Downing Street Says » Middle East/Diplomats’ letter

Asked again about the letter from former diplomats to the Prime Minister regarding the Middle East, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that if the former diplomats wanted a debate about our foreign policy, then that was something to be welcomed. As he had told journalists at yesterday afternoon’s briefing, our goal was clear both in terms of Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian question: we wanted to see stability and democracy. On the Israeli/Palestinian issue, as the Prime Minister and President Bush had made clear repeatedly, not least in their joint press conference in the White House Rose Garden recently, the goal was a two-state solution – a viable Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. As the Prime Minister had said, if Prime Minister Sharon’s recent announcement resulted in 7,000 settlers leaving Gaza and parts of the West Bank, then that was to be welcomed as a first step. As both he and the President had made clear, that did not in any way pre-empt or pre-judge final status negotiations. Equally, our goal in Iraq is to see a democracy because we believed that the Iraqi people should be making judgements about themselves for themselves. It was important for people to recognise that that goal was only possible because of the removal of Saddam. Similarly, it could only come to pass if the terrorists there who saw democracy as a threat to their position were defeated. That was the raison d’etre for the approach we were taking on Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

Asked for a reaction to the description of the former diplomats, reportedly by an FCO source, as the ‘camel corps’ because of their known pro-Arab views, the PMOS said that he had no intention of commenting on descriptions or characterisations. The important thing was to debate the substance of the issue – that democracy would result in greater stability in the Middle East and therefore in stopping the breeding ground for terrorism. Prior to the Iraq conflict, the status quo in Iraq had not been acceptable. Ditto that vis-\xE0-vis the Israeli/Palestinian now. The question, therefore, was whether to engage with the reality on the ground, or wait for some other perfect solution to emerge. The Prime Minister was firmly of the view that the former was the right approach to take.

Asked if the Prime Minister continued to stand by his view that he wanted to see a viable Palestinian state based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s view remained unchanged. Equally, he believed that Israel’s announcement for the first time that it would withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank should be welcomed as a first step, not rejected.

Asked if the Prime Minister felt ‘hurt’ at the attack on him by senior former diplomats who would have been appointed by his Government to senior sensitive posts, the PMOS pointed out that since most of the diplomats were retired, it was unlikely they would have been appointed to posts under this Government. That said, it was important not to personalise the issue but to take on the substance of the argument. If the suggestion was that Iraq was not ripe for democracy or even that the country was better off under the leadership of Saddam, then we would disagree. We were not sure if that was what the diplomats had been saying. However, our view was the reverse. We believed it was better for the Iraqi people to have the right to control their own affairs and that making some progress on the Israeli/Palestinian issue, even it was only a first step, was better than not making progress at all.

Asked if the Prime Minister had been consulted by President Bush before the Rose Garden press conference about the President’s support for the Israeli settlements issue, the PMOS said that we were in constant contact with the US Administration, as you would expect, and we were always aware of each other’s thinking. Pressed as to whether the Prime Minister had been consulted specifically about what the President was intending to say in the press conference, the PMOS said that it wasn’t our policy to comment on the detail of every single conversation the Prime Minister might have. He repeated that we were in constant discussion with the US Administration with whom we shared opinions and views. It was not a question of a one-off conversation. It was about an ongoing process. Questioned further, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had set out his view about the settlements issue very clearly in the press conference. Both he and the President had both underlined that this was not in any way to pre-judge final status issues. Put to him that the President had not used the phrase ‘first step’, the PMOS said that as President Bush had made clear in the Rose Garden, “I am committed to the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. As I said, all final status issues must still be negotiated between the parties.” He had said later, “We’re not going to prejudge the final status discussions.” Journalists could check the transcript for themselves. Asked if he was indicating that the diplomats had been wrong to suggest that supporting Israel’s policy on the settlements would effectively bury the roadmap, the PMOS said we would disagree with that view completely. We had argued strongly for the roadmap and we were obviously not going to do anything which might sideline it. Equally, we believed that Israel’s pullout from Gaza and parts of the West Bank meant that there would be a big role for the Quartet to play in helping the Palestinian Authority to make their aspiration for self government real, both in terms of running the economy, putting in place a security system and establishing a proper judicial system.

Asked if the Prime Minister had been aware of what President Bush had been going to say about the settlements issue two days before the press conference in the Rose Garden, the PMOS said that the British Government and the US Administration were constantly aware of each other’s thinking, as you would expect. Put to him that being aware of an issue was not the same thing as being consulted about it, the PMOS said that he had absolutely no intention of getting drawn into a discussion relating to the detail of private conversations. All he would say was that there was an ongoing discussion in which both we and the US were continually aware of each other’s thinking. Both the Prime Minister and the President had stated their own cases in their joint press conference. Both had also underlined that the position being adopted was not to pre-empt, pre-judge or preclude final status negotiations. Asked when the Prime Minister had formulated his policy on Prime Minister Sharon’s announcement, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had stated his position in the Rose Garden press conference. Questioned further, the PMOS said that journalists were barking up the wrong tree in trying to create divisions and splits where none existed. We had obviously considered Prime Minister Sharon’s announcement and had reached our position, as announced by the Prime Minister in the Rose Garden on 16 April. There was no great mystery.

Asked if the Government continued to see the roadmap as the basic plan for peace in the Middle east, the PMOS said yes, absolutely. Asked if we believed that Israel would accept that, the PMOS said that he wasn’t a spokesman for the Israeli Government. The question was whether we were able to take the opportunity to make real progress on the ground, or wait for everything to fall into place first. The Prime Minister believed that it was better to engage with the reality on the ground and work towards a final agreement rather than sit back and wait.

Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned that the Foreign Office was employing so many people who did not appear to share his view on the Middle East, the PMOS pointed out that these people were now private citizens who were, of course, perfectly entitled to express their opinions. Equally, we were entitled to put forward the Government’s case and the reasons behind it.

16 Comments »

It’s interesting that none of the lobby seem to have asked about the (symbolically, at least) important issue of the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees.
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 27 Apr 2004 on 3:19 pm | Link
If, by "lobby", you mean the 50-odd diplomats who wrote the letter to Tone, then, although they didn’t mention it specifically, they did allude to the fact that the US (and by extension the UK) seemed to have changed their policy on Israel/Palestine and therefore, regardless of specifics, it was unacceptable.

In general, however, my only reaction to this topic is "more weasel words". Tony Blair is as slippery as an eel, and continues to base his policies and misadventures on loose interpretations in order to wriggle out afterwards when the whole thing (whatever it is – it’s sure to be a disaster if this government has any connection with it) goes pear shaped. That way, as he has done in the past and continues to do, he can claim that his own vision was unflawed; it was just the implementation which was at fault. The man disgusts me; in the 21st century it blows my mind that our political system is so loose that a cowboy like Blair can pull these kind of tricks and get away with it.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Apr 2004 on 3:49 pm | Link
Incidentally, notice the "if they want a debate they can have it". As we all know by now, a debate in Tony’s eyes means we can all talk till we are blue in the mouth, he still doesn’t have to take any notice or deviate from his own divine purpose.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Apr 2004 on 4:07 pm | Link
"the PMOS said that journalists were barking up the wrong tree in trying to create divisions and splits where none existed"

So PMOS is saying there is no division between US and UK policy on the Middle East. We all knew it but its nice to have it officially confirmed.

I seem to remeber voting in elections for my local council, the UK Government and the European Parliament. I don’t remember getting a vote in US elections so why do we have to live with their stupid foreign policy instead of a foreign policy we voted for (or at least had the opportunity to vote against)?

I seem to remember in the dim and distant past (of 7 years ago) comments about an ethical foreign policy. I would be interested to see the twisted contortions needed to describe current foreign policy as ethical.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 27 Apr 2004 on 4:21 pm | Link
The remark about "barking up the wrong tree" clearly refers to accusations about a division within the UK government, not one between the UK and US.

As for the misquoted remark about "if the former diplomats wanted a debate about our foreign policy, then that was something to be welcomed", the objection to this seems to be saying that government policy, which is outlined in a manifesto and made accountable to Parliament, be set by academic debates outside Parliament between people who have no great involvement in delivering it. I can’t think of anything less democratic.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 27 Apr 2004 on 4:45 pm | Link
If ALL government policy is set out in a manifesto, where is the bit about blindly following the yanks into wars which don’t concern us?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Apr 2004 on 5:07 pm | Link
David, you twist words almost as well as Tony himself. It was Tony Blair himself who said that he would willingly debate his foreign policy with these ex-diplomats. Of course, no-one seriously expects this to happen, and even if it did, no-one would seriously expect it to have any bearing on Tony’s ultimate decision. I can’t see anywhere in this thread where anyone may be suggesting that policy should be set by academic debate; however, it would be nice if Tony would temper his policies a bit after consultation with experts in the field. Otherwise, why does the government pay out quite so much on it’s experts and advisors?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Apr 2004 on 5:16 pm | Link
Not every decision is set out in a manifesto, but the generality of policy is. Also in 2001 the electors had 4 years of government to look back on, which included intervention in Sierra Leone to prevent a repressive government, and a rocket attack on Iraq over its obstruction of UN arms inspections. The 2001 election manifesto certainly did not say that it was proposed to alienate the US.

I’d call a foreign policy that deposes Saddam Hussein and his corrupt murdering regime a very ethical one indeed.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 27 Apr 2004 on 5:20 pm | Link
"I’d call a foreign policy that deposes Saddam Hussein and his corrupt murdering regime a very ethical one indeed".

I’d agree totally; pity we never had that policy. And replacing one murderous regime with another one isn’t exactly ethical neither…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Apr 2004 on 5:23 pm | Link
The comment about ‘barking up the wrong tree’ is clearly about divisions between George Bush and Tony Blair – divisions within the UK Government are not mentioned or even implied in this report.

A peaceful policy that deposes Saddam Hussein and his corrupt murdering regime is ethical. A policy that does this by killing 10,000 Iraqis is on a bit more shaky ground. I also agree with Papa’s comment that replacing one corrupt murdering regime with another could not be described as ethical in its normal sense.
Comment by Uncarved Block — 27 Apr 2004 on 5:35 pm | Link
By ending their timely open letter with "If [exerting real influence as a loyal ally] is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure" the 52 former diplomats must henceforth be known as the "prophets of doom" in respect of Tony Blair’s Iraq adventure. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3660837.stm for full text and signatories.

It is a pity that George Bush Snr’s dire warning in his Time Magazine article of 2 March 1998 "Why we didn’t remove Saddam" was not paid any heed to before his son launched the 2003 US-led Mission Impossible: "Trying to eliminate Saddam…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different – and perhaps barren -outcome." See http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

Whenever diplomats criticise their own Prime Ministers it is usually not long before the PM is forced to give up.

signed Patrick Haseldine (formerly HM Diplomatic Service)
and dubbed "Thatcher’s Whitehall Critic" for writing to the Guardian on 7 December 1988 about her double standards on terrorism.
Comment by Patrick Haseldine — 27 Apr 2004 on 7:10 pm | Link
David says –

"I’d call a foreign policy that deposes Saddam Hussein and his corrupt murdering regime a very ethical one indeed."

So presumably his ethics would also entail calling for the severe punishment of British government ministers who assisted Saddam Hussein at the height of his atrocities?

After all, extending hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money in the form of export credit guarantees to Baghdad mere months after the Halabja atrocity surely counts as aiding and abetting, doesn’t it?

Or do "ethics" only apply to people with brown skins?
Comment by Bob Fiole — 27 Apr 2004 on 9:47 pm | Link
Are these diplomats those responsible for advising and representing successive British governments whose policies have helped shape the Middle East into the highly stable region it was just prior to 9/11?
Comment by Tim — 28 Apr 2004 on 12:16 am | Link
Well, Bob, the rest of the political world may have forgotten the Scott Report but I haven’t. I haven’t forgotten the \xA345 I paid for a copy of it either. The Scott report was very thorough on these issues. It’s not legally possible to make individual politicians criminally liable for pursuing such policies.

Don’t know what your comment about ethics was supposed to mean.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 28 Apr 2004 on 12:57 am | Link
David –

"It’s not legally possible to make individual politicians criminally liable for pursuing such policies."

But it’s ethical to subject an entire country to shock and awe blitzkreig, invasion and occupation because the regime that tyrranised them "pursued such policies"? That’s insane.

Saddam Hussein’s battered, rusting military was no threat to us nor to Iraq’s neighbours. History is littered with brutal regimes overthrown from within – Ceausescu, apartheid, Spanish and Greek dictatorships etc. There was no Al Qaeda connection, though there is now, and no doubt the queue at Bin Laden’s recruitment office grows ever larger, like the piles of corpses in Iraq and Halliburton’s profit.
Comment by Bob Fiole — 28 Apr 2004 on 1:51 am | Link
Even if the removal of Saddam Hussein was ethical, that wasn’t why they did it.
Comment by Lodjer — 28 Apr 2004 on 12:01 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Middle East/Diplomats’ letter

16 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries