Tag: Tony Blair

Tony Blair – 2022 Comments on the Personality of Vladimir Putin

The comments made by Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, on CNN News on 25 May 2022.

So the first Putin I met was Western facing, anxious to have a good relationship with the West, he used to insist that we met in St. Petersburg because it’s the Western facing great city of Russia. Then I think he found the challenges of reform and change in Russia too great and he decided to consolidate power in a more autocratic way, and then become a Russian nationalist. And so, the second incarnation of Putin if you like, was cold and calculating and brutal, but still, I would say entirely rational within his own terms.

The anxiety I think everyone has is that he’s now completely detached from reality, surrounded by people who won’t tell him the truth. And this is why this incredible miscalculation, I mean, leave aside the the wickedness of it. I mean, the miscalculation strategically and in every possible way has been enormous. Anyone who knows Ukraine would know that there was never any question of Ukrainians agreeing to be subjugated to Russia in this way. So, I think that’s that’s the worry, the trajectory has been away from a reforming Western oriented leader who could have allowed Russia to become part of the West. People even used to talk in the old days, talking about those times when I was there, about could Russia become a member of the European Union? Is there a way Russia could be accommodated, literally within the structures of NATO? And it’s very important people remember this because, this myth that Putin perpetrates, that we were somehow always trying to push him and humiliate Russia. Russia’s problems is not the result of our humiliation of Russia, it’s as a result of bad government in Russia.

August 25, 2022
Tony Blair – 2002 Statement on the G8 Summit in Canada

The statement made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chrétien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.

This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since 11 September. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists’ sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed UK proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of some 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets, and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.

The events of 11 September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world’s largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union, above all in Russia. The G8 therefore agreed collectively to raise up to $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to $750 million spread over the next decade.

We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the middle east, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the two-state vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts also on India and Pakistan.

The Kananaskis summit also marked a major shift in the G7’s relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation.

But the main focus of the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa’s potential is enormous, yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African Governments commit themselves to economic, political and governance reforms, and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.

Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa’s Development—NEPAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism that will provide an objective assessment against these new standards. In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas, and I shall deal with some of them.

Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, and especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan, two of Africa’s bloodiest wars, and to consolidate the peace efforts now being made in Angola and Sierra Leone.

For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. We agreed that by 2003 we will have in place a joint plan to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues that so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for the UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa which fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.

Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed therefore to implement the education taskforce report, prepared for the summit, which will significantly increase bilateral aid for basic education for African countries that have a strong policy and financial commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. We agreed that where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.

We also agreed to continue our efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS through the new global health fund, and G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005. Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative, receiving about $62 billion in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.

At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional $1 billion for the HIPC trust fund. That will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened, because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices, will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt.

On trade, we agreed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1 January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply that Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions in all forms of export subsidies with a view to their being entirely phased out.

At Monterrey in February the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by $12 billion a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of that new money would go to reforming African countries, for investment in line with NEPAD’s own priorities. That is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional $6 billion a year for the world’s poorest continent. It recognises Africa’s needs, but it is also a strong signal of the G8’s confidence that the commitments that African leaders are making under NEPAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.

The UK will contribute its share of those additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006—three times the level that we inherited from the last Conservative Government.
President Mbeki of South Africa said of the plan that

“there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8…it is a very, very good beginning.”

President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it a

“historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world”.

Africa is not a hopeless continent, as some have described it. Uganda, for example, has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the last 10 years, and growth has averaged around 7 per cent. a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help to provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school. Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent. in the past 4 years, and Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past 4 years.

Of course, we need to do more—much more—but for the first time there is a comprehensive plan, dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time, it is constructed with reforming African leaders as partners, not as passive recipients of aid. For the first time, we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.

So this is not our destination—of an African renaissance—achieved, but it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future, and it is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part that Britain has played in it. There are those who say that Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities—who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa—eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter: to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through.

August 8, 2022
Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Public Services

The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 23 June 2004.

Over the coming three months, I will be setting out an agenda for a third term Labour Government. A major part of that agenda will be about the future of public services in health, education, law and order, transport, housing and employment. But the battle over public services is more than a battle about each individual service. The state of our public services defines the nature of our country. Our public realm is what we share together. How it develops tells us a lot about what we hold in common, the values that motivate us, the ideas that govern us.

The New Labour Government was created out of the reform of progressive politics in Britain. For the first hundred years of our history as a party, we had been in government only intermittently.

Our ambition was to govern in the way and manner of Labour in 1945 and the reforming Liberal Governments of the late 19th and early 20th century: to construct a broad coalition of the better off and the less advantaged to achieve progress, economic and social, in the interests of the many not the few.

In seven years, we have delivered a stable economy, rising employment, and big reductions in unemployment and poverty. With that behind us, we have invested in our public realm. In particular, we have systematically raised the capacity and quality of our public services. Over the last few months there has been a growing recognition and acceptance that real improvement is happening.

Now, on the basis of this clear evidence of progress, is the time to accelerate reform.

In simple terms, we are completing the re-casting of the 1945 welfare state to end entirely the era of “one size fits all” services and put in their place modern services which maintain at their core the values of equality of access and opportunity for all; base the service round the user, a personalised service with real choice, greater individual responsibility and high standards; and ensure in so doing that we keep our public services universal, for the middle class as well as those on lower incomes, both of whom expect and demand services of quality.

I am not talking about modest further reorganization but something quite different and more fundamental. We are proposing to put an entirely different dynamic in place to drive our public services: one where the service will be driven not by the government or by the managers but by the user – the patient, the parent, the pupil and the law abiding citizen. The service will continue to be free, but it will be a high quality consumer service to fit their needs in the same way as the best services do in other areas of life.

This is a vision which combines choice, excellence and equality in a modern universal welfare state.

We will contrast such a vision with that of the Conservatives whose essential anti-public service ideology is shown by their policy to subsidise a few to opt-out of public services at the expense of the many; to abandon targets for public service performance; and to cut the overall amount of public spending drastically. There are frequent gyrations in their precise policies; but unchanging in each new version is that a privileged minority can and should opt out in order to get a better service.

By contrast, I believe the vast majority of those on centre-left now believe in the new personalised concept of public services. It is true that some still argue that people – usually other people – don’t want choice. That, for example, they just want a single excellent school and hospital on their doorstep.

In reality, I believe people do want choice, in public services as in other services. But anyway choice isn’t an end in itself. It is one important mechanism to ensure that citizens can indeed secure good schools and health services in their communities. And choice matters as much within those institutions as between them: better choice of learning options for each pupil within secondary schools; better choice of access routes into the health service. Choice puts the levers in the hands of parents and patients so that they as citizens and consumers can be a driving force for improvement in their public services. And the choice we support is choice open to all on the basis of their equal status as citizens not on the unequal basis of their wealth.

This is the case we will take to the British people. It is a case only possible because of our investment. Without investment in capacity and in essential standards and facilities, sustained not just for a year or two but year on year as a matter of central national purpose, there is no credibility in claims to be able to extend choice to all. They become mere words without meaning for the great majority of citizens, as demonstrated by the last government which promised these things but refused the investment in capacity and so ended up making its flagship policies on choice the assisted places scheme, a grammar school in every town, and subsidies for private health insurance; all of them opt-out policies for a small minority at the expense of the rest.

Some propose to return to these policies. To return to choice for the few. To offer what is in effect not a right to choose but a right to charge. To constrain investment, either by directly cutting it or by siphoning it off money to subsidise those currently purchasing private provision.

Our goal is fundamentally different and more ambitious for the people of Britain and I will set it out today.

Let me go back to 1997 and describe our journey as a government.

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; on the contrary, our health and education services had achieved about as much as it was possible to achieve on constrained budgets and decades of under-investment. The problem was too little resource, and therefore grossly inadequate capacity in terms of staff and facilities.

This under-investment was not tackled in the Eighties and into the Nineties, even as economic conditions allowed. On the contrary, it was maintained as an act of policy and philosophy right up until 1997. So in 1997 the hospital building programme had ground to a halt, despite a £3bn repairs backlog. Capital investment was at its lowest level for a decade. 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. In education, teacher numbers had fallen by 36,000 since 1981. Funding per pupil was actually cut by over £100 between 1992 and 1997. Police numbers were down by 1,100.

Underinvestment and chronic lack of capacity led, inevitably, to a failure to meet even basic standards. Standards not simply unmet, but undefined, for the simple reason that defining them would have demonstrated how far each public service was from achieving them.

So there was no national expectation of success at school for young people – although nearly half of 11 year-olds were not even up to standard in the basics of literacy and numeracy and a similar proportion left school at or soon after 16 with few if any qualifications.

There was no effective maximum waiting time either for a GP appointment or for hospital treatment – although the hospital waiting lists stood at over 1.1 million and many patients were waiting more than 18 months even for the most urgent treatment, with rates of death from cancer and heart disease amongst the highest in Europe.

There were no national targets for reducing crime or dealing with youth offending, though crime had doubled since 1979 and it was taking four and a half months to deal with young offenders from arrest to sentence. Community penalties were not properly enforced, fines were not paid.

And not only were none of these basic foundations in existence. Perhaps worse, there was a fatalism, cultivated assiduously by those opposed to public spending on ideological principle, that this was the natural order of things, that somehow there was a ‘British disease’ which meant we were culturally destined to have second-rate education and health and rising crime. The nation with some of the best universities in the world somehow destined to have crumbling, substandard primary and secondary schools; the nation which under Labour founded the National Health Service in the 1940s – one of the great international beacons of the post-war era – still leaving patients on trollys in corridors, with easily treatable conditions – hip and knee-joint replacements, cataracts – largely untreated because of lack of facilities.

Our first task in 1997, within an indispensable framework of economic stability and growth, was to invest in capacity; to herald public investment in education, health and law and order as a virtue not a curse; and to define basic standards and to reform working practices so that extra resources delivered real capacity improvements service by service. We did so with confidence and optimism. With confidence that public service staff – the doctors, teachers, police officers, and the vital ancillary staff of all kinds – would rise to this challenge, with the better pay, training and incentives they needed and deserved. And with optimism that they would bring abut radical improvement – not immediately; not until the resources and reform programmes on which they depended had started to make an impact; but in a sustained fashion once the real rates of investment – rising now to 7.5% a year in health and 6% a year in education – had begun to drive reform and build capacity.

Let me pause to say what that year on year investment means. In health, it means a budget now doubled from £33bn in 1997 to £67bn this year, and set to rise to £90bn by 2008, bringing our health spending towards the European average for the first time in a generation. This is enabling us to recruit 20,000 more doctors, 68,000 more nurses and 26,000 more therapy, scientific and technical staff. In education it means a budget nearly doubled, from £30bn to £53bn, again bringing us towards international standards with 29,000 extra teachers in our schools. In law and order it means a 25% real increase in police funding since 1999, and police numbers up 11,000. Across the public services, infrastructure being transformed – new buildings, ICT, equipment, facilities, in every locality in the country in ongoing programmes of investment. The schools capital programme, for example, up from £680m a year in 1997 to £4.5 billion a year today, enabling us to embark on a programme to bring every secondary school in the country – all 3,400 of them – up to a modern standard by 2015. A completely different physical environment for learning, transforming the potential of our teachers.

But money alone was never going to put even the basics right. We in government never tired of saying – alongside so many public service leaders themselves, frustrated at past failure – that it had to be money tied to reform to ensure that basic standards were defined and delivered in each service. The workforce had to be modernized as it was enlarged and better paid; basic standards and practices defined and delivered; rewards tied to service improvements; a new engagement with private and voluntary sectors; and full accountability to the public which was being asked to pay for the service improvements, with proper independent inspection and assessment.

So our policy was not simply smaller class sizes and more teachers – although we achieved both. It was also literacy and numeracy programmes, building on best existing teaching practice, to raise basic standards systematically nationwide – 84,000 more 11 year-olds a year now up to standard in maths and 60,000 in English. It was a radical recasting of the teaching profession to embed teaching assistants alongside teachers and give them a defined role – now more than 130,000 of them, double the number in 1997. It was a reform of secondary education – including Excellence in Cities and the specialist schools and academies programmes – tackling failing schools systematically and embedding higher standards and a culture of aspiration school by school. Substantial progress is now evident on all fronts: the number of failing schools is down, there is a new culture of achievement and expectation in our secondary schools, and 50,000 more 16 year olds a year now achieving five or more good GCSEs.

Similarly, our policy in heath was not simply more doctors, nurses and new buildings – although we have achieved a step-change in all three. It was the first national system of hospital inspection. The first national maximum waiting times for GP appointments, hospital treatment and A&E. New national service frameworks for treatment of cancer and heart disease. Premature deaths from heart disease – the single biggest killer – are down by a quarter since 1997, with a third more heart operations, twice as many patients receiving immediate access to clot-busting drugs and cholesterol lowering drugs now prescribed to 1.8 million people.

The statistics don’t of course tell the real story of lives saved and transformed.
Take, for example, the family turning up at A & E with their elderly relative who has fallen at home.

Before the investment and reforms now in place they would most likely have faced a long and worrying wait, probably in a shabby casualty department. They would have read the stories about ‘waiting 48 hours on a trolley in a corridor’ and expected the same.

Today, their elderly relative will be seen and treated within 4 hours at the very most, but typically much quicker. There will be more staff in the A & E than previously and the facilities will very likely have been refurbished with play areas for children and so on.

In law and order, too, it is a similar story of bold statistics proclaiming real change – not only the 11,000 extra police, but also 3,300 community support officers where this type of role simply didn’t exist in 1997. Overall crime, according to the British Crime Survey, down by 4 million incidents a year, with the blight of burglary down to its lowest level for over 20 years.

This week we held a reception at No 10 for front-line staff. Many of them were people whose jobs didn’t even exist seven years ago. New Deal advisers who have helped cut youth unemployment to a few thousand nationwide. Sure Start workers. Nurse consultants. Community Support Officers. NHS Direct staff. Classroom assistants. All of them giving us the capacity to help thousands upon thousands in new ways.

So, taking stock, we have raised capacity to a new plateau. And it is from this plateau that we can climb to the next vital stage of public reform, to design and provide truly personalized services, meeting the needs and aspirations of today’s generation for choice, quality and opportunity service by service on which to found their lives and livelihoods.

Choice and diversity are not somehow alien to the spirit of the public services – or inconsistent with fairness.

The reason too many of the public services we inherited were stuck in the past, in terms of choice and quality – and the two or even more tiers of service they offered – was because their funding, infrastructure and service standards were stuck in the past too.

Back in the 1940s, the public services were top-down in their management – like so much else at the time, and this remained too entrenched thereafter. But they were every bit as good as the private sector in terms of choice and quality – if not far better, particularly after the 1944 Education Act and the founding of the NHS, which offered services and opportunities transformed from the pre-war years within a post-war economy and society governed by rationing, funding constraints, and pervasive low skills and aspirations. Aneurin Bevan said the NHS civilized the country. It extended choice, quality and opportunity in its generation: it didn’t limit them. And when it came to means rather than ends, Bevan was entirely pragmatic about how provision should be funded and structured within the new NHS, consistent with its values of equality and fairness.

The following decades saw a growing divergence between the availability of choice – and the perception and often the reality of quality – between the public and private sectors. But on the basis of the new plateau of capacity, we can change that, whilst keeping intact the ethos of public service.

Choice and quality will be for all – driven by extra capacity, without charges or selection by wealth.

In health, we will set out tomorrow a new guarantee of treatment within a set time which starts from the moment a patient is referred by their GP – not the time that they get onto the queue for their operation. Every patient will have a right to be seen and treated within this period, with a choice of which provider undertakes the treatment.

In education, we want every parent to be able to choose a good secondary school. So we are providing for every secondary school to become a specialist school, with a centre of excellence in one part of the curriculum; and to raise aspiration and achievement in areas where the education system has failed in the past, we will expand the number of academies significantly. We will also reform the curriculum so that students get a better and broader range of options for study beyond the age of 14, developing their talents and challenging them to achieve more.

In law and order, we will re-introduce community policing for today’s age with dedicated policing teams of officers and community support officers focused on local priorities, implementing tough new powers to deal with anti-social behaviour. There will also be personalised support for every victim of crime as we introduce a new witness care service nationwide.

The same principles will be extended across the public services. In social housing, for example, we will extend choice-based lettings – which give council and housing association tenants a new service to identify locations and properties, in place of traditional schemes where tenants were simply allocated a property on the basis of a centrally-imposed points system.

In welfare, every person of working age able to work – wherever they live and whatever their needs – will receive personalised support, including personal advisers able to provide tailored support to help people back into work, not just registered job seekers but steadily more of the three million of working age who are otherwise economically inactive.

As we accelerate reform on the basis of enhanced capacity, these personalized services will be made available in every community.

Over the last seven years New Labour has time and again shown how ideas that are supposed to be irreconcilable can be brought together: social justice and economic efficiency; fairness at work and a flexible labour market; full employment and low inflation.

It is the same with choice, excellence and equity. There is no reason except past failure why excellence need mean elitism – why there can only be good schools and universities if a majority are kept out of them; why there can only be real choice and diversity if a majority are deprived of them. With the right services, expectations and investment, we can have excellence for the great majority, with choice and equity. And we don’t base this on theory, but on what is now happening in practice.

Consider healthcare, where we have now been trialling choice in the public services for a number of years. The evidence shows there is demand for choice and that this is not only compatible with equity but that choice itself helps to ensure equity.

In the NHS there have been trials in elective surgery with patients offered a choice of up to four hospitals for treatment, often assisted by a Patient Care Adviser. Take-up is high.

Half of all those offered a choice of where to have their heart operation in the nationwide cardiac scheme took up the offer. More than two thirds of patients offered a choice in the London trial took up the offer. Three quarters did so in Manchester.

The schemes have had a dramatic effect on waiting times. In the London pilot, extending patient choice led to a decrease in waiting times of 17% (compared with a 6% fall nationally).

The recruitment of overseas suppliers into the NHS – setting up new treatment centres extending choice – has also had a significant effect. As the FT put it a fortnight ago: ‘By introducing a clutch of overseas providers … to provide treatment centres for National Health Service patients, the government has at a stroke transformed a significant chunk of the country’s health care … exposing to scrutiny some of the myths on which private medical care is sold.’

Greater choice and diversity are having a similarly positive effect in education and childcare. Our new under-fives provision – Sure Start, nursery places for three and four year-olds, better maternity and paternity support, a massive extension of childcare supported by tax credits – is enabling parents to choose the provision that is best for them and their children, where previously there was often no provision at all. It is also giving parents much greater flexibility in their working life, where previously they often had none, or indeed little incentive to work at all.

In secondary education, specialist schools have shown significant improvements in results, and most secondary schools and are now exploring the best curriculum areas in which to develop real centres of excellence and boost their provision. We have made it far easier for successful and popular schools to expand where they wish to do so, including special capital grants for new premises. New secondary school curriculum options, including junior apprenticeships for 14 to 16 year-olds, are giving pupils more choice to meet their aspirations, and we will take curriculum reform further. Academies are offering a wholly new type of independent state school, serving the whole community in areas where better provision is needed, and are proving popular. I have opened two of the new academies in the past year; it is truly remarkable what is possible when investment, aspiration and inspirational leadership – not tied down by past failure – go hand in hand.

Let me return to my starting point. With growing capacity in our public services we can now accelerate reform. We have the opportunity to develop a new generation of personalised services where equity and excellence go hand in hand – services shaped by the needs of those who use them, services with more choice extended to everyone and not just those that can afford to pay, services personal to each and fair to all.

It is now accepted by all the political parties that the economy and public services will be the battleground at the next election. That in itself is a kind of tribute to what has been achieved. The territory over which we will fight is the territory we have laid out.

For our part, we must fight it with a boldness no longer born out of instinct but of experience. When we have refused to accept the traditional frontiers but have gone beyond them, we have always found more fertile land.

And there is another reason for approaching our task in this way: the world keeps changing ever faster. With the change comes new possibilities and new insecurities. It is always our job to help realise the one and overcome the other; to provide opportunity and security in this world of change; and for all, not for a few.

Take a step back and analyse seven years of this Government. Setbacks aplenty, for sure. But also real and tangible achievement and progress for many who otherwise would have been kept down, unable to realise their potential, without much hope and with little prospect of advance. Now we have to take it further: always with an eye to the future, always maintaining the coalition of the decent and the disadvantaged that got us here, always recognising that in politics if you aren’t adventurous, you may never know failure, but neither are you likely to be acquainted with success.

There is still much to do and we intend to do it.

August 8, 2022
Tony Blair – 2021 Comments on His Knighthood

The comments made by Sir Tony Blair on 31 December 2021.

It is an immense honour to be appointed Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, and I am deeply grateful to Her Majesty the Queen.

It was a great privilege to serve as prime minister and I would like to thank all those who served alongside me, in politics, public service and all parts of our society, for their dedication and commitment to our country.

January 1, 2022
Tony Blair – 2021 Statement on the Murder of David Amess

The statement made by Tony Blair, the Prime Minister between 1997 and 2007, on 15 October 2021.

David and I came into Parliament together in 1983. Though on opposite political sides I always found him a courteous, decent and thoroughly likeable colleague who was respected across the House. This is a terrible and sad day for our democracy.

October 15, 2021
Tony Blair – 2001 Press Conference with President George W Bush

The press conference between Tony Blair and George W Bush at RAF Halton on 19 July 2001.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Good evening, everyone. First of all, can I say how delighted I am to have President Bush here — not just here in Britain, but also here staying with us, and Laura, tonight at Chequers. And we’re looking very much forward to hosting them. And I think it is yet another example of the strength of the relationship between our two countries. It is a very strong relationship, a very special one.

And I know in the discussions we’ve had we’ve ranged over many issues. Obviously, we started with the discussion of the upcoming G-7/G-8 Summit where we agreed how important it is that we get across the strong message to people, the summit is important because it allows us to discuss issues of real importance to people. I have no doubt that we’ll be with people there who will be making their protest, but I hope they do so peacefully, because some of the things we’re discussing at this summit in terms of global trade, in terms of the developing world, are things that are of huge importance not just to the most prosperous countries of the world, but also to some of the poorest countries of the world.

We touched then on many other issues in the course of our discussion, including, obviously, missile defense, the issue of climate change, and a good discussion on Macedonia, Northern Ireland, the Middle East process, and of course, the state of the world economy.

And I’m sure you want to ask some questions about those things. But, once again, can I say, George, how much I welcome you and Laura here, how delighted we are to see you. And I know and hope very much this will be a good evening for you, and set you up in the right frame of mind for the summit ahead. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Thank you. At Camp David, Tony told me that Chequers was a beautiful place, and he was telling the truth. And we’re glad — Laura and I are glad to be here. I appreciate so very much your hospitality and your friendship. America and Great Britain have got a special relationship. We both have pledged to keep the relationship as special as possible, and I’m convinced it will continue to be.

I, too, look forward to going to Genoa. You know, I am — I can’t wait to make the case, along with Tony Blair, about the need for the world trade in freedom. And for those who want to shut down trade, I say this to them as clearly as I can: You’re hurting poor countries. For those who kind of use this opportunity to say the world should become isolationist, they’re condemning those who are poor to poverty. And we don’t accept it. We don’t accept it.

We’ve got a lot in common between our countries, most of which are values. We value freedom. We value political dialogue. We value freedom of religion — freedom of the press, for that matter. But we also value the fact that we’re responsible nations, and that we realize there are some who are less fortunate than the great land Tony is the leader of, and our great land, as well.

So at the summit, we’ll be talking about how best to help the continent of Africa deal with HIV/AIDS, how best to make sure our aid and loans work well, and how best to encourage the habits of freedom, starting with good education.

So I’m looking forward to it, and I want to thank you for having Laura and me here. It’s a great joy to be in your beautiful country.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Right. We’ll take some questions. We’ll bring you a mike, I think.

QUESTION:

Could I ask you both about what you’ve been saying to each other about Northern Ireland, and particularly in view of the President’s comments, whether you feel it’s still possible that the package that Britain and Ireland are going to produce can be even-handed in the continued absence of the commissioning?President reviews the guard
during his visit to Buckingham Palace July 19, 2001. White House photo
by Paul Morse.

And can I also ask you, Prime Minister Blair, about your thoughts on Jeffrey Archer, the former Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party and Conservative MP, starting a four-year sentence tonight for perjury and perverting the course of justice?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

I’m afraid, Adam, on the second part, I’ve really got nothing to say on that.

In respect to the first part, the package that we put to the parties will be balanced because it will deal with all the outstanding issues. It will deal with the issues of the stability of the institutions, how we get a normalized situation — we’ve reduced troop movements and the numbers of troops in Northern Ireland dramatically, but we want to do more — how we make sure, too, that we get a police service that all parts of the community in Northern Ireland can support.

And then also there is the issue of the decommissioning, the putting beyond use of paramilitary weapons. And obviously there’s got to be action on all those fronts. And so we hope very much the people will respond positively. Because, as I often say to people, you only have to look at the situation in the Middle East to realize what happens when negotiation breaks down, when parties move apart from each other, and how quickly a situation that looked optimistic can become unstable and dangerous.

And this — this Good Friday agreement, this peace process is the only hope for people in Northern Ireland. And the package has been put forward by ourselves and the Irish government together. And I hope people respond positively and realize that the future of generations of people in Northern Ireland depend on that positive response.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

We did spend a fair amount of time talking about Northern Ireland. I’ve reiterated to the Prime Minister that I stood ready to help in any way — a simple phone call away; if there’s anything I can do to help bring peace to the region, I will do so. And make no mistake about it, people shouldn’t have any doubt as to where my government stands. We stand strongly, side-by-side, with Britain when it comes to decommissioning in Northern Ireland.

RON:

Q A question for each of you, please. Mr. Prime Minister, does Saturday’s successful test of a antimissile system in the U.S. affect your opinion at all of President Bush’s plans to deploy a missile shield and scrap the ABM Treaty?

And to you, Mr. President, as we speak, environmentalist ministers are meeting in Germany, trying to find a way to salvage the Kyoto global warming treaty. If the rest of the world proceeds without you, doesn’t it isolate your policies and your country?

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Ron’s very good about taking one question and converting it to two. (Laughter.)

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Well, first of all, on the subject of missile defense, obviously, we await a specific proposal from the U.S. administration. But I want to say this and say it clearly, that I think President Bush is right to raise the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and say that that needs new and imaginative solutions, because it’s a huge threat facing the whole of the world.

Secondly, I think that that has got to, as I said at Camp David, has got to encompass defensive systems and offensive systems. And I think it’s again sensible and right that we sit down and work our way through that.

And the third thing is that we welcome very much the approach that President Bush and the administration have taken to consulting allies, and also making it clear that they wish to have a dialogue and a partnership with Russia about this issue.

And I think that in combination those things are bringing about a situation in which we can have a sensible and rational debate about an issue that is of fundamental importance facing the world. So I hope that in that spirit, you know, we will carry forward the dialogue that we have achieved so far.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Let me comment on that, and then I’ll comment on your other question. The thing I appreciate about the Prime Minister is that he’s willing to think anew as we head into the future. It’s hard for any country to commit to vague notions. But there are some leaders who just out of hand reject any willingness to think differently about security. And Prime Minister Blair is not that way. He’s been very forthcoming. He’s had great questions. He’s been more than willing to listen to the philosophy behind moving beyond a treaty that has codified a relationship that no longer exists.

ABM Treaty codified a relationship between enemies. Russia is not our enemy. And as we head into the 21st century, we must think about new ways to keep the peace. And the Prime Minister has been very positive. You know, some people just reject new thought out of hand. And that’s certainly not the case. And as time develops, I will stay in touch — as our plans develop, I’ll stay in touch with Tony as to what’s going on. He’s been a great person with whom to consult on this issue.

The United States is concerned about the emission of CO2. We share the goal of reduction of greenhouse gases. We will be, and are in the process — we’ll be presenting a strategy that may have different means than Kyoto of achieving the same goal. And we’re in the process of developing the strategy.

People shouldn’t, just because I gave an honest assessment of Kyoto’s chances in the United States Senate and what it would mean to our economy, should not think that we don’t share the same goal. We do. We want to reduce greenhouse gases. Ours is a large economy, generating — we used to generate more wealth than we are today, and as a result, we do contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And so we’re concerned about it.

But first things first, as far as I’m concerned. Our strategy must make sure working people in America aren’t thrown out of work. My job is to represent my country. And I’m going to do so in a way that keeps in mind the ability for people to find work and for our nation to be prosperous. And I believe economic growth and sound environmental policy can go hand in hand.

Mr. Prime Minister, as I assured you, I will come to you with a strategy that conforms to the goals of Kyoto and one that is — that I hope people understand makes sense for our country.

QUESTION:

Mr. President, given the very strong relationship which you say exists between yourself and Tony Blair, between Britain and the United States, are you endangering that special, unique, close relationship because Mr. Blair wants to be a bridge between Europe and the United States, and yet, you don’t seem to be offering very much to help narrow the gulf which seems to be opening up between Europe and the United States on key issues?

PRESIDENT BUSH:

I will let Tony Blair speak to how he feels my relationship with Europe — I’m not going to — you’ll say my answer is not very objective, but, frankly, after my last trip here, I think the European leaders got to know me and realize that our country will be engaged with Europe in all aspects.

In the Balkans, I made it clear, we came in together and we’re going to leave together. When it comes to trade, I made it clear that we’re a strong trading partner, and we’ve got to work hard to reduce barriers that prevent us from trading freely. When it comes to defenses within NATO, we’re more than willing to do our commitment.

And I appreciate Tony’s friendship. I think people will find out that I’m plenty capable of conducting foreign policy for the United States in a way that reflects positively on my nation. And I’m glad to be back in Europe. I look forward to a frank discussion in Genoa. And I’m confident that we’ll find areas to work together on. When we disagree, we’ll do so in a respectful way.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Well, I would just like to add a word on that, if I could, James. First of all, I think that the way the President came to Europe and to Gothenburg and made his presentation impressed everybody who was there. I thought it was a highly successful visit.

And, of course, there may be differences of the minute, for example, over Kyoto — though, again, I think it is helpful that the United States is saying, look, this is not what we can agree to, but nonetheless, we agree with the aim, we agree with the objectives, and there are proposals that we will make as to how we can get there. Now, you know, we’ve had a very strong position in favor of Kyoto. That is our position, obviously. But the fact is that dialogue there is extremely important.

But, you know, on a whole range of issues, Europe and America and Britain and America stand together. We’re doing so in the Balkans. We’re doing so trying to sort out the problems of Macedonia. We’re doing so on the issue of world trade. We’re going to do so again on issues like Africa and global health and debt. And where we’re trying to go to the G-7/G-8, and present to the world an agenda for better and more free trade, for help for the poorest nations of the world, for stability in the world economy, which is of dramatic importance not just to our countries, not just to Europe and America, but to the whole of the world.

This is a passionate belief I have that I held in theory when I was an opposition leader, and has strengthened in practice over the last few years that I’ve been Prime Minister. And that is not merely, is the relationship between Britain and America key — and we are and always will be key allies — but when Europe and America stand together, and when they approach problems in a sensible and serious way and realize that what unites them is infinitely more important than what divides them, then the world is a better, more stable, more prosperous place. When we fall out and diverge, and when people try and put obstacles in the way of that partnership, then the only people rejoicing are the bad guys.

That is my basic view after these years. And just to make one other point. Since this administration has come to power, on the issue of trade, in particular, we have seen big steps forward in the relationship between Europe and America. These are the important things, as well. There’s a whole range of issues that I was dealing with a couple of years ago which were tough issues here that we’ve got resolved. So I think it’s against that background that we make these judgments.

QUESTION:

Mr. President, will you be urging your G-7 partners to do more to bring major economies out of the doldrums? And will you heed the call of U.S. business and labor groups who urge you to discuss negative effects of the strong U.S. dollar in Genoa?

And, Prime Minister Blair, I’d like your views also on whether Europe is doing all it can to stimulate the global economy.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Well, one of the things I’ll do, Randy, is to share with my colleagues the successes we’ve had at cutting taxes, as well as holding the line on spending. Let me say this — successes we’ve had so far in holding the line on spending. The President is given a veto for a reason, Mr. Prime Minister, and that’s to hold the line on spending. As well as to assure them that our Fed is going to continue to watch our economy very carefully.

The Federal Reserve is independent from our government, but nevertheless, Mr. Greenspan is sending signals that he’s concerned about the state of our economy. In other words, we’re doing everything we can to, within our own borders, to deal with an economic slowdown. As for the dollar, the market needs to determine the price of the dollar.

There’s all kinds of folks in our country insisting the dollar be this way or the dollar be that way. The best way to determine the price of the dollar is to let the market determine that price. And that’s my message to business, labor, anybody else who wants our government to intercede in the market.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Well, just shortly on the question of the European economy, obviously, we want to see the European economy strengthen. I think the — quite apart from the impact of the world economy, particularly the U.S. economy, on Europe is the whole issue of economic reform in Europe.

We now — one of the big changes in the direction of European economic policy over the past couple of years has been that every year now — and next year it will be in Barcelona in March — we hold an annual summit specifically on the issue of economic reform, in order that Europe should be not a fortress Europe, but should be a Europe that is open, competitive, not just within Europe, with the rest of the world.

Now, I think we’ve still got a lot of structural change to get through in Europe. And certainly we will be raising this obviously in the G-7/G-8, but within the European Union, as well. It’s important that we make big steps forward on that reform agenda, since whatever the state of the world economy, some of the rigidities we still have within our own economies have to be eliminated.

QUESTION

Prime Minister, could you tell us whether you support President Bush’s wish to set aside or get rid of the ABM Treaty? And for President Bush, could you tell us whether it is likely that you’ll want to upgrade U.S. radar stations in the north of England for your missile defenses?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Well, in respect to the first part, as I said a moment or two ago, we welcome very much the approach the U.S. administration has taken, which is to say, look, the world has moved on; let us look at what is the right framework for today, and let us do that in close consultation and dialogue with Russia, since it’s a treaty between these two countries. And I think that is the right approach to take.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

I’m absolutely convinced we need to move beyond the ABM Treaty, and will continue my dialogue with President Putin in a couple days time. It is important for him to know, once again, to hear me say once again, Russia is not the enemy of the United States. There is no need for us to live under a treaty that codified a period of time in which the world was divided into armed camps. It’s time to work together to address the new security threats that we all face.

And those threats just aren’t missiles, or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of untrustworthy countries. Cyberterrorism is a threat, and we need to work on that together. There are all kinds of threats that freedom-loving people will face in the near future. And I look forward to discussing all those threats with President Putin, as I have with Tony Blair.

It’s premature to determine how best to track missiles under a new strategic framework. So, to answer your question about upgrading radars in Britain or in America or anywhere else, it is too early to determine. The problem we face under the current system is that it’s impossible to do enough research and development to determine what will work. Therein lies part of the dilemma for the Prime Minister. He said, what do you want me to support? What are you proposing? And what I’m first proposing to Mr. Putin is that we move beyond the treaty so that we can figure out what does work.

And I want to remind you all that he was the leader early on who said that the new threats of the 21st century will require theater-based systems that will be able to intercept missiles on launch. Mr. Putin said that. Of course, that’s what I was saying in the course of the campaign, which led me to believe that there was some common ground. And that’s the common ground on which we’re exploring moving beyond the ABM Treaty. And I look forward to reporting back how the conversations go here pretty soon to my friend Tony Blair.

JOHN ROBERTS

Q I have a three-part question for you, Mr. President, and a one-part question for you, Prime Minister Blair.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Wait a minute, that’s four questions.

Q Well, no, it’s essentially one question

PRESIDENT BUSH:

Okay, good.

Q — in three parts. (Laughter.) I’m wondering, sir, how it is that’s it’s taking you so long to make a decision on whether or not to continue embryonic stem cell research. What is the basis of the this compromise that we’ve heard about? And now that Senator Frist has joined Senator Hatch and former Reaganites in supporting a continuation of funding for embryonic stem cell research, do you believe you now have enough political cover on the right to make a decision in the affirmative?

And, Prime Minister Blair, as some U.S. laboratories, in anticipation of a negative decision, have started the process to move to Great Britain, I’d like to know your position on embryonic stem cell research in the context of the global advancement of science.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

I’ll start.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

You’re welcome. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT BUSH:

John, this is a very serious issue that has got a lot of ramifications to it, and I’m going to take my time because I want to hear all sides. I want to fully understand the opportunities and to fully think through the dilemmas.

And so I will make an announcement in due course, when I’m ready. And it doesn’t matter who is on what side, as far as I’m concerned. This is a decision I’ll make. And somehow to imply that this is a political decision is — I guess either doesn’t understand how I — somebody doesn’t understand how I think, or doesn’t understand the full consequence of the issue. This is way beyond politics.

This is an issue that speaks to morality and science, and the juxtaposition of the both. And the American people deserve a President who will listen to people and to make a serious, thoughtful judgment on this complex issue. And that’s precisely how I’m going to handle it.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

If you’ll forgive me, John, I’m not going to get into any of the debates that are happening in your country. We have made our decision here, as you know and as your question implied. The only thing I would say to you about this issue is that it is an extraordinarily difficult and sensitive question for people. And I think, certainly, the best way of resolving it is for people on whatever side of the argument they are to realize that the people on the opposite side aren’t necessarily badly intentioned or badly motivated. They’re just in an immensely difficult situation, taking a different perspective.

I think if people approach the question with that type of goodwill even towards people with whom they profoundly disagree, then I think the answers are, if not easier to find, then they’re easier to explain. But, as I say, we took opposition here, but your decision is for the President and people in the United States.

PRESIDENT BUSH:

I was wondering if anybody has got an extra Pepsodent? (Laughter.) Get it?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR:

Okay. Thanks a lot.

December 26, 2020
Tony Blair – 1997 Q&A in Amsterdam

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

QUESTION:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

QUESTION:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

QUESTION:

Who were the British allies?

PRIME MINISTER:

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

QUESTION:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

QUESTION:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

QUESTION:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

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

QUESTION:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

INTERVIEWER:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

August 12, 2020
Tony Blair – 1997 Speech with President Clinton

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

PRIME MINISTER

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

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

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

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

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

PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

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

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

QUESTION:

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

PRESIDENT CLINTON:

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

PRIME MINISTER:

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

August 12, 2020
Tony Blair – 1997 Speech at the Royal Ulster Agricultural Show

The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 16 May 1997.

It is no accident that this is my first official visit outside London. I said before the election that Northern Ireland was every bit as important for me as for my predecessor. I will honour that pledge in full.

In his more than six years as Prime Minister, John Major came to Northern Ireland many times and talked to countless people. I know the respect in which he was held here. After only a few days as Prime Minister, I also begin to appreciate fully the scale of his effort and of his devotion to peace and a political settlement. We offered him bi-partisan support in doing so, because it was the right thing to do. But if there is a new opportunity for progress now, it is in large part thanks to him.

People often ask me if I am exhilarated by our election victory. Of course I am excited by it. But most of all I feel the most profound humility at the trust put in me; and with it, an equally profound sense of responsibility. I feel it, perhaps especially, about Northern Ireland. This is not a party political game or even a serious debate about serious run-of-the-mill issues. It is about life and death for people here. An end to violence and there are people, young men and women particularly, who will live and raise families and die in peace. Without it, they will die prematurely and in bloodshed.

It is a responsibility that weights not just upon the mind, but the soul.

We know the situation here is fragile and fraught. There may be only one chance given to a new government to offer a way forward. Our very newness gives possibilities. But governments are not new forever. There are times when to calculate the risks too greatly is to do nothing; there are times too when a political leader must follow his instinct about what is right and fair.

Our destination is clear: to see in place a fair political settlement in Northern Ireland – one that lasts, because it is based on the will and consent of the people here.

It is a long march, and every footstep has its pitfalls. But where there is not movement, hope falters and we are left surrounded by the ancient grievances returning to destroy us.

I am convinced that the time is right finally to put the past behind us and meet the deep thirst of the people of Northern Ireland for peace, normality and prosperity.

My message is simple. I am committed to Northern Ireland. I am committed to the principle of consent. And I am committed to peace. A settlement is to be negotiated between the parties based on consent. My agenda is not a united Ireland – and I wonder just how many see it as a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future. Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as a majority here wish.

What I want to see is a settlement which can command the support of nationalists and unionists. That is what the people of Northern Ireland rightly demand of me and of their political leaders.

We should not forget there has been progress. Fair employment legislation and equality of opportunity have improved the lives of ordinary people. More change must come. But Northern Ireland in 1997 is not the same place as it was in 1969.

The benefits of economic growth and investment have also begun to make themselves felt. During the last ten years, unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen significantly. Though Northern Ireland still lags behind the rest of the UK in many ways, again the situation is better than for years.

The quality of life has also improved immeasurably since the 1970s, particularly in the period after the IRA ceasefire of August 1994. The opening of the Waterfront Hall earlier this year symbolised a new determination to get on with living life as it should be.

The prospects for Northern Ireland are excellent if we can get the politics right. If. I concede it is a big if.
But confidence about the future is heavily masked by continuing divisions, and by feelings of great insecurity in both communities. People on each side fear for their identity. They still react instinctively, and retreat into the comforting certainties of tradition. We saw this in full measure after the dreadful and depressing events of Drumcree last year. Many have been tempted to conclude that the gulfs cannot be bridged, that one side or the other does not really want a settlement, or at least is not ready to make the compromises necessary to achieve one.

It is a counsel of despair and I am not prepared to accept it. I believe the forces pushing us all towards a settlement are stronger than those that stand in our way. I aim to harness those forces more effectively than in the past. And I want to assure both communities that they have nothing to fear from a settlement and everything to gain.

The Union

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, alongside England, Scotland and Wales.

The Union binds the four parts of the United Kingdom together. I believe in the United Kingdom. I value the Union.
I want to see a Union which reflects and accommodates diversity. I am against a rigid, centralised approach. That is the surest way to weaken the Union. The proposals this government are making for Scotland and Wales, and for the English regions, are designed to bring Government closer to the people. That will renew and strengthen the Union.
I support this approach for Northern Ireland too, with some form of devolution and cross-border arrangements which acknowledge the importance of relationships in the island of Ireland. This is what the negotiations are about. We must of course devise arrangements which match the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Domination by one tradition or another is unacceptable.

But let me make one thing absolutely clear. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because that is the wish of a majority of the people who live here. It will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that remains the case. This principle of consent is and will be at the heart of my Government’s policies on Northern Ireland. It is the key principle.

It means that there can be no possibility of a change in the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom without the clear and formal consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Any settlement must be negotiated not imposed; it must be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; and it must be endorsed by the British Parliament.

Of course, those who wish to see a united Ireland without coercion can argue for it not least in the talks. If they succeeded, we would certainly respect that. But none of us in this hall today, even the youngest, is likely to see Northern Ireland as anything but a part of the United Kingdom. That is the reality, because the consent principle is now almost universally accepted.

All he constitutional parties, including the SDLP, are committed to it, which means a majority of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland is committed to it. The parties in the Irish Republic are committed to it. The one glaring exception is Sinn Fein and the republican movement. They too, I hope, will soon come to accept that vital principle.

So fears of betrayal are simply misplaced. Unionists have nothing to fear from a new Labour government. A political settlement is not a slippery slope to a united Ireland. The government will not be persuaders for unity. Unionism should have more confidence in itself and its future. The wagons do not need to be drawn up in a circle. Instead, we offer reassurance and new hope that a settlement satisfactory to all can be reached.

A Political Settlement

This government is fully committed to the approach set out in the Downing Street Declaration. I believe the Joint Framework Document sets out a reasonable basis for future negotiation. We must create, through open discussion, new institutions which fairly represent the interests and aspirations of both communities.

The challenge, simply put, is to arrive at an agreement with which all the people of Northern Ireland can feel comfortable, and to which they can all give lasting allegiance; one which reflects and celebrates diversity and the traditions and cultures of both communities; which can provide the opportunity for local politicians of both sides to take local decisions as they should.

This is achievable. I know it is. And it can be combined with sensible arrangements for co-operation with the Republic of Ireland, practical and institutional, which will be significant not only on the ground, but also politically for the nationalist community.

If such arrangements were really threatening to Unionists, we would not negotiate them. Any fears would of course be much reduced if the Irish Constitution were changed to reflect their Governments strong support for the consent principle. That must be part of a settlement, and would be a helpful confidence-building step in advance of it.

Nor should nationalists fear for their future. Agreement to any settlement must be clear on both sides. There can be no question of their views being ridden over rough-shod. Their involvement must be complete and full-hearted.
The British and Irish Governments have worked together in the past to make progress. This is a key relationship. I have every confidence we can work together closely in the future, whatever the result of the Irish elections.

Democracy and Violence

These political issues should be addressed in the talks which are due to resume in just over two weeks. Many will share my deep frustration that they have not already been addressed. Discussion has not progressed beyond questions of procedure and participation. The parties have been unable to agree on a way of dealing with decommissioning. We continue to support the parallel approach proposed by George Mitchell. But why has decommissioning been so difficult to tackle successfully?

The truth is that there is no confidence on either side about the motives and intentions of the other. The procedural problems are a product of this deep distrust. Each part often seems utterly convinced of the duplicity of all the others. What gives these suspicions their uniquely corrosive character, on both sides, is the current prominence of violence in the equation.

Violence has no place in a democratic society, whatever the motivation of those practising it. Terrorism, republican or so-called loyalist, is contemptible and unacceptable.

The people here have stood up to terrorist violence for 25 years. They have not been destroyed by it. But the legacy of bitterness has made normal political give and take difficult, at times virtually impossible.

In Britain too we have had our share of terrorist violence from the IRA.

But what struck me about their attempts to disrupt the elections above all was the pathetic futility of these actions, real or hoax. These words are perhaps not new. But they more than ever accurately describe current terrorism in Northern Ireland: not just abhorrent, but pathetic and futile.

What today is the aim of IRA violence:

– Is it a united Ireland? Violence will not bring a united Ireland closer, because now all the parties in Northern Ireland, save Sinn Fein, and the parties in the Republic of Ireland agree consent is the basic principle.

– Is it to defend the nationalist community? It is hard to see, to put it no higher, how killing people and damaging the Province’s economy and local services helps the nationalist community from any point of view.

– Is it to force a way into talks? This is manifestly absurd, since the only obstacle to Sinn Fein joining the talks is the absence of a credible and lasting halt to the violence,

– Do the hope a loyalist backlash or a security crackdown would justify their violence and lead to communal trouble where republican aims might have more chance of flourishing? Such an approach would be the height of cynicism. I hope the Loyalists will not fall for it. The Government certainly won’t.

Any shred of justification terrorists might have claimed for violence has long since disappeared.

Not only does this violence achieve nothing. There is nothing it can achieve, save death, destruction and the corruption of more young lives. Progress can only be made through genuine negotiation and agreement. Violence makes both more difficult and more distant.

Since last June we have had multi-party talks in being – talks which Sinn Fein above all others pressed for, where all parties are treated equally, with a comprehensive agenda, and no predetermined outcome. But the IRA broke their ceasefire just at the point when the conditions for getting everyone round a table were coming together. That violence automatically excluded Sinn Fein from the talks.

They could still have joined on 10 June by declaring a ceasefire. They did not do so. They have continued to miss every opportunity since then.

I want the talks process to include Sinn Fein. The opportunity is still there to be taken, if there is an unequivocal IRA ceasefire. Works and deeds must match, and there must be no doubt of commitment to peaceful methods and the democratic process.

I want the talks to take place in a climate of peace. If there is an opportunity to bring this about, I am ready to seize it. This Government will respond quickly to genuine moves to achieve peace.

But we will be correspondingly tough on those who will not make this move. The IRA and Sinn Fein face a choice between negotiations and violence. Violence is the failed path of the past. I urge them to choose negotiations, once and for all.

If they do not, the talks cannot wait for them but must and will move on. And meanwhile the police and armed forces will continue to bring their full weight to bear on the men of violence.

I am ready to make one further effort to proceed with the inclusive talks process. My message to Sinn Fein is clear. The settlement train is leaving. I want you on that train. But it is leaving anyway, and I will not allow it to wait for you. You cannot hold the process to ransom any longer. So end the violence. Now.

I want to hear Sinn Fein’s answer. And to make sure there is no danger of misunderstanding, I am prepared to allow officials to meet Sinn Fein, provided events on the ground, here and elsewhere, do not make that impossible.

This is not about negotiating the terms of a ceasefire. We simply want to explain our position and to assess whether the republican movement genuinely is ready to give up violence and commit itself to politics alone. If they are, I will not be slow in my response. If they are not, they can expect no sympathy or understanding. I will be implacable in pursuit of terrorism.

Loyalist terrorism is equally contemptible, equally unacceptable, just as futile and counter-productive. The Loyalist paramilitaries have so far maintained their ceasefire in formal terms. I welcome that signal of restraint, as far as it goes, and urge them and those with influence on them to hold fast to it. The Loyalist parties participation in the talks has been welcome and constructive.

But let us have no illusions. Commitment to democracy means no violence or threat of violence. There can be and will be no double standards.

The last few weeks have seen an appalling rush of killings, beatings, arson and intimidation. The vast majority are horrified by these dreadful acts. But they continue in your midst. They are crimes against humanity, which must be stamped out. The police have my full support in taking the firmest possible action against those responsible. And I appeal to the people of Northern Ireland to give their full-heated support too.

Parades

Lurking behind these terrible deeds is the shadow of this summer’s marching season. This is where the clash of identity and allegiance can so easily emerge most directly and most brutally; where the conflict of rights is hardest to resolve: the right to march and the right to live free of disruption and apparent intimidation; where the rule of law is most difficult to uphold, as it must be.

Local agreements solve the vast majority of problems over marches. With minimal goodwill and flexibility, they could solve the rest too – as long as neither side insists on using a particular parade to make a broader political point. That is a dangerous game to play, as last summer showed only too clearly.

The North Report recommended changes to the way marches are handled. We will implement those recommendations quickly, although the new arrangements cannot be in place this summer. The legislation will be able to take account of any lessons from this summer. But the key remains in the hands of the local people on both sides. No-one with any sense wants more Drumcrees. I call on all with any influence on the process to use it for reconciliation, not confrontation.

Security Forces

Those in the front line this summer are not only the marchers and local residents. The police and armed forces will be there to hold the line if necessary, to uphold rights, saves lives and protect property. They get precious little thanks from any quarter. All too often, their reward is to be vilified and attacked from all sides.

So I thank them for their resolution and professionalism, and assure them of my support for the job they do. And I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland no longer needs troops and the police can focus exclusively on ordinary police work.

The Future

I have said Northern Ireland has a bright future if only we get the politics right and the gun out of the picture. You all know that to be true. Look at the advantages you have:

– dynamic and enterprising businesses and businessmen
– a record of success on inward investment, despite the violence
– a workforce ready to take every opportunity
– a potential quality of life second to none in the United Kingdom
– huge tourist potential

This Government will be building on that potential. The raising of education and training standards, and measures to put the unemployed back to work, will be particularly relevant here. We will be introducing further measures to promote equality of opportunity in the labour market.

We are also determined to build trust and confidence in pubic institutions. Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law will help protect basic human rights. We want to increase public confidence in policing through measured reform based on the Hayes Report on the complaints system and last years consultation paper on structural change.

All this will help to make Northern Ireland a more prosperous, more democratic part of Britain, where opportunities really are equal for all. Yet governments cannot deliver without the help of the people themselves.

Overcoming violence and prejudice, and learning to compromise and live together, is your responsibility as much as it is ours. The politicians of Northern Ireland, who show great courage in accepting positions of prominence, will have to show leadership and vision. They need and deserve your support. The business community of Northern Ireland have a vital role to play. Some are already doing so. But too many hang back and blame the politicians rather than helping them find a way forward. It is no good just hoping peace will come. Everyone in a position of authority or influence will need to use that authority and influence in the direction of reconciliation and co-operation.

Let me add a word on BSE, an issue bound to be of huge concern to many of those here today. I will not promise you progress I cannot deliver. It is a grim inheritance from the previous government.

I am fully aware of the importance of the beef industry in Northern Ireland and the desperate need to get the export market re-opened. As you all know, Northern Ireland is better placed than other parts of the United Kingdom, because of your foresight and efficiency, to benefit from any relaxation of the export ban. The certified herds proposal before the Commission and our partners is one way forward which can bring early cheer to Northern Ireland. There may be others. We are looking at the options.

What I can say is that I will leave no avenue unexplored. I know how vital this is.

Conclusion

Northern Ireland is safe in the hands of this Government.

But I want to see it peaceful and prosperous as never before.

You all remember the 17 months of the ceasefire, and the joy of calm and normality they brought. That is what I want to recreate, this time for good.

I and my Government have five years ahead of us to do this. With your help, we can. The chance is there, for now. It will not be there forever.

August 12, 2020
Tony Blair – 2001 Doorstep Interview During Visit of President Musharraf

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

PRIME MINISTER

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

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

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

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

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

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

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

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

QUESTION

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

PRIME MINISTER

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

QUESTION

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

PRIME MINISTER

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

QUESTION

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

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

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

QUESTION

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

PRIME MINISTER

He gets two questions.

PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF

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

PRIME MINISTER

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

August 12, 2020