European Diary, 1977-1981 Part 27

Foreign Affairs Council, at which there was some short but relatively important discussion on the preparation for the European Council. I had to be there for that, even though it meant my very reluctantly missing Michael Astor's memorial service in London. Bernard-Reymond suddenly announced at the end of the morning that the position of the French Government was that the Commission must come forward with its proposals now, and then should do nothing in the way of suggesting last-minute compromises. This was an obvious attempt to neutralize me and was fortunately badly received by the others. My rather pompous a.s.sertion that we would take our responsibilities and do what we thought right at the time in the interests of Europe as a whole was very well received by nearly all the rest. Bernard-Reymond afterwards came up and apologized to me for having to say this under instructions, adding that he did not himself agree with it.

Dinner with the Natalis in a large, mostly Italian party. A long talk with Lorenzo (Natali) after dinner, who told me that he and the Italians were much in favour of my staying on as President and that he would stay on if I did.26 WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH. Brussels.

Long Commission meetings interspersed with s.h.i.+rley Williams to lunch, rue de Praetere. She was friendly and bright and agreeable as she always is, though I think that her political position has receded a little, although not dramatically, since I last saw her. She had had a talk with Denis Healey who had said that he had to be pretty equivocal in order to get elected leader (of the Labour Party) but once elected he would be an absolutely ruthless social democratic leader, wanting a social democratic Cabinet and would indeed try to promote a split in the party from within as opposed to without. She was also charged to bear some sort of message to me suggesting my return to British politics with a view to becoming Foreign Secretary in a future Labour Government. The prospect does not appeal to me, because apart from my having burnt too many Labour Party boats, I really could not stand being Foreign Secretary under Denis. He would lecture one every day on every subject under the sun. This does not mean that I would not serve under anyone I could serve under David Steel or under s.h.i.+rley herself, I think, but not with somebody quite as pedagogic and know-all as Denis invariably is-with me at any rate.

I had Ortoli, Gundelach and Davignon, plus Emile Noel, plus Crispin for a 'Four Hors.e.m.e.n' dinner, rue de Praetere. They had asked for it rather urgently, Davignon in particular, but as we had got through most of the immediately tricky business in the Commission it was mainly a fence-repairing rather than a serious discussion occasion.

Just before they left s.h.i.+rley arrived back to stay. As soon as they were gone she settled down for what was intended to be an hour or so's talk, but, unbelievably, went on until 4 o'clock in the morning. She talked extremely well and could not have been more personally agreeable. I told her why I did not think the Healey scenario was convincing, and to some extent she was re-unconvinced by me, although, fairly, retaining her position fully open for the autumn. She also appeared to understand perfectly well why I was unattracted by being Foreign Secretary under Denis. A great part of the conversation, however, was not concerned with politics as such but lapped around, with my describing how the Commission operated, with a lot of talk about Tony Crosland as a young man, a whole range of easy friendly gossipy conversation.

I suggested to her the possibility that she might be interested in coming as a Commissioner to Brussels. She did not totally reject it, but I think was not very attracted by it, and would in my belief, if she were to be shunted from politics for a few years-in which she saw certain advantage-prefer to do something like the chairmans.h.i.+p of the BBC. She also has somewhat in mind the idea of a Harvard professors.h.i.+p, which has no doubt been dangled before her. However, on balance I think she will probably stick to politics. It was a worthwhile, though a strange evening, and made particular nonsense of a malicious little story, originating no doubt from Chateau Palmer, which appeared in the Guardian next morning, though happily unseen until later by either s.h.i.+rley or me, when it irritated me and upset her, that she had come to Brussels to give me the brush-off so far as any idea of political collaboration was concerned. If so, it was a jolly long brush-off!

FRIDAY, 21 MARCH. Brussels.

I went to see the King at Laeken from 9.45 to 10.30. He was looking much better after great back trouble all winter, with an operation and two months out of action. Today he seemed restored, although looking alone and isolated in the vast and rather dismal Palace of Laeken-redeemed only by its view. My state of health was not very good either, and a good third of the conversation was valetudinarian.

We also and inevitably talked about Europe. He was very keen to promote a budgetary solution acceptable to the British and made some very sensible remarks about how important it was to a country like Belgium that the basic European power matrix should be triangular rather than bipolar. We also discussed both British and Belgian internal politics a little and he claimed, though not in a dismissive or aggressive way, that the communal linguistic question was very much a matter of politicians rather than people. Whether he is right or not I do not know, but he is in a good position to judge.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 22 MARCH. Brussels and Nancy.

Drove to Luxembourg, unfortunately in misty weather over the Ardennes and therefore missed the views. Did a brief tour of the city and then down to Ehnen for lunch alongside the Mosel. Then to Metz and to the cathedral, which I do not recollect ever having seen before. It is quite magnificent, high slightly gaunt nave and spectacular gla.s.s, from a whole variety of periods: some medieval, some seventeenth-century, some Chagall. The town is better than I thought, a good medium-large chef-lieu. Then to Nancy and stayed in the Grand Hotel Concorde in the Place Stanislas, which is a sort of very little Crillon. Also, happily, very pet.i.t Crillon from the point of view of price: only 170 francs for a room, which for a view over one of the three best squares in Europe is not bad.

MONDAY, 24 MARCH. Brussels.

Plaja came to see me with the fairly amazing news that Cossiga had decided to postpone the European Council (due on the following Monday, 31 March) because his Government crisis meant that he did not have enough time to do the necessary pre-Council diplomacy. At first I was uncertain and thought the decision was unwise, as we seemed to me to be moving up to a satisfactory crisis culmination. On reflection I became a little more open to Cossiga's idea and made no public and very little private criticism of him. What was a mistake, however, was to announce the postponement before agreement to another date had been secured.

Lunch with COREPER in the Charlemagne, where conversation was almost entirely about this. COREPER becomes an increasingly hopeless body, almost guaranteed to seize the wrong end of any stick. Eugenio (Plaja) tries to be a good chairman and is about as good as they could get, but the continual bad exhibition tennis match, as I described it to them, between Butler and Nanteuil, is becoming a great bore for everybody and effectively destroying the inst.i.tution. An afternoon telephone conversation with Werner, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, where the postponed Council will, I suppose, have to be, owing to April being a month when the Community inst.i.tutions meet there.

TUESDAY, 25 MARCH. Brussels, Strasbourg and Brussels.

8.40 plane to Strasbourg. The Parliament was grinding through the agricultural debate introduced by Gundelach the previous evening. I made a rather sharp fifteen-minute speech saying that, apart from the merits of the issue, if the Parliament wanted to be taken seriously it must stick on the course which it had beckoned us down in December. This went down rather well, though some of the French, including Le Monde, got agitated against it, but they do that about so many things that one cannot take it too seriously. I gave Klepsch (leader of the Christian Democrat Group) lunch at La Wantzenau. I had intended to go into the town but we were warned that there were such a lot of agricultural demonstrators about that it was arguably unsafe (which I doubted) and certainly a recipe for unpunctuality.

After lunch I tried to have a look at the demonstrators who, it was reported, had burnt the Union Jack. So I think they had, but then for good measure they burnt the Tricolor and seven other flags as well, so it seemed fairly even-handed. Then heard Gundelach's winding up, the quality of which was difficult to judge as it was, exceptionally, in Danish. Avion taxi back to Brussels.

THURSDAY, 27 MARCH. Brussels and Copenhagen.

Evening plane to Copenhagen. To the Hotel d'Angleterre, of which Grand Metropolitan seem to be making a great mess. They are changing the terrace, changing the entrance, changing the furniture, and changing it a great deal for the worse. This was previously one of the more attractive hotels in Europe. Changes in owners.h.i.+p rarely do anything to hotels except make them worse.

FRIDAY, 28 MARCH. Copenhagen and Brussels.

At 11 o'clock to the Christiansborg for a meeting and lunch with the Prime Minister, Anker Jrgensen. When we got there, there was no sign of the little man, and it was a good forty-five minutes before he could be eventually extracted from some party caucus. His private secretaries said that he had just disappeared in the Parliament. However, when he turned up he was agreeable enough, although I think in some ways the BBQ has turned him into the most difficult of all the nine heads of government with whom I deal. This is partly linguistic, as we talk English, without an interpreter, and he is not wholly at home in it. Lunch started as soon as he arrived. It was a vast smrgasbord, accompanied-I would have thought rather tactlessly as we have various cases pending with the Danes about their discriminating against other Community drinks-by nothing but the most chauvinistic Danish combination of aquavit and Tuborg. However, we survived on that, and with the help of his Chef de Cabinet and Crispin managed to make some reasonable progress over lunch and certainly got Jrgensen to accept, which he had not done at Dublin, that something well above the financial mechanism would have to be done for the British, and that a figure of 1000 or 1100 million, while possibly high, was not out of the question.

Back to Brussels in the afternoon and to a special showing in the salle de presse of the Granada Television film called Mrs Thatcher's Billion on the Dublin Summit, which was remarkably good. Sarah Hogg played Mrs Thatcher in a way almost worthy of Sarah Bernhardt, and although not looking like their princ.i.p.als when not speaking, Schmidt (Martin Schulz) and Giscard (Paul Fabra) were also in different ways brilliantly played. By these three at any rate, it was a very convincing performance. Stephen Milligan played me, accurately in substance, but I thought without style. What, however, was noticeable was that the highly informed, blase audience of about 150 a.s.sembled in the salle de presse broke into spontaneous applause when the film was over. It was a remarkable tour de force.

TUESDAY, 1 APRIL. Brussels.

A fifteen-minute speech to the Political Committee of the Parliament. The Political Committee is sur place a perfectly tolerable body with which to deal, but it seems to produce objectively explosive speeches from me. I made a reference on this occasion to the gap between the British and the others not being in effect more than two weeks' cost of the CAP. Two weeks' cost of the CAP equals a little more than 400 million units of account, therefore my sum was based on the unspoken premise that there was hardly anybody who was not willing to go to 700 million, and I believe the British would settle at 1100 million if not a little less. This was a perfectly accurate statement of the position. What effect it will have I do not quite know.

WEDNESDAY, 2 APRIL. Brussels and London.

To London after a Commission meeting, and to George Weiden-feld's big and long-planned dinner party for us. A great roll call of the great and good, of the liberal and central at any rate: Annans, Donaldsons, Mosers, Bonham Carters, Rodgers', David Steel, Nigel Ryan,27 Edna O'Brien, John Gross',28 Garry Runcimans,29 George Thomsons, Clarissa Avon (Eden) as a wild card. I can't remember who else, but a large and enjoyable party.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 5 APRIL. East Hendred.

No papers, so into Wantage, perhaps mistakenly as it turned out, to buy them. Discovered that the French Government, the Quai in particular, had launched a great onslaught on my Political Committee speech on the previous Tuesday. Quite why was not clear. I suppose all part of their ploy to try and neutralize me in advance of the European Council, feeling that I had opened up the possibility of special measures for Britain last time and believing, because they are incapable, I think, of believing anything else in view of the way they behave themselves, that I am a British agent, which is hardly the case. However, their reaction, though ridiculous and unwarranted, was mildly depressing.

MONDAY, 7 APRIL. East Hendred.

Gilmours to lunch. It didn't rain, as it usually does when Ian is here. Ian did not have a great deal to say about budgetary questions, though obviously developing a certain optimism. No reaction from him, and therefore presumably no mutterings in the Foreign Office, about my Political Committee speech. On the centre party he was quite interesting and more favourable, I would judge, than when I last talked to him. At one stage he said firmly he thought I would (from my point of view) be right to go ahead, though obviously there were risks. I think he would probably like to see Heath involved, and said: 'You and Ted would be a formidable combination.'

TUESDAY, 8 APRIL. East Hendred.

A large lunch party for the Clive Wilkinsons,30 Bradleys, Rodgers' and Oakeshotts.31 It all lasted with a lot of conversation until 6.15, which was rather too late, but it was, I think, worthwhile. Tom (Bradley) and Matthew (Oakeshott) absolutely firm and hard in favour of a new party, Bill more forthcoming than I expected, Clive Wilkinson much the least. He clearly won't move and my judgement is that to a greater extent than I had thought the half-c.o.c.k Colin Phipps publicity has done harm in the West Midlands.

WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL. East Hendred.

In the evening I had two hours with a young man called Pimlott, who is writing a life of Hugh Dalton, and found him very good. He is a lecturer or research fellow at LSE and seems to understand Dalton very well, and I think should produce a serious, but also penetrating book about him.32 SUNDAY, 13 APRIL. Dorset and East Hendred.

Returned from Dorset (where we had stayed two nights with Fred and Simone Warner) on a perfect morning via Salisbury, where we made a brief visit to the cathedral, and found it as usual cold, detached, perfect, but too much of a s.h.i.+p and too little of a shrine.

David Steel to dine and stay. Again, a satisfactory talk. I like him very much personally, found him as good and firm and committed as ever, no complaints on either side. He said that he had quite a difficult hurdle to clear in the shape of a Liberal gathering at Worcester in May, which would be less favourable to him than the a.s.sembly in some way or other, but was fairly confident that he could get over it. Considerable commitment on both sides.

MONDAY, 14 APRIL. East Hendred and Brussels.

Returned to Brussels by a plane which was two and a half hours late, by far the worst delay I have had for months. Arrived rue de Praetere slightly disorganized and more than slightly bad-tempered nearly an hour late for a lunch which I was giving for the Portuguese Amba.s.sador, plus six others.

In the afternoon I had a request from the Israeli Amba.s.sador for a visit, no doubt intended to balance the fact that he had heard I had seen some Arab amba.s.sador. He is a disagreeable man, quite apart from my disapproval of Begin's policy, and it was not a rewarding conversation from either of our points of view. Then I saw Nanteuil at his request for him to present the French position in relation to the European Council, which although hard in some ways did not seem to me quite as impossible as I had expected. I rather disconcerted him by thanking him at the end, whereas he obviously expected me to be more shocked by what he had said, and consequently seemed rather thrown.

TUESDAY, 15 APRIL. Brussels and Strasbourg.

Strasbourg by the early train for a Commission meeting at noon to discuss preparations for the Foreign Affairs Council next week, which is rather tortuously to prepare for the European Council. Found them as usual before a difficult European Council in a rather bad, edgy, disorganized frame of mind, and therefore decided I had to set about having a series of bilateral meetings.

Stevy Davignon to dinner. I found him less inspiriting, less ingenious, more downbeat than usual. I got from him the information that he had decided to stay on in the next Commission even though he clearly had moved to a position of a.s.suming that I was not staying on, which was different from what he had last urged on me in Strasbourg a few months ago. He was full of hesitations and doubts about what we should do on the BBQ, and falling back on a.s.severations that the Commission must take its responsibilities and act firmly or it would lose its reputation: must show nerve, coherence, delicacy, a whole series of phrases to which in the context I found it difficult to attach much meaning. Altogether it was Stevy far from his best, and I returned slightly dispirited, particularly as he was urging me to have a whole series of other dinners in order to bring into line the other 'Hors.e.m.e.n' who he said were rather disaffected by not having been consulted.

WEDNESDAY, 16 APRIL. Strasbourg.

I made a speech in the inst.i.tutional debate in the morning, and lunched with Colombo, who, thank G.o.d, has replaced Ruffini as Italian Foreign Minister.

I decided that I ought to cancel my dinner with the Seligmans and the Warners in order to ma.s.sage Ortoli, and took him to a restaurant. Happily I found him on extremely agreeable form, but with nothing to say about any issue of business before us. However, two hours of literary, reminiscent, personal conversation in French was not unamusing, and no doubt the occasion was vaguely useful.

THURSDAY, 17 APRIL. Strasbourg and Hanover.

Pointless Commission from 11 to 11.30, which the others had been very keen on on the Tuesday, but at which it turned out there was nothing to discuss, and then 1.303.00 luncheon with the other three 'hors.e.m.e.n' at Zimmer at La Wantzenau, which I deliberately chose because, with a prix-fixe menu, it is the cheapest of the 'good' restaurants and I am fairly tired of paying for them! Perfectly agreeable again, a certain amount of business discussed reasonably and amicably, but again no tremendous point.

Then by avion taxi to Hanover for a twenty-four-hour visit to the Nieder-Sachsen land government. Albrecht,33 the Minister-President, I found young, quick and agreeable, without quite seeing him as a Christian Democrat Chancellor of Germany, which is what he much wants to be. Walther-Leisler Kiep, attractive and intelligent, was by far the best of his ministers.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 19 APRIL. East Hendred.

At 12.15 the Ian Chapmans34 arrived from Bristol, where they were attending the Booksellers' Conference, for Ian wanted to talk to me about several things. I like him very much and find him a most remarkable combination of the agreeable and the effective.

SUNDAY, 20 APRIL. East Hendred.

Had my gang of 'conspirators', Lindley, Phipps, Taverne, Barnes, Daly, John Harris, John Morgan and one or two others -Marquand unfortunately absent-for a meeting with lunch from 11.30 to 4.45. They were not bad at all, quite businesslike. Phipps was the least good. Lindley, of the ones I did not know well, was the best.

TUESDAY, 22 APRIL. Luxembourg and Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg from 10.30 until 3, the Italians believing in their own ministerial luncheon hours rather than anybody else's, and then from 4.30 until 10.15 p.m. The discussion was partly, although not very usefully, about preparations for the European Council the following weekend, but mainly about sanctions against Iran, with the British taking a tougher line in favour of breaking existing contracts than anybody else. Indeed Peter Carrington, who was next to me at our belated lunch, said bitterly, and as things turned out ironically, 'I do not believe anybody except us has the slightest intention of breaking existing contracts.'35 WEDNESDAY, 23 APRIL. Brussels and Bonn.

Michael Young,36 now Lord Young of Dartington, David Watt and Crispin to lunch rue de Praetere. Mainly centre party conversation. Michael Young, whom I had not seen for a long time, was firm, constructive and sensible. David Watt was rather defeatist, in a sense conservative, believing nothing could ever happen. However, he had been very nice before lunch. It was only when he was confronted with the possibility of something that he much wanted that he became a wet blanket.

Crispin and I then motored to Bonn for the dinner which Carstens (the Federal President) had decided to offer to the whole Commission. A curious but agreeable occasion, the purpose of which was not entirely clear to me.

FRIDAY, 25 APRIL. Brussels.

Breakfast meeting with Martens, the Belgian Prime Minister, plus about five of his officials, on the inevitable and perennial subject. Like most Martens meetings it was reasonably helpful and constructive. Simonet was also there. What was remarkable about it was that it was immediately after (but before any of us had heard of) the ill-fated American rescue attempt for the Iranian hostages. Although it had probably been on the news from 7.30, none of us had a hint of it, not Martens, not me, not most surprisingly Simonet, who had returned from Was.h.i.+ngton overnight and had been seeing the State Department literally twelve hours before. Consultation with allies did not seem to have been strong.

I spent most of the day on European Council preparations, although I also had a full hour with Gundelach, going through a great range of agricultural issues. At 8.15 to the Italian Emba.s.sy, where we were supposed to have a pre-dinner meeting with Cossiga. It was half an hour late starting and although still nominally pre-dinner, went on until 11.15. Cossiga certainly treated it as pre-dinner (i) by not offering us dinner, which was untypically Italian and particularly untypical of Cossiga, and (ii) by keeping about thirty guests, all the heads of the Brussels Italian colony, both their Commissioners, their three amba.s.sadors, journalists, etc. waiting for dinner in the next room.

He expounded to us almost breathlessly the entirely fresh approach which Giscard had expounded to him that morning at breakfast in the Elysee before Cossiga had gone on to London. It was that the BBQ should be looked at the other way round and considered from the point of view of holding the deficit steady rather than putting in a fixed sum of money. At first I thought this was a destructive proposal, but I became convinced as Cossiga had been, and indeed the British Government had been, that it was possibly constructive. Giscard is an odd man and one can never tell quite how he will operate. A great deal of time in the course of the meeting was wasted by Marcora (Minister of Agriculture) who was also present, and who has a great capacity to talk irrelevantly and incomprehensibly. I returned to rue de Praetere rather exhausted but interested and excited by the new development.

SUNDAY, 27 APRIL. Brussels and Luxembourg.

The long-awaited European Council began in the Kirchberg at 3.45 and went on until 7.00. The BBQ was not dealt with at all during this session, and Mrs Thatcher, no doubt learning, perhaps over-learning from Dublin, avoided pressing it. When we a.s.sembled for dinner at the Villa Vauban discussion of it was once more avoided. General conversation at dinner, and then we were joined by the Foreign Ministers and went on until 12.30, dealing almost entirely with Political Cooperation questions. Mrs Thatcher was frustrated by this, but reluctant, despite my mild urging, to insist on opening the (BBQ) discussion. I think this was a mistake, both on Cossiga's part and on hers. A first round, which could be slept on, would have been desirable.

MONDAY, 28 APRIL. Luxembourg and Brussels.

Awakened about 5.30 on a dismal morning by a silver band which, perhaps in honour of the European Council, was parading round the Place de la Gare. To the Kirchberg at 9.15, but no session until 12.20, as there were a great number of bilaterals going on. I had a talk with Haughey at 9.45, then Cossiga from 10.00 to 10.30, then Mrs Thatcher about 11.00. It was difficult to know what the prospect was, but it was not looking particularly good.

When the Council eventually a.s.sembled, we met from 12.20 to 3.40. To sit this long was again I think a mistake, although well-intentioned, on Cossiga's part. We got down to the BBQ straightaway and Mrs Thatcher was certainly being much quieter, less strident, less abrasive, than at Dublin. Early on Schmidt brought forward a proposal which was very good for 1980: the British deficit should not be allowed to grow in that year beyond the average for 1978 and 1979. This opened up in my view a great opportunity for Mrs Thatcher, though it obviously still left the 1981 position open. But later in the discussion Giscard made the proposal that in 1981 the payment to offset the British deficit should be the same as the 1980 figure. This, on top of Schmidt's proposal, had the effect of giving the British a complete guarantee for 1980 against uncovenanted increases. For 1981 there would be no such guarantee but equally the amount paid to the British should be the same as in 1980, in other words an offer for the two years of about 2400 million units of account which might indeed, according to what the exact sum would be in 1980, have been somewhat higher.

I suggested at this stage that we might have an adjournment, which I thought would have been useful, and one or two people took it up, but Mrs Thatcher unwisely did not press for it, and Cossiga did not push it through. Had she been able to sit back and consider this-talk to her advisers, to Carrington and perhaps to me-we might have made some progress, but instead Cossiga went on too long.

I lunched with the others, Giscard asking me directly and semi-publicly across the table what I thought of the offer and my saying it seemed to me a pretty good offer, and one which should be accepted. Mrs Thatcher did not appear, being closeted with British ministers and officials, but then came back at 5.00 and refused it. One or two attempts at nettoyage were made but she remained adamant. I had told her before that I thought she was making a great mistake by not accepting, and she good-temperedly but firmly said, 'Don't try persuading me, you know I find persuasion very counterproductive.' So when she had spoken I said in the Council I thought she was making a major error, that it was a substantial offer, and that we were splitting Europe for a difference which was very small compared with the original gap.

We then ground on until 9.15 p.m. dealing with a variety of other subjects. Then we had a press conference from 10.50 to 11.30, in which I expressed the view that we had been tantalizingly close to agreement and made it fairly clear where I thought the fault lay. It really was amazing that she did not accept this offer. Carrington was clearly in favour of doing so, so I think were Armstrong and Palliser, but Carrington in my view did not put as much pressure upon her as he should have done, though I believe that this was made more difficult for him by the fact that Peter Walker, who was also present for the Agriculture Council, was putting strong pressure the other way.

After the press conference we decided to drive back to Brussels, and arrived, tired and deeply disappointed, at 1.30 in the morning. It was an extremely exhausting and madly irritating European Council. The only benefit from my point of view was a slight improvement of relations with the French, who have been waging a minor press campaign against me for playing too much of a British hand.

TUESDAY, 29 APRIL. Brussels.

Office only at 11.30. A series of meetings, including a farewell lunch, rue de Praetere, for the Lubbers (the Dutch Permanent Representative), who is going to Was.h.i.+ngton as Amba.s.sador.

Home early in the evening to prepare for departure to India the next morning. There was some feeling that in view of the state of crisis in the Community I ought not to go, but my view was that this twice-postponed visit ought not to be interfered with again. I thought some time was needed for the dust to settle before anything could be done, and I must confess also to a certain desire, temporarily at least, to get that dust of Europe off my feet and to move into a different atmosphere.

WEDNESDAY, 30 APRIL. Brussels and Delhi.

Commission early. 11.20 plane to Frankfurt, and Air India 747 from there. Comfortable flight to Delhi, arriving at 1.30 in the morning, which was 10 p.m. Brussels time. Only protocol people at the airport, which was a relief at that time in the morning, and drove to Rashtrapati Bhawan, the old Vice-Regal Lodge, where we were installed at 2.15 a.m. in magnificent apartments. Apparently some Viceroys, not Mountbatten-but I think all the previous four of the post-Lutyens era-had themselves lived in the quarters we were in, but Mountbatten for some reason or other had moved to the other side of the vast house. Temperature very high, probably about 95F when we landed, but dry and therefore not intolerable.

THURSDAY, 1 MAY. Delhi.

A rest day for acclimatization. Very sensible, although unusual. To lunch accompanied by Crispin and Jennifer with John Thomson37 (British High Commissioner) alone (his wife was away). Rather a good talk with him, whom I thought a sharp, intelligent, agreeable man. Between 6 and 7 p.m. in the fierce red sunset over the red city we did a drive to the Red Fort and the Great Mosque. Back and received K. B. Lall plus wife, the former (twice) Indian Amba.s.sador to Brussels who had played such a role in Community/Indian relations over twenty years. Then to a son et lumiere performance at the Red Fort. Surprised at how much in the final part-it was a history of three hundred years-emphasis was put on the Indian National Liberation Army-the Chandra Bose/j.a.panese flirtation towards the end of the war.

FRIDAY, 2 MAY. Delhi.

Two wreath-laying ceremonies at the Gandhi and Nehru memorials from 8.30 to 9.15. Extremely hot, the Nehru shrine for some reason seeming hotter than the Gandhi shrine, but tolerable and brief ceremonies.

Then a seventy-five-minute meeting with Mrs Gandhi, with Crispin and one on her side. Moderately interesting talk with her. I found her rather easier, less forbidding, in a way less wrapped up in herself than I had nine years before. Mainly about world affairs, although she was bitterly critical of Desai for having released too many of the dangerous men she had locked up during the Emergency, and of almost everybody in a.s.sam for their misrepresentation of herself and their disruptive att.i.tude towards the Indian state. On Afghanistan she was mildly critical of the Soviet occupation, but spoke with more vehemence against the American response to it and the danger of the Soviet reaction to American bases, growing Sino-American friends.h.i.+p and the Russian belief (this was surprising to me) that the United States encouraged Islamic fundamentalists.

Mrs Gandhi obviously hoped (and almost a.s.sumed) that a world Summit would follow the publication of the Brandt Report, but had no plans for an Indian initiative to this end, apparently looking to either Mexico or the European Community to take the lead.

She made no concessions to blandness in making clear that India wanted all the Community help she could get. She raised the privileged arrangements which others (i.e. the Lome countries) already had with the Community. I said that the Lome Convention which a.s.sociated the Community with a large number of small and very poor countries (with one or two exceptions such as Nigeria) should not worry India. India was far too big and important to be a member of it. There had to be a more individual and equal relations.h.i.+p between the Community and India. If India had to share in the aid we gave under the Lome Convention it would be for her no more than a drop in the ocean. Mrs Gandhi said she was not sure she agreed. With the strong Indian social and economic infrastructure, India could make use of whatever was provided. She thought President Giscard had grasped this point when he had visited India recently (a nice piece of gamesmans.h.i.+p). A strong India was well able to a.s.sist others. She would prefer to speak of Community aid not as a drop in the ocean but as a rung on the ladder of development.

Then a series of engagements, including a 'discussion' lunch with the Speaker and forty members of the Parliament, a call on the head of state and a lecture to the Indian Inst.i.tute of International Affairs, until the Prime Minister's dinner in the ceremonial rooms of Rashtrapati Bhawan, which was fortunately brief, 8.15 to 10.15. Ten-minute speeches at the end of this, one from Mrs Gandhi, one from me. She was agreeable at dinner, and got on particularly well with Jennifer, who was on the other side of her. Dinner I suppose for about a hundred people, impressive surroundings, no alcohol, but rather good food.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 3 MAY. Delhi.

At 10.30 saw Bahadur Singh,38 the now retired Indian diplomat who had beaten me on my second time round for the presidency of the Oxford Union. Agreeable talk with him, although he was healthily free of Oxford schwarmerei. At 12.15 a meeting with the Minister of Commerce, followed by a lunch with him and perhaps forty others in the Taj Mahal Hotel. Press conference at 5.30 and then a long television interview. Provocatively anti-EEC interviewer to whom I replied with some animation and firmness. Then at 7.30 a briefing of the amba.s.sadors of the Nine followed by dinner at the Italian Emba.s.sy-their amba.s.sador seemed an a.s.s, which is most unusual in the Italian diplomatic service, but the others were not too bad.

Jennifer had been that day for an expedition to Agra, and had survived remarkably well in a temperature of 118F in the shade. Temperature in Delhi was about 110F. No humidity.

SUNDAY, 4 MAY. Delhi and Udaipur.

Flew to Udaipur (very high-cla.s.s sight-seeing) in a comfortable but non-jet Indian Air Force plane. By boat to the Lake Palace Hotel on an island. The hotel is a very splendid place. In the evening we sat for two hours on a sort of rampart having a drink and watching one of the most memorable sunsets I have ever seen.

MONDAY, 5 MAY. Udaipur and Bangalore.

Flew for four and a quarter hours in the same slow plane to Bangalore, which despite its reputation as a much-favoured, healthy British garrison town, failed to enthuse me.

TUESDAY, 6 MAY. Bangalore and Mysore.

Helicopted to Mysore. To the Mahal Palace Hotel-a vast 1920s mansion-about three miles from the town, at which hardly anybody except us seemed to be staying, and were installed there in huge vice-regal-style rooms with a splendid view. Left fairly soon afterwards to drive to the Samanthapur Temple about twenty miles away, accompanied by the Curator of Monuments for Karnatica, an erudite and enjoyable man. This early temple has extraordinary carvings done in the special stone of the locality which is very soft when quarried and therefore can be most intricately and delicately worked, but then becomes very hard and therefore preserves itself over the centuries.

Afternoon visit to the main palace of the last Maharaja of Mysore, fairly modern, vast ironwork structure inside, all cast in Glasgow at the end of the nineteenth century, the ensemble bearing a considerable resemblance to the Winter Gardens at Blackpool. There is a striking similarity between English late Victorian and Edwardian pier architecture and the style favoured by Indian maharajas a little later. The Mysore buildings, which are on a very grand scale, were all built in the last decades of princely power.

WEDNESDAY, 7 MAY. Mysore and Bombay.

Helicopted for about twenty-five minutes to the Bandipur game sanctuary where we drove in jeeps through the bush or forest. (It was not tropical rain forest, but it was more than scrub.) We did relatively well for animals: no tiger-but it is now almost impossible to see a tiger anywhere-but two herd of wild elephants, one very close, and the other moving fast with a great trumpeting from the leader; a lot of rather beautiful gazelles, a lot of fine birds; and some other relatively rare creatures. Returned to Mysore for lunch and then left for Bangalore, again by helicopter, at 4.15, and on to Bombay by commercial flight on a clear, hot night. Drove the long distance into this immense city, which has a curious Manhattanlike appearance after dark, to the Taj Mahal Hotel where Mrs Sawhny, rich Bombay widow, Tata sister, gave us a dinner party which was very much an Indian version of a smart but enlightened New York occasion. A Tata brother (not the head of the firm), the leader of the local Liberal Party, several ladies much interested in the preservation of old Bombay, and nearly anybody involved in some form of good works.

THURSDAY, 8 MAY. Bombay and East Hendred.

London at 6.15 a.m. (9.45 Bombay time) and East Hendred at 7.15. It has been an interesting, worthwhile and not at all exhausting Indian trip.

FRIDAY, 9 MAY. East Hendred, Paris and East Hendred.

This, alas, was not a day of relaxation, for I set off for the 8.30 plane to Paris, which got me into the Schuman celebrations39 in the Grande Salle of the Sorbonne by about 11 o'clock. There I made a fifteen-minute speech, wholly prepared text, in the midst of other dignitaries like Barre, Mme Veil, Colombo, etc. Lunch with Marie-Alice. East Hendred at 6.40 in good time for an expedition to the Downs in magical light.

MONDAY, 12 MAY. East Hendred, London and Brussels.

Lunch with the British Biological Research Inst.i.tute at the Savoy. Solly Zuckerman was the great panjandrum of this, and present, though not in the chair. Large audience of four or five hundred, mainly from firms concerned in these matters, some scientists. I had quite a good Crispin speech of substance which I embroidered with a joke about Solly and Mysore monkeys. (Our room in Mysore had been invaded by monkeys one afternoon, and my story, which owed a certain amount to fantasy but not everything, was that one of them came and sat close, looking at me, and that such is the obvious intelligence of a monkey-unlike any other animal-that you feel in order to be polite you have to make an attempt at conversation. I could not at first think on what subject to address it, but after a bit I decided, so ubiquitous a presence is Solly in the world, and so close had been his contact with primates, that the best I could do was to ask him whether he knew my friend Lord Zuckerman, whereupon the creature nodded gravely, appreciatively and affirmatively. Politeness had been observed, and I was able to return to my book.) To Brussels for one of my regular dinners for Ortoli and Gundelach-Davignon was away. Hard pounding on BBQ as is now usual.