Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Zimbabwe, Asylum and Northern Ireland.
Zimbabwe
Asked if Glenys Kinnock had been right to say today that the Prime Minister and President Chirac had spoken personally about the proposed Franco-African summit in Paris next month, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that he had nothing to add to what he had said on this matter this morning other than to confirm that we had now received a formal request from the French Government to waive the ban for the summit. We would look carefully at the submission and respond in due course, as would other members of the EU to whom the request had been put, since unanimity was required to effect any change. As he had said this morning, informal discussions were going on the whole time between the British and French Governments at all levels on a variety of different issues.
Asked if we might consider the travel ban on Robert Mugabe as an issue for negotiation, the PMOS said that the question was simply another way of asking what our response to France’s request might be. We would make our view clear in due course. Asked if acceding to the French petition might be a price worth paying, the PMOS marvelled at the different ways journalists were trying to get him to answer the same question. He said that no one under-estimated the importance of sanctions. EU member states had to agree unanimously to impose them and, in this case, to roll them over. EU Foreign Ministers were meeting on Monday in Brussels to discuss the issue and make a decision. In the meantime, we would consider France’s request carefully and respond in due course when we were ready to do so.
Asked why we were ‘pussyfooting’ around when it was clear what our view was, the PMOS said that if a formal request had been put which explained why the ban should be waived - as indeed it had been on a number of occasions in the past year for other members of the Zimbabwean Government - it was surely only right and proper to take time to consider it. At the same time, it was important to bear in mind the importance of getting the sanctions rolled over given they were due to expire on February 18. He acknowledged that the delay was frustrating for journalists who obviously wanted an instant reaction. However, we wanted to take the time to consider the request carefully and would work to our own deadlines, not ones imposed artificially by the media. Asked to provide a summary of France’s reasons for allowing Mr Mugabe to attend the summit, the PMOS said that he was not a spokesman for the French Government. Nor was it his job to reveal the content of private correspondence.
Asked when the travel ban had been waived in the past, the PMOS said that members of the Zimbabwean Government, including Mr Mugabe, had been allowed to travel to the World Food Summit in Rome (10-13 June 2002). The Police Commissioner of Zimbabwe had travelled to France on three occasions (May, June and August 2002) to attend meetings of Interpol. The Trade and Industry Minister had travelled to Brussels for EU ACP meetings (22-29 September 2002). Two junior Ministers had also visited Brussels for a similar meeting (28-29 November). The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture had visited Paris for a UNESCO meeting (9-10 January 2003). Questioned as to whether we would accede to France’s bid on the basis that we had not objected to previous requests to waive the travel ban in the past, the PMOS said that we would judge today’s request in its own right, on its own merits and depending on whether it was in accordance with the rules of the sanctions which allowed for exemptions in specific cases. Put to him that this all hinged on whether the sanctions would still be in place at the time of the summit - which they would not be if France did not agree to extend them on Monday, the PMOS said that under EU rules, we needed unanimity to extend and rollover the sanctions, which was our objective for Monday.
Asked if Downing Street was resiling from the view expressed by Clare Short that President Chirac’s invitation to Mr Mugabe was a disgrace, the PMOS said that both Clare Short and Peter Hain had been reflecting the Government’s strong view that the sanctions must be rolled over. Asked why he was refusing to express a view on behalf of the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that this was all about giving a considered response to a formal request by the French Government. We should be allowed to do that in our own time. Asked if he was implying that we had already made a decision to oppose France’s request, the PMOS said no. He was simply indicating that we would give a considered response to a formal petition. Put to him that Clare Short had already given the Government’s response through her comments yesterday, the PMOS said that Ms Short had not given a response to a formal bid because it had not been made until today. Questioned as to whether the British Government would make a decision before the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on Monday, the PMOS said yes.
Asked why we were so ambivalent about Robert Mugabe being welcomed in Paris on 19 February when we were so certain that the England cricket team should not shake hands with him in Zimbabwe on 13 February, the PMOS said that we could not be accused of being ambivalent in terms of our attitude towards sanctions. Our priority was clear. We wanted the sanctions be renewed. However, France’s invitation to Mr Mugabe to attend a summit in Paris was a matter for them, not us.
Asylum
Asked if the Prime Minister agreed with David Blunkett assessment’s in his New Statesman interview that Britain was like a ‘coiled spring’ in relation to asylum seekers, the PMOS said that as he had pointed out this morning, it was perfectly legitimate both to point out that there were genuine concerns about this issue, as the Prime Minister had acknowledged in PMQs yesterday, and equally that there was a need to set out rationally the measures we were taking in response to those concerns, as indeed both he and the Home Secretary had been doing and would continue to do. Put to him that it was odd for the Minister in charge of law and order to talk about people taking the law into their own hands, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary had not been advocating that people should do so. He had simply been making the point that there were genuine concerns which had to be addressed in a rational way. Asked if he was suggesting that the Government might reinstate its manifesto commitment to deport 30,000 asylum seekers a year, the PMOS said that both the Prime Minister and Mr Blunkett had set out in the House the action we were taking to deal with the issue of asylum, not least in terms of co-operation with our colleagues in France by establishing joint checks systems. These were clearly beginning to bite. It was through this rational, pragmatic approach that we would be able to bear down on the problem.
Northern Ireland
Asked about the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Taoiseach today, the PMOS said that due to the timeframe involved, particularly as a result of the impact of elections on 1 May, each meeting in this sequence of talks became more important. Today’s meeting was significant in that regard. It had provided an opportunity for the two Prime Ministers who had both talked to the key players in recent days and weeks to compare notes and set out the ‘headlines’ in terms of how we could implement the agenda set out by the Prime Minister in his October 17 speech in Belfast. Those ‘headlines’ now had to be carried forward in detail through intensive talks between officials on either side and with the parties themselves who would meet under the aegis of Paul Murphy and Brian Cowen who chair a roundtable meeting next Thursday in Belfast.
Asked if this would be the first roundtable meeting since the collapse of the institutions in October, the PMOS said no. Discussions between the parties had continued in the interim. Today signalled the start of an intensive period in the peace process. Questioned as to whether the Prime Minister and Taoiseach would be involved in the roundtable meeting next week, the PMOS said no. Official contacts would continue over the next few days and there would be the roundtable meeting chaired by Paul Murphy and Brian Cowen. What might happen after that would depend on how much progress had been made. Asked what the ‘headlines’ were, the PMOS said that it would not be helpful to go into detail at this stage. That said, the Prime Minister’s speech in Belfast last October had set out the agenda both in terms of bringing paramilitary activity of all kinds to an end, a commitment from the British Government to normalise the security situation and a commitment to restore the institutions on a permanent basis.
Asked to characterise the progress that had been made so far, the PMOS said that we remained firmly of the view that all the parties were very serious about wanting to utilise this opportunity properly. We believed they were serious about wanting to bring the Good Friday Agreement to a point of completion. It was therefore well worth investing the time and energy in order to bring that about. However, there was clearly a lot of work still to do.
Asked if the Prime Minister remained confident that progress could be made by the end of March, the PMOS said that it would not be helpful to start talking about timescales. However, everyone was aware of the timeframe involved. We were confident that people remained serious about their commitment to bring the Agreement to the point of completion, although there was still clearly a lot more work to do in order to achieve that.
delicious
digg
facebook
