David Ellis, Bridgetown, Barbados
I work with Rediffusion, Barbados Rediffusion (ph) and Voice of Barbados and my question relates to the fact that Prime Minister Thatcher has been getting a lot of criticism in this part of the world. As people down here see it, Mrs Thatcher has been quite strong in her opposition to the spread of Communism and the repression of people's basic human rights. Yet when the Caribbean countries sought her help to remove just such a repressive group in Grenada, she failed to act decisively, as we see it. We'd like her to tell us why.
Thatcher
Mr Ellis, I'll be as brief as I can, thank you very much for asking me the question. First, I think as a general rule we in the Western countries, the Western democracies, use our force to defend our way of life, we do not use it to walk into other people's countries, independent sovereign territories. We try to extend our beliefs not by force but by persuasion. So there is a general rule that you do not cross into an independent sovereign country. It's not an inviolate rule, but it's a very, very good one. I think, therefore, that if you're going to go into an independent sovereign country&em;and don't forget Grenada was given independence in 1974 with a fully independent constitution with a legal system, with democracy, it had gone by 1979 when Maurice Bishop seized power as a Marxists&em;but I think it's a good fault not to walk into another person's country and therefore, let me put it this way Mr Ellis, you have to be absolutely certain that if you do there is no choice, or if there is no other way. Now it's quite clear that the Eastern Caribbean states and Jamaica and Barbados and Ronald Reaganthe President of the United States took one view and some of the other Caribbean countries [end p1] took another. Under those circumstances and with my beliefs I did counsel caution before an irrevocable decision was taken to cross into the country of an independent sovereign territory. You mentioned oppression, Communism&em;yes, I hate it. There are many, many peoples in countries in the world who would love to be free of it, love to be free of it, that doesn't mean to say that we can just walk into them and say now you are free, I'm afraid.
Ellis
I take note of what she said about walking into other people's countries, but did not the call on the part of the Governor General of Grenada, Sir Paul Scoon, make any difference because if he did call for help and that call was relayed to you via the other Caribbean states, then it was not just a question of walking into a sovereign territory without being called, you were invited.
Howard
Was there a call for help?
Thatcher
Our Deputy High Commissioner saw Sir Paul Scoonthe Governor General in Grenada last Sunday. He communicated no call for help whatsoever, and as you know no call was made through us, nor indeed through the, I understand from a statement from the Palace, no call was made through the Monarch and any call that he made was not known until after those invasion forces had gone into the territory. I really think, Mr Ellis, if I might put it this way, I see now little point in arguing about it. The people in Grenada will be delighted to be free of an oppressive rule, so would many other peoples round the world be delighted to be free of oppressive Communism. I think the reason why the forces went in was one of regional security of which you and the United States may well be the best judge. And I think now what we've got to make certain is, or try to make certain as best we can, that democracy is [end p2] restored in Grenada and hope, and hope very earnestly that it does not take the course it took after 1974 and of its own internal volition turn to a Marxist state, because I have been to Commonwealth conferences since I was Prime Minister, Grenada has never, in my time as Prime Minister, been represented by a democratic Prime Minister who was elected to power. It has always been represented by a Marxist Prime Minister who seized power by coup. Now let's hope that Grenada does not go that way again. She's got a second chance, a second chance with democracy, and let us hope most earnestly both for the people of Grenada and for the other people in the Caribbean that she chooses and sustains the democratic path.
Howard
Mr Ellis, the Prime Minister has made it clear that there was no call for help on the part of Sir Paul Scoon. Are you &dubellip;
Thatcher
One moment, there was no call through the British Prime Minister, the British government, nor I understand through the Head of State before invasion. Now that does not mean there was not a call, but there was no call through us, or that we knew about, or that was communicated to us in any way. The first we knew about it was, I think, when, I think it was Miss Charles who said that it had to be concealed &dubellip;
Howard
The Prime Minister of Domonica through the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean states. So there was a call for help through them?
Thatcher
We understand that there was a call for help but it was not known until she made it known well after the invasion and I think she made it known when she was in the United States.
Ellis
Now recognising the short time that we have, there's just one last question I'd like to pose. How much would the Prime Minister be prepared to help with the restoration of democracy in Grenada now that all is said and done? [end p3]
Howard
How much would the Prime Minister be prepared to help in the restoration of democracy in Grenada?
Thatcher
Well I indicated, Mr Ellis, in the House of Commons, we are always sympathetic to calls of help, after all we did set up, Mr Ellis, a democracy in Grenada in 1974 with a full democratic constitution and with two-million pounds of aid to start it off well. So we're no strangers to setting countries off on the course of democracy. The course they take after that is up to them. Now if now we can be helpful when the United States has cleared the island of the present resistance, if then we can be helpful well we shall be certainly be very sympathetic to calls of help. Can I just point out to you, Mr Ellis, that we gave independence also to Belize two and a half years ago, at their request we stayed in Belize with armed forces for an appropriate time, which was thought to be going to be a few months, we are in fact still there and Belize is still a democracy. No-one can stay indefinitely in an independent country, sooner or later if they're going to be a democracy they have to choose their own way. But I emphasise again, Mr Ellis, in the end each independent country will have to choose its path and I hope that this time, and we're prepared to give help to Grenada again, prepared to give help to set up democracy, that she will sustain the democratic path as some of the other countries in the Caribbean have.
Howard
Would this take the form of a Commonwealth force, a peace-keeping force, perhaps? [end p4]
Thatcher
Well now this is being talked about, I think it's important that all pockets of resistance are cleared up by the United States before any Commonwealth force goes in. May I just say a word about multi-national forces. Having had a certain amount of experience of them about the world now, I think you've got to make it quite clear before you go in, you've got to make your purpose clear, you've got to make the objective clear and the timing clear and the timing for withdrawal clear, because at the moment there's a tendency to get multi-national forces in, peace-keeping forces without their objectives or the time for withdrawal being as clear as they may. They happen they're called multi-national forces or some of them are United Nations forces, we are now in a multi-national force in Sinai. I do not know how long it will last. We're in a multi-national force in Lebanon, it was only going to be for three months, it's been extended, extended, extended. We're in the United Nations force in Cyprus, that's been there nine years. So if there's going to be a multi-national Commonwealth force in Grenada it must have clear terms of reference, it must have a clear command structure, it must be there for a clear purpose and the timing at which it comes out must be equally clear, otherwise we really shall be so stretched in using our scarce armed forces around the world and we shall get multi-national forces in many, many places without clear purpose or clear termination to their duties. [end p5]
Presenter Margaret Howard
Thank you, Mr Ellis, for your call from Bridge Town, Barbados. I would like to move on now to another area that was the centre of conflict not so very long ago&em;to Port Stanley in the Falkland Islands, and Mrs Betty Miller. Can you hear me, Mrs Miller? Can you give us the question for the Prime Minister?
Thatcher
Hello, Mrs Miller, I'm here.
Caller
Good afternoon. How would you view a move by the Falklands towards a firm form of independence within the Commonwealth, perhaps similiar to the Isle of Man, because we feel surely the United Nations would have to support such an obvious move of self-determination?
Howard
Let me just repeat that because the line is very unclear: how would the Prime Minister view a move by the Falkland Islands to independence within the Commonwealth, and surely the United Nations would support that?
Thatcher
Mrs Miller, again I made it perfectly clear at the time that if the islanders want to move towards independence, we would do everything to facilitate it. It would be the very smallest country which was independent that we've had yet. I think the smallest that we've brought to independence is Tuvalu, which has about seven-thousand people, and the Falklands, as you know, is under two-thousand. If that is the way in which they wish to move, we will do everything to help. It would be very small and obviously, before it came to independence, we should have to try to make arrangements for its defence. That would be very, very important because otherwise you might be just as liable to be invaded by someone else who casts envious eyes at the Falklands, as you have been in the past, so independence yes, but we would have to try to make arrangements for security and I don't think that we could stay indefinitely in an independent [end p6] country. I've indicated we've already been in Belize for two-and-a-half years although she's independent, but is that what you're thinking about, Mrs Miller?
Caller
Hello and thank you very much! Yes, we can quite see that but we do hope that the community is going to grow.
Thatcher
Indeed. Would you please give everyone my love down there. I'll never forget the visit I paid and I think about you a lot.
Howard
I hope you heard that because I really think we ought to break off there, Mrs Miller. The Prime Minister has answered the question and the quality of the line is so poor, I think we should now move on to Hong Kong and Nancy Lee. Hello, Nancy Lee, your line to the Prime Minister:
Caller
Hello, Mrs Thatcher.
Thatcher
Hello, Mrs Lee.
Caller
Miss Lee! When you visited Hong Kong last September, you told the people of Hong Kong you would respect the three treaties based on negotiations with China on these treaties. Now after one year, after so many rounds of talks with China &dubellip;
Howard
Hang on a minute, Nancy Lee, I'm afraid we're not quite catching that. I just got as far as &oqq;when you visited Hong Kong last September&cqq;.
Thatcher
One moment&em;let me say how far I've got and then Nancy Lee can carry on: when we visited Hong Kong last September, I thought she said, we were going to enter into negotiations with China. Now she's saying, after a year those negotiations do not seem to have got very far. Is that right, Miss Lee? Can you go on from there?
Caller
I'll repeat it once more, okay? When you visited Hong Kong last September, you told the people of Hong Kong you would respect the three treaties and you would base your negotiations with China on these three treaties. After one year and after so many rounds of talks with China, is there any modification or any slight alteration that you've made to this stand or is your attitude still the same? [end p7]
Thatcher
Mrs Lee, as you know, under the Three Treaties, the major part indeed, ninety-two per cent of the ground territory of Hong Kong would revert to China under the lease which terminates in 1997, and, as you know, it's virtually impossible to run the whole of Hong Kong except as one unit, and it's because of the existence of that lease that we have to enter into negotiations with China to try to enable the kind of way of life which Hong Kong has known, her freedom and her prosperity, to continue, and it's for that purpose that we're still negotiating with China. The last round of talks were, as a communique afterwards indicated, very useful and very constructive and I think we must continue those negotiations. I think you know, Mrs Lee, it will be quite tragic if between us, between China and Britain, we cannot make an arrangement which enables that way of life, that stability and prosperity, to continue, because it's compounded of two things&em;the enormous enterprise, hard work, inventiveness of the Chinese character in Hong Kong, and the system which has been run under the British in Hong Kong. Now it's trying to get the continuity of that system, together with the wonderful character of the Chinese people that we're struggling to maintain. The last round of talks I thought were very constructive and went much better and I believe we are reaching a better basis of understanding of what it is that has made this remarkable success in Hong Kong and how we should arrange for it to continue, so I am not&em;you sounded a little bit depressed, Mrs Lee&em;I'm not: I was much more cheered up after the last round of talks and we must continue them, because it's so [end p8] important both for the people of Hong Kong, which is most important of all, and for China and for the British Parliament and for the British people as well.
Howard
I think from what I understood of the end of the question that Nancy Lee asked if there was any change in your opinion on this matter?
Thatcher
No, we've had no basic change. We are negotiating on the basis of the original communique to try, both countries, to maintain the stability and prosperity, we are of course probing every aspect of the differences of view between China and Britain and that is exactly what a negotiation is about&em;trying to come to some arrangement which suits the people of Hong Kong, which is acceptable also to China and to the British Parliament, because after all, in the end, I have to sell any arrangement to the British Parliament and they're unlikely to accept it unless it's good for the people of Hong Kong and equally China has to accept it, so we are negotiating, trying to maintain the stability and prosperity.
Howard
The lease you referred to doesn't apply to the whole territory, does it?
Thatcher
The lease applies to about ninety-two per cent of the territory&em;not ninety-two per cent of the people; the other two parts are in two slightly different, in two different treaties, but I think everyone in Hong Kong accepts that you can really only run Hong Kong as a unit. For example, all the water for Hong Kong comes from Chinese territories, most of the food for Hong Kong comes from Chinese territories and we're trying to solve it on the basis of this remarkable success we've had in building up Hong Kong through these several characteristics, and trying to [end p9] solve it on a basis of friendship with China. We both wish to come to an amicable, negotiated settlement which will suit the people of Hong Kong.
Howard
Would you hope to keep a British presence there?
Thatcher
These kind of things are exactly what we're now negotiating about. I mean, obviously we think that the British link is very, very important indeed because this is partly responsible for the kind of success we've had in Hong Kong. Now, when you say that, you then have to go on to say, well now, precisely what is the nature of that link and the nature of the law and so on, because you want continuity of systems as far as you possibly can have them, but these are matters for the negotiating table and what goes on at the negotiating table MUST remain confidential and they have remained confidential, except for the communique at the end of the talks, but we are trying to do it on the basis of friendship with China and to try to get the very best possible arrangement for the people of Hong Kong, but what goes on in the talks, while we're doing all of this probing and while we're talking quite candidly, it must be carried out in confidence.
Howard
Well, you've got another thirteen years and nine months to go on talking! Thank you, Nancy Lee for your call. We go now to Aarhus, I think it is, in Denmark, and Klaus Hamley. Hello, Mr Hamley, is that how you pronounce where you live?
Caller
Sorry?
Howard
How do you pronounce your town?
Caller
A-A-R-H …
Howard
No, not to spell it&em;it's Arhouse (ph) is it?
Caller
Yes, the second biggest city in Denmark.
Howard
What is your question for our Prime Minister? [end p10]
Mr. Hammel From Aarhus, Denmark
Doesn't it worry you that the American government can fire the Cruise and later the British Tridents without the approval of the British government?
Thatcher
Well, of course, Mr. Hammel, they can't. With regard to Trident, Trident is wholly and separately under the command of the British government. Trident is an independent nuclear deterrent, it's on submarines, it's sea-launched. With regard to Cruise missiles, the ones that are due to be stationed here at the end of this year unless, and it would be absolutely marvellous if we did, unless we manage to achieve a zero agreement with the Soviet Union that they would take down their SS-20s, with regard to that, the same rules apply to those as have applied to previous nuclear weapons and existing American nuclear weapons on our soil, the nuclear bombs, and the arrangement was agreed with Winston Churchill a very long time ago. And what that says, and it's written down, is that to fire those weapons would require the decision of both the President of the United States and the current British Prime Minister before any weapon could be fired, would require the agreement of the British Prime Minister. And President Reagan has already made that perfectly clear and has said in the United States that it's tantamount to a veto. In fact it's more fundamental than a veto. It couldn't be fired unless we had the agreement of the British Prime Minister, and that is in writing.
Howard
So it's virtually two fingers on the button?
Thatcher
That's right.
Howard
Mr. Hamley, what would you like to add to that? I think we were so eager to answer your question we jumped in before you'd finished.
Hammel
Yes, I am asking because the USA to the year eighty-six will have a first-strike capability, especially because of developments to track and destroy Soviet submarines. Such a [end p11] first-strike carried out by the USA will minimise US casualties to about ten percent of the population but the European casualties would be about ninety percent of the population, because the Soviets would have most of their intermediate-range weapons intact.
Thatcher
Now, the purpose of all nuclear weapons, Mr. Hamley, and it has so far been achieved, is a deterrent to war. It is, as you know, the feeling that it would be so terrible to get into a war in which nuclear weapons may be involved that that in fact stops war and has successfully prevented war in Europe for thirty-eight years now, the longest period of peace we've had for a very long time. And the fact is that the existence of nuclear weapons has been a balance of terror which has kept not only nuclear peace but it has kept conventional peace in Europe as well. Indeed, the existence of nuclear weapons has meant that we have not gone back to the time before the First World War or the time before the Second World War when I'm afraid conventional war was embarked upon. So it's kept total peace and that to me is something, oh the greatest prize of all, to be able to live in peace, and I believe that in Europe we do owe that in part to the existence of nuclear weapons. On the detail of your question, Cruise of course is a second-strike weapon, could not be a first-strike weapon. A Cruise missile would take longer to get to its destination than a bomb on an aircraft, so it could only be a second-strike weapon.
Howard
Perhaps Mr. Hamley is asking this question in the light of the Grenada situation, because the United States went ahead there without your advice, and perhaps he feels that this throws joint consultation into question.
Thatcher
Well I think the two situations are totally different. That concerned an independent, small island within the American sphere. They took a different perspective on it because they [end p12] had a different viewpoint over there on regional security than we had and they were under no obligation to consult us. They did, towards the end, albeit at far too short notice. But here we are talking about Cruise missiles on British soil. There are American nuclear weapons on British soil, there have been for many, many years. It's not new to have American nuclear weapons on British soil. There has been an agreement in writing which governs the use of those weapons. We reviewed that agreement when it came to stationing Cruise missiles and we applied that agreement specifically to Cruise missiles and there's a specific agreement in writing that says that weapons that go from our territory would not be fired without the specific agreement of the British Prime Minister. So here we are dealing with things on British territory, following other weapons which have been on British territory, subject to the same agreement which has stood us in very good stead for many, many years.
Howard
I hope that reassures you a bit, Klaus Hamley.
Hammel
Just one more thing.
Howard
If you could be very quick because I want to put in another one before the news.
Hammel
I should like to have this clearly. Is this quite certain, one-hundred percent certain, that the American government can't fire the Cruise without the approval of the British government? Is that one-hundred percent sure?
Thatcher
We have an agreement which says, we have an agreement, we've had it for a very long time and we've now applied it to Cruise missiles, under which the President of the United States agrees with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that American nuclear weapons on British soil can only be fired with the specific agreement of the British Prime Minister.
Howard
There you are, that's it Mr. Hamley. I'd like to whizz over now to Rome in Italy and Raymond Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd, the Prime Minister is on the line for you. [end p13]
Raymond Lloyd
Good evening Mrs. Thatcher. On your first election victory on 4 May 1979, Prime Minister, you were heard over the BBC quoting St. Francis of Assisi on the need for reconciliation among all Britons. Today Argentina is holding her first elections for seven years with a view to returning to full democracy by March 1984. Will you, Prime Minister, whose defence of the Falkland Islands was supported through much of the world as standing up to militarism and dictatorship, soon be ready to negotiate the future of the Falklands with a democratic Argentina?
Thatcher
When you talk about negotiating the future of the Falklands, if you mean the sovereignty of the Falklands or the future of the people, the answer is no. That sovereignty is British, there have never been Argentine people living on the Falkland Islands for the last a-hundred-and-fifty years. They were discovered by British, they were colonised by British, we've sent task forces down before to keep them British when people attempted to turn us off. For a hundred-and-fifty years they have been occupied by people of British stock, some of them who've been there for far longer than some of the people in the Argentine. Those people have the same right to self-determination which is today being expressed in the Argentine and any country that is returning to democracy is returning to self-determination for its own people. It should therefore realise that the Falkland people have the same right to self-determination which Britain uphelp in 1982.
Howard
And would you negotiate with a democratic Argentine government?
Thatcher
No, the self-same, the Falkland Islands have the same right to self-determination, regardless of the government in Argentine.
Howard
On the line now is John Stuehr from New York in the United States. Hello Mr. Stuehr.
Stuehr
Hello Madam Prime Minister. We in the United States are [end p14] shocked and dismayed at Britain's implicit support of international terrorism in its reaction to the American rescue of our citizens on Grenada. And in the light of our diplomatic intelligence and logistical assistance of Britain's invasion of the Falklands, when its security was endangered, despite the worldwide condemnation of your action, doesn't your government have a moral duty to at least refrain from attacking its most important ally when it is acting decisively to prevent the spread of international terrorism?
Thatcher
Can I take your question in order, Mr. Stuehr, as I see it? First, the Falklands. The Falkland Islands, which are British territory, were invaded by the Argentine. It was the Argentines who crossed into someone else's territory. Britain went to get its own territory back and to allow the British people on that territory to continue to live under their own declared way of life under British rule. We went to get territory back which others had invaded. That has no parallel whatsoever with Grenada. Grenada is an independent sovereign country, it is not British territory, the Governor General was not appointed by Britain, she had not been invaded, she was given full independence in 1974 with a democratic constitution, with aid and with an independent Prime Minister. By 1979 their constitution had been suspended by a military coup by Maurice Bishop. He promulgated what were called &oq;people's laws&cq; and just recently he himself was overturned by another Communist. Now, I am totally and utterly against Communism and terrorism. But Mr. Stuehr, if you are pronouncing a new law that wherever Communism reigns against the will of the people, even though it's happened internally, there the United States shall enter, then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world. I have always said, Mr. Stuehr, that the West has defensive forces in order to defend our own way of life and when [end p15] things happen in other countries that we do not like, we don't just march in, we try to do everything by persuasion and I think certainly that there were other things perhaps we might have done about Grenada. Some of the Caribbean shared our views. However I think that what swayed Ronald Reaganthe President, and I said this in the House of Commons, was the cri de coeur from the other East Caribbean states, that they said please, our security will be threatened. It was not only the other Eastern Caribbean states but also Barbados and Jamaica. And therefore he decided, from his perspective, which was one I believe of regional security, that that justified him&em;particularly as it was not known at the time but there was a letter from Sir Paul Scoonthe Governor General which we did not know about&em;that justified him in crossing into Grenada. Now he has crossed into Grenada, he has relieved that island of Communism and the Grenadian people are very pleased, and let me make it very clear that whenever people have the yoke of Communism or oppression lifted I am delighted, but that does not mean, Mr. Stuehr, that you are entitled to go into any country either in Central America or in Eastern Europe because they live under the Communist yoke. And I think it's just that difference between us, that the President took a different view on regional security, and the cri de coeur from the East Caribbean states and Barbados and Jamaica, that he was justified in going in. Now to be perfectly honest, I am delighted that the people of Grenada are free. I am delighted that the people of the East Caribbean sleep more soundly in their beds. But does that mean that you think you are entitled to go into a whole list of other countries? I think the answer is no. And I would therefore far rather say, look, this, I think, is almost a unique occasion. I think the President justified it, as I've indicated, that people are now [end p16] free where they weren't. Let us hope that the use they make of that freedom now does not lead them once more into a Communist way of life.
All right. Now is that clear? I speak strongly because I can see that you speak strongly and feelingly. But the people of Hungary would love to be free, I think, and the people of Czechoslovakia indicated that they would love to be free of the kind of regime that they used to have. But we do not pursue, NATO does not pursue her ends by force, she pursues them by persuasion. Now that doesn't mean that you never cross into another territory but you have to be absolutely sure before you do so.
Stuehr
I don't believe our mission was to inflict democracy at the point of a sword. We went in there to rescue our citizens as the Israelis went into Entebbe to rescue its citizens, which your government supported. Isn't the action justifiable on that grounds alone?
Thatcher
In international law it is justifiable to go in and rescue citizens if they are in danger. I cannot speak for American citizens, I can only say that our Deputy High Commissioner went in last Sunday, saw Sir Paul Scoonthe Governor General, and understood the British citizens at that time were not in danger. I cannot speak for Ronald Reaganthe President of the United States. I think myself that was one of the reasons but I also think that he is a man who feels very strongly, as indeed I do, and naturally responded to the call of other small Caribbean countries. Some of the other Caribbean countries did not share that view. But I can't see the point, I must say I can't see the point in trying to exercise the differences. We saw things from a slightly different perspective and the United States is entitled to take a different perspective on regional security, because this is in its own backyard, than the one we take.
Howard
But what about the point about the US citizens who were there and the fear of a hostage crisis developing again? [end p17]
Thatcher
That the President must in fact take into account when he makes his decision. I am always very concerned that sometimes it's possible that your citizens can be put in danger when you actually get an invasion, so you have two different viewpoints there. As it was, let us say, the American invasion was carried out, if I might say so, with great care. I think that they took great care not to endanger lives and sometimes might have made it even more difficult for their own soldiers, and I do admire them I think for the way in which they carried it out, and I think the people of Grenada are very, very grateful to them and the other people of the East Caribbean and the people of Barbados and Jamaica, and they have been very, very careful about looking after our own citizens for which we are grateful to them. So, therefore, the only time, the only question that remains between us is, when are you entitled to cross into someone else's territory? And I don't think there's much point in arguing any more about that. They have done so. Grenada now has a second chance to be democratic, and I emphasise a second chance, it doesn't come to many nations. She had it in 1974, it had gone by 1979. She now has it again. America has done this on other occasions. She did it in 1965 in the Dominican Republic, with great success. That worked, and let us hope that this works. And may I make it perfectly clear, Mr. Stuehr, it was totally different from the Falklands. I went to the Falklands to uphold international law when someone else had crossed into British territory. At no stage have I set one single foot into anyone else's territory.
Howard
Well, I'd like to move now to another part of President Reagan's backyard. Thank you Mr. Stuehr for your call. We go now to Managua, Nicaragua, and Fiona Mackintosh. Fiona Mackintosh, the Prime Minister for you.
Mackintosh
I would like to ask a question on behalf of a dozen [end p18] British citizens living and working in Nicaragua. As the American invasion of Grenada has greatly raised fears here that the United States might also decide to invade Nicaragua, what concrete steps would the British government take to try and prevent such a possibility happening, or, on the other hand, does the British government support the opposition forces fighting the Nicaraguan government?
Howard
What steps would the British government take to prevent an invasion by America of Nicaragua?
Thatcher
The only steps which I can take are those of persuasion. But let me stick my neck out really a very long way, and my reputation, Mrs. Mackintosh. I do not believe the United States will invade Nicaragua and I do not believe the fact that they went into Grenada makes it any more likely that they will go into Nicaragua. The East Caribbean states I think played a large part in President Reagan's decision. Now, is that clear? But the only weapons which I have, and I've been making speeches about this all over, both the Western world and recently in the United States and in Britain, the Western democracies use their arms for the purpose of defending their way of life. They also, if they are invited in, would use it also to uphold and to try to restore democracy, and I think the United States would say here that they were invited into Grenada. Now I really have stuck my neck out a very long way and it's sticking up for the United States and what I believe in the United States. I don't believe they will go and invade Nicaragua. Now, of course, you will say that I also said that about Grenada. Yes, I did not believe that the United States would intervene in the way it did, and we said that in the House of Commons. I still don't believe she'd go into Nicaragua.
Howard
Does that reassure you, Fiona Mackintosh?
Mackintosh
Yes it does. I just would like to add that from here we [end p19] also feel that maybe the US would not actually direct the attack but that it is known to be backing a wide range of counter-revolutionary forces based in Honduras and in Costa Rica and that it's feared that maybe it would be more of a kind of indirect invasion of Nicaraguan territory and that, indeed, we are concerned that maybe the British government put pressure upon the United States to cut this backing.
Thatcher
No, Mrs. Mackintosh, I believe, I'm a fundamental fervent believer, as is the United States in the present, in democracy. I believe it is by far the best system both for personal dignity and for prosperity. I do everything to try to extend democracy by persuasion. I will do everything possible to try to persuade people within a country of the rightness of democracy. Here we are on the BBC External Services, we never cease to say how marvellous freedom and justice are and how wonderful it is to live within freedom and justice. And I think that by carrying out that role, by persuasion, we maybe do help the people within a country. It is quite different I think to cross into a country, but to try to persuade people and to try to make them live up to their own responsibilities, to do everything they can to get democracy, all right I'm prepared to try and help do that.
Howard
Right then, well, thank you Fiona Mackintosh for your call. We're going back to the United States now, to Redbank, New Jersey, and Marhall Shatman. Mr. Shatman, your line to the Prime Minister.
Shatman
Do you believe that economic weakness and over-extended credit in the Third World has a chance to abort the economic recovery in the US, Britain and the rest of the developed world?
Thatcher
Yes, is the short answer. I could just leave it there but I think you actually put your finger on a very, very important point. The first enormous world economic crisis, when we got the [end p20] oil price, sharp oil price increase, the first one, was partly dealt with by recycling the money and lending it in large amounts to countries, some oil-producing, some oil-consuming, but that money was lent to them in too great quantity and they can no longer afford to service it, let alone to repay it, on schedule. That fact is going to be a limiting thing in the speed with which the world can come out of recession now because no longer have we the opportunity to export to those countries on the scale which one would have expected had those debts not been incurred, and it is a limiting factor on the speed with which the world can come out of recession. Mr. Shatner, I think we agree.
Shatner
Yes. Earlier in the last century Britain provided a great deal of economic and technological assistance to the United States which, of course, resounded to both our benefit. Do you believe that technological transfer into the Third World can in fact, by increasing prosperity, improve the life in the developed countries.
Howard
Do you believe that technical transfers in the Third World can improve things?
Thatcher
Yes, I think Mr. Shatner said, towards the end of your question, can improve life in the developed countries, or the developing?
Shatner
No, the under-developed countries.
Thatcher
In the under-developed. Yes, of course, it can.
Shatner
Mutual exchange.
Thatcher
Yes indeed, indeed. And this has been going on, as you know, for decades. What one has to recognise is it will also alter the whole pattern of world trade. We export machinery to those countries and the latest technology. They then, from that machinery and latest technology, wish to export back to us products which previously we exported to them and they also export to Third World countries the sort of products which we used to export. So you've got a changing pattern of world trade which [end p21] means that we have to go up in the latest things and the most skilled things and the best design, and this too I think is having a dislocating effect on certain countries in the Western world and we have to adapt and get used to it. But we do, we do live in an inter-dependent world, it's one world, and we do have to lend a hand with the countries of the Third World in helping them to help themselves.
Howard
Do you have to do with helping the Third World, Mr. Shatman, is that why you're interested?
Shatner
Yes, in my business we're involved in colour communications improvements around the world.
Howard
I hope you're impressed by our telecommunications.
Shatner
Yes, you're one of our big competitors but I think we, I know that Britain is selling colour communications equipment in the United States and we will be doing that in Britain, and I think that improves services for all peoples around the world.
Thatcher
I agree.
Howard
And let's go now to Singapore and Anna Ooi. Your question to the Prime Minister.
Ooi
Hello. Mrs. Thatcher. The question I would like to ask is how do you reconcile your role as a wife and a professional politician? I'm sure both are quite demanding.
Howard
How do you reconcile your two roles, I think it is, as a wife and a professional politician? It must indeed be very demanding.
Thatcher
Well, yes, I suppose it is very demanding. But I've just been very fortunate the way in which things have bounced for me all through my life. When I came to take on great responsibility, when I came to be a Cabinet Minister, in 1970, I'd been in Parliament a long time, but when I came to take on the responsibility of a department my children were already then what seventeen, eighteen, so they were virtually able to cope with their own lives. But I also lived in London, a constituency in London, and my work in London. And of course when it came on [end p22] to take on the responsibility of leader of the opposition and then of Prime Minister, my children were grown up. So we're a very very closely knit family but I have not had a great deal of work in looking after them to do while I've been Prime Minister or Minister of Education. I mean it's not as if they were small children.
Howard
But we often used to read of you doing your own shopping and doing the cooking and things like that. Do you still manage to do that now?
Thatcher
Not very much. We don't have, at Number Ten we don't have a living-in cook or anything like that because I think when I finally get up to the flat at the end of the day, if I haven't had anything to eat, then I'd just rather go down to the kitchen and make something for us myself. Because what you want then above all is privacy. Number Ten is an office. People tend to think of it as a house, it's the office of Prime Minister and all the ground floor and second floor and a lot of the top floor is with offices. But I have a little flat at the top and when I get up there I want privacy and therefore I go and do whatever has to be done in my own small kitchen and I prefer it that way. And there's always something in the fridge to cut at and we arrange it that way. And, as someone I expect will say, what do you do in your spare time, well all the things that any housewife has to do. I do like some time at the weekend to get everything back in its rightful place, otherwise I'll never find it again. When I get back to Number Ten tonight I'll just go round, and it might take me two or three hours to clear up, to make certain that everything is back in the place where it should be, and that clothes are back and they're arranged to go to the cleaners, and see that the knives and forks are back, and the kitchen equipment is back. So we start off the week all right. I really rather enjoy it. [end p23]
Howard
But you didn't cook the Sunday lunch today, did you?
Thatcher
No, I didn't. We were very fortunate, we were down at Chequers today where meals are cooked for us and my goodness me it is such a relief and such a delight. But I'll cook supper tonight. It'll probably be a poached egg on toast, but then it's a very good supper.
Howard
Anna Ooi, are you a working wife and mother? Is that why you asked?
Ooi
No, I'm not, I'm unmarried actually. My sister was wondering because she is a working mother and she copes &dubellip; new baby.
Howard
A lot of things to do.
Thatcher
Yes, they need a lot of attention.
Howard
Well, I'm afraid we've come to the end of our time, Prime Minister. Thank you to everyone who got through to us in this worldwide phone-in and for those of you who didn't, my apologies. Well, who knows, Mrs. Thatcher may come back again one day. But for the moment, from the Honourable Mrs. Margaret Thatcher and myself, goodbye.