Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Romano Prodi, Iraq, Israel/Palestinian Conference, Cricket/Zimbabwe, Gun Crime, War on Terror/Asylum Seekers and Northern Ireland.
Romano Prodi
Asked about the Prime Minister’s meeting with Romano Prodi this morning, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that they had discussed a wide range of international issues, as you would expect. The Prime Minister had taken the opportunity to congratulate Mr Prodi on the role the European Commission had played in the EU enlargement negotiations, which had come to a head at the European Council in Copenhagen last month. The Prime Minister had also raised concerns about fishing reductions - an issue he had also discussed with Mr Prodi at Copenhagen. Asked if the Prime Minister and Mr Prodi had discussed economic factors behind membership of the Euro, the PMOS confirmed that there had been a discussion about the general economic situation in Europe. He declined to go into detail.
Iraq
Asked if Cabinet today had discussed Iraq, the PMOS confirmed that there had been a relatively brief discussion. The Prime Minister had underlined his view that the weapons inspectors in Iraq had to be given the time and space to do their job properly. In that sense, therefore, while 27 January was an important staging post in the process, it should not be regarded in any way as a deadline.
The PMOS took the opportunity to inform journalists that the suggestion in today’s Telegraph that Downing Street had asked for a delay in a military campaign was categorically wrong. We hadn’t - not least because no decision had been taken at this stage to launch such action. In addition, he would point out that the quote attributed to the Prime Minister in today’s Mirror and Express in relation to the Foreign Secretary was also wrong. It was completely untrue. As the Prime Minister had underlined once again yesterday, the bottom line was that Saddam Hussein had a very simple choice. He could either disarm or be disarmed. It was up to him. Put to him that the Mirror had stated that the Prime Minister had ‘agreed’ with the quote in question, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not said the words, and nor had anyone else on his behalf. Pressed as to whether the words had been uttered in the Prime Minister’s presence, the PMOS said that he could not be any clearer in stating categorically that the story was wrong.
Asked to confirm reports that Geoff Hoon’s dismissive response to Jack Straw’s comments regarding the odds of a war on Iraq had been instigated by Downing Street, the PMOS said the idea that, at a time when two people were playing such important roles in this country, we would authorise an attack by one Secretary of State on another was ludicrous. The Prime Minister had not said the words attributed to him. He continued to hold both the Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary in the highest regard. It was important for people to deal with reality, not made up soap opera lines.
Asked how much time and space the weapons inspectors would be given to carry out their work, the PMOS said that it was important for people to recognise that we were in the middle of a process. The inspections team had only just acquired their full complement of inspectors in Iraq. They should now be given the time and space to do their job properly. We acknowledged that this could be a frustrating time for all of us, including journalists, because it meant that we had to be patient. However, we were following a process which had been agreed unanimously by the UN Security Council. Consequently, it would be wrong and unhelpful for people to get too ahead of themselves at this stage. Asked about the prospect of a future deadline, the PMOS said that it was important for people to wait and see what Hans Blix would say in his report to the Security Council on 27 January because he was the one in the driving seat. Asked if he was implying that it was up to Hans Blix himself to decide how much time and space the weapons inspectors would need, the PMOS said that Dr Blix was the man in charge of the weapons inspections team and had been asked to do the job in Iraq. It was important for people to let him get on and do it.
Asked if it was fair to assume that the British Government would not commit troops unless the UN inspectors came up with evidence that Saddam Hussein had evaded his obligations under Resolution 1441, the PMOS said we already knew that Saddam’s declaration last month was flawed, as Hans Blix himself had indicated. The onus remained on Saddam to prove that his declaration was a truthful statement and that he was co-operating with the UN inspectors in the role given to them by the Security Council. That was why it was important to give them the time and space to carry out their work without having to endure endless speculating and hypothesising about some vague time in the future. Put to him that what we already knew about Saddam’s failings was not in itself a trigger for war and therefore whether it would require the uncovering of specific evidence by the inspectors before the British Government was ready to commit troops, the PMOS repeated that Saddam had to show that he was being truthful and was co-operating fully with the weapons inspectors. On 27 January, Hans Blix was due to deliver his verdict to the Security Council. In the meantime, people should resist the urge to jump to conclusions.
Put to him that, despite our insistence that we were not urging the US Administration to delay any military campaign, we were doing just that by emphasising that 27 January was not a deadline but a staging post, the PMOS drew journalists’ attention to Colin Powell’s comments as reported in today’s Washington Post in which he had said, "At that point (i.e. 27 January), we will have to make some judgements as to what to do next. What’s the next step. But it is not necessarily a D-day for decision-making". Clearly, 27 January was an important day given it had been enshrined in Resolution 1441, but it did not need to be a decision day. In our view, that gave the lie to any suggestion that we were taking a different position. We agreed absolutely with Colin Powell. Questioned about the ‘weather window’ in terms of the start of any military campaign, the PMOS said that he was not going into get into a hypothetical discussion relating to a campaign about which a decision hadn’t even been made.
Asked if the Prime Minister continued to believe that a second UN Resolution for military action was preferable rather than necessary, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had stated from the outset, the UN route had to be a way of dealing with the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not avoiding it. That position had not changed one iota. Asked if there was any indication that the US was listening to what was being said and whether they were beginning to recognise the merits of a second Resolution, the PMOS said that we were continuing to work with the US and our other allies on the question of Iraq. At each and every stage so far, some people had predicted differences of opinion. The reality, however, was the fact that the international community had come together in a unanimous vote in December. This was a strong indication that the US, as well as our allies, wanted to work with as great a consensus as possible.
Asked for a reaction to an article in the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung which suggested that the reputation of Britain’s armed forces was a myth, the PMOS pointed out that the article had concluded by stating that Britain’s forces were "flexible, versatile, and capable of rapid deployment - that is more than you can say for most armies in the Western Alliance". Anyone who had heard the Prime Minister talk about the UK’s armed forces would know that he was unstinting in his admiration and respect for them.
Israel/Palestinian Conference
In answer to questions about the Prime Minister’s meeting today with the Israeli Opposition Leader, Amram Mitzna, the PMOS said that the meeting should not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. In the past year, the Prime Minister had met many Opposition Leaders from other countries. For example, he had seen Edmund Stoiber (Germany), Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (Spain) and Piero Fassino (Italy). He had also met Ehud Barak prior to the Israeli election in 1999.
Asked for an update on the proposed Palestinian conference, the PMOS said that we had heard from Prime Minister Sharon’s office this morning, although the UK Ambassador to Israel, Sherard Cowper-Coles, had not yet been able to meet Mr Sharon to deliver the Prime Minister’s letter as a result of election pressures on Mr Sharon’s time. Mr Cowper-Coles hoped to be able to meet him personally tomorrow. The Israeli position remained unchanged in relation to their decision to bar Palestinian delegates from attending the meeting in London. However, we were committed to continuing the process of dialogue with the Palestinians and would be reflecting on how we could do that as soon as possible within the time-frame we had initially planned. Asked why the conference couldn’t be moved to Ramallah, the PMOS repeated that we were committed to the dialogue going ahead in some in some form within the original timescale.
Asked if the Prime Minister was disappointed that the US Administration had failed to join in the UK’s appeal to allow Palestinian representatives to travel to London for the meeting, the PMOS said the important point was that the US was supportive of our plan to hold the conference. As he had already underlined, the dialogue would go ahead in one form or another. Pressed as to whether that meant the meeting had been cancelled, the PMOS said no and reiterated again that we were committed to the dialogue going ahead in one form or another. Questioned as to whether the Quartet delegates were still intending to come to London next week, the PMOS said that we would announce the format in which the dialogue with the Palestinians would take place when we were ready to do so. Given Mr Sharon’s office had only contacted us this morning, we felt we were entitled to take a little time to work out what the format should be.
Asked if we were expecting Prime Minister Sharon to respond to the Prime Minister’s letter, the PMOS said yes. Mr Sharon’s office had made it clear that he would reply in person to the British Ambassador tomorrow. Through their contact with us this morning, the Israelis had given us an early indication of the likely contents of their response.
Cricket/Zimbabwe
Asked whether Tessa Jowell had updated cabinet on her discussions with the ECB this morning, the PMOS said yes. She had underlined again that while we accepted that it was a difficult issue, it was clearly a matter for the ECB. That said, we remained firmly of the opinion that the England cricket team should not go to Zimbabwe.
Asked if he would agree that it would have been better had the Government been clearer about the issue earlier, the PMOS said that there had been no doubt about our view of the potential difficulties since July when the first meeting with the ECB had taken place.
Gun Crime
Asked whether the new measures to combat gun crime had been discussed in Cabinet today, the PMOS said no. Asked if the Government would accept that its gun policy had been a failure, the PMOS said no. He suggested that some people appeared to be mistaking common sense exceptions with a U-turn. That was not the case. A common sense exception was a good law. It was not a U-turn.
Put to him that the Government had failed to reduce gun crime, the PMOS said that gun crime was precisely the reason why the Home Secretary had announced the measures he had announced. Overall, however, it was worth remembering that crime was down 27% since 1997.
War on Terror/Asylum Seekers
Asked if the Government was surprised that illegal asylum seekers were behind the ricin production operation discovered at the weekend in Wood Green, the PMOS said that it would not be helpful for him to comment on the individuals involved because they were still being questioned.
Put to him that we had been warned for a long time about some of the problems associated with illegal immigrants and why we hadn’t taken any action, the PMOS said he would disagree. He pointed out that immigration officers at ports of entry were provided with profiles of passengers who might pose a potential risk to UK security. Moreover, all asylum seekers were photographed and fingerprinted when an application for asylum was made. Further checks were also made with the police and Security Service if any doubts arose in the initial interview. Thus steps were clearly being taken to detect whether any asylum seekers were involved in illegal activities. At the same time, however, it was worth remembering that terrorists, by their very nature, were people who did not observe the law. Put to him that the French authorities had warned the UK about suspects involved in the Wood Green raid on Sunday, the PMOS said that it was important to respect the judicial process - and that meant not commenting on the cases of the arrested men in question. As a general point, however, it was worth noting that there was no intelligence information to suggest that terrorists found it easier to infiltrate the UK than any other country.
Northern Ireland
Asked the Prime Minister’s reaction to the IRA’s statement today accusing British military chiefs and Loyalist paramilitaries for obstructing the peace process, the PMOS said that it wasn’t our policy to respond to IRA statements. Questioned about the Prime Minister’s meeting today with Sinn Fein, the PMOS reminded journalists that the Prime Minister had set out a very clear agenda last October in Belfast which he believed must be followed - namely, that all paramilitary activity must come to an end. That applied equally to Loyalist terrorists as well as the IRA. Sinn Fein were aware of the Prime Minister’s view and we would continue to pursue it. The Prime Minister remained firmly of the belief that we could reinstate the institutions in Northern Ireland - but that could only be done on the basis that no one was half-in or half-out of the democratic process. Asked if the Prime Minister was pushing for ‘acts of completion’, the PMOS said yes. They were still necessary. How we achieved that would be discussed over the coming weeks.
delicious
digg
facebook
