The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Thailand

  • Mr Major’s On the Record Briefing in Thailand – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing held in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just at the outset say a little about the conference and why we had the conference. If one looks at the sheer scale of change in Asia and the changing relationship between Asia and Europe, the surprising thing really is that we haven’t had this conference many years ago. About 50 percent of Korean investment comes into Europe, comes into the UK; 40 percent of Japanese investment comes into the UK. So they are both very important countries both for bilateral trade but also in terms of investment.

    When one looks at the whole of the Asian block, we see their growth is a good deal higher than ours – by ours I mean Western Europe – their unemployment is a good deal lower than ours in Western Europe and their growth pattern is a good deal better.

    So there are a great deal I think of opportunities that lie in the Asian block that the European countries haven’t yet taken advantage of. And I think equally from the Asian point of view there is a great deal of technology and expertise in Western Europe that they could also link in with.

    The first thing I had the opportunity of doing when I arrived was to join in the signing of a deal worth something like 800 million US dollars with Trafalgar House, that is for a new steelworks in the area and it is I think the largest contract that the United Kingdom has had with Thailand at any stage. But I have no doubt that it is but the forerunner of others.

    Of the countries that attended this conference, something over half of the world’s GDP was actually represented by the countries present, so one can see the scale of the opportunities that were presented.

    In the conference itself I stressed the need for more trade liberalisation, more open markets, better educational, and cultural, and security links with Asia, and also the need for further tariffs and GATT reform and United Nations reform as well.

    The United Nations is very important to all of us, but the reality is unless the financial problems of the United Nations are solved, it is going to run out of money in November. So clearly reform is necessary and I reiterated many of the points that you have heard me make on previous occasions in different parts of the world about the need to put the United Nations’ finances on a sound footing and abolish those United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

    The next of these conferences will be a series of follow-up meetings between businessmen and others, but the next conference with the Asia-Europe group will be held in the United Kingdom in two years time.

    As a by-product of the meetings we have had here, I have had the opportunity of bilaterals with Helmut Kohl, Prime Minister Li Peng, the Prime Minister of Vietnam, the Prime Minister of Thailand, and of course Prime Minister Hashimoto this morning, we had a meeting this morning just after breakfast, and a series of informal exchanges with a number of the other Heads of Government.

    One of the most important things that actually comes out of most of these meetings is the opportunity to deal, in an informal setting, with bilateral matters rather than dealing either, with great respect, through officials or colleagues or over the phone.

    So it has been a very useful couple of days and I have no doubt that the conference that we have had here in the last couple of days is going to become institutionalised in the future.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Can you tell us about the meeting we understand you have had with Mr Bruton?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sorry, I also had a meeting with Mr Bruton. No, I can’t. We spoke for about 50 minutes. It was private stock-taking of where we have got and how we think things may develop, but neither of us are going to say anything publicly about the meeting, it was an entirely private meeting, just the two of us.

    QUESTION:

    Can you say whether you now agree with the Irish who seem to take the view that the Army Council statement the other day was not the last word on your joint communique on Wednesday and that it wasn’t a response to that, and do you take any encouragement from that if you do agree with it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will take encouragement when we see some positive response. We have been hearing cosy words from the IRA and their apologists for a long time. I am pretty fed up with the cosy words, I would like some positive action. So if that wasn’t their last word, good, but I will react further when I do get some further positive information from them. If it was a preliminary response then it was a very inefficient, ineffective and inappropriate preliminary response. If there is more to come, we will wait and see, but I will react when we have seen it. And what we really want now is not just friendly words, not the age-old Stalinist-type denunciations that we got the other night, but some practical indication that they understand the fears, the hopes, the ambitions of the people in Northern Ireland who have suffered from 25 years of their behaviour, that is what I want to see.

    INTERVIEWER:

    This seems a rather different tone of emphasis with what Mr Bruton is saying?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well you asked me my view, I have given you my view. My view is that I want to hear something positive from them. I don’t know whether their first reply was preliminary or not, we will have to wait and see. If there is more to come, good, let’s wait for it.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Are you ready to give them the benefit of the doubt?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I will give them the benefit of the benefit when I see there is something to have doubt about. I think I have given them enough of the benefit of the doubt over the last few months. I have given Sinn Fein the opportunity to come into democratic politics. I want to see them take that opportunity. If they take that opportunity, all well and good, but if they don’t they needn’t expect that either John Bruton, or I, or the democratic process is going to hang around for them. We have set a timescale, we have set a timetable and we are going to proceed along that timetable, in that timescale with or without Sinn Fein and the IRA.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Can you foresee a meaningful and effective peace process which does not at some stage involve Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Obviously it would be better with Sinn Fein. The reason we have gone to so much trouble to involve Sinn Fein is that it is obviously more effective with Sinn Fein. But if one is to take the view that you cannot proceed without Sinn Fein, what we are saying is that Sinn Fein and people who throw bombs about the place whenever they wish can put a block on the democratic process, and I don’t accept that, Parliament doesn’t accept that, the Irish parliament doesn’t accept that and John Bruton doesn’t accept that. So we would prefer to continue with them, I would prefer a ceasefire, I would prefer them to start behaving like democrats, I would prefer them to join in the talks and start acting constructively. But if they don’t, I am not prepared to let the whole thing grind to a halt while they behave in that fashion.

    QUESTION:

    Were you aware in advance of the terms of the visa for Gerry Adams, and how do expect the United States to approach that visit now that he is being allowed in?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That decision is a matter for the United States, it is not a matter for anybody else. What I understand is that the United States have provided a short-term visa, they made it clear that there must be no fund-raising and they have made it clear that like the British government and like the Irish government they will not meet Mr Adams at Ministerial level. That is their decision, it is a question for them. We have made our position clear in the United Kingdom, so have the Irish government. The American government in terms of not meeting Adams have taken precisely the same view.

    QUESTION:

    So you did know in advance?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to comment on inter-government information.

    QUESTION:

    In Hong Kong this weekend people are predicting you might get a rather bumpy ride. Do you have anything lined up for Hong Kong that might draw the sting from the protest there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    People in Hong Kong are concerned. I don’t find that remotely surprising. After very nearly 100 years of British sovereignty, the British control of Hong Kong comes to an end, that is what the law says, that is the reality of life, it comes to an end in 1997. And I think it would be astonishing if people weren’t concerned about what the position is going to be, and astonishing if they didn’t bring their concerns to the Governor in the first place and to British politicians when they visit, So I will try and deal with those concerns and try and respond to them as best I can. But I think the most appropriate way to do that is to do it when I am in Hong Kong.

    QUESTION:

    Did you make any progress on the question of the Vietnamese boat people when you were talking to the Prime Minister this morning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think so, but I will respond on that in Hong Kong as well. It was certainly a material part of our discussion.

    QUESTION:

    Why did Britain wait until the last few years of its colonial rule before granting Hong Kong its democracy, and wouldn’t China have been more likely to have accepted democracy if it had been brought in say in the ’70s or early ‘80s?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well there was no demand. It is all very well to look back and say why weren’t things done in the 1960s and 1970s, it is a very agreeable pastime to do so, but the circumstances change, people’s attitudes change, people’s demands change. There was no demand for those changes until one began to move into the mid-1980s and then we have moved as speedily as we can and we are very keen to see a proper system of democracy in place.

    The other point I should make clear, I think sometimes people have the impression that on the due date in 1997 China assumes sovereignty, Britain disappears and we lose all interest in Hong Kong. Well let me say to you that is emphatically not how I see it. I don’t think we are going to lose interest in Hong Kong. We have had a long-standing interest invested in Hong Kong, and I don’t just mean in terms of cash investment, I mean emotional interest in Hong Kong, for a very long period, and we will continue to have that interest in Hong Kong. We won’t have the legal responsibility, that is a matter of fact, but we will still retain that interest in Hong Kong, we will still have massive British investments in Hong Kong, we will still be a friend at the court of world opinion for Hong Kong, not just in the short term but for the long term. And I hope that point will become increasingly apparent to Hong Kong. They are not suddenly going to be divorced, ignored, cut adrift when China assumes sovereignty. The eyes of the whole world are going to be on Hong Kong. This is a unique circumstance and right across the world, starting in London but everywhere else right across the world, people will be looking to see what happens to Hong Kong and how events fall out in Hong Kong and looking after the interests of Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty.

    QUESTION:

    Li Peng’s spokesman made quite clear that the issue of LEGCO and its preservation was closed, he said that yesterday, in their interpretation of the bilateral that you had. That is obviously not your view but there is obviously the suspicion that one is going through the motions. How would you respond to that interpretation?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course if there isn’t an agreement you can put it as you did, there is always the suspicion one is going through the motion. We deal with these matters very seriously and we are not going through the motions at all, we continue to negotiate seriously. And many of the things of course that you might have said to me two years ago were blocked, finished subjects with no progress are now behind us because they have been dealt with. So we regard them as live issues that we continue to negotiate about.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangkok – 2 March 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangkok on Saturday 2nd March 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say a word or two about the meeting with Mr Hashimoto. We have an extremely good trade and economic relationship with Japan these days and in our discussions this morning we looked at the opportunities for further investment, mutual investment in trade growth, and the Japanese Prime Minister confirmed again that they continue to the see the United Kingdom as the most important centre for Japanese investment in Europe. So I found that extremely reassuring and we see the way in which the Asia-Europe is going in precisely the same way and look forward to its further development. So it was a very satisfactory meeting.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Prime Minister, are you happy or unhappy with the American decision on Gerry Adams’s visa?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The decision on the visa is a matter for the United States. But as I understand it, the visa is for Adams to visit the United States, there is an exclusion, there is no possibility of fund-raising and neither will he be seeing anyone senior in the American administration. So the United States on that seem to have taken precisely the same line as the British government and the Irish government.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Don’t you think perhaps that this is the time for the Americans to be showing displeasure with Gerry Adams rather than giving him favours?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As I have said on every occasion in the past, whatever the American decision has been, it is a matter for the Americans and I have spelt out the circumstances in which the visa was granted, I think the other questions are for them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think they will put pressure on him, as you are putting pressure on him, to work for a resumption of the ceasefire, do you hope that Washington will do that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    But the United States are doing that, the United States have been doing that continually and I have no doubt that they will continue to do it. They wish to see a ceasefire, they wish to see all-party talks begin and the have been very supportive of both the British government position and the Irish government position in that respect.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any expectation of a new statement from the IRA within the next week or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have no idea whether the IRA are going to make another statement. The statement they made the other evening was wholly inadequate, as I said at the time. We will have to wait and see. But the matter is for them, it is now a matter for them to decide. The option is there – they can decide to opt into a democratic process or they can exclude themselves, but it is their decision. I would prefer them to opt in on satisfactory conditions, but if they don’t we will continue without them.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Was Mr Bruton happy with your remarks the other day about the IRA Army Council’s response to the Downing Street agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would imagine he would have agreed with them, we haven’t spoken about them but I would imagine he would have agreed. He shares the same distaste for the way the IRA have behaved in recent years, as do most people.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Your backbenchers are incensed about the visa for Gerry Adams, what is your message to them? One of them at the moment is saying he can’t say whether President Clinton is either naive or stupid?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have said what I have to say about the visa, I have nothing more to say about that.

    INTERVIEWER:

    You are moving on to Hong Kong. What sort of reception are you expecting there? Chris Patten has had a pretty rough time over the last year or so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is understandable that people in Hong Kong are concerned about what is going to happen at the change of sovereignty in 1997. I shall be seeking to listen both to what LEGCO have to say, hearing what Hong Kong opinion is and also talking to them about how the changes are proceeding and what may happen between now and 1997 and thereafter. So I look forward to the trip.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Will you have good news for Hong Kong citizens on visa-free entry to the United Kingdom and do you think Britain could cope with a large influx?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a large number of matters to discuss with people in Hong Kong but I will have to say what I have to say when I get there.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you have any comment on Ron Davies, the Shadow Welsh Secretary, who says the Prince of Wales is not fit to be King?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I heard of those comments out here. I am absolutely astonished that somebody who is in the Shadow Cabinet, and who would presumably be the Welsh Secretary in a Labour administration, can speak in this fashion, particularly about someone who cannot answer back. I think most people will regard that as a pretty distasteful way to behave.

    INTERVIEWER:

    Do you think Mr Blair should sack him?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unwilling to sack Mrs Harman for openly flouting Labour Party policy on education. I can’t imagine that Mr Davies speaks for the majority of people in the Labour Party, but that is a matter for Mr Blair. If he chooses to keep people who openly disagree with his policy, and openly disagree with what the majority opinion is of people in the country, that is a matter for him.

  • Mr Major’s On the Record Briefing in Thailand – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing held in Bangkok on Thursday 29th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was probably better just to sit down for a few minutes And talk you through the scribbled notes I have made rather than a couple of minutes standing up dealing with one or two odd questions.

    I had a very worthwhile meeting with Li Peng. There are a series of different points I think I’d make:

    There has been a continuing improvement in British/Chinese relationships over the last year or so, quite markedly so. The Vice-Premier, Qichen, came to the United Kingdom in October, Malcolm Rifkind went to China in January and Michael Heseltine will be going back to China in May when we expect he will take with him the biggest business delegation I can ever recall leaving the UK of around 250 businessmen.

    Most of the discussion we had this evening was about Hong Kong, not all of it but most of it. There has been very welcome progress on a number of issues recently, let me list some of them:

    Better contacts between Chinese officials and Hong Kong civil servants; arrangements for the transfer of defence responsibilities. There are a number of outstanding matters: we agreed tonight that we will continue to accelerate the work with China to resolve the remaining issues before the hand-over.

    There are some areas where we still have concern over Hong Kong; one of them is the question of a bill of rights and the future of the legislature, LECCO. I said to the prime minister that Hong Kong’s success had been founded not only on economic success but on the rule of law and continuity and stability was a very important part of a successful transition in 1997.

    We touched on wider political dialogue. There was quite a substantial dialogue. We are both members of the Security Council of the UN of course, of the Permanent Five, and a range of other bilateral political contacts. We touched, of course, on human rights as we always do on these occasions and we touched on areas where we are looking for closer economic cooperation.

    In reply to my comments, the prime minister said that he too saw a marked improvement in the relations between Britain and China. He confirmed that after the hand-over in 1997 Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy; he confirmed that they Chinese government would not send its own officials to govern Hong Kong; and he confirmed that they would not take any tax revenue from Hong Kong. These points have been touched on before, they were confirmed very clearly – a very welcome confirmation – this evening.

    I also raised the sensitive question of the choice of the chief executive designate with the prime minister and told him how sensitive and important that choice was if it was to carry the confidence of people across Hong Kong. He wasn’t able to tell me when the choice would be made. I turn to the Chinese speakers to express a contrary view if they wish to because they would have heard the original Chinese – certainly the flavouring of the interpretation of what the prime minister said seemed to me to be warmer and more understanding about the need for a sensitive choice of chief executive than anything we have heard before. I don’t know if one of the Chinese speakers want to confirm that.

    GRAHAM FRY:

    I think he went further in saying it must be somebody who the people of Hong Kong are hoping for and who is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So that was a helpful movement.

    He didn’t indicate any movement in the Chinese-position on LEGCO or on the bill of rights. I state that so that colleagues know what the position is.

    It was a very useful discussion, there was a very good atmosphere during the discussion. The assurances were very welcome; some of them we have had before but they were nevertheless welcome being presented in such clear-cut terms and it was a good opportunity to put face-to-face the concerns that exist in Hong Kong as the hand-over approaches and it was an extremely useful background discussion to me since I propose to go from here to Hong Kong when I will meet and address LEGCO in a couple of days.

    We touched, in addition to that, on a number of international matters. I don’t think you will be much interested in them by and large. We talked about the opportunities for future economic development. There is no doubt that the economic relationship between China and the United Kingdom, which was quite chilly a year or so ago, has warmed up pretty dramatically and I think that was extremely welcome.

    Those are the only points that I particularly wish to mention. There is nothing else of any significance that I would wish to say to you about it.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, how do you compare today’s talks with the last time you had discussions with Li Peng I think five years ago? I seem to recall it turned out to be rather [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Much warmer. A great deal of progress has been made. There was a huge amount of mutual suspicion then. Everything in the garden isn’t solved by any means, there are still areas of concern – the bill of rights and LEGCO I mentioned – but the overall atmosphere has changed and improved quite a lot and the economic relationship which at one stage looked as though it was being put in cold storage, has clearly improved. That started with Michael Heseltine’s visit last year, which was very, successful; it was quite a gamble that visit at the time but it turned out to be very successful and Li Peng indicated again tonight that he was looking forward to Michael going back with 250 businessmen in May.

    QUESTION:

    Did you suggest anything to Li Peng, Prime Minister, in terms of his need or China’s need to speak out publicly in order to restore some of the ebbing confidence in Hong Kong about the commercial future? Did you say that as well as private assurances there was a need to speak out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes. He was confident of that. It emerged quite gratuitously and what he had to say about the appointment of the chief executive. I think they are aware of that. China wants the hand-over to be a success as we do and I think some of the assurances that they have given – for example taking no tax revenue from Hong Kong, not putting in Chinese officials to take over the jobs of Hong Kong officials for example, being sensitive about the appointment of the chief executive – all of those were points that were directly relevant to restoring confidence in Hong Kong.

    I am not suggesting that there are no areas of disagreement, I am suggesting that the areas of agreement have been enlarging over the last few months.

    QUESTION:

    The head of the [indistinct] News Agency has said that Britain should not stir up trouble for Hong Kong’s smooth transition and I think the implication of that is that by taking the stand on LEGCO that the governor and the British Government have, this is stirring up trouble. Do you recognise that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All I can say is I don’t know what news agencies say. That wasn’t the flavour I got from the prime minister.

    QUESTION:

    Would you say either on the record or on background whether you are at least relieved that the royal divorce is underway?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, neither on the record nor on background. It was an extremely good try. I will not comment on that until I have been properly briefed on what is happening; then I may say something but I don’t wish to without that.

    QUESTION:

    Can I also ask about the opening of talks today between John Hume, Gerry Adams and the IRA? They are talking about wanting to take the peace process forward, that was what they said afterwards. Is that hopeful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have to wait and see. These days I am not quite so much impressed by mere words, I shall be more impressed by action. We have set out the way in which we intend to proceed. Sinn Fein have the opportunity to join in that process if they abandon their position on the ceasefire, if they begin to talk and meet the six principles, including the points on decommissioning but the choice is theirs.

    What is now clear to Sinn Fein is that there is a way in which they can come into the democratic process if they wish but if they choose to stay out of the democratic process the democratic process is not going to stop and wait for them so the choice is theirs. I am not going to comment on miscellaneous press conferences they may have, briefings they may give, I will comment on action when and if they deliver it.

    QUESTION:

    When you were talking to Li Peng, did you broach the issue of visas and also the question of the Vietnamese boat people? Were they discussed in any way?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There were some other things I don’t wish to talk about this evening that we talked about, yes, but I am sure we will talk about those over the next few days.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Bangkok – 29 February 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Bangkok, held on Thursday 29th February 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say very briefly, I have just had an hour or so with Prime Minister Li Peng. We spent most of the time, not all of the time, but most of the time discussing Hong Kong matters. It was a very reassuring discussion, I was very pleased with the nature of it, very pleased with the tenor of it, and very pleased with the substance of it.

    The relationship undoubtedly has improved between the United Kingdom and China over the last year, economically and in terms of cooperation about the matters of such vital importance to Hong Kong.

    In our discussions this evening the Prime Minister reaffirmed some points that I think are of importance to Hong Kong. He reaffirmed that there would be no question of Chinese officials coming into Hong Kong, taking away senior jobs from Hong Kong officials. He reaffirmed the question that there was no question of tax revenues leaving Hong Kong.

    We also spent some time discussing the very sensitive question of the Chief Executive Designate, and although no decision upon that is imminent, I am in no doubt, following my discussion with the Prime Minister, that the sensitivity and importance of that matter to confidence in Hong Kong is fully understood by the Chinese authorities.

    We also discussed of course LEGCO and the Bill of Rights where the differences that exist between the British position and the Chinese position were reaffirmed. There is no change in those, that is a matter that will be a subject of continuing debate.

    I will take the opportunity of reporting more fully on my discussions with the Prime Minister when I am in Hong Kong in a day or so. But overall I thought the nature and tenor of discussion was more reassuring than any that I have had in the past and I am delighted we had the opportunity of meeting this evening.