Catherine Paviot, COI
Prime Minister, could we begin by my asking you what exactly is the main purpose of your visit to Kenya?
Prime Minister
Well, I think really, as far as Kenya is concerned, President Moi has given me a very warm invitation in the past—the last time he was over—and again, at the Commonwealth Conference, he said to me: “When are you coming to Kenya? You have never been!” and I feel a little bit guilty that I have not been and so I really am looking forward to it tremendously.
Kenya is a very very important partner of Britain. She is a very highly respected country in Britain. We have a close economic partnership and I think it is about time I went to see it.
Catherine Paviot, COI
Of course, during your time there, you are spending quite a lot of time with schools, science laboratories, opening them and going to universities.
Why do you attach this particular importance to education? [end p1]
Prime Minister
I think that Kenya has done two very important things, one of which is to put enormous emphasis on education, knowing full well that that way lies the technological future; but she has also done something else! she has put enormous concentration on agriculture, on smallholdings, but knowing full well that unless you can have a certain standard of living in agricultural produce, everything else is in doubt.
Now, putting the emphasis on those two things has given her a strength—a strength through drought—which I think is not always present in other countries, and it has given her a political strength as well, which has meant that Kenya does play quite a lead role in African affairs.
Catherine Paviot, COI
And, of course, there is a very vigorous trading relationship between Britain and Kenya.
Where do you see the scope for development in that in the future?
Prime Minister
Well if you look back, you will find that Kenya has run her economy in such a way and so closely with Britain that our industrialists have great confidence in Kenya's future and they have put an enormous amount of investment into Kenya. [end p2]
That is very good, so it means they have got the agriculture, the education and the investment in the future in more and more industry, and that, I think, is really one of the best stories that there is to tell in Africa.
Catherine Paviot, COI
I believe, in fact, that there is scope for even more investment in the sense that the Confederation of British Industry is going to be holding a conference in Britain which …
Prime Minister
In February … .
Catherine Paviot, COI
In February.
Prime Minister
Yes. It was very much with that in mind that President Moi and I were talking at the Vancouver Conference and saying that I really ought to go out to Kenya to see Kenya before that investment conference took place here, so that I can almost give evidence myself and say: “Look! I have seen it!” [end p3]
Catherine Paviot, COI
And is there anything that Britain can do to help with the infrastructure, to promote the economy of Kenya, by way of roads or anything else like that?
Prime Minister
We have, as you know, had quite an aid programme to Kenya—£173 million since 1979 and when President Moi was over here last we signed a £50 million agreement—so she has been one of our great partners in aid.
Sometimes, people think that aid should go only to the poorest countries, and we do put quite a lot there, but also, it is absolutely vital that it goes to countries who really are tackling their problems, because if they are tackling problems well, sometimes when you put your aid there you get more out of the aid because it is going to be effectively used than you do elsewhere.
She has been marvellous, you know! Even throughout the drought, Kenya has managed to feed herself and to help to feed others and she welcomes private enterprise. She puts a great deal of emphasis on personal responsibility and private sector enterprise and it is giving her a stable country economically and politically and a higher standard of living.
Catherine Paviot, COI
Now, after Kenya, you are also going on to Nigeria, right the other side of Africa. What is the purpose of your visit there? [end p4]
Prime Minister
Do you know, I have never been to Nigeria either!
She is really a tremendously important nation in Africa—her size, her raw materials—and, of course, we have a historic relationship which we have never forgotten. But I too have felt that I really should go and see Nigeria.
I was very disappointed that President Babangida was not able to come to the Vancouver Conference. He was not well, and we missed him, because you know, we do a lot of talking across nations and between nations there, and he very kindly extended an invitation to go to Nigeria and so I am looking forward first to having a long talk with him, seeing a little bit of Lagos and then going up to Kano.
We are very strong trading partners, you know, with Nigeria, and the ties are there. We have a lot of Kenyan young people over, training in our universities; we have a large number of Nigerians as well; and so we keep to the technological, the technical links, but I really am looking forward to talking about many political matters with the President.
Catherine Paviot, COI
And obviously, culture is very important too, because I believe you are opening new British Council premises. [end p5]
Prime Minister
That shows how very strong the links are with the past and so many people want to take advantage of our education system her. They want to have the technical books; they want to learn the language; and so we are opening a new British Council there. There is already a flourishing one. We are opening a new one. I am very pleased we are, because the British Council does marvellous work—and we are also pleased that it is in such great demand that we have to open new facilities.
Catherine Paviot, COI
Of course, relations with Nigeria have not always been smooth. There has been some difficulty in the not too distant past. Is that now very much a thing of the past? Are those problems solved?
Prime Minister
I do not think we get enough credit for what we do!
You know, we are pretty influential in the International Monetary Fund, as many of our African friends know, and we have been pretty active in the International Monetary Fund in trying to secure greater understanding of Nigeria's problems, and I remember when their Ministers have been through here and come to see me, they have said to me: “Look! We want to do things ourselves! We know we have got problems, but we want it to be seen that we can take the [end p6] economic steps ourselves because of our own decisions! We know we have to take them!” and then, we have been very understanding of that.
But you know, if you are able to agree with the INF, it unlooks so many other doors, as so many nations know, so we are very helpful there.
I think many of our African friends know—and certainly our Indian friends because Mrs. Gandhi I remember thanking me for it—that we were one of the countries which tried to get the 7th Replenishment Round of the International Development Association Funds and we were foremost in that because there were some countries that were not really putting as much into it as they should, and we went ahead.
The third thing is that, you know, Nigel Lawson has been absolutely in the forefront of saying: “Look! The debt of some countries in sub-Saharan Africa is too great for them to bear so we, if other countries will agree to do the same, will write off some of that debt so that they have not got this heavy load hanging round their necks and we will try to reduce the interest rate on some of the rest for the poorest countries in Africa!” That, we hope, will help to give them more hope and a kind of fresh start, because it is very depressing if you think that so many of your exports have to go to pay interest on past debt.
So I think we can put this over to people in Nigeria so that they may understand that although we do not always talk the most, we do in fact get quite a lot done in practical help. [end p7]
Catherine Paviot, COI
Of course, we cannot mention Africa without thinking about South Africa and the hated policy of apartheid. Britain itself has come in for some criticism because of the British strategy being the refusal to employ trade sanctions.
Do you feel that this is still the right policy? Is it working?
Prime Minister
We have come in for some criticism in that we have been in the forefront in opposing comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. Those which we have agreed to—some sanctions—we have honoured fully.
For example, there is the United Nations Security Council Mandatory Resolution that no armaments that could be used for internal repression should be supplied to South Africa; no arms to South Africa; there is an embargo on arms. We have honoured it absolutely fully.
We have done a number of other things.
There were one or two things like not importing Krugerrands, because that was thought to be helpful.
We do not import steel.
We do not have any government-to-government loans in South Africa.
We discourage external investment in South Africa. [end p8]
So there are a number of things which we had agreed like that which are in a way sanctions not so much to hit at the underlying economy as to make it clear—they were what were called “signals” to South Africa—that we thoroughly disapproved of the apartheid regime and that it has to go.
The arms embargo, of course, is the most powerful one of all.
Now, when it comes to going to more comprehensive sanctions, I think there are two things!
First, it would not achieve the objective of destroying apartheid. We are in the forefront in saying we detest apartheid, it is repugnant, we want it to go, but the idea that by putting on comprehensive economic sanctions you would assist it to go is totally wrong.
There were mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia. What did they do? They became much much more independent in the things which they produced internally.
Look at the coastline of South Africa! Look at it! There is no way in which we could enforce mandatory comprehensive sanctions—no way! You would just get a massive black market developing.
And if it did work, insofar as it worked, it would work by us sitting in conference in rather nice luxurious hotels, taken there in rather nice luxurious cars, saying: “We believe we have the right to decide how many people shall starve in South Africa!” I find that utterly repugnant.
Moreover, I know that you will not end apartheid by killing off industry in South Africa or attempting to. Industry is [end p9] actually being instrumental in bringing apartheid to an end. Job reservation has gone; they are training people because they need them to do more and more skilled jobs; training them for managerial work, of course they are, so you do not hit out at the very people who are trying to bring apartheid to an end.
So it just would not work. Indeed, if we tried to do that, I believe it would delay the end of apartheid, because you are dealing with a regime in South Africa that would not of itself then go into negotiations, as sooner or later it must, but would be very very difficult indeed and you would get a strong reaction and instead of going in the direction we wish people to go—that is bringing about an end to apartheid and having people of all backgrounds in South Africa taking part in the politics and in government—it would do the very reverse.
Catherine Paviot, COI
To sum up, Prime Minister, then your view is one that it should be peaceful negotiation.
Do you feel that your visit to Nigeria and Kenya can lead to any progress on the issue?
Prime Minister
I do not know that it will lead to progress. I think progress has to come from within South Africa. I myself belief very strongly that the formula produced by the Eminent Persons Group [end p10] was the right one: that is, negotiations between the Government of South Africa and people representative of all the many different interests in South Africa—many different ones—in the context of the suspension of violence.
Let me say this: I think there have been two great peaceful movements in the world that have wrought great change:
The one was Gandhi 's peaceful protest in India—non-violence—which was instrumental in bringing about the much earlier independence to India.
The other one is the Refuseniks and the protests on human rights in the Soviet Union. That is totally peaceful, totally non-violent. The world knows about it. It is beginning to move mountains. It is one of the things which keeps the world always interested in human rights within the Soviet Union.
The Helsinki Accords were signed, which gives us the standing always to ask: “You signed these Accords! What are you doing?”
Those are non-violent, peaceful movements, and they have achieved a very great deal.
Catherine Paviot, COI
Talking about East-West relations generally, of course, this has been one of the most significant things in the year gone by … has been the signing of the treaty between the United States and the USSR.
Do you feel now completely hopeful about the future on East-West relations generally? [end p11]
Prime Minister
Yes, I am hopeful. That has been a great plus, a great plus, but you see, I do not think it would have come about save for two other reasons:
One, the changes upon which Mr. Gorbachev and the Politburo have embarked within the Soviet Union itself; much freer discussion of ideas; a number of people have been allowed out of the Soviet Union, to leave the Soviet Union, far greater than was happening in the immediate past years; and a total restructuring in the Soviet economy to give more personal initiative, more personal responsibility. That is historic. It is bold, and it is very significant for the world.
And secondly, that and the fact that it is happening have brought about much more contact with the Soviet Union, much better atmosphere, and it is that atmosphere that has helped us to get the Intermediate Nuclear Weapons Treaty.
So it really is the three things.
Yes, we still watch what goes on in the Soviet Union. We expect, ourselves, to be watched to see that we are honouring all of these things, but it is the three things together which is leading to much more hope.
We watch, of course, whether the internal changes in the Soviet Union are being reflected in their external policy. What, for example, is happening about Soviet influence in Angola? There certainly seems to be no relaxation there of Soviet policy! [end p12]
What is happening in Mozambique?
What is happening in Central America?
Because we want to be assured that the changes that are happening within have some counterpart with what is happening without. That is one reason why Afghanistan is such a litmus test. Heaven knows, as I say to the Soviet Union when we talk to them about Afghanistan and they talk about us … I said: “Look! We probably have more experience than any other country in the world of leaving countries, trying to teach them the best we knew about law, about a true and just law, based on human rights; trying to teach them the best we knew about how to govern; not saying: ‘Look! We must have a friendly government there or we must be assured of a neutral government there!’ Teaching them the best we knew, and then withdrawing” so that the country's independence is totally and utterly restored. Once it is restored you cannot go back and say: “Look! You have got to do this, that or the other! and you should pull out!” We have more experience of pulling out of countries and this is why we say to them: “You are an occupying power! You had no right to go in! You must pull out!”
Let me put it this way: the world has got smaller this last year. It has got smaller because through media like this and television everyone knows what is going on in other countries. Sometimes we know more in our own sitting rooms of what is happening in other countries than we do of what is happening in the next town in our own country! And so the world shrunk and so cooperation has increased. [end p13]
Yes, there are a lot of problems still to be solved. When you have solved one, others will happen, but I think people can be assured that we are talking more to one another, that we are making more strenuous efforts. I think, than ever before to solve our problems through this discussion, through this negotiation, and that is good for peoples everywhere the world over.
Catherine Paviot, COI
Of course, another way in which the world is small is that trade and the economy are vital issues for all countries and what happens on trade and the economy in most countries will affect each other.
What sort of course do you advocate or what principles do you think should be abided by for one to try and ensure as much as possible stability and growth in world markets?
Prime Minister
Well, everyone wants stability—it is the great thing—but you can only get stability by each country running its economy and its finances in a sound way. That is the only enduring way, and no amount of exchange control can overcome that.
If people haven't confidence in the way a government is running the economy of any particular country, then they will not have confidence in its money, confidence about doing business with it, confidence about doing trade with it, confidence about credit, [end p14] confidence about lending it money, confidence about investing, so ultimately it depends upon each country running its economy in a sound way, and that is why I think countries are so right to put so much emphasis on education and in Africa, so right to ensure that they do as much as they possibly can to feed themselves, because many of them are rich. The soil is rich; the possibilities are rich, particularly with science.
So the economy in a sound way, that is the greatest thing to bring stability, but then, we all want more trade because more trade brings more prosperity and more variety and if we are to have more trade, we must in fact resist protectionism much more than we are doing at the moment.
You take agriculture: the United States has a colossal surplus because her agriculture is subsidised. Europe has a colossal surplus—our agriculture is subsidised. Japan pays eight, nine and ten times the world price for rice and several times the world price for beef because she subsidises it.
Now it is quite wrong to me that we should be so subsidising our agriculture that we are stopping some of the less-developed nations from exporting their agriculture—which is their means of importing the machinery and equipment they want—so it is absolutely right that in the GATT round agriculture should be in a very important position and absolutely right that the United States, ourselves and Japan and also Australia and New Zealand who are very important agricultural producers, and other countries, should talk about this. [end p15]
And let me tell you that when we go to international conferences and when we go to the economic summits and when we come to European Councils, which we hold twice a year, we—Britain—are foremost in resisting the demands from other European nations about stopping imports of things like many are; we are absolutely against putting a tax on oils and fats. It goes to the heart of some African prosperity; it goes to the heart of some South-Eastern Asian prosperity. We are absolutely the foremost and we are trying to get barriers down.
Of course, when you are a new country, you want at first to give your own industries a chance to compete—that is understood—but not to go on and on protecting them, because that way you protect inefficiency and you do not get up to the standards.
So first, run your own country in a sound financial economic way.
Second, resist protectionism.
And third, we do cooperate one with another and understand one another's problems through the IMF, through IDA and aid to countries that need aid because, let us face it, grants are much more effective than loans but, you know, if you welcome the private sector and if we all have an international code of conduct that you do not invite the investment of other countries and then promptly go and nationalise it because that upsets confidence … have an international code of confidence … then we shall all get on very much better and the peoples will have the greater prosperity which they most earnestly and rightly seek. [end p16]
Catherine Paviot, COI
Prime Minister, you have already entered history as Britain's first woman Prime Minister and now the longest-serving British Prime Minister this century; you are also frequently referred to as one of the world's most senior political figures.
This is a great achievement, but at the same time are you sometimes overwhelmed by the responsibility that that entails?
Prime Minister
I scarcely know how to answer that. You see, I am going to Kenya. The day I go to Kenya, I will actually have been in office as Prime Minister here—the longest-serving Prime Minister this century—and I promptly go to President Moi who has been Head of Government and Head of State for ten years, so that puts me in my place straight away doesn't it? And, of course, many others in Africa have been in place for a long time.
I think as you go on, yes there is a great burden of responsibility, particularly at a time when there are certainly two enormously important elections in the western democratic world this year—there is the French one which we are all very conscious of in Europe, and there is the United States one, and what happens in the United States affects the world over—and therefore, we know that we bear a very important role during that time.
But you know, it comes to one at a time when one has eight—nearly nine—years experience behind us, and it has been experience [end p17] of Britain going from being the person referred to as “the sick man of Europe” now to refer to us by “Look! The British managed to find a cure!” so we have become an example of how to cure diseases and an example of a successful economy.
It comes at a time when we have been very influential in Europe in making Europe tackle its financial problems and now in being the first country to start to make Europe tackle its agricultural problems which, as I have indicated, affect other countries.
I think we have played a very very important role in East-West relations and, let us face it, we still play a very very important role in the Commonwealth.
You mentioned that I had been foremost in being against comprehensive sanctions. Other people have said a lot to me about it—some of it quite vitriolic—and I have answered in my usual forthright way, because I believe what I am saying. But you know, so many other nations have followed us in what they did. They have not put on comprehensive economic sanctions and of course, the whole of Africa knows that it was at the first conference at Lusaka that we set Rhodesia on the course to true independence and brought democracy to her and said after the long negotiations here in this room where we are having the interview. I saw the three together—Mr. Mugabe, Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Nkomo—each going back to an election, saying: “Well, whoever wins, we stand by it absolutely!”
It is quite a lot of experience and then, of course, we have had a great deal of experience in negotiating with China over Hong Kong and of building up more confidence between us there and I [end p18] firmly believe that China will honour that agreement of ‘one country/two systems’ which ensures a capitalist system for Hong Kong for another fifty years after 1997.
That is quite a lot in nine years. It is quite a good basis for the coming years and quite a good basis of experience, whatever international conference one goes to or whatever problem one encounters.
You see, we have solved quite a lot in the last eight years and that makes me have much more hope and faith that we can solve the problems that still remain.
Catherine Paviot, COI
Prime Minister, thank you very much. This is Catherine Paviot reporting from 10 Downing Street in London.
Prime Minister
And a Happy New Year to you all!
Catherine Paviot, COI
A Happy New Year and bon voyage and happy journey in Africa!
Prime Minister
Thank you!
Catherine Paviot, COI
Thank you, Prime Minister!