Interviewer
Prime Minister, the NATO London Summit that you have hosted has been billed as perhaps the most important since the Alliance was formed. What do you think are its major achievements?
Prime Minister
It was important. It was a superb result.
We set out both to keep a sure defence and therefore to keep all the corner-stones of NATO—that is vital—but to show that we were changing and adapting some things to a very different political situation, particularly if the Soviet Union achieves the reforms she has set out to do, so the communique shows three things:
Keeping our sure defence and nuclear deterrents. Having a look at our strategy to see if it needs adapting. For example, if we no longer need forward defence right across Germany but need defence in depth, which would need a different mix of weapons, and then to say: “What can we do to extend the hand of friendship even on a greater scale to the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries?” [end p1]
It was a good communique; they all enjoyed the Summit in London; and we are very pleased with the result.
Interviewer
“The hand of friendship” , I think, is a phrase that both you and President Bush have used as a theme for this conference and he has come forward with a package perhaps designed to reassure the Kremlin of NATO's peaceful intentions, but you have given the idea that you seem to be somewhat wary of this. Are you not, in a way, risking going up a historical dead-end saying: “Hold back! There is still a military alliance defending ourselves!”
Prime Minister
My goodness me! I hope there will always be a military alliance prepared to defend freedom and justice.
Since the last World War, there have been 140 conflicts the world over. Some of them could have extended across the world. The Iran/Iraq war, as we saw at one time, had great dangers for our supplies of oil, for the Western World, so you must always be prepared to defend freedom and justice and we come from a generation which realises that had American troops stayed in a defensive way in Europe after World War I, there would probably never have been World War II because anyone who tried to attack Western Europe would have understood that to do so would have involved America as well as the European countries. [end p2]
Interviewer
Can we look at the nuclear policy as outlined in the communique?
President Bush has suggested that we should move to a policy of making nuclear weapons “weapons of last resort” . You did not seem to sit very comfortably with that at first.
Prime Minister
I thought it was misleading if you took it literally. If you take it in conjunction with NATO's whole strategy which is set out in the next sentence, you see that there must always be a nuclear deterrent and that anyone who crosses into NATO territories must always fear that the short-range weapons could be used as well as the larger ones and you will find that set out and I think you will find President Bush has said that the deterrent aspect is still part of the fundamental nuclear doctrine.
Interviewer
Does that mean that the President is just playing with words, that we don't really change our system?
Prime Minister
I think that that is taking into account that many of the Soviet troops are going out of Eastern Europe. Whereas previously they were right on our borders, they will be right back on the Soviet borders so the possibility of a surprise attack has gone. [end p3]
Interviewer
You have always been a great moral supporter of Mr. Gorbachev, a man with whom you could do business, as you say, but at these summits and meetings you are often quick to point out how the Soviet union is continuing to build up its military strength and you are the one who seems to be very wary, very careful of going forward to meet the Russians. Is it that you don't trust Mr. Gorbachev or that you don't believe he is going to survive?
Prime Minister
No, it is this. I am a great supporter of what Mr. Gorbachev is doing. It is important not only for people of the Soviet Union that they move towards democracy and freedom; it is also important for us that democracy is extended the world over so that is why I have supported him and it was a very bold move to say that Communism had totally failed the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the fact is that the Soviet Union is very heavily armed, both in men and materials, excellent equipment, very heavy nuclear weapons, still making more nuclear weapons than we are, still modernising them. You cannot ignore the facts.
The change upon which Mr. Gorbachev has embarked is an enormous one—it will take a long time to bring about—and we have to defend against possible attacks. We never know when they might come or where they might come from. It is natural and wise always to have a staunch defence. That is the greatest deterrent to an attack. [end p4]
Interviewer
On Sunday, you are going to be in Houston. Again, the question of helping Mr. Gorbachev is going to come up at the conference of the big seven industrial economies and this time the question of aid of economic types. Again, you seem to be holding back on that. What is it that worries you about that and isn't there then a risk that the cash might come too late if we don't do something now?
Prime Minister
Look! This is taxpayers' money. We are not going to spend taxpayers' money to enable any country to go on in the way which got it into a mess.
If we are going to help, it has to be help on the basis that they are going to change and therefore we would look for the kind of changes which would help them to succeed and that is precisely what we are doing. That is what we did with help to Poland, help to Hungary, help to Czechoslovakia.
The changes they require are enormous. It is far better to teach them how to do it, to know that the money would be properly used and not just used for a spending spree for consumer goods.
Interviewer
Of course, the other big question is the future of the two Germanies. Are you concerned that Germany is going to pull the West perhaps prematurely towards aiding Russia in order to buy an easy way into reunification? [end p5]
Prime Minister
Germany will reunify. That has very considerable consequences for the Soviet Union. Many of her troops are stationed there; while they are stationed there, she will have to pay them in Deutschmarks and not in Eastmarks—she has not got much foreign currency—and gradually she will have to move them out and build new quarters for them in the Soviet Union.
There are very very considerable expenses for the Soviet Union in German unification and it is right that those expenses should be borne especially by Germany and also because Germany will come into NATO, I think Germany feels that she wants to reassure Mr. Gorbachev of her willingness to help them to achieve their objectives and therefore you would expect her to give a special amount and special attention to that particular aspect.
So in addition to what Europe and the United States might do, Germany also has, I think, extra obligations.
Interviewer
Finally, Prime Minister, what kind of aid package towards the Soviet Union would you like to see come out of Houston?
Prime Minister
I don't think one can come out of Houston itself. When we met at the European Community in Dublin, we said there is no point in just extending large loans for them to be spent on consumer goods but we would look very carefully, together with the Soviet Union, through the Commission and IMF team and the OECD, to see where money could be used to help them learn how to run our kind of economy. [end p6] I can think of several things: 40 per cent of the food they produce never gets to market—that is appalling inefficiency, maybe we could help them with that. Things like that which they could come over and learn how to do and more know-how and technical help, but it must be targeted. If we are going to spend taxpayers' money, they have a right to expect that it will practically help the Soviet Union to bring about the reforms which will also be to our benefit.