Rome, 21 February 2003
Signor Berlusconi (In translation):
It is a pleasure for me to meet with Tony Blair. I see him as a friend, I admire him. We are searching for the programme to better the lives of our respective citizens. I believe that this meeting was very useful.
I have two documents, in fact three documents. One on the economy of Europe, to better our European economy, and the American system. The second is on the countering of terrorism. We spoke about many international projects and our intention for Italian companies to go abroad and open their activities in Britain.
[Interrupted by comment by news journalists]
shared the things that we felt necessary in each of these operational theatres, so for my part I would like to once again thank Tony Blair sincerely from my heart and also to give the most cordial expression to an admiration for what he represents, not only within his own country but also within the European Community, and I want to say that I don’t recall but I would like him to confirm or do the opposite. I don’t remember one time in any of the European Councils that we took part in together where our positions were not the same. I don’t remember any positions which were not shared. I really don’t recall any situation where there was any distance between our views and what we brought to the table in our attempts to try and achieve that unity of intent which should be the European Community’s situation.
Prime Minister:
Thank you. Can I say how delighted I am to be back in Italy and to have had such a good and worthwhile bilateral Summit. It is of tremendous interest to me to see how many common points of interest and agreement that there are between us, and I would like to pay tribute to Prime Minister Berlusconi for his leadership at this difficult time which I think has been of immense benefit to Italy, to Europe and to the wider world.
In relation to the bilateral agreements, the Prime Minister has already told you of the agreements on Defence and Immigration, and the paper on Economic Reform and in addition we are working closely obviously closely together on the European Convention for the future of Europe. And I think there are three very important areas where Britain and Italy are in complete agreement. The first is for a strong Europe that is able to play its part in the world, and its part in the world as a partner of the United States of America, sharing common values and aims. Secondly a Europe that recognises that alongside the Single Currency we need the Programme of Economic Reform and Change in Europe to make our economies more competitive so that we can indeed compete where necessary with the United States and other main economic players, and thirdly that in a Europe that is going to work more closely together, that needs to co-operate more, that is about to enlarge and take in those countries that were part of the old order in Europe and part of all the problems that we had with communism, those countries now coming into Europe will, with us, form the Europe of the future and it is important in that regard that we make sure that as we move closer together we are doing so as a Europe of nations, and not a federal super state. And so in these three areas I think we share an immense amount in common.
It is true also that we have discussed of course the international situation before us. We both of us want to see the situation of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction resolved through the United Nations. It is for that very reason that we took the issue to the United Nations last November and passed Resolution 1441. Even now at this juncture, we hope that this issue can be resolved peacefully and without the need for conflict, but we are determined that the will of the United Nations, expressed in Resolution 1441, is upheld.
In addition we discussed the Middle East Peace Process and the importance of trying to reinvigorate that process, not just for the Middle East but indeed for the stability and prosperity of the world as a whole. We discussed Afghanistan, and here I would like to pay tribute to the work that Italy is doing in Afghanistan. It’s leadership there has been immensely important in dealing with the huge problems and difficulties that country still has to overcome. We of course discussed a whole range of the other issues that you would expect us to, but I think one other thing stood out from our conversation, and that is the need for a strong relationship also with Russia, and that again is something that Prime Minister Berlusconi has been particularly active upon.
So, once again many thanks for your kind invitation to come here. I am delighted at the state of our bilateral relations, and at the progress that we have made today, and I think that augurs very well for the future of both our countries.
Signor Berlusconi:
There are three questions from Italy and three from England. We’ll start with the English questions.
Question (For Mr Blair):
You have emphasised throughout in the confrontation with Iraq the moral justification for it. As a practising Christian when you see the Pontiff tomorrow, one of the great moral authorities of our time, isn’t there inevitably going to be a collision of views on this, because he is implacably opposed to this crisis ending in war.
Prime Minister:
Well, I obviously know the views of the Pope very well and they are very clear. Let me just make one thing also plain. We do not want war. No-one wants war. The reason why last Summer, instead of starting war, we went to the United Nations was in order to have a peaceful solution to this. But there is a moral dimension to this question too. If we fail to disarm Saddam peacefully, then where does that leave the authority of the United Nations, and if we leave Saddam in charge of Iraq, with his weapons of mass destruction, where does that leave the Iraqi people who are the principal victims of Saddam. So, if we can possibly resolve this peacefully we will do, but it has to be on the basis of the will of the United Nations expressed in that Resolution being upheld and I totally understand and share the dislike of any member of the Church, or indeed wider society, for war. That is why it has been 12 long years and several more months in the United Nations that we have been trying to avoid war, but in the end I can’t avoid it unless Saddam chooses the route of peaceful disarmament, and he knows what he has to do, and he has the capability to do it. The question is, does he have the will.
Signor Berlusconi:
If you will allow me Tony I would like to add something to your answer. The fact that on the part of everyone we are still trying to find the peaceful solution .Everyone is trying to find it and also in my country I personally part of this commitment to find every solution possible with regard to Saddam Hussein. Other states which have important relations with Iraq are all trying in order to achieve a true disarmament. We have also tried other routes, for example that route which seemed to us, for the same reasons we tried friendly Arab States, we tried the route of exile with the assurance of immunity offered by the European Community. We also looked for other solutions and we are still trying to find other solutions, to find a commitment on the part of Saddam Hussein towards the international community to recognise a political position and to give freedom to this opposition, and to grant the freedom of the press, to recognise civil and human rights to his people, and to undertake elections within a year to accept all of this. This too could be a solution which could avoid the need for military intervention, so I think that the situations by which we are described as those who want war. This is far from reality because the position is quite the contrary. We are determined to find disarmament through peace, and I would like to repeat this clearly because our public opinion must know this. Our real wish is to disarm Saddam by peaceful means, and I accuse myself for having prolonged this answer, but I think this is important. That we have to seek these alternative solutions to war.
Question (to Mr Blair):
According to the last Guardian poll, 52% of the British are against a military attack and according to your Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw, it is very difficult for a democratic state to wage war against the will of the people. How do you think to overcome this problem?
Question (To Mr Berlusconi):
And I would like to ask Mr Berlusconi the problem mentioned earlier in relation to public opinion which in Italy is greatly against the war. This is a political problem for all governments. Do you believe that the Italian government should move only following a UN Resolution?
Prime Minister:
First of all, on the state of British opinion, of course we must take careful account of that, though I think you will also see the same polls show substantial support for action if it comes on the back of a second United Nations Resolution, and that is still what we are working for. I think apart from that what the words of His Holiness The Pope have described, the words that are used in many of the discussions that there are in Britain and I am sure here in Italy, what all those words do is describe the reluctance of people to go to war, except as a last resort. That is our position. Last Summer we could have attacked Iraq. Some people perhaps wanted us to act then. But President Bush chose to go through the United Nations. It is now 6 months since he went to the UN. It’s almost 4 months since the Resolution was passed. We are still waiting however for a definitive sign from Iraq that they are prepared to disarm peacefully. And I believe that when people see that case made, and when they understand the appalling repression that there is of the people in Iraq, the thousands of people that die needlessly every year as a result of the repression of Iraqis by Saddam, then they will understand how important it is that we make sure that the cause of disarmament is upheld.
Signor Berlusconi:
I too must say that this statement by Mr Straw does correspond to the truth. But that probably the governments - mine certainly - must do more to communicate to the public what the reality of the situation is regarding the ownership of arms by Saddam Hussein, and with regard to Saddam Hussein’s regime. The peace march last Saturday really brought about a very dangerous misinformation. In Italy President Bush was compared to Hitler. In Italy Silvio Berlusconi was compared to Mussolini and the same somebody practically described Saddam Hussein as a good Moslem and Arab citizen, without any sort of fault, whereas entirely the opposite is true, and we must let the story of Saddam Hussein’s regime be known and the nature of his power and how Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people with numerous victims, with massacres of his victims. I think this is important and it is also important to remember that there is the certainty of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. When the United Nations left Iraq in 1999 there were 6,500 biological bombs, 600,000 tons of chemical weapons. There were 8,500 litres of anthrax and the inspectors who are operating in Iraq have asked where all these arms have ended up. They have received no answer and in fact the answers they received were unacceptable. They claimed to have destroyed these weapons, but that the documentation relating to the destruction of the weapons had been lost. Now it is clear that at a time when the world is attacked by terrorist organisations which have demonstrated what they are capable of, and we all remember the terrorist act of 11 September, if such weapons should fall into the hands of these organisations, those same organisations would certainly not hesitate to use them, and I therefore believe that today public opinion in Europe - English and Italian public opinion - has a distorted information on this matter, distorted because it is too generally believed that our will, and in particular the will of the United States and England and Australia, it is believed that there is a warlike intention, whereas it is precisely the opposite. It is an intention to achieve peaceful disarmament and the attack that is to be made is not against the people, it is against a dictator, and a regime which suppresses the people, denying any possibility of correct information and fundamental liberties and maintaining power by a police state using terror and prison and death in defence of this. I believe that we must still make a great effort, and there is time, and this I want to make clear. It is not that the United States is saying that one must attack tomorrow. It is that one must create a military pressure, and one must put that pressure in order to bring about peace. If you want peace you must prepare for war, and with that threat it is easier to maintain peace. This is what George Bush told me personally. This is what Tony and I discussed today, this is what we said the other day at the table of the Council of Europe.
Question:
This is really the obverse, I suppose, of the Pope question. In view of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld has said that the American forces are now ready for war and that informally the weapons inspectors are saying co-operation has got worse over the last week, does each of you favour an early tabling of that UN Resolution, and what should the terms be?
Prime Minister:
In respect of when we table a Resolution and the terms, I’m afraid that’s something we are still discussing with allies and with other partners on the Security Council. But I have made it clear throughout my overwhelming preference has always been to resolve this through the United Nations. But there is one important point also in relation to what the United Nations has said recently which is that Iraq has co-operated less in the past few days. One thing surely is absolutely clear that we can all agree on, whatever our perspective, that without the possibility of force being used, the UN inspectors would never have gone back into Iraq at all and the only circumstances in which Saddam is going to disarm peacefully, are circumstances where he gets a clear, united message on behalf of the world community, disarm peacefully or you will be disarmed by force. And I simply say to him that if he believes that the will of the international community has weakened in any way, I think he is mistaken. I think that will is there and I think the statement from the European Council on Monday was an important reaffirmation of that.
Question:
I wanted to ask you if you are convinced, as Prime Minister Berlusconi said in Brussels, that you will speak with one voice at the next Security Council meeting.
Signor Berlusconi:
We proceeded also with great personal effort to bring about a situation whereby Europe has expressed itself in a single document, and therefore with one voice in an important situation such as the European Council in its informal meeting last Monday in Brussels and this is the hope also for the future and we are working so that Europe on this matter will not be divided. I don’t know if we will succeed, but our wish and our will is certainly to work in this direction.
Prime Minister:
Well the answer to your question is that I very much hope that we will speak with a single voice, and we did last Monday, and the reason why I believe why I believe that we will is that Resolution 1441 has a very clear logic to it. It called upon Saddam to disarm, it said that this was his final opportunity to do so, and it said that there had to be full, unconditional, immediate co-operation with the UN inspectors. Now if there is not such full co-operation, then Resolution 1441 makes it clear that Saddam is in breach of the UN will. So it is obvious what he has to do. The importance of co-operation is -and this is a point actually that Prime Minister Berlusconi made very powerfully at the European Council meeting - the purpose of the inspectors is not to be a detective agency to try and search Iraq for these weapons that are concealed. The purpose, as he explained, and you can see this from countries that have co-operated with the UN inspectors, the purpose is for the inspectors to go into the country and with the full co-operation of the receiving government and country, identify the material and destroy it. Now that is what should happen in Iraq.
There’s no mystery about it, and there’s no difficulty in describing it. The only missing thing is the will of Saddam to do it. So I believe that that common position that we had in Resolution 1441 can be achieved again, if we simply adhere to the integrity of that process.
Signor Berlusconi:
And I would also like to add one statement. When the United Nations in the past ordered countries to destroy their weapons, these countries behaved in quite the opposite way to the way in which Iraq is behaving today, countries such as Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, South Africa. The inspectors from the UN were accepted and led to those places where there had been the installations for the production of these weapons and they were able to make an audit, like an accountant, to ascertain that these weapons were destroyed or were being destroyed and then they showed where the resulting matter was, and all the documentation was provided, which is precisely the opposite situation to that which is occurring in Iraq. And as regards the earlier question about public opinion, it is true that there is too much misinformation. For example all through this number of 100 million people demonstrating for peace in the world, in the demonstration I mentioned earlier, against the United States, against the allies. Our estimates lead us to estimate a much smaller number, less than 10 million in fact. And we were given much greater numbers. This is a signal of how there is too much misinformation from the media. There is incorrect information being passed.
Question:
Now you obviously have a deep moral conviction about the stance you are taking at the moment. You believe that you are right, yet the Archbishops in Britain, both of them, and the British people aren’t budging at all, despite your repeated appeals to them. Do you ever start to think that maybe you have got it wrong, and that you will change your mind?
Prime Minister:
I don’t pretend, Juliet, to have a monopoly of wisdom on this or any other issue and I totally understand why people don’t want war. Who would want war? That’s the very reason why we have given every single opportunity for this to be resolved peacefully but all I ask people to understand that however ever sincerely they hold their view, and there is another side to this argument because if you leave Saddam Hussein with these chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons that link between that and international terrorism is so obvious it hardly needs to be stated, and for the Iraqi people, if we leave him there with those weapons intact, then just think of the misery and death and repression that he is able to visit upon them. Think of the fact that Iraq is a country of 23-25 million people, they have 4 million exiles. So I understand exactly why people feel so strongly and I certainly don’t in any shape or form think that I have got all the answers to these questions, but in the end I have got to make a decision, and that is the difference between leadership and commentary.
I’ve got to make a decision. If we cannot disarm him peacefully, and we have given him every chance to do it through the UN route 12 years after we first asked him to do it. If we cannot do it peacefully are we just going to ignore the issue and hope it will go away. Are we just going to hope that with these weapons developed they are not going to fall into the hands of these terrorists that we know are trying to acquire such weapons. Are we just going to hope that somehow Saddam is going to have a change of heart and become a kind and decent man after 25 years of brutal and bloody repression. That’s the decision we have to take and anybody who has ever been in a situation like this knows the responsibility that you have, which is why even today we are not at war. 4 months on from a final opportunity. What was the final opportunity? The final opportunity was actually on 8 December. That was when he had to make his declaration. That is when he could have come forward and said OK I want to help the inspectors. This is what I’ve got, come in, look at it, shut it down. Now I made it clear to the Americans then, and the Americans agreed, that if he came forward at that point and was honest about it, then how ever much we may despise and dislike Saddam he would have remained because he had obeyed the will of the United Nations. But who seriously believes that that 8 December declaration was honest? Does anyone believe it? No. Does anyone believe he is really co-operating now, or how many interviews have we had from these witnesses 4 months on. A few with tape recorders or with Iraqi, so-called minders in the room with the people being interviewed. Now who is it therefore that is responsible for conflict if it comes? Us, who have done every single thing we can to resolve this peacefully, or him who refuses to abide by the clearly expressed will of the whole of the international community. That is what I ask and I say even now we could avoid conflict, but we cannot avoid it by weakness, and we cannot avoid it by going back on what we have already said because that will only mean, and all our history shows this, that at a later time we have to confront this issue again with consequences that are even worse than the consequences today.
delicious
digg
facebook
