4 April 2002
Transcript of interview for NBC given by the Prime Minister Tony Blair
Israel and the Palestinian Authority
Interviewer:
In the past few months scores of Palestinians and Israelis have been killed, it seems we are hearing about a suicide bombing a day in Israel during the past week, Israeli tanks and soldiers have launched an all out campaign against the Palestinians demanding Yasser Arafat be exiled. Is the situation there in your view the most explosive it has been in decades?
Prime Minister:
Yes, without any doubt at all. It is a tragic situation that has the makings of a catastrophe in it, and indeed for those people that are already living there and experiencing it, it will be a catastrophe for them. And we have simply got to get back to a proper political process. There is simply no other way to deal with this. We can spend time condemning this side or that side, that is not the issue, the hatred and bitterness there at the moment is so deep that we have to re-engage with the political process. That is why I think the President was right to send General Zinni there, that is why I think it is important that America and ourselves and everyone came behind the recent United Nations resolution calling upon both sides to cease the violence and we have simply got to reconstitute a proper political process there is no other way of doing it.
Interviewer:
But the UN resolution called for the Israelis to pull their tanks out of Ramallah and the Israelis haven’t budged, in fact they have widened their offensive since that UN resolution was passed?
Prime Minister:
Of course, and the Israelis should come out of Ramallah and the occupied territories, the Palestinians should stop the terrorism and the violence, but it is not going to stop in my view unless there is a proper political process in place. I come at this from a slightly different perspective. We went through this in Northern Ireland and I remember in the 1970s when there were bombs going off in British pubs, where there were scores of people being killed, nothing as bad, as terrible as what is happening in the Middle East but still terrible for people here. And for 20 years the Republicans and elements of Irish nationalism engaged in terrorism, we engaged in counter measures and reprisals, we felt deeply that these were terrorists who deserved nothing but the full force of law against them. And yet in the end everyone understood that there was no way there was simply a security answer to the problem, of course security is one part of it but we also have to have a political process in which the basic causes of the conflict can be resolved and that is what has got to happen now, and whether we do it now, or in six months time, or in a year’s time, the sooner we do it it seems to me the better. And I have been saying this for a year now, we need some minimum steps of security agreed between the parties and that is precisely why I think that as I say President Bush is right to engage the parties in that process, we need then to get into what are agreed plans that have already been worked out so that we can eventually come into a proper political process and resolve this issue, and resolve it on the only basis it will ever be resolved which is a recognition by the Arab world of the right of Israel to exist, secure within its own borders, and the recognition that there will be out of the process of negotiation a viable Palestinian state.
Interviewer:
This does assume that Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon would be willing to sit down at the negotiating table earlier this week. Prime Minister Sharon said he wanted Arafat to go into exile and offered him ‘a one-way ticket’ and he would not be able to return. That doesn’t exactly sound like an invitation to sit down and talk about peace?
Prime Minister:
No, but you know again something that we learnt from our peace process in Northern Ireland is that when the hatred is this bad, and you have just got to try and understand what is happening out there, there are suicide bombers going into parts of Israel blowing up people in cafes and restaurants, scores of totally innocent people being killed in these terrible terrorist acts, and then the Israeli troops are moving in and of course there are innocent people killed there and there will be people who on the Palestinian side feel humiliated, feel not just angry but a sense of pent-up fury at what is happening. In that situation where the two sides are so locked in conflict like that, they can’t get together without an external force bringing them together, and as I say that is why I support the efforts that the United States is making and I think we have got to deepen that process, it is one of the things obviously I will discuss with the President over the course of the next few days.
Interviewer:
Do you think the United States is doing enough? The Bush Administration has come under increasing criticism about its policy vis a vis the Middle East, critics say that President Bush has not been active enough, that he has not had enough of an ongoing dialogue with either Yasser Arafat or Ariel Sharon. The New York Times said: ‘The White House took too long to appreciate the gravity of the crisis and even now it underlies its tentative efforts with inconsistent messages.’ Is that criticism warranted in your view?
Prime Minister:
I don’t think it is warranted, no. I know from the conversations I have had with the President that he has engaged with this process, after all the plans of Tenant and Mitchell are evidence of that, the mission of General Zinni to the region is powerful evidence of that, but the fact is the situation is so serious that we are going to have to engage even more.
Interviewer:
And with all due respect, Mr Prime Minister, it is not working, this whole idea of having a cease-fire followed by talks is not effective at this juncture. Is it necessary to have a policy that is more dramatic and decisive and bolder?
Prime Minister:
There are things that we will no doubt discuss over the next few days that can be done and I think those are discussions I should have first with the President. But I agree the situation is so serious that we have to engage and engage fundamentally and as I said to you a moment or two ago, I don’t believe this will happen unless there is external force and pressure, not in the sense of trying to push people into positions they don’t want to be pushed into, but in attempting to settle the situation sufficiently, give people something to aim for that isn’t the next day’s conflict. And again, and forgive me if I go back to this, but in Northern Ireland what I learnt about these processes is that they never stay in the same place, they go forward or they go backwards but you can’t lock them in a moment of time. And if people believe there is no political process to aim at then the terrorists start their bombing campaigns and then the other side take reprisals because their public is up in arms saying why aren’t you doing something about it, and in the end I am afraid, as I say, security is part of the answer to this but the only ultimate answer is politics.
Interviewer:
Do you have to dangle a carrot in front of the nose of each side to get them to the bargaining table?
Prime Minister:
Well it is maybe not the phrase I would use but I think what you have to do is to be sufficiently engaged that they both know that there is an active political process and that they are best putting their efforts and energy into that than into as I say the next day’s conflict.
Interviewer:
And there is something to be gained by each side. What should be gained by each side to get them to this political process?
Prime Minister:
In the end, how you put all the detail of this together is an open question, but in the end the two fixed points of principle are obvious which is the state of Israel, secure and confident in its own borders, and a viable Palestinian state. Now there are huge issues to be resolved there, issues to do with Jerusalem, refugees, the exact state of the territory, but we came a long way in the previous processes between Israel and the Palestinians. So it is not a hopeless undertaking but there is no way that people will have the trust and confidence in each other even to make the minimal steps towards that unless they are helped.
Interviewer:
Can there be a viable Palestinian state under the leadership of Ariel Sharon?
Prime Minister:
Yes, I believe that Prime Minister Sharon knows that in the end he can’t accuse the person that he deals with on the Palestinian side, and likewise that the Palestinians aren’t going to depart the situation. Again if you look at it from the outside, and it is difficult sometimes when the people are so heavily involved with such feelings and such strength on either side, but if you look at it from the outside, the Palestinians are not going to go away and neither is the state of Israel. Now in the end we either carry on the killing and the bloodshed and then at some point people come to their senses and engage with the political process that yields something, or we just carry on the bloodshed and never come to a political process. But the Palestinians are not going to leave and neither are the Israelis and I understand this, the reason why people sometimes say to me why aren’t you out there condemning this side, condemning that side, there is no point in doing that. I understand from the point of view of Prime Minister Sharon if he is sitting there and his people are getting blown up, as I say, in cafes and restaurants in acts of terrorism, he is under huge pressure to take action. I also understand the point of view of the Palestinians who see their elected President holed up in his headquarters in Ramallah with virtually no connection to the outside world and the humiliation that they feel as a result of that. Now what we have got to do is to try and help put both sides back into a sufficient process of dialogue that we get a proper political partnership going again, because that is the only answer in the end, and after all the killings stop you will come back to that.
Interviewer:
Can there be a secure Israel under the leadership of Yasser Arafat?
Prime Minister:
Yes, I believe that Chairman Arafat knows that Israel has got to be recognised in its existence and that those changes that he underwent in his policy when the discussions were ongoing with Prime Minister Barak sometime ago, those changes were real changes in the Palestinian position, I personally have to take the view that it is not just the Palestinians that have to recognise the state of Israel, I think this has to be recognised within the Arab world because Israel is a small country surrounded by countries who have over the years evidenced a deep hostility. Now by stages over the decades they have formed relations with certain of those countries, but I think we really need, if we are going to make a breakthrough in this, we really need to face up to those two fundamental issues that the Arab world must recognise the existence of the state of Israel and do it positively and explicitly. And for its part Israel and the broader world must recognise that out of the negotiated process will come a viable Palestinian state where people can then live side by side in peace.
Interviewer:
Are you optimistic?
Prime Minister:
Optimistic would be slightly foolish at the moment, wouldn’t it, with everything that is happening there, but should we give up? No, we have got to carry on because in the end the only basis upon which we can get this thing done is to carry on. And as I say, if you look at Northern Ireland today, if you had asked people in Britain 10 years ago, is there any chance of a viable peace process there, when people were still being killed, hundreds every year, when unemployment in Northern Ireland was so high because no-one would locate there because of all the terrorism, when we had troops in every part of Northern Ireland. If you look at Northern Ireland today, yes there are still huge problems but you have got all those people in government together, you have got all the main institutions in place, you have got two-thirds of Northern Ireland without any troop movements at all, you go to Belfast today you can go in the summer time and sit outside in the cafes without any threat or worry at all and unemployment in Northern Ireland is no longer the highest in the United Kingdom. Now that came about because of the political process and we have got to do the same. Ultimately we will come back to that, I have no doubt about that.
Interviewer:
Some have suggested NATO troops oversee the gradual emergence of a Palestinian State, does that seem a wise move to you?
Prime Ministe:
I don’t think yoru can put any of those things into the equation until they have been really thoroughly discussed with both sides.
Meeting with President Bush
Interviewer:
Let’s move on to your meeting with President Bush this weekend in Texas, your trip has been called a War Summit, how would you describe it?
Prime Minister:
Well there is a discussion between us of all the outstanding issues and I have got no doubt that the Middle East peace process will form a very, very important part of our discussions because I know the President is extremely worried about the situation, so am I, and the outside world would find it very curious if that didn’t dominate a large part of the discussions there. But of course also we will discuss the ongoing war against terrorism and the next phases of that and how we make sure that the world doesn’t forget that 11 September happened, that there are still many people there in terrorist networks who threaten us and that we have to make sure that we deal with all the potential threats the world faces, including the weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq
Interviewer:
That brings me to Iraq, what to do about Iraq I understand is going to be high on the agenda. This week Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld said Iran, Iraq and Syria are ‘fostering a cult of murder’. Do you agree with that statement?
Prime Minister:
Well I believe, everyone chooses their own words in this, but I do believe there is a real danger with weapons of mass destruction and two or three days after 11 September when I made my first statement to the British House of Commons, I said specifically that the next problem that we would face would be the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and one thing perhaps we have learned after 11 September is that it is better to take action and to analyse and look carefully at problems before they erupt in the type of tragedy that we saw on 11 September rather than wait for that tragedy to occur.
Interviewer:
While 71% of Britain supported your response to 11 September back in the Autumn, only 34% think your government should join the Americans in military action against Iraq. Do you think there should be military action against Iraq and how will you persuade people in your country that it is appropriate?
Prime Minister:
We are not proposing military action at this point in time and what I will say to people when they ask me about Iraq is look it is very clear, weapons of mass destruction are an issue, Saddam Hussein is in breach of all the United Nations Security Council resolutions on that subject, we don’t have the weapons inspectors back in to make sure he is not developing those weapons of mass destruction, indeed we believe he is developing those weapons, but how we take that process forward, what action we take, that is a matter that is open, it is up for discussion, no decisions have been taken yet. And I think it unwise for us to speculate about this type of military action or that type of military action before we are in the position to take decisions. And so it is hardly surprising frankly if people are concerned about military action in Iraq at this present time because we are not suggesting it at this present time.
Interviewer:
But down the road potentially?
Prime Minister:
It depends what happens, and the issue of the weapons inspectors is obviously very important, as President Bush has said, and there is no doubt there is a problem, we have to deal with it, but how we deal with it, I think we should announce the decisions at the time we make them.
Interviewer:
Why do you think that weapons inspectors would (a) be allowed by the Iraqis, and (b) be any more effective than they were before they were expelled in 1998 when Saddam Hussein virtually played a shell-game with these weapons?
Prime Minister:
Well that is a good point, it is exactly why if the weapons inspectors do go back in they have got to go back in unconditionally and in circumstances where they can do their job properly. Where they were able to do their job they did have an impact.
Interviewer:
Tell me, can you briefly outline why you are so concerned about Iraq? I know that you believe that 11 September should serve as a major wake-up call to the entire world about dangerous nations, why are you so concerned about Iraq in terms of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
Prime Minister:
There are three reasons briefly. First of all, Saddam Hussein is somebody who, until contained by us, first of all engaged in a war with Iran, a million people died, then invaded Kuwait, we had to launch the Gulf war in order to repel him, and thirdly has actually used chemical weapons against his own people, he has killed thousands of them - the Kurds. We know that he has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons, we know that he is trying to acquire nuclear capability, we know that he is trying to develop ballistic missile capability of a greater range. This is a man who on any basis is dangerous. If you read, never mind actually from the outside world, read what he does to the Iraqi people, the brutality, the oppression, the dictatorship, the murder of political opponents, it is a filthy regime. Now it is obviously an issue that we have got to be concerned with. What exactly we do in respect of it, as I say that is an open matter and a matter for discussion, but I think it would be a bizarre position for anyone to take in saying either Saddam Hussein is not a problem that we need to worry about, or alternatively that is someone who can be trusted as a force of stability in the region, he plainly isn’t.
Interviewer:
But having outlined how dangerous he is, isn’t any kind of military conflict with Iraq in the future a very frightening proposition? Who is to say he wouldn’t unleash some of these chemical, nuclear and biological weapons if attacked militarily?
Prime Minister:
The very fact that you posit that as a serious thing that he might do is an indication frankly of how people do recognise what a treat he is. But as I say, we have got to discuss this, work out what is the best way to proceed, and I think a fairly good idea of how the President views these matters lies in his response after 11 September. I can tell you a lot of people here and in Europe were quite convinced that the Americans, straight after 11 September, would launch strikes, that they would lash out, that they wouldn’t sit there and deliberate with allies. That is not what they did. The President went through a very, very deliberative process, he consulted allies, he worked out the right military strategy, he took action and by and large in Afghanistan it has been successful.
Interviewer:
Having said that, will you urge restraint when it comes to Iraq during your meeting this weekend?
Prime Minister:
I know people sometimes think it is my job to sit there restraining this or restraining that. It is a dialogue and it is a discussion about strategy from points of agreement, in exactly the same way that in Afghanistan I had absolutely no doubt whatever that we had to go after the al Q’aida network, that we had to remove the Taliban regime. The discussion we had, it wasn’t a question of restraining the President, the discussion was what is the best way of doing it? We worked out the best way, we did it. Now in respect of Iraq it is exactly the same.
Interviewer:
I will get to Afghanistan in a moment. I don’t want to harp on this but I want to ask you one last question about Iraq. Support for military action against Iraq is hardly overwhelming. The 11 Arab countries like President Cheney visited recently did not back the idea and you failed to win support from your European colleagues at the EU summit last month. Doesn’t that portend great difficulty in galvanising an international coalition that might support this, even down the road?
Prime Minister:
I should just correct you on one thing. It was widely reported that no support had been given at the European Summit, but in fact it wasn’t an issue at the European Summit, and I think you will find that European countries will make up their minds very much on the basis of the types of factor that I am outlining. So sometimes people here, somebody quoted here in the papers the other day saying I couldn’t possibly support a full scale invasion of Iraq tomorrow. Well no-one is suggesting that. So I think what people should do is wait to make their judgment until they see the judgments that we have made. I have no doubt at all that the President will discuss this closely with other allies, not just Britain but other allies too, I have discussed this with European leaders of course and will continue to do so, and I think that provided we do the right thing people will support it. Now what the right thing is in these particular set of circumstances, that is a matter that time will tell.
Interviewer:
But you will discuss a potential framework that could conceivably lead to military action down the road, is that safe to say?
Prime Minister:
It is safe to say this, because I am not going to get drawn into a hypothesis of this or that military action, but it is safe to say this, that we will of course discuss how we deal with what is a major threat to the stability of the region and the wider world, but that will form part of a discussion which will include as I say things like the Middle East and many other issues as well.
Afghanistan
Interviewer:
Who do you think is the bigger threat to world security, Saddam Hussein or Usama bin Laden?
Prime Minister:
I don’t know that you set out to have a league table, but both in their own way are a clear threat because both operate without any sense of democratic values, without any regard for the sanctity of human life and the terrorist network that bin Laden put together was a monstrous thing that did terrible damage to people, not just in America but elsewhere. And Saddam as I say, you look at the things that he has done to his own people, the people that have been murdered just for breathing a word of criticism, the appalling torture facilities that he has for opponents of the regime, the utter fear in which people live in Iraq. As I say, none of that means that we are going to take this action or that action, but I hope people when they look at Saddam Hussein realise that that is someone who represents the very antithesis of all the values that we stand for.
Interviewer:
Usama bin Laden, where is he?
Prime Minister:
Well we don’t know that at the moment. What we do know is that his network is effectively destroyed, certainly in Afghanistan. Many of his main lieutenants, as you know, have either been captured or killed, but his exact whereabouts we don’t know now.
Interviewer:
Why do you think he has proven to be so elusive?
Prime Minister:
Because I think that he will have been planning for this for some time I guess. But I think the most important thing is to have dismantled that terrorist network. You know we only know now better, after we went into Afghanistan, exactly what that network was like. Once you discover the training camps, the sheer scale of the facilities that they had, the notebooks that we have discovered detailing the types of terrorist activity they want to be engaged in, this was a terrorist training ground literally for thousands and thousands of people, and of course it was kept afloat often by the drugs money. 70% of the world’s heroin comes from Afghanistan, 90% of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan which is one important reason why we are trying to do something about it now.
Interviewer:
But there are currently al Q’aida cells in 60 countries worldwide. Are you afraid that terrorists in these cells may be plotting another attack? Afghanistan is just one country, and yes it may be the base of operations, but it certainly does not mean that al Q’aida has been obliterated?
Prime Minister:
No, that is absolutely right, which is why we have to carry on pursuing those remnants of the terrorist cells. It is a huge blow to the al Q’aida not to have the base in Afghanistan, it was centre if you like of the whole operation, and so having removed that the tentacles are more easy to deal with. But you are right, we don’t know what is still out there. And one of the things I constantly say to people is we live in a world today where, it is sometimes hard to understand this, but the world is so much more interconnected and these terrorists have often the technological capability, as well as an ability to plan operations in a way that we just haven’t known before, and that is why it is important that we remain totally vigilant, that we try and cut off their sources of finance and that we deal with the next stage of this, which is as I say the weapons of mass destruction. And I think one of the toughest things in politics sometimes is to persuade people that if something isn’t right on their doorstep worrying them, you know on their street corner, visible, that they should still worry about it. When 11 September happened it was such an event of such tragic drama that everyone around the world said OK fine we understand, but things have got to happen, but it is amazing how memories fade and it is also amazing how then when you describe to people this issue of weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation, people sometimes think yes well all right but do we really need to do something about it now? And the answer is that it certainly is a smart thing to do.
Interviewer:
Before it is too late.
Prime Minister:
Yes, before it is too late, absolutely. Because there are these weapons of mass destruction and, sure, you may go on for several years as a world and one of these dictatorships won’t use those weapons, but then you may wake up one day and find that they do. And the thing about some of these other countries, which is why I think it is important that we have in a sense different strategies for different countries, they may have similar characteristics but you deal with them in a different way, is that some of those countries, I think Syria is an example of this, that you actually offer a way out of this situation and into a different and better partnership with the west. On the other hand, there are some regimes, like Saddam’s in Iraq, where you are never going to be able to come to an arrangement or a partnership with them. So in each of these cases we have got to sit down very, very carefully and work out what is the right way to deal with that and deal with it collectively as an international community. Again one of the reasons why I have been so keen in America and Russia coming closer together, despite all the differences in the past, is because I think it is vitally important that in a more unstable world with these inherent dangers in it, that you have America and Europe and Russia standing together. And I know there are all sorts of difficulties that we have from time to time with each other, and we have some between Europe and America, or Britain and America even, but all of those things pale into insignificance in my judgment in making sure that the really big common purposes we share are done together and the big challenges are met together.
International Security
Interviewer:
Do you think that worldwide intelligence has improved enough in the last six months to prevent terrorists from travelling the globe with impunity?
Prime Minister:
I think everyone has livened up their act a lot, I think the security is a lot tougher and stricter. But you know it is hard, it is very hard, to have a perfect system when we live in a world today where perfectly rightly and naturally and in the interests of trade and business, never mind pleasure, people travel a lot and they want to travel and therefore you know you have got a constant tension between security that is if you like over-burdensome and security that is necessary.
UK aid to Africa
Interviewer:
Since 1997 Britain has doubled its aid to Africa, I know that is a continent you feel very passionately about, you want the world to pay much more attention to Africa and you have recently toured a number of countries there. Why is that so important to you?
Prime Minister:
Because I think, as I once described, Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. You have rich nations with poor people. You have literally millions of people who die from famine, conflict, disease. If you look at Aids and how it has affected the continent of Africa, it is just terrifying and I think it is tragic. And I also think in a curious way in our long term interest it is sensible for us to try and engage with Africa, offer them the partnership and a way out of this. And I think where I agree with a lot of critics of aid is that I don’t think you can do this on the basis of an old-fashioned aid deal, you know here we are, we give you some money, go away and spend it. We have got to do this on the basis of a proper partnership where we address certain key issues like aid and trade, which is very, very important for those African countries, where we help with issues like conflict resolution because that blights the development of whole vast parts of Africa, and where on the African side they deal with issues like governance, corruption, the ability to play their part in resolving these conflicts. Now that is why we have put together this idea of a partnership between Africa and the developed world and we want to take it forward at the June Summit of the G8 in Canada. And I am passionate about it because when you go there and you see children getting the most basic education for the first time, and you see how the whole world just opens up before them, and yet you realise that millions, and millions, and millions of them don’t even get primary education, you realise the scale of the challenge. And so many people there suffer and it is so unnecessary, so I think we should do what we can. And you know with a little we can do a lot.
The UK and the US
Interviewer:
You had, I know, an exceptionally close relationship with former President Clinton and now with President Bush. How in your view do their foreign policy visions differ?
Prime Minister:
That is a big question. Well I think that in the end, let me slightly, because I don’t want to end up speculating on either the former President’s foreign policy or the present President’s in that way, but let me try and put it to you in my own way. My belief in the end is that America is this fantastic immensely powerful country, it is a beacon for the free world, it is hugely admired for its spirit of enterprise and what it brings to the world, and for America with that comes responsibility and sometimes it must be very tough for people in America to think why do all the problems of the world end up on our doorstep, why do we have to deal with it all? But in the end I am afraid such are the problems in the world and such is the power and strength of America that you do, and that is why I was so sure when Kosovo happened a few years ago in Europe that America should be involved even though it was thousands of miles away from America and fortunately under President Clinton’s leadership it was involved, and it is why I was so sure in Afghanistan this time round that we couldn’t just go there, do what we had to do and leave, we had to help that country for the long term and the US is now committed to that. And so I think in a funny way whatever starting positions American Presidents come with to their office, in the end they are as they are people of goodwill and conscience, as both President Clinton and President Bush are, then they come to the point where they are saying well how do we use this great power that America has in a sensible, in a proportionate way to do good in the world. And I think in the end most people realise that is in America’s self-interest as well.
Interviewer:
That was a very reasoned and political answer. Why did you feel so strongly about standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the wake of 11 September?
Prime Minister:
Because it was an attack on the whole of the free world. What the terrorist wants to do is to gain their way, not by reasoned argument or by democracy, but by terror. They hope to literally, not just by the act of terror but by the consequences of it, create such a conflagration that they get their way. So what bin Laden and the al Q’aida wanted to do was not just inflict this carnage on America, but as a result of that turn it into a fight between the Muslim world and the west, between America and the Arab world, and I thought right from the first moments when I saw it and when we realised that it wasn’t an horrific accident but an horrific act of terrorism, it was vital that America realised that it didn’t stand alone, that we were all standing with her and alongside her.
The Future
Interviewer:
Finally, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, 11 September, right now the world seems to be a very frightening place. Are you worried as a father about the kind of world your four children will inherit?
Prime Minister:
Yes, because I think that the paradox of the modern world is that we have these massive technological and scientific advances. My kids will have a prosperity that my father would never have dreamt of when he was a child, and yet at the same time the world has the capacity, partly because of those technological and scientific advances, to do tremendous damage to itself, to destroy itself ultimately. And so I think that the strange thing about today’s politics, you have asked me about foreign policy, there is foreign policy, domestic policy, I think the strange thing about today’s politics is that increasingly those two things are intertwined and what we have got to do together is to create the circumstances in which people of goodwill everywhere can try and come together and work out some of the solutions to the big challenges that we face so that we can use the great technological and scientific or material advances for the good of the people rather than use them to wage war on each other.
The situation in today’s world is more fragile than it has ever been in my adult lifetime, I am sure of that, but yet the possibilities are enormous. Sometimes when I sit down and I read the latest science and scientific discoveries, and I am not a scientist, I was hopeless at science, but I can understand the potential of it in terms of solving diseases, in terms of giving ourselves the ability to do the most fantastic things, and we look at information technology over the past few years and how it liberated people’s lives. I was talking to my father the other day and he now sits there and works the internet, and he has had a stroke and been very ill and therefore for him this has been a tremendous liberation. And so we have got this vast amount of material that is giving people tremendous possibilities, and yet with it comes this responsibility to make sure that we meet these problems head on and try and solve them together, and we shouldn’t be afraid of that or think that when we are talking in that way we are somehow being naïve or trying to do everything, trying to solve or go into areas we shouldn’t be in, that is the world we live in, we can make the most of it or we can let its dangers overwhelm us.
delicious
digg
facebook
