Downing Street Years - Margaret Thatcher [301]
* In February 1993 former senior Soviet officials confirmed precisely this point at a conference at Princeton University on the end of the Cold War.
CHAPTER XVII
Putting the World to Rights
Diplomacy towards and visits to the Far East, the Middle East and Africa — 1984–1990
When I was in Opposition I was very doubtful of the value of high-profile public diplomacy. To some extent I remain so. My political philosophy in domestic affairs is founded on a deep scepticism about the ability of politicians to change the fundamentals of the economy or society: the best they can do is to create a framework in which people’s talents and virtues are mobilized not crushed. Similarly, in foreign affairs, the underlying realities of power are not transformed by meetings and understandings between heads of government. A country with a weak economy, an unstable social base or an ineffective administration cannot compensate for these — at least for long — with an ambitious diplomatic programme. That said, my experience as Prime Minister did convince me that a skilfully conducted foreign policy based on strength can magnify a country’s influence and allow progess to be made in dealing with thorny problems around the world. As the years went by, I put increasing effort into international diplomacy.
But it is still necessary to have a clear idea of the potential and the limits of statesmanship. The twin, opposing, temptations of the statesman are hubris and timidity. It is easy to subscribe to ringing declarations and ambitious global plans. It is a great deal harder to balance vision with practical measures and persistence. Under some circumstances, to try definitively to ‘solve’ a long-standing problem will be to make it worse. Under others, even a brief delay will mean an opportunity lost. The statesman has to be able to distinguish between the two, always knowing the destination; never presuming that the path is open; then, when it is, pressing ahead with every means available.
And in all this one should never lose sight of the importance of the personal chemistry which exists between those who conduct their nation’s affairs. I found myself liking and respecting — and sometimes heartily disliking and distrusting — heads of government not just as politicians but as people. I did so irrespective of colour, creed or political opinion. Personal relations must never become a substitute for hard-headed pursuit of national interests. But nor should any statesman ignore their importance. Foreign visits allowed me to meet, talk to and seek to influence heads of government on their own ground. These visits gave me insights into the way those I dealt with in the clinical atmosphere of great international conferences actually lived and felt. Moreover, it gave others a chance to know me. Longevity has its drawbacks and difficulties in domestic politics, where the media are always longing for a new face. But in foreign affairs there is a huge and cumulative advantage in simply being known both by politicians and by ordinary people around the world.
All of these elements were present in my dealings with and visits to the Far East, the Middle East and Africa. In these regions — in the last case a whole continent — the struggle between East and West was being waged by influence and by arms. But in each that contest also worked upon other issues particular to the region.
In the Far East, the dominant long-term questions concerned the future role