Prime Minister
Ladies and Gentlemen. We have had a very good meeting. President Bush gave us a very full account of his talks with President Gorbachev followed by reports from Prime Minister Andreotti, of his talks with Mr Gorbachev, and also by Prime Minister Mulroney, each adding extra things in their own way.
The main result from the meeting would be my Point 1, which is the importance of continuing NATO, it offers both security and stability, and the importance of having American and Canadian troops this side of the Atlantic. That was confirmed by President Bush who said that significant American forces and nuclear forces will remain in Europe so long as his Allies wished it. Whatever the nature of the speeches and whatever the political content, time after time the need to keep NATO strong and secure came through. [end p1]
The second point is that the NATO and Warsaw Pact structures are the main way in which we negotiate arms control and disarmament. We hope that the CFE agreement will be signed next year, if it can be done safely, and also the START agreement. And then of course it will take some time to implement it, the implementation will be important, I understand there are something like 39,000 tanks which have to be destroyed on the Soviet Union's side. And of course if the chemical weapons is signed then you get the problem of getting rid of chemical weapons and as you know, the Soviet Union was going to build a factory to do that but has not yet done so.
The third point, we discussed the events which are taking place both in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union of course is where it all started with glasnost and perestroika and we all knew at the time when it started that it was easier for politicians to confer freedom of speech than it is to confer prosperity.
Indeed the economic reform takes very much longer and cannot be done without the full cooperation of the population. And the fact is that the Soviet Union really does not know and has very little idea how to run a market economy and I think the depth of the misunderstanding is very considerable. And so it is not going to be easy for them to come through with economic reform quickly. [end p2]
We discussed also the events in Eastern Europe. Poland and Hungary we have so far regarded as slightly different because these two countries were the first to change from a communist to a non-communist government and therefore we have thought and consider it still important to give them special help to get them through the difficulties this winter, and as you know, we have recently announced extra help to Poland.
With regard to East Germany, Chancellor Kohl made some comments on his recent speech and pointed out that he had no timetable in mind and also that in these events the German question could not be isolated from the general question of the security of Europe.
There were also some other comments about the fact that arms are still reaching Central America through the communist countries and that is a matter of very great concern to the United States.
Now I think I have given you the broad outline except perhaps to say that President Bush came in with another major speech this afternoon which I have said, and I think other people agreed, that it was so full of meat that we really should consider it very carefully before we reply to it. You cannot just hear a speech without having it in front of you and then just reply to it. It would not be wise to do so. [end p3]
The main thing is the continuation, stability and security of NATO. Second, do everything we can to help President Gorbachev to succeed. Thirdly, special help to those countries which have already rejected communist governments for other countries and therefore going to the essence of democracy. And fourthly, the CFE and START negotiations hopefully to be complete next year and in a condition to be signed.
I think we all felt that within a few years time we might be in a very different world if all of those countries are democratic. But we could no more predict the outcome than we could have predicted what is happening now some five years ago. [end p4]
Question (Peter Riddell, Financial Times)
You mentioned there was a speech full of meat from the President this afternoon, could you outline which areas it covered, was it troops?
Prime Minister
No, it was a general speech and it obviously had been very carefully drafted. As one politician to another, one knows and recognises when speeches have been very carefully drafted and therefore requires equally careful consideration.
Many of the things we would have absolutely no hesitation about replying to. For example, George Bushhe hoped for the close integration of Europe—that does not give us in Britain any difficulty, after all it was we who proposed that we concentrate on the Common Market and it was during our Presidency that we started off the Directives and so on which would we hope finish up in 1992. Our problem is not the closer cooperation or integration, but what kind of Europe we wish to see.
He also in that particular speech said again that the United States would keep significant Armed Forces and nuclear weapons in Europe as long as the Allies wished.
I cannot remember all of the other things that were in it but it was quite profound. [end p5]
Question (John Palmer, Guardian)
What sort of areas would you need to reflect on most before replying to President Bush?
Prime Minister
I have not got the speech in front of me but as he went through it, I did not make full notes of it but I recognised that it was a very deep speech and had very considerable implications. Afterwards Sr. Andreotti raised the question of the meaning of self-determination and put the point which a number of us have already taken that it has to be looked at in the context of the Helsinki Final Act. That point was made very extensively in Paris.
But very shortly afterwards we closed the discussion down because we really could not reply immediately to that and it was taking us into details which we were not able to consider.
Question
… East European context?
Prime Minister
No, no. Self-determination really has a Helsinki context, as you know, and that you must decide its meaning in the light of the Helsinki Final Act. [end p6]
Question (Martin Bell)
Have you found yourself a bit on the edge of the NATO consensus in taking a more cautious and even negative view of events in Eastern Europe than your colleagues?
Prime Minister
I am sorry to disappoint you but the answer is no. Time after time the word caution came. Time after time the security and stability and the value came. Of course we do not know the future but turmoil can be very disturbing and we do not know what may happen. Times of great change are times when you have even greater need for a secure and stable Alliance and that came through on many many occasions.
Question
(Inaudible).
Prime Minister
It is a time for keeping NATO strong and secure.
Question
You talk about the need for caution. Do you think that the euphoria in the West at what is happening in Eastern Europe may lull some Western leaders into a false sense of security? [end p7]
Prime Minister
There was no euphoria. There was hopeful optimism, there was no euphoria at all. When you see what is happening in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, they will have to sort out who is going to govern those countries. But I do not think you can be euphoric, you can be very pleased that they are stretching out their hands and their voices and their demonstrations to freedom. It takes a good deal more than that to institute freedom. It usually requires more than one political party. It most certainly requires a back-up of a rule of law and a proper system of justice.
When I have spoken on many occasions to communist states they have no idea that the rule of law binds governments as well as citizens; no idea that a citizen can take a government to court and through the impartial administration of justice the court can fine against the government.
This takes a long time. As you know, it has not happened yet in the Soviet Union, it is one of the measures that they are thinking of bringing forward in future, it has not yet come to fruition.
So these things do take a long time. Until now those countries and their people have had nowhere, no-one to whom they could complain, no-one but no-one to redress a grievance, however deep-seated, however unjust. It is easier to demand freedom than it is to set the structures of freedom in place. [end p8]
Question (Mark Laity, BBC)
In President Bush 's speech, was part of the meat concerning arms control and did he make any proposals and what were they if he did? [end p9]
Prime Minister
There were two speeches. There was the first one this morning. The second one you must read—I think it has been given out to you in full. I asked and because it has been given out or is ready to be given out in full, I would rather have it before me and as I have said, consider it carefully before we reply to it.
The reassurance within that is always given whenever he has spoken is that the United States and I believe, Mr. Mulroney 's Canadian Forces will continue in Europe together with nuclear forces so long as the allies wish it. It is absolutely vital for the defence of freedom in Europe.
Question
Mrs. Thatcher, you said that Chancellor Kohl did not set a timetable at all for German unification and yet we know that Vernon Walters yesterday said he thought he could see that happening within five years. You apparently said that we should not think about changing borders in Europe or re-establishing new blocs until you have had democracy established for ten to fifteen years. Don't you think that might be seen to be a bit conservative? [end p10]
Prime Minister
No. It is not a bad thing to be conservative but Chancellor Kohl, after President Bush had spoken, pointed out that he had no timetable and that the German question could not be isolated from the general question of the security of Europe. That was after President Bush 's speech this afternoon.
Douglas HurdForeign Secretary
Or indeed … . the Federal Republic's place in NATO and the Community. Chancellor Kohl was clearly anxious to clear up any doubts there might be on those points.
Question
(inaudible)
Prime Minister
No. Chancellor Kohl was very strong and very sure on his loyalty to NATO and his total loyalty to the European Economic Community—very strong and very sure—as you would expect.
Nik Gowing (ITN, Channel 4)
Where do the current developments leave your view on the modernisation particularly of short-range nuclear weapons and the Lance missile, given that the West Germans have now said that the prospect is, frankly, laughable? And also, the prospect of reunification in Germany means that there is a prospect of these short-range missiles actually being used against people in essentially the same country. [end p11]
Prime Minister
My views have to be precisely where the NATO agreement is now. We agreed that no-one must negotiate unilaterally but that it has to be done between the Warsaw Pact and NATO and therefore we have not changed one word of the agreement that we mutually set our names to last May and agreed that we do not do anything unilaterally, so we did not come here to try to negotiate new arms agreements and, of course, we have not done so.
Douglas HurdForeign Secretary
The point was not raised for one minute. It simply did not arise because this concept was … .
Question
You mentioned that President Bush had mentioned about European unity in his speech. Do you think that has any implications for your stance at Strasbourg later this week on Monetary Union and the Social Charter?
Prime Minister
No, none at all. As I have told you, in getting to the Single European Act we really are ahead of almost any other country in Europe and that is not surprising. We implement our undertakings and I think I have given you the figures of how many we have implemented compared with some of our partners. No, I do not think [end p12] the Social Charter is necessary at all for the integration of Europe. Indeed, I think, as you know, it would be very damaging for employment prospects in Europe and the competitive position of industries in Europe and that is not what Europe is about at all.
Question
Similarly, as far as the speech this afternoon is concerned, was there anything that raised the possibility of a new move on CSCE and a resume conference on certified … .?
Prime Minister
It had been suggested, I think by Mr. Gorbachev, that we have a new Helsinki Conference next year. I think, in fact, that has been overtaken by the intention to sign the CSCE next year and with all the relevant Heads of Government there, so that point has been overtaken.
The 1991 Human Rights Conference has still, I think, finally to be decided. There was a question as to whether it should be in Moscow. 1992 is the next Helsinki CSCE Conference.
Peter Armand (Washington Times)
Do you agree with Mr. Gorbachev that the Cold War is now dead? [end p13]
Prime Minister
I do not make any such assertions as that—the Cold War, the Thaw, etc. We have great hopes of the future. The enlargement of freedom is a great joy to us. We hope that the structures of freedom will follow the desire for the enlargement of freedom and that true democratic structures will be set up in all European countries. We notice that they are already in Hungary and Poland but it takes longer than the desire for them to be set up for the structures to be in place.
Richard Ingham
Prime Minister, I understand that you spoke out in favour of retaining the two alliances. Could you just give us briefly your rationale of why the Warsaw Pact, which has been the West's opponent in the Cold War for the last thirty or forty years, should be retained as a structure?
Prime Minister
Well, how else are we going to negotiate reduction of armaments weapons? And also, if you are to get some of the really important introductions of democracy into Eastern Europe, as we have all agreed, it is important not to destabilise the security of the Soviet Union and thirdly, as we have known for a very long time, the Warsaw Pact is nothing like an association of free nations in the same way as NATO has been. We negotiate our armaments reductions through NATO and the Warsaw Pact; we wish to continue to do that. [end p14]
We wish to have more democracy. We recognise that we shall not achieve it if there is destablisation of security on the part of the Soviet Union.
Question
You said that it is important not to destabilise the Soviet Union. Do you see any particular threat for Mr. Gorbachev from one of the more radical reforming governments in the …
Prime Minister
What I see is not exactly material. The question is what would Mikhail Gorbachevhe see. That is the critical question that you have to ask. He is as much entitled to defence of his system as we are of ours.
Question (TV.AM)
There has been some fear, as after Reykjavik, that Europe could be left out in the cold, could be overtaken by events that the superpowers have discussed without consulting the allies. Do you think there is any of that sense at this post-superpower Summit and do you think that Europe is in line or at one with what the superpowers have agreed or agreed to agree at the Malta Summit? [end p15]
Prime Minister
There was no suggestion that anyone go their own unilateral way—the very reverse: that we negotiate together and we negotiate through the same process that we have embarked upon on the CFE as far as conventional are concerned.
Chemical weapons we are doing rather differently, as you know, in Geneva. We hope that those will move rather more quickly. It is not, as I indicated earlier, necessarily easy to get rid of chemical weapons and you must have a pretty good verification system, but it would seem as if the proposals put up by President Bush at the United Nations are broadly speaking accepted, which is good news.
The START negotiations are only the Soviet Union and the United States.
Question (IRN)
Prime Minister, you said this morning that you believe it will take ten to fifteen years for democracy to evolve in the Eastern European countries.
Prime Minister
No, not to evolve but to make certain that it will last. [end p16]
Question (Same Man)
The question which many people are asking in Britain is how long Thatcherism will last, given the current challenge.
Prime Minister
Well, that does not depend wholly on me but it has not done too badly in the last ten years either for the people of Britain or for the press or television.
Graham Leach (BBC)
A follow-up question to an earlier one concerning the Strasbourg Summit: you have referred to Britain's commitment to the Single European Act, but the issues at Strasbourg will go beyond 1992 towards deliberations on Economic and Political Union, far-reaching decisions.
How do you react, Prime Minister, to those who say that now is the very time in history when rather than going slowly, the Community should speed up its integration on all fronts to serve as a magnet and a powerful example to those countries in the East edging towards democracy?
Prime Minister
Quite simply, to go from a system where all countries in the European Community are democratically accountable, particularly for their economic and budgetary policies, to a system in which there is an organisation set up which is not democratically accountable, is [end p17] not a step towards democracy but a step away from it. It will, I think, receive quite a lot of opposition when it is considered more carefully but as you know, we debated the matter in our House of Commons and there was opposition from all quarters of the House that it is quite clear that Delors Stages 2 and 3 could not get through the House of Commons on its democratic accountability and also because it goes for the jugular of the British parliamentary system which is to restrain the Executive on expenditure and budgetary matters and to have the Executive accountable on general economic policy, so it cuts straight to the heart of our democratic system.
Question
Prime Minister, you are clearly suffering from a cold today.
Prime Minister
Oh, I am not suffering—I have just got a cold.
Question (Same Man)
Are you looking forward to a tonic tomorrow evening about six o'clock?
Prime Minister
I think it will be a quarter past six! [end p18]
Question (NBC News)
Do you think that President Bush has been a bit naive in his dealings with Gorbachev? Has he gone too far too fast?
Prime Minister
No, I do not think President Bush is naive. In a report today, you were calling him too cautious. You just have to make up your minds. I think he is rightly cautious and his responses rightly measured. I would call it conservative.