Category: Speeches

  • John Reid – 2004 Speech to the Faculty of Public Health

    johnreid

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Reid, the then Secretary of State for Health, on 10 June 2004.

    We have launched the biggest and most comprehensive consultation, discussion and debate on Public Health that this country has ever seen. It has one objective – to encourage everyone in the country to achieve a longer, healthier life – by adopting a healthier lifestyle.

    For many people that may involve a changed lifestyle – changing diet, exercising more, drinking more moderately, or stopping smoking for instance.

    If we are to succeed in this all of us know we have to recognise one central reality. We want everyone to change, because everyone can benefit; but we recognise that not everyone will find it as easy as every one else to achieve change.

    This is not just because they are weak-willed or lack motivation or because they don’t want to be more healthy or live longer, but because each of us lives our life in different and unique circumstances.

    Of course men and women have free will. But they don’t exercise that willpower in the same circumstances as each other, or in circumstances of their own choosing. That is the central realistic point we have to address.

    So, if we really want to help people change their lives, then, for many, we will have to help them change their own social circumstances.

    That is why it has been so important for this Government to tackle poverty, poor housing, lack of family support and social exclusion.

    And we never forget either that when taking into account these different circumstances we are dealing with human beings, not social statistics or medical records.

    That is why our great consultation on Public Health is not primarily about what we want to achieve. We know what we want to achieve, what the consultation has been about is how we are going to achieve it and how we are going to balance the health outcomes we want to see, with the personal control and social freedoms that all of us want to maintain.

    So we need to discuss issues like obesity, for instance, with a sensitivity that recognises the possible hurt and embarrassment that people, especially obese young people, might feel. We don’t forget that a whole gamut of social, medical and psychological factors may underlie obesity as well as the more obvious factors, and may make combating obesity a greater struggle for some than for others.

    When we talk about healthy diets, about fresh fruit and vegetables, we always have to remember that low incomes, single parenthood, large families, or geographical immobility can constitute huge barriers to healthy eating for some people, barriers which simply do not exist for other people in more fortunate circumstances.

    And when we discuss smoking, drink or drugs let us never fail to recognise that social deprivation, straitened circumstances or lack of affordable alternative social horizons do make it much more difficult for some of us to kick the habit than it might be for others in more conducive circumstances with greater social alternatives.

    Sixty years ago we dedicated ourselves to equal access to health care in this country. We intended that there should be reasonable equity in health outcomes for everyone. And yet, here we are, some six decades later with the glaring differences in health between different sections of our population. One of our great failures has been the remaining inequalities in health, particularly among working class and ethnic communities. I very much want to see those inequalities eroded. But if we cannot even begin to discuss, question and honestly explore the circumstantial setting and cultural factors which might have led to those inequalities – honestly search for the barriers to our message getting through – without the sort of hysterical reaction we have seen in certain quarters in recent days, then it perhaps begins to explain why we have failed in the first place.

    So, above all, let’s all be grown up enough to understand that to take these circumstances into account – to try to understand other people’s position, motivation, and point of view – is not to urge people to continue unhealthy eating, excess drinking or smoking. Quite the opposite, because it is precisely by recognising these factors that we can spur ourselves to change social reality for so many, and it is the failure to recognise them which would ultimately condemn us to failure in our quest for better public health.

    I truly believe that if we were ever to make that mistake, or to try to proceed by uniform diktats rather than by carrying people with us wherever it is possible – then our campaign will inevitably fall short again – precisely because it will not reach those parts of our community and society that has so far had the worst health outcomes and where it is most needed.

    So the message is clear. In our style we should and will be encouraging, assisting, persuading, and supporting people wherever possible – not hectoring, condemning or didactic.

    It is my view that in a free society, dictation should always be the ultimate, default position, not an eagerly embraced starting point for everything.

    So our task is not to ask people to overcome insuperable social circumstances on their own, nor to dictate how they will live their lives, but to empower them to more easily change their own lives by changing these countervailing circumstances, combating poverty, homelessness or isolation as an integral part of our struggle for better public health in Britain.

  • John Reid – 2004 Speech on an NHS for the Future

    johnreid

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Reid, the then Secretary of State for Health, on 26 June 2004.

    It’s a year since I made my first major speech as Secretary of State for Health to the Confederation. I remember that very clearly – newly arrived, anxious about the detail and the acronyms that I didn’t know, but sure that I knew and was passionate about the values of the NHS. Those values inspire and invigorate us as we shape the vision for the continuing renewal of the health service in this country.

    You will know that this morning I made a statement to the House of Commons about the next steps in delivering the National Health Service Plan.

    My preface to the plan we published today starts by saying, “The NHS was founded on two fundamental principles. The first is that there should be equal access to treatment for all, based on clinical need and regardless of ability to pay. The second is that collective funding of the NHS, through national taxation, is the most effective way to ensure that quality care is available to all”.

    For me, these are not empty words. They are a real guide to our actions. And to carry them out, to bring them into reality we will all have to work very hard and very differently.

    Lets remember the context of 1997, we inherited public services in a state of widespread dilapidation – a claim almost no-one would deny. This wasn’t because public services and their staff were somehow inferior. The problem was too little resource, and therefore grossly inadequate capacity in terms of staff and facilities.

    By 1997 the hospital building programme had ground to a halt. Waiting lists were rising at their fastest rate ever. Nurse training places had been cut by a quarter. Training places for GPs were cut by one fifth.

    There was no maximum waiting time either for a GP appointment or for hospital treatment – although the hospital waiting lists stood at 1.1 million and many patients were waiting more than a year, with rates of death from cancer and heart disease amongst the highest in Europe.

    It was in response to those conditions that together we developed the 10-year NHS Plan launched by the PM with the words:

    “The challenge is to make the NHS once again the health care system that the world most envies.”

    I can report to you today that we are making good progress towards this goal, and that’s down to your work and your staffs’ hard work. I thank you most sincerely.

    In the last four years we have succeeded in expanding the capacity of the NHS. I hope you know these achievements off by heart, but just in case you don’t, there are now:

    – 67,500 more nurses working in the NHS compared with 1997
    over 19,000 more doctors

    – 68 major new hospitals built, underway or planned the largest ever hospital building programme.

    But these are just the means to the real end, improved services for patients. There are now:

    – over 258,000 fewer people on the inpatient waiting list compared with March 1997

    – virtually no waits of over 9 months for a hospital admission – down from over 18 months in 1997

    – over 97% of people can see a GP within 48 hours

    – almost 19 out of every 20 people seen, diagnosed and treated within 4 hours in A&E departments.

    We said that we would put in place reforms to ensure services improved. We have brought in new contracts, new institutions and new services such as NHS Direct and NHS Walk-in Centres and we have embarked on the world’s largest health related IT programme.

    Most importantly we said that outcomes for patients would improve as a result of this investment and these reforms. They have.

    – Cancer death rates are down by over 10% since 1997

    – Cardiovascular disease death rates are down by over 23% since 1997

    – It’s because of figures like that that I am sick and tired of hearing NHS staff constantly maligned as unproductive bureaucrats.

    The truth is that we are delivering more treatment, more quickly, to more people than ever before and there are thousands of people alive and well who would not have been even a decade ago.

    But I have always claimed significant progress, never perfection. That is why we are making a radical new set of proposals to develop the NHS plan. By 2007/8 we will be spending over 90 thousand million pounds of public money on the NHS. In return for such expenditure we must be ambitious.

    Our vision must be to meet the expectations and ambitions of people. We must provide a service that is fair to all of us and personal to each of us, offering the same access to, and the power to choose from, the widest possible range of services of the highest quality, based on equality of access, clinical need and not ability to pay.

    But, I want to start off by saying what there isn’t in this programme. There are no changes in structure; there are no changes of direction. What we will do is make the present structure work and move faster in the agreed direction.

    There are four main issues. We must ensure that we are able to transform the way patients experience the health service. With the continued increases in capacity and as waiting times come down, we are now in a position to aim for a maximum limit to the whole patient journey of 18 weeks, from GP referral, through outpatients and diagnostic tests, to treatment. The whole journey.

    Then, with dramatically shorter waiting times for treatment, “how soon?” will cease to be the major issue. “How?”, “where?” and “how good?” will become increasingly important. Patients’ desire for high-quality personalised care will drive the new system. Giving people greater personal choice will give them control over these issues, allowing patients to call the shots about the time and place of their care, and empowering them to personalise their care to ensure the quality and convenience that they want.

    Second, alongside this improvement in access, we want to give patients a greater degree of choice in where they access treatment. We want all patients to be able to choose from a range of services that best meet their needs and preferences.

    People will be able to book their hospital appointments for a time that suits them, from a choice of hospitals:

    From April 2005, patients who need a heart operation will be offered a choice of provider from the time they are referred for treatment

    By December 2005, all patients who need surgery will be offered a choice of 4 to 5 alternatives at the time they are referred for treatment by their GP.

    We want to go further. By December 2008, every patient will be able to choose to be referred to any treatment facility that meets NHS standards and which can provide care at the NHS price for the procedure that they need.

    That choice will be for all – not just for those of affluence or influence and will be available because of the extra capacity and lower waiting times.

    This is not a false choice such as the one advocated by some, which is available to those with the money to jump the queue. This is choice for everyone, paid for by the NHS, equally.

    Third, we will also extend the greater personalisation of patient care to people with chronic and long-term medical conditions. Some 17.5 million people – have their life dominated by conditions that cannot be cured – diabetes, asthma, heart failure, some mental health problems. Providing them with the personalised support and care that they need and deserve to live fulfilling lives will be a priority. We will do this by providing thousands of community matrons, rolling out the Expert Patients Programme across the country and ensuring that the new contract for GPs delivers the best care for patients.

    Fourth we also need to ensure that the NHS becomes more than just a sickness service. We have a duty as a Government to ensure that everyone has the chance to live a healthy life.

    The White Paper that I will publish in the autumn will set out in more detail our plans to tackle the major causes of ill health, including smoking and obesity. We have called that White Paper ‘choosing health’, because our policy is to encourage more people to make more healthy choices.

    We also want to work with people to improve the conditions that effect their choices – giving people a better chance to make those choices.

    These improvements will be underpinned by strong reform. By 2008:

    – The national IT programme will ensure that patients can make informed health choices and can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of NHS staff

    – NHS Foundation Trusts will have become the norm for hospital care, enabling local hospitals to respond more quickly to their patients’ needs;

    – PCTs will be able to commission care from a wide range of providers, including those in the independent sector;

    – The new system of payment by results will have been fully implemented, supporting patients as they exercise choice and ensuring that there are strong incentives for the NHS to make the best use of resources.

    The NHS University will ensure that NHS staff are given more help to train and learn new skills

    Fewer national targets will be set, ensuring a greater degree of local flexibility to respond to local health needs and reducing still further the extent of central involvement in the running of the NHS.

    I am also pleased to formally announce today that our plans to establish a new employers’ organisation under the umbrella of the NHS Confederation are coming to fruition and the new organisation will be in place in October.

    The employers’ organisation will provide an authoritative voice for NHS employers. Within the context of Government policy and resources, it will have responsibility for conducting national negotiations on pay and conditions. It will represent employers’ views and support them through guidance, advice, information and research.

    These are improvements that will re-define the service that patients can expect from the NHS. An NHS characterised by:

    – Commitment, not ambivalence

    – Investment, not cuts

    – Access based on need, not ability to pay

    – Queue cutting, not queue jumping

    – Fair for everyone, not just the rich few

    – Personal to each of us, not just those who can afford it.

    Conclusion

    Over the next four years we all have a big chance to develop an NHS which will meet the aspirations of today’s people. To secure the NHS as a part of the personalised world of today and to demonstrate that the greatest gift from the people of this country to the people of this country is able to meet the expectations of people in the 21st century.

  • John Reid – 2004 Speech on Health Inequalities

    johnreid

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Reid, the then Secretary of State for Health, on 23 September 2004.

    Philosophy, Policy and Priorities: The philosophy of health improvement

    I’d like to thank the Health Development Agency for the timing of this debate, since improving the health of the public has never had such a high-profile in the Government, in the media or in the public mind.

    As you are all aware, we will shortly be publishing a Public Health White Paper, which will bring about action to produce real change. I am not going to tell you the detail of that White Paper today, but I do want to describe the philosophy behind it and how that philosophy informs the new Labour Government’s attack upon inequalities.

    I don’t want to alarm you, but I would like to start with the Enlightenment. At that time it was recognised that mankind collectively and individually could make the world, rather than be made by it. Making things happen was not magic. It was nature, and we could all begin to fully understand nature, and then given that understanding we could control it.

    This is not abstract philosophy; in terms of health it is very concrete indeed. Over the last 200 years we have systematically understood aspects of health and disease and illness and then turned our attention to mastering them. Decade after decade, mankind has mastered more about health and disease and kept millions alive and in good health.

    In this country in 1900 most people died before they were 45 years of age. Now only 5% do. If control of nature by mankind means anything it means being alive longer. The speed of growth in our understanding and control of disease has been such that most interventions we carry out today were science fiction in my youth. Where a nation has the resources, humankind is winning the fight against disease. All of that is progress.

    Alongside our collective knowledge and mastery of disease there has been a growth in individual mastery. More people in our country have the resources and the knowledge to be more in control of and have more power over their mental and physical health than ever before. In terms of health and health policy, we know what to do to make us healthier and we know that both for ourselves and for the nation.

    As we approach the White Paper on health it is clear that knowledge is not our problem. So, given 200 years of the enlightenment, and all this knowledge, what is the problem?

    Put simply, it is that whilst we constructed an ever greater intellectual mastery, this intellectual power was developed in a society where the economic, social and political power was not equally distributed. This imbalance did not effect the creation of ideas but it has had a big influence on the application of these ideas – the way in which those ideas had an impact on society. One example of this is the way in which the people who developed the ideas conveyed them to the public. So, at the time the great philosopher Hegel was writing, only a very small part of the population could read and understand him. No one bothered to ensure that important ideas were distributed to the great mass of the people.

    Consequently, the conditions under which the mass of the population lived meant that these powerful ideas passed them by. Until people had more control over their lives, they could not use these ideas. And, unless the ideas were actually in the hands of people, they could only change a part of the world.

    Over time, of course, more people become better educated and therefore more powerful. More people became more affluent and therefore more powerful. And more people understood more about how to improve their health and became more powerful.

    Some of the more impatient amongst you may be beginning to ask “What on earth has this got to do with health improvement and inequalities”?

    Well, mastery is increasing in health. Now, more people are trying to control their health than ever before. Two thirds of smokers want to give up and struggle to do so. Millions of people try to go on a diet and millions more try to increase the amount of exercise that they do. People have got the ideas right. They know what the intellectual answer is. The problem is the doing of it.

    But still, many people are left behind in this mastery of their health environment. For too many, their environment masters them and overcomes their ability to act. Ideas do not by themselves give people the mastery of the world, or mastery of their health. To do that we have to work with them to change their environment.

    Therefore, men and women make their own health, but do not do so under conditions of their own choosing. So, whilst the engine of health improvement is the individual’s control over their own life, it is not enough to say to all the individuals in our society that you can choose to make your own health, because the different economic and social conditions under which we live either differentially hinder or help our choices. Those with more financial resources generally have more choices, as do those with more educational qualifications.

    So, the priority this Government has given to improving health and tackling health inequalities is rooted in the fact that health and life expectancy are linked to social circumstances in adulthood and childhood.

    Political, social and economic equality only improves when previously disadvantaged people work to change their position in society. Government and public services can and must assist this process, but people’s own motivation is at the core of change. The core of my philosophical approach is to increase the power that people have over their own lives and opportunities – to empower them and to enable them to effect changes in their circumstances. If people don’t do the hard work of taking up that opportunity, of exercising that power – very little happens at all and equality of outcomes does not improve.

    Work is a crucial part of the social and economic experience and to be excluded from it is a very serious inequality. Being unemployed can be bad for your mental and physical health as well as excluding individuals from society and benefits that others have access to. This is why we have very specific employment policies for very specific groups of unemployed people.

    Our employment policy does not come through diktat from the centre but through personalising policies for certain groups. 493,000 young people have moved from the New Deal into work and, without New Deal, long term youth unemployment would have been twice as high. New Deal 50 plus has supported 110,000 older workers in taking up work. And over 260,000 lone parents have been assisted to move into work through the New Deal. The proportion of single parents in work has increased by 8%.

    Each of these people has taken up a difficult opportunity to change their lives. They have each changed the conditions under which they live and have gained more control. This puts them in a better position to take more control over their health.

    Gaining educational qualifications are another area where people can gain more control over their lives. Some time ago, the Government introduced policies for the teaching of literacy and numeracy in primary schools. At the time, it was felt by some that if 11 year olds were being judged against a standard it would be bad for students who had disadvantaged backgrounds. The accusers’ expectation therefore was that this policy was NOT about improving equality, but that the pressure to achieve would make matters worse for disadvantaged children.

    It is interesting, even if with a few years of hindsight, to look at the outcomes. One of the proxies used in education for poverty and inequality is whether the child receives free school meals. A school where less than 8% of children receive free school meals would represent a school represented largely by better-off parents. A school where over 50% of them received free school meals would represent worse-off parents. If the first group of schools improve faster than the second group, then inequality can be deemed to be getting worse. If the second poorer group of schools improve faster than the first then by implication equality improves.

    In 1997 there was a gap in Key Stage 2 English achievement between the better-off and the worse-off schools of 35%. In the poorer schools less than half – 42% – achieved the required level with nearly twice as many in the better-off schools reaching that level. Over the 6 years from 1997 to 2003, under New Labour plans and programmes, both groups of schools improved. But the better-off schools improved by 8%, while the poorer schools improved by 17%.

    In short, since 1997 it is not just the fact that more 11 year olds can read and write, but it is the fact that children from poorer schools have been improving at twice the rate of children from better-off schools.

    In maths the rate of improvement of the poorer schools is nearly three times that of the better-off schools and in science it is two and a half times better.

    New Labour’s literacy and numeracy hours have reduced educational inequality despite all the initial criticism. They have done so by assisting pupils in schools with poorer backgrounds to develop the motivation and opportunities to learn.

    Let me return to my main theme. If we want people’s health to improve, then we have to unlock their motivation to gain more control over their health. If we want to achieve that for everyone then a prior condition for disadvantaged people is to unlock their motivation to improve their condition perhaps through work, perhaps through education.

    All of these policies for reducing health inequalities, either directly through addressing health, or indirectly through addressing the constraints on people’s ability to chose, recognise the importance of unlocking motivation.

    The Government needs to support disadvantaged people as they struggle to get motivated to either improve their health or take more control over their conditions, but it is their motivation that is the defining characteristic of change.

    Our philosophical approach is that our health and our inequality policies must be about empowerment. Getting a job improves the amount of power a previously unemployed person has over their life. Learning to read and write improves the amount of power that people have over their lives. Choosing the time you go for a hospital appointment and choosing the doctor you see, gives you power over your life, and yes, giving up smoking gives you power over your life. Government policies to reduce inequality must give you more power over your life. The Government that achieves this will enable people rather than just instruct them, hector them or try to dictate to them. In fact the Government that only instructs people takes away from the power of people and reduces their capacity.

    The problem with the enlightenment philosophers was that they thought that having the great ideas was enough to provide control of the world. What we learnt in the 19th and 20th century is that people needed to be economically, socially and politically emancipated to enable them to work to develop not just the idea of controlling their own life, but to make that idea a reality. Throughout the last 200 years it has been the people’s own struggle for improvement that has been the bedrock of economic and social progress.

    So I believe that the lessons for us in health improvement are clear. We know the ideas that need to be applied. Enjoy the good things of life, but in moderation. Cut out the bad things of life as much as possible. But the problem is in doing this. It is not just a matter of motivation. The millions of people trying – and failing – to improve their health are a signal of this. They know what needs to happen, they try and try, but it is just too hard.

    Given this philosophy the aim of Government is two fold.

    First, we need to provide clear leadership to our whole society about what are healthy choices and how important it is to struggle to gain control of your health. This leadership must recognise that these healthy choices are sometimes very hard choices for some individuals, but through clear and consistent information we must bolster and increase individuals motivation to improve and gain control of their health.

    Second, whilst this whole struggle depends upon individual motivation, Governments need to provide the support for people to improve their health. This involves the NHS in developing smoking cessation services that are convenient and are easily accessible. It involves ensuring that the services for sexually transmitted diseases can be easily accessed without shame. It involves the NHS recognising how important and how difficult health improvement is for patients and providing real and sympathetic help.

    So our philosophy is clear. Without people’s motivation very little health improvement will happen, but people have a right not to do this hard work on their own. They have a right to look to Government for practical support and we aim to provide it.

  • Michael Fallon – 2016 Speech on the Future of NATO

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the panel discussion with Michael Fallon, the Secretary of State for Defence, in Munich, Germany on 13 February 2016.

    How can conflicting threat assessments and divergent strategic priorities among NATO member states be reconciled in the run-up to the Warsaw Summit?

    This question is not new.

    Before Warsaw was a NATO capital it was the name of a pact the Soviets had made. And people who came to this very room had many different views about how to confront the threat that entailed.

    Today there’s a new urgency to our discussions.

    On our Eastern flank, we see Russia refusing to accept the territorial integrity and sovereignty of countries in our backyard and resorting to military intervention and subversion. To our South, Da’esh is delighting in terror and using social media to spread its vile message.

    And the migration crisis, fuelled in particular by the civil war in Syria, is challenging Europe’s commitment to free movement and testing our security services.

    So, I think these three factors now present Europe with its biggest security challenge in over a quarter of a century.

    Which problem do we prioritise?

    That’s the question we addressed in our Strategic Defence and Security Review. And our answer was simple, it was all of them.

    Where security is concerned, we can’t afford to make false choices.

    But in tackling these multiple threats, my view is that NATO has to change in three ways:

    PREPARED

    First, it has to meet threats from every direction.

    I know the very real concerns our Polish and Eastern allies have with Russian belligerence, just as our Southern allies are concerned about the chaos creeping close to their borders.

    So we need to create a 21st century doctrine of deterrence which fits for this more uncertain, and unpredictable age. Which doesn’t just strike the right balance between forward presence and the ability to reinforce. But enhancing our resilience to hybrid warfare, to deal with threats such as cyber that blur the line between military and civilian domains.

    Now when it’s in our interests, of course we have to pursue hard-headed engagement with Russia.

    But hard headed equally means being honest and clear about Russia’s behaviour.

    We called out Russia over its behaviour in Ukraine. Now in Syria we find Russian attacks not be targeted towards Daesh or Al Nusra, instead they appear to be deliberately bombing civilian areas.

    And I believe if that doesn’t stop, Russia should and will pay a price.Just as we now reject Russia as a proper partner in Europe, Russia now risks becoming a pariah in the Middle East.

    Now, properly calibrated, deterrence and engagement can be complementary not contradictory. But this is not a return to business as usual.

    FITTER

    Secondly, NATO must be fitter – able to react not just in weeks, or days but in hours.

    So we’re calling on all Allies to support the Secretary General’s Adaptation plan.

    Politically – to ensure the collective will to swiftly take decisions.

    Militarily – putting the onus on agile forces…like the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, N.

    Institutionally – reducing the time to act and then re-allocate resources.

    WELL FUNDED

    Thirdly, NATO must be properly funded.

    We can’t deal with divergent threats with inadequate resources.

    We made a historic Investment Pledge at the Wales Summit.

    Since then, at least seven nations have agreed to increase their defence spending.

    We have committed to meeting the 2% of GDP target for the next five years.

    But we all want to see countries renewing that pledge and committing to halting or reversing defence cuts.

    CONCLUSION

    So my answer, as we take the road to Warsaw, is to deal with these threats, NATO needs to become fitter. That means quicker decision-making, more troops able to move faster, and above all increased spend on equipment those troops need.

  • John Kerry – 2016 Speech on the Future of the European Union

    johnkerry

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, at the Bayerischer Hof Hotel, Munich in Germany on 13 February 2016.

    Thank you, Wolfgang. Thank you very much. Well, Wolfgang, thank you for reminding me that everything I’m doing now is a last. (Laughter.) It’s a little – depending on what I decide to do, so maybe not. (Laughter.) I am really happy to be back in Munich and I’m very happy to share thoughts with this, the 52nd edition of the Security Conference.

    And I think if you all think back, 1963, the first year of the Munich Security Conference, this forum has always been about the pursuit of peace. And back then, here in Germany as elsewhere, the Cold War actually felt pretty hot. The wall was a concrete indication of a new reality. Barbed wire was strung across the heart of the country – indeed the heart of Europe. And that was the year that President Kennedy spoke at Rudolph Wilde Platz, and said to all who doubted the courage and resolve of free people: “Let them come to Berlin.”

    Many of us here remember the starkness of that period of time very, very well. I was a kid. My dad was the legal advisor to the high commissioner of Germany in Berlin, then James Conant. And I was privileged to be dumped off at a school in Switzerland. I didn’t know where I was at age 11 or 12. And I saw firsthand what Europe was like in those years emerging from the war. Everything you talked about was the war and the remnants of the war. I used to ride my bike down Kurfurstendamm and see the church and the steeple and the burned our Reichstag. So I knew very well what that was about.

    And it is clear that today that, while the Cold War is long over, the need for the same qualities that brought people through that – for the courage and the resolve in defending liberty and in pursuing peace is absolutely as vital today as it was half a century ago.

    Now, obviously, everyone in this room doesn’t need a Secretary of State or secretary of state of the – of Great Britain or Frank Steinmeier, the foreign minister of Germany, or anybody else to come in here and do a long list of the litany of the crises we face. It’s pretty obvious that probably never in history have we been dealing with as many hotspots, as many failed or failing states all at one time, not to mention a Kim Jong-un and a nuclear program and other challenges all at the same time. So everybody here understands that. You wouldn’t be here otherwise.

    And Daesh’s campaign of terror now extends its reach well beyond Iraq and Syria. And the Syrian civil war, which has now claimed more than 250,000 lives, still rages. We are facing – we, together – the gravest humanitarian crisis in Europe since World War II, as innocent people – many of whom are just women and children – are either trapped inside a country without access to medicine and food, or they have been forced to flee.

    And the flood of desperate migrants has now spread well beyond the Middle East. As we know, 50 percent of the people now knocking on the door of Europe – with a whole industry that’s been created to try to help move them and some very perverse politics in certain places that turns the dial up and down for political purposes – half of them now come from places other than Syria. Think about that – Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan. So the burdens of Europe, which is already facing a complex economic, political, and social strain, is now even more intense. And I want to make it clear to all of you: We in the United States aren’t sitting across the pond thinking somehow we’re immune. We’re not sitting there saying this is your problem, not ours – no. This is our problem. The United States of America understands the near existential nature of this threat to the politics and fabric of life in Europe – and that is why we are joining now in enforcing a NATO mission to close off a key access route, and that is why we will join with you in other ways to stem this tide because of the potential of its damage to the fabric of a united Europe. ‎

    And the truth is that in every decade since its founding, the EU has been tested by forces –internal and external – that benefited from a house divided. We know many Europeans right now feel overwhelmed by the latest round of challenges, including concerns about the UK’s potential exit from the EU. Here again, however, I want to express the confidence of President Obama and all of us in America that, just as it has so many times before, Europe is going to emerge stronger than ever, provided it stays united and builds common responses to these challenges. Obviously, the United States has a profound interest in your success, as we do in a very strong United Kingdom staying in a strong EU. (Applause.)

    Now, let me underscore – let me underscore that those who claim that our transatlantic partnership is unraveling – or in fact, those who hope that it might unravel – could not be more wrong. They forget – or they never understood – why we came together in the first place: not to just to sail along in the best of times – but to have each other’s backs when the times are tough. They forget, as well, that the ties that bind us are not some kind of fragile strings of momentary convenience. They are rugged, time-tested cords of democratic values – liberty, decency, justice, rule of law.

    And nowhere is that more clear than in our joint, unwavering support for a democratic Ukraine. Our European partners, you, deserve enormous credit for showing the resolve you have shown and the common purpose you have summoned, in order to stand up to Russia’s repeated aggression. And I am confident that Europe and the United States are going to continue to stand united, both in sustaining sanctions for as long as they are necessary and in providing needed assistance to Ukraine until the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine is protected through the full implementation of the Minsk agreement.

    Now, again and again, we have made it clear, and I make it clear again here today: Sanctions are not an end unto themselves. Witness what we succeeded in doing in the context of the Iran nuclear agreement. But we shouldn’t forget why they were imposed in the first place: to stand up for Ukraine’s fundamental rights – rights of international norms that have been accepted ever since World War II, that were part of what that great battle was about. Russia has a simple choice: fully implement Minsk or continue to face economically damaging sanctions. And the path to sanctions relief is clear: withdraw weapons and troops from the Donbas; ensure that all Ukrainian hostages are returned; allow full humanitarian access to occupied territories, which, by the way, is required by international law and by several United Nations resolutions; support free, fair, and internationally-monitored elections in the Donbas under Ukrainian law; and restore Ukraine’s control of its side of the international border, which belongs to it. Put plainly, Russia can prove by its actions that it will respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, just as it insists on respect for its own.

    By the same token, after two difficult years, Ukrainians still have work to do as well. And President Poroshenko who is here knows that and accepts that. Neither the people of Ukraine nor their partners in the international community believe that enough has happened in Ukraine either. Ukraine has responsibilities with respect to Minsk – and it’s critical that Kyiv upholds its end of the bargain. But Ukraine’s democratic potential is clearly far brighter today than it was when we met here several years ago, far brighter even than it was before the brave protests in the Maidan. And with our transatlantic support, 2016 has all the potential possible – all the groundwork laid through the good work of Germany and France and the Normandy format and though the support of other countries – to be able to make 2016 the year that Ukraine proves reform can triumph over corruption. And we call on all of the country’s elected leaders to demonstrate the unity, the integrity, and the courage that their people are demanding.

    Now, in addition to our joint focus on Ukraine, the United States has significantly upgraded our commitment to European security with a planned fourfold increase in our spending on the European Reassurance Initiative, from just under $790 million to $3.4 billion. This will allow us to maintain a division’s worth of equipment in Europe and an additional combat brigade in Central and Eastern Europe, making our support – and NATO’s – more visible and more tangible.

    Meanwhile – and I think everybody here knows this – that’s not the only way we have to approach the challenge of what is happening in Europe and in the rest of the world of failed and failing states, of millions of young people in countries where they don’t have hope and they don’t have food and they don’t have a job and they don’t have education and they don’t have a future. And if we leave that unattended to, then we are simply turning our backs on what we know is a responsibility for how we are going to stem the tide of violent extremism.

    So we will continue to build on our unparalleled economic partnership. We will support new jobs and spur growth on both sides of the Atlantic. And concluding negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, my friends, this year will strengthen our economies, and let me be absolutely clear: Nothing in TTIP – T-TIP – nothing requires Europe to reduce or undo important regulations or weaken existing standards. That is false. On the contrary, the agreement will underscore our support for the inclusion of high environmental and labor standards in trade agreements, just as we have done in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which encompasses 40 percent of the planet’s GDP. We have encompassed in that agreement, in the four corners of the agreement, the highest labor standards and the highest environment standards enforceable by law.

    So T-TIP can showcase the dynamism of our form of democracy, of our marketplace, of free markets, and demonstrate the preeminence in the global conversation about the economic standards and the defense of free trade.

    Now, perhaps most urgently, the United States and Europe are at the forefront of facing what has become the defining challenge of our generation: the fight against violent extremism.

    The terrible attacks in Paris, Brussels, Ankara, Beirut, the Sinai, San Bernardino, and so many other places have only reinforced our determination to defeat Daesh as soon as possible. And I am absolutely convinced we will do just that. Every day our military is meeting. Every day the coalition is working. Every day we are taking additional steps forward. And the global counter-Daesh coalition that we began some 17 months ago includes every NATO and EU state – and that, my friends, is the very definition of solidarity.

    We have known from the very beginning that defeating Daesh is not an overnight proposition. It’s going to take time. But I’ll tell you this, President Obama is determined that it will not take too much time. And he is every day pushing our military and every other sector – and there are many other sectors that are involved in this broad nine lines of effort. He is pushing them to come up with new propositions, new ways to push this fight. We welcome the announcement of countries in Europe that have decided, and other countries, to join this fight.

    We are going to defeat Daesh. I have no doubt about it. But even as we do that, there’s a lot of work that we have to do on a measurable – in a measurable manner.

    First and foremost, we are going after their fighters. Our coalition has launched more than 10,000 air strikes. We, the United States, and France, a couple of other countries, have put special forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria in order to better enable a number of operations, while also providing increased amounts of training and equipment to our local partners. Together, we have pushed terrorists out of about 40 percent of the territory that they once controlled in Iraq and 20 percent in Syria. We’ve liberated Tikrit – 100,000 Sunni have returned to rebuild their homes in Tikrit, an extraordinary story that doesn’t get enough attention or credit. We’ve liberated Sinjar, Ramadi, Hasakah, and Kobani. We’re hammering Daesh’s heavy weapons, its training camps, its supply routes, its infrastructure. And the military campaign to end Daesh’s terrorism is, in fact, expanding by the day.

    But it’s not enough just to knock them down militarily, which we are doing. You have to also ensure that they can’t get back up. And that’s why the second line of effort that we’re pursuing is also critical: destroying their economic lifeline. In recent months, we have learned more about Daesh’s sources of income, which has allowed us to be more strategic in targeting and hitting their oil production, their refineries, tanker trucks, cash centers, illicit banking facilities. For Daesh, lower revenues means fewer resources to finance military action, and smaller paychecks to lure and sustain new fighters. Already, we are seeing the results of this. They’ve had to cut their paychecks to their fighters by 50 percent – and in some cases, they’ve had to cut it off entirely. And they don’t have the ability, as a result, to continue this expansion.

    This also gives a boost to our third line of attack, which is to reduce the number of terrorist recruits. And because of tighter airport and border security, fewer terrorists are now getting into Syria and Iraq. And in fact, because of lower pay and constant danger, we know that more are, in fact, trying to get out.

    Meanwhile, with Arab states in the lead, we are doing more every day to minimize the impact of terrorist propaganda; to fight back against Daesh’s apocalyptic distortion of Islam and its rhetoric; to prevent the incitement of so-called lone-wolf attacks. In the United States, we recently opened the Global Engagement Center at the State Department, to help dispel extremist groups’ hateful lies in all forms of media, to take the people who were once the captives and exploited by Daesh and put them in the media to tell the stories to deter others from joining. We have a center opened up in Abu Dhabi. We have a new center that the Saudis – they will be starting and we will be working with them. And the Malaysians are following so that those who really can talk with authority about what Islam means in the languages and in the – each individual nation where it makes the difference, will have the opportunity to speak to people in ways that they haven’t yet.

    The global coalition has also reinforced our commitment with respect to the fifth effort: providing humanitarian relief to the millions who have suffered at the hands of Daesh as a result of the larger conflict in Syria.

    Now, the region, entire region, is responding to this challenge, my friends. And that is essential, because the needs are absolutely staggering. I see the prime minister of Norway here, others who were London the other day – extraordinary contributions by countries around the world to put $10 billion on the table. Tukey has taken in more than 2.5 million men, women, and children since the war began, and Lebanon and Jordan are giving refuge to a million people each.

    In Europe, you know better than anybody how the staggering humanitarian crisis is affecting the life, the daily life, of politics and of the social fabric of Europe – unprecedented challenges. And with characteristic resilience, I’m proud to say and grateful for the fact that Europe is stepping up to meet these challenges. Chancellor Merkel and other leaders have demonstrated remarkable courage – I know it’s difficult. Last night at dinner, I heard people telling me how it has cost her; we all understand. That’s the nature of political courage – in helping so many who need help. And across this continent, communities are taking in those who are fleeing violence, and saying “no” to the voices of intolerance and racism within societies. Now, I know how difficult it is to live our values. It is hard. But we do try. It’s one of the things that binds us together. It’s one of the great things that brings us here to Munich, is our common commitment to those values which in the end make the difference in defining what life is really all about. (Applause.)

    In the United States, we recognize that, while this crisis is not as real on our shores on a daily basis, we have a moral obligation to stand with our partners and to do more to assist in the relief effort. And that is why I was able to announce in London that we will contribute an additional $925 million to the already $4.5 billion we have contributed to Syrian refugees, making us, I think, the largest donor specifically to this plight of Syrian refugees – providing emergency care, education, and job help.

    And I think everybody understands, and this is perhaps the most important point, and this is what motivated us to go to Vienna twice with the great help of all the partners sitting here – the EU, Federica, others – everybody came together in commonality with the recognition that writing checks is not going to solve the problem. We can’t just endlessly be writing checks. We can’t be endlessly fighting about whether Schengen is alive or dead or what’s going to happen. We have to end this war. And the only way to do that is somehow to bring about the quickest possible political settlement, because almost everybody has agreed that if all one side does is escalate, the other side will to. And we could have an endless escalation between Iran, between Shia, between Sunni, between Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Qatar or – any country of interest has the ability to blow this apart – one country. It takes every country coming together in order to hold it together.

    So the war in Syria has now lasted for more than five years. And right now I have to tell you, even with the success we had the other day at the table, it doesn’t yet show the signs we want of burning out. And that is why we are so focused on this political track. If the international community and the Syrians themselves miss the opportunity now before us to achieve that political resolution to the conflict, the violence, the bloodshed, the torture, the images of children – women, children, the bombing, the anguish is going to continue. And all the talk that will take place here and has taken place to date will mean nothing except an increase in the cynicism of people of the world who look to their leaders to deliver. The tragedy is that if this flounders, the call to jihad will increase.

    And that is why the diplomatic initiative we launched in Vienna last year is so important. The 20-plus member ISSG includes every major country with a direct stake in Syria. Parties as diverse as Iran and Saudi Arabia sat at that table constructively trying to move forward. And they have agreed on a list of principles, unanimously reflected in the UN Security Council, and these principles reflect the way toward a stable, sovereign, inclusive, united, nonsectarian Syria that we all seek, but which the vast majority of people believe can never be achieved with President Assad at its helm. You cannot stop the war that way.

    Yesterday we made progress advancing two of the major components of the UN Security Council resolution: the burning need for humanitarian access not in months, not in weeks – now, immediately. And the trucks are lined up and the permissions are being granted and they should flow today or tomorrow.

    In the wee hours of Friday morning, we agreed that the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid will begin this weekend, first to the areas where it is most urgently needed, and then to all the people in need throughout the country, particularly in the besieged or hard-to-reach areas. And the UN has now said that the trucks are loaded, ready to go. And we also established a task force, which has met already for the first time in Geneva and will report regularly on the progress to be able to guarantee the delivery of this aid.

    The ISSG also agreed to implement a nationwide cessation of hostilities to begin in one week’s time. Why in a week? Why not yesterday? For the simple reason that the modalities have to be worked out and for the simple reason that people have to be communicated to in order to not have it start with failure. And this will apply to any and all parties in Syria with the exception of the terrorist organizations Daesh and al-Nusrah.

    Now, there is a lot of work to do before this effective cessation can commence, and to that end, we have established another task force with Sergey Lavrov – who is here, the foreign minister of Russia – and I will chair together with other ISSG members, and we will work on the modality of how we deal with this. And to date, the vast majority, in our opinion, of Russia’s attacks have been against legitimate opposition groups. And to adhere to the agreement that has been made we think it is critical that Russia’s targeting change. And the entire ISSG, including Russia, has agreed to work to make that happen.

    Now, let me be very clear about this. Foreign Minister Lavrov has said that we need to work together as a group to determine who should be attacked, who is qualified as a terrorist, who isn’t. And I will say bluntly that there is no way to properly put a humanitarian access as ambitious as the one we’ve embraced in place, and there is no way to adequately deal with the cessation of hostilities, unless we do sit down and work together on every aspect of this from the political to the humanitarian to the military also. And we are doing that now.

    So we’re not approaching this with some sense of pie-in-the-sky hope. We will work through where this targeting should take place, where it shouldn’t, how we work together in order to be effective so we don’t drive people away from the table, because obviously, if people who are ready to be part of the political process are being bombed we’re not going to have much of a conversation. So that’s what we’re working on.

    And the Security Council Resolution has demanded that “all parties immediately cease any attacks against civilians.” That, too, has not happened to date. And indeed, the violence by the regime, as we all know, went up. Free-fall bombs are being used, which are not precise. We all know civilians are being killed. So we hope this week can be a week of change.

    Now, some have argued that the reason humanitarian access has been denied and has – and there’s been this bombing is because Assad and his allies, including Russia, might believe that by defying the will of the international community, they can win the war. That is a proposition that is being discussed. If that is what Russia and Assad think, then I believe they would be missing the lessons of the last five years. The Syrians who have rejected Assad have endured four years of shelling, barrel bombs, gas, Scud missiles, chemical attacks, torture; and they may be pushed back here or there, but they are not going to surrender. I don’t believe there’s anybody who believes they will. And the countries that have supported Assad and the countries that have opposed him say they’re both committed to continuing that. That is not a recipe, obviously, for a resolution.

    So it is critical for all of us to take advantage of this moment to make this cessation of hostilities work. And one thing I would say is that the more successful people are in standing up Assad, at the same time, the more successful they will be in attracting more jihadis to the fight. That’s the perverse reality of what has happened there.

    So whether one side or another has an advantage today, this conflict will still require a political solution at some point in time in order to make peace, no matter what happens.

    This is the moment. This is a hinge point. Decisions made in the coming days and weeks and few months could end the war in Syria – or it could define a very difficult set of choices for the future.

    Everyone here knows what we have to do to get this right. Putting an end to the violence and the bloodshed is essential, but also providing Syrians with the humanitarian aid they need is critical. And ultimately, the end of this conflict will come when the parties agree on a plan for a political transition that was accepted as the standard for this in 2012 in Geneva with the Geneva communique.

    So let me just close by saying to everybody that at dinner last night, it was interesting. I was listening to a conversation, and I’ve listened and chatted with a lot of colleagues over the last few days. It’s pretty clear that the uncertainty, even the fear, of what’s happening to Europe with these refugees of Syria, of terrorism, it’s different. And everybody feels that. And as a result, in some quarters there is a pessimism in the air. I believe we have good reason, actually, to be optimistic about the future. And the reason is the size, the durability, the capacity, the talent, the extraordinary resilience of this alliance in one form or another that has been expressed not just in the formality of this alliance since it came into being since World War II, but throughout the last century.

    Yeah, there’s violence in the world; you better believe it. But you know what? It’s changed. The 20th century was defined by state-on-state violence and millions upon millions of people dying. There are actually fewer people dying in conflict today than ever before. And despite the challenges we face, between 1990 and 2015, remarkable things have happened that changed life for hundreds of millions of people. The rate of child mortality fell by over one-half. Life expectancy has increased dramatically around the world, particularly in developing countries. In 2001 there were less than a million kids going to school in Afghanistan and all of them were boys. Today there are almost 8 million kids going to school and 40 percent of them are girls. More than two-and-a-half billion people have gained access to clean water in the last few years and the number of people living in extreme poverty has declined by more than one-half. It is for the first time in history below 10 percent. I could run a longer list of things, and you know them, that we’re doing – productivity, the changes of technology.

    A century ago, the numbers of people brought into the near middle class or middle class in China and India and many other countries – a century ago this month, the battle of Verdun was just beginning – the most excruciating chapter of a horrific war that would cause 37 million casualties and kill one German and French man out of every five.

    Seventy years ago – seventy-five years ago, to be precise, millions of refugees were streaming not into Europe, but out of Europe – seeking refuge from a confrontation with fascism that would climax in unprecedented savagery and the Holocaust.

    Fifty years ago, half of Europe lived behind the iron curtain.

    A quarter of a century ago, Europe was witness to a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing that would rage for years.

    My friends, we cannot come to Munich to a security conference and ignore the underlying message of this history. This moment is not as overwhelming as people think it is. We know what needs to be done, and most importantly, we have the power to do it.

    The transatlantic community is not strong because we’ve somehow been exempt from tragedy or strife. We’re strong because we are resilient; because in a decade after decade we have stood together to defend our security, our prosperity, our values; and because we have resisted attempt after attempt to divide and make us turn on one another; and above all, we are strong because of the core beliefs that hold us together.

    We need to heed the advice of President Kennedy on his trip to Berlin the year this Munich Security Conference began: “Lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today,” he said, “to the hopes of tomorrow.” If we do that – if we remember the values at the heart of our partnership, if we take the lessons of history, of what we’ve been able to accomplish and what this incredible alliance means – I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever we’re going to get this right, we’re going to get through this moment, and we’re going to build the prosperity and the security and the stability that every single one of us wants. We are going to do just fine.

    Thank you. (Applause.)

  • David Cameron + Nick Clegg – 2010 Joint Press Conference

    davidcameronold

    Below is the text of the joint press conference held with David Cameron and Nick Clegg on 12 May 2010.

    Prime Minister:

    Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. On the steps of Downing Street yesterday evening, I said that Nick and I wanted to put aside party differences and work together in the national interest. Since I set out that aim, both our parties have given their full backing to our coalition agreement, a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Government that we have negotiated.

    This is the first coalition Government in Britain for 65 years. It will be an administration united behind three key principles: freedom, fairness and responsibility. It will be an administration united behind one key purpose. That is to give our country the strong, stable and determined leadership that we need for the long term.

    In the days and weeks ahead, we will together be setting out in greater detail the aims and the values of our partnership and the full policy programme of our coalition Government. Today, we want to say just a few words about how we plan to work together and the significance of what we have achieved in coming to this agreement.

    This morning, as part of the process of establishing the new Government, I have been working to appoint the Cabinet. Later today, I will be chairing the first meeting of our National Security Council and Nick Clegg will be at my side. There are five Liberal Democrat Secretaries of State in Cabinet working hand in hand with Conservative colleagues to address the big challenges that Britain faces. Starting with Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister, Liberal Democrats will be represented at every level of government. I think this is a sign of the strength and depth of this coalition and our sincere determination to work together constructively to make this coalition work in our national interest.

    We have a shared agenda and a shared resolve to tackle the challenges our country faces, to safeguard our national security and support our troops abroad, to tackle the debt crisis, to repair our broken political system and to build a stronger society. We understand that we are not going to beat these problems overnight. In particular, no Government in modern times has ever been left with such a terrible economic inheritance. Today’s unemployment figures are another sign of the human cost of the economic mistakes of the past decade. So we know there will be difficult decisions ahead but, working together, I know we can take the country through those difficult times to the better times that I believe lie ahead.

    But today, we are not just announcing a new Government and new ministers; we are announcing a new politics. A new politics where the national interest is more important than the party interest, where cooperation wins out over confrontation, where compromise, where give and take, where reasonable, civilised, grown-up behaviour is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. One of the major problems of the last few years has been a chronic short-termism in government. With this coalition Government and this coalition agreement that we have for five years, we can act for the long term and make the major decisions for our country’s future. That is the true significance of this coalition. It can be an historic and seismic shift in our political landscape. It can demonstrate in government a new progressive partnership, believing in enterprise, markets and fiscal responsibility, committed to civil liberties and curbing the power of the state, passionate about building a green economy, determined to build the Big Society where families and communities are supported and strengthened and eager to make sure that the Big Society is matched by big citizens, where power is taken from the politicians and put in the hands of people as we embark on a recasting of our political system.

    Our Liberal-Conservative Government will take Britain in an historic new direction, a direction of hope and unity, conviction and common purpose. I am delighted to be standing here with the new Deputy Prime Minister. The two of us together leading this historic, Liberal Democrat-Conservative administration. I would like, now, to invite him to speak to us on what I think is a remarkable and very welcome day. Nick.

    Deputy Prime Minister:

    Thank you, David. We have just been through an election campaign and now we have a coalition. Until today, we were rivals; now, we are colleagues. That says a lot about the scale of the new politics that is now beginning to unfold. This is a new Government and it is a new kind of government, a radical reforming Government where it needs to be and a source of reassurance and stability at a time of great uncertainty in our country too.

    David has spoken about many of the challenges we all face: the economy, still struggling to get to its feet; the public finances, in a mess; our troops, engaged in a difficult and lasting conflict that requires resolution; our society, still scarred by too much unfairness and inequality; our politics, not yet recovered from the hammer blows of recent months. At a time of such enormous difficulties, our country needed a strong and stable government. It needed an ambitious Government determined to work relentlessly for a better future. That is what we have come together in this coalition to provide.

    This is a Government that will last, not because of a list of policies, important though they are, not because it will be easy. There will be bumps and scrapes along the way. We are different parties and we have different ideas. This is a Government that will last despite those differences, because we are united by a common purpose for the job we want to do together in the next five years. Our ambition is simple and yet profound. Our ambition is to put real power and opportunity into the hands of people, families and communities to change their lives and our country for the better.

    For me, that is what liberalism is all about: ensuring that everybody has the chance, no matter who they are or where they are from, to be the person they want to be and live the life they want to live. You can call it ‘fairness’. You can call it ‘responsibility’. You can call it ‘liberalism’. Whatever words you use, the change it will make to your life is the same. You will have the opportunities you crave: fairer taxes; better schools; a fair, green economy with growth that lasts; clean, open, plural politics that I hope, once again, you can put your faith in to deliver the help and the change you need.

    I want this to be a bold, reforming Government that puts fairness back into Britain, a Government that restores our faith in what a healthy, strong society can achieve, a Government that takes power away from politicians, as David said, and gives it back to you, a government that hands back your liberties and your privacy, building a nation where parents, pupils and patients can shape our schools and hospitals, where fine words on the environment are finally translated into real action, where social mobility becomes a reality for all where the great British traditions of tolerance and fairness are restored. I came into politics to change politics and to change Britain for good. Together, that job starts today. Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2010 Speech at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 13 May 2010.

    Thank you very much. It’s great to be here. The very first Department of State I ever walked into as a junior researcher over 20 years ago was actually the DTI – I think I walked through that door over there. The ministerial team in those days included talents as diverse as Alan Clark and Eric Forth, so if that coalition can work together, this one certainly can!

    I wanted to come here first for some very good reasons. First of all, we face huge economic challenges, and I think it’s so important, as Vince has just said, that we really demonstrate that this country is open for business; that we want to promote trade overseas; we want to get our economy moving; and we want to get our banks lending. I see this as a big economic department with a huge task in front of it, and I want all of you to work together to help deliver that.

    In doing so, you’ve got an incredibly talented team of ministers. Vince Cable is an absolute star in terms of economic policy and economic thinking; he’s demonstrated that over the last few years in parliament. To bring him together with David Willetts, who is also known as ‘two brains’ – you’ve got two ministers so far, and there are more to come this afternoon I promise you. But you already have some of the top talent that is available in parliament, to make a great success of this.

    The more I think about the endeavour, on which we have embarked, the more excited I become. Because this coalition government, if we can make it work – and I believe we can – is a five-year government; and one of the things that everyone says about our economy is that we need to make more long-term decisions. I think we have an incredible opportunity to make long-term decisions for the good of our economy, for the good of our country. In doing so, I will try, as Prime Minister, to do something else that hasn’t always happened in the past, and that is to appoint good ministers and keep them in post for a decent period of time. The average length of ministerial life, I think, is around one year and three months; we have got to do better than that when we have these big challenges in front of us.

    Two last things. Yes, this is a coalition government, but in many ways, all governments are a coalition – a coalition between politicians and civil servants. I want us to do better than has been done before, in making sure that coalition really works. Part of that is about respecting the work that civil servants do. Having worked as a special advisor 20 years ago, having watched government over the last 20 years, I know that the British Civil Service is an incredible machine. It requires, of course, the right coordination, the right leadership, the right combination with politicians. But it is a great machine. Where else in the world can you see a transition to government be so smooth and so effective, even when you’re putting together a political coalition?

    I am expecting great things of you in this department. The economic challenge we face is the biggest we have faced over the last 40 years. We have two big economic departments, the Treasury and BIS; we have great political leadership, I believe, in both. I want you all to get down to work, to make sure we send out a big signal: this country is open for business. We want to get the economy growing, get the banks lending, and make sure that we build a strong and, as Vince said, a more balanced economy for the future.

    So today is a day to receive your new ministers; there will be three more talented ministers turning up very shortly. Tomorrow is the day to roll up your sleeves and get down to work, to help us build a strong economy here in the UK. Thank you very much indeed.

  • William Hague – 2010 Speech with Hillary Clinton

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the press conference with William Hague and Hillary Clinton, held in Washington, United States on 14 May 2010.

    Hillary Clinton: Some months ago so this is not the first time that we’ve had the opportunity for a substantive discussion about a, a very broad range of important matters. The election of a new Government in the United Kingdom and the smooth transfer of power this week were two powerful symbols of the enduring democratic traditions that our two nations share. And we’re very intrigued by and will follow closely the latest incarnation of this long democratic tradition. We’re reminded again that our common values are the foundation of an historic alliance that really undergirds our common aspirations and our common concerns.

    The Obama Administration looks forward to working with the new British Government, we will continue to build on the deep and abiding trust that has existed between the British and American people for a very long time. The Foreign Secretary and I had a lot to talk about today. We discussed our shared mission in Afghanistan and he reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to working with the international community and the Afghans to achieve long term stability there.

    The United States is deeply appreciative of the British contributions in Afghanistan and we honour the sacrifices of the British service members who serve their country with such distinction overseas.

    The United States and the United Kingdom are also firmly committed to the NATO mission in Afghanistan and we support the efforts by the Afghan Government to fight corruption and build a stable and secure Government and country. We will continue our very close consultations on these matters going forward.

    We also remain united in our insistence that Iran fulfil its international obligations and prove that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. Contrary to recent suggestions Iran has not indicated any interest in or accepted the standing offer of the P5 plus 1 to discuss international concerns over its nuclear programme. Rather Iran’s senior officials continue to say they will not talk about their nuclear programme with us. So we are working closely with our UK and other partners on a new Security Council resolution affirming that there are serious consequences should Iran continue to flout its international obligations and fail to comply with both IAEA decisions and UN Security Council resolutions.

    The Foreign Secretary and I also discussed the importance of finding a way forward in the Middle East peace process. Our countries will continue working together to encourage all parties to resume direct negotiations. We seek a two state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict with an overall goal of securing a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that requires everyone at the table.

    And, of course, there are so many other issues that we touched on. We share a mutual interest in restoring confidence in the financial sector in Europe and in the Eurozone as well as the global economy. We will continue working together to restore economic stability. So I look forward to a very strong working relationship with the Foreign Secretary and it is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to begin what will be a long, close and at times intense consultations over the months and years ahead.

    William Hague: Thank you. Well it’s an immense pleasure for me to be here today. I was here not so many months ago as a Shadow Foreign Secretary and we had a very good meeting then but it was always one of my hopes that we would have the opportunity to work together in Government and now we do have the opportunity to do so.

    It’s been an extraordinary week really in British politics, it’s only a week since the election results were coming in. Now we have a new Government created in a new way in Britain and one of the things that has struck the Prime Minister and I is the, the sheer warmth of the welcome we’ve had from the United States. The first person to call David Cameron when he entered 10 Downing Street was the President of the United States and the first person to call me when I entered the Foreign Office was Secretary Clinton and Vice President Biden has had an excellent chat on the telephone with our new Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. And one of the reasons I wanted to come here so quickly and have our meeting is, is to show that we reciprocate that warmth and we are looking forward to exactly the relationship which the Secretary of State has been describing.

    This new British Government has some real ambition and energy and determination to rebuild our economic strength at home which is, of course, the foundation of any successful foreign policy, but also to deliver a distinctive British foreign policy abroad. And I’m aware coming in to this job that the, the challenges of foreign policy are uniquely tricky and that is why I’ve always had such huge admiration for Secretary Clinton. The leadership she has provided to the international community as Secretary of State, the energy, the ideas, her advocacy of women’s rights, education, development and effective diplomacy are in, an inspiring example to other Foreign Ministers and would be Foreign Ministers around the world and I pay tribute to her for that.

    And today we’ve had very productive talks that reflect this very wide agenda of issues on which the United Kingdom and the United States work in partnership on. We talked, indeed, about our joint effort in Afghanistan which the Prime Minister has made our top priority in, in foreign affairs where we will give the strategy, the NATO strategy and the agreements made at the London Conference, the time and support to succeed. We discussed the closely related situation in Pakistan where we and the United States share common goals and, indeed, have been, have already started discussing ways to enhance and strengthen our cooperation in the support that we give to Pakistan.

    We discussed Iran where we, of course, agreed on the need to send a strong and united signal about Iran’s nuclear programme to secure the passage of a UN Security Council resolution. And the United Kingdom will thereafter, of course, play a key role in ensuring that there is determined action by the European Union to follow up such a resolution.

    We spoke about the Middle East peace process where I expressed my firm and full support for the President’s efforts to re-launch negotiations and what we as a leading member of the EU can do to buttress these efforts. We’ll work together on the crucial issue of nuclear proliferation and the progress we hope will be made in New York and we discussed developments in Europe and I, I reiterated my determination that the European Union should be a strong partner with the United States in meeting our shared challenges and the determination of the new British Government to play a highly active and activist role in the European Union from the very beginning.

    And, finally, I just want to say a few words about what the President has called the extraordinary special relationship between Britain and the United States and we’re very happy to accept that description and to agree with that description. The United States is without doubt the most important ally of the United Kingdom, fundamentally it is a relationship rooted in strong alignment of our national interests and the scope of our cooperation is unparalleled; our, our military, our diplomats, our intelligence and security agencies work hand in glove together. It’s not a backward looking or nostalgic relationship it is one looking to the future from combating violent extremism to addressing poverty and conflict around the world. So I believe the UK and the US share common priorities to an extraordinary degree and we will continue to pursue these priorities in what I think we can confidently say is an unbreakable alliance. And it’s on that basis that I’ve so much enjoyed our talks today.

  • William Hague – 2012 Speech on Diplomatic Tradecraft

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, at the British Academy, Carlton House Terrace in London on 17 October 2012.

    It is a pleasure to be here, and I am grateful to the British Academy for holding this event. It makes an enormous difference to us in Government to have such well-informed and constructive critics and intellectual sparring-partners in the Universities and think tanks. And I am aware that many academics in this audience will have educated foreigners who have gone on to become diplomats and leaders in their own countries, forming a lasting attachment with Britain in the process.

    I was fortunate to become Foreign Secretary after five years shadowing foreign policy in Opposition, spending time in many of our Embassies and meeting many of our diplomats. So I came to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a strong sense of its importance to our national life. It is one of the very finest institutions in our country, and I am proud to lead it.

    The Foreign Office is a unique resource that enables us to advance British interests by understanding and influencing other nations, helping British nationals overseas, supporting our economy and responding to threats to our security. It is one of the pillars of our international influence, along with our Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies. And it is also part of our country’s tremendous soft power advantages in the world, along with the British Council, BBC World Service, our great Universities, our international development programmes and our cultural achievements including the Olympics and Paralympics.

    There are few countries that can rival Britain for diplomatic skills and influence in the world. When we bring together our global diplomatic network in 158 countries, our seat on the UN Security Council, our membership of the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth and our strong relationships in every quarter of the globe, we are able to make a significant impact and continue to do so.

    We saw this during the conflict in Libya, when our diplomats secured a UN Security Council resolution authorising military force that few people thought would be possible, and when the Foreign Office brought together more than 40 Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government countries for a conference in London, at less than a week’s notice, to galvanise the military and diplomatic campaign.

    We showed the same leadership in a different way earlier this year on Somalia: bringing together 54 countries and organisations to agree a new diplomatic strategy in London, securing in parallel a UN Security Council Resolution and new action to counter piracy, and at the same time persuading Somalia politicians to reach agreement. Seven months later piracy is down, Al Shabaab is on the retreat thanks to the efforts of African forces, and Somalia has a new and legitimate government. .

    We saw it this summer during the Games. The Foreign Office looked after over 100 Heads of State, secured co-sponsorship of the UN Olympic Truce resolution from all 193 UN Member States for the first time in history; supported the British Business Embassy which was attended by 3,000 business leaders and led to £1 billion worth of deals, and transformed our relationship with the next Olympic hosts, Brazil, by hosting 15 Brazilian government missions on everything from transport to health.

    And I am particularly proud of the patient British diplomacy which helped secure just last week the Mindanao Framework Deal between the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front on 7th October, after forty years of conflict costing more than 120,000 lives. By setting up the International Contact Group, sharing the lessons of the Good Friday Agreement and working side by side with the parties as they agreed a roadmap to peace, British diplomats played an indispensable role. These are examples just from the past year and eighteen months.

    I am constantly impressed by the sheer range of tradecraft involved in the Foreign Office’s work. It is impossible to do justice in a short speech to the skills and talents needed to operate in insecure or rapidly changing environments like Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan; in dealing with sensitive consular cases such as the recent shooting of the British family in France; to work in the European Union on ground-breaking sanctions on Iran; to carry out complex negotiations such as for a global Arms Trade Treaty; and to deal with technical and commercially sensitive issues such as financial services reform in China and the internationalisation of the renminbi.

    The men and women of the Foreign Office excel at doing all these things and more, and our country’s interests rely on them always being able to do so.

    But this global impact can never be taken for granted, and it rests, I believe, on four essential requirements:

    First, we need the FCO always to be a strong and flourishing institution over the long term: a centre of excellence in government, able to attract the most talented new diplomats of the future, skilled at developing and retaining knowledge throughout the organisation and excelling in all areas of diplomatic tradecraft. It has to be able to generate the best possible ideas and analysis, and to provide foreign policy leadership that runs through the veins of the whole of Government.

    Second, our diplomats need to have an unrivalled knowledge among diplomats of the history, culture, geography and politics of the countries they are posted to, and to speak the local languages. This is a fundamental requirement of diplomacy and we have given renewed emphasis to it. As a small aside, I was delighted that the first person to greet Aung San Suu Kyi when she arrived in the United Kingdom on her historic visit was our Head of Protocol. He was able to greet her in the Burmese he learnt 20 years ago on a posting to the country. These things matter and our diplomats really do need to get under the skin of other societies. They must be able to forge relationships of trust across all areas, including politics, defence and security, the media, civil society, business and commerce. They need to have a strong grasp of economic fundamentals as well as the workings of international diplomacy; they need to be expert in negotiation and other traditional diplomatic skills; and they must be well-versed in modern communication including now, very often, social media.

    Third, we need our diplomats to be present in as many countries as possible across the world. The number of centres of decision-making in the world is growing. Without turning away from Europe or America we need to have stronger ties with a wide range of new powers of the 21st century, and this means in my view being strongly represented in them.

    Our diplomatic network is the essential infrastructure of Britain’s influence in the world. Of course it is never set in stone and is bound to change over time, and only today I have announced changes to our diplomatic network in Iraq. However having an Embassy or post flying the British flag really matters, and creates an effect that can never be replicated by a diplomat with a laptop however hard they work. That is why we have drawn a line under the closures of Embassies and High Commissions that took place under the last government. Instead of that, by 2015 we will have opened up to 11 new British embassies and eight new consulates or trade offices, and sent 300 extra staff to over 22 countries in the emerging economies – including Burma, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, Mongolia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Angola, Botswana, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Peru, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines – but with the biggest increases in frontline staff in India and in China. We are the only European country that is setting out consciously to expand their diplomatic network in this way, and we are investing in our country’s future influence.

    And fourth, we need the Government to use the Foreign Office as it is supposed to be used and not to sideline it. We set up our National Security Council to ensure that decisions about international relations and security are taken in the round, with all relevant Ministers at the table, with Foreign Office ideas and analysis informing every meeting.

    I see it as part of my mission as Foreign Secretary to work with our senior diplomats to achieve a permanent and well-entrenched improvement in the Foreign Office’s ability to project Britain’s influence overseas for the long term by systematically building up the Foreign Office in each of these areas.

    Together, we have spent much of the last two years engaged in the biggest drive ever seen to increase the traditional diplomatic skills and institutional capacity of the Foreign Office, under the banner of ‘Diplomatic Excellence’.

    The highlights of this programme include a new language centre in the Foreign Office that I will open next year, which will have 30 classrooms and train up to 1,000 students a year. We will soon have 40% more speakers of Arabic and Mandarin in our posts overseas than we had only two years ago and 20% more speakers of Latin American Spanish and Portuguese.

    We have a new Expertise Fund to deepen thematic and geographical policy expertise across the Foreign Office. It has funded, for example, the creation of an India cadre enabling diplomats to study Indian culture, politics and history in India itself before their posting. We have set up new training for staff working in the energy sector, to give British diplomats an edge in a competitive market and a greater understanding of business priorities. We have invested heavily in formal policy skills training; in all, a total of 774 staff at home and overseas have benefitted from International Policy Skills courses since April 2011, and we are investing in training for our locally-engaged staff to give them a greater role in the Foreign Office’s future diplomacy.

    As part of our renewed emphasis on history, the original Colonial Office and Home Office Libraries have been renovated, and our excellent Historians have moved into the latter in the heart of King Charles Street. And they are consulted frequently by the Foreign Secretary. We are bringing our expert research analysts ever more closely into policy discussions, and have set up networks across the Foreign Office to tap into the expertise of serving or former diplomats on issues like the EU and soft power. We are bringing in outside experts to “challenge” our policy on everything from Iran and Sudan to the way we use our historic residences.

    We are putting a lot of emphasis on developing our younger talent. I am pleased that some of these young diplomats are in the audience this evening, as well as some members of the Locarno Group of former Ambassadors which I created when I came to office, who spent time earlier today passing on tradecraft tips to their successors.

    And earlier this year we invited senior colleagues from across Whitehall, business, media, international organisations and foreign experts to join a Diplomatic Excellence External Panel whose role is to assess our progress

    I am confident that these programmes will strengthen the Foreign Office for the future. Our challenge now is to translate this renewed confidence into foreign policy ambition: so that we don’t just react to crises, but address major world problems.

    I have been struck time and again over the last two years by the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world that is able to make things happen at a global level.

    For example, last year we held in London the first international conference calling for rules of the road to moderate behaviour in cyberspace, including the risks of cyber attack and the growth of cyber crime. This is one of the growing challenges of the internet age. Drawing on the UK’s national advantages in this area and the prowess of GCHQ, we have succeeded in launching and defining a debate which has now led to follow-on conferences in Budapest and South Korea, and we are setting up a new programme to help other countries develop their cyber capabilities.

    We have also recently launched a new initiative to challenge the use of rape as a weapon of war. We are calling for a concerted international effort to increase the number of prosecutions for this appalling crime so that we shatter the culture of impunity. We will use our Presidency of the G8 next year to launch work on a new International Protocol in the areas of prosecutions for sexual violence and the protection of victims, and we have set up our own team of experts in the Foreign Office which we will be able to deploy to support investigations in conflict-affected areas.

    In both cases we are using our diplomatic network, our policy-making expertise and our global role to provide leadership. We are developing British skills and capabilities and making a difference in individual countries as well as on the international stage. These sorts of initiatives are the best possible use of our diplomats and the diplomatic tradecraft of the Foreign Office, and ample proof that we help shape our world for the better. Our G8 Presidency next year will be a major opportunity to demonstrate this leadership.

    So the work we have in hand at the FCO is designed to ensure that Britain’s influence in the world is expanding, not shrinking, that we are connected to the fastest growing areas of the world, and that we retain a global leadership role on the greatest challenges of our time. It will mean that the Foreign Office has an even greater capability to promote Britain’s national interest for the long term. And I believe it will mean that we can say that with confidence that ours is indisputably the best Diplomatic Service in the world, advancing Britain’s national interest and our values even more effectively in the world of the 21st century than it has done for so long, and with such distinction, in the past.

  • Alistair Burt – 2012 Speech to the 4th Abu Dhabi Investment Forum

    alistairburt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 17 October 2012.

    Your Excellency Sultan Al Mansouri, Your Excellency Nasser Ahmed Alsowaidi, Excellencies, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen. It gives me great pleasure to join you for the fourth Abu Dhabi Investment Forum. I am pleased to see such a great turnout for today’s event.

    Since being appointed Minister with responsibility for the Middle East over two years ago, I have been fortunate enough to have visited the Emirate of Abu Dhabi four times. Along the way, I have forged some very strong friendships, including with my Emirati counterpart, Dr Anwar Gargash, and I was fortunate to host Nasser Al Sowaidi and the UAE-UK Business Council last May. I would also like to congratulate Nasser Al Sowaidi and Samir Brikho on the great start they have made in the first year of the Business Council.

    I have seen firsthand, for example, the huge number of opportunities for British companies in the region. These visits have not only developed relationships, but enabled me to make a serious analysis of our respective opportunities from our enhanced friendships.

    Bilateral trade

    I will talk about specific sectoral opportunities shortly, but I would first like to outline some of the key trade statistics. Much of this will be familiar to many of you, but these numbers are impressive enough to bear repeating:

    Last year the UAE was Britain’s 16th largest export market, and it has been the 13th largest for the first half of this year. Our exports to the UAE were £4.7 billion in 2011, up 21% on 2010. Take into account the size of the UAE’s population – nearly 8 million, which the World Bank ranks as 94th largest in the world – and you get a real sense of how impressive these statistics are.

    More than 4,000 British companies are already active in the UAE – from small SMEs to large global multinationals – across a wide range of industry sectors, so you will be in good company if you choose to invest in Abu Dhabi.

    The value of bilateral trade between Britain and the GCC countries is worth £20 billion annually – and the UAE accounts for over 50% of that figure, including companies based in Free Zones.

    And by the end of this year we estimate that the value of bilateral trade between the UK and the UAE will be around £10.5 billion. We are well on course to meet our ambitious target of increasing the value of trade to £12 billion by 2015, from £7.5 billion in 2009. With its impressive programme of expansion on major infrastructure projects such as healthcare facilities and social housing, Abu Dhabi accounts, and will continue to account, for an increasing share of that sum.

    Why invest in Abu Dhabi?

    The trend, then, is clear. But why are companies choosing to invest in Abu Dhabi?

    A key factor in my mind is the proximity between global markets in the East and West and the very favourable transport links, both across the Gulf and further afield. This, plus the readily available supply of commercial space, well-qualified staff and excellent education system means Abu Dhabi is the ideal place for companies whose longer-term objectives are to expand into other markets.

    In short, the UAE, and Abu Dhabi in particular, offers an ideal hub for expansion, in much the same way as we see investment in the UK as also a launch pad for the EU. And we are seeing more and more British companies partner with Emirati ones in third countries such as Korea and Iraq. And I should also make clear the deep relationship between our two governments, our belief in the UAE as a progressive, vibrant, well governed state, a close ally whose society and systems we support, is a further reason for our endorsement of greater trade links between us.

    Key sectors

    So that is the big picture. But which are the sectors that offer the most potential for UK businesses?

    Infrastructure is an obvious focus. As the UAE, and Abu Dhabi in particular, moves away from reliance on oil and gas revenues, we will see a continued drive to develop as a global player in tourism and culture.

    Among the most impressive of the current projects in Abu Dhabi is the development of Saadiyat Island into a leading cultural centre. When completed, Saadiyat will be home to a branch of the Guggenheim Museum, The Louvre and the Sheikh Zayed National Museum – the latter in collaboration with the British Museum and designed by Norman Foster. With further plans to develop nine five-star hotels, Saadiyat offers a wealth of opportunities to construction and engineering companies, as well as firms in the creative industries sector. We are working hard to help British companies make the most of these opportunities.

    The second area I wanted to highlight is Education. Education is vital for national success, and is one of Britain’s greatest strengths. It is also one of the growth businesses of the future.

    The educational links between Britain and UAE are already strong. British institutions like Heriot Watt University, Middlesex University and the London Business School have established campuses. I was delighted to visit the British University of Dubai when I was in the UAE in September, and honoured to address students at the impressive new Sheikh Zayed University campus in Abu Dhabi last October. Both of these experiences convinced me of the enormous potential in this area, and I believe we can do more.

    We should pool our assets and advantages for our mutual benefit: that means more Emirati students in the UK; more British students in the UAE; more collaboration between our universities and science parks; and more British companies helping to deliver education on the ground in the UAE.

    The final sector I want to highlight is energy. With almost 10% of global supply, a hundred years of known reserves and production of 2.7 million barrels per day, it is clear that the UAE will remain a major player in the oil industry for the foreseeable future.

    But the UAE, and Abu Dhabi in particular, is also a leader in the development of alternative energy. The Emerati government has embarked on one of the most ambitious programmes in the world to build a sustainable city. Designed by British architects Foster and Partners, Masdar is being designed and built using the latest technologies to reduce its carbon footprint. And it is home to several companies and research institutes that are pioneering new alternatives to carbon-based fuels.

    Britain is well-placed to work with Emirati partners to continue to develop this sector, bearing in mind our notable strengths across all energy industries, including oil and gas, renewables, nuclear and thermal power generation.

    These are just a few of the sectors of opportunity in Abu Dhabi – there are plenty more, not least in Financial & Professional Services, Healthcare and the Creative Industries.

    How we can help

    This government is committed to helping our companies win business overseas. We are absolutely clear that identifying and exploiting business opportunities in overseas markets will help to ensure and quicken the pace of Britain’s economic recovery. If we can show more ambition and create more global companies with British origins, we will cement our position as one of the great global trading nations.

    Abu Dhabi can play an important role in this respect, and we are ready to provide assistance. The UK Trade & Investment team at the British Embassy in Abu Dhabi is a mix of UK-based and locally-engaged officers, all of whom have a wealth of experience and contacts across the Emirate. So, whether you are looking for advice regarding a market entry strategy, or you need assistance arranging a visit programme when you visit the market, the team will be able to provide you with a tailor-made service.

    There are many more expert speakers to follow, so I will wrap things up; but, if I could leave you with one thought, it is that it is important, I think, to remember that the relationship between our two great nations goes back 200 years. The strength of our commercial relations, which has been my focus today, has parallels across the bilateral spectrum – from our political relations to our thriving cultural ties.

    I have no doubt that we will continue to strengthen our relationship during the next 200 years.

    Thank you and Shukran.