Chancellor Kohl
Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Prime Minister, let me use this opportunity once again here in public to welcome you most warmly in our country and especially so in the Palatinate, which is my home part of the country.
You will have seen from the reactions from the people of this country, the cordiality which we feel and how much we in Germany recognise and value the relations with your country and how grateful we are for what you have done in the past.
It is a very warm and cordial personal welcome they address to you in my home country and I am happy that I shall have an opportunity straight after this to take you through to Speyer and show you one of the most venerable locations in Germany.
Let me tell you again, dear Prime Minister, that you are here in the Federal Republic of Germany, you are in the Palatinate and you are in a very European surrounding here. [end p1]
In an area where during the ages of national quarrels there have been for centuries a great deal of bloodshed and a great deal of suffering and where people really yearn for peace now.
We planned these discussions, and we have had them today, at a point in time where important international developments are taking place. At the end of May, 1 May will be tomorrow, we will have the NATO Summit in Brussels and it is our joint intention that this NATO Summit, as well as all the others so far, shall serve to keep NATO strong and prepared for the defence of Europe.
And we Germans, of all people, know that the forty years of peace and prosperity which we have had so far could not be kept up now and could not be kept up for the future without the help and the strength which we have through NATO.
We know that freedom cannot be had at the zero rate and this means that in a changing world we have to react, but our reaction must be based on facts, on deeds, and not on illusions and this we must keep in mind constantly in NATO strategy.
Let me say quite clearly for Germany that from our point of view there has been no change in the need for a flexible strategy in NATO and we realise full well that the presence of United States, British and French troops here is intended to defend our freedom and peace. [end p2]
In a very frank and very friendly discussion, we have also talked about differing opinions and there are such differences and it is our joint endeavour that in the three weeks which will pass between now and the NATO Summit, together also in discussions with our partners, especially with our American friends of course, and of course with the other partners in NATO as well, to find a basis for a joint decision.
With reference to the differences of opinion to which I have referred, I would like to say that I am sure that we will find a common basis and a basis which will be useful because we want the NATO Summit to succeed.
We have also talked about a number of other questions in the development of the political scene in the world, I will mention only four.
We hope that developments in Namibia will take a positive course and that arrangements will be strictly adhered to because that is very important for the overall development in Southern Africa.
We have talked about the preparation for the Economic Community Summit in June in Madrid. We know that an enormous amount of work is awaiting us if we want to stick to the agreed date of 31 December 1992. [end p3]
We have discussed and both expressed our satisfaction at the development in Poland which is towards greater opening and I would like personally to underline what the Prime Minister said when she was in Warsaw which is that every plus of political freedom in Poland will dramatically improve the chances for economic development.
And the last point, which is important for both of us, I would like to mention in the framework of the preparations of the World Economic Summit in Paris on 15 and 17 June, that is that we both wish this World Economic Summit to set a signal for the world, countries of the world, with a view to the global danger in which the world climate finds itself with regard to the rainforests, where we know that things are taking a dramatic course and where it is necessary that we should act now, and when I say now I mean now, and not just in a few years, that in talking with the countries involved, I am thinking in particular of Brazil, and with proper respect for their sovereignty of course, we must discuss with them this challenge to the whole of humanity. This also means that we cannot leave these countries on their own so far as their social development is concerned.
Prime Minister, might I ask you now to make your statement? [end p4]
Prime Minister
Chancellor Kohl, Mr Mayor.
First, may I thank Mr Mayor and the city for the very warm welcome it has given us, for their wonderful hospitality, and for their most excellent wine. It undoubtedly has added greatly to the general warmth and comradeship of the occasion and we are very very grateful and delighted that so many people have come out on this bilateral Summit between the Chancellor and myself.
The Chancellor has given you an excellent account of the subjects that we have been talking about, the wider subjects on the European Economic Community, the Economic Summit, the environment, East-West, Poland, Namibia, and so on. All extremely important, not only to those countries, but really to the whole world.
You will be particularly interested in the views upon the NATO Summit so may I come to that straight away. There is a NATO Summit in the offing, as you know, at the end of this month of May and there will be very very important things to discuss.
It is the 40th Anniversary and we start off from the point that NATO has kept the peace for forty years by being strong and full of resolve to do two things: strong enough to deter and resolute enough to defend if need be. That has not only kept the peace but kept the peace with freedom and justice. It has been a marvellous recipe for the whole of the West. None of us could be secure separately, we can only be secure together. [end p5]
And so I can tell you precisely the position from which I start that NATO Summit, and I think Chancellor Kohl would agree with most of these things.
It is that that strength must continue, that it is strength not only in words, but as he said, the strength has to be translated in the weaponry for the agreed strategy of flexible response. Flexible response includes the proper mix of conventional and nuclear weapons and short-range nuclear weapons are absolutely vital to flexible response.
That is the broad strategy. Where are we now? We are where we agreed at the last NATO Summit and I reaffirm wholly, as we did when we met in February, reaffirm wholly the position of that NATO Communique at the last Heads of Government Meeting in Brussels.
Following that Heads of Government meeting, some of the details were of course referred to our Defence Ministers, who work through the Nuclear Planning Group in regular meetings. They have done that, they have had their own statements, and made their own decisions in pursuit of our agreement at Brussels.
So I believe the position from which we start is the only agreed NATO position which was one at the last Summit and the ones worked out on behalf of our separate countries, jointly acting in NATO, through the Nuclear Planning Group. And to that, because we are a NATO Alliance, we have all to be agreed. [end p6]
It is important that we discuss the way ahead and keep the strength, keep the resolve, keep the strategy of flexible response, keep the weapons necessary to put in practise that doctrine, and to deter any would-be aggressor. And because obsolete weapons do not deter, to do as the last Summit Communique said, to keep the weapons up-to-date where necessary.
Now as you know, Germany has made her own position clear in her own statements, as she is fully entitled to do. We shall, of course, be discussing everyone's position when it comes to the NATO Summit. There may be certain differences. It is not unusual in an Alliance for there to be certain differences. But I hope and believe most earnestly that we shall agree and have a successful NATO Summit so that the whole world will know that NATO is determined to continue her policy of defence, of deterrence, of a strong defence, strong resolve, and that we are agreed upon the necessary detailed decision in order to do that.
It is in the interests of all of our countries that the liberty that we have enjoyed shall continue and we shall believe to hold that liberty in high enough esteem to make the necessary decisions to defend it.
Now I do not think it will help if I go on from there. Did I hear some agreement? But I do believe that the resolve is there to keep NATO strong and that the position we start from, the only position we can start from, is all the things which we have agreed to date. And those therefore will continue unless and until changed. [end p7]
Question (John Dickie, Daily Mail)
Can I ask two brief points? The Chancellor referred to the presence of British troops defending freedom on German soil. Do you think it is possible for these troops to remain unless they are properly protected by up-to-date short-range nuclear weapons? And secondly, do you think you can enter any negotiations to reduce and eliminate these weapons before there is parity between the conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Alliance?
Prime Minister
British troops are in the Federal Republic of Germany and so are American troops in the Federal Republic of Germany, in pursuit of NATO's joint doctrine and strategy that none of us is safe separately, but we are safe if we agree to go on as we have now on strong defence and the weapons and the disposition of those weapons and troops to back up that strategy.
You asked specificaly about short-range nuclear weapons. Flexible response, which is the agreed NATO strategy, requires short-range nuclear weapons. As I understood Chancellor Kohl, and he will correct me if I am wrong, he said that a third zero was not an option. Perhaps you will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand it, there cannot be a third zero. With that I wholly agree and it follows from what I have said previously. [end p8]
I think that we are agreed on that position and if there were to be a suggestion that those short-range nuclear weapons should be wholly eliminated, then there would be a different doctrine, it would not be flexible response, it would go much more to trip-wire which I do not think public opinion would take, and which I do not think is an acceptable strategy.
Moreover, if there were to be a third zero, which I reject and I believe Chancellor Kohl rejects, it would mean that the Soviet Union had achieved its objective of getting land-based American nuclear weapons out of Europe and I believe that that would be disastrous for the future of NATO.
Chancellor Kohl
I would like to offer a statement on my part. I said at the beginning, in my words of welcome, that we were grateful for the presence of the United States, the United Kingdom and French troops and others, because together with our own forces, they are here for the defence of our joint freedom. And the 500,000 conscript of the Federal Republic is making a very special contribution to this, quite naturally, because of the geophysical position of the Federal Republic.
About the zero solution, well I have said that often enough. I said this very clearly a year ago at the NATO Summit and perhaps I can quote my text from the statement that I made in the Bundestag last week. [end p9]
“The Federal Government reaffirms the Alliance. So far as foreseeable, there is no alternative to the concept of preventing war by deterrence on the basis of a suitable mix of appropriate and effective nuclear and conventional forces. In the nuclear forces, under present conditions, it is necessary that there should be land, sea and air-based systems in Europe.”
This is perfectly clear as a statement and is very different from the opinion of, for instance, the German Social Democrats and that is really the quarrel because there are political forces in the Federal Republic who want a third zero solution.
It is our opinion that we will have to take the decision about the deployment in 1992 and let me say once again how important are the conditions which we formulated there.
For this it is of decisive importance to know whether we shall manage to get more security at a lower level of nuclear and conventional forces altogether.
Prime Minister
Can I just say this? I do not want to discuss here what we really ought all to discuss in NATO at our Conference. The NATO positions are as they have been taken and remain from the last Summit and from the Defence Ministers at the Nuclear Planning Group. Whether they should be changed, and how they should be taken forward is for negotiation at the next Summit. [end p10]
Some people have already set out what they believe the way forward should be but I think it is for negotiation between all Heads of Government then and I do not think it would do any good to go through it in detail now.
Chancellor Kohl
We are of the agreed opinion we have quite a lot of work to do before us in the coming three weeks, but as I have said, we have a good chance of succeeding.
Question
Chancellor, would you say that your understanding of each other's position has been enhanced at today's meeting and secondly was any link made regarding Chancellor Kohl 's desire for early short-range talks, was any informal connection made between those negotiations and the Vienna Conventional talks?
Chancellor Kohl
We have had an opportunity to speak very intensely, very frankly, very openly with one another about these matters. And I have already made it clear to you that there are still some differences but I do also say that these talks of ours have opened up chances to attain our joint objective which is success for the NATO Summit. [end p11]
Question (David Marsh, Financial Times)
Mrs Thatcher, may I ask you to elaborate on something you said just now? You said that if American land-based nuclear weapons systems were to be removed from Europe, that could be disastrous for NATO. What do you actually fear? Do you fear the Soviet Union could exert some sort of military hegemony over Europe or some economic domination, and also do you think that the Soviet Union, with Mr Gorbachev getting nicer every day, is bidding for the soul of Germany?
Prime Minister
I am talking about NATO strategy. NATO's strategy is to deter and defend by flexible response. Now if you get rid of short-range nuclear weapons, only eighty-eight, but they are absolutely vital, you have got rid of the main, one principal element of flexible response. You then, as I indicated, are very near a trip-wire situation with regard to nuclear. I personally think that is unacceptable militarily and to public opinion, although I am aware that some people hold that view militarily. It is not one I hold, it is not one NATO holds.
NATO doctrine again is flexible response. Flexible response is not something you mouth and then it comes into effect. It is something you have to match with the appropriate mix of weapons and short-range nuclear weapons, there are only eighty-eight launches of Lance, are a vital part of flexible response. [end p12]
May I just add, to make it clearer, in the last five years the Soviet Union has up-dated 95 percent of her short-range nuclear weapons. Our very much smaller number dates from 1972.
Question (Stephen Milligan, BBC News)
Can I ask the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, one has the impression from what you have said that you have made no progress at all today on reaching a compromise on the missile question. Is that fair comment?
Chancellor Kohl
No, I do not think you can put it like that. In my statement in the Bundestag I said that we would not like to insert our German position into these negotiations and this is an issue which understandably concerns the Germans more than anyone else. Of course it affects all of us but everything that concerns weapons or arms between zero and 500 km range naturally, for geographical reasons, concerns the Germans most. When I say the Germans, I mean the Germans this side and the other side of the Iron Curtain. And I have taken an oath on the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany when I took office and there is mention of the German nation, the German people, in that. And we all know, and I know, that the defence of the freedom and the peace of the greater part of our German nation, and that is the Federal Republic, is possible only within NATO. [end p13]
That has been so and will remain so and we have borne all these burdens. We have a conscript army, on this small territory of the Federal Republic we have an enormous burden and I recognise, and I think we must bear this burden, because it constitutes the only chance of preserving peace and freedom. But on this particular issue, we are in a very particular situation and in my six years as Federal Chancellor I have always been ready to see and understand the overall interest of NATO, more than anyone else in German political life I have tied my political existence to this matter. When you think just think back to 1983 and the deployment of the Pershings, and on this particular issue we have a very specific interest.
It is my simple wish and my simple request to our friends and partners in NATO for us to prepare for the NATO Summit a joint document which takes our special situation into account. This has nothing at all to do with the Germans having become unreliable or anything like that. There can be no question of that. We cannot be outshone by anyone in NATO in our reliability.
That has been our policy so far and this will not change. That is why, over the next days and weeks, we will go on talking in order to make sure that something reasonable can be jointly put together. [end p14]
Prime Minister
Can I just add? I think the question is based on a wrong premise. No two nations can alter the present NATO position. It is not for us to speak for NATO. We may have different views but the NATO position is the one which we agreed at the last Summit and as applied in the Nuclear Planning Group. It was agreed by Heads of Government, it was applied by Ministers of Defence. We are all signed up and pledged on that and no two nations can alter it.