Interviewer
Prime Minister, this was clearly a reasonably harmonious sort of Summit. I mean, no obvious disagreements of a major kind among you, but was that simply because you managed to sort of lower the whole thing, all of you, and agree on things that did not really count?
Prime Minister
No. I think, first, over the economic part of the Summit, we have been meeting together frequently and many of us have been there for quite a long time, so we know the real economic recipe and we do not quarrel with it. If inflation starts to rise, we have to get it down. We really are out after job creation - we know that that requires a market economy. We know that the only way to get better social services is to have a prosperous and successful economy and have growth. So there really is not very much argument about that.
This year, we are a bit afraid about protectionism which could bring down world trade and we will have to take remedial effects about that, but on the whole we have agreement about that having talked together for such a long time. [end p1]
The environment has become so imperative because of the scientific papers and evidence that we are getting, that we simply must do something about the atmosphere surrounding the globe, without which we could not live and if we mistreat it, we will have consequences we do not know about and we have the local pollution to deal with. That is something we must do scientifically. It is something which has a tremendous effect on our economies, so we have to get it right and we are all concerned and we are all taking action.
The third thing is drugs and we have been trying to tackle this for some time and trying to get at the money which the drug peddlers get and take it away from them.
Now we have got a new problem in drugs, it is crack. It is devastating and I am afraid that people who take it can almost never get away from it. And so we still think that the best way is to get at the money, but we are going to step up our efforts in the international laundering of money, try to trace it and stop it.
All this, if I might say so, for all peoples everywhere, is really good news. It is constructive. It is addressing the problems we need to address and we are agreed. It may not make headlines, but it makes for solid advance in the world at large.
Interviewer
Might not a conference between rich and poor countries about the problems of poor countries also help? [end p2]
Prime Minister
No, I do not think a conference would. We had one of those in Canc&uacu;n in 1981 and it tends just to resolve into a good deal of talk. You see, we meet in international for a frequently. The International Monetary Fund, where these things are discussed, is every September; United Nations every Autumn; and the separate Organisations like the Food and Agricultural Organisation and World Health Organisation are going on the whole time, and we are meeting constantly about the debt problems. So whatever the general discussion, you will find that they have to go back to one of the international organisations for a solution. So here the G7 is one of the places where we talk. We talk in the European Economic Summit and we talk bilaterally. So there are plenty of talking places, but we always come back to the same action places and that is what we have done this time.
Interviewer
And the experience as a whole of being here? I noticed that at one point you got stuck behind President Mobutu. That did not seem like a kind of very good treatment people thought.
Prime Minister
Oh! Well, President Mobutu is a president, he is a Head of State, so of course he takes precedence over a mere Head of Government. [end p3]
Interviewer
So you did not feel you were being - what was it President Bush was supposed to have said - “shabbily treated”?
Prime Minister
Good Heavens, no! I have been treated with the utmost courtesy, kindness and generosity.
Just because we have an argument at one Summit - and we did have an argument in Madrid - one does not bear any resentment, one does not feel one's toes have been trodden on and one must feel pained. You had an argument at that particular Summit. The next Summit, you have different problems and you do not go with any feeling about the previous one. On the contrary, you try to overcome any residual problems that there might be and, of course, we did. We are wholly agreed on the way forward and President Mitterrand was not merely courteous, he was very kind, and insisted on my sitting immediately to his right on many occasions.
Interviewer
I think a lot of people here felt that you had spoiled the occasion a bit though by being so critical of the French &dubellip; [end p4]
Prime Minister
No, on the contrary. The amount of cheering I heard as we went along the streets, about 90 percent cheering to a few percent hisses. It was a remarkable amount of cheering and, you know, you really cannot argue with the facts.
Human rights did not start two hundred years ago. They may have started two hundred years ago in France and that is a cause for celebration for France and a cause for great pride, but as you know, there were many many things before that, including as I said, the whole foundation of human rights in the Jewish and Christian religions, including the great Magna Carta where the barons seized power from the king, including in 1688-89 when we had a Bill of Rights and a quiet revolution. We of course had our problems in the Civil War before that, but that arose because the King tried to wrest power from Parliament and Parliament would not have it. And then, we had problems after that. But you cannot just deny the facts of history but, equally, there is no earthly reason why you should not celebrate with France if human rights came to France two hundred years ago and France is very proud of her declaration two hundred years ago and she has every reason to be.
Interviewer
So in a way, you did not feel you spoilt the party?
Prime Minister
I did not spoil the party, I enjoyed the party and was given a very great welcome.