Mrs. Thatcher
This has been the third summit meeting that President Mitterrand and I have had and it's been a most useful one, a very workmanlike summit conducted against the background that we're both very conscious that it's coming to a time for decision in European affairs. That does not make the decisions easy but it does make them very urgent. François MitterrandThe President was accompanied by the Foreign Secretary, Monsieur Cheysson and the Finance Minister, Monsieur Delors and also five other ministers, and there have been detailed bilateral discussions between those ministers and their opposite numbers in the United Kingdom. The President and I have discussed matters which you would expect: first, we have discussed East/West relations, upon which we have an enormous measure of agreement. We discussed them in the context of the arms control talks which are taking place in Geneva now and are both resolved that should those arms talks not result in zero option, at the end of this year, the Cruise and Pershing missiles must be deployed. We have further discussed the position of the British and French independent nuclear deterrent. We take the same view about these matters, that it is not suitable to have them discussed either in the INF talks at present or in the START talks, bearing in mind the imbalance between the Soviet strategic missiles and the British and French nuclear deterrent. The President set out his position fully in his speech to the United Nations and I set out our position in my speech last week, as you know the Soviets have about forty strategic missiles for each one of the British strategic missiles and really it seems sensible to concentrate on getting down that enormous number of strategic missiles between the Soviet Union and the United States, before turning attention in any way to the British independent nuclear deterrent. You will observe that the measure of agreement on those things is virtually complete. We then turned to discuss a number of other things of course we are concerned about the Lebanon, but believe that the troops in the multi-national force are rightly there and should stay there for the time being but we do not wish to have them staying there when there has been a government of reconciliation, when they have completed their reconciliation talks and have a very very effective army. [end p1]
We have considered too today in particular the whole question of how to go forward and secure the necessary agreement at the Athens summit and possibly after that. There are very big issues at stake, namely how to control surpluses, in the Common Agricultural Policy, a number of budgetary decisions, they are easier to analyse and to express, than they are to solve. We've discussed them at length and we shall continue to give them very careful study. At our last summit in Paris we had agreed that there should be far increased numbers of bilateral contacts between both ministers and officials, those have been taking place regularly so there's nothing unusual about either ministers or officials meeting one another to discuss the important issues of the day. We shall turn our attention very much to the particular matters which have to be solved at the Athens summit and hope together with our other partners to be able to take those matters further forward before we arrive at the Athens summit. Our ministers and we have also discussed a number of matters of industrial collaboration, there are, as you're aware, quite a number that are proceeding well at the moment. The Grandon power station, collaboration with a gas turbine between Rolls Royce and Crozier le Noire and we're also very keen to set up closer collaboration on all telecommunications issues and we'll take that forward as fast as we can.
I think that perhaps is enough to give you the general flavour of this summit and I'll therefore ask President Mitterrand now to make his statement.
President Mitterrand
Well, I can but confirm what has just been said concerning the content of our conversations which have dealt with the questions of security and defence, in particular in Europe. In our discussions we in fact covered the sort of whole range of problems involving the European community—in conjunction with the forthcoming Athens meeting, its preparation and its … the aftermath as well and their way of course with all the problems that you're accustomed to, of financial, economic and agricultural nature: the enlargement as well and doubtless others and then we discussed our financial issues, bearing in mind naturally that the European negotiation itself covers a number of the bilateral issues because the European debate of course is not merely an Anglo/French debate, it is to some extent, but each of the partners has a number of issues … . a number of issues to settle with one or the other, or the whole lot of the others and then there are a number of international problems that we looked at as well, the Middle East for example, and a certain number of others. [end p2]
On security and defence I recalled the Prime Minister, well I reminded of what she already knew, and which I will repeat once again and that is that if it's a question of taking a stand on the principle involved, with all the implications of the INF, the intermediate range missiles—well, there of course we, the French, say that we're against such missiles, we are not in favour of the missiles naturally. And what we would wish therefore is that there be an equilibrium because as there are some missiles there already which are not of our doing, as they're there, what we want now is there should be balance but a balance that would be struck at the lowest possible level, which would mean … . the intermediate nuclear forces which includes what … all the Euro missiles now, the negotiation, the purpose of that negotiation, was to restore an equilibrium, restore the balance. Well, they're taking place, we are (now) a party to them, but it looks as if they're not of a process of succeeding, at least we've heard people say that they were not coming to a successful conclusion right now, so we must still go on giving priority to the idea of having an equilibrium, a balance, always at the lowest possible level and we the French had in that … . we see entirely eye to eye with the British, we do not consider that the British … it's not really for the British and the French nuclear armaments to compensate for what is lacking in that equilibrium and to establish the equilibrium themselves. First of all, because what is being talked about, types of armaments which are precisely not being talked about at the Geneva negotiations on the intermediate nuclear forces, so there we would be in a very curious situation in which two powers which are not negotiating their own armaments that would be rather odd if two other nations then got to negotiation … to a negotiating table to settle the issues concerning the armaments for the people who weren't there, which obviously isn't a proper situation. Now of course there has to be a situation of equilibrium between the United States and the Soviet Union but that is for them now to establish. A country like mine has a strategic armament which corresponds to a very simple conception of its security, it's a deterrent and it's brought to bear on a very … . [end p3] … . brought to bear on the very best of which are not negotiating there, which obviously isn't, and it's brought to bear on a very specific geographical area—it's for the defence or the survival of our territory and the independence of our nation and the missions of such a force cannot be extended indefinitely and we can't take the place of the alliance and act, instead of the alliance, therefore we're not trying to complicate … . we don't want to complicate matters in the least but we simply think that when people tend to suddenly take a very keen interest in French armaments, I'm sorry, it's a bit of an alibi and they find a way of presenting the situation in order to facilitate their own problems perhaps. Well, Great Britain and France in this have almost exactly the same position, a … very very similar positions and if there are further questions later on on this particular issue I'll be very happy to answer them. But I want this to be crystal clear, France … what France would wish would be that there should be no European missiles, we note however that there are some, that are there already, we therefore call for an equilibrium at the lowest possible level, in other words striking a balance by reducing what is already there. If that is not possible then in view of that tragic reality, well, then we, on our part, will continue developing our own strategic armaments, so as to protect our own security but just as Great Britain has the same type of armament, at the same order, the same reasoning very naturally leads to the same result and this brings us yet even closer together. So that, at any rate, is a problem on which naturally we had no difficulty in reaching an agreement, the result is there without sort of philosophising on other problems, that is … those are the facts of the situation. On the Community debate, there I think we have to talk in practical concrete terms, it goes without saying that our interests are different, if our interests were not different, the issues would have been solved ages ago. They are different, very often they're contrary interests and in philosophical terms let us hope that they're not because of that, contradictory, because if they were then philosophically the problem would not be soluble, but let us hope that is not the case. We consider that the issues should be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion because that is the best way of striking just the right and fair compromise. [end p4]
So the problems are related. Now Athens, well, it would be very desirable for Athens to lead to a successful outcome, very desirable but very difficult, as Mrs. Thatcher just said, difficult because for a long time there has been talk about this, even if, well, nothing yet has really been … the problem hasn't yet been solved, although we see that certain things are happening that can make us somewhat more optimistic. None of us … no-one wants Europe to be plunged into a state of major crisis, right then, what shall we do, we will increase, multiply the contacts, the … . increase the work that's being done on this, we have our contacts today, we started yesterday, we increased them, the French … . well, I will be meeting with several members of the government, the Italians very soon and the Germans, I was recently in Belgium, I think that I'll be having the opportunity of meeting Mr. Papandreou, the President, who will be coming to Paris I think etc., etc., I think that, well … . this isn't the whole of my own schedule but I think that the Prime Minister's schedule is just as heavy as mine, this means that we'll be continuing our work on the subject. Our Foreign Ministers and our Technical Ministers will be multiplying their contacts and their relationship and, well, we have little more than a month to move forward and conversations that we've had in London today, I think we can, because of this—I think we can think that we can move forward in certain areas. But that doesn't mean that the overall problem is not a difficult one but I think it's clear that when one sees the problem clearly, when the problem's set out clearly by responsible people who want to achieve a result and with a large number of contacts, then I think that that's a good method of working and that is the way we want to approach the whole thing and this means therefore that we really want to succeed. On the other bilateral issues as I said before, really the … well, for some years now the relations between our two countries have been improving steadily and the exchanges have become more and more numerous and we both want … . and two memoranda have been submitted on this, we want to give Europe really the proper dimensions in the industrial and technological field, I'm sure that you're familiar with these documents that have been submitted by our two governments and we … . our hope is that next year we'll be able to begin moving in that direction because if Europe goes on marking time it will end up by moving backwards, so Europe must move forward wherever this is possible and not only because it's good for the health but also because it's very necessary to move forward. Modern technology is in computer sciences, bio-technology, telecommunications which of course is related to computers etc., on all these issues are … . all these matters I think our ministers have had some very useful discussions, at any rate the reports they … they gave us of their meetings says that substantial progress is being made. Now … . like the Prime Minister I'm ready for questions. (question in French) [end p5]
Pres. Mitterrand
Well, I really said that mainly before the Stuttgart meeting and I've made my position clear on several occasions and I will give a definitive answer to your question, I hope, after the Athens meeting, but I will say nothing at this juncture, that could really add anything to these difficulties that I have already emphasized in the recent past and we're hard at work on all this and we have asked a number of people … officials to move the thing forward and I don't want to prejudge what the results of their work will be.
Question
My question is for the Prime Minister: the ‘times’ this morning announces, a big headline, that your government would have prepared legislation in order to block the Community budget if the athens negotiations were to fail. Can you confirm that information, perhaps comment on it?
Reply in French
Question in French.
Mrs. Thatcher
The President and I did not discuss specifically the Gulf. It may have been discussed in the general Middle Eastern talks between Foreign Ministers but we did not specifically discuss the Gulf.
Question in French
Mrs. Thatcher
I'm sorry what was the question.
Reporter
I would like to know if the question of the British people from the (colonial) minority which during the last few months have encountered some difficulties in France has been discussed?
Mrs. Thatcher
We did not discuss those matters. No, we were on the big broad issues, we did not discuss that matter. [end p6]
Question in French.
Mrs. Thatcher
Next question?
Question in French
… .
Question
Mr. President, did you fix a date for the deployment of your contingent in Lebanon, or have you left the period of the deployment open and do you expect since France is going to assume presidency in the first half of next year, do you expect a joint not complementary, a joint, diplomatic effort, European and American, to solve the problem in Lebanon and the Middle East?
Reply in French
Nicholas Wytchell BBC television news
Prime Minister, could I ask you both, what conclusion would you hope or wish that President Andropov would draw from this summit?
Mrs. Thatcher
I hope he will draw from this summit the conclusion that we are resolved to defend our way of life and we're not going to be deflected from doing that. But at all times we seek to talk and we seek to be able to defend our way of life at a lower level of weaponry and a lower level of expense, so it is determination to defend, always willing to talk, but the results of those talks must keep a balance in armament and they must be verifiable.
Question and answers in French.
Question
May I follow this up, I had planned to put the question before, in view of this, have the President and Prime Minister discussed a joint or separate personal approach to Mr. Andropov to enlighten him?
Mrs. Thatcher
No, sir.
Mr. Mitterrand
Replies in French.