Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Madrid Bombings/Spanish Elections/Security Threat, President Putin, Guantanamo Bay and Beverly Hughes/Immigation.
Madrid Bombings/Spanish Elections/Security Threat
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) advised journalists that the Prime Minister hoped to have a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister-elect of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, at lunchtime today. Asked what they would discuss, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would congratulate him on his victory. It was a statement of fact that there were differences of opinion in Europe over the war in Iraq. The Prime Minister had his view, others had theirs. All were entitled to their positions. The important thing to recognise, however, was that we were in a critical period in Iraq. As we had seen last week, the political momentum was beginning to allow for the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June and we were beginning to see the emergence of the new transitional arrangements. It was important for that momentum to be maintained and to continue to make progress on improving and rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure. It was also important for us to continue doing what we could to stabilise the security situation there. This was a time for everyone to redouble their efforts in terms of focussing on ensuring that the transfer to sovereignty was successful and in allowing Iraq to develop into a stable and prosperous democracy - something that it had not been able to do under Saddam. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister had spoken to former Prime Minister Aznar, the PMOS said not at this stage. The Foreign Secretary, however, had spoken to his former Spanish counterpart, Ana Palacio.
Asked if the Prime Minister was hoping that the Spanish Prime Minister-elect would not pull out Spanish troops from Iraq, the PMOS said that that issue was a matter for the new Spanish Government. He pointed out, however, that Mr Zapatero had said that he would withdraw troops from Iraq if there was no change in the situation by 30 June. We were in Iraq precisely because we wanted to see change on the ground. That was why this was such a crucial period. Asked if the Prime Minister would point that out to Mr Zapatero, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister would point to the progress that was being made. Ultimately, however, it was for the Prime Minister-elect to explain what he had meant.
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the fact that a terrorist act had apparently helped to change the composition of the Spanish Government , the PMOS said that it wasn’t the Prime Minister’s job to act as a political commentator. The Spanish people had made their decision and we respected it. Asked if the Prime Minister believed that there were lessons to be drawn from the events in Spain, the PMOS said that it was important to continue to be wary about rushing to judgment regarding who was responsible for the Madrid bombings. We still did not know for certain at this stage. On a more general point about Al Qaida, the PMOS underlined that this was not a threat which had emerged since the Iraq war. Al Qaida had been operating for the last eleven years, starting with an attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993. It had carried out operations in some sixty countries on five different continents. In the last five years, approximately 4,000 people had died in attacks which had been attributed to Al Qaida or groups associated with Al Qaida. We had seen attacks in Africa, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Morocco. This was clearly not a threat which was aimed at particular countries or even a particular group of countries. It was a threat to our way of life - a threat to democracy and democratic values. We had seen the sort of society which Al Qaida wanted to set up. You only needed to cast your mind back to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This was obviously not a group which could be negotiated with. That was precisely why the threat was so serious.
Asked if he would agree that there was a link between the war on Iraq and the war on terror, the PMOS said it was important to recognise that the serious threat from Al Qaida wasn’t only directed towards those countries who had supported the war. President Chirac, for example, had allegedly been threatened by the deputy to Osama bin Laden because of France’s policy on the Islamic headscarf. Thus, the threat was aimed simply towards those who disagreed with the fundamentalist viewpoint expressed by Al Qaida. Asked if he was indicating that the threat to Paris was as great as the threat to London, the PMOS said that it was not a matter for him to assess the level of threat in other countries. He was simply relaying what had been reported. Put to him that the only reason why he was breaking his own rules and commenting on another country was because the British Government feared a link between the war in Iraq and terrorism, the PMOS said he thought that this was a very strange Westminster view being put forward. It was not extraordinary to report factually that the level of threat from Al Qaida was widespread. It was very evident that they were not focussing solely on those countries that supported the Iraq war.
Asked if the outgoing Spanish Administration had been punished in the polls for the way they had handled the aftermath of the bombing or whether the attack - widely believed to be by Al Qaida - was the result of Spain’s support for the Iraq war, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a commentator on Spanish politics. The important thing was for people to remain calm, vigilant and realistic in assessing both the latest threat and the threat from Al Qaida. We did not yet know for certain who had carried out the attacks in Madrid. It was therefore important not to rush to judgement on the basis of what, as this stage, were assumptions. Put to him that it was precisely this attitude which had got the Spanish Government into trouble in the first place, the PMOS repeated that it was not his job to act as a commentator on Spanish politics. That said, it was a statement of the factual position that we did not know who was responsible. There were indicators in both directions. However, we were not certain who was to blame at this stage. Put to him that security sources quoted in the papers this morning had suggested that the ‘wind was blowing in one direction’, the PMOS underlined the point that until we knew for certain who was responsible, it would be indulging in speculation to come down on one side of the fence or the other. Asked if he would agree, in the interests of consensus, that the evidence was pointing in one direction only, the PMOS said that it wasn’t his job to indulge in consensus. His role was to deal with the facts as best he could. Asked to explain why he was ‘making a meal out of something that should be a small snack’, the PMOS said that if our security assessment stated that we could not know for certain who was responsible at this point, it was his job to reflect that assessment. Asked if he would agree that the Spanish Government had been ‘indulging in speculation’ to state categorically that ETA was responsible for the attacks in Madrid, the PMOS said that what the outgoing Spanish Government had stated was not a matter for him.
Asked to explain why the Government was being so reluctant to draw any conclusions from the ‘abundance of evidence’ that Al Qaida had been responsible for the attacks and that this had had a direct connection to the ‘downfall’ of the outgoing Spanish Government, the PMOS said that the British Government had had an open mind from the outset as to who was to blame. We were not there on the ground assessing the information. We also recognised from our own bitter experience that it was difficult to gain absolute certainty about certain issues in the period following an attack because of the need to take time to assess the information that was available. We respected the fact that the Spanish authorities had not rushed to judgement. We would not do so either. Of course people were perfectly entitled to engage in speculation. However, it would be irresponsible on our part to say that we knew who was blame when we did not know for certain. Our assessment would be informed by the assessment made by the Spanish authorities.
Asked if the Prime Minister would support Germany’s proposal to hold an EU security summit, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any specific proposal at this point. Were one to be suggested, we would obviously consider the idea very carefully.
Asked if the Government would be discussing the failure of intelligence service to pick up any signs of an impending attack in Spain, the PMOS said that we never commented on intelligence matters.
Questioned about the level of the security threat to the UK, the PMOS said that our assessment today remained the same as our assessment this time last week. We believed the threat to be high. That was why we needed to remain calm and vigilant. We would continue to take whatever measures were necessary to protect the British people as best we could. Asked repeatedly if the Prime Minister honestly believed that the UK’s participation in the war in Iraq had made no difference at all to the nature or the level of the threat facing Britain, the PMOS said the Prime Minister had expressed the view in speeches and in interviews that this was not a threat which we could duck or from which we could hide. The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to the pattern of threat that was traceable before the war last year. He reminded them, for example, that the series of attacks by Al Qaida in the 1990s had all occurred before the Iraq war. September 11 had happened eighteen months before it. We had therefore always been very aware of the threat and continued to be so. That was why, in his speech in his constituency on 5 March, the Prime Minister had referred to the fact that he had seen this threat coming before September 11 2001 and had spoken to other world leaders about it. To say that it had only started with the Iraq war was clearly completely wrong. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister believed absolutely that the Iraq war had made no difference to the level of threat to the UK, the PMOS said that he was not in the business of rating the level of threat out of ten. It was enough to know that the level of threat had been high before the Iraq war and remained high today. Put to him that the security assessment must have changed in some way since the Madrid bombings last week - as indeed the extra amount of security on the streets and on the transport system showed, the PMOS pointed out that the measures relating to extra security on the transport system had been decided upon before the Madrid bombs. The level of threat was assessed on a daily basis. That would continue. He had absolutely no intention of providing a day-by-day commentary on it. As he had already made clear, the level of threat to the UK had been high before the Madrid attacks and remained high today. Asked if the security measures on the London Underground would be rolled out nationally, the PMOS said that this was an operational matter for the Transport Police. We would support them whatever they decided to do.
Asked if British interests had been threatened directly by Al Qaida before the Iraq war, the PMOS pointed out that British interests also included the lives of British citizens. Along with many other nationals, British citizens had been killed in the September 11 attacks - 2,900 people in all in one day. That wasn’t far short of the total that had been killed by terrorism in Northern Ireland over a period of thirty years. The scale of the problem had changed on September 11. However, it was important to recognise that it had existed beforehand. Asked if we were concerned about Al Qaida’s pattern of willingness and ability to attack soft targets, the PMOS said that the attacks showed no respect at all for innocent people and the sanctity of life. That was the common thread.
President Putin
The PMOS said that the Prime Minister hoped to speak to President Putin today when he would congratulate him on his election success at the weekend.
Guantanamo Bay
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to allegations of mistreatment by former British detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the PMOS said that as we had made clear last week, representatives of the UK had met with the British detainees a total of seven times. This was more often than any other country had met with their nationals at the camp. The allegations about beatings and so on had not been raised with our officials at the time. Any complaints that had been raised, such as access to sunlight, had been passed on to the authorities. Asked if the allegations about mistreatment had been raised when the former detainees had been interviewed at Paddington Green on their return to the UK when they would have felt safer talking about them, the PMOS pointed out again that other concerns had been raised at Guantanamo Bay and had been dealt with subsequently. If there were other issues, there was no reason why they should not have been raised then as well. Questioned as to whether the UK had passed on the allegations about mistreatment to Washington, the PMOS said that the US authority handling with the issue was the Pentagon. As he understood it, they had denied the allegations.
Beverley Hughes/Immigration
Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied with the way that Beverley Hughes was running the Immigration Service, the PMOS said yes. Asked if that remained the case despite evidence showing that the department was in chaos, the PMOS said that in the light of the drop in the asylum figures and in terms of how the problems in the asylum system were being handled, the Prime Minister believed that Ms Hughes was doing a difficult job very well. Put to him that the latest reports about the department did not bear witness to that sentiment, the PMOS said that credit should be given to the Minister for the fall in asylum applications over the past year. Asked why the figures should be believed, the PMOS said that of course this was an area where it was difficult to be 100% accurate. However, changes had been made to the asylum system and the measures in the Asylum and Immigration 1999 had come into force in 2001. Yes, there were still some problems. However, they were being tackled when they came to light. Put to him that the department had not denied allegations about sham marriages and bogus student claims, the PMOS said it was a vast generalisation to take one particular issue and elevate it to a problem which dominated the entire department. He did not believe that was the case.
delicious
digg
facebook
