25 SEPTEMBER 1989
I did a round of ministers, following the summer leave. William Waldegrave still looks very down in the dumps; he is alleged, by the correspondent in one of this Sunday’s papers, to have been bitterly disappointed by his non-promotion in the reshuffle. He is obviously finding the additional burden of African business quite heavy, if only in terms of ambassadorial calls and receptions. He told me that he thought Charles Powell (with whom he is very close) had found his job much diminished with John Major as Secretary of State, and that Charles would certainly not be able to treat John Major in the way he had treated Geoffrey Howe. He thought Charles might well be looking for a diplomatic posting before long, and hoped that I had good successors in mind. I said that I had rather given up thinking about successors to Charles, having identified several in the past three years.
Francis Maude is obviously pleased with his recent visit to Hong Kong, though worried that it may have increased expectations of a government resettlement package.
I also used my call on Francis Maude as an opportunity to put up a marker about diplomatic service work on export promotion, having heard rumours that Lord Trefgarne had got Francis Maude’s agreement that the Department of Trade should take it over. If so, Francis concealed it; but he seemed quite impressed by my arguments about the need to involve ambassadors and others in trade and investment promotion.
I called on Tim Sainsbury, who is suffering from shingles. I urged him to cut down his programme in the West Indies, where he goes this week. He is also suffering from his son’s nearly fatal accident in the United States this summer, in which his girlfriend was killed and he suffered minor, but allegedly repairable, brain damage. I took Tim through the procedures for ministerial consultation on the No. 1 board, suggesting that he should consult Lynda Chalker rather more than he might otherwise, given her hopes of staying on the board.
26 SEPTEMBER 1989
I had one of my regular heads of department meetings this morning, at which I spoke at length about the new ministerial team and their working methods. Less grumbling than usual and quite a good discussion about management and training. There are a lot of new faces since March.
John Major has had some good bilaterals in New York, including a hard-hitting talk with Arens of Israel. David Gore-Booth and the department are delighted.
Crispin Tickell has (as I hoped) reacted with dismay at John Major’s amendments to the brief for the Madrid talks with the Argentinians; I hope I shall be able to soften John Major up for the discussion in OD next week. I also encouraged David Gillmore to talk again to Tim Sainsbury, who clearly felt that the original brief did not give enough leeway on the Falklands protection zone. We are, incidentally, about to face problems with Rex Hunt’s memoirs, which, as Robin Butler has pointed out, will have to be treated in the same way as Nico Henderson’s. But Rex Hunt is much less likely to comply, and will have a powerful ally to lobby in Margaret Thatcher.
28 SEPTEMBER 1989
Some to-ing and fro-ing today on the Falklands papers for next week’s OD. Having asked for the negotiating brief to be stiffened, John Major discussed the question with Crispin Tickell, who telephoned the department from New York to say that John Major now wanted the paper softened beyond the original version! Meanwhile, we received a stern rebuke from No. 10 on the line that John Major had taken on sovereignty in his talk with the Argentine Foreign Minister. So no doubt he will now veer back again to a tougher line. I warned Robin Butler at dinner this evening that the paper was unlikely to be in by this weekend.
John Major has received quite a good press and coverage on his New York speech, and on his meetings in the States. So he should be pleased.
29 SEPTEMBER 1989
When Charles Powell called this morning, I referred to two sharply worded minutes from No. 10 this week: one on John Major’s talk with the Argentine Foreign Minister (see above), and one on the Prime Minister’s worries about American attitudes to arms control. John Major has authorised some admirably robust and un-Howe-like responses to both letters.
Charles also claims that the press coverage on the PM’s proposed visit to South Africa did not reflect official briefing from No. 10 (though Patrick Fairweather has been told by a journalist that it comes from the PM herself).
Margaret Thatcher has also been showing signs of her Germanophobia over the past few weeks, and has very unwisely discussed the Germans both with Mitterrand and (as seen from a very closely kept part of the record) with Gorbachev. This phobia also colours her attitude to community enlargement, since she regards the Austrians as another sort of German (see p. 128, above), and seems to be obsessed by a feeling that German speakers are going to dominate the community. She is also, of course, deeply suspicious of Genscher; any talk of German reunification is anathema to her.
There is a debate going on in the office about aid to India, with several people, including William Waldegrave, arguing that India’s international misbehaviour does not warrant such a large aid programme, and that we should switch some of it to Poland and Hungary. There has been a fierce counter-blast from South Asian Department, and probably from the ODA.
4 OCTOBER 1989
I called on Lynda Chalker at the ODA, who gave the speech of thanks for Geoffrey Howe at his ‘farewell party’ in the Lord President’s office this evening. Lynda is still talking about the blow to morale in the FCO caused by her own and Geoffrey’s departure, though she told me she thought it was getting better. She has accepted her non-membership of the no. 1 board, and gave me the impression that she was in any case constantly consulted by John Major on all matters, including senior appointments.
Geoffrey Adams told me today that Lynda had apparently very much irritated John Major at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg this week by asking him rather bossily if he had covered all the points in his brief. John had apparently snapped back: ‘No, none of them. Perhaps you had better do it all next time.’
Geoffrey Howe himself made a good speech, without any signs of rancour; he quoted Claude Cheysson as saying that the French diplomatic service was the second best in the world after the British. He also made some nice references to me as ‘no ordinary PUS’.
David Dell tells me that Lord Trefgarne is still pushing the idea of an overseas trade service on the lines of the Defence Export Services Organisation (for which he claims to have Francis Maude’s support). David did not think it would run, but promised to keep me informed.
5 OCTOBER 1989
I had a long session with John Major, who had had two good OD meetings (on Hong Kong boat people and the Falklands). He is still getting on well with the PM, and is pleased about it. He is being quite forthright in giving the PM advice, and hard-headed about Charles Powell.
Stephen Wall told me this week that John Major’s reaction to Charles Powell’s two rebukes on the Falklands and arms control had been: ‘I’m damned if I’m going to be chased round the world by preposterous letters from Charles Powell.’ But John Major told me (sensibly) that the PM is ‘politically in bed’ with Charles, and that there is no point in pushing it – this said in response to my expression of hope that he would see more of the PM, and be able to brief her at CHOGM more than Geoffrey was able to do at Vancouver.
Curiously, John Major told me today that the PM was much more tired than she appears, and he thought it not impossible that she might give up in a year’s time. I told him that there had been some odd rumours last year that she might give up in the spring, but that I had found both stories difficult to credit. John admitted that it was just as likely that she would want another four years in office.
But John Major is still desperately worried about next week’s party conference speech, since he has to speak on Europe, and knows that the press will be drawing comparisons with Geoffrey Howe (who he thinks may well get a standing ovation). Stephen Wall confirmed to me that John still needs constant reassurance, and had even passed him a note during his talk with the Chinese Foreign Minister,
asking how he was doing. He is also very fussed about Vietnamese boat people, which he described as potentially his political suicide. He is also clearly uncertain about his junior ministers.
I held a businessmen’s lunch today, at which one participant produced a series of stories about the lack of help received in Tokyo and Moscow. Luckily, several other members present said that they had found both these embassies particularly helpful. But it nevertheless left a bad taste. There was then quite a lively discussion, at the end of which the original complainant actually moved a vote of thanks!
William Waldegrave had (as he told me at the time) been shaken by his non-promotion at the reshuffle, having (as I pointed out to him) only been led to expect it by constant stories in the press that William and Chris Patten were ‘the two men to watch’. Chris had once been present at some occasion when William Waldegrave had been summoned to the telephone to take a call from No. 10, and he had been so consumed by jealousy that he had had to go for a walk!
John Major told me this afternoon that Chris Patten was making himself very unpopular with Nigel Lawson over his enormous PESC bid; and with Nicholas Ridley, having overturned a major planning decision on Foxley Wood. Meanwhile, John Major seems to have pulled off a very respectable PESC bid for the FCO.
Given John Major’s reported dislike of the grandeur of Antony Acland’s residence in Washington, and his resistance to working in the Foreign Secretary’s grand office overlooking St James’s Park, we face an interesting conflict between the Prime Minister’s liking for grand ambassadorial residences, and our present position, which is to get rid of the Morisa Toreza residence in Moscow. I told John Major today that we could certainly try to negotiate the retention of the Moscow residence, but that it would cost an extra £27 million at least. I also reminded him that a very public competition had been held for a new residence. But John himself has no doubt that we shall have to go ahead with the Prime Minister’s pronouncement that we ‘must keep that residence in Moscow’.
We still don’t know if the Russians will allow us to stay; but the whole issue has been revived by Gorbachev saying to the Prime Minister in April: ‘Why on earth do you want to leave your residence in Moscow?’ Rodric Braithwaite is also lobbying hard for it (though Charles Powell claims that Rodric did not put the Prime Minister up to it).
6 OCTOBER 1989
I chaired an appeal board this afternoon for a young counsellor, who alleges that he only discovered his homosexual tendencies through a chance encounter at the age of thirty-eight. There seems to be little alternative, under the current regulations, to withdrawing his positive vetting (PV) certificate. But this raises again the whole question of homosexuality and positive vetting. John Major may well be sympathetic to a change in the rules; he had to be dissuaded from sending a note of sympathy to the young man when the news broke. But it would have to go to the Prime Minister, who is unlikely to be sympathetic.
10 OCTOBER 1989
Having decided to uphold the PV decision, I wrote to the young man, and later received an appreciative letter from him, commenting on ‘the sensitive and sympathetic way’ I had handled his hearing – generous of him, considering his career is now in tatters.
11 OCTOBER 1989
The office was fairly quiet today, with most ministers away at Blackpool. John Major was making his conference speech, nervous that he would be upstaged by Geoffrey Howe, who was addressing a fringe meeting this morning, calling for a new look in the Conservative Party.
12 OCTOBER 1989
A two-and-a-half-hour meeting of the board of management discussing, among other things, the division of the PESC round, on which the Treasury has made a very good offer. I have written a private letter to John Major, congratulating and thanking him for getting both the office and the British Council an excellent deal – even better than last year’s. Quite an achievement in a year when expenditure – e.g. on the poll tax – seems to be spinning out of control.
13 OCTOBER 1989
The Prime Minister has predictably not yet begun to concentrate on next week’s CHOGM in Kuala Lumpur, for which I leave shortly for a day of preliminary meetings of senior officials. John Major is to travel out with the PM, in spite of his fierce attempts to avoid it. He told me at our bilateral last week that he could not imagine anything worse than a twelve-hour flight on the PM’s aircraft. As it turned out, I was booked for the return on the PM’s flight, joining her dinner with the ruler of Qatar en route.
I talked to Charles Powell about the need to issue appropriate warnings to the Prime Minister about security in the hotel rooms in Kuala Lumpur. His main worry is what Denis will have to say about the other Commonwealth leaders!
The following is extracted from a paper which I prepared on 29 October 1989, on my return from Malaysia.
The Prime Minister remained throughout as excluded from official contact as she had at Vancouver; but at least this time she saw a lot of her Foreign Secretary. Unlike Geoffrey Howe at Vancouver, John Major was invited almost every day to have lunch or dinner with the Thatchers in their Shangri-La suite. John showed signs of independence. At one point, when I pointed out that the PM might object to something, he blurted out: ‘If the PM doesn’t like it, she can bloody well come and renegotiate it herself.’
There were healthy signs also of recognition that the relationship with Charles Powell is not a healthy one. When I had discussed this with John Major before CHOGM, he had said that we should try to get to a more sensible way of briefing the PM, but that we all had to realise the extent to which Charles had become her ‘political bedfellow’, and that he did not intend to push it.
[What other recollections of CHOGM? The great row, of course, was over the PM’s separate statement, issued simultaneously with the CHOGM communique on South Africa. There is a slight mystery as to how this originated; but it seems to have been a brainchild of, and drafted by, Charles Powell at the Langkawi retreat. He later told me that he had gone to the other side of the island to draft it. The result carried the clear implication that it not only repudiated the CHOGM communique (or ‘peed all over it’, as Patrick Fairweather graphically described it), but also repudiated John Major’s share in drafting it. Hurried redrafting was negotiated by Stephen Wall, to get across the points on which we agreed with the CHOGM communique, and to emphasise the fact that it was a joint communique or statement by both John Major and Margaret Thatcher. Not that this stopped the British press seeing it as a humiliation of John Major.]
There was my row, partly simulated, with Yacovou, the Cypriot Foreign Minister, and Tassos Panayides, their High Commissioner in London, about the Cypriot draft passage for the communique, which they stolidly refused to show us before it issued. And the unexpectedly heavy opposition to the draft passage on Hong Kong, led by the Tanzanians and Ghanaians, but joined in by the Indians (‘the only problem of confidence in Hong Kong relates to the 1962 British Nationalities Act’) and most notably the Pakistanis, who had obviously been nobbled, as the Indians told us they had been, by the Chinese.
Happily, I sat next to Yaqub Khan at dinner on the last night (with Dato’ Kamil of the Malysian MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] on my other side, supplying us with whisky for an otherwise dry official dinner), and persuaded him to keep Pakistan’s reservations to the Hong Kong part of the communique to a private letter written subsequently to the Commonwealth secretariat.
26 OCTOBER 1989
My diaries do not give much detail on John Major’s transfer from the Foreign Office to the Treasury, or on Nigel Lawson’s departure as Chancellor, beyond the fact that John telephoned me from No. 10 this evening to ask me if I was sitting down, before telling me the news. His call on a Thursday evening was followed by intense speculation about who his successor would be, with the names of Nicholas Ridley, Cecil Parkinson and Norman Fowler being mooted, as I stood drinking a stiff whisky in the private office with Stephen Wall and Maurice Fraser. Eventually, the call from Charles Powell came through, telling us it was
to be Douglas Hurd, with Charles’s comment: ‘I had to work hard to save you from Cecil Parkinson.’
Earlier rumours that Parkinson was the most likely successor to Geoffrey Howe had caused a minor panic in Personnel Department, since one of the potential private secretaries in the private office was the husband of the twin sister of Parkinson’s girlfriend, Sara Keays.
27 OCTOBER 1989
This morning, Stephen Wall, Andrew Burns and I saw John Major off the premises and welcomed Douglas Hurd. In a private word with John before he left, I offered my congratulations and good wishes on a formidable task ahead as Chancellor of the Exchequer, during which he again showed familiar sensitivity about being portrayed as a prime ministerial cypher.
He also commented on how ‘friendly’ he had found the FCO. When I later mentioned this to Clive Whitmore, Clive said that this comment did not at all surprise him, coming from an ex-Treasury minister – recalling that at any PES negotiations he had attended, he had felt that there was more empathy between the Chief Secretary and those with whom he was negotiating than with the officials on his own side of the table.
30 OCTOBER 1989
Douglas Hurd’s first week as Foreign Secretary (but not, of course, his first ministerial post in the Foreign Office, having been Minister of State from 1979 to 1983). I attended two of his meetings today: the first on Hong Kong (democracy, boat people and right of abode), on which the FCO had an appalling weekend press. There was a really savage attack on Percy Cradock in a Sunday Times editorial; but there were several other sneering articles today, claiming that the FCO does not understand the suffering of ‘real people’.
Behind Diplomatic Lines Page 17