3 August 2006
Tony Blair’s monthly press conference from inside 10 Downing Street has ended. The session was dominated by the situation in the Lebanon and Iraq.
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Opening statement
Prime Minister
Good morning everyone. What I will do is first of all say a few words about the Middle East and give you a kind of sitrep, if you like, on events that are unfolding there and then say a little bit about the domestic policy agenda.
First of all on the Middle East, as you know the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others have been working very hard to get agreement on a United Nations Resolution and I am now hopeful we will have such a Resolution down very shortly and agreed within the next few days. The purpose of that will be to bring about an immediate cease-fire and then put in place the conditions for the international force to come in, in support of the Lebanese Government, so we get the underlying issues and problems dealt with.
Then through the process that will unfold I hope that we get not just the genuine cease-fire on both sides, which is obviously vital, but that we also address the issues that Prime Minister Siniora has put forward as Prime Minister of Lebanon in his Seven-Point Plan. That is obviously important and also to address the issue of Israel’s security and its need to be sure that whatever arrangements are put in place guarantee that security for the medium and long term.
In the past 24 hours, late last night, I spoke to President Bush again and this morning again to the Prime Minister of the Lebanon and I will be speaking to others in the coming days. So this is obviously a very critical time. I think it is, as I say, coming together now. I think the remaining differences are very slight over the Resolution to be put down and what we need is to get the cease fire happening, immediately on the agreement of the Resolution. Then with the suspension of hostilities get to the point where we can put in place the longer term framework with the international force in support of the Lebanese Government so that the underlying problems can be tackled and dealt with. We are working hard on all those issues with our partners and allies.
In addition to that as, I said in my speech a couple of days ago, I think it is very, very important that once the immediate situation is in a calmer place, that we return to the major underlying issues in the region, most particularly the revival and re-energising of the Middle East Peace Process between Israel and Palestine. I say again, as I have said many times before, that it is essential that we take this forward, and I hope within the next few weeks we can say some more about the specifics of that exactly how we can manage to make sure that those words are translated into practical action.
It is also important, as well, that we continue the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan against the extremists who want to prevent those countries becoming the democracies their people want, and I hope that everybody in the Middle East region will work towards those objectives. I have to say I think the comments of the Iranian President earlier today that the solution lies in the elimination of Israel are deeply unhelpful and an indication I am afraid of how important it is that we have a strong, as I called it, alliance of moderation to take on those people with such extreme views.
So that is the Middle East and I have no doubt you will want to ask me a lot of questions about it and we can come back to that in a moment.
I would just like to inform you as well about some of the things that will happen on the domestic agenda in the coming weeks and months. In the Autumn we will have a White Paper on Local Government and that will deal both specifically with the powers that Local Government have and how we can make sure that in return for Local Government keeping up to the mark in terms of efficiency and accountability, that they gain greater control over their own affairs. I will also be launching in September with a speech a document on social exclusion, which will set out a new and different approach on how we tackle the hardest to reach families and those who are, despite all the programmes for the New Deal and Sure Start and the lifting of people out of poverty. As you know there are around about three quarters of a million fewer children in poverty now than a few years ago - but despite all of that there is an element of the population we are not reaching in the way that we need to and those people, socially excluded if I can use that term, need us to address their particular position with a range of new policies and we will set that out.
In addition in respect of business we will be setting out some further proposals in areas such as planning, regulation, and most particularly, and this came through to me very forcibly after my visit to the United States and California, how we get the right framework to develop bio-science and technology in this country. I think it is a major, major part of our industrial future. We are doing reasonably well at the present time but I think we could do better and we will set out how.
In addition to all of this of course there is the programme that John Reid has set out in terms of the Immigration Department and the Criminal Justice System that will have to be carried forward. I would like in that context to express my alarm at the Court decision the other day and to say once again that in order to do our best to protect this nation’s security, we have to have the ability to monitor closely those people that our Security Services and Police think are a risk and we have to have the ability to deport those people who are not British nationals who we believe are planning or engaging in extremism in this country.
In that regard you may remember this time last year my setting out the plans for dealing with this, and I said at the time that we would have an ongoing battle in the Courts and in Parliament to deal with the issue of deportation. We are still waiting for these deportation cases to be decided in the Courts. Now they will be decided over the next few weeks and months but it brings home once again to me with the recent Court decision, the absolute urgency for people to understand this is an active threat and we have to deal with it with the measures that are necessary.
In addition to that we will continue with the schools agenda, and in September there will an announcement of an addition to the Academies already on stream, a further block of new Academies. We hope then also to reach the one millionth person who will use the new Choose and Book system inside the National Health Service and we will carry forward that reform programme along with the proposals on Pensions and Energy.
I can draw those domestic strands together. Essentially there are two elements to what we are trying to do domestically. The first is to modernise this country in the face of a rapidly changing world. It is the reason for pensions and energy policy changing, for the reforms in the Health Service and schools and in our Criminal Justice system. But secondly to do that on the basis of principles of fairness and social justice, in other words opening up opportunity to all. So the purpose of the reforms, whether it is schools, or health, or pensions is not just to reform, but it is for a purpose and the purpose is to make our society fairer, to make it more equal in the opportunities it gives and to ensure that people can access the best public services irrespective of their wealth and based on their need.
So that is in summary what we have got on the Middle East and on the domestic agenda and I can take some questions.
Question and Answer Session
Question
Prime Minister the outgoing Ambassador to Iraq has said that civil war and the break up of the country is more likely than transition to a stable democracy. What is it that you know that he doesn’t that convinces you that he is wrong?
Prime Minister
Well first of all I would like to pay tribute to William and all his staff. William Patey has done a fantastic job out in Iraq and actually what he said in his telegram that was leaked was exactly what he said in his public interviews last week and essentially what we have to do. As I said in my speech a couple of days ago, there is absolutely no doubt about what the purpose of the sectarian violence is. It is the same as the violence in Afghanistan, it is the same as the violence all over the Middle East. The purpose is to put extremists in charge of countries rather than those committed to democracy. What should our response be? However difficult it is, stay the course, stand up for those people who want democracy, stand up for those people who are fighting sectarianism, stand up for a different vision of the Middle East based on democracy, liberty and the rule of law. That is what we are doing, and however tough it is we will see it through and actually if you read the whole of the telegram that is precisely what William is saying.
Right, yes John. I don’t have Governor Schwarzanneger to respond to you in the way we had in California.
Question:
Prime Minister one of your senior backbenchers has talked about a mood of despair in the Parliamentary Labour Party over your policy on the Middle East and there are reports of a mutiny in your Cabinet. How do you respond to those critics who claim that you are isolated and out of touch in your policy on the Middle East?
Prime Minister
Well first of all just to knock down one thing that has been in the newspapers recently, the idea that Margaret Beckett and I have been at odds over this is just complete rubbish. We have been working as one over it in the past couple of weeks and will continue to do so. But let me try to deal with your question. It is not surprising to me that there are people who profoundly disagree with the policy or that there is anxiety amongst members of the Cabinet, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party or people in the country. This is a very, very difficult situation and when you see the terrible scenes of bloodshed and death of innocent civilians, including women and children, it is a terrible thing and nobody is in any doubt about that at all, which is why we are working so hard to bring it to an end, and that is what I am trying to do. Unless you get a cease fire that can hold on both sides, because Israel also yesterday received I think 200 rockets into the north of Israel designed to kill innocent civilians, unless you get that cease-fire on both sides you won’t get what people want to see, what all of us want to see. So the difference between me and those people who are criticising me is not that I am indifferent to the suffering of people in the Lebanon, on the contrary I stand in complete solidarity and sympathy with people in the Lebanon, and with people who have died in Israel as well in what is a terrible, terrible situation. But my job is to try to bring it to an end and you don’t bring it to an end unless you have got a plan to do so. Now I hope, as I say, within the next few days we will get a United Nations Resolution that gets the cease fire we all want to see. But it doesn’t surprise me at all that people are concerned and worried. You would expect that and of course I don’t either disrespect what they say or don’t understand why they say it, but I am trying to get a practical solution.
Question
Prime Minister but why can you not call for an immediate cease-fire, which you have never done and then put your plan in place at the UN for the stabilisation force and everything else? Why can you not do that?
Prime Minister
Well, I can perfectly easily do it, provided it is on both sides and it has to be on both sides by agreement. Look, the whole point about this is that if you probe a little deeper in what people are saying and you say to them well are you saying that Israel should stop unconditionally, well some people may say yes but actually what most people say is no, we want the whole thing to stop. That is what I want. And they say we want the whole thing to stop now. That is what I want. The question is how, because unless you get an agreement that involves not just the government of Israel but the whole of the government of Lebanon, and unless it is put in place in such a way that it is going to hold, then all we are doing is expressing a view, we are not actually getting the job done.
So I hope that not merely do we get the Resolution that suspends hostilities in the next few days but together with that we then get an outline framework of a plan which we can then implement in the coming time that puts an end to the possibility of this conflict coming back. So again please don’t misunderstand me about this. As I said the other day, any sentient human-being could not fail to be moved by what they see in suffering and in death. It is terrible, but I am trying to bring it to an end by the only practical means that I can think of, which is to get the international community, and the governments of Israel and Lebanon to the same place and agree that the cease-fire should happen on both sides with a plan then to deal with the underlying reasons why this conflict came about, and that is what I will continue to try and do.
Question
Prime Minister, you have said consistently that there is no point in calling for an immediate ceasefire if there is not a long term solution. But without any cease-fire, do you fear for the long term? Do you fear with each civilian death there is more support for Hezbollah? In other words do you agree with the view that today’s Lebanese children are more likely to become tomorrow’s Hezbollah fighters?
Prime Minister
Well I think the point you raise is a perfectly valid one, namely isn’t the danger that there is so much damage done in the short term that long term the solution becomes more difficult. Well that is the danger, but that is why the sooner we get the cease-fire and put in place a plan that allows the government of Lebanon to take control of their whole country the better. Understand all the time that the reason why this problem has arisen is that in defiance of previous UN Resolutions, Hezbollah has continued to operate with their militia outside the control of the government of Lebanon down in the south of Lebanon. That is why they then began these rocket attacks and the attacks on Israeli soldiers when they crossed the UN Blue Line and that is when Israel then retaliated. So if we are to get a solution to this, it has got to be one that deals with that problem. I agree the important thing is to get the cease-fire as soon as possible, and then you can begin to put in place that long term plan but I suspect what most people in Lebanon want, and I have been in close contact with the Lebanese Prime Minister over the last couple of weeks and spoken to him many, many times, most recently this morning and I think in the Seven-Point Plan that he put forward, it was a genuine attempt to try to get a lasting settlement to this and there may be differences in the international community as to exactly how we manage to address those issues, but we should try and address those issues and then and, I gave him this assurance again this morning, the international community should recommit in every way possible to the reconstruction of Lebanon and we should do all we can to make sure that in the medium and long term, by our commitment to that reconstruction, by our support for the proper government of Lebanon, that we heal some of the divisions that will undoubtedly have come about as a result of what has happened.
Question
Prime Minister, you have talked a lot about dealing with underlying issues. Getting a long term solution is part of that with the role of Iran and Syria. You said in your California speech that they will be confronted. What do you mean by that? Do you mean sanctions, diplomacy, or is there the threat of military action against them?
Prime Minister
Well, no-one is threatening military action but you know I do sometimes think we need some balance in how we look at this situation. The Iranian President this morning called for the elimination of Israel. How helpful is that at this moment in time when Iran are directly supporting Hezbollah and when the rockets that have been fired into the north of Israel are very similar, if not identical, to those being used against British forces down in Basra? Now you know if we want a solution, and we do, then countries like Iran and Syria have got to help in this process, not hinder it. Again there are two visions of how the Middle East develops and this is why I think it is very important for us, once the initial situation has calmed, to go back to the fundamental basis of our foreign policy there, and that is what I tried to set out in my speech a couple of days ago.
One vision of the Middle East is a vision in which people of different faiths, Jews, Christians, Muslims live together, their nations are democratic, their people elect their governments, they live in peace side by side with one another, there is a proper State of Palestine that is independent and viable, the Government of Lebanon is in charge of the whole of the Lebanon and elected by the Lebanese people, Iraq is the democracy its people want, and everywhere we support a process of modernisation. That is one vision.
The other vision is of sectarianism, is of Muslim against Jew, Sunni against Shia, of secular dictators and religious fanatics running the region.
Now those are the two visions and all I am saying to people is that it is time that we kind of joined the dots of all this right round the world. The same people, in the sense of the same ideology and motivation are the people that caused death here, in Madrid, on 11 September in America and in countless terrorist acts all over the world and what we have got to do is to argue more convincingly and better for the vision that we have and see it through in an even-handed and fair way which is the importance of the Palestinian issue because much of the Arab and Muslim world think that we do not approach this in an even-handed way and that in my view, underlying all this, is of far greater significance than even the differing views over the tragedy of the Lebanon at the present time.
Question
Following on from that, Prime Minister, do you think that there is not a danger that your words will be seen as part of a religious war? It looks as though you are actually describing a Jihad versus the rest of the world. Is that what you are driving at, and having spoken to the President in private about these matters, what on earth do the Americans mean when they talk about a new Middle East?
Prime Minister
Well I think they mean what I mean. How could it possibly be a religious war, or all this reference to so-called Crusades and Crusaders when actually what we want is for Jew and Muslim and Christian to live in peace with each other, as they do here in our country. Our vision of the future is a vision in which diversity of faith and culture and race is a strength and not a weakness, in which states live side by side and trade with each other so that prosperity can grow and where the people elect the government. Now how can anyone describe that as a Jihad against others. The only people who are engaged in a war voluntarily are those people that committed the atrocities of 7/7 here, 11 September and 11/3 in Madrid and in countless other Muslim countries in which incidentally probably far more Muslims have died than any other faith. So that is just how I see it and I agree there are a lot of people and it may well be that I am in a minority in seeing it in this way. And it is not that I don’t understand or respect the views of people who take a different view, but my view is that is the nature of the struggle in which we are engaged, and we will only win it when we actually face up to that and it is an argument that can be difficult to make, but it is important to make I think.
Question
It seems like every day someone new calls for you to resign and today it is the turn of the former UK Ambassador to Moscow who you likened you … to a Madame Tussauds waxwork. As you head off on your summer holidays are you going to be giving any thought to your departure date?
Prime Minister
No that has not changed. But I am always the recipient of a large amount of advice from many quarters. The trouble is the advice is not always the same.
Question
Prime Minister, you just mentioned the importance of looking for a solution and you talked about two visions. The first one is sectarianism and these kinds of things and the other to help the moderates in the Arab world to achieve something in terms of democracy, freedom of speech and living together. But unfortunately in spite of your passionate involvement in this cause for so long, you never achieved anything. You said several times that you will take this seriously with the American President to try and bring a solution for this. The people in the Arab hardly trust either you or the American President. So many promises have been made in the past, but nothing has been delivered. And until recently only today or maybe a couple of days ago you started talking about the urgency of a cease fire while in the last 4 weeks Britain has always been against a cease fire in the region.
Prime Minister
Well actually I have always talked about it happening urgently. But however the point you make on the Middle East and Palestine has some validity and I would like to address it very frankly. I believe there has been progress in this sense that there is now an agreement to a Two-State solution and remember this American President was the first to commit himself to an independent, viable Palestinian State and there is now agreement on the Road Map as the way to get there. What there is not are the facts on the ground that give us hope at the moment that it can be done. And I hope, because I believe there is some validity in the point that you make, in the next few weeks, once we have got the immediate situation calmed, that we can give evidence not merely of the principles that we espouse which are set out in the Two-State solution and the Road Map, but actually in a very clear, practical way on how we are going to get there and I hope we can do that as I say in the next few weeks because I agree with you, and it is what I was saying myself, that unless we can translate the words that we have used into action this issue remains as a deep source of division. But one other point I want to make to you is, we cannot do this unless we also have the support of the Arab world too, and that means people committing themselves in a very clear, obvious way to the Two-State solution but that doesn’t just mean a viable Palestinian State, it also means a secure Israeli State.
Question:
(inaudible) in 2003 he promised the Palestinians within five years there would be a Palestinian state (inaudible) he promised them by 2009 there will be a Palestinian state. When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited Washington he said time and dates are not of importance. So what kind of hope will you give the people of the Arab world, especially the Palestinians, so they can at least wait and be patient and try to work for peace.
Prime Minister:
Well it is not quite true actually that he said that when Prime Minister Sharon was there, actually what he was talking about was the immediate situation. But what he set out as his vision for something that was going to be achieved within his Presidency, I know he is still committed to. Now we have got to make it happen, I agree with you, I am not disputing that and it is an immense challenge. But you will know also that trying to bring about a Palestinian state cannot be done unless there is also agreement by all those on the Arab and Palestinian side as to the peaceful way of doing this as opposed to the violent way.
Question
If your view of the Middle East is so reasonable and moderate, why have so many people got the impression that we are not even-handed? What are the mistakes we have made which led to such a wrong impression of our policy?
Prime Minister:
Well first of all you should just, and I am sure you do, understand that these are incredibly controversial and divisive issues and they always have been. But without repeating everything I have said about the Middle East peace process and the Palestinian issue, I do think that remains the single biggest problem for most of Arab and Muslim opinion, which I think the question I have just received indicates.
Question
With full respect to you Prime Minister, people in the Arab world claim now that you are the most pro-Israeli Prime Minister in British history. Why is that? And on the other hand you are speaking about a Palestinian state, attacks on the ground will not allow the achievement of such an aim. We have 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, we have Jerusalem which is not resolved, we have the refugee issue, and finally Prime Minister do you think that the Lebanese Prime Minister was calling for Israel to pay compensation for the destruction it has wreaked on Lebanon, do you agree with that, and next time when Israel destroys Lebanon again, will you be able to pay for that yourself and as a British government?
Prime Minister:
Well first of all I think those remarks about me have probably been made about most recent British Prime Ministers actually at one time or another, it is just the way this issue plays in the politics of the world. And in relation to the Prime Minister of Lebanon’s comments, I think it is around the 7 points that he has set out that I would put my case. But in relation to the facts on the ground, you have said what I have said, the question is how do we get out of this situation, and what I am saying to you is yes of course it requires dealing with the issues to do with territory, but they could be dealt with you know, they are not impossible to deal with. But they also have to deal with the fundamental question of how we get a process of negotiation going that is not marred by violence. Now you will say to me well look at the Israeli incursions into Gaza and elsewhere, but then the Israelis would say to me yes well what about the rocket attacks coming over from Gaza into Israel and the acts of terrorism that still occur. We have got to get a process going that has the clear underpinning of a peaceful, exclusively peaceful, way of providing peace. And you know I have struggled long and hard over the last 10 years, as you know, in Northern Ireland for a peace process to happen there, and the only way in the end we managed to get it going was once people committed themselves to a set of principles that everyone could agree on, and then, and this is what we have to do, I entirely accept, we ended up with the close management of the situation that allowed us, step, by step, by step to bring people into a different place where they would talk to each other and resolve differences. And actually in one sense, at least in relation to Israel and Palestine, we know what the final outcome is that everybody wants, which is two states. Northern Ireland in one sense has been more difficult because there is disagreement as to the eventual status of Northern Ireland in a fundamental way, but it is possible for these processes to work but they require a great deal of attention.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I have got nothing more to say on that than I have said.
Question
Mr Prime Minister regarding the Israeli attack on the UN post in which 4 UN observers died, what is your government’s position when Israel refused an independent inquiry, it is conducting its own inquiry but it has refused an independent inquiry, what is your government’s position on that Sir?
Prime Minister:
Well our position, as we set it out at the time, is deeply to regret it, and you will see the European statement and what it says about that, and our position is the same as the rest of the EU. But at the moment let’s be clear, the priority is to get the situation calmed and stopped, and that is what we are trying to do.
Question
Prime Minister, can you firstly confirm that you still plan to go on holiday at the end of this week? Second of all you have said that the Middle East peace process is the thing that we need to focus on, and it is a bit like the Northern Ireland peace process. Do you envisage when you come back from your holiday personally going out to the Middle East and concentrating in a more sustained fashion on it? And thirdly, if I can ask you, can you reassure Britain that it will be safe in John Prescott’s hands when you are out of the country?
Prime Minister:
Well the situation on that last point remains as it has been for all the previous summers, which we have got through perfectly well. In relation to whatever I will be doing in the next few days, I mean the most important thing is to realise that wherever I am I have got full communications and I will be on the phone, as I have just been over, well as you know because you were with us, in California where I was on the phone again. And look, parts of the media will make whatever they want to make of it, but the truth is several of the leaders I am speaking to are actually on holiday as well.
In relation to the other part, the critical part, well I said earlier, perhaps a little cryptically, that I shall be trying to set out in the next few weeks what more we can do in relation to the underlying issues, and I don’t think I have got anything more to say on this at the present time. But I do think it is important for us, us in the broadest sense, that is America, Europe and our key allies, to revitalise and re-energise this process because ultimately that is the only way of providing for a better relationship between the West and the Arab and Muslim world, but most important it is a way of ensuring that we get peace in that region, and peace of course which includes the security of Israel.
Question
Prime Minister Olmert said yesterday in response to the first of the UN resolutions that you talked about that there would be no Israeli cease-fire so long as there were no international forces put on the ground to separate the two factions. I am just wondering whether when you first refused to call for an immediate cease-fire, did you then believe that Israel would not agree to a cease-fire, did you then believe that Israel would knock over Hezbollah in a matter of days and that therefore it was a price worth paying? And now that the whole of southern Lebanon and south Beirut has been laid waste, do you regret not standing with your European colleagues and calling for an immediate cease-fire, at least from then to move forward?
Prime Minister:
Well first of all let me just correct you, as ever. I know that people keep saying that the only people who have adopted this position in the world are the US and the UK, that is not the case and the European statement was agreed unanimously in the end. And I would simply point out that there are many other countries, Germany for example, Poland for example, the Czech Republic for example, who take exactly the same position and that is just within Europe. And the reason is not because we don’t want to see an immediate cease-fire, of course we do, it is for the reason implied in the first part of your question which is that it has got to be on both sides. There is no point in me standing here, you sitting there, saying there has got to be a cease-fire, but only on one side, because if the cease-fire is not on both sides Israel will continue to take action. That is the reality. Now it has got nothing to do with, you know, giving a so-called green light to Israel, no-one has ever done that at all, the question is how you bring the violence to an end, and the only way you will do it is in the way that I have described and in my view it is on the passing of the resolution that there should be then, at that point, a suspension of offensive operations.
Question
Jack Straw said, talking of the Israeli response: "Disproportionate action only escalates an already dangerous situation." Why do you not think the Israeli action has been disproportionate?
Prime Minister:
People can argue about proportionality, although I have constantly tried to give some understanding of the position Israel finds itself in when 8 of its soldiers are killed, 2 of its soldiers are kidnapped and rockets, well there must be almost 2,000 now, are put into the north of Israel deliberately to kill innocent Israelis. We grieve for the innocent Israelis who have died, we grieve for the innocent Lebanese who have died. Now in the end, as I say, I have got to try and get a solution to this, and the solution will not come by condemning one side, it will not come simply by statements that we make, it will only come by a plan that allows a cease-fire on both sides and then a plan to deal with the underlying cause, which is the inability of the government of Lebanon to take control of the whole of Lebanon. Now that is the reality and I have got to deal with that and that is what I am trying to do.
Question
Prime Minister, if I could return to two of the questions that you have half answered. The question there about proportionality, many people are calling into question your ability to be a peace broker in this situation simply because you will not criticise Israel for what it has done. Do you believe that everything done by Israel in responding to the capture of its soldiers has been reasonable, moral and legal?
Prime Minister:
I believe that if we are to get a solution and we want to play a part in that, then the most important thing is to bring people together around a common position, and that is what we are trying to do. Now I have said before that I think that the loss of civilian life in Lebanon is unacceptable, I have said before that what is happening in Lebanon is a catastrophe for its people, but I have also said, and I repeat to you again, that it is my job to try and make sure that it stops, not just that I talk about it but that I manage to get something done about it.
Question:
And the second half concerning Iran and Syria, you have ruled out military action, how long is that for and what kind of confrontation do you have in mind if they do not come, as you say, into the family of nations?
Prime Minister:
Well nobody is contemplating military action. There is of course the action that the United Nations is taking in respect of Iran, but the real point is to say to both of those countries you do have a choice, you know it is not our desire to have bad relations with Syria or Iran. If they want the opportunity to come into the international community and participate fully, they can do so, but it has got to be on the basis that they are not exporting terrorism round the region, or in the case of Iran trying to acquire a nuclear weapon in breach of international law. Now in the end that is not an unreasonable position for us to put forward. And one of the things that I think has not really come through in a lot of the coverage of this in the past few weeks is any understanding of how Syria and Iran support, finance, arm Hezbollah, and extremist elements right round the region who want to have violence and bloodshed rather than democracy as the way of resolving disputes. So I don’t think it is wrong of us to say to them that you have got to face up to this. And I doubt it will get much publicity, but I find it quite shocking that the President of Iran at this point in time says the solution is to eliminate Israel. If anyone else was saying you know the solution was to eliminate Iran, or eliminate Syria, people would be tearing the house down and saying what an incredible and irresponsible thing it is. It just passes without comment. But if you are Israel looking at this situation, you can’t ignore a comment like that. People probably will, but it strikes me as odd.
Question
Prime Minister, Mark Malloch-Brown, the UN Deputy General Secretary yesterday came out with an extraordinary statement in which he said: "We need Chirac and Bush, and Barak and Abdullah on a podium, not President Bush and Mr Blair." He implied that you were part of the problem if you are seen front of house rather than behind the scenes working for a solution. Now you are not a man prone to self-doubt, but is there any part of your make-up which tells you look maybe I should take a back seat in this and maybe let the French and the US do all the public diplomacy and I will do what I can behind the scenes?
Prime Minister:
Well all I can say is that his view is not shared by the Prime Minister of Lebanon who I think has got rather more locus in this than him.
Question
Prime Minister, Israel withdrew from Lebanon over 6 years ago and found in the last few weeks it has been subjected to horrendous types of rockets and missiles, far more than anybody anticipated they would have had. What guarantees could there be post an agreement, say 5, 10, 15 years down the line that Iran and Syria will not re-arm Hezbollah if there is for example a change of Lebanese government and Israel will be faced yet again with the same type of worries as they are at the moment? And could I just ask you to do something different for a change, Sir? To save us waiting 30 years to go to Kew to look at the public records office, could you tell us what type of talks there have been between the Foreign Office and No 10 over your new statements on Middle East policy?
Prime Minister:
Yes, I have to say, as I said earlier, I am mystified by the reports of supposed advice that has been given by Margaret to me since we have been working absolutely on the same track throughout. I am not saying incidentally there aren’t people, I think it would be a bit of a bold claim to say there aren’t people in the Foreign Office who may disagree, but that is not the case between the Foreign Secretary and myself.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Well I don’t know because I have not received any such advice, but I can’t answer for every official in the Foreign Office.
Question:
People like Kim Darroch and Nigel Sheinwald, the top officials in both departments are said to be giving you advice, you are on your own, even the tea lady has doubts according to the newspapers, just you, specifically reported.
Prime Minister:
The tea lady and I haven’t discussed it, but actually no the answer to your question is absolutely not. Look I don’t doubt there are people who disagree within the system, and I have no doubt there are a couple of Ministers who have doubts about this or that aspect, or possibly about the whole aspect of the policy, but all I can say is the reports about Margaret and myself, or that my officials have been telling me to do different things is just not the case. But then you get used to this, it always happens in these situations.
Your first point, yes well that is the key question, that is the question that everyone should be asking, how do we prevent this situation arising again? And the answer is to deal with the underlying reasons. Now, what I would say to you is that part of that is to make sure that the government of Lebanon comes into full control of Lebanon, including south Lebanon, as United Nations resolution 1559 implies; and the second part of this is to get a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Now if we are able to do that then I think there are the circumstances in which those extremists in the region who want to disrupt all that are pushed back. But whilst this situation remains as it is, then of course the whole purpose of this, and this is what I find frustrating sometimes is that the whole purpose of what has happened in the past few weeks is to bring about a situation where even moderate Arab and Muslim opinion starts finding itself in sympathy with the more extreme elements. That is the danger and it is a deliberate act of strategy to create that. Now my point is, to be fair in the sense of self-critical, is that we have got to be better and more intelligent in the way that we ensure that those propaganda issues are taken away from the extremists and that we instead build an alliance between the moderate elements, which include not simply the moderate elements in Israel and the west, but also the moderate elements in the Arab and Muslim opinion that in the end would be perfectly happy with a solution that allowed countries to live in peace, Israel to have its security guaranteed but a proper Palestinian state in which the Palestinians could prosper. That is what we have got to do, and I agree that if we don’t do that we …
Question:
Does that mean the multinational force will have powers to disarm Hezbollah and interfere and make sure that Iran and Syria don’t supply them further?
Prime Minister:
Well the most important thing is that the multinational force are there in support of Resolution 1559 being implemented, that is the critical thing. And how that relationship is then with the Lebanese Armed Forces is one of the things that we are working on very hard with people. Because if you like there are two different elements of this, one is the political element, how do you get the UN resolution agreed and a suspension of hostilities, but then you have got to work out, and there are some difficult technical questions and military questions in this, what is the right configuration of the multinational force, what are their rules of engagement, what is the nature of their task when they then move into the south of Lebanon? But the purpose is to make sure that Israel has no need of taking action because the situation is under control in a different way.
Question:
In America you eulogised the role that democracy could play in bringing about an end to wars in the Middle East. However, as you know better than I, Hamas was democratically elected and you will not talk to them on the basis that they will not recognise the state of Israel. Is that not a road block in your road map, that you are just going to have to swallow and accept, as you did in Northern Ireland, you spoke to some unsavoury people at a time when they insisted Ireland should be one country. Don’t you have to accept that you must speak to Hamas? Secondly, on the UN resolution, is it now the case that there will be two UN resolutions and there will therefore have to be two different kinds of forces, one an immediate force that goes in, and then a larger force later?
Prime Minister:
In relation to your last point, no the important thing is to get a resolution as I say within the next few days that allows a cease-fire then and there. The process after that is not for a different type of force, it is in order to agree the precise nature of the force and how it will control, under obviously the authority of the Lebanese government, but how it will control the situation in the south of Lebanon. In respect of your first point, it is very difficult this, but in the end we also only were able to take forward the peace process in Northern Ireland when everyone committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Now it is true that even after they committed to that there were all sorts of difficulties along the way, but it is not that we don’t recognise the mandate of Hamas, we do, we recognise the mandate of a democratically elected group of people, it is that in the end we can’t take it forward, the negotiation can’t be taken forward unless it is taken forward on the basis that people accept Israel also has a right to exist. So that is the conundrum we have to resolve, and we will work hard on resolving it but it is difficult for that reason, though my own judgment about this, but I may be wrong in it, is that there are elements of Hamas that understand that in the end if you want progress it has got to be on the basis that people do accept Israel’s right to exist.
And just to go back to the year 2000 that Gerry was raising a bit ago, I mean two things happened then which are I think just again of some importance in putting forward a balanced view of the history. Israel at that point withdrew from the Lebanon, which is a major, major thing for them to do, and at that time in the year 2000 there was a peace agreement there on the table that Prime Minister Barak put forward that could have resolved this issue, the Israel-Palestinian issue. Now it wasn’t accepted. I remember at the time, I actually had a meeting with Yasser Arafat in the UN at that time when I said to him you know this is your chance for peace, there may be all sorts of adjustments and amendments along the way, but if you don’t take this as the basis for an agreement you are going to lose the chance of a generation to get this done. And I remember him saying to me at the time, you know it makes no difference who is the Israeli Prime Minister, they are not really interested in peace and so on, and it was a terrible lost opportunity that. And one of the things we have got to do is just occasionally remind people of the fact that we have come quite close in the past to getting progress on this, now we have got to go back to the idea that nothing should come in the way of us being able to advance this process. And I agree there are really difficult questions to do with how you deal with Hamas and all the rest of it which we have got to try and resolve, but I don’t see how you can have a negotiation with them unless there is a commonly agreed basis for negotiation and in the end in Northern Ireland we only ever made progress when that was agreed.
Question
Prime Minister, you keep on repeating about the cease-fire, that there is no partner in the cease-fire as if you have offered Lebanon a cease-fire and it did not take it, which is not the case as you know. Also do you not think that it is obvious that you and the Americans are giving Israel time to go on with its war that it is not able to win, and in the meantime all these innocent people are being killed and the country is being destroyed. And do you really believe that in the time that you have left in your Prime Ministership that you will be seeing a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians?
Prime Minister:
Well I believe that it is right to try, that is for sure. And no-one is giving anyone a green light, that is just not correct. We have been working extremely hard, look when I was in the States in the last few days I was spending hours on the phone to people trying to get this resolved, but the basis of it has got to be one in which the government of Lebanon and the government of Israel agree. But let me just make this point to you. I have every sympathy with Prime Minister Siniora in this, and with the vast bulk of the Lebanese people, but it has got to be something, if you see what I mean, that has the whole of the government of Lebanon behind it.
Question:
But Hezbollah have said they will accept.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but then you have actually got then to have the agreement that allows that then to take place, because if it is not able to be done on both sides, and we have to be sure that that cease-fire is then going to be maintained on both sides, and that is not I am afraid simply about Prime Minister Siniora, it is also about his government, the whole of his government.
Question
Prime Minister you have always mentioned in your foreign policy that we have to get to the hearts and minds of Muslim people in the region. Do you really believe that your current foreign policy is in that way considering that so far at least more than 250 children have been killed in Lebanon, and people in the region who see those pictures know that those Israeli weapons come from the United States, through the UK?
Prime Minister:
Well of course the whole purpose of creating this crisis was to trigger that reaction in the Arab and Muslim world, but what I am saying to you is that if we want to stop this we have to have a plan for the region that includes the government of Lebanon being able to control the whole of its territory, and that means with respect that Iran stops financing and arming Hezbollah that are operating in breach of the United Nations resolutions and trying to control by militia the south of Lebanon. And the way in the end to win this argument I am afraid is to stand up for what is right on every side, and what is right is that Lebanon should be a democracy in which its government, elected by the people, controls the whole of it, Iraq should be allowed to become the democracy that its people want, and that we should get a solution between Israel and Palestine. Now I would hope that Iran would want to join in those efforts but at the moment it looks rather unlikely.
Question:
And don’t you think that the United States should stop providing weapons to Israel?
Prime Minister:
I don’t think the issue really is who is going to provide weapons or not, the issue is to take away the causes of the conflict, because whoever supplies them, the weapons will be there, the question is how do we bring about a situation in which those weapons aren’t used. That is the crux of it.
Question
Prime Minister, if I can take you back to the domestic agenda, you have outlined all these policies that you want to bring in in September. The last few weeks have seen a bonfire of U-turns, if I can mix my metaphors. We learn this morning that John Reid has ditched another part of the Home Office programme - Custody Plus - he abandoned the police mergers. Can you give us any more confidence that you can come forward with a series of policies which are going to have any more sustainable basis, to use one of your favourite words, than the last lot we have seen?
Prime Minister:
Yes but, that is a bit of a nonsense as I am sure you recognise. Seriously, to say that the government’s policy in for example pensions, energy, schools, the NHS or over the whole piece of law and order has all been U-turned is just ridiculous. Police mergers, yes are happening in a different way, you could say that about our home improvement plans.
Question:
ID cards?
Prime Minister:
ID cards I will come to in a moment. But the idea that all of government policy is a bonfire of U-turns is just absurd. Now I know why you want to say that because what you want to say is the government is not moving forward, but actually the one thing that is perfectly obvious is that across the piece on policy, and you will see this again in local government, in business, in social exclusion in the autumn, we are actually moving forward probably in a more radical way than we have for ages. Now in relation to identity cards, don’t be under any doubt at all that goes forward, absolutely, and that is what John Reid said, it is what I have said and there is a very simple reason for that. We have got a situation, as I said the other day, where we are going to have to have biometric visas for the US and for Europe, that will mean we have to have biometric passports. 80% of our population has got passports. It is a huge opportunity at the same time as you have to switch people into biometric passports to have a biometric identity card that includes their passport on it. So you know whatever adjustments are made because of technical issues to do with the technology of introducing it and so on, do not be under any doubt at all that this is a major, major issue for us and will be a major plank of the Labour Party’s manifesto at the next election, and that is for a very simple reason, if people want to track illegal migration and organised crime in this country you have got to have identity cards. Any other solution simply will not work.
Question
Prime Minister, you called for a radical rethink of western strategy to combat what you called an arc of extremism threatening many of the countries in the region. Will this arc replace the American axis of evil?
Prime Minister:
No it won’t. But is there a doubt? Is there a doubt in anyone’s mind that there are extremists who want to disrupt peace and democracy in this region? Those people who are trying to kill innocent people in Iraq today, what is their purpose, why has the Iraqi situation evolved in the past few years? It began with the removal of Saddam, that happened, there was then at that point, three years ago, a United Nations resolution, I mean I saw someone I think from the Liberal Democrats calling for an internationalisation of Iraq. Iraq has been internationalised for the last three years, there was a UN resolution that said that provided the multinational force had the support of the Iraqi government it should stay and help them get on their feet, that there would then be a political process overseen by the UN. What has happened since then? In August 2003 they murdered the UN special representative there and many of his staff. Since then this has evolved, because they have been unable to beat the multinational force, into an attempt to plunge Iraq into civil war. What could be more extreme than that? So what is our response? To say well they should just be allowed to get on with it? No, it is to stand up to that extremism. Where is that extremism coming from? It is not just coming from within Iraq, it is coming from al Qaeda, it is coming from the backing of extremist groups from outside the country. What has our response got to be? To stand up to it and to try and build an alliance of people who want a peaceful and democratic future for the Middle East so that these extremists are defeated. And I am sorry if I see this in terms that are too simplistic for people, but that is the fact. If Resolution 1559 had been implemented you wouldn’t have a crisis in the Lebanon today, that is the fact.
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Well hang on a minute, the reason why Israel got out of the Lebanon, with respect, in the year 2000, the reason why you have not had Resolution 1559 implemented is that the militia down in the south of Lebanon haven’t been disarmed as the Lebanese government have wanted them to be. Now people can try and ignore those facts if they want, but they are facts, and the people who are trying to create bloodshed and carnage across the region, in my view, are extremists. And yet I know, because whatever public statements are put out by Arab governments at the moment, and I totally understand why they have to do that and how strongly they feel about the current situation, but talk to anybody on a confidential basis and they will say to you the only long term solution is a situation in which those people who are trying to support and export extremism across the region are pushed back, and that is what we have got to do. And the reason I made my speech the other day is that I am not uncritical about our own position in relation to this, and I totally understand, as our colleague here said, that people say well you have been talking about the Middle East peace process for years and nothing has happened, and is it going to happen and so on. Now I will almost certainly regard it as a failure for me if there is not a re-energising and revitalising of this process because I believe it to be absolutely fundamental and emblematic of a different vision for the Middle East. And I want to see a situation where decent Arab and Muslim people who basically, and I think as people probably know, share the same values as I share, we are tolerant people, respectful of difference, we want to see peace, we want to see democracy. I want to see us back on the same side again, I don’t like us being on different sides. And what happens when a crisis like this comes about is that everyone does go on different sides, you know reasonable people disagree and the only people who profit from reasonable people disagreeing are the unreasonable people.
Question:
But Muslims are outraged by the fact that we are not outraged when for example Israel attacks people in Gaza, as they have done systematically since they left, and that is a fact, it is inescapable but we have never condemned it.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but is it not also true that there are rockets coming in from Gaza into Israel?
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but that is the whole point. There is a conflict, there are two sides to a conflict, we have got to try to resolve it. That is all I am saying in the end and there is no point in me repeating what I have said already. The sense of outrage I feel is at the loss of innocent life, but there are many innocent lives being lost unnecessarily in the Middle East, but there is an answer to it and the answer lies in a different vision for the region, not merely an immediate calming of the situation because an immediate calming will do no good unless the long term solution is in place.
Question:
You said in answer to the question behind me that Hezbollah had said that it was willing to accept a cease-fire, what of course it is not willing to do is release the Israeli soldiers or give up its rockets, which single-handedly would be seen as a surrender presumably on Hezbollah’s side. Nevertheless that would be seen by many people as the basis of a cease-fire and negotiations if Israel was put under pressure to agree, why don’t you believe that?
Prime Minister:
Well I think I do believe that, that is what we are trying to achieve. The resolution that you put down in the UN has to address the different issues, the different elements of this, and the reason why it is taking time to negotiate is that you have got to have those different elements addressed within the resolution, and including the points that are raised by Prime Minister Siniora in his seven point plan, and then you have got to have at least the outline basis of an agreement as to what then happens with the international force. And the reason this takes some time, really believe me, it is not a lack of will, it is that some of this is difficult to broker in the right way. Now we are doing our best, the UK along with France and the US, but also others have been engaged in intensive negotiations. I hope it may be possible, even within the next 24 - 48 hours for people to see the resolution that we are working on, and then it really should only be, provided the three of us are in the same place, it should only be a matter of days then to get the resolution agreed. But the things you are talking about, Rob, are precisely the elements we have got to get agreed.
Question:
… cease-fire on both sides, you now seem to be accepting that on the Hezbollah side there is … they have made noises about a cease-fire.
Prime Minister:
Yes but making noises, with respect when you are dealing with a situation where people are trying to kill each other, making noises isn’t enough. We need to make absolutely sure that people are bolted into this in a clear way.
Question:
I want to ask you about Iraq. You have said that there are crises all over the Middle East, we all know that, but you have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, and in Basra specifically, and there are huge problems in Basra, not only of sectarian violence but also of criminality, and there is a problem that British troops will not go into the streets and sort out day to day problems because it is a risk to their lives, but there is also a huge loss of life on the Iraqi side. What kind of actions do you plan to take to make Iraq less of a mess? You have just seen Maliki, I am sure you spoke with President Bush about Iraq, any concrete proposals on how to sort out this mess?
Prime Minister:
Yes, well there are, but let me just first of all correct you on something. British troops are in some cases losing their lives in trying to sort out both criminality and violence. But the point that you pose, and it is an interesting point, is that there are some people saying to the British troops take a back seat, and there are other people who because they want the situation sorted are saying go in there in greater force. Now what we are trying to do in Baghdad and Basra specifically, this is what I have discussed with Prime Minister Maliki, to put in plans that will actually work to get security in those two places. Now if you could get the security situation eased in Baghdad, in my view it would start to change the whole of the situation in Iraq, and in Basra there is a political as well as a security issue, but the new people that Prime Minister Maliki has put in there, despite the rocket attack the other day, are actually I think beginning to make a difference. But I agree with you, that is what we have got to do. In the end however it is the Iraqi forces that have got to have the capability of doing this, and if there is really hard and strong stuff necessary, which there will be, to deal with some of these militia groups, it is better obviously, as I am sure you would accept, that the Iraqi army is in the lead on it.
Question:
In California - a slightly different question - you talked about a new transatlantic carbon trading system and I am wondering what the impetus behind doing that at this exact moment is, and was it in part to publicly break rank from President Bush?
Prime Minister:
Absolutely not. The differences between America and the UK over the Kyoto Treaty are pretty well documented, it is nothing new. What I think however is possible, and this is why I think what happened in California was exciting, as was incidentally the coming together of the Mayors and the Clinton Foundation, is that it is possible I think over the next few years, or even in a shorter time frame than that, to get an agreement between at least some of the states in the US and those who have got a European carbon trading system, to try and join together. And if at the same time we are trying to get an international agreement that binds everyone in, including America, China and India, that bottom-up development from individual states in the US can I think play a great part in it. I have to say though that I actually believe that the differences now with the administration over this issue are less than they were. I think this administration can perfectly consistently with the State of the Union Address that President Bush made in January of this year, can reach agreement at an international level on a post-Kyoto framework, I think that is possible to do. But in the meantime we will try to work with others who are of the same view in getting this issue moved forward. And the interesting thing I thought, there was a very high level business representation in the US in the meeting we had with Governor Schwarzenegger, and the interesting thing was those business people are absolutely up for action on it, and what they want is certainty that the governments of the world are going to try to do this. And that is why I think this G8+5 meeting in Mexico in October/early November is very, very important.
Question:
What pressure can you personally bring to bear on the Pakistani authorities to prevent the execution of … Hussein, he is a man from Leeds who has been on Death Row in Pakistan for 18 years, he was actually convicted on dubious evidence and the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, has made representations about this, as has the Foreign Secretary?
Prime Minister:
We will continue to make representations, that is all I can say. In the end it is (inaudible)
Question:
Inaudible.
Prime Minister:
I appreciate that, but the most we can do is to continue to make those representations.
Question:
Prime Minister, do you agree with those who say the handling of the current crisis and how it is being viewed in the Middle East increases the likelihood of attacks by Islamic extremists on the UK and it could be the British public, who maybe don’t agree with you on this, paying the price? And can I also ask about your role as honest broker? Allowing Israeli flights carrying bombs to pass through the UK, does that not undermine that status and at least give us an image problem in the Middle East?
Prime Minister:
Look, the rules in relation to flights should be adhered to, but to change our rules on this would be a very major step if we were singling out certain countries and not others. In respect of the situation here, I just think we should understand that the threat that we face from terrorism here, a terrorism linked to everything that is happening out in the Middle East, that threat I genuinely believe is not linked to any particular foreign policy question, it is linked to an overall perspective that these extremists have against everything we stand for. And as I said the other day, if you look at the most recent video released by one of the 7/7 bombers, yes it is true he mentioned Iraq, he mentioned Afghanistan, he mentioned Palestine, but then he went on to mention Chechnya and Kashmir, and you could add to that Bosnia, and you could add to that many other different disputes round the world. They will use any of these issues, for sure, but it is not the root cause, the root cause is a global movement with its own ideology that has roots now in many, many different countries who are determined to disrupt and defeat those of us who want a different vision for the world. And we will beat them in my view when we face up to that fact and work on both sides of the agenda, not just security and action against terrorism, but also showing by our approach that we are indeed even-handed. And I agree on the latter - we have much to do.
delicious
digg
facebook
