Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Iraq, Reshuffle and Out-of-Hours Press Office.
Iraq
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) drew journalists’ attention to an issue which had been raised today in the daily Ministerial meeting on Iraq concerning religious sites. As Jack Straw had said in his Today Programme interview this morning, we were in possession of intelligence stating that Saddam and his regime were planning to damage religious sites in Iraq and blame it on the Coalition. Reports, as well as pictures on the White House website, showed that he had done something similar during the previous Gulf War in 1991 when he had removed the Dome of a Mosque in Al Basrah in an attempt to make it appear that the Coalition had attacked it. Moreover, during the Shiite rebellion following the Gulf War, he had attacked and desecrated Imam Ali’s shrine from which the Iraqi army had looted treasures. He had also destroyed religious libraries in Najaf and had shelled and desecrated Imam Hussein’s shrine in Karbala. The shrine of Imam Abbas had also been reported damaged. There were further reports that acts of murder, torture and rape had been committed in religious buildings where local people had sought sanctuary. This showed, if proof were needed again, that Saddam had a total disregard for Islam, that he disrespected its holy sites and that he was ready to exploit them ruthlessly for his own gain. It was important to underline the fact that we had never attacked any of these sites and would never target them. It also went without saying that we would obviously do whatever we could to avoid them being hit.
Questioned as to whether Jack Straw’s insistence in his interview this morning that the UK would not participate in any action against Iran and Syria was deliberately meant to act as a direct warning to Donald Rumsfeld who had suggested that the US would do so if it was found that Iran and Syria were helping Saddam, the PMOS said Mr Straw’s comments were not inconsistent with what we had been saying since last Friday. The US had been briefing on information which they had. Obviously we were discussing it with them. However, our military focus remained very firmly on the campaign in Iraq.
In answer to questions about a post-conflict administration in Iraq, the PMOS said that everyone obviously wanted to see an Iraq run by, and for, the Iraqi people themselves. That was the prize - good governance and a proper respect for human rights. We wanted the administration to be endorsed by the UN through the appropriate Resolution. Discussions were currently taking place about the transition from the immediate post-conflict position to an administration run by the Iraqis themselves. As was clear from the conversations the Prime Minister and President Bush had had at Camp David last week, suggestions that there were big differences between the UK and US about this matter were simply not borne out by reality. To suggest such a thing would also misrepresent President Bush’s statement and the US position following the Azores Summit on 16 March.
Asked for a reaction to a report in today’s New York Times suggesting that a number of retired US Generals were currently in Kuwait planning a three-month interim administration to be run by Americans, the PMOS said that once Iraq had been rid of Saddam and his regime, there would need to be a transition from the immediate post-conflict position to the vision everyone wanted to see. In that hiatus period, there would need to be a transition to an interim authority. We had no further details about it at the moment for the simple reason that these matters were still under discussion. Asked if he was implying that we expected the US to run Iraq in the interim and that we were quite happy about the prospect, the PMOS said it was a statement of fact that there would need to be an interim authority before establishing a representative government run by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people. Asked if the British Government could support an interim administration run by American ministers with Iraqis acting as advisers, as Mr Straw had seemed to suggest this morning, the PMOS said that Mr Straw’s words spoke for themselves. It was important for people to be a little patient. Discussions were still going on about all the different stages. When we were in a position to set out the detail, we would obviously do so. Asked if it was fair for the interim administration to be made up of a number of senior US figures but no Britons given the UK’s contribution to the military campaign in Iraq, the PMOS said that while he would acknowledge the legitimacy of the questions being put to him, it was important for people to understand that we had not yet reached the stage were we were able to set out details of the type of structures which might be put in place in a post-Saddam Iraq. Discussions were still going on and we did not think it would be helpful to provide a running commentary before they had ended.
Questioned about the proposal for a UN-led conference to bring together Iraqi Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis to form a new state after the war, the PMOS said that it was one idea amongst many which had been floating around. Such a conference had been useful in the case of Afghanistan. Put to him that there was a fundamental difference between the UK and US about the establishment of a representative government in Iraq inasmuch as Mr Straw had said this morning that it must be endorsed by the UN whereas President Bush seemed vaguely to aspire to such an idea, the PMOS referred journalists to what the President had said in his joint press conference at Camp David last week in which he had indicated the clear understanding across the piece regarding the role the UN would play in a post-conflict Iraq.
Asked to clarify the Government’s policy towards British soldiers who refused to fight following reports that two soldiers had returned home last week after declining to take part in military action in Iraq, the PMOS said that the story had been reported at the end of last week and the MoD had issued a statement saying that they had no information to back up that particular charge. Questioned as to whether British soldiers would face disciplinary action if they refused to fight in Iraq, the PMOS said that this was a hypothetical question. We would deal with it if and when we had to.
Reshuffle
Asked if the Prime Minister had been made aware of the Commons Speaker’s unhappiness over the delay in appointing a new Leader of the House, the PMOS said that in the light of the military conflict in Iraq and the resulting demands on the Prime Minister’s time, no doubt people recognised the unique set of circumstances in which we found ourselves. Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken directly to the Speaker about this matter, the PMOS said not as far as he was aware. Asked when the new Leader of the House would be announced, the PMOS said that he was unable to give a definitive date. However, he expected an announcement to be made shortly.
Out-of-Hours Press Office
The PMOS took the opportunity to ask journalists to pass on to their respective news organisations a request to think carefully before phoning Downing Street duty press officers in the early hours of the morning. Obviously we were in the middle of a military conflict, but unnecessary calls between the hours of midnight and 6am appeared to have proliferated over the last couple of weeks. Our press officers, who were on duty around the clock, also worked full time during the day. Things had reached a high/low last week when a news organisation had phoned at 4am to ask how the Prime Minister dealt with stress. Obviously if anything important happened we were open 24/7. This was not directed in any way at Lobby correspondents, but he would appeal to them to ask colleagues, who might have a different interpretation of what ‘important’ meant, to think first before picking up the phone during the night.
delicious
digg
facebook
