Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq, War on Terror, 2012 Olympic Games and North Korea.
Iraq
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the latest bin Laden tape told us anything about his relationship with Iraq, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that we saw no reason to believe that it wasn’t bin Laden’s voice on the recording. It appeared to show a readiness on his part to find common cause with Iraq and to work on the basis that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’. That said, it was important to underline - as the Prime Minister had done consistently - that the Al Qaida issue was not the core reason for our position on Iraq. Our position was based on Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The key questions remained those posed by Hans Blix in his report to the UN on 27 January. What had happened to 6,500 chemical bombs which had been unaccounted for when UNSCOM had left Iraq in 1998? What had happened to the stocks of anthrax and VX nerve agent? What had happened to the 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, 360 tonnes of bulk agent for chemical weapons and the 30,000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents? In addition, as Jack Straw had asked once again yesterday, why had Iraq illegally, in breach of UN Resolutions, imported hundreds of missile engines? These questions formed the basis of our core case against Iraq. Questions about Al Qaida ran alongside, but were not the principal reason for our position.
Put to him that the tape suggested that bin Laden wanted a war against Iraq because it would clearly suit his purposes, the PMOS said that twelve years ago the UN had given Saddam fifteen days to disarm. He hadn’t. Just because we were now facing two different threats did not mean that we had to choose to deal with only one of them in case we exacerbated the other. It was important to deal with both, which was precisely what we were doing.
Questioned as to whether bin Laden wanted to show common cause with Saddam Hussein or with the people of Iraq, the PMOS referred journalists to the transcript of bin Laden’s message which stated, "It doesn’t harm, in these conditions, the interests of Muslims to agree with those of the Socialists in fighting against the crusaders, even though we believe the Socialists are infidels". In our view, that was a clear reference to the current regime.
Asked for a reaction to a BBC poll which appeared to show that public opinion remained unpersuaded on the Prime Minister’s stance on Iraq despite his efforts last week, the PMOS said we believed that the public recognised that Saddam posed a real threat and also wanted to see a consensus in dealing with it. That was our position too. We would continue to put the argument. The case was very simple. Twelve years ago, the UN had decided that Saddam was not someone who could be trusted to possess WMD. He did and it was incredible to think that some people continued to believe otherwise. That was why we were working hard to resolve the issue. How that might be done and how we might be able to achieve an international consensus were matters to be dealt with over the coming days. In the meantime, people should let Hans Blix answer the question that Resolution 1441 empowered him to address - namely, was Saddam complying immediately and fully with the wishes of the UN?
Asked if Downing Street would agree with Colin Powell’s reported declaration that the Franco/German ‘proposal’ "aims to delay the process of dealing with this issue for ever", the PMOS said that as he understood it, France and Germany had written to Hans Blix, effectively repeating the position outlined by the French Foreign Minister at the UN Security Council last week when he had called for additional inspectors. Other aspects of the Der Spiegel article, which had been the genesis for this story, had not been dealt with. Dr Blix, however, had made the point earlier this week that it was not a question of having more inspectors. It was a question of Saddam’s attitude towards them in terms. Was he going to comply fully or repeat his tactics of drip-feeding apparent superficial, process-driven concessions while declining to address the fundamental point? That remained the key question.
Asked if the UK was playing an active role in attempting to resolve the widely reported differences within NATO, the PMOS said that we would obviously work closely with our NATO colleagues. However, it was important to recognise that the division was between sixteen members who were of our view and three who were not. Clearly we were in no way isolated, but would nevertheless continue to work with our colleagues to try to resolve the issues. At this point, however, we believed it was best to keep the detail of those discussions private.
War on Terror
Asked for further detail about the ’specific threat’ to Heathrow, the PMOS said that he had nothing further to add to what his colleague had said about this matter yesterday. There was an ongoing operation and it would continue. Asked for how long the security measures would remain in place, the PMOS said that he had no intention of commenting on the nature or timescale of the operation, for obvious reasons. They were continuing.
2012 Olympic Games
Asked if the decision on whether London should bid for the 2012 Olympic Games would be delayed, the PMOS said it was unlikely a decision would be reached at Cabinet tomorrow. Given the pressure of other business, the necessary work on this matter would probably take a little longer to complete.
North Korea
Questioned as to whether the UK would accede to North Korea’s request and use its special relationship with the US to help set up talks to resolve the current stand-off, the PMOS said that we had seen the report but had not yet received a formal request from North Korea. Obviously this matter would be discussed at the IAEA meeting in Vienna this afternoon.
delicious
digg
facebook
