The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: United Nations

  • Mr Major’s London Press Conference on Bosnian Situation – 30 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference in London on Tuesday 30th May 1995 on the subject of Bosnia.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All of you of course will know of the decisions that were taken on Sunday night. I should perhaps emphasise, some people perhaps may not have noticed this, that the meeting for Sunday night was of course called some time before the British hostages were taken. There will be an opportunity in the House of Commons tomorrow, in both Houses, for a full debate on the Bosnian situation generally and upon the decisions we took on Sunday night. What I would like to do in the next few minutes is to share with you how the Government intends to handle this difficult moment for our troops in Bosnia.

    Let me just say something about those troops at the outset. British people are immensely proud of their Armed Forces and I may address that remark to those of you present here in this conference, but I direct them more to our soldiers, the families and relatives of those who serve in Bosnia, and perhaps particularly to the families of those soldiers who are held hostage at the present moment. At this difficult time it is to them that my thoughts are principally directed.

    I sent, as Prime Minister, our troops to Bosnia and I intend to do everything in my power to ensure that our soldiers are released from their present captivity. We have not lightly said that this is a vital national interest. We have sent a letter to Mr Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, that we shall hold him and General Maladic personally responsible for the safety of British troops in Bosnian Serb hands.

    We are of course also acting in close concert with our allies and with those governments whose peace-keepers are also being held captive. This new development, this taking hostage of peace-keepers is an outrage, condemned by the whole international community, and rightly so. But not only is it an outrage, it is a self-defeating folly. There can be no possible gain, political or military, from threatening the lives of those who have saved countless lives, of Serb, Croat, Muslim, right across the whole of Bosnia.

    So let me say quite clearly to the Bosnian Serbs, this sort of action is the path to total international isolation and permanent pariah status.

    In the present circumstances we now have to think coolly and with a clear head about the way forward. In the past few days I have been in close contact with Chancellor Kohl, President Yeltsin, President Chirac, President Clinton and Prime Minister Cretian. My colleagues, the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, have been in equally close touch with their colleagues from NATO and from the Contact Group.

    My own view has always been that so long as the United Nations troops, including the British contingent, can carry out their humanitarian mission without unacceptable risk to their lives, then they should continue to carry out that mission. Neither do I agree with those who say that the West has no strategic interest in this conflict. The prevention of a full-scale Balkan war is very much a strategic interest for those of us in the West.

    That remains my view. And it is very easy to forget in present circumstances precisely what our troops have achieved. They have stopped the fighting from spreading more widely throughout the Balkans; they have negotiated and upheld ceasefires; they have delivered literally thousand upon thousand of tons of food and medicines to people who would otherwise surely have died; and fighting has stopped in much of Central Bosnia over the last 15 months and that of course is where most of the British troops have been based during this period.

    These are achievements that our troops there can rightly be proud of and they are not to be lightly discarded. If the United Nations Protection Forces were to be forced by events to withdraw then the consequences for all the people of Bosnia, and for the wider Balkan region, would be very grave. And it is for that reason that the British Government has never favoured withdrawal.

    But plainly we cannot go on as we are. I therefore ask Douglas Hurd and Malcolm Rifkind to pursue with our allies and partners a three-point strategy:

    – First, we are strengthening the military muscle of British troops in the Protection Forces. That is why we announced on Sunday night the despatch of two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron to Bosnia, the first contingent will leave today. We are also preparing to deploy 24 Air Mobile Brigade. These deployments serve not one, but two, purposes: they will strengthen the British troops’ capacity to defend themselves and they also put in place the kind of reinforcements which would be necessary were a decision taken to withdraw from Bosnia, although I have said withdrawal emphatically is not – not – our objective.

    – Secondly, we must look urgently at the mandate and deployment of Protection Forces troops. We are proposing to our partners and allies that there should be a concentration of United Nations forces so as to reduce their vulnerability.

    – And third, we have to strain every nerve to achieve a political settlement. Without one there will be, in our judgment, no lasting end to the fighting.

    Finally, let me repeat again that we wish to see the United Nations Protection Forces stay in Bosnia, but circumstances could arise where the cost of asking British troops to bear an impossible burden, or to run unacceptable risks, could become too high. I hope that the additional reinforcements will make it possible for UNPROFOR to remain. But if the parties themselves, make that impossible, if they abuse the neutrality, the impartiality and the humanitarian purposes of the United Nations then we and other contributors may find ourselves in the position where there is no viable choice but to bring the Protection Forces home.

    Were that to happen, we would all be losers. If UNPROFOR had to pull out, the United Nations would lose, NATO would lose, the European Union would lose and the authority of the international community would lose. But the greatest loss of all I believe would be in former Yugoslavia itself where Serbs, Croats and Muslims would face a future ruled even more by violence and insecurity than they have faced in the last couple of years.

    I hope to set out these and other matters in the debate in the House of Commons tomorrow. But for the moment I will be happy to take any questions you may have, and so will the Defence Secretary. Let me say at the outset, there will be some questions I will not wish to answer on this occasion.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (David Rose):

    Prime Minister, could you elaborate on what you said about the warning to the leader and military commander of the Bosnian Serbs, that you hold them responsible?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is not a great deal to elaborate upon it, the message is quite, clear and quite unequivocal. British troops are being held. British troops and other United Nations troops, in Bosnia on humanitarian reasons, not party to a conflict, have illegally been taken hostage and held, some of whom have been used as apparent shields against a response by the United Nations Protection Forces. That is illegal. I have made it perfectly clear to the people in command of the troops holding them that the British government will hold them personally responsible for the safety of the British troops. The position is clear and the message passed to them is unequivocal, but I don’t wish to add to it.

    QUESTION (Sky News):

    It would seem that actually getting the forces to the area is becoming increasingly difficult with the threat of Serbian attacks, how are we going to move those troops, is it safe to move them overland or are we going to put them by air where the Serbs have control of the airport?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It depends which troops you have in mind. I don’t wish to elaborate on precisely how we will move troops for reasons that you touched upon yourself and are self-evident. Suffice to say we are looking at the movement of troops and precisely how they can most favourably and speedily be moved at the moment. As far as the new troops are concerned, some will leave later today, others will leave fairly speedily. And the decision, the preparation, to deploy 14 Air Brigade is proceeding rapidly and they will leave as soon as a firm decision is taken.

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

    Again in your statement you have referred to the real possibility that the British troops and the UN Protection Force may have to withdraw and the troops you are sending there would help in that eventuality. Do you rule out any possibility that British troops and the other UN troops there will actually take a more robust role, that they will actually become involved in making war on the Serbs, because it would seem to me that that is the only thing that they really fear?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    British troops are not there to declare war on the Serbians. They are there to carry out an humanitarian role and a certain degree of robustness in carrying out that role has always been part of the mandate, and they will carry out whatever instructions the Commanders on the ground think is appropriate to carry out the mandate they have already got.

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

    Does the fact that you want to concentrate UN troops in a more defensible space in Bosnia mean that we are no longer able to protect some of the outlying safe areas?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t necessarily know that that is the case. Certainly we are going to have to bring some of the more exposed UNMOs closer in, I think that is self-evident, that has clearly been learned. Beyond that, on this occasion, I don’t wish to say any more about the concentration of troops, we are still discussing that with the Commanders on the ground and with our Allies. And at this stage of course there is still the possibility that other countries will also decide to send more troops there as well.

    QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC):

    How concerned are you that the Serbs will use this move to send in more troops as a provocation and will instead respond with more aggressive response and create the sort of spiral of violence which you referred to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the spiral recently has not come from the Protection Forces but from those fighting on the ground. It was not the Protection Forces that lobbed heavy weapons and heavy artillery into Tusla recently. It was not the Protection Forces that actually took captives, that was the activity of the Serbs. It is not tolerable activity, I have made that perfectly clear. And I think in the interests of safety and for the reasons I have set out I am utterly certain we are right to despatch more troops to General Smith’s command in Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    Could you say whether the other countries that you have just alluded to might include the US, and also could you clarify the command and control point, will the reinforcing troops be under direct British command or will they also be under UN command?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, we will reach a final conclusion on that later today, I will be able to tell the House of Commons tomorrow the precise details of the command and control of the new troops and in particular the Air Brigade, when despatched. On the earlier point as to which countries may add troops to it, I cannot tell which countries they may be.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you have chosen your words carefully today but hardliners reading this transcript in Pale and elsewhere may say “One last push and these people are going to pull out! They lack the political will and the military capability to enforce their mandate.” What can you say today to leave the impression that the other options which exist are seriously still open and may well taken?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made the point clearly that I do not wish to see the United Nations protection forces leave; I have repeated that until I am blue in the face; I repeat it again. I think the impact of having them there has not only saved a large number of lives through their humanitarian work, I think they have also diminished the fighting; as I indicated, in much of Central Bosnia where British troops have been, fighting has ceased over the last fifteen months. I don’t believe that fighting would have ceased but for the presence of the British troops there.

    Let me also make the point that if anybody harbours the illusion that if the United Nations protection forces should at some stage be forced to withdraw that the West generally will just be able wash it hands and say: “Well that is the end of it! You can get on entirely on your own!”, I think that is an utterly false delusion. There are wider, strategic interests and it certainly would not be the end of the matter if the protection forces were forced to leave; we would still have those wider, strategic interests. No-one need imagine that we can just lightly walk from this and pretend that something of very great importance right on the borders of the European Union isn’t of interest to us – it clearly is.

    QUESTION:

    You seemed to suggest that these extra troops are going to bolster the UN protection force and yet you won’t say in answer to Don McIntyre, whose control they will be under. Are you trying to confuse us or the Bosnian Serbs, please?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No. I shall be confusing no-one by tomorrow. We are still discussing the precise details of the command and control of 24 Air Brigade when they get there and as I indicated a moment ago I will make the decision clear to the House of Commons tomorrow but there are some very practical and detailed matters to be considered, they are under active discussion at the moment.

    SIMON WALTERS (THE SUN):

    Prime Minister, you say that the troops will stay there until you think the risk is unacceptable. Do you not think that the mood in this country is that the risk to our troops is now unacceptable and that for that reason they should be brought home immediately

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe that is the mood of the country, no, Simon, not remotely and I recall very well the mood of this country a couple of years when it looked as though we might see genocide on a very wide scale in Bosnia; I remember the immensely warm and concerned reaction when so many of the Bosnian children who were hurt needed treatment.

    I don’t think the British nation would wish lightly that British troops and United Nations troops should turn their back on Bosnia and open up the dangers of what might then happen in the enclaves and don’t be in any doubt about what might happen if United Nations protection forces came out, in the interregnum before anything materially happened, there may well be great trouble in the enclaves. The Serbs would certainly be able to take the enclaves and I don’t know whether you or anyone else can tell me quite how many people then would be killed. I don’t think that is a matter of no concern to us, I believe it is of concern to us.

    You have seen what has happened in Central Bosnia, I have just set that out. British troops have been in Central Bosnia for the last fifteen months and the fighting in Central Bosnia has all but died away. Once we move away, the danger of a full-scale attack on enclaves is clearly there. If there was a full-scale attack on the enclaves, you would see bloodshed on a scale we have not yet previously seen. I believe we have both a strategic interest in preventing a wider Balkan War – I spelt that out a few minutes ago – and I think we have a humanitarian obligation to try and prevent that sort of bloodshed and it is for those reasons that the United Nations protection forces are there as a whole. I believe it was right to send them, I believe it has been right to keep them there, I believe it is right that they are there now and I believe it is right to keep them there for as long as they can remain there without unacceptable risks to the lives of British and other United Nations soldiers.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] request to President Clinton to send troops?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It wasn’t a request, I simply stated that some countries may well send more.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, given what has happened in the aftermath of the NATO air strikes, does that strategic step still look sensible to you?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not a matter I am going to discuss on this particular occasion but if you mean do we rule them out for good, the answer is no.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what role, if any, are the Americans and Russians playing in the new scenario?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a very substantial role. The Croat Federation in the West was substantially a result of American negotiation. Clearly, the Russians still have more influence than most over the Serbs, certainly in Belgrade and perhaps beyond Belgrade so they have a very substantial role to play and they are playing it and think it is very important they continue to do so.

    CHARLES WRIGHT:

    Are you satisfied with the response you have had from President Yeltsin so far and given the Russian interests you have mentioned is there more you think they could do?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are in constant touch with the Russians, the Foreign Secretary is meeting Foreign Minister Kozyrev very possibly at this moment, they are certainly meeting today. When I spoke to President Yeltsin from Bonn on Friday of last week, he responded immediately to our concerns about the escalation and I believe took action immediately so I think yes, they do have a role to play.

    QUESTION (CH4 NEWS):

    Wasn’t the determination and the toughness of the Bosnian Serbs underestimated here? Wasn’t it always likely that they were going to take hostages? Are you happy that the lessons of previous air strikes were properly learned?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it is very easy to suddenly say when they have taken hostages that you ought not have had people in exposed positions. It is very easy to say that in retrospect but of course they weren’t in exposed positions for no good reason; they were in exposed positions – observation posts for the protection of the towns. The UNMOs were out there for very good strategic reason, brave men doing a job that they believed in for sound reasons for the overall success of the mission so I don’t think with hindsight that I would wish to enter any criticism of the Commanders on the ground.

    On the general question of air strikes that you raised, of course, when this whole dispute began some three years or so ago, there were some who thought that all the West needed to do or perhaps should do was to lay back and handle the matter with fairly substantial air strikes. I always thought that was unreal and wasn’t a proposition that ever commended itself to the British military advice that I had or that I ever thought was remotely likely.

    People may say that if you hadn’t put troops on the ground, the United Nations personnel on the ground, no hostages could have been taken but I would have thought that civilian hostages put near the sort of targets that might have been attacked from the air would have been just as likely if we had tried just to deal with air attacks, apart from which the prospect of delivering humanitarian aid with air attacks was negligible, there was no prospect of it whatsoever. The prospect of actually ending the conflict from the air was, on the basis of every single piece of military advice I ever had, equally impossible so although some felt two or three years ago that all we had to do was to unleash air attacks from the relative safety of 5,000 feet, that was never a credible posture for the West to entertain, it wasn’t then and isn’t now.

    GEORGE PASKER-WATSON (THE SUN):

    How did you feel last night when you saw the footage of the British soldiers who were being paraded on Serbian television? Did you not think it smacked very much of during the Gulf War when Saddam Hussein did the same thing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think how I felt was expressed very clearly by the message that has been sent to Mr. Karadic and General Mladic; they will be in no doubt about how I felt about it.

    KEVIN BROWN (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    What did you mean by “straining every nerve to find a political settlement”? Is there some new diplomatic initiative under way which has resulted from the recent crisis?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The diplomatic initiatives have continued throughout this whole period; they, frankly, haven’t been very successful so far except as far as the Muslim/Croat Federation in the West is concerned. We may be nearer at the moment to Mr. Milosevic recognising Bosnia than we have been at any stage in the past; that would clearly be a significant step forward. We are not yet – let me make that clear and it is by no means certain we will get there in the next day or so but as we speak at least we are a good deal nearer there than we have been at any stage in past. That would be quite a significant step forward and I hope that we will be able to build on that, if it is achievable, in the next 24 or 48 hours or so.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with Douglas Hurd – 6 December 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, held in Budapest on Tuesday 6th December 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would like first to express my thanks to the Hungarian government for the hospitality and organisation of this conference. It is a very large conference by almost any reckoning and I think the organisation has been absolutely excellent and I am most grateful for that.

    During the whole of the summit I think it is fair to say that two issues have dominated: Bosnia, of course, as it was always likely to do; and the future enlargement of NATO. On Bosnia I set out in my speech yesterday what was at stake and frankly I have very little to add to that. The British troops in Bosnia are there to help the protection forces discharge an humanitarian mandate, they are there to save lives. In the period that they have been there I believe they have saved many thousands of lives and they are there to keep the peace where there is a peace to be kept. They are emphatically not there to fight a war or to take sides.

    But if the events deteriorate to the point where United Nations troops and the British contingent can no longer carry out their mandate without unacceptable risk, then of course they will have to leave, and that is simply to state a matter of fact.

    I very much hope that it will not come to this, it certainly does not have to come to this. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Serb, Bosnian and Croat leaders in the last 48 hours and all of them, without exception, have said they would like the protection forces to stay. Now if that is a view sincerely held, the conclusion to be drawn is self-evident. The warring parties must, without delay, cease fire, allow the free passage of United Nations troops and aid and make it possible to re-start the peace negotiations.

    On the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation there has frankly been rather a lot of excitable comment this morning about an East-West rift. I think it is worthwhile looking at precisely what our aim should be. Our aim must be to spread eastwards the prosperity and the stability that members of the European Union and NATO now enjoy, and that is precisely why both organisations are currently developing ties with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in a number of cases with a view to eventual membership of those organisations.

    We wish obviously to move gradually and carefully towards enlargement, building on the Partnership for Peace programme. I spent some time discussing this yesterday with President Yeltsin and this followed an earlier conversation on the same subject when he visited Chequers last September. And it is perfectly apparent from that discussion that President Yeltsin’s concern is that NATO would enlarge swiftly to Russia’s Western border, possibly starting as early as next year. I said to him in our conversation that in fact NATO’s proposals were to move cautiously and without deadlines. NATO’s study into future membership is about the how and the why of enlargement, not the who and when of future membership. I made it clear to President Yeltsin that the United Kingdom wanted the outcome of the study to be discussed openly with all Partnership for Peace partners, including Russia, and there should be no surprises and there should be no secret deals about the enlargement of NATO.

    I formed the impression that President Yeltsin was entirely satisfied with that approach. He is concerned with the pace and the scale of NATO’s enlargement, he does not want to see a new dividing line drawn across Europe and neither do any of the members of NATO or the would-be members of NATO wish to see such a dividing line. It is therefore very important for NATO to continue to build up its relationship with Russia and that is why I hope that Russia will soon be able to sign its Partnership for Peace agreements with NATO.

    The talk we have heard over the past 24 – 48 hours of a relapse into the Cold War ignores I think yesterday’s very substantial achievements – the strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the accession of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, the entry into force of START I, and a clearing of the way towards the ratification of START II. And I think what those agreements, signed yesterday, show, is that a great prize is still very much within reach between East and West, a partnership between Russia and the West from which the sharp hostilities of the Cold War will be absent.

    I think therefore that much of the talk about difficulties between NATO and Russia has been grotesquely overdone, there are concerns and I think those concerns can readily be met.

    During the period we have been here both I and the Foreign Secretary have had the opportunity of a large number of bilateral discussions with other Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government and that also has been a very useful adjunct to the conference as a whole.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Paul Reynolds, BBC):

    How can you explain how the situation has arisen where you are talking of withdrawing troops when the Security Council resolution clearly gives you the right to use all necessary means to carry out the humanitarian mandate?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I explained that rather clearly yesterday, I think, Paul. The troops are there for an humanitarian purpose, for so long as they can safely carry out that humanitarian purpose, they will stay. I am not anxious for the troops to leave, quite the reverse, we were one of the first countries to send troops there in large numbers and we did so because of our humanitarian concern for what is happening there. But those troops are not equipped to fight a war and they are not there to fight a war and we have to have concern for the safety of those troops, as indeed to other troop contributors. And the point that I have been making is that if they cannot safely undertake their task then it is not credible for them to remain. I hope that will not occur but I have to warn that it could.

    QUESTION:

    Is the British government thinking in terms of time to withdraw their troops from the former Yugoslavia and to get a peace plan approved by the various sides?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we have not got a particular timescale in mind and as I indicated just now, I very much hope that it will not be necessary to withdraw troops. But if they cannot satisfactorily undertake their task, and it is not safe for them to remain, then we may have no choice. As far as seeking diplomatic conclusion is concerned, the Foreign Secretary has had a range of meetings over the last weekend with Foreign Minister Juppe, he met Mr Milosevic and others, the Contact Group are resuming and we very much hope the peace plan can move forward, the Foreign Secretary may wish to add to it. Certainly we wish to explore more diplomatic moves to see whether a settlement can be reached, that infinitely is the prize that we must all aim for.

    QUESTION (Nik Gowing, Channel 4 News):

    How much, if a withdrawal has to happen, will be dictated by what is happening on the ground, how much of it in the end will be dictated by your military advice which says Prime Minister if we do not go now, it is going to be increasingly difficult to withdraw. And secondly, is the withdrawal likely to take the 165 days which the UN mentioned at the beginning of last week or can it be done much quicker?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The points you raise are interlinked, of course. But the other point that needs to be made, it is not just a question of the British, it is a question of the other troops who are there as well, they are there as United Nations troops, of course we are particularly concerned about the British contingent there, but the United Nations themselves will be concerned about all the troops. We have to look both at what the situation is at present and what it looks as though it is going to become. Withdrawal is not an overnight affair so of course we must have contingency plans for that, but if you will forgive me I will not go into those in depth.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask if from the British point of view can we expect any concrete steps forward from the participants of this summit in connection with the Bosnian problem?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what concrete will emerge from this particular summit except the frustration that everyone feels, there is a universal desire to end the fighting and reach a negotiated settlement and repeatedly that universal desire is frustrated on the ground by one party or another. So I think undoubtedly there is a huge amount of frustration about that. What in concrete terms may emerge from this summit, I am not sure that this summit is going to produce anything that will definitively move the process forward and I am not sure it was ever likely that it will be able to do so.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I think the sequences of what needs to happen is now increasingly accepted, the order of things, though some of the substance of them is difficult. First, there has to be a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities, beginning in Bihac. There is an argument about how long it should be for, arguments about how it should be worked out, and that is really for the UN on the ground to negotiate, as Mr Akashi is trying to do. Then there needs to be acceptance of the Contact Group plan. As you know, it is accepted by everybody except the Bosnian Serbs and even some of them yesterday in Belgrade said they should accept it, that is a new development, foreshadowed to Alain Juppe and myself by Mr Milosevic when we saw him the night before last. But that plan is not yet accepted by the Bosnian Serbs. Then there can be talks about territorial adjustments, about land swaps, among the parties to see if such swaps can be agreed. At the same time there can be talks about Constitutional arrangements, as set out in the Contact Group document. And then there needs to be a Bosnian Serb withdrawal to the 49 percent which under the Contact Group plan they would be entitled to occupy within Bosnia Herzegovina, the integrity of whose frontiers is stated by the Contact Group plan.

    So that is the sequence of events. As I say, there is argument at several points of it, but everyone I have talked to, all members of the Contact Group, President Milosevic, President Izetbegovic, President Tudjman, accept that that is the sequence, that is the order in which these things ought to happen.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    As the Foreign Secretary sets out, the route map to peace is perfectly clear. The question at issue is whether the leaders of the opposing groups will actually march down that route, we very much wish to see them do so.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Prime Minister, the Baltic States is considered during all the European structures as a security question but at the same time in Western countries sometimes we hear about some neutrality or special status of the Baltic States because of the neighbourhood of Russia. What is your opinion about these things?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO itself is developing a Partnership for Peace proposal which stretches straight through to Russia and includes Russia. We very much wish Russia to take a full part in the Partnership for Peace. That is a stepping stone. We need to deal with the realities of what needs to be done to avoid awakening old fears across Europe.

    Of course NATO is going to enlarge – that is no longer in question – but NATO is going to enlarge cautiously and carefully and I think no-one should be in any doubt about that. There is a great deal to be done. It isn’t just a political point, it is a military point as well. One needs to ensure that the circumstances are satisfactory for a cautious but worthwhile and continuing enlargement of NATO. That will take some time. In the meantime, Partnership for Peace is a very attractive and very worthwhile stepping stone.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    We certainly see the Baltic States as part of the European family, a welcome part, and we British are very active there, for example with the Nordic countries training the Baltic peacekeeping battalion and last Monday we agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council on a mandate to open negotiations for the next agreement between the European Union and the Baltic States. As the Prime Minister has said, they are part of the Partnership for Peace; they have all three agreed to the Partnership for Peace and are working out the actual content of each Partnership agreement for each of the three countries so things are on the move and I think they will make steady progress.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I had the opportunity of meeting the Baltic leaders not very long ago in Vilnius and we had the opportunity of discussing all this and how the progress forward might come and I think they are very realistic about what can be achieved and in what time-scale.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant , BBC TV):

    Prime Minister, can I ask you a question on the burning domestic issue and that is can you confirm that if the Government were to lose on the VAT issue you wouldn’t try to make up the shortfall by increasing borrowing and are you prepared to make a last minute appeal to potential rebels not to carry out their threat because if they do so at the very least the Government would be seriously embarrassed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope we are going to win the vote this evening on the Budget resolution, I very much hope we are going to win; I shall no doubt learn more about that when I return to the United Kingdom later on this afternoon but the Chancellor set out the circumstances yesterday and I am going to say no more in Budapest this afternoon.

    QUESTION (RAI ITALIAN TV, CHANNEL 3):

    Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe an arms sale embargo should be lifted in Bosnia and in your talk with President Yeltsin what has emerged as an obstacle to developing a common document on Bosnia which is not coming out?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me deal with the first point of lifting the arms embargo. We don’t believe lifting the arms embargo would be a wise development; we don’t believe that would aid peace. We do believe that lifting the arms embargo would make it impossible for the United Nations humanitarian mission to safely continue and if the humanitarian mission were to leave that is going to have very profound effects for a lot of people and I think it highly appropriate for people to think what would be the position on the ground if the arms embargo were lifted and the United Nations troops were to move. The single simple question to ask oneself is does that bring peace nearer or does that bring peace further away and I think the answer to that question is self-evident; it takes peace further away, it puts more people’s lives at risk, many more people would be killed and who knows to what extent the war then would spread.

    I don’t believe it is appropriate to have a situation where United Nations troops have had to go, the arms embargo has been lifted and one then sees a much wider war perhaps spreading southwards. Who can tell what precisely would happen? It is conceivable that events will force us down that path but we will not go down it willingly because we think it will add to the bloodshed and not end the bloodshed and it has been our determination to end it from the start of this conflict.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    On the second point, efforts were made to agree a separate document on Bosnia and our delegation tried to reconcile different points of view so there could be a document. My understanding, unless there has been some breakthrough in the last ten minutes, is it has not been possible to agree such a document. Our guidance is therefore the decisions of the Contact Group, the Security Council and indeed under the Security Council of the North Atlantic Council.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can’t speak for the last ten minutes but it certainly wasn’t agreed fifteen minutes ago.

    QUESTION (Ian Black, Guardian):

    Can I ask you, Prime Minister, whether you are not becoming increasingly concerned about the possible damage to relations between Britain and the United States over the situation in Bosnia? We have had the argument within NATO about bombing and we had Senator Dole in London last week. Is this not going to get worse and worse as long as this situation continues?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think when people look at differences between the United Kingdom and the United States these days they are confusing differences between Congress and the British Government rather than the American Administration and the British Government.

    The American Administration I think now very largely shares our view about the dangers of unilateral lift and what in practice would happen as a result of unilateral lift, so there are no strains of the sort that many people were forecasting some time ago between the British and the United States administrations about this. If I may borrow the word I used a few moments ago, we are both frustrated about the lack of progress, we both want to see a negotiated settlement. I think we both now recognise the dangers of unilateral lift.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I had a long talk last night with Warren Christopher before he went off to Damascus and I must say I felt quite strongly at the end of this talk that we and the United States, after a period of disagreement, were now actually moving in outline and in detail in the same direction. Since the Contact Group agreement on Friday night, the United States has had its contacts with some of the parties, we have had our contacts with some of the parties, we have compared notes, we were all saying the same thing so this is now an effort which we and the Administration are pursuing together. There are voices outside the Administration just as there are voices in Britain who take a different line but the two governments are working closely together.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Mr. Major, at the weekend your Cabinet colleague, Peter Lilley, said that the group of nine should have the whip reinstated at once. Do you share that view?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    He didn’t say that. What Peter Lilley said was that there was no choice but to withdraw the whip and he hoped colleagues would return in due course. He didn’t put a time-scale that. I hope colleagues will continue to support the Conservative Government. In due course, therefore, they will no doubt wish to return to the Conservative whip but I think you are putting words into Peter’s mouth.

    QUESTION (Peter Oborne, Evening Standard):

    Secondly, what will you do to those who vote against the Government or abstain tonight?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made it clear that I hope colleagues will support us tonight. I don’t propose to go further than that, you would be surprised if I did. I think that comes into the category of “Very good try, Peter!”

    QUESTION (National Review):

    Back to Bosnia for a minute, Sir. In your speech yesterday you emphasised that no side in the conflict there can expect to gain a military victory. Isn’t that precisely what is happening at the moment with the Serbs occupying 70% of the land there? If, therefore, the British contingent of the UN peace force is brought home, what danger remains, what justification exists for still not allowing the Bosnian government the right to defend themselves through lifting the arms embargo once that danger has been removed?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you are drawing two things together that don’t necessarily follow. I think it is very likely that if not the British but the United Nations protection forces were to withdraw, then very probably the arms embargo would be lifted but that is a separate proposition from lifting the arms embargo with United Nations troops in the middle of Bosnia and of course there are different things happening in different parts of Bosnia – there are Bosnian advances in parts of central Bosnia.

    One of the things that has bedevilled this whole enterprise from the start is that when one has moved close to what one thought might be a conceivable diplomatic settlement, one side or other has sensed some territorial advantage of the weeks or months that lie immediately ahead and at that stage the diplomatic settlement has slipped away and of course that has happened on a roller coaster basis time and time again.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary, what kind of message do you think it delivers to people living in Europe that this Conference apparently is unable to agree even on words that should be spoken about the greatest crisis on the Continent which is the war in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It would have been very agreeable, we may yet get an agreement but we hadn’t as at fifteen minutes ago; it would have been very agreeable to have had one. I think what they would be better advised to look at is the large number of people in Europe who are anxious for a settlement, who have been sufficiently anxious for a settlement not only to put diplomatic effort into achieving a settlement but troops and humanitarian activities on the ground to try and promote a settlement and ease the suffering until there is a settlement but there are people with sharply differing views here and that is why it has not been possible thus far to agree a form of words.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    I don’t honestly think that many people are sitting up looking at their watches and saying: “When is the CSCE going to produce its document on Bosnia?” That is not what is preoccupying people really. The CSCE has to adopt everything by unanimity and that does put a limitation on what it can agree but what has happened – and quite dramatically – over the last few weeks is that all kinds of different ideas about how you can achieve peace in Bosnia have been examined and at least for the moment dismissed. There is no mention in the Contact Group document of the arms embargo; no government is now pressing for that to be lifted. There is no mention of a military victory, indeed it is excluded as a possibility and President Clinton was clear about that yesterday so everyone who is seriously engaged in this matter is now talking about a negotiated peace. Then you lead into how you achieve that and of course that is extremely difficult and has frustrated everybody up to now but then you get into the sequence of events which I mentioned before which I won’t repeat so there has been a lot of clearing out of ideas which don’t fit the present situation and that is helpful because if you are going to seek to do the things that are necessary you have to get out of your mind the things that aren’t possible.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    In the best-organised circumstances unanimity is not always possible.

    QUESTION (Judith Dawson, Sky TV):

    I was just wondering about the remarks the Russian Foreign Minister has made about the sanctions on Serbia wondering whether there can be agreement amongst the Contact Group at least that those sanctions are lifted so that you might get Mr. Milosevic to put some pressure on Mr. Karadzic to actually get them to the peace table.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Foreign Secretary met Mr. Milosevic the other day and spent an hour and a half with Mr. Kozyrev this morning so he is perhaps better placed than I am to give you an up-to-date answer.

    FOREIGN SECRETARY:

    Both Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Kozyrev believe that the international community has not sufficiently recognised President Milosevic’s courage in accepting the Contact Group plan; they believe that it should be further recognised by further relief of sanctions. Alain Juppe and I have explained to both of them that that is not practicable unless there is further progress. There has been some relief as you know, there are now flights into Belgrade airport, certain events which fell under sanctions have been relieved and there is a provision for humanitarian relief but further lifting of sanctions will have to depend in practice on further progress and President Milosevic knows that.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview after meeting with the UN Secretary General – 1 March 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview after the meeting with the UN Secretary General, Mr Boutros Boutros Ghali, held in New York on Tuesday 1st March 1994.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I have had an extremely worthwhile hour with the Secretary General, we touched on a range of different subjects, we spent some time on Bosnia, to which I would like to return in just a moment if I may, also South Africa, Cyprus and the Middle East peace process.

    If I could go back to the question of Bosnia, I think many of you may know that the United States and the United Kingdom announced this morning that we would be sending a team to Sarajevo to look at the situation on the ground and determine what practical assistance might be needed to help return the town to normal, that team will be despatched very speedily, within 2 or 3 days, and I hope they will return with a much clearer indication of the assistance that is actually needed there.

    What I have been discussing with the Secretary General over the last hour, amongst other things, is the possibility of establishing a United Nations fund for the relief of Sarajevo to which anybody would be invited to contribute to, both those who are already making a practical contribution to solving the problems in Bosnia and those who as yet have been unable to do so. And that is a matter we were able to discuss over the last hour or so.

    We discussed also South Africa and the rather hopeful signs that have emerged from the meeting between Mr Mandela and Chief Butholezi this afternoon, those, together with discussions about the Middle East peace process and the developments in Cyprus. If I could just say a word or two about Cyprus, we have indicated again our willingness to assist in ensuring that the confidence building measures are successful and I was delighted with the pro-active role that the United Nations are taking to bring the two sides together and see if we can find a settlement to this very long standing and hitherto intractable dispute. So a very worthwhile meeting and I look forward to seeing the Secretary General again I hope in the not too distant future in London.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] sending any troops to Bosnia after General Rose’s request?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the details of what General Rose said, we have a significant number of troops in Bosnia at the moment, that is not a matter I have been discussing this afternoon with the Secretary General.

    QUESTION:

    On Hong Kong, do you have any thoughts about the possible souring of relations between Britain and China if the Hong Kong situation continues to simmer?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are seeking to find a way through in Hong Kong that will enable us to proceed with the democratic reforms. The Governor of Hong Kong has passed the first phase of the democratic reforms through LEGCO, he has laid the legislation to the second phase in front of LEGOO, But we are perfectly prepared to continue to discuss the whole circumstances in Hong Kong with the Chinese and I hope we can continue to do so amiably.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss the Russian involvement in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the Russian involvement in Bosnia is a thoroughly helpful process, I have seen the reported details of the discussion in Moscow today, I have not had proper confirmation of it yet but from what I hear it sounds very promising. I think it is very desirable for the Russians to become involved diplomatically and to use the pressure that they have to help bring about a settlement in Bosnia.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] resolution here that Britain and France are considering?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is under discussion at the moment, I think the news from Tuzla this afternoon was very helpful but quite what will happen with the resolution at the moment is unclear.

    QUESTION:

    As far as the Middle East is concerned in your discussions, did you discuss an international presence in the occupied territories?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, well there is a small UN presence there and we did talk about that, we did not go on to address the question of whether there should be more and if so from where, we did not discuss that this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that the international community should send troops or a military observer or civilian observers?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are some UN observers there and I think they are doing a very good job, whether there requires to be more is a matter for the Secretary General to consider and I am sure he will do so.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, the British and the Americans, it is a very practical measure. What we are doing is just sending in a team of experts to actually have a look at what the situation is like on the ground in Sarajevo and what needs to be done to improve the quality of life and in particular return the utilities back to full operation in Sarajevo. They will come back and report, when they have reported the implication is that both the United States and Britain will contribute towards meeting the difficulties that are apparent there and we will invite other people to do so as well. What I have just been discussing with the Secretary General, since this may be a substantial undertaking, is the prospect of the United Nations itself establishing a fund so that anyone may contribute resources, cash or kind perhaps, towards solving the problem in Sarajevo.

    QUESTION:

    Has the Attorney General been in touch [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I do not discuss those matters with the Secretary General.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels – 12 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the 1994 NATO Summit in Brussels on 12th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the NATO summit in Brussels, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

    On 10 January, the summit launched the “partnership for peace” programme with a framework document and an invitation to 22 states to participate. On 11 January, it issued a declaration. These documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

    NATO summits are not held routinely, but only for a specific purpose. This was only the 11th summit in 35 years. It met to carry forward the post-cold war evolution of NATO which began at the 1991 Rome summit.

    NATO’s core function is to ensure the security of its member states. It has been by far the most successful collective security organisation in history, and it was agreed that the alliance will continue to be the cornerstone of post-war European security. As this was the first summit attended by President Clinton and Prime Minister Chretien of Canada, a key objective was to renew the transatlantic relationship. President Clinton’s affirmation that the core of American security remained with Europe received a warm welcome. He confirmed his commitment to keep around 100,000 United States troops in Europe.

    Over the past five years, new democracies have been born to the east. A pre-eminent challenge for NATO is to develop its relations with those countries in ways which will enhance stability across the whole of Europe. There must be no new dividing line, no new antagonistic blocs. The “partnership for peace” programme is an imaginative response to that challenge. All states which were once within the Warsaw pact have been invited to join, and NATO may also invite other states within the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

    The aim of the partnership is to bring Europe together by building practical military co-operation between nations in ways that reflect their different aspirations and capabilities. That could include joint exercises in peacekeeping, search and rescue or humanitarian operations ; it could include joint military planning, exchanges on defence budgeting and the democratic control of armed forces. Each partner will draw up with NATO an agreed partnership programme tailored to that particular relationship. Partnership will be an evolutionary process, and it will bring all partners closer to NATO. The summit has thus opened a clear perspective of the enlargement of the alliance. It is too soon to determine which countries will be able to meet the obligations of membership or when, but there are obviously strong candidates in the democracies of central and eastern Europe.

    A second challenge for the summit was to improve the alliance’s ability to mount new humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. During the cold war, NATO’s military structures were based predominantly on static regional commands and large-scale formations. Experience in recent years in the Gulf and in Bosnia has shown the importance of flexibility and of mobility.

    The summit endorsed the new concept of combined joint task forces. They will improve NATO’s capability to deploy task forces inside or outside the NATO area, but, because they will be available for purely and predominantly European operations, the combined joint task forces could also meet the requirements of the European security and defence identity. They will strengthen the European role within NATO without detracting from its transatlantic character.

    Partnership for peace and the combined joint task forces are changes of fundamental significance. The alliance will now begin to implement them. The summit discussed other important issues. It supported efforts by the United Nations and the European Union to secure a negotiated settlement in Bosnia. We discussed the recent intense fighting in Sarajevo. We reaffirmed our readiness, under the decisions taken last August, to carry out air strikes to prevent the strangulation of Sarajevo.

    We also considered ways to solve two other current problems. The United Nations command in Bosnia has recently been prevented from rotating the United Nations Protection Force contingent in Srebrenica and from using Tuzla airport. On a proposal from the United Kingdom and France, the summit asked UNPROFOR to draw up plans for the Netherlands contingent to take over from the Canadians in Srebrenica. We also decided to examine with UNPROFOR how Tuzla airport could be opened for humanitarian relief purposes.

    We would prefer not to have to use force, but those who are impeding UNPROFOR at Srebrenica and Tuzla must realise that force is available, if necessary, to support UNPROFOR and its ability to protect relief efforts.

    In all our discussions, we were conscious of the importance of closer relationships with Russia’s democratic leaders. Russia has a huge contribution to make to stability and to efforts to resolve international problems. I hope that the Russian Government will take up the invitation to partnership with the alliance. If they do, it will be another way in which we can enhance our support for reform and democracy in Russia.

    I should briefly describe individual meetings which I held during those two days. I met the Prime Minister of Turkey and welcomed her country’s continuing support for Operation Provide Comfort in Iraq. Mrs. Ciller expressed her commitment to settlement of the Cyprus problem, which is long overdue.

    I focused on Bosnia in my meeting with the French Prime Minister. We decided to call for the action in connection with Srebrenica and Tuzla which I have described. With the German Chancellor and the Italian Prime Minister, I discussed developments in Europe and further efforts to enhance relations with Russia and to support reform there.

    I thanked President Clinton for his support concerning Northern Ireland. We welcomed the decisions taken about Bosnia, and looked ahead to our next meeting in Washington at the end of February. I had a long meeting with the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Joulwan, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Sir Richard Vincent, and other senior NATO officers. We examined how “partnership for peace” would be put into effect, and the way in which the combined joint task forces would be set up.

    It was a timely summit. It has reaffirmed northern America’s commitment to Europe, and has shown that the allies stand closely together in maintaining their collective security. The summit has carried forward the modernisation of NATO’s military structures. It has launched a vital new initiative towards the east, opening the way to new relationships and new members. It has established the outward-looking character of the NATO of the 1990s, with a greater emphasis on operations in support of peace and humanitarian relief. I believe that the summit has successfully equipped the alliance to meet new challenges, and I commend its results to the House.

    Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East): We on this side of the House broadly welcome the declaration agreed by the North Atlantic Council yesterday in Brussels. We hope that it is the beginning of a process in which countries and institutions such as NATO seek to come to terms with the opportunities and challenges that result from the end of the cold war.

    I particularly welcome the general principles and direction of the “partnership for peace” concept. That offers the prospect of closer co- operation with former Warsaw pact countries, including Russia, and creates the circumstances for an expansion of NATO itself. Military co-operation designed to enhance mutual security is clearly desirable, particularly if it can be developed to encourage wider participation in United Nations peacekeeping efforts.

    However, may I suggest that the emphasis on military co-operation should be balanced by encouraging political developments within applicant countries? Ought not the criteria for involvement in “partnership for peace” and eventual NATO membership be expanded to include an effectively functioning multi-party democracy and an acceptable record on human rights, as well as strict civilian control of the military apparatus?

    On issues of arms control and disarmament, which were discussed at the council, we welcome the declaration’s stated commitment to the indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty, and are encouraged to see reference to the need for the negotiation of a universal and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty.

    Despite attempts by the British Government to continue nuclear testing, we welcome the US moratorium and similar action by France and Russia, which we hope will soon lead to a treaty being signed. Do the Government accept the target date of September 1996 for the successful negotiation of that vital treaty?

    Following the welcome agreement by the United States, Russia and Ukraine to destroy Ukraine’s nuclear weapons, will the British Government accelerate the promise made in 1992 to supply British-made nuclear weapons transporters to the Ukraine to help with the removal and to assist Russia in the disposal process?

    On the continuing and agonising situation in Bosnia, will the Prime Minister say whether the acceptance of the use of air strikes now is different from or stronger than the apparent commitment made last August, which resulted in no effective action or sustained improvement in the situation?

    Does the Prime Minister accept that repeated declarations that are not followed through risk undermining the credibility of both NATO and the whole UN operation, and only strengthen the hands of those who have become adept at defying the wishes of the international community? Will effective action now be taken to open the airport at Tuzla, allow the replacement of UNPROFOR forces in Srebrenica, and lift the siege of Sarajevo? Is it not wholly intolerable that a defenceless population in Sarajevo should be shelled so relentlessly and pitilessly? Was it not disgraceful that, during the so-called “Christmas truce”, Sarajevo was bombarded constantly?

    Finally, will the Prime Minister put an end to suggestions that British forces in Bosnia might be withdrawn once the winter is over? Do we not need a commitment to increase ground forces, as requested by the UN, to make a greater effort to bring some peace to Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister: First, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s general support for the declaration and the “partnership for peace” policy. I am sure that he is right to say that co-operation, both militarily and politically, with former Warsaw pact countries, including Russia, is vital to our own interests and security as well as to the development of democracy right across the continent of Europe.

    On political development and military co-operation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched particularly on human rights. I confirm that all countries entering NATO would need to be democracies and we shall certainly look at political developments, but not necessarily as an intrinsic part of the “partnership for peace” proposals. We shall be prepared to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as it is negotiated and settled, whether that is by September 1996 or some earlier, perhaps some later, date.

    Our offer to help the Ukraine with the removal of nuclear weapons has been there for some time. I do not immediately know whether it is practicable to accelerate it, but I have no objection in principle to doing so if that would be of assistance and if our assistance is required. The agreement reached between Presidents Clinton, Yeltsin and Kravchuk, if carried through, is a remarkable advance in the reduction of nuclear weapons and I very much hope that it will be adequately carried out. To have nuclear weapons removed from Ukraine would be a great bonus.

    The declaration on the general level of air strikes as regards Sarajevo was a reiteration of what was suggested on 2 and 9 August. Of course, the practical decisions for that should not be made by politicians some distance away, but should best be made upon the advice of troop commanders near at hand. It is predominantly upon their advice that it would be right for NATO leaders to act. Reservations have been expressed by troop commanders from time to time, and we would be very unwise to sweep those to one side. It was determined that, in the light of advice that we might receive, the agreement in principle for military strikes exists. What is different in this particular declaration is that the two specific cases of Srebrenica and Tuzla are included under the broad umbrella. The position in Srebrenica is that the Canadian troops can probably come out–that is certainly possible–but it is not possible at the moment for the Dutch troops to get in.

    It is intolerable when UNPROFOR troops are inhibited from getting into Srebrenica to carry out the necessary humanitarian work. To be strictly correct in relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, Tuzla airport is technically open. The problem lies around the airport, because there is a danger of incoming aircraft being attacked. It is not immediately evident precisely what needs to be done on the ground.

    It is for that reason that the commanders are finalising the plans that they commenced some time ago with the determination to ensure that Tuzla airport is open–

    Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): When?

    The Prime Minister: As soon as possible. It should be open to assist the humanitarian relief. The right hon. Gentleman may shout, “When?”, but, yet again, if we are wise, we will not issue such casual edicts from afar, but will seek the advice of the military commanders on the spot. That is what we are committed to doing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the withdrawal of troops from Bosnia. We have committed ourselves to assist with humanitarian aid, and I must tell the House and the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, at this stage, I am not prepared to extend that commitment until I am certain of the security of British troops working for the United Nations there. I have consistently taken that position, and it is also taken by the Heads of other Governments who have troops on the ground in Bosnia. Despite the remarkable work that they have done for humanitarian reasons, our first concern must be the security of the United Nations troops, and in particular those of our own country.

    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): If air strikes are authorised, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that contingency plans are in place to prevent British troops and United Nations troops from being sucked in to the conflict in Bosnia?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is part of the UNPROFOR determination to discuss with troop commanders on the ground the current position. I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise why I do not go into details of what might have to happen in those circumstances, but I reiterate that the security of our troops would be given the very highest priority of all. The Secretary-General of the United Nations would have to approve air action by NATO on behalf of United Nations troops.

    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister accept that the future peace and stability of Europe depend on upholding the principle of national integrity of borders, especially in volatile areas such as the new democracies of eastern Europe? If NATO, for very good reasons, has to treat the matter gradually, is there not a case for Europe and the Western European Union to be a little more bold? Specifically, does the Prime Minister accept that the WEU has a role to strengthen and complement NATO’s actions in creating a framework for peace in Europe?

    On Bosnia, does the Prime Minister recognise that, as he has been warned on many occasions, the bottom line credibility of the United Nations operation in Bosnia is now at risk? As President Clinton said, if we cannot show the determination to deliver our promises, we should not make promises. In that context, is not the opening of Tuzla airport central to that credibility? If the Prime Minister will not say exactly when that airport will be opened, will he at least give us an indication of the time scale in which he expects it to happen?

    The Prime Minister: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that the last part of his question was unreal. It does depend on what is happening on the ground and on the advice that we get from the troop commanders there.

    As for not making promises unless we can keep them, we have been very careful about promises we make unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who has been shifting and manoeuvring throughout this whole operation, advocating everything from all-out war to, apparently, pulling out immediately. His opinions seem to have been moving rapidly on an escalator, so I fear that I am in no mood to accept lectures from him about Yugoslavia.

    On the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, there are practical reasons for adopting, and it is right in principle to adopt, an evolutionary approach to the possible extension of the NATO alliance. Of course the WEU has a role ; that is partly why we have combined task forces. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Western European Union also has a role as part of the European defence identity and as the European pillar of the NATO alliance. That is most certainly true, and it will remain so.

    Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster): I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurance about the priority given to the security of British and other United Nations forces in Bosnia. I also welcome the cautious approach that he and his colleagues have adopted towards the evolutionary process of bringing the former Warsaw pact countries under the NATO umbrella.

    May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about Cyprus? He said that he met the Turkish Prime Minister and obtained assurances from the Turks that they seek a peaceful solution. Will he also approach the Greek leadership and ensure that the Greeks do not adopt too aggressive a stance in attempts to reach that peaceful solution?

    The Prime Minister: On the latter point, the straight answer is yes : most certainly. That is a matter that we regularly discuss with the Governments of Greece and Turkey. What was encouraging in my discussions with Mrs. Ciller was her belief that the confidence-building measures were a proper basis for continuing discussions now that elections in the northern part of Cyprus are concluded. I hope that, under the aegis of the United Nations, it will be possible to move much closer to a settlement.

    This dispute has gone on for far too long. United Nations troops have been in Cyprus far too long, and I think that there is impatience on all sides that people should move towards a proper settlement of what we have for too long known as the Cyprus problem. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks about an evolutionary approach to the extension of NATO. I am sure that such an approach is right. For example, once a country enters the NATO alliance, it undertakes an inviolable commitment to defend the security of NATO’s borders.

    There has been a British Army on the Rhine for 25 years. Once NATO is extended, it is conceivable that, at some stage, there will be a NATO army, not on the Rhine but on the Vistula. We need to be careful about extending NATO; it must be done in an evolutionary fashion. That is right in principle, and desirable in terms of the practical way in which NATO should develop.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given his office notice? Are his NATO colleagues at ease about the continuing sanctions and actions against Libya, given the evidence from Edwin Bollier, the Swiss manufacturer of the timing mechanisms that were so crucial to the Lockerbie crime, and the evidence of his engineer, Ulrich Lumpert? Is it true that Lumpert’s evidence was given to the Scottish police three years ago?

    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his question about the Lockerbie bombing. Sanctions against Libya were not the subject of discussion at the summit. As the hon. Gentleman has said, new evidence has been reported in the press, casting doubt on Libyan complicity, but after five years, the inquiry into the bombing has not revealed any evidence that implicates any country besides Libya.

    Recent press reports notwithstanding, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate remains convinced that the evidence still justifies the warrants issued for the arrest of the two Lockerbie suspects. The inquiry remains open; if anyone has new evidence pertinent to the case, he should pass it to the investigating authorities without delay. But there seems no doubt at the moment that it is right for the two warrants to stand.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the accepted or agreed new stronger line against Serbian obstruction of humanitarian aid in Bosnia is welcome, provided that the operations are carefully limited, and that it does not lead to any uncontrolled escalation of outside troop involvement in the area? On the question of NATO expansion, did my right hon. Friend note the comment by the President of Poland, Lech Walesa, a few days ago that it would be a tragedy if Poland and other western and central European countries were not brought by some firm date into a new European security alliance of some kind? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that can be done without in any way isolating Russia and its neighbours, whose security needs are also great? Does he accept that that is the right way forward, and that it would allow us to have a Europe with a new security system, and not one in which many countries feel that they are still in a security vacuum?

    The Prime Minister: On Yugoslavia, I can do no other than agree with my right hon. Friend. In terms of the expansion of NATO, for the reasons that I set out some moments ago, it is right to take this matter carefully and to deal, firstly, through the “partnership for peace” proposals. Of course, in the case of Poland and the other Visigrad countries, it is expected that at some stage in the future–perhaps within 10 years or so–they will become members of the Community, the European Union. At that stage, via the Western European Union, it is highly possible that they would enter the alliance more speedily than others.

    Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South): The Prime Minister and the other Heads of State and Governments are to be congratulated on evolving NATO even further and, in particular, on confounding those who had hoped that NATO and the alliance were now superfluous. While the Prime Minister was discussing “P4P”, we were discussing “B2B”.

    I have three brief questions. First, if NACC–the North Atlantic Co-operation Council–is so important, was there any discussion about providing it with a staff and a budget, and perhaps an assistant secretary-general? Secondly, if Europe is to do more for its own defence, was there any discussion about how that could be done when defence forces and budgets are in near free fall? Thirdly, if there is to be more accountability of executives to legislatures in defence, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence may I ask whether we too may have a little more of that?

    The Prime Minister: We are, of course, moving on beyond NACC with what is actually proposed. On the levels of armed forces, of course the intention is that there should be joint task forces, for example, and joint disciplines. There would be more people coming in to be available to deal with peacekeeping and other matters. Of course, those countries that are in “partnership for peace” would also be able to play a role in the joint task forces from an early stage. Therefore, a good deal of practical action can be taken to prepare the countries in the “partnership for peace” proposals for possible eventual accession to NATO.

    Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his exceptionally strong support team on the important British contribution to this sound strategic plan for NATO. Does he agree that the worthy objective of the distribution of humanitarian aid in Bosnia requires the active co-operation on the ground of all the local troops manning control posts, be they Serb, Croat or Muslim? How could we be sure that that local co-operation would continue if we had previously taken military action against one of the sides?

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points precisely to one of the primary factors that needs to be taken into account before determining whether any military action of any sort needs to be taken. It is easy to say that it is an easy decision, and that one has only to unleash an aircraft or two and all will be well. I say to those who readily advocate that course without careful thought that it may well not be a wise policy. It may be a necessary policy at some stage, but such a policy should be entered into with very considerable caution.

    Co-operation among the participating forces on the ground is very patchy. I think that great frustration is building up among Governments, particularly those which have troops on the ground, at what seems to be a complete double standard, with the participants saying in Geneva that they want peace, and acting on the ground in a fashion that denies every single word they utter in the peace negotiations.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The Prime Minister reiterates yet again the readiness to use air strikes. Can he explain how, over these many months, no action whatsoever has been taken where it has been desperately necessary, and all we have had have been the mumblings and the bumblings of the Foreign Secretary of this country, and of other western countries in Europe? How has he–or has he–the will to ensure that action will be taken to clear up the situations both in Srebrenica and in Tuzla and to mount action against the artillery–the Serbian artillery–which is continuing to bombard Sarajevo? Has he personally the will to do such a thing?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated, with very great clarity, I fear, how easy it is to make declaratory remarks without considering what is necessary on the ground to carry them out and without any understanding whatever of what we might be asking the commanders on the ground to do, and, if they have done it, what the subsequent implications of that would be, either for their troops on the ground, the humanitarian operation, or indeed the civilian population, who are there to be helped, if it became impossible to carry forward the humanitarian operation.

    The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. Every Head of Government at NATO had the will. What we need to be sure of is that it is wise to do so, and on that we must necessarily rely on the advice of the commanders on the ground, and, as the sanctions are in United Nations guise, the sanction of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. What we did was to indicate that, in the right circumstances, the will is there to take that action.

    Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington): In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, does he now feel that there is a key role for the Western European Union to extend the hand of co-operation to central European countries, with a view to furthering their defence and security?

    The Prime Minister: Yes. I have no doubt about the present–and indeed the future–role of the WEU. We are at the moment actively considering what can be done, and how it can be done, to give the WEU a more effective and perhaps a larger role. As I told the House a moment ago, the WEU would be the vehicle effectively to provide the European pillar of the NATO alliance, through the European Union’s own proposals on defence.

    Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): Would the Prime Minister care to elaborate on what obligations he might feel that some countries may not be able to meet in becoming members of NATO? Although I welcome the general thrust of the statement and the Council meetings, does he agree that it is unwise to make promises that may not be able to be fulfilled, and imply threats that are not carried out? In the end, that causes people to ignore the issues.

    When he thanks President Clinton for his co-operation in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister give us some information as to whether President Clinton is following advice from his embassy in London, or from Dublin, as there seem to be some confused messages?

    The Prime Minister: President Clinton has certainly given strong support to the joint declaration issued before Christmas, and he reiterated that in a meeting that we had in Brussels a day or so ago. I have no doubt that we will return to the general issue of Northern Ireland in the meeting that I will have with him on 28 February. There would be substantial obligations for countries joining NATO. They would, for example, need to join the integrated military structure. Fresh members of NATO would certainly be required to do that.

    One of the reasons why it is right in practice, as well as in principle, to have an interim approach via “partnership for peace” is that one needs to prepare the planning, organisation and management of defence in other nations, to look at a whole range of things, such as equipment interoperability and a proper legal framework for military forces, all of which, when the time came, perhaps, for a country to enter NATO, would need to be determined. During the period of membership of “partnership for peace”, it is hoped that, through those proposals, potential applicant members will begin to make those changes.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if the central and welcome aim of the summit–to enhance the stability of Europe–is to be achieved, it is essential that the conflict in the former Yugoslavia does not expand, and that the carnage is brought to a halt? If he accepts that, will he also accept that, hitherto, Serbia has never taken seriously threats that have been issued, from NATO or anywhere else, and that it is essential that it now understands that we mean business?

    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be desirable both to prevent the expansion of the present conflict and then to bring it entirely to a halt. What has happened has tended to happen frequently. There was no doubt at the outset of the conflict that the principal aggressor was Serbia and the principal victims were the Bosnian Muslims.

    Since then, the position has become not quite so clear-cut. Each of the three participants in the dispute has been, from time to time, a stumbling block in reaching a negotiated political settlement. Some of the fiercest fighting has been between the Muslims and the Croats, and has not involved the Serbs. In no sense am I seeking to defend Serbia. I am saying that, if it ever was, this is no longer a clear-cut case of one aggressor and one victim, but a most horrible dispute in which each of the participants has committed actions of which it should be thoroughly ashamed.

    Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): Will the Prime Minister accept that at the heart of the issues concerning the future of NATO are Europe’s community of interest and the understandable security fears of the Visegrad countries in central Europe? Therefore, will he make it clear this afternoon, as the Foreign Secretary did on the BBC’s “Newsnight” the other night, that any physical threat to the security of those countries, irrespective of when they become members of NATO, will be met by effective NATO action to defend them?

    The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have put it in quite that crisp fashion. [Laughter.] My right hon. Friend is quite capable of doing almost anything, but I doubt that he spoke precisely in those terms. Of course the security of countries is of great importance to us. However, what the hon. Gentleman invites me to say goes further than he would find anyone going at the moment.

    The best way to ensure security for the future of Europe is to ensure that the reform process and the reformers in Russia are sustained and stay there. That is of vital interest not just to Russia but to the rest of central and eastern Europe. If there is one thing that would be of immense value for this generation of politicians across Europe to pass on to the next, it would be to have helped Russia to become permanently a good neighbour to Europe, and part of the general western system of democratic nations.

    Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes): Could my right hon. Friend elaborate on the integration of the French Government and French forces into future NATO planning and thought? That is crucial both in NATO and in the WEU.

    The Prime Minister: French forces have for many years not been part of the integrated command in the same way that other NATO forces have been. As to the joint task forces and the new proposals, France will play precisely the same role in terms of integration as each of the other members of the NATO alliance. France will take a full part, to deal with the point most pertinently, in the joint task forces that are proposed.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): While many of us will understand the caution being exercised by the Government and their allies in the context of the expansion of NATO, could the Prime Minister elaborate on the criteria that will apply to those who wish to move from partnership into membership, particularly in the context of the time scale that will be applied, not solely in terms of capability? What consideration is being given to the Baltic states, given that Lithuania is one of the applicants for full membership of NATO, as those states that are recently independent from the Soviet Union surely deserve our support?

    The Prime Minister: Yes, they certainly deserve our support, and we hope that they will take up the “partnership for peace” proposals. The Baltic states are among the countries that have had the offer, and I both hope and expect that they will take it up. The obligations placed on potential applicants for NATO are the same as those that are placed on existing NATO states–proportionate, of course, to their size and strength. The criteria, however, will be the same and will include, as I said in response to an earlier question, a democratic system of government.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend clarify how exactly the combined joint task forces are supposed to work? He said that they will be able to operate out of the NATO area, and that they will strengthen the European identity in the alliance. As the United States is the only country in NATO with a strategic airlift capability, and as only the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands of the European member countries have amphibious forces, how will such troops be deployed out of area?

    Will the Germans participate out of area, as to do so is against their basic law? Will there be integrated military staffs? Will there be pre-planning, and will combined operations be exercised in advance? To cobble together forces to meet difficult contingencies overseas is not necessarily a recipe for success, as we have seen with Somalia and the Americans.

    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend’s last point shows precisely why we need the new combined joint task forces. Many of his detailed questions are being considered by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who will report to the North Atlantic Council by the end of March. I suspect that I am able to anticipate most of the report, but it would perhaps be wiser to wait until he has delivered it.

    Although the command and control, for example, of NATO operations in Bosnia has been ingenious and effective, it has necessarily been ad hoc. It is intended to ensure that the alliance is capable of taking on a full range of likely future mission adjustments. The purpose of the combined joint task forces will be to ensure that a proper command and control structure is swiftly available, rather than it having to be provided when a crisis arises.

    It is a new concept that is being developed by SACEUR. Its intention is to provide more flexibility, specially earmarked personnel and personnel who are trained, used to working together and deployable, at home or abroad, at short notice under the command of NATO. As my hon. Friend knows, the concept has been employed with some success by some nations–the USA and the United Kingdom in particular–in deploying national forces, but it is a novel idea to use it in NATO.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): Was not NATO set up in 1948 in answer to a perceived threat from the Soviet Union? Since that threat has now diminished and disappeared–if it ever existed–and since the Warsaw pact has been disbanded, what is the point of people spending time and a great deal of money looking around for something for NATO to do, simply so that the organisation remains in existence when it has no function and when eastern European countries need encouragement to develop militarisation and further to arm troops like a hole in the head? Why not accept the truth– that NATO is redundant and that we would be a lot better off without it?

    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman carries many Labour Members with him–he certainly carries few Members of the House as a whole, and almost no one in the country, with him. He assumes that there will never be a threat again. I do not know the basis on which he makes that assumption. It is certainly not made on any logical basis. He is saying, effectively, that he has an insurance policy and he has not had to claim on it this year, so he will cancel it and assume that he will never need it. The reality is that NATO has been the guardian of our security for more than 40 years. It would be folly beyond belief not to ensure that NATO is securely in place for the next 40 years.

    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath): In view of the isolationist tendencies in the United States, should not the President’s firm commitment to have 100,000 American troops on the continent of Europe be warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? My right hon. Friend will have read the reports of an era of estrangement between Britain and the United States. Will he and the Foreign Secretary make a new year resolution to do all in their power to ensure that the Anglo-American relationship, while it may be conducted more at arm’s length than 30 years ago, remains extremely cordial?

    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, I strongly welcome the re-commitment by the USA and Canada to NATO. President Clinton showed his commitment to the security of Europe in a most practical fashion by making it clear that 100,000 US troops will stay in Europe. I welcome that very much.

    As for the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, there was one area of disagreement some nine months ago, but apart from that, President Clinton called for the integration of a broader Europe and the integration of the former communist bloc with the rest of Europe. As the House will know, I have been advocating that course vigorously–for example, in calling for enlargement of the European Union. Since then, we have agreed in a series of statements and on a series of occasions. We agreed in Brussels, where President Clinton welcomed the action that I initiated with the French. As he said at his press conference, they agreed with my position, and I strongly agreed with theirs.

    When I next meet President Clinton in Washington at the end of February we shall have much to discuss : Russia, on which we have a common view; the free trade agreement; the GATT agreement, on which we worked together to ensure that it came about; the middle east peace process; Lockerbie; sanctions on Iraq. Those are all matters on which the United Kingdom and the United States are in complete agreement and upon which the two Governments have worked together. As I said a moment ago, I was able to thank him for his strong support over Northern Ireland. So the relationship between the United Kingdom and United States is in very good repair.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): Does the Prime Minister agree that Tuzla airport has become critical precisely because the heaviest, severest and most barbarous fighting is between the Muslims and the Croats in the areas around Mostar and Vitez and is blocking the supply line from the port of Split? Was there no discussion at the NATO conference of the need for pressure to be put on the Croats and the Muslims? How on earth can a one-sided threat of air strikes assist in getting the three parties to sign a peace accord when they meet in Geneva next Wednesday?

    The Prime Minister: It is not just a question of signing in Geneva. Quite a lot of agreements have been signed in Geneva. What concerns me is whether the agreements signed in Geneva are honoured in Bosnia. That has been the principal difficulty.

    As for putting pressure on all the parties, that point was discussed, and it was agreed that, in terms of diplomatic political pressure, it is desirable to put pressure on all the parties, not only the Serbs. There are particular transgressions by the Serbs, where it may be necessary for us to carry out the air strikes we referred to earlier, but pressure undoubtedly needs to be put on all three parties to achieve a negotiated political settlement : the hon. Gentleman is quite right.

    Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): In view of the recent sale of North Korean long-range missiles to Libya, Iran and elsewhere, and as it is now known that the American Patriot missile was less successful in bringing down Iraqi Scuds during the Gulf war than was suggested at the time, what discussions took place at the summit on the need for global missile defence, particularly in view of the fact that the Americans have ended research and development on the strategic defence initiative?

    The Prime Minister: Predominantly, the summit endorsed comprehensive examination by NATO of responses to the particular problems of proliferation. The intention is that that approach will embrace the traditional non-proliferation policies and will also review the nature and size of any ballistic missile threat there may be to the alliance and, if and where that threat exists, what capabilities the alliance has or may need to counter it. Yes, there was substantive discussion on that point.

    Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness): The final communique at the summit referred to NATO intensifying and expanding its efforts to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what specific or new proposals he has in mind to achieve this desirable and important objective?

    The Prime Minister: It was one of the things that has occurred. It is not simply a matter for the United Kingdom ; that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, spreads much more widely. The agreement that was reached with the Ukraine, Russia and the United States is a further move forward. We need to make sure that START and other agreements are fully honoured. All these are elements of the non-proliferation programme. There is also the test ban treaty, which was mentioned earlier. There are a whole range of policies marching in parallel in the direction the hon. Gentleman wishes us to go.

    Several hon. Members rose —

    Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with the Swedish Prime Minister – 12 August 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, held in Moja on Thursday 12th August 1993.

    QUESTION:

    Could I ask both Prime Ministers, what progress is there in the plans to evacuate the injured from Sarajevo?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    Progress is being made. I think if the delay is beyond 48 hours and it may be a little – it will be in gathering the families together in Sarajevo in order that they can come out with the injured. In the case of the children in particular, I think everyone will understand it is important to have their parents with them. To carry a sick child halfway across the world to a country that speaks a different language clearly you need the parents so there may be a small delay but I don’t think very long.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    We are in constant touch with the Bosnian authorities and with UNHCR and I think we have a Swedish Air Force Hercules leaving today for the Ancona base in Italy to pick up certain equipment there and be ready and I think the British aircraft is already in the vicinity.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We have gathered together the medical team and the planes will be ready to leave soon.

    QUESTION:

    What else have you been discussing?

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    To be quite frank, we have been enjoying life and discussing the Stockholm Archipelago and that is it so far.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We return to work this evening.

    QUESTION:

    What about the Swedish application to join the European Community? Have you been discussing that and what are the views of both governments on this at the moment?

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    We have in fact been discussing that today although we had a discussion on that yesterday and we went through rather briefly some of the major items that are going to be the subject of negotiations during the autumn.

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    And we had a chance to discuss it last night over dinner as well and the British Government are very keen for Sweden to join the Community. We would like to see all the Nordic nations as part of the Community. It seems to us to be incomplete without them.

    QUESTION:

    Do you share the same view of the future of the European Community?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I think we both share the view that it needs to be a free-trading and open Community and wider boundaries.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    Yes and in the short remarks I made over dinner yesterday, I quoted Mr. Major’s phrase that: we wish a Community that is open, larger and less intrusive. I think that sums up a lot of what we are trying to achieve as well.

    QUESTION:

    Were you discussing the problems in the European Monetary System and do you share the same opinion about them?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    I have no doubt we will get round to those this evening.

    QUESTION:

    With regard to Bosnia, the US Secretary of State seems to have stiffened his stance in talking about this as a national interest to make sure that Sarajevo is sort of saved. Are we coming closer to an air strike now do you think?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We all want to cease the hostilities not just in Sarajevo but beyond and the possibility of air strikes has existed for a considerable amount of time in support of diplomacy. The intention is to get a diplomatic settlement and of course there has always been the possibility of the use of air strikes to defend UNPROFOR troops – that has been there for a long time – United Nations troops must be protected. I think that was and is the situation.

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    Not on that subject but on a related subject, I can give the news that at the government meeting this morning we decided to call in the Royal Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs, whatever that would be in English, for Tuesday next week to take the final decision on the despatch of troops, Swedish and the Nordic contingent to UNPROFOR.

    QUESTION:

    Did you discuss this question with Mr. Major? Do you wish to have the British in on this?

    PRIME MINISTER BILDT:

    Yes, I have briefed on not only the Swedish but the Nordic plans and I had contacts yesterday evening with Prime Minister Nyrup Rasmussen of Denmark and this morning with Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway to coordinate the decision-making process as well as the final military arrangements. We also discussed the wish that we have from the Nordic side to cooperate very closely with the British forces, Canadian forces and other NATO forces that are there.

    QUESTION:

    And what is your stance on that?

    PRIME MINISTER MAJOR:

    We would very much welcome a Swedish contingent there. I very much hope they are there, they would be very welcome.

  • PMQT – 16 February 1993

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 16th February 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Worthington : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Worthington : In 1979, just over 1 million people were unemployed. At the same time, just over 7 million people were employed in manufacturing industry–seven people in manufacturing jobs for every single person unemployed. Now, measuring unemployment in the same way, there are 4.25 million unemployed. On Thursday this week– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for some time. He knows that he must put a direct question.

    Mr. Worthington : In the past 14 years, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. Did the Prime Minister intend to do that, or was it someone else’s fault?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that “the threat of recession and the reality of rising unemployment is spreading throughout the European continent” –not my words but those of the Leader of the Opposition. I would find the hon. Gentleman’s concern more convincing if he had one decent economic policy to tackle unemployment, but he has not.

    Mr. Wells : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Nissan factory in Sunderland has been declared by its Japanese owners to be the most efficient factory in the world? Is he further aware that should this House be foolish enough to include the socialist charter in the Maastricht treaty, Japanese inward investment would be seriously discouraged?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware of the specific point made by my hon. Friend, but I was aware that Nissan is exporting cars from Sunderland back to Japan. I offer my congratulations to the management and work force on that achievement. There is no doubt that the social chapter and similar policies would damage the prospect of such success stories in future. That is why we opposed it at Maastricht and why we oppose it now.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister accept that the House should be able to decide whether Britain should accept or reject the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?

    The Prime Minister : It is for this House to decide by its vote on Third Reading whether to approve the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and enable the Government to ratify the treaty. There is no question of our ratifying the treaty except through the normal parliamentary procedures. Individual amendments to the Bill will be debated in Committee in the usual way as for others.

    Mr. John Smith : Bearing in mind that the Government announced their latest interpretation of the law only yesterday, and as other amendments apart from amendment No. 27 have been ruled out of order, is not it a curious coincidence that the prospect of political defeat causes a revision of the legal opinion? Why are the Government so anxious to prevent the House from deciding this issue?

    The Prime Minister : There are two sorts of amendments that we have to deal with in the Bill. There are those that would render our law incompatible with the treaty and which must be defeated, and others that are undesirable but which would not prevent us from ratifying the treaty. The Committee will come to those, issue by issue.

    Mr. John Smith : Has the Prime Minister no sense of shame? Today, he was described in The Times as being like a

    “spiv business man employing a sharp lawyer”.

    — [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Smith : Why is the Prime Minister so determined to use every slippery manoeuvre to avoid Parliament deciding this issue? Is he not engaged in an outright abuse of our unwritten constitution?

    Mr. Skinner : Vote against Third Reading and we’ll show them. [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : Occasionally, it might be a novelty to see the hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Sharp lawyers in glass houses should not throw stones in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has. The Government are explaining to the House what the true effect of an incompetent Opposition amendment would be.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East claims repeatedly to support the Maastricht treaty, but he and his hon. Friends tabled an amendment which was intended to lead to amendments to the treaty, a new intergovernmental conference and new ratification procedures in the member states. Opposition Members were prepared to put at risk the future not just of the Bill but of the entire treaty. That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who accuses us of sharp practice when he claims to support the Bill.

    Mr. Booth : Would the Prime Minister express the feelings of the whole House by praising the fine British achievement in the Antarctic by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Dr. Stroud? Does he consider that that is an example of volunteering for a good cause which he was advocating earlier this year?

    The Prime Minister : I am happy to offer my congratulations and those of the House to Sir Ranulph. It shows that if one keeps going one will get to one’s objective.

     

    Q2. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Smyth : Could the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Clinton, assure him of our good wishes but at the same time urge him to resist moves to appoint a peace envoy for Northern Ireland since those who advocate it are partisan in their opinion?

    Does the Prime Minister accept that the best way to promote peace in Northern Ireland is the continued curtailment of funds and support for terrorism with an intensive education course for United States citizens, especially those of Irish republican sympathies, to enable them to understand that Northern Ireland is not a colony but part of the United Kingdom by choice of its citizens?

    The Prime Minister : There has been a considerable effort by the United States Government and a number of leading American politicians to curb the flow of funds from the United States and to co-operate with us in bringing terrorist criminals to justice. I welcome that very much.

    I hope and expect the new American Administration to continue to support the political dialogue established over the past two years. I believe that it offers the best hope of reconciliation and is fully consistent with Northern Ireland’s position, as the hon. Member said, as a part of the United Kingdom.

     

    Q3. Mr. Paice : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Paice : My right hon. Friend will recall that the last time that inflation was 1.7 per cent. he was just 25 years old and I was even younger. He will also recall that the then Labour Chancellor stated that inflation was the mother and father of unemployment. Is it not the case that with low inflation, low interest rates, low taxation and high productivity, Britain is best placed to recover from the recession ahead of all the other countries in Europe?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with my hon. Friend except in one respect ; I believe that I was 24 at the time and not 25. But the fall in inflation in January was excellent news in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying rate of inflation. It provides the best possible basis for recovery in output and employment. We now have the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century and a rate below that of our colleagues in the Community and below the G7 averages. We have the lowest interest rates in the Community. We have mortgage rates at their lowest since 1956 and external surveys show that the United Kingdom will be among the fastest growing economies in Europe both this year and next year.

     

    United Nations

    Q4. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

    The Prime Minister : I have no plans to visit the United Nations headquarters in New York in the near future.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government’s support of the United Nations is highly selective and that there is absolutely no case for the Government continuing to breach the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the manufacture and deployment of Trident nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support–

    Mr. Gallie : What about Rosyth?

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman had better contain himself.

    Mr. Cryer : Does the Prime Minister endorse and support the 150 members of the United Nations who have by treaty and declaration refused to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons? If he supports those 150 nations and their moral superiority, why does he not follow them? Does he support them, yes or no?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) drew attention to some of the inconsistencies in the hon. Gentleman’s question. The replacement of Polaris in the mid-1990s is essential for Britain to maintain an effective and credible deterrent into the next century. There is nothing in the non-proliferation treaty to prevent a nuclear weapons state from maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of a minimum deterrent in this way. That is the position in law and it is our position in policy.

     

    Engagements

    Q5. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory and misleading answer, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter again, but he had better withdraw the word “misleading”.

    Mr. Cryer rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I heard the word. I am sure that he will rephrase it for me.

    Mr. Cryer : I will withdraw the word “misleading” and say that he was economical with the truth.

    Madam Speaker : Mr. Patrick Thompson.

    Mr. Thompson : Is my right hon. Friend aware of representations from the police and local crime prevention panels, including the panel in Norwich, about the increased number of serious crimes committed by young people, some out on bail? Some individuals commit literally hundreds of offences. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are determined to tackle that horrendous problem?

    The Prime Minister : I will offer that assurance to my hon. Friend. There is a small hard core of persistent young offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime, most notably property crime, especially car theft. In the past society has sometimes perhaps been too quick to understand and too slow to condemn. I doubt whether that helps the young people concerned. It is time to crack down on those young offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly make proposals to do just that.

     

    Q6. Dr. Reid : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Reid : With reference to the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on the question of Maastricht, may I inform him that this morning I had the pleasure of showing round the House of Commons a group of pupils from Brannock high school in my constituency? Having spoken of 1,000 years of Parliament and several hundred years of parliamentary sovereignty, I was asked a simple question by one of the pupils : “But what good is Parliament if the Prime Minister can ignore it when he chooses?” How would the Prime Minister have responded to that question?

    The Prime Minister : He would have said, “I can’t, and I don’t.”

    Mr. Hawkins : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of literally thousands of my constituents who work at British Aerospace on the Tornado line for the work that he did in personally securing the contract? Will he further accept that my constituents know that they have him and the Conservative party to thank for securing their future in the defence industry and the future of their families? Unlike the Labour party, which whinges and whines, my right hon. Friend goes out and gets jobs for Britain.

    The Prime Minister : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that endorsement. The Tornado is undoubtedly a fine aircraft and I hope that we shall be able to export many more.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference in Muscat – 28 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s press conference in Muscat, given on Thursday 28th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have had the opportunity this morning and over lunch to have very wide ranging discussions with His Majesty Sultan Qaboos. I am most grateful to the Sultan for his hospitality and also for the unfailing help that we have had from His Excellency, Kai Sawawe [phon]. I last met the Sultan at Chequers in July. He is, as you know, a very close friend of the United Kingdom, a long standing political, commercial friend of our country.

    I met him this morning in rather unusual circumstances. His Majesty is in the middle of his “Meet the People” tour and we met this morning near Ibra in Eastern Oman in a tent in the middle of the desert and I suspect that is the first time that the British Prime Minister and the Sultan of Oman have met in such unusual circumstances. The Sultan is a very senior ruler in the region and I very much value the advice and assistance that we receive from him on so many matters.

    We had the opportunity this morning of discussing a very wide range of issues: the Gulf Cooperation Council, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Iran, the Middle East Peace Process and a number of other bilateral matters. I am delighted to say that during our discussions this morning the Sultan told me that the Government of Oman had selected the British Challenger II as the Royal Army of Oman’s next main battle tank. This is the first export order for the Challenger II which is manufactured by Vickers Defence Systems Limited. It is an excellent tank and a tank that has already been chosen for the British Army. The order is for an initial quantity of 18 tanks and 4 Challenger armoured report and recovery vehicles. The initial delivery is for 1995. The Government of Oman intend to purchase a further 18 tanks later.

    It is already clear that this multi-million pound contract will sustain employment at the company’s two facilities in Newcastle and Leeds where some 1,800 people are employed and also of course at the many sub-contractors involved in this programme. I am delighted at this further example of our very close defence cooperation with one of our oldest and most valuable allies in the Gulf,

    QUESTION:

    Oman has called for opening a new [indistinct] in the Gulf and for signing a new political agreement, including the whole Gulf states, even Iraq, do you agree with this call which clearly opposes your tough stand towards Iraq and did you discuss this with the Sultan when you reviewed the current situation in the Gulf? And is Britain going to support possible sanctions against Israel by the UN Security Council to force the Israeli government to take the Palestinian deportees back?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the latter point, the government supported Security Council Resolution, I think it was 799, and the Israeli government are aware of our position on that matter, we very much hope this matter will be resolved very speedily. On the first matter, the Sultan of Oman has been a leader in seeking cooperation between the Gulf states for some time, he has in the past put forward special proposals in the Gulf Cooperation Council, I believe he is right to put forward those proposals and they have our support.

    QUESTION (Oman News Agency):

    We have seen the Security Council resolution being implemented on a selective basis, that international body which is responsible for maintaining world peace and security, are we going to see some reforms being introduced to the Security Council with the international crises on their lists?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not sure what reforms you might have in mind about the Security Council, it is certainly the position that the United Kingdom wish to see all UN Security Council resolutions implemented, and implemented in full. That has been our position in the past and I can give you that assurance it will remain our position in the future.

    QUESTION:

    We have been witnessing the United States and the UK taking international matters into their hand by continuing their air assaults on Iraq while at the same time ignoring what is happening to the Palestinian deportees, including the Security Council resolution on the matter. Today we learn that the Israeli High Court has supported the government’s decision. Do you have an idea whether your country is going to support sanctions against Israel

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I indicated some moments ago that we supported the Security Council resolution concerning the Palestinians. Just the other day it was British helicopters that helped remove some of the Palestinians who needed medical care and attention. We have made it clear to the Israeli government that we believe those Palestinians should be returned from whence they came, that is our continuing position and we will continue to examine that with our friends and allies in the United Nations and of course with the Israeli government.

    On the first point, the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, it is precisely to implement those resolutions within the framework of international law that the United States, Great Britain and France have taken the action that they have done recently against Iraq. It was of course Iraq that were infringing Security Council resolutions supported right across the Gulf and indeed right across the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    On a domestic matter, you have decided to take legal action against two publications in the United Kingdom, this is highly unusual for a serving Prime Minister, can we have your thoughts on it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I issued a statement about that earlier today, l issued a statement concerning that I had instructed solicitors to issue Writs for Libel. I have nothing further to add to that now or later.

    QUESTION:

    On the same matter, when the Chancellor had to consult lawyers about possible libel actions it was decided to pay part of the lawyers’ fees out of public funds, why have you decided not to do that in this case?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Chancellor has dealt with that matter before, I have nothing further to add to that and I have nothing further to add to the announcement I made a moment ago. I have instructed solicitors to issue Writs for Libel, that is all I propose to say about the matter at this stage.

    QUESTION:

    Are you confident that the Middle East countries you are visiting today are behind the UK, the US and France in the action you have been taking against Iraq, does that go for the whole of the Middle East region?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes I do think I am content about that, there was very wide support for the Gulf war at the time and for the Security Council resolution subsequently. It is implementing those Security Council resolutions and international law that has actually led to the action to which you refer, so yes I am confident in that.

    QUESTION:

    What is the British government’s policy towards Iraq now?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We wish to see Iraq implement the Security Council resolutions, that is our policy, we have no plans for Iraq to dismember Iraq, know there has been concern, we wish to see Iraq remain as an entity but we wish to see it operate under international law and the international community has set out its wishes in a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions, they must be implemented.

    QUESTION:

    Can you expand on the concerns that may have been expressed to you by the Sultan about the position of Iran?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No I do not think I wish to expand upon our private conversations on that matter.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think that military action should be taken against the Serbs and when will that take place?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What we are doing at the moment both in Bosnia in terms of humanitarian assistance and in terms of a political settlement is I think for the time being the way forward. The political settlement that is being sought that was propelled by the London Conference on the Yugoslav crisis that I chaired in the autumn is proceeding and Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance have made very good progress. There is more to be done but I think it is through that political process that we will get a satisfactory settlement to the very sad dispute that exists in Yugoslavia. In the meantime, while the dispute continues we must continue to provide the humanitarian assistance that is necessary and it is for that reason that the United Kingdom have provided not only a large amount of food but other aid as well, most notably medicines and also a large contingent of British troops to ensure that it is delivered where it is most needed.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 20 January 1993

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 20th January 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Security Service

    Mr. Winnick : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of 14 January by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Official Report, columns 1075-76, to what categories of questions regarding the security service Ministers are now willing to provide substantive replies.

    The Prime Minister : As I said in my statement to the House on 6 May last year, at column 65, successive Governments have not commented on matters relating to security and intelligence. The reason for that is clear : it is difficult to comment without revealing, by what is said or not said, information that can have a bearing on the effectiveness of these services and the safety of their staff.

    Nevertheless, from time to time there will be matters of public concern on which it is desirable and possible to make a considered statement. There are precedents under successive Administrations when such statements have been made without prejudice to the general convention. An example is the assurance which I gave hon. Members on 29 June 1992, Official Report, column 37, about postal and telephone interception.

     

    UN Aims Register

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with setting up a United Nations arms register.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : The register was established by a UN general assembly resolution in December 1991. In December 1992 the general assembly approved by consensus a report by technical experts on the register’s implementation. Participating countries are required to provide their first returns of information by 30 April 1993 covering arms imports and exports in the calendar year 1992. The Secretary-General will produce an annual report containing the information registered which will be available for consultation by member states.

     

    Royal Family (Telephone Tapping)

    Mr. Alton : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty’s Government’s policy regarding the tapping of telephones of members of the royal family or their personal friends.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : The interception of communications during their transmission by means of a public telephone system is subject to the provisions of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The Government have accepted Sir David Calcutt’s recommendation to consider whether the legislation adequately protects private telephone calls. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage assured the House in his statement on 14 January, there is no substance to rumours about the involvement of the security and intelligence agencies in interception of the communications of the royal family.

     

    Intergovernmental Binding Decisions

    Mr. Spearing : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 14 December 1992, Official Report, column 37, what are the criteria distinguishing an intergovernmental binding decision and treaty if both are justiciable in the International Court of Justice.

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 19 January 1993] : I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 January, at column 822.

  • Mr Major’s Statement at Redoubt – 22 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at Redoubt on Tuesday 22nd December 1992.

    QUESTION:

    Can we have your first impressions, Prime Minister?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first impression is the impression you get as you drive up from Split, what used to be a tiny mud road is now becoming a perfectly usable road to deliver humanitarian supplies, that has happened because of our engineers and I think we can be very proud of them.

    QUESTION:

    How concerned are you about the risks as your troops do more and more to try and stop this war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am concerned and that is one of the reasons I am here, I wanted to be here to assess the risk for myself, talk to the Commanders in the field, examine what is happening, see the terrain so that I am in a far better position to make judgments than before. So yes of course I am concerned about the risk but the prime concern that I must have is to ensure the safety and security of our troops here.

    QUESTION:

    Are those risks increased by the enforcement of a No Fly Zone?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We will have to make sure when the No Fly Zone is enforced, I think there is going to be a No Fly Zone resolution, the nature of it is clearly important, that is still under discussion, and as that happens we will need to ensure the security of our troops here, that is paramount.

    QUESTION:

    Do you feel that the imposition of that No Fly Zone will make us combatants rather than be able to continue the humanitarian work here?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, we are here to help with the humanitarian work, I think there are wider reasons for the No Fly Zone that we have discussed before and will discuss again. I think increasingly it is becoming evident that it is necessary. What is happening across Bosnia is not acceptable, we have seen it, you see it day to day on television, you read about it, we all know of the atrocities that are being committed and I think it has to be made clear that those are not acceptable. There is a Security Council resolution applying a No Fly Zone. I do not think we can allow that to be flouted hence there is a need to enforce it, but there is more than one way of enforcing it and these are the matters under discussion.

    QUESTION:

    You have talked about reinforcing them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to discuss matters like that, I wanted to see what was happening on the ground itself.

    QUESTION:

    But it is an option?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course it is an option, all things are an option, I am determined to look at the security of our troops, that is the paramount concern.

    QUESTION:

    The paramount concern is surely to save lives here is it not?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are saving lives with the humanitarian delivery, that of course is what our troops are here for, but we must also make absolutely sure that our troops carrying that out are firstly properly protected and secondly not put in unnecessary danger, they are doing a vitally important job and we must make sure that they are able to do it securely.

    QUESTION:

    But is there not a lack of clarity over whether we are here primarily to save lives?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, there is no lack of clarity about that, the mandate for the British troops here is a humanitarian mandate, that is what they are here for, they are to help assist in the delivery of humanitarian aid into a number of pockets where it is badly needed, that is their job here at the moment.

  • Mr Major’s Address to Troops at Redoubt – 22 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s address to the troops at Redoubt on Tuesday 22nd December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am afraid in the next few months it is going to get less easy, the weather so far has been better than it might have been, it will get worse, no doubt there will be other difficulties, I think we need to be prepared for that, you have been here for some time getting ready so that you are prepared for that.

    But I think we need to bear in mind a couple of things. Let me tell you, over the weekend I spent the weekend in the United States talking to President Bush and others, he particularly asked me to say to you how much admiration there is in the United States and elsewhere for the work that the British troops are doing here, I think people know that you are the backbone, ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid.

    I can only say to you, you may think out here pretty much that you are on your own when you are widening the road or when the Cheshires are operating up the road a little, but day after day people at home are seeing what you are doing, they are hearing about what you are doing, they are concerned about what you are doing and there are millions of people watching it with a very great degree of admiration. So if you do feel pretty cold, pretty chilly, pretty much on your own out there I would just like you to know there are a lot of people thinking of what you are doing.

    And the importance of what you are doing is very difficult to over-state. There would be an awful lot of people who would die this winter but for the work that you are able to do and will be doing through the winter, we would not have the roads widened, we would not have the humanitarian aid through, we would not have the medicines through without that, there are a lot of men, women and children who simply would not survive this winter and that is why you are here and I would just like to express my gratitude to you for that.

    It is Christmas, you are a long way from home, it is not a great time to be away from home but there will be a lot of other people who will see a few more Christmases because you have sacrificed this Christmas away from your families and out here and I would like to say Thank You to you for that.

    You probably know some of the diplomatic moves going on at the moment about the No Fly Zone. I suspect there is going to be a No Fly Zone resolution, we spent the weekend talking about the details of that in America, it will come I suspect before the United Nations in a few days time. Final details of that are still to be determined but I just want to say this to you, when we have that No Fly Zone be absolutely certain that the matter foremost in the minds of the government and others will be to ensure your security out here, that is not for one second going to be overlooked as we make further diplomatic moves. I would like you to know that and I would like your families back home in Germany, where many of them will be, or in the United Kingdom, to know that as well.

    So I think that is really all I have got to say, thanks for what you are doing, keep safe, have as good a Christmas as you can and I hope we can get you home as soon as we may. Thank you all very much indeed.