Downing Street Says

Asked repeatedly whether Ministers had been unaware of general concerns raised by the Red Cross about the Coalition’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that he had nothing to add to what Ministers had already said about the ICRC report. The important thing was not who had known what, when. The important point was that the allegations which had been raised had already been dealt with. Asked to verify today’s Guardian report suggesting that Sir Jeremy Greenstock had received the report and had passed it on through the military chain rather than giving it to political figures, the PMOS said that as he had told journalists yesterday, the report had been drawn up for the prison authorities, namely the CPA in Baghdad. It had then been passed to the British CPA representative, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Since it was clearly an operational matter, it had been decided that it was appropriate for it to be passed to the military authorities who were in charge of detention facilities. That was what had happened. Thus, since action had already been taken by the British authorities, it had not been considered necessary to pass the report on to Ministers. Asked if Sir Jeremy had informed the Prime Minister that “this cloud was on the horizon”, the PMOS said no.

Asked when the ICRC’s final report would be completed, the PMOS said that Geoff Hoon had informed the House yesterday that we had received a further report from the ICRC in April relating to the UK facility at Shaiba. He had confirmed that the report had been very satisfied with the way the centre was being run and had contained no significant criticisms of it.

Asked repeatedly if the Prime Minister had known of the Red Cross’s warnings about the way that some Coalition troops were treating Iraqi prisoners before visiting the White House in April when he could have discussed the issue with the President, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had not been aware of the ICRC report. As we had always made clear, the mistreatment of prisoners was not only wrong but entirely counter-productive – a view which was also shared by the President. It would seem that that journalists were looking for differences where none existed. Put to him that Ministers were “hiding behind a form of words” in terms of whether they had received or been aware of the ICRC report and had told others about it, the PMOS said that there was no hiding behind anything. The position remained as he had set out several times.

Asked for a reaction to the Amnesty International report which had been published today, the PMOS said that the MoD was already aware of all the cases raised by the organisation. Those alleged to have involved British forces had been addressed by the military. This meant that they had either already been investigated or were currently under investigation. The MoD would respond in greater detail in due course. The PMOS took the opportunity to underline that British forces were operating in Iraq in circumstances which were sometimes difficult. As the Defence Secretary had pointed out yesterday, UK forces had been involved in over 100 engagements last weekend alone. It went without saying that they used the minimum amount of force possible. Obviously any incidents and casualties would be investigated rigorously, as was right and proper. Sometimes people might disagree with the outcome of those investigations. However, it was important for them to take into consideration all the circumstances in which our troops operated. The PMOS drew journalists’ attention to comments by the Governor of Basra this morning who had said that British troops in the south “respect human rights, and we can see that from their relationship with Iraqis on the streets”. It was important to bear that in mind as part of the context in which these events were being reported. Asked to comment on Amnesty’s suggestion that the investigations should be carried out by an independent body, the PMOS said that the SIB had a long track record of investigating accusations and allegations made against British troops and of establishing the truth in such matters. For example, thirty three cases relating to allegations of mistreatment had been investigated. Of those, fifteen had been found to have no case to answer – but six were being considered for further legal processes, with two reaching an advanced stage. That was an indication of the way the SIB worked. Asked by BBC News 24 if two out of thirty three was a record of which to be proud, the PMOS said that cases tried under any legal system in the world were not subject to notching up points on a football scorecard. Each case was tried on an individual basis according to the rights or wrong of the particular circumstances involved.

Asked to explain how Adam Ingram had come to write a thank you letter to Amnesty International for their report when he had told the House last week that he had not seen any adverse reports, the PMOS said that Mr Ingram had not seen the ICRC report for the reasons he had already spelled out. He referred journalists to the MoD for details about the Amnesty report. Asked if Mr Ingram’s Statement had been accurate, the PMOS said that Mr Ingram had explained the context of what he had said in a letter to MPs which had been issued to his Opposition counterpart yesterday afternoon. He had nothing further to say about this matter. Asked if he was really expecting journalists to believe that Sir Jeremy Greenstock had not seen fit to mention the Red Cross report to Adam Ingram in any meetings they might have had, the PMOS said that he was not aware of any such conversations.

Asked if the fact that the MoD had changed its investigation procedures in Basra was an indication of dissatisfaction with the job carried out by the SIB, the PMOS said no. It was an indication of a desire for the process to be – and be seen to be – rigorous. It was a process which had withstood the test of time and would continue to establish the truth.

Asked if the Prime Minister had spoken to President Bush about these matters, the PMOS said that it wasn’t our policy to provide a running commentary on the regular contacts between the Prime Minister and the President. He reminded journalists that the President had condemned the mistreatment of prisoners, underlining that it was wrong, abhorrent and un-American – a view which was shared by the Prime Minister. Both leaders were at one in believing that we had gone into Iraq to stop this kind of activity. That was the philosophy with which we were approaching these issues.

Asked if he would agree that, given the high sensitivity of the issue, any allegations of mistreatment should have been raised at the highest political level, the PMOS said that as he had told journalists yesterday, no one should be in any doubt about our view – from General Sir Mike Jackson’s original statement about this mater to the response by the Prime Minister and President Bush – that any mistreatment, if found to be true, was completely wrong and we did not condone it in any way. The statement by the Governor of Basra this morning showed that the daily experience of Iraqis when they met British troops in Iraq was mainly positive. This was emphasised by what ordinary Iraqi people saw British forces doing on the ground in Basra. For example, last week the RAF had installed five new electricity pylons and the Royal Army Medical Corps had been training Iraqis in primary healthcare roles. This was the sort of thing which would convince ordinary Iraqis precisely what our intentions were. Put to him that the desecration of Commonwealth graves in Gaza by Palestinians showed how sensitive the matter was, the PMOS said no one was under any illusion that the pictures showing alleged mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners were immensely damaging. That was why we were underlining our clear condemnation and, by our actions in Basra for example, showing what our real intentions were.

Put to him that if politicians had been told earlier about the allegations of mistreatment, their public apologies could have been made earlier thereby salvaging the Coalition’s reputation, and that it had been negligent on the part of officials not to have said anything, the PMOS said that the reason why the particular course of action had been taken was not because of the military establishment, but because of the Red Cross’s modus operandi – to operate in strict confidence. Since issues raised by the Red Cross had already been addressed, officials had taken the judgement that it would be wrong to breach confidentiality further, as they saw it, by showing the report to Ministers. The PMOS also pointed out that there would have been a reaction to the allegations, no matter when they were raised. The important point was not who knew what when. Rather, it was important for us to give a very clear signal both through our statements condemning such activity and through our actions in carrying out investigations and taking action where necessary against those responsible. That was precisely what we were doing.

Asked if any future ICRC reports would be made public, the PMOS said that we would be perfectly happy for both the interim report in February and the second report in April to be published because we believed they told a positive story in that we had listened to the concerns which had been raised and had acted on them. However, the reports were not ours. They belonged to the Red Cross. The ICRC’s modus operandi had been established over many decades. The organisation believed that confidentiality served its purposes best in relation to Governments worldwide. However inconvenient that might be, we had to accept that view. Asked if the Government would concede that the Red Cross report should have been shown to Ministers in the light of Geoff Hoon’s comment yesterday that the report could have been handled better procedurally, the PMOS said that he had yet to find a Government exercise which could not have been improved in some way. That said, it was important to recognise the legitimate way in which people had acted in this case and their genuine reasons for doing so. We acknowledged that the whole issue of confidentiality and the Red Cross was a difficult one which raised conflicting tensions. However the important thing in this instance was that people had acted in good faith.

Asked if the Government was distancing itself from US mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in the light of the Home Secretary’s comment his morning that the majority of the allegations raised in the Red Cross report related to US troops, the PMOS said that President Bush had made the position absolutely clear in saying that the actions were abhorrent, un-American and wrong. Those were views with which we would associate ourselves. They were also a clear reflection of the values of the Coalition. The important thing was to continue to underline that we would not tolerate such activity.

Asked if the Prime Minister believed that the Daily Mirror photos were a hoax, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had no further information on this issue than that conveyed to the House yesterday by the Defence Secretary. There were strong indications that the vehicle in which the photos had been taken had not been in Iraq during the relevant period. However, investigations were continuing. It was a matter for the MoD and SIB, not us. Put to him that Geoff Hoon had gone further on Channel 4 News last night by saying that they appeared to be a hoax, the PMOS said that Mr Hoon had also underlined that investigations were continuing. We hoped they would be completed as soon as possible. Progress was clearly being made towards that end.

1 Comment »

Basically, the government knows nothing about it. It’s someone else’s fault. As always. That’s ok, though – we’re used to it by now.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 12 May 2004 on 10:55 am | 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, May 11, 2004

Iraq

1 Comment »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries