Prime Minister
Gentlemen and Ladies, we have just said goodbye at the end of what I think has been a very successful, warm and friendly visit. I found Mr Gorbachev as dynamic, determined, stimulating and confident as ever in carrying out his reform programme.
I think he is a man engaged on an historic mission and he has our full support in pursuing perestroika and we want to make that support apparent because we not only believe it is good for the people of the Soviet Union in having their greater freedom which will eventually lead to greater prosperity, but we think it is also good for humanity as a whole and for international affairs.
If we look back, we find a totally different relationship has developed between this country and the Soviet Union over the last four years and over what has almost become a kind of pattern of visits between the Soviet Union and this country; some from them to us and some the other way round. [end p1]
It is an atmosphere in which we have come to be able to argue some differences of view-point quite firmly but in a very friendly and understanding way.
Some years ago I think I said Mr Gorbachev was a man I could do business with. I might just repeat today that I think that he is a person with whom I look forward to doing more business with so that we can make steady progress upon the things which we have started.
I think possibly better now if we just said, your questions, so that you can fire them away. [end p2]
Question (Jerry Lewis Israel Radio)
Mrs Thatcher, could you give us an indication of how much the Middle East figured in your talks and whether, based on those talks with Mr Gorbachev, there can be real progress now towards a peace settlement in that region?
Prime Minister
The Middle East is bound to figure in any talks between people from different countries on international affairs because it is such an important area.
I have nothing new to report from those talks. I think you will know that there is in general an atmosphere which affects that part of the world as well as others, that the time for negotiations is now and that we must make every effort to that end.
We all of us believe that the five Permanent Members of the Security Council have achieved great things with other aspects of Middle Eastern affairs, and could perhaps help in this matter. We are, I think, waiting for the United States to come to clear conclusions herself as to the way forward. We are conscious of the importance of these negotiations and believe they must be carefully prepared and take place in a measured way. [end p3]
So it is a general atmosphere, a general feeling and a general view and of course the Soviet Union would be a part through the United Nations Permanent Security Council.
Question
Could I ask you your reaction to the invitation to The Queen to go to Moscow?
Prime Minister
Very positive, very plus, very happy.
Question
Do you think it will take place soon?
Prime Minister
That has to be sorted out. As you know, The Queen has accepted, and you know her programme is sorted out a little bit in advance, so we do not quite know, but it was a very definite yes.
Question
What do you think the advantages will be of that visit? [end p4]
Prime Minister
I think it will be a tremendous advantage. It will indicate the warmth and the relationship. And as I said in my speech this morning at the Guildhall, although we take different views on some things, we are moving I hope into the kind of philosophy with freedom of choice and fundamental change of law in the Soviet Union when those systems may be different but they are compatible.
And I think that it would indicate that new approach, based on the very different attitude towards human individuals and human rights which is coming about, has not yet fully come about, but which is coming about in the Soviet Union.
Question
I am aware you found yesterday some warm words for Poland, Will you comment on Polish Round Table talks and the six Bills of Parliament passed today which enacted their conclusions?
Prime Minister
I am very glad the Polish Round Table talks are taking place. We were working for them when I was there, very pleased indeed, and I wish them every success. I cannot comment on the content or anything else, but again I think it is a step forward. [end p5]
Question (John Dickie, Daily Mail)
Prime Minister, I take it from what you said about Mr Gorbachev that you believe he is here to stay and that you will be doing business with him for some years to come. In that case, how do you propose this common European home together when he wants it, apparently, in a nuclear-free zone and you want this European home to have the secure shield of a nuclear deterrent?
Prime Minister
I think every country has a right and most countries will wish to make certain that their own defence is sure. And I believe that the Soviet Union will also take that view. Do not forget at present her armaments are very much heavier than ours. She has in fact already modernised her short-range nuclear weapons.
Our arms control programme is already set. It is working towards a 50 percent reduction on intercontinental ballistic missiles between the United States and the Soviet Union. And then as far as NATO is concerned, it is the conventional talks which are taking place, as you know, in Vienna and we have put our own proposals, NATO has put its proposals on the table. And also working on chemical weapons to a truly verifiable regime in which we can all have confidence, with a view to getting rid of chemical weapons. [end p6]
That is quite a big agenda and so the differences are likely to come up a long time hence. But right at the beginning, as I have said several times in speeches and on this visit, it was accepted by both of us, by Mr Gorbachev and by myself, that each had a right to sure defence. And you heard me say at the Guildhall this morning, you need to have a sure defence so that you are certain of your own security, whatever may befall, because the world will continue to have unpredicatable events.
Question
Last night you said that conventional weapons cannot deter war. Does that mean you are contemplating a reduction in conventional forces to correspond to the major reductions that Mr Gorbachev announced?
Prime Minister
It meant what it said. It is, I would have thought, abundantly evident from two World Wars in this century that conventional wars alone have not deterred world war. That I think is unarguable. It is also true that within the last forty years, when we have had nuclear weapons, they have I believe deterred war and therefore I think they are a much more effective deterrent than conventional alone. [end p7]
If you relied only on conventional and another war were to break out, we should be in precisely the position we were in the last war, it would be a race to who could make the nuclear weapon first and it would not have performed its essential role of deterring a major world war.
Question
(Inaudible).
Prime Minister
The proposals for reductions in conventional weapons are on the table and will be toughly negotiated. At the moment, as you know, even after the unilateral reductions which the Soviet Union announced at the United Nations in New York, they will still have a preponderance of two to one over us. [end p8]
Question (Brazilian TV)
Prime Minister, in his speech, Mr. Gorbachev mentioned the need for a change in the nature of North-South relations. I wonder if in this frame, have you talked to Mr. Gorbachev about the situation in in-debt countries of Latin America or the possibility of helping these countries somehow?
Prime Minister
We did not discuss, in our talks, any precise proposals for debt reduction. I think that is more a case for G7 and for the Economic Summit which will come up on about July 14.
We did discuss briefly the situation in Central America where, as you know, there are still far more arms in Nicaragua than are needed for her own defence and I think we both took the view that we hoped things would be negotiated there because at the moment, as you know, the government in El Salvador is being destabilised by guerrilla activity which we believe is being supported by arms from Nicaragua and I think we both took the view that it was time there, too, that the feeling that negotiation was the way was implemented. [end p9]
Question
Prime Minister, I wonder what you say about the Soviet decision to supply sophisticated bombers to Libya? Does it not, in your opinion, diminish Mr. Gorbachev 's credibility in claiming that he is working to ensure more stability in this part of the world?
Prime Minister
For very obvious reasons, we are against supplying attack arms to states which have practised terrorism and supported terrorism and it does concern us.
Peter Jennings (Sunday Visitor)
Mrs. Thatcher, during your talks with President Gorbachev, did you raise the question of religious freedom for believers in the Soviet Union and in particular the plight of the persecuted Ukrainian Catholic Church?
Prime Minister
Not in particular for the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I did raise the question of some religious teachers being able to go in for one particular faith, which I had been requested to do, but the subject does come up, you know, in a much broader context and of course it came up this time and in our speeches. [end p10]
If you look back to the speech in the United Nations, most of what was reported concerned the disarmament proposals. In my view, the even more important part were the changes in philosophy, the enunciation of the principle that freedom of choice is really an imperative and the enunciation also of the new laws which Mr. Gorbachev hopes to bring in in the Soviet Union giving human rights and what he calls “freedom of conscience” and really something much nearer the kind of basic law we understand, where certain fundamental freedoms are enforceable and that I always thought, in fact, was the most significant part of that United Nations speech and, again, it came up and I referred to it in my speech—I cannot remember whether it was last night or this morning, but somehere—and that is what will give those essential freedom.
Geoffrey HoweForeign Secretary
Perhaps I could add on that one that in the course of my talks with Mr. Shevardnadze, in which I raised the general point the Prime Minister has referred to about our welcoming the increasing scope for diversity of religious opinions in the Soviet Union, I did indeed mention the particular case of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
Craig Whitney (New York Times)
Do you feel that the fact that the news of the reported sale of the long-range bombers to Libya came up just on the eve of this visit reflected an attempt by somebody on the other side of the Atlantic to cast a different light on these talks? The Soviet side went into this with quite some heat! [end p11]
Prime Minister
No, I do not think so. Obviously, we are concerned about the provision of attack aircraft to Libya, particularly when we know that Muammar Gaddafihe is also building a chemical weapons plant. Of course, we are concerned about it, either to them or certain other Arab countries, and, of course, we raised it and I think we were right to raise it.
Prime Minister
I have not seen you for years! You used to come to every press conference we had! How are you?
Edwin Roth
Wait for the elections if you miss me! I think you will like this question!
Prime Minister
Are you sure? Be careful!
Edwin Roth
I will declare interest. In 1968, I saw a great deal of the beginning of perestroika in Czechoslovakia and I saw the Soviet invasion. [end p12]
In your long talks with Mr. Gorbachev, did he show any possibility—did you get the idea—that the day may come perhaps in the not too distant future when he will admit that this was a really criminal mistake and maybe give an order to Dubçek or these people who started perestroika? Does he now regard it as a mistake, the invasion of Czechoslovakia?
Prime Minister
I remember the Prague Spring too! I remember the hope that it gave.
Edwin Roth
You were not there!
Prime Minister
No, I was not and I had to rely on television and I remember very very vividly one particular interview. I remember watching it down at the house we had then in Lamberhurst so vivid was the impression it made on me, of a woman talking to one of our interviewers saying: “You have no idea what it is like to feel free to discuss things openly!”
Yes, of course it made a vivid impression on me. Everything we took for granted, they were struggling and striving for and there was immense interim happiness there and then, of course, it was followed by that terrible tragedy. [end p13]
No, I did not discuss that particular thing with Mr. Gorbachev. I think he has got enough on his hands with making certain this time that not only glasnost happens—and the Prague Spring do not forget in the first place was the glasnost, it never got any further—that has already happened in the Soviet Union and it has gone further with much more political freedom and the way in which I think they have approached those elections and carried them out has been absolutely fascinating and a revelation to everyone, but he now has got to carry it through.
The economic reforms are more difficult in a way even than the freedom of speech and political freedom. The economic reforms are more difficult, particularly after seventy years and a much longer previous history of not having anything like a free market and I think he has got his hands full to get that reform through. It is a bigger thing than ever we have had to tackle and that is why I am keen to keep my eye on the main ball to do everything that we can outwardly and visibly to help him get it through and to say that it really does herald a new era, not only for the Soviet Union but for the world as a whole.
That is a very long answer because we have not seen you for a very very long time, so that uses up your credit for quite a time to come! (laughter) [end p14]
Barfry Dunsmore (ABC News)
Prime Minister, were you in any way disappointed with the arms control aspects of Mr. Gorbachev 's speech this morning, and particularly what was your reaction to his announcement that they are planning to discontinue the production of enriched uranium? Do you consider that significant at all?
Prime Minister
No, I was not disappointed. I know that his views on certain things differ from mine, but we have lived through periods in this century when we should have been very much better off and very much less in danger of the wars we had, had we kept our defences strong and sure and strong and sure at the moment means also nuclear. That was Winston ChurchillWinston's advice and it is still, I believe, the correct advice.
With regard to the two particular announcements that he made that they are stopping production of military uranium in two plants and they are not commissioning further plants, I think it would be reasonable to say that they probably have quite a sufficient stockpile of uranium. It does not deteriorate and also, if some of the negotiations that we are upon now come about, then those weapons—the 50 percent reduction for example—are dismantled and the uranium taken out and preserved.
So I think you will find that for quite some years that will have no effect in practice on the uranium supplies and, of course, if they are taking down the SS.20s then also they will, of course, be conserving the nuclear element from that. [end p15]
Philip Stephens (Financial Times)
Just to clarify, Prime Minister, are you as determined today to modernise short-range weapons as you were on Wednesday and are you convinced that that decision will be taken by NATO in June?
Prime Minister
The decision actually to modernise in principle was taken at the last Summit meeting of NATO at which the Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe and I were present and was incorporated in the communique.
We decided to keep weapons modernised, whether they be conventional or nuclear. Obsolete weapons do not deter, so we agreed to modernise them, including short-range, as appropriate. The question is: when shall we have to take the decision in order to get the money into United States programme, because they will not embark upon the replacement to Lance unless they are certain that if they make it, it would be deployed.
I still hold to that view. The Soviet Union has just completed its programme of modernising short-range nuclear weapons. We have not yet started upon ours. I think we should complete it.