The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Russia

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Attlee Foundation Lecture – 18 March 2026

    The Attlee Foundation Lecture 2026, delivered by Sir John Major at King’s College London on 18 March 2026.

    ATTLEE FOUNDATION LECTURE 2026

    A PIVOTAL YEAR FOR DEMOCRACY

    First of all, I would like to thank the Attlee Foundation for inviting me to deliver this Lecture.  I am privileged to be here this evening, and delighted to be at King’s, where I feel very much at home.  

    It is a quarter of a century since I left front line politics, but I still have an observer’s interest in our world and our country.  Both are in an uneasy state, and actions – or in-actions – this year may be pivotal to the future.

    Let me do a little ground clearing.

    Some may be surprised that a former Conservative Prime Minister would deliver a lecture in honour of a former Labour Prime Minister.  

    They shouldn’t be and, in a world of grown-up politics, they wouldn’t be.  

    It is easy to admire Clement Attlee for his record of achievement;  his political courage;  his resolute defence of our country’s values;  his creation of the NHS;  his commitment to public service;  and the manner in which he put the interests of his country before his own – or those of his Party.  

    Of course, were he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy.  We are political opponents.   But mark this:  Opponents, Yes.  Enemies, No.  

    Democratic Parties do have enemies in politics, but they are populist insurgents who seek to divide and not unite.  

    They are careless of the strife they cause.  They trade on grievances in our society.  Where ills exist – they exaggerate them.

    They then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion.  It is ugly politics that deserves no place in our country.

    Our political system would work to better effect – and be more honest – if mainstream politicians acknowledged that their priorities – I emphasise priorities – have far more in common than they wish to admit. 

    That may surprise you, but consider this:  all our three main Parties are in favour of greater economic wellbeing;  secure defence;  decent public services;  thriving health provision;  affordable housing;  flourishing education;  and healthy employment.  

    This is what we expect in our liberal democracy, and when these priorities are not delivered the nation becomes disenchanted ‒ as it is now.

    We are not alone.  

    Over the last two decades, democracy has been retreating around the world.

    Nearly three-quarters of our world live outside democratic protection.  

    Autocrats undermine democracy to entrench themselves in power.  If we do not recognise the dangers of that, and protect ourselves against it, autocracy may, one day, overwhelm us.

    At my age I have a limited lease on the future, but let me say with all the force I can muster:  if we were to cast aside our mainstream politicians – as polls suggest we may do – then a gap would open up, and that gap may not be filled by democrats.  

    So – if you rejoice at the dire polling of Labour and the Conservatives ‒ beware of what you wish for.  

    If they were to fall, who knows what will rise:  you may find that autocrats-in-power do not share the democratic instincts of the politicians you have discarded.  

    Many people worry about what lies ahead.  Some are bewildered, even frightened, by the changes in our world.  It would be a self-inflicted wound if they turned to the extremes of politics because democracy was not speaking for them.

    We know democracy can succeed in the most unpromising circumstances:  the Attlee Government proved that eighty years ago.  

    After a crippling war, our country was near bankrupt.  The War had enhanced our reputation for courage and persistence, but left our immediate prospects in tatters.  Six years of conflict had left families bereaved, cities destroyed, and the Exchequer bare.  

    The British people had endured years of hardship.  The age of deference was on its death bed – and our battle-weary predecessors demanded a brighter future.

    In retrospect, 80 years on, the 1945-50 Government, and its Prime Minister, are held in high regard.  The problems they ‒ and their successors ‒ faced, and overcame, should be an inspiration for what could be achieved today.

    But there is no room for complacency.  No reason for the careless assumption that democracy is so entrenched it cannot be undermined.  It can – and around the world – it is.  

    Electors should treat with suspicion rash promises from infant Parties that have never experienced the complexities of democratic government.

    Our liberal-democracy is not perfect, but it is far preferable to any of the alternatives.  It has checks and balances unknown to other systems.  It has the ability to dismiss the inadequate, and haul down the over-powerful.  

    It exists to serve the nation.  It does not compel the nation to serve the State.

    Our political system is an enabler.  Its policies enable peace, resists war whenever possible, and promotes justice, wellbeing, growth, care where needed, enhanced life expectancy, and transformation of life opportunities.  

    Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.

    But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.

    People have faced higher costs and rising taxes.  They have seen no real increase in their post-tax income – nor in their standard of living.  

    When – over a period of many months – our three mainstream Parties collectively register barely 50% in opinion Polls it is time to be concerned over what may lie ahead.

    In a bid to reassure electors, politicians talk of “reform” to come.  It’s a useful word – reform.  It can mean everything or nothing.  Reform means change.  Change means upheaval.  Upheaval provokes opposition.  

    Upheaval may be necessary but – sometimes – it is better to make progress on the everyday issues of politics.

    Is policy strangling initiative or encouraging it?

    Are tax levels deterring savings and investment?

    Is planning holding back housing for the homeless and the would-be home owner?  

    Does the benefit system encourage or discourage unemployment?  

    Can the triple lock be targeted to pensioners who really need it?  

    Can Parliament act more strongly against the misuse and abuse of social media and, if so, how?

    Can we fund the Armed Forces we need?  

    Will this mean more spending – or savings elsewhere?

    There is certainly no shortage of issues to settle.  But it is not only policy that needs updating:  so does our political system.

    Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy.  

    We need a spring clean.

    Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?  

    Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence?  I believe the answer is – yes.

    Should the House of Lords be elected or appointed?  An elected Upper House would meet democratic aspirations, but would be a monumental mistake.  It could – and would – challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion.

    It would not retain the wisdom and lifetime experience to enable it to discharge its primary function of revising legislation.  It would not be a partner to the Commons:  it would be a rival.

    Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.  

    As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results.  The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.  

    Should Members of Parliament who defect to a different Party be compelled to face a by-election?  Constitutionally, no – as they are deemed to be elected as individuals.  

    But, in the real world, they are elected as representatives of a political Party.  So – yes:  logic and common decency suggest they must face the electorate again in a by-election.  

    If the House of Commons wishes to regain the respect it has lost, it must justify the status-quo – or change it.    

    And one further thought:  is it not time to recognise that Brexit has failed to deliver its many promises, and the loss, each year, of £100 billion of European trade, and £40 billion of tax revenue is doing enormous damage to the lives and livelihoods of the British people – and their future?  

    Money is the root … of good public services.  Imagine how much better they – and our military power – might be if that money was still available to the Exchequer, instead of being thrown away with such a casual disregard of the consequences.  

    I do not believe we can fully rejoin the European Union in the near future.  But economic wellbeing tells us we should re-build relationships with our closest neighbours as swiftly and as comprehensively as possible.  

    When we left the EU, we broke up a European alliance of 500 million people.  We did so as America – with its 340 million citizens – pivoted away from us towards the East.  

    Suddenly, our closeness to the European and American power blocs was reduced.  This left the UK more solitary and vulnerable.

    My father was brought up in America, and taught me to admire the virtues of that great Republic.    

    Our two countries saw the world through similar eyes, and had much in common.  But our relationship, once rock solid, is now more nuanced – and more distant.  

    After WWII, the Marshall Plan helped rebuild shattered European economies and – in the post-war years – America was the rock upon which democracy prospered.

    America’s influence was overwhelmingly benign when President Truman committed to “support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.”

    America’s purpose, echoed by later Presidents, was to secure a freer – and safer – world, in which the strong pledged their protection of the weak.  No fee was asked.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  It was altruistic policy in a harsh world.  

    It was what made America great.  

    I saw this first hand at meetings in the White House and Pentagon, when the most senior Military personnel of both countries were present.  Their mutual respect and friendship was self-evident.  Trust was instinctive and total.  Nothing was held back.

    Our political and military relationship was one of shared values – on every issue from human rights to free markets.  So I know what we had, and deeply regret that it seems to be falling away.

    Since the turn of the century, America has economically out-paced both the UK and the European Union.  At the millennium, the GDP of America and the EU was similar.  Today, America is half as big again.

    There is now a new tone from America.  President Trump argues that America is being “ripped off” by trading partners and – without consultation – he raised tariffs on imports from wealthy and poor countries, whether friend or foe.

    When the Supreme Court ruled these to be illegal, he reimposed a 15% general increase using different powers not yet tested in Courts.

    Uncertainty was reinforced by the President’s dismissive attitude to Europe, his demands for the ownership of Greenland – the territory of a NATO ally – and his expressed view that the incursion of Ukraine by Russia was solely a problem for Europe.

    This is not the America we have known.  

    Vice-President Vance also accused Europeans of being a greater threat to freedom in Europe than Russia.  That was offensive and absurd in equal measure.  

    It was President Putin who sent Russian troops to invade Ukraine ‒ not vice-versa.  It is Russia and Putin that conducts a “shadow war” of mis-information;  takes cyber action aimed against Western Europe;  and murders political opponents within Russia and – as we saw at Salisbury – in other territories, too.

    When President Zelensky visited the White House to seek support, he was “ambushed” – no other description suffices – by President Trump and Vice-President Vance.  It was Zelensky – not Putin – who was accused of “gambling” with World War III.  This turned truth on its head.

    Yet when President Putin arrived in Washington, he was greeted with full honours.  Putin revelled in his red-carpet reception, and appeared able to persuade President Trump that black was white.  

    President Trump’s priority is set out in two alluring slogans:  “America First” and “Make America Great Again”.  This explicitly puts self-interest before the wider international interest, and has begun to further pry apart the “rules based” system that was built and led by America herself.  

    That system was fraying ‒ but is now fracturing.  If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation breaks down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle with which no country should be content – and in which no country is safe.

    My fear is the risk of stepping into a world in which “might is right”, and the mighty behave in an unprincipled and lawless manner.  

    In such a world the rights and prosperity of weaker nations are subordinate to the will of the strong;  greater powers are deferred to – not because they have justice on their side – but because they have the power to compel acceptance of their will.

    Such a concept is truly terrifying.

    How different that is from our expectations.  In 1949 – one year after the Marshall Plan was put into action – the NATO Treaty was signed.  

    The Treaty included an Article 5 Agreement that an attack on one Member will bring all others to their defence.  

    But is that still so?

    Will America – with all her military power – still be willing to come to the defence of a NATO ally?  NATO is, of course, a defensive – not an offensive alliance.

    I hope so.  But the Vice-President is on record as saying “I just hate bailing out Europe again”.  The American Defence Secretary added:  “I fully share your loathing”.

    Were these remarks merely frustration?  Or were they voicing future policy?  

    It is striking that neither comment was disowned by the President.

    If America did resile from Article 5, it is hard to see how an American could remain as Supreme Allied Commander.  Yet it is inconceivable – given America’s great military power – to imagine anyone other than an American leading NATO, as it is currently constituted.

    I suspect that, underlying all this, is America’s determination that Europe should bear a higher share of NATO’s overall costs.  That would be fair.  The burden has fallen too heavily – and for too long – on America’s shoulders.  

    American power was vital in winning both World Wars in the last century, although history tells us that she joined World War I only in 1917 after German submarines sank American ships.  

    And, in World War II, only after Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbour in 1941. 

    The worry for the future – to voice the private fear – is that past American Presidents only gained the support of their public to enter the two World Wars after America herself was attacked.  In future, without that imperative, can we be utterly confident of American participation?

    President Trump – against his own campaign oratory – has shown himself prepared to use America’s muscular power on overseas missions.

    I am conflicted by the American-Israeli attack on Iran.  

    In one sense, this was a wholly understandable response to Iran’s behaviour over many decades.  

    I have no illusions about the distasteful nature of Iran’s clerical leadership.  They unleash terror ‒ and fund murder and mayhem through their proxies.  

    This brutal regime has shown it is willing to murder any of its own citizens who are brave enough to protest at the mis-government that scars their lives.

    So ‒ why am I conflicted?

    It is because of what was not done ahead of any military action and ‒ crucially ‒ the wider implications beyond that.  

    There was no diplomatic attempt to obtain a UN Resolution to give legality to the war.  No nation – other than Israel – was even consulted.

    This was despite the fact that the war was bound have much wider repercussions across the Middle East – and beyond.

    Many nations will pay a price for this war.  

    Hostilities will not end when bombing stops.  Old hatreds will linger.  New hatreds will have been born.  A new generation may have been radicalised.  Retaliation may be deferred – but it is likely to come.  

    This war will have a long tail.

    Its aims have never been clear and – since the conflict began – they have been changing by the day.  No exit strategy is known.

    The President demanded surrender.  He is unlikely to get it.  

    For Iran, one should think Persia, and remember her history.

    Persia was a dominant world power when America and the UK were still living in mud huts.  She will not admit defeat.

    Neither America nor Israel were prepared to put “boots on the ground”.  This comforted their domestic audiences, but made regime change – always unlikely ‒ completely impossible.

    Whilst they restricted conflict to the air, American leaders encouraged Iranian citizens to take to the streets and confront well-armed Basij volunteers.  These are part of the Revolutionary Guard, which murdered 30,000 demonstrators only weeks earlier.  

    Unless – and until – the regime is seriously tottering, that encouragement to rise up is an invitation to suicide.

    In due time, the war will end.  

    What will it have done for the rule of law and the protection of the rules-based-system of behaviour that has served the world so well in the aftermath of World War II?

    The American Defence Secretary was contemptuous of …. “vague notions of international law” and the “…. stupid rules of engagement”.  

    Such disregard of law is a shameful example for a law maker to set.

    If the international rule of law is dismissed so casually, what are we left with?

    I can only speculate, but I believe we will be left with a more fearful world, in which wars may be more numerous and alliances less secure.  

    A world in which disputes are settled ‒ not with diplomacy or adjudication or agreement ‒ but by force:  the victor being the most militarily or economically powerful.

    This heralds a playground for the strong, perhaps Russia or China – or even America ‒ and a future of unease, even fear, for the weak.

    That would be a wretched legacy to pass on to the next generation.

    The mercurial nature of President Trump upends the accepted norms of diplomacy.  

    But the message for the UK and Europe is clear and unmistakable:  we must plan and enact policies to improve self-dependence.

    This will require us to raise budgets to enhance our military capacity for defence and offence.  That effort must be within NATO and not separate from it.  

    It will be an expensive and long-term commitment.  After decades of peace, Governments must now persuade their electorates that military spending must rise – perhaps at the expense of social expenditure or higher taxes?

    Assuming that can be done, countries must agree to purchase arms collectively.  And, in doing so, the weapons must be inter-operable on land, air, sea – and below the sea.  That will mean purchases from national suppliers may be less easy.

    Matters such as these – complex as they are – cannot be left undecided if NATO is to be battle ready and a credible deterrent to any hostile intent.  

    Do not misunderstand me.  I do not – in any way – wish to push America aside.  She remains the most important ally to the whole of Europe.

    For the UK, the Trans-Atlantic partnership is key to our security and intelligence.  It is in our national interest to sustain this relationship even if we are in dispute on other issues.  

    At No10, during Gulf War I, I experienced first-hand what could be achieved when working closely with one of the finest foreign policy teams America has had:  George H W Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft.  President Bush and I never held back from speaking truth to each other, and never once did that impair our relationship.

    But today, there is a tendency to tip-toe around the President to avoid upsetting him.  Although I understand that, I do not agree with it.  

    Sovereign States that demean themselves will be seen as subordinates and not allies.  That is not a role for the UK.  

    If we disagree with American policy we should say so – as a friend that cares for the wellbeing of an ally.  Statesmen do this in private ‒ not in public.

    Our frankness may cause uncomfortable interludes, but we must never lose sight of what is morally decent and right, and stand up for what we believe.  

    In all our years of history, this is what the UK has done:  it was right then – and it is right now.    

    Let me return to the words of Clement Attlee:

    “…. peace does not come about through wishful thinking.  Peace is not just a negative absence of war;  peace means that you get rid – as far as you can – of the causes of war.”

    What do we mean by “Peace”?  It seems an easy question – but is not.  

    To fully enjoy peace, men and women need to be free.  By free, I don’t only mean to be at liberty.  I mean to be free of war;  free of fear;  free of want.  I mean freedom to worship without persecution, and freedom to speak against injustice and oppression.

    The concept of peace is wide-ranging.  Peace of mind is very precious but ‒ in the 21st Century ‒ a majority of people in the world don’t enjoy it:  the growth of stress, of pressure, of mental health, tell us that we are far from that ideal.

    There has been progress.  Many diseases that killed or crippled have been overcome.  Child mortality has fallen dramatically.

    Hundreds of millions have moved out of dire poverty;  similar numbers now have fresh piped water and electricity.    

    But, as rich nations reduce their aid budgets, poor nations continue to struggle – and the international liberal order loses its attraction … and its potency.

    There is an ancient responsibility upon every generation to leave behind a better world than they inherited.  We are not doing well on that front.  

    Our young generation has no direct experience of war.  They have grown up in a better environment.  They travel more.  Intermingle more.  Inter-marry more.  They are blind to colour and ethnic background.  They are free of many of the inhibitions and prejudices of their forebears.

    They do not view ancient enmities through the same eyes as previous generations.  They welcome communal action on issues like climate change that can only be overcome by working together.

    “Peace” ‒ said Attlee ‒ “does not come about through wishful thinking …”

    Indeed not….. not in any form.

    It comes about by working together – with civility, respect, fortitude, and mutual understanding – to diminish the causes of dispute and strife.  

    If we truly wish to create a safer world, that is the route we must take. 

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Maurice Fraser Lecture – 18 November 2025

    The speech made by Sir John Major on 18 November at the Maurice Fraser Lecture held at the LSE European Institute on 18 November 2025.

    BRITAIN IN A CHANGING WORLD

    Thank you for that very kind introduction ‒ and for the invitation to deliver the Maurice Fraser Lecture.  

    Maurice was a Special Adviser at the Foreign Office during my brief tenure as Foreign Secretary in 1989 – between the much longer tenures of two great public servants ‒ my predecessor, Geoffrey Howe, and my successor, Douglas Hurd.  

    He was to work with all three of us – for a total of six years from 1989 to 1995 ‒ making him, or so I was told, the longest-serving Special Adviser in the recent history of the Foreign Office.  He was that near-mythical creature:  a round peg in a round hole.   Few – if any – Special Advisers have been awarded the Legion of Honour by France.

    He had a formidable knowledge of world affairs, a tireless enthusiasm, a wicked sense of humour – and a total commitment to his country.

    It was for that – and so many other reasons – that I asked him to join me at No10.  But Maurice’s allegiance to the Foreign Office was too great to tempt him away from it.

    Maurice studied at this university, and it was where he chose to return to share his experience after he left Whitehall ‒ first as a Lecturer, then as a Fellow and finally as a Professor.  In many ways, the LSE was his spiritual home. 

    So it is a great pleasure to be here at the European Institute with his family, friends and former colleagues, to celebrate his remarkable – but too short – life through this Annual Lecture.

    * * * * *

    This evening, I wish to look at Britain’s future role in our changing world.

    That world has undergone many changes over the last fifty years and – whilst a large number of those changes are welcome – others are not.

    Globalisation has retreated.  Free trade has given ground to Protection.  Tariff barriers have risen.  Theft of intellectual property has become more blatant.  

    The stability of the rules-based post-war system is crumbling.  No country, no organisation, no Leader has stepped forward to seek a new consensus – to repair what is damaged, and replace what is lost.    

    Adherence to the written and unwritten rules of international conduct has fallen away.  The moral principles of politics are losing out to transactional arrangements.    

    As power shifts, and alliances are re-arranged, much that we once took for granted is no longer certain.  Current American policy has even upset calculations once believed to be settled about our future security and economic wellbeing.

    Our world today is unsettled, grumpy, fractious, changing in character as economic hardship bites, populism increases, and America and her allies grow apart.  For nearly two decades, democracy has been retreating as autocracy rises.  

    Basic expectations have been broken.  

    In the post-war years, it was the experience of most that improvements in our lifestyle had either been delivered – or were on the horizon.

    Downturns came, of course, but these were overcome and better years followed.  

    Slowly, if irregularly, democracy offered hope – even to those at the back of every queue.  Nations in the democratic West came to believe this improvement was an unbreakable trend:  it wasn’t.

    Since the financial crisis of 2007, too many people have seen little or no improvement in their living standards.  Taxes have risen, Pay packets buy less.  National and personal debt has soared – and hope has become anxiety.  All this has added to the disillusion with democracy.

    There is now a significant war in Europe, for which the outcome is uncertain – and the aftermath even more so.  

    The language of politics has changed.  It is harsher, more aggressive, more focused on the battles of politics than the welfare of nations.  

    A form of populism has taken root that builds its support by condemning others:  its target could be migrants, or minority religions, or people of another race – or any vulnerable group.

    It seems that if anyone is “different” and can be scapegoated – then they are fair game.  The late Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, noted that “Antisemitism is the best warning sign of a wider threat to a free and tolerant society”.  

    I agree with that:  venom directed at one source will be directed at others too.

    This mode of attack is not restricted to individuals or groups.  Populists use it against all authority and so-called “elites”.  

    “Elites” are treated as if they were “the enemy within”, and Governments as if their shortcomings were the root of all ills.

    Even the Judiciary is attacked, as if it were a subversive body, seeking to undermine the State.  No-one should be complacent about this.  If the Law loses its authority, the bully walks tall – and the lawless walk free.  

    The objective of the populist is as old as time:  if someone else is in the dock of public opinion, those who denounce them must surely be on the side of the majority.  The outcome of all this is to set citizen against citizen.

    Such behaviour debases all who practice it.  It is ugly, divisive, and racist – and daily on display.  

    RUSSIA

    In the midst of our unsettled world, President Putin has turned Nation against Nation.  The invasion of Ukraine had no credible or justifiable cause.

    Across Europe – and within his own country – Putin’s “3 Day War” is now over 3 years’ old.  So far, 400,000 Russians and Ukrainians have been killed – and many more are suffering from life-changing injuries.

    Only one man is responsible for this slaughter.

    The innocent civilians, who have died under bombs and drones, are considered by Putin apologists to be simply “collateral damage”.  They are not.  They are victims of mass murder and, when the fighting is done, this should not be forgotten.  

    There is a price to pay for mass murder and, if justice has any meaning, Putin will be brought face to face with it.  

    It is vital for future peace in Europe that Putin does not gain from his War Crimes – either on the battlefield or in an enforced deal.  

    Putin claims all of Donetsk, knowing Ukraine cannot cede it to him.  And President Zelensky must not be pressured to do so in return for promises that Putin is unlikely to keep.

    Western support for Ukraine has suffered from not being full-hearted.  The allies, generally, have provided enough for Ukraine to fight on and keep Russia at bay – but not enough for Ukraine to drive Russia back and end the conflict.  

    There are three ways in which this war can develop.

    It can continue indefinitely – in more or less a stalemate – if the democratic West holds back on increased support for Ukraine.

    But – if Russia gains the upper hand because Western support has dropped – then a compromise deal may be forced upon Ukraine.  

    That would be a shameful outcome, and one all of Europe – and beyond – would come to regret.  

    Putin would claim a victory, and be likely to re-group and test Western resolve again:  a bad outcome could be the preliminary to another war on a future date and a wider terrain.

    The third option is that Western support increases, Ukraine advances, and Russia retreats.

    If Putin loses, or is forced to withdraw, he loses face.  Conceivably, he may even fall from power.  If so, we cannot know if a successor will be more tractable – but it would be surprising if he were not more cautious.  

    America and Europe must weigh these alternatives.  Only one is likely to ensure peace.  They should take it.  

    One final point:  this conflict is not against the Russian people:  it is against Putin and his regime.  

    Putin has no scruples about creating chaos in other countries.  We should have none in telling his people how he deceives them ‒ and loots their assets.

    The prize of his departure would be the much safer and more stable Europe that Western democracy longs to have.

    CHINA

    Russia and China are allies against democracy, and friends only when it is mutually convenient.  There is no doubt that China has usurped the influence of the former Soviet Union and is the dominant state.

    Today, there seems to be no limit to Xi Jinping’s power or tenure of office.  He is supreme, and building up a more assertive China both economically and militarily ‒ especially in and around the South China Sea.  He is very much aware that China is America’s only Superpower rival.

    China now boasts the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America ‒ and she continues to build them.  

    In the late 16th Century, China was the pre-eminent global power.  China has not forgotten this ‒ and nor should the world.

    President Xi is consolidating Chinese influence with diplomacy.  China offers development finance through loans and grants to nations across the globe.  

    Xi is presenting China as a champion of multilateralism ‒ in sharp contrast to President Trump’s arbitrary increase in tariffs on imports from friends and allies that has caused a great deal of anguish.

    It seems an upside-down world, in which America offends her allies, while China embraces them.  

    This “embracing” was very much the visual from the recent Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, hosted by China, and attended by India, Turkey and Egypt ‒ all of whom have been more generally considered as allies of the United States.  

    A wise America would gather them close, not push them away.  A friendship broken can be hard to regain.

    China is a strong opponent of liberal democracy, believing it to be inefficient and a potential risk to her authoritarian ways.

    Nonetheless, we must work with China, but set parameters to what we will accept.  We should not overlook her shortcomings:  her treatment of the Uighur Muslims;  her failure to honour promises over Hong Kong;  her threats to Taiwan;  her theft of Western technology.

    China will resent criticism, but may respect it.  She will scorn weakness – and we should remember it is weakness that encourages over-reach.  

    Nor should we be gullible.  China is a great power, but can be chillingly repressive.  Her philosophy is not inhibited by democratic instincts, or individual human rights.  If China believes actions are set against the interests of the State – she will crush them.

    As China says ‒ “We believe no comments challenging national sovereignty and social stability fall within the scope of freedom of expression.”.  That restriction is the very antithesis of democracy.

    It is a sentiment we should not ignore.

    BREXIT

    In an act of collective folly, the UK voted to leave the EU.  Across the world, our enemies celebrated.  Our friends despaired.  

    We left Europe on a minority vote of 37% of the electorate, after a Referendum Campaign that was packed with misinformation and misjudgement.  It left our country poorer, weaker and divorced from the richest free trade market in history.  

    The national interest was brushed aside by false hopes and promises, that even a Cabinet dominated by frontline Brexit enthusiasts was unable to deliver.    

    The gains – from Brexit – that were promised so confidently can now be seen to be illusory, while the forecast damage of leaving the EU has become only too apparent.  

    The nation soon saw “project fear” become “project reality”.  It is no consolation that a majority of the public now – overwhelmingly – recognises that it was misled.

    In their moment of triumph, Brexiteers predicted other countries would follow their lead and leave the EU.  None has ‒ all saw only too clearly that Brexit was packed with disadvantages.

    As we meet, nine further nations now wish to join the EU which is an apt comment on the world view of Britain’s decision to leave.

    The UK once revelled in being a leading member of a EU, with half a billion citizens and the undoubted first ally of the United States – the world’s most eminent super-power.  Today, we know we are neither ‒ and so does the world.

    As we plan for the future, we must see ourselves as we now are:  and what we are is 

    70 million people in a world of 9000 million.

    The UK has a proud history, a wealth of talents and a role in the world that continues to be significant.  

    So, we have much to offer our partners.  Our national assets would make the European Union stronger and better equipped to face an uncertain future. 

    Our collective future demands a Europe that conducts itself as an economic super-power alongside America and China:  the alternative is to be ever subordinate to their political and economic whims.  

    As I look to the future, I have no appetite for that.

    I know the shortcomings of the EU ‒ I lived with them for many painful years.  But, in a dangerous and uncertain world – with two unpredictable super-powers – I believe Britain’s future is safer and more economically secure inside a powerful bloc of neighbour nations than outside.

    But we cannot simply knock on the door and rejoin the European Union.  Too much political and diplomatic blood was spilt for that to be an easy option.  There are many barriers to a return to full membership that will be difficult to overcome – perhaps for many years.

    That said, there are areas where we can make a start and – looking forward – the plain truth is that the EU is too important for the UK not to be part of its decision-making process.  

    My immediate ambitions are limited, but a necessary beginning.  The changing public mood will help.

    The Polls tell us that well over half the electorate believes it was a mistake to leave the EU, and less than one-third now supports having done so.  Among the young, support for Brexit falls as low as 13%.  The trend is inexorable.  

    That is why it is disappointing that both Government and Opposition are so wretchedly timid in their ambition.  Both Labour and the Tories are terrified of the residual Brexit vote.  

    Our economic and political interests could not be clearer, but short-term Party political calculation is given priority over the national interest.

    Brexit is a flop.  It will not leap up from its death bed.  It is losing our country £100 billion of trade every year – as well as the tax revenue that trade would deliver.     

    Just think about that.  Every year – every year – the loss of billions of European trade is damaging our finances.  The loss is made far greater by decisions the present Government has taken.  That is one reason why we are facing a difficult Budget later this month.

    Serious economists forecast a cumulative loss to the economy of £311 billion by 2035, together with 3 million fewer jobs and a fall in trade levels with the EU.  

    As of now, many small and medium-sized firms have been defeated by post-Brexit bureaucracy, and simply stopped trading with Europe.  It is baffling that – at a minimum – we are not looking at how to negotiate away such frustrations.

    New trade deals – supposedly to cover lost European trade – have not done so.  Most are simply roll-overs of past deals.  Some are positively damaging.  

    The much-promised “mega” trade deal ‒ swapping additional American trade for lost European trade ‒ has never happened – and shows no sign of doing so.    

    Much though I wish otherwise, I do not foresee an early return to full membership of the European Union.  We have lost the unique and advantageous deals we gained in negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s – and I do not believe they can be regained.  

    Without them, a full return to Europe is almost certainly unobtainable in any likely Parliament until a younger generation of pro-European politicians come to power and the Brexiteer voice retreats again to the fringes of debate.

    In the post-Brexit years, it has become glaringly obvious that it is in our self-interest to rebuild a better relationship with the EU as an institution and bilaterally with individual Member States.

    The Government has made some modest steps that are welcome:  none is dramatic – but all will play a small part in building trust.

    More collaboration is under discussion ‒ such as youth mobility schemes, and integration into the Electricity Market.  Hopefully, they can be agreed.

    I hope ambitions can be raised to examine rejoining the Customs Union and, thereafter, the Single Market.  Neither will be easy or painless ‒ and both will face political opposition and negotiating hurdles.  

    But ‒ if a fair deal can be struck – it will be welcomed by trade and commerce, by a majority in Parliament, and by pragmatists everywhere.  And it can be achieved.  

    We may even be helped achieve an improved relationship by the evident wish of our European neighbours to build an expanded military presence across Europe, but within NATO.  British military capability is important to Europe.  

    If we try – and are rebuffed, we must try again.  The prize is worth the effort.  And, although those within the EU are tough negotiators, they must know that their long-term interests – and ours – are coming into alignment.  A deal can be done – and it must be done.

    UK

    Politics is a tough trade ‒ perhaps more so today than at any time outside of war.

    The commentariat, media, and social media give politicians little or no slack, even when dealing with novel and complex challenges.

    Let me turn to some of these challenges relevant to British politics ‒ though not necessarily unique to us.

    The cost of servicing our public debt is now over £100 billion a year, and the Chancellor’s second Budget in a few days’ time promises to be a painful lesson in what happens when nations spend too much and earn too little.  

    We are told constantly that “the broadest shoulders must bear the greatest burden” – 

    as, of course, a progressive tax system should ensure they do.  But it cheats the nation to pretend “the rich” can bear all the burden – or have not been bearing an increasing portion for a long time.

    In the late 1970s, the top 1% of UK taxpayers paid 11% of the total income tax take:  

    last year, they paid not 11% ‒ but 29%.  The Chancellor should beware:  to force the rich away will place a far greater burden on “the average tax payer”.

    We are not alone in our problem.  The scale of national debt is reaching crisis levels in rich countries as well as poor.

    Already, 60% of the world faces debt-to-GDP levels of over 100% ‒ including most of the world’s largest economies.

    This is an indictment of governments offering “Jam today” and “a bitter pill” tomorrow.  It’s now “bitter pill” time.

    No-one can be sure when the crisis will be triggered ‒ or what the catalyst will be ‒ but the world cannot continue to overspend and expect economic security.  And nor can we.

    IMMIGRATION

    A word about immigration.  

    No-one should blithely assume this is a short-term problem that will easily go away:  it won’t.  Last year, 950,000 migrants arrived ‒ 50,000 illegally by boat.  

    This is obviously socially unsustainable.  But the lure of our country will not disappear.  The long-term demand to come here will continue.

    The scale of this demand – although unwelcome – is a back-handed compliment.  No-one clamours to enter Russia, China or Iran.  Even so, there is a practical limit to how many the UK can absorb.  

    Yesterday, the Home Secretary presented new plans to Parliament that are controversial – but also more comprehensive than anything we have previously seen.  

    They deserve careful study – not instantaneous acceptance or rejection.  

    But – however the Home Secretary’s plans proceed – a long-term solution is likely to include a pan-European effort.  All of Europe faces this problem.  

    One aspect of reducing migration would be to make it more palatable for migrants to remain in their own countries.    

    The policy of cutting aid and investment to poor countries is very shortsighted:  it will accelerate demand to migrate as hardship increases.  This is a policy that acts completely against our own interests.    

    It is morally wrong, politically wrong – and heartless.  

    There have been hints that the Government will now re-think this policy:  it should do so as soon as it can.  

    POPULISM

    Let me return briefly to populism.

    Populism is no longer a fringe problem of a few outlandish politicians:  it is now mainstream and professional, and we should recognise the threat it poses to democracy.  If we do not – and it gains power – it will not tolerate its opponents.

    It is not easy to defeat populist groups offering disaffected people simple solutions to complex problems.  After all, if the established politicians have seemingly “failed” in finding solutions, it is human nature to look elsewhere.  

    But populism is a dead end.  I offer two antidotes to its appeal.

    The most effective – is policies to remove deeply felt grievances and regain political support.  

    Contented nations rarely support populism.  A return to stable growth would end much of the public dissatisfaction that gives life to it.  Such a recovery would also ease the minds of many people worried about their future.

    The second defence against populism is to expose the dangers of its policies and the unworkability of its solutions.  

    I do have a warning though:  over-the-top attacks on populist Leaders – as opposed to their policies – can be counter-productive.  Unworthy attacks can offer them the oxygen of public support:  a dissection of harmful and undeliverable policy can take that support away altogether.  

    The truth is that the only side populism is on is its own.  It cares for no-one else. And if it flourishes, democracy declines.

    Democracy has a lot to lose.  The established political Parties need to defeat populism – not copy it.  The sooner they raise their game the better.

    SUMMATION

    I would like to end on a personal note.

    I talk about the risks we face, because we dare not ignore them.  

    I talk of the future, because the present must prepare for it.  

    In modern politics, multiple challenges and day-to-day crises crowd in so fast, that it sometimes seems the future is crowded out by the immediacy of now.

    We must stop that, or we will simply drift, and events – rather than our national interest – will forge our future.  If that were to happen, it would be a profound failure of Government.    

    My worry, to put it bluntly, is this:  the future seems to be secondary to the frustrations of today.  But it shouldn’t be.  Future problems can become today’s problems very quickly.

    If we don’t face up to the risks of war;  of national debt;  of climate change;  of long-term migration;  of the health – even survival – of our political system;  then we fail in the duty we owe to our history, our present, and our future.  

    I believe in our nation:  in its history, its values, its natural sense of fairness and justice, its essential kindness and tolerance – and I admire the way in which it has always risen to existential challenge.  

    We must look to the future without fear of change, or timidity of action, but with the conviction that we can build the welfare of our nation, and sustain our place in the world.

    We have faced far more difficult times than now, and come through them.  The choices and challenges of today may be more complex, but they are less stark than we have faced before.  They can be overcome – and must be.

    But, to do so, we must abandon the cacophony of spin, soundbite, and empty noise – that so often substitutes for political debate about the well-being of our nation.

    It is time to turn our back on complacency, on pessimism, on short-termism, on the second rate, on the fear of failure, on artificial divisions – and raise our ambitions to bring substance to the fore in politics, pride back in to our nation, and hope back into our lives. 

    This is the principle by which Maurice lived, worked and taught.  

    And the principle which – I believe – runs deep within us all.

    We owe such an approach to the future. 

    It is my fervent hope that, together, we can work towards that outcome.

  • Sir John Major’s Interview on The World This Weekend – 16 February 2025

    The text of the interview between James Naughtie and Sir John Major on BBC 4’s The World This Weekend on 16 February 2025.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, who combines a razor sharp observation of the here and now, with his own experience as Prime Minister. Coming to power soon after the fall of the wall, deeply involved in the chaotic translation of the Soviet Union into the Russian Federation and a leader who found himself involved in armed conflict in the first Gulf War shoulder to shoulder with an American president, George H W Bush. So I asked Sir John to put these days, now, in Europe in perspective. How serious did they seem to him? What change did he think was afoot?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the world is changing and that it’s reshaping, that it may not be reshaping in a way that’s congenial to the west and that it’s a very unsettled time indeed. Many of the gains we thought we’d made over recent years, for example, as you said, when the Soviet Union collapsed, are now being reversed and you see a very aggressive Russia again in Ukraine. If they were to succeed with their adventure in Ukraine, no doubt they would be elsewhere before too long. We see globalisation retreating and there’s no doubt in my mind that democracy is threatened. It’s been in modest decline for the last 18 years, there’s an ugly nationalism growing, mostly from the intolerant right. So it is, as I say, a very unsettled time. At this particular time, the big nations, America, China, Russia, are beginning to act unilaterally, where once they would have consulted. That is a concern, because it does presage the prospect of very great and rather unpleasant changes.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You allude to what’s happening in the United States and it brings us to President Trump’s dealings with Vladimir Putin and indeed to JD Vance’s speech to the Munich Security Conference. This is a kind of administration, to be quite blunt about it, you’ve never seen in your lifetime before.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    No, that’s perfectly true. It’s a very different presidency from Kennedy, from Nixon, from Clinton, from Obama, from the two Bushes. In fact, it’s a form of presidency I haven’t previously seen. The President’s phone call to Putin, in which we learned that negotiations to end the war would start immediately. There had been no consultation with Ukraine or anyone else. He then made concessions to Russia, which I think is fairly unprecedented, having made perfectly clear that the US troops would not defend Ukraine, that Russia might be able to keep land that Putin had taken by force and that Ukraine would not be able to join NATO. These were all unilateral remarks from the present administration in the United States to the world. Yet consider what happens if Russia can claim a win. China is going to notice that, and so will the world, and so will every tin pot dictator around the world. If America is not to stand behind its allies in the way the world has previously seen, then we are moving into a wholly different and in my view, rather more dangerous world.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    From what you think you have read into Trump’s dealings with Putin, that is exactly what you expect to happen?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That is what he appears to have been signalling, yes, and it’s extremely dangerous and it’s hard to understand why. The Vice President’s speech at the Munich conference, a rather unlikely venue for the speech he actually made, the political signal was obvious and misguided, I think, in the middle of an election in Germany. This is just an illustration of what is happening, but if you recall, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen died relieving Europe from the tyranny of fascism and the Vice President goes to Munich, ignores his host Chancellor Schulz, and arranges meetings with the leader of the most far right party. That is not what we expect from the foremost nation in the free world. It’s certainly not statesmanship, and it potentially gives off very dangerous signals.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    And he lectures Europe at the same time on the issue of free speech?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, that is extremely odd. It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling Mr. Putin. In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or, on a statistically unlikely level, fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow. To lecture the West about democracy seems to be rather odd. He really should be doing that in Moscow, or perhaps even in Beijing.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Well, your view is plain, but I have to put it to you that Donald Trump is practicing what he preached. The voters, after all, a bare majority of those who did vote in the United States give a man a mandate to do this, and as a consequence, you might dislike it, but you can hardly complain that he’s doing something illegitimate.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    He certainly won a mandate. I don’t recall in his mandate a suggestion that he might take over Canada or Greenland or the Panama Canal, or any of the other things that are being suggested. I mean, let me say what I think Western governments will be unwilling to say publicly, but which I am sure they all feel. If America behaves in this fashion and retreats towards isolation, she leaves the door open to China and Russia to supplement her place in the world. The free world, I believe, now fears that America, with all her great power and prestige and all that she has done to keep the world safe in recent years, may now be turning her back on the international responsibilities she has previously taken. If she does so, there’s no other nation state that can replace them, other than China, and that is not something I think the West would certainly wish to see. If that happens, the world, including America, may regret what subsequently follows.

    Now I understand President Trump’s desire to make America great again, though I would have thought, since she is the most powerful and richest nation in the world, she could already claim that, but he wishes to make her great again. It’s a very different tone from a former American tone of paying any price and bearing any burden for the freedom of mankind, and the world needs to take account of that and discover precisely what is meant by all this, and then, as necessary, take action to safeguard their own interests.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    So John, it’s unusual to hear a former Prime Minister talking, if I can use the word, so frankly. Because, you know, there are protocols and a sense of politeness that prohibit people who’ve been in high office from maybe always saying what they think. You clearly feel that you’ve got to let this go, you’ve got to tell people what you believe.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I rarely these days appear on the media. I’d rather take the view that former Prime Ministers by and large should keep out of the way and leave it to the current generation. But sometimes there are things that need to be said that perhaps can’t be said so easily by the present Government or by politicians in office but that nonetheless need to be said.

    Now let me say something personal about this. My father was brought up in the United States, he was brought up in Pennsylvania and he lived there throughout his youth. He taught me as a boy to love and respect the United States and its people, and I always have respected them. It seems to me that it would be a very great tragedy with very uncertain outcomes if this great Republic began to preside over the death of the rules based society that has kept the world safe over the last 50, 60, 70 years. Yet, I’m not alone among politicians who think that rules based society is now at risk.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    I’m bound to take you back a little bit at this juncture and say that George H W Bush, father of a president, as well as a president himself, of course, was the first American president that you came to know well in office. You fought together, as it were, in the Gulf, and you saw through some very tumultuous times together, but the contrast with the current incumbent is dramatic, isn’t it?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it’s total, yes. George H W Bush was not only President of the United States, but from my point of view, during his presidency and for many years afterwards, he became a much cherished friend and he was an internationalist of a very remarkable kind. He understood the world, and he understood that for every action, there is a reaction. I make that point because if America stepped back from the responsibilities they have so generously and bravely taken over recent years, somebody else will step forward to replace them, and I think we have to realise that, and we have to prepare for that if it should prove to be necessary.

    My preference would be for the United States and Europe to reach a great concordat again and to conduct negotiations in private and not by megaphone and not without consultation first. But if that can’t happen, then Europe, and I include the United Kingdom as well, even though we’re not in the European Union, then we need to look at our own future and begin to repair some of the gaps in our present position that would appear were America to retreat a little more behind American borders,

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Which must mean spending more on defence?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Undoubtedly.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    So if you were Chancellor, which you once were, you’d break your own fiscal rule wouldn’t you, and say ‘come on, this is a moment that really demands action, whatever we said in an election campaign?’

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I sympathise with the present Chancellor with the position she’s got. It’s very, very easy to say, from outside the government, I’d just do this and I’d spend all this money. I would prefer to say, I would realise in my plans that we have to make a very material increase in the level of defence expenditure and do it as a priority as soon as it is credible to do so.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    In terms of the Ukraine negotiation itself bringing this war to an end, there are two issues that arise very obviously. When European leaders, including Keir Starmer at this occasion, meet in Paris tomorrow night, it will be on their minds. The first is the inclusion of Ukraine in conversations between Trump and Putin, which hasn’t happened yet as we know. And secondly, there is the question of NATO membership, on which the United States seems to be determined, or at least minded, to block Ukraine from its ambitions to join. How would you see your way through those two problems?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    We need to consider, because it is relevant to what we decide, what happens if Mr. Putin wins? I use wins in the sense of gains territory, the world will see that at the same time as they see Mr. Trump talking of annexing Canada and Greenland. Now contemplate those two events running together, and ask yourself this question, what do Mr. Putin and President Xi think? They are dancing with joy. 

    Mr. Putin will see that he has received some reward for seeking to invade and annex Ukraine, and Mr. Xi will feel, if that has happened, what restraint is there on China beginning to grab Taiwan back again in a few years time? So we have to look at what the world would look like if that happened and it wouldn’t look very attractive, and we would wish it not to happen. So I do think we have to speed as rapidly as we can defence expenditure. I can’t say I have focused particularly on the credibility of Ukraine joining NATO, but if it’s not credible for them to do so, now, I think we ought to assist them so that it becomes credible as soon as possible.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    From your point of view, as somebody who was engaged in serious international negotiations at a higher level, the centrality of Ukraine to a settlement which is going to decide the future, not least in terms of its own borders of the country, is surely an absolute fundamental principle that Europe has to defend?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Yes, Ukraine should be a part of the negotiations. There is no justification for other nations and negotiating over Ukraine’s head, whether it is the United States alone, or indeed the United States and other allies, it is Ukrainians who have lost several 100,000 people in the battlefield. They have lost blood and treasure and a large part of their country, it would be intolerable were they not to be a significant part of the negotiations.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    And there will have to be some kind of security presence to safeguard their borders in the event of some kind of settlement?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    That was a notable absentee from the reports of what was said by the President to Mr. Putin. There was no mention of any concessions to be made by Mr. Putin. There was no mention of any security guarantees to be given to the Ukrainians and both of those are an important part of what must happen when there is proper negotiations.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    How difficult would it be for Europe and for NATO, dominated of course by the United States as a member, where some possible deal on Ukraine would be seen by them as a sellout to Russia?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I think it would be immensely difficult, firstly, against the prestige of the United States. There are countries all around the world who rely on the power and strength and democratic power of the United States. If they believe the United States is no longer to be relied on, they will rethink their position. Many of them who are non aligned, might well realign behind China. Others may decide they’ll increase their own expenditure on defence. Some may decide, well, we had better get a nuclear weapon as well, because it seems as though it may be necessary to protect ourselves. Now, all of those things are speculation, but they’re not wild speculation. All of them are perfectly credible things that might follow from a belief that America had ceded its present role in the world as a whole simply to concentrate on the domestic greatness of the United States.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    You’re being very frank. You obviously feel very deeply about this.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Well, I suppose I have a limited lease on what happens in this country. I’ve been in it for my eight decades, but my children haven’t, my grandchildren haven’t and millions of other people haven’t. The future lies ahead. I would like our political parties to stop looking back at past generations of politicians and look forward to what is going to happen in the 2030s and the 2040s and the 2050s, to begin to plan for it, to begin to act for it, to begin to understand the way the world is changing and prepare for it.

    Those things seem to me to be extraordinarily important. Politicians today have a harder time, I think, than any of their predecessors, because of the advent of social media, the way in which the chequerboards of the world are changing shape at the present time and and the fact that our country has had 15 years without any noticeable increase in the living quality of most British people. in any part of the United Kingdom. That’s an extraordinarily difficult back loss for them to operate, but we do have to look forward. If we look forward, we can bring hope where there is none, and provide opportunity to a greater extent than there is at present. Those things need to be done. I hope Governments, this one and the next one are not too small ‘c’ conservative in what they think and what they do and what they believe can be achieved, because the world is moving and changing very rapidly. We have to move and change with it.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    If by some possibly divine intervention, you were given the opportunity to have a private conversation with President Trump, what would you say?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    I’ve always believed conversation should be private, and I’m absolutely sure Jim that our conversation would far better be left private than public.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Sir John Major, and he writes our closing headline for us, because he has told this programme that democracy is under threat than it if the US retreats towards isolation, it will leave the door open for Russia and China to take its place in the world.

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

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

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

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

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

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

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

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

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

    EU Summit in Birmingham

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

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

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

    Three way conversation

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

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

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

    Kurds

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Sue Ryder Care Centre Lecture – 29 October 2004

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Sue Ryder Care Centre Lecture, held on Friday 29th October 2004. The speech was titled “A World for Our Children”.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    In the 17th century, the English poet, John Donne wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself”.

    That is even more true today: true of life, true of international affairs; true of the sick; and especially true of those who suffer from progressive degenerative diseases.

    Sue Ryder recognised this over 50 years ago and devoted herself to the care of those who could not be “entire of themselves”. Countless numbers – at home and abroad – have reason to thank Sue Ryder for her vision. Her remarkable innovation has grown and the high quality nursing care that is the hallmark of Sue Ryder Centres has become a practical illustration of man’s commitment to man.

    We are lucky, most of us: we are fit, healthy, not crippled in mind or body and we have a life in which hope is always there – even in the darkest moments.

    It is not so for everyone. Around the world there are millions upon millions who lead a life without hope – through sickness, or poverty or depression. To them – if only they did but know – the life of Sue Ryder is a beacon of what can be done.

    The demands of life can be pitiless. Too many individuals assume Governments can foresee problems and solve them. They can’t. Nor can they cut taxes and spend more on services; or deal with today’s frustrations and prevent tomorrow’s arising; or focus on domestic issues yet, at the same time, keep the world’s problems at a distance.

    Governments are not omnipotent: far from it. What Harold Macmillan once memorably called “Events, dear boy” shape the agenda more often than not with Governments limply following behind.

    Sometimes they are too far behind – as they are with the two great social problems that may shape the world our children will inherit: Poverty and AIDS.

    POVERTY

    Poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair, can motivate crime and even be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. In some parts of the world it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    Often you can see why.

    A few months ago, the world was rightly horrified at the slaughter of the terrorist bombs in Madrid. But at broadly the same time, Uganda lived through a comparable loss of life. The so-called Lords Resistance Army attacked a large refugee camp in Northern Uganda and killed over 300 people. They seized children between seven and fifteen: the boys were taken to be trained as soldiers and the girls were taken for the soldiers. Publicity was minimal. It was almost as if no-one cared and the atrocity could remain unknown. But suffering exists and is no less tragic if the television cameras are not there to record it.

    As we look forward, we will have to assess the political, social and economic implications of the rich developed nations continuing to get richer, whilst the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem. So, they did it – it’s their problem”. Well, may be – but they can’t cope with it. And who suffers? Just those who make the bad decisions? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: many of them suffer yet in no way can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live. And, if one looks at the larger picture, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    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. I daresay no-one here this evening would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity between the life of these three billion people with the life of someone in America or Britain or Germany or France even if that someone was on the lowest levels of social support.

    The rich nations do much to help – but do we do enough? I think not: far more is needed. Collectively we – the rich nations – spend US$50 billion 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 possibility of poor nations selling their agricultural produce – often their only export – into developed markets.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest 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.

    In helping others, we help ourselves. In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”. In helping broken economies, we help build a future market.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, or only a little, 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. And many of them will be in areas of urban deprivation. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    But if we act early, act 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, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    AIDS

    So too with AIDS.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    It is a worldwide epidemic. The Caribbean, India, Europe East and West, China, Latin America – everywhere – has the problem. No part of the world is untouched but the poorer countries bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In parts of the Commonwealth, the problem is acute. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40 – but for AIDS it would be over 70.

    In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it.

    In South Africa, one in eight has the virus. Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease. It is a truly desperate situation.

    The horror statistics roll on. AIDS is the bubonic plague of our Age and – despite all that has been done – more is vital.

    AIDS has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    What can be done? Much is in hand through the WHO, individual Governments, and the work of charitable organisations. It would help if the disputes between some of these bodies could be resolved – particularly over the efficacy of generic drugs as opposed to patented drugs.

    This squabble reminds me of the legend of Buridan’s Ass. An Ass, faced with two equally desirable bales of hay, starves to death because he cannot find a reason for preferring one to the other – yet either bale would have saved him.

    We must solve these disputes speedily and decide whether generics are effective. For while the squabble continues, the sick suffer and the sick die.

    Money is the root of all progress but is insufficient. Education on preventative care, medical treatment, and support, is vital but so is a comprehensive approach. The G7 Industrial Nations should put this problem alongside poverty as a priority for all nations, and work with the UN to hold back and then reverse the tide of misery that is the legacy of AIDS.

    Much is being done: but not enough. The world must focus on this problem or risk being overborne by it.

    Let me turn to the political revolution that is already changing our world.

    The most significant event of the last fifty years was the collapse of Soviet Russia.

    At the time we all believed the world was safer. It was: the threat of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers had fallen. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability and foreshadowed a shifting map of the world.

    Let me put flesh on that: 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?

    If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, would the EU have just admitted to membership ten more Member States – many of them formerly Iron Curtain countries – that have spent the last 50 years effectively under Russian domination? Certainly not.

    If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed, would we now be engaged in a War Against Terror knowing that – if we are to win it – we must force out terrorist cells from their safe havens in countries that were once in the Soviet sphere of influence. I doubt it.

    IRAQ

    In 1915 Britain invaded and occupied Mesopotamia to protect oil interests in Persia.

    The British created “modern” Iraq out of Mesopotamia and the Governates of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. It was nation building and yet we were regarded as “foreign occupiers” and faced widespread rebellion before we were able to establish an indigenous Government – and leave.

    And, behind us, in a War Cemetery in Baghdad, we left the price of occupation.

    Today in Iraq, we now have an interim Administration planning to hold an election in January to create the democratically elected

    Government that must take Iraq into the future.

    Many problems lay ahead, none of them easy.

    The first is – whether the elections can be held in January?

    To do so, we need:

    – boundaries for constituencies
    – electoral registers of who can vote.

    And, above all, we must have law and order on the streets.

    If there is chaos in Najaf or Fullujah – can they vote?

    If not, would the elections be seen as legitimate?

    Would the Presidential election be valid if Texas and California were disenfranchised.

    An election in January is the right aim – but there are many operational problems to be overcome and it is by no means certain it can be done on schedule.

    But – even if held, what then?

    Who wins? Probably Shi’ites (70%)

    Will Kurds accept that?

    Will Sunnis accept? They have feared and distrusted one another for generations.

    So – will there be a Government that is welcomed or will the election of an unwelcome Government lead to civil disturbance, even civil war?

    If the Kurds are aggrieved – will they annex the oil city of Kirkuk and declare a homeland?

    And, if they do, how will Turkey react?

    These are questions to which we do not yet know the answer.

    Any new Government’s first job will be to draft a New Constitution.

    The dilemma here is evident:- if the Constitution is a federal one – with power devolved to the regions – and Shia, Sunnis or Kurd governors running their own regions – will Iraq break up?

    – alternatively, if the power is held centrally, will any Government obtain the consent to govern?

    And then: of course – the concern in most people’s minds.

    WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF COALITION?

    Can they leave Iraq? They are on the Morton’s Fork of a dilemma.

    If America and Britain go – what if chaos breaks out after the leave?

    What will they do then?

    And, if they stay, will this radicalise Islam even more?

    I set these questions out – to emphasise we are not yet near the end of this saga – or even near the beginning of the end.

    Our children’s world will have a different economic perspective as well as social and political.

    CHINA

    The economic event of the age is the rise of Asia. It began

    – with Japan.
    – then Asian Tiger economies.
    – then China.

    We should not be surprised at the change unfolding before us.

    One thousand years before Europe, China invented an iron plough for agriculture and modern paper for writing.

    In the 10th century, China developed inoculations for smallpox. Europe got there – eventually – in the 19th century. China manufactured steel from cast iron 1,800 years ago: Europe, only two centuries ago.

    The Chinese were making silk – and using a potter’s wheel – before the Egyptians built the Pyramids and before ancient Britons built Stonehenge.

    They perfected suspension bridges when the British still lived in mud huts, and North America was undiscovered.
    China’s decline as a world power started in the early 19th century when she failed to have an industrial revolution. Now, she is having one, and we are seeing the re-emergence of a once great power.

    Over the last eight years, China has accounted for one-quarter of all the world’s growth: rather more than America at one-fifth or non-Japanese Asia and 18%.

    China has space, raw materials, an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour, and is importing technology skills daily. She is becoming the manufacturing centre of the world, easily more cost-effective than her closest rivals.

    She is buying up oil fields, petro-chemical facilities, technology, mineral and natural resources and is buying in Western expertise wherever she needs it.

    It is therefore no surprise that Asian countries will no longer take any important decision, without considering how China will react. For China is a rising power and – if China slows down – so too will much of Asia.

    It is a wondrous sight: a once closed Communist economy marching out into the Capitalist world.

    But all is not rosy. You cannot adopt quasi-Capitalism without facing Capitalist problems and – for all its success – that is what is now facing China.

    RUSSIA

    And, of course, Russia. The 20th century was a nightmare for Russia. Tens of millions were killed in the First World War: millions more in the Revolution and the Civil War that followed.

    Then came the famine of 1921; Stalin’s terrors of the 1930s; and the Second World War – which alone cost 30 million lives including 70% of young men between 18 and 22.

    Post-war came the Cold War; then stagnation, farce and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The 1990s began reform but was marked also by crime; the Russian mafia and economic collapse. It was a bleak Century even in Russia’s turbulent past.

    Today the Black Sea fleet may be rusting – but the Russian economy is beginning to perform. The Russia of the past – has gone – largely unlamented.

    Russia – now has Parliament supporting the President.

    Very novel.

    – lifts more oil than Saudi Arabia.
    – has large hard currency Reserves.
    – the best performing Stock Market in Europe.

    It is time to look again at the Russia that will be – and to put aside old stereotypes.

    The economy is now doing far better. Growth averages 7% and foreign investment is rising sharply. Reform is continuous. Taxes are being reformed. So is housing, pensions, education, health care and privatisation is on the agenda.

    CHANGING WORLD

    Wherever we look, there is change.

    We have a global economy. The political map is fluid. It is difficult to keep up with new developments in technology and communications.

    The speed of medical advance is as bewildering as the demand for medical services in infinite.

    There is a pattern here in all aspects of our life. Science and technology is accelerating change which already takes place at break-neck speed.

    If we look at our own past – we can judge what this might mean for our future.

    Two years ago, 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. 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, the Queen Mother would have remembered the amazement – possibly even disbelief – at the news of Count Zeppelin designing a machine that would fly. It would be twenty-seven years before Lindburgh would pilot the “Spirit of St Louis” to Paris.

    When she was a child, the Europeans were dominant.

    The United Kingdom, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface.

    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 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 what I call “grown-up” politics. For one small gesture can create a global impact. We need an end to “sound-bite politics”.

    The events of September 11th 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. We need joined-up commonsense politics.

    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 the 18th century, when Britain had to wait months for a ship to sail home and tell them the French had helped America become independent – (and often they regret it – so do we, but we’ll be back!) – it is even more true in the global world of the 21st century.

    We have, heaven knows, enough long term domestic problems.

    How to improve health care and education.

    How to modernize our infra-structure.

    How to provide security in retirement when people retire earlier and live longer.

    These are big issues – but only a part of the wider patchwork. Our children will be affected by the world beyond our shores far more than any earlier generation. We must prepare for that.

    Our world is competitive. Complex. Confusing. Sometimes it is brutal. But it is our world, and we would be wise to understand how it is so we can shape how it could be.

    We have the ability to do so – let us hope we do not lack the wisdom or the will.

  • Presidency Conclusions Following the Dublin European Council – 14 December 1996

    Below is the text of the Presidency Conclusions following the Dublin European Council meeting on the 13th and 14th December 1996.

    PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The European Council, meeting in Dublin on 13 and 14 December 1996, took a number of significant decisions for the continued development of the European Union.

    The European Council:

    – achieved further decisive progress on Economic and Monetary Union,

    – identified a broad range of measures to be implemented at national and Community level aimed at boosting employment,

    – adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment,

    – welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Irish Presidency as a good basis for the final phase of the Intergovernmental Conference which should conclude at Amsterdam in June 1997,

    – adopted an important series of measures in the area of Justice and Home Affairs and, in particular, agreed ways and means to combat the scourges of drugs, organized crime, including terrorism, and the sexual exploitation of children,

    – reviewed the Union’s action in external relations.

    The European Council began its proceedings by an exchange of views with Mr. Klaus HÄNSCH, President of the European Parliament, on the main subjects for discussion at this meeting. It thanked Mr. HÄNSCH, who will be stepping down from office next January, for his valuable contribution to furthering constructive cooperation between the Institutions.

    A meeting also took place today with the Heads of State or Government and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, as well as Cyprus. There was a broad exchange of views on these conclusions and on matters pertaining to the field of Justice and Home Affairs, with particular reference to the fight against drugs and organized crime.

    1. ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION
    2. Economic and Monetary Union

    The European Council welcomes the further decisive progress which has been made in the preparations for EMU, which will begin on 1 January 1999.

    – The structure of the new Exchange Rate Mechanism has been agreed.

    – The urgent aspects of the legal framework for the use of the euro have been finalized for early adoption.

    – The principles and main elements of the Stability and Growth Pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in EMU have been agreed.

    The European Council therefore urges the institutions, public authorities and economic agents to intensify their preparations for the starting date of 1 January 1999.

    The European Council welcomes the excellent Report by the ECOFIN Council (annexed) on preparations for Stage 3 of EMU, which is fully in line with the conclusions of Madrid and Florence, and it pays tribute to the contributions, in their respective fields of competence, from the Commission and the European Monetary Institute (EMI). The contents of this Report are subject to Parliamentary reservations.

    In particular the European Council:

    – endorses the conclusions on the new exchange rate mechanism (ERM2) as proposed by the ECOFIN Council and the EMI. It invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare for the European Council in June 1997 a draft Resolution setting out the fundamental elements of the ERM2, following the precedent set in 1978 in relation to the present ERM. The EMI is invited to prepare, in parallel, a draft for an inter-central bank agreement, for submission to the European Central Bank and the central banks of the Member States not forming part of the euro area.

    – underlines the need to ensure durable budget discipline in Stage 3 of EMU and welcomes the agreement reached on the Stability and Growth Pact. It requests the ECOFIN Council to examine intensively the Commission proposals for two Regulations, one on the strengthening of the surveillance and co-ordination of budgetary positions and the other on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure. It invites the Commission to put forward a proposal for a Regulation on non-participating Member States. Furthermore, it invites the ECOFIN Council to prepare a draft Resolution on the Stability and Growth Pact to be adopted by the European Council in June 1997, recording the commitments of the Member States, the Commission and the Council to a strict application of the Treaty and the legal provisions on budgetary stability. The European Council notes that after it has adopted the Resolution, the Council will adopt the respective Regulations.

    – welcomes the agreement by the ECOFIN Council on the two Regulations establishing the legal framework for the euro which are being made public by the Presidency. It invites the Council to adopt the first Regulation based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty without delay. The second Regulation will be adopted by the Council as early as possible in 1998, once the decision on the Member States participating in the euro area has been taken.

    The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, has taken its decision under Article 109j(3) of the EC Treaty and confirms that the procedure laid down in Article 109j(4) will be applied as early as possible in 1998, with a view to the commencement of the third stage of EMU on 1 January 1999. In this context, the European Council welcomes the intentions of the Member States to further reduce budgetary imbalances in 1997 with a view to achieving the high degree of sustainable convergence required for participation in the single currency and it underlines the need for durable convergence in the third stage.

    The European Council underlines the importance of exchange rate stability for the process of convergence and the smooth operation of the internal market and accordingly warmly welcomes the entry into the ERM of the Finnish markka on 12 October 1996 and the re-entry of the Italian lira on 24 November 1996.

    The European Council underscores the need to make the euro tangible for citizens. In this regard, it welcomes the designs for the euro bank notes presented by the European Monetary Institute. It also welcomes the arrangements being made by the Commission for the design competition for the coins; this will allow the choice to be made during the Dutch Presidency.

    The Heads of State or Government decided to reappoint Baron Alexandre LAMFALUSSY as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 January 1997 until 30 June 1997. They decided to appoint Dr. Willem Frederik DUISENBERG, President of De Nederlandsche Bank, as President of the European Monetary Institute as of 1 July 1997 until the establishment of the European Central Bank.

    1. SEM 2000 (Sound and efficient management)

    The European Council endorsed the Council conclusions of 2 December 1996 on the report of the Personal Representatives Group on Sound Financial Management.

    It reaffirmed its support for the Commission’s SEM 2000 initiative and generally welcomed the recommendations in the report which constitute a substantial action programme to improve the financial management of EU expenditure in partnership between the Commission and the Member States.

    The European Council invited Council and Commission to report on progress in implementing the recommendations to its meeting in December 1997.

    III. EMPLOYMENT

    1. Growth and Employment in Europe – the way forward

    The fight against unemployment is the prime responsibility of the Member States but also a priority task of the Union. The European Council had an in-depth discussion on the growth and employment strategy, based on the joint report from the Council and the Commission on employment, the Commission’s progress report on the initiative for “Action on employment: a Confidence Pact” and the joint contribution by the social partners on the Confidence Pact which they adopted in Dublin on 29 November. In its deliberations it has also taken account of the proposals in President Chirac’s Memorandum on a European Social Model with a view to giving greater emphasis to the human dimension of the Union.

    The European Council, building on the Essen strategy, endorses the analysis contained in the Joint Report and urges the Member States to pursue this strategy with determination and consistency. It calls for continued support for this strategy by all relevant actors at European, national and local level, including the social partners and reaffirms the importance of equal opportunities.

    To underline its commitment to this strategy the European Council has adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment (annexed), which reflects the recommendations in the Joint Report on the need for:

    – a continuation of the macroeconomic strategy for economic growth and employment in line with agreed economic policy guidelines,

    – increased efforts to modernize the markets for goods and services and to exploit new sources of employment,

    – a focusing on labour market efficiency and on investment in human resources,

    – making taxation and social protection systems more employment-friendly,

    – strengthening the interplay between macroeconomic and structural policies in the Member States’ Multi-annual Employment Programmes.

    It invites the Commission and the Member States, especially in the framework of the new Employment and Labour Market Committee and the Economic Policy Committee, to develop further the instruments for the effective monitoring and evaluation of employment and labour market policies and the identification of good practice. In particular, common employment indicators should be further developed and the possibilities of benchmarking should be assessed.

    The European Council welcomes the positive reaction to the initiatives on territorial employment pacts and urges swift implementation of the 60 projects proposed by the Member States.

    The European Council stresses once again the essential role of the Internal Market in promoting growth and employment in the Union. Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises has a crucial role to play to this effect. Whilst noting the progress that has been accomplished in this area, it remains concerned with the delays in the transposition and implementation of a number of Directives. It takes note of Commission’s intention to submit before the Amsterdam European Council an action plan and a timetable covering all necessary measures that must be taken to ensure that the full potential benefit of the Internal Market is achieved before the beginning of Stage 3 of EMU.

    The European Council noted the Commission report on the development of tax systems, which was drawn to its attention by the ECOFIN Council, underlining the need for further work on this issue. The European Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to continue the discussions in a tax policy group, paying particular attention to the effects of this policy on employment.

    The European Council welcomes the Commission’s plans in relation to innovation and the development of the information society as important inputs for the future development of the Union’s competitiveness. Investment in education and training are crucial for securing equal opportunities for all citizens to participate in and benefit from the information society. The European Council believes that there should be regular monitoring and evaluation of the Union’s competitiveness against world best practice along the lines of the conclusions on benchmarking adopted by the Industry Council.

    The European Council reiterates the importance of regulatory simplification and requests, in this context, the extension of the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative. It emphasizes that the effort to reduce administrative costs for enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, is necessary for Member States as well as the Community institutions and invites the Council to follow up in this respect its resolution on legislative and administrative simplification in the internal market.

    Postal services form an essential component of the communications infrastructure in the Union. The development of the internal market for postal services bears huge significance in economic and social terms. The European Council welcomes the intensive efforts made to date to effect relevant measures, but notes with regret that the Council has not reached a Common Position. It asks the Council to take a decision by the end of the year, taking account of the work already done at its meeting on 28 November 1996.

    The European Council asks the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to take all steps so that an immediate decision to liberalize postal services can be taken. The universal service in the postal sector must remain assured.

    The European Council recognizes the importance of the implementation of the Trans-European Networks. It agrees with the proposal by the Portuguese and Spanish Governments that priority project No. 8 in list 1 from the Essen European Council will become the Multimodal link between Portugal/Spain and the rest of Europe.

    1. Subsidiarity and Proportionality

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of ensuring that the institutions apply subsidiarity and proportionality thoroughly to all legislative proposals. It welcomes the Commission’s 1996 “Better Law Making” report on the application of subsidiarity and proportionality, on simplification and on consolidation of legislation. The European Council invites the Commission to provide a progress report before the end of 1997.

    1. THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

    The European Council welcomed the general outline for a draft revision of the Treaties submitted by the Presidency. This makes it possible for the negotiations to move now into their final phase.

    The European Council has also taken note of the recent letter from the German Chancellor and the French President which will be an important contribution to the further work of the Conference.

    The European Council reaffirms the importance of completing the Conference at Amsterdam in June 1997. The Presidency document provides a good basis for the work which lies ahead. As the document makes clear, delegations remain free to advocate their own proposals and to press their concerns in further negotiation.

    As it moves now into its final decisive phase, the Conference must seek to achieve a balanced outcome in all areas which will measure up to the aims and ambitions which the European Council has set for it. It is essential that the Union be equipped to face the challenges ahead as it prepares for the 21st century.

    The European Council notes with approval the progress at the Conference in identifying Treaty changes which would make the Union more responsive to the concerns of its citizens and it reaffirms the aims which it set out at Florence in this regard.

    The European Council notes with approval the particular importance which the Presidency document attaches to the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The European Council has agreed today on a number of important decisions under the existing Treaty provisions which are set out in Section V of the present conclusions. It asks the Intergovernmental Conference, taking account of the outline draft for Treaty revision presented by the Presidency, to work to reach agreement on a strengthened capacity for action in relation to visas, asylum, immigration, the crossing of external borders, the fight against drugs and international crime including terrorism, offences against children and trafficking in persons. Europol should have operative powers working in conjunction with the national authorities to this end. These issues are of the most serious concern to citizens in all Member States and the Union must be given the means to act effectively in these areas.

    The European Council also reaffirmed the aim which it set in Florence of developing the external action of the Union. The Union must enhance its capacity to ensure that its external action is coherent and effective in all its aspects, and it must improve its decision-making procedures, if it is to play a role in the world commensurate with its responsibilities and its potential. The European Council noted the approaches which the Presidency has identified in its document in relevant areas including the options for establishing a new function to enhance the visibility of the CFSP and the strengthening of links with the WEU.

    Institutional issues will be central to the next phase of the negotiations. The Union needs to improve its ability to take decisions and to act. This is already true today and it will be even more necessary as the Union moves to enlarge its membership further. The Union must have comprehensible, transparent and democratic procedures and strong and effective institutions which enjoy legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

    The European Council notes that the Presidency document, responding to a view of many delegations that certain issues can be settled definitively only at a later stage in the Conference, does not include texts in Treaty form on the issue of flexibility and on certain sensitive institutional questions, although it offers an analysis of the issues and identifies options. In the next phase of the Conference solutions must be found on all institutional issues, including in particular on the size of the Commission, the role of the European Parliament, the collective association of national parliaments, the voting mechanisms in the Council and the functioning of the Court of Justice, while respecting the balances which have always been an important feature of European construction.

    The European Council also notes the progress made thus far in examining the proposals for Treaty provisions which would permit more flexible approaches leading to enhanced cooperation in appropriate areas, subject to agreed conditions. This issue is of great importance and the European Council asks the Conference to devote particular attention to it.

    The European Council emphasizes strongly that the future of the Union and the success of the further enlargement to which it has committed itself will depend on a satisfactory resolution of all of these questions.

    The European Council asks the Conference to develop the important proposal to amend the Treaties to establish it as a clear principle that no citizen of a Member State of the Union may apply for asylum in another Member State, taking into account international treaties.

    The European Council notes also the proposal submitted jointly by three delegations, since the presentation of the Presidency document, for the Treaty to include the specific character of the outermost regions of the Union and it asks that it be examined by the Conference.

    Finally, the European Council asks the Conference, on the basis of the preparatory work already carried out, to continue to work to present a significantly simplified version of the Treaties with a view to making them more readable and comprehensible to the Union’s citizens. This must be done in a way which does not reopen the acquis of the Treaties, preserves the pillar structure and does not delay the outcome of the Conference.

    1. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

    The European Council reaffirms its commitment to maintain and develop the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice by putting to full use all of the instruments provided for in the Treaty on European Union.

    1. Fight against drugs

    The European Council welcomes the report from the Council on the substantial progress made since its last meeting in Florence and endorses the proposals for action contained in this report.

    The European Council welcomes, as a concrete expression of a shared political will, the agreement which has been reached on a Joint Action on the approximation of the laws and practices of police, customs services and judicial authorities in the fight against drug addiction and illegal drug trafficking, and the resolutions on sentencing for serious drug trafficking offences, on combatting drug tourism and on drug production and cultivation. It also welcomes the adoption of the Programme for Community action on the prevention of drug dependence.

    The European Council stresses that this constitutes a first step and that the momentum achieved must be maintained and further developed on those bases, in particular through:

    – continued examination of further harmonisation of laws, insofar as an agreed need for it is identified, complemented by reinforced cooperation between the Institutions and the Member States. In this context, the particular dangers posed by synthetic drugs deserve special attention;

    – continued review of further cooperation between law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking;

    – full application of the Directive on money laundering and its possible extension to those relevant professions and bodies outside the classical financial sector;

    – development by the Council and the Commission of the contribution which research activities can make in addressing the medical, socio-economic and detection aspects of drug abuse;

    – energetic implementation of the action plan to combat drugs in the Caribbean, as well as the implementation of the agreed follow-up of the report by the expert mission to Latin America;

    – further development of the structured dialogue with the associated countries of Central and Eastern Europe in regard to drugs issues; comparable cooperation with the Russian Federation, initiated during the current Presidency, should be pursued;

    – following a proposal by President Chirac and Prime Minister Major, to examine ways to assist Central Asian republics, utilizing the TACIS programme, to fight transit in and production of drugs.

    Cooperation with transatlantic partners in these fields has also to be continued and, where appropriate, improved.

    The European Council confirms the priority it attaches to sustained and coordinated action in the fight against drugs making full and coherent use of all the instruments of the Union.

    It invites the Council to draw up by the end of 1997 a first assessment of measures undertaken, with a view to strengthening and supplementing them.

    1. Fight against organized crime

    The European Council underlines its absolute determination to fight organized crime and, to this end, stresses the need for a coherent and coordinated approach by the Union.

    The European Council welcomes the report made by the Presidency on stepping up the fight against organized crime and decides to create a high level group to draw up a comprehensive Action Plan containing specific recommendations, including realistic timetables for carrying out the work. The Group should examine the fight against organized crime in all its aspects on the clear understanding that it would refer any issues involving Treaty change to the Intergovernmental Conference which is addressing Treaty changes in this area as a priority. The high level group should complete its work by March/April 1997.

    In order to implement rapidly the measures proposed in the report made by the Presidency, the European Council asks the Council to reinforce its Secretariat, by setting up a team of specialized national experts and practitioners, seconded for a limited duration.

    As a practical step in combating international crime, the European Council urges the ratification at the earliest possible date of the Customs Information System, Fraud and Extradition Conventions and their Protocols, as well as, by the end of 1997, of the Europol Convention and its subsequent Protocol. It also highlights the importance of bringing to a rapid conclusion the convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

    The European Council urges the Council and the Commission to take effective and coherent action to address the abuse of new communications technologies, including the Internet.

    1. Sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings

    The European Council expresses its abhorrence at the sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings and undertakes to take all necessary action to protect those most vulnerable in society. It welcomes the agreement on a joint action defining a common approach to offences against children and improving judicial cooperation. Other joint actions aimed at enhancing police cooperation by widening the competencies of the Europol Drugs Unit and creating centres of expertise in investigating such crimes were adopted. Community funds have been made available for fighting these odious crimes.

    The European Council calls on the Council and the Commission to implement actively these instruments and to consider necessary further action.

    1. Fight against terrorism

    The European Council condemns unreservedly all terrorist attacks and continues to pay close attention to the threat posed by terrorism both internally and externally. For this reason the EU is working closely with other international partners and international organizations to review and update measures already adopted against this threat and adopt, where necessary, new measures. For this reason the Member States reiterate their will to cooperate closely on the matter; the European Council emphasizes the need to do so.

    1. Racism and Xenophobia

    The European Council welcomes the progress made since its meeting in Florence and calls on the Council to complete its work with a view to the speedy establishment of a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia which will have to work in close cooperation with the Council of Europe.

    1. External frontiers

    The European Council draws again attention to the need to resolve speedily the remaining questions regarding the draft Convention on crossing by persons of the External Frontiers of Member States of the European Union.

    1. ENLARGEMENT

    The Commission informed the European Council on its progress on the opinions and other reports related to enlargement as requested of it at Madrid. The European Council welcomes the assurance given by the Commission that these documents as well as the communication on the future financial framework of the Union will be available immediately after the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference. It confirms the timetable for the enlargement process as set at its Madrid meeting. The European Council takes note of the Council’s report on the implementation of the pre­accession strategy in the second half of this year. It also notes the Commission’s endeavours to strengthen the present implementation of this strategy. Moreover it welcomes the Commission’s intention to present proposals for an overall reinforcement of the pre-accession strategy together with its opinions and other reports under preparation.

    VII. EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION

    The European Council adopted the declarations on Former Yugoslavia and the Middle East Peace Process at annex.

    RUSSIA

    The European Union expresses its solidarity with the Russian people as they implement their historic choice in favour of democracy, the rule of law and a market economy. The European Council reiterates the Union’s readiness to assist the Russian Federation in meeting the difficult challenges ahead, notably through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the EU/Russia Action Plan and by bringing Russia as soon as possible into the WTO and other international fora.

    The European Council warmly welcomes President Yeltsin’s important decision to withdraw all Russian troops from Chechnya and the recent agreement between Chechen leaders and the Russian Prime Minister. It notes the intention to hold elections in Chechnya on 27 January 1997. The European Council expresses its continuing support for the important work of the OSCE Assistance Group in Chechnya.

    UKRAINE

    The European Council welcomes the adoption by the Council of the Action Plan for Ukraine which demonstrates the importance which the Union attaches to its relations with Ukraine and its desire to develop closer cooperation in the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

    The European Council recalls its firm attachment to the implementation of the memorandum of understanding reached with Ukraine on the definitive closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power station by the year 2000. It welcomes the closure by the Ukrainian authorities of reactor number one as an important step in this direction.

    BELARUS

    The European Union is seriously concerned at developments in Belarus, in particular relating to the referendum on the new Constitution. The European Union wishes to see a Belarus committed to democratic principles, human rights and a market economy playing a full part in Europe. The European Council calls on the leadership of Belarus to re-establish full respect for internationally accepted democratic and constitutional principles and practices and hopes that the leadership will accept the Union’s proposal for a fact-finding mission. The absence of progress in these areas would have a negative impact on relations between Belarus and the European Union and on Union support for Belarus’s accession to the Council of Europe.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE

    The European Council believes that the Council of Europe has a crucial role in upholding human rights standards and supporting pluralist democracy.

    It sees advantage in using to the fullest, in cooperation with other international institutions, the expertise and mechanisms of the Council of Europe to advance these objectives. The summit meeting of the Organization, in 1997, will provide a significant opportunity to review the progress made in these areas.

    REGIONAL COOPERATION IN EUROPE

    The European Council notes the wider range of regional activities in Europe reaching from the Arctic to the Black Sea. In this context, the European Council welcomes the Commission’s report on the Central European Initiative presented in response to its request at Florence. It notes that the Commission will submit regular reports to the Council on these regional initiatives.

    MEDITERRANEAN

    The European Council reaffirms the high priority it attaches to the European Union’s Mediterranean dimension and expresses satisfaction at the significant and balanced developments in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership during the year since the adoption of the Barcelona Declaration.

    In the political and security partnership, work on the implementation of the principles of the Barcelona Declaration will continue, notably through the action plan, towards the adoption of a Union-Mediterranean charter.

    TURKEY

    The European Council reaffirms the importance it attaches to the further development of the EU’s relations with Turkey in both the economic and political fields. It notes with regret, however, that certain serious issues remain to be resolved in the relationship. The European Council welcomes the Turkish Government’s stated intention to take measures to improve the human rights situation. In the context of closer partnership with the European Union it emphasizes the need for the observance of the highest standards of human rights.

    The European Council invites the Presidency to continue its efforts following the Council’s declaration of 15 July 1996 to promote an acceptable solution to the situation in the Aegean area in accordance with established international norms and to pursue contacts with the Turkish Government with a view to an early Association Council.

    The European Council urges Turkey to use its influence to contribute to a solution in Cyprus in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.

    EU-US RELATIONS

    The European Council notes that the EU-US Summit in Washington on 16 December will be the first anniversary of the adoption at Madrid of the New Transatlantic Agenda and the Joint EU-US Action Plan and expects it to be another milestone in EU-US relations. It welcomes the qualitative improvement which this represents in principle as well as in practice over the past year.

    The European Council reaffirms the objectives which it shares with the US in promoting human rights, democratic values and fundamental freedoms in parts of the world where these are inadequately observed, but also its conviction that such objectives should be pursued by means other than unilateral action at the expense of close partners with shared values.

    The European Council reaffirms the essential contribution which close EU-US partnership can make to international stability, security and prosperity and the importance in this context of the Transatlantic Dialogue in deepening and widening the EU-US relationship through solid cooperation between them.

    EU-CANADA RELATIONS

    The European Council welcomes agreement on the text of a Joint Declaration and an Action Plan, which will further enhance cooperation between EU and Canada in pursuit of common objectives and on the basis of deeply-held shared values.

    GREAT LAKES

    The European Council expresses grave concern about the continuing violence in the Great Lakes Region, not only in Eastern Zaire but also in Burundi. It welcomes the return of large numbers of refugees, but underlines the need to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of the remaining refugees, and to initiate rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. It recalls the considerable efforts undertaken by the EU to meet humanitarian needs. In the meantime, the continuing humanitarian emergency, particularly in Eastern Zaire, requires fast and decisive action by the international community. Underlining the need for a flexible approach in the light of the rapidly changing circumstances on the ground, the European Council agrees that the implications of these changes for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions concerning the establishment, for humanitarian purposes, of a temporary multinational force will need to be addressed rapidly. In this regard, the European Council restates the willingness of the European Union to contribute fully and urgently to these efforts, pursuant to the Joint Action of 22 November 1996, the associated Council Decision of the same date and the WEU Ministerial Declaration of 19 November 1996. It welcomes the Commission proposal for a strategic and comprehensive plan of action for EU assistance to the Great Lakes Region.

    The European Council welcomes the initiative of the regional leaders in seeking to resolve the problems in Eastern Zaire through dialogue. It hopes that, at the second Nairobi Summit of Heads of State of the Region on 16 December, they can build upon the principles already agreed by them, including the crucial importance of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Zaire, in pursuit of a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Recognizing the importance of the electoral process in terms of the stability of the region, it reiterates the commitment of the Union to play its part in support of the successful completion of that process in Zaire by means of the Joint Action adopted on 11 November 1996 and looks forward to the latter’s early and urgent implementation.

    The European Council reiterates its view that the problems of the region as a whole can only be resolved by political means. The European Union will, in particular through its Special Envoy, continue to support the efforts of the regional leaders and to encourage dialogue between the different parties to conflict in the region. The European Council reaffirms its support for the early convening of an international conference under the joint auspices of the UN and the Organization of African Unity in order to address within a global approach the root causes of the crisis and thus bring about a peaceful, durable and comprehensive resolution of the conflicts in the region.

    EAST TIMOR

    The European Council welcomes the initiatives within the European Union aimed at improving the situation, living conditions and human rights of the East Timorese people. It reaffirms its support for all efforts which can contribute to a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution, which fully respects the interests and legitimate aspirations of the Timorese people in accordance with international law. It hopes that the talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary General will lead to substantial progress towards the resolution of the question of East Timor.

    CUBA

    The EU wishes to see progress towards a peaceful transition to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba, as well as economic policies calculated to bring about a sustainable recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people. The Common Position adopted by the Council on 2 December will be pursued through a result-oriented constructive dialogue. The EU will lend its support to progress towards democracy, including the possible negotiation of a cooperation agreement. Any agreement would, in accordance with EU practice, contain a suspension clause in the event of a serious breach of the human rights provisions.

    TRANSITION IN HONG KONG AND MACAO

    The European Council reiterated the European Union’s strong interest in the future peace and prosperity of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China to be created next July, and the European Union’s desire to do anything possible to contribute to a smooth transition. The European Union is committed to strong continuing relations with the SAR in the World Trade Organization and in all other matters where the SAR will enjoy autonomy under the Basic Law. The European Council underlined the European Union’s full support for the specific status of the SAR and its citizens in all respects, including their right to representative democratic institutions as already established The European Council requested the Commission to propose in due course during 1997 how best to ensure close economic cooperation.

    The European Council takes note of the positive way in which the transition process has been developing in Macao. It hopes that the implementation of the Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration signed in 1987 will continue to contribute to the progress and social stability of the territory with a view to a smooth transfer of government in December 1999. It also hopes for the continuation of the respect for the fundamental principles of the Joint Declaration beyond that date.

    WTO

    The European Council noted with satisfaction the outcome of the first regular bi-annual WTO Ministerial Conference which took place in Singapore on 9­13 December 1996 and at which the European Union demonstrated once again the importance it attaches to the multilateral trading system and the efficient operation of the WTO.

    The European Council expresses its satisfaction at the renewed impetus which the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore has given to the liberalisation of world trade. It particularly welcomes the broadening of the WTO work programme to encompass issues which the European Union had identified as priorities. It also welcomes the breakthrough on trade in information technology products and urges the fullest possible participation by third country partners in the final agreement to be reached by 15 March 1997. The European Council also welcomes the continued momentum towards a successful conclusion of the negotiations on basic telecommunications in February 1997.

    The European Council welcomes the launch by the Commission of a new market access strategy and calls for enhanced and coordinated efforts by the Community and Member States to open up third country markets.

    With regard to the report on the evolution of the trade policies and preferential agreements of the Community, the European Council took note that the Council would finalize it in its February session with a view to presenting it at Amsterdam.

    VIII. SEATS OF OFFICES AND AGENCIES

    The European Council noted the progress which has been made in the implementation of its decision taken in Brussels in October 1993 on the location of Agencies and Offices. The Council endorsed the Commission’s decision of 10 December 1996 to arrange for the early transfer of the staff of the OICVP to Ireland initially and specifically thereafter to Grange, Co. Meath in premises to be made available at that location by the Irish authorities.

    The European Council urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required resources are made available to implement the Commission’s decision.

    The Council also notes the conclusions of the Agriculture Council of 18 November 1996 as regards staffing of the OICVP and urged that appropriate measures be taken by the different institutions to ensure that the required staffing resources are made available to enable the Union to discharge its supervisory responsibilities.

    Addendum

    The European Council has noted the following reports from the Presidency/Council:

    – Council report on achievements in the field of Justice and Home Affairs

    – Presidency report on stepping up the fight against organized crime

    – SEM 2000 (sound financial management): Council Conclusions and report of the personal Representatives Group

    The European Council also noted the following reports from the European Commission:

    1. Europe as an Economic Entity
    2. The impact and effectiveness of the single market
    3. Putting services to work
    4. Europe at the forefront of the global information society
    5. The first action plan for innovation in Europe
    6. Europe’s place in the world: fourth report of the Ciampi group
    7. Trans-European Networks
    8. Better Lawmaking (report on the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles, on simplification and on consolidation)

     

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Moscow – 20 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Moscow on Saturday 20th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me talk about the summit and the adjacent meetings I have had during the period I have been here in Moscow.

    The summit began last evening with a fairly extensive discussion on the situation in Lebanon. I think all of you know that there is a fair amount of diplomatic activity going on, even as we speak there are a number of Foreign Ministers at the moment engaged either in Lebanon, or in Israel or in Syria, to see what can be done to bring about a ceasefire. It was our view that a ceasefire would be the first step, beyond that we need something that is going to be rather more permanent to prevent re-occurrence of the difficulties there have been over the last few days.

    We moved on this morning to the main reason for the summit being called, you will recall it was suggested by President Yeltsin when he met the G7 in Halifax last year, and that was to examine comprehensively the question of nuclear safety. And I think the fact that the G7 attended in full, with President Yeltsin, is an indication of the importance that we attach to that process.

    Many people I think were quite sceptical at the time as to whether anything would emerge from a summit of this sort. In fact there has been quite a comprehensive range of agreements, some of them very technical, many of them the subject of discussion for some time. And I am extremely grateful to Neil Hurst for the work that he has done on that over the months that have gone.

    But let me just summarise the main agreements that have been reached: an agreement to bring into force the nuclear safety convention, we have long wanted that, it has now happened; agreement to work together on a new convention on the safety of radioactive waste management; thirdly, a commitment by Russia to sign the London Dumping Convention Amendment, that is the amendment which effectively bans the dumping of radioactive waste at sea; a programme to help prevent the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials, that too is something the United Kingdom has sought for some time and we are delighted to have that agreement.

    And of course also there was agreed at this summit a new impetus to the conclusion, by September we think is possible, of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which bars all nuclear explosions on the basis of a zero yield. And I know from time to time in the past there have been conflicting interpretations of what is meant by zero-yield. Let me make it clear that what we mean by this, and what I think is understood by our partners, is that no nuclear explosion of any kind, however small, is permitted. That too I think is an agreement that many people will welcome.

    Over lunch, we discussed the situation, particularly as far as Chernobyl is concerned. We emphasised our commitment to make real the programme contained in the Memorandum of Understanding that we signed with Ukraine last December, and we were joined for this particular discussion by President Kuchma. You will recall, I am sure, there are three elements to the problem with Chernobyl: firstly, there are the grants that we made available to assist with work; secondly, there is the amount of international finance that will be made available to provide alternative sources of energy, that finance is agreed, it is not yet drawn down, the Ukrainians are still determining precisely what they need to do; and thirdly, there is the question of the temporary covering, the temporary sarcophagus over the reactor that exploded. There is no additional financing agreed for that.

    At the moment there is a European Union study being undertaken. When that is concluded, which will be later this year, we will need to look at the question of funding that and how it will be done. I have little doubt that it will need to be an international effort. I don’t think it is remotely likely that the Ukrainians would be able to fund that on their own and I think post-Chernobyl no-one is seriously going to doubt the need for that work still to be done. But at the moment we still await the experts’ report on the sarcophagus. As soon as we have got it, we will be able to move forward.

    One happy development today, President Kuchma said that he would see if it was possible, and he thought that it was possible, to close another reactor at Chernobyl by the end of the year. And we spent some time also discussing alternative energy sources and the need to develop them in Ukraine and beyond.

    We spent some time discussing Bosnia, I won’t elaborate upon that discussion unless questioned, except to say that although it has been more quiescent lately, I don’t think anyone is in any doubt about the importance of making sure the civil development of Bosnia proceeds, and that is a matter to which we will regularly have to return.

    At the conclusion of the summit proper, I had a bilateral for a little over an hour with President Clinton. We discussed a range of matters: Lebanon; the importance of Most Favoured Nation status from America for China, that is important to us of course because of the impact upon Hong Kong and I discussed that with the President; we discussed also the forthcoming Commonwealth meeting concerning Nigeria and the present internal situation there; and I took the opportunity of dealing with one domestic matter by briefing the President on the present state of the legislation on Northern Ireland and the preparatory work for the elections, the forum and the all-party talks that we hope will follow the elections, and that was an extremely worthwhile occasion.

    Let me just say one thing in conclusion before we seek to take any of the questions you may have. I think it has been a very valuable visit, very valuable because of the agreements that have been signed. But also very valuable, to be frank, because it is extremely useful on these occasions, you have the opportunity of discussing in a relatively informal manner in the sidelines of such conference a range of issues with the other Heads of Government who are present, and I think that increasingly close contact is a very reassuring element of international affairs these days. Heads of Government tend to know one another far better and far more personally than ever used to be the case in the past and I think that is immensely useful.

    During those bilaterals I had specific bilaterals with Prime Minister Chretien; President Yeltsin of Course; Mr Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister; and also, as you know, a meeting last evening here to discuss the European problems of beef with the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council and the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany. So we were able to take the opportunity of reviewing the situation whilst we were here. So all in all a very useful and worthwhile visit.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    On Ulster, we have heard that President Clinton was praising your efforts towards securing peace, and he also apparently made mention of the need for another ceasefire. Could you tell us a little more about that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The President has been very helpful for some time and I have absolutely no doubt at all that he will continue to play a constructive role in helping to take the process further. We do need a ceasefire. There is no immediate sign, I have to say, from Sinn Fein and the IRA that one is imminent. But I think there is no justification for them holding off from a ceasefire. For a very long time they have asked for the prospect of all-party talks, they have asked for a proper consideration of the problems of Northern Ireland. All those lie just weeks ahead. And upon that basis, to take them at their own evaluation, there is no justification for anything other than a comprehensive ceasefire so that they can join the talks that lie immediately ahead. I very much hope that they will do that. But let me emphasise again. If they do not, we will proceed without them. Sinn Fein and the IRA cannot, by not offering a ceasefire, stop the process that is now in hand, they cannot stop the elections, they cannot stop the forum meeting and they cannot stop the beginning of negotiations on 10 June. All of those things will go ahead, but of course one would like to see a ceasefire.

    QUESTION (The Guardian):

    You say that personal relationships are important. Did you feel that you advanced your personal relationship with Mr Zyuganov in your meeting with him yesterday and is Britain taking the [indistinct] that he represents seriously enough?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had an extremely good meeting with Mr Zyuganov yesterday. We discussed a range of issues. And I read with astonishment the way it was reported this morning. I don’t recall Mr Zyuganov saying to me any of the things that were reported in the media this morning and I am at an utter loss to discover how they got there. Perhaps if some of those present wrote them, they can explain to me how they got there. But I can certainly tell you they did not get there on the basis of what Mr Zyuganov said to me in the meeting that we had yesterday, in no sense did they. It was a good meeting, it was a constructive meeting. I asked him about his programme, he answered about his programme, and we discussed a range of other matters about the situation in Russia generally. But at no stage did he speak in the aggressive manner in which he is reported in the Western press as having spoken to me yesterday. It simply did not happen.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, obviously quite an important meeting last night.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Which meeting are you talking about?

    SAME MAN:

    Sorry! The meeting with Mr. Carl Sherak [phon] over the question of the beef ban. Do you feel more optimistic today that we are slightly closer to a lifting of the ban?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. I think we have made progress. Of course, that wasn’t a decision-making meeting last night, it couldn’t be. Decisions are for the European Union as a whole. Self-evidently, the Agriculture Commissioner will be deeply involved in these and neither of the other members of the European Union nor the Agriculture Commissioner were present last evening but it was an opportunity to explain in a relaxed atmosphere a good deal more of how this matter is perceived in the United Kingdom and to explain some of the misconceptions, as we see them, that are, present amongst our European partners.

    What we have seen since the ban was instituted firstly by our European partners nationally and then endorsed by the European Union collectively is that the beef market has fallen very dramatically in the European countries as well. The effect of that ban on British beef, which is unjustified on health grounds, has also reflected in a collapse of confidence in the beef market amongst our European partners as well.

    I took the opportunity last night of making several things quite clear:

    Firstly, the fundamental point that there is no public health problem. The scientific advice is unequivocal, British beef is safe to eat – the view of British scientists, the view of the World Health Authority, the view of scientists in other areas as well. All the measures recommended by the scientists have been adopted by the British Government, all those measures are in place. The problem, as our European partners have skid, is one of confidence not one of public health and we have introduced measures in Britain. Those measures will involve destroying elderly animals that would otherwise have entered the market; those elderly animals are the ones that people were most concerned about, they will no longer be in the market. There is no justification for the ban in my judgement at all and the ban has a number of absurdities in it. Let me just illustrate a couple of the absurdities:

    Firstly, calves born after 1 April this year when we instituted the new controls on foodstuffs, under the ban they can’t be exported. That is nonsense, total nonsense. Those calves couldn’t possibly have been exposed to BSE in any conceivable way. I made that point to our European partners.

    Secondly, let me take another illustration. A farmer – and there are a great many farmers like this in the United Kingdom – whose animals have never eaten anything but grass, never close to any possibly contaminated feed at all, and yet they are banned and so are animals identified as coming from a demonstrably safe herd and so are animals coming from herds no members of which breeds, no member of which has ever had BSE – palpably absurd!

    I took the opportunity of running through some of those absurdities last night in the meeting we had. It was a very constructive meeting, it was not a decision-taking meeting, it was a meeting where we were all addressing a problem that now affects the whole of the European beef market, not just a British problem, and I think it was a worthwhile and constructive meeting and I think it will have played its part in helping inform people better for the decisions that will need to be taken in the days that lie ahead and I am delighted I had the meeting, I think it was very worthwhile.

    QUESTION (John Craig, Daily Express):

    On beef, the impression we get, however, is that you didn’t receive what one might describe as support for your position. We have heard what you said to them but was there any indication that they said: “OK! Yes, we’ll take that on board and we will go back to our colleagues and recommend that because of the action Britain has now taken the ban can be lifted!”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first thing that needs to be done is that people have to understand the reality of what the situation is and not operate under the misunderstandings that there have been over recent weeks. I think I removed a number of those misunderstandings though I am not going to anticipate decisions that have to be taken not by the people who were here last night but by the European Union as a whole. I don’t think that would be wise, it certainly wouldn’t be prudent and I am concerned about the whole of the European Union understanding the position but let me reiterate I think it was very worthwhile having that meeting last night, I think there is a much greater understanding of what is happening across Europe. Each of the other people present of course learned what was happening in the other European countries and the collapse in beef confidence does stretch across Europe, that was apparent, so I reiterate what I said. I am not going to be drawn further on the issue. It was a worthwhile meeting, it was a constructive meeting and I think it was time very well spent.

    QUESTION (Phil Reeves, The Independent):

    Prime Minister, it is pretty plain that the Russians are continuing to prosecute a war in Chechnya despite the ceasefire that Mr. Yeltsin announced on March 31st. Did you raise this issue with him, did you discuss the question of the violation of human rights going on in Chechnya and what was Mr. Yeltsin’s response?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course I discussed Chechnya with President Yeltsin while I was here. He is looking to see what can be done to reach a negotiated settlement, clearly he needs to do that if it is possible. It needs two sides to negotiate was the point he made to me but he is clearly looking to see whether that can be achieved; it is desirable in order to move towards a settlement in Chechnya. He indicated to me that there were many areas of Chechnya where there was no difficulty, that it existed rather fiercely in a number of areas but in some areas it had gone away completely. I can neither verify nor dispute that, I report what the President said to me and he was certainly seeking to take a constructive role to see whether they could reach a settlement.

    I am sure that is so for two reasons: firstly, it is self-evidently the right thing to do and secondly, it is self-evidently the prudent thing to do; it would clearly be extremely helpful in the present political atmosphere if some movement could satisfactorily occur on Chechyna.

    QUESTION (Jon Sopel, BBC):

    Sir Edward Heath, writing in the “Express” today, has said that if you lost another by-election you should call a general election. Do you agree with that and if you don’t do you think you could still go the full term?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I haven’t seen Sir Edward’s article. Sir Edward is a very wise man and I always read very carefully what previous leaders of the Conservative Party have to say. I don’t always agree with them but I will read it when I return with some interest, but I won’t promise to agree with it.

    QUESTION:

    We have got the “Telegraph” hitting your Government with an unusually strong editorial, the “Sun” saying that you are depressed, rumours of Tories about to defect, some misunderstanding with John Redwood.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Were you present at Question Time last Tuesday?

    QUESTIONER:

    I am afraid I missed that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry you missed that because I read I was depressed but doubt many people who attended Question Time on Tuesday would have thought that was the case and as far as the “Telegraph” is concerned the “Telegraph” must write what the “Telegraph” thinks it must write, I must believe what I believe to be accurate and have no intention of commenting on what newspapers write or newspapers say, they must take responsibility for their own words.

    I will tell you what I am interested in. I am not so much interested in that; I would have a look at some of the things that are happening at the moment, some of the things perhaps that people ought to look at more often.

    I don’t think there is any doubt whatsoever at the Moment that life is getting better in the United Kingdom after the recession, self-evidently so and is going to get better yet and in case you think that is a standard bit of politicians oratory – “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” – let me give you some concrete examples of why that is the case:

    Mortgage rates at their lowest level since the early 60s; I think I recall reading that the Beatles were top of the charts the last time mortgage rates were at this level, I think the song was “I Feel Fine!” and understandably so as mortgage rates fall. The proportion of new mortgages taken out by women more than doubled between 1983 and 1994, around 18 per cent, that is quite a significant change. Look at education! Huge increases in the choices and opportunities for people in the education sector. Look at changes in other peoples’ personal circumstances! 27 million people a couple of years ago took holidays abroad.

    If you look at what is happening, when can you last remember inflation below 3 per cent for the third successive year, unemployment lower that any other major economy in Europe, investment rising and growth as high as most other countries in Europe and better than almost any other country in Europe, more people in work than any other major economy anywhere else in Europe?

    I will extend the list if you like but they are I think what in newspaper parlance you call “feel good factors” and they are all becoming very apparent so if you want to know how I feel, I am delighted we have low inflation, delighted we have falling unemployment, delighted we have increasing growth, delighted we have good investment and I intend to make sure that we maintain the most benevolent economic situation we have seen for a very long time indeed and I intend very cheerfully to tell as many people as I possibly can that that is what the situation is.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Moscow – 19 April 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Moscow on Friday 19th April 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two about the meetings I have had earlier today. A number of meetings: firstly with Prime Minister Chretien, mainly about Commonwealth matters; later on after that meetings with a number of opinion formers in Moscow at the present time; a very useful meeting both Mr Yavlinsky and separately with Mr Zyuganov; and a bilateral in the last hour or so with President Yeltsin; and very shortly I look forward to seeing Prime Minister Chernomyrdin. So it has been an admirable opportunity to run through a whole range of matters that are being discussed in Moscow at the moment.

    The bilateral with the President covered a wide range of matters, as you would expect: the summit tomorrow; of course the questions relating to NATO; a number of bilateral issues; I was able to indicate that we will be increasing our assistance in the Know How Fund by another 50 million to assist with various aspects of reform and good government in Russia. I don’t think I will seek to detail all the elements of the discussion, perhaps you may care to ask questions to pick out the points of greatest interest.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you support Boris Yeltsin’s re-election?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is not for anyone outside Russia to determine who should be the President of Russia, that is a matter for the Russian people and it would be impertinent of me to express a preference. We do have a very strong view that the reform programme is very important, we wish to see the reform programme proceed and I think that is a view that is very widely held right across the West.

    QUESTION:

    What is your impression of Mr Zyuganov?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I only had a brief discussion with Mr Zyuganov. We discussed the areas of the campaign that he was most interested in, he set out his views on those. But it was a half hour meeting, too soon I think to reach a firm conclusion.

    QUESTION:

    Did Mr Zyuganov say that the West should have nothing to fear from a communist victory?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Mr Zyuganov explained what he was about, what he saw as the priorities in this country, and self-evidently he does not believe that those priorities would concern people elsewhere. I indicated to him the importance that we attach to the reform programme.

    QUESTION:

    Did the subject of the Middle East come up and what perhaps the G7 here in Moscow this weekend ought to be saying as a way of moving the peace process forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I discussed the particular question of Lebanon and the current difficulties with President Yeltsin, and I am sure that will come up later on today. I think there is no doubt that what we need to seek very speedily is an end to the hostilities that are proceeding, perhaps only a temporary pause in the first instance while a more firm conclusion is reached. It may be difficult to reach a positive conclusion that will last for a long time. If we can reach an interim settlement, an interim cessation of the hostilities, I think that at least will be a first step and I think people will try and do that over the next 48 hours.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident that you can persuade the other European leaders to recommend a lifting of the ban on British beef?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I have no idea about that. I think it would have been quite astonishing if, since we are all gathered here, I were not to discuss the problem with them, and that is what I propose to do. But of course only a part of the European Union is here, the Agricultural Commissioner is not here, so I think this is an occasion to set out British concerns and I will do that very clearly and very crisply. I don’t think it is a matter on which there are likely to be conclusions because the right people are not here. But I don’t believe the ban on British beef is justified. The fact that it has been indicated not just by British scientists, but by the World Health Organisation and by the Commissioner himself, that British beef is safe, suggests to me that there is no logic in a continuing ban on British beef. But that is not a matter that can be lifted by the people who are meeting here. What I can do is impress upon them the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom and the extent to which we think it is an unreasonable decision that has been reached and that it is highly desirable that that ban is lifted as speedily as it can be.

    QUESTION:

    Can the G7 do anything to help to resolve the crisis in the Middle East? Are you hoping that there will be a communique at the end of this to say what should be done?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we are more concerned with action than communiques, to be frank. The G7 members, both separately and collectively of course, are in touch with the relevant parties in the Middle East. The Foreign Secretary is deeply engaged, Mr Charette from France is there at the present moment, so is Warren Christopher. I think there is no doubt that it will be discussed and no doubt that we will be in touch with the parties, but whether that will be done collectively or individually remains to be determined.

    QUESTION:

    And the common position from France, the United States and Russia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the common position is perfectly clear. A common final settlement, that remains to be discussed, but a common position that we need to stop what we have seen over the last few days, both the firing from Hezbollah into Israel and the attacks from Israel back into Lebanon, both of those need to cease as speedily as possible. There will be no difficulty about reaching that decision.

    QUESTION:

    Did you raise the subject of Chechnya with Mr Yeltsin?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a brief discussion, yes.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the WEU Assembly – 23 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Western European Union (WEU) Assembly, held in London on Friday 23rd February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, Ambassadors, Ladies and Gentlemen;

    It is rare for a British Prime Minister to address a fellow British politician as Mr President. So I offer my congratulations to my friend and parliamentary colleague, Sir Dudley Smith.

    It is equally rare for a Prime Minister – of any nationality – to welcome such a distinguished body of Parliamentarians to his country. So I am delighted to welcome the WEU Assembly to London today.

    The United Kingdom currently holds the Presidency of the Western European Union. But our associations with the WEU go back a long way.

    Britain was a founding member.

    – London played host to the organisation for nearly forty years.

    – And Britain helped to reactivate the WEU in the mid 1980s.

    The UK’s commitment to the WEU reflects a deeper impulse too. It stems from our basic commitment to security and stability – in Europe, and beyond.

    No country can build its security alone. As Winston Churchill said at one very difficult moment in Anglo-American relations during the Second World War: “there is only one thing worse than fighting with Allies: and that is fighting without them.”

    By any measure, Britain more than pulls its weight.

    We have – like our Allies – restructured our armed forces following the end of the Cold War. We’ve done so in response to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the scrapping of the Warsaw Pact, the implementation of the CFE Treaty, the implosion of the former Soviet Union and the consequent reduction and reform in Russia’s armed forces, and the building of new, cooperative arrangements between states that were former adversaries.

    Throughout these changes we have continued to plan for an uncertain world, so that our new front-line matches up to the new challenges. Our emphasis has been on mobility, flexibility and rapid reaction. All attributes needed now more than ever. I suspect you will find that much the same thinking lies behind the important proposals for the reform of the French armed forces which President Chirac announced last night.

    Meanwhile, we have taken an axe to unnecessary overheads and bureaucracy, eliminating those tasks that did not need to be done, and ensuring that those essential tasks that remained could be done in the most efficient way. By 1998/9 this will be saving us over £1 billion a year. Nonetheless, we remain one of the highest spenders on defence in Europe, in both absolute and per capita terms.

    What is more, we have concentrated these resources where they matter – on the front line. At the teeth. Let me give you an illustration. We have for instance been able to acquire an entirely new capability – Tomahawk missiles for our submarines.

    At the same time, we have placed an increasing emphasis on “Joint” activity, with the closest inter-action and cooperation between the three Services. They train as they will fight together.

    There is a perception that reductions in the defence budget since the end of the Cold War must mean a reduction too in the capabilities of our armed forces. That is not true. Our armed forces have never been better equipped than they are today. To give you just on example, the Royal Navy’s latest frigate, the Type 23, has a crew almost 30 per cent smaller than its equivalent in the 1970s. But its radar and other sensors, helicopter and missiles all have ranges and capabilities several times their predecessors.

    In short, we have:

    – adapted our force structure to the new international security environment, and increased our operational efficiency by concentrating on mobility, flexibility and rapid reaction;

    – concentrated resources where they matter: on the front line, at the sharp end;

    – improved inter-service operability.

    Britain’s armed forces have brought their qualities to bear repeatedly in support of peace and freedom around the world: repelling Argentine aggression in the Falklands: helping to restore sovereignty to Kuwait: keeping the peace in Cyprus and Mozambique: today working to secure a new peace in Bosnia.

    A snapshot taken last year would have shown Britain as the largest single contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.

    Our contribution to the Implementation Force in Bosnia involves some 13,000 personnel – a much greater effort, in terms of population, GDP or as a fraction of our armed forces, than any other nation has been able to make. To put that in perspective, more than 10 per cent of our land army is now serving in Bosnia.

    It is because we take our own responsibilities seriously that Britain cares so much about the future of the security institutions we belong to. So we are honoured to hold the Presidency of the WEU for the first half of this year. And I am glad that you have chosen to devote this meeting to the treatment of defence issues at the Inter-Governmental Conference.

    I have one simple objective for Britain’s Presidency of the WEU and for the IGC: defence and security arrangements for Europe that work:

    – that are credible and practical;

    – that our citizens can rely on.

    The hard test is whether we can put in place arrangements capable of responding, not just to a desire for bureaucratic or institutional tidiness, but to the real security challenges that we shall face in the years ahead.

    An American President once said that “the purpose of foreign policy is not to provide an outlet for our own sentiments of hope or indignation, it is to shape real events in a real world.”

    The same is true in defence. Institutional blueprints may look pretty on paper but, as any soldier will tell you, they don’t offer much protection when the shells start flying.

    So what are the challenges? I see three key tasks.

    First, maintaining effective military forces.

    The end of the Cold War does not mean that we no longer need to be ready to defend ourselves and to keep the Atlantic community together. For Britain, collective defence through NATO remains the best way of doing both.

    Second, creating a Europe whole and free.

    That means extending to the East the stability and prosperity that we have for so long taken for granted in western Europe, whilst guarding against the appearance of new divisions.

    Third, promoting security elsewhere in the region and the world.

    History, culture and trade bind Europe to virtually all parts of the globe: from the Mediterranean to the Far East, from Africa to Latin America.

    These three key tasks are a formidable agenda. What are the instruments we need? First and foremost, NATO.

    NATO and the American presence in Europe remain the bedrock of our common security. We must keep the Alliance strong, both for collective defence and for new operations, such as IFOR, where we need US troops beside us on the ground. We draw new strength from France’s decision to participate more fully in NATO, a decision which I welcome most warmly.

    The Alliance also has a major role to play in extending stability to the East. The Partnership for Peace launched in January 1994 is central to this. Military cooperation under PfP is beginning to reduce the misunderstandings that breed insecurity.

    – It is bringing former adversaries together in joint operations.

    – 14 out of the 27 PfP countries have contributed personnel to IFOR. As Javier Solana said in Munich this month, the operation could be described as the most ambitious PfP exercise ever conceived.

    NATO has agreed that, for some countries, participation in PfP will lead ultimately to membership of the Alliance. That is a commitment. But while we move steadily towards decisions on the “who and when” of enlargement, we should remember too that enlargement is not a panacea. Enlargement will not cover all countries or meet all security needs.

    Every new country joining NATO means a huge new commitment on their part, and on the part of NATO. It is a military alliance, not a debating society.

    It will certainly not be a free lunch.

    So the process needs to be handled soberly and transparently, as one powerful tool among others for building the larger and safer Europe that we seek.

    We need to reinforce Europe’s contribution to the Atlantic Alliance. More effective European participation can only strengthen NATO as a whole. We should consider IFOR as a model for the future: almost two thirds of the Implementation Force’s troops are European.

    But sometimes Europe can shoulder the burden more directly, by mounting smaller-scale operations ourselves. NATO Heads of Government paved the way for this as long ago as January 1994, when they agreed the Combined Joint Task Force concept. We need now to put in place machinery for the political control and planning of such operations.

    The WEU is uniquely well qualified to fill this role. Its working links with NATO mean it can draw on the full range of European capabilities, as well as Alliance command structures.

    Its close relations with the EU allow us to coordinate the military, political and economic elements of any European response to a crisis.

    But its decisions on military action will be taken, as they must be, on the purely intergovernmental basis laid down in the Modified Brussels Treaty.

    The WEU has gained useful experience in its operations so far: from mine-sweeping in the Gulf, to sanctions enforcement around the former Yugoslavia. But more work is needed before it can take on more significant tasks.

    The British Presidency’s objective is for the WEU to become fully operationally capable as soon as possible. At Petersberg in Germany in 1992, Ministers agreed that the WEU should prepare to undertake peacekeeping, humanitarian and crisis management tasks. Our objective is that, by the end of the year, the WEU should be ready to perform a good number of these.

    During the British Presidency, I hope the WEU will also develop its own contribution to the extension of stability eastwards. We need to build a better dialogue with the WEU’s Associate Partners in Central Europe. And we need to give substance to the WEU’s relations with Russia and Ukraine.

    Our security does not always come from the barrel of a gun. Alongside the WEU, the EU has its own formidable armoury of political and economic instruments with which to build security and reunite our continent.

    The EU’s Association Agreements with the countries of Central Europe, and its Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with countries further East, are an important force for security and prosperity.

    We must make the most of them:

    – I believe we should open negotiations for EU membership with at least some of the Central European countries as soon as possible after the Inter-Governmental Conference;

    – And we must keep the EU’s trading rules open and non-protectionist, so that we give all the countries of this region the trading opportunities they need to build strong economies;

    – And we must work together to build a common agenda for security in Europe and beyond.

    Europe must look South as well as East. We must build on last November’s conference at Barcelona to promote stability across the Mediterranean. And we must look to our interests further afield. The meeting between Heads of Government from Asia and the EU next week is an important first, and an excellent opportunity to increase cooperation between two of the world’s most dynamic regions.

    So what does all this mean for defence and security issues at the IGC?

    Britain’s approach will be practical. We will start with reality, the real challenges, and work out institutional conclusions from there. We will give priority to building security, not building institutions for their own sake.

    Stability and security in Europe does not depend on the European Union alone.

    What do we need? We need arrangements that:

    – First, allow everyone to play their part: not only the 15 members of the EU, but also the many European countries that do not belong to the Union. And, of course, the US and Canada.

    – Second, reflect the diversity of EU member states and their defence policies.

    – Third, respect the obligations of NATO members, including to Allies outside the EU.

    – Fourth, respect the position of EU members that have chosen to remain outside collective defence arrangements.

    Some have argued that the IGC should take the first steps towards an eventual merger of the EU and WEU by subordinating the WEU to political direction by the EU.

    But this would be to put institutional tidiness and the illusion of progress before Europe’s real security needs. It is a recipe not for more action, but for less.

    The European Union has an essential contribution to make to regional and global security in the non-military field. Britain will work hard at the IGC to improve the EU’s ability to do so.

    But encumbering the Union with military responsibilities would do nothing to enhance the unique contribution that the EU can make to greater regional security through the political and economic instruments available to it, even assuming it were politically feasible to fold the Modified Brussels Treaty into the Union Treaty and to replace this Assembly with the European Parliament.

    On the contrary, giving the EU military responsibilities for which it is not equipped would impede the task of extending stability and prosperity to the East, by adding a new obstacle to Central European accession and unnecessarily provoking Russian fears. It would marginalise some NATO Allies. And it would confront some EU member states with choices they are not ready to face. This is not the right way forward. Nor could we support it.

    In March last year, I put forward a series of proposals designed to make a practical contribution to European security: to respond to the challenges of the real world, today and into the foreseeable future.

    Decisions for the longer term can be taken in the longer term. Meanwhile, security will not wait. Today, our task is to deal with the challenges confronting us now. And the challenges now are to reinforce NATO; to develop the WEU as an organisation that allows Europeans to mount operations in close cooperation with our North Atlantic Allies in NATO; and to strengthen cooperation between the WEU and the EU.

    That is my agenda for the Inter-Governmental Conference, and it is an agenda which I warmly commend to the WEU Assembly today.