9 October 2002
Interviewer
Here I am, sitting in Downing Street and the British Prime Minister is opposite to me and has granted us this interview for the BBC World Service and BBC Russian Service on the eve of his visit to Russia.
Prime Minister, I understand that Iraq is going to be very high on the agenda of your forthcoming talks in Moscow. Do you hope to ensure Russia’s support for your and Mr George Bush’s stance in the Security Council? And to what extent will you be prepared to take into account what is called Russian special interests in Iraq?
Prime Minister
Well of course it is the case that we have been working very closely over this issue, and it’s important to realise that we regard Russia very much as our partner in this issue and I am hopeful that we can resolve it in such a way that we meet the concerns of everybody. And those concerns are to make sure that Iraq develops free from the threat of chemical and biological and potentially nuclear weapons, that the United Nations’ will is done, and that we manage to ensure that the disarmament of Iraq of all these weapons takes place.
And I know that is a concern of Russia’s itself. So in a sense I think people are agreed on the basic principles, but we need to discuss the right way to see them implemented.
Interviewer
The Russian newspapers are full with stories about possible price tags for getting Russia along.
Prime Minister
I don’t think it’s to do …. Obviously there are interests that Russia has in this issue, but I don’t think it’s a question of price tags. It is a question of making sure that we do this in such a way that the world is made a safer place, that Iraq can develop, and that the interests of everybody, including Russia, are taken account of.
Interviewer
But what if Mr Putin says "what about our oil contracts in Iraq. Will we be able to preserve them if the worst happens?"
Prime Minister
Well of course there are concerns of a commercial and financial nature, but I think that the main preoccupation of Russia has been different.
It has been to make sure that whatever takes place, takes place with the fullest support of the international community, and that’s our concern as well.
Interviewer
Some critics say that London and Washington are willing to turn a blind eye to Russia’s actions in Chechnya in return for Moscow’s support of the campaigns in Afghanistan and the policy towards Iraq. Is there any truth in it, and generally what is the British policy on Chechnya now?
Prime Minister
No, there is no truth in it. And let me make it clear as I made clear a couple of years ago now and got some criticism for it. Of course we have got to make sure that human rights questions are properly respected in relation to Chechnya. But when we talk about terrorism, people should never forget that Russia itself has been the victim of terrorism.
Terrorism coming from extremists operating out of Chechnya and that the territorial integrity of Russia should be respected. So I have always taken the view that it is important that we understand the Russian perspective on this. Now it is absolutely right that we make every effort to ensure that questions about human rights are dealt with, and dealt with properly because they are important, and we have always made those points as well. However, it is important at the same time to recognise that Russia has a legitimate interest to protect itself from terrorism and to make sure that these issues of extremism are dealt with. And before 11 September, one of the reasons why Russia was very much opposed to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, is because Russia saw that terrorist network as part of so-called Islamic extremists, a network of those right across the world who had targeted Russia and caused the deaths of many, many Russian citizens. So I have always been more understanding of the Russian position, perhaps, than others.
Interviewer
But isn’t it true that western leaders in general stopped raising the Chechen human rights issue with Putin and other Russian leaders?
Prime Minister
No, again we have always, whenever there have been issues raised about human rights, and there have been issues raised on both sides actually in respect of human rights, we have raised those with President Putin, and President Putin himself has made every effort to make sure that those issues are properly investigated. But I think there has also been an understanding, perhaps a greater understanding now of the threat that Russia itself faced from extremists and terrorists and also the importance of the territorial integrity of Russia being upheld. And I think the concern of Russia has always been that the most extreme elements in Chechnya are arguing for taking Chechnya out of Russia. If that starts happening and you start getting that type of movement spreading elsewhere, linked to this type of extremism and fundamentalism, it’s a huge problem so I think it is important that we have some understanding of that from the Russian perspective.
Interviewer
Prime Minister before we talk about Iraq some more, can you tell our audience, are there any other important bilateral issues that you are going to discuss with Mr Putin.
Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely. First of all, the big change that is happening so far as Britain is concerned, so far what you might loosely call the West is concerned, we regard Russia as an equal partner and we want Russia for our partner for the future. And what is exciting about the change happening in Russia at the moment is not just the economic change, but also change in relation to security and foreign policy issues. We co-operated well over Afghanistan. We are trying to work through whatare very difficult issues in respect of Iraq. The new relationship between Russia and NATO which we worked very closely on with President Putin is a huge indication of the change coming to pass in respect of our relationship. And also, of course, we now have major trading relationships as well. I think there are some 400 British companies operating in Russia, we are the fifth largest overseas investor there ? something like 10% of overseas investment in Russia is from Britain.
There is a big trading and commercial relationship there too, and I think one of the things that makes me most optimistic about the world at the moment is that with all the difficulties, I think the European Union is working far more closely with Russia, Russia is working through its issues with the United States of America in a constructive way, and we want to help in any way that we can with that.
Interviewer
I just flew back from Moscow last night, very late. All the Russian newspapers are ? not all of them to be fair, but many of them ? are full of rather hostile commentaries about the American and British line on Iraq, so you have a very formidable task ahead of you. How are you going to persuade Mr Putin, for example, that there is a need for a new Security Council Resolution?
Prime Minister
The reason why it is important to have a new Resolution is that the only way of avoiding conflict is that you have the weapons inspectors go back into Iraq and do their job properly . Now when they went into Iraq before, they weren’t allowed to do their job properly, and in the end they were effectively expelled. And therefore Saddam has been able to carry on developing these weapons of mass destruction: the chemical, the biological, and potentially the nuclear weapons programmes. So we have to make sure that the system under which the Inspectors do their work takes account of and removes the difficulties from before. That’s why you need a new Resolution. It’s in order to express once again the firm determination of the international community to deal with it, but it is also so that the new inspection and monitoring system does not have the flaws that the old one had, which in the end prevented the Inspectors from doing their work properly.
Interviewer
You have been quoted in Russia as saying that you were prepared to pay the blood price for maintaining the special relationship with Washington, but isn’t it true that it is much more the United States rather than Britain that is threatened by Al-Qaeda or possibly by Saddam Hussein. Why not let the Americans fight for themselves?
Prime Minister
Well, the Americans will, although I personally think that the threat of these terrorist networks is a threat for all of us. We have got Al-Qaeda networks operating here in Britain. Before they struck at America they also tried to strike at Germany and at France. And of course even Russia knows the problems with these types of extremists who are very, very much linked to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, so this is why I think these are issues that confront us all. I totally understand why for people in Russia, with all the legacy of the past, there is a suspicion about why the United States wants to do this. Why is Britain supporting. But in the end these are genuinely problems for all of us and my idea all the way through has been that Europe and America stand together, and Russia joins us on the same basic platform of support for stability and order against terrorism, against rogue states developing these weapons of mass destruction because our way of life and our countries are threatened by that. For Russia it is extremely important that the economy carries on developing. Russia is an energy-rich country too now, so there are tremendous opportunities for Russia to develop in the future.
But all of that could be put at risk if these terrorist networks are allowed to operate, disrupt things, create a loss of economic confidence. The same with states that are brutal and repressive dictatorships like Iraq developing these weapons of mass destruction. So what we need to do is to realise that whatever traditions and legacies there are from the past in today’s world that we actually stand together on these things.
Interviewer
You have said before that it is not actually regime change as such that you are after, but rather the disarmament of the Iraqi government but can it be disarmed once and for all. Some experts believe that Saddam Hussein will never stop his attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction as long as he is in power and it is hardly possible to keep Inspectors in Iraq for ever.
Prime Minister
Well, that’s a good point. The purpose of our action is disarmament of these weapons ? these mass destruction weapons. He is perfectly entitled to have his conventional army and his navy and his airforce.
But the world community has said that this is a regime that should not have these types of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Now I think it is possible to make sure that the Inspectors disarm him of those weapons and then monitor the situation. But I agree that there is always a potential threat whilst Saddam remains. However the international community’s will has been expressed in relation to the disarmament of that regime rather than regime change itself. As I always say to people, I think it would be a fantastic thing, not least for the Iraqi people, if Saddam was removed. But our purpose in the action that we are taking is to make sure that the will of the international community and the UN is upheld.
Interviewer
But Prime Minister, do you have a contingency plan for a situation when a strong enough Resolution in the Security Council to your liking will not pass. Will you then join the United States in tackling the Saddam problem without the United Nations and what are the possible implications of such developments for the United Nations, NATO, and your relations with Russia?
Prime Minister
One of the things I have learned in politics is that it is better not to speculate on a hypothesis that might never come to pass. We are working for a new Resolution, we believe it is possible to get one and I certainly want this to be done with the maximum international support.
So I believe this issue has to be tackled, it can’t be avoided, it must be dealt with, but we are on a path to tackle this through the United Nations ….
Interviewer
But I’m sure you do have a contingency plan, otherwise you wouldn’t be a Prime Minister.
Prime Minister
Well I wouldn’t be a Prime Minister either if I didn’t, having taken a particular course, see it through, and the course that we are taking is doing it through the route of the United Nations.
Interviewer
For many years, if not decades, refugees from Iraq have been trying to tell the world about what is going on in their country. They were talking about torture, arbitrary arrests, and summary executions, etc.
Nevertheless, the British public until recently knew next to nothing about those horrors. No wonder that now when you have published your dossier on Iraq some critics say well it is propaganda because the war is coming and the governments are engaged in propaganda now. Why didn’t the British Government try and make those facts public before?
Prime Minister
But we did. The reason we took action before, obviously when we expelled Iraq from Kuwait in the early 1990s. Then again, 4 years ago, I authorised military action against Iraq. We have No Fly Zones to protect the Kurdish people and protect other people at risk from Saddam. We have planes patrolling those No Fly Zones every single day and it is not for want of telling people about Saddam’s brutality. We have told people constantly of this but I think what has happened now is because of the prospect that this whole issue comes to a crunch now, there is now a greater sense of awareness, but you are quite right.
What people should do is listen to those people to those people who have been expelled from Iraq, the refugees from Iraq. Thousands of them in this country at the moment. So this is an issue for us as well. And if you listen to the accounts of the Iraqis that have been brutalised and tortured by this regime, I think people see the true nature of it, which is exactly why it is not a regime that should be allowed to develop these types of weapons.
Interviewer
Still, Mr Blair I can tell you that practically everybody in Russia believes that war is inevitable. Will you try to dissuade Mr Putin and others?
Prime Minister
War isn’t inevitable. It is not inevitable. Disarmament of Iraq of these chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons ? that is inevitable. That will happen one way or another. But conflict isn’t inevitable. If Saddam does what the international community required him to do, if he makes it clear that he is prepared to co-operate, and does co-operate, and the Inspectors disarm him of these weapons, there will be no conflict. But what people have to understand is that the authority of the United Nations, the authority of the international community if once we have said this is what must happen and Saddam then refuses to comply we do nothing about it, then it is not the authority of America or Britain that has been undermined, it is the authority of the United Nations. So conflict isn’t inevitable. No-one wants to have conflict. I don’t want to have conflict. No-one should ever commit their troops unless they absolutely have to. But what must happen is the disarmament. But if Saddam wants that to happen, and the Iraqi regime want that to happen, in a peaceful way that there’s choice. They can take it.
Interviewer
Well, if it comes to the worst, will you go it alone with the United States. I know you don’t want to answer this question ….
Prime Minister
Well, it’s because at the moment we are on a course where we are discussing it with allies and therefore I don’t believe we will be in a position where we are taking this action alone because I think we have got a perfectly reasonable proposition.
Interviewer
But you are not ruling it out?
Prime Minister
Well, you get to ruling in, ruling out questions. We have made it clear, and I’ve said this all the way through, this issue has to be dealt with and we are determined, we Britain are determined that it should be dealt with, and it will be dealt with one way or another. But it is best dealt with through the United Nations, through the international community making its will clear, and Saddam then complying with that will. That’s our preference but nobody should be in any doubt that if it isn’t dealt with in that way, it has got to be dealt with differently.
Interviewer
Can I ask a very quick last question on something different. Probably it is always a hard time for a Prime Minister to go on a visit and leave his country because there’s always a problem, but you have a particular problem now with Northern Ireland, and it seems a crisis is taking place. Have you decided what you are going to do about the whole issue.
Prime Minister
Straight away after this issue I will be discussing it with the parties in Northern Ireland. We have come an immense way on this Peace Process in Northern Ireland. If you told people a few years that you were going to have Republicans and Unionists sitting in government together. You would have an Assembly with devolved power to it in Northern Ireland.
The relations between the Republic of Ireland and Britain have never been better. This has huge support on the Island of Ireland as the right way forward for the future. But there is a need now to complete the process. Everybody wants the basic agreement that we signed 4 years ago to be implemented, but I think people have different time-lines for implementing it. And the truth is now we have got to implement the whole thing. Now that’s an obligation for the British Government, it’s an obligation for the parties in Northern Ireland, and it is an obligation in particular for everyone to realise that there can only be one democratic path. That democratic path cannot divide into a path of democracy and a path of violence, so we are at the point of decision now. And as I say I will be discussing it with the parties in Northern Ireland, but I think the hope in this situation, and we have been through many crises in the last few years, but the hope in this situation is quite simply this, that nobody in Northern Ireland really wants this agreement to fail. They want it to succeed. What they are saying however is, it now has all to be implemented and the time for picking and choosing is over.
Interviewer
But Mr Trimble has practically given you an ultimatum.
Prime Minister
Well, what he is saying is, look I want this agreement to work, but I need to know that the people I am sitting down in government with are committed to exclusively peaceful means and I think that is not an unreasonable proposition, so we have got to make sure that wherever … the British government has got its obligations to move this forward, the Unionist community, the Nationalist community, the Republicans have all got their obligations. We have all got to fulfil those obligations. I believe that the Republican leadership is committed to a peaceful future in Northern Ireland. I believe that. But we have got to make sure now that all aspects of this agreement are properly implemented.
|
|
delicious
digg
facebook
