Interviewer
Prime Minister, Good Morning.
Prime Minister
Good morning.
Interviewer
It is now four weeks since Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait. What, this weekend, is your progress report right now on the effort to roll back Saddam Hussein?
Prime Minister
I think the thing that strikes me first is that we got the response right. Immediately faced with an invasion of Kuwait, a peaceful country who had not provoked anything, immediately faced with that we went straight to United Nations and we got complete solidarity there to condemn it and say that Iraq must withdraw. [end p1]
We waited a short time, they did not withdraw, so we got a sanctions resolution, again remarkable solidarity of the whole world. In the meantime, the George BushPresident of the United States was very active and as you know shortly afterwards a King FahdRuler of Saudi Arabia asked for help and for troops to be stationed there, and that was done extremely quickly. That was vital because it was feared that Saddam Hussein might go on into Saudi Arabia.
So we got the world together and we were very lucky in the leadership of George Bush who assessed the situation, made his decisions very quickly and took action. And we, as you know, fully supported it.
So we got over the first difficulty of stopping any further invasion. We also did it with the goodwill and support of the world on an unprecedented scale. And now there has been a build-up of forces there, quite right because you never know what will happen, and then we had to go again and get permission to use force, well we chose to go again and get the support of the world to use force to see that the sanctions are properly enforced. Because the more you want the solution to be the peaceful one, the more rigorous must be the enforcement of sanctions and the more complete.
So I think it has been a most skilful handling by the President and very distinguished and decisive leadership. We are very fortunate and it has come at a time in the world when the five Permanent Members of the Security Council—obviously the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and ourselves—have worked together very closely indeed so that anything that we could agree we felt that the rest of the Security Council would in fact support and that is what happened. [end p2]
Interviewer
Let us try and tick off if we can our various objectives in all of this. Starting with not the first reason you went in but in terms of time obviously one of them was to deter an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Now it has not happened, would it have happened if we had not moved, are you certain of that, could it still happen?
Prime Minister
First, I think it would have happened. Second, I think Saddam Husseinhe would have gone on to some of the other small kingdoms in the Gulf and he could in fact have taken over countries who have 60 per cent of the world's oil reserves. But the real reason we went in was to make it quite clear that in this end of this 20th century you cannot sit back when someone invades another country and takes it by force. If you do that there is no international law, no country is safe. That was the fundamental point of principle. He did it and we said: “We are not going to have it, you must get out” , and everyone said that. That was the first thing.
Second, when a person like that, and do not forget that previously he had gone into Iran and had an eight years war which really had exhausted his people, he had lost a lot of them, and then comes again over into Kuwait. So you have to stop a person like that also from going any further. That was the fundamental point of principle of international law.
There was of course the secondary one that the majority of the world's reserves of oil are in the Middle East but in the hands of many different countries. If they ever all became under the hands of one country and a person like Saddam Hussein who uses force and intimidation, the rest of us could be blackmailed. [end p3]
And if you do not have oil you do not have the means of keeping your country prosperous, your industries or heating your homes. What is more, you do not have the means of defending freedom.
And it was very interesting that the countries that do have oil, both the United States, which has about half her own requirements, and we in the United Kingdom, were the two countries that sprung first, not to the oil factor but to the point of principle.
Interviewer
That raises one basic question which is, is one of our objectives in all of this the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq?
Prime Minister
Our objective is to secure the freedom of Kuwait, that Saddam Hussein and his troops must withdraw and the lawful government of Kuwait be returned and he could do that tomorrow but he refuses to do so—that is our objective.
Interviewer
Would you therefore be content in the light of what you have said that if those two things happen, if first of all he withdrew from Kuwait and secondly that all the hostages were freed, etc …
Prime Minister
Those hostages should never have been taken. [end p4]
Interviewer
Of course, and we will come back to that, too. But if those things took place, you would be content that he remains in power in Iraq with his chemical and nuclear capacity untouched?
Prime Minister
It is not for us to deal with the internal affairs in Iraq. It is for us to make an assessment of what has happened and when he has gone out of Kuwait and Kuwait is free again, to see how that has altered the security of the area. Because obviously if it happened once it could happen again and so I think in conjunction with all the states in the area, they would want a system which guaranteed their security. We would be the first to want that, and I think that we shall all have to sit down at their request and work out a system that would ensure the security of those states.
Interviewer
Can there be that security in the area as long as Saddam Hussein is in power with that chemical and potential nuclear capacity?
Prime Minister
That is what we would have to ensure. Yes, we also have to remember that Saddam Husseinhe used chemical weapons, used them to win his victory and also used them on villages in a totally uncivilised and brutal way. So we would have to make certain that he could not go into other nations and do the same and would also have to make it clear that our defences were and would remain strong enough and we would remain determined enough so that if he ever attacked with his [end p5] weapons or his chemical weapons, he could not and would not win. He would be a loser.
Interviewer
But how could we do the first part of what you said and actually prevent him from using those weapons if he remained in power?
Prime Minister
The greatest thing is deterrence. You recall that in the Second World War both sides had chemical weapons and neither side used them. The deterrent effect was very strong indeed. You will know that we got rid of our chemical weapons in about 1958 and have not possessed any since. The United States has retained some, they have been of a rather older kind and have not kept up with modern technology. And because the Soviet Union has the biggest stock of chemical weapons in the world the Congress gave permission for some research to be done in modern chemical weapons.
But you have to deter an aggressor by making it absolutely clear that if he moved we would be strong enough, together, to beat him. That is the purpose of a very strong defence and of course it is the purpose of the nuclear weapon. Now it is possible that Saddam Hussein may himself have a nuclear weapon within five years time.
Interviewer
Five years or two years? [end p6]
Prime Minister
Let us say five years. All of that means we have to keep our defences strong, we have to keep our nuclear weapon. Because in the end anyone who tries any military ventures must know and it must be clear to him from what we have and our determination to use it against him if need be, that he could not win.
Interviewer
You are quoted as saying in Time Magazine this week that you wanted to bring that repulsive filth of a man down. Was that a broadly accurate quote?
Prime Minister
I do not recognise it. But I simply say this Saddam Husseinman must not win. This man is a loser.
Interviewer
But you do not say this man must go?
Prime Minister
It is not for us to say what should happen to him within Iraq, that is for the people of Iraq who have suffered grievously through his eight year war with Iran. We believe that there were one hundred thousand people killed in that war and he did not gain a single thing from it. Indeed just recently in the peace proposals with Iran he gave away absolutely everything that he had previously wanted and gone to war to obtain. So they have had eight years, lost 100,000 of their young people, suffered for nothing. [end p7]
That is the sort of person he is and then he tries to go into another country. That is for them to make their decisions about that.
Interviewer
But if he was to stay in power but to leave Kuwait, how can you stop him going across the border again? When you say about deterrence, what deterrence would stop that?
Prime Minister
Only all of us by being very strong, by having collective security, by making it quite clear that we should, at the request of the Rulers in the area, that they together would find some means of keeping troops on their border to stop it and immediately if anything happened we should all get together, as we have done now, to prevent it from going any further and see that it was reversed.
This is the purpose of defence, this is the purpose of keeping it strong, this is the purpose of having strong politicians, never to give in to peaceful blandishments, “Oh, let it all be done just through a few resolutions in the United Nations.” They do not stop tyrants, we know that.
Interviewer
But can there be peace, security, stability in the Persian Gulf withSaddam Hussein still in power, with chemical weapons, with nuclear weapons in his possession? [end p8]
Prime Minister
Provided all of the defences in each and all of the surrounding countries are strong and resolute enough and are prepared to act together the moment there is a threat.
Interviewer
Let us go on now to the other objectives. Do you have any timetable in mind beyond which it is unacceptable for Iraq to leave Kuwait? How long are we prepared to wait for sanctions to bite—forever?
Prime Minister
No not forever, obviously not. It is a question I am asked. Since I have been here I have seen so many unexpected things happen, one of which was the Iran/Iraq war, another which was this, another which was when the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan. We could not have foretold what would happen two months ago. I cannot tell you what the position will be in two months time. What I do know is that now we have got and are still building up the forces there. We are prepared for anything, we are prepared to take any action that is necessary, the resolve has seen that, and so that we look at it regularly.
I have here at the present a morning meeting most mornings, sometimes we do not have one if we think that there will be nothing changing over twenty-four hours, but I have one, we are constantly in touch with the United States and with our other allies. The forces are in touch on the ground and coordinating together. And so we watch it very carefully militarily and we watch it politically and you will see that we are getting our viewpoint across very well indeed, [end p9] we are showing up Saddam Hussein for what he is, we are making it quite clear that what he is doing is totally contrary to international law as well as totally contrary to civilised behaviour. We are making it quite clear that you do not negotiate about resolutions of the United Nations, we have decided what has to be done. The only question is how and when will it be implemented.
So from all of those things and from the way in which events can change, we have got our defences there, still some build-up which is needed and we look at it each and every day, we are in contact with one another and we are getting our viewpoint across. And those sanctions must be rigorously imposed by every nation. And if they are not rigorously imposed then the situation is much more dangerous than if they are rigorously upheld.
Interviewer
If a military strike was to be decided upon in the future, would the hostage question have any effect on that? President Bush said this week that hostage-taking will not set the policy of the United States. Would you disregard in your view in a situation like that, disregard the question of hostages, is that the message to Saddam Hussein?
Prime Minister
If you in fact allow the taking of hostages, terrible as it is, to determine your own action against a dictator, he has won. And all he will ever do, or anyone else with similar ambitions will ever do, is to take hostages knowing that other people will then never take the requisite action to stop such a dictator. [end p10]
So I am afraid we would have in fact to take the necessary action which we feel vital to stop a dictator, even though he still held hostages.
May I make it quite clear—it is absolutely contrary to international law to take hostages, some of the things he is doing are absolutely contrary to it and some of the treatment in Kuwait of some of our Embassies. We are all making due note of the people who do it because in these days they cannot say: “We were only acting under orders.” If they are doing something which is totally cold and cruel and brutal then they, later, could in fact be prosecuted.
Interviewer
So it is an anguishing decision?
Prime Minister
Of course it is a decision of anguish.
Interviewer
But there is a situation in which the lives of the hostages might have to be sacrificed in terms of saving lives in the future?
Prime Minister
If anything happened to those hostages then sooner or later when any hostilities were over we could do what we did at Nuremberg and prosecute the requisite people for their totally uncivilised and brutal behaviour. They cannot get out of it these days by just saying: “Well, we were under orders” . That was the message of Nuremberg. [end p11]
I do not want them to think they are going to get away with it because they will not.
Interviewer
Given what you are saying there, so deeply felt, about these tactics which have been employed by Saddam Hussein, it still seems to me inconceivable that you could accept or welcome a situation in which he stayed in power?
Prime Minister
Our task is to go on with the United Nations resolutions and to get him out of Kuwait. Then Saddam Husseinhe would visibly have lost to his own people, visibly. He lost the Iran/Iraq war in that although he started it he did not gain anything from it. He would have lost because he has to withdraw from Kuwait. We do not know what the results of that internally in Iraq would be. We do know that a person who has taken hostages cruelly, brutally, and a person who, as I say frequently, has hidden behind the skirts of women and children, is now manipulating them and using them. And although he let some of them go—and they should never have been taken—it is obviously causing them great anguish because he is using their husbands and sons and not letting them go.
That sort of person really would have to be brought before a court of public opinion internationally. But I think that you would find when we have achieved the United Nations resolutions and worked to get the international law upheld and seen to be upheld, that you would have a very different situation in Iraq. [end p12]
Interviewer
When you talk about him being brought to the court of international public opinion, do you mean specific international justice?
Prime Minister
I mean international justice, that each of us would be in a position, as at the Nuremberg trials, to bring charges to bear and to have them heard.
Interviewer
Know thine enemy …
Prime Minister
Oh my goodness me, yes. Not only know him but be prepared, if he does precisely what he has done, to have enough defences, you must have enough weapons, you must have the right mix of weapons and you must have the will to use them and to make your decisions quickly.
Interviewer
As you have said, there seem to be two adjectives that are often used about him, as you assess your policy, your reactions and so on, do you regard the man in Baghdad as mad as some people say or evil or neither?
Prime Minister
I do not regard him as mad, I regard him as totally calculating, brutal, and having no regard whatsoever for the dignity [end p13] or rights of the individual, none whatsoever. Calculating, not mad, fanatical in that his personal ambitions must come before everything and everyone else. Saddam HusseinHe has no regard for human life or liberty or justice.
Interviewer
In that context I suppose we have to say, regretfully, that like you were saying about the Iran/Iraq war, that we in the West may well have been either wrong to tilt in favour of Iraq or slow to realise the danger posed by Saddam Hussein?
Prime Minister
There was a great danger, the danger first was to go across and start that. I think we actually supplied arms to neither side, to neither side, that is our policy. I think it became obvious that neither side was going to win. It was apparent, though not real, that Saddam Hussein seemed to have won, not by military valour but by the use of chemical weapons. That apparent victory he has turned into defeat by giving up all of the claims he made and by making a settlement which he could have done and was open without ever starting a war. The losses of those hundreds and thousands of families in Iraq have been for nothing. And some of them, though they are not allowed to say anything, do not forget they suffer too, although they are not allowed to say anything they must feel it deeply and grievously and they must have suffered a great deal. [end p14]
Interviewer
In terms of other things like US operations like “Operation Staunch” , there was a general feeling that we were tilting towards Iraq. Didn't we fall for the old saying: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend!” ?
Prime Minister
I think we realised that there were very many great difficulties from a victory by either and it was not really surprising when there was no real victory. There was a time when Iran, being a very much larger country with more people, looked as if it was going to say: “We are just going to go on and on and on on a war of attrition!” It did end; it ended because Saddam Hussein was using these chemical weapons quite ruthlessly and also, I think, because perhaps the morale of the armed forces in Iran was lost for the time being, but the fact is that neither of them won and, of course, we now have this great new danger through Saddam Hussein, which some people have warned us about and which is now manifest. [end p15]
Interviewer
Do you think his mood at the moment is one of “Time is on my side!” or, to quote Brent Scowcroft, that he is casting around for a way out of the box or does he feel the noose tightening?
Prime Minister
Time is not on his side. He is faced with a resolute reaction from the other countries of the Gulf who requested the help of the Western countries, a reaction which I do not believe he ever anticipated. Some of these dictators can make a wrong calculation: “If they go little by little, just take one at a time, they will not react just for one small country—just go one at a time!” He was wrong! This is a massive point of principle.
Interviewer
When we talk about Kuwait and the restoration of a legitimate government in Kuwait—and President Bush said something this week to the effect that the form of government was up to the Kuwaitis and so on—when we say: “the restoration of legitimate government in Kuwait” are we saying “identical to that which was there before; it has to be the Emir!” or are we saying: “A Kuwaiti legitimate government that is not Iraqi-backed!” ?
Prime Minister
We are saying what the United Nations Resolution says, that the legitimate government of Kuwait, which is the one that has been just pushed out by the action of a dictator, they are and remain the legitimate government of Kuwait. Kuwait in our eyes is still an [end p16] independent country and the Shaikh Jaber al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-SabahEmir of Kuwait remains the legitimate government.
Interviewer
And given the tide of democracy all over the world, which has not reached Kuwait would you, as some people suggest, feel more comfortable if the government of Kuwait was more democratic?
Prime Minister
I think the democratic countries, like me, feel that democracy is the best form of government. I always have to remember that the first election in this country with one person\one vote was, I think, 1951—that even we in this country did not have everyone having the right to vote until 1928 and some people then had two votes and that we went into the First World War with only 30 per cent of the people having the vote. We would still have called ourselves a free people because of our marvellous system of justice and so we must not necessarily expect that other people can come to what it took us quite a time to come to, but we do believe it is the best system of government.
It is not always necessary that our model will export. After all, we started off many countries in the world with our model and some of them went pretty quickly to a one-party state, but undoubtedly, we believe that democracy is the best form of government and we hope that many more people will gradually come towards it, but if I might respectfully say so, it is not exactly a democracy in Iraq either, is it? [end p17]
Interviewer
No. Nevertheless …
Prime Minister
Far from it and as well as one person\one vote—and this was the Aspen speech—you will never get a democracy unless as well, you have what we built up here with the Common Law of our country, built up over the years by equity and the judges, and it was that as much as the one person\one vote which gives us our fundamental liberties.
So yes, we do believe that our system is the best and I think we do believe that gradually, other countries will come to realise that and come towards it.
You also have to have certain other things. You must have people who do the voting realising their responsibilities. A vote carries tremendous rights; it carries also enormous responsibilities.
We, as we came up to it, had had an education system for a very long time; we had had a very good system of law, so it is not surprising that we really were the mother of the democratic nations.
Interviewer
At the same time, Prime Minister, I think you are being a good deal more relaxed and giving a longer time-table for democracy in Kuwait than you do when you talk about democracy in the Soviet Union. [end p18]
Prime Minister
We do not rule the world, neither does any other country.
Interviewer
But don't you think you are being more relaxed about the time-table for Kuwait than the Soviet Union? We are very insistent about democracy in the Soviet Union.
Prime Minister
Time-table for Kuwait! Insistent about democracy!
We hope that the Soviet Union is coming—and she is coming—to her own democracy. She is coming because for years we fought the battle of ideas. We had strong defences after the end of the last War, particularly after the Berlin Air Lift when, of course, the Soviet Union did not disarm and tried to stop all the supplies and stores going into Berlin, and that was when we realised she was not going to disarm and so we could not fulfil our hopes and disarm either, so we kept our defences strong. So the Soviet Union realised that she was never going to win militarily because we would always have strong defences and we would always be ahead technologically—very important that. Had Hitler got the atomic weapon before we did, the history of the world would have been different. We must always stay ahead technologically.
People called it the “Cold War” but we were constantly fighting the battle of ideas—our way is best. I remember saying in an interview on radio, not television—we did it at Chequers and we are not allowed to do television interviews there— “There will come a time when new technology with satellites; they will not be [end p19] able to stop the good news from getting into the Soviet Union!” but you see, even that was not enough. It required a visionary person like Mr. Gorbachev also to act from the top and say this is not enough.
It was not we who went in there and said: “We are going to tell you what government you must have!” It was: “We stay strong, we fight the battle of ideas; it is for you to decide your own future!” We were helped by something called the Helsinki Accords of 1975, under which in return for some of the disarmament talks that we undertook, the Soviet Union signed, along with thirty-four other nations, a Charter of Human Rights and it was that which gave us the right to enquire into their internal affairs. But we fight these battles with ideas and ideals—they are very strong.
As you know, Winston ChurchillWinston was marvellous at fighting with words as well as fighting battles with soldiers and so many authors and people now who can appear on television and write, they too fight these battles of ideas.
Interviewer
As a democrat, you would hope to see democracy in both Kuwait and the Soviet Union but you would not set a time-table for either?
Prime Minister
You do not dictate—you try to persuade. The big dictator is the one who has not a shred of democracy in Iraq and others run far more benevolent systems and, of course, look after their people far better. [end p20]
Interviewer
Yes. Obviously, the concern people have is the one simply that America got into trouble in past decades where we supported friendly non-democratic leaders who turned out to be on shaky foundations and obviously, one wants our friends in the Middle East to be friends who have the power to survive popular feeling.
Prime Minister
You can never say: “Look! I don't like that system or that country, therefore it is all right if a dictator goes in!” It is not! It is contrary to the rule of law and you must get him out because you will go on to others. Any more than could say: “I don't like the person who lives in that house, therefore I can go and burgle all his worldly goods!” No! You have to uphold the law. The internal affairs will be dealt with by the country and its people.
We always are able to hold up our system of democracy and, if I might say so, it goes the world over. I find almost wherever I appear now, someone has seen us on Tuesdays and Thursdays, Question Time in the House. I think sometimes some of the people who have ideas for democracy think: “Goodness me! Would I have to go through that, that cross-examination?” It is the most powerful cross-examination in the world. Not many other Heads of Government have it, so even our system of democracy is not necessarily followed in other countries but it is, we believe, the best system. [end p21]
Interviewer
According to reports, you gave King Hussein quite a stiff cross-examination here on Friday. Are you disappointed by his current stand or do you think he has no choice because otherwise he might lose his throne?
Prime Minister
King Hussein is a friend and there is a traditional friendship between Britain and Jordan and he is a very courageous person. I think he did not quite see the situation as we see it: that unless you stop someone from taking over someone else's country, it might have been Jordan next, Saudi Arabia next, the Emirates next, the Qatar next, other countries and that is a point of principle which transcends all others.
There are times when you may have a whole host of little things in which you say: “I can't do it because of this, that or the other reason!” A whole list of little things are never sufficient to defeat a big point of principle and it is the big point of principle on which you must take clear action—and this is precisely what I was putting to him: “You must stop him, otherwise it will go over the whole of the Middle East and no country, including Jordan, would be safe!”
Interviewer
Are you prepared to see forces that we have deployed there permanently if necessary or have you put a time-table on it or a date? Is our commitment entirely undated? [end p22]
Prime Minister
It may be undated because we cannot foresee the future, but they are there to do a job of work: to defend other countries and to see that Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait and the freedom, liberty and independence of Kuwait are restored.
You cannot take decisions beyond that until you see how things develop. We do not rule out the military option, it would be most unwise to do so, but we most earnestly hope and make every provision for tackling ships which come down the Gulf, to make certain that if they are bringing goods from Iraq or taking goods to Iraq, that they do not get through. Every nation has to do that, both across their own borders as well and every nation has to see that things do not go by air and if there are any people disobeying the sanctions, trying to get round them—and there always are, there always will be—those have to be reported to the United Nations Sanctions Committee—at the moment, Finland is the Chairman of the United Nations Sanctions Committee—who will also then be able to publicise them and take the requisite action. But each of us, when news reaches us of a company, perhaps something having been ordered really under false pretences as to where it is going, appears knowingly or unknowingly, to be getting goods through to Iraq or taking them from them, then we ourselves would of course take action.
Interviewer
When you mentioned the military option or a military strike or hostilities, whatever the phase is, whose decision in the end would that be? After full consultation, would that be basically [end p23] the President's decision with an OK from King Fahd on any air strikes from Saudi oil? Is it basically an American decision?
Prime Minister
There are two ways in which you could actually do it:
One, you could do it without specific Resolutions of the United Nations; you could do it technically that way, because we would have legal authority under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and also by the request of the Shaikh Jaber al-Ahmed al-Jaber al-Sabahruler of Kuwait that we do everything possible to recover his territory. You could go that way and it would still be legal and you would consult one with another. I do not think anyone would ever do it alone—the strength of this is we go together—or you could go back to the United Nations and seek separate authority, but either way would be fully legal.
We cannot see which way it would be to go at the moment because we do not know what is going to happen and it would be very unwise to try to predict. You have to see how things change on the ground and you have to see how your sanctions are working.
I do believe it will take a time for sanctions to work. I think it is just becoming obvious that some of them are beginning to work. It was very courageous, may I say, for Turkey to turn off the pipeline tap from Iraq through to Turkish ports, a very courageous move and President Özal did it very quickly and now, because it has lost Turkey so much income—and sanctions will cost Jordan a lot and also Egypt—the rest of us must help with some aid, otherwise they would suffer disproportionately to other countries. But turning off that tap and the tap of Saudi Arabia [end p24] similarly must be having a tremendous effect on the oil supplies. It means that Iraq cannot get income from supplying oil; she cannot get income with which to purchase the other things which she needs.
Those people are used to having to suffer privation under Saddam Hussein—they had to suffer privation under him for a long time—but we do not know how it will go, but the stronger we are on sanctions, the more likely Saddam Hussein is to withdraw from Kuwait without the military option being exercised.
Interviewer
You said you have to give sanctions time. Weeks rather than months?
Prime Minister
I would think you need to have a look at it over a few months.
Interviewer
But if it came to the military option and of the two you have outlined, if it was the non-UN one, would we have a veto or not?
Prime Minister
Under the United Nations Charter but not under that specific Resolution. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations was the one we acted under when we went to the Falklands to recover the territory, so you do have authority under the Charter but not under the specific Resolution.
It would be for consideration and we should consult and the consultation process is very fruitful and very active now. [end p25]
Interviewer
And in the event of hostilities, our forces would then report to whom?
Prime Minister
Each of our forces is under our own particular government; ours act under us, the United States act under the George BushPresident of the United States and we consult and cooperate so that we are in fact working together, although each is responsible to its own parliament—as we did it before when we had the patrol in the Gulf to keep the oil flowing freely down the Gulf because of the Iran\Iraq War; we acted very close together operationally; we are used to doing it but it would be for each government to take the decision.
Interviewer
It is not true that there is an understanding that we will put our forces to report to US or US-Saudi command in the event of hostilities?
Prime Minister
We cooperate together.
Interviewer
As sovereign forces not reporting? [end p26]
Prime Minister
As sovereign forces. If we decide to operate together, we cooperate together, each under our own rules and rules which we have agreed to cooperate under.
Interviewer
This week, in your speech in Finland, you spoke about the patchy response of Europe to this crisis and the “Guardian” commenting on Friday on that, said: “Nothing could suit Saddam 's book better than backstage Community rows encouraged by front-of-house effusions from the British Prime Minister!”
What do you feel about that criticism?
Prime Minister
Nothing would have suited Saddam Hussein better than if George Bush had not responded and Britain had not responded. That was what would have suited Saddam Hussein. He was defeated from going further by the quick action of George Bush supported wholly and quickly by us, who were able to see the situation, assess it and make decisions and if we had not, he might have gone across into Saudi Arabia.
As I said earlier, it is very ironic that the two countries that were staunchest and quickest on the point of principle were the two countries which already had oil. Europe could not operate without oil. Europe has been the home of the rule of law. Thank goodness for George Bush and I am sure he would say “Thank goodness for Britain” who supported him quickly as staunch allies and I really have very little sympathy for people, when faced with an [end p27] invasion by a dictator, who take a very long time to decide—and thank goodness there were two who did not!
Any criticisms under those circumstances are totally misplaced. Anyone who did not want a quick response was playing into Saddam Hussein 's hands, not the United States, not us.
The others did come along but it was vital to act quickly.
Interviewer
Now, the “Guardian” says that by criticising the people who did not act quickly but are now acting a bit, you are splintering the cohesion.
Prime Minister
There should have been cohesion of Europe. There they are all talking about political union—talking, talking, talking. A time comes when you can do something and what happens? Well, you saw! But they are coming along now, but you know, the European Community has more people in it than the United States. It is not poor. There are some of the richest countries in the world in it. You cannot just rely on the United States. It is not fair; it is wrong; and we do not. We expect to do our full duty towards a situation. Mr. Brady, the United States Treasury Secretary, is coming across to Europe and saying: “Look! There must be further burden-sharing!” with which I agree, and also we must, between us, look after those countries whom sanctions will hit very hard. So that is an opportunity for the countries who are not sending things to the Gulf area to make their full contribution by helping those countries who have been quick to respond and whose people otherwise [end p28] would suffer. That again, is fair. It is a chance to take real live action from political cooperation.
Interviewer
What more, for instance, could a country like Germany do to help at this time?
Prime Minister
Germany, I am certain, will. In the conference we had in Finland, the German representative, Mr. Vogel, who was one of the prime ministers of one of the Länder in the past, said—and he said it publicly: “I assure you that Germany will give very considerable financial help!” and it is possible that after the unification Germany may alter her constitution to enable her to send troops out of the immediate NATO area.
Interviewer
Is that a slightly mixed blessing?
Prime Minister
No, I don't think so. At the moment, you are thinking that there would be some criticism?
Interviewer
Yes. I am thinking that when people read that Germany plans to repeal those parts of its constitution that limit its military activities, that there will be worldwide feeling … . [end p29]
Prime Minister
Germany's military activities will continue to be limited in the sense that she will not make nuclear weapons herself—that will be a limitation. Already, she has very considerable armed forces, as you know, as a loyal member of NATO and she will be reducing those armed forces in response to the disarmament talks that are going on now and she has volunteered to reduce them further as part of the arrangements with the Soviet Union. Germany has been a very loyal member of NATO but it is quite clear—and I did actually warn NATO at the beginning of June—that some of the threats to the security of Europe would come from out of the area of Europe and out of the North Atlantic and actually pointed out at that time that there was a good deal of trouble still in the Middle East which had not been resolved and we must never forget that the Arab-Israeli Palestine problems has not been resolved. There were a large number of states there who already had missiles which could travel a long way and in the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was shooting Scud missiles into Iran and Iran was shooting Scud missiles into Iraq—all got from the Soviet Union—and this was a new danger because of the extent to which they are armed and really, we in NATO must consider being able to defend ourselves out-of-area. We cannot do it out of the line across the Atlantic because otherwise we would not get our strategic supplies. We cannot do it as NATO, but we can do it and do do it as individuals. Hence, George Bush responds; hence, we respond; hence France responds; and also, may I say, another very quick responder too tends to be Holland. It is interesting. I have always put it down to the fact that having had an empire—as indeed France has, as indeed Holland has—we have got used to [end p30] looking at things on a global basis and it is just part of your thinking. You do not look inwardly just into Europe, you do not just look into NATO.
We took a rule of law and tried to take democracy the world over and trade the world over and to some extent defence the world over and we are automatically used to looking at things on a global scale. This is one reason, apart from our common history and heritage, that makes it so easy for us to talk with the United States; it is one reason why President Mitterrand and I get on extremely well together whenever we are talking about defence or these wider issues and President Mitterrand was very forceful when it came to stationing nuclear weapons on German soil and very forceful in the German Bundestag and also I think because Holland too has this greater experience. One must remember too that when it came to talking about South Africa, Portugal too had, of course, had possessions in Africa and she too was used to looking more widely and I think that perhaps is one of the reasons why we say you must not just look inwards—it is threats from the outside world which can affect our life here as well as those of other peoples.
Interviewer
German reunification is going to happen faster than you expected or indeed, most people expected, and it seems to be the general consensus that the new Germany will be the dominant force in the new Europe. Is that a bad thing or does it need to be contained? [end p31]
Prime Minister
It is something that we will have to cope with. I think she is going into unification faster than any of us thought merely because it is just not possible to plan for the future in East Germany—with her old-fashioned industries, people will not buy those goods—and also, since you have got the monetary unification that, I think, triggered a much faster change than was previously thought possible and so the only thing to do now is to get on with it.
There will be a tremendous amount of adaptation needed from the Community because East Germany will have a considerable amount of agriculture production, particularly when it gets up to efficiency; the environmental problems will be enormous; she will have to come to, after a brief transition period, the standards for goods and service and environment that we set in the Community and will have to cope with the Common Agricultural Policy and so on.
Nevertheless, she will be the largest country in population—80 million is far larger than France or ourselves or Spain—and therefore by virtue of that and her very successful industry, she will be a very dominant nation. She should not be dominant totally so long as France and ourselves and the others see that she is not. We are Twelve.
Interviewer
Could we do that very well though?
Prime Minister
I have been there a long time. We can do it but it means [end p32] the rest of us saying that we do have our own views and it also means, if I might just say so, taking the British view of how the Community should develop. It means that we stop someone from becoming dominant not by just trying to dissolve into one federated Europe—then I think you would be far more likely to have Germany dominant because of the population. It means you keep your sovereignty, your pride, your history—and President Mitterrand also agrees—and you cooperate as sovereign nations each responsible to your own parliament. It was as well we were sovereign nations when Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait!
Interviewer
That is an important point you made there because a lot of people say the more it is a federated Europe, the less Germany will be dominant; you say the more it is a federated Europe, the more Germany will be dominant.
Prime Minister
That is right, on a population basis yes and I have sometimes seen, when we have been negotiating in the Council of Ministers, some of the smaller nations sometimes would say: “Well, if France and Germany agree, the rest of us should agree!” and I have said: “No! You each put your own viewpoint and you each analyse the situation!” and that has partly been my role so that really is how we managed to have quite a lot of influence in the Community.
But things are changing and again, the rule is do not look inwards. We must look outwards now. Things are changing right down Eastern Europe. You have got your Poland, your Hungary, your [end p33] Czechoslovakia all now having reasserted their sovereignty. They do not want just to let it go. They have reasserted it. Yes, they want, I believe, to come into Europe and I believe we must make provision for them to come in when they have got their economies right but they want to come in proud of being Hungarian, proud of their Czechoslovak history, proud of being Polish—they do not want to come in to lose what they have so recently regained and one day one hopes that maybe the Soviet Union will become a free country with a full free economy.
Interviewer
The Soviet Union could become a member?
Prime Minister
Let us think about Eastern Europe first. We are not quite certain how the Soviet Union's structure will develop although I think that Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin had a very good meeting just recently and that is good for all of us. But you do not want people to have to lose their identity. You can just be loyal to an enormous thing without also having your loyalties to your country as well.
Interviewer
And also, if the membership gets wider through Eastern Europe and so on, it also comes back to your other point that one country will be less likely to be dominant of course? [end p34]
Prime Minister
Yes and you each speak. And then, you see, it is much more democratically accountable because when I am negotiating there, I am constantly thinking: “Goodness me! Next Tuesday, I will have to make a statement in the House after Question. Can I sell this agreement to the House of Commons?” because this is my democratic responsibility. I think the Danes are the only other people that have to do that but then, I make a statement and am cross-examined on it for about an hour afterward. Some of them make a statement and are not cross-examined at all. This is our accountability and, of course, what the recent events have shown is that it was our individual response that actually did the trick and we must keep that but it is every bit as worthy you know.
Interviewer
Given all of this pressure on sovereignty that you have been talking about and pressure for political union pressing on sovereignty, do you not sometimes think that it would have been nice if Europe had just stayed as a good Zollverein?
Prime Minister
No. I think it was very important in the post-war period to have that kind of rapprochement between France and Germany. The real reason for Europe was to see that none of us ever fought one another again. Do not forget, two World Wars were started, we know where, right in the heart of Europe, between Germany and France and Britain and the important political thing was let us work together for the next generation to see this cannot happen again. That was vital. [end p35]
It has never been necessary to try to get such a tight single state that Europe became one European state and we just have to bear in mind that Europe was the originator of democracy, a rule of law, freedom, human rights, a fantastic artistic renaissance, bringing science to the benefit of people instead of it just being an academic subject. But it was not Europe—it was the separate nations of Europe. There was always variety and if there was tyranny in one nation, there were other nations to go to where to practise your ideas and your ideals; so democracy from Spain, the rule of law from Rome, the great artistic renaissance really from Italy and other countries, the Industrial Revolution with Science from us and the Mother of Parliament, instead of the city state of Greece to get the democracy here but I do not believe it could have been done if at any time Europe had been under one single control. You would never had had the variety and the freedom developing any more than it developed in China or developed in the Ottoman Empire. They had tight control. We must keep our variety.
Interviewer
In the light of what we are saying, may I quote a distinguished British civil servant, Sir Humphrey Appleby who said in “Yes, Minister!” that for five hundred years Britain has been devoted to the idea of a disunited Europe and we tried to break it up from outside and we only went into Europe to stop it working and the more members it gets, the more arguments you can stir up and the more futile and impotent it becomes. That was his version of British policy. [end p36]
Prime Minister
No, no, no! That was the version of the authors, which he spoke beautifully! I think that that is looking at it only through the eyes of the past.
Yes, we did always have to have a kind of balance of power. Today, the importance is that we respond to the needs of our time. We could not have foreseen in 1956, when we were really having trouble with the Soviet Union—it had gone back to a rigid communism and was trying to dominate the world with communism—we could not have foreseen the tremendous events which have happened now. We could not have foreseen in 1956\57—we had just had the Hungarian uprising and the tanks had gone in and it had been clamped down—the new opportunities. We have got those new opportunities. Just as we could not have foreseen what is happening in East\West Europe and now perhaps we have had our eyes mesmerised on that.
So we also have to be careful that we can foresee what is happening elsewhere—in the Middle East and in South Africa and in China—but we must look forward, using the experience of the past but with the imagination to rise to the challenges of the present, but it does not mean losing your identity. [end p37]
Interviewer
Do you think that one of the side effects of the Gulf crisis will be, because of inflation, to delay the practicability of our date of entry into the ERM?
Prime Minister
Well, we just have to look at that in the terms of the conditions that we set out at Madrid. If you look at the increase in the price of oil, it has gone up of course from about $14 a barrel now to about $26, $27. That actually will affect us all, it will affect Germany, it will affect France, it will affect their cost of living, it will also affect us as well. So that will affect us all and put up all our retail price index.
It will have another effect, of course, if you have got to spend more money on one commodity you have less to spend on others and therefore you tend to get an element of deflation put in. I think that would affect many others. [end p38]
We will have to continue to look, as we have done, continue to look at the Madrid conditions which says that our inflation must be nearer to the average of Europe and continue our policy to try to get inflation down. It does take a long time, once inflation has got in it takes quite a long time to get it out.
So I do not think it changes the conditions that we set. It does mean an extra challenge for the world. We cannot yet foresee what the OPEC countries' undertaking to increase the amount of oil to make up for the oil we do not get from Iraq and Kuwait, what effect that will have. That cannot be brought up very suddenly, it will be going up soon and through late September. That should limit the price increases we have had and possibly reduce them.
So again you cannot tell. We will look at the decisions as we have done in the past and make them when we think that it is the right time.
Interviewer
Informed sources say that you had pencilled in October or November …
Prime Minister
I sometimes do not seem to have the information of informed sources! No, we have not pencilled in anything, we have to look at it.
Interviewer
You have not pencilled in October or November? [end p39]
Prime Minister
We have not pencilled in anything. We look at the conditions we have set out in Madrid.
Interviewer
When we look at the whole subject of the economy and inflation, not now in relation just to our European partners but in this country, has the Gulf war made you feel that getting inflation down just in terms of the British economy now and not Madrid criteria, getting interest rates down is going to be a longer process than it was four weeks ago?
Prime Minister
Certainly as far as the Retail Price Index is concerned, yes. It stands to common sense that if you have had a sharp increase in the raw material price of oil that will work through, your oil companies are having to replace the oil stocks which they bought at $14, $15, $16, are having to replace those with stocks that they may be buying at $26, $27. So that will work through.
Of course the actual oil component of your petrol price is not the whole of it, quite a bit is tax, as you know, so you do not get the same increase at the petrol pump as you do in the raw material price of crude oil. But it will put up the Retail Price Index just as we were hoping that it would turn down. But we cannot foresee how much it will because that depends upon how the world responds when the oil countries have increased their oil so that we are not short of it. [end p40]
Interviewer
Here at home there is a head of steam building up at the moment about the standard of education in this country and them not being high enough and so on. There is a current poll in the Sunday Mirror that half the people in this country would pay for private education if they could afford it and that two-thirds of them blame the government for the decline in standards of education and so on. Given that the sixteen year-old school leaver this year will have been educated entirely under a Thatcher government, if they were at school from five to sixteen, how much of the blame for Britain's standard of education does the government accept?
Prime Minister
It is very interesting that you said that given that the sixteen year-old will have been educated under Conservative government, it is very interesting that the exam results from the GCSE were good, were better and more children staying on. And because we felt that the standards of education nevertheless were not good enough, we actually took steps to see that for the first time there is a basic national curriculum because we also saw that children were not being educated properly in the fundamentals and you must be able to communicate, whether it is by speaking or by writing. They were not getting enough basic English and English literature, they were not getting enough mathematics, they were not getting enough science, they were not really being taught history in a way which gives them some idea of the whole sweep of history and not really being taught certain fundamental geographical things. [end p41]
So we have got these into a basic curriculum and we were brought to do it, not because we like necessarily making new rules and regulations, but to ensure that children who had spent eleven years of compulsory education at school, came out properly educated for the world which they will face.
Interviewer
But when we go through all the statistics about the number of school-leavers at the age of sixteen compared with the industrial nations, apart from Greece and the Common Market and all those figures, the standard of education in this country is generally thought to be not good enough and you would probably agree about that. The point I was making in terms of blame or responsibility was that after eleven years some of the responsibility surely after eleven years, Germany has reunited in twelve months, after eleven years part of the blame for the standard of British education must belong to the government?
Prime Minister
We have done a very great deal to improve it and we did in the early days what we thought would help. The amount of money now spent per child on that child's education in real terms is bigger than it has ever been before.
Interviewer
But we spend less per capita than ten years ago? [end p42]
Prime Minister
No, no, no, the amount per capita spent per child's education whether on primary or secondary is bigger than it has ever been and the numbers of teachers in proportion to pupils is bigger than it has ever been. So I think we assumed that if we were spending more, having more teachers and improving the training of teachers, they all now, the new ones have to be graduates and have some training in education teaching as well as in their chosen subject, that inevitably you would get better education. It so happens that just doing that does not in fact necessarily improve the education.
May I say that we are not the only country that is complaining. There are many others that are having just the same problems. In my constituency we happen to have a very good education system, it is not necessarily, ironically enough, the precise amount of money that is spent upon it, it is the whole approach.
I notice that parents are wanting, and we are increasing their choice more and more, what we would call the orthodox classical education. They want their children to be taught, positively to be taught maths, English, science. They want them to know things, they want them to be able to think. It is really a very classic education that they want, not using classic in the terms of Latin or Greek but a standard orthodox education.
Interviewer
What has prevented you making that progress over the last eleven years, was it the teachers, the parents, the unions? [end p43]
Prime Minister
We have not had the powers to do so, we have not had the powers to lay down the curriculum. So first we took powers, and we fought the last election on this, we took powers to do so and the next thing is that is coming in, we then set up the national curriculum. We do not lay it down, we got the best educational people to lay it down, that is coming in. We altered the examination system, that is coming through—the best results that we have ever had. And we altered the training of teachers and that, too, I hope will be an advantage.
We notice that parents, when given the choice, and they have not had enough choice, choose the kind of standard really good classic education that they want for their children, it was not what some of the schools were offering. It was the local authorities that could determine what was taught, not government. And sometimes, you know that some of the local authorities have had some of the worst schools, the children were not getting a good education.
Now what have we done? We have done the things that I have indicated and more. We have said that if you are not satisfied with the way your school is being run under the local authority, you can take it out of the local authority, you will get the same amount of money from government, you can become a grant-maintained school and your teachers, your local governors and your parents can have the same amount of money and you can run that school on the national curriculum and you can run it the way you want it. And you will know then that the money goes straight into the classroom, not into the local administration, but straight into the classroom and you will have much more say. [end p44]
It is tremendously popular. We have only got just about fifty schools like that, they are the envy of other schools because for the first time the headmaster, the governors and parents can say, they can see, they can direct how the money shall be used, not on an administration but straight into the classroom.
And so that is not going fast enough. We have also said that the local authorities must put the budget to the school. Again, I used to hear headmasters saying: “Look, it costs a lot to educate pupils in this school but I only have the say over about £3,000.” Now I am able to say: you have got the say over a much bigger proportion of your budget and they and the teachers they now have the responsibility. It is exciting, it is new and we are going to get better results because the parents are pretty conservative—with a small ‘c’—if I might say so and they recognise a good education and they want it and they are going to get it and they have started.
Interviewer
So when the two-thirds of people in the Sunday Mirror poll blame the government for the decline in educational standards, you would say that government is not responsible at all or would you admit that the report card to the government on its education success should read: “Could do better” .
Prime Minister
Is doing better by taking away some of the powers from some of the local authorities and giving more powers to the schools and the teachers to get a better education. Now some local authorities are good. My local authority is one of the best local authorities [end p45] on education, even though we spend less per head than some of the very left-wing ones. And people do not necessarily want to upset things if they are perfectly satisfied. But for those who are not, they can get their schools out and it will be better.
And also, we have started up city technology colleges, they are free at the point of use. But they were to give children really in inner cities who were not getting a chance a much better chance. And we all know what the socialists are like—do not change anything, never take away powers from the government. We said you must disperse powers, that is what we want to do. And they said: you will not get pupils to apply, you will not get teachers. Every city technology college that has started is over-subscribed with pupils, they cannot take them all in, and pupils from all kinds of backgrounds, they are over-subscribed with teachers and are becoming a flagship for the locality so that they are able also to influence the education of the children.
What we are doing for education is exciting and yes you are right, it is, because we felt we are paying, the tax payer and the rate-payer, for eleven years of compulsory education and what the children are getting is not worthy of the children for the future. And that is how we are tackling it.
Interviewer
There has been a major trend this year in terms of the pressure on No 10 Downing Street. Back in March the Sunday Times had a huge article saying: “How long can she last?” [end p46]
Prime Minister
They have got to write about something have they not, the Sunday Times has to produce something every week and others every day.
Interviewer
This was not in the Funday Times, this was in the other part, but they in fact were making that statement when a lot of other people were not. But now the pressure would seem to be off—are you still budgeting on a challenge to your leadership this autumn or not?
Prime Minister
I am not worried about me, I never have been. I believe passionately certain things, everyone knows what I believe, they know what I stand for, they know that I will keep going on in that direction because I believe it passionately. They know that we are capable of making decisions quickly, they know they have got a staunch defence, they know that we are able to tackle things fearlessly like the trade unions who practically ran Britain at one time and would do it again if they were ever given a Labour government or half a chance.
They know we fearlessly tackle things and I believe that in the last eleven years, what we have done is restored Britain's reputation, given her a higher standard of living than she had ever had before, more jobs than we have ever had before, and we are tackling some of the other things like education. I shall go on doing those things because I believe in them. [end p47]
Interviewer
You will go and lead the party into the next election?
Prime Minister
That is a matter for the Party. I want to and believe I shall. But I am responsible to my Party and to Parliament and I hope that they will give me enough marks out of ten to continue.
Interviewer
And do you want to see the next Parliament right through? Can we be sure you will be there all the time?
Prime Minister
… then if I say yes they say: “Ah, there you are, she has said she will go on and on and on.” I am not falling for that one. I want to go on for the next election because I believe we have really to entrench those things and the reputation of Britain. We do have a reputation, we are strong.
Interviewer
But you would not rule out being Prime Minister at the age of seventy, would you?
Prime Minister
No, some people started their administration at seventy … but that is just through the next election and right up to the following one. I am not going to give you the chance to say she is going to go on and on and on. [end p48]
Interviewer
But you would not rule it out would you?
Prime Minister
I am not immortal but I have got a lot left in me yet.
Interviewer
You said on one occasion the famous quote about “I hang on until I believe there are people who can take the banner forward with the same commitment, belief, vision, strength and singleness of purpose.” That was in 1988, are there any of them around at the moment?
Prime Minister
Oh, they are getting quite a number, yes we have got a very good young group, very good, they are coming up into Cabinet and they are very good. Very pleased.
Interviewer
Very pleased?
Prime Minister
It is my job to see that there are plenty of people to take it on in the future, to take the way in which we have done these things, given an example to the world in rolling back the frontiers of socialism, and other people have taken up that banner, it is happening. [end p49]
Interviewer
You are happy with the young group that you have brought on in the Cabinet?
Prime Minister
Yes, yes, they are very able. We have not got enough women, no party has enough women. After all these years of vote for women, after so many graduates, after so many women in business, women are coming to take a much more active part in business and there are no jobs to which they cannot aspire. There are not enough standing for Parliament and getting elected. I think all of us women in Parliament long for the day when there will be enough of us so that each one of us is no longer conspicuous or a matter of comment. We still need a lot more women coming forward. It is easier to get them into the House of Lords than it is into the House of Commons.
Interviewer
As you look around the Cabinet, how many at the moment potential Prime Ministers do you see round that table?
Prime Minister
They would think they were all, so it would be a very rash person who would distinguish between them and it is not for me to choose my successor.
Interviewer
It is not for you to choose, do you want, can you honestly say with hands on heart, that you want to have no influence whatever on that choice? [end p50]
Prime Minister
When the time comes I do not know what view I shall take. But the view that I take now is that I must see that there are several people there for the Party to choose from. But I believe it is right for me to go on and take the next election and to stay on. If you go on and take the next election you must stay on for a considerable time after it, but you cannot say what the position will be at the following election.
Interviewer
And how do you organise an orderly succession anyway, do you announce in advance or is it always a thunderclap the best way to do it?
Prime Minister
Oh, you just see that you promote people whom you think are very able and have the right ideas to enhance Britain's performance and her reputation and her influence.
Interviewer
It is presumably more or less inevitable that the next leader would come from the existing Cabinet is it not, that would be likely?
Prime Minister
I would have thought so. [end p51]
Interviewer
The only person outside I suppose one could think of would be Michael Heseltine, I suppose. Cecil Parkinson said on one of these programmes that he had been the second highest profile person in the party, that he had kept the high profile, he had been loyal and pitched in on the big issues. Would you agree with that?
Prime Minister
I do not in fact choose the next leader, I am very much aware of this, no-one could have foretold that I would come from the back and become leader and then become Prime Minister. I know that there are several people who in fact could take over and that gradually we will get even more. And there have been far more people who have ambitions and who have come steadily up through junior Ministerial rank into the Cabinet. So you have got to keep a steady succession coming forward.
Interviewer
But would you be as happy if it was Michael Heseltine as John Major?
Prime Minister
I am not going to answer that, it is not for me to choose, it is for the Party to choose.
Interviewer
But the decision about how long you stay, that is for you to choose? [end p52]
Prime Minister
It for me to choose, indicating that I would wish to stay. It is for the Party to make it clear that they support that.
Interviewer
A year or two ago when the tumultuous events in Eastern Europe were happening you made your comment about when the ice breaks is sometimes the most dangerous times. As you look ahead now, do you think in the light of what has happened recently, do you think the world is a less dangerous place than it was eighteen months ago or whenever the Cold War was still in operation, is it a less dangerous place?
Prime Minister
In East-West terms it is less dangerous. But you cannot say that it will continue always to be so. That is why you have to keep up strong defences. But we have had our eyes very much on East-West, the democracies versus the Soviet Union, for quite a time and I might say that I think the worst is over in the Soviet Union. I think it has been a very difficult four or five years for Mr Gorbachev and I think he is getting the breakthrough. And the news of him and Yeltsin together is very good.
The danger always is that you have your eyes on one thing and do not see what is happening in the rest of the world. It is more dangerous now in the Middle East and we must get that Arab/Israeli problem solved. And China of course I think myself that China, the economic reforms, will be going ahead and I think that gradually she will come much more towards a democracy. [end p53]
And we have the new big encouraging things happening, do not let us forget it, in Southern Africa.
So if you look at the whole thing, yes it is much more encouraging. But throughout history there have been despots and dictators who have been born and manage to get control and power. That will continue to happen in the future and therefore we must always keep a strong defence. Otherwise by the time you find out it will be too late to get those defences, sophisticated as they are.
Interviewer
In the midst of all that, the most interesting thing there was your feeling that Mr Gorbachev is through the worst …
Prime Minister
I believe Mikhail Gorbachevhe is through the worst.
Interviewer
… and that he is on the way to recovery and that in fact he does not face insoluble problems.
Prime Minister
No he does not face insoluble problems. Most of the problems in politics, the most difficult ones, are human attitudes. After all, Russia is a wealthy country in terms of her natural resources, she has got oil, she has got gas, she has got gold, she has got platinum, she has got diamonds, she has got timber, raw material, she has got very good soil, she is a wealthy country in resource terms. [end p54]
She has had a people who have never been allowed responsibility or to make their own decisions and they are finding it very difficult to change from being told what to do to having to work harder and make some of their own decisions and perhaps that is not surprising. So they are a little bit bewildered.
That is the difficult attitude to change and you have a massive bureaucracy, the greatest bureaucracy the world has ever known. Each little bureaucrat had his own little privilege and they are not very keen to let the bureaucracy go.
So it is the biggest undertaking I think the world has ever known—how to give freedom from the top to people who are not sure whether they want to take the economic freedom. They take the political freedom and sometimes I have the impression they say, “Oh, Mr Gorbachev has given us freedom of speech and freedom of worship and we like that, we enjoy it, it is marvellous, we can discuss, we can debate. Now we are waiting for him to give us prosperity.” And you find you go and say: “No politician can give you prosperity. He can give you the chance for you to create the prosperity.”
So he has got that big attitudinal change and I remember saying the first time I went there: “When you have given them freedom of speech you will find all the complaints coming out first, all the criticisms, all the things that have been stifled coming out first. And you will have to get through that before you can start to see the real improvements.”
There is still a long way to go but I feel that they, having got all of the complaints and therefore all of the things which they disapproved of, having got that out of the system and all of the new politicians having got that perhaps partially out of their system, then they are beginning to realise that you have to work and pull [end p55] together. And under those circumstances I think that we can perhaps give more help as to how it is possible to do it.
It is more cheerful, it is more hopeful and Britain and her record have played quite a part in this and we can be very proud.