the message was from the Provisional Army Council – more specifically, they thought, from Martin McGuinness – although I should place on record that he has always denied sending it. This is a pity since – even in the darkest days – those words encouraged me to believe a settlement was possible. And there were many dark days.

    In his Paper, Mr Smyth reminds us of the bombs at Bishopsgate, Shankill Road, and Warrington to which he could have added the Loyalist murders at a pub in the village of Greysteel, in revenge for the IRA’s bungled bombing at Shankill Road. These atrocities were pivotal in hardening the public mind against violence, and boxing in the paramilitaries.

    I remember those bombs with the clarity of yesterday. I was in my garden in Huntingdon on a bright and beautiful Easter Saturday when I heard news of the Warrington bomb which fatally injured two little boys. It came only days after I had received assurances of progress from the Provisionals through the “secret link”. It was the only time I seriously considered breaking off the Peace Process. I did not – for two reasons: – firstly, I did not want any more loss of life – not least those of children: and secondly, I had begun to understand the psyche of the IRA. They believed they had to show themselves to be “strong” to placate their volunteers: that meant violence would accompany progress as, in their own way, they sought to show they were not making concessions, not – in their own mind – giving ground. Blood and progress marched together. It was a bitter assessment, but I believe it was the right one.

    The concept of a Joint Declaration had been around for some years. John Hume and Gerry Adams had pioneered the idea in 1988. Various private enterprise and Government texts had been floated but none was remotely likely to gain the support of the Unionist community. They were seen as too “Green” in complexion. Therefore – to the Unionists – they were flawed. Therefore, they were denounced. As so often in Irish politics, a sound idea was spoiled by its parentage – only a text jointly negotiated and agreed by the British and Irish Governments had any chance of acceptance North and South of the Border. And any negotiated text was bound to be very different from the early cock-shies. Nonetheless, the Hume-Adams’ dialogue was important and opened a window.

    It was not easy to agree a text. Officials – North and South – worked at it incessantly. Road-blocks were common. Disputes were frequent. I had innumerable hours of meetings with my own Officials, as no doubt, did Albert on his own side. Frequently we met – or resolved points over the telephone lines. I recall a meeting at a European Summit that dwarfed the importance of the Summit itself. And a stand-up row – in private – in Dublin Castle, when Albert and I deserted our Officials for one of the fiercest rows I ever had in Government. We survived it and returned to negotiation: that afternoon, I knew we’d reach a settlement.

    Albert Reynolds and I resolved the final points in the text of the Joint Declaration over the telephone on 14th November 1993 and announced it publicly sixteen hours later.

    What was the Declaration about? Was it worth all the effort?

    I believe it was. After 74 years of partition and almost 25 years of violent conflict, the British and Irish Governments – for the first time – had agreed principles upon which they could both unite.

    The Joint Declaration promised fair play to both communities. The Unionists were guaranteed there would be no imposition of a United Ireland, and the Republicans were guaranteed their traditions and aspirations would be respected. It was implicit that if there were ever to be a majority in the North for unification, that the British Government would not stand in the way. In addition – and crucially – the Paramilitaries were promised a full place in democratic politics once they abandoned violence. It was a powerful symbol that pointed the way to a very different future for Ireland.

    The impact of the Joint Declaration was immediate. It received massive public support at home – and worldwide. It isolated the men of violence. Encouraged the IRA to offer a cease-fire. And drained from all the paramilitaries the subliminal sympathy that earned them funding, recruits and public tolerance from their own communities. I believe, too, it offered hope where none previously existed.

    Much work still needed to be done. Political restrictions on the paramilitaries were eased. The Joint Framework Documents, negotiated with Albert Reynolds and finalised in 1995 with John Bruton, bridged a gap towards a final settlement. Indeed, re-assembled they were the basis for The Good Friday Agreement – when a new future was finally put in place for all Ireland.

    Prior to 1990, the Prime Minister and The Taoiseach met irregularly as sparring partners, often playing to their own gallery: today, the political relationship between London and Dublin is a relationship of allies – of friends; old opponents – once viscerally at war with one another – now work together.

    Ireland saw a new future and grasped it – putting an end to a black history that cost too many lives and dashed the hopes of too many generations. The pessimists were confounded. Reason prevailed – and the winner was – is – Ireland.

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

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

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

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Children for Peace Dinner – 23 June 2006

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech made at the Children for Peace Dinner, held at the Granada Studios in Manchester on Friday 23rd June 2006.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    [First section Sir John Major thanked everyone for coming and for Wendy and Colin for organising. Sir John Major explained why he was involved, he recalled the day he heard that Tim and Johnathan were murdered, and it nearly ended the peace process, but it didn’t because others might be killed.]

    In the interim I met Colin/Wendy and have seen their extra-ordinary response to a tragedy that, even now, is heard to come to terms with.

    They set up this Charity – and it has grown. They set up the Tim Parry Scholarship.

    They built a dedicated Peace Centre.

    They set up a range of learning programmes to meet the needs of 5-6 year olds up to young adults – and programmes working with adults.

    We will never end terror by force of arms or policing alone. We have to attack causes, win minds as well as territories.

    That’s what the Trust does: its learning programmes are focussed on understanding causes of conflict and resolving them peacefully.
    Governments can try and change attitudes but they need help: organisations like Children for Peace.

    Terror is at its weakest when the Community turns against it – rejects bigotry and violence – sets up “Ambassadors” for peace: this Charity does all of that. That is why I’m involved.

    When the Peace Process began in the early 90s, Albert Reynolds and I both shared the view that terrorism could not prevail and that the better aspects of human nature would be bound to win. I won’t reproduce all the many twists and turns of the Peace Process but let me simply say I believe we are nearly there and we need to build on what has been achieved in Northern Ireland. That is one of the reasons, of course, why the Peace Centre is so important although its remit is wider.

    Over the years, we have become used to Irish terror but now the threat is much wider.

    Terrorism is not new: it has been with us since ancient times; but now, like the economy, terror is globalising. Terrorism is Al Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; Pattani United Liberation Organisation; GIA … the list goes on.

    Groups that are secretive, diverse, with their money, men and weapons hidden as effectively as their minds are closed.

    Today, terrorism is a threat we can’t ignore. It is not targeted only against the Governments of the West. Think of the bombs in Bali. Or Jerusalem. Or the school siege in Moscow. Or Sarin gas in Tokyo. Or atrocities in Kashmir. The signature of mass-casualty terrorism can be seen worldwide. Around the world – other Tim’s and Johnathan’s.

    Most people find violence abhorrent and yet, terrorism has never been short of apologists. Over many years, it has grown bolder and more deadly. Many nations have suffered.

    And for no purpose because terrorism has not been effective in the post-Colonial world.

    When Spain, Portugal and Greece dumped Fascism – it was not because of terrorism.

    When Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe – it was not because of terrorist pressure.

    When Apartheid ended – terrorism played no part in its demise.

    Nor have the IRA gained from terror. Their political end is unrealised and their Community has seen through them.

    Terrorism can claim none of these victories – it exposes frustration but it often entrenches what it wishes to destroy: it is – ultimately – immoral.

    What is the purpose of terror? It varies. For many Terrorist Groups the predominant aim is to radicalise Islam; to set Muslim against non-Muslim; to play upon prejudice; to foster hatred. For others, as in Northern Ireland, it is to pursue specific political agendas or to unsettle democracies.

    In Northern Ireland, the intent was to absorb the North into a united Ireland. Always, the effect is to create chaos.

    And it does. The economic impact of terror is to de-stabilise markets and interrupt the flow of commerce. The political effect is to undermine Government by consent and civil order.

    So, whatever reservations there may be about how this War on Terror is being fought – these are sound reasons why it must be fought – and why it must be won.

    Terrorism and democracy are fundamentally opposed. They cannot co-exist. One must defeat the other. If democracy is to win, terrorism must lose.

    The oxygen for terrorism is hatred: hatred of specific countries and their values or – sometimes – resentment of long-standing grievances. We know, too, that social and economic marginalisation encourages political radicalisation.

    In considering terror, one question must be asked: can a war against terror be won at all? Is it possible that such a shadowy concept as terrorism can be identified, isolated and defeated?

    My answer is – Yes, it can.

    So, if democracy can win, how can it do so?

    The answer to that question is complex. It involves action against existing terror groups now, and political measures to prevent such groups obtaining support today and spreading their contagion tomorrow.

    To win, all those nations threatened by terrorism need to co-operate. This coalition of the willing must embrace every country that is – or wishes to be – democratic. These States must work together to deny terrorists their safe havens, cut off their financing, and stem the flow of recruits. They must deny them their causes. And, to defeat the ideological threat they pose, we must understand the motives that drive them and re-educate the minds of those who have sympathy with them.

    We must accept we cannot win by military power alone, but concede that we cannot win without it.

    International co-operation is vital: we will win more speedily if we co-ordinate action against terror; inhibit the movement of terrorists; outlaw them in every respect; attack money laundering; penalise States that are known to fund terror; act to reduce their supply of weapons; agree world-wide extradition of terrorist suspects. So much, I think, is obvious – although not all of it is done.

    But these measures are simply policing action against existing terror groups. We need to know – what motivates terrorism? What encourages non-terrorists to tacitly support them? What can we do to make terrorism so totally abhorrent that terrorists are utterly isolated?

    The answers to these questions are not always palatable – but they must be faced.

    Inequalities – poverty, AIDS; injustices – political repression, social exclusion. All these play a part.

    In much of the world ideological radicalisation has fed the perception that the religion of Islam is under attack. Al Qaeda assert this every day. Radicals use this belief as a recruiting sergeant to fuel their cause. Events such as the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have fed this perception as has the failure to bring the Middle East Peace Process – or the Kashmir conflict – to a successful conclusion.

    The Radicals case is crude propaganda, and wrong, but it is effective. To rebut it, democracy must lessen the chance of demagogues exploiting hardship to promote terrorism. They must fight for the hearts and minds of those into whose ears radical poison is poured. Words alone will not do: they must accept obligations that illustrate the morality of democracy.

    One example stands out. Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US$ 2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US$ 1 per day. This cannot be acceptable. I daresay no-one here today would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of morning coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of these three billion people, with the life of someone in richer countries – even if that someone was on the lowest levels of social support.

    The rich nations do much to help – and, at the recent G8 meeting, pledged to do more. I welcome that. At present, the rich nations spend US$ 50 billion in total on overseas aid: an enormous sum. But less generous than it seems when you realise that Europe and America also spend US$ 350 billion on agricultural subsidies alone. A statistic that is even more bizarre when you realise such subsidies cut away the chance for poor nations to sell their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    I believe that common humanity suggests that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well and fill bellies that are empty.

    In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. Moreover, as we act, we increase demand, we begin to create tomorrow’s market – and we undercut the message of hate that fuels radicalism.

    There are many reasons why the action promised by the G8 must be delivered: undermining hate campaigns is only a side issue but an important one. If we under-perform, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion.

    Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish to sustain a free market in a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    But if the world acts early, acts now, acts out of conscience – not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, is such a threat to our security and our prosperity.

    Over the years, terror has so unsettled the political climate that trust has gone and a lasting solution is elusive. This plays entirely into the hands of the terrorist for it gives this dispute a much wider fuse: it is used to justify terrorism elsewhere.

    Sometimes, it has been difficult to see how this could ever be brought to a peaceful solution. It is depressing beyond belief – but it forces us to face the reality: in Palestine, as elsewhere, political progress remains the only way forward.

    I want to say something here about politics and terror. It is based on my own experience in dealing with the IRA.

    For years, the IRA had bombed and murdered in Northern Ireland – and on the mainland of the United Kingdom. Successive Governments reacted strongly and gave no ground to terrorism. But – whilst not conceding their objectives – we did look for a peace process to wean them off violence and to undercut their support in the community.

    It took a long time – and there were many setbacks – but it was right. We are now near a political settlement, without conceding the united Ireland that the IRA sought through bomb and bullet.

    The lesson is clear: never negotiate from fear, but never fear to negotiate. It is tempting just to denounce terrorism. But if you wish to save lives, you must sometimes engage with them as well.

    That is what the Peace Centre does: why it is so vital; why it is important to continue.

  • Mr Major’s Article on Ireland – 15 August 2004

    The text of Mr Major’s article on Ireland, published in Future Ireland in August 2004.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Once more the Irish Peace Process is stalled. The blame game will be back in vogue – so has all the hard work of the last decade been for nothing? I don’t think so.

    From the moment I arrived at Number 10, Northern Ireland was a priority for me: the issue kept bubbling to the front of my mind. And during my 6½ years as Prime Minister, it never fell from the top of my agenda. I held meetings beyond number at Westminster and in Belfast. Some were interminable. Some were friendly. Some were raucous. Some were hopeful. Some ended in walk outs. It was a panorama of protest and progress.

    Invariably, I was struck by the distinction between the personal warmth and charm of those I met, and the depth and savagery of the rivalries that divided them.

    The roots of the Northern Ireland troubles lie deep in history and have been exacerbated by generations of distrust, recrimination, hatred and outdated tribal attitudes. But, although the roots may be ancient, the perceived inequity of the old Stormont Parliament, and the divisive gulf between Unionist and Republican aspirations, kept mutual loathing burning steadily. Until the Northern Ireland Assembly was formed, politicians were literally irresponsible – they had no responsibility for decision-making at all – there was nothing to force them to reach a pragmatic rapprochement. The need for that was vital, which is why elections and the establishment of a Northern Ireland Assembly was so important and its suspension such a setback.

    Despite continuing difficulties, I have always been an optimist about Northern Ireland. There will be a settlement because there must be. If one looks back through the avenue of the past three decades or so there are many positive moves to justify that optimism. The clamour for normality has grown ever louder.

    Of course, “the troubles” are not just political, and nor is the solution to them. There are those within the IRA and the Protestant Groups for whom the nature of the political settlement is all important: but there are many others for whom criminality, sheltering behind a political cause, is a way of life. Such men (and women) have no wish for a settlement, no wish for peace, will do everything in their power to frustrate it and, if it were achieved, might peel off to join ever-more extreme splinter groups. Certain in the knowledge they will be isolated by a political settlement, they will continue to oppose it. These people – forever arguing, disputing, deceiving and distrusting – are one of the fundamental reasons why political agreement in Northern Ireland has been so hard to achieve. But when that political agreement is finally reached – and it will be – these remnants of humanity will be seen for the violent criminals they are and be isolated, caught and punished.

    To many it is baffling that – so long after the Peace Process began – there is still no settlement but this should not be surprising: first, because of the people working from within against a solution; and second, because that elusive solution is wrapped in a mille-feuille of complexity.
    There are two words that bedevil a settlement: “distrust” and “decommissioning”. Historically, in Northern Ireland politics, nearly everyone has distrusted nearly everyone else. Distrust breeds fear. More especially, it breeds a fear of making concessions and encourages everyone to hunker down in their established positions.

    By far the biggest stumbling block is decommissioning: the removal of weapons from the political debate. For the paramilitaries this is complex. The Loyalists – whose very name is a misnomer for their loyalty is more to anti-Catholicism, anti-Republicanism and anti-Southern Irish sentiment than loyalty to the British Crown – embrace many splinter groups often at war with each other. When they offer decommissioning, it is primarily as a lure to the IRA. In practice, any disarming is a token gesture since any weapons surrendered can be replaced easily.

    The IRA has a deep-rooted conviction that equates disarmament with surrender. Their philosophy is that “the movement” never surrenders. They argue that no paramilitary group has ever given up its arms unilaterally, and many in the IRA bitterly oppose any move to do so. I once tried to make it easier for them by suggesting they could destroy their own weapons. No-one was insisting they should be handed over to the British Army or be destroyed in public. I would have been content for there to have been independent verification of destruction and would not have objected if they had used the twisted metal to fashion a statue of Eamon de Valera. But the IRA’s suspicion is deep-rooted and ever-lingering: the response from them has been minimal.

    Even so, the IRA – like the Loyalists – toy with token decommissioning for public relations purposes. Such gestures are helpful but much more will be needed – not least to convince Unionists to return to the Northern Ireland Assembly and remain there. The underlying situation is not easy: the paramilitaries of the IRA have a psychological block to de-commissioning and Unionists have no reason to trust them until they have disarmed. Decommissioning is, therefore, essential though movement towards acceptance of this truth has been as though one were viewing events through a slow motion camera.

    To achieve a final agreement, we need the end of all preparations for paramilitary activity by Loyalists and Republicans alike. The end of paramilitary will being enforced on the streets. Above all – again and again – the restoration of trust.

    This latter requirement means all may yet hang upon the destruction of Arms. When a family has suffered a loss of life the psychological effect is profound: often there needs to be a period of “closure” before life can resume its normal pattern and peace of mind be restored.

    The Irish peace movement needs “closure” too: in this case “closure” is the destruction of Arms. No-one knows how many weapons there are – especially in the hands of the IRA – but the sum total is significant. It is probable that there are many tons of explosives in secret caches, together with heavy weaponry, rifles and handguns. All are a threat to peace of mind as well as peace on the streets and must be verifiably destroyed or surrendered. Tokens are helpful – but insufficient.

    For the people of Northern Ireland, we must continue to hope that their desire for peace will soon become a reality. But the question still lingers – will the paramilitaries deliver?

    We have yet to hear the answer.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Annual Barnett Lecture – 17 November 2003

    The text of John Major’s speech at the annual Barnett Lecture, held at Toynbee Hall in London on Monday 17th November 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    My theme tonight is change.

    We now live in a world without economic boundaries: crumbling for years they were finally smashed by technology.

    As the global economy has taken root, the command economy has taken flight.

    This economic wind is changing even the role of Government itself. Governments can wreck economies with bad policies, they can help build them up: but more than ever before the true engine of growth is private endeavour.

    As the unfettered power of Government diminishes, the power of markets increase. And technology has ensured that markets never sleep. We are now into a continuing revolution that will not settle down into a comfortable pattern: it will accelerate and grow.

    Much has changed in the last 15 years. Not only is the global economy a reality but one super power, the Soviet Union – for so long the glue that kept the West together – is no more. China has emerged from its chrysalis. World demand is tilting towards Asia and the economic challenges are more testing than even a decade ago.

    During much of the 1990’s the world enjoyed substantial growth with rising investment and low inflation but in the last few years, we have seen the flipside of that boom. None of the economic motors has been driving the world towards growth.

    There are bright spots. In the US, the economy is about to grow rapidly.

    Japan is showing renewed signs of economic life, even though her days of massive external investment are gone. Her potential is still huge, although, for the moment, she is merely limping towards recovery.

    China is a different case. She is enjoying rapid growth helped by massive inward investment and an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour. But China’s growth comes with a warning: so cost effective have they become that there is a risk that they will export price deflation.

    The political structure of the world is changing no less rapidly.

    When the Soviet Union collapsed we all rejoiced that the world was safer. It was: the threat of nuclear exchange between superpowers had fallen. But – in politics – the laws of unintended consequences can be harsh. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability.

    For example, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed – and Tito had not died – would we have had the bitter civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Probably not.

    Other consequences were more benevolent. Freed from Soviet control Eastern and Central Europe re-embraced democracy and much of it will soon swell the free market of the EU which – within a few years – will stretch from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia herself.

    For the moment, there is but one super-power – the US. America is the most powerful political, economic and military nation in the world: no-one can rival her. But, for America, this is not an undiluted benefit: it brings obligations as well as rights. Problems as well as opportunities.

    History is instructive here. When Britain had an Empire, we were widely detested. Hundreds of millions resented our power and envied our wealth. Even as they paid polite lip service to our face, they rejoiced if we were defeated or embarrassed.

    Today, that envy, that resentment, is directed against wealthy nations more generally – and especially against America and Britain, her closest ally. It will take wise and generous policy to turn that tide of opinion.

    It is easy to rail against the mighty – and we may see much of that in London this week – and often a proper sense of perspective is lost. I strongly support the right of people to protect against policies of which they disapprove. But let them remember. America is our closest economic and political ally: without her might at a time of peril, we might not enjoy the right to protest at all.

    In the post Soviet world, two military-political problems loom large: the threat of terrorism and the instability of the Middle East.

    The war in Iraq was very controversial – but no-one should weep for Saddam Hussein and his regime.

    They divided Iraq with terror and left fear, suspicion and hatred behind them. A once rich land became poor. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – mainly Shia – were murdered and ten times that number persecuted and driven from their homes.

    The aim of the coalition must be to bring stability to Iraq.

    This will not be easy. Ancient feuds run deep and each day terrorist attacks seek to make a difficult task – impossible.

    There are three main risks:

    (i) losing the tacit support of the Shia tribe;
    (ii) open conflict with Iran; or
    (iii) getting bogged down.

    All are possible.

    Yet, having invaded Iraq, we cannot turn our backs on it. We must aim to leave behind a free nation with a stable government. No-one should suppose this will be easy. It will not. It will be costly in cash and costly in troop deployment. If we cannot find the troops now, I fear we will need them later.

    But – and here is the conundrum – if it is later it may be longer before the security situation improves; longer before an Iraqi Government can be in place, and longer before we can leave Iraq. That equation – early troops and early withdrawal – or later troops and later withdrawal, is a harsh reality.

    One growing concern over the last few years – pre-dating the Iraq conflict – has been the growing division between much of the Arab and the non-Arab Moslem world and the Western democracies. A prime cause of this is the lack of progress in the Arab-Israel dispute.

    MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

    The question is: is a settlement achievable?

    Certainly, both sides need one. Israel needs security and recognition and acceptance by the Arab States: and Palestine needs a future. An active peace process is vital – without one there is a vacuum into which terror and mayhem step too readily. We have seen too much of that in recent years as a low grade war has simmered, always at the risk of becoming a full scale war.

    The outline of a solution has long been clear. And yet, prospects of achieving it have rarely seemed as grim.

    During the last year, hope has been hijacked as attitudes have hardened.

    Israel has faced a spate of suicide bombings that are part of a deliberate strategy. Wicked men have encouraged foolish young men and women to become human bombs in Israel. The carnage has been frightful.

    In a bleak year, over 400 Israelis have been killed. Many thousands more have been injured. For the third year running the economy has contracted, leaving unemployment at 10% – the highest the State of Israel has ever known.

    And Israelis notice that the Palestinians do not regret the violence of the Intafada.

    It has been bleak for the Palestinians too.

    They have seen:

    – their society fragmented and collapsing;
    – their economy all but destroyed;
    – malnutrition in Gaza rising to a par with the Congo;
    – 30% of Palestinians living on food handouts;
    – 60% living on two dollars a day;
    – and 87% of Palestinian families having one or more family members suffering from psychological difficulties.

    And Palestinians notice that Israel is unrepentant about occupying Palestinian areas.

    Out of that mutual despair, is there any scope for optimism?

    The essentials of this conflict have been unchanging for a long time. There is no new proposal for peace that will suddenly be seized on by all sides. The biggest change needed is one of attitude.

    No-one should expect trust to spring forth from suspicion. It will not be easy to wring out the compromises that both Israel and the Palestinians must make.

    PM Sharon has spoken recently of “painful concessions”; “a Palestinian State”; and “no military solution”. What this implies is unclear – and must necessarily be so – but it must involve compromise on settlements and the line of route of any partition wall.

    A reality check tells us also that the exercise of American power and American diplomacy is crucial to progress for history suggests it is unlikely that a purely bilateral deal can be done – especially now for the Palestinians are in disarray and there is no clear authority in Ramallah.

    A solution to Iraq may change the whole face of the Middle East but a solution to the Arab-Israel conflict would assuredly do so.

    TERRORISM

    This week there is unprecedented security in London. The fear is terrorism. Over many years terrorism has grown bolder and more deadly.

    On 9/11 it over-reached itself and led democracy to declare War on Terror.

    This cannot be a short-term war. It will not be won in this Presidency. Or the next. Or the one after that.

    Terrorism isn’t a nation.

    Terrorism is Al-Qaeda; Hezbollah, ETA, IRA, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri and Punjabi Separatists; … the list goes on. Groups that are secretive, diverse, with their money hidden as effectively as their men and weapons.

    In the mind of the terrorist, no-one, nowhere is immune: not New York, not Baghdad, not London nor even – you may remember – Warrington, where a few years ago – on a sunny Easter Saturday morning I shall never forget – two young boys aged 12 and 3 left home to buy Easter eggs for their family. They never returned: their tiny bodies caught in the eye of an IRA blast.

    The question is: is such a war winnable at all? With one proviso the answer is yes. The proviso is this: we are unlikely to eliminate terrorism entirely because as terrorist groups are beaten back they are likely to splinter into smaller, more radical groups, with more extreme agendas.

    But what we can do is cut back their threat, and lower their potency to a wholly different level.

    To do this, we need international co-operation: especially from countries within whose borders the terrorists take shelter.

    Many of these are Moslem which is a further reason why we need to improve our relationship with them.

    But we need to hurt the terrorists in another way too.

    We need to cut off the flow of their support and, to do that, we need democracy to tackle the grievances that act as the Recruiting Sergeants for militancy.

    These go beyond Iraq and the Arab-Israel dispute.

    We should never lose sight of the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer and the undeveloped nations fall further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption, poverty and the growing epidemic of AIDS condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship.

    Some may say – well, it’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem. Maybe, but we have to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility this causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Self-interest joins with common humanity to suggest we should help. If we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, we will help ourselves. In removing grievances we cut away the resentment of the “have nots” for the “haves”.

    In the 1940s/50s, the US launched a Plan to deliver Aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of wars. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    In a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations together would be wise to consider another such un-sordid act.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when?

    Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act now, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come but we will under-cut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to our security and our prosperity.

    Let me say a word about domestic politics.

    We are at an immensely fluid time at present.

    The old verities can no longer be relied upon. Every child is no longer – as W S Gilbert wrote – a little liberal or a little Conservative. Or even a little supporter of old or new Labour.

    For generations our politics was largely based on a familiar combination of class, of background and an affiliation to one of the competing philosophies of socialism or the free market. For those political non-conformists who wished to plague both the main political houses, the Liberal Party offered themselves as a safe haven.

    All that is going. The old politics is dying.

    Today’s voters are less interested in ideology and more fluid in voting intention. They are bored with the old arguments and the familiar jibes. They are also puzzled because nothing is clear-cut any more.

    This leads to the widespread (but mistaken) view that “they’re all the same” and “nothing makes any difference”. The result is a General Election with a turnout of under 60%: in which the “don’t knows” and the “won’t votes” score more highly than the winning Party.”

    No-one should dismiss this turnout in 2001 as a “blip”, brought about solely because one Party was unappealing and another not yet seen to be ready for Government. The malaise is deeper and needs to be remedied.

    An underlying problem is that the Commons has been losing status for some years. Some of this is inevitable. Some of the powers it had have been lost to the impact of the global economy. The world has changed and vital decisions must often be reached in wider fora: in the G7, the UN or – most likely – the EU. The Commons has also actively surrendered decision-making making internally to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Mayor of London, the Northern Ireland Assembly and – very possibly – a wide range of Regional Assemblies as well. Its decisions, therefore, are often less relevant to more people.

    To balance this, the Commons must look seriously at reform: and by reform I do not mean the pale-pink changes that have been made to “modernise” it. Many of these are for the convenience of MPs and I have no intrinsic objection to that: but they are irrelevant to the need for Parliament to re-assert its authority over the Executive and improve its capacity to influence long-term decisions.

    Our present and future Governments, face complex problems – the consequences of an ever more elderly population – especially upon Pension policy; the need for far higher education standards than we have been able to deliver; – the list is endless.

    None of them are easy.

    None can speedily be remedied. None benefit from the ‘yah-boo’ exchanges that so dismay the political onlooker or the character assassination that has swept into fashion.

    All need a strong, virile Parliament and not a powder-puff legislature dancing to the party games of yore. If the institution declines; if respect is lost for that; if politics is seen as a game not as an essential bulwark of our constitution and our liberties, then we are in serious trouble.

    My theme tonight has been one of change: let me try and bring it together.

    CHANGING WORLD

    In a world of bewildering change, the speed of medical advance is staggering and the demand for medical services is infinite. It will grow: the mapping of the human genome system will lead to an explosion of demand for preventative care and, where this is provided, to an increase in life expectancy. It will be common place for today’s children to live beyond 90 years of age. What changes may they see?

    As so often, the past may give us an idea of the scale of change in the future.

    Last year, I attended the funeral of Her Majesty the Queen Mother and, as I sat in Westminster Abbey I pondered upon the remarkable advances the world has seen during the 100 years of her life.

    At her birth, no-one knew of blood groups, of hormones, of barbiturates. Primitive typewriters, vacuum cleaners and household detergents still lay in the future. Marie Curie had not discovered radium; nor had Einstein perfected his Theory of Relativity. As a child, she would have remembered the amazement – possibly even disbelief – at the news of Count Zeppelin designing a machine that would fly. It would be twenty-five years before Lindburgh would pilot the “Spirit of St Louis” to Paris. Consider what has happened, within the period of that one very long life:

    In 1900, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface. Only Siam had never been governed by the Europeans.

    Even the United States was still a debtor nation, financed largely by the City of London.

    How things have changed.

    The Ottoman Empire has gone.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire has gone.

    The French Empire has gone.

    The British Empire has gone.

    The Russian Empire has come – and gone.

    The US is now the most powerful nation in the world with China – after 3,000 years of isolation – on course to become her greatest rival. Europe is building unity on the back of 1,000 years of war and establishing a free trade area from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East.

    Children born today will see the conquest of the stars.

    They will live longer, see more, do more, know more than any earlier generation.

    They will see the deserts bloom.

    See a genetic rebuilding of failing bodies.

    Live with technical innovations beyond our present imagination.

    It will be a world unrecognisable to their forebears.

    CONCLUSION

    Against the enormous changes that are taking place, we need a longer term approach to policy and an end to the travesty of “sound-bite politics”.

    Soundbite is quite simply a fraud: falsely promises an easy solution to a complex problem. Easy – no problem. Problem – not solved by soundbite.

    The events of 9/11 are giving us a masterclass in consequences. We need politics that confronts the uncomfortable. Politics that rises above the short-term and the soundbite; politics that is long-term; politics that knows it no longer controls all the pieces on the chequerboard; politics that adopts common ideals and rejects common abuse; politics that is directed to issues and not to personalities.

    I will read you a poem you may know and I learned as a child:

    For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.

    For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.

    For the want of a horse the rider was lost.

    For the want of a rider the message was lost.

    For the want of a message the battle was lost.

    For the want of a battle the war was lost.

    For the want of a war the kingdom was lost.

    And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

    Benjamin Franklin, 1758

    It is the classic illustration of how a chain of events can be triggered by one single incident.

    If it was true in the world of 18th century – it is even more true in the hectic global world of 21st century.

    This world is competitive. Complex. Confusing. And always changing. This is our world, and we would be wise to reflect with care upon how it is and plan for how it could be – for the possibilities are infinite and constrained only by our imagination and our endeavour.