Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Russia/G8, Climate Change, Counter Terrorism, Police Inquiry and Prime Minister
Russia/G8
Asked what the Prime Minister’s response was to President Putin’s words in the Times, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that the new missile defence system that was being put forward by the US was not aimed at Russia, as had been made clear. Rather, it was being aimed at the possibility of rogue states having nuclear weapons. The weapons would not be effective against Russia, given the size of its arsenal, and the position of the defence system in Europe which was too close to Russia, therefore it would be not be effective. The PMOS explained that in terms of the number of missiles that Russia had, it would not be effective on in terms of its positioning. With regards to the overall position with Russia, we wanted to have a construction dialogue with Russia, and we wanted to be able to talk about issues such as Kosovo, Iran and other world global issues in a constructive way. Equally, Europe as a whole, as was seen at the Lahkti conference in October, did have concerns with Russian behaviour, and would not be shy in expressing those concerns. What we wanted was a constructive relationship, but the nature of that relationship was as much up to Russia as it was to us.
Asked to explore further what the Prime Minister’s response was to President Putin, and did he feel that this was threatening, the PMOS said that it was never helpful to provide a running commentary on what other leaders said. Therefore, it was better to say what sort of relationship it was that we wanted. We wanted a constructive relationship, but whether there was one was as much up to Russia as us.
Asked if Russia did start aiming missiles at the UK, would that make the argument for Trident even more necessary, the PMOS replied that he was not going to get into hypotheticals. The case for Trident was well set out, and it was about an uncertain world, not just today but in the timescale that the new Trident would take effect.
Put that President Putin had said that he would start targeting Europe, the PMOS replied that the case for Trident rested on the fact that we were facing an uncertain world. However, the PMOS said that he was not going to make the connection between the two.
Asked if the Prime Minister accepted that there would be no chance in getting the KGB man extradited to the UK, the PMOS said that we had not had a formal response from Russia. What we did have was a well argued, well documented case which the Russians were aware of. We await their response.
Asked if there were any plans for a bilateral with President Putin at the G8 Summit this week, the PMOS replied that people should wait and see what happened. They had met at G8 meetings in the past.
Put that President Putin had already responded to the request for extradition, the PMOS said that we had heard voices, including elders from within the system, but what we had not had was a formal response. We believed in doing this the proper way.
Asked if the Prime Minister was likely to say to Mr. Putin that he didn’t think they should be targeting UK targets, the PMOS said that there were certain things that were statements of the obvious and he was not going to make the journalists’ headlines for them. We wanted a constructive relationship, and people had a good idea of what that was. The choice was Russia’s as to what sort of relationship it wanted, both politically and economically. Did it want there to be a climate in which people would want to invest in Russia and feel secure in doing so. These were decisions that were not ours to make. Rather, it was a matter for Russia.
Asked if there were any concerns about Russia breaking their contracts with Shell and BP, and might the Prime Minister raise it at G8, the PMOS replied that we always discussed the economic side as well as the political side. The sort of investment climate in a country depended on the way in which it treated companies, and that was simply a statement of fact. Again, that was a matter for Russia to decide.
Asked if the British offer to the US to host the radar in the UK still stood, the PMOS said that people knew what the position of other countries in Europe was and what they said. We would continue to discuss matters with the US.
Asked further about security of energy supply, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had said at the time that he was outlining the general context for the Energy White Paper that part of that was a wariness at a time when our own oil and gas production was going down, not up, and we did not want to become over-reliant on single sources of energy. Therefore, in terms of the overall climate, we had seen the problems that over-reliance on one source of energy could cause for countries in Europe. That was part of the overall context.
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that the missiles issue could overshadow issues such as Africa and climate change at the G8, the PMOS replied no. If people looked at what the German Presidency had established as its twin priorities for the G8, that was Africa and climate change. It was now recognised globally that those were two of the major concerns of the world today, and countries would want to pursue answers to them. We of course were glad and delighted that that was the case because we established those priorities in Gleneagles, and we wanted to follow through on Gleneagles, and we believed that this G8 would be important in doing so.
Asked if there was concern that Russia might try and force its own agenda on the G8, the PMOS said that if other issues wanted to be discussed, then they could be. However, the German Presidency had established what its priorities were, and they were Africa and climate change.
Climate Change
Asked if we still wanted a carbon emissions reductions target, did we still favour a global carbon market and did we think that this all had to be done ultimately through the UN, the PMOS replied that we thought that President Bush’s speech was important because for the first time, President Bush not only said that this was a serious problem that had to be addressed, but that the US wanted to be part of a global framework in which it was addressed. The US had not said that before, and that was significant. President Bush also said that part of that had to be setting a global limit on emissions. Again, that had not been said before. The PMOS said that the question was no longer whether there should be a global framework or a global limit, but rather, the question was how and when people got to that process and got results. Those were questions which did not just involve us and Europe, or indeed the US, but also India and China. In terms of the progress that we wanted to see made, we obviously wanted to see progress as far as possible, but the question was how far could we get at the summit. We had not lowered our ambitions at all, but the question was how far down the road could we get to.
Asked further about President Bush’s comments and could they still work ultimately with the UN, the PMOS said that the idea that the US was calling a conference of the top 12 emitters in the autumn as a way of lowering the profile of the issue seemed rather contradictory. People didn’t call conferences if they were trying to avoid the limelight. The PMOS asked if we believed that any process should be complementary to the UN conference? Answer: of course, because that was the recognised process. These were issues that people would want to address at the G8.
Asked about the emissions targets and the carbon market in terms of Kyoto, and were they still there, the PMOS replied that our position was that we wanted to push matters as far as we could. It was for the G8 to decide how far we got to. The PMOS said we had to see what had happened by the end of the week.
Asked what was the response to people who said that because of President Putin’s statement, it should be a meeting of the G7, not G8, the PMOS said that the question that always had to be asked was: was it better to have a dialogue within the tent or without the tent. In terms of Russia’s role in the world, Russia did have contributions to make, not just on Iran or Kosovo, but on all the other global issues. Therefore, it was far better to have those addressed within the G8.
Counter Terrorism
Asked for information about the Government’s position on use of phone tap evidence, the PMOS said that there was a basic dilemma which was that in terms of trying to prosecute terrorists, as the Prime Minister had said many times, his personal preference would be to use intercept evidence in court. What the Prime Minister recognised, however, was that there were genuine concerns on behalf of the security services that to do so would mean revealing evidence in open court which would jeopardise intelligence sources. If people were faced with the choice between jeopardising intelligence sources which could produce ongoing information which helped in the fight against terrorism, there was a real difficulty. The PMOS added that simply because an issue was raised a lot in the past did not take way that dilemma, and that was one that no doubt would continue to be debated long and hard, but it was a real dilemma.
Police Inquiry
Put that the BBC was reporting that the CPS had asked for further inquires, the PMOS said it struck him as rather an old story. In terms of the issue, this was entirely a matter for the CPS and the CPS alone.
Prime Minister
Asked if the Prime Minister had any plans to host a formal dinner for The Queen before he left office, the PMOS replied that the diary was fairly tight, but he was not going to get involved in Royal stories.
delicious
digg
facebook
