=================================================================================== .................................................................................... ON THE RECORD PADDY ASHDOWN SECOND INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE: 21.2.99 .................................................................................... JOHN HUMPHRYS: But, the Liberal Democrats will hold their first formal meeting with the government this week to formulate a common approach to European Foreign and Security policy. So back to you Mr Ashdown. It is the case that you will be helping to shape this policy, is it? PADDY ASHDOWN: Well we will certainly be helping to work with the government in order to shape yes the Common Foreign Security Policy. I thought it was a fascinating film incidentally John, and if I may return to our previous discussion just for a moment, I think Rambouillet is important, it's a watershed moment, for, more than as I said before, just the peace of Kosovo. I think if we are able to develop a European led, American will participate, but a European led attempt to create peace around our borders for the very first time since the war, we will have marked an event which is in its way as important as the founding of the Atlantic Treaty in the first place fifty years ago in which we will begin to now reshape the means and mechanisms, the architecture, the structure by which we will assure security in Europe. And I have always been of the view, right from the very early days, Bosnia was a classic example, that unless Europe is prepared to project its power around its borders to assure peace in what you might call the marches, the border lands of the European Union, then Europe won't have peace within those borders either. HUMPHRYS: When you say 'beginning to reshape', that suggests obviously that there is a lot further yet to go, so you envisage the possibility that if there is to be another Kosovo in x years time, we might send British troops there fighting under a European flag rather than as they will be doing this time, if they have to go, a NATO flag. ASHDOWN: No, and.. HUMPHRYS: Absolutely and unequivocally? ASHDOWN: You ask me what I envisage and I don't envisage that. I think we will always be fighting under a British flag, much the same way as we did in NATO... HUMPHRYS: ...I mean as opposed to.. ASHDOWN: ...we fought in NATO under a British flag and that's why I think the proposition you've put, no doubt you know a straw man for us to knock down, that there should be - a quotes 'European Army under a European flag' is a false proposition. We will be working with others in various ways, in various types of alliances, one will be NATO and the other will be European, and there might be others too, coalitions of the willing, in order to secure what we want for our country, peace in our country which depends on having peace in our continent. And we will do that under all sorts of command structures. These things, I think, are important. One, when we put our troops on the field, we want to do so in a proper, efficient, professional system of command and control. Currently that is only supplied by NATO.. HUMPHRYS: But it might in future be supplied by Europe. ASHDOWN: Indeed it might be, and indeed in Bosnia today it is built around the European headquarter structure so I don't think that is a difficult proposition. The second proposition... HUMPHRYS: But it's still - sorry just before you move on to your second bit - it's still a considerable move from where we are at the moment. ASHDOWN: Well it's a development, I don't think it's a move, it's a development. There is some point at which we cross, and Rambouillet might be it, in which we begin to create a meaningful European defence structure and I think that's important and I think it will come and incidentally, contrary to the proposition put forward in your film, I don't think it will be a threat to NATO. I mean, you can go back as far as Kissinger and Kennedy and they talked about the construction of a twin pillar NATO in which Europe operated more as an entity and bore the burdens of its own defence. Jesse Helms in a recent article, said with some robustness but nevertheless a good deal of truth, that Europe at present couldn't fight its way out of paper bag and that's the truth. It is humiliating, demeaning and bad for Europe that whenever we have a problem in our backyard, we have to rely on Uncle Sam to come in and sort it out. HUMPHRYS: Well sure, but you say wouldn't be a threat to NATO, you heard what the American Ambassador here in London said in that film: 'we don't want to separate European Union decision making and - we don't want a separate European Union decision making and we don't want to duplication of resources. Okay, the resources you can understand, but what he is saying quite clearly is that if the decision is to be taken, it is to be taken jointly. ASHDOWN: Well, in many cases it will, perhaps even most.. HUMPHRYS: But not all. ASHDOWN: Well no, because I mean let's take the case of Britain. Britain is capable of operating outside NATO, that's exactly what we did in the Falklands. There will be occasions when in our national interests, or in the European interests we will want to act as Europeans. But, the NATO alliance, the Atlantic alliance is crucial. Look, John, if I was the British Foreign Secretary, I would say that Britain's aims in the next two decades are these: absolutely crucial for our future. (1) maintain the Atlantic relationship. It is crucial to our future, keep the Americans engaged in Europe, even if only on a symbolic basis. (2) Assure peace around our borders, in the marches, in the borderlands, that buffer us to the chaos to the east and (3) to assure the ascendancy of democracy in the free market system in the old nations of the Soviet Union and particularly in Russia. Now, all of those three aims, those primary aims, for European Foreign Policy over the next four or five years, will depend on using a variety of alliances, some will be NATO, some will be Europe. And what we are doing is creating a series of pieces of architecture which we can use in different ways. At the end, let's say a decade or two decades, I think we will come out with a rather more structured system than we see at present. But at the moment, as we go through this evolutionary process, this transitionary process, a certain constructive ambiguity about who uses what, when and how, provided there our soldiers in the field are backed by proper command and control, is not in my view unhelpful. HUMPHRYS: But there has to be the possibility, John Maples pointed it out in that film, that the kind of decision taking that you've just talked about, European Union decision taking, the European Union defence structure, might undermine America's commitment to NATO, that has to be a real possibility doesn't it. I mean they might well say, well you want to do it yourself, do it yourself, but don't count on us in future. ASHDOWN: It's a possibility you like to propose for the purposes of your film.. HUMPHRYS: No, others have proposed it. I mean I'm not alone in this. ASHDOWN: John, if you just let me finish, it's a possibility that you've proposed in your film, not unreasonably and John Maples likes to play up because of course it encourages the Euro-scepticism that the Tory Party is all about. But, is that a possibility which you hear bandied about in Washington - no... HUMPHRYS: Well, I can quote what the American Ambassador here said, and he's speaking on behalf of Washington.. ASHDOWN: No, the American Ambassador didn't say it and you really mustn't put words in his mouth.. HUMPHRYS: 'We don't want separate union decision making' - quote. ASHDOWN: What the American Ambassador said was that this is perfectly reasonable, it is perfectly right, it shouldn't be a threat to NATO, provided it doesn't go beyond certain sensible limits.. HUMPHRYS: Quite. ASHDOWN: And I don't think anybody is intending that it should... HUMPHRYS: Well.. ASHDOWN: ...if you go to Washington, what you hear constantly is the complaint, everywhere incidentally, from Madeleine Albright downwards, why can't the Europeans take the burden of their own defence more. If you go to Washington, you will hear constantly: okay I suppose we'll put some symbolic troops into Kosovo but you really must do this thing for yourself ' and they are absolutely right. So far from this being a threat to NATO, most of the American administration on both sides incidentally, Republican and Democrat, now believe that Europe developing in a way which is not threatening to NATO, the structures of its own defence is sensible, is right, is not damaging to NATO and is very important for Europe. And that is a proposition which I agree with. HUMPHRYS: And is another significant step towards federal Europe isn't it.? ASHDOWN: No, that's absolute nonsense. I mean would you have said then that NATO was a significant step towards the federalisation of Europe with the United States - no. What we learnt in NATO and indeed what the Conservatives are always telling us, was that in this crucial area, the area perhaps of most fundamental sovereignty, the area where a nation defends itself, we can defend ourselves better by pooling some of that sovereignty with our neighbours and with our friends in order to give us a more secure defence. Now, that didn't predict anything more than this was a sensible way of defending itself and this is exactly the same thing. So I think it is about building a European identity but whether it is about creating a federal Europe or not, history will tell. I personally don't think it needs to follow that it is. HUMPHRYS: Right, we'll come back to that in a sense in a moment. But a little later in the programme we are going to be looking at what has happened to Labour's pledge to give everyone a right of access to open countryside. 5 FoLdEd