Interviewer
Prime Minister, you spent a lot of your time at this Summit urging caution, expressing the fear that the Alliance might give away too much. Do you think that was avoided?
Prime Minister
Oh yes, it was totally avoided.
Interviewer
What was your particular fear about the phrase “last resort” that you seemed concerned about?
Prime Minister
“Last resort” clearly means last resort and had we just left it like that, it could have been that a potential aggressor could think that he could cross the line into our territory and get quite a long way because nuclear weapons would not be used against him, because they were only going to be used in a “last resort” and would “last resort” be when they got two-thirds of the way across the [end p1] Continent or not? People can see this and it is in our last NATO communique that anyone who crosses that line must always know that nuclear weapons may be used against him—that is the greatest deterrent to him crossing it—so immediately before the sentence that you have quoted, we have made it quite clear that short-range nuclear weapons could always be used to retaliate against an adversary who came across the line, and that still keeps the effective deterrence of the short-range nuclear weapons just as much as the deterrence of the large ones.
Interviewer
Nevertheless, the communique does talk about reduced reliance on nuclear weapons. What do you think are the essential nuclear components of a future NATO arsenal?
Prime Minister
I think it means reduced reliance on nuclear weapons because until now, the Soviet forces—not in the Soviet Union but across Eastern Europe—were right on our borders so they could always have had a surprise attack, particularly in the numbers that they were there both in forces and equipment—they could always come across very very quickly. That will not be so when they have withdrawn fully from Eastern Europe. We shall not be subject to surprise attack and therefore, it would take much longer to get anything going and we should have a much greater possibility of stopping them, first by diplomatic means, and that means reduced reliance, therefore, on the short-range nuclear weapons but that if they come [end p2] across, the deterrent effect will be there.
The real purpose of nuclear weapons is that they are so terrible that they are there to deter but if you take away that deterrent effect by saying they would not be used except under certain circumstances, you take away their deterrence and that we must not do.
Interviewer
But to keep that deterrent effect, what do we still have to have?
Prime Minister
There will, of course, be the short-range Lance missiles there until 1995/1996—I doubt that the Lance weapon will now be modernised; but there are also stationed on German soil the free-falling nuclear bombs; those will have to be modernised and they will be modernised by replacing the bombs which the aircraft have to get through to enemy territory with and they might not necessarily get through, with an air-to-surface missile which, as you know, is much more effective and which you can deliver before you get to their territory—that rejoices in the name of TASM—Tactical Air-to-Service Missile. We shall need it to replace our free-falling nuclear bombs and France will need it, the United States will need it and, of course, of replacements of the free-falling bombs and the American replacements will be stationed on German soil. [end p3]
Interviewer
Do you think the Germans will always accept that?
Prime Minister
I hope so. I hope that they will always be a full and staunch member of the NATO Alliance. After all, they have a fantastic amount to lose if our defence were ever to fail.
Interviewer
But do you recognise that there is a growing movement in Germany against having nuclear weapons stationed on her soil?
Prime Minister
Oh yes, but there is a movement here called CND to which senior members of the Opposition belong, but it is not the strategy of this country.
Interviewer
Do you think this final statement, taken as a whole, is enough to satisfy President Gorbachev who you yourself said was very anxious about the outcome of this Summit?
Prime Minister
Oh yes, I think so. I think Mikhail Gorbachevhe will be very pleased with it. The nuclear deterrence he expects to remain and after all, they have a nuclear deterrent as well.
I think he will be very pleased that American forces remain in Germany. After all, that really is an assurance for us all that [end p4] there will not be another Third World War so long as they are, and it was the reason why Truman said originally: “Why this Alliance? Why American forces in Europe?” and he said straightaway: “So that there will be no Third World War!” That, of course, is the greatest assurance for us all.
He also notices the third factor: first, we have got unity and resolve and we extend the hand of friendship across to East Europe and to the Soviet Union.
Interviewer
What do you think is going to be achieved by having President Gorbachev come to NATO?
Prime Minister
I think people are very anxious that Mikhail Gorbachevhe should come to NATO, particularly perhaps those who have not seen him very frequently and I think they thought that we might all gain from it.
You will always need a defence—we shall always need a defence because we believe in freedom and justice and you never know where it might be attacked from. We were not to know in the 1930s what would happen—it is a pity we did not have stronger defences and keep them, so we shall all need them. So will the Soviet Union too. She might never know the direction from which she will be attacked, so we both understand that but both having people in our governments who remember the last World War and having seen it again recently because of the fiftieth anniversary of some things, we all recognise a bounden duty to try to reduce the number of weapons that [end p5] we have, so we keep our defence at a lower level of weaponry and to try to reduce the possibility of conflicts by constantly talking across that border in Europe because your security, you build it up both in a military way—and the Soviet Union has fantastically strong military forces—but you also build it up by greater understanding, by greater trade, by getting your lives more intertwined, so you need the two limbs: the sure defence because there will always be uncertainty and the building-up of a new relationship.
I think, if you look carefully, you will find that there has not been a war between two full democracies, so it pays us for many many reasons, not only reasons for human dignity and freedom. Democracies are very slow to anger and slow to do anything except use their weapons for pure defence.
Interviewer
In his letter to you, Mr. Gorbachev also expressed interest in the idea of economic aid from the West. You, I think, will be discussing that in Houston next week. What sort of a package do you think the West ought to be offering?
Prime Minister
I think we must follow the rules we have already set up for Poland and Hungary. There is no point in giving them aid to carry on in the way that got them into this deep trouble, it does not make any sense at all.
If you give them aid, it is to enable them to achieve the changes which they want and so we said in the European Summit let [end p6] us get teams working upon what sort of aid will be successful. For example, it does not make any sense when they tell us—and accurately—that between 30 and 40 per cent of the food they grow never gets to the people, never gets into the market-place. First, they grow it, they don't store it properly, a lot of it gets attacked—it might be attacked by pests, it might be attacked by weather—they get it into some of the railways, the railways are grossly inefficient, it never gets those enormous distances as sometimes across the United States; they have no structural system to get it to wholesalers for the wholesalers to distribute it.
All of that is absurd. At least you would have thought we could teach them more about food processing so if they can't get it to market, they can get it into some form where it can properly be stored and then we can teach them about how to manage. They don't know the costs of raw materials. Their factories have never been run like ours have. They have been told that they pick up their raw material from a certain place, they don't pay any money for it, that they employ so many people, produce so many things and that they take them to a certain place. No manager knows what he has to buy, how to determine the goods that he should produce or how to order the equipment he would need. This is an enormous turn-around and this is why we have really made our main aid know-how aid to those countries.
There was one exception: Poland was really deeply in need of food to get her through the winter and we said: “This is absurd! Poland is struggling to change; it would make it much more difficult if she is short of food!” If Ethiopia is short of food, [end p7] we meet the need so of course, we put in a lot of food into Poland—not as a loan but as a gift, and quite right too.
I don't think the Soviet Union is short of food; it is a question of getting it to the right place where the people are.
Interviewer
Can I ask you one final question about the Summit?
NATO at this Summit sought to adapt itself to meet the changed circumstances.
Prime Minister
That is quite right! That is a very good summing-up!
Interviewer
But do you think, looking into the long-term, say into the next century, that it will continue to be the bedrock of security in Europe or may be replaced by some other security body?
Prime Minister
I think it is going to take a long time to do anything other than we are doing now. Indeed, as far as I am concerned—and I think most thinking defence correspondents and diplomatic correspondents—there can and always will be turbulence in the world; there will always be passions inflamed and aroused—we see them, we see it happening in many places across the world. Some of those local conflicts could extend to involve the bigger Powers or they could in fact cut off fundamental supplies which are [end p8] necessary to keep this country going. In twenty years, we shall all need to a greater measure than we do now, the oil from the Middle East again, certain strategic materials, so this uncertainty, this turbulence, this human nature, this thing where adjacent peoples get so much into battles—frequently adjacent peoples. I know one of my political friends says: “Well, it is not surprising that you get your main quarrels between peoples who live next to one another; it is much easier to quarrel with those who live near to you than those who live a long way away!” so you will always need very strong forces to say to them: “Look! If you attack us, you can never win! Now just sit down and sort it out!” and that is much more powerful than saying: “Now just sit down and sort it out!” .
So we will always need, in my view, a strong defence, the reason being because human nature has not changed. Emotions can be very quickly inflamed and you need strength—military strength—and I believe a nuclear deterrent to stop them.
We cannot foresee what will happen in ten or twenty years' time. I think, if you value your freedom and justice, you should also be prepared to defend it. I would like to think that within the coming century that we could extend democracy everywhere because peoples who know freedom and justice—yes, we have problems with internal criminal activity—but democracies tend not to go to war against one another, they value their freedom and they know about justice and human rights too much. So really our political duty is as far as we can to extend democracy the world over. We could not have foretold ten years ago what would be happening now but you [end p9] know, we are, I think, using our talents, our abilities, much more constructively to try to get the pride and dignity that we think should belong to every human being into almost every country. In the meantime, we still defend. There have been 140 conflicts since the end of World War II. Look! We had to go to the Falklands, it blew up quite suddenly; look at the troubles in the Middle East, the Iran/Iraq War blew up very suddenly, could have extended very quickly elsewhere. So we shall still need a sure defence and on the basis of that sure defence, we can be very constructive in helping and encouraging other people to come to democracy and freedom.