The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: United States

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Vice-President Quayle – 11 February 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint doorstep interview with US Vice-President Quayle, held outside 10 Downing Street on Tuesday 11th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had the opportunity over the last hour or so to range over a number of matters of some importance to both of us. We have spent some time discussing the present circumstances in the Uruguay Round and the absolutely imperative importance of making sure that the Round is completed and completed successfully and as speedily as possible. That has been a substantive part of our discussion.

    We have also taken the opportunity to look at the present situation in NATO and the prospects for European defence and also the difficulties that exist in the Soviet Union, both the economic difficulties and of course our concern about the proper control of nuclear weapons both strategic and substrategic.

    There have been a number of other bilateral matters but that has been the substance of our discussions over the last hour or so. I will invite the Vice-President to say a few words and then we might take a question or two from you.

    May I just say in conclusion that it is a great pleasure to have the Vice-President here again and I look forward to continuing our discussions over dinner in a few moments.

    VICE-PRESIDENT QUAYLE:

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister. It is a pleasure to be back and let me again congratulate you on a tremendous UN Summit – I think it was very well done.

    The Prime Minister has talked about a number of the issues that we talked about. Let me just mention a couple:

    NATO – There will continue to be an American presence in Europe. We want to have a presence. It is not just in Europe’s interest, it is in America’s interest and when I travel around the country the American people understand the importance of maintaining a presence in Europe and that it is in our interest.

    As far as the GATT negotiations are concerned, we must conclude those. There is no linkage between NATO and the troop strength and the successful conclusion of the GATT negotiations. It is imperative that we get on with it. Let us not replace the Cold War with a trade war. The Prime Minister has been very energetic in trying to bring this to a successful conclusion as has President George Bush and we will be working with our other friends and allies to try to accomplish this.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    I wonder if I could ask both of you about the recession and when you see an end to it given that it threatens both your re-election prospects and also given the Bank of England’s Quarterly Survey saying that the expected recovery is proving elusive in Britain and that no recovery in the level of activity has yet occurred.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it would be a good deal more elusive if some of the policies that some people propound were actually put into place. I think that is certainly true but the recovery was always going to be jagged and irregular; I think that is what we are seeing.

    There are signs in the United Kingdom that some areas are going to come out of recession a good deal earlier than others; precisely when that will be one can never be certain but that the basics are in place for a recovery I think now is generally accepted and by “the basics” I mean that inflation is now clearly under control – nobody believes that that is going to get out of control – the exchange rate is stable and I think companies have liquidated a good deal of their debt, as have individuals, and now find themselves in a better position both to reinvest and to spend as soon as they have the confidence factor there that will encourage them to do so.

    The most critical point of all about the recession, of course, is that as we come out of the recession we come out of it in a way that is sustainable to ensure that we get steady and sustainable growth in the years ahead. It is going to be a very competitive decade for this country and for other countries and that stable and steady growth without inflation is going to be a priceless commodity for us and for other countries, so I think that is the United Kingdom position.

    VICE-PRESIDENT QUAYLE:

    The best medicine for recovery in the United States is for the Congress to pass the President’s jobs package; he has submitted it to the Congress; he has set a deadline for March 20. I hope that the Congress responds. The sooner the Congress responds to the President’s jobs package and passes it, the sooner the recovery is going to kick in.

    QUESTION:

    Vice-President, on the question of Haitian refugees or Haitian would-be migrants into the United States and the comparisons that have been made with the position of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, have you reached a shared understanding of similarities or differences on that?

    VICE-PRESIDENT QUAYLE:

    We have a shared understanding of similarities and differences. We have a well-known policy and we know each other’s concerns and policy on these matters.

    QUESTION (Adam Boulton, Sky News):

    Mr. Quayle, you have said that you want to keep an American presence in NATO here but how sure are you that the American people want to do that?

    VICE-PRESIDENT QUAYLE:

    I am convinced that the American people do because they know it is in their interest. We went home after World War I and you saw what happened. The American people know what it takes to have peace. We feel that our presence here is a strong force for peace and therefore there is no presidential candidate that I know on either side that is articulating that we are going to not have a presence in NATO. There is a difference of commitment and I can assure you that if President Bush is re-elected, which I think he will be, that there will be a strong presence in NATO and there should be no question about our commitment short-term and long-term.

    This idea of isolationism being alive and well in America is just simply not the case. Yes, we have some on the left and we have some on the right and unfortunately those on the left and right when they make isolationist statements they get over-reported here in the United Kingdom and elsewhere but I can assure you that there is not this isolationist sentiment that is perceived over here. It is in America’s interest to be in Europe and I think it is in Europe’s interest to have America here.

  • PMQT – 11 February 1992

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th February 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Andrew MacKay : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. MacKay : In the light of yesterday’s public sector pay settlements, which were particularly welcomed by teachers, will my right hon. Friend give the House some broad indication of just how many teachers will now be earning more than £20,280 a year? Will he also use this opportunity to give a categorical pledge that under no circumstances will he lift the ceiling on national insurance contributions, because that would, in effect, claw back the extra pay that teachers gained yesterday?

    The Prime Minister : I can tell my hon. Friend that well over 120, 000 teachers exceeded £20,000 a year even before yesterday’s pay increases. We anticipate that something over an extra 50,000 will now do so. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will not remove the limit and impose an extra 9 per cent. national insurance on those teachers.

    Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister join me in reaffirming that no group either using or supporting violence will be allowed by any Government to bomb its way to the conference table? Does he agree that when terrorists inflict danger and disruption on ordinary people anywhere–in Britain, Northern Ireland or anywhere else–they are not so much demonstrating their support for any cause as demonstrating their hatred and opposition to every community?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir. I am happy to agree without reservation with the points put to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. If terrorists believe that incidents like this morning’s will deflect our policy on Northern Ireland, they are mistaken. They have not been successful in the past, and they will not be successful in the future.

     

    Q2. Mr. Andy Stewart : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Stewart : When I last had the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend, he confirmed that under the Conservatives, miners and other earners in my constituency would not pay a higher rate of income tax. Can he confirm that he will not extend national insurance contributions to savings, because a large number of my constituents took early retirement from the coal industry and use their savings to supplement their income?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. Conservative Governments have reduced the taxation on savings. We have abolished the investment income surcharge, and have cut the standard rate of income tax to 25p in the pound. We have introduced savings schemes such as TESSAs, and we believe that excess taxation is iniquitous when we seek to encourage people both to save and to invest in our economy.

    Mr. Lewis : Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1986 he announced the closure of DHSS resettlement centres and gave a firm promise that they would not close until alternative accommodation was available? Is he now aware that four centres, including the Walkden centre in my constituency, will close next month and that alternative provision is not yet available and will not be available? Is the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, going to allow the Resettlement Agency to rat upon his pledge or is he not?

    The Prime Minister : I set out at the time the details of the areas where we would see new and better facilities reopening, and those better facilities have reopened. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Government are also spending very nearly £100 million over three years to provide accommodation for people who are homeless in London. So far nearly 2,000 extra bed spaces have been provided, and the number of people who are out on the streets is substantially lower than 12 months ago. The hon. Gentleman would do well to acknowledge those facts.

     

    Southampton

    Q3. Mr. Hill : To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit the city and port of Southampton.

    The Prime Minister : Tomorrow.

    Mr. Hill : When my right hon. Friend visits the port of Southampton he will realise that two Conservative policies have changed the position of the port from stagnation to prosperity. The first policy was privatisation and the second the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. All the hospitals in Southampton have been rebuilt over the past few years. There is only one fly in the ointment– [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker : Order. Let the hon. Gentleman ask his question–but briefly please.

    Mr. Hill : My right hon. Friend will know that there is a Labour-controlled council. Not only are its policies extremely wasteful, but one of the companies that it set up is just collapsing, insolvent, and this is costing £8 a head to every community charge payer in the area.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend puts his point with great clarity and in some detail. Southampton is already part of a highly successful privatised group of ports. In some of the privatised ports, ending restrictive practices has led to an improvement in productivity of 50 to 100 per cent.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Jack Thompson : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Thompson : Is the Prime Minister aware that, after a little local difficulty in the House, there was a meeting this morning between the Engineering Employers Federation and the northern group of Labour Members, at which one of the representatives of the federation said that the Department of Trade and Industry suffered from inertia? Will the Prime Minister consider removing this inertia from the DTI by sacking his Secretary of State?

    The Prime Minister : No.

     

    Q5. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Mr. Taylor : Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing role for responsibility and involvement of individuals in improving their career prospects, whether through training credits for young people or through performance-related pay? Are these not better ways of improving the skills of British industry than the rigid structures favoured by the feudal barons of the trade union movement?

    The Prime Minister : I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the training credit principle which puts buying power in the hands of the people who seek training. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly have some comments which will please him.

    Mr. Robert Sheldon : Has the Prime Minister seen today’s Financial Times ? If he has, has he noted the three pages of advertisements by receivers and administrators of companies that have failed? The exercise is repeated in the columns of the Financial Times three times a week. Is it not clear that, in the light of all these industrial failures, it is the failure of the Government which really needs to be brought to account, and that it is the Government’s task to put things right?

    The Prime Minister : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the essential basics to make sure that things are right are to keep inflation down, to keep interest rates down, to have the right tax structure and to continue with the improved industrial relations that we have had in recent years. With his experience, the right hon. Gentleman will also be interested in the views of the CBI. If he is, he will know that the CBI opposes absolutely the reintroduction of the labour laws that the Opposition propose, the tax changes that the Opposition propose and the minimum wage that the Opposition have in mind. Each of those policies would be deadly to the future of British industry, British jobs and British companies.

     

    Q6. Sir Anthony Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

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

    Sir Anthony Grant : Will my right hon. Friend warn other world leaders, especially in the United States, of the dangers of a wave of trade protectionism and the catastrophic effect that it can have on the world economy in a recession? Will he emphasise to the Americans in particular the need to reach sensible agreements within GATT?

    The Prime Minister : I have had the opportunity of discussing that with President Bush on a number of occasions, and he is as committed to a speedy conclusion of the Uruguay round as we are. I believe that that is vital. The paper set out by Mr. Dunkel provides a basis round which the United States, the Cairns group and the European Community could rally to provide a satisfactory settlement. That settlement is as vital for the future of the international trading organisation as any other matter under consideration.

     

    Q7. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Martlew : In a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on Thursday, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would not be supporting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, which will come before the House on Friday, but did not clarify whether he is in favour of a ban on fox hunting. Will he take this opportunity to tell the House and the country whether he favours such a ban?

    The Prime Minister : We always examine legislation before the House with great care. The Bill before the House is not adequate.

    Dame Jill Knight : In connection with an incident that my right hon. Friend has mentioned already, is he aware that hon. Members and staff were unable to work in their offices at 1 Parliament street between 9.30 and 12.30 because of three IRA bombs placed in Whitehall? Is he further aware that immediately the road was made safe, but before any traffic was allowed to pass, there was a demonstration by IRA supporters, well equipped with banners and placards? Does he not feel that, as they were so ready to move and so well equipped, they knew all about the IRA bombs and probably the timing as well? Will he ensure that the police are given the photographs of that demonstration, taken close up by the media?

    The Prime Minister : I was not aware–I have not yet received reports–of that demonstration, but I believe that it is ironic that the IRA and its supporters should at the same time be enjoying the privileges of democracy and using the methods of terrorism. I can assure them that they will have no progress until they renounce violence and terrorism. I believe that that is the united view of all the parties in the House.

     

    Q8. Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Grocott : Does the Prime Minister recall that it is now more than 12 months since he first started dithering about the election date, since when 750,000 people have lost their jobs? Is it not about time that he said to the 44 million voters who are sick and tired of the phoney election campaign that the general election will be on 9 April? When will he have the courage to say that?

    The Prime Minister : The hon. Gentleman will know that in the last year we have also cut interest rates seven times and halved inflation. I have no doubt that when we come to the election the electorate will have spotted that as well.

    Mr. Marland : Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is the first Prime Minister in history to attend the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union? Is he aware that the warmth of his reception was genuine, as the farmers very much appreciate his understanding of their difficulties with the planners and with marketing? Is he aware that they welcome his determination to do all he can to improve their lot, both at home and abroad?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I certainly enjoyed my attendance at the National Farmers Union meeting this morning. I was able to talk to the farmers about the difficulties that their industry faces at the moment, the need for reform of that industry and the importance that farming will undoubtedly have in the future of our country.

     

    Q9. Mrs. Irene Adams : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 February.

    The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some months ago.

    Mrs. Adams : Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), recently wrote to him pointing out that the Paisley post code area lost 76 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs between 1979 and 1989 and a further 3,600 jobs since then? Does he recall that he replied that he did not consider those circumstances grim enough to undertake an economic initiative for Paisley? Will he now change his mind or shall we have to wait for the people to do that for him?

    The Prime Minister : I think the hon. Lady ought to be clear about what she means by assistance. When the Labour party speaks of incentives it means subsidies. Perhaps the hon. Lady will remember the success rate of the National Enterprise Board. It invested in 102 firms, of which one third went bankrupt or went into receivership. Less than one third of those firms returned the taxpayers’ investment. The right way to help manufacturing industry is to produce the right level of inflation and the right economy for people to make their own decisions.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in New York – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in New York, held on Friday 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have had a very wide-ranging and satisfactory debate thus far in the Security Council. I set out this morning some of the key elements that I thought would be the substance of our discussion, the powers of the United Nations peace-making, peace-keeping, non-proliferation, disarmament, and they and others have indeed proved to be the substance of what we have been discussing thus far.

    What is particularly noticeable I believe is the atmosphere in which the discussions have taken place. It is certainly within the memory of many of the people in the United Nations today when President Khrushchev was here banging his shoe on the table. We have seen a solid consensus that the United Nations needs strengthening and that we should set about that particular work speedily.

    So thus far it has been a very satisfactory meeting and I look forward to our conclusion later on today.

    QUESTION (John Sergeant):

    You are going to announce restrictions on biological material this afternoon, can you tell us the extent of the problem and how those restrictions would work in practice?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is a domestic matter, that is a matter of UK legislation. We do have controls at present in the United Kingdom on items that can be exported that might be used for biological weapons. We propose to strengthen those and make them a matter for specific legislation and we will be setting out the full details of that shortly.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Yeltsin said that the success of the new world order you were discussing this morning depended in no small measure on the success of his reforms at home. What kind of things does he leave with to help believe that will occur?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think he came with something as well, he came with a permanent membership of the Security Council, he came with membership of the International Monetary Fund now firmly in view, he came in the belief that is being shown to be correct that there is widespread goodwill for assisting Russia throughout the world to ensure that their reforms are successful. I share his judgement, I think it is vitally important both for Russia and for everybody else that those reforms are successful and it is for that reason that the United Kingdom believes he should be given substantial help.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] Shi’ite prisoners, what is your reaction to that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have not seen those pictures yet, I am hoping to get a report on that later today and I will comment on it when I have had the report.

    QUESTION:

    What is your reaction to President Yeltsin’s call for [indistinct] security system?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we have to examine precisely what that means and precisely how it would work. One of the features of the debate this morning is that a whole series of ideas have been produced, ideas in many cases that no-one was expecting. I think that is very refreshing and they are matters we will have to discuss in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Is there not some urgency in all of that because we shall not have the Secretary General’s report until July, the IMF probably until April, is there urgency there?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I believe there is urgency. The idea for this particular meeting, the first time in 47 years we have had a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, that idea has been produced and acted upon very speedily, the response from the governments concerned has been very speedy, the Heads of Government have come. Now I believe that is an indication of the importance that people give to this meeting and taking the opportunities that exist at present to make this a safer world. That is why disarmament, non-proliferation and matters of this sort are the very substance of what is being discussed today.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with UN Secretary General – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Boutros Ghali, in New York on Friday 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I proposed this meeting because it seemed to me that the time was right, with a new Secretary General, with Russia taking her seat in the Security Council, it seemed to me that the time was right for the Council to meet at the highest level to reaffirm its commitment to peace-keeping and to peace-making.

    There is of course a symbolic significance in the meeting, to have round the same table the Heads of State or Government of China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain for the first time in the history of the United Nations symbolises the transformation from confrontation to cooperation in the work of the organisation.

    Over the last few years that transformation has enabled us to unite to free Kuwait; to bring independence to Namibia after decades of frustrated negotiations; to start the peace process in Cambodia; and to tackle other international disputes.

    So to an extent this meeting was a celebration of the fact that the Charter of the United Nations has once again become the handbook, the handbook, of those whose job it is to make the peace and keep the peace, and that is the handbook that can do it.

    Gone are the days, I hope forever, when the United Nations was the last body that you turned to for effective action. Now it is the first body, as we have seen only this month over Lockerbie and as we see day to day as the screw of economic sanctions is turned on Saddam Hussein and as the international commission slowly but certainly uncovers evidence of his weapons of mass destruction and then destroys them.

    In a world which is more hopeful than for many years, but still unstable, we need an organisation that can settle disputes, contain conflicts and keep the peace. The United Nations is that organisation. And the reason for coming here at Head of Government level was to demonstrate our commitment to that organisation.

    You will have heard the statement which I read out on behalf of members of the Council. In it we pledge ourselves to collective security, international law and our commitments under the United Nations Charter to resolve disputes peacefully, to fight against terrorism, to pursue arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and to conclude a chemical weapons convention in 1992.

    That statement, as ever, is written in the polite language of diplomacy. But it contains a hard cutting edge that can be used against those who breach their obligations. The document states that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security. That places the issue firmly within the confines of the Security Council with scope for action to that end. Member States are committed to take action to prevent the spread of technology related to weapons of mass destruction. The statement reinforces the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Authority and it commits the Council to take action in cases of violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty notified to them by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

    The statement also asks the Secretary General to recommend how we can strengthen the United Nations’ action in preventative diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. And this includes the use of the good offices of the Secretary General.

    Under Article 99 of the treaty he is authorised to bring to the attention of the Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. That article has been little used, partly because in the days of the Cold War the Secretary General’s role was heavily constrained by the former Soviet Union. Those old constraints no longer apply.

    The statement also includes a number of welcome references to human rights, to progress in democracy and responsive forms of government, to election monitoring, to human rights verification, and in the very last words of the declaration, to the promotion of a better life for all in larger freedom.

    Those are substantial achievements. The most substantive achievement of all is that Heads of Government of countries whose arsenals could between them destroy the world have met as colleagues and partners in a common enterprise to make the world a safer place. And they did so here today under the auspices of the United Nations.

    MR GHALI:

    I have just a few words. I have spent only four weeks as Secretary General in this institution and I am still a beginner. But those four weeks I have spent in this organisation show: (1) that there is a political will to play a role in international affairs; (2) that the Security Council will not act unless there is a consensus and that all the decisions which have been adopted during this month have been taken by consensus, after deliberation, and this deliberation proved that we have reached a degree of democratic [Indistinct] in the Security Council.

    And I just want again to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting because the summit meeting will help me in my new role, will assist me in the new function and as he mentioned Article 99, I hope not to use very often this article, but in case I will see that there is a necessity to use Article 99 I assure you that I will not hesitate to use this prerogative.

    Once more I want to thank the Prime Minister of Great Britain for this summit meeting here in New York.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION (Mr Osborne):

    On behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association I would like to welcome you as our guest at this press conference. In terms of a consistent worldwide peace-keeping effort, President Mitterrand suggested in his speech that a more effective role be given to the UN military staff committee and even volunteering to contribute some 1,000 peace-keeping troops to such an effort. Would the United Kingdom also support such an effort and would you also contribute troops to a peace-keeping effort. I would also like to ask the Secretary General if he would respond, does he see this as a proposal which should be encouraged in the agenda of his reforms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think this is a proposal that should be examined, but I would prefer not to commit myself to any proposal until we have seen the Secretary General’s report, we have invited him today to report, he has a very wide remit to report, to come back on what he believes is the right way for us to proceed. We know what the objectives are: better peace-keeping, better peace-making. I would prefer to see the Secretary General’s report before we can make up our mind as to what particular actions, either singly or perhaps a whole cluster of actions, are necessary in order to meet that objective. This is certainly one that should be considered.

    MR GHALI:

    I will give my response on 1 July because according to the decisions which have been taken, I have to present my report before 1 July.

    QUESTION:

    Are there any significant changes in the final statement from the first draft or the second draft prepared by you. And if so, would you like to mention one or two by way of illustration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is one of the more optimistic questions I have ever had I think. The answer is that there are not really significant changes between the drafts, there are minor changes when you have 15 draftsmen sitting round the table in order to agree a document that affects national sensitivities as well as an international commitment, there are always going to be drafting changes. And of course that was the case, some of them were additions, some of them were minor drafting changes. But there were no changes of a real and substantive nature between the earlier drafts and the later one, except that the later one is in many ways a good deal sharper and tougher in its commitments than the earlier drafts were. This is altogether a stronger, more forceful, document than we anticipated it would be possible to agree a few weeks ago, or even perhaps a few days ago.

    QUESTION:

    Do you not find it is a little bit strange that the Secretary General of the UN was not invited to the Moscow conference while you are inviting all the Heads of States to meet in the Security Council and to give a push to the role of the Security Council and the United Nations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I happen to believe that the role of the United Nations is very important, it has changed and is changing. There was a time when the role of the United Nations was effectively stuck in the mud by the differences that often appeared between some of the larger and more powerful states in the world, it rendered agreements in the Security Council in particular, amongst the Permanent Five in particular, very difficult to achieve.

    That is no longer the case and the effect of those changes is that we are now in the position to put the United Nations closer towards the objectives and goals of its original founders when the charter was devised than we have ever been at any stage before. That opportunity was clear to the United Kingdom and we wish to take the chance afforded by our Presidency of the Security Council to bring together Heads of Government in order to give a particular push to that objective. I think today we have actually been successful in that.

    QUESTION (Robin Oakley, The Times):

    [Inaudible] the Security Council of the need for further economic support for Russia, how soon do you think you will be able to persuade the United States in particular and other G7 members to back a stabilisation fund for the rouble?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The first objective before anyone can produce a stabilisation fund, or indeed any other form of support, there is no reason to suppose that will be the only nature of support required, but the first and necessary preliminary is for Russia to become members of the International Monetary Fund.

    At a meeting a week or so ago the United Kingdom pushed for that to be concluded as soon as possible and not later than April. That is also the position of the United States. But as to what help follows after membership of Russia in the International Monetary Fund, that is a matter that will be determined then.

    And I believe that two things will happen when they become members of the IMF: firstly they will have access to the advice and assistance that the IMF are uniquely well placed to provide; but secondly as members they will also be enabled to receive the significant financial assistance that I believe they are likely to need in the months ahead. So the first thing is to get them in the IMF and then to agree precisely the scale and nature of the assistance they require. If it can be done earlier than April I would like it done earlier than April and it is my impression that that is also the view of the United States government.

    QUESTION:

    You have been given extensive new tasks to perform on the world scene in peace-making, but nothing has been mentioned about the funds that will be necessary to support this operation and it is obvious that there is plenty of money due to the UN because of delinquency. Have you given any thought as to how the bill is to be filled and footed according to your outline?

    MR GHALI:

    Yes, I had the occasion to discuss this with the different leaders this morning and they promised to help us to solve the financial problem of the United Nations. As you know, there is a new special fund which has been created and a new coordinator for humanitarian assistance will be appointed in the next few weeks and we hope to receive already 50 million dollars, Great Britain has pledged 5 million dollars, different other members of the United Nations will contribute to this fund and there are many other funds which will be created and I believe, I am sure that we will be able to overcome the financial difficulty of this house in the next few weeks.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me just say firstly in response to that that my country is not behind in its commitments to the United Nations and I do not anticipate it will become so in the future.

    I hope that one of the effects of today’s meeting and the Secretary General’s forthcoming report will encourage members of the United Nations and their respective legislative assemblies to meet the commitments that they have and pay the money that is due to the United Nations.

    QUESTION:

    How far does this apply to the Middle East problem and the solution of Jerusalem, as the King of Morocco wisely stated today? And if I may ask the Secretary General what he meant by the small states can play a large constructive role?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I can answer my part of the question I think very speedily. It is of course United Nations resolutions that are the basis of the peace process, so the role of the United Nations is I think both central and critical.

    MR GHALI:

    Concerning my question, I believe and I have said this morning that a small state with political will and political imagination can contribute a lot to play a role in international affairs and that what is important is the political will. And without naming states, you have small states during the last 50 years which have played very important roles in international affairs and you may have a powerful state who, for reasons connected to their own policy, are not interested to play a role in international affairs. So the political will, I will say, and the political imagination within the United Nations is as important as the economic and military power of the states.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] we believe that he has declared war on the people of Cuba, is there any consideration being given to the crisis in Cuba by the Security Council?

    MR GHALI:

    No we have not discussed this and nobody asked to discuss this problem at the Security level.

    QUESTION (Independent):

    The Prime Minister this morning said that he wanted to see a resolution before the UN about Lockerbie, could he say something about the nature of the resolution he would like to see brought to the UN on the Lockerbie affair, and could he say something about President Yeltsin’s views that in fact human rights should have been given more prominence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    On the first point, we are of course still waiting a response to the first resolution and it is not until we have received that response, which I hope will not be long delayed, that we can determine what other action and whether another United Nations resolution is required.

    If the response is negative, as conceivably it will be, then I think it will be desirable to seek a further resolution from the United Nations and I would hope that would not be too long delayed. But at the moment that is speculation, we have not yet received a response.

    MR GHALI:

    I may just add that I was requested by the Security Council to get in contact with the Libyan government, we sent an Under Secretary of the United Nations with a personal message to the Libyan leader and we received an oral answer saying that they are ready to cooperate with the United Nations. In fact the message was to implement the resolution which had been decided by the United Nations and not a cooperation with the United Nations, thus I asked the Libyan representative to return back to Tripoli and he returned and he is now in Tripoli to give further information concerning what the Libyan authority means by cooperation with the United Nations because I was request the implementation of the resolution which had been adopted by the Security Council. I hope to receive an answer in the next few days from the Special Representative of the Libyan government.

    QUESTION:

    What is the status of the declaration at this time, is it a consensus document? The Indian Prime Minister openly disagreed with the nuclear non-proliferation part of it, whereas he disagreed about whether it should be taken on a global level or on a regional level?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he agreed the document. What Prime Minister Rao said was that there were some other things he would have liked to have been in there as well but that he agreed with the document as it is produced. So he is as committed to what is in the document as I am and as is every other member of the Security Council who was here today. And the Prime Minister made that very clear in his contribution this afternoon.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, he wished to add other things, he did not disassociate himself from what was in the agreement, he wished to add other things that were not part of the consensus and are not in the agreement.

    QUESTION:

    What would be the impact of this meeting in the future and are you going to institutionalise it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was quite literally an extraordinary meeting of the Security Council, there is no intention of institutionalising a meeting at Heads of State and government, though I would hope now we have found that it is a useful instrument, that if it is necessary to reconvene at that level I would hope people would feel free to do so. But I do not immediately think that it is going to be necessary regularly, nor do I think it would necessarily be desirable to do it regularly. The fact that it is such an unusual occurrence has added weight to the decisions that have been made today.

    QUESTION:

    The Secretary General proposed that the Council should meet at summit level periodically, did you discuss this issue during lunch and what issues were dealt with during lunch?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No we did not discuss that during luncheon, the Secretary General and I were seated too far apart from one another over luncheon to discuss that, we would have needed a megaphone. It was a totally social luncheon and we did not discuss it on that occasion. But there will be many opportunities for the Secretary General and I, and indeed other members of the Security Council, to discuss that and a range of other matters, but not today.

    QUESTION (Aviation Week Magazine):

    Mr Yeltsin’s spokesman earlier today indicated that Mr Yeltsin solicited your cooperation in programmes to prevent the brain drain of nuclear programme specialists from the Soviet Union and to convert nuclear warhead material to nuclear fuel. Can you share what was discussed and what your views are on those programmes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Up to a point yes. We did discuss that in the four hours of discussion we had in London yesterday and we have agreed to send a team to Russia to examine what we might do to assist, and in particular what we might do to assist nuclear fuel used in weaponry to be used more satisfactorily for peaceful and for civilian methods. We are going to send a team to talk to the Russians to see how we can help.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible.]

    MR GHALI:

    I received last night a long report of Under Secretary Goulding who went to Yugoslavia, went to Zagreb and to Belgrade. I hope to have a meeting in the next few days with the Special Representative, Mr Cyrus Vance, and with what will be the result of those meetings I will submit a report to the Security Council, but it is too early to say what will be the next step.

    We have already, as you know, 50 observers there and are cooperating with the monitors of the European Community, we are in contact with the European Community, our approach is that we want to cooperate with the European Community in finding a solution, the role of the European Community being the political solution of the problem, the role of the United Nations being maintaining the ceasefire and peace-keeping forces. But it is too early to say what will be done as a second step, we must have a few meetings among our collaborators and then we will decide and we will present a report to the Security Council on what we have reached on this problem.

    QUESTION:

    Mr Major, I am sure you are committed to the new world order and under the new world order the Baltic States got their independence. How about those people who are struggling for their independence like Kashmiri people and the people of the Sikh community. And what are you doing to maintain the human rights of the minorities in different countries like India?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have made my concern about human rights known both publicly and privately on a number of occasions in the past. I certainly took the opportunity of raising them, for example, when I was in Beijing both publicly and privately and I have raised them elsewhere. I do not want to comment on one of the many areas where human rights may be an issue except to say that I think it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone that the world has a closer and more beady eye on the human rights records of nations today than it has ever done at any stage in the past. And where the United Nations these days finds itself involved in peace-making operations, the position of human rights is an important matter that the United Nations keeps under control, keeps its eye on and takes into account in the proposals that it makes. I am sure that is the right way.

    In terms of the general position on human rights, the best way to continue to ensure that human rights records of a large number of countries are improved is by peer pressure both within the United Nations and beyond the United Nations. And I think for that reason that it is quite right for political leaders and other leaders to speak out and speak out clearly and unequivocally when they see human rights abuses. I am glad to say that increasingly that is happening.

    QUESTION:

    Are you willing to support further independence?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not going to get drawn into the Kashmiri problem, that has not been a subject for today.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Secretary General’s Lunch – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the Secretary General’s Lunch at a Special Meeting of the UN Security Council on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Secretary-General, Your Majesty, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Your Excellencies.

    At first sight it is extraordinary that in nearly 47 years this should be the first time that the United Nations Security Council has met at the level of Head of State or Government. The reason is obvious: for at least 40 years since the Charter was signed in San Francisco a meeting like this would have been hard to imagine and impossible to arrange.

    There is a temptation to look back on the Cold War as a period of stability. It was not. And its pernicious effects were felt in all our countries.
    A former Soviet Ambassador to London, who worked for President Khrushchev, said that, at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, a report reached Khrushchev by telephone that President Kennedy had gone to hear Mass in Washington. Khrushchev had, commented to his officials that that was good news. It meant that for at least the next hour the United States would not launch a nuclear strike against Moscow. We should never forget how close we came to mutual destruction.

    No-one who lived through those events can forget the tension of those times. It affected us all in different ways and no country, developed and developing, was immune.

    During those years the Security Council had a role but it was too often a negative one. The Council was an arena for the pursuit of conflict by verbal means and too rarely the scene of effective action on behalf of the international community.

    That scene is now transformed. Of course there are differences. But we meet here, not as adversaries, but as partners in a common enterprise.

    Of course the bright dawn of 1989 has been followed by the colder light of day. Of course there is instability. We have after all shaken the foundations on which many of our post-war assumptions were built. But our meeting today exemplifies a new trend in international relations: the will to rally round, to solve problems, not to exploit them.

    We have learned painfully that we are one world, and quite a small one. That we cannot divide the world into them and us. Just us. This morning we welcomed the end of the Cold War. That is not just good news for East/West relations. We can now focus as partners on the needs and difficulties of the South. The developing countries make a distinctive, effective contribution to the United Nations in the Security Council and elsewhere. Collective security is precisely that. If it is to benefit all of us, it must be a partnership between us all.

    This meeting arose out of an idea first put forward by President Mitterrand and made timely by Russia’s assumption of her seat on the Security Council and by the election of a new Secretary General. I believe it is right for us to meet to reaffirm at the highest level our commitment to peace-keeping and peace-making. A great burden of responsibility rests at present on President Yeltsin. I hope he will take back from this meeting the message to the people of Russia and of the new Commonwealth that the rest of the world community are not just interested spectators of great events. Russia has a crucial world role to play. Her involvement is vital to international stability. We in turn must help her to create the economic stability which underpins democracy and reform.

    Fifteen leaders meeting for one day cannot determine every UN issue. But we can send a powerful signal. By meeting we show support for the work of the UN and its new Secretary-General to investigate ways in which the UN’s work can be strengthened. I hope today we can agree that.

    Valuable work needs careful preparation. This meeting does not claim to be the culmination of an initiative. It is a unique response to a unique historical coincidence. But the meeting can be the beginning of a process to prepare the UN for new tasks and challenges.

    The international agenda is shifting from crisis management – in which the UN has for so long played a distinguished role – to crisis prevention. The aim must be to equip the UN to lead in crisis prevention.

    Under Dr. Boutros Ghali’s experienced hand, I am confident the UN will rise to the challenge. Let us join with him whole-heartedly in the enterprise ahead.

  • Mr Major’s Opening Remarks to the UN Security Council – 31 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s opening remarks to the United Nations Security Council, held in New York on 31st January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The 3046th meeting of the Security Council is now called to order.

    May I turn firstly please to the adoption of the Agenda. The Provisional Agenda for the meeting is before the Council. Unless I hear any objection, I shall consider the Agenda is adopted.

    If there is no objection, the Agenda is adopted.

    The Security Council will now begin its consideration of Item 2 of the Agenda and with the permission of colleagues, I will make a brief introductory statement to our meeting today.

    This is a unique meeting. We are meeting at a time of momentous change. Just a year ago, the Council met the challenge of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the Council did that with great success but today we face new challenges and to set a new course in tackling them it is right, I believe, that we should meet for the first time ever at the level of Heads of State and Government. Today, we must show that the Security Council is working with a common purpose.

    I welcome very much the presence today of so many Heads of State and Government. It is proof of the importance we all attach to the United Nations and of our commitment to the ideals of the United Nations. We come today from all parts of the world. Each of our countries has its own characteristics, its own concerns but we are united in one particular aspect: we are united by a commitment to strengthen the wider community to which we belong, to reinforce collective security and to maintain international peace and security.

    In convening this Extraordinary Meeting this morning, I intended that our discussion could serve four important purposes:

    Firstly, our presence today marks a turning point in the world and at the United Nations. On the international scene, we have witnessed the end of the Cold War; member states of this Organisation have divided and reformed themselves. This presents immense opportunities but it carries with it also new risks. At the United Nations, the term of office of Mr. Perez de Cuellar has come to a close. He has served the international community for many years with outstanding distinction and I am delighted to be able to thank him for that work. We are here not only to wish his successor, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, well but to give him our full backing in carrying out his mandate. A new situation in the world needs new ideas and a new impetus.

    Second, we should today reaffirm our attachment to the principle of collective security and to the resolution of disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. We should send a clear signal that it is through the United Nations and its Security Council that we intend to deal with threats to international peace and security.

    Thirdly today, we should consider anew the means by which collective security is upheld through the United Nations and consider how best to update and to develop them. It is time to review all the instruments at our disposal: preventive action; to avert crises by monitoring and addressing the causes of conflict; peace-making, to restore peace by diplomatic means; peace-keeping, to reduce tensions, to consolidate and underpin efforts to restore peace. These, I believe, are the matters that we should consider in our meeting today and even today as we meet here, peace-keeping operations are under way in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Asia and Europe.

    The need is not likely to decrease in the future. We must consider how we can enhance the United Nations ability to respond effectively and ensure that it has the necessary resources both financial and material to enable it to do so. In all of these, of course, the role of the Secretary-General is vital.

    Fourthly today, we should commit ourselves anew to upholding international peace and security through reinforced measures of arms control. Activity to restrain the accumulation and transfer of arms, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, that affects all members of the United Nations. Arms control policy has become genuinely global. The role of this Organisation – not just the Security Council but the whole of this Organisation – is an increasingly important one.

    As we meet to consider the specific responsibilities of the Security Council, the wider concerns of the international community even if we shall not discuss all of them today are also in our minds. It is of course true that without economic development and prosperity we cannot hope to achieve lasting peace and stability but it is every bit as true that only when conditions of security and peace are assured can sustained economic development take place; both are needed and only when we have both can resources be directed to where they are so urgently needed, towards the economic and social needs of the world’s population.

    The opening line of our Charter – the Charter of the United Nations – does not talk about states or governments, it talks about people. The world now has the best chance for peace, security and development since the founding of the United Nations, I hope, like the founders of the United Nations themselves, that we can today renew the resolve enshrined in the Charter, the resolve to combine our efforts to accomplish the aims of the Charter in the interests of all the people that we are privileged to represent. That is our role and I wish the Council well in its work today.

    Members of the Council, we have a great deal to do today. In accordance with custom, with your agreement, I shall make my National Statement when all other colleagues have spoken but we may now, I think, commence our debate and I invite the Secretary-General to address us.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on President Bush’s Nuclear Policy – 29 January 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement on President Bush’s initiative on strategic nuclear weapons, released on Wednesday 29th January 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I warmly welcome President Bush’s latest proposals for strategic arms reductions and I congratulated the President earlier this week on this important and imaginative initiative.

    The proposals address the key problems facing us in the strategic arena, namely how to increase global security and stability against the uncertain background of events in the former Soviet Union, and how to reduce the threat of nuclear confrontation.

    I very much hope that the CIS leaders will respond positively to this initiative. For my part I will certainly support it in my talks with President Yeltsin on Thursday, 30 January.

    The offer of further agreed reductions in strategic missiles deals with the problem of the most destabilising heavy missiles. This is a matter that is outstanding from the START negotiations. We believe it should be immensely reassuring to the Commonwealth States.

    The President’s measures are a further step in reversing the process of nuclear competition between the superpowers. The security of the world will be greatly enhanced if President Yeltsin agrees to the elimination of multiple-warhead ICBMs – the most destabilising elements of the old Cold War confrontation. The way will then be open for Russia to move with the United States towards a more stable minimum deterrence increasingly concentrated on submarine forces.

    The United Kingdom has always been committed to maintaining only a minimum nuclear deterrent. We announced last Autumn a cut of about half in the number of British sub-strategic weapons. In our view Trident is the minimum strategic deterrent necessary to guarantee this country’s future security.

    The greatest danger we face is not the existence of deterrent forces, but the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of other powers in unstable regions of the world. The President’s very welcome initiative addresses this problem squarely and imaginatively.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Presentation with President Bush – 30 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint presentation with President Bush at Kennebunkport on Friday 30th August 1991.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Might I just say what a pleasure it has been to have the Prime Minister here, I hope the Major family has got a little rest, I am afraid that we have done an awful lot of business here talking about the future. The Prime Minister now gets home for just a very short period of time and is embarking on a trip to Moscow and then on to China and Hong Kong, so he has been busy at work. But for us it has been a great pleasure, John, to have you all here and I wish you Godspeed on your trip, we will stay in close touch.

    I think the consultations we have had on the Soviet Union and indeed on other troublespots around the world has been fruitful from the United States’ standpoint, and so thank you for coming here and have a very pleasant trip back.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    George, thank you very much indeed and perhaps I may say thank you again to you and Barbara for your hospitality, I enjoyed it enormously, so did Norma, so did James, so did Elizabeth. We have had a great couple of days and it has been a very memorable occasion indeed.

    If I can just say in addition to that, not only has it been a memorable couple of days here, but the relationship and the matters we have shared over the last year or so have been I believe quite remarkable, it has been a tumultuous period and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the leadership that you have given over that last year, not just to the United States but I think to the whole of the free world as well. It is the sort of year you see very rarely indeed with the remarkable events we have seen, but I think with the leadership that you have given in the West we have been in very safe hands indeed and I know that is a very strong feeling in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and I would like to thank you for that.

    I have also a couple of small gifts. One of them I am passing on to you with the request that it is passed to you for onward transmission to the Library at Congress. It is a very remarkable book indeed produced by the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund to commemorate the battles in 1940, the Battle of the Few one of the most remarkable battles I think in the history of warfare, and I think as an ex-pilot it is something that you will like. It was commissioned last year to mark the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Britain and to raise funds for charity, for the Benevolent Fund, and they have asked me to present this, I think you will find it a rather beautiful book for you to have, to look at and then I hope to pass on to the Library of Congress. I hope you will enjoy that, it is certainly absolutely magnificent and I am happy to give it to you with the compliments and admiration of many people in the United Kingdom.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Thank you, sir, very much for that most beautiful book and I will see that it gets to the Library of Congress so that it can be shared with the American people.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And we have another more personal present. We are very pleased with the relationship we have with the United States and have had for many years, but there is one small defect in it that I think we are going to correct. We in the United Kingdom have two national games of soccer and cricket. The United States is of course a member of the International Cricket Conference, we started playing cricket in England round about 1300 and indeed I think the first English cricket team ever to leave our shores and go and play abroad was in the 1850s when they came to the United States. But I think one occasion you beat us so we have not been back too often since then, but I would like you to accept this in the hope that we can encourage you to add to the golf, the swimming, the fishing, the tennis, in any spare time you have with a little cricket. And it is in fact signed by the England cricket team that won the test match at Lords just a few days ago, they did it with very great pleasure and they said that at some stage not only do they hope to see you watching a test match somewhere in the United Kingdom, but if you seem to be as good at that as you are at some other sports we would just like to review our selection procedures to see if you might play for us.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Thank you, thank you, that is very nice John. Now wait a minute, you cannot escape without a retaliatory gift here. They may not realise this, but the Prime Minister’s dad spent his youth in the United States and it emerges that he was a baseball player of sorts so we asked the Louisville slugger people to send this up to commemorate your visit so give it a whirl and may your eyes be safe from that curve ball and mine free of googlies.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There should just be room on the Chequers lawn, many thanks indeed, thank you all very much.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with President Bush – 29 August 1991

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s joint press conference with President Bush on Thursday 29th August 1991.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Over the past few months, ever since he has been Prime Minister, he and I have exchanged views, we have stayed in very close contact regarding a number of fast moving events on the international scene, I appreciate his counsel and his wise judgment. And in like manner we have had extremely useful talks on the current situation inside the Soviet Union and these exchanges are particularly important since he is off on Sunday to Moscow and will be able to share with the Soviet leadership our views and hopes for the Soviet peoples in a direct manner.

    We stand united, as do other Western partners, in our commitment to help Soviet reform. The industrial democracies have already undertaken steps to aid the economic process, the programme that we established at the G7 meeting under John Major’s chairmanship in London was a flexible programme, adaptable programme, as a matter of fact today the G7 sherpas are meeting in London to review the situation and exchange views on any further steps that can be undertaken.

    But we must remember that the Soviet Union is undergoing a major political change and the Prime Minister and I also had a discussion about the Baltics. The US is a strong supporter of Baltic independence, we have so notified the Soviet Union and we have urged the Soviet leadership not to stand against the will of the inevitable, the winds of this inevitable change. The Baltics want freedom, clearly the United States and the UK want them to have freedom and clearly the Baltics will have freedom. So let the Soviet leadership on this one act accordingly, that is our message.

    And again, Mr Prime Minister, I really enjoyed our conversation today and we are just delighted you and your charming wife, Norma, are with us.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you very much Mr President. I would like firstly to thank the President and Mrs Bush for their invitation to join them here today. Norma, Elizabeth and I have had a great time and we are very grateful to you for making us feel as much at home in New England as we do in our England and we are grateful to you for that. I have discovered over the last few months that the President is not only a man I can do business with him, I have discovered this morning he is a man I can go fishing with, we have done more successful business than we have fishing this morning, I must tell you that, but we have managed to reach an agreement on a number of things on dry land in our discussions thus far, both on shore and out there fishing this morning.

    We certainly agree absolutely on our objectives in responding to the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, we need to support democracy, we need to encourage the economic reform that they so badly need in the Soviet Union and we need also to respond compassionately to the urgent needs that the Soviet people have at the present time. We will go on talking to the Soviet authorities, the central authorities, and also building on the existing relationships and the developing relationships with the new leaders in the republics. We are already in touch with the leaders of the Baltic states and I hope when I visit Moscow on Sunday that I will be able to meet some, if not all, of them as well as Presidents Gorbachev and Yeltsin and some of the other key figures out there at the moment.

    We agreed this morning on the principles governing aid to the Soviet Union. There is a window of opportunity at present for the speeding up of the economic reform process and that is absolutely vital for the Soviet Union, the need to speed up that is urgent and we agreed this morning that we need to support the effort. Our judgment is that what the Soviet Union and the republics most need is emergency humanitarian assistance, practical help in converting their economy into one that works. And that means that aid must be linked to a clear and comprehensive and practical reform plan, that it must go to those people who are in need, including directly to the individual republics, and that it needs to be linked to the Soviet commitment to further reduce defence spending.

    And we were able to identify in our discussions this morning a number of points, six particular points worthy of action:

    – The first is to implement existing food credits;

    – the second is to assess the need for food aid during this winter;

    – the third is to produce some lifeline teams, teams to travel to the Soviet Union to help achieve efficient food production and food distribution, that may well be a public private partnership and it is an area where we and the United States will be moving ahead in the days and weeks immediately in front of us.

    – we agreed also we needed to implement the Know-How programmes and the technical assistance that we discussed at the G7 and the bilateral agreements we already have to assist the Soviets on that front.

    – we also felt that the time was right to get the IMF and the World Bank involved urgently in helping to work out practical, structural reform plans and technical assistance for the Soviet Union;

    – and sixthly, we agreed that it would be right to accelerate implementation of special association to the Soviet Union with the IMF with a view to full membership in due course for those who qualify and by qualify I mean as well in terms of effective reform plans.

    Now that help with food aid and food distribution and technical assistance will require a good deal of international collaboration if the effort is going to be as targeted as it deserves to be, to avoid duplication and be as successful as we would want it to be. And that does necessarily mean that we need some mechanism involving the principal countries and the principal groupings involved. I will take the opportunity as current Chairman of the G7 to keep closely in touch with the other G7 members to help ensure that we coordinate our activities.

    All the members of the G7 have been providing some very useful and constructive input for my meetings in Moscow this weekend and when I have had that meeting I will be writing to them to discuss what needs to be done and to report to them on the judgments I reach there and the discussions that I had.

    I think it is worthwhile making the point that we do have a very urgent need for better information about what is happening there than we yet have. All the members of the G7 have agreed to pool their findings by the end of September on what needs to be done to meet the most urgent food and medical needs in the Soviet Union.

    So that is the basis of the discussions we have had this morning and they have been very useful and very constructive. And I would like to thank the President again for the very timely opportunity we have had to share our thoughts on the remarkable events that are taking place at the present time. We cannot dictate the ending of what is happening in the Soviet Union but neither are we mere spectators and I think what has happened in the West in the last few days and the discussions we have had this morning indicate the way in which we can contribute to assist the Soviets and I believe that this morning we reached a new and better understanding on the supporting role the West can play so I am very grateful for the opportunity to have those discussions.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, the Supreme Soviet has been meeting for most of this week, you said you were hoping to get a clear picture of the Soviet Union’s political future emerge from those sessions, yet things seem about as confused today as they did 48 or 72 hours ago, are things moving a little bit too slowly on that front for you or do you see things falling into place?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I think the changes are so monumental that it is going to take time to sort it all out with finality, every day there are new announcements, some new dramatic step taking place, so that is for them to sort out, we cannot affect it particularly.

    I think the Prime Minister is right on target when he says we want to help, we are not just bystanders, we have a tremendous stake in what is taking place, but these changes have moved with such rapidity that well put it this way, if two weeks ago somebody had predicted this everybody would have said he had lost it. And so changes are going on, but again all the cards are not on the table when it comes to what the United States’ role should be or the UK role in further assistance of one kind or another. But I do not worry about that, there are enormous problems in the republic, in the centre, and then the other republics as well, not just the Russian republic. So it is moving fast, we are watching, we are learning, and we stand ready to be of assistance because what is at stake here is democracy and freedom and our countries are clearly committed to that.

    QUESTION:

    Are you still expecting some kind of action on independence for the Baltics today or tomorrow?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I do not think it will be today or tomorrow, it could well be Monday, but we just are not certain of that. I will leave it right there.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, most of the measures that you say you have discussed today involved speeding up things that were already in train, do you not have any sense that given the momentous changes that we have seen in the Soviet Union some more fundamental reconsideration of Western policy might be necessary?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We identified some time ago what was most practical and of most assistance to the Soviets, that has not changed, the dimensions of that have changed, the need, the speed for it has changed, perhaps the volume of it has changed. What we have actually done this morning is agree a very practical way forward. People are suggesting all sorts of things that ought to be done but the priorities are to deal with the problems of food and food distribution, to deal with the ways in which we can help the Soviets maximise their own capacity to produce both food and other mechanistic and hardware produce and we need a good deal of information in order to do that. There is no point in going beyond that until we can see precisely what the need is.

    I understand the wish that there is in some people’s mind to do something fresh, entirely different and entirely dramatic, but we have to consider what would be practical, what is deliverable and what would actually help. And it was actually quite striking earlier this week that one of the Soviet spokesmen was saying that the problem is not really a question of large scale money, we actually need technical advice and know-how and we need food. This is what we are providing and we are potentially doing it on a very substantial scale and across a very wide field.

    I would envisage that we would send some of these lifeline teams not just to the centre but to a number of the republics in order to go there, to see what needs to be done, report back and enable us then to put in hand the practical measures that are needed to help. I think that is what is most in the interests of the Soviet Union and that is what we have agreed this morning.

    QUESTION:

    Mr President, does the break-up of the Soviet empire raise any concerns in your mind about who controls the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the Ukraine for one which wants to break away has nuclear weapons there, how do you want this matter disposed of?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    I want to have it disposed in the way that nuclear weapons safety is totally guaranteed and to date we feel very comfortable about that, we had a group as knowledgeable as one can be about Soviet procedures taking a look at this and I want to reassure the American people that at no time has there been any official concern about inadvertent use of nuclear weapons or something going awry.

    But that is a matter that needs to be sorted out and I am confident that everybody in the republics and everybody in the centre understands that the last thing that the world needs is some kind of nuclear scare to say nothing of a nuclear confrontation. So I would like to use that question, Terry, to calm any fears that the American people have, we did not notice any untoward movement of nuclear forces and so we feel comfortable now that whoever is in charge will do the right thing in safeguarding these nuclear weapons.

    Perhaps the Prime Minister would want to add to that because he is knowledgeable in this field.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would only add to it to agree with it. We see no reason for concern about what is happening in nuclear weapons in the short term, the army command still has the same controls, there is a certain degree of stability, we see no reason to worry. But clearly it is a matter that we will want to address and discuss with the Soviets at an early stage and the sooner we can get positive answers and positive assurances the happier we will be.

    QUESTION:

    The republics like the Ukraine will not be allowed to keep these weapons will they?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    No I doubt that, but whatever happens I think wise and sane heads from whatever republic or whatever the centre proves eventually to be will recognise that safeguarded nuclear weapons programmes are absolutely essential. By safeguarded I mean guarantees to see that things cannot inadvertently go wrong are not only what the world demands but I think the people inside the Soviet Union will demand it and they have always felt that way and we see no reason to escalate the fears that might exist by any other response here.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, are you prepared to spend British Government money on helping the Soviet Union?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are already doing that. We crossed that bridge some time ago with the implementation of the know-how schemes and they, of course, go not to the central Soviet authorities but out in the republics and in the majority of cases to individual companies and individual enterprises so we crossed that Rubicon some time ago.

    QUESTION;

    Are we now going to spend more?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are going to assess the need first. If and when we have assessed the need, we will do what we can in concert with our partners to meet that need. Nobody should doubt that we believe that is the right thing to do, the right thing to do on humanitarian grounds and I think the right thing to do on political and strategic grounds as well.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. President, speaking of spending money, Les Aspin is going to recommend that Congress take a billion dollars out of the defence budget and put it into some kind of Soviet aid programme. What do you think of that idea?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Technically that would require a change in the existing budget agreement. As you know, Jim, many people, many politicians, have tried to change the budget agreement for one reason or another, some wanted to spend more on one programme domestically or some wanted to spend more on another. It is ironic that just a few days ago when this coup was under way, there started a debate about “Are we spending enough on defence?” almost at 180; now the debate comes: “Well, maybe we have got too much in defence!” I would say let us take a little time and sort this thing out intelligently.

    Certainly, we want to live within our budget agreement; we owe this to the American people. We have got to get this economy going and more and more government spending is not the answer. His suggestion, as you say, doesn’t result in more but you have got to accommodate a lot of domestic interests that would like to see more money going somewhere. It is ironic that I was attacked prior to this coup about being too much concerned about money for the Egyptian debt or money for the Soviet Union and now suddenly, before the cards are all laid down on the table, we have people saying: “Hey, what we have got to do now to prove that we are interested is send more money, send more dough for something!”

    I couldn’t agree more with what our G7 Chairman, John Major, said about helping people, whether in the republics or in the centre, wherever, in terms of food aid. We also want to be sure it gets there; we want to be sure that the distribution system works, so we have got a lot to do but I think it is way too premature. Les Aspin is a very creative thinker and I give him great credit for thinking about this but there will be a lively debate in the United States Congress and I for one will be sure we get all the information that we possibly can by mid-Fall, by mid-September, whenever it is the debate will be joined; then, I will have a strong recommendation. Right now, I simply cannot endorse that and I notice so many people are jumping up and saying: “What we must do now is cut defence spending more!” I think we have cut defence spending a lot and I want to be sure that our forces are properly structured to meet the needs that we were talking about just twelve months ago standing in this very same place. How soon, how quick we forget! So I think it is a little premature his suggestion but again, with respect, I think it is good he is thinking about this and yet I am not going to go out there and say we can afford to cut defence. Where is it going to come from? What account do they want to take it out of, for example, and what will that do to our readiness and our disproportionate responsibility to stand up against terror and aggression wherever it may be coming from?

    But I do think that out of this change in the Soviet Union, if we handle it properly and if things keep going forward instead of slipping back, there is an opportunity for a vastly restructured national security posture but it is way too early to get into that.

    QUESTION:

    How do you tell those who are unemployed right now, given all the events over the past couple of years in Eastern Europe and what is going on in the Soviet Union right now, that there appears to be no peace dividend? I take it that is what you just said.

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    What I have said is that we have dramatically cut defence; that was part of a commitment I made and that is a commitment we have kept but somebody is always coming in and saying: “Cut defence more!” They weren’t doing this a week ago is my point, Jim. When that coup started, I didn’t hear one single proposal like this; in fact, I heard a few tom-toms beating in the woods saying: “Hey! Maybe we have got to turn around the defence cuts we have already made!” My point is that it is not going to happen all at once. Let us deal from strength, get the facts and then make the decisions, not try to get out and have an instant solution to a problem when you don’t know the major parameters of the problem.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, you said that you want to see significant Soviet defence cuts. What sort of level are you looking at as a share of, say, GNP, and what sort of time-scale are you looking at?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We want the commitment to extend the defence cuts they are committed to already. The first part of the equation is to make sure that they continue with those cuts to which they are already committed and we have no reason to suppose that is not going to happen but even when they have done that, they are still spending a quarter of their central government expenditure on defence. I don’t think it is a tolerable proposition for them to sit upon that level of defence expenditure at a time when they are seeking very substantial assistance in one form or another from the west. We don’t expect them to do it overnight; we expect them to agree to make further defence reductions and to begin to put those in train but defence reductions necessarily on very practical grounds have to be phased, they can’t be done overnight, but we want the commitment and we want the programme to begin to start. I don’t think that we could realistically be expected to require less of them in the circumstances in which they find themselves at the moment and with the assistance that they would wish to see from us.

    QUESTION:

    Is this one of the subjects on the agenda when you see Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think you get commitments of that sort in a single meeting. I will certainly make it clear in the discussions we have on Sunday that that is the way we are thinking at present.

    QUESTION:

    The Soviets have announced within the past half-hour that they are suspending the Communist Party throughout the Soviet Union. Are you concerned about actions they are taking that may not be necessarily democratic, banning parties?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    They have got some democratic authority; some of these people were elected into this parliament. I frankly rejoice at that. I don’t see anything but good news in that in terms of the West and certainly in terms of America. The demise, the fall of a totalitarian non-democratic party effort, I think that is a good thing. I don’t see any bad news in that at all. Rejoice! Cheer!

    QUESTION:

    Mikhail Gorbachev has also criticised Boris Yeltsin today for going too far with decrees this week that he says may not be constitutional. He says last week that was all right, but the decrees that Yeltsin is continuing with, Gorbachev is now criticising. Do you think that there is a danger now that Yeltsin may be going too far?

    PRESIDENT BUSH:

    Let them sort it out. I keep making the point. I made a comment the other day that when they appoint a new public works manager in down-town Kiev, that is their business. I got incidentally turned in for being testy; I thought that was highly amusing but obviously some didn’t. I thought it was very funny but it also has a serious note to it when it comes to personnel.

    I don’t know, John, if you have been asked that every time some guy is in and someone is out, a new person is appointed that nobody has ever heard of in the West, I am supposed to be reacting! They are sorting out an enormous complex set of new relationships so if President Gorbachev has something to say about President Yeltsin, knowing President Yeltsin he is apt to hear back something but that is the way the system is evolving. As you are struggling for democratic processes, these things happen and I really think it is counterproductive for the United States to have to have a view on every statement by every leader about what is happening inside the soviet Union and in the republics.

    What we want to do is adhere to certain values and as the process moves to total acceptance of these values, whether it is free elections, whether it is democracy generally or the whole broad concept of freedom, we rejoice but there are going to be some ups and downs in all of this and they can sort it out without a lot of second-guessing from the President of the United States or telling them where they ought to be the day after tomorrow.

    These are monumental changes that have taken place and the whole world is excited about it and there is going to be a hiccough here, there is going to be a criticism there, there is going to be a move that we didn’t expect over here, for example, but it is moving in the right direction.

    It has been fantastic. I am wondering what we are going to do for an encore next August, John, because last year, as you know, it was the Gulf starting and just ending. I want to identify myself on something here on a question asked to the Prime Minister – the way that this Prime Minister handled the G7 meeting. It has been obscured by events now but you go back and look at what he did and the programme we all came out with as a result of his chairmanship and it is just as relevant today, given this monumental change that has taken place, as it was the day that he fashioned the compromises between very strong European leaders and the leaders of North America. Go look at it! Look at what we, collectively, thought then was best for the Soviet Union and its economy or whatever and I think you will find enormous relevance even though these tremendous changes have taken place.

    As he said, we are going to fine-tune it. We are going to step up attention to urgent humanitarian assistance for food but there are other things we can do. What he fashioned there – and we all would like to now take credit for because it appears to be right on target – what happened there was very very relevant today when you look at the kinds of assistance they really need and you hear what Mr. Levitsky (phon) said yesterday or the day before and then lay that down against the agenda that Prime Minister Major sorted out and led us to reach agreement on and you will find that this programme is very sensible.

    So we will do our part in the West but as for the United States, I am not going to be jumping into the middle of what is going on. I leave that to the editorialists, I leave that to the Sunday talk-shows; I don’t leave it to the policy-makers of the foreign policy of the United States. If we see something that we think takes them off this track to democracy, freedom, openness and reform, we will speak up on it but when you have internal things going on of the nature you asked about, I really think it would be counterproductive for each country to weigh-in and tell one or the other of these two strong leaders how to do things or to tell the republics exactly how they ought to do their business. They know what the principles of the US are and the principles of the UK and we are not departing from them; if we see something against them we will have that to say but I am not going to comment on every personnel change or every comment by one leader or another as they sort out these enormously complex problems from inside.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I was just reflecting that if commentators in the Soviet Union asked the Soviets to comment on every political exchange in the United Kingdom between political parties and political personalities they would be jolly busy. I think they would answer as the President did. We are wise to keep out of it.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible] rest of your forthcoming trip which will cover China and Hong Kong and has the President given you any assurances of help with the problem of the boat people because it will require a nod and a wink from the United States before the Vietnamese are willing to accept the idea of internationally-managed centres?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We haven’t finished our discussions. We are going to have lunch together. We have got some more things to talk about. We have touched on China, we have touched on GATT, we have touched on a number of matters but we haven’t concluded our talks. There are issues like that still to be talked about.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Doorstep Interview with Vice-President Quayle – 31 January 1991

    Below is Mr Major’s joint press statement with United States Vice-President Dan Quayle, held in London on Thursday 31st January 1991.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Thank you all very much for waiting. I am sorry we have kept you waiting so long. The Vice-President and I have been able to talk for a little over an hour, predominantly about the Gulf of course, but also about other matters,

    I think we are both pretty satisfied with the way things are going so far. A fortnight into the conflict, I think there is absolutely no doubt about the remarkable extent of cooperation between the United States. the British and indeed the other allies and we are all extremely pleased about that. And there was particular pleasure I think over here at the President’s State of the Union Address and his very generous words about the activities of the RAF and we were all very pleased to hear that.

    The Vice-President has had a successful day here I think and has visited Lakenheath and elsewhere and I might invite him to say something about his trip.

    MR QUAYLE:

    Thank you very much Mr Prime Minister. Let me once again just reaffirm the positive, strong cooperation that we have had between the United States and the United Kingdom. It was reaffirmed again today at Lakenheath where I visited with the spouses of a number of the troops from the United States and the United Kingdom that are deployed in the Persian Gulf.

    I enjoyed the conversation with the Prime Minister immensely, we value and respect his judgment and opinions on world affairs. We do have and continue the special relationship with the United Kingdom and I am delighted to be back once again to pay my respects to an outstanding and remarkable Prime Minister.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, can you indicate for how long you can resist being provoked into a wider scale land war?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think we will have to see what happens out there. I think as you know in Khafji the Saudis are now examining the houses one by one, there is a house search going on to find out whether any Iraqis are there. There was an incursion, as you know, into Khafji by the Iraqis, it may well be that they will do the same thing again and that there will be other incursions of that sort, but we will deal with those as they arise. But the general strategy of the campaign has been pretty clear, it is pretty clear what we propose to do in future and we will stick to that.

    QUESTION:

    Vice-President, now that the difficult stage of the conflict has been entered with mounting ground casualties, how worried are you that American public opinion will stay behind supporting the war if casualties do mount, as they appear to be?

    MR QUAYLE:

    There is strong and overwhelming support for President George Bush and our policy in the Persian Gulf. The American people, perhaps contrary to international public opinion, have a great deal of patience. They support this President, they support the policy in the Persian Gulf, they support the allied effort to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We are in no hurry to engage in a ground campaign. The air campaign is going quite well and you can judge by the results that we have been successful, we have a strategy that the Prime Minister understands and knows quite well and that strategy is now being deployed, and I might say that that strategy is working.

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you both what lessons you have drawn from the Iraqi incursion into Khafji about the fighting spirit of their soldiers and what it would mean for a land campaign?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think the first thing to say is they have clearly lost at Khafji, have they not? There was an incursion there, the Saudi, Qatari and the American troops there have driven them out. The Iraqi losses have been quite heavy and they are no longer there. So whatever one may learn about the Iraqis, one has learned a little more and that is that the Iraqis will be beaten and that I think is the lesson we were sure was there for them and it has certainly been reinforced by what has happened at Khafji over the last 36 hours or so. And I suspect if there any more incursions the same lesson will be learned again.

    MR QUAYLE:

    I would just reaffirm the fact and that is that we have been successful. Perhaps Saddam Hussein would like to commence the ground war because he has been so unsuccessful in getting any of his air assets deployed, about the only place that they are deployed right now is in Iran. They are certainly unable to have any access to the airways, we have air supremacy, that is a fact and it is a very important military fact.

    QUESTION (JOHN DRAPER, ITN):

    Can you explain what would be the role of the B52s due to be deployed in Great Britain?

    MR QUAYLE:

    I am not going to get into the actual military operations, but we are very appreciative of the continued cooperation of the United Kingdom on this and everything else, but I am not going to get into its role and mission and things of that sort.

    QUESTION:

    Perhaps Mr Major might?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The B52s will be used as the Commanders wish them to be used and that is true of all the other aircraft in the conflict.

    QUESTION:

    Will they be armed with nuclear weapons?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No they are not going to be armed with nuclear weapons.

    QUESTION (CNN):

    Mr Vice President, earlier today you were quoted as saying either we will continue to have Saddam or we will achieve peace. Does that mean to achieve peace Mr Saddam has to be ousted?

    MR QUAYLE:

    Has to be ousted from Kuwait, absolutely, and he is going to be ousted from Kuwait.

    QUESTION:

    From power though, will he have to be ousted from power?

    MR QUAYLE:

    I did not say ousted from power I said that he will be ousted from Kuwait, and he will be ousted from Kuwait, that is the objective and we will achieve that objective.