Jon Snow, ITN
There is a sort of feeling going around that maybe the wall is coming down a little bit between East and West. Do you feel that that is true?
Prime Minister
I think there is more discussion. We know full well that Mr Gorbachev has very courageously said that the Soviet system is not working and he wants to change it so there is a new atmosphere of discussion inside the Soviet Union and we know that he is willing to sign an agreement on Intermediate nuclear weapons. All that is good. I think to go from that to assuming that all will be well is not necessarily justified by what we have seen. We have to do more than listen to their very polished speeches. We just have to look at what they do the whole time: just have to look at where they are on human rights, just have to look and remember that across that wall if someone tries to come from East to West they are shot, and we have to remember they are still in Afghanistan, have to remember they are still supplying vast quantities of arms to countries that really need food more than arms. [end p1]
Jon Snow, ITN
But a lot of people would say that the momentum towards reducing nuclear weapons between East and West was bound to be … no matter what those weapons were?
Prime Minister
You mention “bound to be good” ?; you are never just bound to be good. You know it is really the first agreement that has reduced the number of nuclear weapons, but then of course we would never have needed this one—the intermediate agreement—if the Russians had not put them up in the first place.
Jon Snow, ITN
You sound very very reluctant to praise the process. I mean do you feel that it will go too far?
Prime Minister
No, no I am not reluctant to praise the process—I am neither reluctant to praise Mr Gorbachev for what he is trying to do inside the Soviet Union; I think he is very courageous in saying the system is not working and I support what he is trying to do there: to give a little bit more freedom, a little bit more initiative, more freedom of discussion. So I am not reluctant in anyway. I am not reluctant fully to support the Intermediate nuclear weapons agreement and say that it is a triumph for the West. I believe it is. All that is good. I am very much aware that the Soviet Union has an enormous superiority in conventional weapons and that they are modernising and getting more and more expert with them the whole time. I am very much aware they have an enormous superiority in chemical weapons—some really terrible weapons. We gave ours up in [end p2] the United Kingdom in 1959. They did not respond at all. The United States has some but they have not modernised them, they are old-fashioned and they are few. Now in that way the Soviet Union has not responded to our overtures and therefore the next stage is the saying, “Now look, if you are serious, come on, we want to get rid of those chemical weapons but we simply must verify” and that is the most difficult task for us, that is verification. And … that we also want to get down the conventional weapons for parity. That will save them a lot of money.
Jon Snow, ITN
It all sounds though as though you feel that the question of doing away with nuclear weapons might simply go too far, that we would be losing the kind of edge that we have, the kind of protection that we have if we are to do that.
Prime Minister
Our task as Government is to defend the way of life of our people. That is liberty with justice. The peace we want is peace with freedom and justice so the question we have to address our minds to is how to keep that peace. The nuclear weapon has been the most powerful deterrent to world war we have ever known. It has kept us in peace with freedom and justice. It has worked. Conventional weapons, no matter how many, did not keep peace with freedom and justice. To do away with that nuclear deterrent would make conventional war more likely. If it were to happen it would be more terrible than anything you have every known. What is more you cannot disinvent nuclear weapons and the race should be on as to who got them first just as it was in the last world war and if Hitler, [end p3] and I think … . had got them before the war, the whole history … . might have been different. We might have been … . Europe. So that is my task …: peace with freedom and justice and the greatest deterrent to war to preserve that peace is the nuclear weapon.
Jon Snow, ITN
Does it ever worry you that the Americans might actually withdraw their nuclear weapons from Europe?
Prime Minister
It is part of the task of countries like ours and the European nations to see that the American nuclear weapons are kept in Europe as one manifestation of America's commitment to Europe. There are others you know. The United States keeps 330,000 of its armed forces on the German front—330,000 and their families. We keep—but much smaller—we keep 66,000 army and airforce. We do it because—and I think the United States does it for the same reason—we are very grateful that the frontier of freedom is not across our country. The frontier of freedom here is our frontier, it is America's frontier as well as Germany's frontier and we are never going to be picked off one by one and we are going to have a sure enough defence to deter anyone who wanted to cross that wall and come on to Western free European territory. That is why we want to keep a mix of all the weapons but to keep the nuclear deterrent and keep the United States commitment to the defence of Europe but above all to deter. We are defensive people. We are not going to attack anyone but we defend those things that we value above all else.
Jon Snow, ITN
And it does not worry you, the thought that at some future [end p4] time the American … might crumble?
Prime Minister
I do not believe it is crumbling at the moment although we might get one or two things said from time to time but the moment people really ponder the question the world … . United States and Western worlds stick together in defence of … and I think they all know that and they are immensely grateful for the tremendous effort that America has put in to defend the … the world over, for herself and for us too.
Jon Snow, ITN
There seems like a slight lack of agreement between yourself and the West German Chancellor on the subject of short range nuclear weapons here today. He obviously does not like them because they are a threat to the lives of his own people and people in East Germany as well. You are quoted as saying that we should not rush into any early decisions on short range missiles. Is that a difference?
Prime Minister
I think it is not a very real difference because as you heard Chancellor Kohl say in the Press Conference, “Look the Russians have enormous superiority in conventional and this dreaded superiority as well in chemical and we really must turn our attention to that” . We are making strides, as you say, in nuclear weapons—intermediate ones, and I hope strides in the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles but you see we simply must turn our attention to those other things which I have mentioned.
Jon Snow, ITN
But on the question of Short range nuclear missiles, is it [end p5] possible that you might have to upgrade them … .
Prime Minister
Look, so long as you have weapons you must see that they are effective to do their task whether they are Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, whether they are tanks, whether they are aircraft, whether they are Short range weapons, whether they are conventional, whatever they are: whether they are ships, whether it is equipment on ships, you have a duty to see that your weapons are up to date. … . that your defence is an effective one otherwise it does not deter them.
Jon Snow, ITN
Can you turn to the subject of the Gulf which of course has been presumably a major subject of concern for you this past week? Mr Shevardnadze for the Soviet Union is suggesting a UN force in the Gulf. On the face of it that looks like a move towards defusing the situation.
Prime Minister
No, it is not at all. The moment you put … you know full well it did not work. There have been 140 conflicts in the world since the last world war. The United Nation's forces on the ground have not been able to stop any of those, they have not been able to stop a war once it has started unfortunately. We are talking about the Gulf. That war has been going for seven years. Now how much the less would … . be on a marine force? You or any United Nation's force would have to be answerable … 150, 160 nations. How are you going to get a decision on what kind of authority they have? How are you going to get Commanders and refer them back to [end p6] that kind of … forum. You would not get the requisite decisions. That is why it would not work. It is not on. Moreover the only people who have got the Navy to put there in any quantity are the United States, ourselves, France, the Soviet Union and of course, as far as minesweepers are concerned, others coming up too. Those are already there. What we are doing is coordinating and we shall increasingly coordinate as the others arrive so that we are responsible for clearing certain parts of the Gulf so we get a much much better, much more thorough sweep of this great international waterway. After all, we should none of us been able to properly defend ourselves unless we had sufficient oil to do it. We are fortunate we have quite a lot in the North Sea but we have to exchange quite a bit of that in oil which comes from the Gulf. So it is vital we keep that waterway free. Not by referring to 150 nations or so for authority you could never get but by the rules of engagement set out by our own nations.
Jon Snow, ITN
But doesn't it worry you that when all these fleets are actually working away in the Gulf that they could presumably become involved in the war in some way or another, simply by accident?
Prime Minister
Wouldn't it worry you much more if our merchant men were expected to go up there without any protection and that they were to be made liable to coming across mines regularly being laid? We have the Navy … . to defend our merchant marine. We should not get the raw material supply we need if you just let a nation lay mines and do nothing about it. Surrender is no policy. [end p7]
Jon Snow, ITN
Are the ships going to stay there indefinitely?
Prime Minister
So long as the danger is there, you will be … and our merchant men have a right to expect that there must be protection of our Royal Navy. Of course they will and so would our people expect it. They are marvellously supportive.