|
MARGARET THATCHER SPEAKING - 1979
The West in the World Today
Go here for more about
Margaret Thatcher.
Go here for more about
Margaret Thatcher's Foreign Policy
Speech.
It follows the full text transcript of
Margaret Thatcher's The West in the World Today speech, delivered at the
Hilton Hotel in New York - December 18, 1979.
 |
As I speak today,
1979 - and with it the 1970s - has less than two
weeks to run. |
I myself will have
some reasons to remember both the year and the
decade with affection. But in general few, I
suspect, will regret the passing of either.
The last 10 years have not been a happy period
for the western democracies domestically or
internationally. Self-questioning is essential
to the health of any society. But we perhaps
have carried it too far and carried to extremes
of course it causes paralysis. The time has come
when the west—above all Europe and the United
States—must begin to substitute action for
introspection.
We face a new decade—I have called it "the
dangerous decade"—in which the challenges to our
security and to our way of life may if anything
be more acute than in the 1970s. The response of
western nations and their leaders will need to
be firm, calm and concerted. Neither weakness
nor anger nor despair will serve us. The
problems are daunting but there is in my view
ample reason for optimism.
Interdependence
Few international problems today lend themselves
to simple solutions. One reason is that few such
problems can any longer be treated in isolation.
Increasingly they interact one between the
other. Thanks to a still accelerating
technological revolution we become daily more
aware that the earth and its resources are
finite and in most respects shrinking.
The fact of global interdependence—I apologize
for the jargon—is nothing new. Four hundred
years ago South American gold and silver helped
to cause inflation in Europe—an early example of
the evils of excess money supply. Two hundred
years ago men fought in India and along the
Great Lakes here in America in order that, as
Macaulay put it, the King of Prussia might rob a
neighbor whom he had promised to defend.
But the popular perception of interdependence
lagged far behind the fact. When I was in my
teens a British Prime Minister could still refer
to Czechoslovakia as "a far-away country" of
whose quarrels the British people knew nothing:
and an American President could still experience
difficulty in persuading his people of the need
to concern themselves with a European war.
Today it is painfully obvious that no man—and no
nation—is an island. What President Cleveland
once described as "foreign broils" are brought
into every home. The price of oil in Saudi
Arabia and Nigeria, the size of the grain
harvest in Kansas and the Ukraine—these are of
immediate concern to people all over the world.
The Middle East and the middle west have become
neighbors and will remain so, uncomfortable
though they may on occasion find it. The bell
tolls for us all.
This has been
tragically underlined in recent weeks. The world
has watched with anger and dismay the events in
Tehran. We have all felt involved with the fate
of the hostages. Nothing can excuse the
treatment they have received: for hundreds of
years the principle of the immunity of the
messenger and the diplomat has been respected.
Now this principle, central to the civilized
conduct of relations between states, is being
systematically flouted.
We in Britain have respected and supported the
calmness and resolution with which President
Carter has handled an appalling situation. With
our partners in Europe we have given full public
and private support to his efforts to secure the
unconditional release of the hostages. We will
continue to support and help in any way we can.
Above all we have admired the forbearance with
which the American people have responded to the
indignities inflicted upon their fellow
citizens. That restraint has undoubtedly been in
the best interests of the captives.
The Iranian crisis
epitomizes the problems which we face in trying
to co-exist in a shrinking world where
political, economic and social upheavals are
endemic. Some would add religious upheavals to
that list. But I do not believe we should judge
Islam by events in Iran. Least of all should we
judge it by the taking of hostages. There is a
tide of self-confidence and self-awareness in
the Muslim world which preceded the Iranian
revolution, and will outlast its present
excesses. The West should recognize this with
respect, not hostility. The Middle East is an
area where we all have much at stake. It is in
our own interests, as well as in the interests
of the people of that region, that they build on
their own deep religious traditions. We do not
wish to see them succumb to the fraudulent
appeal of imported Marxism.
Because, to look beyond the Middle East, I am
convinced that there is little force left in the
original Marxist stimulus to revolution. Its
impetus is petering out as the practical failure
of the doctrine becomes daily more obvious. It
has failed to take root in the advanced
democracies. In those countries where it has
taken root—countries backward or, by tradition,
authoritarian—it has failed to provide sustained
economic or social development. What is left is
a technique of subversion and a collection of
catch-phrases. The former, the technique of
subversion, is still dangerous. Like terrorism
it is a menace that needs to be fought wherever
it occurs—and British prime ministers have had
reason to speak with some passion about
terrorism in recent years. As for the
catch-phrases of Marxism, they still have a
certain drawing power. But they have home in the
countries which are ruled by the principles of
Marx. Communist regimes can no longer conceal
the gulf that separates their slogans from
reality in the countries where they rule.
The immediate
threat from the Soviet Union is military rather
than ideological. The threat is not only to our
security in Europe and North America but also,
both directly and by proxy, in the Third World.
I've often spoken about the military challenge
which the West faces today. And I have sometimes
been deliberately misunderstood, especially by
my enemies who've labeled me The Iron Lady.
They're quite right—I am. Let me, therefore,
restate a few simple propositions.
The Soviet Union continues to proclaim the
ideological struggle. It asserts that the demise
of the western political system is inevitable.
It neglects the fact that few indeed who live in
western democracies show any sign of wanting to
exchange their system for that operated by the
Russians.
In 1919 Lenin
said, "World imperialism cannot live side by
side with a victorious Soviet revolution—the one
or the other will be victorious in the end."
The Soviet
government have not repudiated this threatening
prediction. Indeed they broadcast their
ambitions wholesale. They should not be
surprised if we listen and take note.
Meanwhile they expand their armed forces on
land, sea and air. They continually improve the
quality of their armaments. They and their
allies outnumber us in Europe. Their men, their
ships, and their aircraft appear ever more
regularly in parts of the world where they have
never been seen before. Their Cuban and East
German proxies likewise.
We can argue about Soviet motives. But the fact
is that the Russians have the weapons and are
getting more of them. It is simple prudence for
the West to respond. We in Britain intend to do
that to the best of our ability and at every
level including the strategic. President Carter
has shown that he intends to do likewise. And
the alliance last week decided to modernize its
long-range theatre nuclear weapons. This in due
course will help to balance the new and
sophisticated weapons the Russians already have
targeted on Europe. The strategic power of the
USA in the western alliance remains paramount.
But I would underline the contribution of the
European members of NATO—a contribution which is
never overlooked by the Russians.
Modern weapons are totally destructive and
immensely expensive. It is in nobody's interest
that they should be piled up indefinitely. It
makes good sense for both sides to seek
agreements on arms control which preserve the
essential security of each. We in Britain have
therefore supported the talks on strategic arms
limitation and on mutual and balanced force
reductions. The British government hopes that
the SALT II agreement can be ratified.
I have been attacked by the Soviet government
for arguing that the West should put itself in a
position to negotiate from strength. But in
saying this, I have done no more than echo the
constant ambition of the Soviet government
itself.
I am not talking about negotiations from a
position of superiority. What I am seeking is a
negotiation in which we and they start from a
position of balance: and if both sides can
negotiate, genuinely, to maintain that balance
at lower levels, I shall be well content. It is
in that spirit that I approach the proposals
which have recently been made by President
Brezhnev and others.
The East/West
conflict permeates most global issues. But other
equally pressing problems have arisen. These
affect above all the world economy and the
relationship between the developed western world
and the newly emerging countries of Latin
America, Africa and Asia.
No country can today escape economic involvement
with the economies of others. In the UK external
trade has always been of central importance to
our economy. In the USA this has been less so.
But recently you have become much more dependent
on overseas countries. 10 years ago you imported
some 5 percent of your oil. Now it is 50
percent. But it is not just oil—this has obvious
consequences for your foreign policy. So, rich
and poor, communist and non-communist, oil
producers and oil consumers—our economic welfare
is increasingly effected by the operation of the
market. Increasingly effected by the growing
demand of complex industries for scarce
materials and by the pressure on the world's
finite resources of fossil fuels.
All of this has coincided with a prolonged
period of uneasiness in the world's economy. The
immediate prospects are somber: inflation will
be difficult to eradicate: growth has fallen
sharply from its earlier levels: there is a
constant threat of disorder in the world oil
market. News of recent price rises can only have
added to the general uncertainty which is one of
the most damaging consequences of the present
oil situation. The task of economic management,
both nationally and internationally, is becoming
more and more difficult. The precarious balance
of the world economy could at any time be shaken
by political upheavals in one or more countries
over which the rest of us might have very little
influence.
In these circumstances, we all have a direct
practical interest in the orderly settlement of
political disputes.
These were some
considerations which, in addition to the obvious
ones, persuaded the new British government of
the need for a decisive effort to secure a
settlement in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. As you know,
after months of strenuous negotiation, overall
agreement was finally reached yesterday on the
new constitution, arrangements for free and fair
elections, and a ceasefire. The agreement
secured in London showed that even the most
intractable problem will yield to the necessary
combination of resolve and resolve is one of the
most significant things in politics and
imagination. Concessions were made by all sides.
Many difficult decisions were involved—not least
for the British government, which found itself
acquiring a new colony, albeit for a short
period. We are grateful for the forceful and
timely support we received throughout the
negotiations from the United States government,
and from President Carter personally, especially
in the final stages.
We have no illusion about the practical problems
of implementing this agreement on the ground,
against a background of years of bitter
conflict. But now is a time for reconciliation,
and for restoring normal relations between all
the states in the area. The Lancaster House
agreement could prove a major step towards
peaceful evolution and away from violent
revolution in Southern Africa. We are encouraged
to persevere with the five power initiative to
achieve an all-party settlement in Namibia.
In this context I want to say a particular word
about South Africa. There is now a real prospect
that the conflicts on South Africa's borders, in
Rhodesia and Namibia, will shortly be ended.
This, combined with welcome initiatives on South
African domestic policies, offer a chance to
defuse a regional crisis which was potentially
of the utmost gravity, and to make progress
towards an ending of the isolation of South
Africa in world affairs.
We must not regard
these problems as insoluble. The West has
immense material and moral assets. To those
assets must be added the clarity to see where
our strengths should be used: the will and
confidence to use them with precision: and the
stamina to see things through.
Let us never forget that despite the
difficulties to which I have referred, the
western democracies remain overwhelmingly strong
in economic terms. We are, it is true, more
vulnerable than before. Vulnerable because of
the specialization and complexity of our
societies. It is vital, therefore, that we keep
a steady nerve and that we concert our policies.
We already agree on the basic requirements—on
the need to defeat inflation: to avoid
protectionism: to use our limited energy
resources better. And as we deal with the
problems our inherent vitality will reassert
itself. There is, after all, no discernible
challenge to the role of the western democracies
as the driving force of the world economy.
The political strength and stability of the West
is equally striking. Pre-occupied by passing
political dramas, we often overlook the real
sturdiness of our political institutions. They
are not seriously challenged from within. They
meet the aspirations of ordinary people. They
attract the envy of all those who do not have
them. In the 35 years since the last war, they
have shown themselves remarkably resistant to
subversive influences.
Our democratic systems have made it possible to
organize our relationships with one another on a
healthy basis. The North Atlantic alliance and
the European Community are—and remain-free
associations of free peoples. Policies are
frankly debated. Of course the debates are often
lively and occasionally heated. But those
debates are a sign of strength, just as the
regimented agreements of the communist alliances
are marks of weakness.
The argument now going on in the European
Community is a case in point. The Community is
used to debate, often difficult and prolonged.
We are seeing at present something more serious
than many of the disputes which have taken place
in the past. But the interests that unite the
members of the Community are stronger than those
which divide them—particularly when viewed in
the light of other international problems. I
believe that these common interests will assert
themselves. I am confident that an acceptable
solution will be found and that the European
Community will emerge fortified from the debate.
And a strong Europe is the best partner for the
United States. It is on the strength of that
partnership that the strength of the free world
depends.
The last asset I want to mention today is the
West's relationship with the countries of the
Third World. Neither recent events: nor past
injustices: nor the outdated rhetoric of
anti-colonialism can disguise the real
convergence of interest between the Third World
and the West.
It is we in the West who have the experience and
contacts the Third World needs. We supply most
of the markets for their goods and their raw
materials. We supply most of the technology they
require. We provide them with private investment
as well as government aid.
We do this not only for our own sake but also
because we support the efforts of the countries
of the third world to develop their own
economies.
I have only been
able to touch on a few current international
issues. There are many I have not mentioned. Nor
would I wish anyone to think that I
underestimate the difficulties, particularly on
the domestic economic front, faced by Britain
and our western partners, including the United
States. But these difficulties can and will be
overcome provided we do not undervalue ourselves
nor decry our strength. We shall need
self-confidence to tackle the dangerous decade.
It is a time for action, action for the
eighties:
We must restore the dynamic to our economies.
We must modernize our defense.
We must continue to seek agreement with the
East.
We must help the developing countries to help
themselves.
We must work together to improve the world
economy through our international trading and
financial institutions.
We must conserve our resources of energy and
especially fossil fuels.
We must achieve an understanding with the oil
producers which benefits us all.
We must never fail to assert our faith in
freedom and our belief on the institutions which
sustain it.
The cynics among you will say that none of this
is new. Quite right. It isn't. But there are no
new magic formulae. We know what we have have to
do. Our problems will only yield to sustained
effort. That is the challenge of political
leadership.
Enduring success never comes easily to an
individual or to a country. To quote Walt
Whitman, "It takes struggles in life to make
strength. It takes fight for principles to make
fortitude. It takes crisis to give courage and
singleness of purpose to reach an objective."
Let us go down in
history as the generation which not only
understood what needed to be done but a
generation which had the strength, the self
discipline and the resolve to see it through.
That is our generation. That is our task for the
80s.
More History
|
|
