William Hague: Standing up for freedom in time of darkness

The first captured the imagination of many other peoples, while the second won the respect of their governments. Abroad, her name will always be synonymous with firmness, national pride and strength of character, and that is something for us all to be proud of.

It seems easy now, from the vantage point of 2013, to see the surge in new democracies of the 1990s as inevitable. It has become orthodoxy that the Soviet Union was doomed by the weight of its own flaws and contradictions, and that its demise was imminent. But the same is often thought of other undemocratic regimes that still cling on in our lifetime: such as North Korea, about to enter its seventh decade of grinding oppression while its leaders threaten nuclear confrontation. Fate can take a long time to catch up with such governments, and in the meantime their people suffer in their millions.

If we roll back the years to 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to office, the global picture was one of darkness and uncertainty, with Communism maintaining its grip on Europe, and elsewhere in the world advancing.

Germany was still divided, and Spain, Greece and Portugal were painfully building their democracies. Twelve states in Eastern Europe were still shackled to the Soviet Union, while seven states today were then part of Tito’s communist Yugoslavia. Military dictators held sway in much of Latin America and large parts of Africa. It was the year Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan, and the Khmer Rouge’s reign of torture in Cambodia had ended only months earlier. This was an era of threatening darkness for democracy, of Cold War and nuclear stand-off, with tyranny very much alive even where its days were numbered. Nor did Britain appear to have much power to change any of this. We were the sick man of Europe, economically enfeebled and sapped by a spirit of decline.

Margaret Thatcher could have chosen to placate the Soviet Union, and shied away from confrontation. But she did not, winning the affection of those living under Soviet tyranny by championing their right to sovereignty.

She showed the same courage of her convictions over the Falklands, despite all the risks and danger. As one of my predecessors, Douglas Hurd, recalled in his memoirs: “The British Government, and in particular the Foreign Office, was humiliated. The chances of a successful outcome, through either diplomacy or war, seemed hopeless.” Yet she acted decisively. He recalls her invoking Shakespeare’s Henry V with the words “He who hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart”, after one meeting with wavering Ministers. Her success guaranteed the rights of the Falkland Islanders and showed the world that Britain was prepared to confront naked aggression.

With this courage she was capable of stiffening the spines of the strongest allies, with her own trademark frankness, including her famous words to the first President George Bush after the invasion of Kuwait that it was “not the time to go wobbly”. She understood, as we know today, that if you are serious about peace sometimes you have to be prepared to go to war; when vital principles are at stake and conflicts cannot be resolved peacefully.

So by any measure Margaret Thatcher was a leader who fearlessly stood up for our country in the world, and raised it up in the estimation of other nations. Britain’s standing in the world was restored by her, our status as an ally was enhanced by her, and our capacity to show leadership in the world was left beyond doubt by her. As Mikhail Gorbachev said: “Mrs Thatcher took over at a time when the United Kingdom was lagging behind the other nations, and she succeeded in radically changing both the domestic and international situation of Great Britain.”

She won her place in history, she holds it still, and will be remembered for generations.

Some people will ask what this has to do with us in Britain today, and it is true that our international environment is dramatically different. Ours is a far more inter-dependent world, in which we are vulnerable to what happens in other countries, no matter how geographically distant.

We have to define our national interest more widely, giving even greater centrality to human rights, international development assistance and conflict prevention. We have to uphold and strengthen international law, whether in commerce or security. We have to win over international public opinion, in a world of far greater scrutiny and transparency.

Our country is at its best in the world, and it serves its interests best, when we combine this strong international engagement with an equally strong commitment to freedom, human rights and democracy.