The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: United States

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

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

    ATTLEE FOUNDATION LECTURE 2026

    A PIVOTAL YEAR FOR DEMOCRACY

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

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

    Let me do a little ground clearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We are not alone.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Is policy strangling initiative or encouraging it?

    Are tax levels deterring savings and investment?

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

    Does the benefit system encourage or discourage unemployment?  

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

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

    Can we fund the Armed Forces we need?  

    Will this mean more spending – or savings elsewhere?

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

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

    We need a spring clean.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It was what made America great.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is not the America we have known.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Such a concept is truly terrifying.

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

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

    But is that still so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So ‒ why am I conflicted?

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

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

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

    Many nations will pay a price for this war.  

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

    This war will have a long tail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In due time, the war will end.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Let me return to the words of Clement Attlee:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Indeed not….. not in any form.

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

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

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Lord Lothian Lecture – 15 October 2025

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech to the inaugural Lord Lothian lecture at the Global Strategy Forum on 15 October 2025.

    When Clare and Mary asked me to deliver this inaugural lecture on behalf of the Global Strategy Forum, it was easy to say “Yes”.  

    Michael and I became friends – and allies in politics – from the moment we met 50 years ago.  We came from different backgrounds, mixed in different circles, had different leisure pursuits ‒ but we shared the same political space, and beliefs about the purpose and practice of politics.  

    Michael was an easy colleague.  Loyalty and moderation were at the very core of his politics.  He believed in the power of persuasion, and the essential decencies of human behaviour ‒ even when faced by adversaries that denied both of those virtues.

    He was clever, compassionate, sensitive and intuitive and – where he saw wickedness or hardship – he felt an obligation to put it right.  

    Michael carried his compassion as a shield against bigotry.  He preferred to offer a hand up not a put down.  He wished to understand rather than condemn, and to face up to challenges rather than pass them by.

    His focus was progress, not regress;  the future not the past;  and his aim was to put right what was wrong.

    When, in the early 1990s, I was trying to build a Peace Process to end violence in Ireland – North and South – I knew I would benefit from the abilities of Paddy Mayhew and Michael Ancram.  They were both custom made for the task, and never once did they disappoint.  

    Michael and Paddy had extensive private contact with all the Northern Ireland Parties:  often a frustrating experience, but both had the gift of listening – amid, of course the occasional Paddy eruption ‒ and, slowly, progress was made and early trust established.

    It was essential preparation for more challenging meetings that were to come.  When we reached the stage of face-to-face discussions with the IRA Michael ‒ as Minister of State ‒ was the obvious choice for the initial contact.  

    This was at a time when such responsibilities carried great personal risk and thus ‒ before appointing Ministers to the Northern Ireland Office ‒ I would always ask if their families were content.

    It is to their credit, and that of their families, that no colleague invited to serve stepped away from the challenge.  And so it was with Michael, who didn’t hesitate.  

    There was deep suspicion of the Peace Process from many of the Northern Ireland Unionists, and their allies in Parliament and Press.  Michael was an arch-comforter, damping down Unionist fears of “secret deals” or “unadmitted concessions” to Sinn Fein or the IRA.  Progress was not easy.

    I recall briefing John Smith, the then Labour Leader, in my office in the Commons.  Whisky in hand, John offered “help in principle” and chuckled as he added “but you do know there are no votes in it”.  Nor were there – but that was never the purpose.

    A Belfast without bombs, with blood ties not blood flowing, a generation able to grow up without inheriting the hostility and hatred of community division.  That was the purpose.  And Michael’s instinctive character of peacemaker made him perfect for the job.  

    His brief was tough as the IRA peered suspiciously at every proposal.  History was a bar to progress.  The memory of past grievances was ever present:  the Black and Tans, the Hunger Strikes and Bobby Sands ‒ these, and much more, were always a block to trust.  

    But Michael’s efforts were brave and unrelenting.  The progress he made with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness paved the way for Paddy Mayhew to join him for more in-depth discussions.  

    He, Paddy and I were hugely frustrated that we were unable to complete the Process ‒ but were comforted in the knowledge that – against all predictions – we moved the dial from conflict towards peace:  and delighted that Tony Blair and New Labour completed the work.  

    Today, in Ireland – North and South – we are at a place where none of us dared to hope we would be.  

    Michael truly deserves his place in the pantheon of Irish peacemakers.

    * * * * *

    There are times ‒ and now is one such time ‒ when change seems to come at a gallop.  Between Ancient Greece and the 15th Century no-one challenged the wisdom of the ancients until the Renaissance.  

    A 10th Century European would easily have recognised 15th Century European life:  a child today would barely recognise the way of life 50 years ago.  

    As we meet, our world is in an unsettled state.  Liberal Democracy is in retreat.  Autocracy is thriving and spreading.  Globalisation is fraying.  The post-war consensus is weakening at best and – at worst – may be on its way to breaking up.  

    As for our own country, we now have fewer committed friends than once we had.  We need to remedy that.

    As these trends thrive, I hope nation states recognise the risks, step up, urge conciliation and begin the repair of our failing institutions.  Leaders need to be proactive – not locked in a defensive crouch.

    In our unsettled world, only an unpredictable America, and a hard-to-read China, are political, economic and military super-powers:  no other country comes close.  Their future behaviour and bilateral relationship are critical to us all.  

    Both countries know they are destined to be rivals ‒ and allies only on individual issues.  The world needs them to find an accommodation with each other, while they must persuade their domestic audiences they are hard-nosed defenders of their own philosophy and national interests.

    There are trip-wires ‒ most obviously Taiwan ‒ but, if diplomacy and self-interest prevails, with trade and regular contact uninterrupted by threats of high tariff impositions, then a long-term, and mutually beneficial relationship is entirely possible ‒ but only if they will it.

    If they do not, and lapse into serious conflict, then they could set the world aflame.  

    But I don’t foresee that.  Sensible diplomacy and pragmatic self-interest should be able to prevent full-fronted confrontation whenever – as is likely – frustrations and disputes arise.  

    CHINA

    Historically, China has been the victim of military conflict, not the aggressor.  That said, she has been dramatically increasing her military capability, at an extraordinary pace.  No-one should underestimate the scale of this, nor her growing capacity to enforce her will militarily.  

    Events ‒ and American policy ‒ may determine the future:  if America withdraws from her post-war role in favour of more isolation ‒ will China step up and try to fill it?  The answer to that is likely to be “Yes”.

    There is much we neither know, nor understand about China.  She is an enigma.  The first verse of her National Anthem is encouraging:  telling citizens to “Arise, you who refuse to be slaves”.  

    It’s an enticing invitation, but not to be taken too literally.  Perhaps my view is cynical, but I have vivid memories of Tiananmen Square.  Those who did arise were soon silenced – and none too gently.  

    As China has grown in power, she has begun to assert herself in Asia, and increase her influence worldwide.  She is an avowed opponent of democracy, which she considers an alien and inefficient form of government.

    China is sufficiently self-confident to break international Treaties.  Persecute the Uighurs in Xinjiang.  Threaten Taiwan with a military assault.  Ignore promised freedoms to Hong Kong.  

    All that ‒ and multiple cyber threats and industrial larceny – may be laid at her door.  These are the actions of an ambitious nation prepared to bend others to her will.

    Her trade and investment grows each year.  A majority of countries around the world now conduct more trade with China than America ‒ in some cases, far more.  Apparently blind to the implications of this, current American policy on tariffs may widen that lead.

    I have no doubt our government wishes to have a good relationship with China.  Who would not?  But it cannot be a subservient one.  China would not respect that.

    AMERICA

    For most of the post-war years, America has been the rock upon which democracy prospered.

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

    So was it when, over a decade later, President Kennedy committed to confront: “the common enemies of man ‒ tyranny, poverty, disease and war.”.

    The purpose behind these noble sentiments was to create a freer and safer world, in which the strong pledged their help to the weak.  No price was asked for this.  No deal demanded.  No investment or payment expected.  

    It was high politics in a harsh post-war world, when to help others was not seen as a business opportunity.  This approach, it seems, is now out of fashion.

    Today, America has a less altruistic policy.  The President’s ambition is to “Make America Great Again” – although it is puzzling that being the richest and most powerful nation in the world is not already seen as an indication of greatness.

    In the MAGA quest, America has embraced national self-interest.  The President ‒ with the support of the world’s richest man ‒ abruptly cut off aid to the poorest people in the world and those organisations whose role is to cure the diseases that most afflict them.  

    Forecasts of the long-term implications of this are dire.

    A Report in the Lancet tells us that US aid alone prevented over four million deaths ‒ one third of them children ‒ in every year of the first two decades of this century.  That support has gone.  

    It is a harsh policy that ends such a benevolent approach, despite the pain and loss it will cause.  But America is not alone in turning her face away from the human rights of the weak.

    Other countries, including the UK, have cut aid.  I know that times are tough for us and many others, but we are not facing mass hunger, and our sick are not going without medicine or care.  

    In reflective moments one may wonder:  where is the Good Samaritan when he is most needed?  

    I believe the scale of cuts to aid is wrong on practical as well as moral grounds.  In due time, whenever more people flee poor countries for richer pastures – as they will – we may regret how little we did to keep them settled where they are.  

    President Trump has also imposed tariffs on imports from most of the world in pursuit, as he cheerily puts it, of:  “making America richer and richer by many billions”.  

    This not only hurts allies, some wealthy, some not – but also countries that are poor and, in some cases, very poor indeed.

    Apart from filling the US Treasury coffers, the tariffs are justified by the claim that they are imposed upon countries which had allegedly been “ripping off America” for years.  If that were so, they were remarkably unsuccessful given America’s economic pre-eminence.  

    It may be ‒ when American consumers realise that the tariffs are raising prices in their own High Streets – that they might consider it is they who are being “ripped off”.  American taxpayers please note:  rising prices are a regressive tax.

    I was brought up to admire America.  I still do:  there is much to envy.  But I don’t admire her present approach.  Nor should the American people.  It comes at a high cost to her reputation for free trade and sensible economics.

    Many countries will be bruised by the new tariffs, and resentful that they felt forced to accept for fear of more severe impositions if they did not do so.  

    In what passed for “negotiation” I do wonder what negotiating power smaller nations had to deploy?  “Little or none” is my guess.  They faced a choice of submitting – or a worse deal.  If nothing else, the tariffs showcased the raw power of America.

    Our flexible English language has a word for pressure imposed by the powerful on those who are weaker.  It is a good old word:  we call it “bullying”.  We may fear the bully.  We may accommodate the bully.  But we never forget the bullying.

    There is no doubt that America is a great power.  But with that power comes great responsibility about how it is used.  

    The President needs to understand that any casual disregard of long-standing international mores risks undermining – to the point of destruction – the rules-based system of laws and behaviours that have been a shield and guardian to the world over the last seventy years.

    Leaders who do not make that clear – preferably privately, but unmistakably – are betraying their responsibilities.

    Allies and opponents alike are baffled by the President’s inconsistency.  

    Such unpredictability may be a useful enforcement tactic in negotiations – as we have seen – but it carries a dangerous risk of misunderstandings and misjudgements that could be very damaging in the longer-term.  Trust and certainty matter in Statecraft.    

    RUSSIA

    I wish to turn – but briefly – to Russia.  She is a real and present danger to democracy.  The war in Ukraine is indisputably Putin’s war.

    Putin has moved from being an authoritarian Leader to a totalitarian one.  There seems to be no domestic check on his behaviour.  Outspoken opponents disappear or die mysteriously.  Planes fall from the sky.  So do opponents from high windows.  National assets are looted to support Putin’s cult of personality.

    In war, Russia shows no restraint.  The civilian is as much a target as the soldier.  Even Ukrainian children are stolen and indoctrinated against their own family and country.  Let me not mince words:  that is wicked to the core ‒ no other description suffices.

    We should not be surprised.  Russia has become a repressive rogue State, hostile to democracy.  The controlled media feeds civilian Russia with untruthful propaganda that includes bare faced lies about the West.  The truth – in Russia – is whatever Putin wishes it to be.

    Russian citizens – patriots by instinct – are fed untruths throughout their lives and, because that is all they hear, they believe it.   

    By any yardstick, Putin is a warmonger, not a peacemaker, and little will change in Russia until he is gone ‒ at which time someone will be brave enough to list his many crimes.

    It was revealing that, when Prigozhin, Leader of the Wagner group of mercenaries marched on Moscow, no-one of influence spoke up for Putin conscious that he ruled by fear ‒ nor against him knowing it would be life-threatening to do so.

    I hope no Western policy maker forgets that Ukraine is our battle as well as theirs:  even though it is Ukrainian blood that is being spilled, our own interests are also at stake.  If Putin gains from war, his demands will grow and not diminish.  

    The present outlook is that, unless America and Europe combine, in a far more powerful response to Russia’s aggression, the war will continue – perhaps for a long time.  

    Hopefully, President Trump will see Ukraine through the eyes of his Western allies, and use America’s power to protect Ukraine and deter further Russian adventures.  If Russia loses, the world wins.    

    And what a boost it would be to confidence and the global economy if wars in Ukraine and Palestine were to end.    

    Conflict, of course, takes me to Gaza.  

    GAZA

    It would be a miserly mind that does not welcome the ceasefire that has been agreed.  The killing has stopped, the hostages freed and – I hope – aid will swiftly alleviate suffering in Gaza.  

    I warmly congratulate President Trump, Qatar, Egypt – and, I suspect, contributors here in the UK – for this advance.  On this occasion, the President’s unconventional approach succeeded where others had failed, and a breakthrough to a better future may have begun. 

    But – it is a beginning not an end.  A ceasefire – not a certain and continuing peace.  Ahead lie serious questions, the answers to which will require good luck, good intentions and a herculean effort over a long period.    

    Wars have consequences that endure.  

    The bombs may stop, but will Hamas surrender weapons?  Who will rebuild the bombed-out wreckage and pay for it – with years of construction at a cost of many billions?  

    Will any Israeli Government accept Palestinian aspirations and, if so, can it be delivered against domestic opposition?

    Is a “Two-State” solution still even possible if Israel sets her face against it?  If not, what is the future for Palestinians?

    What, under any final agreement, will happen to the illegal settlements?  

    Will land be returned?  Or compensation offered?  Will future settlements be prevented?  

    Can Israeli-Palestinian relations be restored?  The Hamas attack on Israel killed 1200 people, and took many hostages – many of whom have since died in miserable circumstances.  It was an act of profound evil that led to an unrelenting response.

    In pursuit of Hamas, Gaza was turned to rubble.  The stated objective was the complete destruction of Hamas, which was never likely, and has not been achieved.  

    What was “achieved” was over 60,000 civilian deaths and many life-changing injuries that will not be easily forgotten.

    Nor will the blockage of aid;  the harrowing sight of starving men, women and children;  the image of dead bodies in ruined streets;  or the displaced families being herded around from place to place.  

    It will be hard for both sides to find forgiveness.  The Palestinians dreamed of a homeland.  Israeli Ministers wanted (I quote) to “bury the idea of a Palestinian State”.  

    This is not easily reconciled.  The risk of a legacy of hate passing down to future generations is very real.  Over time, war damage can be re-built.  But can minds be changed?

    Israel must also repair relations with much of the world.  Her approach – including the colossal misjudgement of banning the media from the war zones – lost the Israeli Government the benefit of any doubt over its actions. 

    The whole world knows the history of the Jewish people.  They have been treated cruelly throughout the ages.  But some of the actions of the Israeli Government lost them the sympathy and understanding they had earned throughout the post-war period.

    I have Jewish friends whom I cherish, and it is heart-breaking that antisemitism and fear has been returned to their lives so unfairly in so many countries ‒ not least our own.  

    Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people around the world have shown their dismay at the conduct of the war.  They do not deserve to be treated as complicit in what has been happening in Gaza and the West Bank.

    It is the Israeli Cabinet – and they alone – who must answer for their decisions.

    LOOKING OUTWARD

    As more nations look inward I see opportunities to look outward.  The UK’s relative “hard power” has fallen in recent decades and, even though events suggest that will be repaired – as it must – it is still wise to build up our “soft power”.

    Our links to Europe and America may be looser now than once they were – and that is a loss – but it does free us up to be a far more independent voice in our troubled world.  

    An Age of Reason is badly needed, and we can help usher it in.

    Let what we say about international policy echo for its good sense:  let it have a clarity beyond pious statements issued for the sake of form.  I wish our voice to be heard and our nation to earn respect in a role that no other nation has taken up.

    There is ample scope and appetite for such a voice.  Much of what should be said is held back ‒ and why?  Is it because of diplomatic niceties;  an unwillingness to stir controversy;  or common or garden plain funk?

    Meanwhile, the post-war institutions are failing to deliver what the founders expected of them.  Self-evidently, hampered by its own rules, the United Nations is not delivering peace and security. 

    The membership of the Permanent Five is out of date and needs reform.  A credible option is to enlarge it to embrace countries such as India, Germany, Brazil, and end the single nation veto on action that so often leaves the UN looking powerless when a powerful lead is vital.    

    As a founding Member of the Permanent Five, the UK is well placed to argue the advantages of such a change.

    Our worldwide reach and assets leave us in a position to be a candid friend, a conciliator, a conscience in support of those who have no voice of their own.

    We should dust off our “soft power” assets.  Our voice, our global spread, our language, the BBC World Service, our Universities, our culture – especially our theatre.  Until recently, I would have added our leadership in Overseas Aid.  I hope, soon, to be able to do so again.    

    I hear the objections ringing in my head.  It’s altruistic.  It’s pointless idealism.  It will come to nothing.  It will gain us nothing.  Perhaps not.  

    But it will gain us respect.  Friendship.  It will help our voice resonate far and wide.  More than anything, it is also the right thing to do.  In our mercenary world, is that too naïve a reason?

    We British are 70 million people in a world of 9 billion.  We are not the mighty power that once we were.  We cannot compel as once we could.  But we can offer the world an example, and speak out for the decencies and civilities that lie deep-rooted in the British instinct.

    What do we stand for as a nation if not for that?

    I will close as I opened.  

    I spoke of Michael’s belief in the power of persuasion and the decencies of human behaviour.  I reminded myself that where he saw wickedness or hardship, he felt an obligation to put it right.  

    I believe – throughout our world – there is audience crying out for such qualities of leadership.  

    Let us show that it can be done. 

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

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

    Which must mean spending more on defence?

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

    Undoubtedly.

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

    SIR JOHN MAJOR

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

    JAMES NAUGHTIE

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

  • Sir John Major’s Statement Following the Death of General Colin Powell KCB – 18 October 2021

    The statement made by Sir John Major on 18 October 2021 following the announcement of the death of General Colin Powell KCB.

    Colin Powell was one of the finest men I ever met. And, perhaps, one of the finest Americans never to be President.

    Both in the military and in government he led with calm authority, and was an inspiration to all those who served alongside him.

    During the first Gulf War – as Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff – we could not have wished for a stronger ally, nor one who commanded such affection and respect from our own Armed Forces.

    Throughout his long and exceptional career, Colin served with honour and distinction. He was a true public servant, who I was proud to call a friend.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech – Middle Temple’s Treasurer’s Lecture: The State We’re In

    The speech made by Sir John Major at Middle Temple on 9 November 2020.

    THE STATE WE’RE IN

    It is a privilege to be invited to deliver this lecture and my only regret is that it is remote – with no live audience ….. nor the delights of a Middle Temple dinner.

    Given the date, my subject is appropriate. On this day in 1923, Hitler failed to seize power in Germany; in 1938, it marked Kristallnacht and the Nazi assault on Jews; and, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell.

    Each of these events impacted on the wider world – and that wider world will now impact on “The State We’re In”.

    The future of that State requires plain speaking if we are to be honest with our nation.

    And, of course, with ourselves. The great powers of our age are the United States, China, and the European Union.

    The world they straddle is fractious. The values of liberal society are stalled, if not in retreat. America and China are in a Trade War and an embryonic Cold War. Europe and America are far apart on many issues, but both deplore China’s authoritarian direction under President Xi.

    Lesser powers like Russia – the Great Disrupter – and Turkey continue to subvert and to meddle.

    Free trade and globalisation are now widely questioned.

    Migration and radical Islam are an ever present problem.

    Populism continues to promote prejudice and racial intolerance.

    And, in many nation states, autocracy has grown – and democracy has fallen back.

    Our world seems ill at ease, at a moment when harmony and collective decision making seem more and more essential for our security and well-being.

    The post-War settlement is out of date.

    The United Nations is hamstrung by the rules of its own Security Council.

    The World Trade Organisation is paralysed, with no functioning resolution dispute procedure.

    The World Health Organisation is under-funded, under-powered and under attack.

    Despite all this, no nation seems prepared to lead the case for reform.

    The financial crash of 2007 weakened many countries and the lives of billions of people; and, in the year of Covid, trillions of dollars have been diverted from growth as the virus has increased hardship on every Continent.

    This is the wider context in which the United Kingdom must prepare for our future, whilst facing the added challenges of Covid-19 – and Brexit.

    Our country has many virtues but, if we are to be successful in this challenging environment, we need to be cruelly honest with ourselves about what needs to be done to ensure our political and economic wellbeing.

    If we’re complacent, we betray our own interests. If we see ourselves through rose-tinted spectacles, then we will deceive ourselves.

    Complacency and nostalgia are the route to national decline. So I favour reality and optimism – but with the warning that false optimism is deceit by another name.

    We are no longer a great power. We will never be so again. In a world of nearly 8 billion people, well under 1% are British.

    We are a top second-rank power but, over the next half century – however well we perform – our small size and population makes it likely we will be passed by the growth of other, far larger, countries.

    In recent decades, we have consoled ourselves that we “punch above our weight” in international affairs. I think that was true: but that was then, and this is now.

    Our hefty international influence rested on our history and reputation, buttressed by our membership of the European Union and our close alliance with the United States.

    Suddenly, we are no longer an irreplaceable bridge between Europe and America. We are now less relevant to them both.

    COVID

    At home, we must face Covid.

    Covid has already left many families bereaved and bereft. It has changed lives and work patterns, cost billions, increased national debt and annual deficits.

    It has destroyed public tolerance of austerity, and made tax rises inevitable – although not, if we are sensible, until the economy is more healthy.

    The virus also presents a formidable obstacle to one of the Government’s better instincts. Their intention is to level up the regions and help individuals “left behind”. The pernicious effect of Covid will be to level down.

    The problem is not so much the gap between rich and poor, but that the poor may become so indebted and destitute they are unable to maintain themselves – or their families.

    The classic response to tide people over – until the private sector returns to full capacity – is for social subsidy out of taxation.

    But billions upon billions have already been spent, and friction between the extent of need and the capacity to help is inevitable.

    And there are many in need of help – businesses forced to shut down, the unemployed, the self-employed, the care sector, health, the arts, sport: the demands on the Exchequer are beyond anything we have known in peacetime.

    The Government deserves credit for what has been spent so far, to set against criticism for unmet needs.

    But I do find it surprising that – in the midst of the Covid crisis – the Government appears to be fostering disputes with the
    Judiciary, where all Governments should tread carefully; the Civil Service, upon whose help the Government depends; and the BBC, still the most respected broadcaster on the planet.

    These are unmerited distractions from the issues the country needs them to focus on.

    BREXIT

    The core change in the New Britain being forged is – Brexit. It has been hidden behind Covid for a few months. It has not gone away. You have to be wilfully in denial not to see the damage already done, and not to be concerned at what it might mean.
    Brexit divided England and Wales from Scotland and Northern Ireland. It divided political parties and families; the young and their elders; business and trade unions; and friend from friend. As its full impact becomes apparent in the New Year, old wounds may re-open.

    There is no consensus on Brexit, and never has been. It was a bitterly divisive policy, and uncorked a populism that may be difficult to quell.

    The Referendum debate was unlike any I have known before. Emotion overcame reality. And, in the search for hearts and minds and votes, fiction defeated fact and fostered a belief in a past that never was – whilst boosting enthusiasm for a future that may never be.

    If that mode of politics takes root, it will kill all respect in our system of government.

    In the Referendum, Britons voted to leave the European Union. I have never hidden my view, nor have I changed it. To my mind – and I am no starry-eyed European – Brexit is the worst foreign policy decision in my lifetime.

    I have seen the EU from the inside and know its frustrations. But have no doubt we were better off in than we will be out.

    The decision to leave will damage our future in many ways, and the reassurances we are given are unconvincing.

    Brexit was sold to our electors on false premises.

    Promises made will not – indeed, cannot – be kept. To leave the EU – to separate ourselves from our neighbours – was sold as “regaining sovereignty”, but it is, and will prove to be, a long and painful ball and chain on our national wellbeing.

    After the Referendum, Brexiteers did not even bother to argue the merits of their case – why should they? – it was “the will of the people”.

    And once “the will of the people” was asserted as a repeated mantra – and the Brexit leaders claimed to speak for all “the people” – any opposition to Brexit became illegitimate, and any contrary view was howled down.

    Free speech for those who supported remaining in the EU came at a price. They were pilloried as “Remoaners”: sticking to long-held principles and policies, and warning of clear dangers ahead was depicted as “sour grapes by sore losers”.

    Even Judges were denounced as “Enemies of the People” for ruling on a Point of Law. Opponents of Brexit were cowed, and free speech was curtailed. It was shameful. No democracy should find itself in such a position.

    Overseas, the outcome of the Referendum delighted our enemies and dismayed our friends. As our nation voted against its history and its self-interest, a bemused world looked on, wondering why we had chosen to become poorer and less influential.

    Brexit was sold to the nation as a win-win situation. It is not. We were promised we would stay in the Single Market. We have not. We were told trade with the EU would be frictionless. It will not be.

    We were promised we would save billions in payments to the European Union: a bus was driven around the country telling us so.

    Not so: Brexit is costing billions – not saving them.

    We were told that our “liberated country” could cut back on bureaucracy and regulations. We now know they will increase – and dramatically.

    We were promised we would strike lucrative trade deals with America, India, China and others in quick time. Japan apart – we have not.

    More recently – and for the first time in our long history – Ministers have proposed legislation giving them powers to break the law. This is a slippery slope down which no democratic Government should ever travel.

    And, it was claimed, Brexit wouldn’t increase support for Scottish independence or a united Ireland. It has.

    It defies logic that intelligent men and women making such extravagant promises did not know they were undeliverable – and yet they continued to make them.

    It was politics. It was campaigning. It was for a cause.

    It was also unforgiveable.

    If that is how we are going to conduct our public affairs, then not only will our politics truly fall into a bad place, but our word as a nation will no longer be trusted.

    POST-BREXIT TRADE

    Trade has always been the life-blood of our prosperity.

    We were promised a comprehensive trade deal with the EU. We were told this would be “the easiest deal in history” because “we hold all the cards”. Apparently not.

    As the politics changed, the promises were ditched.

    We can now look forward to a flimsy, barebones deal – or no deal at all. This is a wretched betrayal of what our electors were led to believe.

    It now seems that on 1 January next year, Brexit may be even more brutal than anyone expected.

    Brexit is no friend of free trade with Europe. It may set up new tariff barriers. And it certainly will:

    • set up non-tariff barriers;
    • damage supply chains;
    • add to regulations;
    • demand new customs and security declarations;
    • require Rules of Origin to prove where spare parts came from; – require tens of thousands of customs agents to process new bureaucracy; – create huge stockpiling dilemmas; and
    • require new massive storehouses to hold supplies.

    These costs and complexities are the certain legacy of Brexit. This is as a result of our negotiating failure – and it is a failure.

    Because of our bombast, our blustering, our threats and our inflexibility – our trade will be less profitable, our Treasury poorer, our jobs fewer, and our future less prosperous.

    This is not hindsight wisdom: this outcome was not only foreseeable, it was foreseen. Unfortunately, in a brilliant mis-direction, all warnings were scorned as “Project Fear” and ignored. And, to add tragedy to farce, it was the people who were misled who will now lose out.

    The Government has not been frank about our negotiations with Europe.

    They say we are merely asking for a Canada deal, but that’s not so. We are asking for a deal without tariffs or quotas and for more on haulage, on energy, on aviation – and we are a bigger trading rival than Canada and nearer to the EU.

    The Canada comparison is – to put it kindly – disingenuous. And to refer to an Australian deal is absurd.

    There is no Australia deal. It is a fantasy: a euphemism for no deal at all – and the Government should say so.

    Its reputation will suffer if it is not honest with the British people about this.

    It is time to stop putting Ministers on the media who speak to a pre-prepared script and parrot misleading or pointless slogans.

    There are hopes of trade deals with America, China and India. They would be welcome but, once again, the promises are overdone.

    One day, I am sure, we will get the much-heralded trade deal with America, originally promised for last Spring, then Summer – now, who knows?

    When it does come, it will benefit America far more than us. It may be symbolically important, but it won’t be an economic game-changer.

    The promised trade deal with China is highly unlikely in any near timescale. Our ice-cold diplomatic relations with Russia rule out a trade deal with her, too.

    And, if we wish to have a trade deal with India, the Government must realise that we cannot seek it on a Monday, and restrict immigration from India on Tuesday – it is a poor optic and a worse negotiating strategy.

    The macro arguments against Brexit: the economic and social damage, our weaker position in the world, and the loss of trade advantages, may seem remote. They won’t prove to be.

    WIDER IMPACT OF BREXIT

    And lesser issues will impact directly:

    • the loss of freedom of movement in Europe;
    • higher food prices;
    • more expensive holidays;
    • the withdrawal of EU driving licences;
    • the cost of health insurance without the free cover of the European Health Card;
    • the loss of the Pet Passport Scheme and the expensive – and time consuming – effort to get approval for pets to travel;
    • higher roaming charges for mobile phones;
    • slower entry and more delays at European airports; and
    • the loss of the automatic right to work, live or study in the EU.

    Small irritations, some may say, but – collectively – a significant loss of freedom that will be an unwelcome surprise to many as Europe itself begins to “take back control”.

    When the present phase of Brexit is over, it is important we negotiate a more comprehensive relationship with the EU than is likely to emerge from the present negotiations.

    We should seek bilateral agreements in areas of trade and policy which have not been agreed in these rushed negotiations.

    We should work with the EU to address global problems.

    And we should recognise that the nations of the EU are bound with ourselves in ties of common interest, history and future destiny.

    To ignore this would be a dereliction of our national interests.

    SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE

    One deeply troubling effect of Brexit is the risk of breaking up the UK by increased support for Scotland to leave the Union, and Northern Ireland to unite with the South.

    Neither will do so immediately, but the combination of Brexit – and the unpopularity of our present Westminster Government in Scotland – has increased the likelihood of a breach.

    I remain a convinced Unionist. Every part of the UK is richer – and of more weight in the world – if they stay together.

    The most likely to leave is Scotland. If she does, it will not only weaken Scotland, but also undermine the rump of the UK.

    It will be a step into the unknown for us both.

    The problem is politics.

    The raison d’être of the SNP is an independent Scotland while – for many Conservatives – Unionism is at the heart of their philosophy. It is a challenge to see whether that chasm can be bridged.

    To keep the Union together will require consensus, consideration and consultation. The Government must engage, coax, encourage, and examine every possible route to find an arrangement that will obtain a majority for union.

    It will be difficult – and is made even more so by the posturing of English and Scottish nationalists.

    In law, the Scots require the approval of the Westminster Government before they can legally hold a new independence referendum.

    But refusing one might help the separatist case, by adding to the list of grievances the Scottish National Party exploit with such skill.

    The choice for the UK Government is either to agree the referendum can take place – or to refuse to permit it. Both options come with great risk. But the lessons of Brexit may offer a way ahead.

    The Westminster Government could agree for an Independence Referendum to take place, on the basis of two referenda. The first to vote upon the principle of negotiations, and the second upon the outcome of them.

    The purpose of the second referendum would be that Scottish electors would know what they were voting for, and be able to compare it to what they now have. This did not happen with Brexit: had it done so, there may have been no Brexit.

    Many Scottish voices – and especially business – may support the logic of this: it may focus minds away from a short-term reflex opposition to a perceived English Government, and back to the mutual and long-term virtues of the Union.

    NORTHERN IRELAND

    Brexiteers affected not to notice that Northern Ireland’s support for the European Union pulled the Six Counties more into the orbit of the Republic of Ireland.

    This was exacerbated when the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Deal left Northern Ireland more integrated with the Republic than the rest of the United Kingdom.

    It was sold as a triumph, but it was a surrender.

    These developments accompanied a third reality: the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland is growing faster than the Unionists, and is close to a majority.

    The conjunction of these events is to increase the future possibility of a border poll – already sought by Sinn Fein – to vote upon a united Ireland.

    I doubt that such a poll would be won at present. Not all Nationalists will vote for unity. The Republic would find it hard to absorb the weak economic structure of the North.

    The time for a poll is not yet come. But it will. And if – when it does – the Northern Irish vote for unification, then those who ignored the warnings that Brexit posed will have to answer for the dismantling of a further part of the United Kingdom.

    And, here in Middle Temple, one issue cannot be ignored. The Rule of Law.

    Earlier I referred – in passing – to the provisions in the Internal Markets Bill that empower a Minister to disregard aspects of the Treaty the Prime Minister agreed earlier this year.

    This action is unprecedented in all our history – and for good reason. It has damaged our reputation around the world.

    Lawyers everywhere are incredulous that the UK – often seen as the very cradle of the Rule of Law – could give themselves the power to break the law.

    Moreover, at a moment when we need to maximise our commercial activities, this Bill has had a corrosive impact on the reputation of English and Welsh jurisdiction.

    This may have a practical cost.

    International dispute resolution can be conducted anywhere overseas and the Bill could erode the present pre-eminent position of the UK and, perhaps, especially London.

    Was this considered when the Bill was drafted? Was there consultation with the legal profession? If not, why not? And if there was consultation – why was it ignored?

    Similar concerns apply to the clause that seeks to exclude Judicial Review in delegated legislation.

    I cannot believe it is compatible with the Rule of Law to protect executive Acts from judicial scrutiny: put simply, Ministers must be subject to legal restraints. They cannot be above the law.

    And all individuals must have access to the law. Our delivery of justice must be seen to be fair and impartial – access to the law must not depend upon the size of your bank account.

    Magna Carta promised:

    “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”.

    And yet, an individual – if denied legal aid – may not have the resources to right an injustice. That can deny justice: it cannot be right.

    Nor can it be right to denigrate our Judiciary. They are not the “Enemies of the People”: they are the guarantors of our liberties under the law.

    It is the responsibility of Parliament to uphold these liberties if they are threatened by any source: not to do so would be to curtail an essential freedom.

    I have set out some concerns about the present state of our country. But I wouldn’t wish to be misunderstood.

    SUMMATION

    Throughout my life I have travelled widely and – in the last 20 years – almost incessantly.

    In all my travels I have found nowhere I would wish to live, other than here in the UK.

    That said, I believe we have a duty to make life better for this – and future generations – to whom we will be passing a difficult legacy.

    In hard times, there is often an inflection point that changes minds, and compels policy that otherwise could not be easily implemented.

    The combination of hazards before us may be such a moment.

    To make it so, policy should be set to pave the way to a fairer, better, safer, and – in time – more prosperous future.

    We will all have to bear burdens for such aspirations to become a reality, but that is both our privilege and our responsibility.

    The very core of well-being is an expanding economy, efficient health provision and quality education.

    The Government’s “levelling up” strategy is essential. So is – sooner rather than later – a credible system of social care for the elderly.

    For future employment, we will have to focus increasingly on vocational education, and give such skills the respect they deserve.

    It is essential we remain a United Kingdom – and reinforce the values that have built our reputation. If we cannot again be a great power, we can be a great example.

    If we cannot compel, we can influence.

    We can build up our soft power to sustain our profile.

    We can use our diplomacy to raise issues that need multi-nation action.

    We can be “Global Britain” in more ways than trade. But, to be so, we must reject the narrow nationalism that some have imported into our politics.

    We must put aside the notion of “British exceptionalism”: it is a fantasy baked into the minds of those who do not know how the world has changed.

    But – we can be exceptional.

    All this – and more – can be achieved.

    We like to think of ourselves as the land of hope and glory. “Hope” is essential – most especially during the darkest of times.

    But I am ambivalent about the “glory”.

    I will settle for a land that is united and prosperous; which rises above challenges – as it has done so often in the past; whose word is trusted both near and far; and whose people are seen to be decent, fair and compassionate to all.

    In every corner of our United Kingdom that remains the instinctive heartbeat. And it is one which I hope will always prevail.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Quinlan Lecture – 16 October 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Michael Quinlan Lecture held in London on 16 October 2018.

    When Mary Quinlan invited me to deliver this lecture I was flattered – and fearful; flattered by the opportunity, and fearful about whether I could do justice to such a remarkable man.

    I first met Michael over 30 years ago and he left me with two over-riding impressions. First, he was an easy man to like; and second, he was even easier to admire. He had a distinguished career as a civil servant, and – to me – exemplified the ideal of public service.

    It was my experience in Government that, taken as a whole, the best of the Civil Service was the equal of talent in every other sphere of activity and, in Michael’s case, he was not only a public servant – in the true sense of that term – he was also a world-class authority on his subject.

    Public service matters because, without it, Government is paralysed. Its efficiency is as relevant to public wellbeing as policy itself.

    This is not universally understood, but it should be: those who use “bureaucrat” as a term of abuse simply don’t understand the wider role of public servants.

    I hope to speak of this more fully at a later date but, for now, let me observe merely that the State needs its fair share of our brightest and best talent, and it is important we continue to attract them. Michael Quinlan is an exemplar of who and what we need.

    And, at this moment, our country is in need of all the expertise it can get. We live in a world of flux. Power structures are changing.

    Allegiances are changing. Little is as it was: even less will remain as it is.

    For many millions, the financial crash of a decade ago destroyed their faith in the political and financial world. I am not surprised. The innocent were hurt. Since then, the global market, the on-rush of science, of medicine, and all forms of technological advance, continues to move the world on at an ever–faster pace.

    Government is a serious and complex business. It is far more important than the trivia of who is “up” and who is “down” in the political stakes – intriguing and newsworthy though that may be.

    Government is about enhancing our status in the world. Our security. Our economic well-being. Our national reputation. Our future prospects.

    It is about selecting priorities between Government programmes; between business and civil society; between rich and poor.

    It involves choices between competition and compassion; between young and old; or between the component parts of our (currently not very) United Kingdom. Sometimes, the choices are straightforward but, all too often, they can be hideously complex.

    What Government is not about is cheap grandstanding. It’s not about deceiving the electorate with slogans, or soundbites, or untruths or half-truths. It’s not about windy oratory that says nothing. It’s not about simplistic solutions to intricate problems. It’s not about scapegoating one part of our population to earn the plaudits of another.

    And – most emphatically – it’s not about princelings fighting for the political crown of Premiership. Coded messages that shriek “I’m the One” are about as subtle as a punch on the nose.

    Such self-interest is politics at its least attractive. It does not deliver sound government. It destabilises Government.

    As a general rule, those whose focus is on self-advancement are rarely the most suitable to be entrusted with power.

    Talk of power moves me on to the post-Brexit role of diplomacy and the Foreign Office. Here – in the Locarno Room – I feel a little inhibited.

    I recall Harold Wilson speaking in the 1966 Election and asking, as he moved to his peroration:

    “ … and why do I talk about the Royal Navy?”

    to be told by a heckler:

    “Because you’re in Chatham.”.

    But I plead “Not Guilty” to that charge. I talk of diplomacy because it is vital to our national interests and, once we leave the EU, we will need to become ever more forceful in pressing those interests.

    The blunt truth is that – as a nation of 65 million – our voice is going to be less resonant than as a leading member of a Union of 500 million.

    We need, therefore, to compensate – as far as we can – by increasing our foreign policy capability.

    That must mean more proactive diplomacy. If we retreat solely to our own interests; to Fortress Britain; to our own national boundaries; to the role of on-looker and not innovator – then greater isolation will surely lead to greater irrelevance.

    But being proactive requires an expansion of our Foreign Service capacity. As an internationalist, I believe such a posture is desirable in all circumstances. Post-Brexit, it will be essential.

    For decades, our foreign policy has been bolstered by our membership of the EU, and our closeness to the US. Now, we are on the verge of leaving the EU, while the US continues to move towards Asia-Pacific – and away from Europe and the UK.

    Until now, every US President I have known has considered our relevance to America to be enhanced by our membership of the European Union. Yet very soon – on our current course – we will no longer be able to argue from within the EU for Anglo-American beliefs in free trade; open markets; and strong defence.

    Our value – as an ally of America – will decline. Our friends, the Americans, are hard-headed about power. It is romantic folly to think otherwise. Be in no doubt – if the UK can no longer serve America’s interests in Europe, she will look elsewhere for someone who can.

    Of course, our relationship won’t collapse: ties of blood, trade and security will remain. But the UK will be even more clearly America’s subordinate and dependent junior partner.

    No “ifs”, no “buts”: we will be less relevant. No-one should be bedazzled by folksy talk of our “special relationship”: it is becoming less “special” year by year.

    At this moment our country needs to focus on policy, not personality; on substance, not show; on the national interest, not ideology. Because decisions that must soon be taken will shape the futures of our children and grandchildren for many years to come.

    You will assume that I am referring to Brexit – and I am. But my concern runs far wider than that.

    However, first Brexit …

    For centuries, our State schemed and plotted to prevent all Europe uniting against us. Our Monarchs even married off their children and bribed our foreign adversaries in order to maintain alliances.

    Now, we have chosen to turn our back on all Europe. A long line of former Statesmen will be turning in their graves.

    Europe gone ….. America going.

    We are told our future aim is to be “Global Britain”: that is certainly the right policy, but it is hardly new. It has been the reality for 300 years.

    What is new is that much of the world will now perceive Britain to be a middle-sized, middle-ranking nation that is no longer super-charged by its alliances. Suddenly, the world will be a little chillier.

    If the art of negotiation is to obtain what you seek, then the intention must be to give a little to (hopefully) gain a lot more.

    Such a negotiation is difficult. It benefits from a trusting relationship. From goodwill. It is most likely to succeed if respect is evident on both sides.

    I cannot know how the Government has conducted negotiations in private with the European Union: very possibly they have met the tenets I have set out.

    But, even if they have (and not all the signs are good), belligerent noises-off – on a daily basis – have built up ill-will, and made the Prime Minister’s task even more difficult.

    We know the post-Brexit world will be very different from now.

    It cannot be otherwise, because no form of Brexit will remotely match up to the promises made by the Leave Campaign in the referendum: they were vote-gathering fantasies, not serious politics.

    I have no constituency vote clouding my view of Brexit. I have no ambition driving my support for it. I have no Party Whips demanding loyalty before conscience.

    I have made no false promises about Brexit that I must pretend can still be honoured, even though – in my heart – I know they cannot.

    I am free to say absolutely and precisely what I believe about Brexit.

    And it is this:

    I understand the motives of those who voted to leave the European Union: it can – as I well know – be very frustrating.

    Nonetheless, after weighing its frustrations and opportunities, there is no doubt in my own mind that our decision is a colossal misjudgement that will diminish both the UK and the EU.

    It will damage our national and personal wealth, and may seriously hamper our future security. It may even, over time, break up our United Kingdom. It will most definitely limit the prospects of our young.

    And – once this becomes clear – I believe those who promised what will never be delivered will have much to answer for. They persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer.

    That will never be forgotten – nor forgiven.

    Our domestic focus is on the impact leaving Europe will have on the UK. That is quite natural but, to the world at large, the bigger question is how the EU itself will be affected. The answer is – badly.

    Most obviously, the EU will lose their second largest economy; one of only two nations with a nuclear capacity and significant military capability; and the nation with the longest, deepest, and most effective foreign policy reach.

    But it goes further than that. Without the UK, the dynamics of Europe may change. Once the UK leaves, the balance of the EU changes. The free market majority may be at risk: protectionists will be encouraged and, perhaps, empowered.

    The UK will no longer be a buffer between the Franco-German steamroller and smaller nations. Germany will be more isolated, and friction may grow.

    The UK may have been an irritant to the Commission and some of our European partners, but it has also been the anchor to windward against precipitate, or unwise, or unaffordable policies.

    There is irony here: over 70 years ago, Britain stood alone to fight for Europe – now we freely choose to stand alone and, in so doing, undermine Europe.

    “So what?” committed Brexiteers say, “We won’t be Members: it’s Europe’s problem”. But that ignores reality. How can it not be our problem, too?

    Whether we are “in” or “out” the EU is in our neighbourhood; is our predominant economic partner; and our wellbeing is inexorably linked to their own wellbeing.

    In the hot heat of debate it should not be forgotten that we ignore the EU, disdain it, or stand aside from it, at our own risk.

    * * * * * *

    We live at a time when America is showing withdrawal symptoms, and China is growing in economic, political and military power. Whenever the US leaves a vacuum around the world, it will be filled by China, or Russia, or regional players.

    Already, Russia is a far more significant presence in the Middle East than would have seemed conceivable a decade ago.

    The fundamental point is simple: if America withdraws from international obligations, then Europe can best protect her own interests if she is united.

    It is easy to demonstrate why this is so. When China joined the WTO, it was hoped she would conform to accepted trade practices. Thus far, she has not.

    Instead, the evidence suggests that she still appropriates other countries’ intellectual property; forces technology transfer; closes out competitors’ investment to favour her domestic – often state-run – industries; and still subsidises to succeed.

    None of this meets WTO rules.

    China also smothers complaints about her trade practices by judicious economic investment: this shows that, rules notwithstanding, economic power and a deep national wallet can by-pass accepted international behaviour.

    All this undermines the rules-based world trading system.

    No-one seeks a dispute with China. But rules made – must be obeyed.

    China may be powerful enough to ignore, isolate and punish individual critics. But she cannot ignore or punish the whole of Europe.

    And unfair trade practices can no longer be excused with the argument that China is an emerging economy and we should therefore turn a blind eye to her activities. We should not.

    She is now an economic superpower dramatically increasing her defence capability. Expenditure on land, sea, air and submarine capacity is soaring.

    China now has the world’s largest Navy, with more warships and submarines than America – and she continues to build them at pace.

    It is time to remember that – in the late 16th Century – China was the pre-eminent global power. China has not forgotten this: and nor should we.

    * * * * *

    It is impossible to talk of Michael Quinlan without considering defence and, in particular, nuclear weapons. We may wish they had never been invented – but they were.

    Today, nuclear capability is in the hands of certain undesirable States, and is sought by yet more – including non-State actors.
    The UK has Trident. It is our nuclear insurance: a weapon to deter. It is hard to see the circumstances in which we would initiate a nuclear strike but, if attacked, our enemy can and should expect us to retaliate.

    To this end, every Trident submarine carries instructions on what to do with its payload were the UK to be destroyed in a nuclear attack.

    Because of that, such an attack is unlikely.

    But no Government can ignore the demands of non-nuclear defence and security expenditure. I don’t only mean combat aircraft, or destroyers, or frigates, or submarines, or tanks, or manpower: I mean the growing threats of new technology and cyber warfare.

    The misuse of new technology is almost impossible to control. The fear of rogue States or terrorist groups gaining a nuclear capacity obsesses many – and rightly so.

    But so should bio-technology.

    Consider this quote from the American National Academy of Sciences:

    “A few individuals with specialised skills … could inexpensively and easily produce a panoply of lethal biological weapons …”

    That is truly terrifying – especially if one accepts that technical expertise is as likely to lie with the fanatic as it is with a sane and balanced citizen.

    It is not the only novel threat. Many States – and, most probably, terror groups as well – are developing offensive cyber capabilities that could be targeted anywhere at anytime.

    Conceivably, we might not even know we were under attack – or from where the threat had come.

    But we know where it might go. Malicious cyber activity could hit anything from missile defences; to civil nuclear power plants; to water supplies; to innovative research; to corporate interests; or to Government secrets.

    One successful cyber attack at a civil nuclear plant could release radiation, disrupt energy supply, and create havoc.

    But attacks on the fabric of a nation can go far beyond the physical infrastructure.

    Take information, which is now being weaponised.

    America has been examining whether her Presidential election was perverted. Some believe there may have been external influence in our own recent referendum and General Election.

    Whether or not such fears are justified, external interference in internal matters must be on everyone’s list of rising dangers. And democracies are vulnerable targets since they have open societies, a free press, and an active social media widely available to the mass of the populace.

    Attack comes through weaponised information, and mis-information, pumped into public news broadcasts and social media. In this way, the reputation of individuals and organisations can be trashed; opponents can be undermined; and public opinion can be manipulated.

    The purpose is to sow confusion and create distrust. To weaken opponents – whether individuals, or Governments, or countries – and put them on the defensive.

    This can reinforce and strengthen extreme views or populist insurgencies. It is very difficult to defend against, and inflicts damage well before its victims realise what is happening.

    Russia is the present master of this tactic, although other nations have a similar capacity. It is a threat to beware. It is effective, and may – probably will – grow.

    Other big questions arise. What happens to security and defence cooperation when we leave the EU? And what is the future of NATO?- Time and again, our Government has affirmed its commitment to European defence. This is an area of the Brexit negotiations where both sides should drop their red lines and their posturing and agree a mutually beneficial arrangement.

    It would be a mistake for the EU to treat the UK as simply another “third country”.

    A mutually beneficial deal should reinforce information sharing; involve the UK in planning and key decisions; tie in a British commitment to joint operations; and encourage co-operation in research, development and military hardware.

    Such an outcome is in the interests of British and European security and – if it is not agreed – will be a failure of negotiation.

    The whole agenda of risks is extraordinarily difficult to navigate, even with unlimited resources.

    But we don’t have unlimited resources – nor will we. So choices must be made that will be painful and controversial.

    This becomes doubly important because, since he took Office, President Trump has repeatedly made disobliging references about NATO.

    He has derided it as “obsolete”, and its funding as “unfair” (to America), for whom it is a “great financial loss”.

    Whether this is playing to the gallery (since America does have a legitimate grievance over funding, and the President is right that Europe should up its game); or a prelude to withdrawing American troops from Europe; or a ploy to encourage a greater contribution from EU countries – is mere conjecture.

    What is clear is that – since NATO was formed – the world has changed, and so have the risks it must guard against. In view of present concern over the future of NATO, there is a case for a new Treaty to include an updated commitment to collective security and action.

    The present Article 5 – the famous agreement that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all – has served us well for almost 70 years.

    Is it still solid? Can we rely on it? Does President Trump’s public hectoring of NATO encourage ill-wishers to believe Article 5 may be vulnerable if a weak financial contributor to NATO were attacked?

    Old commitments are a comfort. Renewed commitments reassure.

    It is not clear – certainly not to me – whether this worrying American tone is simply a ploy to encourage higher defence expenditure across Europe, or indicative of a future policy drift.

    Should we sit out President Trump, or prepare now for a less engaged America?

    I don’t know the answer but, upon defence, we have surely learned the lesson of history – if in doubt, prepare.

    * * * * *

    Let me turn finally to politics.

    As I look at the political scene now, I feel both hope and concern.

    My hope is two-fold: first, in the proven capacity of our country to rise to challenges; and, second, in the depth of talent that has entered politics in the last two Elections, and is now working its way up the greasy pole. This talent exists across the floor of the Commons.

    But the immediate scene is less attractive. None of the mainstream political Parties is in a healthy condition. Both the Conservatives and Labour face pressure from fringe opinion within their own membership.

    Voices from the extreme wings of both Parties – in and out of Parliament – are often the most committed, most noisy – and most likely to stir dissent. I admire their passion, but not their policies.

    My fear is that the extremes of Right and Left will widen divisions and refuse to compromise, whereas more moderate opinion will often seek common ground.

    The risk of intransigence – “My way or no way” – is that the mainstream Parties will be dragged further Right and further Left.

    We should not be complacent over this: extreme views are already driving policy in many countries.

    A famous line of Yeats comes to mind:

    “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

    I am deeply concerned that the “Centre” vote – the moderate vote that is shared among all the main Parties – will not be able to hold its traditional influence over policy.

    It is crucial that it does. At heart, we are a tolerant, compassionate, and kindly nation. I feel privileged to have been born into it.

    Our nation should not tolerate the unreasoning antipathy of the extremes – to the EU, to foreigners or to minority groups. Such antipathy is repellent, and diminishes us as a nation. Softer, more reasonable voices should not be drowned out by the raucous din of the loudest.

    I freely confess to a taste for compromise. I have always preferred good old British pragmatism to rigorous ideology. Politics is real life. It isn’t warfare. It isn’t a popularity contest. It’s about people. It’s about four nations who deserve more than an ideological tug-of-war.

    And the advocates of the extreme Right or Left must understand those with different opinions may well be opponents – but they are still our countrymen and women. To treat them as “enemies” or “saboteurs” or “traitors” is to poison both the political system and our way of life.

    Respect and civility would do much to help lift politics out of the dog days in which it is now living.

    More compromise – less confrontation.

    In our world of change, that is one change I would dearly wish to see.

    And so, I believe, would Michael Quinlan.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the John C Whitehead Lecture – 10 November 2011

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at the John C Whitehead Lecture, held at Chatham House on Thursday 10th November 2011.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    When Chatham House invited me to deliver this lecture, I was delighted to accept.

    I was brought up with an affection for America. My grandfather was a Master Builder who lived and worked in Pittsburgh from the 1860s and helped build the Carnegie Steel works. My father was a dual citizen, who lived in Pittsburgh from his birth in 1879 through his teenage years. His philosophy was simple: if America and Britain were as one, all was well.

    Three hundred years earlier, in 1587, Virginia Dare became the first child of English parents to be born in the New World. On the coast of North Carolina, links to her ancestral home were all around her.

    She grew up amid place names familiar to every Briton: the road between early settlements at Roanoke and Jamestown passed through Suffolk, Gloucester, Portsmouth, York and Surry (sic): all quaint reminders of 16th Century England. Subliminal links, perhaps – but evocative ones.

    Our modern generation has grown up with the Atlantic Alliance.

    For all our lives, the Alliance has been solid and reassuring: so familiar is it, that we take it for granted. We shouldn’t: like every relationship it is flexible; and, as it evolves, it changes. It is doing so now in ways that are liberating, but which reflect the ambitions of two Sovereign nations.

    When David Cameron became Prime Minister he set out a dictum of a “solid but not slavish” relationship between the UK and the US. This is now taking practical shape across a wide swathe of policy.

    Economically, the UK is pursuing austerity, while the US searches for stimulus.

    Commercially, as a reminder that even the best of friends are economic rivals, Coalition Ministers have been boosting trade ties around the world.

    Militarily, a Defence Treaty, agreed with France, has acquired more than symbolic meaning with the close Cameron-Sarkozy response to the uprising in Libya.

    And diplomatically, the Government has taken a harder line than The White House in criticising Israeli policy on building settlements deemed illegal by the international community.

    Some will worry about these distinctions in policy. They need not. One of the strengths of the UK/US Alliance is that, over many years, it has been able to withstand irritants, squabbles and even fierce disagreements: Suez in 1956; the cancellation of Skybolt; and Dean Acheson’s disparaging Westpoint speech, in which he asserted that: “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role”.

    Britain’s global role, he added, “is about played out”. There have been differences over Vietnam; and arms embargoes in the Balkans – but none of them caused a permanent rift.

    In looking at policy between Atlantic partners, it is a mistake – a simplification that deceives – to focus only on the US and the UK. For a long time, a third partner – Continental Europe – has been material to the relationship.

    Today, in a world of global transition, so is Asia – especially China and India – and the dynamic of new growing centres of power impacts inevitably upon the Anglo-American relationship.

    These days, America looks increasingly to the Pacific. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, I expect this shift to accelerate. Both Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton have explicitly foreshadowed this new focus.

    It is not difficult to see why. The Pacific is the growing centre of gravity for future global growth; it is an area of exploding population; and it is the essential force driving global trade.

    This has changed its profile, and every nation – most certainly the United States – must take account of that. The fact that China is now the owner of over 25% of American Government debt, simply illustrates a reality few believed they would ever face.

    The point is simple: no-one can ignore Asia. However well disposed any US President may be to his ally across the Atlantic, he must be concerned primarily with the wellbeing of his own nation.

    As wealth and financial power move to the Pacific, new trade and political relationships will be forged, hopefully friendly ones. In China’s case, America will also have a wary eye on regional ambitions and military capability.

    No-one should be surprised at this evolution. Nor should we shrink away from nuance in policy, and sometimes outright disagreement.

    The tide of history can point friendly Sovereign Nations to different conclusions: it is inevitable and healthy. The Anglo-American relationship is a living entity. It would be a mistake to preserve it in aspic. It is about self-interest and mutual regard, and to drape it in sentimentality is to undervalue it.

    Too often, people talk of a “special relationship”. Every President is advised to use the phrase and courteously does so but – although not intended to be so – it is rather a patronising term.

    President Obama – a post-War child and a post-Cold War politician appears – to the British and European eye – to be less Atlanticist than his predecessors. I don’t say that to criticise; I merely observe it.

    The President can’t ignore the changing world. He would be failing in his duty to America if he did. He is likely to be followed by many Presidents who must take account of strategic realities, however bound emotionally they may be to the ties of the “special relationship”.

    It is time to consign this phrase to history. We don’t need it.

    Despite self-interests that may be diverging, what binds Britain and America together is tangible and reassuring.

    We do a lot of business together. The United Kingdom is the largest single foreign investor in the United States. We are huge trading partners. Our citizens are familiar with each other: millions of tourists travel back and forth across the Atlantic each year.

    We have strong cultural ties. Our shared tastes in music, film, theatre and television keep us close together – emotionally and psychologically. This comes so naturally we’re barely conscious of it.

    I wonder what proportion of people protesting outside the US Embassy at any given moment, head home via Pizza Hut or Kentucky Fried Chicken, stopping off on their way to pick up a Budweiser beer, before settling down to watch yet another re-run of “Friends” on their television sets.

    These shared cultural tastes are mirrored by shared political views. Our outlook on the world – our ambitions for it – are not identical, nor could they be, but they are strikingly similar.

    Security and Intelligence co-operation is profound, vital and deep. When I first attended meetings between British and American military commanders I was astonished at the free and easy exchanges between them. Secrets they would fiercely shield from third nations were discussed without inhibition.

    Our Anglo-Saxon sensibilities place great importance on respect for the individual, the rule of law, the virtues of prosperity and the liberty of progress for all. Instincts like these are made policy flesh; they are what – one hopes and expects – will guide our relations with the new communities coming forward in Tunis, Tripoli, Damascus and Cairo.

    These are not dissolvable links – they are solid. We can continue to rely on them. And yet ….

    It is the “And yet” I wish to focus on: the divergent issues that could strain – even weaken – the relationship, if we permit them to do so.

    “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”, declares an old Arab proverb, reflecting a basic tenet of human behaviour. But what happens to friendship when the enemy is no longer a threat?

    There is no longer a Soviet threat to bind us together. What does this mean for NATO?

    For 62 years, NATO has been the guarantor of security and freedom in Europe. Since the Soviet Union fell apart twenty years ago, its role has been problematic. We know we need NATO, but can’t quite identify why: this has led to a progressive diminution of the European input into the Alliance.

    Understandably, the US is alarmed at this and frankly, the Europeans should be shame faced about it. The future role of NATO may be opaque, but it remains the most visible and tangible military bond uniting Britain and Europe with the US. Europeans would be wise to focus on the comments of former US Defence Secretary, Bob Gates, who warned Europe over relying too much on America. Mr Gates is surely right.

    His discomfort with an alliance where member nations all enjoy the benefits of the grouping, but only a few deal with the “hard” military graft on the ground, is entirely reasonable. It is simply not acceptable for some countries to put limits on their operational commitment to NATO.

    Mr Gates warns correctly, and I quote: “ If current trends in the decline of European defence capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost …. there is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance.”.

    That could not – would not – have been said before the collapse of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. And it would not have been said publicly by the cautious Mr Gates if it were not being thought privately by policy makers in Washington.

    Since, after the Presidential election, it is likely the US will cut total defence spending, it is a warning that it would be very unwise for Europe to ignore.

    One threat to NATO countries is growing: the danger of cyber-attack. It is probable that more damage is being done to our interests through cyber theft of military, scientific and technical secrets than through any other form of sabotage. To combat that, the UK alone has already spent hundreds of millions in improving our cyber defences. Even so, this is an area that requires the closest possible co-operation between NATO members.

    We know that NATO needs to change. But we need to agree how. To let it wither through neglect would be reckless policy. Although a present threat to the European Continent is highly unlikely, that could change.

    Europe needs to lock America into NATO, not allow policy drift to diminish her commitment to it. It is simply not credible for Europe to sit back, cut defence budgets and blithely expect the US to bear a wholly disproportionate cost of defending her.

    A new settlement on NATO: its role, its funding and fairer nation state contributions, is long overdue. Mr Gates expresses American frustration, but, as American eyes are drawn increasingly to the East, it is Britain and Europe – in their own interests – who ought to be arguing most for early and definitive decisions on NATO’s future.

    There are other potential fissures we should not ignore. In America, I detect a contempt for what they see as feeble European policy. In Europe, I see a similar disregard for aspects of American policy, as well as a lofty disdain for its criminal justice system, with its harsh penalties. Some disagreements may be peripheral, but the mutual distaste is tangible.

    Economic management is a damaging area of friction that could get worse.

    The US blames the global slowdown in large part on the on-going Euro crisis. Mitt Romney attacks President Obama, saying his “answer is to borrow money …. just like Europe. Europe’s answers are not the right solutions”. This is not intended to be flattering to Europe. Indeed, it is dismissive, and – perhaps – with reason. A series of top-level meetings have failed to damp down a crisis that is having a world-wide impact.
    This disregard is two-way traffic. Europeans point derisively at Lehman’s collapse, and its aftermath. When US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told Europe to get its act together over Greek debt, he was met with a mixture of public indignation and private scorn. There was much talk of “pots” and “kettles”. Yet it is telling that no-one reacted so dismissively to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he made a similar assessment of the Eurozone.

    Does this mutual disdain between the US and Continental Europe matter to the UK? Yes, it does.

    If it continues, bilateral relations may be weakened. Why so? It is a truth expressed too rarely that the US expects the United Kingdom to use her Anglo-Saxon influence within the European Union. She wishes our shared views on free trade, on deregulation, on low taxation and on fiscal responsibility to be presented within Europe.

    If US links with the EU weaken, if her interest wanes, if she looks elsewhere, the British value to America weakens too, and so, potentially, does an elemental part of the Anglo-American alliance.

    Some will see this differently. They argue that, if the US is disillusioned with Continental Europe, and the UK is frustrated within the EU – both of which propositions are true at the moment – that the solution is simple: the US and the UK should move closer together.
    Some Atlanticists and extreme Euro-sceptics go further: they argue that enhanced collaboration with the US is an alternative to the UK-EU nexus. This is sheer fantasy. The US does not want the UK as a proxy 51st State. It is the sensible, pragmatic Anglo-Saxon voice in Europe that the US welcomes: remove that, and the value of Britain to America diminishes.

    What virtues do the UK and the US separately bring to the relationship? It is – in terms of crude economic and political power – an Alliance of Un-equals. America’s contribution is evident and massive: what does Britain bring to the table?

    I would say a lot: although there is one area – to which I will turn shortly – where we could do better.

    First and foremost, in addition to Britain’s trade and investment role, she is the principal military ally of the US. With her immense military capability, the US could manage without us: but she prefers not to do so. Militarily, we are her first – and most reliable – partner.

    The UK has historic knowledge and niche abilities that complement American influence. As American author, John Updike put it: “America is a land whose centre is nowhere: England one whose centre is everywhere”. On 9/11, I was staying at the British Embassy in Washington.

    That night, most of the British intelligence hierarchy were flown in from the UK to brief and consult with their American counterparts.

    And the UK has a wide diplomatic reach. American diplomacy is more persuasive and compelling if it has British diplomacy alongside it. Any superpower, acting alone, can seem isolated, can be characterised as the bully on the block. With a strong ally, arguing from conviction for the same policy, that risk is diminished.

    There is one further role the UK can offer: that of the candid friend. A candid friend is more valuable than an unquestioning echo.

    We shall never know for sure but, perhaps, if the UK had been more candid in expressing doubts about the second Iraq War, events may have unfolded differently.

    At the outset, the general assumption was that Saddam did have WMD. I’m sure that was the intelligence served up to the then Prime Minister.

    But the real questions were: what sort of WMD? Were they deliverable? How imminent a threat was Iraq? And did any threat require action against such a tight deadline?

    Several facts are relevant. On the basis of an IAEA assessment, the UN Security Council almost closed its file on Iraq’s nuclear programme in the late 1990’s. And, as we now know, the British Government were advised in 2002 that Saddam’s nuclear programme was frozen – and Iraq was at least five years from producing a useable nuclear device.

    With this information, a candid friend might have cautioned against precipitate – I emphasise precipitate – action. But they did not.

    Upon mature reflection today, I would argue that the UK’s apparent unquestioning support for the US, did not serve either country well. We could have done better.

    Close as we are, we do not have to march in lock step. Our relationship is such that we can – and should – sometimes strike an independent stance as in the recent air campaign over Libya. The US was heavily involved, but it was the British and the French who took the diplomatic and military lead.

    We might want to get used to more independence – especially in our dealings with the Muslim world. It may be helpful – and prudent – for the US to “lead from behind” in some circumstances. We cannot – and must not – place the burden of leadership unfailingly on her. Others should share responsibility where they can.

    I believe the UK and Europe could also take a more pro-active role in the MEPP. The Quartet has not made advances. Indeed, after a total of twenty years of negotiation, we seem as far away from a solution as ever.

    But it seems to me – as I look forward – that Israel needs a settlement every bit as much as the Palestinians. The present sour atmosphere, worsened by Israeli settlement policy, is isolating Israel and – if the Arab Spring leads to more democratic governments in the Middle East – will isolate her further and, perhaps, dangerously so. This is unwise policy.

    In the last few days we have seen the IAEA report confirming that Iran is most probably developing a nuclear weapons capability. I believe this justifies a tough international response. I would suggest upgrading the present sanctions on proliferation to incorporate more financial sanctions, sanctions on oil and gas as well as designation of named individuals involved in the weapons programme.

    Ideally these would be UN sanctions but, if China or Russia block that, EU sanctions as a fall-back. It would be a tragedy if hostility to Israel inhibited that: Israel may feel alone but in truth she is not – but she does need to mobilise international support, not alienate it.

    There are many reasons why we need progress on the MEPP.

    UNESCO’s decision to admit Palestine as a full Member State – despite diplomatic pressure not to do so from America and the loss of the US sixty million dollar budget payment – is an indication of widespread unease over the present impasse. Entry into UNESCO is likely to be followed by Palestinian applications to the World Health Organisation and other UN bodies.

    This rejection of American policy – for that is what the UNESCO decision is – is an indication that much of the world blames the present stalemate, in part, on internal politics within the US. No doubt, because of US power, this point is put only sparingly to American policy makers, but it is put scathingly to third parties. Once again, the candid friend should tell America this.

    We might too, be more candid with Israel. At present, their policy – and that of the Quartet – is not to engage with Hamas who, as senior Israeli Ministers correctly point out, fire rockets into Israel.

    I understand this view – especially with the present polarisation of opinion in the country. But here, I think, the UK can offer valuable advice from direct experience.

    The IRA bombed Northern Ireland and the UK mainland for many years. For as long as we held the position of never negotiating with terrorists, the bombs kept coming. It was only when we engaged the IRA directly – albeit initially through intermediaries – that we began a process that led to peace. Talking and talking and talking – continually, and without huge gaps in time for backsliding – can bring together the most intransigent positions.

    “We won’t negotiate with terrorists” is clear-cut policy and, one could argue, high-minded. But it makes it easy for the rocket attacks to continue. The more difficult decision is to try to negotiate, even against provocation and domestic criticism: it may be the unavoidable preamble to settlement.

    After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya I doubt there is much appetite – except as a last resort – for more military involvement. We may be moving into an era where diplomacy and soft power will take a higher profile. If so, I welcome that. It plays to British strengths. And, since UK and US objectives are so often the same – or similar – it should help both our countries.

    I would like to see the UK extend our diplomatic reach and our ambitions for diplomacy. As our “hard” power softens, our “soft” power must increase.

    I claim – immodestly for the British – that embedded in our national character is a gift for diplomacy. We should use it, encourage it, enhance it – both for trade and political purposes. We live in a tough world. We should use all our assets to advance our interests.
    I don’t view “soft power” as a “soft option”, nor as some ill-defined “third way” that exists only to soothe the conscience of liberal elites. Diplomacy requires patience and determination, and is characterised by intelligence, pragmatism, empathy and the transparent rule of law.
    It should be backed by stick and carrot: by a willingness to use economic and political pressure in pursuit of our objectives. “Soft power”: Yes. “Soft attitude”: No.

    This is an area that can achieve so much – for Britain and America. Where it fails, it doesn’t exclude military action in appropriate circumstances. But if it precedes military action, it helps justify it.

    In our inter-connected world, it is through “soft” power – and painstaking negotiation – that the really big challenges will be resolved – most obviously in making international bodies relevant to the modern world, and in the areas of energy security, climate change, aid policy – and peace-making as opposed to peace keeping.

    Soft power will embrace new alliances that unite the dominant global players. At the foundation of those alliances, Britain and America – with their common view of the world – will be likely to stand shoulder to shoulder.

    They will do so – not as the by product of a “special relationship” – but as pragmatic colleagues and candid friends who can bring others along with our shared vision for progress and prosperity – for all the 7 billion of us, and rising – who share the same resources of the same planet.

    And, if this comes about, perhaps even Dean Acheson will finally be confounded: Britain will have found a role.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at St Louis – 6 May 2008

    The text of Sir John Major’s “Churchill Speech”, made at St Louis, Missouri, United States, on Tuesday 6th May 2008.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    76 years ago, Churchill spoke in the St. Louis Woman’s Club. He was out of office and out of favour.

    He could not know that – one day, not far away, there would stand a remarkable Museum, dedicated to his life and hidden under a

    Christopher Wren church which was destroyed in the London Blitz, dismantled, shipped across the ocean and re-assembled at Westminster College, Fulton. I saw it today. It is an unsung gem in the heart of Missouri and – most probably – the oldest building in America.

    For Churchill – half American and half English – there could be no greater honour.

    And it is appropriate: for in the long history of the British nation, Winston Churchill stands as one of our greatest leaders, alongside Henry II, Elizabeth I and Cromwell.

    In the most savage war in history, he rallied the British Empire as it stood alone against Nazi Germany until – as he predicted in his own magical phrase: “The New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old”. It is a classic Churchill phrase: compelling, vivid, and touching emotion at a level deeper than prosaic language.

    That gift for language was part of his genius. He used it to inspire, to praise, to condemn and to mock. And, of course, to write. Like Shakespeare, Churchill invented new words by adding suffixes and prefixes: unwisdom and unsordid, for example, were unknown words until he invented them.

    Because Churchill is such a figure of myth and legend it is easy to forget that he held power in the lifetime of our parents. He is not a hero from the distant past. His world was the forerunner of ours. At Yalta, he helped shape that world – though not entirely to his, or our, satisfaction. His leadership at a time of peril will be admired a thousand years from now. In the long march of history, most are forgotten – Churchill never will be.

    In March 1946, he was invited by President Truman to speak at Westminster College, Fulton, and – as an incentive for him to accept – the President offered to travel to Missouri to introduce him. For a romantic like Churchill, Truman’s invitation was an irresistible one, and he responded with one of his most famous speeches.

    The speech is remembered for his sombre warning – added on the train to Fulton – that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe. But, in typical Churchill fashion, the speech contained much else of substance, as he looked ahead to forecast the opportunities and perils through which our generation has lived.

    Nations, said Churchill, would need to be shielded from war and tyranny in a world menaced by poverty and privation. He urged a unity of purpose for the US and Great Britain and forecast – wrongly – so far! – that we might one day share a common citizenship.

    He was trenchant that we should not trust any third country with the technology of the Atom bomb, and he welcomed the birth of the United Nations as a clearing house to prevent war.

    Since then, time has moved on. Were Churchill here tonight, he would look to the future and – albeit as a poor substitute – that is what I propose to do.

    Let me start by reviewing some of the structures Churchill knew.

    NATO has served us supremely well. Its founding purpose was to defend democracy against the Soviet Union. And so it did. But the Soviet Union no longer exists. Even so, it would be folly to let NATO wither for lack of a clear-cut mission: we need to re-define its purpose.

    So, too, the United Nations. Today, it is widely derided – not least in the US. But the UN is an American invention: its Charter signed at the San Francisco Opera House in 1946.

    Its basic aim – to prevent war – is as relevant now as then, but the UN can only be as strong as its Members enable it to be. If its senior Member States are lukewarm in its support, then the UN is bound to disappoint.

    Certainly, it is in need of reform. When it was founded, the US, Britain, Russia, China and France appointed themselves as Permanent Members of the Security Council. But sixty years ago, the UN had fewer than 50 Members. Today it has over 190, and the continued tenure of the same nations is no longer acceptable to much of the world. Yet the Permanent Five remain in place.

    Unsurprisingly, nations like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, now seek to join them. They have a powerful case – and yet it is denied. It shouldn’t be. If we wish the UN to fulfil its function – and it didn’t exist we’d have to invent it – then the present Permanent Members must admit others and dilute their power. Only then can the ambitions of its Founders be realised.

    Reform of international bodies is vital to the future. It’s not only NATO and the UN that need to be updated. So do the Financial Institutions and – above all – the “Group of 8”.

    The G8 – allegedly – comprises the most powerful industrial nations of the world – yet China and India are excluded from membership: frankly, that is absurd – and must be corrected.

    It’s also instructive to note what Churchill did not talk about at Fulton: the rise of terrorism; the danger of an Islamic Jihad to divide Christian and Muslim; the unstoppable advance of science; and the prospect of near-universal free trade and a global market. Nor did he envisage a world with America as the only super-power. Had he done so, he would have warned that great power attracts great enmity, often without reason. As a child of Empire, Churchill knew that – and lived to see the Empire fade away.

    In the sixty years since his speech, Churchill’s loathing of Communism has been totally vindicated. It was one of the most miserable creeds Man has devised. Around the world, it led to bloodshed, violence, repression and economic failure. Soviet-style Communism confronted the free world in a fifty-year Cold War – until the whole rotten edifice of Soviet Russia collapsed.

    Whatever perils face us now, they pale beside the risk of massive nuclear exchanges between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries. Now – that is gone. New – but lesser – threats lie ahead.

    The American Goliath – and her allies – are learning that massive military superiority in sophisticated weapons, although re-assuring, doesn’t protect against attack by small, highly dedicated groups. Nor does it prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

    As a young man, Churchill went to war on a horse in Sudan and South Africa. He lived through an age in which Man learned how to kill his fellows in great numbers, and with great efficiency, on land, in the air and under water. Fifty years of science led to the sophistication of the Atomic Bomb. But that wasn’t the end of Man’s inventiveness. The destructive power of today’s nuclear weapons dwarf those Churchill knew and yet – despite this – the threat is very different and, I would argue, diminished.

    Both World Wars began in Europe. Today, the European Union extends from Ireland in the West to the very borders of Russia in the East, and military conflict between its Members is inconceivable. One worrying side effect of this new amity – as we learn to our regret in NATO – is that the Liberal democracies of Europe have little appetite for military expenditure.

    The main enemy of our lifetime, the Soviet Union, has gone. But the major portion of it – modern Russia – survives. We have grown up with a 20th century perception of Russia that runs very deep, but is now out of date. If we are to understand modern Russia, we must consider her history.

    The last century was a nightmare for Russia. Tens of millions were killed in the First World War, and yet more in the Revolution and the Civil War that followed.

    The famine of 1921, and the terror campaigns of the 1930s, claimed many more lives even before the Second World War robbed Russia of 70% of her young men between 18 and 32.

    Fifty years of repressive Government followed these horrors. So did economic stagnation, the Cold War and the decline and collapse of Communism as a philosophy – and the Soviet Union as an entity. Even then, the agony continued: economic and political reforms in the 1990s brought turmoil, crime, the Russian mafia and national debt.

    Until 1990, the Soviet Union – Churchill’s Russian “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” – was a persistent danger to us. It was a bleak time, now in the past.

    Today, we watch Russia warily as she becomes a newly oil-rich State. Russia makes money from an oil price of $14 a barrel; at $18 the income is significant; at over $20 it becomes rosy. At $80-$100 oil is an uncovenanted bonus, and offers a stability against which economic reforms and military re-equipment can be afforded with ease.

    Should we worry about this? I don’t think so – at least not yet or for a long time.

    It is probable that America spends as much on her military as the rest of the world combined. Certainly, she spends three times as much each year, as Russia and China added together.

    As a result, Russia is so far behind the US in capability, that any serious threat is negligible. The once Mighty Bear now has very blunt teeth. Nor is China a threat compared to the old Soviet Union. Although she, too, is spending far more on re-equipping her military than she admits – and, of course, has a huge conscript Army – she cannot match the superiority America has built up over decades.

    The gap is widening, not narrowing. In any major conflict, America has – and will retain – unchallengeable military superiority for a long time to come. Any security danger comes – not from large Nation States – but from rogue regimes and terror groups – and here the threat is imminent and serious.

    It is also universal. Every nation has a stake in this. In its different guises, terrorism has hit West and East as New York, London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo and Bali can testify. All bear the scars and the fatalities of terrorist atrocities.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, the impact of the phenomenon is seen on a wider canvas.

    The failure to find WMD in Iraq was a disaster. It strengthened international opposition to the War and weakened support for anti-terrorist policies – not least in Afghanistan – where the European military and financial contribution for what is a necessary conflict – has been feeble.

    Although every NATO ally agreed to a military role in Afghanistan, many have offered only token troops and placed caveats on what those troops will do and where they will go.

    This is hopeless: it leaves the military burden unfairly distributed.

    It may take a long time to diminish the potency of terror. But one thing is certain: action against it will be more effective if it is international – and wholehearted. There is a further point too: to be successful, we need to know our enemy. The battle against Islamic terror groups is a war of the mind – in a culture we don’t understand. We should try harder to do so.

    The battle is against Islamic terrorism, but not Islam. If it were, we would be engulfed in a mighty conflict. Instead, we face highly motivated fanatical groups intent on the destruction of everything that does not fit within their philosophy.

    After 9/11, America went into Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda training camps: she – and her allies – have ended up fighting the Taliban.
    Al Qaeda and the Taliban are different organisations, with few direct links. Yet they have a similar “inspiration”: both are fundamentalist, ideologically-motivated Muslim groups, seeking a purer Islam through a return to a Caliphate.

    And this emphasises the complexity of any anti-terror strategy: it must confront threats from many disparate groups. In Afghanistan, we have made progress: there is a Parliament, a Government, an electoral process, and central Government Ministers. None of this basic apparatus of order existed in 2001. Even so, we are far from the end game. Our troops will – at best – be there for years, and the diplomatic and financial commitment for far longer.

    In Iraq, much has improved too, but it is difficult to see an orderly withdrawal of troops in under 3-4 years and, even then, the allied involvement of special forces may stretch far beyond that – unless we wish to leave chaos behind.

    If Iraq becomes a stable country, with a form of democracy that survives, it will be a triumph. The War may have been launched under false pretences; it may have done immense short-term harm to America and Britain; but a benign long-term outcome will change the future of the entire region. The right combination of soft and hard power may yet deliver such a result.

    Let me turn now to economics:

    Churchill’s world of yesterday has long gone. He did not foresee the scale of the competitive challenge posed today by China, India, Brazil, Russia. Nor did he imagine the end of a Western economic dominance that had stretched back over two hundred years. But – as a practical politician – he would have recognised one ancient rule that still holds true today: economic power leads to political power.

    We, in the West, need to understand the scale of what is happening.

    It is not my purpose this evening to discuss the financial problems of the Markets – they will work themselves out – but I do want to emphasise the impact of changes now taking place.

    Energy prices have soared as demand has grown from the developing world. Once, emerging nations had a spurt of growth and fell away.

    Now, their growth continues. So, too – I suspect – will high energy prices. And food.

    If one billion Indians – one sixth of the entire world population – now eat two meals a day, instead of only one, the demand and price of foodstuff rises. One would need a heart of stone not to welcome the end of such hardship – even as we face the problems it poses.

    In this new world, all Governments are losing economic influence to the free market. Historic weapons, such as exchange or capital or import controls, are almost derelict. Competition in the global labour market continues to transfer manufacturing to low-cost centres in the developing world. Even tax policy is becoming ineffective or unusable since, if countries aren’t tax-competitive, capital moves to a more attractive host environment.

    Some people attribute the huge growth of emerging nations simply to the demand for raw materials, cost-effective manufacturing and the capture of a few niche markets. They are wrong: it is far more substantial.

    Outsourcing is growing rapidly. It is no longer restricted to manufacturing and call centres. Tax, accounting, financial, advertising and some legal services, can all be electronically delivered from anywhere in the world to anywhere in the world.

    So, too, computer programming; architectural design; medical records; financial analysis; and research and development in the knowledge-based industries.

    An American economist (Alan Blinder), estimates that out-sourcing might cost the US many millions of jobs. If that is true of the US, it will be equally true – perhaps even more so – of Europe and Japan.

    Don’t imagine for a moment that I exaggerate. For the first time since 1820, world growth comes predominantly from the East. This will continue. Emerging nations hold 70% of the world’s foreign exchange reserves. They consume over 50% of energy and 80% of growth of energy over recent years. Their dynamism is striking. They are re forming the world market, and changing trade and investment patterns.
    China now manufactures 80% of the world’s photocopiers; 60-70% of mobile phones; 60% of digital cameras; and 50% of the world’s computers. If we are not already worried, we should be.

    In order to compete in the future, mature States must develop new science and new services. This is important socially and economically. Let me offer an example.

    America, Japan and the UK are leaders in investment in the knowledge-based industries – and especially Bio and Nano-technology. This requires huge research and development projects into this cutting-edge technology.

    This is likely to prove worthwhile. Demand is soaring for healthy food, pesticides, the control and destruction of pollution, forensic medicine, genetic engineering and new and better drugs to combat disease.

    Biotechnology may be in its infancy, but is already a $30 billion a year industry, with unlimited potential.

    Nano-technology offers similar scope across the engineering and biological sciences. These are sciences for the new century and can be developed by anyone – anywhere – with access to capital and expertise. The social and financial rewards of success promise to be staggering.

    Successful innovation may enable scientists to combine computer chip technology with pharmaceutical research to target drugs to treat specific parts of the body. Imagine the benefits to patients if chemotherapy could be so targeted in cancer treatment, that it caused only minimal side-effects. All this lies ahead.

    Some commercial applications of Bio and Nano science are already apparent: the technology has revolutionised aspects of dentistry, dressings for burns, and better protection from the sun.

    Already, advances in engineering techniques have given us insulin pumps for diabetes; cochlea implants for deafness; and there are realistic prospects of repairing nerve cells for those suffering from Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. It may soon even be possible to replace heart muscle cells.

    These are innovations which – until recently – seemed fanciful. In Churchill’s world they would have seemed like black magic.

    But soon, what was once fantasy will be an everyday reality.

    And that concept – fantasy becoming reality – may be a leitmotif for the future. No-one should be complacent that the present world order is fixed: it is not. Compare and contrast Churchill’s world of sixty years ago with today. Then factor in the reality that the pace of change is accelerating. Our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world.

    CONCLUSION

    Let me try and bring all this together. As the years unfold, change will invade every aspect of our lives.

    In Churchill’s maturity, one hundred years ago, the UK, France and Russia controlled 80% of the world’s surface and much of the world’s economy. No longer: today, the age of Regal Empire has gone and the age of Commercial Empire is with us.

    All over the world, young people dress as they do on the streets of New York and London. Over 200 million Chinese – and hundreds of millions elsewhere – are learning English.

    Investment across nations minimises the risk of significant military conflict. Science is raising the quality of life. In the last 40 years – think of this – since 1968 – life expectancy has risen faster than in the previous 4,000 years. Now, science is on the verge of raising it still further.

    Despite the perils and frustrations of our world – of Iraq, Iran, terror, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a resurgent Russia – it is an exhilarating time to be alive.

    Despite garish headlines, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the confrontation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact has gone. The world is safer. The risk of widespread warfare has lessened.

    Despite some tensions, international relations are more benign than for decades. China and the US have huge inter-locking economic interests. Japan and China are beginning to repair old scars. Latin America is becoming a continent of democracies. Even Africa – poor forgotten Africa – is growing faster than at any time in our lifetimes. There is much to be thankful for.

    Sometimes, I think, we should be more aware – more self-confident – of what has already been achieved. Francis Bacon observed in the England of Queen Elizabeth I that “We have planted things that are likely to last”. So have we in our own time. The English Language. The Free Market. Democracy. All gifts from the West to the world, with America and Britain as the principal donors.

    We need to look at the future with a critical and honest eye, and see how it is – with one prime purpose: if we see how it is, we can shape how it could be. That is what Churchill would have done and – in this as in so much else – we would be wise to take the lead of one of the most remarkable men in the long history of the English speaking peoples.

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

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

    PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS

    1. INTRODUCTION

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

    The European Council:

    – achieved further decisive progress on Economic and Monetary Union,

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

    – adopted the Dublin Declaration on Employment,

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

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

    – reviewed the Union’s action in external relations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In particular the European Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. SEM 2000 (Sound and efficient management)

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

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

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

    III. EMPLOYMENT

    1. Growth and Employment in Europe – the way forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Subsidiarity and Proportionality

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

    1. THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS

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

    1. Fight against drugs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Fight against organized crime

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings

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

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

    1. Fight against terrorism

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

    1. Racism and Xenophobia

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

    1. External frontiers

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

    1. ENLARGEMENT

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

    VII. EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION

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

    RUSSIA

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

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

    UKRAINE

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

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

    BELARUS

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

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE

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

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

    REGIONAL COOPERATION IN EUROPE

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

    MEDITERRANEAN

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

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

    TURKEY

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

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

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

    EU-US RELATIONS

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

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

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

    EU-CANADA RELATIONS

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

    GREAT LAKES

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

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

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

    EAST TIMOR

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

    CUBA

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

    TRANSITION IN HONG KONG AND MACAO

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

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

    WTO

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

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

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

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

    VIII. SEATS OF OFFICES AND AGENCIES

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

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

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

    Addendum

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

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

    – Presidency report on stepping up the fight against organized crime

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

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

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

     

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with President Clinton – 27 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with the US President, Bill Clinton, in Lyon on Thursday 27th June 1996.

    QUESTION:

    President Clinton, what do you do if you discover that there was a state sponsorship behind the Saudi Arabia incident?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I will take whatever action I believe is appropriate, based on that the facts are. But let us wait until we see what the facts are.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, Mr Al-Masari has said that there was intellectually a very strong case for the bombers. What is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen the context of what he said, but I can see no case, intellectual of any other sort of case, for the sort of activity in Dhahran. It is indefensible by any tenet.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there are measures which you can agree here jointly with the other leaders to combat both the sort of terrorism you saw in Dhahran and also that we saw in Manchester from the IRA last week?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    I do.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    So do I.

    QUESTION:

    What are they?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have some ideas to discuss. We have some British ideas, I understand there are some American ideas, we will discuss them bilaterally I am sure and we will discuss them with our colleagues. But I think we will probably unveil them after the discussions.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, do you want to talk about your ideas?

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    No, I was just going to say that we have already agreed on a number of things that we will do together to deal with the problems of international crime that specifically bear on terrorism. And we may come up now with some other things that we can do together. I think all of us understand that terrorism is a problem from which no-one can hide and on which we must all cooperate. You have had terrorism in the United Kingdom, we have had terrorism in the United States and this awful attack in Dhahran, they had the problem on the Tokyo subway. This is the security challenge of the 21st century I am afraid and we have to get at them.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, are you concerned about the US idea to put sanctions on foreign companies that deal with Iran, and Libya and Cuba?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think that is particularly a G7 subject. It is a matter I have no doubt will come up in discussion at some stage.