I
Prime Minister could you once again for us re-state the British position regarding Geneva now and deployment if it became necessary?
PM
Yes, I think it's perfectly clear. We would very much like what has come to be known as the zero option, namely that if the Soviet Union takes down her SS20s, was need not deploy our equivalent which would be the Pershings and the Cruise. It would seem that she will not go to that zero option and therefore we have to concentrate in Geneva on perhaps having something less than that. But if she agrees to take down some of her SS20s we need not deploy the full amount of Pershings and Cruise but we shall start in December to deploy because we're not going to get the zero option.
I
Now some people Prime Minister are claiming now for deferment of deployment in case Geneva does not lead to any conclusive compromise at the moment. Is there any prospect for considering this?
PM
No. And it would be wrong. We made a clear decision, NATO made a clear decision, we all made it, we set the dates for deployment, we then said that we would not have to deploy if there were a zero option. The Soviet Union seems to have rejected that. But we cannot go on living with a position in which she has put all of hers in place in a modernised way and we haven't. When ours go in, our modernisation goes in, which is Pershing and Cruise, we shall take out simultaneously some of the older nuclear weapons. Some of the ones that they are replacing. So there will be nuclear weapons withdrawn as the new ones go in.
I
Now they have, the Soviet Union has greatly increased their nuclear striking power since 1976. And they claim having done so only in order to balance and some people accept that. There was a leading Labour politician only saying so two nights ago. Is this in any way a justifiable claim?
PM
Not at all. We have not modernised ours and we would not have needed to have done so unless the Soviet Union had invented and set in place these SS20s. Ours as you know before that we had the Polaris [end p1] weapon and we had as a strategic weapon which is our final resort to deterrent and we also had things like the Vulcan bombers. They're being phased out and therefore unless we put in place others like Cruise and Pershing we shall have nothing to act as a deterrent to the SS20s.
I
Prime Minister, what is your reaction to the insistence of the Soviet Government to include the British and, for that matter the French, independent deterrent?
PM
Totally irrelevant for the INF discussions at Geneva and they know that. We had our own independent nuclear deterrent before there was a single SS20 in place. We had it because we needed to have a last resort deterrent because the Russians have a fantastic large strategic force. Our last resort deterrent, Polaris, and eventually with Trident, is only 2½%; of their strategic weapons. Wouldn't it be better to concentrate getting down their enormous armoury before they begin to talk about our last resort deterrent. But in any case it's irrelevant to the intermediate weaponry.
I
Under which circumstances Prime Minister would you or any Prime Minister feel you have to authorise the use of the independent?
PM
I do not go into that. The purpose of nuclear weapons are to deter. They have succeeded in deterring for a very long time in Europe. They have actually succeeded in deterring wars, having nuclear weapons has succeeded in deterring a conflict far better than nations which have not got them. That is one of the ironies. I do not wish to spread them, I think that would be terrible but since the last war there have been 140 conflicts the world over. There have not been conflicts between the nuclear powers—between two powers with nuclear weapons. In fact NATO is a true peace movement and the nuclear weapon has truly deterred, not only nuclear war, it has deterred conventional war. That is immensely valuable to all who love peace. To have nuclear weapons deterring not only nuclear war but conventional war as well is a very great thing.
I
How do you rate the chances for Geneva leading to any result at all now? [end p2]
PM
That will depend on how the Soviet Union negotiates there. I think she's done everything possible to try, knowing that we have freedom of discussion, freedom of opinion, to try to persuade the peoples of the Western world not to deploy. She will not succeed because we know the nature of the country and the alliance with which we are dealing. I think she now realises that she will not succeed in that aim and therefore she really must turn her mind to a genuine disarmament discussion at Geneva and I hope she will. Because I very much want to see us all, both the NATO and the Warsaw Pact reduce the number of weapons, but reduce them in a balanced way and in a way which makes it easy for the other side to verify that what we say has been done, has been done. And I want us very much to get on with that process, not posturing anywhere else but getting on with the process at the negotiating table in Geneva.
I
Now, to the East/West dialogue, Prime Minister. The Soviet Union threatens that the continuation of the East/West dialogue would be seriously endangered if it came to deployment of Cruise missiles and Pershing. How seriously do we have to take such threats?
PM
Well she will threaten, and she has been doing this threatening, but we're not going to be threatened. We're not going to be threatened out of defending our freedom and justice. They matter more than anything else to us and she must understand that.
I
Yes, now about the East/West dialogue again in view of the North Korean airline atrocity, how far do you feel has this impended or affected perhaps the Geneva talks?
PM
I think we're being careful to see that it does not affect our posture at the Geneva talks. We were all totally and utterly horrified at that atrocity. It was terrible and when the full enormity of it was known I think the way in which the Soviet Union dealt with it was disgraceful too. It just showed that they have a totally different attitude towards the value of human life from that which we hold in the West. But you know it was the latest example of the way in which they regard human life. The first one you should know was the Berlin airlift. But we had to do that because of their approach. The second one was the uprising in East Germany about 1953. The third one was [end p3] Hungary. The fourth one was Czechoslovakia. The fifth one Afghanistan. And then of course Poland and then of course the Korean air-liner. It is the latest manifestation of how peoples really will not indefinitely live under that kind of tyranny. They want to break out of it. But in the meantime the Soviet Union is a very powerful nation, her internal matters are a matter for her. She need never fear that the West will attack her in any way, we are totally defensive. We threaten no-one. Everyone knows that. But we will not be deflected from defending our way of life, knowing that we threaten no-one.
I
Could we, should we not perhaps have reacted differently to the North Korean air-liner atrocity as European nations, as the Community? You know that Herr Genscher was very, very angry at what happened at that.
PM
Yes we should have acted differently. There should have been an absolutely unanimous, totally condemnatory message coming out of the Community. But the fact that we could not get everyone along was neither Germany's fault nor Britain's. We should also have been able in NATO to have a longer period than fourteen days for the banning of flights. We wanted a longer period. We were not able to get everyone along with us and even then some people are not even going along with the fourteen days. I agree. I agree. It was incomprehensible that we couldn't get a clearer statement from Greece. You would have thought that when that happens that people everywhere would have said this is a crime against common humanity and whatever our differences let's join in condemning it. But then you know when it got to the United Nations Security Council there were only nine votes condemning it and of course Russia vetoed it. So yes it is very worrying indeed.
I
Prime Minister you are shortly going to Germany and you are aware of course that there are great anxieties, there is strong pressure being exerted on the Government—there are threats of protest actions and provocative actions and deeds … . campaign and the Social Democratic opposition in the Bundestag was about to rear off from keeping to the agreements reached earlier regarding deployment. Now you as a head of a NATO Government, to what extent are you concerned seeing such things happening? [end p4]
PM
You must never be swayed by threats. I believe the overwhelming majority of the people in the Federal Republic of Germany are behind the Government and the overwhelming majority of people here are behind the Government and our determination to defend our way of life and never lay ourself open to threats. To defend our way of life we need the capacity and the will. We have both. At the same time, because we threaten no-one, we are the first to want to spend less on armaments. Indeed, we would be the first to urge the Soviet Union to negotiate seriously in Geneva and in the START talks as well as the INF and in the conventional talks in Vienna and to negotiate on chemical and biological weapons—don't forget those—they have quite a number of chemical weapons. We want them to negotiate in all the because we genuinely want disarmament. We only keep our military forces for defence. We don't keep them to attack anyone. We may disagree with other nations but they have their way of life and we have ours. So we are the peoples who most sincerely want disarmament but how far we get towards it will really depend upon the attitude the Soviet Union takes. But threats will get them nowhere. Straightforward dealing, being prepared to have balanced reductions and being prepared to have them openly verified are what will make all of us very much happier and enable us to spend less on weapons, which none of us really wants to have.
I
Now you are about to travel to Germany to see the British Army on the Rhine and there is some concern because in the public debate in this country there would seem to be some doubts coming up about the role and function of the British Army on the Rhine—the other day's newspapers, in The Times, last night on Newsnight. How do you Prime Minister see the role of the British Army on the Rhine today?
PM
Well if ever you come to change a role you have to do it in a whole NATO context, in a discussion with NATO, if ever you were to change or adapt or modify a role and that would be a question for NATO as a whole. We have been loyal and true friends of NATO, it is in all our interests that we loyally carry out the roles which we are assigned in NATO. And if ever anyone wants to alter that role then it would have to be discussed in NATO as a whole.
I
Now may I turn to Europe … . there are intense ministerial consultations going on at the present time. How do you rate the [end p5] chances to reach … . package solution by the end of the year for the most urgent problems?
PM
We must make strenuous efforts to do so. Chancellor Kohl presided over the Stuttgart Conference, if I might respectfully say so, magnificently. He got, and a Chairman is one who goes on and gets the required decisions taken. We did. It was a very impressive performance and he managed to get agreement out of nations where there was a certain amount of disagreement—a very impressive performance. And it's important that we carry on resolving our differences and come to agreement in Athens and I don't want anyone to start thinking that it can go on beyond Athens. The Community would be in a very serious condition if we had not and do not reach agreement in Athens.
I
Well once the present problems have been removed, Prime Minister, what would then be your personal view on the purpose and function and authority and the shape of the structure of this Community in the longer run?
PM
This Community has authority, it has shape. You know I'm a passionate believer in the Community because I think that in a very dangerous world it is important to have the democratic nations sticking together so that you have an area of stability. Democracies are much more stable, democracies don't attack other nations, they are much more stable. It's absolutely vital that the Community sticks together and works together as a Community. That perhaps is the most important reason. Secondly, as a Community you know we negotiate in the trading markets of the world together. That makes us the most powerful unit. We import more, as a unit, than any other unit in the world and we also of course export a great deal. So we are stronger together than we ever could be separately and we can bring greater influence to bear for good in the world as a whole. And of course we must always stick together with the United States and Canada. This arch across the Atlantic is very important for the free world and we must never, never forget that there are many nations who would long to be free and it's important that they can see the way in which we value our freedom and the way in which we work together.
I
May I ask you a few questions further on so to speak?
PM
Of course. [end p6]
I
At the end of this Parliament you will have been Prime Minister for ten years or so, not quite, that's a decade and maybe longer if it is extended.
PM
If we win the next Election maybe it will be ten years, yes. When we win the next Election.
I
Now how would you hope to have Britain changed by the end of this period in office, as compared with the Britain that you found in 1979 because I believe we are right in saying that you do wish to bring about certain fundamental changes.
PM
Indeed I think we're well on the way to starting those fundamental changes. We are really freeing up the economy. First we're got inflation down. Secondly we have a low deficit. Thirdly we've got interest rates low than they would otherwise be. We can't always determine interest rates because of the United States. Fourthly we try, and I hope that we shall get world expansion so that we too can expand, try really to get more money into people's pockets to enable the rates of taxation to go down. Fifthly we have managed to get ordinary people able to buy their own homes where they were not able to do so before because of this enormous number of houses belong to the local authorities which we have got. And then we are managing to free up industry in a remarkable way. We had a large number of nationalised industries and we're steadily reducing the amount. And also the number of regulations on industry was intolerable. You know we had incomes control, we had prices control, we had exchange control, we had dividend control, we had far too many regulations and far too little incentive and initiative and enterprise in our society. That we are changing in a very real way. We are changing the balance of power between trade unions and employers. Everything that we are doing in that direction really strikes a chord in the hearts and minds of our people. And that is why I think we were returned. We were going far too far in the direction of the Socialist State where it is the State that becomes all powerful and the citizen not so powerful. We're redressing that fundamental balance.
I
The result of the June Election was very remarkable. The people gave you a mandate with a vote of confidence which cannot be overlooked. And I would have liked to ask you one little thing. You got this [end p7] mandate a few months ago and why did the British voter in the process of this nearly destroy the other great Party of tradition in this country?
PM
First, because our policies were clear. Secondly, because people believed that what we were doing was right and in accordance with common sense and the traditions of our country and thirdly, although we had a very rough time, we were prepared to persist. So they got clear policies which they approved of and perseverance in their application.
I
Prime Minister, a question which concerns both our countries. How does one ever hope to really come to grips with the new problem of new mass unemployment?
PM
We have faced problems of this kind before. I think one of the problems we face now is that on top of world recession we have really a third technological revolution. I think people do not realise the full impact of that. That now, because of the new information technology, we really can go to automation on a scale—we've not seen it before. And that has the first, the initial effect, both on the factory floor and on maintenance and in administration, of meaning that you can have the same production with fewer people. Now that's always the initial effect of new technology. But the second effect which we're also seeing now is in fact to make possible the production of things we could never have produced before. And so in fact we shall get that creating new jobs in the future. I believe we can but I believe it will take a time. But I believe the important thing is to stimulate enterprise and I believe that we shall be able to do that.
I
Now what I really want to ask, finally in winding up, because it's the season of the Party conferences and in Germany we have been watching very closely the change in the Party political landscape in this country and I would like to ask you what chances you give the Alliance, the SDP breaking the mould and how you think the Labour Party, the position of the Parties outright. And how do you see the prospect of the Labour Party now that it's changing to a new leadership?
PM
Well I can only give you very brief replies because … . [end p8]
I
In this changing landscape of political Party geography in this country, how do you rate the situation of the Opposition Parties? Do you still give the Alliance a chance to, what they call, break the mould and how do you see the prospects for the Labour Party now that it's turning to a new leadership?
PM
Well look there's only one Party that's broken the mould in Britain and that's the Conservative Party. It's broken the mould by having clear policies and sticking to them through difficult times and getting returned a second time with the same Prime Minister. That has broken the mould in politics in this century so they're not breaking the mould in any way. The Labour Party I think made a great mistake in going much too far left in its policies and also in its defence policies and there are many people who voted for us who previously voted Labour because of the clarity and firmness of our defence policies and our other policies. You see Britain is going to defend herself and they didn't like it when the Labour Party took up those policies. How things will develop in the future depends very much I think on the kind of policies which the Labour Party adopt. I don't know how they will reform themselves. I do know that they have a number of years to do it and they probably will be very realistic about it. But you see we were the only Party, well the Labour Party was very clearly extreme left, and we were the only other Party that was absolutely clear in our policies but our clarity was in tune with the hearts and minds of the people. And they don't want something wishy-washy in the middle.
I
Very finally now I ask you with your permission, a question which is in a way more personal. Prime Minister, you are giving very strong leadership to this country and it is known that you hold very strong beliefs on certain things and indeed that you act on these beliefs. Now could you, if this is possible at all, could you give me a very basic answer on these beliefs on which you feel so strongly?
PM
I value freedom, I value justice. I think the West does not value it enough, it tends to take it for granted. I know that in the world there will always be people who have colossal ambitions over other countries. Some of them run tyrannies, most of them run tyrannies and oppressive systems in their own countries. Who will defend freedom if not those who believe in it? What will happen [end p9] to it if it's not defended? Our system is the best for individual men and women, for families and for humanity. We must be prepared, if we value it, to defend it and to proclaim its virtues to others. That is my simple belief. If the good don't defend the things they believe in, who will? And if they don't, what will happen? It is very simple, very straightforward. It requires certain decisions but we don't flinch from taking those decisions.
I
Thank you very much, Prime Minister.