Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq.
Iraq
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister had chaired a meeting with Ministers this morning to discuss Iraq. That meeting had been followed by a short bilateral with Clare Short prior to her departure to the UN later today where she was due to meet the Secretary General and other Security Council colleagues to discuss some of the humanitarian issues which might flow from a post-Saddam era. Questioned about the status of the Ministerial meeting this morning, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had been meeting a group of Ministers more or less every day at 8.30am for the past week. Today’s attendees had included the Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, David Blunkett, John Reid, Clare Short and officials. Asked whether any military representatives had attended, the PMOS said that those people who had needed to be present had been present. The Chief of the Defence Staff had been there, for example. Asked whether the security services had been represented at the meeting, the PMOS said that it was not our practice to comment on the work, or appearance in any shape or form of the security services. Questioned as to whether the group was the fledgling War Cabinet, the PMOS said that informal meetings of Ministers had been taking place over the last few days. The group which had met this morning would meet again tomorrow and probably in the days to come. It was important to recognise, however, that we were not yet in a conflict situation. He would leave journalists to badge the meeting as they wished.
Asked when the new Leader of the House would be announced, the PMOS said that he was unable to provide a timetable setting out when the necessary Ministerial changes would be made, although he could confirm it would not be today. Should it be necessary, Ben Bradshaw could continue to deputise for Robin Cook for the time being. Asked whether the new appointments had not yet been made because the Prime Minister did not have time at the moment to meet with Ministers, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister did not consider the need to make some Ministerial changes to be at the top of his in-tray at the current time.
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the size of the rebellion in the House last night and whether there were any lessons to be learned, the PMOS said it was important for people to recognise that the Government had kept its word to Parliament. There had been a substantive motion and vote before any military action was taken, should it be necessary. Journalists could work out the arithmetical implications of last night’s vote for themselves and could do their own psychological analyses of the outcome. Ultimately, however, it was worth pointing out that the amendment had been defeated and the Government motion had been carried with a clear majority of the House. It was also important for people to understand that Saddam had tried over the past twelve years, with some success, to use the mechanisms of democracies around the world to ensure that he could flout his obligations under Security Council Resolutions to disarm. There had been a vigorous debate in the House last night. Clearly there were differences of opinion. Everyone accepted that. However, it was now time for Parliament and the country to unite around our forces in whatever action they might have to take in the future, should it be necessary. Asked if he was implying that the Prime Minister believed there were no lessons to be learned from last night, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had always listened with great respect to the different opinions which had been expressed by those who saw things differently. He accepted that those views were held no less strongly than his. However, the House had been given the opportunity to vote on the issue. The settled will of Parliament was now clear, the legal basis for any action was clear and the resolve of the Government was clear. Action would be taken to disarm Saddam and his regime of WMD should that be necessary.
Asked whether the Prime Minister was planning to ’sit down to a posh dinner’ at the European Council tomorrow night with ‘a man he had directly accused of putting the lives of British forces in peril’, the PMOS said he hoped journalists would forgive him for answering the question in more prosaic terms. The Prime Minister was due to depart for Brussels tomorrow afternoon. The Greek Presidency had indicated that the issue of Iraq would be discussed over dinner tomorrow evening and that Friday morning would be devoted to the other parts of the Summit agenda, chief of which was European economic reform and the way the post-Lisbon and Barcelona agenda was being driven forward and the European Convention. He said that there was no use pretending that there weren’t serious differences of view between us and the French Government in relation to Resolution 1441. Clearly there were. We did not believe that the international community could walk away from the logic of 1441. If people were not prepared to accept any ultimatum or Resolution which could lead to the authorisation of the use of force, it was clear that we would not see disarmament. In our view, it made no sense to accept that it was the threat of force which had allowed the weapons inspectors into Iraq but then adopt the position that it shouldn’t be used. There would be a discussion tomorrow at the European Council where EU leaders would no doubt set out their positions, as was right and proper. That said, it was important to recognise that differences of view in relation to Iraq did not define the relationship we had with other EU countries on a whole range of other issues.
Asked why he appeared to be resiling from the Prime Minister’s stance at Cabinet on Monday when he had told Ministers that he believed that Saddam could have been disarmed without a shot being fired had the international community remained united in issuing an ultimatum, the PMOS said that he was not resiling from anything that had been said and did not see how his comments could be interpreted in that way. In the Prime Minister’s view, had the whole international community stuck by 1441 and sent a strong message of unity to Saddam in terms of the tests against which his compliance could be judged with the very clear understanding that the use of force would follow if necessary, that pressure could have reaped dividends and we could have achieved peacefully the disarmament that we all wanted to see. The French Government had spoken for itself in saying that France would use its veto whatever the circumstances. Obviously that had caused a major impasse in the diplomatic negotiations. The Prime Minister had told Cabinet that the impasse was not something which was conditional, but absolute.
Asked whether Saddam would have been more likely to agree to go into exile had the French remained on-side, the PMOS said that at the point when discussions had been moving ahead in relation to achieving a second Resolution, President Chirac had said that France would use its veto whatever the circumstances. Such action had obviously had a debilitating effect on the discussions taking place with other Security Council partners in an attempt to achieve coalescence around a new Resolution. In the Prime Minister’s view, this was an impasse which couldn’t be resolved. Put to him that the purpose of the second Resolution had been to authorise war, not peace, the PMOS said that a second Resolution would have offered Saddam an ultimatum by setting out clear tests against which his compliance could be judged, backed up by the threat of force if they were not met. There was no point in having Resolutions which stated that serious consequences would follow if they did not mean what they said and if requests for more time were simply made and accepted. Such a situation would render the Resolutions meaningless since such requests could be acceded to indefinitely.
Asked if he would agree that the resultant UK/US and Franco/German/Russian divide as a result of differing opinions on 1441 would inevitably affect a whole range of international issues, the PMOS said he would agree that there were big issues at stake and that clearly there were huge challenges for the international community to address after this. He pointed out that there were a very large number of European countries who supported the Government’s position, including Spain, Italy, Denmark, Holland, in addition to all the accession countries. It was important to recognise that the UK was not isolated, as some people sometimes wished to portray it. Asked if Downing Street would brief on the talks at the Summit, the PMOS said yes, but we would have to wait and see what happened. It would be foolish to try to characterise the meeting before it had even taken place. The Prime Minister had expressed his views in the strongest terms many times in the past. No doubt he would do so again in Brussels tomorrow evening should it be necessary.
Questioned as to whether the Summit tomorrow could be characterised as the day the Prime Minister started building bridges, the PMOS said that discussions would continue with our European partners on a range of issues. The Prime Minister’s conversation with President Chirac last week had been perfectly good-natured. But we were not hiding the fact that there was a fundamental disagreement on the issue of Iraq. Should UN Resolutions mean what they said? In our view, the answer was yes, absolutely. The Prime Minister believed that people could not walk away from 1441. Serious consequences had to mean serious consequences. Similarly, a final opportunity meant a final opportunity, immediate compliance meant immediate compliance and full co-operation meant full co-operation. Other countries had set out their views. We had been absolutely forthright in setting out ours - and would continue to do so if necessary. He underlined again that one issue did not define the totality of a relationship.
Asked whether Clare Short would be representing the UK at the UN today when Hans Blix presented a further report to the Security Council, in the light of the fact that the French and Russians had said that they would be sending their respective foreign ministers, the PMOS said that as he understood it, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, would be attending the session. He took the opportunity to draw journalists’ attention to a quote running on AFP this morning from the UNMOVIC spokesman who had expressed scepticism about Iraqi co-operation. He had said that, "Given Baghdad’s reticence during the inspections, it was very difficult to say that the inspections would have been able to avoid war. I’m not sure whether we would have succeeded in finishing our task".
delicious
digg
facebook
