Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq.
Iraq
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) briefed journalists on the mechanics for today in the light of Hans Blix and Mohammed ElBaradei’s report to the Security Council. Jack Straw was currently on his way to New York. As he understood it, Dr Blix was expected to deliver his report at about 3.15pm (GMT). This would happen in open session, following which each of the Security Council members would have a chance to respond. At this stage - but this was subject to change and depended on the length of the reports and responses - we assessed that Jack Straw was likely to respond at around 5pm (GMT) on behalf of the British Government. We were not expecting the Prime Minister to issue a response today. He was expected to use his speech to the Labour Party Spring Conference in Glasgow tomorrow to give a very strong defence of our position on Iraq and his assessment of where we were following today’s reports to the Security Council.
Asked if he recognised reports this morning that Dr Blix and Dr Elbaradei could ask the UN for two more weeks, the PMOS said that there was no point in people getting too ahead of themselves at this stage. The presentation to the Security Council was only a few hours away. People had to be patient. Asked whether the Prime Minister was planning to speak to President Bush today, the PMOS said that there were no plans he could point to at the moment.
In answer to further questions, the PMOS pointed to Jack Straw’s Statement to the House yesterday in which he had reminded people that the questions set out in Dr Blix and Dr ElBaradei’s report on 27 January remained open. They had noted then, for example, that 6,500 chemical bombs were unaccounted for, as well as stocks of anthrax and VX nerve agent. This was in addition to the 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, 360 tonnes of bulk agent for chemical weapons and the 30,000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents. These were detailed questions about which the international community had real concern.
Asked if Downing Street gave any credence to the view that a Second Resolution should not contain any reference to military action, the PMOS said that there were all sorts of scenarios being explored, as you would expect. Although today was an important day, he did not think that the process would necessarily be advanced by speculating about what might happen after a report which we had yet to see or hear.
Asked if the Prime Minister had a message for people intending to join tomorrow’s anti-war protest, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister had told the House this week, no one in Government doubted that the people taking part in the march were motivated by the best intentions and believed sincerely in their views. He respected that. In a democracy, people were entitled to protest and make their voices heard - and no one would have it any other way. However, it was important to put this event into context. It was being billed as a Stop the War rally. But it was important to recognise that that there was no military conflict at the moment. The way to prevent any such conflict was for Saddam Hussein to co-operate and fulfil his obligations as set out by the whole of the international community as embodied by the UN. Moreover, since we were talking about a democratic expression of a point of view, people should not forget that no such right existed in Iraq. People who voiced opposition to Saddam faced torture, imprisonment and death. There were suggestions that perhaps a million people might participate in the march tomorrow. If so, that would be the same as the number of Kurds who had fled into the Iraqi mountains in the face of Saddam’s repression after the Gulf War. It would also be half the number of casualties in the war that Saddam had started with Iran. It would be a quarter of the number of Iraqis who had fled Iraq rather than live under Saddam’s regime. It could also be the case that the numbers tomorrow could equal the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who Saddam had murdered under his tyrannical regime. For example, we had seen validated reports of thousands of people being killed at a stroke in so-called ‘prison cleansings’. It was therefore clearly important to present the other side of the equation and ensure that other voices were heard. Yesterday, Mike O’Brien had met members of the British Iraqi community. While strong views had been expressed across the piece about military action, he had heard many people speaking out in favour of taking strong action to deal with Saddam. For example, one person had said that that it was a fundamental misunderstanding to present the issue as a choice between war with Iraq or peace in Iraq. There was clearly no peace there since Saddam was routinely killing, torturing and imprisoning Iraqi people. No one doubted that the views held by the anti-war protestors were sincerely held views. However, as the Prime Minister had said in the Commons, there were always other sides to these arguments. The PMOS took the opportunity to reiterate the point that there was already a humanitarian crisis in Iraq as a result of Saddam’s regime. Although he was entitled to as much food and medicine as he wished to have for his people under the Oil for Food programme, he had chosen instead to ignore that. Consequently, Iraq had an infant mortality rate of 130 deaths per 1,000 children under the age of 5, 60% of the population were on food aid and half the Iraqis in rural areas had no access to safe water. In addition, recent orders submitted for approval under the Oil for Food programme suggested that humanitarian assistance was not Saddam’s priority. In one week last October, orders had included 22,000 tonnes of chewing gum machines and 12,000 tonnes of mobile ‘phones.
Asked for Downing Street’s view of the proposed meeting of the Iraqi Parliament to discuss Hans Blix and Dr ElBaradei’s report to the Security Council and whether it had legitimacy, the PMOS said that everyone understood how the regime operated in Iraq. If people were referring to reports about new Iraqi ‘WMD legislation’, clearly what we needed was a change of attitude, not merely a change of law. Put to him that the Iraqis were claiming that the meeting of the Parliament and the pro-regime demonstrations on the streets of Iraq showed that Saddam had the support of his people, the PMOS said that if this was being suggested on the grounds that he had received a 99.9% vote of confidence on a 100% turnout, people should be a little bit sceptical. We acknowledged that questions had been asked about the sourcing of part of our recent document on Iraq. However, no matter in what way people looked at this, no one could surely be in any doubt about the tyrannical, dictatorial and evil nature of Saddam’s regime, the grip which he held on his people, as well as the oppression he visited on them.
Asked to confirm reports that the UN had asked Saddam to introduce legislation outlawing WMD and that therefore we should be looking both for a change of attitude and a change of law, the PMOS said that it was important for people to wait for the presentation to the Security Council today. What was clear was that co-operation lay at the heart of Resolution 1441. It was one thing to say that you were going to outlaw WMD. It was obviously a separate - and, we would argue, a more important - thing to account for the WMD that the international community had so far been unable to account for.
Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about an anti-war backlash in the run-up to the Scottish Parliamentary elections which could affect the performance of his party, the PMOS pointed out that we were still some way away from the elections in Scotland. In any event, as a Civil Servant he would be unable to comment on them.
delicious
digg
facebook
