Tag: United States

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Lyon – 27 June 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Lyon, held on Thursday 27th June 1996.


    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, do you share President Clinton’s objective of making terrorism a major feature of this G7 summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I do, very strongly. The outrage at Dhahran and the outrage at Manchester, where only good fortune prevented many people being killed, means that it is an issue we must address. We began to address it after the Sharm el Sheikh summit and I would like to carry it further.

    QUESTION:

    What can you do in practical terms to help to tackle terrorism? Is it just going to be a lot more talk?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I very much hope not. We have got some proposals to discuss and I believe others have as well, so we will see what comes out of them.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask your feelings after England’s defeat in the European soccer last night and what did you have to say to the team afterwards?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was immensely sorry they lost. But soccer won last night. It was a truly wonderful game, I think the best England game certainly that I have ever personally seen and I believe they played magnificently. So there is no need for too great a disappointment in defeat. The way they played was a credit to the country and a credit to themselves and I hope they will see it that way. I didn’t see the whole team afterwards, I saw one of two of them and I said precisely that to them.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you about the disturbances in Trafalgar Square last night, do you think that let the side down somewhat?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we need to get it in context. They were disgraceful, but they were a relatively small number of people compared to the 75,000 people in Wembley and the literally many millions of people who were watching that game on television. That demonstration was not remotely in the spirit of the whole tournament, it was not remotely in the spirit of the way the England team played and it was not remotely in the spirit of sportsmanship that we actually saw on the pitch at Wembley last night. These people should not besmirch soccer. They are not soccer supporters, they do damage to soccer.

    QUESTION:

    Apart from terrorism, what else do you think should be high on the agenda at this summit?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are a number of things. Multilateral trade of course, I would like to see if we can make further progress on assistance with international debt for some of the poorer countries, I think both of those matters will clearly be high on the agenda. I think there is no doubt also that we will want to spend some time discussing Bosnia and the need to make progress in Bosnia towards meeting the Dayton Accords and the removal of Mr Karadzic.

    QUESTION:

    Will you take up with President Clinton the United States’ actions against firms who do business with Cuba, Libya or Iran?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that is a matter that will come up. It is not particularly a summit matter, it is a matter that is more likely to be dealt with bilaterally over the weeks ahead, but I am sure we will discuss it in passing.

    QUESTION:

    Are you happy with the US action?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think our position is well known on that and I will discuss it with the President later today.

  • Senator George Mitchell’s Comments on his Appointment – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of the comments made by Senator George Mitchell after the confirmation of his appointment to chair a body to assist peace in Northern Ireland. The comments were made at Heathrow Airport in London on 29th November 1995.


    QUESTION:

    Senator, can you tell us exactly what your mission now will be, what are you trying to accomplish?

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Well, I’m pleased to accept the invitation of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland to chair an international body to assist in the process of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

    The communique issued by the two Prime Ministers gave the international body a specific mandate and a time frame. And it will, of course, involve the issue that’s come to be known as decommissioning. And I hope that we can make some contribution to the process.

    I think the Prime Ministers of both countries, Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton, and all of the parties deserve a great deal of credit for the perseverance and the courage they’ve shown in moving this process to this point. And we hope we can help in that effort.

    QUESTION:

    How difficult a task would you say it is?

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    I think it will be difficult because it’s obviously an issue on which there are strongly held feelings on all sides, and has been candidly substantial disagreement. But I think there is an historic opportunity here, which all much recognize as the overriding objective, a chance to see the lasting peace in Northern Ireland, I think is so important that I hope all parties will agree that we have to move forward.

    QUESTION:

    Is your mission to speak with all parties in this —

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Yes, my intention is to consult as widely as possible, to invite comments and recommendations from as many interested parties who want to participate and go through them all as fairly as open-mindedly as is possible.

    QUESTION:

    The time frame seems very short, though. You do have until, what, the end of —

    SENATOR MITCHELL:

    Well, it’s the middle of January we’re asked to report. It is a relatively short time. But if we get right to it, as I intend that we will, and all parties participate in a prompt and effective way, I hope we can meet that objective.

    Thank you all very much.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Dinner for President Clinton – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at a dinner for President Clinton, held at Downing Street in London on Wednesday 29th November 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr. President, Hillary:

    May I first, on behalf of all my Government and all the people of the United Kingdom, bid you the very warmest welcome here to Downing Street this evening and to the United Kingdom over the next few days. You are very welcome guests indeed.

    This morning, Bill, I was one of many people privileged to hear a very memorable and a very witty speech to members of both Houses of Parliament. I think that would have made a profound impression upon the people who heard that speech. Running through it was a very detailed knowledge of our history a great deal of it of course shared with the United States and running through it also was a feel for Britain end her people that could only have been acquired in your many stays in the United Kingdom since a young man. It is a speech that frankly could only have been made by a longstanding friend of this country and it is in that guise that we welcome you here again this evening.

    In that speech, you quoted Winston Churchill. Churchill made many of his finest speeches impromptu – or at least that is what was said – but his secret over time was of course rumbled. As one of his more sardonic rivals once put it: “Winston has devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches!”

    Today, you mentioned Winston Churchill and you crowned your speech today with what I hope I may call a Churchillian gesture that will have a very lasting and beneficial effect in this country. I don’t believe you could have paid a finer tribute either to Sir Winston Churchill or to this country than in naming the new US Navy cruiser “The Winston Churchill”. It was a gesture that was very deeply appreciated and on behalf of everyone I would like to offer you my thanks for it. [Applause].

    Even for someone who knows this country well, tomorrow you break fresh ground. Tomorrow, you will become the first serving President of the United States to visit Northern Ireland. You will find when you are there that you are visiting people to whom warmth and hospitality are second nature. I am delighted you are going there, I am delighted with the help and support that you have given our effort in the Northern Ireland peace process over recent years and especially pleased to welcome with you this evening George Mitchell who has done such a very great deal for Northern Ireland over the years and who has now taken on a very special responsibility and I am very grateful to him for doing so.

    Over the past three years or so, I believe that working together the British and the Irish Governments have achieved a great deal, often against the odds, a great deal by working together with the invaluable help of the United States. What John Bruton and I are seeking to do is quite clear. It is to give fresh impetus to the search for a lasting political settlement in Northern Ireland. A ceasefire is very welcome, a lasting settlement would be much more welcome and would provide a change of life in Northern Ireland of a scale that even yet most people have not begun to imagine. we have had to take some risks in the cause of peace. I think that they are worthwhile risks to take. If I may borrow the words of one of your Democratic predecessors: “Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate!”

    Mr. President, tomorrow you and Hillary and the rest of your team will see a Northern Ireland that is being transformed and I believe as you see that the very fact of your visit to Northern Ireland will be a huge encouragement to the people of Northern Ireland who daily are transforming it. I am very grateful to you for taking the opportunity of going there. [Applause].

    Let me briefly mention one other common endeavour. The peace agreement on Bosnia hammered out in Dayton was a remarkable achievement; it was made possible by your leadership, by your detailed understanding of one of the more complex problems we have seen in Europe over many years and by the tenacity and stamina of Warren Christopher, Richard Holbrooke and their partners in seeing those talks to a successful conclusion.

    It has taken three years in order to reach this point, three years in which aid workers, United Nations peacekeepers and diplomatic negotiators have risked their lives and some have given their lives, including your own envoys earlier this year. After such sacrifice, we must not allow Bosnia to slip back into war so it is the responsibility falling upon your shoulders and I think upon the shoulders of many other people as well, to ensure that the Dayton agreements can be turned into a lasting peace in Bosnia.

    Mr. President, you joked this morning about the relationship between the United States and my country. My father was brought up in America as a boy and he taught me as I grew up that when the chips are down no two peoples have a better capacity to work together than the peoples of this island and of the United States. Today, in that remarkable speech you made in the House of Lords, you refreshed that relationship. I am delighted that you were able to do so, delighted that people can see the many fields of common endeavour in which the interests, the history and the natural instincts of the British and the American people march in the same direction.

    Bill, in warmly welcoming you here this evening with Hillary, perhaps I may ask all my guests to join me and rise as I propose a toast to the President of the United States and Mrs. Hillary Clinton.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    Prime Minister and Mrs. Major, Ladies and Gentlemen:

    Let me begin by saying how very grateful Hillary and I are to be here personally and representing the people of the United States. This has been a fine opportunity for me to meet with the Prime Minister and representatives of Her Majesty’s Government to talk about our common interests, our shared values, our future agenda. It has also been a great opportunity for me personally to come back to this wonderful city which I love so much and where I have such warm memories.

    Prime Minister, I want to thank you especially for welcoming here at your table my step-father. For a personal reason, my late mother would love to be here tonight and I miss her tonight especially because I tried in vain for 25 years to convince her that not every meal in London was steak and kidney pie or fish and chips!

    I want to say to all of you that I meant every word of the speech I gave in Parliament today. We have a relationship that is enduring and very special. If I might paraphrase one of my very favourite British citizens – 007 – our relationship can never be stirred nor shaken, it will always be there, it will always be strong and now we have a special responsibility. We have all the unique opportunities that are apparent to us to make peace and to rake progress but it will not happen unless we work at it and it will not happen if we try to work at it alone. It will only happen if we work at it together.

    On Northern Ireland, I thank the Prime Minister for what he said but the real thanks go to Prime Minister Major and to Prime Minister Bruton and his predecessor who were willing to take risks for peace. The United States supports those who take risks for peace. The risks may be political, we know they are severe. There is always a high risk of failure as I said in Parliament today and even if you fail, the people who wish you hadn’t tried will hold it against you. Sometimes the risks are far far greater, as the Prime Minister and I saw not so long when we buried our friend, Prime Minister Rabin but the work of peace is always important. Today it is imperative because we can achieve it in so many places where just a short while ago it was impossible.

    The philosophy of the United States is simple and consistent. It runs in a seamless way from Northern Ireland to Bosnia to the Middle East. We will support those who take risks for peace. We will not attempt to tell people what peace they should make but only to urge on them the need to make peace at the soonest possible date in a fair, honourable and decent way.

    I look forward to my trip in Northern Ireland and I look forward to doing whatever we can consistent with our policy and the willingness of the parties to move on the path of peace.

    I would like to also thank the Prime Minister and again the British people for the sacrifices they have made in Bosnia over the course of that long and painful war, for the risks to your soldiers, for the extraordinary humanitarian aid, for all the nameless people who are alive today because of what Great Britain has done in that terrible and difficult conflict and I want to thank you anew for the very strong statement you made today in terms of the depth of commitment that you are prepared to make to implement this peace agreement. Together with our French and other allies, through NATO and with other nations who work in partnership with us, I believe we have a better than even chance to help bring peace to Bosnia because the parties made their peace at Dayton and the parties, if they will keep their minds straight and their hearts pure, can make the peace live in the lives of the people of Sarajevo and throughout the nation. These are the kinds of things we have to do. I believe that the best days for democracy and freedom are before us but only if we face our challenges and only if we face them together.

    I brought only one note tonight I wanted to read because I don’t want to mix the words up. In one of history’s strange coincidental meetings Mark Twain appeared in New York city on a cold night in the year 1900 to introduce a lecture by a young adventurer and writer by the name of Winston Churchill. I am trying to remember, was it Rudyard Kipling who said: “Never the twain shall meet!”? [Laughter]. He was wrong. In the introduction, this is what Mark Twain said about the British and the Americans:

    “We have always been kin, kin in blood, kin in religion, kin in representative government, kin in ideals, kin in just and lofty purposes.”
    Mark Twain was not being humorous on that night. He was right then, he is right tonight and I ask you to join me in a toast to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Major and to the people of the wonderful nation of Great Britain. [Applause].

  • President Clinton’s Speech to the Houses of Parliament – 29 November 1995

    Below is the text of President Clinton’s speech to the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday 29th November 1995.


    PRESIDENT CLINTON:

    My Lord Chancellor, Madam Speaker, Lord Privy Seal, the Lord President of the Council, Mr Prime Minister, My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

    Lord Chancellor, the longer I hear you talk the more I wish we had an institution like this in American government. I look out and see so many of your distinguished leaders in the House of Lords and I think it might not be a bad place to be after a long political career.

    My wife and I are honoured to be here today and I thank you for inviting me to address you. I have been here to Westminster many times before. As a student, I visited often, and over the last 20 years I have often returned. Always I have felt the power of this place where the voices of free people who love liberty, believe in reason and struggle for truth, have for centuries kept your great nation a beacon of hope for all the world, and a very special model for your former colonies which became the United States of America. Here where the voices of Pitt and Burke, Disraeli and Gladstone rang out, here where the rights of English men and women were secured and enlarged, here where the British people’s determination to stand against the tyrannies of this century were shouted to the entire world, here is a monument to liberty to which every free person owes honour and gratitude.

    As one whose ancestors came from these isles, I cherish this opportunity. Since I entered public life I have often thought of the words of Prime Minister Churchill when he spoke to our Congress in 1941. He said that if his father had been American and his mother British, instead of the other way around, he might have gotten there on his own. Well for a long time I thought that if my forebears had not left this country, perhaps I might have gotten here on my own, at least to the House of Commons. But I have to tell you now our American television carries your Question Time and I have seen Prime Minister Major, and Mr Blair and the other Members slicing each other up face to face with such great wit and skill, against the din of cheers and jeers. I am now convinced my forebears did me a great favour by coming to America.

    Today the United States and the United Kingdom have an extraordinary relationship that unites us in a way never before seen in the ties between two such great nations. It is perhaps all the more remarkable because of our history, first the war we waged for our independence, and then barely three decades later, another war we waged in which your able forces laid siege to our capital. Indeed, the White House still bears the burn marks of that earlier stage in our relationship. And now, whenever we have even the most minor disagreement, I walk out on the Truman Balcony and I look at those burn marks, just to remind myself that I dare not let this relationship get out of hand again.

    In this century, we overcame the legacy of our differences. We discovered our common heritage again, and even more important, we rediscovered our shared values. This November, we are reminded of exactly how the bonds that now join us grew, of the three great trials our nations have faced together in this century.

    A few weeks ago, we marked the anniversary of that day in 1918 when the guns fell silent in World War I, a war we fought side-by-side to defend democracy against militarism and reaction. On this Veterans Day for us and Remembrance Day for you, we both paid special tribute to the British and American generation that, 50 years ago now, in the skies over the channel, on the craggy hills of Italy, in the jungles of Burma, in the flights over the Hump, did not fail or falter. In the greatest struggle for freedom in all of history, they saved the world.

    Our nations emerged from that war with the resolve to prevent another like it. We bound ourselves together with other democracies in the West and with Japan, and we stood firm throughout the long twilight struggle of the Cold War, from the Berlin Airlift of 1948 to the fall of the Berlin Wall on another November day just six years ago.

    In the years since, we have stood together, fighting together for victory in the Persian Gulf; standing together against terrorism, working together to remove the nuclear cloud from our children’s bright future, and together, preparing the way for peace in Bosnia, where your peacekeepers have performed heroically and saved the lives of so many innocent people. I thank the British nation for its strength and its sacrifice through all these struggles. And I am proud to stand here on behalf of the American people to salute you.

    Ladies and gentlemen, in this century, democracy has not merely endured, it has prevailed. Now it falls to us to advance the cause that so many fought and sacrificed and died for. In this new era, we must rise, not in a call to arms, but in a call to peace.

    The great American philosopher, John Dewey, once said, “The only way to abolish war is to make peace heroic”. Well, we know we will never abolish war or all the forces that cause it because we cannot abolish human nature or the certainty of human error. But we can make peace heroic. In so doing, we can create a future even more true to our ideals than all our glorious past. To do so, we must maintain the resolve and peace we shared in war when everything was at stake.

    In this new world our lives are not so very much at risk, but much of what makes life worth living is still very much at stake. We have fought our wars. Now let us wage our peace. This time is full of possibility. The chasm of ideology has disappeared. Around the world, the ideals we defended and advanced are now shared by more people than ever before. In Europe and many other nations, long-suffering people at last control their own destinies. And as the Cold War gives way to the global village, economic freedom is spreading alongside political freedom, bringing with it renewed hope for a better life, rooted in the honourable and healthy competition of effort and ideas.

    America is determined to maintain our alliance for freedom and peace with you and determined to seek the partnership of all like-minded nations to confront the threats still before us. We know the way. Together we have seen how we succeed when we work together.

    When President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill first met on the deck of the HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 at one of the loneliest moments in your nation’s history, they joined in prayer, and the Prime Minister was filled with hope. Afterwards, he said, “The same language, the same hymns, more or less the same ideals. Something big may be happening, something very big.”

    Well, once again, he was right. Something really big happened. On the basis of those ideals, Churchill and Roosevelt and all of their successors built an enduring alliance and a genuine friendship between our nations. Other times in other places are littered with the vows of friendship sworn during battle and then abandoned in peacetime. This one stands alone, unbroken, above all the rest, a model for the ties that should bind all democracies.

    To honour that alliance and the Prime Minister who worked so mightily to create it, I am pleased to announce here, in the home of British freedom, that the United States will name one of the newest and most powerful of its surface ships, a guided missile destroyer, the United States Ship “Winston Churchill”. When that ship slips down the ways in the final year of this century, its name will ride the seas as a reminder for the coming century of an indomitable man who shaped our age, who stood always for freedom, and who showed anew the glorious strength of the human spirit. I thank the members of the Churchill family who are here today with us, Lady Soames, Nicholas Soames, Winston Churchill, and I thank the British people for their friendship and their strength over these many years.

    After so much success together, we know that our relationship with the United Kingdom must be at the heart of our striving in this new era. Because of the history we have lived, because of the power and prosperity we enjoy, because of the accepted truth that you and we have no dark motives in our dealings with other nations, we still bear a burden of special responsibility.

    In these few years since the Cold War, we have met that burden by making gains for peace and security that ordinary people feel every day. We have stepped back from the nuclear precipice with the indefinite extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and we hope, next year, a comprehensive test ban treaty.

    For the first time in a generation, parents in Los Angeles and Manchester and, yes, in Moscow, can now turn out the lights at night knowing there are no nuclear weapons pointed at their children. Our nations are working together to lay the foundation for lasting prosperity. We are bringing down economic barriers between nations with the historic GATT agreement and other actions that are creating millions of good jobs for our own people and for people throughout the world. The United States and the United Kingdom are supporting men and women who embrace freedom and democracy the world over with good results, from South Africa to Central Europe, from Haiti to the Middle East.

    In the United States, we feel a special gratitude for your efforts in Northern Ireland. With every passing month, more people walk the streets and live their lives safely, people who otherwise would have been added to the toll of The Troubles.

    Tomorrow, I will have the privilege of being the first American President to visit Northern Ireland, a Northern Ireland where the guns are quiet and the children play without fear. I applaud the efforts of Prime Minister Major and Irish Prime Minister Bruton who announced yesterday their new twin-track initiative to advance the peace process, an initiative that provides an opportunity to begin a dialogue in which all views are represented and all views can be heard.

    This is a bold step forward for peace. I applaud the Prime Minister for taking this risk for peace. It is always a hard choice, the choice for peace, for success is far from guaranteed, and if you fail, there will be those who resent you for trying. But it is the right thing to do. And in the end, the right will win.

    Despite the progress we have made in all these areas and despite the problems clearly still out there, there are those who say at this moment of hope we can afford to relax now behind our secure borders. Now is the time, they say, to let others worry about the world’s troubles. These are the siren songs of myth. They once lured the United States into isolationism after World War I. They counselled appeasement to Britain on the very brink of World War II. We have gone down that road before. We must never go down that road again. We will never go down that road again.

    Though the Cold War is over, the forces of destruction challenge us still. Today, they are armed with a full array of threats, not just the single weapon of frontal war. We see them at work in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, from nuclear smuggling in Europe to a phial of sarin gas being broken open in the Tokyo subway, to the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York. We see it in the growth of ethnic hatred, extreme nationalism, and religious fanaticism, which most recently took the life of one of the greatest champions of peace in the entire world, the Prime Minister of Israel. We see it in the terrorism that, in recent months, has murdered innocent people from Islamabad to Paris, from Riyadh to Oklahoma City. And we see it in the international organized crime and drug trade that poisons our children and our communities.

    In their variety, these forces of disintegration are waging guerrilla wars against humanity. Like communism and fascism, they spread darkness over light, barbarism over civilization. And like communism and fascism, they will be defeated only because free nations join against them in common cause.

    We will prevail again if, and only if, our people support the mission. We are, after all, democracies, and the people are the ultimate bosses of our fate. I believe the people will support this. I believe free people, given the information, will make the decisions that will make it possible for their leaders to stand against the new threat to security and freedom and to peace and prosperity.

    I believe they will see that this hopeful moment cannot be lost without grave consequences to the future. We must go out to meet the challenges before they come to threaten us. Today, for the United States and for Great Britain, that means we must make the difference between peace and war in Bosnia.

    For nearly four years, a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart, bringing horrors we prayed had vanished from the face of Europe forever, the mass killings, the endless columns of refugees, the campaigns of deliberate rape, the skeletal persons imprisoned in concentration camps. These crimes did violence to the conscience of Britons and Americans.

    Now we have a chance to make sure they do not return, and we must seize it. We must help peace take hold in Bosnia, because as long as that fire rages at the heart of the European continent, as long as the emerging democracies and our allies are threatened by fighting in Bosnia, there will be no stable, undivided, free Europe. There will be no realization of our greatest hopes for Europe. But most important of all, innocent people will continue to suffer and die.

    America fought two world wars and stood with you in the Cold War because of our vital stake in a Europe that is stable, strong, and free. With the end of the Cold War, all of Europe has a chance to be stable, strong, and free for the very first time since nation states appeared on the European continent.

    Now the warring parties in Bosnia have committed themselves to peace, and they have asked us to help them make it hold, not by fighting a war, but by implementing their own peace agreement. Our nations have a responsibility to answer the request of those people to secure their peace. Without our leadership and without the presence of NATO, there will be no peace in Bosnia. I thank the United Kingdom, which has already sacrificed so much for its swift agreement to play a central role in the peace implementation. With this act, Britain holds true to its history and to its values. And I pledge to you that America will live up to its history and its ideals as well.

    We know that if we do not participate in Bosnia, our leadership will be questioned and our partnerships will be weakened, partnerships we must have if we are to help each other in the fight against the common threats we face. We can help the people of Bosnia as they seek a way back from savagery to civility. And we can build a peaceful, undivided Europe.

    Today, I reaffirm to you that the United States, as it did during the defence of democracy during the Cold War, will help lead in building this Europe by working for a broader and more lasting peace and by supporting a Europe bound together in a woven fabric of vital democracies, market economies, and security cooperation.

    Our cooperation with you through NATO, the sword and shield of democracy, can help the nations that once lay behind the Iron Curtain become a part of the new Europe. In the Cold War, the alliance kept our nation secure and bound the Western democracies together in a common cause. It brought former adversaries together and gave them the confidence to look past ancient enmities. Now, NATO will grow and expand the circle of common purpose, first through its Partnership for Peace, which is already having a remarkable impact on the member countries; and then, as we agree, with the admission of new democratic members. It will threaten no one. But it will give its new allies the confidence they need to consolidate their freedoms, build their economies, strengthen peace, and become your partners for tomorrow.

    Members of the House of Commons and noble lords: Long before there was a United States, one of your most powerful champions of liberty and one of the greatest poets of our shared language wrote: “Peace hath her victories, no less renowned than war.” In our time, at last, we can prove the truth of John Milton’s words.

    As this month of remembrance passes and the holidays approach, I leave you with the words Winston Churchill spoke to America during America’s darkest holiday season of the century. As he lit the White House Christmas Tree in 1941, he said,

    “Let the children have their night of fun and laughter. Let us share to the full in their unstinted pleasure before we turn again to the stern tasks in the year that lies before us. But now, by our sacrifice and bearing, these same children shall not be robbed of their inheritance or denied their right to live in a free and decent world.”

    My friends, we have stood together in the darkest moments of our century. Let us now resolve to stand together for the bright and shining prospect of the next century. It can be the age of possibility and the age of peace. Our forebears won the war. Let us now win the peace.

    May God bless the United Kingdom, the United States, and our solemn alliance. Thank you very much.

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

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


    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (David Rose):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Sky News):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (George Jones, Daily Telegraph):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Financial Times):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (Carol Walker, BBC):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    SIMON WALTERS (THE SUN):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] request to President Clinton to send troops?

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    CHARLES WRIGHT:

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    QUESTION (CH4 NEWS):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

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

    GEORGE PASKER-WATSON (THE SUN):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

    KEVIN BROWN (FINANCIAL TIMES):

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

    PRIME MINISTER:

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

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview with Al Gore – 6 May 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in London with US Vice-President Al Gore, on Saturday 6th May 1995.


    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am delighted to welcome the Vice-President here this morning. We have had the opportunity of continuing our discussions in Washington just a few weeks ago; we covered a wide range of subjects and perhaps I may firstly say how delighted I am to see the Vice-President here for these commemorations this weekend; he is very welcome indeed and I look forward to seeing great deal of him over the next day or so.

    VICE-PRESIDENT GORE:

    Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. In many ways, this was a seamless continuation of a discussion that we had in Washington a short time ago. Of course, I would like to emphasise on this occasion what a great honour it is for me personally to be able to represent my country at the VE-Day commemorations and to remember on behalf of all Americans the hours when Britain stood alone against the forces of evil threatening all civilisation and to celebrate the partnership that won that war and to honour those who sacrificed everything for our freedom.

    It is a moving experience to read into the details of the tremendous sacrifices that were made and it is a true honour to take part in it.

    In our discussions, we talked about a great number of subjects including the Prime Minister’s important meeting coming up shortly with President Yeltsin in Moscow which will immediately precede President Clinton’s meeting with President Yeltsin and of course, since we are singing off the same page of music on all security issues virtually without exception, it is always valuable to talk together about the details of what is in our interests so it was a very productive discussion on that and other issues.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just add a word or two on the substance of what we discussed:

    As the Vice-President said, we look forward to the agenda for the discussions I will have with President Yeltsin next week and the lengthy discussions that President Clinton will have with him the following day, a substantial agenda there and I think we found ourselves in complete agreement upon all the substantive issues.

    We also spent some time on a matter that I know is of great interest to the Vice-President and also to the Government here and that is the public sector reforms and David Hunt was able to join us and set out many of the reforms that we are undertaking. The same nature of change is taking place in the United States and we had the opportunity of comparing notes on that.

    We were able to look at a number of other issues: clearly, the developing situation in Bosnia; the development in the discussions on Northern Ireland was another matter we touched on this morning and a range of lesser items; I won’t go into detail on them at this stage but will respond to any questions you may have but it was, as it is always is when we meet the Vice-President, a very worthwhile and a very enjoyable occasion.

    QUESTION:

    May I ask the Vice-President if he is in a position to put any more pressure on Sinn Fein to take part in a meaningful decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland?

    VICE-PRESIDENT GORE:

    Yes. We believe it is essential and we will make that point over and over again. As President Clinton said when Prime Minister Major was in Washington, we believe that is essential to the success of all-party talks and to the success of the process that Prime Minister Major and Prime Minister Bruton and Prime Minister Reynolds before him have got under way and I want to again say how impressed all Americans have been with the tremendous courage shown by Prime Minister Major in moving this process to the stage it has now reached and a willingness on the part of Sinn Fein to seriously discuss decommissioning is absolutely key at this stage and we will be urging them in every possible way to engage in such talks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I could just add a point to that, we certainly discussed that and the Vice-President has just made his views very clear and I think that it is extremely helpful and I am very grateful for that.

    We also discussed the forthcoming Washington Conference which I hope is going to lead to a good deal of investment both in the north and in the south and that sort of investment, that growth of economic prosperity, that growth of opportunity that will remove, I think, many of the reasons why so many young people in the past have joined the paramilitaries on both sides is of immense importance so we look forward to that conference being a very great success and I am sure it will be.

    VICE-PRESIDENT GORE:

    The response, incidentally, among American businesses to this upcoming conference toward the end of this month has been extraordinary. You are going to see quite an outpouring from the business community seeking to seize the significant opportunities for investment in Northern Ireland and in the border counties of the Republic. We are very excited about it and looking forward to it.

    Mr. Prime Minister, you made reference to our work on re-inventing government or “public sector reform” as I believe you often refer to it here. I want to compliment David Hunt on the work that you and he have done here. I have already got an appointment – I believe next week – in Washington to talk with Mr. Hunt. We have learned a great deal from what has gone on here and we are making progress also. It is high time that some of the reforms that have been successful in private corporations are applied thoroughly to the public sector and we are learning from one another on the best ways to do that.

    QUESTION:

    I would like to ask you about the local elections now you have had time to think about them and there have also been surveys in the press and the BBC saying that party chairmen are unhappy about disunity and blaming that for the results. What is your response to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I dealt with most of those matters standing here yesterday and my response today would be the same as yesterday, I have nothing further to add to that. Clearly, they were very unsatisfactory election results, I make no secret about that and I made that perfectly clear yesterday. We will have to consider and reflect upon those results and see how we take matters forward.

    What I was seeking to emphasise yesterday is that there are some long-term strategic goals that we believe are very much in the interest of our prosperity in the future and we must clearly seek to achieve those goals. That doesn’t mean we are going to brush aside without consideration the concerns that people express, of course not, that is not the way of democratic politics and it is not in my instinct so of course we will consider those very carefully.

  • US Press Briefing of Mr Major’s Meeting with President Clinton – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of the US press briefing related to the meeting with Mr Major and President Clinton, held in the Briefing Room of the White House on 4th April 1995.


    PRESS BRIEFING BY THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE COURT OF ST. JAMES, ADMIRAL CROWE AND SENIOR DIRECTOR OF WEST EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, SANDY VERSHBOW

    QUESTION:

    Can we ask you some questions while we’re waiting?

    MR MCCURRY:

    Yes, I’m just going to say — because Admiral Crowe’s got to catch a plane, and I doubt very much you guys are going to need a lot of this. Is that okay? Good. Go ahead.

    Let me just run through, very quickly, a couple of points on the meeting just concluded. The Prime Minister and the President met for about 45 minutes in the Oval Office, longer than they expected, and they had a very lively, and as the Prime Minister said, good-humoured discussion, but then moved over to the Family Dining Room in the Residence for a working — what was to have been a short working lunch before they reconvened. But as they got into the discussion, everything seemed to click about their conversation. It went on briskly, and so they spent an hour and a half over in the Residence, worked right through lunch and continued working, so they didn’t take the break to come back over here to the Residence.

    But the meeting, as it was characterized by both the Prime Minister and the President, as you could tell, was very friendly and warm and enjoyable, and the luncheon was — I suspect some people need to know this, fingerling potatoes and asparagus, roast monkfish on grilled mushrooms, and I can give you — for those of you culinary inclined, I can give you more detail.

    QUESTION:

    What kind of mushrooms?

    MR MCCURRY:

    Portobello mushrooms, with lobster essence and Thai basil sauce. I got to eat some extra peanuts that Dick Holbrooke gave me. And they had a romaine and mustard greens salad.

    Now, with that, we’ll just turn straight over the questions to the U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Admiral Crowe; and to Sandy Vershbow from the National Security Council staff, who is the note-taker for both meetings; correct? Correct.

    Why don’t you both, Mr. Ambassador and Sandy, both come up. You guys can hold forth with questions.

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    Shall I call on them?

    QUESTION:

    Did the President and the Prime Minister discuss the Cyprus issue and the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq against the Kurdish people?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    I wasn’t in the meeting.

    MR VERSHBOW:

    They did not talk about Cyprus. There was some discussion of the Turkish incursion near Northern Iraq. I think there’s agreement between us that, on the one hand, we understand Turkey’s concerns about PKK terrorism and the need to deal firmly with terrorist actions; but on the other hand, the importance that the operation be ended as quickly as possible, and that every effort be made to minimize civilian casualties. There was no difference of view on that.

    QUESTION:

    Was there any discussion of Secretary Christopher’s discussions and clear statements over the weekend that he thinks the United States government should move tougher against Iran and commercial trade with Iran and what Britain’s moves might be to support toughening of those types of sanctions?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    Yes, there was quite a bit of discussion. I don’t know that any real decisions were made, but they are in lockstep on it, and they both agreed that we should move more vigorously and present a firm front on it.

    QUESTION:

    A question on the Partnership for Peace, please. When it was first introduced in Brussels in January of ’94, it was very carefully presented as a gradualist approach, and it was presented that, by no means, necessarily, would the Partnership for Peace lead to the expansion of NATO. Today, the President sounded as if he were saying exactly that, that inevitably, NATO will expand. Is that the interpretation you intend to leave?

    MR VERSHBOW:

    Yes, I wouldn’t agree with your characterization of the original decision on the Partnership for Peace. At the NATO summit in January of ’94, the Allies specifically said that NATO expects and would welcome the admission of new members. So the process of expansion began in January ’94. It was put into higher gear at the December Foreign Ministers’ Meeting when a formal process to define the path to NATO membership was begun.

    The President has been saying that NATO expansion is inevitable for many months now, indeed going back to last year; his Cleveland speech is the definitive statement on this, and I would refer you to that.

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    But I don’t think he meant by that, that the Partnership for Peace would necessarily lead to membership, not everybody who is in that will necessarily become a member of NATO.

    QUESTION:

    Can you say anything more about the discussions around the reform of the Bretton Woods system, what was the nature of the discussion and possibly anything more on Prime Minister Major’s proposal?

    MR VERSHBOW:

    I think I would be getting well ahead of the game given that the Prime Minister, as he said in the press conference, was presenting ideas that are still in formation.

    I think that for our part, we certainly see the Mexican crisis as underscoring the need to look for ways to strengthen and reform the international financial institutions, to deal with the kind of crises we saw there with newly-developing economies being hit by the shock waves of sudden currency movements. And the international institutions aren’t equipped to deal with even one Mexico, much less two, if they occurred at the same time.

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    And it was a free-ranging discussion. I think the Prime Minister’s summary was relatively accurate. These are very, very early stages and more or less just examining what each other thinks.

    QUESTION:

    Admiral Crowe, what kind of discussions, if there were any — what can be done to stop Russia from moving ahead with the nuclear reactors? Was there any discussion between the two as to what alternatives there are out there to put more pressure on Russia?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    I don’t know if —

    MR VERSHBOW:

    That wasn’t really a major focus of these meetings here. I believe the Prime Minister may have discussed it in other meetings in town yesterday, but —

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    He may have with the economic — I wasn’t at the economic meeting at lunch yesterday, but I think, as the President said, it’s still a continuing drama, and it would hardly be appropriate to talk about that in any specific details.

    QUESTION:

    On Northern Ireland, both the President and the Prime Minister indicated that they want Sinn Fein to get cracking on talks on decommissioning weapons. But what evidence does the administration have of Gerry Adams’ readiness to proceed along these lines? He was given the entree of the White House and the right to raise funds on the understanding he would enter into such talks, but so far, nothing has happened. Did he snooker you guys?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    It’s inaccurate to say nothing has happened. There have been a series of exchanges between the British government and the Sinn Fein. They were talking today. As a matter of fact, there was a meeting today, and they’ve got a problem which is well known and they put before the public, and that is the difference between decommissioning and demilitarisation, and the British government’s reluctance to accept demilitarisation as the Sinn Fein has put it forward.

    They are now trying to find ways to go around that, which I think the prospects are fairly good that they will. And that’s going to be the test of what Gerry Adams said that he would do; that is, if, in actual fact, comes out of this some serious talks on decommissioning. But that’s the way it’s structured, and there’s no way to short-cut or to abbreviate that. His commitment is honoured when they have those talks, and if they don’t, why, then, they fail.

    QUESTION:

    Do you have a time line, though, for —

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    No, of course not. No.

    QUESTION:

    Are you going to wait on that?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    We’re going to wait on it until it succeeds.

    QUESTION:

    Can you explain what is the difference between decommissioning and demilitarisation?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    In the parlance of the Irish problem, which has been around quite some time, those people that are dealing with it all the time consider demilitarisation shorthand for Brits out, which means that they equate the arms which — the arms of a government, such as a police force or a military have with their arms. And if they give up their arms, those bodies that have been enforcing discipline and so forth, law and order in Northern Ireland now on behalf of the British government for quite some time, including military, would also either be taken out or given up. This, the British government cannot accept.

    QUESTION:

    1996 is going to be a very important year for the European Union. And even the Commissioner in Brussels, Mr. Santer, is not overly optimistic that he is seeing, going to see political agreement making it possible that this 20-member or 22- member European Union on the horizon is going to be able to survive. If that is going to happen and the European Union is falling back on the level of the free trade zone, what would be the option for Mr. Major, politically, strengthening of the trans-Atlantic relationship or focusing more on the common — what do you know about it?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    Well, I think his options are, of course, just as he has laid them out — time again, and that is he intends to thrash this out in his own party and then lead the party and the country into the European Union in some fashion. But that’s the subject of a debate in Great Britain right now, a rather vigorous and spirited debate, which also has caused some dissension and dissatisfaction within the Conservative Party.

    It will be an important year, but I’m not so sure it would be quite as dramatic as you characterized it. I think the EU is probably going to survive —

    QUESTION:

    This goes on to putting a question about it is possible to hammer out a kind of political agreement on the foreign policy as it — security — making this bigger the European Union —

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    There’s no particular hurry about doing this. They’ve got to thrash it out on their own councils first. And they do have some time. One of the interesting things about it is the Conservative Party has started this debate way before they need to. But in any event, they do have that time, and that’s the genius of the system. They will thrash it out in some fashion.

    MR MCCURRY:

    Last question, back here.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Ambassador, did the issue of the British-American, Nick Ingram, who is scheduled to be executed in Georgia on Thursday come up at all?

    AMBASSADOR CROWE:

    I did not hear it come up.

    MR VERSHBOW:

    No, it did not.

    THE PRESS:

    Thank you.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the US and EU Relationship – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the relationship between the United States and the European Union, made on 4th April 1995.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the relationship between the United States and the European Union]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there are several strands to this.

    Firstly, one has to look at some of the changes there have been in the last few years. Until just a few days ago, there was a common bonding between Western Europe generally and the United States because they faced a common threat, a common enemy, in the Soviet Union. That has fallen away, that is different. What we now have to look at is the future. I am very concerned that there are many people in Western Europe who perhaps have an inward-looking perspective, a protectionist perspective. There is also concern sometimes in Western Europe that in some aspects America is inward-looking. I believe that is very damaging for both countries and I know President Clinton shares that view.

    What I would wish to do is to examine some ways in which we can open up the relationship, make it entirely relevant to the 1990s and the turn of the century. I am not speaking specifically of a formal North American/European free trade area, that is not specifically what I am saying. What I am saying is that on the back of the Uruguay Agreement there is a huge amount that can still be done to expand free trade, financial services most obviously, a whole range of non-tariff barriers that ought to disappear. I think that North America and Europe should begin to discuss that, North America and the United Kingdom most certainly will and that would be of immense benefit to both of us in the years ahead.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the US and UK Economies – 4 April 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the US and UK economies, made on 4th April 1995.


    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked about the US and UK economies]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think if you look around the world, you will find most people in government dealing at the tail end of a recession having made difficult decisions in order to get their countries out of the recession in good order but those decisions hurt. If you found someone who was very popular in one of the western democracies, then I suspect you would have found somebody who hadn’t taken the decisions that were necessary so I think that is the first point I would make.

    The second point about the United Kingdom is this: we are a very outward-looking nation, we are a free-trading nation. We have huge interests with and in the United States, we are the largest investor by far in the United States, we have well over 100 billion dollars invested in the United States; the United States are the biggest investors with us so there is a huge relationship there, but similarly, we have massive investments in western Europe, in Asia and elsewhere so we are very concerned about free trade. We require a global foreign policy, we realise that in many cases it is desirable to pool the resources we have, to discuss with the United States and others what a joint approach may be and those were the sort of issues we were examining at the conference you referred to.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Washington – 4 April 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Washington on Tuesday 4th April 1995, following his meeting with Mr Newt Gingrich.


    QUESTION:

    How did your meeting with Mr Gingrich go?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It was an extremely interesting meeting, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think there is a [indistinct] of a contract for Britain and what ideas did you develop for 1997?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have got a whole series of ideas for 1997, Peter, we are looking for a wide range of ideas for 1997 and beyond, not just for the election, than I think anyone has looked at for a long time, but I will unveil those when we finish them.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] your conversation with the Speaker, can you tell us about them?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No.

    QUESTION:

    Have you heard suggestions that American aid for Northern Ireland might be linked to the question of decommissioning of arms, and would you approve of it if that link were to be established?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think that may be a matter on which I will have the opportunity of listening to the views of the Foreign Relations Committee in a few moments, so I will comment perhaps after that.

    QUESTION:

    How are you hoping your visit is going to play back home?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I come here regularly. We have a whole series of intricate relationships with the United States on a whole range of issues – security issues, intelligence issues, trading issues, foreign policy issues – and right the way round a whole range of areas we have a very close relationship with the United States. Now you don’t retain a close relationship, keep it in fresh repair, unless you are able to talk to people face to face. So we come here, the United States Administration comes to see us. It is very important to keep that in good repair. What I am doing here is talking about a whole range of issues. And what strikes me very forcibly is the huge range of areas where there is a dramatically similar, if not identical, point of view on international issues between the United States Administration, the United States opinion generally, and the United Kingdom. So I find that always very refreshing.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think the American political community understands the position in Northern Ireland now in relation to Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams’ reception?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Last evening we had a very substantial number of Senators join us for dinner, we had the opportunity of very free and frank discussion on that. Similarly with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the House of Representatives, and in a few moments with the Senate. So I think [indistinct].