Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Sandhurst, Northern Ireland, Iraq/Tax Break and Iraq.
Sandhurst
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister was currently attending the Sovereign’s Parade at Sandhurst where he would make a short address to those officers who were ‘Passing Out”. This was not the first time that a senior member of this Government had carried out this role. George Robertson had done so. He added that the engagement had been agreed with the Palace a year ago.
Northern Ireland
Asked if there had been any overnight developments on Northern Ireland, the PMOS said that there wasn’t much to add to what the Prime Minister and Taoiseach had said in their joint doorstep in Downing Street yesterday. Given we were waiting on the response of others, there wasn’t much to say. That response would dictate if and when the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland. Asked repeatedly if today was a cut off point for going to Northern Ireland given the Prime Minister’s diary engagements next week, the PMOS said that we would have to wait and see how things panned out. It would not be helpful to impose an artificial timescale at this point. There was no disagreement between the two Governments. Quite the contrary. Nor was there any problem with the proposals per se. However, as the Prime Minister had said yesterday, there needed to be clarity and certainty with regard to the response to them to provide the necessary confidence which would allow the process to move forward. The ball was not in our court. We awaited the response of others. Pressed further, the PMOS said that Northern Ireland had always been one of the Prime Minister’s main priorities ever since coming into office in 1997. He had always put a huge amount of effort into trying to push the process forward - and it went without saying that he stood ready to do whatever he could and whatever might be necessary to do that. Asked if the Prime Minister was still intending to fulfil his existing diary engagements next week, the PMOS said yes. He would be attending the European Council in Greece on Wednesday, stopping off in Hanover on Tuesday for a meeting with Chancellor Schroeder.
Asked if the Taoiseach’s view that the problems would be sorted out ‘overnight’ had been a figure of speech, the PMOS repeated that it would not be helpful start predicting timetables. We would have to see how today went. The Taoiseach had been indicating that discussions would go on overnight - as indeed they had. Obviously we hoped that the problems would be resolved. Time would tell.
Asked if we were waiting for the IRA to clarify its response or whether we were waiting for the other parties to signal their agreement to accept it, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach had both studiously avoided answering this question yesterday. We did not believe it would be helpful to brief on the positions of the individual parties at this stage. Everyone was aware of what the issues were. Equally, everyone understood that there had to be confidence on both sides in order for the process to move forward. Unless that confidence was there, there could be no deal.
Questioned as to whether the two Governments were putting forward their own form of words which they believed would be acceptable to both sides or whether they were asking the IRA to clarify its response, the PMOS said that he did not think it would be helpful to get drawn into a detailed debate or running commentary regarding the sensitive discussions which were currently going on. That said, there was clearly communication between the different parties, as you would expect. As always in Northern Ireland, language was important. Questioned further, the PMOS said that we had now reached the point where incremental movements relating to the peace process were not enough. What we now needed to see were acts of completion. Everyone knew what the outstanding issues were. Everyone was aware that they had to be dealt with in the round.
Asked if it was fair to say that the Government had had sight of the IRA’s proposed form of words and had rejected it, or whether it had been passed to David Trimble who had then passed it on to the Prime Minister and Taoiseach because he had been unhappy with it, the PMOS said that to answer the question - even indirectly - would mean answering the question he had avoided answering for twelve hours - namely, to brief on the response from the individual parties to our proposals. As we had underlined yesterday, this was not about recrimination, pointing the finger or playing the blame game. On the contrary. It was about ensuring that, if we move forward, we could do so with confidence on both sides. That was the challenge facing us.
Asked what the Prime Minister was doing today and whether he could go to Northern Ireland if necessary, the PMOS said that he was currently attending the Sovereign’s Parade at Sandhurst. On his return to Downing Street, he would continue to hold meetings. The Prime Minister believed that progress on the Northern Ireland peace process was one of this Government’s main priorities and he stood ready to do whatever was necessary to help move it forward, but the ball was not in the Government’s court.
Iraq/Tax Break
Asked for a reaction to the launch of the Daily Mail’s campaign today to urge the Government to exempt British troops serving abroad from paying income tax, the PMOS pointed out that the Treasury had already issued a response to the story. It went without saying that the Government acknowledged the bravery and professionalism with which the armed services carried out their duties. However, there was a long standing rule, which had been recognised in Northern Ireland, the first Gulf War, the Falklands and other conflicts, that Crown Servants, wherever they were serving, were chargeable to income tax on their Government salaries. We had no plans to change that policy. That said, we were obviously always open to looking at other ways in which we could help support our armed forces. For example, we had announced a free postal service last week.
I
raq
Asked if the Prime Minister believed that British troops serving in Iraq deserved to know that what they were doing was worthwhile following Clare Short’s apparent refusal during her Today Programme interview this morning to say whether she thought that the price of war was worth paying and action justified, the PMOS said that Ms Short was a member of the Ministerial group on Iraq and obviously had an important role in relation to humanitarian issues. Everyone within Government recognised the remarkable efforts of our armed forces and acknowledged that this was a just a cause, that the people of Iraq were being liberated but equally that there was still much to do. Put to him that Ms Short’s refusal to answer the question in this way was a severe let down for our troops, the PMOS said that given all the work that she was doing within Government, it was clear that she was pushing ahead on the important humanitarian issues. She was due to fly out to Washington over the weekend to attend meetings about these very matters. That spoke for itself.
Asked for further detail about the proposed meeting next Tuesday in Nasiriyah involving Iraqi exiles, the PMOS said that the meeting should be seen as the start of a ‘political’ process concerning the establishment of the Interim Iraqi Authority (IIA). As had been made clear at Hillsborough earlier this week, there would be a role for the Coalition, a role for the UN and a role for emerging leaders, hence our belief that the meeting was a perfectly sensible idea. It should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a bigger process in its infancy.
Asked for a reaction to the anarchy we were currently seeing in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, the PMOS said that it was important for people to take a reality check. Of course that was not to condone what was going on. We did not. Nor was it to suggest that we were not addressing the problem, because we were. However, it was important for people to understand what was happening. We were seeing a pattern that had been played out in other countries when a repressive regime had fallen. For example, we had seen a similar mixture of revenge against the regime and hooliganism in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. He thought something similar had more than likely happened at the time of the French Revolution. However, initial disorder did tend to give way to stability. That was precisely what had happened in Basra where the situation was now calm and British troops were working with local leaders. We believed that the Basra model would work throughout Iraq. It was important to understand that the anarchy and disorder was, in the main, being directed again the regime and its symbols, bearing in mind that this was a regime which had systematically brutalised its people and which had made itself rich while keeping its people poor. Referring to reports that hospitals were being looted, the PMOS pointed out that some of the action in Baghdad was being directed at those hospitals which had been the preserve of the regime’s elite. Obviously that was an issue which would be dealt with. It went without saying that everyone wanted to get those hospitals functioning again - this time for the benefit of all the people of Baghdad. The PMOS also drew journalist’s attention to a report on the wires this morning which had stated that the Red Cross would be returning to the city. According to the British Government’s assessment, the food situation was better than it had been before the conflict in all but two of nine towns assessed. Those nine included the major cities, such as Baghdad, Basra, Al Zubayr and Nasiriyah. We also assessed that the water situation wasn’t critical in any of the towns and in fact was better in over half of them. Of course we were not being complacent. We recognised that there were big challenges ahead and that there was still much to do. However, we would urge people not to lose sight of the overall picture. A brutal regime was being replaced and Iraq was being given a future.
Questioned as to whether Clare Short had been given those lines before being interviewed this morning, the PMOS said that Ms Short had been drawing attention to some of the work that was already taking place. Put to him that she had appeared to imply that our forces were in breach of the Geneva Convention, the PMOS said he would disagree. She had been making the point that, as the occupying force, our troops had responsibility under the Geneva Convention and The Hague Protocols to deal with issues of law order. That was already happening in parts of the country. Put to him that Ms Short had said that there had to be a greater effort to stop the looting, which would imply that she didn’t think much of the efforts our troops were making at the moment, the PMOS said that Ms Short had simply been underlining that there were challenges ahead. He would totally agree with that. A huge amount of work had been taking place in Basra which had stabilised the situation. Baghdad was behind Basra inasmuch as the city had only been taken during the course of this week. There were still pockets of resistance there, as yesterday’s events, with the death of a US marine and the suicide bombing, showed. Clearly it remained a dangerous place - and that obviously put constraints around what the Coalition forces could do in the short term.
Questioned further, the PMOS took the opportunity to single out an ‘astonishing’ report on the Today Programme this morning in which the reporter had said, "People here may be free, but they are passing their first days of freedom in more fear than they have every known before actually. I mean the old fear was, you know, habitual, low level. This is a much greater fear". The PMOS suggested that journalists try telling that to people whose relatives had been dropped head-first into shredders, or to the residents of Baghdad who had gone into the town square and seen someone bleeding to death after having their tongue cut out for speaking against the regime. It was important for people to take a reality check. No one was condoning was going on at the moment. However, to say that the new fear was greater than the old fear was just astonishing. He said he doubted that even the Iraqi Information Minister would have been able to justify that one.
Put to him that the Coalition could not technically be considered the occupying power since there had been no official surrender and fighting was continuing, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a legal expert and therefore did not know the legal position. That said, it was clear that judgements had to be made on the ground in terms of the level of activity that could be devoted by the military to issues of law and order when they were still under threat. Of course that was not say that the issues were not important and didn’t have to be dealt with. They were and they did. However, it was important to look at what had happened in other countries where a regime had been overthrown. Given the Iraqi people had been living under the boot of Saddam for twenty-five years, given the routine torture, murder, rape and oppression of the people who had been kept in poverty while members of the elite lived a life of luxury, was it any wonder that they wanted to take some measure of revenge against the likes of Uday and his henchmen and the symbols of the regime.
Put to him that the criticism regarding the Coalition’s failure to protect hospitals had come from the UN, the PMOS said that efforts would obviously be made to do whatever we could to ensure that hospitals functioned as well as they could. Asked how that could happen if the hospitals were being stripped bare, the PMOS said he did not dispute the fact that the looting was serious. However, according to information we had received, some of the hospitals which had been targeted had been the preserve of the Ba’ath Party elite. So perhaps the action being taken against them was understandable. Questioned as to whether there would be change of policy to ensure the protection of hospitals, the PMOS said that this was something which the Coalition was, of course, very mindful of. As Clare Short had pointed out this morning, US marines had secured Red Cross supplies yesterday. We were well aware of the challenges and the importance of these issues. The point he was making was that to ‘lurch’ into the idea that the situation in Baghdad was worse than it had been before the arrival of the Coalition and the removal of the regime was, in effect, an attempt to revise the history of one of the most brutal regimes of the twentieth century. We were seeing remarkable progress and remarkable efforts being made by the Coalition in Iraq - and that should not be under-estimated.
Asked if the Government was 100% confident that the war would not result in a ‘Balkanisation’ of Iraq, the PMOS said he didn’t dispute the fact that there were challenges and issues which would have to be faced up to by the international community and by the Iraqi leaders who would emerge from the different parts of the country’s ethnic mix. It was also worth remembering, as we had repeatedly said, that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq had existed a long time before the conflict had started. It went without saying that we were committed to leaving an Iraq which was better than the one we had found on our arrival.
delicious
digg
facebook
