Category: Foreign Affairs

The Q&A with Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 17 June 1997.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, can we ask you what has been decided now on this issue of defence?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think we have reached agreement on it, which is very satisfactory to us, because it makes it absolutely clear that our defence interests will continue to be looked at through NATO, whilst of course co-operating with other countries in defence, as it is in our interests to do so.

QUESTION:

And what was the key argument as far as you were concerned?

PRIME MINISTER:

The absolute essence of it is to make it clear that defence is such a big British interest that nothing must jeopardise NATO, that that is the foundation of our defence policy and there must be no question of us being forced into an integration of the various European defence institutions and that has been secured. So of course it is an agreement that I hope will be satisfactory to everyone, but it also protects Britain’s position.

QUESTION:

Who were the British allies?

PRIME MINISTER:

I think that there were a lot of the other countries who were very concerned of course to make sure that NATO and our alliance with the Americans should remain the cornerstone of our defence. So of course we want to co-operate with other countries, that is important to do, but it must be done on the basis that Britain’s defence remains with British interests and done in alliance with the United States.

QUESTION:

Are you confident you are going to get a treaty tonight?

PRIME MINISTER:

We are still negotiating and there are certain points that have to be gone through, but I think the negotiations are proceeding pretty well and we are satisfied with what we have done.

QUESTION:

What do you want people to believe that this treaty really represents in terms of a step forward for Europe?

PRIME MINISTER:

The absolute essence of what we have achieved here is that we have put jobs and employment right at the top of the agenda – that in respect of all the other things, quite apart from protecting Britain’s interest on frontier controls and all the rest of it, we have said that there are certain practical steps that Europe should take in the field of environment, of consumer protection. But what we haven’t done is try and construct some illusion about Europe that is totally at odds with the wishes of the people of Europe, and I think that practical British common sense has been very important.

QUESTION:

So what do you say to those who argue that you have given away too much, in erosion of the British veto for example?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think it’s true to say that in relation to anything at all. We have actually protected all our bases in respect of that all the way through and there is not a single thing that we have yielded up that we have said we would not. So what is very important to recognise is that in all the areas – tax, immigration, defence – the British national interest, the British veto, is secured. But it is more than that. We didn’t just come here to say let’s stop everyone else doing something. We also came with the view of putting employment, economic reform, measures on the environment, right at the top of the agenda, and that we have achieved.

So it is not merely that we have prevented other countries pushing us into things we didn’t want to be pushed into; we have exercised, I think, a constructive leadership role in shaping Europe differently for the future.

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, President Clinton has condemned outright, as one would expect, the murders in Northern Ireland. Would you like him to go further and break off publicly all contact with Sinn Fein?

PRIME MINISTER:

The reason why President Clinton is so angry, the reason why we are so angry, the reason why the European Union here took the unusual step of issuing a unanimous statement condemning utterly these atrocities yesterday, is because everybody knows, and people in Northern Ireland should know this, particularly from the Nationalist community, that we were trying to bring about a situation in which there could be a lasting political settlement. We were making every effort to be constructive, and this was a deliberate act to frustrate that process going forward. So it is not merely our repugnance at the killing and our deep sympathy for the families, it is that there is such a serious element of bad faith here and I think the Americans, as everybody else has been, have been really shocked by this.

INTERVIEWER:

If we could go back to the summit. Progress has been made, progress is ritually made at summits. One gets the impression though always that there is a certain amount of grandstanding going on, both so far as border controls are concerned and so far as the row over monetary union and job creation is concerned. Did you get that impression?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well sure, I mean all countries are looking after their own interests. But I think what has been important for us and very positive, though things have not been agreed yet finally – that has to happen later in the day – but what is positive for us is we have protected our own interests upon frontier controls. I think we will get a very good deal in relation to other parts of the treaty as well, but we are also starting to shape the agenda in Europe at the same time. Because all the emphasis economically has been on jobs, on economic reform, on education and skills, not old style state interventional regulation. Now this was a very positive and constructive step forward for Britain in Europe as well as protecting British interests.

INTERVIEWER:

One gets the impression that you are looking post-treaty now, you are much more interested in the post-treaty agenda than you are really in the detail of now?

PRIME MINISTER:

We have still got things to sort out and some of these issues are very tricky because we have got a number of very clear decisions on foreign policy, defence and other issues. But I think what is important is that we do try and look forward from Amsterdam now and that we make sure that in the Presidency conclusions there are all the things that we need on the single market, on bringing about more flexible labour markets, on trying to create the type of future for Europe in which job security, in an entirely different economic world today, is put right at the top of the agenda and we don’t get lost in a whole lot of institutional talk that frankly means very little to people either in Britain or in the rest of Europe.

INTERVIEWER:

What you specifically need surely is an agreement to help the fishing industry in Britain. What are you looking for specifically on that?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well we are obviously still in the process of negotiation, but I am confident that we will get a good agreement on that too. And I think what is important is that we get a deal that enables our fishing industry to go forward from the position that they are in at the present time, but this of course is one of the issues upon which we are going to be negotiating, along with a whole lot of other things. But as I say, at the moment it is going well.

INTERVIEWER:

During the election this was portrayed as the great test of whoever became the new Prime Minister. You have now been here, you have seen what it has been like, do you think that was exaggerated during the election and if it was a test, how well have you done?

PRIME MINISTER:

That is rather to judge how well we have done, but I think what is important is that we have shown that we can be engaged and constructive in Europe because it is in Britain’s interest economically and politically that we are a leading player in Europe. It is important for our standing in the world, it is important for our industry. We have shown we can be constructive at the same time as protecting British interests. Now as I say we haven’t negotiated the final deal yet so you know you can never be sure until it is there. But I think what has changed in the atmosphere here is that people are listening to an agenda we have, particularly the agenda on economic reform and jobs, and that is an important change in Britain’s relations with Europe.

INTERVIEWER:

Has it been testing though, has it been difficult for your?

PRIME MINISTER:

It is difficult because you have got a whole series of different countries and they have all got their own interests and across a whole range of issues. Of course people will have disagreements. But what is important is that we are fighting on the things that are important and we are not fighting on things that either don’t matter to Britain or occasionally are contrary to British interests to be fighting about. So for example the employment chapter in the new treaty that I think we will agree is going to give Britain the opportunity to play a constructive role in shaping the economic agenda in Europe. It means no additional burdens on British business at all, and yet had the Conservative Party been here they would have been fighting to the death to keep the whole thing out of the treaty which wouldn’t have been in Britain’s interest at all. So I think that the change in atmosphere is in part because people know that when we are putting forward arguments they are reasonable and rational arguments. And of course countries fight for their own interests – and I can tell you that other countries fight for their own interests every bit as hard as anybody else. That is part of the natural process. But nonetheless there are a lot of things that we have achieved in terms of not just protecting our own interest buts shaping Europe’s future.

INTERVIEWER:

So have you had to concede absolutely nothing in the give and take that these summits always bring?

PRIME MINISTER:

At the present time there are no strategic interests that we have conceded at all, and I don’t intend conceding any, because I think the positions, as I say, that we are putting forward are reasonable and we have got sufficient support for that.

INTERVIEWER:

Although it has not been formally on the agenda of this summit, people are very concerned about the timetable for economic and monetary union and speculation about whether it will go ahead. What is your impression from your talks behind the scenes here? Do you get the impression that the Euro will go ahead on 1 January 1999?

PRIME MINISTER:

I don’t think anyone can be completely sure about that and in any event each country will take its own position and Britain has reserved its option. We have got the option to join. If we do join, or want to join, there would be a referendum and so on. But I think what is important about yesterday is that, first, jobs and employment security were put right at the top of the economic agenda, whether monetary union goes ahead or it doesn’t. And secondly, there was no attempt to fudge or alter the criteria for monetary union. And I think both of those things were actually very very important gains not just for Britain but for Europe.

The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, with President Clinton, on 29 May 1997.

PRIME MINISTER

Mr President, we are absolutely delighted to have you here and it is a very great day for us for the President of the United States to come in and address our Cabinet.

We know that you have been very busy over the past few days, we have been at some of the meetings together – the European Union and US Summit of course, and then the NATO/Russia agreement, which we congratulate you on formulating, the Founding Act, which will be very important in bringing peace to the world, and also of course the other meetings that have taken place commemorating the Marshall Plan. And we were particularly delighted, incidentally, that you mentioned yesterday, the contribution of Ernest Bevin to that plan, which was a very, very considerable achievement from an earlier Labour government.

I would just like to say one or two words right at the very beginning. First of all to welcome you and say how delighted we are to have you here, and to say that I hope that this does usher in a new time of understanding and cooperation between our two countries that have such strong bonds of history and of heritage together.

I think you, like me, have always believed that Britain does not have to choose between its strong relationship in Europe and its strong transatlantic relationship with the United States of America; strong in Europe and strong with the United States. I think the one strength deepens the other. And a Britain that is leading in Europe is a Britain capable of ever closer relations also with the United States of America. And we will obviously be wanting to discuss today many of the issues that concern Europe and the United States, the issues of enlargement and NATO. We will obviously be discussing Bosnia and Northern Ireland as well.

But, in particular, I want to say how absolutely delighted I am, on a personal level, to welcome you here. Because we believe that the courage and strength and leadership that you have shown in the United States has brought enormous benefits, not just to your own country, but the world and we are delighted to see you here.

PRESIDENT CLINTON:

Thank you very much. Let me say that first I am very appreciative of the honour of meeting with the entire Cabinet. And I have watched with enormous interest the energy and vigour with which you have all taken office and begun work, and the optimism with which you pursue it. I saw you on television last night being optimistic about peace in Ireland, which is an article of faith in my life, so I like that.

I agree that it is good for the United States to have a Britain that is strong in Europe and strong in its relations with the United States. These last couple of days, not only commemorating the Marshall Plan but asking the people of Europe to think about how we should organise the next 50 years, to try to fulfil the unfulfilled promise of the people who envisioned the Marshall Plan, and signing the agreement between NATO and Russia was part of the unfolding effort to create within Europe a continent that is democratic, undivided and at peace for the first time ever. Europe has been periodically at peace but never all democratic, and certainly never undivided. And I see that as a way of organising ourselves to meet the real challenges of the 21st century which will cross borders – terrorism, dealing with our racial and religious differences and trying to minimise the extremist hatred that is gripping so much of the world, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking, and the common environmental threats that will become a bigger part of every government’s agenda for the next generation.

So this is a very exciting time and I am glad to be here and I thank you.

QUESTION:

Mr President, you took office after 12 years of Republican rule in Washington. What advice do you have for these Labour Party members who have just taken office after so many years of a different party.

PRESIDENT CLINTON:

I think they are doing very well. I would like to have a 179 seat majority and I am not going to give any advice, I am going to sit here and take it as long as they will let me do it.

PRIME MINISTER:

And I would like to make sure that we have a second term of government, so I will be taking some advice too.

The doorstep interview at Downing Street with Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, during the visit of President Musharraf on 9 November 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

First of all, can I welcome President Musharraf here in Downing Street, and say how pleased we are to see you here, and to thank you once again for your strong and courageous support of the coalition against international terrorism, and to say how much we admire the stand that Pakistan has taken and to say, I think in particular, that we understand the difficulties that that has posed for you, and you can be assured of our complete and total support in the development of Pakistan in the future. And as you know there have been both initiatives taken both at a bilateral level between Britain and Pakistan, but also at a European level, and at an international level as well. We also know that the humanitarian problems have caused you difficulties as well, and as I said when we met before in Pakistan, and I will repeat to you again, Mr President, that we will do everything we can to help in those as well.

The purpose of the campaign in Afghanistan, as we know, is to close down that terrorist network there, to make sure that the extremists can no longer use Afghanistan as a training ground for exporting extremism around the world, and we are acutely aware of the fact that any successor regime, to the regime headed by Mullah Omar at the moment, has to be a broad-based regime, it has to include the Pushtun element, it has to be one representative, in other words, of all the different groupings, it has to take account of the need for stability in the region, and it has to be able, in concert with the international community, of providing for the reconstruction of Afghanistan for the future. And the aim which I am sure we share, and the vision which I am sure we would both endorse, is of an Afghanistan that is a stable partner in the region, that is a government representative of all the different people and groupings within Afghanistan, and of an Afghanistan that as a country dependent on the resources and intelligence and creativity of its people for its prosperity, rather than the drugs trade or the various factional in-fighting that has characterised the government of Afghanistan over these past years, and in all those endeavours we need Pakistan as a strong partner. We appreciate well that this cannot be achieved without it.

So, Sir, thank you very much for your support and your help and once again let me repeat our very warm welcome to you here.

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

Thank you very much. Let me say it is a great pleasure for me to have received the Prime Minister in Pakistan some days back and then for me to come here now and to have interacted with the Prime Minister. It was a special pleasure and satisfaction to see that we have total unanimity of views as far as the issue of addressing terrorism and addressing the situation in Afghanistan is concerned.

We discussed the situation in its entirety, we discussed that there is a requirement of addressing the triple issue of the military aspect, and then the political aspects in a futuristic way, about the political dispensation that is required in Afghanistan and also the United Nations, UNHCR humanitarian and rehabilitation effort required in Afghanistan.

It gives me a lot of satisfaction also to see that there is a concern and understanding of the realities and the difficulties that Pakistan faces. I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for showing concern towards Pakistan and Pakistan’s problems. I am sure that with the co-operation that we are showing with each other, being part of the coalition fighting against terrorism, I am sure we will keep moving forward. I will take this opportunity also of stating that Pakistan has taken a very deliberate, considered decision to be a part of the coalition. And let me say with total conviction that we will remain a part of the coalition till the attainment of the strategic objectives that we have set for ourselves. And within this I have been saying that we are for a short and targeted military campaign. One does understand that the duration of the campaign is very much relative to the attainment of strategic objectives. But however one hopes that these strategic objectives are achieved as fast as possible.

I would also like to touch on one issue and that is a domestic issue. Pakistan is a moderate Islamic country. The opposition to the decision that we have taken in Pakistan is by a very small minority. And may I also add that the Pakistani community in Britain also is a moderate Islamic community. I am very sure that they understand that Pakistan’s interest and the rationale behind Pakistan’s participation in the coalition in its fight against terrorism and in the action in Afghanistan. I am very sure that the community will understand the realities on the ground and they are supportive of the world unity and also the UN Security Council decision and decisions in support of fighting terrorism. Thank you very much.

QUESTION

A question for you, Prime Minister. As much as the President of Pakistan says that the action is going to be short, swift and targeted, but it is an extended one, and the economic difficulties which Pakistan is facing right now, were they discussed in your meeting? And of course, keeping in view the President’s position, the continued bombing of the coalition during the month of Ramadan, the chances are that the backlash will fall on the President from the extremist Islamic elements and of course possibly the Islamic bloc.

PRIME MINISTER

Well, first of course the economic difficulties of Pakistan were discussed, although I think there is a very great sense in the international community, quite apart, incidentally, from the support that Pakistan has given to the coalition against international terrorism, there is a great sense that Pakistan is making moves forward on the economic front now. The completion of the first phase of the IMF Programme was immensely important, and it is for that reason that I think the international community can respond, quite apart from the interests of the coalition, can respond positively to Pakistan. And in respect of the campaign itself, I would entirely agree with what the President has just said. We want this campaign brought to a conclusion as swiftly as possible, but it has to be to a successful conclusion, in other words with the attainment of our objectives. And of course we have to be aware of the sensitivities of Ramadan, and are aware of the sensitivities of Ramadan, though of course the Taliban will continue to fight during that time. And we must therefore take account, as we pursue our campaign, of those sensitivities. But in the end I think everyone understands that the campaign has to continue, ultimately, until the objectives are secured, but it is our desire to work as closely as possible with everyone, including strategic partners like Pakistan, to make sure that that campaign is successful and as swift as possible.

QUESTION

You are taking [measures] to cut terrorism in Afghanistan but what steps do you want to take for targeting terrorism in occupied Kashmir where 70,000 have been killed in the last 10-12 years.

PRIME MINISTER

I think as I said when I was asked similar questions in Pakistan, we understand the huge concern there is over Kashmir. We want to do everything we possibly can to reduce the tension there. And I think that is the obligation on everyone, whether it is the international community, or India or Pakistan, and I am sure that we will.

QUESTION

Mr President, do you think it will be real mistake if the coalition continues with bombing through Ramadan as indeed it now appears that they will do?

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

One would certainly hope that the military operation comes to an end as fast as possible as the Prime Minister has said as swiftly as possible before the month of Ramadan. But beyond that I would just like to say that the sensitivities of the month of Ramadan have to be considered in the decision of the military campaign.

QUESTION

General Musharraf, you are military man. You know Afghanistan well. You say you want this campaign to be short and targeted. Have you seen any evidence to suggest that it can be, or will be? Do you see any evidence to suggest that there is military progress being made in Afghanistan? And if I could also ask the Prime Minister. You say you are pleased to see General Musharraf, but it is true to say that 2-3 months ago he wouldn’t have been here. He is now our friend, but he was certainly not regarded as such before, and some people see that as a sign of a kind of cynicism in the campaign. What do you say to them?

PRIME MINISTER

He gets two questions.

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

The first part regarding the campaign being short, whether I am seeing any indications of that. Frankly, from a military point of view, when we think of the strategic objectives, the strategic objective in magnitude is not such that it will take a long time to achieve. What is missing is accurate intelligence which is delaying the issue. With an accurate availability of accurate intelligence the physical attainment of the objective could be done in a very short time. So therefore the moment that accurate intelligence is available, I am sure that the operation can be curtailed to the minimum.

PRIME MINISTER

I agree very much with that, and that is exactly what we are working on. But if I could just say to you about our relationship with Pakistan. I think it is worth pointing out that even before the 11th of September, the first district elections had been held, the process of the road map to democracy had been outlined by President Musharraf and there is a real sense in which people, as I say, quite apart from the coalition and the terrible events of the 11th of September, recognise the strides that Pakistan is making at the moment. Now it is of course the case that the aftermath of 11th September has brought us together in a different way. But I think you would be wrong in suggesting that nothing was moving in our relationship before that time.

The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 12 November 2001.

First let us offer our deep condolences and sympathy yet again to the people of New York and to the families of the victims of the latest air tragedy. Our hearts go out to the brave people there who have been through so much and with such dignity and courage.

Meanwhile, following the outrage of 11 September, we pursue those responsible for it in Afghanistan. It is clear the Taliban are unravelling. But they are not beaten yet or Al Qaida yet hunted down. We must continue until they are. We must use the territory gained in and around Mazar-e-Sharif to get supplies and food to refugees and the starving inside Afghanistan. Let us show we are as committed to alleviating human suffering as the Taliban are to creating it.

After the conflict, we must make good our promise to help bring in a broad-based Afghan government, representative of all peoples, including the Pushtoon and enable the reconstruction of that sorry land to take place.

This mission is important in all its aspects, military, humanitarian and diplomatic.

The terrible events of 11 September have made the case for engagement not isolationism as the only serious foreign policy on offer.

The atrocities in New York and Washington were the work of evil men. Men who distorted and dishonoured the message of one of the world’s great religions and civilisations. Their aim was to stimulate militant fundamentalism; to separate the United States from its allies; and to bring our way of life and our economies to their knees.

In those objectives they have already failed.

But one illusion has been shattered on 11 September: that we can have the good life of the West irrespective of the state of the rest of the world.

Once chaos and strife have got a grip on a region or a country trouble will soon be exported.

Out of such regions and countries come humanitarian tragedies; centres for trafficking in weapons, drugs and people; havens for criminal organisations; and sanctuaries for terrorists.

After all it was a dismal camp in the foothills of Afghanistan that gave birth to the murderous assault on the sparkling heart of New York’s financial centre.

The war against terrorism is not just a police action to root out the networks and those who protect them, although it is certainly that. It needs to be a series of political actions designed to remove the conditions under which such acts of evil can flourish and be tolerated. The dragon’s teeth are planted in the fertile soil of wrongs unrighted, of disputes left to fester for years or even decades, of failed states, of poverty and deprivation.

In April 1999, at the height of the Kosovo crisis, I spoke in Chicago about a doctrine or idea of international community, where we took a more active and interventionist role in solving the world’s problems.

I elaborated on this idea in my Leader’s speech this year in Brighton.

Some say it’s Utopian; others that it is dangerous to think that we can resolve all these problems by ourselves.

But the point I was making was simply that self-interest for a nation and the interests of the broader community are no longer in conflict. There are few problems from which we remain immune. In the war against terrorism the moralists and the realists are partners, not antagonists. The fact we can’t solve everything doesn’t mean we try to solve nothing.

What is clear is that 11 September has not just given impetus and urgency to such solutions, it has opened the world up. Countries are revising their relations with others, pondering the opportunities for re-alignment. New alliances or deeper alliances are being fashioned, new world views formed. And it is all happening fast. There is a shortcut through normal diplomacy. So we should grasp the moment and move, not let our world slip back into rigidity. We need boldness, grip and follow through.

The starting point is to make a leap of imagination from this grand hall and splendid banquet to the streets of the Arab world where bright, angry, disaffected young men – by no means always from poor families, but still with neither work nor prospects – seek outlets for their feelings of betrayal and frustration. They fall for dogmas that tell them to blame their troubles on a distant Satan, and gives their lives meaning by committing themselves to relentless struggle.

We can add to that an extremist and perverted version of Islam which seeks to shoulder aside or overthrow moderate counsels; a failed state in Afghanistan pulled down by poverty and desperation, whose rulers have made common cause with mass murderers; accusations from the Arab world of double standards in the Middle East peace process; in Africa, grinding poverty, pandemic disease, a rash of failed states, where problems seldom leave their stain on one nation but spread to whole regions.

More broadly we should work to develop inter-faith understanding. Already much is being done to bring the faiths together, like George Carey’s initiative on the World Faiths Development Dialogue. And who can forget the poignant scenes of reconciliation when the Pope went to pray at the Grand Omayyad Mosque in Damascus? Soon George and I hope to convene a seminar of scholars on furthering Christian/Muslim dialogue.

Systematically in each case we should seek redress.

The Middle East Peace Process must be re-started. We should contrive the first steps in mutual confidence and security on both sides, one of which would be action by the Palestinian Authority against suspected terrorists and Israel withdrawing fully from Area A. Then after those critical steps, we should reconvene proper negotiations based on two fixed principles: a viable Palestinian state; and the state of Israel accepted fully by its Arab neighbours. If Israel is to recognise that the Palestinians will have their own state, it is only right that the Arab world explicitly and clearly recognises Israel’s right to exist secure within its own borders. Everything else is negotiation and the sooner it starts, the better.

On Iraq, the time has come for a new UN resolution to provide for the arms inspectors to return and for the Saddam-induced suffering of the Iraqi people to be ended.

We should offer Syria, Iran and other nations in the same position a new relationship if they will work with us to end violence and promote a solution that is just for both Palestinians and Israelis and if they will join the international consensus on weapons of mass destruction. There can be a new beginning to their relations with the West. The opening is there now; I hope they will take it.

These countries all have an interest, too, in fighting religious extremism. It is quite extraordinary that Usama Bin Laden should claim over the weekend that Afghanistan is the only Islamic nation in the world. His aim is clear: to Talibanize all Islamic countries around the world. The time has come for the voices of mainstream Islam to take on the extremists. This is not a battle we in the West can fight. We cannot impose our own models on very different societies. But we can help and we can offer support for the vast majority of decent Muslims in that battle. It needs to be made clear again and again that our quarrel is not with Islam but with extremism and fanaticism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Islam.

In respect of Russia, we should mark the fact that in Afghanistan we have worked together; in the war against international terrorism, we stand together; and that both Russia and the US and EU have much to gain from us being partners. Central to that new relationship should be a change in Russia/NATO relations.

In Africa, I hope that in the New Year we can put forward a new initiative to tackle emerging conflicts before they develop, and offer the help needed to develop their economies and allow them to provide good governance and democracy for their people; and that a plan for Africa will be agreed at the G7/8 Summit in Canada.

Success in the talks to launch a new WTO round in Doha is vital. Seattle was a lost opportunity. The negotiations will be tough and with the Conference ending tomorrow, time is now running short. But at this time of economic uncertainty it is essential we agree on the agenda for a new trade round. Success means increased trade flows and rising living standards around the world. Failure would mean a retreat into protectionism and isolationism. All parties should show the necessary flexibility to achieve this.

Closing down the terrorist network in Afghanistan will not be the end of terrorism. We need to find a way of dealing with weapons of mass destruction to prevent their proliferation both to states and to terrorist organisations. We, in the EU, should offer advice, training and equipment to the countries of central Asia to help them introduce the strongest possible controls on sensitive exports and we should consider increasing our present programmes of support for safe storage and secure destruction of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials.

We are working hard to find a global solution to the problem of climate change and the agreement in Marrakesh shows that we can come together to tackle one of the most significant environmental challenges of today. We need to continue to improve international co-operation on poverty and the environment in the run up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg next year.

And if we are going to have a doctrine of international community we need to strengthen the UN as the body that helps put it into practice.

In the UN we are lucky to have the leadership of a highly talented and reforming Secretary-General on the threshold of a new term of office. We need to back him in his reforms and give him the practical support he needs. For example, bringing to a close the long drawn out negotiations on UN Security Council reform so that it becomes truly representative and truly effective in its operation.

In the aftermath of the disasters of the 1930s and the Second World War our predecessors took a number of fundamental courageous and far-reaching decisions. Above all they decided to find collective responses to the scourges of war and economic slump which individual national actions had done more to foment than to resolve. And they established a number of international structures and organisations to provide these collective responses – the UN, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank – that have lasted to this day.

After the Cold War, despite the talk of a new world order, we failed to renew these institutions or create new ones. Perhaps the euphoria that accompanied the crumbling of the Soviet bloc reduced the incentive to take a hard and radical look at the conduct of international affairs. Now it is time to do so.

As for Britain, we have much to offer and much to gain, in the changing world taking shape around us. Once again the vital role in foreign policy that our Armed Forces play has been demonstrated. They give us a standing which few can match and we should be very proud of them.

I hope, too, we have buried the myth that Britain has to choose between being strong in Europe or strong with the United States. Afghanistan has shown vividly how the relationships reinforce each other; and that both the United States and our European partners value our role with the other. So let us play our full part in Europe not retreat to its margins; and let us proclaim our closeness to the United States and use it to bring Europe closer to America.

The solidarity of our European partners in this present crisis has been total. It will remain so; and that is a real cause for hope.

Let us in Britain use the strengths of our history – our place in Europe, our alliance with the United States, our traditional ties with the Arab world, India, China or the Commonwealth – to build a solid future of influence for our nation. As I found in South America earlier this year, people respect Britain and want us engaged. We should not disappoint them.

Above all, I know the British people recognise the link between what happens in the outside world and what happens on our own streets in Britain. The 11 September was an attack on us all. Defeating those responsible is essential to our security; to economic confidence, so badly hit by terrorism; to the stability of our society, from the reduction of external threats down to the drugs trade – 90 per cent of the heroin in Britain originating in Afghanistan.

Our jobs and living standards depend on confidence in our way of life. Today world events can lift or shatter that confidence. We have much to do at home. But now, more than ever before what we do abroad can affect our homeland. For years, you in the City know the impact of global markets. Now we see the impact of global politics. So let us seize the chance in this time, to make a difference. Future generations will thank us if we do; and not forgive us if we fail.

The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 13 November 2001.

Good afternoon everyone. The military strategy aimed at defeating the Taliban is clearly succeeding. They are in disarray and retreat. However our job is not yet done by any means. We need urgently to put in place the next political and humanitarian moves that the changing military situation now permits. The speed of the Taliban retreat is a tribute to the skill and the professionalism of the coalition forces who have been engaged both in bombing from the air and in supporting and guiding the Northern Alliance on the ground. This has been a US-led operation and I would like to pay tribute to the leadership that President Bush has given. I would also, if I may, offer personal thanks to the British forces who have been engaged in this action.

But whilst the military strategy is vindicated, and whilst we join of course in the celebrations of the people of Kabul and the other towns and villages from which the Taliban have fled, our forces know, and I know, that this is only setting the conditions in place for our objectives to be achieved. Osama bin Laden remains at large, so do his closest associates. The Taliban regime are not yet fully dislodged from oppressing the people of Afghanistan and shielding Al-Qu’eda. However that task will now be eased by the scale of defections taking place, the ground being gained, and the intelligence being gathered.

In addition, however, two crucial things. First we need to step up now the humanitarian effort. The World Food Programme objective of 1,700 tons a day is being met. In fact at the present time it is being exceeded, but we need urgently to ensure that with Mazar-e-Sharif secured, we can get the food and aid to those that really need it. I have just spoken to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, on this issue. I told him that he would have Britain’s full support, practical and logistical, in ensuring that the humanitarian effort succeeds, but we both agreed of the urgent need to make sure that that food aid is actually delivered in with the shelter that people need.

Secondly, of course, I have spoken to him about the requirement to push on with Mr Brahimi’s efforts to establish a broad-based government and successor to the Taliban regime, and that of course must include all the various elements in Afghanistan, including the Pushtun. That process is well advanced. It is only now, with the military direction so clear, that I think that we are in the right position to be able to bring together the various ethnic and other factions likely to be involved in the formation of any successor government. I believe that we can, therefore, make real progress towards the filling of the current power vacuum in Kabul, but we need a UN presence there as soon as possible, and we need obviously to make sure that we are making as quick progress as we possibly can on assembling all the different elements that need to go to make up that broad-based successor regime.

And finally, I would simply say to the people of Afghanistan today, that this time we will not walk away from you. We have given commitments. We will honour those commitments, both on the humanitarian side and in terms of rebuilding Afghanistan. We are with you for the long term. You, the people, must agree your own government, and your own future, but we the coalition must give you the help and support that you need as you seek to rebuild your troubled country, and that support will be forthcoming.

QUESTION

Do you now believe that the Taliban are beaten, or do you believe that there is a regrouping going on in the South and that there is a lot more to be done on the ground before you can say that.

PRIME MINISTER

Well, they are clearly in retreat, and indeed in some places in a state of collapse, but it is too early to say that the objectives have been met. And that is why we need to press on, we need to make sure that we are engaging with any resistance that we find and at the present time, because it is changing literally on an hour by hour basis, the short answer is that we simply can’t be sure, but there is no doubt at all that there has been a fundamental change in the position of the Taliban regime, and you can see by the attitude and rejoicing, frankly, of the Afghan people, that this has been welcomed widely in many parts of Afghanistan.

QUESTION

Prime Minister, you and President Bush made it quite clear that you did not want the Northern Alliance to take Kabul. They appear to have ignored that. How confident are you that they will be prepared to play a minority role in a new broad-based government in Afghanistan.

PRIME MINISTER

Well, it is not that they ignored that. The situation in Kabul obviously changed when the Taliban left and there was no authority there in Kabul at all, but we have always made it clear, and we make it clear again, that the successor regime to the Taliban regime, led by Mullah Omar, has to be a broad-based regime. It has to include all the various ethnic groupings in Afghanistan, and that obviously must include the Pushtun element, so I think that is very clear and that indeed I believe is accepted by the Northern Alliance. Now of course it is the United Nations that has the authority to take this process forward and I think you will find from the next steps which are taken by Mr Brahimi, who is the UN envoy given the task of assembling people in order to discuss the post-Taliban government of Afghanistan, I think you will find that that is clearly understood.

QUESTION

Mr Blair, what more can you tell us about the involvement of British troops? What sort of scale that involvement was, perhaps. And also do you anticipate that British forces will be involved in any interim policing presence which may be necessary, or will that be Moslem nations such as Turkey.

PRIME MINISTER

We obviously have been intimately involved with the contact of the coalition campaign, and we certainly stand ready to help in any way that we can in the future. But I face the difficulty, I always do, in discussing what troops we might deploy and where. There are reasons of security, and there are also reasons of diplomacy why these things should be discussed with others first. But I can certainly tell you that the British forces, as you would expect, have acquitted themselves brilliantly in this, and in any other capacity that they may be used, I am sure they will do the same. But I simply can’t speculate on the details of that at the present time.

QUESTION

The reports from Kabul, apparently, that 2,000 people from the Northern Alliance have moved in to Kabul and that they say that they don’t want any interference from outside, and there are also reports from other sources of people within Kabul being massacred. Doesn’t this suggest that the military is now out of step with the diplomatic.

PRIME MINISTER

No, and I think you need to treat all these reports, frankly at the moment, with some caution. Of course it is a very difficult situation there, and it is changing, as I was saying a moment or two ago, literally hour by hour. But I think the broad outlines of the point the coalition has been making throughout are very, very clear, that we need to make sure that any successor government to the Taliban regime is broad-based. The UN obviously are going to be closely involved, and the other thing that I would say to you is that for us, and for the coalition, our objectives of course were to close down the entire terrorist network in Afghanistan. And those objectives, although they have been partially successful so far, although we have succeeded in them partially, we have not yet completed that task, and we need to make sure that we can. So there will be all sorts of reports coming out of Afghanistan at the moment, and I would wait until they are confirmed to see exactly what the situation.

QUESTION

What sanctions do we have over the Northern Alliance?

PRIME MINISTER

None.

QUESTION

Are you sure that if the Northern Alliance does indeed partake in this broad-based coalition allow you to have a say when they are clearly in Kabul, and there are people evidently saying that we won’t take orders from foreigners.

PRIME MINISTER

Well I think that throughout, the Northern Alliance have realised that their success, because after all this is a military situation that hasn’t started with the 11th of September, it was going on for many, many months, even years before then. It has changed dramatically in the last two months or so. Now that is because there has been a combination of the Northern Alliance forces, supported both by people on the ground from the coalition, and by bombing from the air. The basis on which that support was given was very clear, and that remains the case. And I think you will find as the situation progresses over these next few days, that everybody understands that the successor regime in Afghanistan has to be broad-based to be successful because there are large numbers of Pushtun people, particularly in the South of the country who have to be involved in any successor regime. And it is necessary also to make sure that any successor regime is a stable partner for the surrounding countries in the region. Now I believe that that is very clearly understood.

QUESTION

Prime Minister, are you still convinced that Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan. And also, in light of the speed and surprising progress you have made, that you have a greater chance of either catching him or killing him.

PRIME MINISTER

We believe that he is still in Afghanistan, yes. And as for our ability to catch up with him, that has obviously increased as the power and authority of the Taliban regime that was shielding him is destroyed, but I can’t really say any more than that at this stage. Obviously, one of the reasons why as we said ? if you go back to the objectives we set right at the beginning. We set as our objectives, closing down the Al-Qu’eda terrorist network, indeed the entire terrorist network in Afghanistan, and bringing bin Laden and his associates to justice. We gave the Taliban a choice: you either help us in that, which the entire world community wants you to do, or you are treated as an enemy. They refused to yield up bin Laden, or the al-Qu’eda network ? Indeed they came closer together with them ? and that Taliban regime has now disintegrated. Obviously, therefore, we have a better chance with a different regime in place, of pursuing that primary objective, but it still remains to be achieved, and that is why I say to you that there is a new dimension now, and a new urgency given to the political and humanitarian moves. But the military campaign is not yet over until the objectives are fully secured.